October 2006 Archives

Okay, this one is even cuter than the cutest ninja ever and junior with Junior. Halloween Tiny Ninja!

When he's not in disguise he's my 20-month-old nephew Roman, up from his home in the Bahamas for some very important trick-or-treating in California. I swear if this child gets any cuter he'll go supernova.

Zhao Xue, giving up a few hundred rating points to Sergey Karjakin, nevertheless took him to blitz tiebreaks in their quarterfinal match. The girl's got game. Radjabov stuffed Bacrot in their first game and then held against Bacrot's eventual breakthrough in an epic blocked position game. A rare negative example of increment time controls. Bacrot's pawns looked good for the piece but he didn't follow up well and eventually lost. Tomorrow we have Carlsen-Fressinet and Volokitin-Harikrishna.

Update: Carlsen smoked Fressinet like a fine, umm, French cigar. It's Carlsen-Karjakin in the first semifinal on Wednesday! The sweet final move of the first game, 27.Qf5!, is coming soon to a tactics quiz near you.

ChessBase has posted the latest attempt to reduce chess to the level of computers. Two Slovenians have produced epic statistics in order to answer "who was the strongest player ever?" (Full original paper in PDF here.) While many of the stats and how they were generated are interesting, and occasionally revealing, it doesn't have a great deal to do with answering that question. It's actually quite a bit more interesting than I thought it was going to be at the start, although there are a few key failings. Not of methodology, just the limitations of computers and statistics analyzing a human game. I was hoping to have time to put together something comprehensive before posting about it, but it's a busy week already. I'll post an article on ChessBase in a day or two when I have time to finish my own in-depth analysis statistics package...

Meanwhile, what this survey does provide information on is which players preferred tactical complexity. Of course the more aggressively and tactically you play the more mistakes you are going to make. Also "mistakes" according to the computer. Lasker, Tal, Alekhine, and to a lesser extent Kasparov, all believed that putting their opponents under pressure was worth at least a pawn and they backed this up consistently. The authors attempt to correct for complexity and style by seeing which players were the most accurate in complex positions (as judged by computer) and that's a fair try. But you can't correct for style and the psychological pressure of facing a Tal sacrifice. But in this survey, results don't matter, and that's saying a lot.

The tempting complexity analysis is actually a sort of trap. It's not just reaching complex positions or how computer-accurately you play when you get them. It's what you want to do when you get there. Some players want to increase the complexity, to increase the dynamic elements and risk and attack. Others are more prone to wanting to keep things under control, to exchange material and/or limit the range of possible mistakes (for both sides). So while it comes only as confirmation that Capablanca was a player of phenomenal accuracy, it also confirms he much preferred clear positions where his positional mastery and technique could win without risking loss. It's also obvious which type of player is going to score better with the computer.

I suppose this is all just a way of saying players play to their strengths and a computer can't help much there. Tal wasn't inaccurate, Tal was Tal. He did what gave him the best chances to win and Capa did the same. Players of world championship level are intimately acquainted with their strengths and weaknesses (Kramnik's flirtation with e4 notwithstanding, although that coincided with the worst of his health issues). This is why results always matter.

I'm sure there were many contemporary players who would score better on this exam than Lasker, Tal and probably even Kasparov (who was tactical but not really a speculative player). It would be an interesting control group to take the three or four top non-champs around each champ and see how they stack up. Andersson and Karpov, for example, or Korchnoi. I don't doubt we could come up with two or three players from each era who would come out ahead of the champions. This seems like an essential element of scientific method since comparing across era is notoriously tricky, as the authors admit. So, who will it be? Nominate at least one "accurate" non-champ to be compared to the champ of his era. Jussupow for Kasparov? Schlechter for Lasker?

Of course quality of moves is also critical, although as long as it's the same evaluation across the board it's a little beside the point. But the assumption that a program (Crafty, Rybka, any) spending a few seconds on each move is at the level of world champion play is dangerous and degrading. Many simply assume that computer=God and any deviance from the computer suggestion is de facto error. A scary thought. The authors actually didn't use time per move, but a fixed search depth. This is "objective" but horrific in terms of quality. It's like evaluating the value of money based on the number of colors in the bill.

As a footnote, the abused Steinitz played in the romantic era for most of his life and of course his games aren't going to stand up well in the blundercheck. If they only used his games from, say, 1886 onward he would be back in the pack, if still at the bottom. Chess quality is a shoulders of giants situation and has also benefited from decades of increasing professionalization. 70 years ago only a handful of players were working on chess full time. Now you have the entire field of Cap d'Agde studying seven hours a day as teenagers. That said, it's not as if the middlegame transition to endgame and endgame play of Rubinstein and Capablanca is going to be surpassed. Aspects of chess are practically finite and therefore room for improvement in those aspects is finite.

In case you missed this Dutch television report on Essent linked at the bottom of the final ChessBase report, check it out. Make sure the sound is on. Our thanks to Stopwatch Danailov for this ongoing humiliation.

The official Cap site didn't update all the results of the final round of the group stage but the Europe Echecs site has it all, including the tiebreaks and who goes forward and who goes home. Karpov recovered from an embarrassing start and showed some competitive fire to finish with 3.5/7 and squeak into the playoff in Group B for the third and fourth of the four spots. In what is clearly an anti-Karpov conspiracy, the French sites show Karpov losing both his final games instead of winning them, but the PGN is correct. But it was Zhao Xue who continued her excellent run, qualifying with Bacrot ahead of Karpov and Koneru. They join Volokitin and Carlsen out of Group B.

It was a rather miserable affair for Karpov, who has won this event multiple times, but it's time to give the 55-year-old a break and stop celebrating these "upsets" and just be happy when we get flashes of brilliance. It's hard to believe he recently shared first with Kasparov over Polgar and Korchnoi in blitz and then got dusted by Koneru and Zhao Xue, but getting old ain't for sissies, as the saying goes.

Group A averted playoffs when Sebag held off Stefanova in B+R vs R. It's not fair to analyze these things when they're on 10 second increment, which was probably responsible for both sides blundering late after excellent technical defense by Sebag. She lost the 3rd rank defense but the former women's world champion from Bulgaria missed her chance in turn and it finished in a 123-move draw. Heavy favorites Karjakin, Radjabov, Fressinet, and Harikrishna move on.

The quarterfinal matches should be fun. Karjakin is the heavy favorite over Zhao Xue. Then it's Carlsen-Fressinet, Radjabov-Bacrot, and Volokitin-Harikrishna. Fressinet is the old man of the group at 25. Live quarterfinal action should be here at 14:30 local time. That's 8:30 EST. They don't play the matches at the same time, so it's eight hours of broadcast over two days. There are a lot of nice little interviews in French with the players all over the site. Also some good video clips, but even those in English are dubbed over, so get your Fronch on. (Lucky for me I've been practicing to keep up with my barely speaking, but bilingual, nephew.) Almost all these youngsters say they work 6-7 hours a day on chess and want to become world champion. 13-year-old Negi of India, the youngest player and the current youngest GM in the world, is a little more circumspect and says he's not thinking of such titles just yet.

For a while today it looked like we were on our way to an amazing crosstable in Essent. Sokolov was winning-ish in the endgame against Mamedyarov with a bishop and outside pawns. Topalov was better against Polgar after she missed the best defense against his sacrificial attack. (Kasparov suggests 28..Qc6 as coming close to sealing the deal for Black. Later he gives 38.Qf4 as very strong for Topalov.) With those results it would have left Polgar, Topalov, and Mamedyarov all on +1 (and Sokolov on -3), which would have made the weird crosstable hall of fame along with Linares 2001. (Kasparov +5, everyone else -1. Other candidates?). Especially since there were only two draws in the entire tournament and Topalov started out at -2 while Polgar and Mamedyarov went 2/2.

But it was not to be, and how not to be it was. Sokolov somehow managed to lose the endgame while Topalov's attacking chances faded away and he missed a computer draw with the pretty 43.Rg7+ Kh8 44.Qe7! Qd1+ 45.Kg2 Qf3+ 46.Kh2 Qxf2+ 47.Rg2 with a miracle save. Polgar played an iron king walk across the board to safety and found several very precise moves to take the full point. That flipped things back to the way they were at the top at the start, with Mamedyarov and Polgar tied for first place. They both finished with +3, Mamedyarov edging her on formula tiebreaks. Topalov dropped back to -1 and will lose another pile of rating points. (I believe he's at around 2790 now.) Sokolov, well, the less said about his half point the better. Ouch.

Topalov clearly had a major Elista hangover and he also ran into a hungry Mamedyarov and Polgar, who is one of the last people on earth you want to face in sharp play when you aren't on form, or when you are. Photos and video clips at the Doggers blog. This entry with some jokes from Danailov.

ChessBase has posted the de Volkskrant interview with Topalov many people here have been talking about in the comments for a few days. There is some whining, but the main point is true: his original protest was not unreasonable and it wasn't his fault that the appeals committee locked the bathrooms and that this in turn caused Kramnik to sit out game five. Public opinion on this really turned against him more from the accusatory tone of the protest, it being delivered in public, and how it was followed up by further accusations of computer assistance (Danailov's famous Fritz statistics). Topalov is not backing down on the assistance talk.

The most shocking thing about that isn't the computer doubts but that Danailov isn't with them in the nightclub dream. Of course it's obvious that if you have it in your head that your opponent might be cheating it's going to wreck your game. Taking everything Topalov says as gospel truth instead of provocation and/or whinging, he psyched himself out by worrying about it. All that said, his public reputation has been ruined for the foreseeable future. There should definitely be rules in place to keep players on the stage. In a mental sport, the perceived possibility of cheating can do a lot of damage to the players. If you want to spend time in a rest area buy a mobile home and hit the highway. Not just because of the cheating angle. It's bizarre to have players wandering around out of sight of the public. You don't spend money on webcams and the massive bandwidth to support them to see shots of an empty stage.

