Thirty years later – Makro tells it all

I've always liked the book “The Three Musketeers” and even more so the Soviet film based upon it. Among my favourite scenes is the game of chess between D’Artagnan and the all-powerful Cardinal Richelieu. A clash of styles and views on life seen through the prism of a game played with huge chivalric pieces. Without the character of the cardinal – mysterious and sinister – it’s unlikely the story would have become one of the most popular in history. Well, our chess kingdom also has just such a colourful figure. In many ways Georgios Makropoulos has even managed to surpass his famous predecessor: if the Frenchman was appointed Secretary of State at the age of 31, then our hero joined the hierarchy of power at 29; Armand Jean du Plessis retained his post right up until his death at 57, but at 58 Georgios continues to occupy the commanding heights. At a certain point even the location of our encounter – the Radisson, formerly the Kievskaya, Hotel, struck me as a huge Catholic church…
Three Versions

Vladislav Tkachiev: Georgios, in a recent interview for our site Kramnik made serious accusations against the Appeals Committee in Elista in 2006. What can you say in response?

Georgios Makropoulos: Ok, I’ll tell you how I understand what went on back then. Perhaps after that you’ll have a better understanding of the situation that arose. Above all, it was a match between a Russian and a Bulgarian in Russia. FIDE, of course, did all it could to demonstrate its impartiality and that it wasn’t playing into the hands of Kramnik. Can you imagine what would have happened if everyone around the world had begun to believe that everything went wrong because Kirsan, a Russian citizen, had succumbed to pressure from the authorities and aided Kramnik? Vladimir’s overly frequent visits to the toilet became the grounds for complaints from the Topalov camp. All of that’s perfectly well-known – there are video recording of all the games and the number of visits to the toilet was very high.

Many chess players do that after every move.

After every one?

Yes.

I don’t know anyone like that. I was a player myself and might have gone 2-3 times, but not 15 or 20.

But after all you realise it was a World Championship match, nerves, stress…

I don’t know anyone who would have done that so often. That was the problem which created the whole conflict. So after receiving the protest from Danailov I discussed it with Carsten Hensel [Kramnik’s manager at the time - ed.], and he gave me a very improper explanation. Two years later, before the Anand match, he gave me yet another version. So, first he said that Kramnik needed space to walk about. I have to say that such an explanation was completely unsatisfactory – if he needed more space then why go into the toilet? Of course it’s well-known that Zurab’s a friend of Danailov’s. Silvio was Azmaiparashvili’s commercial agent in Spain, but in any case he couldn’t have convinced the Appeals Committee to take an incorrect decision. By the way, I still think we did everything correctly. Topalov felt there was something wrong with the toilets, and we decided to close those in the rest rooms and open another one – a joint one, with three cabins.

But after all, what was wrong with the toilets in the rest rooms?

No-one could know for definite what the players were doing there. That night I phoned Ilyumzhinov and explained the situation with the complaints, to which he immediately responded: “Close the toilets!” So it wasn’t even our decision, it was Kirsan’s. I later talked about that at a press conference but, by the way, my statements disappeared from all the websites.

You mean there was some sort of conspiracy?

Some people didn’t particularly want that to be published. It was only later, much later, that ChessBase nevertheless published what I’d said after the protests and complaints.

And would you say it’s admissible to change the playing conditions after the start of the match?

According to the regulations the Appeals Committee had to ensure equal conditions for both players.

And they weren’t equal?

They were. But as soon as one of the players expressed his suspicions, and we couldn’t prove the opposite, it was decided to change the toilets. It shouldn’t be forgotten that the match was held in Russia, the country of one of the participants. It wasn’t a change of clocks, pieces or chairs and it didn’t alter the playing conditions. Among other things, according to the contract and regulations we weren’t obliged to provide toilets within the rest rooms. I understand Kramnik, he’s a very sensitive guy and took our decision as an insult: if we were closing the toilets it meant we were confirming to the whole world that something was up. Vladimir’s reaction at that moment was inappropriate.

Why?

He shouldn’t have boycotted play. He could have submitted a protest, but it was still essential to appear for the game. And then there was all that debate about the letter Kirsan sent to the arbiter…

Kramnik claims Ilyumzhinov didn’t sign it as at the time he was at a government meeting.

I don’t know how the letter was drawn up, I really don’t. Perhaps FIDE did put some kind of stamp there, but in any case the letter was sent by Kirsan or, let’s say, by his “soldier”. Kramnik’s reaction was excessive, although perhaps at the end of the day it actually helped him, as I don’t think Topalov was glad to receive a point in that manner. Do you remember what happened during the Fischer-Spassky match?

Yes.

You give your opponent a point and how can he play after that? That’s happened twice in history, and the “recipient” has gone on to lose both matches.

