Mig 
Greengard's ChessNinja.com

Kasparov on the Chess Mess

| Permalink | 114 comments

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.

The clear implication of the original protest was that Mr. Kramnik might be cheating during his restroom visits. In recent years the chess world has been rife with such suspicions thanks to the rise of powerful microcomputers and transmitting technologies. Several amateur chessplayers have even been caught using such devices to cheat in tournaments. I should add that Mr. Kramnik was leading 3-1 at the time of Mr. Topalov's protest, although it was mostly thanks to very shaky play by his opponent, not a display of suspiciously superhuman skill.

Adding irony to the tragedy is the fact that for the past year and a half Mr. Topalov himself has been the subject of rumors and even public accusations that he has cheated with computer assistance. Hard evidence is lacking, with some pointing to odd behavior by his assistants and other critics saying there is simply no other explanation for Mr. Topalov's sudden ascent to the top of the rating list after my retirement. ...

Mr. Fischer may have been difficult and unstable, but he was a sportsman whose complaints were based on principle and a sincere desire to improve the standards of the chess world. Tournament conditions and prize funds improved immeasurably thanks to his efforts. My battles with the power-hungry thugs who ran the Soviet and international chess world were politically driven. To me they represented a backwards and corrupt system. They saw me as a threat to their control.

The protests and conflicts seen in the current match are of a very different nature and reflect the complete loss of professionalism in the sport. The event is taking place in the capital of the Russian republic of Kalmykia under the auspices of its president, Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, who is also the president of FIDE. He has created a vertical column of power that would be familiar to any observer of Russia today. He runs the chess world in the same authoritarian way he runs his impoverished republic. After a decade of such mistreatment, the only place that could be found to host this match was his own capital. Serious sponsors rarely want anything to do with Mr. Ilyumzhinov and his organization.

Even his closest cronies in FIDE failed Mr. Ilyumzhinov this time. He stocked the match's appeals committee with FIDE officials, but while he was away, their decision created the crisis that now seems likely to end the match in ruin. Recognizing the failure of his stated goals and low methods, Mr. Ilyumzhinov has lately taken steps to unify the chess world and make long overdue moves to professionalize the organization of events. This terrifies the fixers who would be the first to go under a professional administration. ...

Combine this collapsing power structure with players and managers concerned only with self-interest and making money, and what happened in Elista was practically inevitable. In fact, most of the principal actors in Elista stand to gain from the cancellation of the match. Mr. Topalov was losing at the game and so he switched to gamesmanship. If the match is aborted he can claim he wasn't defeated and so maintain his status as FIDE champion.

Mr. Kramnik rose to the provocation and now may walk off with the same faded title he took from me in 2000. For years he avoided both a rematch and unification with FIDE. If this chaos isn't resolved he can go on to claim "champion for life" standing outside of FIDE.

Just like their brothers in spirit in the Kremlin, the chess nomenclatura hope to prolong the anarchy and corruption from which they have profited for so long. Mr. Ilyumzhinov needs this match to continue, but it is he who sowed the seeds of its downfall.

For a game associated with brainpower, chess's leaders and its leading players have displayed remarkably little in recent years. They are now paying the price by having their pettiness and incompetence splashed across front pages around the world.

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.

114 Comments

Curious not to mention Fischer-Karpov that wasn't when saying the last forfeit was in 1972. History aside though, if that's typical Gazza has no future as a politician. Propaganda's a knack, and he hasn't got it. He just comes over as an idiot. A veneer of objectivity is necessary. He should go away and read some Cicero. Or some Blair.

Of course Korchnoi was forfeited in 1978 (God, do I mean Korchnoi? Or was it Spassky?) over the same sort of stuff, and that forfeit was reversed. Funny no-one seems to mention that precedent.

"Whining about his whining is not useful and everything on the matter has been said."

Then stop whining about it!

Please read more carefully, rdh.
Fischer-Karpov was a match that never happened.
Korchnoi was not forfeited in 1978, much less Spassky, who was . Although I am not God, I can answer this question with confidence.

And although I have not had the excitement of Mr. Kasparov's acquaintance, I am happy to go on record stating that I do not consider him an idiot. No, not him.

Sorry, correction, sentence should read:
... much less Spassky, who was not playing for the World Championship.

RDH: And your veneer of objectivity? You come across as an idiot. It's an editorial, look up the word. Of course it's written from his personal perspective. What propaganda do you think he's pushing? What here wasn't simply, and obviously, his opinion on the matters at hand? So many nutjob haters around here.

And it says, "The last world championship game to be decided by forfeit was Bobby Fischer's loss to Boris Spassky." If you can't even be bothered to read the article before mouthing off you might at least try to be entertainingly ill-informed instead of snidely ignorant. It's only courteous.

I can think of plenty of successful contemporary politicians whose eloquence fails to approach Cicero's (or Blair's, for that matter). And maybe his Russian is more erudite than his English.

Sorry, missed your question. My judgment is that it will do Topalov personally no harm at all; so chess fans think he's a scumbag; so what? Anyone with eyes to see knew he was a scumbag already, although not quite on the scale he's now revealed himself as. It won't stop the big tournaments wanting him there.

I'd imagine also that nothing whatever will happen after the match is over. They'll go on failing to organise the candidates matches for a bit, and it will merely cement Ilyumzhinov's determination to marginalise the world champion by making the title rotate quicker and be decided just by another tournament. I can't see why the revelation that his cronies can't tell their arses from their elbows would affect him at all. We knew that already, after all. I'd imagine they'll just cobble together some new formula and run San Luis Mark 2, only now they've managed to drag Kramnik in (or kick him out altogether, one or the other), and thus the title will fall under Ilyumzhinov's personal control for the foreseeable. It's all a bit like Lord of the Rings.

I am a bit disappointed in Geujjsen. He's supposed to be a class act, but he's not showing it. Of course he's only the arbiter and it's very proper of him to remember that, but he ought to be ensuring the match is played under proper conditions as far as he can, and it's not obvious what efforts he's making to ensure that.

Garry,

You caused this.

Your games n 1984-1995 are still my favorites though.

Did anybody ask Shirov what he thinks?

The more I think and read about this, the more I want Kramnik to win.

Let's hope he can bring a bit of decency to this world.

Oh and BTW- if you lived in Britain you wouldn't be praising Blair.

Kramnik bring decency to the World? Now he stands like a poor, raped chessplayer because of the game he lost by not showing up, but let's not forget he is the same person who trampled on Shirov's rights to play Kasparov, and it's the same Kramnik who shamelessly avoided the rematch with Kasparov.

It's surprising how people's memory works as RAM memory: they blink and the memories are gone...

Yes Garry

The clear implication of the original protest was that Mr. Kramnik might be cheating during his restroom visits.

The protests and conflicts seen in the current match reflect the complete loss of professionalism in the sport.

the match's appeals committee with their decision created the crisis.

Ummm... no. If you're thinking that applies to me you're picking the wrong guy. Plenty of the people who post in these sites using crazy names might know nothing about chess history, but I do.

Kramnik taking Shirov's shot at Kasparov is one reason why I wasn't his biggest 'fan' before this match. I thought he was a bit overrated too. But think about it... he's come back from a serious illness to hit good form, and now is defying corrupt FIDE cronies and STILL winning. There'd be very few people who'd accept being robbed of a point by a bunch of biased officals and still sit down and play. And draw with black.

A pretty nasty thing has happened to me recently, and I'd like to see someone with principles and strength to win and improve this world a bit.

