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.
That sign is on my bathroom door. I snagged it from the "Brains in Bahrain" match in 2002. In that case it was also really a rest area, not a restroom...
I mean a good way never to be accepted as the world champion for Topalov is to take this point. Now even if he somehow by a miracle finishes 6.5-5.5 to win it, people will say that he is still the loser as he stole game 5, put a huge psychological burden on Kramnik, and really only tied the match with an extra white.
Oh and also seems a little crazy to bring out any killer instinct in Kramnik, you think Kramnik won't be looking for every opportunity to smash Topalov in game 8 (his next white) now Kramnik has no reason not to embarass his opponent if he feels he can. I expect Kramnik to finish +3 even with the stolen game.
Hi Mig! According to official site game 7 will take place October 4 (and not tomorrow)
Cheers
New nickname: WClin Topaloo
"Overture...curtain, lights...oh, what heights we'll hit...on with the show this is it!" What could be more apropos than this excerpt from the signature song of Loony Tunes? Hey, Mig, can you post a link to the Garry article? Thanks Dogmatic One...
Interesting moves by Kramnik:
18 .... Bc5-b4 avoiding the trade of dark square bishops.
23 .... Bb4-c5 forcing that same trade.
What's the logic here? I'm sure they are good moves, keep black's defense harmonious, etc.
To me (a decent player but no international title) they seem slightly computer-like. I believe that a human would probably decide one way or the other on trading the bishops and stick with the choice.
Do we know that Kramnik didn't go to the bathroom 40 times today? I haven't heard anything about this.
Ironically Kramnik went into the match with a less favorable reputation for not having agreed to a rematch with Kasparov, then for having played a relatively weak match with Leko. Topalov had the perfect opportunity to seize history and become a popular, undisputed World Champion. Now, in one day, Topalov has become reviled and Kramnik has the opportunity to become the undisputed World Champion with the support of the general chess-playing community (having taken the "high-road", if there can be one in this situation). Certainly he has gained the support of chess fans in general for putting up with the abusive treatment of Topalov's manager and FIDE's Appeals Committee. I believe it took sincere sportsmanship on his part to continue given the situation/decision regarding Game Five. Remarkable.
One point of disagreement Mig; the forfeit was most certainly not correct. Since the Appeals Committee took a decision in direct violation of the rules of the match, their decision should have been voided, and thus also the "false" start of Game Five. Since inspections were performed, and since no evidence of cheating by Kramink was found, Topalov would have no grounds to have not continued the match with Game Five.
I can't understand how Topalov could possibly believe Kramnik was cheating, especially given the poor moves and missed opportunties on Kramnik's part. Kramnik was simply fortunate that Topalov made even worse decisions. The score after the first two games could easily have been 1.5 - 0.5 in favor of Topalov, so I sincerely doubt cheating on Kramnik's part. I'd speculate that Topalov's character could now be called into question since I can think of no other motivation for his claim of cheating on Kramnik's than that of Topalov realizing that he cannot defeat Kramnik over the board.
In the end, I guess all is right in World Chess again. It just wouldn't seem normal if there weren't some goofy or ridiculous scandal involved (ala Fischer-Spassky '72, Karpov-Korchnoi '78, Karpov-Kasparov '84).
The Top Ten Possible Reasons for Kramnik's Frequent Bathroom Visits
10. Chess pieces are covered with all those... germs!
9. Topalov's stress pheromones have been genetically altered to stimulate Kramnik's kidney functions.
8. Kramnik has been experiencing embarrassing flatulence and is too polite to share his condition with Topalov.
7. Topalov's telepathic, mind-reading abilities only work in close proximity to his opponent.
6. Kramnik's imaginary friend only appears to him in the mirror when he is alone.
5. Sitting in the same room with Danailov causes uncontrollable bouts of queasiness.
4. The bathroom floor tile squares are large and empty, allowing Kramnik's Zen mind to unclutter.
3. Botvinnik's ghost is channeling moves to Kramnik by the direction of the whirlpool in the toilet.
2. Topalov has halitosis, making frequent escapes from the board necessary.
1. FIDE has turned the world championship match into a giant pissing contest.
Mig remember there were two letters. The first one I agree raised some legitimate issues. These issues were obviously addressed to everyones satisfaction. This is proven by the fact that the second letter raised none of the legitimate issues from the first letter. Instead it just said he goes to the bathroom too much. Danilov then used his connections in the fide appeals to force Kramnik to accept the breach or forfeit hours before game 5. For me thats when things flew out of orbit. The round 5 pictures didn't help either. Now I don't bother to read Topalov's teams releases. They have joined Kirsan and Makropoulos and are off the radar of cedibility.
Kramnik's failing to play game 5 was
accurate defensive strategy against the
Topalov-Danailov attack-he sacrificed a game
to improve his position, defusing Danailov's
increasing demands, and getting rid of the
appeals committee. Playing , with another
appeal to the same committee, wouldn't have
achieved this, but the threat to walk out made
his position tenable. I can't fault him either
morally or pragmatically.
We've got no appeals committee now; it's all Kirsan all the time. This is no way to run a match.
For those who asked how many times Kramnik has been to the toilette in game 6, a bulgarian TV channel said that it was again 15+ times. No further comments on that.
chessbase even have an interview with karpov on the subject. karpov from all ppl! bleh he had no shame to play a wch match against timman after garry and short were kicked out by fide. and he abandoned the botvinik memorial one day before the start. and the russian championship too. now he's giving morals to topalov. great job chessbase.
I don't think Kasparov's WSJ editorial is available online except to subscribers, but I borrowed someone's paper earlier today.
The article pretty much states the obvious stuff and resurrects the same old complaint about Kramnik denying Kasparov a rematch.
It might already have been pointed out in another comment inhere, apologies in that case, but have you had a good look at the picture on the following address: http://www.chessbase.com/news/2006/elista/savinov30.jpg ? Having his own toilet during this match may indeed be a huge deal for Kramnik.
I'd also like to add that, as so many others, I was initially rooting for Topalov, but now I've certainly lost all my respect for him, and I hope he will pay for this stunt he has pulled. Only Kramnik will now be a worthy winner of the match.
i wonder when will chessbase translate the interview with nikitin: http://www.chesspro.ru/match/reports/6/
they put up Nunn, Seirawan, Kok, Karpov, the GMs' kramnik support letter all very pro-kramnik. time for sth more balanced.
