Just so it stops taking over other threads (this means you down there), an item on Stopwatch Danailov's latest attempt to convince us all he's not guilty by reason of insanity. Or is that inanity? Flammability? Topalov's manager's latest interview goes to the extreme of calling Kramnik's play in the match excellent. The nerve! Can this man stoop any lower? Next he'll be calling Kramnik lithe-limbed and sweet smelling. Do Ilyumzhinov's aliens take abduction requests?
At this point I think Dainalov is just using this as a publicity stunt. He is no longer acting as Topalov's manager, but more in the role of his publicist.
One possible reason for this is simply Dainalov wants to keep Topalov's name in the press, so he isn't forgotten. Let's remember that in chess as in sports one is judged by how many championships they win, and Topalov is being overshadowed right now. So, I don't think this is really about the Toilets anymore, but just a simple ploy to keep Topalov's name in the papers, so that organizers etc, remember Topalov when organizing tournaments and sending out invites.
What is clear is that Danailov should get commission as a marketing rep for Fritz. Showcasing this interview serves no other purpose than as a promotion for Fritz 10.
D.
Good point. Danailov should start offering his services. Ask Rajlich, Meyer-Kahlen and the other top programmers how much they would pay Danailov to start accusing Kramnik of cheating with Rybka or Shredder.
"...Danailov's latest attempt to convince us all he's not guilty by reason of insanity." That is VERY good.
I think Carsten Hensel's reaction (ignore; if it get's to bad, sue) is completely correct.
I, in my own small way, have decided to no longer comment on manifestations of Mr. Danailov's mental aberrations.
Charley
Danialov's right.
a) Kramnik cheats or
b) Kramnik's a great player.
There are no other possibilities.
Telling outrageous lies for local consumption, lies so moronic it'd waste your time to answer, lies he knows you won't believe, Danailov reminds me of "Baghdad Bob."
Really Fritz10 is 3200 ?
Only if you take "Fakty" to signify facts and "Pravda" to always tell the truth.
In a word, no.
I fail to see how anyone possibly could defend the things he said there. I know this is a cliché but either he is a lying rat or a marketing genius (probably both).
Well, it's time for Danailov to start paying for his publicity. The FIDE Code of Ethics is pretty explicit about this:
http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=A10
Rule 2.2.9 clearly states
"Players or members of their delegations must not make unjustified accusations toward other players, officials or sponsors. All protests must be referred directly to the arbiter or the Technical Director of the tournament."
Issuing accusations to "All Mass Media" clearly contravenes this. Rule 3.2 provides for suspensions from rated play of up to 3 years for violations of the code.
It's time for Kramnik/Hensel to discontinue the pointless war of words, lodge a complaint, and make a serious effort to have Topalov suspended from tournament play. FIDE may ignore it, of course, but at least it would shift the discussion from whether Kramnik broke the rules (for which there is no evidence) to whether Topalov broke the rules (for which there is conclusive evidence).
1) More publicity for Fritz 10. More Chessbase marketing??? I guess in a time when programmers are releasing very strong free chess programs -not as strong, but not very far-, the few ones who need this as a good business need something to keep the hype on the strength of these programs.
2) We have had this idea of Danailov years ago and the match Topalov-Kramnik has increased it. Now people can make fun of it, even quoting whatever crazy thing as Danailov's words. I might be wrong, but I read it and the source, and it does not look authentic to me.
I guess some people (BOTH, Kramnik and Topalov fanatics) still has not move on (even Mig, after realizing the lack of interest in a previous forum who deviated to discussion on Computer chess, still wants to talk about it) ... but there is a lot of interesting news out there...
FOR THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WHO WANTS TO MOVE ON ... Can someone tell me if there would be an official website with live games of the Tal memorial to start this Sunday? It is classical time control, right?
Morozevich, Svidler, Mamedyarov, Aronian, Leko, Gelfand, Grischuk, Shirov, Ponomariov, Carlsen.
Really strong field!! (In Elo average, the strongest tournament of the year). It is a shame that will be only nine rounds.
It's the voice of the people. They kept posting about it in other places, ruining other threads, so I give them one. It's not like I wasted a bunch of time on it myself with the item. I'm sick of it myself. We need one thread on it a week now, soon one every two weeks, then once a month. It's like breaking an addiction.