Starting soon in Hoogeveen, Netherlands. Live here. It's Polgar-Mamedyarov and Sokolov-Topalov. Polgar leads Mamedyarov by a full point with two games to play including today's. A draw for her today by no means locks things up since she has black against Topalov tomorrow while Mamedyarov will have White against Sokolov.

Update: Mamedyarov uses some nice prep (assumed) in the Lopez to encourage a Polgar piece sacrifice and win with black to again join her in the lead. Both have 3.5/5. Mamedyarov was an hour ahead on the clock very early on. Topalov brought out his old love, and everyone's favorite "must win with black against d4" defense, the Benoni, against Sokolov. He got the messy fight he wanted and looks to have a solid plus.

Topalov follows through and beats Sokolov. Very nice game, a good example of Topalov on a tear. He's back to an even score and can salvage a decent result if he beats Polgar tomorrow with white in the final round. That would still require the demoralized Sokolov (.5/5) to beat Mamedyarov with white to create a bizarre ménage à trois tie for first at +1.

This traditional French rapid festival starts today. There main event is a 16 player affair that is broken into two groups of eight for all-play-all prelims. The top four then match up with the top four from the other group in two-game elimination matches. Time control in all games is 25'+10". Blitz tiebreaks are used in both the group and elimination phases. The official site has a live games page I haven't had much success with so far. Radjabov and Harikrishna won their first games. R1 results are appearing here.

The three teen wonders are in action. Radjabov, Carlsen, and Karjakin. The field also includes Bacrot, Harikrishna, Volokitin, and the latest Indian wonderboy, Parimarjan Negi. Did I forget to mention Cap regular Anatoly Karpov? There are also six female invitees, including Kosteniuk and Koneru, although it will be an upset if any of them make it to the knock-out phase. My ear-pulling pal Almira Skripchenko is one of them, however, so root for an upset.

Just a note for those of you following Essent today. Update later. At the half, Polgar and Mamedyarov lead with 2.5/3 while Topalov and Sokolov are in the cellar with 0.5/3. Can Topalov mount another of his amazing comebacks? Even if he wins all three games in the second half he'd need some luck to get a share of first. He has white against Mamedyarov in today's fourth round. This Dutch blog has some video and photos.

Update: Two more decisive games today. Polgar wins again, dusting off Sokolov with black in a trademark Polgar out-of-nowhere kingside attack. Kasparov: "Hard to believe Black could generate an attack on the king in that position. ..Re5, ..Rg5, you have to admire the aggression." The funny looking 17..c4 is definitely a star move, slowing White's development at the eventual cost of a pawn. Difficult move.

Topalov notched his first win by beating Mamedyarov in a powerful effort. He grabbed a pawn and held on, squelching all attempts at counterplay to reach a winning bind. If you are analyzing with a computer you might miss why Mamedyarov was sure he had a perpetual check at the end. 50..Ng7+ looks like the refutation of 50.Kh5, but 51.Qxg7+! Kxg7 52.Bh6+ Kg8 53.Rd8 is mate! Spectacular.

Polgar now leads Mamedyarov by a full point with an impressive 3.5/4 score. She has white against him tomorrow and black against Topalov in the final round.

The always amazing Corus supertournament in Wijk aan Zee has released its 2007 field. Six of the top ten are there, including the top four: Topalov, Anand, Kramnik, and Svidler. Then come Morozevich, Aronian, Radjabov, Shirov, Ponomariov, Carlsen, Tiviakov, van Wely, Karjakin, and Motylev. It should be an amazing show. Topalov and Anand are the big favorites; they tied for first with excellent 9/13 scores in the last event, a full 1.5 ahead of Adams and Ivanchuk. The tournament runs January 12-28.

Of course everyone will be watching the Topalov-Kramnik game, but the presence of the world's top three junior stars will add the most spice. Which of the trio will finish with a plus score? Karjakin made +1 last year by beating up the tailenders. Nice to see Moro and Shirov there this year.

ChessBase has a brief interview with FIDE president Kirsan Ilyumzhinov by Misha Savinov. In it he reaffirms some of the current points of contention in the chess world concerning the recently finished unification match between Kramnik and Topalov. He says the "crown has returned home" and that, while it always really belonged to FIDE, the schism is over and that "The crown is on a shelf of our safe, well-locked, and we will never give it away to any person. It is the property of FIDE, a public property."

Well, one thing about public property is that it belongs to the public. If FIDE begins to abuse the title again no one will have to steal it from that safe, it will leave on its own volition. You have to treat your title like you treat your woman – with love, respect, and, umm, no smacking her around with rapid time controls and KO events. (And before this ignites another Mexico 07 flamefest, honoring contracts with players and sponsors is an essential part of that respect requirement. Those who decry FIDE vacillation and instability when they change rules and break contracts but now want them to do just that in order to get what they want are hypocrites.) The interview continues.

Note that this time it says "candidates matches" and not tournament. Right, just as planned. And these monkeys planned to fly out of my butt. The candidates matches were planned for this month. They planned to have sponsorship. They planned to finish this cycle with a match, not a tournament. FIDE is to plans what a crocodile is to a nest of baby ducks.

There is a very long interview with Ilyumzhinov in the latest New In Chess, which arrived at my house yesterday. It takes place right after they decided to play game six in Elista. (NIC pushed their deadline until they were sure the match was going to continue.) Apart from the now-usual over-emphasis on his tales of dreams and aliens there is the more serious delusion about chess on TV requiring fast time controls. Our model isn't action sports like football or tennis, it's poker and, less so, golf. These employ a huge amount of post-production or live cuts to keep it interesting to the viewer. If you boil a two-week chess event into two hours of television with key reaction moments and loads of commentary and interview material it's going to be interesting to the casual viewer. Chess has no future on live TV and with good reason, the same reason there is little or no live coverage in the hundreds of hours of poker on TV each month. When the Kasparov-Fritz match was live on ESPN it was with regular cuts and even with all the commentators it was often dull because you just don't know when they are going to move or if the game is going to be interesting at all. Chop it into the interesting bits and you have something.

Well that started off with a bang, didn't it? Two decisive games in the first round of the Essent Crown Group. Round 2 is underway. [Update: Polgar beat Topalov in a wild one and Mamedyarov beat Sokolov. So it's 2/2, 2/2, 0/2, 0/2!] Mamedyarov beat Topalov in round one in an excellent game. The CPU Crew was fast to point out Black had a forced draw with 35..Rxc8 36.Rxc8 Rxd6! 37.exd6 Qd2! with an unavoidable reptition. But the GM Crew retorts that it's a very computerized line to find and that there is little doubt Topalov missed it and wasn't just playing for a win with 35..Nf4, which lost.

Sokolov lost to Polgar in a tense game. She must have been worse with a buried bishop but the Dutchman failed to keep the clamps on her passed pawn and he eventually even blundered and lost. An ironic finish with the still-trapped bishop making the last move of the game to provide an escape route for the white king.

Getting back to the Topalov game, computers find forced lines so easily that unless you analyze FIRST without an engine on you lose your ability to appreciate what is hard and what is easy. I think it was Linares this year when I was kibitzing Vallejo's win over Topalov at Playchess.com. The Spaniard was winning but the position was still dangerous for him with his king in the open. My suggestion was just to walk the king away and then worry about finding the win. I was bombarded with people telling me that Black had a forced tactical win with a nifty knight trick I'd missed. Okay, nifty. After nearly 15 minutes, Vallejo played the inferior move I'd suggested, walking his king out of danger and needing another 15 moves to win. (I think it was ..Kc7 instead of ..e3.) Later Vallejo said he'd simply missed the pawn advance with threatened knight fork. An error, sure, but a very human one.

So in Mamedyarov-Topalov the computer is saying 0.00 for days and you have hundreds of spectators saying the position is equal! Equal!? Black was in terrible shape and Mamedyarov played an excellent game. That there was a amazing escape available doesn't mean it was equal as humans define it. But once the computer shows you ..Qd2 it's hard to get it out of your head and see the position objectively as a very difficult one. I'm not up for an old fogey rant about kids today and back in the good old days, but computer engines have distorted fan comprehension of the difficulty of the game. It also happens to very strong players, btw. Kasparov, the leading proponent of computer chess in myriad forms, always warned against letting the machine demoralize you. In these pages Jennifer Shahade warned against the addictive nature of analyzing with Fritz running. You can't keep your eyes off it!

Engines are to a degree a democratizing force, giving amateurs the feeling of understanding a GM game, or at least thinking they are understanding it because the see an eval that they believe shows who is winning. But with 0.00 from a tricky repetition requiring a sacrifice the same as 0.00 in an endgame with a rook pawn and wrong bishop, the programmers have a long way to go in making the game more readily understandable even as a sporting contest. It would be interesting to see a "subjective eval" that could measure sharpness and winning chances. I.e. which side has the higher chances for the worst outcomes. (You can sort of do this by looking at multiple lines at the same time.) As it stands, if one side has to make 12 difficult only moves to survive a brutal attack and come out material ahead, the comp simply shows the defender as winning -- and having made a horrible blunder when he misses one of those only moves.

Chess is also a science and you can't really argue with the "??" when it comes in that situation; a losing move is a losing move. But I'll take this game as another opportunity to rehash and to recommend spending some time analyzing with the engine off, especially while watching online. Many say GM analysis isn't always available and engines are better than nothing, but I disagree. At the very least spend some time looking on your own after each move and only then turn the engine on to answer your questions and try out your ideas.

This annual double quad begins on Sunday. Topalov, Mamedyarov, J Polgar, I Sokolov play. The world junior champ from Azerbaijan is actually higher rated than Polgar, and this easily makes for the strongest Essent event ever. Sokolov won the event outright in 2004 but is the rating underdog here. Of course all eyes will be on Topalov, playing just a week after losing the title match. He begins with black against Mamedyarov and it will be interesting to see if the other players press the world #1. I would recommend against the Slav...