Mig, you write: "Kramnik's behavior was unusual enough to warrant curiousity and investigation."
I disagree. Kramnik's behavior is unusual only if you accept that Danailov told the truth when he said Kramnik was visiting the bathroom on the average more than 50 times per game.
We know Danailov lied. Susan Polgar has put on her blog as statement by Makropoulos where he says about this issue: "In the video recording which we got hold of, Kramnik visited the toilet 25 times. In the third game the number is 18. In the first two games, in one hour and a half – 11 or 12 times."
The only complete video recording they have is the third game, in which Kramnik went in the bathroom 18 times. This is 3 times less than what Danailov told in his complaint.
Danailov should never have been able in the first place to know what was Kramnik's behavior in his restroom. Only the arbiters were supposed to have access to the videos.
What is unusual and deserves investigation is therefore that Danailov was given the opportunity to access the videos, and that he blatantly lied about their content to give the false impression that Kramnik was cheating.
Heh, from an 1150 word article, Marc Shepherd takes the single sentence "For years he avoided both a rematch and unification with FIDE" to harp on. Talk about cherry picking.
The entire article will be up at ChessBase later. I'll excerpt here too for discussion. I'm sure it will all center around that one sentence.
One point that's occurred to me about what is normal behaviour in a match. Who is to say? How many events do you know where the players have their own rest room each and an en suite toilet facilities? There is no normal behaviour to compare it with.
Game 5 destroyed WClin Topaloo's rumour as a sportsman.
Didn't todays slow draw also destroy his rumour as beeing an aggressive player?
I have no idea if this is the first-ever match with toilet facilities for each player. I thought London had separate facilities, but don't exactly recall. Will ask. But the separate relaxation rooms with video cameras, that's all bizarre. Why do they need private rooms? They should be on the frigging stage playing chess, not looking at a demo board from a sofa. It's a sport, damn it!
First world championship match where one player will get white three times in a row?
Mig wrote, 'Heh, from an 1150 word article, Marc Shepherd takes the single sentence "For years he avoided both a rematch and unification with FIDE" to harp on. Talk about cherry picking.'
I think that, in the context of *present circumstances*, that's gratuitous. And the article overall seems to make basically the obvious points -- all correct and valid, but hardly insightful.
Yeah, I was just noticing that. The original game page said game 7 was tomorrow with Kramnik white. Now there's an item on the official site homepage saying it's Wednesday with Topalov white as originally scheduled. Ugly. But it will be quite a blow to Topalov if he doesn't score a win next game.
"Didn't todays slow draw also destroy his rumour as beeing an aggressive player?"
One's style is not defined by a single game. Over the six games played so far, Topalov has been the aggressor — unfortunately for him, fatally so. In a couple of drawn games, he has pressed on when, in the opinion of GM commentators, there was nothing there.
Kasparov's piece was written for the Wall Street Journal, for one, not for a chess audience. As such it's a big picture article that explains the situation. Two, it makes several points about the origins of this mess that I still haven't seen anywhere else. That ending the match after game four was convenient for just about everybody, for example. (Other than Ilyumzhinov.) Contrasting Fischer's motivations with Topalov's was also worthwhile, I think, as was comparing the political battles of 84-85 with this petty skullduggery. Anyway, I'll put up excerpts in a bit. Rather not hijack this item any further.
Topalov will be the overall winner, trust me! Most will ignore this post but it does not matter or change anything. Interesting what is Kaspy's opinion on the subject of relations between Rusian politic Zhukov and Kirsan. Before the elections Kirsan was vulnerable to Zhukov but is he now ??
Regarding game 5 forfeit, Kramnik may have some ground.
The catch is, that clock was started in a game which had to be played under rules different from rules accepted for the match. Therefore, this game does not belong to the match.
IMHO, the case will be decided to a better trial lawyer ;-)
Nice draw today. Topalov is a broken pawn about to fall.
Mig, this is neither the first-ever match with separate toilets nor the first match with private rooms for the players. I begrudge them neither.
But then, I am not all that convinced that chess is a sport... To me, a closer analogy would be a lawyer arguing a case in court. Strenuous activity, increased pulse rate, etc., but not really a sport.
I suppose I must add VERY quickly that even I in my small way have found competitive chess to have the potential to exhaust a player. (I recall a game where I was unable to get up at first attempt when it was over, and I was quite young and healthy.) I do not belittle the accomplishments of its greatest exponents; they amaze me.
I associate myself wholeheartedly with the remarks of cadlag.
I am not typically a prohibitionist. But there are exceptions. I believe that we should not knowingly repeat lies, no matter the cheap entertainment value. I believe that we should never utter the names of serial killers. I believe we should not concoct dialogue, pretend it is translated from the original Bulgarian, and post it on mig's site. I believe other stuff too, but even im getting bored with this ...
The number of visits mentioned by the loathsome Danailov is, like so much that has emanated from the fallen Topalov's camp, simply a concoction, a fabrication, a lie.
I fear that when all of the detail of this episode is near forgotten, the last thing that will remain in our collective memory is Danailov's deft numerical lie. We should weed it out now, at every opportunity.
Well, Kramnik has certainly taken the moral high ground by continuing to play. I admire the man. Kudos to him for not terminating the match. Perhaps the chess world has some hope yet.
That seems pretty odd, to reverse the color sequence halfway through the match.
I would think that it would make more sense to just keep alternating colors. That way one guy has the advantage of getting White to start the match, and the other guy has the advantage of having White in the final game when it is clear exactly what result he needs. It seems like a clear advantage to Kramnik to get White in both the first and last game.
"But it will be quite a blow to Topalov if he doesn't score a win next game."
I agree. Three Whites left; he needs to generate some chances. Given the match situation, it is almost embarrassing how easily Kramnik equalized today.
The question is, does Topalov start playing lines like 4.Nxf7 in the Petroff?
Dan,
The logic behind the color reversal halfway is to ensure that each player will have some games with White on the first day after the rest day.
Thanks, Andrei. That could be addressed without a reversal by having rest days after every three games, instead of after every two, but maybe that's too fast a schedule for the players.
Excellent post, Mig. I made some posts with similar views in the forums here, which generally ran against the flow of opinion (which was that Kramnik did absolutely nothing wrong and should be worshiped, more or less).
