At one point I could not sign the agreement at all, but on the other hand I did not want to prolong the situation. So I was hesitating, whether I should or should not do it, because it is of course not democratic. It looks very strange, because the principles of FIDE in the last years, when Illyumzhinov was president, were to include as many players as possible. They insisted that there should always be a very sportive system with qualifications. They criticised Kasparov because in his cycle there were not so many people involved. And now they are doing exactly the same with Kasparov against Ponomariov. It looks a bit strange, I would say. But it is not my responsibility, and what can I do?
Of course there should be a way to please both Kasparov and Ponomariov. I don’t really care where they are seeded and what they get, but there must be a way to find a consensus, to try to involve Anand and Ivanchuk, and also some other players, to make everybody happy. They should do it, I believe they should still do it.
Q: If you had to design their cycle how would you do it?
A: I very much like the system invented by some players, which is very good for everybody – really for everybody. During the Prague meeting they explained the system to FIDE and Bessel Kok. The point was first there is a qualification, with thirty, forty or fifty players, just to make sure that all top players are involved in the process. It would be a double knockout system.
Q: Kasparov came to you with a rematch proposal?
A: Yes, but first of all this is not reunification, and secondly I think that to play a rematch is simply out of the question. I myself can guarantee that I am not going to ask for a rematch, in whatever system I am going to play. Because it is totally wrong, total nonsense. Imagine I play a rematch with Kasparov. If he has this right for a rematch I should have it also. I lose and claim a rematch, then I win and he claims a rematch. We can play forever like this. The rematch is total nonsense in my opinion. The last rematch was I believe in 1961, if you don’t take the 1986 rematch into consideration, which was a special case, under certain circumstances Karpov managed to get this revenge match because the match was stopped.
Q: Kasparov had to play a rematch not after the match that was stopped…
A: Yes, I told you that was a special case. In the negotiations after the match that was stopped Karpov got the rematch right because he was leading five-three. But in the FIDE rules it says very clearly there is no rematch. Also I must tell you that we both signed contracts before playing in London in 2000, that if we lose we play in a qualification, an eight-player tournament, as a seeded player with seven others, and the winner plays the world champion. We signed it, you know. Normally – not normally, always – if I sign something it means I agree with it and I do it simply. It means that if I lose my title some day I will go and play in the qualification. It’s that simple. As a world champion I now have the possibility to organise the chess world in some respect, and I am trying to do it in a way I think is right. I think this right of a rematch is simply something from the last century. It shouldn’t exist anymore. So it is out of the question, it was never on the agenda. Not because I don’t want to play Garry. You saw I did it in Moscow without any necessity. I am not afraid, there is no problem for me. I think that conceptually it is wrong.
If I can come back to the system proposed by some of the chess players. I think it is really the best solution. For Ponomariov and for Kasparov I don’t think they cannot be sure that to play a match is better for them than to win a tournament. Maybe for Garry it is even easier to win a tournament, because you know he is very strong in tournaments and so far not so convincing in matches. For Ponomariov, if he has to choose between a match against Kasparov and a tournament in which Kasparov participates, with two or three other strong chess players, you cannot say that this is worse for him than the match.
The system could include Anand, which is incredibly important, because he has been a very top player for the last ten years. How can you just eliminate him? Also it could include Ivanchuk, who was in the final of the last FIDE world championship, and who couldn’t play in Dortmund only because he had a contract with FIDE. He agreed to play in Dortmund, and I know very well that he wanted to play, but he had certain obligations. Legally he had no problems, but he felt morally obliged to stay with FIDE, and this was the only reason why he did not play in Dortmund. So it is at least a moral responsibility of FIDE to include these two players in their cycle. Also some other players, like Khalifman, who was FIDE world champion, and Karpov, who was also FIDE world champion, and some new players like Grischuk, Radjabov, Svidler. It’s possible, so why not try? I think they are looking for some new ideas, because they did not expect so much criticism of the Kasparov-Ponomariov match by the players and the chess community – really massive criticism.
You are speaking as though it might still be changed.
I think so. In Prague I was fighting for a few hours to have it changed, which was strange, because I had no direct interest in it. I just thought that if you do something you should try and do it as well as possible. They were not listening very carefully. The maximum of what I could get was a clear statement by Illyumzhinov that they were going to consider the interest of all chess players in the process.
Q: In this cycle?
A: Well, it was not very clear, but it was not specified that it would be for the new cycle. I tried to get it on paper but I did not succeed. I spoke with many chess players after the meeting in Prague and they understood the situation. I got many positive statements. They understood that I was trying to protect their interests without any profit for my side.
I think it is still possible to change many things. We signed this unity plan in Prague, which is a very general paper, and there are many things which are completely unclear. They still have to be worked out – for instance time control, sponsorship, what is the structure? FIDE is practically licensing the title to the new organisation and are out of the world championship cycle, which they have been organising for so many years. I spoke with Bessel Kok after Prague and he said we still have many points to discuss with FIDE.
