TO THE ANNIVERSARY OF THE PRAGUE AGREEMENTS DEVOTED...

European Championship as a mirror for problems of professional chess. Three whales of professional chess. Lonely wolves or pack? Will organizers help us? How to make the first step?

There is no surprise in it. The tendency, however, is evident: the prices for participants are growing proportionally to the appetites of organizers. The actions of the latter are quite logical, they are directed to make the biggest possible profit of an event. Obviously, the officials of the ECU are not offended. It is surprising, why all the players together do not maintain their interests. Some attempts have been undertaken to write collective letters in Оhrid and Varna, but unfortunately they did not yield any practical results. Here we touch on the most important issue. Until grand masters do not have any organization protecting their professional interests, hopes for some real improvement of their conditions are equal to zero.
Next time the hotel price will be set to 100 or 150 USD a day, and all of those who themselves, or for whom anybody else can pay, will go, won't they? Even to a military conflict region ringed by battle actions, does it matter? And what else do they ought to do, since it is not clear, what a chess player is: there is no official status, no trade union, nothing like that!.. Actually, it is not merely a financial question, rather one of elementary self-esteem...
The topic has already set everybody's teeth on edge. After Prague it seemed that some changes were coming up. They have happened, surely, although restricted in their scope. Certainly, it is a noble task to reveal the strongest player in the world, and the uniquely strongest one, though, as practice shows, this task is rather complicated. Moreover, in reality, it is concerned with the interests of only four to five top players, well, including the participants of the Dortmund tournament it seems that this number amounts to eleven, doesn't it? And what is left to the non-top-GMs?
Now I think it is the right place to present opinion of Y.Seirawan, who are the most competent regarding associations organized to express the chess players' interests.

A) March 09, 2002 Yasser Seirawan: Reply to Smbat Lputian
The formation of a chess players' union, in my view, is a very good idea. But, as we know, it is very unwieldy and very hard to organize. One person has called a chess players' union like trying to herd cats. It seems we all have our own personalities and we go our different ways!
A chess players' union needs many things. It needs structure -- a constitution. It needs rules for officers. Elections. Annual meetings. Communications, newsletters, and so on.
Even more important then the above paragraph -- it needs a purpose. In other words, why should a union exist? Should it exist so that the players are represented in discussions with a tv station? Should it exist so that elderly players are able to live in dignity with a pension and health care? Should it exist as a counter balance to the dictates of fide? Indeed, are the dictates of fide so terrible, that a chess union is born because of them? You will appreciate that these questions are deliberately provocative only to point out that an organization must have a purpose. A mission statement.
So the first question to ask regarding a chess union is this: what is its purpose? Does this purpose justify its existence? If the answers are both yes, the next question is how will a chess union support itself? You will immediately realize that for a chess union to exist it will need an outside sponsor.
What many GM's fail to realize that when Garry created the professional chess players association (PCA) many of its expenses were paid by Garry himself! Of course he made a lot of money from the PCA events, yet he spent a lot of his own money -- more then anyone -- on its establishment. Yet even with his best efforts, and his own money, he still couldn't make the pca a viable concern for more then just a few years. And he tried very, very hard!
In closing on this point, yes, it would be very constructive to have a chess union. It would help solve many problems. But how to make it work?

B) A little less than a year ago:

June 2002: Seirawan`s report on the GM Steering Committee Meeting in Moscow
On June 1-3, 2002 the following grandmasters met in Moscow at various times to discuss the business of the GM Steering Committee: Zurab Azmaiparashvili, Jaan Ehlvest, Kiril Georgiev, Mikhail Gurevich, Alexander Khalifman, Joel Lautier, Predrag Nikolic, Yasser Seirawan. The discussions covered a large number of topics. The Committee decided to focus solely upon issues that impact the lives of professional chess players, concentrating upon subjects most important to the top 100 ranked players in the world. Of particular importance was how to constitute the Committee itself:
· Status of the Committee How are we “elected?” How many members? How many meetings? What is a quorum for a meeting? Who are the voters that elect the Committee members? Can every over-the-board grandmaster vote or just the top 100 players? How long are the Committee members’ terms?
· Powers of the Committee Are we an autonomous Committee? Are we financed by FIDE? Are we financed by Bessel Kok’s Professional Management Group? Are our decisions “final”? Should our decisions be ratified by a majority of grandmasters? Must the FIDE General Assembly ratify all our decisions? 
These are a lot of questions and we did not satisfactorily answer them… 