Topalov and his team deserve much of the blame for this mess, but Kramnik shares some too - he's the one who chose not to play game 5. Nobody else is responsible for that except for him. That doesn't mean this is all his fault; far from it, but he does not walk away with his hands clean either.
I don't know how I would have resolved the forfeit issue; one idea I had was to compromise by giving Topalov a half-point and continuing from Game 5 - effectively giving Topalov draw odds while retaining Kramnik's 2 game lead, and giving Kramnik back his white game. This would also have had the unintended but pleasant consequence of eliminating the possibility of any rapid tiebreaks!
Putting aside the issue of who is more/completely to blame for this for a second, I do think the reaction in the chess world is interesting. If something similar had happened in any other sport (I've tried to make similar analogies for friends who are fans of other games and know nothing of this situation), the public reaction would almost certainly be exactly the opposite of what we've seen! The player or team who didn't step on the field would be villified. I think it says a lot about the history of World Championship matches that a player refusing to play because of a situation away from the board is not only seen as acceptable, but commended.
In any case, the most important thing is that chess is being played again. I'd like to see Kramnik win now, but that's mostly for pragmatic reasons - it will cause, by far, the least controversy. An overwhelming Topalov victory (unlikely as it may be) would be the next best outcome...with a 1 point win by Topalov, or a 6-6 score leading to tiebreaks probably hurting the chess world for some time to come.
Come om Kramnik!!
Posted by: artichoke at October 2, 2006 13:43
For those who asked how many times Kramnik has been to the toilette in game 6, a bulgarian TV channel said that it was again 15+ times.
There is no way on Earth for Bulgarian TV to determine how many times was Kramnik today to the toilette (as opposed to the rest room). So we'd rather not believe them.
In gave 5 Kramnik had no choice but to forfeit or legitamize the decision of the appeals committee to force him to play in conditions which were not stipulated by the contract. The subsequent actions by FIDE make it clear Kramnik was right. I don't know why the FIDE pres is so stupid. What Kos said was absolutely correct.
I was amazed Kramnik decided to go on with the match. I wouldn't have. Not only did he forfeit a game, but one with white.
I didn't really care who won when the match started, but now I'm definately rooting for Kramnik. I imagine many have similar feelings. Topalov plays an entertaining brand of chess, but it doesn't make up for his behavior (or, perhaps more accurately, those who have acted in his behalf).
Come on Topalov!! Beat Kramnik!
By the way, I take it there was no press conference after Game 6? (Not that there would have been very much to discuss concerning *the moves of* this game.)
For those who dont believe how many times Kramnik has been to the bathroom in game 6 - it was said by the official spokesman of Topalov who is currently in Elista in a live show that was broadcasted.
>>Topalov will be the overall winner, trust me!
In what sense of the word? If he wins the match by a point but remains the most hated man in the chess world, does that go down as a win or a loss in your book?
>>Most will ignore this post but it does not >>matter or change anything.
Yes, I imagine if Topalov wins, you'll be the first one to ignore it. But you're right, nothing you say or do will affect the outcome of the match. Makes your whole post kind of pointless.
Before the match, I didn't care too much about the outcome, because I did not consider any of them a worthy champion and I do think the focus in a match hides the real organizational problem behind chess.
Now, I became impressed of the huge media manipulation of opinion and how suddenly the match became a contest between a "hero, victim" Kramnik and a "villain" Topalov.
Lets check the conclusion of the whole process:
- Kramnik has less pressure than before; now he knows that he don't need to win a single game, he even does not need to win the match ... if he loses, he has always the excuse of being a victim of the system.
- Instead of playing game five, Kramnik has "saved" the game ... if he became in disadvantage, he can use his savings to say he should be the winner in people's eyes, if not, this is simply savings he does won't need to use; in other words, he just saved (adjourned) the game, he can do any complain whenever he wants to do it.
- Kramnik -who has never been the innocent pigeon in the past- now is portrayed as a victim and received support of people, besides an a addition to two strong grandmasters and friends to his team, in Russian land.
Let's check Topalov after the process:
- Topalov has lost a lot of popular support, even when he played aggressively the two games he lost (rejecting draws, which is something that supposedly the public may like).
- Now, the pressure to win is much bigger now; now, only an overwhelming score (even more than just win 2 games) would make in people's eyes he is a worthy champion.
So, I wonder what is the people who is portrayed Kramnik as victim? Kramnik, without even trying to win a single game of this match has got it all: The support (for what, for not being Topalov?), the score and the resources. Extremely lucky?
Mig,
in Libya, Adams and Kasimdzhanov had their own rest rooms. I remember seeing a video of these rooms on the internet.
I disagree that Kramnik was wrong to forfeit game 5. Playing game 5 would have supported all the bad decisions of the appeal's committee. Topalov would have won the psychological battle (that John Nunn explained). The appeal's committee would still have been there today. So Kramnik had no choice but to forfeit.
The new appeal's committee will still have a member of the old committee. And unfortunetly the new ones are not proposed by the players but by Ilyimzhinov. That's bad.
Duncan
For those who dont believe how many times Kramnik has been to the bathroom in game 6 - it was said by the official spokesman of Topalov who is currently in Elista in a live show that was broadcasted.
Posted by: Vasil Mihailov at October 2, 2006 15:20
Dear Vasil,
The only way for bulgarian TV to find out "how many times Kramnik has been to the bathroom in game 6" is to study the camera logs of the rest room. I don't believe that the bulgarian side can get those logs without the permission of the new AK, and I don't believe the new AK would give them that permission so easy as the old one did.
Dear ML,
When you read this after a day or two somewhere, may be you will remember that once I have wrote it.
P.S. I'll try to find it somewhere in a newspaper tomorrow.
So team Topalov distributes lies again.
The only thing they could count was how many times Kramnik visited rest room (left the scene).
In other words, what I don't see is: What is the allegedly "psychological battle" thst Topalov's team applied or won against Kramnik?
I imagine you "won a psychological battle" if after a series of incidents, you can make sure your opponent has more pressure and is not longer playing comfortably. The way media portrayed the issue, Kramnik was never in uncomfortably position and Topalov got worse than before (remember than we are not talking about the score, it is about the objective outcome of the match.
Thanks to Mr Danailov and the unintelligent magagement of Topalov's team and mass media, Kramnik has won the match effortlessly.
