Author: Thomas Logan
Date: 12:49:00 11/18/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 18, 2005 at 09:28:05, Ted Summers wrote: >The newly founded German event agency Universal Event Promotion (UEP) submitted >a written offer to FIDE World Champion Veselin Topalov as well as to the >Classical World Chess Champion Vladimir Kramnik. > >This offer guaranteed a fee of US $500,000 (net) for each of the two players – >together US $1,000,000 (net). In addition, both players were to participate in >specified sponsoring revenue. The match was to be organised from 25 November to >17 December 2006 under the title “World Chess Match of the Champions“. There >were to be 14 classical games. > >With regard to a possible reunion of both titles the draft contract contained a >clause that would have made the unification under the umbrella of the FIDE after >conclusion of the contract possible. > >The offer, which was accepted by Mr Kramnik, has now been rejected by Mr >Topalov, via his management. Intensive negotiations, which involved the >management of both players as well as the main investor of the UEP, originally >brought agreement on all issues. A golden bridge was built in order to avoid any >conflict with FIDE. On this basis the written UEP offer was submitted to the >players, with an acceptance deadline (14 November 2005, 18.00h CEST). The >Topalov side has allowed this period to expire and finally rejected the offer. > >Data From >http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2738 > >Question #1 >How could "A golden bridge was built in order to avoid any conflict with FIDE." >when FIDE was not there? > >So I am not surprised when I read the following from Georgios Makropoulos: > >"I read with surprise the announcement of Universal Events Promotion, together >with the statement of GM Vladimir Kramnik, which were trying to hold FIDE >culpable for the collapse of the negotiations for a match Topalov-Kramnik. > >I would therefore like to clarify the following: > > 1. > > FIDE hasn't received yet any official proposal concerning such a match. > 2. > > When we were informed by Mr Danailov, the manager of World Champion V. >Topalov, that negotiations were starting I immediately expressed the view that >such a match should be for the World Championship Title and it should be >organized under FIDE's auspices and in accordance with regulations which >everyone should agree. > 3. > > To this direction I suggested a meeting with all parties concerned. > 4. > > To the question of Mr Danailov about FIDE's financial demands, I referred >to the relative FIDE regulations which state that FIDE receives a 20% share of >or above the prize fund. > >Two days ago I was informed by Mr Danailov that the Kramnik side rejected the >idea of holding the match within FIDE's authority and the proposal for a meeting >of all sides was rejected as well. > >After all these developments, it's strange how FIDE can be accused for the >collapse of negotiations between UEP, Topalov and Kramnik. > >Before today I believed that Kramnik was willing to play a match for the World >Championship under FIDE's auspices. Unfortunately, recent developments show that >he might not want to return to the official World Chess Championship cycle and >is, at the same time, trying to hold FIDE responsible for his decision." > >Data From >http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2743 > >Lastly Carsten Hensel states: > >"During these negotiations UEP expressed its interest in making the “World Chess >Match of the Champions”, which both sides had agreed on, a reunification match, >with the participation of FIDE. Vladimir Kramnik accepted this plan." > >Data From >http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2744 > >Now remember the statment at the top of this Post: > > "The match was to be organised from 25 November to 17 December 2006 under the >title “World Chess Match of the Champions“. There were to be 14 classical games. > >With regard to a possible reunion of both titles the draft contract contained a clause that would have made the unification under the umbrella of the FIDE after conclusion of the contract possible." > >Point 1: This was not a Reunification Match, It was only to be a Match. > >Point 2: A clause that would have made a reunification possible is not the same thing as a reunification. Actually it seems to me it would well spoil an official Fide reunuification Who would sponsor a match shortly after another match between the same two players unless of course there was a controversal conclusion If Topalov or Kramnik wins decisively thats it If the match was boring what interrest would there be in another The winner would in all likely hood be declared de facto champion by most of the world sans Fide sanction and Fide would have lost a saleable commodity. Not necessarily a bad thing were there an organization capable of staging candidate and championship matches Topalov it appears to me has bet on Fide or wishes to remain loyal to the organization which provided him with a title Tom
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.