So I don’t see any reason why the new system cannot be introduced. It is not damaging to the interests of Ponomariov or Kasparov, it improves FIDE’s position a lot, this kind of event would be much more suitable to their principles. This is what made many chess players uncomfortable: they just could not understand why not. I tried to ask the same question in Prague, to everybody, Bessel Kok, Illyumzhinov: why not? What is the problem with it? Nobody ever explained to me what the problem was. I believe there is no problem. A few days before the Prague agreement we explained our proposal to Yasser Seirawan. He was very enthusiastic and said yes, this is great, nothing can be better than this. But then he probably could not reach an agreement with the other parties – with Kasparov, Kok or Illjumzhinov, I don’t know. I don’t know the details. Maybe we should ask him why this proposal did not come to reality.
Einstein has a very clear system. Everyone from number one is invited, then you go down the rating list. There cannot be any complaints. Everyone has a chance, all top players are invited.
It’s not perfect, but at least it is a system, some kind of system. I was always in favour of a very clear world championship system. It does not favour the player who has the title. For me or anyone who has the world championship title it is most profitable to have no system at all, and to choose whatever you like. But for chess it is very bad. My main goal as world champion, apart from the chess side, is to finally make a normal system, or to try at least to do it. Not just for the time when I am the champion, but also for the future. I can assure you that this is my only intention. We’ve already gone too far in the wrong direction.
At the same time R. Ponomariov was interviewed by the Ukrainian chess website:
Q: Aren’t you sick and tired of this entire bustle going on around you ever since you have won the title?
A: Unfortunately this comes with the title. At times it really became unbearable. People were pelting me with letters asking for help, money and the like. Some of then even phoned me at home. A real madhouse! Well, now the storm has mostly abated.
Q: You mentioned being “fed up with chess”. Is this feeling over by now?
A: It is. I am lucky to have taken a little escape from chess. Been to Crimea and Sevastopol, had some fun. Of course, I couldn’t afford forgetting about chess altogether – the Moscow Grand Prix is right ahead, and one has to get properly prepared.
Q: Maybe, the famous Prague agreement has simply cheered you up?
A: As a matter of fact, my knowledge about it is very limited. I wasn’t there in person, haven’t seen – let alone “signed” – any official papers. Funny as it may sound, my main source of information proved to be the Internet!
Q: But you were invited to participate. It looked like you simply didn’t bother to go!
A: They had invited me to play, and that didn’t interest me at the moment. Nobody invited me to the summit itself. In general, there were too many officials and too few chess players there! As well as no real discussion, because there was nothing much to discuss – just one suggestion that had, under those conditions, to be approved of almost automatically.
Q: Would you have proposed anything else instead?
A: Hardly. I have had no time to think about it properly. Yet, one just can’t make important decisions like that. Or otherwise, any decision would do. Why not to cancel the very title of the “world champion” altogether?
Q: Just about every future “semifinalist” as well as many top grandmasters claim having wound up on the receiving end. Kramnik seems to believe he is the ultimate loser of the current situation. What about your own loss?
A: I wouldn’t say it’s that big. To defend my title, I should anyhow challenge the very best – be it in the “semifinals” or the duel for the crown. And nobody is going to treat me simply as Ruslan Ponomariov any more – they will try to beat a world champion! Kramnik? Well, he is a worthy champion who proved his strength by beating Kasparov, among the other quite impressive results. I don’t think his situation is that bad. He will have a lot of time to prepare for the Dortmund winner, and this will be no weakling! It’s only a pity, this tournament isn’t organized under the auspices of FIDE, because as it is, neither of the last FIDE champions will be invited to participate there. As far as I know, the real victims of the Prague agreement are the top-10 GMs of the FIDE ratings, because they have been cut off any opportunity to strive for the coveted title until 2005. Such superstars as Anand, Grischuk or my own countryman , Ivanchuk, have every reason to feel really, really hurt by the current situation…
Q: While you yourself are going to be challenged by Garry the Great and Terrible in less than a year (May-June 2003)…
A: And once again I have no idea about the details of this competition. When and where exactly do we play? What’s the time limit? What’s the prize-money? I hope that at least this time we will find the answers together, in good spirit and cooperation… On the other hand I sincerely believe that my match against Kasparov was a right thing to decide upon. Kramnik has already played Garry and beaten him, so at the moment it’s me who has a point to prove, not Vladi.
Q: Kasparov isn’t a champion any more…
A: It doesn’t matter. He is still a huge player – just look at his rating! In a way, he is the number one. Just like Mike Tyson – not a champion anymore, but to compete against him is a real honour. He is a renown match-fighter, that’s his major trump. I’ll have to sweat a lot to somehow catch up with him in this area. My preparation for Ivanchuk proves that in principle, it can be done properly, but the expenses are enormous. I had to pay for the training camp in Crimea, for inviting some sparring-partners – not to mention my coaches’ salaries. Lots and lots of expenses. Kasparov’s experience helps him to do all those things much more smoothly.