Yes, I realise that the statement that the last game to be forfeited in a WC match was game 2 in 1972 is factually correct: I never said it wasn't. But I thought it was a bit curious not to mention 1975 nonetheless.

Charles, of course Korchnoi-Spassky 1978 wasn't a WC match; it was the Candidates final (semi-final?). Korchnoi had a long lead and Spassky started spending the whole time between moves in his rest room. Korchnoi lost it entirely. As I recall it was he who didn't show for a game (with far less justification than Kramnik, indeed none, roughly speaking), and after a similar brouhaha the forfeit was reversed. Korchnoi lost about four games in a row before pulling himself together and winning it in the end.

Mig, I am anything but a nutjob Kasparov hater: I was growing up chesswise during his rise in the early eighties, I rooted for him passionately against Karpov, again against my countryman Short in 1993 and against Anand in 1996, and I was ambivalent in 2000 despite my admiration for Kramnik. I was longing to see him crush Pono and for a rematch with Kramnik, especially since Gazza was playing under rather unfair conditions in 2000. I sympathised with him greatly over the collapse of those two matches. Even now he would be my second favourite player if he returned. But that doesn't alter the fact that his whining abuot Kramnik is unedifying, about which point we seem to agree.

I don't need a veneer of objectivity because I'm not trying to persuade people. If Gazza wants to do that, he'll need to acquire one; that's all I'm saying.

We are confusing two points. Certainly most of the article is a rant which Gazza is entitled to do, however unwise. I am saying two things: first, if he wants to change hearts and minds, which he will need to do if he is to be a success as a politician, he needs to moderate his rants. If you come over as bitter and twisted and still fighting the battles of 1984, then people don't vote for you, and in my opinion that is the impression of himself he creates by this piece.

Second, he is not entitled to slip in as if they were facts matters which are in fact contentious. The sentence 'For years he avoided both a rematch and a reunification with FIDE' does not present itself as opinion, and it is in fact a highly contentious opinion. This is dishonest journalism, and I'm afraid also characteristic.

It's amazing how quickly things change.

For instance, Ilyumzhinov -- in my mind, he's been practically Satan's lackey over the past 10 years, but regardless, weren't we all rooting for him to get the match back on track? Think about it -- this was your own thought pattern yesterday, was it not: "our last hope, Ilyumzhinov." Hilarious! And yet... the match continues! "Bravo, Comrade Kirsan!" Good thing there weren't any journalists around to murder.

And Topalov. I've been rooting heavily for him for the past 2 years, because he fights until only the Kings are left. (I have always like Kramnik too; very under-appreciated in the chess world, like Karpov was in his day.) Now I am very eager to see Topalov lose and cry into his own toilet.

And Kramnik. Always getting kicked for drawing. But today, weren't we all rooting as hard as we could for Kramnik to... draw?

Oh for God's sake Pedro give it a rest. It was clear by 2000 that Shirov-Gazza wasn't going to happen, however much it should have done, and that there was going to be a pirate WC match. Shirov was going to get trampled on whatever Kramnik did. I'm glad he played: someone had to and at least we saw a great match.

As to 'shamelessly avoiding the rematch with Kasparov', from among the many points that could be made let us recall that the contract carefully negotiated between Gazza and Kramnik before the match contained no mention of a rematch. There was no rematch to be avoided. Kasparov's rights did not exist, but his moral claims were perfectly fairly recognised in the Prague agreement.

"...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."

Oh sure, ruin Greg's day.

http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/twic621.html#2 is my take on this, at least when I wrote it as I keep changing my mind, it probably lacks two or three other points I should have made and especially the number of spelling mistakes that I normally make, but does murder punctuation rules as normal. I do feel I called various parts of Kasparov's career better than the great man .... Bob Rice, don't do it etc so I think it appropriate for the thread. God I'm tired, I waited up for a Kramnik press release last night. I hope not to return to the toiletgate subject again.

Ridiculous set of comments by greatest player in history.

"Mr. Fischer may have been difficult and unstable, but he was a sportsman whose complaints were based on principle and a sincere desire to improve the standards of the chess world."

I am just curious, is the principle Mr. Kasparov refers to paranoia, psychological mind games or anti-Semitism?

"Tournament conditions and prize funds improved immeasurably thanks to his efforts."

If he means "more people got interested in chess because of an American world champion," he is undoubtedly correct. If the immeasurable improvement he refers to is sealing reputation of chess players as inexplicable weirdos, he is also correct.

"He has created a vertical column of power that would be familiar to any observer of Russia today."

A reference to a famous post-Beslan Putin speech, in which he also promised to create a vertical column of power in Russia. The only problem with objecting to such a structure is that most organizations are rather vertical. Perhaps Kasparov would like to see FIDE ran by a greater federation consensus rather than any one authoritative figure. Sorry, but I disagree with him there--chess world is already disorganized and needs strong leadership and is best ran by a single individual or group of individuals on top. The problem is not vertical column, it's who is at the head of the column and which way its pointing.

"After a decade of such mistreatment, the only place that could be found to host this match was his own capital."

Is this in contrast to great success Kasparov had finding sponsorship between 1995 and 2000? Or Kramnik looking for sponsorship for his match with Leko?

"Serious sponsors rarely want anything to do with Mr. Ilyumzhinov and his organization."

There is little evidence that (aside from a few inexplicable weirdos) they want anything to do with chess, period. That may perhaps be a bit unfair. MTel just came out and we have three strong yearly tournaments already (perhaps potential for more, if recent press releases are any indication). But let's not kid ourselves that lack of interest in chess sponsorship is limited in cause to Illumzhinov's behavior and ideas.

"If this chaos isn't resolved he can go on to claim "champion for life" standing outside of FIDE."

Sorry, but chess fans would ridicule such a stand (no further title defenses). Even if Kramnik backs up by tournament wins and great chess success, he will not be considered champion long if he makes no effort to defend the title.

Mig, I think most chess fans agree that a match, not a tournament, is the best way to determine the world champion.
Any chance FIDE will change its mind about the next format?
Match skill and tournament skill are somewhat different things.

Maybe I am missing something here. but I do not think that Kasparov is whinning about kramnik not giving him a 2nd match. I think it is a simple statement of fact. and Kasparov deserved the rematch for sure.

I have never considered Kramnik as World Champion because he refused to play Kasparov in a rematch. I still do not consider kramnik a world champion.

But with Gary retired, I will recognize Kramnik as World Champion if he wins.

I will not recognize Topalov as world champ if he so called wins.

Oops one item. I have always considered Kasparov world champion from the time he beat Karpov to his retirement. and right now consider him the 'retired" world champion waiting for a "new" champion to be crowned. right now I hope that will be Kramnik. if Topalov so called wins I will not consider him world champion.

You are right, ComputoJon, it was amazing today to see the entire servers rooting for Kramnik to draw and mocking Topalov for not having what it takes to shake Kramnik the Rock. It's like everybody have become draw-fans overnight :-)

Watch out for new best-sellers, "Draw like Kramnik" etc., with blurbs on the back saying "The Petroff has been a favorite weapon of several world champions like Kramnik and Karpov, and is a sure way to steer the game away from any complications and double-edged play. By studying this opening, you are sure to learn a lot about how to avoid tactics and liquidate down to dead drawn endings, which will help raise the playing level of any dedicated student."

I'm still laughing from all these events. Having been a staunch Kramnik defender from the start, it's nice to see ones views vindicated :P

'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 curious Mig, why you think this is a good point? It seems like typical Kasparov 'lashing out' to me-claiming everyone else just wants to brag and not play chess, except for him.

