Thanks, corrected.

"And if there’s a deliberate three-fold repetition in a position where it’s still possible to fight, the arbiter should penalise the players with a zero on the score table' -- that's ridiculous. why not arbiter starts playing games with Anand or Kramnik when
they decide 3 fold repetition , and show that he is better in chess than these players and instruct them play or get 0 points!

Football scoring system is also not applicable in chess. The side that gets the ball
in Soccer does not get as much as advantage as white in chess. in Chess player with Black often feels a draw is good result , unlike soccer.
We dont care who wins the toss in soccer , in Chess playing with White means you have lot of advantage.

Dont try to mix soccer rules in Chess , may be short games are attractive for chess. But honestly when players like Anand , Kramnik , Carlsen plays so fast and an average spectator who does not have deep knowledge of chess will be able to appreciate the game ?? other than the fact he just might be amused to see players are playing so fast. Chess is not something like tennis , soccer , where you can enjoy the game even if you dont play the game actually.
it is absolutely impossible for average spectator to tell what Shirov/Ivanchuk is thinking when they played some brilliant move.

Unfortunately this royal game is probably not for every one , only if some one is interested and learns it to a level when they master the concepts they will be able to appreciate the true beauty of this game. This is in one sense unfortunate but this is how it is.

People watch poker for psychology and the human element (and a few who actually want to watch the cardplay), it's on TV because of the fact that online casinos will sponsor it up the wazoo. Only a few of the poker pros are really too entertaining, and they edit it heavily to make it palatable. Chess was on ESPN some years back, all I remember is Maurice Ashley trying to describe a combination with a telestrator in about 3-5 seconds as if it were a football play. Was over everyone's heads, and most couldn't care less. Even billiards has gone from 9-ball, to 7-ball (then ladies 7-ball), to trickshot magic, and there at least you have sponsors from cue and table makers.

Chess would not die, Danailov thinks it should die !? I feel bad for the Bulgarian fans and the Bulgarian Chess shops. Danailov will soon be knocking every home in Bulgaria breaking chess boards and burning the chess pieces... Oh what horror !

Tennis is not that simple to understand. Try to teach the rules.

Apparently they played the opening music from 2001: A Space Odyssey at the start of each round in last year's Dortmund tournament. Ponomariov at least said it inspired him! Not sure if it had the same impact on the spectators, and I doubt they'll have different music for each player this year :) http://chessbase.de/nachrichten.asp?newsid=10677 (in German)

lol, exactly!
all other than this sentence is typical Danailov rubbish...

seriously, this Danailov guy is a dangerous lunatic.

I think the future of spectator chess is commentary from the players during the game - thinking out loud (obviously arranged so that the opponent can't hear). We could be in awe of their greatness, make fun of their blindnesses (we got engines), learn to play like them, etc. Everyone enjoys watching the engine evaluations to a certain extent, how much more enjoyable to watch the elite GM evaluations.

Promos and entrance music would be an entertaining addition to chess.

If I see a poker game on TV I watch it for a few minutes to see the players faces until i get bored. I do not follow the game and i cannot understand the commentary. So more of poker is not going to turn me into a poker fan. Chess is similar. If someone does not understand chess they are not going to follow the game. Period. Chess is a very segmented sport unlike soccer or tennis. From a marketing perspective, either FIDE needs to sell more of the same stuff to the same customers (larger share of the wallet) or broaden consumer segment. FIDE has tried the first strategy to no avail and based on the number of tournaments that are shutting down it is evident we are headed downhill. The only other way is to expand the segment by making the game more interesting.

To make things more interesting and get more youngsters into the game let me propose the following:

1. Base rank should be rearranged before each game. This can be done with a computer drawing the pattern for the base rank (for example, a base rank pattern can be Knight, Rook, Queen, Bishop, Bishop, Knight, Rook, King) for every game. This minimizes the influence of home prep and emphasizes natural skills. I believe it is practically impossible to prepare, even with the help of computers, for all patterns and millions of ensuing opening variations.

2. Add two more chessmen with new powers to go on the base rank. The number of squares on the base rank will still be 8 but now the chess player has a choice of pieces. When the computer draws the pattern, it leaves two holes in the base rank purposely and the player can then pick 2 pieces out of 4 pieces available. This is somewhat similar to video games where players have some choice to pick their weapons. Only difference is that in chess, the set of chessmen has to be finalized at the start of the game.