This is Judit's first serious chess since her last trip up river to spawn so that's something else to watch. I believe it's her first classical tournament since San Luis a year ago. Is she going to try and come back to the top ten or coast? Super-GM prep with tots roaming and wriggling around can't be easy. I know lots of male GMs also have little kids but I seriously doubt they spend as much time with them. And I know they don't do much housework or breast feed. On that high note I'll add that there's a big Essent open running alongside the Crown event. Gurevich and Cheparinov are the top seeds.

I heard this go by on CNN International's business show the other day and several people have sent in news items. Corus, the Anglo-Dutch steel company that sponsors the annual Wijk aan Zee tournament, looks likely to be bought by the Indian steel company Tata. Such a merger would mean a giant company, but they're always looking to cut costs... Corus kept the great Wijk aan Zee supertournament when British Steel merged with the Dutch company Hoogovens to form Corus in 1999. Let's hope that tradition continues. The reports say a Brazilian company might be preparing a rival bid.

The next Wijk tournament, in January as always, again looks set to include most of the top ten. Topalov and Anand have already confirmed. Aronian and Carlsen will also be there.

The comments here are full of mostly Russian news interviews with Ilyumzhinov, Kramnik, Topalov, and Danailov. There is an apparent redundancy in this list because in one of the interviews Danailov insists that he and Topalov are the same person. Time to go out and rent All of Me. "Back in bowl? Back in bowl!" Topalov doesn't need a a new manager, he needs an exorcist. Thanks to Yuriy Kleyner, Russianbear, and Vlad Kosulin for their translation esprit de corps. Note that while the veselingtopalov.net site has been speedy and useful in getting info from the Topalov team and also in putting up interview translations, our own wholesome band of translators have pointed out various errors of both omission and invention in their translations, errors that always seem to come out as negative toward Kramnik and/or in favor of Topalov. So thanks to them for their efforts, but caveat lector.

My winners for funniest, most predictable, most tragic, and other selected money quotes follow.

Lordy. It's alarming that many, including Kramnik, think it would be a good idea to make this the first item on the agenda after this fresh start: "(1) Screw over a scheduled and lucrative event and its sponsor." Sorry guys, I love matches but if we're actually going to build a pro sport here we can't shaft Mexico just for fun. It's exactly the sort of thing that scares sponsors away from chess. They've already been shivved by FIDE having this unification match (and threatening to have another with Radjabov). Consistency and transparency are prerequisites; we cannot fudge on these essentials to spat about format. If Kramnik didn't want to play there he shouldn't have played in Elista. After 13 years of schism and chaos, having a well-funded championship tournament is hardly the end of the world. It's not as if Brissago was utopian. Let's get our legs under us, prove to sponsors we have our heads on straight and have some order, and then let's see if we can sell a big match with a big democratic cycle. Between Kramnik's statements and FIDE's history of fouling things up, this is a huge challenge. (We've been discussing this to death in recent threads. Check them out before serving up the reheated rehash here.)

Predictable but sad to see Topalov's remarks about the title vs rating. If you win tournaments, matches don't matter, if you win matches, tournaments don't matter. If you have a title, rating doesn't matter. If you have rating, titles don't matter. If you win matches, tournaments, and have rating and title, you're Kasparov. Topalov had 3/4 for a year. It would have been nice to hear him say how much the title meant to him and how badly he wants to get it back in a fair fight. It would also be nice to have world peace and a hot fudge sundae. It's preposterous Topalov won't be playing in Mexico. I'd say enlarge the field but that punishes the other players. Even if Kramnik plays we have the annoying situation of the #1 not participating. Worst case is ending up with two shadow champions. Regarding Topalov's comment that Kramnik is contractually obligated to play in Mexico, isn't it possible their contracts aren't exactly the same?

Elsewhere, people are saying Ilyumzhinov used the phrase "candidates tournament" to describe the April event instead of matches. I'm not sure if he was being generic or if it's actually been decided to have a 16-player round robin instead of two sets of six-game matches that would take less time, be more exciting, and, bonus item, fulfill the friggin' regulations. (Apart from the six month delay...) As candidate Kamsky pointed out, they've already reduced the prizes to below what players who finished below the candidates made in Khanty Mansiysk.

Just about all of these are translated in full or in part in the comments link above. The Russian originals:
Kramnik in Sport Express. Topalov in Sport Express. Danailov in Sport Report. Kramnik in 64.

Update including some salient comments from another veteran, Mark Crowther of TWIC, taken from the comments.

We have a number of players who have contracts to play for the world title in Mexico City or to play a challengers series to get there yet apparently it isn't cast iron that the champion has to be there. What kind of unification is this?

Another San Luis style tournament (precedent 1948 by the way) would be OK by me, a match would be OK also. But just to cancel things from under the other players seems to me to be grossly unfair. They've been mucked about enough over the last decade or so.

The Ilyumzhinov interview makes it sound perfectly clear that Kramnik is obliged to play and that Topalov is out, period. He didn't waffle about either case at all, somewhat surprisingly.

The chess world has resumed its revolutions. Tomsk-400 repeated as Euro Club Cup champions, led by Morozevich this time instead of Aronian. By the way, what happened to the mighty NAO team, winners in 03 and 04? NAO won the French league again this year so should have been there, but they didn't participate. Much of the team were in Elista, at least briefly in some cases. Did the Mad(ame) money run dry? Anyone know?

From the rich get richer dept: Zaven Andriasian of Armenia - Olympiad gold medal winning Armenia - is the new world junior champ. This event lost its luster when super-teens like J Polgar and Leko started ignoring it. Nowadays you will rarely find any of the top 20 juniors participating.

Meanwhile, a couple of interesting events coming up. Topalov is right back in action on Oct 20 in Essent, which continues their tradition of world champ (oops), junior champ (Mamedyarov), top woman (aka Judit Polgar) and top-rated local, Ivan Sokolov.

A stealth event, the Tal Memorial, is coming to Moscow in mid-November, but no confirmation of date or field yet. Supposed to be a 10-player round-robin. This Indian page lists some players, this Norwegian page others. You correctly surmise that Magnus Carlsen will be there, but you would be wrong to assume Anand is. (Ganguly will second Shirov.) Svidler, Leko, Aronian, and Morozevich are also mentioned, but we'll have to wait and see.

Took a day off from the web, but not a day off. I got up at 4:30 in the morning to go to Washington DC with Garry Kasparov to attend a memorial service for Anna Politkovskaya, the journalist recently assassinated at her home in Moscow. I'm not pretending this is remotely related to chess, and I won't make a habit of this, but I do wish to publicize this horrible killing. After this latest display of brutality and anarchy, I, like all of Garry's friends and family, am more concerned than ever about his safety. We will never know who ordered the murder, and pointing fingers is almost besides the point, which is that the environment is becoming increasingly lethal and this trend is likely to continue as the "does Putin stay or go?" crisis gets worse in the coming months.

At the memorial they played a clip from the documentary "Democracy on Deadline" featuring Politkovskaya. It would have been inspiring and emotional under any circumstances, but knowing she had been killed for this work nine days earlier was crushing. The documentary will air on PBS in the US next month. See it if you can.

The final press conference is at the official site here. Apart from a surreal question about the delight of chess fans coming from the rapid chess final, it's standard uplifting fare. I'm glad Kramnik stuck up for the classical control. I wish they would say who asked each question. Just about everyone I saw mention it was rather horrified by ending a WCh event in rapid chess. (There has been talk in the comments of a "classical armageddon game" tiebreaker. The players offer and counteroffer how much time black has until one accepts the other's offer. Has this been tried?) It is true the quality of the rapid games was high, very high for stretches, but I believe these fellows are supposed to be good.

Kramnik's money quote: "We are planning to get drunk with my friends today!" [Disappointingly, I'm told this is better translated as "have a drink with"] Topalov has a new interview here at Topalov.net. There is also a statement from Danailov that says they will try to put a rematch together via FIDE's recent "title for sale" challenge rule. It's a usual attempt to keep some positive spin going. I'd make a crack here about Kramnik and rematches, but nowadays it seems that FIDE sells them at reasonable prices... Unfortunately, we also get this nugget from him, "Expect a whole book on the events in Elista where the scandal with the toilet will be explained in details." Sad.

A nice video clip of a Russian news report on the map has been posted here. The comments to the final item on the match include other video and coverage links. The news has hit all the wires, many with long stories. For those of you keeping track, according to Google News in English and Spanish, it's around five times the mainstream mentions after the end of San Luis. (Which had 112 stories after one week. Yes, I write these things down.) That's the combined power of unification, scandal, and a long(ish), dramatic match.

I updated the ChessMexico website to replace Topalov's player page with Kramnik's. Only later did I notice you can't rename pages so the URL still says Topalov. Probably have to create a new page and delete the old one. Or maybe I should just hide the Topalov page in case he gets his rematch?

Sorry, you might not really appreciate the title if you're not a NY Yankees fan. But you get the point. Vladimir Kramnik defeated Veselin Topalov – twice – to become the first unified world chess champion since Garry Kasparov in 1993. Kramnik won rapid games 2 and 4 to take the tiebreaker 2.5-1.5, ending any controversy about forfeits and plumbing and protests. The lawyers will have to sheathe their quills for a little while, at least.

I wouldn't go as far as saying Kramnik played the better chess in the match. He won the first two games in rather fortuitous fashion. But these matches are always about nerves and Topalov was obviously jittery at the start. They both played mediocre defense in the second half. Topalov scored two wins with remarkable ease before being blown away himself in game 10. Of course it had to go to tiebreaks, just out of sheer obstinancy. Kramnik dominated the rapid set. He was overpowering with white and had superior positions early with black in the other two games. Nerves? Karma? Justice? My prediction that he would win the tiebreak? Who knows?

