18.03.2005
Bolgan & Aronian answers the ACP questions
Viorel Bologan answers our questions
Should the ACP support classical chess, or promoting rapid and blitz chess would be more beneficial in your opinion?
It seems to me that this is not the way a question should be put, as first of all the ACP should solve gradually assigned real tasks. Classical or rapid chess support is quite an abstract concept. At present the ACP needs to finish this term, this cycle which includes both rapid and classical chess, annual grand prix needs to be established; and only afterwards it will make sense to consider the proportion of rapid and classical chess. The main task for now is to conduct the Masters at the turn of the year.
How should we deal with short draws?
The problem of the short draws exists only in some elite round-robins. And in the tournaments of such kind (Aeroflot open) they are almost impossible to happen when material is being thrown away in almost every game. For instance, In Wijk aan Zee there are less draws than in Linares. It’s certainly possible to struggle against the short draws by introducing rules, but I don’t think much attention should be paid to this problem. I suppose that the rule of thirty moves is more than sufficient.
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 think that mathematical basis should not be changed; Elo calculation method should be preserved. Rating needs to be calculated more frequently to become more dynamic. I believe tennis rating calculation system is rather efficient and chess will soon turn to it. Now during the ACP tour the points scored in the tournaments are being calculated, which is quite a dynamic index at the same time there is the rating which is a stable and constant index of a chessplayer’s strength. These two indexes are more than enough. Elo system seems to work well currently. The only problem concerns those people who play rarely or do not play at all. Grand prix points calculation is a step towards making the system more objective, it will make clear that if a person plays he gains the scores and does not gain them in case he does not play.
Do you think there should be a special control against various electronic equipment used by players? What is your opinion about doping tests?
I think that metal detector is quite enough, you just need to pass through it and it does not string a player up. I consider this sensible as a technical control. In respect to the medical control I welcome the suggestion of Kirsan Illyumzhinov to make chess an Olympic sport, but they started the wrong way. This issue should have been studied thoroughly first and by chessplayers as well. I read a list of some medicines, but it is common for all sportsmen. But chess has its specificity and it needs to be determined which medicines are stimulators and which are vitamins. It’s impossible to do without vitamins or some pharmaceutical supplements under the exertion we experience. It is a serious subject. Dehydration or inanition of the body can happen when a person plays for seven hours. He will be exhausted unless he takes vitamins. This problem should be explored. There was a formal attitude to this matter.
What is your favorite system of determining world's strongest player?
The situation is involved. We have stepped aside from the time when actually the strongest was determined. These were the champions, the last one, Kasparov’s been dominating for the last decade. Certainly, the situation has changed and the most optimal thing to do is to create a system that will include all the strongest players, the most important thing is together them in one cycle. The system introduced by Kirsan Nicolayevich is rather democratic and objective in my opinion. Of course there is the main problem which is a random factor, but if the number of players is minimized and the number of games is increased, the system will become less democratic and many people won’t have a ghost of a chance. We can not conduct a cycle according to FIDE system as chess becomes more and more dynamic. Objectively it will take a year to determine the world champion spending a month for a quarterfinal match and in half a year a semifinal match. In this regard instead of knock-out system there can be a big interzonal tournament and a round-robin as the final of the world championship. It seems to be quite objective. There is no sense in determining the absolute champion in the 20 games match. For example in the game Kramnik – Leko, a draw 7:7, what did we find out? Nothing. A tournament is enough for the players to show what they can.
What in your opinion could make chess more spectacular, generally more popular?
You just need to find people who can organize public holidays, shows: showmen, in a nutshell. You can turn atmosphere, presentation, comments to advantage. You need a highly professional person who can organize shows and you need to understand for which audience it is to be organized. Chess tournaments confined to different city festivals are quite popular. Simuls, living chess and broadcasts can be helpful. The most important is to have a real professional in this field.
Levon Aronian answers our questions
Should the ACP support classical chess, or promoting rapid and blitz chess would be more beneficial in your opinion?
Basically, I think we should support classical chess, as in this case rating is taken in consideration and the games are of high quality.
How should we deal with short draws?
Generally draws are undesirable in chess in my opinion. Of course it is quite difficult to play all the time. It happens that after a more or less forced opening variation an ending with bishops of different colours emerges, and the draw is obvious. It seems to me that if there were no draw offers and agreements, it would be more interesting. It’s not the number of moves made that matters but the position that arose. You can get a drawish position in ten moves.
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?
It would be nice to make inactive players, those who play less, feel some after-effects. But a situation can occur, when the conditions of a tournament are not convenient for a player, and it won’t be sensible to punish him. But in some sports, in tennis, for instance, you must take part in the competitions, otherwise your rating will be reduced. This is a good system but hardly feasible, I’m afraid, in chess.
Do you think there should be a special control against various electronic equipment used by players? What is your opinion about doping tests?
Doping control surprises me since the players are not running during the games, or at least most of them. It’s a good idea to introduce electronic devices control. It happens that your opponent has gone out for ten minutes during the game and it raises doubts. But it would certainly be better to organize more tournaments instead of dealing with different prohibitions and restrictions.
What is your favorite system of determining world's strongest player?
I think that long matches are always interesting. It is considered that the real strength of a player can be demonstrated only in long matches. But it is difficult to find financing for long candidates matches, this is the main problem.
What in your opinion could make chess more spectacular, generally more popular?
Rules need to be simplified (laughs). Why chess used to be popular? Reading also used to be more popular than now. General intelligence diminution can be observed. Are there many people now who go to the theatre and opera, enjoy classical music? In my opinion, chess is luxury as well as those things.
Questions were asked and translated by Christina Ivanenko
Photo from ChessBase Archive
This article is published with permission of Association of Chess Professionals
