Try to imagine the following situation:

Moscow, the Kremlin, it’s getting dark. The President of Russia V.Putin having finished his work is coming out of his office. A moment later M.Gorbachiov and B.Eltsin appear there and being absolutely serious begin to discuss a question who of them is the best president now. As each of them considers himself to be the best, both want to sort out their attitudes in the context of the verbal duel [ranged from “ponimaesh” (you know) till “consensus”].

Certainly such a plot is possible only in a cinema, in a madhouse and … in chess.

“Prague agreements” in combination with the last interviews of G.Kasparov and V.Kramnik, publications of the “main” journalists and other people who present one of the sides don’t tolerate any other point of view but the imposed one.

            The “revelations” of M.Khodarkovskiy, the assistant of Garry Kimovich at all main competitions of the last decade are especially perturbing (“Sport Express“, 20.11.2003). It turns out that only two chess players are known in America: Fischer and Kasparov. “Nobody knows the name Ponomariov, all the more Leko in America.” As for Kramnik and Anand: “Certainly they are known in chess circles, but not among people in pubs and housewives.

            I don’t want to disappoint “story-teller” and to make sure once more of imperfection of those people who deprive themselves of the pleasure to play the ancient game. Certainly, the names of other Bobby and Garry (from the policeman till Potter) are often on the lips of average Americans. And they very seldom remember their two eccentric champions Fischer and Morfy. They are sure in India that the only chess King is Anand and they have no doubts in Georgia that the world champion is a woman. Such is a mass consciousness.

            Everyone like vultures pounced upon R.Ponomariov. “Who is Ponomariov?” - one asks, the second echoes, the third repeats, the fourth is ready to trample down.

            And who is Shirov? Only 3 years ago he was in the same situation. Shirov who is a brilliant chess player can’t boast of having the highest score since that time.

            Both Shirov and Ponomariov (either in his time) dared to ask questions about the match regulations and prize money and demanded conditions of competing not to be dictated by an opponent. Alexei was tactless, for that reason he was immediately punished and replaced (Garry Kimovich still hasn’t forgiven himself this stupid action). The other was really impudent (a FIDE world champion wants to be reckoned!).

            V.Kramnik, who replaced Shirov in the match in 2000 and defeated Kasparov in it, made it clear in his interview (“Sport Express“, 01.12.2003) that he wasn’t sure Kasparov to be the best chess player of the world at that time and Kasparov purposely was avoiding meeting him. How can this be possible taking into account that Kramnik himself admitted that he hadn’t played in a single competition in classical chess for the last half a year?! Judging by the tone of the interview he just as Kasparov is sure that the rest of the chess world even if exists then just to confirm his champion authority.

            Meanwhile there is no absolute monarchy in chess for a long time and merely the world champion according to the championship of FIDE is the only legitimate chess King. There is no other authorized organization.

            I will dare to draw an analogy between chess and football. For many years the world best team was that of Brazil. There are greatest football players in it and it demonstrates the brilliant games. Brazil is almost always number one in the teams rating, as well as Kasparov in chess. But none would have thought to find such a system of playing football championship that would give to the team of Brazil the green light to the champion title. Moreover if suddenly this team after having lost the formal champion title would not win elimination matches nobody would admit it to the final tournament (with all its great players). Because the rules of the championship are above all. The system mustn’t change for sake of names and teams. The rules must be observed and they must be common.

            Instead everybody was discussing the only question recently: who of the chess players deserves to fight with G.Kasparov in the battle for unification of the champion title in the chess world. I will mention that today’s distrust to chess from the side of possible sponsors results not so much from Ponomariov’s and his retinue caprices, as from the very nature of the “The Prague agreements”.

           Even if “Prague agreements” will be accomplished some way, it is necessary for everybody including potential sponsors to have a clear idea of the form and the time profile of championship competitions in future. Only after the discussion of different variants it is possible to work out and put into practice the system of competing.

            I have to start the discussion from the sorrowful establishing of the fact that now it is difficult to count on regular carrying out of the beloved classical championship matches. It’s most probably that the world championships with the “knock-out” system would crash down after the revival of the classical matches. And in that case two men instead of 100 will ‘eat’ everything.

            My suggestions can be summarized in the following way.

            The world championship must take place regularly, twice a year according to the “knock-out” system. At the same time it’s more logically to carry out the competitions not according to the “knock-out” system but to another, “knock-down” system. I stated the main points of it in August of 1998 (special issue”51^st chess championship of Russia”, № 7). About that system you can read also in the article of V.Dvorkovich “Slanting staircase” (“64-Chess review“ №6/1999). Today the authorship of such a system called “double knock-out system” (such a name is senseless – there can’t be two knock-outs in one competition) for some reason is arrogated to the other people.