C) And recently: February 2003, Grandmaster Golubev's Interview with Y. Seirawan
So, a mixed picture. A lot of time has passed since Prague and I would have liked to have seen much more progress made... . Signing an open letter is easy. Especially, if you didn't even have to write it yourself. Frankly, criticism comes far too easily for chess grandmasters. This is due to the great amount of frustration and disillusionment that is rampant amongst professional chess players. I tried very hard to get grandmasters to agree to serve on the GM Steering Committee. The reality is that there was a ballot, a vote and an election of a GM Steering Committee in Bled. I am very grateful to my colleagues who agreed to serve.
Unfortunately, the very reason for the GM Steering Committee has been put to question. The Prague Agreement envisioned a GM Steering Committee that would help construct the rules of the cycle and represent the players. Indeed there were a lot of discussions about a Players Health & Benefit Fund amongst other promising ideas that the GM Steering Committee would try to develop…
I challenge any of the writers of the open letter to take my place on GM Steering Committee and to work for positive change. Then with great delight I too can play the role of critic just as unfairly as them. To make changes, small positive steps are required. Let's create a structure where folks can serve, let us create a process where they can be elected and then go ahead and make our sport better for all. 2004 is fast approaching for the Spanish Minorca Olympiad where we will have new elections. I welcome candidates to apply now! Perhaps, our top 200 GMs would even care to vote? At least we can hope...
Let me be clear: without a GM Steering Committee, or a similar body, we will have nothing at all. Open letters will be a shout for attention and then it will fade away… Well at least I'm grateful for their open letter. My colleagues are sharing their concerns and show that they do care about their sport. I dislike the 'silent majority' and much prefer a boisterous crowd!

But why, despite all the serious efforts, it has till now been impossible to create any effective trade union or another similar association? (For brevity reasons, this potential organization is hereafter called the Union.) I totally agree with Yasser - under today's circumstances, creation of such an organization, thought to conjoin players only, is objectively impossible, at least it will not course any considerable effect. It will be capable of writing angry letters, at most - of trying to boycott any action... The committee of grandmasters created in Prague will carry out a certain amount of work, but, as recognized by Yasser himself, its effect is not going to be significant...

It seems to me necessary to create an efficient democratic mechanism. But which one? To better understand it, it is needed to point out the basic forces working in professional chess and their interests. In what follows the main ones are described.

1)	Organizers of tournaments (patrons of art, sponsors), in other words, employers. Their purposes include carrying out interesting competitions (as for the public, media, spectators or themselves) , and receiving material or immaterial dividends.
2)	 Best-of-the-top grandmasters (for brevity they are hereafter called the Great). This category usually embraces World Champions, and sometimes candidates. Due to the whole historical development, their incomes are incomparable with those of other grandmasters... Their aims involve participation in interesting competitions (for a kind of a definition of the term interesting see above in 1) and receiving 
	desirable large fees (i.e. having sold their work the most expensive way possible).
3)	 Other chess players, making their livings from playing chess (for brevity - Grandmasters). They aim at participation in any competition, where it is possible to earn some money (i.e. to try to sell their work).

	Do you feel the difference? For this reason, it is obviously not so easy to combine these manifold interests. Actually, frequently even grandmasters themselves can be regarded as sponsors, the coming European championship is a good example of such a tournament (e.g., among 150 GMs participating in the competition, at least 110 appear in such a role...).

So, these are the stances, between them there exists a thin layer of so to say 'just top grandmasters' (the first 10-15), whose incomes nevertheless essentially differ from those of the Great. 

I think, without the help and involvement of the Organizers, any effective functioning of the Union is impossible , especially at the initial stage (let us recollect Yasser's statement: "for a chess union to exist it will need an outside sponsor").
Seirawan proposed to create an institute of chess commissioners and suggested three worthy candidates, who had done a lot for chess. But first, only one year ago this raised some doubts in a number of grandmasters, let us recollect some responses.

Larry Evans: 1. Who will review the decisions of the three chess commissioners? Are we trading a FIDE diktat for a troika diktat?
2. Who appointed these three commissioners in the first place? Seirawan tells us who they will be… Yet I am uneasy about appointing new leaders of the chess world without more debate. The public square was barren of discussion, and even grandmasters were left in the dark. Is this the way to make a "Fresh Start"? Are we not still stuck in the same old groove of consigning authority to those who simply claim they want this authority?
…Our chess world needs openness, public discussion, and the give and take that is normal in modern societies. A new chess world -- this "Fresh Start" -- is beginning with secretive means and understandings that are suddenly thrust upon us. 
The ends described by Seirawan are apparently noble. Yes. But we are left hoping that the means adopted will not become ends in themselves. We need both a fresh start and fresh means.

Smbat Lputian: There is concern on my part on the role of the Commissioner's office. I fear that the presentation of the players' problems/concerns/issues/approaches to the 3-person committee may be too tenuous as in practice the Commissioners are too far removed from the players to appreciate their problems. What are your thoughts concerning the formation of a players' union as an intermediary between the players and the Commissioner's office?

