The Real Reason Chess is Not an Official Olympic sport and Why it Soon Could be.

[Sid Belzberg]

A fascinating read

http://kasparov2014.com/2014/08/03/o...ls-of-support/


"Olympic Levels of Support!
We are honored to publish below two letters of support from esteemed members of the International Olympic Committee. Richard Carrión of Puerto Rico is the current Chairman and CEO of Popular, Inc, which owns Banco Popular. He is the chairman of the IOC Finance Committee and finished second in last year’s election for the IOC presidency. Iván Dibós of Peru, a former Mayor of Lima, was a great sportsman himself and has been an active promoter and administrator in national and international sports worlds for decades. Both gentlemen have sent letters of support to Garry for his campaign for the FIDE presidency".

Reason why it did not become an Olympic Sport under Ilyumzhinov

"A second irony is that chess had excellent chances to become an Olympic sport, at least to gain a trial spot, back in the mid-1990s. There were discussions with Juan Antonio Samaranch, IOC President about what could be done if Kasparov came back to FIDE and unified the title. But then-new FIDE president Ilyumzhinov insisted on the new format of a gigantic knockout tournament for a world championship in 1997 instead of a unification match and Kasparov refused to play in the Lausanne KO, calling it lottery. Samaranch insisted that the IOC could not abide a sport with a split title. Nearly ten years later Ilyumzhinov gave up on his failed knock-out championship experiment and returned to the classical match format and the title was finally unified in 2006 (a year after Kasparov’s retirement) but the Olympic opportunity was long lost."

[Paul Bonham]

Re: The Real Reason Chess is Not an Official Olympic sport and Why it Soon Could be.

A fascinating read

http://kasparov2014.com/2014/08/03/o...ls-of-support/


"Olympic Levels of Support!
We are honored to publish below two letters of support from esteemed members of the International Olympic Committee. Richard Carrión of Puerto Rico is the current Chairman and CEO of Popular, Inc, which owns Banco Popular. He is the chairman of the IOC Finance Committee and finished second in last year’s election for the IOC presidency. Iván Dibós of Peru, a former Mayor of Lima, was a great sportsman himself and has been an active promoter and administrator in national and international sports worlds for decades. Both gentlemen have sent letters of support to Garry for his campaign for the FIDE presidency".

Reason why it did not become an Olympic Sport under Ilyumzhinov

"A second irony is that chess had excellent chances to become an Olympic sport, at least to gain a trial spot, back in the mid-1990s. There were discussions with Juan Antonio Samaranch, IOC President about what could be done if Kasparov came back to FIDE and unified the title. But then-new FIDE president Ilyumzhinov insisted on the new format of a gigantic knockout tournament for a world championship in 1997 instead of a unification match and Kasparov refused to play in the Lausanne KO, calling it lottery. Samaranch insisted that the IOC could not abide a sport with a split title. Nearly ten years later Ilyumzhinov gave up on his failed knock-out championship experiment and returned to the classical match format and the title was finally unified in 2006 (a year after Kasparov’s retirement) but the Olympic opportunity was long lost."

Regarding the part I put in blue above: how did the IOC tolerate heavyweight boxing when it had split titles? I'm actually asking this not even sure that pro boxers have ever been allowed in the Olympic Games... have they? If not, then split titles in pro boxing probably never became an issue, so how would it become an issue in chess as an Olympic sport if pro chess players weren't allowed to compete (to be on par with boxing)?

[Nigel Hanrahan]

burned to the waterline. ugh.

... how did the IOC tolerate ... boxing when it had split titles?

The whole argument just falls apart with this simple point. And I really don't know how Kirsan can be blamed for a split title any more than Garry Kimovich himself. The latter also finally fessed up and said that having rival titles was a mistake on his part anyway.

Good grief. Talk about blowing an argument out of the water. This is more like being burned to the waterline. ugh.

[Sid Belzberg]

Re: burned to the waterline. ugh.