I don't know if the better player won today. But looking back over the past few weeks I'd have to say that the better man certainly did. Hail the new and improved world champion! Or, dare I type it, hail the new World Champion!

Anyone else ever beaten the clear world #1 in match play twice in a lifetime? Mebbe Botvinnik's rematch wins over Smyslov and Tal? Anyway, phenomenal achievement.

Hey, just in time for, well, not for Christmas. But I just put the 2007 World Championship website on the air and you get a sneak peek. It's mostly an empty shell right now, but it's a pretty shell, I hope you'll agree. Kudos to the folks at Freiland. We're filling it full of general interest content for the mainstream folks first, but we'll be hiring columnists and getting championship news and interviews very soon. ¡Ayyyiyiyiyi! Here's a shot of the Spanish version; you can pick which language you see the site in.

That's http://www.chessmexico.com, for the record. The tournament starts on September 12, 2007. Of course Topalov is still listed as one of the four qualified players and we won't know about that for another three or four hours. My main goal with this site once the event nears and starts will be the use of top-notch Flash video, nba.com style. Interviews, produced segments, the real deal. Sponsor Jorge Saggiante and his main main, GM Marcel Sisniega are the real deal themselves and are putting heart, soul, and muchos pesos into this. Not just the championship, but an entire year of tournaments and events offline and on. It should be great fun and great for chess promotion in Mexico and around the world. Real media relations, imagine! Real sponsors from the community and a real investment in chess in the community, not just the tournament. Exciting stuff. Don't forget to sign up for news and things. We have some cool contests coming up. The prizes include an expenses paid trip to Mexico City to see the tournament!

No, I'm not up early. I just haven't slept. You'll find out why soon enough. Two excellent reasons, one to be delivered shortly and one delivered last night... Anyway, this is it, sort of. The final match day, that much we know. As explained below, it's an inhumane schedule of four 25'+10" rapid games. I'd imagine they have to give them at least 15 minutes between games, preferably 30, so this could take awhile. If by some miracle they are tied after four games, it goes to two blitz games (also with increment). Then it's sudden, merciful, Kervorkian death.

The FIDE site is already laboring, but the live game links should be here. The game 12 press conference here, with his sage comment from Topalov about why tiebreaks are better than draw odds: "I’d rather blunder a queen or a mate in one than appear in the situation of Leko in 2004. He did not yield to Kramnik two years ago, but Leko is nobody now, and Kramnik is a world champion."

Update: Rapid game 1 drawn. Kramnik has white in games 2 and 4. Kramnik wins game two. Topalov strikes back to win game three! Will this really go to blitz?! NO! Kramnik wins game four and the match! It's finally over! Unified champion! And, in a final flourish, instead of going for a last bathroom break, Kramnik whips it out right there and piddles all over Danailov and Topalov's shoes!

Ebay auction for a car ad in a magazine that that says "Sure Beats Joining The Chess Club." It's for Corvette. (Chevy/GM) I'd say chess beats buying an impractical gas-guzzling sportscar you can only drive up to 75MPH anyway. Ooh, that yellow really matches your feelings of inadequacy. Quick Robin, to the midlife-crisismobile! There are already two bids, up to $8. If people in the chess club are losers, what does that make the people who buy car ads on the internet and put them on their wall?

Well, I suppose in this case it could make them chess fans. I could see putting that up over my thousands of chess books...

Yep, it's Friday the 13: Armageddon!! I think that confused punctuation in the title sums it up pretty well. Exciting, interesting, worthy of further discussion, but dubious. (But please keep the discussions about HOW dubious to the last item, not this one.) Kramnik and Topalov have played plenty of rapid games with each other thanks to the Melody Amber tournaments. Kramnik also eliminated Topalov on rapid tiebreaks in the 1999 FIDE WCh KO. The career score gives Kramnik a small plus in rapids, +2 by my count. It's usually about nerves and blunders, and here Kramnik has a marked advantage both historically and based on the games from this match.

The format is 4 (!! four!?! Brutal!) games of rapid chess (25'+10"), then 2 blitz games (5'+10"), then a sudden death "armageddon" game (6' vs 5') with white having to win. I thought the consensus was that 5 vs 4 was more even.

There is a strange feeling of redundancy about the playoff, a feeling that appeared after game 10, when it became clear Topalov wasn't going to win with a big score. That meant it was no longer possible for Kramnik to really lose, thanks to the game 5 scandal. (You might have heard of it. Long story.) If Topalov wins tomorrow there is no way Kramnik acknowledges the loss of his classical title, making this entire reunification exercise rather pointless. Kramnik is basically "playing for two results," at this point. Unified champ or classical champ. FIDE has managed to put him in a no-lose situation. (Though it's not invalid to say he's already won, which is just another way of putting it.) He could lose the rapid 3-0 tomorrow and walk away with his status vastly improved over when the match started! Same goes for Topalov, but the reverse. No matter what happens tomorrow his reputation will need some serious rehab.

How is it we always manage to screw these things up so badly? Really, it's more embarrassing than all the toilet jokes. Crybaby players, incompetent and corrupt officials, smartass bloggers (who, according to the comments, are biased against both players), it's a mess of a world. Here's to Boris Spassky, the last completely undisputed world champion. He managed to get in and out without once ever having to say the words, "I'm the real world champion."

This is it! Or not. Live game here. The score is tied, so the winner today is the winner, at least in theory. If the game is drawn there will be rapid and blitz tiebreak games tomorrow. From Kramnik's last press release it sounded like he would show up for those, still with protest in hand.

Update: Game 12 drawn, regulation match tied 6:6. (AsI predicted, if with many more decisive games and a forfeit tossed in to help me win the betting pool. Thanks, Zurab!) Swapfest opening led to a taut but equal Q+R endgame with many pawns. Kramnik had a few more losing chances toward the end but he held without somersaults. Tiebreaks tomorrow unless Topalov suddenly decides to replay game five with nothing to gain.

Blather update: The comments are full of people calling Kramnik "the winner at 6-5." (I prefer Petrosianic's idea in the message boards: "Kramnik 6, Topalov 5, FIDE 1") But game 5 was played, and legally so. Kramnik was a few meters away watching his flag fall. The forfeit stemmed from provocations by Topalov's camp and a poor decision by the appeals committee, but they both had the authority to do what they did. Kramnik should have played. Under protest, absolutely, but you have to play. Later, Topalov should have had an attack of conscience and agreed to play at 3:1. But he was under no obligation to do so. That includes no moral obligation since he obviously feels his protest was valid - and that he wasn't responsible for the decision of the appeals committee.

A forfeit is part of a process. It doesn't really matter HOW right or wrong the decision was the player was protesting when he decided not to show up. Too many cameras in the hall, for example. Had Fischer walked away at 0-2 since they wouldn't give the forfeited point back, would he have been a big martyr hero like Kramnik is now? No, because most people felt his complaints were trivial (and typical).

Many here apparently feel Kramnik being locked out his bathroom was a far more serious affront than noise in the hall and the other playing conditions Fischer complained about and they say Kramnik was justified in not playing chess that day. I disagree. Not about the seriousness of the original complaint or the correctness of the decision, but about a player's responsibility to accept these things and to show up at the board. The Topalov complaint was lame, the appeals committee's decision incorrect (and overturned), but neither was an outrage to human dignity. Not playing cannot become an acceptable option.

Kramnik is a principled guy and it worked to his disadvantage here. He didn't want to give Topalov a psychological advantage by playing under terms dictated by his complaint and it cost him a full point. And/or he was convinced Ilyumzhinov and Zhukov would come to his rescue and give the point back. Either way, game five is history. 0-1. Topalov could prove himself a chivalrous idiot and play it, assuming that's even legal, but let's be realistic. Topalov/Danailov provoked, FIDE twits abetted, Kramnik took the bait and got robbed. As in any con game you need the victim to participate willingly at some point, and Kramnik did. Play the blame game all you like, but it won't bring game five back.

Blather update 2: Some are making arguments of the legality of the appeals committee's decision. But this has little to do with the correctness of the forfeit or the permanence of that result. It is a de facto situation because under the conditions that were then in effect as applied by the match officials, the clock was started. That's the point. The players have an obligation to play, not say, "There may or may not be legal issues we may eventually discover, so I'm going to sit out until a bunch of lawyers decide." This is why we have match officials and appeals committees.

You have to play at some point, it's a sports event. You can't break for a few days to figure out technicalities any more than a football game would be halted for a few hours while the teams' lawyers consulted with a judge about whether or not an on-the-field decision was legally correct. We do the best we can in action to find the best balance of expediency and accuracy and we live with those decisions. Some sports using instant replay are sacrificing expediency for more accuracy, for example.

So, you play. You protest and you play, and then the lawyers can get to work on it. But you always play because that point ain't comin' back. I'm not trying to convince anyone Topalov won game 5 in a fair and honest way. I don't think he was evil for taking the point either, but obviously I feel he should have agreed to start at 3:1 or I wouldn't have started a petition saying so. I'm just taking issue with this concept that Kramnik was correct not to show up that day, or that he is the winner now at 6:5. We all know he won more games over the board. We know the complaint and decision were to some degree malicious and erroneous. But that's not the same as saying Kramnik should have sat out or that the forfeit (not the complaint, not the decision) was not correct. 6:6.