But Spassky lost the match by a big margin, while Topalov lost in the tiebreak, and the point was very important for him.

Ok, but don’t forget that at the time Topalov was one of the best three players in the world alongside Kramnik and Anand, and had beaten everyone easily in San Luis. I don’t think it was simple for him to win a game like that. But let’s return to our discussion. In Mexico I had a conversation with Carsten, and he told me that the real reason was that his charge had certain health problems. That was explanation no. 2. He also added back then: “Look, I should tell you that we know you weren’t involved in any conspiracy in Elista”. So after two years during which they’d said a lot of things against me, they’d come to the conclusion that I had nothing to do with any intrigue. He also expressed their wish for me to be the official FIDE Supervisor for the match in Bonn against Anand [the Supervisor’s decisions are final and must be complied with even by the Appeals Committee - ed.]. We’d created that post especially in order to guarantee equal conditions for the players. Anand was also happy with my candidature. In Bonn, by the way, Carsten gave me a third explanation: Kramnik’s frequent visits to the toilet were provoked by a desire to smoke.
He didn’t want to end up on video. He didn’t want his wife to see him smoking.

But how could she see that?

Others could see it and tell her. He didn’t know if the video would remain secret or not. After the match it might all have been published. In any case, that was the explanation. You know, I was a heavy smoker myself until my last operation, and that explanation was perfectly logical for me, and I accept it. “I want to smoke and I don’t want anyone to see”.

Particularly if you’re smoking marihuana :-))

Not marihuana, no. Let’s be serious. Of the three explanations that one satisfies me. I’ve stated many times that I don’t believe Kramnik cheated.

That’s obvious from the game scores in any case.

No, listen. The match was in Russia, the Bulgarian side had suspicions, and we were obliged to react. It’s the same as the case with the French grandmaster Feller. We took all the precautions we could so that there weren’t any complaints or pretensions. At the same time, we never claimed that cheating took place. And in general, if Anand thought I had special relations with Silvio he wouldn’t have proposed me in the role of FIDE Supervisor for the match in Sofia. Do you understand me? By the way, in Sofia I had a real fight with the organisers. Anand was going to be late and he wanted to postpone the match for three days. That didn’t suit the organisers and as a result I took the decision to delay the match by a day. After that Danailov didn’t talk to me for the whole course of the match.

Ok, but there’s still one detail I haven’t understood: how did Danailov know that Kramnik didn’t just go to the rest room but also to the toilet?

He asked the organisers for the video footage.

Ah, that’s something Vladimir has accused the Appeals Committee of. Did he really have the right…

He can’t accuse the Appeals Committee of that as the video footage was in the hands of the organisers, and from the very beginning they agreed that it could be watched.

They – the players?

Danailov arranged with the organisers that both teams could see the opponent’s video.

Kramnik claims that according to the regulations only the arbiter had that right.

No, that’s not true. Just imagine: you’re playing in my country against me, the best player in my country, and we both have separate rest rooms. You’d want to know, after all, what was going on in there, don’t you think?

An awkward situation, but what about privacy?

Privacy of what? There can’t be any privacy in a World Championship match. I’m convinced it’s a situation where there shouldn’t be rest rooms.

And there aren’t any longer?

There haven’t been since the match in Bonn. They still had them there, Carsten insisted on it, but in Sofia that was no longer the case. The spectators want to see the players on the stage, not two empty chairs. We want to show the spectators and sponsors that chess is a sport.

Then my question is as follows: during that match I talked a lot with my colleagues – overall, opinions were in Kramnik’s favour. The clear majority felt that what was going on was an attempt by Topalov’s team to put pressure on his opponent in a situation where the score was minus two after four games. What do you think yourself?

Perhaps. I can’t be sure, but I think that if Topalov had doubts he shouldn’t have informed Danailov about them, because after that he was no longer in a condition to play. As a result, Silvio became more convinced that something was wrong. They broke open the ceiling in the toilet and found some sort of cable. After the match he was still claiming it was a computer cable or something like that. I said: “Look, that’s enough. If you really think that you found what you were looking for then you should simply have left.”

What do you mean? In that case the match would have been considered lost.

If they’d found something they should have left.

But they didn’t find anything.

I know. But he claimed he’d done that, although it’s clear the proof wasn’t convincing, which was why they stayed.

That’s just what I was talking about – it was done to apply psychological pressure.

Perhaps, but I don’t think he’d planned it before the match. I don’t think he’s that clever. Of course, he’s not stupid, but he’s not clever enough to plan something like that before the match. That would be too subtle for him.

And do you agree with Kramnik that Topalov’s team was trying to interrupt the match in Elista at all costs, counting on another one, in Baku?

