There is one person who wants Karjakin-Anand more than anybody else....Anand! For the rest of us, it will be another one of those affairs where Anand mauls his unsuspecting opponent with his opening surprises. This alternate pairing match aint gonna happen, but if it does, gives Karjakin a shot at greatness and he has all of 10 weeks vs most of a year's worth of preparation for Anand
I wonder if Ilyumzinov is actually trying to provoke Carlsen's forfeit. In evidence of this, there is Ilyumzinov's expressed wish for the crown to return to Russia; Carlsen's open support for Kasparov; and Putin's backing of Ilyumzinov and general record of using the state apparatus to persecute his political opponents, Kasparov being one of them. Then there is the fact that the money for the championship seems to be coming from a Putin crony who has been blacklisted by both the US and the EU, making Carlsen's decision both morally and legally problematic. Finally, there is the reduced prize fund, which might be interpreted as a deliberate insult to Carlsen, designed to provoke.
To put it the other way around: if the goal of Ilyumzhinov and his Russian cronies was merely to host the crown jewel of the chess world as a showpiece, getting Carlsen to play would have been a top priority, and it would have been very easy for them to have made things much more attractive to him. If Putin had wanted double the prize money from a clean source, it would have been there. Since that hasn't happened, that raises a serious question about what Ilyumzinov and co are actually trying to achieve.
Has anyone noticed that Karjakin was formerly of Ukrainian nationality?
[DM: Given the recent discussions of the Lagno controversy at the Olympics I imagine it has been widely noticed. It caught my eye immediately, but I decided not to comment on it until Carlsen makes a decision.]
To have a Russian win the crown would be a propaganda coup for Putin; for the victor to be a former Ukrainian much more so. And did anyone notice how Putin praised Ilyumzhinov to the heavens after his most recent election, declaring that every good thing in chess was largely the result of the efforts of the "great man" Kirsan?
[DM: In all honesty, I doubt that Putin gives a rat's whiskers about chess. Supporting Ilyumzhinov was likely little more than another chance to stick it to Kasparov.]
As long as Carlsen thinks in terms of fairness and reasonable conditions, he won't sign the contract. But if he thinks in broader terms, perhaps he will come around to seeing Ilyumzhinov's preposterous behavior as a game that tyrants (Putin and Ilyumzhinov) are playing with deceit and cunning. And then, perhaps, he will rouse himself to confront the tyrants, much as Bobby Fischer responded to Henry Kissinger's appeal to patriotism.
[DM: Fischer is a funny example, because he didn't get very patriotic until James Slater doubled what was already a record prize fund. That's an ironic model, as Carlsen is dealing with one that has been halved from recent matches.]
There are other problems with Sochi as a venue, but comments about the "reduced prize fund" seem unwarranted to rude/unfair towards the Russian organizers: They didn't really want to hold the match - else they would have submitted a timely bid - but came to the rescue when nobody else was willing to spend ANY money.
[DM: I think comments about the reduced prize fund are objective. For earlier matches it was X, now it's 1/2 X. There's nothing rude about it. Blaming the organizers rather than, say, Ilyumzhinov may or may not be rude, but that's another matter.]
There is the old financial saying: "past results offer no guarantee for the future". Many private events suffered this year: Wijk aan Zee faced severe budget cuts, Bilbao went from six to four players, apparently after negotiations with co-organizers "in America or Asia" (mentioned at a press conference in Wijk aan Zee) didn't materialize. Tal Memorial and Bucharest are all uncertain, Biel was secured only shortly before the event.
On the other hand, the last three WCh matches may have had an "inflated" prize fund: Anand-Topalov: Bulgaria wanted to host the match at, literally, any prize. Anand-Gelfand: a rich guy, personal friend of Gelfand and genuine chess lover was willing to spend a big sum ... once Anand-Carlsen: India wanted the match. There were ongoing insinuations that more money would have been available elsewhere, where were all these people now? Carlsen's market value may well be overestimated: it's one thing to spend 'small' sums on TV appearances or exhibition events, another thing to spend money on a supertournament, still an order of magnitude more is required for a WCh match. Yet, not Carlsen but Anand was blamed because he "dared to" win the candidates event.
[DM: Given Carlsen's cachet in the western media, I don't think it's unreasonable for him to expect a better payday than Sochi is offering. Still, your points are reasonable, though they don't necessarily refute Carlsen's position.]
I have to say I agree with the previous poster. If Carlsen's cache in the western media and sponsors is so high, then let him and his other admirers show us the money (and no point blaming Anand for this lack of sponsorship as I read in various places after his Candidates victory - he got us a pretty well financed match in India, and Carlsen whinged about that too!). The good thing about the financial part is that it is "real" as against some vague notion of self- or admirer-assigned worth. I am no fan of Sochi either, but let me put it this way...with chess becoming more like tic tac toe, why should one put in money?