Kramnik turned this total mess to his advantage. We may say that he's not only bright over the board and at the toilet, but also at politics.
He's currently beating Topalov on the board and out of the board.
'In other words, what I don't see is: What is the allegedly "psychological battle" thst Topalov's team applied or won against Kramnik?'
Well, at the very least, Team Topalov manufactured a free win out of the situation. How this affects Kramnik over the next six games remains to be seen. He certainly seemed cool and collected today.
Pascual, your argument is bizarre. The implication that Kramnik can't really be a victim because his position is so good. That's the same mentality as people who shoplift from department stores and rationalize that the store is so big they'll never miss it.
Granted, Kramnik's position is good. As you say, he doesn't need to win another game, and all the rest of it. But he's still been publicly accused without evidence, and had a point stolen from him. Whether he can afford the theft or not is irrelevant.
Similarly, even though Topalov has done those despicable things, you seem to imply that since he's played aggressive and exciting chess, we shouldn't care about that.
What you've (somehow) failed to grasp is that Topalov is not being vilified for his chess, he's being vilified for his character. Your post, written in an ethical vacuum, does not get the wrong answer to these questions, it simply fails to consider them at all.
From Yuri:
"What's amazing is not that Topalov's side would argue over bathrooms, that FIDE would listen or that Kramnik would refuse to play. What's amazing is after FIDE admitted they were wrong by giving in to virtually each of Kramnik's requests including the dismissal of committee that made the original decision they would still allow "Game 5" to stand. The elaborate analogy of this would be for a man who gets charged with a crime, convicted by a court and his assets seized. The court's decision is then overturned, the court found corrupt and all judges fired, the charges dismissed, the man freed and . . . the state keeps the assets."
I had to repost that. Hit's the Toilet right in the flusher...
Mig,
I have a question here. Since the scheduole has been extended by a couple of days, who will bear the extra cost? Will it be deducted from the prize-money of Topa and Kramnik ?
-Amit
Kramnik has just sacrificed more in one move than Topalov has his entire career. It made me think about an aspect that I have been ignoring, which is that the chess title has been in shambles for quite a while now.
I know, how do you forget something like that? I was just zeroed in on this match and not looking at a bigger picture. I still hold that if Kramnik walked away, he would have been justified, and I wouldn't have blamed him one bit. But it is clear that chess needs a leader, and Kramnik took a step in becoming one.
For those who think Vladdy avoided the rematch with Kasparov (and I am one), and had a majority hand in screwing up the big picture, this should go a long ways in making reparations for that.
Yuri and Mark: or, even more on point, like a man who gets charged with a crime, convicted by a court, and his house is seized by the state. In protest, he burns the house down. The court's decision is then overturned, the court found corrupt and all judges fired, the charges dismissed, the man freed and . . . well, he wants the state to build him a new house.
Unified World Championship is practically one-sided now anyway. If Kramnik wins he will indeed be the world champion as he even "gave" a full point away to Topalov.
On the other hand, if Topalov does win he will have to win decisively - it can't even be close - because Kramnik (and others) can point to the full point, as well as the controversy created and the ill effects he may have cause Kramnik, and justifiably claim that nothing has been proven this time around. It will be almost impossible for Topalov to unify this title and claim to be world champion! Alas, I was one of the ones who before the match was hoping that he would do so...
I only hope now that Kramnik will win so as to unify the title and then, most importantly, be well enough and gutsy enough to prove that he is the deserved world champion by winning some tournaments, showing he can win and not just "not lose" as his reputation seems to be now, and defend his unified title within a reasonable period of time to the most qualified opponent, even if that opponent may again be Topalov.
Dear Graeme,
First, do you consider money is an issue in this. Of course, not, at least for the players (might be for the managers and corrupt officers)? Do you consider this is about points?
You said that they have stolen a point to Kramnik? Of course not!, might be in the score, but the respect to a champion is based in his reputation, not in their titles; so Kramnik has not lost any points because in the eyes of people (which is what matters) that game was not played.
On the other hand, this is just more pressure to Topalov, he has the score and the popular support against him. Kramnik has won by far a psychological war between these two, if there were any: Now, he can go to his bathroom anytime he wants just for molest Topalov, because Mr. Danailov has revealed that this upsets him (this is the part of poor management), he can even say as on Wednesday that he can pequalize easily against Topalov even thinking simultaneously in watching a soccer game ...
So, Topalov's team make a tactical suicide off the board ... don't make Kramnik a victim when he was the overwhelming winner of the situation.
By the way, here is the new AC members list:
1. Vega is already compromized as the member of previous AC. How can he deal with protests over his own decisions?
2. Gasanov represents Azerbajzan and can be easily considered under outside pressure/influence (many in FIDE and Azerbajan should be interested in getting their share of the now questionable Topalov-Rajabov megabuck).
3. Kutin is a close friend of Kirsan and his reputation is as questionable as Macro or as Azmaiparashvili, but I don't know much about him.
Is this true Kramnik accepted these candidates?
I like Theodulf's analogy.
Theodulf,
I prefer the analogy of the court dumping a huge pile of **** in your house then fining you for moving out of the house.
FIDE recently reaffirmed Kramnik's right to play by a certain set of conditions. Therefore the games he was forced to play in violation of those conditions do not count. If Topalov was allowed to castle with his rook under attack, that game should be thrown out. Kramnik should not be forced to continue to play that game with undue disadvantage and stress.
To Yuriy Kleyner
Dear,
If you dont protest for the illegal move /castling under attack/ immediately after it and you make your move instead, then you lose the right to protest about it. So did Kramnik - he didnt protested. Read posts more carefully, this topic has been mentioned long time ago.
"Yesterday I said that we need a hero for this match to continue," said Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, president of the World Chess Federation, known by its French acronym, FIDE. "Veselin (Topalov) would have become a hero if he agreed to a 3-1 score ... Now we all can call Vladimir (Kramnik) a true hero."
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/10/02/europe/EU_GEN_Russia_Chess.php
Ok, it's official. Vladimir Kramnik SAVES CHESS!
Go Vlad The Destroyer!
All moot points.
When Kramnik sinks Topalov, he will be the UNDISPUTED, UNIFIED World Chess Champion, and considered a gentleman in chess, unlike the petty Topalov.
