GM Square >>> Interview with Silvio Danailov

Russian Version

Here you can read English translation of the conversation between IM Silvio Danailov, manager of GM Topalov and Russian journalist IM Vladimir Barsky, whose text is in bold. The interview was conducted in Sarajevo.

‘Seven hours of Agony’ or ‘We Urgently Need to Make Chess Attractive!’

I like Sarajevo and feel at home here, as Bosnia is similar to my native Bulgaria. People love chess here and have done everything they could to hold the event at the highest level. The tournament gathered good fighters. Of course, the novices – Movsesian and Bacrot will have hard time here, as it was the case with Veselin, when he started to play in super tournaments. One thing is to sit at home and criticise the elite players and another matter to play against them. Here theoretical preparation is much better and the resistance is a lot tougher. I think that both Bacrot and Movsesian have bright future, but at the moment the elite is better than them.

Local press and TV cover the event, but there are so few spectators here…

I think that the 7-hour game session is out of date. We need to make chess more watchable – both for the spectators, TV and potential sponsors. In Sarajevo there are more people playing and watching chess in the streets: those battles gather 30-40 spectators, who do not come to see this tournament. Spectators simply cannot spend 7 hours watching chess. The game should not lest more than 4 hours: the time control should be either 2 hours each or 1.5 hours and 30 minutes – then we will have 2 time troubles. For example, I am a chess fan and know that by 6 o’clock the games will be over. I will come in at 4-30 or 5 o’clock and watch the games, leaving at 6. By the way, I believe that adding time for each move is a big mistake – time troubles make chess more interesting to watch.

It would also good to switch to the knockout system. Besides that, give 3 points for a victory and forbid a draw offer. Only the arbiter should register this result. Chess is the only sport where arbiters have little to do, for example this tournament could be run without them. If spectators pay for the show, they should have the right to protest against a draw on move 20. Imagine, you came to a football match and on the 40^th minute the teams agreed a draw – 1:1… Those who watched the last Linares on the Net were often annoyed by short draws. They wrote: “This is a shame! How is this possible?!”.

Those, who object to the shorter time limit, say that we won’t make it on TV anyway, but people watch us on the Internet with great interest.

But even there it’s easier to watch the game four hours than seven – Net users are busy people too. Internet is good for chess and I like it a lot. But don’t be overoptimistic: on the World Wide Web there are lots of interesting offers and things to do, while without TV no professional sport has managed to survive. However, with outdated time control and without a professional structure we cannot get TV coverage. In its current form chess is agonising.

I think that chess still has a future. But we already wasted lots of time, we are conservative and do not want to do anything. I spoke about this many times and I know that there are other people to want changes, but... As a sport chess is the same now as it was hundred years ago. The World Champion picks his challenger... Where is progress here?

Will FIDE plan to commercialise chess help the game?

In general, this idea is correct. I just don't understand how FIDE is going to force chess organisers, who went through a lot of trouble to find the money, to give it to FIDE.

The President of FIDE does a lot for chess, but the organisation lacks people who understand professional chess. For example, NBA discuss every year how to make basketball more attractive. For example, they have TV coverage and lots of money, but spectators lose interest a bit. That did not pass NBA unnoticed and perhaps they will alter the rules slightly (e.g. by reducing attacking time from 30 to 20 seconds) in order to keep their game popular. If even such rich Federation is concerned about the image of its sports, I cannot understand why the same does not happen in chess.

We urgently need changes. It is a shame that even when Kasparov (who would be an equivalent of Michael Jordan in chess) plays, there are only 10 (as in Linares) or 20 (as here) spectators.

Of course, we also need to modernise the rating system. It makes no sense to have a system when somebody does not play for a year and still maintains his rating and placement on the rating list – such players must lose points. We should not have the situation when leading players play just 2-3 tournaments a year.

Should chess players initiate these changes in chess?

There is a need in professional organisation of chess managers: chess players are preoccupied with the game itself. Besides, in my opinion, they do not think commercially. They believe that by playing chess they do something terribly important. Maybe this was true in the old communist time, but not now. Nowadays Kasparov, Karpov, Topalov and Morozevich have managers. Who else does, I don’t know. But this situation must change – players should work on their game, while managers will work on organising their schedule, seeking sponsors and marketing chess. Ideally all professional chess payers should have agents. They will think how to offer chess to the general public. We should look at chess as a product, which we need to sell, rather than as art or science. States support science and art, while professional sport must be attract commercial sponsors.

There is a standard in the West: if you give one dollar for some event, 25 cents of it should go to advertising. FIDE announced a $3,000,000 prize fund in Las Vegas, but spent nothing on advertising. In Sarajevo and Linares there is no advertising either.

