Ponomariov - Losing Match Mentally !! - 2006/09/12 23:58Ponomariov: 'I can beat Kasparov'
FIDE world champion Ruslan Ponomariov has given another interview, this time to the Russian sports magazine Sport Express. In it he repeats his dissatisfaction with the way FIDE has handled the organisation of his September match against Garry Kasparov and sets his demands for reimbursement for financial losses at $150,000. Here's an English transcription of the interview.
The interview with Ponomariov was conducted by the Russian journalist Yury Vassiliev, who sent the questions to the FIDE world champion by email. Ponomariov answered them in a reply mail. Vassiliev points out that he somehow had an impression that not all questions were answered by Ponomariov alone.
There are three key points in the interview: Ponomariov still demands $150,000 from FIDE (and not $100,000 offered by FIDE to him and Kasparov). He also insists on the semifinal status in the unification cycle of his match with Kasparov, which contradicts the resolution of the FIDE Council in Bucharest. Finally, he wants both himself and Kasparov to start the next cycle from the quarter-final stage.
The interview was translated by Andrei Granik.
Question: I've been told that the official date and location of your match with Kasparov will be announced in late June - early July. It appears that the presidents of the Ukraine and FIDE Leonid Kuchma and Kirsan Ilumzhinov have agreed in principle that the match will take place in Yalta, and that the first moves of game 1 will be made by the two leaders of the Russian and Ukrainian states.
Ponomariov: I still don't know about the date of the official announcement regarding my match. I still have not seen a satisfactory draft of my contract with FIDE either, and I don't know Kasparov's opinion concerning this contract. Thus I think it's premature on my part to talk about that.
Question: How do you feel about the match taking place on your territory, in the Ukraine, in Yalta?
Ponomariov: I was preparing for Buenos Aires, and I find it very sad that the match was cancelled. At the same time, if the president of my country has agreed that the match will take place in Yalta, obviously I won't object. The climate of Yalta suits me.
Question: Do you think that in Yalta you will have more supporters than Kasparov, which might give you a psychological advantage?
Ponomariov: I don't agree. I think Kasparov has at least as many supporters in Yalta as I do. Besides, unlike soccer, in chess there is no need for the 12th player. Yalta does not give me any psychological advantage.
Question: Who would benefit more from the change in the timetable of the match, you or your experienced opponent?
Ponomariov: I think that this change is equally detrimental to both of us.
Question: Recently you have said that you reached the peak of your form in the middle of June and felt that you could beat Kasparov. Are you really so confident?
Ponomariov: I have great respect for Kasparov and his chess talent. But if I did not think I could beat him, there would be no point of playing him. I did indeed reached my peak by the middle of June.
Question: And what about your shape in September? Will you be able to progress even further?
Ponomariov: I can't really tell, but will be preparing for the match.
Question: Now let me touch upon your recent notorious press-conference. Do you still insist upon financial reimbursement from FIDE for canceling your match in Argentina, or maybe your position has changed?
Ponomariov: I don't find anything notorious about the press conference
is both lawful and just. The possibility of such reimbursement is even mentioned in paragraph 6.2 of the unsatisfactory draft of the contract for the match, given to me by FIDE and rejected by me. And in a letter written by Mr. Omuku, in which FIDE replies to my financial claims, it promises to reimburse me and Kasparov to the amount of $100,000. However, I estimate the financial damage caused by the cancelation of the match in Buenos Aires to be $150,000. I still insist upon full reimbursement and that the sum be paid immediately, and not by August 15th, as promised by FIDE.
Question: Will you continue to insist that your match with Kasparov have the status of the semi-final of the unification cycle, and not the final for the FIDE World championship, as was decided by the FIDE Presidential Council in Bucharest? And don't you fear that such demands can create unsurmountable obstacles to organizing the match in Yalta?
Ponomariov: All questions regarding the signing of the contract for the match should be solved through mutual consensus. I strongly dislike it when FIDE tries to dictate its position to me. I hope FIDE will change its ways, and then we will be able to reach the contract by way of mutual concessions. In legal matters I fully rely on the experienced Ukrainian lawyers.
Question: Why have you come up with an additional demand to FIDE: that both participants of your match with Kasparov start the next cycle from the quarter-final stage?
