Reforming FIDE, Part 5: Into The Light
As we scramble out of the politicized morass of the last post, it’s worth pausing for a moment to retrace our steps before moving towards the conclusion of our somewhat intense journey.
I began, you may recall, with the recognition that, by its own admission, FIDE’s mandate is simply to be “the governing body of the sport of chess” and “to regulate all international chess competitions,” with a notable lack of assuming any formal role for the general promotion or stewardship of the game around the world, as one might naturally expect (and as is explicitly claimed by several other international sporting organizations).
This was followed by a brief assessment of FIDE on their own terms, where I gave my personal view that, aside from a few specific exceptions (such as training arbiters and awarding titles), FIDE was doing a very poor job at its self-professed mission, and that the rapidly growing popularity of chess at all levels is effectively occurring despite their efforts, not because of them.
I then described why I believe that the world chess championship is outdated, before finally giving a detailed summary of the rampant politicization of FIDE, an issue that many people both inside and outside the chess world have explicitly commented on for years, but one which is particularly relevant to our highly fraught, globally polarized, times.
It is important, I think, to distinguish between my personal opinions and the bigger structural issues that I’m consistently trying to highlight. Of course I frequently give my own views—it is a blog, after all—but I don’t do so because I’m convinced that I know better than everyone else or that I have some special insight, but simply because I believe that, as a general rule, it is helpful to be presented with concrete perspectives to respond to, particularly from someone who has a more objective orientation and has spent the last year or so intensely immersed in many aspects of this world.
THE CHESS WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP
The issue of the chess world championship is, I think, a good case in point. I spent considerable time running through arguments as to why I believe that it is time to move on from a world chess championship, speaking from the position of someone who would be keen to follow professional chess, but feels uninspired to do so under the current format. You might find my arguments convincing or unconvincing, but none of that really matters—the whole point was simply to stimulate debate.
What does matter, though, is that Magnus Carlsen, the present world champion and universally regarded as the world's best player, is not interested in participating in the current version of the world chess championship—that should definitely give you some serious pause. At the very least it should lead you to rigorously examine—right now, while our attention is drawn to the topic—what he and the other top players actually would like to see happen, structurally, in the future.
And the second thing that matters, I believe, the other point that I have been doing my best to drive home through these posts, is that even if you are of the view that there simply must be a world chess championship of some form or another, the question of who should be officially running it—and, relatedly, what the role of a properly functioning international chess organization should actually be—is quite another question entirely that is very much worth addressing.
PLAYERS, FANS AND CORPORATE SPONSORS
Of course, when it comes to puzzling out the details of how best to structure professional chess, things are much more complicated still: questions of time controls, tournament format, number of matches, online vs over the board, what to do about draws, tie-breaking scenarios and much more. Everyone has opinions about these issues, and you’ll doubtless be relieved to know that I will spare you mine. But the one thing I’m adamant about is that it’s vital to find a way to listen to the three key stakeholders—the players, fans and the corporate partners who are sponsoring the events—in order to move forwards as harmoniously as possible towards a suitable restructuring that is in everyone’s interest.
So with that, here are some more detailed thoughts for your consideration, more attempts to stimulate debate:
I think that players should form collective associations that explicitly represent their interests—one for the men and one for the women, analogous to tennis’ ATP and WTA—so that each can speak with one strong, collective voice. Not only does that strike me as eminently logical—shouldn’t those doing the entertaining have a strong say in what the entertainment should be?—I, for one, am very curious about what they would specifically recommend and why.
When pondering what the future of chess should be, doesn’t it make sense to hear from those who have spent their entire lives playing it at the highest possible levels?
And for those who will inevitably interject, “Why should there be two different associations for men and women?” I will simply respond that, as everyone is well aware, there are currently many women’s professional chess events; and, as such, the women’s players need to form a parallel body to represent their interests. As it happens (this likely won’t come as a shock to you), I do have more to say about this issue; so if you somehow find yourself curious to know what I think here, check out Chapter 5, “Watch Her Play”, of Chessays: Travels Through the World of Chess.