Q: I am really surprised to hear that – a world champ who has just won about $500,000 in prize money, is struggling to pay his coach or coaches?!
A: By a rough evaluation I won’t lay my hands on more than 20% of this total. 20% goes to FIDE, Topalov as a sparring is no cheap pleasure, the coaches must be paid as well. Even turning the check into cash takes a lot of time, and maybe, some money, too. And don’t forget the state taxes. I am fortunate to be a student because as such, I’ll have to help my country with only 20% of my earnings. Otherwise, they would have kindly asked for 50%!
After the signature of the Prague agreement, FIDE tried for months to arrange his part of the deal: the semifinal match between Ponomariov and Kasparov. The World Champion Ponomariov unhappy to be not consulted on time for Prague and “forced” to play under regulations which he said to be unfair and where his demands like that draws odds should apply in the event of a drawn match, and that the new FIDE time limit of 90 minutes/all plus 30 secs were completely ignored made for few months his participation uncertain.
Anatoli Jaworski, Ukrainian journalist for the newspaper, Segodnya, interviewed Ponomariov after the Bled Olympiad of November 2002.
Q: During our talk in May you said that the Prague summit had been attended by real professionals who were designing a correct formula for the world championship play. In September, however, you called their decisions incomprehensible. Now you already criticize them! Do you think that everything they did was detrimental?
A: Certainly, not all. This is not the point. Initially, I declared my support to the unification of the world chess championship. Please, note that I declared this support immediately after I won the FIDE world championship. Moreover, I did it without any bargains! Therefore I backed the Prague summit ardently. Regrettably, I was not able to attend it myself, though I hoped that the International Chess Federation would back me as its champion. It would have been quite logical. But it turned out on the contrary. First, I found myself facing an information blockade – they did not inform me on the progress of negotiations and on the decisions taken… Later they made me have to face this situation: you have to play with Garry Kasparov in the semi-final of the unification championship on such and such terms.
Q: What is it exactly that does not agree with you?
A: There are a number of claims. By the way, my manager, Bulgarian Silvio Danailov, made them public at the recent FIDE Congress. They are as follows. I am not afraid of playing with Garry Kasparov, though some people try to make it look so. Still, I don’t want Kasparov, the challenger for the world chess crown, to have more rights than me, the champion. Since I won this title with the FIDE time control (90 minutes per a game plus 30 seconds for each move), then it seems logical to defend this title on the basis of the same formula. There is yet another matter of principle. In previous World Championships, if the match ended in a draw, the champion retained the crown. Now, however, due to some reason this rule has been omitted in the regulations of my duel with Kasparov, while it exists and is valid in the parallel semi-final between Vladimir Kramnik, a Russian, and Peter Leko, a Hungarian. I believe this difference is not accidental.
The polemic continued during January 2003 when Ruslan was participated at the Wijk aan Zee tournament. During the tournament Ponomariov answered few questions to Sport Express of Moscow
Q: Ruslan, how did you manage to forget the troubles caused by the FIDE ultimatum?
A: I just focused myself upon specific preparations for meeting specific opponents. That was the only option at my disposal.
Q: How are relations with FIDE going to develop, with regard to the contract for the Kasparov match?
A: I was informed that my manager, Silvio Danailov, and Maria Bulatova, Chairman of the Sports Committee of Ukraine, and I were thought to be invited to the FIDE President’s Board in New York. But FIDE recently changed their mind. It is said that the Board will meet in some other place.
Q: Are you ready to accept FIDE’s terms or are you going to stand firm?
A: First I would like to obtain the Congress documents that have made the basis for approving the terms that I am offered. Neither my representatives nor I have such documents in our possession.
Q: However, Emmanuel Omuku, belonging to FIDE’s management, asserts that he has handed them to you in person and that they have been mailed as well.
A: These were the short-hand notes of the FIDE General Assembly session but not the official documents.
Q: Are you going to maintain your firm attitude or are you ready to yield a bit?
A: My view is that a normal and legally bound contract for a match with Kasparov should be concluded. It ought to be signed by Kasparov, me, FIDE, and the match organizers. However, all of this is of minor importance. We should avoid situations where I say one thing and Kasparov says another. As to consolidation, I believe it would have been sensible for us four – meaning Kramnik, Kasparov, Leko, and myself – to sit down at a table and formulate the rules for the consolidation.
Q: Are you ready to play a match with Kasparov?
A: Certainly, I am ready to defend my title against such an interesting and strong adversary. However, I do not want to be at a disadvantage. A standard legal document is required that will consider all trifles and possible occurrences. Suppose that somebody gets ill or refuses to participate in the next competition. Also, at present, we do not even know what title is at stake in my match with Kasparov. Another supposition: what happens if Grandmasters Kramnik and Leko don’t play their consolidation match?