While the downside is that this makes it even more difficult for chess fans to follow but on the positive side it makes it more unpredictable and interesting. Who knows this could result in renewed interest and a new range of young chess players with new skills. One of the bigger issues we have is most variations presently are beaten to death and they are so predictable.

The difference is that all of the activities that you have mentioned are easier to understand than chess. How do expect to hold the attention of the masses if a game takes 6 hours? Even NASCAR is more exciting than watching two dudes think for long periods of time...

Immune from irony, the architect of Toiletgate lectures us on what is in the best interests of chess.

While he’s at it, this supposedly neutral head of the European Chess Union can’t manage to disguise his hostility toward one of Europe’s best players, Kramnik. Why? Because the former World Champion was the innocent target of Danailov’s trumped up cheating allegations, and the whole sordid affair blew up in Danailov’s face while the whole world was watching. He obviously is immune from shame as well….

"you become a little more relaxed in life after marriage" - by Danailov on Chessvibes

This is all I agree with :-)

"The man's a menance!" Seriously, what a load of drivel.

Why is Gelfand mentioned twice in the Candidates matches but Grischuk none? Isn't it Grischuk Mamedyarov.

Take tennis.

One of the most thrilling aspect of tennis is that the last set might last ad infinitum. It is not the first player reaching "6" or "7" that wins. Increments are some crazy and thrilling aspect of the game, that every sponsor should like. Is there anything tensier than a player that defends with his mere 30s for many moves ? Exhaustion, force of will to survive, pressure, sacrifice of yourself... Without increment, he'd to make silly-blind moves that will destroy his game.

No game would ever reach the endgame (or you would have only 10 min to play the endgame, that can as complex if not more that the middlegame). Players consume time when thinking and also while moving, pressing the clock. Do you want to such brutal blitz games where players make lightning and inelegant moves, blow away pieces, arouse contestation, polemics ("You don't have properly replaced your knight ! etc...) ? Do you believe that sponsors and spectators like that form of play where we do not understand anything nor can follow decently the moves ? Even in poker, player can have time to think. (not to mention taht poker games last very very long...).

Thinking in terms of marketing: what is the commercial interest of chess? A game of intelligence or a game of reflex ? Is Carlsen seen as the "most faster player in the world" or "the most clever player in the world" in G-Star commercials ? Take Kasparov's too.

Under such conditions, it would be nearly impossible to defend decently: what would have been Korchnoi under such a strict regime ? And Carlsen, how could he have defended his endgame against Kramnik ?

Preserving increment is preserving suspense until the last second of the game. Some sort of "money time" as they say in soccer or rugby.

Sofia rules are the best for chess!!!
This is the most positive and important statements from Danilov ever
Maybe he simply has decided to do what is best for chess
That is good news

Thank you Danilov

Everything is Marketing. We don´t need to change the way we play. We just need to put chess on tv or in newspapers. I see poker at midnight and i doubt it has a lot of audience. If instead of poker the tv could show some rapid chess, i think it could have at least the same audience as poker and more people would be interested in chess.

Sofia rules are the best for chess!!!

Making chess more interesting, exiting and more viewable are good suggestions

Futbol, Fussball, Soccer style scoring (3-1-0)??

Pro? Click the green thumb.

Contra? Click the red thumb.

Even if he does all the right things but then manages to establish this:

"The 30 seconds a move increment (and any increment in general!) should be abandoned. That’s essentially deprived fans of the enthralling spectacle of time trouble."

If this happens, Chess would be pretty much dead for me. Those timetrouble scrambles can be exciting to watch maybe (for me, not), but is very effectively destroying the essence and the beauty of the game, not to mention also the quality of play.

Maybe it's just me, but I find it much more enjoyable to watch (and even more, play) games that have increment so the games ends (more likely) to deserving conclusion instead of things get mixed for such arbitary limitation as absolute time when all the good play and planning may come to nothing because you are forced to play moves blinding fast and the game transforms into a speed competition and has very little to do with chess anymore.

For once (otherwise obnoxious person as he is), I couldnt agree more with some of the points raised by Danailov :-)

Mr Danailov wants chess to be like professional wrestling!

1. The players should pre-arrange the moves of the game so one will win with a "brilliancy". That would eliminate draws and provide spectators with a good game to watch. If the moves have been worked out in advance, then they can be played quickly.

