09.03.2005
Questioning about major problems: Mark Dvoretsky
Should the ACP support classical chess, or would it be more beneficial in your opinion to promote rapid and blitz chess?
We need to support classical chess. Blitz and rapid chess will always have enough supporters. I believe that global interest to chess is based on its classical form. Rapid chess is a nice show and helps promoting our game, but it brings together only a limited number of spectators. Most people interested in chess read tournament reports, analyze games and admire depth of grandmasters’ decisions. It is not easy to find something to admire in rapid chess. One could play a decent game based on experience, repeat some already known tricks, but it is impossible to produce a great game. Therefore, it doesn’t make sense to annotate and discuss rapid games, and if everyone switches to it, that would be a heavy blow for a chess literature. I am not against the rapids – but it should only be a supplement to the serious chess.
How should we deal with short draws?
I published an article on a subject at chesscafe.com website. My suggestion is quite simple – players should not be allowed to communicate during the game. Draw should occur due to insufficient material, threefold repetition, stalemate etc. That’s it! Indeed, there are very few draw offers made in drawn positions. Usually a player offers draw in approximately even position, which for some reason worries him, or in a promising situation with too little time left or against stronger opponent, etc. There are many different reasons that justify early draws, and as long as it is not against the law of chess, we can’t blame it. Players protect their personal interests without any global considerations. But a rule against talking would make draw offers illegal. If you don’t like your position, or afraid to play against stronger opponent – go ahead, play for a draw, but play, don’t negotiate! With such rule children would play all their games to the end, it would become natural for them. Of course, sometimes short draws occur naturally, but their percentage is insignificant, it wouldn’t be a problem.
Is it possible to fight draws by adopting a different scoring system, for example, to give 3 points for a win and 1 point for a draw?
I think the scoring system should not be changed. There is a great book by Asimov “The End of Eternity”. People attempted to improve life, took actions that change the fate of a human race – a different story is that perhaps one shouldn’t do such things... There was a good idea in it – while looking for a solution, choose one that changes a system in a least possible way. Chess players, professionals, amateurs are conservative people; we got used to certain things, and if you want to change them, look for a slightest possible change. Changing the scoring system would mean re-assessment of certain theoretical positions... This would call for too many global changes to the core of the game. It is not only a solution to draw problem (if it is a solution!), it affects other aspects of chess, and could lead to unwanted consequences. And, actually, I don’t think it is effective against prearranged games. If draws become disadvantageous, the number of prearranged decisive games will increase. There would be enough people willing to exchange wins or to sell a game. It just brings an additional incentive for dishonest actions. So, I think this is a wrong approach. We should change as little as possible, and my initiative changes almost nothing.
Do you think there should be special controls against various electronic devices used by players? What is your opinion about doping tests?
It is not clear yet how a doping affects chess players. I have no doubt that some outstanding players, those participated in world championship, utilized the lack of control to their favor, but this is absolutely uncommon in chess in general. In principle, introducing doping tests makes sense only as a step towards the Olympic status of chess... But this also has to be done properly. Do the research on what could influence a chess player, what should be regarded as doping and what should not, prepare clear-cut descriptions... FIDE done everything wrong, nobody could understand them. If they want Olympic kind of doping control, they should control winners first. And if Kasparov is not even considered to be tested, and they test some random players, it is obviously nonsense.
Electronic aid is a real threat for chess. I do not know to what extent is it used at present, but it’s a real threat. Special control should take place. Invite the specialists, analyze possible ways of using electronic equipment, prepare. It is absolutely necessary. Computers became too strong, and their assistance might directly affect the play and results.
What is your favorite system of determining world’s strongest player?
