09.03.2005
Questioning about major problems: Joel Lautier
Should ACP support classical chess, or promoting rapid and blitz chess would be more beneficial in your opinion?
I don't think focusing on one of those is necessary. Without a doubt, it is easier to organize a rapid chess tournament - it costs less and is more appreciated as a show. On the other hand, everybody wants to know who the strongest chess player of the world is, and only classical form of chess is suitable to answer this question. Only classical time control allows playing deep, interesting games. So, classical chess should be preserved for world championships. Right now, I think, we should promote rapid and blitz more actively. Speed chess is a show, and we need to attract more spectators...
How should we deal with short draws?
During the tournament chess players sometimes forget about the public - spectators at the tournament hall, in the Internet, people who watch games and support their favorites. Without these people it wouldn't really make sense playing. One could play at home, in a kitchen, without being paid - that would be fair. And when you have prizes, starting fees etc., you need to produce something in return; it is not OK to make a quick draw without any effort. There is no other sport in which two competing parties suddenly agree a draw without clear reasons at some point. This is a problem, and it should be fixed. There is a radical solution. I know that at forthcoming tournament in Sofia the players will not be allowed to talk to each other. How do these draws occur? One of the players doesn't feel comfortable during the game, doesn't really like his position, and he offers a draw just to check his opponent's reaction. And in some cases, when you receive a draw offer, it is so tempting to accept... When there is no temptation, and you just have to play on, it might solve the issue. People always point at the same disadvantage: inevitability of playing lots of pointless moves in dead drawn positions. Well, it is less harmful to chess compared to present abundance of dull draws. This was just one solution. There are also intermediate ones - for example, banning draw offers until, say, the move 40... But I tend to think that radical Bulgarian method will work out well. I like it because it is simple and easy to understand. Actually, there are many highly original approaches; we discussed them at the Council. For example, one player offers a draw. His opponent declines and receives the right to choose either to flip the board, or to keep playing his initial color. This increases risk for one who offers a draw, because he might be forced to start playing from another side of the board. A rather curious solution! There was also a more practical idea - time penalty. Let's say, you receive a draw offer and turn it down. Then either you get extra time, like 15 minutes, or your opponent loses the same amount. The point of it is just the same - to make draw offers risky.
: Should the present rating system be changed? Do you think that winning as Black should bring a player more rating points that winning with White?
I believe it is necessary. Drawing Kramnik, Kasparov, Anand with White or Black are completely different things. For a decent player drawing one of them with White is quite doable. Statistics shows that White normally scores about 55%, and Black 45%, and this difference should be incorporated into the rating system. Current FIDE rating formula was developed in 70s, and it is obviously outdated. Many more people play chess now, and it leads to rating inflation. Another problem is that somebody not playing a single game keeps his rating intact. Kasparov, for example, does not show a true number one level, but is able to keep the first spot thanks to his past achievements. There are other examples, like Kamsky, who quit chess for almost 9 years, and now gets his rating back after playing in a single tournament. A new formula should be developed by experts. Chess players should only suggest what they want to see. Personally I would like to see this new formula providing more opportunities for more active players, and perhaps being rather harsh to those who play less. Our ACP Tour calculations are based on this principle: one who plays a lot and with good results earns more points than another who plays rarely, even if with outstanding success. But ACP Tour points can't substitute official rating... The rating system should not be abolished; it just needs to be improved.
Do you think there should be a special control against various electronic equipment used by players? What is your opinion about doping tests?
Right now the issue of detecting electronic aid during the game is open. For amateurs it is very easy to bring a tiny computer able to beat everyone around, and rating group prizes in the US sometimes exceed $20,000. It might eventually become a serious problem. One should not only develop a detecting procedure, but also announce some very serious penalty, so cheaters would be aware about the risks. As for doping probes... Chess is recognized as sport in some countries, but it is not like boxing or weight lifting, and usual doping regulations can't be applied. Muscular activity doesn't mean much in chess. The problem is to adopt doping regulations to a mind sport. And I do not see anyone working in this direction...
What is your favorite system of determining world's strongest player?
There are two different approaches. First is to organize a huge qualification in order to determine a certain number of candidates. Second stage: 8 candidates play each other. Then a winner meets world champion in a match. I think this is a good system. The alternative is based on our ACP Tour. Instead of organizing a huge qualification we consider the results of all major tournaments worldwide. Those who qualify to the ACP Tour Masters could be regarded as candidates, and the winner should have an opportunity to challenge a world champion. Both systems return to old tradition of qualification cycle ending with a match between title holder and challenger. This is more a matter of ideological decision. We have to decide whether we want to preserve tradition or to change it, forcing the champion to participate in qualification cycle on equal terms. I think if we'll accept the latter, we'll lose something. Chess tradition is our treasure. The championship matches are the most memorable. It is something that makes chess unique. It also adds value to the title itself. I think we should abandon unpopular knock-out championships and return to matches... Knock-out system could not survive without Ilyumzhinov's money. And we need a healthy system, reliable in a long run.
What in your opinion could make chess more spectacular, generally more popular?
Possible solution is to promote rapid chess. The most important is to show that chess is not a static game. We must break the image of chess as a boring pastime for aging gentlemen. In fact, chess is very dynamic, very interesting, even fascinating game! There are various ways of passing this message. In my opinion, one is to organize a few matches directly for TV. A professional director could make a nice picture; players would share their emotions and thoughts after the game... After all, chess brings emotions; this is why we like to play. Not because we win a pawn somewhere, but because we trick the opponent, find bright ideas... This is what people like about chess, and this is exactly what should be brought to them.