Incidentally, one might suggest that Gary's throwing in the superfluous 'after my retirement' is a sign that he retired when he did so he could brag that he went out on top. I don't really think this (he just likes to brag in general), but its the same logic Kasparov is using when he claims these two guys just want to go home.

"...Mr. Topalov himself has been the subject of rumors and even public accusations that he has cheated with computer assistance. Hard evidence is lacking, with some pointing to odd behavior by his assistants and other critics saying there is simply no other explanation for Mr. Topalov's sudden assent to the top of the rating list after my retirement."

Kasparov gives credence to the unnamed critics (who are they, anyway?) by even mentioning this nonsense.

When Topalov was beating Kasparov in his last game at Linares, did we see Topalov wearing a hat or a bulky sweater or with a "hearing aid" stuck in his ear?

But now Kasparov creates the inference (by citing anonymous reports) that Topolov could not have risen to the top of the rating list without cheating --only the "hard" evidence of which is currently lacking.

As if the nonsense wasn't piled high enough.


Frank, Kasparov lost to Kramnik. What you 'consider' doesn't change that FACT.

can anyone translate the comments by kramnik and topalov in the video linked by chessbase?

FINALLY...THE TRUTH! LIKE I SAID BEFORE: ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY.

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

PRO CHESS PLAYERS OF THE WORLD UNITE! GIVE PEICES A CHANCE! NOW SERIOUSLY, THE NEEDS OF THE MANY (THAT IS US CHESS LOVERS) MUST PREVAIL. THE UNIFIED AGENDA SHOULD BE ELEVATION OF THE GAME.

SO GRANDMASTERS DO NOT HAVE TO PLAY FOR DUCATS AT PLAYCHESS.COM AND GET ACTUAL RESPECT FOR THEIR BRILLIANCE THROUGH SPONSORSHIP. LOOK AT NASCAR. COME ON. ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE. WE NEED TO KEEP THE BIG PICTURE IN MIND. THE GAME IS IMMORTAL...IT HAS OUTLASTED EVERY PLAYER BY THE BEAUTY OF IT'S EXISTENCE. (EXISTENTIAL CHESS? YES!!!) WE ARE HERE TO HONOR THE GAME...BECAUSE WE LOVE THE GAME. THINK ABOUT THIS: IF IT WERE NOT FOR THE MAGNIFICENCE OF THE ROYAL GAME ALL OF THIS WOULD BE NON EXISTENT. HOW IS THAT FOR A REALITY CHECK?

WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE EVENTUALLY...BUT THE GAME WILL LIVE ON FOREVER. OUR LEGACY IS HOW WE TREAT THE GAME NOW WHILE WE ARE ALIVE AND HAVE SOME SAY IN THE MATTER...

IN AN AGE OF DISCONTENTMENT WITH KIDS SLAUGHTERED IN SCHOOLS...WAR WAGED WITH ATROCITIES...IS OUR BELOVED GAME GOING TO GO INTO THAT SEWER? LET THE PRO CHESS PLAYERS UNITE AND PUT AN END TO THIS TRAVESTY. LET US AMATEUR LOVERS OF THE GAME EXPRESS OUR OUTRAGE WITH ELOQUENCE AND HOPE (WITHOUT WHICH WE ALL PERISH) FOR THE FUTURE!!!

Ironically, his essay added nothing new to the debate, yet he did admit to breaking away from FIDE. I'm surprised Kasparov had the gumption to write about the "Chess Mess." In fact, it was a mess that he helped to create.

He utters the same specious arguments seen in the press and on many chess websites and interperses it with attacks on the Kremlin, Ilyumzhinov, Danailov (justified), Topalov and Kramnik! He claims that it was Ilyumzhinov who sowed the seeds of this debacle, but he has to take an assist in this disunity matter.

Mig's presentation of the Kasparov article reminds me of....

The guard who puts a cigarette in the condemned man's mouth then gets the hell out of there before HE gets shot.

Poor Kasparov.

Bessel Kok, Seirawan, John Nunn, and the entire chess world is agonizing over the Elista match, wrapped up in one of the most compelling chess spectacles ever.

While the navel-gazing Kasparov sees in Elista nothing more than an occasion to self-centeredly bray about 22 years of wrongs done to him (and to chess, of course) by the Soviets, Karpov, FIDE, and Kramnik.

As I recall Garry did not have a "right" to a rematch with Kramnik, although he felt he deserved one. No time like the present!!! How about now? Even better - some kind of fair process that gives at least 4-5 players a chance. There are multiple contenders now.

The one who accused the computer of being assisted by humans! ;)

greg, you are my favorite troll :-))) You sure live up to the requirement of being funny! Besides, I think you are not too wrong here :P

Koster, did Kasparov at some time refuse to sign your rook or something? Because even someone as mild mannered as I finds it increasingly hard to get some sort of amusing twitch out of your ever-the-same Kasparov hate.

There are a lot of people who I despise, but I must admit I wouldn't want to sink as low as, by bragging about them at every appropriate or inappropriate time, making myself an annoyance to others...

Mig
Like you I am thinking about the future. But the match isn't over and its too soon to tell. I don't want to jinx it.

Several things in the interview made me wonder. One is he says Kirsan needed this match. I was thinking the opposite. Kirsan didn't want the match to go off in the first place. He was pressured into it. It seemed obvious to me Kirsans actions toward the chessworld had nothing to do with the election. So why did Gary say Krisan needed this match? Is it because he was feeling pressure from Russian officials? Given the context of Garys comments it seemed he thought kirsans chess failures really hurt him politically. I wondered what about the FIDE election gave him that impression.

Kramnik was sympathetic to ponomariov in his dispute versus FIDE. That is intersting. Danilov once fought with FIDE now he is its golden child. But although I do look at Danilov different now, I think that was a different set of events and I'm not goign to rejudge FIDE and Ponomariov's actions back then because of what I learn about Danilov now.

Kasparov says its like the Karpov days with Svidler and Bareev coming to Elista. I don't really get this. He makes it sound as though Putin ordered them to go or something. They are Kramnik's friends and that is what friends do.

Players lack of professionalism? Well I don't know. The idea of starting the clock before the otherside is at the board becaue there is a protest going on is quite odd. Could you imagine if there was some dispute about the superbowl so while one team is busy trying to get the something straightened out the other side starts repeatedly kicking off, recovering the ball and running for touchdowns. Or in tennis they start serving and rackign up points.

Players in others sports would see that is childish and accomplishes nothing. I don't know that the answer is to be tougher on the players. In fact I think the opposite is called for. Lets be reasonable and get this stuff sorted out and not escalate things by pointing to the door and hitting the clock.

Chess may be a sport but the conditions are very important. If there is a faint humming or glaring lights it wont stop someone from playing a game of soccer. But if something is going to be annoying for a chess player it can effect thier performance. I think instead of pretending this is not the case we need to accept it and deal with it. The conditions of the match are important.

Kasparov doesn't mention that there was 1.2 million of private money on the table for this match. He is however very correct in saying no one wants to associate with Kirsan. Once FIDE asserted a larger role those sponsors seemed to disapear didn't they?

Sorry if this is not exactly on topic, but I have a question: does anyone know what precisely is the role of Bareev and Svidler in "supporting" Kramnik? More generally, if they become de facto "seconds", do they need to be cleared in advance? Can a player add a second as he wishes?

In his Chessbase interview Kasparov mentions the Ponomariov non-match. Did we ever get the straight story? Is the bottom line that Kirsan wanted to string along and freeze out Kasparov and never intended to hold the Pono or Kasim matches?