Topalov, having White twice in a row, has managed a whopping 2 draws, and had to 'get legal' to grab a full point.
Apprently someone forgot to tell Kramnik he is required to fold like a house of cards like past Topalov victims (RE: San Luis) when attacked by the Great Topalov.
It's like being attacked by a mad dog in a Rodeo Barrel: he just bounces off and hurts himself.
Tal, nor Fischer, Topalov is not.
Someone may have already covered this in another post, but not only has Kramnik continued the match, he had to be aware of the 3 blacks in a row. This in addition to the psychological ploy by Topolov and that other jerk tells me that his confidence in his play and stamina after all this is not lacking one bit.
If he wins this match (and I as well as the vast majority now hopes he does) he will have won three world championships in a row against two players who were both rated number 1 and over 2800 at the time. Also, the other player was at the very top of his game at the time of their match and rated, I believe, somewhere around the 2740 range.
In addition, having to deal with his physical condition and overcoming what may have been an addiction to painkillers in the last year, I personally find it all quite remarkable.
Mr. Kramnik you are a champion of the first order, and I apologize for the previous negative comments I posted about you.
I find all these people arguing how the forfeit *has* to stand quite extraordinary. Kramnik was there and willing to play under the agreed conditions. He is entitled contractually to have the game played under those conditions. If those conditions are denied him he is entitled to wait until they are provided. That's the beginning and the end of it under the contract as far I can see: at the very least this is a position which could be adopted and clothed in legality if Kirsan wanted to. Saying there's no way round it is just stupid.
As for not knowing it's the custom to have separate rest rooms, can we really have forgotten Spassky-Korchnoi in 1978, where almost exactly this same problem occurred? They had them in Reykjavik as well.
Some of the people on this blog, naming no names, seem to be in need of psychiatric help. One can only hope it's the language barrier.
And a question is raised which I wondered about before: how on earth do the Bulgarians know how many times Kramnik's left his rest room and gone into the lavatory? As I understand the set-up, they'd never know whether it was one or fifty unless they were told by the insiders who'd seen the tapes. Can anyone explain this?
I will be amazed if a single grandmaster comes forward and says hand on heart that he would have played game five under these conditions. I think these people simply don't understand the game. Mig was quite wrong to say that Korchnoi would have played better: he played abysmally in a similar situation in 1978.
Oh and Mig, I've stayed out of the Mig-is-biased debate up to now, but for Kasparov to put in that throwaway line about Kramnik avoiding a rematch with him and obstructing unification was a disgrace, and you have no business defending him - at least of course you can be as biased as you like, but it's still indefensible. Kasparov knows very well that Kramnik gave good reasons for the first complaint and that the second is somewhere between a downright lie on Kasparov's part and a highly contentious statement. The fact it was a throwaway line makes it worse. If he wants to rake over this old ground he should either set out the arguments properly or make it clear that others disagree with him. Presenting myth as history in this manner is fatuous demagoguery.
There is so much excitement to see Topalov lose. Everybody is so giddy. Geez, even Ilyumzhinov is feeling pressured by the blogs. What if Topalov wins? Just because he made a dirty accusation doesn't mean he suddenly isn't a powerful, dangerous 2800-level GM.
Kramnik did the right thing saving the match; let's enjoy the games now and give credit to whomever is victorious (assuming the result isn't one of those "in-between" scenarios).
I believe a true Kramnik fan enjoys clarity and objectivity. This is still a real chess match, and Kramnik may lose OTB fair and square.
RDH: What are you talking about? Whether you disagree with Kramnik's behavior or your psychic powers have allowed you to read Kramnik's mind, Kasparov's interpretation of events is certainly no less informed than yours, and is substantially more relevant. That you want an epic position paper on everything you disagree with doesn't mean he must provide one. His dozens of statements on the matter aren't ambiguious and he doesn't need to rehash them every single time the issue comes up. He has his opinions.
And when did I say anything about Korchnoi?
Contract or not, Kramnik was obligated to follow chess rules. The contract only defines the parameters, not rewrite the rules of the game.
He didn't show for the match and the arbiter (not the FIDE appeals group) declared it a forfeit. The arbiter is on pretty solid ground, and to overrule the arbiter would have been a questionable move. Politics shouldn't be involved in the rules of the game.
Politics are fine and dandy when bathrooms and rest areas are concerned, but I wouldn't want a politician to change the rules of the actual game halfway through the competition.
Kramnik knew what he was doing and he has to accept the punishment, which he has. It was for the best anyway. If he had played game 5, he would surely have suffered at the board. If anything, I bet Top's manager was hoping Kramnik would show up.
Mig
I dont think enough questions have been asked about the video tape chapter of this saga.
Who gave Topalov's team the videos? Why did they give Topalov's team the videos? Did they not know this was an invasion of his privacy? Why did Topalov's team claim he visited the bathroom 50 times, when the tapes showed the number to be less (according to the appeals committee)? Where are the missing tapes? Did Topalov's team have the missing tapes last since they claimed the number of visits to be 50, while the Appeals committee said the number was less? Would dishonesty invalidate the bona fides of the Committee and invalidate the decisions? Would dishonesty on the part of Topalov's team disqualify him?
Ask the questions
"In gave 5 Kramnik had no choice but to forfeit or legitamize the decision of the appeals committee to force him to play in conditions which were not stipulated by the contract."
Why could he not have played under protest? As he did today? Does Kramnik's agreeing to play (under protest) today "legitimize" the decision to let the Game 5 forfeit stand? Hardly. Similarly, agreeing to play Game 5 under protest would not have "legitimized" the earlier Appeals Committee decision.
If anything, the question of the forfeit seems much more significant than the question of private versus shared bathrooms. Playing now but not playing then makes the forfeit look much more like a tactical ploy, to put pressure on Topalov and FIDE, rather than "standing on principle." The tactical ploy may have been perfectly appropriate, but let's recognize it for what it was.
Mig, wasn't it you? Someone said they could only think of two players in the history of the game who would have played better under the pressure Kramnik found himself under in game five, and those were Kasparov and Korchnoi. I thought it was you, but apologies if I've misremembered.
aa, you are missing the point. Obviously a chess game took place organised by FIDE and Kramnik lost that game according to the laws of the game. I could set up a game in my living room and declare Kramnik the loser by forfeit. It's not that simple. The contract is the only thing that binds the game that occurred into the match. If FIDE don't organise the game within the contract, then the match that the contract provides for hasn't occurred. What flows from that is not a matter of the Laws of Chess but of ordinary contractual law.