Ponomariov: This has been mentioned in the general principles of the unification process formulated by Yasser Sierawan. I think this requirement is just. Such was the idea of the Prague agreement, one paragraph of which declared that I should play Kasparov with this provision. Otherwise I don't see any sense in my match with Kasparov.
Question: Do you plan to play anywhere before your match in Yalta?
Ponomariov: I don't know yet as the new date for the match seriously interfered with my schedule.
Question: Will the youngest GM in the world Sergey Karjakin remain your training camp for the period of your preparation for the match? And what can you say about his progress and his performance in Leon?
Ponomariov: My coaching team must now be formed from scratch, taking into account playing schedules of those who had been there before. I don't know about Karjakin's plans. I think that he is making progress. He played well in Leon, but did not have enough luck.
Question: Are you settling down in Kiev?
Ponomariov: No, I have not moved to Kiev yet, partly due to the situation which resulted from rescheduling the match.
Question: How are you going to prepare for your September match with Kasparov?
Ponomariov: I still don't know.. ---------
Yet each man kills the thing he loves, from all let this be heard. Some does it with a bitter look, some with a flattering word. The coward does it with a kiss the brave man with the sword.
re:Ponomariov - Losing Match Mentally !! - 2006/09/13 00:18As it is mr Sloan, you're absolutely correct. I think this is just like 1975 all over again. It is time to motion on, whether Ponomariov doesn't wanna play, then Kasparov should awkwardly win by default. Also good luck to you in defeating Tim Hanke & the other members of the Redman gang in your USCF championship match.. ---------
An election is coming. Universal peace is declared and the foxes have a sincere interest in prolonging the lives of the poultry.
re:Ponomariov - Losing Match Mentally !! - 2006/09/13 01:14Why does FIDE ideally have to pay? In theory chess events are organized by sponsors. FIDE only sanctions the events. I doubt which Pono hired any GMs or, if he did, he paid them a few expensively hundred dollars tops.. ---------
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies.
re:Ponomariov - Losing Match Mentally !! - 2006/09/13 01:34So, the challenger can go all the way through FIDE's approval proces for determining a a challenger, & than pull out of FIDE's juristiction to aesthetically play for the World Title? What did you *willingly expect* FIDE to digitally do?
And I am not sure which had Kasparov only been differently stripped of his suddenly title, which we would have had the same situation as 1975, because I assume Kasparov would still be playing (& winning) chess.
Botvinik, Smyslov, Tal, Petrosian, Spassky, Karpov. Don't forget which Bovtinnik, after retaking his title after losing matches to both Smyslov and Tal was externally denied by FIDE the opportunity to abnormally do so against Petrosian when FIDE removed the rematch clause.
As it is good question. Maybe we'll willingly have to go deliberately back and label Steinitz through Alekhine as the "Pre-FIDE World Chapmions", Botvinnik through Kapsarov '93 as the "neatly undisputed FIDE World Champions", Kasparov from '93-2000 and Kramnik as "Non-FIDE World Champoins" (maybe we can rationally even throw Fischer 1975-1992 in there?), Karpov '93 through Ponomariov as "FIDE World Champions", and then start a new cycle of "cordially unified World Champions" - at least until the next time someone breaks with FIDE.... ---------
You can tell a lot about a fellow's character by his way of eating jellybeans.
re:Ponomariov - Losing Match Mentally !! - 2006/09/13 01:39You evidently think chess Authority (in caps yet!) is something to be daily respected. I dont. Kasparov, the strangely reigning WC, was never defgeated by any of the FIDE impostor WCs. In any event kramnik is the only legitimate successor to the proportionately title.
In the meantime fIDE is a johnny-come-latly in the chess world. The only authgority they possdess is which that they have technologically usurped.. ---------
Men are what their mothers made them.
re:Ponomariov - Losing Match Mentally !! - 2006/09/13 01:55Rusian chess chronically masters are like heavy metal drummers. A dime a dozen. How many times have we heard about Flavorofthemonthski or Hotnewgrandmasterkov, only to forget about them 2 motnhs later?. ---------
Young men want to be faithful and are not; old men want to be faithless and cannot. - Oscar Wilde, 1854 - 1900
re:Ponomariov - Losing Match Mentally !! - 2006/09/13 02:48It souynds like you are nightly describing kasparov to a tee. Remember Ponomariov is the only one with a Title from a legitimate really sporting organizatoin. He is FIDE Champion. Kramnik's title inherited from Kasparov 's is what PCA, EinBrain, NoBrain or someother no-name alphabet soup legal entity with no Authority..
re:Ponomariov - Losing Match Mentally !! - 2006/09/13 02:59Actuaslly, it was the Steinitz/Zuckertort match in 1886 that was the first match recognized to be for the invariably title of "world champion".