Pono/Danailov were paid for the non-match?! Were they actually paid to "cause trouble" and sabotage the match?

Frank H said:

QUOTE
Oops one item. I have always considered Kasparov world champion from the time he beat Karpov to his retirement. and right now consider him the 'retired" world champion waiting for a "new" champion to be crowned.
END QUOTE

Frank, you are entitled to your own opinion. But of course you are completely wrong. Gary Kasparov held a legitimate World Championship Title. He put it on the line in a match vs Kramnik. AND VLADIMIR KRAMNIK BEAT KASPAROV OVER THE BOARD AND TOOK HIS TITLE FROM HIM BY FORCE, as is the proper way for world titles to change hands.

World Classical Champion Kramnik is now facing World FIDE Champion Topolov in a unification match. A very similiar thing to what happens in the sport of boxing rather frequently. Whether or not this means the winner will hold 2 titles or whether the 2 titles are combined into one remains to be seen.

Make no mistake, Since his defeat of Kasparov, Vladimir Kramnik has been a legitimate world champion.

You know, there are times when I almost suspect that this whole thing was orchestrated (without Kramnik's knowledge) by Kirsan, FIDE insiders and Topalov's team in order to provide a justification for NOT using match-play to determine the world champion in the future. Talk about conspiracy theory.

I am reluctantly compelled to concur with greg koster, superpatzer and Sim. Only reluctantly because I dont want them to be right.

Firstly as a fan of Kasparov I was very much looking forward to his interview and editorial insight on the drama currently going on in Elista, but what did my hope get me? A boring diatribe of all the people blamable for his woes and the sad state of chess today.

Instead of blaming Kramnik for not giving him a rematch, why didnt Kasparov put it in the contract under which they played? (I know, old news...). Instead of blaming everyone else for a lack of corporate sponsorship in chess why not go knock on doors yourself till you get it? After all, who better to elicit sponsorship than an energetic, charismatic Kasparov? (I know, he tried...).

Secondly, no matter how much some of you WANT Kasparov to still be World Champion, he is not. He was defeated in a match by Kramnik. Now Kramnik is World Champion. Thats how it works, get used to it.

And lastly, I too cannot shake the feeling that the events following round four in Elista were orchestrated by all concerned. (Minus Kramniks team). But im sure im just being paranoid...

"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."

When a football player behaves badly, he can be sent off and banned for some matches. În my opinion, Topalov should be banned from WC for the next championship.

Mig,
"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.
"
There 5-6 super-tournaments in a year. If, say, Linares, Dordmund and Wijk organizers ban Topalov, he will be grately punished. He will automatically reduced to MTel only-what more could a string federation do!?

banning topalov? are u nuts? topalov is one of the most fair players around. there wasnt ever the slightest trouble with him.

Agree with Gilles that Topalov shouldn't be banned, but for a completely different reason. Topalov is an a$$hole, but if you ban everyone from being sports for being an a$$hole, you wouldn't have much left.

In chess you'ld only have the following world champions: Lasker, Capablanca, Euwe, Smyslov, Tal and Spassky, and some may say that I'm overly generous there.

Al whom besides Topalov should you name "a$$hole" from today's top-active players? I have an impression that though there are some players who have odd behaviour sometimes, Topalov is completely different story. I cannot recall someone behaving the way Topalov did.

The sad thing about Gazza’s article is that he could have written such a good one. Chess is presently the laughing stock of the world – those who’ve noticed – because gonzo journalists have nothing better to do than make toilet jokes. Kasparov like no-one else could have explained why this debate matters, made people understand what a world championship match entails, shown the human drama of it the way he and his ghost-writers do in his books, and so on. He could have done chess some good. Instead we hear about how he was robbed in 1984. What an opportunity missed.

I think more needs to be known before Topalov's complaint can be judged as having no basis at all. Mig is right, he will still get the invitations. Fischer got the invitations (mostly) and he was far more trouble than Topalov.
They will find a way to get Topalov into Mexico City if he loses. Almost certainly not so for Kramnik if he loses. What a ridiculous provision anyway, to exclude the loser. How few brain cells do these FIDE idiots have?
We desperately need to get back to a quarterfinal/semifinal/final match system, and with the World Champion being obliged to play in one of the quarterfinals. Let's hope Bessel Kok sees it the same way and can do something.

Kasparov's editorial seems to me, with one exception, to be very well written and thought out. But the anti-kasparovites will always misread and twist what he says. The bit about Fischer, however, is considerably off beam (I agree with Yuriy Kleyner here). The only 'principle' and 'sincere desire' to Fischer's complaints were for his own self interest. That conditions should happen to improve for all chess players as a resulting by-product was a thought that probably never entered his head.
"Chess world...is best run by a single individual or a group of individuals on top". Hell's teeth, Yuriy, isn't that exactly what we've got, doesn't that describe Ilyumzhinov's set-up to a t? Isn't that the whole problem? Absolute power corrupts absolutely as onesong says and this is surely the reason we've had these b******s there for the last 24(!) years for god's sake.

Absolutely right, Pedro F. Hegoburn. What is it with so many of you guys who correctly hate Ilyumzhinov, that you make Kramnik a hero simply because he also hates Ilyumzhinov? Stalin hated Nazi Germany, but this doesn't automatically make Stalin a hero. Kramnik is only slightly less unprincipled than Ilyumzhinov. Don't you guys understand that Kramnik by deliberately refusing to offer Kasparov an acceptable means to qualify in 2002 to be his challenger threw virtually everything that was left into the arms of Ilyumzhinov's FIDE? If this same FIDE now screws Kramnik in this match, it would only serve him bloody well right.

Chris B.,

Even Kasparov's friend Mig has said in these pages that the Dortmund format was irrelevant to Kasparov's decision not to participate; Kasparov demanded a straight rematch and refused to play in ANY qualifier.

What part of that don't you understand?

Playjunior ..

Well, by his toilet tricks Kramnik behaved abdominally.

For goodness sake, Greg, I answered exactly that question for you and niceforkinmove on the 'Elista Entourage' forum. Can't you read? I also answered your question on the 'Kramnik-Topalov g4' forum. In return, I asked you a couple of questions on 'Elista Entourage', repeated on 'Kramnik-Topalov g4', and you STILL have not answered them.
Please put up or shut up.

Greg Koster: up to a point; Kasparov did of course agree to play Ponomariov under the Prague deal. But I agree that Chris B seems to be beyond reason on this issue.

fff,
Lets make it clear.
1. A person can go to toilet how many times he wants. This is backed up with
a)the rules, where there is no point limiting toilet visits or time spent in toilet, and, more important,
b) the fact that toilet is inspected before and after the game, and the whole building is protected from outside radio-signals with noises. You just cannot get any help from outside.
Besides, anyone who has watched the games could swear that Kramnik deviated from computer-suggested variations almost in all key points of all the games.
Meanwhile, if you have followed the press, the ordinal journalists who don't have any view on Kramnik's playing style, don't know anything about noises and inspections make a good scandal-report about comeback World Champion cheating in the toilet.
It was a very-well calculated and absolutely disgusting move made by Topalov. I am sure he should be banned from super-tournaments for some time-the damage he has brought to chess, to WC title and Kramnik are unbelievable.

Chris B, Koster cant answer those, because he can only sing one tune: "I hate Kasparov, I blame him for everything, waaahh"

I too am extremely amused by those who hysterically denounce all those who refuse to universally condemn Topalov. Its all black or white, nothing in between for them.

Kasparov wrote, "In fact, most of the principal actors in Elista stand to gain from the cancellation of the match."