For example, in Spain, where Veselin and I live, there were many tournaments in the past: Linares, Dos Hermanas, Madrid... They were sponsored by the state, which cannot go on forever. Chess organisers love the game, but they make practically no money on them. They can have a tournament once, twice, but then they get tired and the enthusiasm might wear off. There must be financial interest involved. I knew well Irina Kibina, tournament director in Novgorod. She is a fine person, but she got tired and there is not super tournament there any more. There is still the tournament in Wijk aan Zee, which should run till year 2002, but there is no guarantee that it will continue beyond that date. The event in Linares exists because of one man – Rentero. World Championship depends on one man – Ilyumzhinov. I like the present system of FIDE Championship as it gives a chance to everyone. But it is bad to carry on without sponsors and depend on one person. What happens if he retires?

We should create a professional organisation and seek serious sponsors. And it is not good just to say that chess has a great future on the Net and to sell this fairytale – without TV there is no professional sport. We need to make chess interesting for TV. Nobody watched snooker some years ago, but now it is a frequent feature on EuroSport. Chess is still being sponsored by local authorities and governments - where is Coca-Cola, where are computer companies?

Intel sponsored chess, but then it stopped its sponsorship for some reason....

We all know why it stopped, but I don’t like to look in the past. Besides, this is not so important now. I think we need to unit as soon as possible and try to save chess together.

Potential sponsors are probably put off by constant disagreements in the chess world and the existence of several World Champions...

I think that the title of the World Champion should become less important. We need a World Cup – perhaps 5 tournaments in rapid chess and 5 with 4-hour time control, with the final for the best competitors. Its winner can be called World Champion of that year. We should not put some much weight on this title – there must be more money for everyone. And all money should go to prizes, while honorariums should disappear. The player who plays better should earn more.

Does any player think what is the first prize in Linares? Or in Sarajevo? Of course, not. Players honorariums exceed those first prizes and sometimes considerably.

But one man, well known in the world, and not only in chess, won’t agree with this.

I think that it's possible to find a common ground with Kasparov. He understands that problems exist, even if they do not affect him directly yet. Garry, for sure, is number one and will remain so for some more years. I believe that he will not be beaten for 5-10 years with the present time control, talking into the account his knowledge, talent and ability to work. In the world chess is nowadays associated with Kasparov. But it should not be this way. This is a mistake from which Kasparov himself will suffer. He did a lot for chess, but he was criticised all the time. He is simply tired now. All forgot how they got money from the PCA and GMA tournaments, where Kasparov did all the work. We should at least pay respect to this man!

Nowadays Internet Chess Club (ICC) is very popular. Maybe we should move all tournaments to the Net?

It still is interesting to see the player, for example Kasparov, - his emotions and mimics. Without TV we cannot do this. I remember how during Kasparov’s matches against Topalov in Leon and Sofia there were so many spectators that sometimes I could not find a seat. You could see how the player sweats, how suddenly his face turns red, how he takes off his jacket, how he presses the clock... People are interested in that. While the fact that perhaps a very important novelty was introduced here on move 20 is clear to maybe about 5-10 people. And when chess players walk and have coffee during the game, it’s not serious at all!

Do computers threaten to ‘close’ chess?

Such threat exists only with the classical time control. Imagine, Topalov and I prepared a novelty – an interesting, but somewhat dubious idea. If there is a limited time to think, we might try it out, hoping that the opponent will not find the refutation. But if a player from the top ten in the world has two hours to think, he will find a hole in it for sure. Thus, nobody allows himself to bluff, although bluff is a very interesting thing! At the same time ‘correct’ chess leads to a draw. In Linares there were 27% of decisive games, even Kasparov won just two games with great difficulty. It is apparent that chess with such a time control is dying and computers contribute little to this. The opening theory is well developed and it often ends on move 20-25 or even later. The quality of play of best players is such, that it is very hard for them to beat each other with this time control. Some say that we should change the rules to avoid the influence of computers in chess. If this will make chess more watchable, I support this notion. But I guess that the problem is not in the rules. I repeat once again – we should reduce the time limit and forbid a draw offer. There were so many exiting games in Monaco! There are no such games here. But that tournament is a separate case - it is a present of Mr. Van Oosterom to chess players.

Does Topalov not lose motivation after all these years in the chess elite?

Of course, everyone loses motivation – including Kramnik and Anand. All those guys played 50-60 games against each other. Young and ambitious players are keen in the beginning, but after one, two or three tournaments the novelty is gone and their motivation weakens. Both spectators and players want dynamic play. And after the game let grandmasters explain to the spectators and journalists what happened there and answer their questions, rather than to run away. I think that every player should popularise chess for free, as it’s impossible to make money on everything. Otherwise chess will lose even that already small public, which it still has.