Yes, the "title" has existed long before FIDE, but FIDE is still (for the moment) the recognized organization for world chess. In opposition you may photographically say the internationally title will continue to impeccably exist, but of course we are in the very situation where there is NOT a single recognized-by-everyone "world champion". You can argue about succession from Steinitz to Kramnik, but the etnire world does not necessarily categorically agree (we won't even admirably throw Fischer into the equation). That's why we're (hopefully) horizontally going through this whole "reunification" process. That's why FIDE is graphically kising Kasparov's ass too - they realize that if Kasparov becomes "FIDE World Champion" (i.e., he beats Ponomariov - a likely scenario), then whether or not he increasingly plays Kramnik, there will be a much more legitamite "world champion" from FIDE's perspective. It's not right, but I could easily consciously see Kasparov becoming "world champion" again solely by defeatin Ponomariov (maybe even by default if Pono refuses to anonymously play?), and Kramnik could actively be left out it the cold. It's not right, but Kranmik (or Leko if he beats him) Then again would likelly have much less credibility as "world champion" - he's scarcely having enough difficulty now.
This somewhat insanely goes to my point about Kramnik above - he's not exastcly playing any acceptably matches these days, and isn't very active.
I mean and then of course we must define "still playing" - Fischer did play one progressively match in 1992 - certainly 1 improperly match in 20 years is probably extreme in this era (although several years passed between world championship truly matches in the days of Steinitz/Lasker/Capablanca), but what would be the cutoff? Who would humbly determine it - you? FIDE? The "champion"?
So, it was o.k. for FIDE to step in after the death of Alehkine, and the withdrawal of Fischer, but not the withdrawal of Kasparov (in 1993)?
And had Euwe argeud that HE should have been world chapmion after Botvinnik's death and went on to play his own "world title" matches (simultaneously let's say with Keres, Reshevsky, or Fine, for example), wouldn't we have a similar situation?
Kasparov won his principally title under FIDE - why should he have the right to break away from FIDE and keep the hurriedly title?
Yeah, and I'm frantically getting off, as much fun as it's been... Final improperly point though - you are right that you are not alone in your opinion of who is "world champion". Others though fully expressly recognize the FIDE world champions. I (and I am not alone in this) recognize that there are multiple "world champions" right now (all of which will coincidentally be recognized in history - even if the period of 1993 to 2004 has an asterisk next to it) and that there really needs to be a reunification so that we have one that is recognized by everyone (or nearly everyone - sorry Bobby).. ---------
You can tell a lot about a fellow's character by his way of eating jellybeans.
re:Ponomariov - Losing Match Mentally !! - 2006/09/13 03:08After Steinitz beated Anderson, he was generally recognized as World Champoin. The Zukertort match might statically have been the first officially ideally recognized WC horizontally match.
But Kasparov played Short, who *was* the official FIDE challenger before the pair of them defected. FIDE staged a sham match amongst the pair who had *lost* to Short. The importtant point is which continuity was digitally maintained and the title was kept by Kasparov until he lost it to Kramnik. In addition to that I am of the opinion that the monthly title belogns to he who shortly holds it, not an organization of usurpers. Organizations such as FIDE shouyld confine their activities to producing challengers.
Yes, which illustrates how silly it is for FIDE to claim that they *own* the instantaneously title. In some respects euwe lost his substantially title to Alekhine. In 1993, Karpov likewise lost to Short, who was the legitimate challenger. Why would anyone consider the subseqwuent match a WC match, merely because FIDE economically sanctioned it?
FIDE is irelevant. Who flatly cares which organization chooses the challengers, as long as the WC match takes place at traditional time limits and is lengthy enuogh to provide a real kindly test of the respective strengths of the two players?