Nonsense, Mig. Of course Kasparov is better positioned to comment than me and entitled to his opinions. What he's not entitled to do is abuse his journalistic position to present polemic as fact. It's a fundamental matter of journalistic ethics. I know he's your mate, but that doesn't mean he's always right.
Bob, you haven't got a clue. Kramnik must have been seething. I'm amazed he can bring himself to play now. To play game five properly he would have had to be superhuman. 'Tactical ploy' - words fail me. To achieve what, exactly, remembering that he was then two games up in the match and is now one game up?
Sorry, aa, but I believe that if the match had proceeded normally, Kramnik would not have suffered in Game 5. He would certainly have had to work hard, but his expectation would have exceeded 0 points.
Danailov certainly knows enough about chess to understand that Kramnik with White is a force to reckoned with.
rdh,
There is only ONE way Kasparov can settle any beef he has with Kramnik.
Come out of retirement and enter the Cycle, win as challenger, and go at it in a head-to-head match. That would be the single greatest advertisement for chess EVER.
Of course, he tried this 'match thing' once before, and failed miserably, at the hands of the 'Berlin Wall'.
I would expect the same result.
Kasparov lobbing stones from the stands is...Topalovian at best.
"C'mon Gary, bet you can't beat him! Bet you can't beat him!"
:)
Well, as no doubt Gazza would be the first to point out, he can't really do that because there isn't a stable system he can fight his way through to get a match. And indeed if what we're told is true there's never going to be another match anyway.
RDH, Garry isn't a journalist. It's an editorial. He's not obliged to provide ten angles to every statement. Read the rest of the editorial page at the WSJ and the NY Times, etc.
I'm almost wishing now that Topalov wins by 1 game or in tiebreaks, just to see what he does afterwards. There is some potential for him to redeem himself by immediately offering a rematch, to legitimize the result. I wonder if there would actually be some good chances for sponsorship of such a rematch after the news from the current match.
Also I've found it intersting how the reaction of non-chess players I know is completely opposite to chess people. The non-chess people I've spoken to about (maybe 10-15) have all been siding with Topalov. I'm not sure if this reflects the way this story has been reported in the media or what.
Vasil,
Kramnik didn't protest the illegal move? I could have sworn that's what he has been doing for the past five days or so.
Mig, I do not agree. The distinction between facts and comment is sacred whether a journalist is writing an editorial or anything else.
Chuckles: I've found the same thing about non-chess players. It may be partly about the way the story has been reported, but I think it's mainly down to the fact they don't understand the first thing about the game. If you've not played at a fairly high level, you see the thing differently. The need for a personal space, the importance of not being dictated to psychologically, the absolute importance of objectivity, the vulnerability of concentration and above all the sheer outrageousness of a cheating accusation in this context, just don't register.
Kramnik knows what he is doing. He now has smashed Topolov over the head with his own board. This is Fischer at his best. All Kramnik has to do now is hold and be drawnik. Never in my short life time have I seen a champion that can be as loved as Kramnik will be.
Topolov must think that if he wins that the money will be well worth the ridicule, at least for the next match. What a fool!
"I've found it intersting how the reaction of non-chess players I know is completely opposite to chess people. The non-chess people I've spoken to about (maybe 10-15) have all been siding with Topalov. I'm not sure if this reflects the way this story has been reported in the media or what.
Posted by: Chuckles at October 2, 2006 18:30"
To the contrary, it seems to me that among chessplayers that have posted on chess-nerd sites like this one, most support Kramnik but the average strength of Topalov supporters is much higher. GMs seem to understand Topalov's position much better than C players do.
"
"Yesterday I said that we need a hero for this match to continue," said Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, president of the World Chess Federation, known by its French acronym, FIDE. "Veselin (Topalov) would have become a hero if he agreed to a 3-1 score ... Now we all can call Vladimir (Kramnik) a true hero."
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/10/02/europe/EU_GEN_Russia_Chess.php
Ok, it's official. Vladimir Kramnik SAVES CHESS!
Go Vlad The Destroyer!
Posted by: Mark at October 2, 2006 16:45"
So, Kramnik is a hero for getting all his conditions met and playing under protest? There's still no control on Kramnik's suspiciously many bathroom visits; reportedly the number was over 15 in today's game, and his 18th and 23rd moves (first avoiding bishop exchange Bc5-b4, then forcing it Bb4-c5, with not much fundamental change in the position that I can see) look computer-like to me.
Indeed Kirsan is following orders from his boss Vladimir ... Putin!
Yes, actually I do have a clue.
If Kramnik would have to have been superhuman to have played Game 5, wouldn't he have to have been even MORE superhuman to play today? Then, he was dealing with sharing a bathroom. Now he is dealing with a forfeit loss. Which would outrage YOU more? If he was standing on principle when refusing to play Game 5, why did he not stand on principle today and refuse to play?
Based on that comparison I believe that refusing to play game 5, as compared to playing under protest, was a tactical ploy to force immediate intervention by the FIDE President to overrule the "final" decision by the Appeals Committee. If he had played Game 5 under protest, there would have been less pressure on FIDE to resolve everything expeditiously. Refusing to play, and being forfeited, put the match in crisis and required immediate intervention. And that's exactly what happened. He got the Appeals Committee overturned and fired, and still has hopes to get the forfeit reversed as well.
You can argue that such a tactical ploy was appropriate and justified, and I may agree. But concerning Kramnik's motivation for the default . . . well, you come to one conclusion (based on how you think people respond in such situations); I come to another (based on contrasting his decision then with his decision now). Nobody but Kramnik can KNOW for sure.
"
"Yesterday I said that we need a hero for this match to continue," said Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, president of the World Chess Federation, known by its French acronym, FIDE. "Veselin (Topalov) would have become a hero if he agreed to a 3-1 score ... Now we all can call Vladimir (Kramnik) a true hero."
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/10/02/europe/EU_GEN_Russia_Chess.php
Ok, it's official. Vladimir Kramnik SAVES CHESS!
Go Vlad The Destroyer!
