3 responses to “Levitov on the collapse of the London match”

  1. For those of you who are willing to feast on the spiteful offal – the open letter ostensibly to Malcolm Pein – that FIDE has vomited up to what it perceives as its uniformly credulous public:

    … Check The Dates …

    Offers can be withdrawn at any time prior to acceptance. If London wanted out when Magnus withdrew, why do London and FIDE both acknowledge that an offer remained on the table for two months thereafter? All FIDE had to do was sign during that time and London would be contractually committed to a very large amount of money.

    Perhaps recognizing the gaping hole in FIDE’s story, Levitov accuses London reflecting its non-interest by negotiating onerous terms. First, anyone here risking their own money in a deal with FIDE would negotiate every possible way to protect himself, far more than one would do when dealing with a reputable counterparty. Second, and more importantly, London did not need a pretext if it really was not interested. It could have instead simply withdrawn the offer immediately. Levitov posits that that would have been “undignified,” but walking away from FIDE is never undignified; indeed the risks to dignity cut very much in the opposite direction. Third, if London really no longer wanted to host the event and was carrying on the negotiations as a pretext, the absolute last thing it would do is give FIDE advance notice of a deadline in which to accept. Rather, it would suddenly and unexpectedly pull the rug out from under ongoing negotiations.

    As usual, FIDE’s lies can’t be reconciled with the known facts.

    At the end of the day, of course, it is never surprising when reputable interests in the West don’t come to terms with the sleazeballs and nutcases at FIDE. It is equally not surprising that FIDE will always tell the chess public that this situation is never FIDE’s fault. Capitalizing on the opportunity to bring the chess championship to London in the year of the Olympics was a very worthy goal for FIDE. It would have done chess a lot of good. The bottom line is that, having been afforded years to make it happen, FIDE failed and, as usual when it does so, it is pointing fingers. FIDE’s open letter and Levitov’s related comments are a transparent deflection tactic to draw attention away from its failure.

  2. For me, the most stupid thing is this “host nominee”. For god’s sake, it’s not any other invitational, it’s the World Championship Candidates! you can’t simply choose by hand, “oh, that guy who barely stands at 2700 from my country is the nominee”…

  3. Incidentally, note that our fine editor tells us in his typically sober and understated way that, with respect to Magnus’s critique of world championship regulations, “[i]t’s worth pointing out that Carlsen’s opinion is strangely distorted” by Levitov. And indeed, Levitov’s recital reflects no understanding of Magnus’s opinion whatsoever.

    This make this subsequent exchange almost humorous:

    Question: “Did the Presidential Board take Carlsen’s opinion into account?”

    Levitov: “I voiced his opinion.”

Leave a Reply