2. Incompetant and interfering arbitrators will rule chess. Again, silly officials are a hallmark of pro-wrestling. Perhaps the arbitrators can re-start a game that has finished legally? This ONLY happens in professional wrestling. No proper sport has this. Perhaps the arbitrator can bring in a new player to finish another's game. Maybe one player can "knock out" the arbitrator and play an illegal move when noone is looking?!?

3. Players "cut promos" (give interviews) where they insult each other and build up rivalries. Fans and sponsors will then pay good money for a final blow-off match between two "rivals" who "hate" each other. We can Pay Per View for Chess Mania in the Dallas Cowboys Stadium. Topalov vs Kramnik chess boxing in a steel cage?

4. All players must have entrance music.

You cannot guarantee that a competition will be exciting. Even short time controls and blitz games produce draws. Excitement comes with surprise. Without boring games and boring competitions, there would be no truly exciting ones.

It would be better if Silvio didn't speak.

Nice to know that there will be some elite tournaments in the second half of the year.

He is right in his last answer, chessplayers want the best of all for them, they don´t care abour the sport: more money, more time, short draws to rest, score system that doesn´t penalize playing for draws to keep rating, etc. But in FIDE time this might happen in 20 to 30 more years... pitty!

Sofia Rules : I agree.
Football system : to make the standings a correct display of the strength of a player, you need at least 9 rounds, otherwise, 3-1 points system is just silly.
Reduce time control : I don't agree.

Three points for a win hardly ever makes a difference especially if you use a tie-break of most wins rather the SB.

Photos on official websites and indeed any website are copyright anyhow. I'm extremely careful to get permission (such as for the Facebook pictures from Wijk) before I use any photo. There are chess websites that don't understand copyright but most of the mainstream ones do.

There may be legal action about moves in Europe, I doubt they will succeed, we know that they won't succeed in the US, its a dead issue if games can be published in one part of the world and not another. The biggest consumer of game information are the players themselves anyhow.

Official sites get huge amounts of hits, to the point where they often fall over, I don't think it is a problem for chess sponsorship. There is so much that you can do to cover a match if you actually run it that means you ought to be much better than those covering the event from the outside.

Danailov is right about one thing elite chess is having a crisis right now. I think he's wrong in his assessment as to how to put it right. Also quite frankly there isn't a lot of spare money around right now in this economic crisis.

The main driver for chess popularity is the World Chess Championship and its cycle and the opportunity to publicise the players involved. That's the thing that needs fixing and the area that gets the most main-stream media coverage. Kasparov is famous because of his battles against Karpov and then took that on to the Deep Blue match.

Once people get interested they're interested in other events and I have to say that in terms of number of players things are quite healthy worldwide, but if you want new interest then it is the World Championship where we have to look to.

Sofia rules seem to work well and have been a very positive innovation but I don't see that they need to be extended to every event. Most of them are private anyhow. If Wijk aan Zee don't want them then that is their decision. My contention is always this, if you want an exciting chess tournament, invite the right players in the first place.

Silvio Danailov now has a much more personal interest in seeing Chess succeed, since he's the President of the ECU now. I trust that a man who accepted such a position wants to see it succeed and become much more popular. I would not accept "President of Toyota" just so I could kill off the automotive market. Not only that but his closest friend is one of the top 5 GM's in the world.

Whatever his primary motivation is, profit or otherwise, I trust that he will make a legitimate attempt at popularizing Chess much more than it currently is.

3-1-0 is just silly.

Raise you hands if you really believe that Carlsen played better than Anand or McShane in London... Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

No serious sponsor wants to associate himself with a lunatic like Ilyumzhinov not to mention the whole corrupt mess that FIDE is, but of course no word about that.

If there is a problem in chess, that is it.

Chess might just outlive Danailov - even without changing.

Chess might just outlive Danailov - even without changing.

Why would chess die? It is probably the least expensive and most affordable sport to anyone. Chess politicians may die for lack of money but then the royal game would at least stay clean.

I do think it would be good if chess events take into account the commercial benefits. For example except for die-hard chess fans, I don't think many people will watch chess on tv with two players thinking about moves for hours. On the other hand, a blitz tournament may even be enjoyable for many amateurs, perhaps with some live commentary by GMs. That might even work, similar to late night poker on tv.

And of course that decreases the quality of the games. But such events could raise interest in chess and get rid of the bad image chess has, which then eventually results in more sponsors for things such as the classic World Championship.