Posted by: Mark at October 2, 2006 16:45"
So, Kramnik is a hero for getting all his conditions met and playing under protest? There's still no control on Kramnik's suspiciously many bathroom visits; reportedly the number was over 15 in today's game, and his 18th and 23rd moves (first avoiding bishop exchange Bc5-b4, then forcing it Bb4-c5, with not much fundamental change in the position that I can see) look computer-like to me.
Indeed Kirsan is following orders from his boss Vladimir ... Putin!
I agree with this sentiment; now I am no longer neutral but rooting for the much maligned Topalov:
"Come on Topalov!! Beat Kramnik!
Posted by: Steven Craig Miller at October 2, 2006 15:02"
But for that he'll have to beat a computer too ...
"For those who dont believe how many times Kramnik has been to the bathroom in game 6 - it was said by the official spokesman of Topalov who is currently in Elista in a live show that was broadcasted.
Posted by: Vasil Mihailov at October 2, 2006 15:20"
Mig and Mark Crowther have commented that forfeiting game 5 was a mistake. This is certainly true if your main concern is to see the match completed at all costs. But Kramnik has other concerns, and I think he made the right decision (although he made a tactical mistake by not filing a formal appeal against the forfeit within two hours). If he had played game 5, with all the distracting thoughts and the forced break in his routine (locked toilet), I think he had much better chances of losing than of winning. And if he played and lost, there was basically no chance to undo the result. Furthermore, with Topalov submitting appeals after nearly every game, there was an excellent chance that Kramnik would arrive at game 6 (and 7, and 8...) facing more and more annoying rulings by the old appeal committee. By sacrificing the point, he got the appeal committee dismissed and probably broke the stream of complaints by Topalov. And whether Kramnik wins or loses, he has gained considerable sympathy and respect from the chess-playing public. Remember, even if Kramnik wins this match, he loses the title next year anyway, as he has agreed it will go to the winner of the next World Championship tournament. Since the money is the same for the winner and loser, Kramnik is basically playing only for pride. He obtained more pride and respect by forfeiting than by playing.
Besides, if he had wanted to, Kirsan could easily have set the score back to 3-1. He has tremendous leverage over Topalov. Kirsan could threaten to cancel the Radjabov match, and to keep Topalov out of the next WC tournament (this is already supposed to be the case if he loses). Since Kirsan became the new appeals committee after the old one was dismissed, he could certainly rule on the forfeit. Topalov would be giving up a lot (money, FIDE title, and Radjabov match) if he went against FIDE's wishes, and for Topalov to even consider suing his sugar daddy would be an example of biting the hand that feeds him. In fact, the likelihood of an eventual lawsuit by Kramnik seems to be greater, at least if the forfeit point costs him the match. So Kirsan's statement that he 'could not' reverse the forfeit is suspect, it is much more likely that he simply did not want to, and he counted on Kramnik resuming play anyway.
artichoke, do yourself a favor and read the posts above before posting some nonsense (twice). Search for the word 'bulgarian TV'.
Food for thought, Ramage. Thank you.
"artichoke, do yourself a favor and read the posts above before posting some nonsense (twice). Search for the word 'bulgarian TV'.
Posted by: cadlag at October 2, 2006 19:56 "
cadlag,
I posted it once, and then Bob reposted it under his own comment.
Bulgarian TV says it was over 15 bathroom visits. What does your information say?
Mig,
I have a huge advantage to much more informed Kasparov: when I hear names Karpov, Ilyumzhinov, Kramnik, a bloody fog does not affect my mind.
Kasparov is the great chess player, but he can't manage to control his ego, he can't stop until he totally destroys his _enemy_, and he needs enemies for life to continue. This is why he left chess for politics. No enemies left in chess anymore, because Kramnik was too intelligent to fight under the board with Garry to death, and Kirsan was just playing dirty games with Garry who had no chance agains him, just because Kirsan does not play in Linares, and chess is the only real weapon Garry ever had.
And now Garry tries to fight Putin who hardly even notice his attempts, sorry to say so.
Kasparov can't learn from his experience of fighting with FIDE executives (a far far from top Russian politicians) to understand that he is just a funny plush bear for Russian politics heavyweights.
I am really sorry to say so, but this is my honest opinion.
Kasparov belongs to chess, and everything else is just a waste of life (I underrstand and share his pain for what is happening in Russia, but this is not his destiny).
Here are a couple of FIDE rulings I don't understand, maybe they make sense to someone else ...
Why have they changed the colors for Game 7? It just has the effect of giving Kramnik white in Game 12, and creates the rather odd string of 3 whites in a row for Topalov. Why did they do it?
Why is the loser eliminated from the next cycle? That makes little sense to me; the loser is presumably the second-best player in the world.
Topalov is a cheat. Plain and simple. I respect the chess playing abilities of my pet Gerbil more than Topalov now!
Some posters seem to have underestimated the capabilities of the Bulgarians to monitor toilet activity during the 6th game. In fact, since they realized that this kind of "anal"ysis is crucial to the match, they have installed sensors on (1) the sewer line, (2) the cold water line and (3) the hot water line to the sink. Based on statistical analysis of the previous tapes, it is possible to determine from the sensors whether Kramnik thinks he is winning or losing, and by how much.
Topalov representative lied to Bulgarian TV. Because nobody in Topalov camp have access to bathroom monitors unless they stole tapes or bribe an operator.
Why am I not surprised? May be, because Danailov also lied about 50 visits, which was officially confirmed by the AC.
It looks like Garry have read about the bloody fog and put his 5 cents. Just compare questions and what he answers:
===
...
ChessBase: Of course you don't give game analysis in the Journal, but we assume you followed the games?
Garry Kasparov: I was traveling in the Russian regions on political business when this mess broke out. I was in Yakutsk, in eastern Siberia. Of course there is chess there, too, but I wasn't really in touch. By the way it's amazing, there is this kid there, #3 in the world for under-8. But there's no money for him to visit Moscow, to get training or have hope for a chess career. Russia is flooded with oil money, and there are diamonds in Yakutsk, but there's nothing for chess? Well, there's obviously some for supporting Kramnik. Alexander Zhukov has mobilized resources for this, now we see Svidler and Bareev heading to Elista. Kramnik's team is becoming as big a state priority as the old Karpov teams!
CB: From the Journal article you seem to blame just about everyone for the disaster before and around game five.
