I Suggest You to Think Over This

Время публикации: 05.06.2012 22:21 | Последнее обновление: 05.06.2012 22:22

I suggest you to think over this phrase:

"Playing in the way Anand and Gelfand have played in this match – for money and only for it (even it was a huge amount donated by an extravagant sponsor) means being disrespectful towards oneself, the spectators and chess itself. It doesn’t matter in what shape you are and what kind of title you are fight for, still nobody gave you – saying that in a bit outmoded way – the right for disgrace; and what is the price of the title remained (or won – if the play off in “active chess” would be won by Gelfand) in this way?”

Please don’t ask about the author of this comment and don’t discuss him. The content is more important.

Let’s figure out the meanings of terms. “Disgrace” = “The play according the existing rules”?

Right in the same way, without violating rules, and even following them faithfully, Irina Krush, in the yesterday’s blitz game against Maria Klinova, paid the arbiter’s attention to the fact that her rival queened her pawn wrongly – she didn’t push it to the 8th line, didn’t bring it up to change with the queen, she made it somewhat differently, perhaps, “in an old fashioned way”. Klinova was registered a defeat.

Did the player follow the existing rules? Yes, she did. Did she demonstrated disgraceful attitude?... I suggest each of you to answer this question personally.

I hope Mark Dvoretsky won’t be against if I’ll share here his reaction at the moment this fact took place: “What kind of problem should arise, there’s only one conclusion: bastards.” Mark Izrailovich meant FIDE officials who are responsible for the rules approved.

So, back to “they played for money and only for it.” No doubt that is absolutely true: Anand and Gelfand played following the existing rules and for money, only for money. However, not everyone understands the amount of money. The one who’d lose in the classical part of the match would get €800 thousand, while the loser of the tie-break would get €900 thousand. Forgetting about the honour for some 100 thousand? (Isn’t it unserious to have such a premeditated plan?)

Actually, it isn’t. The winner of the match gets not only a bit more than the loser, but he’ll SURELY pocket minimum 800 thousand in two years, because he will play another match for the crown, the prize fund of which shouldn’t be less than of the previous one. Here you go – all the answers on your questions.

Would you be thinking about something else if you were either Anand or Gelfand?

I guess, the times when the match participant could think about how he could spend the date with his girlfriend during the match are gone. Have they gone never to return? – I don’t know.

Here’s what I know. After the match in 1963 the chess world understood that there couldn’t exist match-revenges anymore, and they were cancelled. After the match in 1984-1985 the chess world understood that there shouldn’t exist unlimited matches, and they were cancelled. After the match in 2012 it’s clear that the things don’t work like THIS anymore.

Now a small thing is left: to understand what is THIS and how to replace THIS with something else; and it’d be good if that wouldn’t be done by bastards.



Смотрите также...