The whole argument just falls apart with this simple point. And I really don't know how Kirsan can be blamed for a split title any more than Garry Kimovich himself. The latter also finally fessed up and said that having rival titles was a mistake on his part anyway.

Good grief. Talk about blowing an argument out of the water. This is more like being burned to the waterline. ugh.

Gary can hardly be blamed for split titles after being mistreated by FIDE when his first world championship was terminated early against his wishes that was the genesis of the years of acrimony that he had with FIDE. The knock out matches format for the world championship created by Kirsan proved to be disastrous and as stated the classical format for the WC was restored.

[Nigel Hanrahan]

Re: burned to the waterline. ugh.

Garry (sp) can hardly be blamed for split titles after being mistreated by FIDE when his first world championship was terminated early against his wishes that was the genesis of the years of acrimony that he had with FIDE.

OK, then why did he acknowledge his own responsibility and the harm from his role in splitting the title? This doesn't jive with what you're saying here.

[Sid Belzberg]

Re: burned to the waterline. ugh.

OK, then why did he acknowledge his own responsibility and the harm from his role in splitting the title? This doesn't jive with what you're saying here.

What yote of Kasparov's are you referring to?

[Nigel Hanrahan]

Re: burned to the waterline. ugh.

What yote of Kasparov's are you referring to?

Over here, for example ...

The event he speaks of was the championship tournaments introduced in 1997 by Fédération Internationale Des Échecs (FIDE) President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, during an era between 1993 and 2007 when chess had two world champions. That schism took place after Kasparov, world champion since 1985, broke away with Nigel Short to form the Professional Chess Association (PCA) because he felt that chess administration had not evolved to take advantage of the end of the Cold War. “The PCA was no accident,” he says. “It was part of my belief from the mid-’80s that chess needed to move to a new level of management. We have a product that has to be packaged and sold, and FIDE was in no position to do it. [Then FIDE President Florencio] Campomanes was a product of the Cold War. He knew how to sell political elements, but he was not capable of selling chess as a game that would attract corporations.” He admits, though, that the PCA was a mistake, that he could have accomplished much more by remaining within FIDE.

See What Happens When You Stop Winning.

It's interesting to see Kasparov critical of Cold War attitudes when, at the present time, he doesn't seem able to escape them.

Here's a more precise citation if you wish to check the actual quote yourself.

it could indeed be regarded as the culmination of events which he himself had set in train during the nadir of his chess career, i.e. the break-away from FIDE in 1993. That episode, which has caused world championship bedlam for a dozen years, was seen as an obvious calamity by any level-headed observer at the time. To Kasparov, however, the reality did not sink in until much later: on page 13 of the 2/1999 New in Chess he described the founding of the PCA in 1993 as his biggest mistake of all.

That's pretty definitive.

Reflections on Garry Kasparov - E. Winter

[Nigel Hanrahan]

Re: burned to the waterline. ugh.

The article by Winter is fascinating and gets into Garry Kimovich's personality, decision-making, and so on. Paul B. might also be interested in a read as it addresses some of the issues he has raised in another thread.

see here

[Sid Belzberg]

Re: burned to the waterline. ugh.

Over here, for example ...



See What Happens When You Stop Winning.

It's interesting to see Kasparov critical of Cold War attitudes when, at the present time, he doesn't seem able to escape them.

Here's a more precise citation if you wish to check the actual quote yourself.



That's pretty definitive.

Reflections on Garry Kasparov - E. Winter

Well not really, the PCA had other problems including a certain Mr Rice. In any event the idea that Olympic officials support Kirsan more then Gary is a myth and the article on his campaign site is very convincing.
You can chose to argue your own agenda but if you care about chess more then that you would see that making it an official Olympic sport would be a really big deal and it is something that Kirsan has not been able to deliver and never will under his watch. His reputation simply will not allow it to happen.
Normally I ignore your arguments as you sound like Putin's sycophant and it really gets boring after a while. As another poster so aptly put it you "pollute" every thread with your mindless rhetoric.