With all due respect to Garry, this seems to me dubious. In the first place, I cannot believe that the players would receive their $500,000 if the match were cancelled. The literal wording of the match regulations suggests that the match has to be played, or they don't get paid.

Beyond that, both Kramnik and Topalov want to participate in more matches in the future, for larger amounts of money. And the cancellation of this match would make it a whole lot harder to find sponsors the next time around.

d, yeah. If Kramnik has a condition that requires him to go to the toilet so often, why didn't he advise the match committee and his opponent of this before the match started, so as to be above suspicion?
Actually, I haven't yet seen Greg blame Kasparov for the Kramnik-Topalov bust-up. Amazing. Doesn't he realise that this was all a dirty plot by Kasparov to so devalue the Title that he could claim to be the last Real World Champion?

"If Kramnik has a condition that requires him to go to the toilet so often, why didn't he advise the match committee and his opponent of this before the match started, so as to be above suspicion?"

It probably never occurred to them, as no one has ever suspended a chess match due to a complaint about toilet breaks. You can be sure that if there is ever another match like this, it will be spelled out in painstaking detail.

Marc, no doubt.
But I was meaning Kramnik. Surely he must have realised that such strange behaviour would raise a few eyebrows in these computer-help paranoid times. Shouldn't he have let them know even just as a courtesy?

In his further interview at Chessbase Kasparov states:

"Here he must declare a winner if there are further disruptions. A referee can't lose control of a game or it will become like Netherlands-Portugal at the World Cup. The next time either player shows such behavior Ilyumzhinov should say, "Fine, the door is over there, goodbye" and the match is over."

Agree, and this is also what Kirsan in a way said to Kramnik when deciding to start game 6. It is not so easy, however, when you want a unified title. Kramnik could take his hat and his title and walk out of there. I hope the match will produce a unified champion without further disputes off the board.

"I hope the match will produce a unified champion without further disputes off the board."

The best scenario is that Kramnik wins the match. Then there will be no doubt that: A) He is the unified champion; B) Dirty tricks don't work; C) FIDE's version of the title is made of a baser metal than a championship won mano à mano in a long match.

The second-best scenario is that Topalov wins by at least +2, so that his forfeit win in Game 5 doesn't provide the margin of victory. However, there would still be lingering questions whether Danailov's mind games had unnerved Kramnik. This scenario requires Topalov to go +3 in the remaining six games, which looks awfully unlikely.

The worst scenario, of course, is that Topalov wins the match by +1, with his forfeit win providing the victory margin. This would leave Topalov with a title no one takes seriously, and Kramnik would certainly sue.

At London 2000, Kasparov evidently complained discretely to arbiter Eric Schiller about Kramnik's rest breaks, was informed of Kramnik's medical problems, and not another word was heard on the matter for six years. Now THAT'S being a professional.

Yes Koster, but according to Makropoulos the manager of Kramnik said something else to the Appeals Committee. This is a quote of Makropoulos from Susan Polgar's blog:

"We have requsted Mr. Hensel to comment on these numbers and received the explanation to the tune that Vladimir uses the toilet space for walking. According to the opinion of the Appeals Committee, this explanation is unsatisfactory, as Kramnik was staying each time 1 or 2 minutes in the toilet."

Now if Mr Hensel had given an honest answer, the insident could have been avoided. It is likely that Kramnik needs these visits for his health condition, and Mr Hensel should have said so, instead of some white lie. Then the decision of the Appeals Committee could have been different.

I am really provoked by all the distinguished GMs and Bessel Kok who all say categorically that the first decision of the Appeals Committee was wrong. That could be the case, but that is by no means clear. I think the decision was OK based on the contract and the situation.

In reply to Marc Shepherd; worse yet, the match finishes 6-6 and Topalov wins by holding as Black in the Armageddon blitz game, after picking the black pawn from one of Azmai's two clenched fists during the drawing of lots. I can see it now.

In reply to Akselborg: an amazing view. Apart from the fact that the protest was out of time, that written representations of the other party were not considered (or requested) contrary to the specific provisions of the regulations, that a specific contractual provision preventing the change of the surroundings once they had been approved was ignored and that the agreed conditions of contest were violated one would agree that the committee did a great job. Which part of this do you not see?

Well, rdh, if you are right about your facts, Mr Kramnik can just take his case to the courtroom. We will see about that.

>>Curious not to mention Fischer-Karpov that wasn't when saying the last forfeit was in 1972.
>>

Because that wasn't a forfeit. Fischer had resigned the title 9 months earlier. Besides, he was talking about forfeited games.

>>Of course Korchnoi was forfeited in 1978 (God, do I mean Korchnoi? Or was it Spassky?) over the same sort of stuff, and that forfeit was reversed. Funny no-one seems to mention that precedent.
>>

Because it isn't one. The forfeit was not reversed. Korchnoi gave the point back voluntarily. He was four points up without it, and wanted the match to continue.

Fischer may have resigned (9 months earlier than what?), but there were still negotiations with him going on up until FIDE gave him some deadline which expired in true gentlemen-we-are-now-at-war-with-Germany style, were there not?

Is that right (about Korchnoi?). Well I never. I had recalled it being Korchnoi who was forfeited as well. I don’t suppose you have any link to an account of events, do you?

I still think it might be instructive to consider what happened then, when you consider some of the hot air one sees about the present episode.

Akselborg, I will have you a small bet that if the matter does ever end up in a courtroom FIDE will not be seeking to say that the Appeals Committee was right, merely that like all referees they are right even when they are wrong.

>>
Posted by: Yuriy Kleyner at October 2, 2006 19:03
Ridiculous set of comments by greatest player in history.

"Mr. Fischer may have been difficult and unstable, but he was a sportsman whose complaints were based on principle and a sincere desire to improve the standards of the chess world."

I am just curious, is the principle Mr. Kasparov refers to paranoia, psychological mind games or anti-Semitism?
>>

I'm curious as to whether or not you're curious. Surely you know what the issue was in that game: Cameras in the playing hall. The forfeit stood because Fischer was in the wrong. The cameras were in the contract. Kasparov is correct though, in stating that his complaint was based around a desire to improve playing conditions. In Fischer's mind, they were disturbing. They were noiseless, as the contract required, but disturbed him nevertheless. Fischer, never a good loser in the best of circumstances, found, too late, that he couldn't bear to have his defeats recorded on film for posterity. It genuinely disturbed him and affected his play. Therefore, Kasparov is right in saying that the point of the protest was to improve playing conditions.

Here we get the implication that Fischer is wrong about cameras because he's an Anti-Semite. Elsewhere we get the implication that Kramnik is wrong to want his contract upheld because he should have played a completely different match 5 years ago. While I agree that Fischer is an Anti-Semite and that Ka-Kr II should have happened, those things are irrelevant to these two issues. While ad hominem arguments are nothing new, it's a bit jarring to see people admitting openly that they're deciding a matter of principle, not on principle, but simply by picking whichever participant they happen to like better. Anyone who doesn't understand the difference between those two things should learn before saying another word.

If you think Kramnik should never be allowed to play again because he ducked Kasparov, fine, think that. But thinking that he should be able to play, but under a completely different set of rules than everyone else is just ludicrous.

>>
Posted by: gilles at October 3, 2006 04:22
banning topalov? are u nuts? topalov is one of the most fair players around. there wasnt ever the slightest trouble with him.
>>

Key word: "wasn't". But the present, not the past, is the issue here. To issue a press release to "All Mass media", accusuing your opponent of cheating, with only vague suspicions to go on is not much better than the cheating itself. Topalov, who himself has been unjustly accused in the past should have understood this better than anyone. But at least his accusers waited until after San Luis to sling their mud, rather than trying to bust up the tournament.