I think Danailov was trying to stop the match, receive money for it and play another match against Kramnik.

And the second match would also be paid?

Of course.

And you believe that?

Yes, I’m almost convinced that was the plan at that point.

Because of the 0-2 on the scoreboard?

Because of the 0-2, because of fears that something had gone wrong… In general, I believe that was the plan.

What do you think overall, does chess need such scandals or not? When it came down to it that match was very widely covered in the media at some point, and that was the only reason. Danailov himself said something like: “There’s no such thing as bad publicity”.

Yes, of course we didn’t expect such a wave of publicity. It was great promotion, but I’m not sure we need such notoriety. You know, unfortunately, that journalists, particularly those working on the Internet, never follow certain principles of the profession.

Which?

One of them is that you should never publish material denigrating someone without first finding out his opinion on that score. Things are a little different with newspapers: they phone and say: “We’re about to publish an article. Would you like to make a statement?” On the Internet it doesn’t work like that. The problem is that hundreds of thousands of people read something negative about you, and then you can reply, but your statement will be read by far from everyone, and people will retain their negative opinion about you. That’s particularly common in chess as, let’s put it like this, it’s boring for the wider public. Therefore among chess journalists there are always people willing to write about scandals and make accusations about players and officials.

Are you also talking about yourself?

es, about myself as well. You subsequently respond, but it’s already too late. For example, they wrote that Makro had stolen or lost a million dollars in Las Vegas in 1999 before the knockout World Championship. I replied: “That’s a complete lie! I wasn’t even in Las Vegas at the time! And of course Kirsan didn’t send the money there until the start of the tournament, so there was no way I could have done it”. And what of it? Of the hundred thousand people who read those accusations about me probably only twenty thousand read my reply. But eighty thousand still believe I lost one million dollars in the casino!

Yes, many people do think exactly that.

You see what I mean? How can you fight against that? I think our journalists should be better educated. We should be more responsible for what’s written. I could also accuse someone, but if you don’t have any facts and you don’t ask the other party for his opinion then simply don’t publish it.
The "Chess" Corporation

What, in your view, is the main problem facing the chess industry at the current moment in time?

Our main problem, whether within FIDE or the national federations, is that we can’t attract corporate sponsors. How many federations around the world support their best players?

Almost none of them.

Almost none, you see? Even the eight strongest players, the ones from whom you choose your national line-up, don’t have any kind of social security. They play, compete, give everything they can over many years, and then at the age of 55-60 they’re left without a pension and struggling to survive.

And why did the GMA and PCA succeed?

What did they succeed in doing?

Finding corporate sponsors. The GMA had SWIFT, while the PCA had Intel.

If they’d succeeded then they’d have continued to exist. We’re the ones who managed to survive. What we’re really good at is working with government, municipal and regional sponsors. In any case, during the Campomanes period and afterwards we’ve been very strong in that area, but finding corporate sponsors has turned out to be impossible. The one who actually managed that with the GMA and PCA was Kasparov.

And why did he manage it?

Just a moment. Who was the main sponsor? – SWIFT. Ok, Bessel Kok, who was a friend of Garry’s and the chairman of that company found the money, but that’s not enough to say that he managed. Subsequently Mr. Kok tried to become FIDE President and promised corporate sponsorship. After he lost the election Kirsan offered him the post of President of Global Chess with an initial investment of 2.1 million Euro in order to attract corporate sponsorship for FIDE. How much money did he find?

Zero?

Zero. He just spent Kirsan’s 2.1 million Euro… In order to achieve success in this matter you need unity between the players and FIDE. Now, for the first time, we’ve found someone who’s not from the chess world – David Kaplan, who’s spent a lot of money on chess. If things don’t work out for him with finding sponsors then I think the situation’s bad. After all, you know that things are getting worse and worse worldwide for all sports, not only chess.

Things don’t strike me as being so bleak in football.

What I’d say to you is this: if so many Russian oligarchs hadn’t bought English clubs then you could be sure that many of those premier league teams wouldn’t have survived.

Yes, but if they buy them that means…

But what’s football? It’s the leading sport from the point of view of television and sponsor interest. Now, due to the crisis, the sponsors are redirecting their promotional budgets into direct advertising on television and in the print media, and they’re less and less interested in sponsoring sporting and cultural events. That’s the current position.

It’s hard, though, to compare our position to that of football, volleyball or tennis – we’re “playing in different leagues”.

We’ve never played in the same league, but what I want to say is that now everyone’s suffering big losses. For example, 7-8 years ago Russian basketball had a great deal of money, but that’s come to an end. Why? For the very same reason I mentioned before.

Well yes, we don’t even provide any kind of interesting product. There are empty halls everywhere – whether in Khanty-Mansiysk or in Sofia.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7654