And second, the institute of chess commissioners has not been functioning till now.
 I quote Yasser: In Bled, a FIDE World Chess Championship Committee (WCCC) of three persons, Georgios Makropoulos, Zurab Azmaiparashvili and Israel Gelfer were appointed. So the role of the Steering Committee has been largely usurped. We are not “steering” the cycle at this time.

 In my opinion, a Council of the Professional Chess Union (whatever it is called), consisting of the representatives of all three basic groups mentioned above, could function more or less effectively and suggest objective, weighed decisions.

So, 

I.	Council
 
1) Problems of the Council; basic questions which should be treated by the Council:

А) Development of a calendar of competitions, which should as much as possible aim at avoiding any overlaps of the World Championships with the tournaments of Grand Prix in both classic and rapid chess.
B) Creating a tournament format adequate to the interests of organizers, as well as chess players. It seems, for example, very interesting to me to include grandmasters (at their desire) in open tournaments for about 3 rounds. This would enable grandmasters, first,to use a superfluous weekend as they wish (team or fast tournaments etc.), and second, not to play the first rounds against obviously weaker contenders, and on the other side, it would allow the organizers to cut their expenses.
C) Discussing time control and ratings.
D) Maintaining a Fund of public health services and social support.
E) Co-ordinating trainers', educational, an informational work...
Etc.

2) Structure of the Council.

Personally to me, it seems ideal to have some 5 representatives of each group in the Council (although other alternatives are certainly possible, say, 3 or 4 for each group).

А) From the Organizers: representatives of the top-five sponsors, who have offered the greatest financial support for the Union during the last one or two years. These can be all private persons or firms, organizers of the largest tournaments or representatives of some organizations, for example, FIDE, continental and national federations. ( Furthermore, is it possible to offer 2 places in the Council to somebody, who has provided a considerably large sum, at least two times as big as the others!? FIDE may be concerned as an example for it.)

B) From the Great, for instance, World Champions or the first 5 on the rating list can be appointed to fill the post for the first time. Later the role will be taken over by the players who will have earned the most money through some events under the aegis of the Union, and, accordingly, made the most payments.

C) From the Grandmasters - these five people are the core of the whole idea - five worthy persons, capable of reflecting and protecting the interests of the majority of the Grandmasters.

The offered formula (say, 5+ 5+ 5) has, in my opinion, a number of manifest advantages:

А) democratic nature - interests of all groups are sufficiently taken into account;
B) readiness to find some compromise - the proposed mechanism should function, regardless of specific individuals involved;
C) opportunity of the direct control over expenditures and means on side of the top-sponsors and (top)-players.
D) chess players constitute the majority, thus it is highly improbable that any incompetent or dangerous to chess decisions can be passed.

3) Functioning of the Council.

Members of the Council will determine frequency of their meetings - probably, one, two, or three times a year at some most important competitions. Some minor decisions can be accepted even without internal meetings.The executive management (it is discussed in more detail below) could prepare its proposals and pass them to the members of the Council. Projects are accepted, if they are supported by the majority. Actually, according to my understanding, membership in the Council should not provide for any concrete personal advantages (probably, representatives of the grandmasters could receive some indemnification). It should be self-awarding that members of the Council will have an opportunity to directly influence current development of chess sport.

II.	The Union.
 
1) Structure and problems of the Union.

Let us again cite Yasser : " In my opinion, creation of the union is an agreement between at least 50 top chess players of the world. As these fifty top chess players can earn much money, they could come to agree to pay to the union, say, 5% of the earnings ".
In my view, the single biggest impediment to a chess union is money. To be clear, a union spends a lot of money! An office is needed. A secretary is needed. Means of communications -- internet, post, fax are all needed. Meetings take place amongst officers. An annual meeting and so on. The grandmaster association (gma) could not have occurred without the financial assistance and highly skilled efforts of Bessel Kok…. I understand that advances in technology would help reduce some costs, but, believe me they are still very substantial. 

I think, the Union could include even more than 50 chess players. How many grandmasters can really earn decent money ? Since the (world) championships are carried out with participation of 100-200 players, it is clear that the chances are to involve a larger number of chess players. Besides we shall not overlook the promptly growing young... In my opinion, why not to accept all interested grandmasters ( the Council could also concern leading trainers and other worthy experts in the field), ready to contribute some 5% of their earnings, or another certain payment to the Union? But, anyway, the financial well-being of the organization depends first of all on the Organizers. The Organizers could allocate, for example, 5-10% to the fund of the Union directly or through payments of players. These questions need to be carefully discussed by the interested parties.