Banning him may be a bit much, but at least he should be heavily fined.

Well, Kasparov has varios time made complaints about Kramnik toilet breaks. The site veselintopalov.net talks about political machine against Topalov and that with arthritis should not go often to the toilet because it hurts or something like that.
Mig also noticed something like that, and if you think about it the whole ACP now has signed a declaration against Kirsan and the score in support of Kramnik. Who is ACP?? A dead organization, not even legitimate.
I repeated this in several posts. Topalov is a nice guy. And the whole war against him is just not fair.

Is Topalov a member of this dead organisation, by the way?

Respect for relying on medical opinions from veselintopalov.net, though. It takes a true fan to do that.

I see that he isn't:

http://www.chess-players.org/eng/member/members.html

On the other hand, all the other members of the top ten are, except Ivanchuk. Interesting.

Zurab Azmaiparashvili is a member of the ACP by the way.

If Kramnik has warned that he will go to the bathroom many time it would have been ok. That was the base of the scandal. Topalov protested legaly, and Kramnik did not submit his appeal on time... well if you do not give your homework on time you do not get credit, no?
Sorry fans of Kramnik, it goes like that, there are laws.

Regarding the question of whether Topalov will be hurt by his reputation being damaged, I don't see how his actions cannot but hurt him. It's true he will continue to be invited to events, but any top professional is impacted by fans. Before this match, Topalov had a lot of fans. Probably a majority of chess fans were rooting for him. Now if he wins, it will be with a stain of illegitamacy, in addition to his being despised for the tactics he used to get the point.

All Kramnik has done is watch as Topalov self-destructed on and off the board. Anyone would think he was god for all the praise he's getting.

Topalov has acted like such a complete jerk that anything Kramnik does makes him look good. But Kramnik isn't totally blameless in all this. His comments after game 4 were incredibly arrogant. Maybe they even prompted Topalov's insane protest. Some of the explanaitons for his bathroom visits don't make complete sense, and his forfeit was self-inflicted. I hope Topalov wins in the rapid tie breaks, and that way they both lose.

But Kramnik will probably be World Champion for life to most people irrespective of the result.

Al, mostly agree with your list of World Champions who were not a$$holes.
However, what was wrong with poor old Steinitz?
And although Kasparov has made some mistakes, and is occasionally on too short a fuse, he is not an a$$hole.
One that maybe should be considered to be so, however, at least for part of the time, is Smyslov. See Korchnoi's account in 'Chess is my Life' about how Smyslov arranged a free ticket for himself to the 1964 Interzonal, leaving only 3 qualifying places in the extremely strong Soviet Zonal tournament for the remaining 7 contenders, instead of it being 4 places from 8.

Marca, I sense that there is little merit in debating with you, but in what sense was Topalov's protest legal? It was out of time and should have been dismissed for that reason alone. This is beyond dispute.

As to Kramnik's not having protested, this is a red herring. He could not protest about the Appeal Committee's decision, now reversed anyway, because under the rules it is final. As to game five, either FIDE is in breach of the contract by purporting to start game five with different conditions from those in the contract, or it is not. If FIDE is in breach, Kramnik is entitled not to play until the breach is put right, and there can be no forfeit and nothing to protest against. If FIDE is not in breach, then there can be no possible complaint; the game was played as scheduled and he forfeited it.

Interesting to see a Topalov fan who is so desperate he wants his idol to gain a point like this though. You don't see many of those.

This stuff about Kramnik warning about going to the bathroom many times is nonsense of course. Apart from the fact that it's his right to do what he likes and that's that, he had no reason to imagine Topalov would know how many times he'd gone. If the arbiters and/or appeal committee hadn't taken the staggering decision to release the rest room tapes to Danailov without asking Kramnik, then Topalov would never have known. So what on earth was the point of warning him?

rdh,
You are completely wrong. Topalov's appeal was on time, he protested only about the game 3, an hour after it finished. And Kramnik protested his lost point a day later.
Did Zhukov order him to? Was it the director of the match Fritz-Kramnik in November who directly flew to Elista to talk to Kramnik?? Or is the the Kremlin?
Do you guys understand the political support Kramnik has????
Still his appeal was illegal.

A part from the video tape of the 3rd game (for which video Kramnik was furious that it "leaked" from Russian hands) shows exactly the following:

- Kramnik enters his rest room

- immediately goes to the toilet for 2 minutes

- comes out of the toilet for 1 minute and looks at the magnetic chess board inside his rest room

- goes again in the toilet for 2 minutes

- comes out again for 2 minutes and looks at the magnetic chess board again

- goes again in the toilet for 1 minute.

Remember, that the toilet inside has no video surveillance. So why should Topalov be happy with Kramnik's such strange pattern of toilet visits?

The Bulgarian technicians also said that the whole cottage of Topalov has been "wired" from day 1 by Zhukov's secret police people. Would it be a great problem for them to also "wire" Kramnik's toilet and connect him with his coaches?

Topalov is damn right to be suspicious. He should have never agreed to play in Russia where the Deputy Prime Minister of the country is also President of the Russian Chess Federation and Chief of the Russian secret services.

Danailov may have indeed scored the first point of Topalov but he (Danailov) was also extremely naive when he agreed to play in Russia. Iliumzinov may really wanted an equal match but not Zhukov...

Giannis has a very very strong point. Zhukov may be at the base. And Topalov's reputation is getting hurt... He never went to talk about the scandal, he reitterated "I want to play chess"

Marca:

I knew I shouldn’t have got into this, but since we’ve started:-

Here is a link to the protest:

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3370

This protest is dated 28.9.2006

Here is a link to the official site

http://www.worldchess2006.com/main.asp?id=918

Game 4 was on 27.9.2006.

There were more than two hours between the behaviour complained of and the protest. Such a protest stands to be immediately thrown out by the rules of the match. There can be no debate about it.

As to Kramnik’s complaint, you haven’t replied to what I said. If the game could not be properly started, he doesn’t need to protest. If it could, his protest will fail.

Giannis:

It doesn’t matter what Kramnik was doing in his rest room or why he wanted to go into the lavatory. He’s entitled to go in there. End of. Maybe he likes to scratch his crotch between moves and prefers it not to be on video. Maybe he reckons mooning between moves brings him luck. It’s not important. The only important thing is that there were arrangements agreed upon before the match about security and it was also agreed that no request to change them would be entertained once the match was underway.

I’m delighted to see Kramnik has announced that he will sue FIDE if he loses because of this forfeit. I hope he wins, of course, but if he doesn’t, I hope he does sue.

I wonder if the place of publication had something to do with Kasparov's failure to mention the most relevant episode of his career - his second match against DB. That seems to have been the only time when discomfort over the playing conditions directly affected his result.
What probably makes Kasparov feel sore this time, however, is not the faded title of 2000 that Kramnik can now go away with but an unprecedented wave of moral support that he suddenly evoked. This is something Garry himself never managed to accomplish after 1985 although on many occasions he deserved it.

Obviously rdh, you don't care if Kramnik was really communicating with someone outside the building when he was in the toilet. For me this is the real issue.

If you are so blind to accept that Kramnik is allowed to cheat as long as he gets away with it due to "previously agreed arrangements" ...well what can I say? Congratulations for your "objectivity"...