Chessbase has put up list of the latest news and letters. It starts with something of a disclaimer regarding Topalov's charges about Chessbase being "on Kramnik's side." The most relevant letter is that of Hans-Walter Schmitt, the influential organizer of the Mainz Classic events. He threatens, or suggests threatening, a boycott of Topalov "if they do not immediately cease with their accusations and tricks." With FIDE lacking brains and the ACP lacking balls and no Wizard of Oz in sight, the organizers have most of the real power in the chess world today. The recent move to organize into a Grand Slam could increase that influence.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, but in this case it's a little troubling to see how FIDE is such a mess others are making moves to influence matters from afar. It's not as if Schmitt suggested only a boycott by his event out of a sense of personal affront. He even tacked on cheating insinuations about Topalov's rise. And this after complaining that such accusations are damaging to the sport! Of course Schmitt is entitled to his opinions and to flex his muscle. Just the other day I was talking about the likely lack of repercussions for unethical behavior in the chess world. I'm not backtracking on that, but it shows how little FIDE is capable of when frontier justice threatens to become the norm.

As everyone keeps posting about, Gata Kamsky and Nigel Short had a chat spat during the Playchess commentary today. Nigel was looking to settle a score from 1994, when they played a PCA candidates match full of enough insult and acrimony to make Topalov-Kramnik look like a Buddhist ceremony. I dug up the contemporaneous reports on the match to refresh my memory. There are certainly some similiarities between Elista and that match in Linares (Danailov and Kamsky count bathroom visits; Short counted Kamsky coughs), but I'd like to think Topalov has more control over Danailov than Kamsky had over his choleric father. And apparently match officials have gotten dumber over the years.

I didn't know Kamsky then, although I met him and his father briefly later in 1994 in Buenos Aires. He's been such a charmer since returning to the scene a few years ago that digging up all these things from what was practically a former life isn't really fair. Not that Short should sympathize similarly, of course, but if 1994 reflected poorly on the Kamskys, today's online aggression reflects poorly on Short in 2006. He rebuffed Gata's attempts to deflect the accusations amicably until eventually things got out of hand. That's a pretty old axe to grind. Aren't we supposed to get older and wiser instead of just older? I suppose Gata could have apologized for his father threatening Short's life in the dining room after game 4. On the other hand, if Gata took the time to apologize to everyone his dad offended back then his own child would grow up fatherless.

A mercifully brief recap of the 1994 match: After winning the first three games Kamsky caught a cold and was sniffling and hacking at the board. An annoyed Short suggested - during the game, a violation of PCA rules - that Kamsky drink some water. Kamsky lost the game. An engraged Rustam Kamsky accosted Short in the restaurant after game 4 and said "If you keep breaking the rules I will kill you!" (Now that's a provocation, Danailov you piker.) Short even filed a police report, though no charges were filed. Kamsky went on to win the next two and then draw to win the match 5.5-1.5. There were various protests from the Kamsky side during the match, including, I believe, about trips to the bathroom (!) and making eye contact with another player (Anand) during the games. I'm not sure if any of these protests came before the game 4 incident.

I copied the chat text (for the various GM analysis comments, actually) but all the misspellings give me tsuris. I see Susan Polgar has most of it up for the world to see, but she has added her own comments and superfluous "he said, he said" texts, which is rather against the spirit of the medium. Mystic Rollmops has a clean version here, if you must.

Speaking of Kamsky and matches, my fellow Brooklynite tells me FIDE is now offering a $15K prize fund for the candidates. That will actually come out to less than what the guys who didn't make the candidates got in Khanty-Mansiysk! We can call this "getting Shiroved," or "getting Cazorlaed," i.e. being paid less than the guy you beat. As Kamsky points out, if such a low fund had been proposed from the start, it would have been relatively easy to find sponsors. Now it looks like they'll play everything in, you guessed it, Elista, in April.

It's crunch time in Elista. Game 11 begins in a few hours with the match tied at 5:5 and two games to go, plus tiebreaks. Topalov has White today and we have seen three decisive contests in a row. Topalov lost game 10 with a monumental blunder.

Several new documents up at Chessbase.com. Hensel - rather needlessly from what I can tell - sends in a recap of Kramnik's complaints in order to prepare the ground for legal and PR action in case Kramnik loses. (I rather doubt he'll insist on replaying game 5 should he win the match. It would be amusing to play with a loss in hand, however!) Also, nice photographs and report from Elista by Savinov.

Update: Game drawn. Kramnik broke in the center and held easily, even having the superfluous better of the draw by the end. He'll have white in Thursday's final regulation game. The press release linked to above makes explicit that Kramnik won't recognize Topalov's victory should he lose the match.

Kasparov: "29.Bxe6 fxe6 30.Rb3 with an eventual b5. Maybe not real winning chances for White, but Black has some problems and b7 is weak. White can play for win with no risk. Can you imagine facing Karpov with white in that position?"

This mighty event is underway in Austria. Morozevich, Svidler, Shirov, Korchnoi. Ivanchuk, Grischuk, Bareev, and many other of the world's top players are in action for their clubs. Two rounds are in the books already. Results are being tracked here. Ural Sverdlovskaya boasts four 2700+ players. The official site has PGN (messy) and photo galleries. There are a record 56 teams, plus a women's event with 11 teams. Tomsk will try to repeat their 2005 victory with Morozevich replacing Aronian on board one.

MonRoi is aggressively promoting their move-entry devices at the event. They are offering a $1000 brilliancy prize, but only among games played using MonRoi. Public votes on the games. Very clever idea. It seems that few of the top players have taken to using the gadgets, however, judging by how few big names are on the game list. (What if you aren't using the system and your opponent is, and you play a brilliant game? Can your still win the prize?)

The MonRoi system is a cool idea with many practical applications. They can't be happy about all the cheating paranoia that's been going on lately. The idea of small transmitting devices for every player is a little alarming in that context. Just about anything is hackable. I wonder how hard it would be to dress up your iPaq to look like a MonRoi device. Word to the wise: if your opponent says he's using a MonRoi device, check to make the sure its paint doesn't rub off.

Always the most circumspect of Grandmasters, India's Vishy Anand, the world #2, rarely has much to say on the sordid world of chess politics. Over the years this has earned him both praise for staying above the muck and criticism for not being more of an activist or taking a stand. So while it really only states the obvious, it's a little surprising to see him comment on the state of the match in Elista. John Cox sent in a link to this item in The Hindu. Excerpt:

This highlights what was a flaw in organization before the crisis and is now a serious annoyance. As it stands now, only one of the two Elista match players will be in Mexico City. The winner goes, the loser is shut out of the system for years. Dumb. I'll mention yet again that I've heard FIDE will try very hard to get Topalov into Mexico even if he loses. (They would love to have him, so it's more a matter of getting it by the other players. But they never seem to care much.) Speaking of that eventuality, the Elista match isn't 100% tainted. If Kramnik wins the controvery dies on the spot -- unless Stopwatch Danailov has some actual, y'know, proof of misconduct. Which he doesn't or he'd have used it instead of talking about toilets and Fritz.

If Topalov wins, or if it finishes 6-6, the controversy is already in place. Not the psychological warfare, which is hardly new, but the forfeited point. Regardless if where you stand in the should-he-or-shouldn't-he about Kramnik not showing up for game five, it provides an automatic avenue of protest for him (and many others) not to recognize the loss of his classical title. In other words, no unification. Not that it's all wine and roses should Kramnik win. BladderGate dies, but his manager Hensel's interview in the last 64 strongly implied that Kramnik doesn't accept the validity of Mexico City as a world championship. Sigh.

[Added] I'm a match guy to the death, but why dis the Mexico event (and its sponsors and organizers) without any constructive suggestions? If Kramnik becomes FIDE champion and wants to work to change things from the inside, great. But managerial whisper campaigns to prepare the ground for future schism plotting are low.

The game 10 press conferences are up here. More from Kramnik, of course. He was as surprised by 24..f6?? as anyone. They talk about Topalov's fast play being a strategy to keep Kramnik out of the rest area and to disturb his habits, but Topalov was playing quickly in the first games, too.

On Saturday, Topalov had a more opinionated interview in the Bulgarian press, reproduced at ChessBase here. His "my manager Silvio Danailov did an extraordinary job" will go down in history in the same category as Bush's "you're doing a heckuva job, Brownie" after Hurricane Katrina. But as I said a few days ago, it's true to a point, or, the point. Topalov got a free point with black as a result of these provocations and there are precious few downsides to having your reputation scarred in the chess world as long as your rating is high. It's not as if kids aren't going to buy the new Air Check Topalov shoe from Nike because of these dirty tricks.

But Topalov should realize that he can't complain about unfavorable coverage. ChessBase has simply reflected the twenty to one (minimum) ratio of commentary against his actions. You can see the same in the comments here. It's not ChessBase's job to artificially balance its coverage if a bunch of fans and GMs write in to praise Kramnik and/or criticize Topalov. You don't want to end up with damaging pseudo-objectivity of the sort we see in the media on topics like climate change. A few thousand scientists on one side, a handful of corporate stooges on the other and it's a "debate" with equal time to both sides. Ridiculous. ChessBase could have done more to get "the other side" from FIDE and such, but it's not as if they wouldn't have printed it had it been sent in.

elitsa posts a link below to a typically obscure item from topalov.net (apparently not directly endorsed by Topalov but they seem to have good sources from his camp) saying Kramnik "refused" to take a doping test after game nine. This is pretty much meaningless out of context. Is this a scheduled test, random? Are they mandatory? Is he going to take it later? More Danailov slander? Who cares?

Note that the schedule was changed slightly after the scandal. They play on the 10th and the 12th with tiebreaks on the 13th (no rest day prior).

ChessBase and others report that 10th world champion Boris Spassky suffered a mild stroke while on a lecture tour of my native lands, the Bay Area. Reports say the 69 year old is doing fine and is completely lucid. Our thoughts are with you, Boris.

Game 10 here, Kramnik with white, two losses in a row and a one-point deficit. If Kramnik plays as poorly as he did yesterday this is going to turn into a rout. Topalov needs to win another game to be the rightful victor in the eyes of most, although there is no doubt he has played more powerful chess by far. Of course it's points that matter, not beauty points or brownie points. And even if Topalov wins the next three games many might say it's because Kramnik was so distracted by all of the Topalov camp's antics and accusations. Perhaps, but dealing with such things, being able to ignore them, has always been part of these matches.

