01.09.2005
Alexey Dreev gives his view
What do you think about the cooperation between the ACP and FIDE? What is the prospective of such cooperation?
My attitude is unambiguously positive - it must not be otherwise. Such a cooperation will be rewarding for everybody.
Are you comfortable with the present situation with two official time controls? Which one do you prefer?
I like a 7-hour control without increment – an increment should appear only in the concluding part of the game. There is no better choice. If there is a need in a speeded up control – and I assume there is – I accept it, but it is clear that it is not an ideal solution.
Should the compromise control, suggested during the FIDE-ACP meeting (1.40/40, 30 min RG, +30 sec per move) be tested?
Two hours or an hour and a half for 40 moves leads to dramatically different quality of play. In most cases the game is basically over in 40 moves, and depriving of 30 minutes in a critcal moment is not a good thing. The alternative in fact gives two hours for 40 moves, which is correct.
However, there is another problem - the situation in which a player remains in constant time tourble, should be avoided. You have 40 seconds left, you spend like 20 seconds per move, so you can forget about going to a toilet. There are absolutely no prospects of answering the call of the nature. And it is well known that chessplayers during the game often visit a toilet - because of stress. It's life, one can't do anything about it, but somehow this problem is not discussed. Such a situation is very harmful for player's health.
What do you think about possible introduction of a new title that surpasses a GM title? Which criteria should be used to determine 'super-GMs'?
The idea is right, but apparently unrealistic. I saw Radjabov's proposal – first to give SuperGM for 2700, then to take it away... It is quite complicated. In my opinion the norms must be made tougher. Do not disturb those who already met the norms, but do not encourage a multiplication of low-rank grandmasters, stop it. Maybe after colossal discussions we'll come to an agreement about the SuperGM title, but it is a difficult task. Now the limit is 2700, in a couple of years it will shift to 2720 – such an approach is wrong. I agree with Radjabov that SuperGM should not be given once and for all, but the criteria is debatable.
This article is published with permission of Association of Chess Professionals