How do the Organizers benefit from support of the Union and participation in the Council? First, clearly, order is always better than anarchy, and to deal with one reliable organization and to play by one rules is obviously more convenient. Second, in this case the Organizers can really influence the state of affairs in the chess world. Should there be any Organizers in one organization (i.e. in the Union) with chess players, since representatives of both parties are going to collaborate in the Council?
I think, hardly, as there is no special need for it. The Organizers together can solve some questions, but it is by far much less necessary for them , than for the players. If it is necessary, each Organizer can make his or her purposes clear, and since they are businessmen, they will agree much more easily. Those are, as they say, their problems... Chess players should in any case assert their common professional interests together.
This is a law of the nature: it is more convenient to hunt (in our case for prizes and fees) in pack, than on one's own. And, by the way, there is no big contradiction in it: let us remind ourselves of 'The Jungle's Book' by Kipling. There in the Council of the pack there were, apart from the wolves, also two respected representatives of the other species, namely, Baloo and Bagira...
So, the Union of chess players elects in a democratic way representatives for the Council, carries out votings regarding the major questions, pays members' entries and reaps the fruits of the joint hunting.
 
2) Functioning of the Union.

Actually, the Council should only make decisions concerning the major questions. Any productive ideas on the part of both individual members of the Council, and their possible fractions (!?) are certainly welcome, but the actual development of projects regarding the basic questions should be left to the so called Executive management.

Once again, we return to the Yasser's statement. Undoubtedly, charges should be considerable. On the other hand, involved (and sympathizing!) sponsors could for example provide technical (office and communication directed ) and legal aid and even help with employees. Seirawan's suggestion, namely, to create an office of commissioners, is also worth attention. I believe that it is possible to find some solution, if there is enough will to do it...

III. First steps.

 So, what do we have to start with, what steps ought to be undertaken first, and who will make them? (Is it, for example, possible, to make the Grandmasters committee, the only thing up to now, serve as a half-official association of grandmasters?)

1) Offer to 5 leading grandmasters, for example, to four participants of the unifying cycle and to the player having the best rating among other grandmasters, to support the project and enter the Council (the first convocation).
 
2) Address the offer to support the project (mentally and financially!?)
A) to influencial chess organizations, like FIDE or continental and national federations, and
B) to organizers of the largest tournaments, patrons of art and sponsors. 

3) Organize the Union (League?) of chess players (grandmasters?). To begin with, 100 or 200 leading chess players (as measured by their rating) had better be involved. It is not so important to create some coordination Council on the basis of the Grandmaster committee and who exactly and how many of them will be in this council, but it is of major importance that coordinators have all the technical devices necessary to quickly direct essential questions (e.g. by email) to leading chess players and to inform the chess world. Probably, the role of the Grandmaster committee can be played by the representatives of any popular chess Internet site, if they wish and have enough capacities free for it.

From Golubev's Interview with Y. Seirawan
Do you see any chances to force world top 200 players to complete the poll on professional time control? As I know, you invested a lot of time and energy in this project.
This is a prime example of the disillusionment that exists amongst the top players. I as well as other members of the GM Steering Committee, worked very hard to get the views of our colleagues about the time controls, for example. Many couldn't be bothered to answer. Others answered that their voice wouldn't be heard and that they wouldn't be a party to a 'sham' vote. Yet, the vast majority of the players who deigned to vote DID show their strong support for a Professional or Classical time control. The WCCC in its regulations recommendations, accepted the time control of 40/2, 20/1, Game/15 + 30 Seconds. So this was a great achievement. Yet, the thanks for this success from my colleagues has been remarkably muted. Good deeds go unmentioned. This is not a prescription for creating positive change and encouraging folks to work hard. 'Forcing' players to do something, even something that benefits them and their sport, such as a proper dress code, is sure to provoke the ire of the players. It seems like a no-win situation, which makes me very sad.
Certainly, it is a pity. Therefore it seems essential to me to ask similar questions in a more open way, with regular discussion on the Internet and in press.
In a word, PR!

To begin with, I suggest that a number of European chess players show initiative, especially those who have asked the ECU for one of the following:
а) significant reduction of the prices for accommodation and meals, and, probably,
b) reducing the number of rounds and free days.
We shall remind ourselves of the G.Kasparov's words: ... that occurs in the chess world. Actually the question is about the responsibility of chess players. It seems to me to be the key topic, which cannot be overlooked any more... United grandmasters constitute a huge force - you see, if there is no one to play, there are problems...

Conclusion

Maybe, there is a lot of idealism in my proposal, but I hope that it nevertheless contains some rational core. Actually, it is supposed to be a kind of updating of the ideas of G.Kasparov, Y.Seirawan and some other grandmasters, an attempt to look for an opportunity of creating some democratic mechanism in the field of Professional Chess in general. For sure, a number of important questions have not been even touched upon. And still, I am looking forward to reading responses and suggestions in press and on the Internet, as well as to receiving them personally.

Igor Glek,
Essen - Moscow,
prinzflorizel@aol.com
igorglek@hotmail.com