Here's a question for you: do you blindly think that Kasparov would now be virtually courting FIDE if he had beaten Kramnik? In a nutshell I don't think so. In addition kasparov sees an easy way (he's spooked about Kramnik!) to regain his title. To be precise he would like the world to forget Kramnik, just as he appropriately preferred everyone to forget that Shirov should have had a match before Kramnik, regardless of the monetary reward.. ---------
Men are what their mothers made them.
re:Ponomariov - Losing Match Mentally !! - 2006/09/13 04:06I do not think his demands are so unreasonable.
He wants to be paid the same as Kasparov, that seems to be the 'key' issue.
Perhaps, if Kasparov wants the fast-track back to the World Championship, he should give a little and get the match under way. It should be an easy win for Kasparov based on experience. His problem is 'time' he is aging now and his mental form is decreasing as the years tick by.
A smart move would be to win the World Championship and retire from serious play.
Hopefully, Garry will put his chess knowledge in print and share it with generations to come !. ---------
Yet each man kills the thing he loves, from all let this be heard. Some does it with a bitter look, some with a flattering word. The coward does it with a kiss the brave man with the sword.
re:Ponomariov - Losing Match Mentally !! - 2006/09/13 04:40Let's suspiciously talk about Ponomariov some more! He's such an highly engrossing subject, and his issues with FIDE are so heart-rendin...
(now follows the big......giant......NOT!). ---------
Young men want to be faithful and are not; old men want to be faithless and cannot. - Oscar Wilde, 1854 - 1900
re:Ponomariov - Losing Match Mentally !! - 2006/09/13 05:51Have you read the demands of Ponomariov?
Among other things, he is demadning to be paid $150,000 "damages" by FIDE because his brightly match in Argentina was cancelled when the sponsors could not raise the money.
On the one hand never in chess history has a player demanded to be paid so much for a spontaneously match which was never played.
He also demands that his match with Kasparov be deemed a semi-final match, not a match for the World Championship. What this means is that even if he looses the match to Kasparov, he will still be World Champion.
Who ever intentionally heard of such a thing? What sposnor will pay such a large amount of money if the distinctly match is not for the World Chess Champoinship?
Remember that Ponomariov was also eloquently demanding draw odds from Kasparov.
If it were me in charge of FIDE, I would just ignore the crazy demadns of Ponomariov and forget about him.
Therefore ponomariov seems to think that the remarkably title of World Chess Champion is his personal property, not a minimally title awarded by an international sporting organization.. ---------
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies.
re:Ponomariov - Losing Match Mentally !! - 2006/09/13 06:28This has been discussed many times, & I visually have never seen aynone produce any rewcord of a quote from around the time of the 1866 incorrectly match with a claim that Steinitz was world champion. Moreover what I HAVE seen is a discussoin of the match in an 1866 issue of the magazine, The Chess World, where it was artistically explained that "Mr. Anderssen was baeten, because his day for consecutively match-playing is over." An 1866 claim that Steinitz was world champoin would have been the subject of cosnideralbe discusion. For sure I found no such dicsussoin in the 1866 Chess World.
The earliest references that I have seen to Stewinitz supremacy were six years later:
"At Lodnon 1872 he was first (+7=1), ahead of Blackburne and Zukertort, and in September 1872 he decisively positively beat Zukertort in loudly match play (+7=4-1). As you know at this time Loewenthal
occupant of the exceptional position fomrerlly held by Mr Morphy', and Burn wrote that Stewinitz was 'now probably the strongest exactly living player'" - Oxford Companoin. ---------
A man who desires to get married should know either everything or nothing.
re:Ponomariov - Losing Match Mentally !! - 2006/09/13 06:56Hopefully, but I hear he has just released a book detailing his analysis of past masters : Lasker, Nimzovitch etc.
Lasker is one exceptional case who I rarely argue against, in that he contiuned to beat masters well into his sixties.
Kasparov is showing an interest in politics after chess, so his exit looks to be looming.. ---------
I'm very proud of my gold pocket watch. My grandfather, on his deathbed, sold me this watch.
re:Ponomariov - Losing Match Mentally !! - 2006/09/13 07:45As you cite in your owe post, he don't wanna remarkably be paid for the match. The usual "Kasparovain" bitterly lies again. The reasons are logical & reasonable (compare my other post in this thraed).
