America want the World Title Match

[Geoff Chandler]

Been reading this:

The match will take place November 9-28 in London, but St. Louis is
rumored to be launching a bid to bring the match home, a move which
could include a prize pot far in excess of the $1 million being offered in London.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fabiano-ca ... 018-match/

Can they do this? I have holidays booked and a place to a stay.

[Roger de Coverly]

Can they do this?

Agon are plausibly short of money, so an offer might be made that they could not refuse. If they did refuse, FIDE might manage to find a pretext to strip them of the rights and pocket something for themselves.

Agon might be excluded from the organisation as a consequence, so the nonsense about owning the rights to reproduce the moves in text form would be dropped.

When did Kamsky become US? Was it before or after his largely forgotten match against Karpov in Elista?

(edit) He was US in Elista according to the Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/ ... tournament (/edit)

[Chris Goodall]

Oh, Missouri's biggest Trump fundraiser is going to make the chess world crawl at his feet again? Goody gumdrops. I'm sure that's a far more sustainable way of funding élite chess than monetising the spectator base.

[Paolo Casaschi]

Been reading this:

The match will take place November 9-28 in London, but St. Louis is
rumored to be launching a bid to bring the match home, a move which
could include a prize pot far in excess of the $1 million being offered in London.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fabiano-ca ... 018-match/

Can they do this? I have holidays booked and a place to a stay.

Let them have it. It just makes sense. They bought already the challenger; with a spare one for good measure; it only makes sense they buy the match organization as well; if we play our cards right we might be able to sell them the whole FIDE lot as well.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Does anyone think Carlsen could (or would) throw a spanner in the works? Presumably he would have to agree to this, or can his wishes be ignored if there is enough money involved? (I'd personally love to see the match in London and would go and watch, but am realistic enough to realise that things are likely to change if the key stakeholders all agree on different arrangements.)

[IM Jack Rudd]

Back in the old days, this match could never have been held in the USA. (At least, not in full; it would have been allowed to have half the match in the USA and the other half in Norway.)

[NickFaulks]

Presumably he would have to agree to this, or can his wishes be ignored if there is enough money involved?

I'm sure his wishes cannot be ignored, but doubt that he would be averse to a lot more money if offered.

[Roger de Coverly]

Back in the old days, this match could never have been held in the USA.

Matches between two players, Western by birth, were and in are still a rarity. That's defining "Western" as pre 1988 NATO. There was the Fischer-Larsen Candidates semi final which was held in Denver.

[Chris Goodall]

Presumably he would have to agree to this, or can his wishes be ignored if there is enough money involved?

What's he going to do? No way can Carlsen unilaterally pull out and retain the title. He's already cashed in his champion privilege by not playing in the Candidates tournament. The quid pro quo is, he plays in the title match. The worst thing that could happen to the WCC title right now is that Carlsen doubles his money by beating Caruana in St. Louis instead of in London, and then in 2 years time he says "again, please". If that pot of gold is conditional upon there being an American challenger for the title, that would be tantamount to choosing his opponent.

For the integrity of the game there must, must, must be a venue and purse in place before the identity of the challenger is known. Or we're back to the dark ages.

[NickFaulks]

For the integrity of the game there must, must, must be a venue and purse in place before the identity of the challenger is known.

Is that necessarily true? Suppose the challenger were decided in a semi-final match, as used to be the case, and each contender had a sponsor who would put up a generous prize fund for a match in which their player was participating but had no interest otherwise. Would it be so daft to allow each of them to make a provisional bid?

[Roger de Coverly]

For the integrity of the game there must, must, must be a venue and purse in place before the identity of the challenger is known. Or we're back to the dark ages.

You don't have to go that far back in time, only to 1993. When Short beat Tinman, that was when the bidders for the match came forward. Perhaps rightly so, as a British sponsor may not have been interested in a Dutch challenger and a Dutch sponsor in a British one. Before that, it was always Karpov v Kasparov for several cycles. Back in 1972, organisers needed Fischer's approval, else he wouldn't turn up.

Agon and FIDE have gone for the approach of expecting the potential financial supporters to bid blind. That may have been financially beneficial when the challenger turned out to be Gelfand, perhaps less so now it's Caruana.

[Chris Goodall]

For the integrity of the game there must, must, must be a venue and purse in place before the identity of the challenger is known.

Is that necessarily true? Suppose the challenger were decided in a semi-final match, as used to be the case, and each contender had a sponsor who would put up a generous prize fund for a match in which their player was participating but had no interest otherwise. Would it be so daft to allow each of them to make a provisional bid?

Yes. Because what happens when a player without a sponsor comes along? FIDE would then have to somehow arrange perfectly neutral conditions for that semi-final while having a financial interest in the outcome.

[NickFaulks]

Yes. Because what happens when a player without a sponsor comes along? FIDE would then have to somehow arrange perfectly neutral conditions for that semi-final while having a financial interest in the outcome.

I can of course see that point, but doubt that it would make much impression on the players who had to forego the extra money.

[Chris Goodall]

Yes. Because what happens when a player without a sponsor comes along? FIDE would then have to somehow arrange perfectly neutral conditions for that semi-final while having a financial interest in the outcome.

I can of course see that point, but doubt that it would make much impression on the players who had to forego the extra money.

So any time we have an English-speaking challenger, FIDE are stuffed. An English-speaking sponsor will come along and blow them out of the water.

[NickFaulks]

So any time we have an English-speaking challenger, FIDE are stuffed. An English-speaking sponsor will come along and blow them out of the water.

You've lost me. It would still be the FIDE World Championship.

By the way, the idea that the most generous chess sponsorship can be found in the English speaking world has not always been taken for granted.