But let's not count our champions before they hatch. Plenty of chess still to play. Game 9 press conference here. It includes this immortal wisdom from Topalov, "If one forgets the score, it is obvious that the initiative was mine during the whole match." I suppose that's what I was saying above, if a little less positively.

Man, Topalov's banging out his moves again and is already up almost 30 minutes after a dozen moves. Again. His opening preparation in this match has been unreal. Kramnik did a good job of playing well to equalize in games 4,6,7, but overall it's been all Topalov novelties with both colors. Actually Topalov's been busting out novelties all over for the past year or so.

Update: And sometimes a pawn is a pawn! Kramnik wins game 10 to even the match at 5-5. Three decisive games in a row! Kramnik snagged a pawn and this time Topalov couldn't get enough compensation, or get the pawn back. White won the exchange and stayed precise through time trouble to take the full point. Not dead yet!

Update 2: My initial impression that Topalov had played exceedingly quickly and loosely, followed by a horrible blunder and a hopeless endgame, was somewhat refuted by Garry Kasparov. He's a fan of Kramnik's play in game ten, complimenting White's opening and saying Topalov's position was already quite poor before he lit his hair on fire with 24..f6. Garry added he had no idea why Kramnik declined to exchange queens on move 34 or why Topalov then allowed the queens to be forced off on a few moves later. 36..Qd4 could at least reserved a few tricks for time trouble.

Garry was an invitee at the New Yorker Festival yesteday in a discussion with the hallowed magazine's editor - and Russia expert - David Remnick. Good stuff, a decent amount of chess (the usual Fischer and Deep Blue) at the start and some thoughts on Kramnik-Topalov at the end thanks to a question from the audience from GM Pascal Charbonneau (a Black Belt contributor, dontcha know). I recorded the whole thing but quality wasn't optimal. I'll have a separate item on it up later today and maybe a sound file.

Game 9 is underway. Live-ish PGN here. Topalov has two bishops and a mobile pawn center in another interesting game.

Some interview comments of note in the latest issue of the Russian magazine 64, all made before the start of the match. One has Topalov's manager Danailov saying he wants the match to be "open, honest, and exciting." If you've stopped laughing, the comments from Kramnik's manager Hensel are more troubling in regard to this being a reunification match. He goes on for several paragraphs about how they will have to discuss things more after the match. He says that if Kramnik wins this match and then finishes second or third in Mexico City, most people will still consider Kramnik the world champion because of the format. Hensel goes on to say that it shouldn't be necessary for the world champion to play in every level of the world championship process.

In other words, Mexico should be a qualifier for Kramnik should he win. Umm, unification? Oy. If it's not in the player contract that the winner has to play in Mexico then Ilyumzhinov is crazier than we thought. If you can find these interviews online and/or translate the relevant bits, much appreciated.

Speaking of, I went to the opening party of the New Yorker Festival last night. I met Michael Specter, who wrote the excellent long piece on Ilyumzhinov for the magazine in April. Interesting guy who lived in Russia for over five years. He said that in his decades as a reporter the most surreal interview moment of his life was when, surrounded by the poverty of Kalmykia, he asked Ilyumzhinov about his famous ten Rolls-Royces and Kirsan replied "six, not ten."

Update: Topalov wins his second in a row, again showing superior preparation and gaining a large time advantage. He blitzed Kramnik toward the end and Black fell apart unable to defend f7. Topalov takes the lead for the first time 5:4 with three games to play. Kramnik has white tomorrow. OTB shenanigans aside, Topalov has driven the play thus far, even in his losses. It looked like Kramnik stabilized when he held so smoothly in those three straight blacks, but now Topalov is showing why he's the world #1. Topalov always finishes strong and this looks like no exception. The question is whether or not there will be chaos if he wins by only a point. (Or if Kramnik will even play tiebreaks if the match finishes even.)

Game 8 press conference here.

Polish GM and ACP Secretary Bartlomiej Macieja makes a few points about protocol and personal experience with FIDE's so-called rules in this letter published at ChessBase. He also highlights that the Kramnik-Topalov match regulations give broad responsibilities and powers to the appeals committee. In other words, they had the authority to do what they did (closing the private bathrooms) no matter how nonsensical it was. I believe there are other concerns about the timing of their decision coming too late, but clearly the regulations gave them vast authority. (Even to address "all other matters which the Committee considers important.")

In light of this, I'm reviving an October 1 missive from a member of that appeals committee, FIDE VP Georgios Makropoulos, originally found on that date in Susan Polgar's blog [Below, all sic]. After the forfeit Ilyumzhinov swept in, banished the appeals committee, and started haggling. Some reports say Makro and Azmai were made to leave Elista post-haste. (Believe it or not, on Sept. 30, just one day after the Kramnik forfeit, Azmai was playing in the Greek Team Cup in Athens!)

Getting the troublemakers out of the spotlight asap wasn't necessarily a bad idea, but from reading Makro's comments you wonder if it was partly to make sure they wouldn't talk to the press. This is a reasonable document about a very bad decision. They should have taken precautions, instead of violating rules and locking bathrooms. I'm sure they did check with Ilyumzhinov; it would be a rare sign of his less than total authority had they not. I wonder what Makropoulos and Azmaiparashvili would have to say at this point, having been thoroughly vilified front and back? Not that they don't deserve much of it.

And we know now how that turned out. Sigh. Elsewhere on the rumor mill, Vasil from Bulgaria in the comments says that Bulgarian TV reports keep mentioning the number of times Kramnik goes to the toilet, including games seven and eight. Since they supposedly would have no way of knowing this information, they are either making it up (probably by counting the times he goes into his rest area) or, less likely, (again) have access to someone watching the rest area video. Out of Russia, the favorite birthplace of just about any good unsubstantiated rumor, come whispers that both bathrooms are actually wired for computer connections just like every other room in the building. Unverifiable, barely imaginable, certainly not relevant. Fits right in. But I suppose if Ilyumzhinov got elected by promising every Kalmykian a cell phone, why not broadband in every loo? Two USB ports in every goat and bluetooth in every yurt! Now there's a campaign slogan.

Kramnik finally gets to play the white pieces today after holding off Topalov in three consecutive blacks with relative ease. Kramnik leads 4-3. Some game 7 notes here and here. Kramnik isn't the sort to let emotions get the best of him. I don't see him going for the killer blow if it's not there. He's a deadly match player for exactly that reason; he stays within himself and doesn't try to take more than he's sure he can get. But it's still a chess game and Topalov is no slouch, so we can hope for another interesting game. Kramnik's Catalan hasn't been spectacular, but it rarely is. Topalov had a nice novelty against it in game one but skirted serious trouble in game three.

Press conference with Kramnik after game 7. Analysis of game 7 by my old co-worker Belov that includes some comments from the players on the game. As mentioned below, Topalov wasn't taking questions on anything but the game. Why he gets to decide this I have no idea. At least make him say "no comment." I wonder how aware he is of what Danailov has been doing and the chess world's reaction to it.

Update: It looks like Kramnik is about to get mated. He seemed to become dejected and began playing quite quickly in a precarious position. His pawns looked desperate but he really hastened the end without getting much in the way of counterchances in exchange. Odd. Oops, yep, he just resigned on move 52 with what looks like a mate in four on the board. Game here.

Topalov had some sharp and interesting prep in a Meran and got a material imbalance of the sort he plays so well. Kramnik basically had no choice but to give up two knights for rook and pawn and pressure that didn't pay off. Topalov got his knights in gear and took over the position quite quickly. Nicely played start to finish by the world #1. So Topalov gets his first real win and it's all even at 4-4 after eight games. Another crisis?

I know, I know. First, it's an ad. Second, it's about something on paper. PAPER for god's sake. (Some of you kids out there might need to look that up in Wikipedia.) But I'll be honest, I've loved New In Chess ever since I sold a kidney to get my first subscription years ago. Kidding, guys! To answer their slogan, it really is that good. It's even in color now. And they have conceded to the pixel world enough to put all the games in each issue up for download on their website. Sneaky Dutchies.

New in Chess has subscribers in 97 different countries. In New In Chess 2006 # 6 this is what they received:

• Columnist Garry Kasparov on top players and their "who cares?" attititude
• Tourney reports from Dresden, Taiyuan, Dortmund, Biel, Foros, and Philadelphia
• An opening surprise against the Najdorf Sicilian
• Parimarjan Negi: Grandmaster at 13
• Jonathan Rowson on a fine new book which helped him to look at the entire board
• Columnist Hans Ree on chess and Nazis
• And, as always, the best games annotated by the players themselves. The last issue contained game analyses by Kramnik, Svidler, Leko, Ivanchuk, Adams, Radjabov, Mamedyarov, Harikrishna, Carlsen, Rublevsky, and many others

Is New In Chess really as good as they say? Find out for yourself!

Or if you are already brainwashed convinced you can subscribe here. You still have time to get the next issues with their on-site reports on the Kramnik-Topalov match. The ad doesn't mention it, but the long interviews by editor Dirk Jan Ten Geuzendam (don't call him DJ!) are usually worth the price of the issue. Depending on how many kidneys you have left.

"We aren't saying Kramnik did anything, but just look at the nonchalant way he's looking the other direction. And the shadow clearly indicates there's something behind his back. Very interesting."

Click the image for a larger version so you can be sure it's him. Thanks to Clubfoot for the inspiration. I'm sure you guys can come up with some better images or press releases soon to come from the Topalov camp. Speaking of...

That slap might just be in the offing. We can only hope that's caught on the videotape. Talk about selling tickets...

