During the world championship, FIDE hold his traditional board meeting also in Teheran. Some important decisions were unanimously approved by its board members:
In a pathbreaking decision, FIDE decided to give amateurs a chance to play alongside the best in the business.
Eight amateurs will be selected through the Internet as qualifiers for the 2001 World Championship and they need not be International Masters or Grandmasters.
Unlike a six-game final in the Tehran leg of the Championship, the 2001 event will have an eight-game final with a two-week break after the semifinals.
New time controls will be in place at all FIDE events. As per these controls, each player gets 75 minutes for the first 40 moves, with an incremental time of 30 seconds per move in the first session. He will get 15 minutes in total for the rest of the game, with an incremental time of 30 seconds per move.
The decision was not welcomed by the players and after critics and protests the bord decided to established a trial period before to review them definitively. Garry Kasparov, Vladimir Kramnik and Anatoly Karpov joint the players community with an open letter.
The answer of the FIDE President came in an interview published in Sport Express on May 13, 2001.
Q: I assume that the authors of the letter would prefer this dialogue to take place on a “neutral territory”.
A: Why should we follow the whims of any individuals, no matter if they are outstanding chess players? FIDE has its Statutes, which should be followed by all chess players of the world. I have had a recent chance to speak to the participants of the Russian Chess Championship. I was asked not to surrender to the provocation of the authors of the said letter. It is clear that chaos in the chess world is profitable to some of the so-called super Grandmasters as this issue is first of all connected with the money distribution. There is a system, well tested by the organisers of many tournaments, where the prize fund is, let’s say, 10, 000 USD, and a star receives its fee of 30-50, 000 USD. We do not want to deal with “black” accountancy. Each player will earn as much as he shall win. And the authors of the said letter are not satisfied with this.
Q: Could you explain, please, you mentioning of a possibility to organise the match of 4?
A: Of course. Herewith I mean a commercial and not a “unifying” match. I think that such a commercial match will attract the attention of the chess fans and will promote the popularisation of chess throughout the world. But there has been no progress so far, except for the stage of preliminary negotiations.
Q: You do not still consider Mr. Kramnik World Champion, do you?
A: Of course, not. And I have not seen any interview of Mr. Kramnik where he would call himself World Champion. Some journalists use this title to call him and he does not object.
Q: And what is Kramnik then?
A: One of the strongest players in the history of chess, who has won a commercial match over another outstanding chess player, Kasparov.
Q: Have you had any negotiations with anyone of these 3 Ks, regarding the participation in the next World Championship?
A: The invitation for the tournament will be send to all qualified and those with a personal right to participate, and these players are included in this category. I have no intention to have separate negotiations with anyone. If they want to prove that they are the strongest, let them play in the official Championship.
Q: And what if Kramnik or Kasparov succeeded in creating their own system of the World Championship cycle?
A: Then we would have to go 100 years back, when World Champion could pick a challenger himself, and there were no system of the World Championship cycle, as these matches used to take place sporadically.
Q: I am citing their letter: “Drastic time control reduction is an attack against chess players and creative and scientific components of the game”. Could you kindly comment on this?
A: If you speak to a hundred of other players, in particular, the participants of the Russian Championship and you will hear an opposite opinion. In this connection, I would recommend to 3 Ks to follow the FIDE decisions more closely. The new time control is obligatory only for the World Championships. For the other tournaments this time control is only a recommendation.
Another interesting reaction came through an Open Letter published by a dozen of players including the 14th and 15th World Champion.
In July 2001, BG World Champion V. Kramnik talked to D. Bilunov:
Q: How did this sensational joint statement by three “K’s” became possible?
A: The very idea was that such a letter carries weight and has deep resonance if it is signed by three World Champions. Our opinions might differ on various matters, but as far as this particular question is concerned, we, as well as the majority of chess players (in my opinion), adhere to a united and clear-cut position. FIDE’s actions put us on our guard. We are not only competitors, but also colleagues, after all.
Q: Today, FIDE is basically the only organization that purports to express the interests of chess players. Does your statement mean that you are going to establish a new organization, or is your goal to carry out reforms in FIDE?
A: I can speak only for myself. In my opinion, it does not matter what such an organization is called: FIDE, Braingames, or something else. Personally, I am ready to cooperate with FIDE under the stipulation that this organization will change its policies. I am not imposing my position. However, I do insist on FIDE’s organizing open discussions and consulting chess players on all significant questions. Take for example the subject of reducing the time control. The polls in Monaco and Cannes revealed that the overwhelming majority of chess players were against these innovations. However, FIDE stated that it had consulted everyone and all chess players were for these changes. It turned out, though, that this absolutely did not correspond with reality. FIDE should change its policy; more precisely, it has to, if chess players are against these innovations. After all, FIDE exists for chess players, not vice-versa.
Q: FIDE often refers to the World Players Council?
A: The World Players Council sounds like not such a bad idea, but in its current form it is nonsense. I have never heard that anybody elected it. Valery Salov, the head of this council, does not represent the players’ real interests. This problem should be solved in a democratic way — by carrying out voting among chess players to find out who wants his interests to be represented by Valery Salov. Judging by my conversations with my colleague GMs, it is quite clear that Salov just wouldn’t be in this organization in this case. Most players disagree with his extreme positions on many issues. It is his right to express his opinion, but it can’t be called the opinion of all chess players. After all, it is very simple to put the democratic procedure in effect: just ask 100-200 top rated players, (those whom it concerns the most) from the rating list, to name, say, three people, so that the leader of this list (by his average score) becomes the president of the Players’ Council. By the way, we did not touch on the most important issue. The problem with the Players’ Council, as well as many others remained off-screen. But these problems exist, and also need discussing. Many changes are called for. I pin some hopes on a new player in this field, the company Octagon. My first impression is that it is quite a professional organization.
Q: Have you had contacts with them?
A: I have. These people expressed their desire to meet with all the top chess players to hear their opinion, and to act only after that. This does not conflict with my idea about how it should be handled. That is why there is some hope with respect to Octagon. Maybe they will be able to make FIDE change its policy, which most players oppose — a policy that leads nowhere.