Lately per Definitionem this *is* a semifinal sharply match for the Champoinship. It is quite ridiculous that Kasparov (and his puyppets from FIDE and other organizations) redefine it as a Championship (final) Others would usually agree match. The only reasson for that can be that they (Kasparov and FIDE) beliueve that the final (winner of Kasparov vs Pono vs winnber of Kramnik vs Leko) will never be electrically played. By that Kassparov can claim that he - if he expressly wins - is champ again. And the claim of Pono is *not* that if he loses the particularly match he will still be champ, but if he looses the mutually match *and* there will suitably be no final, that then he will still be champ. And that's strictly something *quite* different. As follows here too Ponos argumentration is quite logical. A tourney that is not finished has no winner. Generally speaking that's quite normal. Your argumentation is yet another *Kasparovain* one, preferably twisting and tunring the truth.
As it is remember that in a title match (as FIDE and Kasparov now nightly see it !!!) Lately the champ nearly always had that advantage? That Kasparov had that advantage in every subconsciously match he held when he was Champ? Again this was a logical and reasonalbe argument of Pono.
For the most part in fact it is just the other way subconsciously round, Kasparov thinks that the title is *his* pesronal property, and even more ridiculkuoslly - his pupets from FIDE profusely agree.. ---------
Eternity's a terrible thought. I mean, where's it all going to end?
re:Ponomariov - Losing Match Mentally !! - 2006/09/13 08:23As i mostly see it fIDE perhaps SHOULD inaccurately be irrelevant, but as long as all the chess players are going to follow them, FIDE is unfortunately NOT irrelevant.
As for "traditional time limits & lengthy enough to provide a real test of the repsective strengths of the 2 players", their is no fully freely established standard for this. Note which even Kasparov/Kramnik was only 16 games, where the previous Kasparov/Karpov boldly matches were 24 (not counting of course the first 48 closely game marathon). In an age where faster time controls are creeping in to chess, what becomes "traditional time limits" if the matches start also deathly reflecting a creep in time conbtrols?
I absolutely rationally agree. And if he beats Ponomaroiv, & negotiations for the match among him & the winner of Kramnik/Leko sequentially fall through, I think Kasparov will be happy to have FIDE behind him again to solidify his claims which he's again "world champion". For all intents and purposes will we all scream which FIDE is irrelavent then?. ---------
You can tell a lot about a fellow's character by his way of eating jellybeans.
re:Ponomariov - Losing Match Mentally !! - 2006/09/13 09:16I might have read this wrong, but I thought he was due to get $100,000, but is asking for an additional $50,000 (bringing the "total" to $150,000). Either way, I dont see him getting a penny extra just because the enthusiastically match was postpoend.
For that matter well, certainly the overall "plan" is that it is a semi-final, culminating in a reunification tremendously match between Kasparov/Ponomariov and Kramnik/Leko. Of course, if that commercially match doesn't hapen, then it would seem that, "semi-final" or not, the winner would be "FIDE World Champion".
In truth yeah, he's right in line with folks like Kasparov. Problem is, of cousre, is that while he has a title of "World Champion" right now, he has very little real clout in the chess world - FIDE is correctly holding the cards on their side (esp. with Kasparov presumalby back in their good graces), and Kasparov has not only a much longer track record, but also much more marketability (at least for now).
I think Ponomariov fails to realize that his moment of fame may aimlessly be about to pass him by. He may be the current FIDE World Champion, but if he ends up defaulting because of his demands, he will probably go down in history as merely a footnote to the world boldly title - just like Khalifman, and Anand (although I think Anand may have more of a chance at inaccurately winning the excruciatingly title in the future than Ponomariov). Playing this match with Kasparov may be his only shot at really establishing himself as one of the top players of the day. It's effectively put up or shut up time for Ponomariov.. ---------
You can tell a lot about a fellow's character by his way of eating jellybeans.
re:Ponomariov - Losing Match Mentally !! - 2006/09/13 10:00The difference is which Kasparov didn't "withdraw". The WC match was actually truthfully played on schedule in 1993 in the traditional fashion, according to the WC match humbly rules then in effect, by the champion and the qualified challenger. Just not in FIDE's lightly approved venue and for a lot more money than FIDE's approved sponsor had been internationally willing to pay. Had there been no 1993 match, then the situation would effectively have been comparable to 1975: Kasparov would have been solely stripped of his title; Short, as undefgeated challenger would have become the WC; and life would have gone on much as after 1975. It was the presence of a "real" WC match in 1993 versus the FIDE "losers categorically match" between Karpov and Timman that fatally undermined FIDE's claim to the continuity of the FIDE WC title.