It looks like stressed people today lacks patience and want to reduce time for a chess game and much more in life. Relax more.
If people can watch a long tennis match, then they can also watch a long chess match. The already reduced time in chess today is shown in the low quality in many endgames. People are missing more wins today. Even Capablanca would have missed more winning moves if he would have had to play with the shorter time control. I would like to see instead that classic chess goes back to how it was before with longer time controls.
Chess players should of course have the right to offer a draw whenever they want to. Slaves have no right to rest when they are tired, but chess players are no slaves (yet) and have the right to rest when they are tired after a long game, so a short draw day after to rest is ok.

which chess official in the past had a clue about the game?
I don't remember anyone!
don't take this danailov freak seriously.
chess promotes itself - you don't have to reduce time controls and invent a shity soccer scoring system, which didn't help soccer either.
just organize decent tourneys, establish a stable way to crown the WCH and promote chess as the game of kings, which it is and you get your revenue.

Conducting and publishing interviews with this guy gives him an air of credibility that he definitely does not deserve in my opinion. Isn't he the same 'gentleman' that brought us (and all of the non-chess playing spectators) 'toilet-gate'? And even if it wasn't his brain-child, he was a zealous poster-child and fanned it's flames.

He also has two top notch clients who refuse to shake hands with their opponents on occasion. Yeah, a real ambassador for the game!

if three-fold-DRAW is achieved too early, Both players should be required to play another game starting from the TIME they left so that they will still finish along with the others. They must not be allowed to repeat the same position from the last game.

,,We can’t allow all sorts of sites to steal the text of games or “pictures” from the organisers, who’ve spent money on all that,,

Yes. Of course Mr. Danilov, the organisers shd be allowed to get the pictures and game text at cost and sell them to chess web sites who'd sell them to the public.
My favourite past time could become an expensive hobby could be coming to an end.

I think the idea to make games shorter and to use shorter time-limits is simply the wrong direction. Chess is not only a life-sport. You do not need to watch a game life in order to get entertainent and improve your own game. The most important way to make chess interesting is to publish games, at best with a good annotation by the players. Either in magazines or in the internet or in DVD-Format (maybe other, more customtailored formats will be used in the future).

If you use shorter time-limits the number of mistakes will be higher. Much less will games be published and the public interest in chess will decrease. And the image of chess, as a game where the best players are able to do something very special which we, as normal chess players or just enthusiasts do admire, will vanish. The engines will show, especially with shorter time limits, many – even simple looking – mistakes in almost every game.

Any potential sponsor will ask him/herself why I should support a small number of people who simply are not able to play good chess? And we will have have difficulties to privide a good answer. In addition, maybe even more important, why should young players start playing seriously chess, when they have no idols, no heroes. And why they should someone who are committing a great number of mistakes in his/her games as an idol. And when this happens even no one is interested in live events.

I know that nowadays blitz-tournaments and rapid tournmaents with good players are attractive (even I like to watch them live). It is fun to see that even top GM made the same mistakes (although on very rare occasions) in blitz-games as I do. However, this interest vill vanish, when we have no idols, as all players are in the public opinion just patzers as they have not enough time to produce good games without obvious mistakes.

The 3-1-0 points system is just unfair in chess. Why sould two players, who played two long and interestings games which ended in two draws, earn less points than two players who committed serios mistakes in the opening, winning one game and losing the other one. No, a draw is just a normal chess result. In order to make tournaments more interesting you have to invite the right players.

If anyone has to pay for game scores or the right to report about a tournament the publiuc interest on chess tournaments will very soon approach to zero. The number of interest who are willing to pay serious money for just the information is simply too small (which is the difference to football, tennis or some other sports).

I’m almost sure if the ideas of Mr. Danailov will be realized his prophecy will be reality very soon. Chess, as we know and love it, will die.

How the heck did that guy become president of ECU? There is not just something wrong with FIDE, but also with the European Chess associations. We better look carefully next time we vote for our local chess leaders. That's where the rot starts...

Sofia rulezzzzz.....(deep sleep)

Remember the third WC game Topalov-Anand.....what a spectacle!!

What a deadly man he is! A truly dangerous!

What a deadly man he is! A truly dangerous man!

Personally, I don't like the shorter time controls even though they may be more exciting at times, but everything else he said, I completely agree with ! :)

I believe one must be extreme with their own passion. Should develop and enjoy what they do.Table tennis, also known as ping-pong, is a sport in which two or four players hit a lightweight, hollow ball back and forth using table tennis rackets. The game takes place on a hard table divided by a net.I have lots of sacrifice just to improve my health,practice, watch table tennis dvds for proper instruction, and determination.