Calling for FIDE sanctions against Topalov/Danailov when Kramnik as worldchampion is on the presidential board of FIDE, is a little awkward.
If Kramnik is directly or indirectly involved in authorizing the sanctions then there is obviously a conflict of interest.
If Kramnik is not involved at all, then there may well be no sanction at all, since the old pro-Topalov boys are still there for some time to come.
What about a court action outside FIDE? A court in which country? Surely not in Bulgaria! But that's where Danailov resides! Or in Spain where Topalov resides? Spanish court has no jurisdiction over Danailov!
This looks like a tricky situation, I am positive Danailov is aware of it.
"More Chessbase marketing???"
I doubt it; Topalov slammed ChessBase during the match. Besides, starting with Fritz 8 or 9, the programmers shifted from making the engine stronger to making the engine more useful to beginners, so CB probably isn't so threatened by the strength of other engines like it was in the past.
Dr. Ricardo Calvo was declared "Persona non Grata" by FIDE, for simply writing an article that contained some inconvienient truths. Danilov really deserves this type of punishment for the disgrace he has piled upon FIDE, Chess, and it's Champion Vladimir Kramnik.
>Really Fritz-10 is 3200 ?
Nobody except chessbase bosses and their slaves know since it hasn't yet been released, it is due in nov. before the match with Kramnik).
(but Danailov may have insider information)
And it depends on the hardware. When running on a usual notebook (256MB Athlon 1.2 GHz) SSDF list as to 2006-09-10 gives
1 Rybka 1.2 2924
2 Hiarcs 10 2853
3 Fruit 2.2.1 2847
4 Shredder 10 2837
5 Shredder 9.0 2817
6 Fritz 9.0 2811
This "Tal Memorial" would be really strong if it had just two more players: Anand and Ryb^H^H^HFritz 10.
Just a thought but these comments are highly defamatory by Danailov and very actionable particularly in the UK which has the most favourable laws for defamation litigants. Their re-publication on the internet by Chessbase is also actionable as it is very "aggravating", in legal terms. It is difficult to see any good legal defense for chessbase under UK libel law. Of course Kramnik would never sue chessbase for obvious reasons but what a tempting target they would be! Seriously though this stuff should not be published by chessbase (or anyone else frankly) even though it is a translation of a bulgarian newspaper article.
I also think Danailov should meet some sanctions. It's not that he spreads his crazy theories one time, he repeats it on a daily basis.
Just an interesting observation:
Danilov made this interview 27/10 (was published yesterday in chessbase)
Hensel's previous article (responding to Topalov) was given on the 28/10 ie AFTER Danilov's (maybe he wasn't aware, but it is definitely not Danilov's response..)
Also Danilov gave this interview BEFORE the article about world champions and chess engines, in chessbase.
It may be a coincidence but:
a)The order that chessbase publish things makes Danilov far more rediculous
b)It is a quite good advertisment for Fritz 10 and the forthcoming match Kramnik-Fritz
A final note, is that (while I personally am sure that kramnik did not use any help for the reasons mentioned all around), Topalov was really scared that he did. This is obvious by the fact that he kept on playing very fast (even when he was leading the match), and one quite rational explenation is that he wanted Kramnik not to visit his restroom...
Obviously Danailov wants to cast doubt on Kramnik's real playing strength, "Kramnik the Fritz champion", but he (how typical) may pursue the wrong political strategy again !
Because if he is right then Kramnik is the challanegr again and he has the opportunity in november to become the true absolute champion
by defeating his would be master and adviser in Elista : the mighty Fritz-10 itself !.
Likely Kramnik's aim now is to do exactly this and put an end to the speculations; and to inadvertently become the most loved chessplayer ever by a humiliated by computers chess community.
What will Danailov do then ? Will he swallow such absolute defeat or will he accuse Chessbase of conspiracy and ask for a Fritz-Kramnik WCC in Sofia ?
Searching to defeat Kramnik may become an ongoing nightmare for Danailov. Sort of wlad disney cartoon where whatever the wolf does it turns against him doubled.
Before commenting "the interview" maybe one should pay attention to the following facts.