Wednesday, August 27, 2014 at 12:42PM
Reader Comments (6)
There is one person who wants Karjakin-Anand more than anybody else....Anand! For the rest of us, it will be another one of those affairs where Anand mauls his unsuspecting opponent with his opening surprises. This alternate pairing match aint gonna happen, but if it does, gives Karjakin a shot at greatness and he has all of 10 weeks vs most of a year's worth of preparation for Anand
I wonder if Ilyumzinov is actually trying to provoke Carlsen's forfeit. In evidence of this, there is Ilyumzinov's expressed wish for the crown to return to Russia; Carlsen's open support for Kasparov; and Putin's backing of Ilyumzinov and general record of using the state apparatus to persecute his political opponents, Kasparov being one of them. Then there is the fact that the money for the championship seems to be coming from a Putin crony who has been blacklisted by both the US and the EU, making Carlsen's decision both morally and legally problematic. Finally, there is the reduced prize fund, which might be interpreted as a deliberate insult to Carlsen, designed to provoke.
To put it the other way around: if the goal of Ilyumzhinov and his Russian cronies was merely to host the crown jewel of the chess world as a showpiece, getting Carlsen to play would have been a top priority, and it would have been very easy for them to have made things much more attractive to him. If Putin had wanted double the prize money from a clean source, it would have been there. Since that hasn't happened, that raises a serious question about what Ilyumzinov and co are actually trying to achieve.
I hope Carlsen does not self destruct like Fischer and plays the match.
Has anyone noticed that Karjakin was formerly of Ukrainian nationality?
[DM: Given the recent discussions of the Lagno controversy at the Olympics I imagine it has been widely noticed. It caught my eye immediately, but I decided not to comment on it until Carlsen makes a decision.]
To have a Russian win the crown would be a propaganda coup for Putin; for the victor to be a former Ukrainian much more so. And did anyone notice how Putin praised Ilyumzhinov to the heavens after his most recent election, declaring that every good thing in chess was largely the result of the efforts of the "great man" Kirsan?
[DM: In all honesty, I doubt that Putin gives a rat's whiskers about chess. Supporting Ilyumzhinov was likely little more than another chance to stick it to Kasparov.]
As long as Carlsen thinks in terms of fairness and reasonable conditions, he won't sign the contract. But if he thinks in broader terms, perhaps he will come around to seeing Ilyumzhinov's preposterous behavior as a game that tyrants (Putin and Ilyumzhinov) are playing with deceit and cunning. And then, perhaps, he will rouse himself to confront the tyrants, much as Bobby Fischer responded to Henry Kissinger's appeal to patriotism.
[DM: Fischer is a funny example, because he didn't get very patriotic until James Slater doubled what was already a record prize fund. That's an ironic model, as Carlsen is dealing with one that has been halved from recent matches.]
There are other problems with Sochi as a venue, but comments about the "reduced prize fund" seem unwarranted to rude/unfair towards the Russian organizers: They didn't really want to hold the match - else they would have submitted a timely bid - but came to the rescue when nobody else was willing to spend ANY money.
[DM: I think comments about the reduced prize fund are objective. For earlier matches it was X, now it's 1/2 X. There's nothing rude about it. Blaming the organizers rather than, say, Ilyumzhinov may or may not be rude, but that's another matter.]
There is the old financial saying: "past results offer no guarantee for the future". Many private events suffered this year: Wijk aan Zee faced severe budget cuts, Bilbao went from six to four players, apparently after negotiations with co-organizers "in America or Asia" (mentioned at a press conference in Wijk aan Zee) didn't materialize. Tal Memorial and Bucharest are all uncertain, Biel was secured only shortly before the event.
On the other hand, the last three WCh matches may have had an "inflated" prize fund:
Anand-Topalov: Bulgaria wanted to host the match at, literally, any prize.
Anand-Gelfand: a rich guy, personal friend of Gelfand and genuine chess lover was willing to spend a big sum ... once
Anand-Carlsen: India wanted the match. There were ongoing insinuations that more money would have been available elsewhere, where were all these people now? Carlsen's market value may well be overestimated: it's one thing to spend 'small' sums on TV appearances or exhibition events, another thing to spend money on a supertournament, still an order of magnitude more is required for a WCh match. Yet, not Carlsen but Anand was blamed because he "dared to" win the candidates event.
[DM: Given Carlsen's cachet in the western media, I don't think it's unreasonable for him to expect a better payday than Sochi is offering. Still, your points are reasonable, though they don't necessarily refute Carlsen's position.]
I have to say I agree with the previous poster. If Carlsen's cache in the western media and sponsors is so high, then let him and his other admirers show us the money (and no point blaming Anand for this lack of sponsorship as I read in various places after his Candidates victory - he got us a pretty well financed match in India, and Carlsen whinged about that too!). The good thing about the financial part is that it is "real" as against some vague notion of self- or admirer-assigned worth. I am no fan of Sochi either, but let me put it this way...with chess becoming more like tic tac toe, why should one put in money?
[DM: Chess becoming more like tic-tac-toe??]