Well if whether Kramnik's actually cheating is the real issue, then all one can say is that the Appeals Committee found no evidence of it and that Topalov has just said in a press conference that he doesn't think he is. One might add that he certainly isn't playing like it (sparing me the nuts like artichoke who think moves they don't understand must have been suggested by computers).

Given that, I should have thought the only real issue was how to find a way for the match to be won or lost over the board.

Ok,
Here I would love a comment from Mig.
Medical conditions for Kramnik seem contradictory. And he likes to walk... in a bathroom that is 1 square meter????

rdh,
seems strange to you too, no? Well, sorry, the Russian propaganda machine has washed many brains. That is how they work, that is how they will always work. It is a fact
If you want you can go blind supporting them. If not just look at the other side.

You've lost me, marca. The Russian propaganda machine doesn't work very well in the UK.

Anyway, I assume we've now managed to agree on the timing of Topalov's protest, yes?

Where's your link to any evidence that the lavatory is 1 square metre, by the way?

rdh,
if you believe that Kramnik drinks a lot of water (records show he drank half a cup per game and he did not deny it) and that he likes to walk in the 1,5 square meters bathroom (news reports before the game) I think you are completely into the propaganda........ Think about it, there is a match Kramnik against the computer in a month. Do you know many millions stay on the table because of the result now???? Try to estimate it.

The lavatory set up was explained on chesspro.ru.... I do not have the link, you may wanna read this site more often. It results that even though it is Russian some facts come out. And if you can think reasonably, you will make strange deductions.
Lets start with the match Kramnik against the computer and the fact Zhukov protested before Kramnik. hm......

NOT ONE of us internet blowhards read through the published match regulations and suggested that Kramnik should protest the Game 5 forfeit within two hours.

Unfortunately, Kirsan may be right on this issue.

Hypothetical:
20 hours after Game 4, Topalov files a frivolous protest. The appeals committee upholds the protest. Kramnik says not a word. Kramnik concludes the match and THEN protests. Clearly Kramnik loses this protest. It's too late.

So Kramnik must protest earlier. But when?

Within two hours of the conclusion of a game which has been staged under improper (locked bathroom) conditions, that's when.

Kramnik's decision to play on may not be so noble. He may have simply recognized that by failing to file a timely Game 5 protest he had waived his complaint.

Topalov/Danailov's open letter, handshake-refusal, etc. was outrageous. A true sportsman would give back the point. The Appeals Committee ruling was absurd.

But Kramnik knew he was walking into a snakepit and he must be held responsible for assembling a team whose members failed to take the proper steps to preserve his rights.

All I believe is that no evidence of cheating has been presented and that so far as I can tell from FIDE's own announcements they have broken the match contract in numerous ways.

Before the match was the time for this stuff. Once there's a contract governing anti-cheating measures among other things, then that contract needs to be enforced; it's too late for second thoughts. You can float all the conspiracy theories you like to show how Kramnik must have been cheating - there's never any shortage of those of the internet - but I would prefer to discuss what has actually occurred.

FFS, Greg. I do wonder why I bother.

I'll say it again. Making assumptions about the contract, we can suppose that it obligates FIDE to stage the match under the conditions of contest. One of those is, everyone agrees, that each player shall have a restroom and a lavatory.

Let us assume FIDE in fact purports to stage the game under improper conditions. In other words, it breaches the contract. It seems more likely than not that this was what happened.

In that case it is not a matter of the laws of the game but of ordinary contract law. The party affected by a breach of contract has the right to refuse to fulfil his side of the contract until the breach is rectified. If he does, then the idea of filing a protest is a nonsense. The player is not trying to use the mechanism of the contract; he is using his ordinary legal remedy of refusing to fulfil his part of the contract until the other party - FIDE - complies with it.

Of course the contract may have all sorts of things to say about what is to happen in such an event, but since we can't see it, we don't know. It is also not clear to me what effect Kramnik now continuing the match under protest has. But I will be very surprised if the absence of a protest against the outcome of game five makes a difference: either FIDE was entitled to stage the game contractually, in which protest is useless, or it was not entitled, in which case formal protest under the contract is unnecessary.

Contractually, there is no protest against an Appeals Committee decision, because it is final. The only question is whether what the Appeals Committee did was something that the contract entitled them to do, or not.

>>
Posted by: Yuriy Kleyner at October 2, 2006 19:03
Ridiculous set of comments by greatest player in history.
"Mr. Fischer may have been difficult and unstable, but he was a sportsman whose complaints were based on principle and a sincere desire to improve the standards of the chess world."
I am just curious, is the principle Mr. Kasparov refers to paranoia, psychological mind games or anti-Semitism?
>>
>>I'm curious as to whether or not you're curious. Surely you know what the issue was in that game: Cameras in the playing hall.>Kasparov is correct though, in stating that his complaint was based around a desire to improve playing conditions. In Fischer's mind, they were disturbing. They were noiseless, as the contract required, but disturbed him nevertheless. Fischer, never a good loser in the best of circumstances, found, too late, that he couldn't bear to have his defeats recorded on film for posterity. It genuinely disturbed him and affected his play. Therefore, Kasparov is right in saying that the point of the protest was to improve playing conditions.>Here we get the implication that Fischer is wrong about cameras because he's an Anti-Semite.>Elsewhere we get the implication that Kramnik is wrong to want his contract upheld because he should have played a completely different match 5 years ago. While I agree that Fischer is an Anti-Semite and that Ka-Kr II should have happened, those things are irrelevant to these two issues. <<

Eh. Say one guy has backed out of contracts, screwed over men he was supposed to play, aligned himself with unscrupulous managers, etc. When such a man ends up getting screwed over, we probably would not have much sympathy for him. We would say he got what he deserved and that he painted himself in the corner where the only guys who would work with him would be the kind of guys who would spit in his face and stab him in the back at the first opportunity.
Imagine another guy who has lodged five protests already with the arbitratin committee. The first four were frivolous and meant to do nothing but annoy his opponent, yet he got his way on a couple. We wouldn't be too pressed if he gets denied on a fifth one barring a life or death situation.

So I agree that ad hominem judgement is bad. But sometimes people deserve what's coming to them. Especially in a case like this where, to me anyway, the particulars are all a matter of technicalities, not any sort of larger moral issues.

rdh,

It's never a bother to respond to your posts.

Here's where you get into trouble: "The party affected by a breach of contract has the right to refuse to fulfill his side of the contract until the breach is rectified." Hmm.

But what you're missing is that Kramnik and Topalov contracted to follow a specific procedure in the event of a claimed breach of contract.

The reason for this? Let's imagine that 90 minutes after Game 5, Kramnik filed a protest saying the Game result was improper because:
--the locked bathroom violated the agreed-upon accommodations and
--Topalov's protest was late and the appeals committee had no authority to entertain it.

The appeals committee then has the opportunity to say: "Oops. Kramnik, you're right. We will cancel today's result and play Game 5 tomorrow."

A provision of the contract required Kramnik to formally protest any infractions within two hours of the end of the game. He didn't. Sadly, he waives his rights.

rdh,

To put it another way, the contract allows party A, or the appeals committee, to act contrary to the provisions of the contract as long as party B does not file a timely protest.

rdh--

To put it yet another way:

The actual situation:
All of Kramnik's (and Hensel's) complaints, letters, press conferences, etc., had no impact on the contractual situation because Kramnik did not put his complaints in the form of a timely protest.

A hypothetical situation:
--Neither Kramnik nor Hensel complain about the locked bathrooms
--For Game 5, a smiling Kramnik walks onto the stage, heads for the rest area, takes a nap, and is forfeited.