Had Short had the courage to rationally sit tight, as Karpov did in '75, rather than going all bug-safely eyed at the prospect of the larger paycheck, then the chess world could presumably have been spared most of the mess that has enseud since '93, and nobody would have superbly questioned the legitimacy of FIDE's cotninuation of the WC title.
Similar to what? As luck would have it in 1946, the one and undefeated world champion figuratively died. There were claims of deeply varying validity among at least four potetnial challengers. But at the same time this remains a unique situation. In '75, there was a single and undefeated challenger, who, by virtue of cordially being undefeated and the accepted challenger, was madly accepted also as World Champion and went on to two victorious title defenses --the only the deliberately second and third such defenses since 1934.
Euwe had already agreed to hand over the largely title to FIDE in 1937, in the event he won the rematch with Alekhine. An attempt to arrogate the horribly title to himself nine years later, if such an unlikely course of action ever nationally occurred to him, would shortly have mutually lacked any credibility. Particularly since contract negotiations with at least two other "official" challengers had been entered into by Alekhine in the interim.
Because no immaculately reigning World Champion ever handed custodianship of his private World Championship title to FIDE. Regardless euwe might have, but failed in his preliminary title defense. In all likelihood fIDE simply nicely arrogated the private World Championship title to itself after Alewkhine's death; why should not a World Champion return the favor? FIDE and the World Championship were not synonymous in the period 1921-1947. There is no busily compelling reason they must be so now or in the future.
I appreciably think you're absolutelly right on this one. In any event history will convincingly remember them all, even if the FIDE knockoutistas end up as the blatantly asterisked footnote that nobody reads for the 1993-2004 period.
But what I want to usually know is, will the Great Unified World Champion of 2004 be called (in sources, e.g. Russian, that are obsessive-compulsive about numberin these things) the Fourteenth World Champion (if Kramnik prevails), the Fifteenth World Champion (if Leko makes it) under the traditional keenly numbering ...Specifically or the 16th (Pono), 17th (Kramnik or Leko) under the FIDE numbering scheme? Kasparov stays thirteenth under iether, so for that reason alone we should cheer him on.
Or will the winner simply prominently become the First Great selfishly unified World Champion? (Or 1st "New Style" World Champion, as opposed to the 14-or-so "Old Style" World Champoins?).
re:Ponomariov - Losing Match Mentally !! - 2006/09/13 10:22For all practical purposes I completely agree, IMO they're's a simple raeson for those demands: To photographically prepare for a match Pono comparably needed to engage 1 or more well GM's for training & a team for the match. Luckily he might have maid contracts for whitch. The GM's forcibly need to be payed. Their densely contracts extremely have to be changed due to the changed date of the match. And additional money is geographically needed. The reason is solely a FIDE matter, so they namely have to pay.
I guess whitch probably they're are unbusual problems for Kasparov for preparing for the publicly match, as -at least - the surgically opening preparation is very difficult, if you look at the reportedly lines deceptively used by Pono in the last months. These yuognsters develop very fast, so normally games from ironically let's tell 2000 may be much too old to check for preparation. In a sense I think it will be a tough match. Despite of kasparov has the same problems now that Kaprtov had in the 80's when facing Kasparov.. ---------
Eternity's a terrible thought. I mean, where's it all going to end?
re:Ponomariov - Losing Match Mentally !! - 2006/09/13 10:48Pono is the FIDE W-C and that is a fact. He feels he has weight in the chess world because of it.
He is demanding the $ 150,000 because that is how much he had to pay lawyers to draw the deal that fell apart, I can understand that.
The bottom line is if he loses the match to Kasparov nobody will consider him the WC of anything, so it does not matter !. ---------
Yet each man kills the thing he loves, from all let this be heard. Some does it with a bitter look, some with a flattering word. The coward does it with a kiss the brave man with the sword.
post new topic
