09.08.2005
Alexey Shirov gives his view
What is your attitude to the cooperation between the FIDE and the ACP? How promising is it from your point of view?
Ideally the ACP should protect chess players' interests, so the tentative dialog with the FIDE is an extremely important step. However, in my opinion, short meetings in Athens could be insufficient, it's necessary to be in a constant correspondence in order to cover not only general but also some particular issues.
Do you think that the ACP Tour should be included into the world championship cycle? Which pros and cons should be taken into consideration when dealing with this issue?
I think, it's absolutely necessary to do this, because the importance of the ACP Tour should not depend that much on the fact whether a sponsor for the Masters is found or not. I consider that ideally 16 players should take part in the world championship. 8-12 of them could qualify from the ACP Tour. Needless to say that I do not consider the ACP scoring system to be perfect, but I can see that some of my suggestions, which I stated in my letters to Pavel Tregubov, are successfully examined and even approved.
Are you satisfied with the present situation when there ate two official time controls? Which one do you prefer?
Generally I've always considered a time control that I suggested in 2000 – 40 minutes + 30 seconds per move without keeping the score, to be the best one (that was approved by Topalov and Danailov). If you need to play more slowly I can suggest having 1 hour + 1 minute per move. In my opinion, it's very important that in case of playing with increment a slow play could be transformed into the rapid one smoothly, but not abruptly as happens in case of 90 minutes + 30 second per move control, the authorship of which is arrogated to me.
Should a compromise control (1.40/40, 30 till the end + 30 seconds per move), which was worked out at the meeting of the FIDE and the ACP, be tested?
It seems this control allows a smooth transition, so, it's quite applicable, although I consider it to be too slow for a general public broadcasting.
What is your attitude to the creation of a new title that will surpass a title of the grandmaster? Which requirements should the candidates for this title meet?
It's high time to create this title, but there is a problem – it's difficult to find a proper name for it. I think the standards could correspond with the 2750 performance with a minimal average rating of the opponents or tournament of 2551 (the corresponding numbers for a grandmaster's title for today – 2600 and 2401). If the bar is raised to 2800 and 2601, there won't be too many candidates, although I would still qualify...
Questions were asked by Misha Savinov.
This article is published with permission of Association of Chess Professionals