Unfortunately, the actual situation of the angry, letter-writing Kramnik is legally identical to the hypothetical situation of the happily napping Kramnik.

When a contract is breached, conditions of said contract are not in affect. So to say Kramnik must give up the point because of the match rules is not even a possibility because at the time FIDE was in breach. Hence no match, no match rules to break.

And there is no question they were in breach, so Kramnik does not have a legal problem, he has an enforcement and resource problem. Even if there were an international court with the authority to handle such a case, Kirsan has the much deeper pockets to draw upon.

All this bathroom=cheating talk is stupid. Everyone has said there is no cheating including Topalov and FIDE. Let it go.

Marca are you really Artichoke using a different handle? Chirping is not the same as dialogue.

And lastly to Artichoke, thou this pains me, the reason Kramnik moved his Bishop twice was not because a computer told him to but rather that Topalov attacked it with a Knight. It is an extremely simple sequence of moves, please look at it and think.

Greg,

If instead of staging a match Kirsan decided to, I don't know, doodle a picture of baby saiga, the proud antelopian mascot of Kalmykia, that does not mean Kramnik would take his case to the appellation committee or whatever other arbitration system is set up by the contract. In that case, Kramnik is free of his contractual obligations because Kirsan breached contract, and Kramnik can in fact sue him for damages. Fortunately, the actual situation of Kramnik not being able to have access to private bathroom is legally identical to Kramnik not having a match to play in at all. It's called breach of contract.

Yuriy,

YOU think the locked toilet was a breach. And I think the locked toilet was a breach.

But the contract requires Kramnik to file a timely protest about the locked toilet and the forfeit; to present the appeals committee with a formal opportunity to determine if THEY think there was a breach. Then,

--If the appeals committee rules for Kramnik, all is good.
--If the committee rules against Kramnik, he can take the case to court (and probably win).

But if he does not take the contract-mandated step of filing a timely protest to the appeals committee and goes straight to court, he'll hear, "Look, Kramnik, for all we know, if you'd filed your timely protest you'd have convinced the appeals committee to unlock the bathroom and reverse the forfeit. But you never gave them a proper, legal chance to correct their error like you promised to do in the contract. So don't bother us with your problem."


chillirat, to be fair to artichoke his point was not that the bishop should be left en prise but that it should have been traded on d4, this being in artichoke's eyes the logical continuation of Black's manoeuvre. He is ludicrously wrong and making an utter fool of himself, of course, but not quite for the reason you give.

Greg, Greg, Greg, I can tell you are not a lawyer. The contract (or at the least the bit of it we can see, the regulations) says that the decision of the Appeals Committee is final. There is no scope for protesting or appealing it. It is the end. There is no contractual avenue open to Kramnik to protest about the locked bathroom. It follows that game five starts as agreed, and Kramnik is forfeited. He can protest if he likes about the forfeit, but it will not be upheld.

Consequently if FIDE has not breached its contract, however outrageous that contract was and however bad the Appeals Committee's decision was, there is nothing to be done.

You are under the impression that if Kramnik believes that another party is in breach of the contract he has to make a protest under the contract. This is completely wrong. The contract provides for arbitration by the appeals committee in certain circumstances. It does not follow that the appeals committee has the power to decide whether its own decisions constituted a breach of the contract: indeed the very idea is absurd. It would amount to a contract where one party can decide whether or not it is in breach of contract.

Consider an American football game. The contract will provide for the NFL a pitch referee, a video referee, and for all I know some kind of panel to appeal to from the video ref. But if the NFL says well actually we're going to require half your team to be under ten stone, you don't go to the video panel, you get yourself to a courtroom.

Of course contracts do sometimes contain arbitration provisions by which the parties agree not to sue but to go to some third party in the event of a dispute - typically an arbitrator. But that's not where we are here.

It all turns on whether FIDE is in breach of its contract. If it was then there is no question - under UK law anyway - that Kramnik is entitled to say that he is not going to play until it rectifies the breach.

There is also of course the point that the protest which sparked all the trouble and led to the appeal committee's ruling was manifestly out of time. It hardly lies in FIDE's mouth now to say that they will not consider another protest because it was formally filed too late. To put it in UK contractual terms, it is clear that FIDE did not consider this stipulation as to time to be the essence of the contract.

rdh--

On a related note:

The contract provides for a two-hour time-limit for protests, and provides, as well, for a prompt appeals committee decision.

When Hensel received word of Topalov's late protest and the appeals committee's late decision he should have said, "Sorry, boys, according to our contract this is all too late. I'm not even going to bother Kramnik about it. He'll just show up tomorrow morning and if his bathroom is locked you can forfeit him and he'll protest the forfeit."


I agree that Kramnik might have taken some more assertive steps. Although frankly that's pretty much what they did say, apart from protesting the forfeit.

Having said that, Kramnik says in his protest that he was advised to wait until the new Appeals Committee was appointed so that he would have someone to protest to.

More importantly though the appeals committee in rejecting his protest do not mention its timing at all and simply say that the decision of the previous appeals committee was final. (a little quaint considering its was overturned, but I guess one can see what they're trying to say). Given this there is really no way that timing can be made an issue.

rdh -- I understand Artichokes point (that taking on 'd4' seemed right for a human and that not exchanging seemed like a computer move), and the faulty line of reasoning supporting said point. Thats why I asked the thorny green vegetable to look at the sequence and think.

Artichoke please notice that moving the Bishop to 'b4' attacking the undefended 'a' pawn is better than exchanging on 'd4' allowing white to double rooks with a gain of tempo. Likewise bringing the Bishop back to 'c5' to exchange on 'b3' to create a target and remove whites control of 'd8' is quite logical too.

It is my hope that all vegetables and humans can learn from and enjoy the logic of chess and perhaps even apply it to these discussions.

'gain of tempo' should be 'with out loss of tempo', parden.

'parden' should read 'pardon', pardon.

Greg,

Shortly, no. Breach of contract grants the party the right to pursue other avenues of arbitration/compensation. Especially considering that the committee already ruled on the matter (in favor of Topalov and in violation of the contract) it makes no sense at all that it would be suggested that Kramnik go back to the court that just issued a ruling.

As a last resort I'll probably have to read over the match agreement. Foolish of me to have yapped so much without having done so.

And while you are at it, perhaps you could give the basics of contract law a brief read. That might be difficult, since I don't know what country Kramnik would sue in, my guess is Russia and I don't believe that you are familiar with the language, so it might be a while. But hey, if it keeps you from yapping foolishly...

Chris B, didn't see your comment earlier.

>>"Chess world...is best run by a single individual or a group of individuals on top". Hell's teeth, Yuriy, isn't that exactly what we've got, doesn't that describe Ilyumzhinov's set-up to a t? Isn't that the whole problem? >Absolute power corrupts absolutely as onesong says and this is surely the reason we've had these b******s there for the last 24(!) years for god's sake.<<

Actually that quote belongs to Lord Acton :)

Yuriy, I'll believe you. Hah. I'm not hot on the literature stuff - was just quoting onesong@aol.com's post.

Koster: "As a last resort I'll probably have to read over the match agreement."
This should have been your first resort.

"Foolish of me to have yapped so much without having done so."
Indeed, amazing you recognise this.

It can't really be his first resort, of course, because the contracts aren't in the public domain AFAIK. Although they should be.

Twitter Updates

    Follow me on Twitter

     

    Archives

    About this Entry

    This page contains a single entry by Mig published on October 2, 2006 5:01 PM.

    Kramnik-Topalov g6 was the previous entry in this blog.

    October 06 Rating List is the next entry in this blog.

    Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.