            The main point of the system is rather simple. A chess player must have the right to lose one micro match (inappropriate partner, ill health etc.), after which he doesn’t drop out of the championship.

            In few words “knock-down” system may be described in the following way:

            No matter how many people play in a tournament, half of the participants is checkmated in the first round. In the second round will meet both winners and losers. According to its results the winners have 2 victories each, the losers (who have lost in the group “1’ and have won in the group “0”) are among those who have 1 from 2, and those who have been beaten twice, leave the competition.

            After the third round there will be players, who have won 3 times and those, who have been beaten by them will join participants with 2 victories from 3 possible. For those who have 2 losses the tournament is finished.

            It will go on like this until those who have beaten all opponents and those who have “consolatory” games with one loss will be in the desired ratio.

            Now let us draw up the scale from two sides. For example, we want to see in semi-final the proportion 3+1.

            For the situation when in the tournament remain three chess players without losses who get in the semi-final “from the front door”, the series 3-6-12-24-48-96 (people) is to be formed up.

            In this case it doesn’t matter how many chess players start the competition. If their number is more than it is required than it is necessary to play preliminary round to reduce the number to the predetermined one. If their number is less than it is required than some participants (for great services, according to rating, lots) get to the next round without playing.

            Based on the number 96, we may fill up the second half of the scale, where there are participants with one loss each. After the first round the number of them will be 48, after the second round – also 48 (to 24 participants, who have their first loss will be added those 24, who will have won after the loss in the first round), after the third one – 36 (12+24), after the forth one – 30 (6+18), after the fifth one – 15 (3+12).

            Then 15 chess players who have 1 loss will ‘find’ according to the “knock-out” system the last participant who has reached the final from the “back door”.

            Then the semi-final and the final take place, in which the world champion will be determined.

            The described system can be summarized in a table:

96 participants

            Now let us have a look at the variant, when we want to see the proportion 2+2 in the semi-final.

            The series 2-4-8-16-32-64 can be formed for those who will get into the semi-final without losses.

            If we have the same number of participants, i.e. 96, then 32 of them will get in 1/64 of the final personally and the other 32 will get there from the preliminary round. Then there will be the following table:

            As we can see after the quarter-final 18 chess players with 1 loss each will form 2 semi-finalists after 3 rounds (plus the preliminary round for four participants, who have the worst score).

            It must be emphasized once more that the number of the chess players in the competition may be arbitrary.

            It’s very important that the joining of those who have no losses with those who have only one loss may happen on any stage of the competition and at any ratio.

            The main advantage of the “knock-down” system is that the players can afford themselves at least a small risk, so that nobody of them can allege unfavourable lot .

            Eventually, if the power of G.Kasparov and V.Kramnik is so great (there is no real doubt about it!) they may be placed in the different columns of the table and nothing would prevent them from playing in the final. They wouldn’t lose twice, would they?

            It’s a pity [it’s to be regretted] that the system of playing the championship suggested and elaborated by me now will be of no use.

            Certainly, from time to time the matches between one of the champions and the person number one according to Elo may take place. But where is a guarantee that at the head of the rating-list will not be sham holders of high numbers?

            I suggest another way to solve the problem. .

            Having determined by the calendar the most important competitions and having ensured the participation of top-rank chess players in them, one can beforehand calculate the cost of the participation in points taking into account the category of the tournament, the result etc.

            According to the results of the cycle (a series of competitions) and the points the best chess players can be distinguished. And two best chess players will fight for the title of the world champion. Thus the champion can be determined and according to the results of the next cycle – his opponent.

            If it’s possible to hold the competitions according to both of these two schemes, then the world championship between four chess players can take place once a four years. Two knock-down champions will play in semi-finals with two best chess players determined in the cycles and in the final the world champion will be determined. In case of the name coincidence the next can always be found.

            Chess players should hurry up. In a few years no draw in competitions between a man and a computer will do for the computer. It will crush us down and will be the champion, dull and iron, in comparison with which recent human champions will seem pathetic and sentimental.

            Tomorrow is the New Year’s Day according to Old Style.

            Who Kasparov will play with? With Ponomariov, who is not completely defeated in the verbal duel? With Kramnik in the return match? With knock-out FIDE world champion of 2004?

            Or one would recall that ‘the new is the well forgotten old”. That’s why it would seem a good idea to render null all the period of chess evolution of the last five years, to erase from the history the names of A.Khalifman, V.Anand, R.Ponomariov, V.Kramnik and to organize the next match between the last heroes of chess A.Karpov and G.Kasparov. It wouldn’t be necessary to make many efforts for its organization. All you need for the match to take place is Ja.Seiravan to suggest the idea, small PR campaign and getting state support.

            Everyone will benefit. Especially we, the elderly people. Nostalgia will sweep over us and we would again plan the bright chess future.