Recently we’ve got the answer. Not Prague Agreements – the system suggested is partly unfair and it was not fully carried out. I am talking about Seirawan’s suggestion, which preceded Prague Agreements. Almost all players supported his project. The point is very simple: the championship remains knock-out – not pure, but double knock-out, – and it is divided in two stages. Strongest players – world champion, rating world champion, classical champion – join the championship at the second stage. They also take part in the knock-out, because a champion waiting for a challenger on top of the ladder is against moral principles! It is more reasonable to give the champion only certain privileges, like successful finish in previous USSR championship served as qualification for the forthcoming one... We could actually organize a unification championship within such system, because it respects everyone’s rights. Here is a sensible project. 7 players qualify from knock-out, we add three more: Ponomariov, as former champion who was deprived of defending his title, Kasimzhanov, as pseudo-champion, winner of Libian quasi-championship in absence of most leading players, and Leko, as classical championship runner-up. 10 players form another knock-out stage. After that, we add Kramnik, as world champion according to Kasparov, Anand, as the most successful player, and Kasparov, as the highest rated one. 5+3=8, and they continue the knock-out, only the matches should be somewhat longer. The winner becomes an undisputed world champion, but the main achievement is not a unification – it’s a plausible system. Next year we’ll allow the champion and, let’s say, top rated player into the 1/4, while the last year’s finalist would start one stage earlier. Details do not matter, they could be fixed later. The most important is the system in general, and I think it’s a fair system.
Why the knock-out? It is the fairest formula, because one can’t use outside help. In Swiss or all-play-all qualification some players who lose winning chances may either start giving away points intentionally, or reduce their motivation and, hence, their level of play. In knock-out you have to beat your opponents one by one. Why not to play longer matches? Because the time of longer matches has passed. Modern competitions are conducted differently. Basically, it is clear that different systems call for different qualities, not mentioning the highest level of play, which is always important. Some players do better in long matches, others in knock-out... It is ill-advised to create a special system to determine world’s strongest player, which would not be used anywhere else. More logical is to pick a familiar class of competition, and the knock-out is perfectly suitable. It has disadvantages, but in my opinion it is best possible system. When Ilyumzhinov introduced it, most players took it negatively, but in a couple of years many of them changed their opinion. I saw an interview with Morozevich – it is clear that he is fond of the system now, and many players agree with him. Who doesn’t like knock-out? – those who never tried it, or participated without any success.
What in your opinion could make chess more spectacular, generally more popular?
We could do many things to promote chess. First of all, we need to hire professionals. Professional producers and directors might help to bring chess on TV. If we want to concentrate on the Internet, invite Internet experts. We should seek publicity... When I came to Indonesia in 1998, I was surprised how good they are in promoting chess. An Indonesian girl won Asian championship, and all newspapers wrote about her, there were simuls for businessmen and government members – her success was utilized as much as possible to advertise chess. I came there to work with their leading chess players, and I saw in newspapers that “Dvoretsky came to train our Utut”. That’s because businessmen that ruled chess federation knew how to sell their products. And chess is indeed very popular there. It’s a professional work.
Very important is to organize tournaments that would be attractive for public. It is obvious that there should be a special room for spectators at any serious event. Intelligent and strong commentators should explain most interesting moments of play and discuss games with the public. Then it becomes interesting for people to visit chess competitions. Not just to see boards from a distance, but to communicate, to express their opinions, to discuss games... In Moscow, for example, there was a live commentary during the Kremlin Stars, and it was very exciting. In Wijk aan Zee there is always a room for spectators, and grandmasters discuss what’s going on... We need to work in this direction. Granted, it is difficult to arrange it in Aeroflot open, but this must be done in the Russian championship, for example. There should be a room for analysis, so trainers could come with their pupils to learn from best players. We must carry out a systematic work with spectators, with children. However, we don’t have such experience, at least, in Russia. It also requires extra funding, but there is a need to undertake certain actions to popularize chess. Of course, it all would be in vain as long as there is a chaos in chess, as long as cheaters sit in ECU (European Chess Union) and in FIDE, and take decisions against chess. First and foremost we need to establish order, but I have no idea how to arrange it, because the real power is in hands of bureaucrats...
Questions were asked by Christina Ivanenko
Translated by Misha Savinov.
This article is published with permission of Association of Chess Professionals