The countdown has begun again. Kramnik's standing appeal regarding the game five forfeit was rejected, so there shouldn't be anything more about it after he shows up for game seven. Kramnik's agent Hensel appears to confirm that the matter will rest until the match is over. Yeah, right. Anyway, it's effectively Topalov's third white in a row and if he doesn't break through for his first real win it's a serious boost for Kramnik on the scoreboard and psychologically. Actually, the main event page says Topalov-Kramnik and the live game page currently says Kramnik-Topalov, which should be wrong because of the usual mid-event reversal of colors. (Which ensures an equal number of whites after a rest day.)

I just heard from an excellent Russian source that the break for the game five mess included a phone call to Kramnik from Vladimir Putin. Wasn't there also something about a call to Topalov from the Bulgarian prez or prime minister? I can't find it now, only a Reuters item that mentions that the Bulgarian president was asking for hour-by-hour updates on the crisis. Links?

How about we follow the lead of the other thread and talk about, y'know, chess? Will Topalov switch to e4? It might be a little late to test out Kramnik's Petroff preparation and Berlin expertise. He's been getting interesting positions with 1.d4 and that's what he needs, play. But he has three whites and only needs to score one win now, so no need for desperation yet.

Update: Game 7 drawn in 60 moves. Instant karma's gonna getcha. If someone at the press conference asks Topalov about Danailov's accusations about computer cheating I may start believing in a supreme being. If Topalov then turns to Danailov and gives him a brisk slap I'll go to church daily for the rest of my life.

According to Misha Savinov, on the scene in Elista, the players gave separate press conferences and Topalov only took questions about game seven. God is dead.

(I would have been tempted to ignore slime, but ChessBase put it up and it needs to be addressed.) Just when you thought this had hit rock bottom, Danailov sinks to new depths. Search depths, that is. I don't know if this Bulgarian article has any more info than this one posted to ChessBase. In it, Danailov says that after careful examination, Kramnik's moves coincide with the "first line" of Fritz 9 to xx% in each game.

Of course it takes only a little common sense and knowledge of how these stats can be easily manipulated to challenge this accusation, especially since no methodology is given. That is, Fritz's first line after how long? If you let it think for eight minutes per move, say, and then look back at its output there usually will be three or four reasonable moves as "first" at different points. If you pick the one you want it's hard not to find the GM's move in there somewhere unless he blundered. Next, with recaptures and other nearly forced moves the correlation is going to be 30-40% range just to start. Unless they are hyper-tactical, most GM games match well over 50% even at a set time for analysis. By hand-picking your spots you can get the correlation as high as you like excepting blunders.

The stupidest part of this is that in game two, in which Kramnik supposedly mirrored Fritz 87% of the time (which would be high even by GM standards), he committed three serious, result-changing blunders Fritz wouldn't even consider! Try to get your Fritz to play 31..Bf8 or 53..Re1. So we are supposed to believe that of only six moves Kramnik didn't match the comp, half were major blunders that would have lost or allowed a draw had Topalov played correctly? Idiotic. His missing 17.Ne4 in game 3 is another refutation. Or did he not cheat only on moves it would have helped him immensely?

It will take the chess community all of a few hours to run the games through standardized testing at different speeds show that 1) these numbers are wrong unless you manually pick a move from the list and 2) Topalov''s correlation with Fritz is very close to Kramnik's. I say that 98% of what Danailov says correlates with the first line produced by his ass.

Many were wondering if there even was a press conference after game six. I'd heard there was, but the translation lagged more than usual this time. It's up here at the official site. Topalov said he "has nothing to be proud of" regarding his statement he wouldn't shake hands. An apology would have been nice. Two interesting bits back to back:

From what I heard from Elista, the decision to play game six went down to the final half hour before the game. As his next answer shows, part of this decision was keeping a protest in hand, as it were. The new appeals committee just let us know that they have no power to overrule decisions made by the old committee (?), so we can assume lawyers are being consulted. Obviously Kramnik can walk away at any time, he doesn't need to say this. He's not there under guard, to my knowledge. (Though with Zhukov breathing down his neck anything is possible.) So the dynamic will change one final time if he plays tomorrow with his appeal having been definitively rejected. After that there's really no way back. I.e., if he goes on to lose game eleven and then quits most of the substantial goodwill and support he's garnered by playing at 3:2 will dissipate in a heartbeat.

But that's too hypothetical and negative and I certainly count myself among the many who were surprised and impressed by Kramnik's decision to play. Interestingly, among the many GM letters of support popping up, there are a few about how Kramnik must have been pressured by Russian political forces, etc. (See Sune Berg Hansen, second from top here.) Others seem to believe he was offered cash, and "insurance" in case he lost, or was pressured and bribed. This is one of those "we'll never know so why bother?" situations. He's playing and deserves credit for doing so.

Peter Svidler's fabulous notes on games 3 and 4 are up in English at Chesspro. URL may change. Rusty gives us a link to an item on the scandal on the Sports Illustrated website. Mostly a pastiche of copy-paste from web sources and dumb jokes. Of course we wouldn't have anything like that around here.

The FIDE rating list we love to ignore, the quarterly, is up. TWIC has the most useful grid up here. Call me old fashioned, but the FIDE rating formula is not dynamic enough to make three months very interesting. July list item here.

Only a few players who are remarkably active in the period ever have much to show. This time one of those players was Magnus Carlsen, who played 46 games. He is now two points under 2700 and still hasn't turned 16 yet. His peer Sergey Karjakin showed some growing pains and lost a few points. The top ten is the usual suspects. Aronian came down to earth a bit. Kramnik moved up to =3-4 with Svidler. He has 30 points to make up to get near Anand at #2 but so far he's doing a good job of moving up while bringing #1 Topalov down. Speaking of, that game 5 forfeit doesn't count on their ratings, as per rule 5.1 of the FIDE Handbook. Unplayed games don't count.

As I mentioned in July, the top ten today looks remarkably like that of five years ago. Other than Aronian's entry and Kasparov's exit, it's usual suspects. The average age of the top ten has gone up steadily if you don't count the sudden disappearance of the oldest man on it a few months ago. The squeaky voice of change is calling, however, as right outside the gates we find Radjabov, Mamedyarov, Navara, and a bit further down the inevitable Carlsen and Karjakin. Who will be the first of the new generation to take up permanent residence in the top ten?

Today Garry Kasparov has an editorial in the Wall Street Journal on the scandal in Elista. (Of course it was written on the weekend after the forfeit and before we knew the match would continue today.) It's available online here, and we'll have the entire thing up at ChessBase later along with a follow-up interview with Garry on a few more personal specifics not mentioned in the article (Yalta, for one).

Of course this was written for a lay audience and there's a recap and a few items that won't be anything new for this readership. But I thought it was a good point that for the match to end after game four was convenient for both players and the original appeals committee. I'm glad one of them - Kramnik - has proved Garry, and most of us, wrong.

Garry's bitterness around London 2000 and his subsequent attempts to get a rematch are hardly news, but that doesn't seem to stop people from acting shocked and offended every single time. You can search the Dirt for dozens of old threads and thousands of comments on this, so please let's stick with Elista and FIDE instead of rehashing that for the millionth time. Garry will feel Kramnik dodged him until the end of time. Whining about his whining is not useful and everything on the matter has been said. More importantly, as I said above, Kramnik proved Garry (and me, and many of us) wrong and was back at the board at 3:2 today.

Instead I would like to have a relevant discussion on what happens after the match is over. Will Bessel Kok be given control of professional events? I'm working with the organizers of the 2007 Mexico City world championship and I can tell you I'd really look forward to working with him instead of Elista. Win or lose, will this damage to Topalov's reputation really mean anything outside of the message boards? Seriously. If he's #1 he's going to get invitations no matter what. There is no strong union or federation to penalize him even if everyone could agree he did something wrong.

I suppose for good measure I should go back and create a blank game five item just for the sake of completeness. Anyway, match on! Yay for Kramnik, who is playing under protest of the 3:2 score and the game five forfeit. Game six was a 31 move draw in the Slav, Topalov changing pace from game two but Kramnik gradually liquidating material. Steady show in what must have been an incredibly nerve-wracking affair for both players. News at the official site. The score is 3.5-2.5. Now the official site is saying the schedule won't be adjusted and that Topalov has white in game seven on Wednesday, Oct. 4. Effectively three whites in a row.

This steady draw takes some of the sting out of the forfeit, which was not only a free point but a win with black for Topalov. If karma and the high ground have any meaning at all on the chess board Kramnik's position will only be stronger now despite his lead having shrunk to one point. But these guys are pros and chess tends to be chess. We shouldn't expect Topalov to collapse in shame or Kramnik to dominate out of sheer righteousness. All I can say is that if fan support equals Elo, Topalov is in even more trouble now that he was in after game four.

What I over-optimistically hope will be the last thoughts about the scandal for a little while. Kramnik's protest is logical but I don't really agree with some of the content of his letter. The appeals committee's decision was erroneous in several ways, but the forfeit, if you follow me, was correct. What else can you do when someone doesn't come to the board? It was Kramnik's job to show up to game five under protest of the decision. He left the arbiter no choice but to forfeit him. Reversing such a forfeit is nearly impossible unless your opponent agrees.

The "dirty tricks" reference will find a lot of supporters but it's a little strong for me. I do think Topalov's protest was psy-ops material, but Kramnik's behavior was unusual enough to warrant curiousity and investigation. It was making it public with insinuations of cheating that was so scurrilous. Actually, after reading it again I've changed my mind. Dirty tricks is an adequate description. Sending such a document to "all mass media" was a very low blow even if it succeeded beyond its likely intent thanks only to the appeals committee.

The stuff about FIDE is just recognition of what I assumed would be the case and what the appeals committee's decision confirmed, that Kramnik was playing in hostile territory despite being a Russian on Russian soil. With Ilyumzhinov in direct control now that should change, since he is under a great deal of pressure from Zhukov to carry the match through. As I stated before, my main concern at this point is that regardless of the result this will be anything but unification. It's hard to see Topalov complaining if he goes on to lose, but with so many accusations flying around it's hard to see anyone not complaining. At least they did shake hands today.