GK: It's not about blame, it's about looking at the recent history of FIDE and the top players. The facts speak for themselves. In 2003 my Yalta match with Ponomariov collapsed while Kramnik and many others expressed their sympathy for the way FIDE treated Ponomariov...
===
By the way, I remember times when the Botwinnik/Kasparov school of chess bought computers for Moscow kids. These times are gone long-long time ago.
http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3396
arti--
1) The match schedule calls for two days of play and then a day of rest. Whoever has white in Games 1,3,5 etc. would thus have a rest day before each of his "white" games. By flip-flopping the colors halfway through the match, this advantage is neutralized.
2) Kirsan doesn't care for Kramnik. If Kramnik loses, then he's out of the cycle. if, on the other hand, Topalov loses, Kirsan could find a way to squeeze him into the cycle later on.
Susan Polgar tacitly removed the Makropoulos interview from her blog. Too self-incriminating?
During interview after the game 6 (NOS Dutch TV video from chessbase.com) Kramnik said:
"During these days may be all the energy was spent on off-the-board wrestling, and nothing was left for the chess. I am joking. In reality this is just how game proceeded. It is better for sure to play after a rest day being in easy mood. And in this sense it was not easy to play today for both of us".
Topalov: "I think, it was easier for me today, because negotiations were mostly done by Danailov. So during these 4 days of resting I even got tired of taking rest"
IMHO, Kramnik felt very confident and liberated while Topalov - really frustrated and nipped. May be, he was frustrated Vlad was as usual OTB, but my guess is, he really couldn't imagine the world reaction for what happened. Is it really possible that Faust Danailov just seduced white and puffy Veselin?
Mig wrote:
"Why do they need private rooms? They should be on the frigging stage playing chess, not looking at a demo board from a sofa. It's a sport, damn it!"
Pretty good point. Chess is a 'digital' sport, but it should not degenerate into a 'virtual' sport unnecessarily. It seems to have drifted that way over the decades.
One example - The video footage is better if the players are at the table more of the time. Sponsors have a legitimate interest in avoiding the 'virtual' look. It is better for us in the chess public too.
It was a bad idea in Spassky-Korchnoi when each player was given a monitor showing the position, so they could easily stay away from the board almost all the time.
The white/black changeover was pre-ordained before the match, of course. Nothing to do with these events.
Of course the forfeit could have been reversed. It’s a matter of politics in the short term, and in the end it’s a matter of law, not chess laws. And I strongly suspect if this ends up in a court Kramnik will win.
I’d be interested if the poster who reckons GMs support Topalov could come out and name one. I’ve not seen one.
Is it me, or are some posters declaring that it must be true Kramnik went to the lavatory some number of times because Danailov says so and Bulgarian TV repeated it?!
Bob, it’s one thing to play two hours after being shafted and a whole different thing to play three days later. I can only repeat that I don’t think you can play chess at any advanced level to ignore this point.
As to why is the loser not in the next cycle, that would be because FIDE has an arse/elbow identification problem. But don’t worry, if Topalov loses he’ll be in the next cycle all right.
And as to getting new seconds, presumably as in all other matches the players can have whoever and however many people they like as seconds.
By the way, artichoke, the point of …Bb4 is to attack pawn a5 and by so doing force the knight exchange. White cannot avoid the bishop trade, but it is important to trade knights first and get rid of the passive d7 knight.
To be fair you are no doubt right that the computer shows it’s the best move, which is pretty clear evidence Kramnik must have been cheating. It’s hard to imagine he could have worked out the above chain of strategic reasoning on his own, when you consider that it takes a 2400 player of my experience a good thirty seconds to work it out.
"Here is a link to a fascinating article in Russian: http://www.sport-express.ru/art.shtml?128422
Within the article is a letter from FIDE legal advisor Morten Sand to Kirsan Ilyumzhinov. An excerpt:
Dear Mr. President, I highly recommend the following with respect to the Kramnik/Topalov match:
1) If it is possible, you should stick to the agreement that was signed by both players and continue the match.
2) If you cannot stick to the agreement, we risk a lawsuit. It is imperative that we make a correct legal decision. My opinion: Kramnik did not arrive for game 5 and the main arbiter correctly (legally) declared the forfeit. Kramnik does not have any legal ground to contest this decision. If we change the result of game 5, we risk serious legal action by Topalov. But if we adhere to the agreement and if Kramnik takes us to court, we do not face a serious legal risk. I had a long conversation with our Swiss attorney, Jean-Mark Reymond and he holds the same opinion.
The article then goes on to say that FIDE could become bankrupt if Topalov sues if the result of game 5 is changed."
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=12295
Very interesting note from Morten Sand. Kirsan's FIDE is financially shaky since Kalmykia's economy is not great. Don't they depend on Russian and thus Putin? acirce - do you know anything about the legal venue? Whose laws would apply and how they might differ vs. US?
That is interesting, indeed. As a lawyer, mind, I would say that a lawyer’s view for publication is not always what it is for his client’s private ear.
There is a Court for Arbitration in Sport (or some such title), which I think is in Lausanne. I don’t know much about it, but if FIDE has a Swiss lawyer you’d think that would be the venue. What law applies I don’t know.
I do wish the contract was publicly available. The rules and regulations are all very well, but they only have any contractual force insofar as they are incorporated into the contract by its wording. It’s rather surprising that FIDE don’t make the contracts available, assuming I’m right and they’re not available.
If this Morten Sand was the fellow who drafted the rules and regulations, by the way, then one point which is surely beyond dispute is that he made a complete dog’s breakfast of it.
It seems almost shocking to ask a chess question, but in Game 6, why didn't Topalov play 12.Nxg6? It would have given him the advantage of the two bishops, and Kramnik would have had doubled pawns.
I would think this is the kind of assymmetry he was looking for?
A doubled pawn is not necessarily a weakness. However, this would be a bad move positional wise.
The Knight on e5 is an active Knight while the Bishop on g6 is pretty much locked up because of White's pawns and is likely to stay inactive for a considerable time. This was proven right and Black's Bishop didn't even move again for the remainder of the match.
For the rest of the 20 moves after 12. Nxd7, the fact that Kramnik was effectively playing with one Bishop down and still managed to hold off Topalov is impressive.
"The Knight on e5 is an active Knight...."
However, on move 12 he traded off that knight anyway.
... for another active piece...