Coordinating the voices of the professional players, I think, is the easy bit. Finding a reliable way to gain meaningful input from you, the fans, is rather more difficult. But it’s hardly impossible; and it strikes me as every bit as important. As I wrote at the outset, by any real measure, you are the ones with the actual power: there won’t be much prize money in chess if everyone stops watching. But in an age where everyone is ritualistically required to give their opinions on everything from which nasal spray they prefer to who’s going to win an Oscar, it shouldn’t be that hard to get some sort of clear sense of what most chess fans want (or don’t want).
And then there are the sponsors and corporate interests. They, too, should have a place at the table, but hardly free reign of the place.
But that, too, is what happens when the official international governing body is so obviously compromised and pre-occupied with serving its political masters that it is incapable of providing any sort of objective impartial stewardship for the good of the sport. The recent Niemann-Carlsen débâcle serves as an obvious example. In any reasonable world, chess.com would not become the arbiter of fair play, given that its own corporate interests will inevitably render it less than rigorously objective. That’s as it should be—a corporation has a primary obligation to its stakeholders to be profitable, not play the role of referee—which is why nobody expects Nike to step in (as it were) and single-handedly address key structural issues in the NBA.
What role, then, should a reformed FIDE have? I believe that there are three key aspects:
- Actively promote chess worldwide, coordinate efforts between the national federations and generally protect the integrity of the sport
- Train arbiters and award titles
- Provide a significant measure of objective oversight of professional chess (coordinating between the different competing interests—particularly during the initial restructuring phase— monitoring cheating, ensuring requisite transparency, global balance, etc.)
There might well be more, of course. But something like that, I’m convinced, is a reasonable starting point.
WHO SHOULD BE IN CHARGE?
Then there’s the question of who should be in charge, and how the governance/selection process should work. In my view, this is much less of an issue than most people think, because it is properly subservient to the question of what a reformed FIDE should actually be doing in the first place. Since the president of the new organization (in Chessays, I specifically suggest that it should be renamed FIDA and relocated to Spain, which I still maintain is a good idea) will no longer by regarded as a sort of “king of chess” but rather the head of an impartial coordinating and oversight body, there will necessarily be a drastic diminution of power-hungry types frantically jockeying for position for such a job (which should nonetheless be full-time, by the way, as opposed to one of a number of simultaneous functions as is currently the case).
Personally, given chess’ distinctively tortured history with gender issues and in order to demonstrate a clear resolve to do things very differently, I think that a woman should be chosen—someone like Pia Cramling, or Koneru Humpy or Judit Polgar or Hou Yifan: an expert chess player with a deep understanding of chess culture and many years of active dedication to the sport. I’ve just rattled off four very recognizable names, but there are, of course, many, many more who would fit the bill.
I’m guessing that a common response to all of this would be something like, “Well, perhaps there is something to what you are saying, but isn’t this all incredibly unrealistic? After all, you’ve just spent your last (extremely long) blog post describing in lurid detail how dark dictatorial powers have a firm grip on FIDE. Surely you’re not expecting them to just walk away?”
Well, no. But the point is that, looked at properly, there’s nowhere for them to walk away to. As I said at the outset, it’s a question of power. And when you look at the situation rationally, it’s clear that real power belongs to the players and the fans and the corporate interests, not some woefully corrupt completely dysfunctional body. Whatever power FIDE has only exists because people are still paying some attention to it. So stop.
The truth is that the players and the fans and the corporate interests are already doing things completely independently of FIDE—a great many things, as a quick sample of the news column of chess.com (or any other chess platform) will attest to. They’re just doing it in a largely uncoordinated and haphazard way.
Chess, as everyone knows, is booming like never before. But as everyone also knows, booms don’t last forever. There has never been a better time to put chess on a rock-solid foundation once and for all.
A BIT OF BACKGROUND:
I am documentary filmmaker and author. I created a recently released 4-part documentary, THROUGH THE MIRROR OF CHESS: A CULTURAL EXPLORATION, about the remarkable impact of chess on culture, art, science and sport. I also wrote a book, CHESSAYS: TRAVELS THROUGH THE WORLD OF CHESS, about all sorts of chess-related issues that I encountered during my time spent as a tourist in the chess world.