Four hours until Topalov's clock is started for game six in Elista. Will he have an opponent? It seems highly unlikely. The comments here are full of talk about the moral high ground, incorrect committee decisions, and perpetual schism. Before you fall in love with being right and cutting of your nose to spite your face, a quick and sloppy analogy.

Let's say you're winning the World Cup final. After 30 minutes the score is, oh, I don't know, 2-0 in your favor. Then the referee awards your opponent a penalty. A terrible call! A travesty! He wasn't even touched! (The broadcasters had earlier pointed out that the ref who made the call is the brother-in-law of the head of FIFA and has relatively little experience.) After much yelling and screaming, the penalty is duly scored by your opponent. The replay on the giant screen in the stadium clearly shows the ref was wrong. The opposing player threw himself to the ground to draw the call. So you walk off the field in protest of the decision. When your team refuses the take the field, the match is forfeited to your opponent.

But you were right, weren't you? After all, the decision was clearly unfair to you, the result of your opponent's trickery, and probably politically motivated. So you should keep the moral high ground and your self respect and lose the World Cup, forfeiting with a 2-1 lead. Of course home your fans would be so proud of you. Congratulations. (Other similarly stretched analogies below.)

Ah, but I hear you riffling through rulebooks and contracts. Is that the sound of you abandoning your moral arguments and calling your lawyer? The Elista appeals committee decision seems to have been incorrect procedurally as well as judgmentally. This is harder to equate to football, although I'm sure worse has happened. Starting or continuing games under protest is not common, but it's part of every sports rulebook. This is a sport, or it's supposed to be. It's not the Moral Olympics. Kramnik's twice walking away in the face of a bad decision, once for game five and probably for game six, is not heroic. It's indicative of how unprofessional our sport is thanks to years of arbitrary, incompetent rule. (As are the original protest and how it was handled.) It's every man for himself.

If you've been following along here for the past week you know I have no sympathy for Topalov's protest or his position. He should have given up the point. And the appeals committee decision was horrid, no doubt. Kramnik has been insulted and wronged. But his not showing up to play game five under protest was wrong, at least from the perspective of the match continuing. As a moral protest it was dandy, if that's to your masochistic taste. My opinions are predicated on the match continuing being a good thing. Obligations as a professional sportsman often conflict with personal affronts.

The forfeit created an intractable situation in which both players could claim to be right, one morally (with some technical claims) and the other legally. As David Levy put it in his letter at ChessBase, it was going to come down to one of them making a sacrifice. I seem to be in the majority in thinking that should have been Topalov, but there are obviously arguments for both sides or we wouldn't be arguing. The match might have ended in chaos even had Kramnik played game five, but it would have given Ilyumzhinov more options after he swept in and swept out the twits on the appeals committee.

If game six doesn't happen, and I certainly hope it does, or even if it doesn't, let us at least take away from this the awareness that this sort of thing has been happening for years (Yalta, Tripoli, etc.) and will continue to happen until we have leadership, professional leadership, and players who will put that structure ahead of their own immediate interests until it is mature enough to guarantee that what is good for the structure is also best for the players. This FIDE hasn't earned that loyalty. The irony is that now that Ilyumzhinov has finally attempted to right the ship with this match and talks with Bessel Kok, the hollow shell of a chess world he has created has collapsed beneath his feet.

Update: Tossing in some links: Danailov comments. FIDE VP Geoffrey Borg here. FIDE VP and original appeals committee member Makroupolus here in the comments. ACP statement here. Negotiation wrap-up new at the official site. Chesspro says Bareev and Svidler are heading to Elista to offer support. Let's hope it's theoretical as well as moral.

Chesspro.ru is reporting the match is back on, game six tomorrow, October 2 with the score 3:2 Kramnik. Regular time (15:00 local). Confirmation elsewhere pending, post'em if you got'em. A note at the end of this FIDE report confirms: "Tomorrow, 2 October 2006, at 15.00, the 6th Game of the World Chess Championship Match Topalov-Kramnik with the score 3:2 in favour of Kramnik, will take place." Of course this doesn't say Kramnik agreed to play and he has previously stated categorically he won't play at 3:2.

If the match really does continue, great, but this is the wrong way to go about it. It's hard not to hope Topalov chokes on that free point gained from a BS protest upheld by a bungling and corrupt appeals committee. But I'll restrain myself and just hope that the match is actually going forward and for good chess and no more of this garbage. The worst part is how this opens the gates to protests galore if Topalov goes on to win. This was supposed to be about unification. Now, no matter how it finishes, it will be remembered for this embarrassment.

I'm so disgusted about this whole thing that I can't even summon the thoughts of goodwill that we were all holding in reserve for whichever player gave up the point. Assuming for a moment that Kramnik shows up tomorrow, it's hard to imagine it wasn't all about money. Anyway, again making assumptions, kudos to Kramnik for being the bigger man even if he did get paid for it. Or the just The Man. If he plays now he'll have a lot of new fans, many of them Topalov fans just a few days ago. As Mark points out below, and as he and others pointed out at the time, Kramnik's not showing up for game five was a blunder no matter how right he was. You do as the officials say, under protest, and save your moral outrage for later.

Thanks to everyone who signed the petition. Great to see such willpower. Maybe we should redirect it to making sure FIDE hands professional operations to Bessel Kok. As for all the signatures requesting Danailov's firing, I think I might hire him! He "won" again, probably at the cost of a lifelong scar on Topalov's reputation. Quoth Kasparov: "The first point by a Bulgarian in the match was scored by Danailov!" His next New In Chess article is a scorcher...

Thanks to CML for the link to this post-negotiation interview with Danailov. Nothing conclusive though. I'm sure we'll be hip deep in interviews and recriminations any second now, so put on your waders.

Well, I suppose it was inevitable. Here's a "save the world championship" Ebay auction. I'm afraid it won't reach the half a million or so it will probably require. Well, the auction might but getting the bidder to pay up might be tricky. Well, FIDE has bounced checks...

My girlfriend's boss, who knows I'm a chess guy, came up with "What do the World Almanac and the world chess championship have in common? - They both spend a lot of time in the same room." (There's some context here; they work at the World Almanac.)

Perhaps of more interest is that Garry Kasparov will have an editorial in tomorrow's Wall Street Journal on the affair and its prehistory. And while he doesn't mention it, he's happy that at least nobody can blame this fiasco on him! (1993 notwithstanding, and yes, he does mention his breakaway started the schism in the first place.) We should have it up in full with some additional chessier comments at ChessBase later tomorrow. But pick up the Journal anyway.

Hello Veselin. Long time no see. We hope you are well. Things here in the chess fan world have been very busy lately. We were all enjoying your chess and your first world championship match in Elista. You and Vladimir have fought like champions. Many of us were expecting another of your famous comebacks. Now it appears the match may not continue because of the forfeit of Kramnik in game five.

We realize we may not understand everything that has gone on in Elista. Despite all that has happened, we believe you want to win this match and become the unified world chess champion and that you want to do this at the board. You have the respect of the fans of the chess world as a player, fighter, and sportsman. Accepting a point you did not win over the board is beneath your position and reputation.

We understand that the forfeit was not your fault. But you can still save the match by doing the right thing. We ask you to give back the point and show your abilities and character at the board. We want this match and we need this match to continue. The world is watching chess in Elista and you are the game's representative.

Saludos, Mig and those signed below

Add your name, email, and nation.

Two sources by email and this item on the web say there won't be a game six (five) today in Elista. This FIDE press release just came out at the official site. It says that after negotiations the bathroom issue has been solved (they remain private) and the appeals committee has been dismissed, replaced by Ilyumzhinov (surprise surprise) until replacements arrive. Still, it's a blow to the anti-unification forces inside FIDE, most of which were on the appeals committee. But their mission may have already been accomplished. They turned an obnoxious provocation into a potentially cancelled reunification match.

That leaves the unspecified unsettled issues. That, of course, is 3:2 vs 3:1: should the game 5 forfeit of Kramnik stand? Legalistically speaking, and though Kramnik's team has complained about technicalities regarding the timing of Topalov's complaint, the restroom lockout that led to the forfeit was carried out by the appointed appeals committee. But with that committee being dismissed it opens the door to a reversal. But the big question is whether or not Topalov will play at 3:1 or Kramnik at 3:2.

Just as I was about to post this, the same Bulgarian "Focus" site put up a new item:

That just in case anyone still thought this BS about toilet trips was anything more than a provocation. I wonder how much money Ilyumzhinov will have to cough up. He should just call in Hensel and Danailov and auction off the point. I was thinking it was 30:70 that Topalov would play at 1:3 and 10:90 that Kramnik would play at 3:2. From these latest remarks it may be worse than even those odds. This Topalov site is updating regularly. Kramnik's official site is as well, but less frequently and mostly just press release links.

Thanks to those who pointed out that the match rules state the players will only be paid upon completion of the match. However, I maintain doubts they don't have substantial money in the bank already. Let's not forget Danailov cancelled and got paid in 2003 and his client Ponomariov didn't even have to play a single game against Kasparov in Yalta. He's losing his touch! (And a poke in the eye to everyone who said I was just being "pro-Kasparov" when I said Danailov was a weasel back then. He wouldn't be allowed into a weasel convention at this point.)

Tidbit: Long-time Kramnik associate Joel Lautier was on Russian radio yesterday and said something to the effect that Kramnik had a "rare illness" that required him to go to the bathroom all the time.

Update: I was just told that a Russian report says Ilyumzhinov offered 3-1 but playing the match to 16 games and Kramnik said no. Then 3-1 and 14 games and Kramnik said no. Interesting idea that hadn't occured to me. Kramnik is being supported in this by Zhukov, Russian federation prez.