1)Source is some RUSSIAN language Ukrainian newspaper. Those who read russian may go to the main page of the newspaper and find all sort of stories about killings, robbery, fires and other crimes :). Reliable source indeed :).
2)It was not an interview but a private conversation which the author grabbed and formed as an interview.
3) "Objective" Chessbase site put english translation of it in a hurry without consulting Danailov whether it was his interview or not.
Chessbase site should also be congratulated for "objective" choice of pictures to illustrate the story (not part of the original russian report).
What's wrong with the pictures?! They look fine.
Where did you learn that it was not an interview? Komarov knows Danailov; he was working with Ponomariov at the same time as Danailov, I believe.
bobo :
If it is about Fritz it is good for
chessbase to publish.Dirty publicity is better than good publicity.
Even most of Shakespeare's plays are about murder and illicit sex, a kind of more polished scandal and police press.
Interesting that Danailov comes up with the second game, which I think was badly played by Kramnik at all. Moves like Qb4 are obvious, so it doesn't matter if Fritz or another engine also prefers it. Grabbing the pawn on a4 was perhaps also not the best decision. It just helped in the endgame that noone ecxpected in this game since topalaovs attack was pretty strong.
>Interesting that Danailov comes up with the second game>
Yes Danailov is right here, that was the most suspicious of all games. The comps were giving Kramnik winning with the Rxa4, Qb5 idea as Kramnik played...while everybody was wondering whether it wasn't suicidal/
Kramnik play in that game was typical "computer
not seeing beyond horizon" game. As if not Kramnik was playing.
When eventually Kramnik realized that he was going wrong and sit at the board he had to do exact computations and he went wrong ( ironically that was when the comp would have been really useful).
Topalov has a lot of pictures with Kasparov, Karpov etc., even with Kramnik. It is interesting why they choose one where Makropoulos is present. Well, maybe it is fine, but they are not in a position to plead "objectivity" after it. And it is not an incident. They frequently illustrate Topalov/Danailov's statements in a similar way.
Nowhere in the oroginal text Komarov says its an interview. In fact, the text is introduced with "the Bulgarian (Danailov) shared his opinion about "toilet scandel" with "Fakty"'s correspondent during the Hoogeveen tournament".
Having in mind the serious allegations in the text, if it was an official intgerview, I bet there would have been some "exclusive interview for Fakty" ot similar.
And it is interesting whether Komarov has a record if it was an interview. I bet, he has not.
>It is interesting why they choose one where Makropoulos is present.>
well, a picture speaks volumes isn't it ?
I love that of Kasparov and Ilumzhynov with Kaspy smiling big as he was, perhaps, thinking that Kirsan would bend Kramnik to give him a rematch.
Look at it when reading Kasparov's previous articles on Kirsan and FIDE.
I assume the point of the photos was to show Danailov and Topalov together, not Topalov with Kasparov or Mickey Mouse. You are working far too hard on this "objectivity" garbage.
What is an "official interview" if sharing your extensive and detailed opinion with a newspaper correspondent isn't? Stop all this silliness. Either he said it or he didn't. Everything in it is consistent with his previous statements, which hardly required waterboarding or warrantless wiretapping to obtain.
And I assume the point of the photos is to show Topalov and Danailov together with Makropolous :)
There is obvious difference between sharing his opinion, even it is extensive and detailed, with some known journalist in an informal conversation and expression directed at the public.
Of course, it is consistent with previous statements, I am not saying its false, I'm just saying its not an interview.
Mig, This is "Daily Dirt" right??...keep it coming:-)......I agree with the sentiment that Danailov has to keep his boy in the news, especially if he is kept out of Mexico 2007. This is also probably some pay-back for the accusations against Topa at San Luis. This kind of crap happens all the time in politics as well. Lotta the stuff against President Bush is generated by the group that had to take up arms to defend Clinton back in the 90's. Will be interesting how team Kramnik will respond. Bruce Towell
"Yes Danailov is right here, that was the most suspicious of all games. The comps were giving Kramnik winning with the Rxa4, Qb5 idea as Kramnik played...while everybody was wondering whether it wasn't suicidal/"
I cannot agree. The plan is simply to exchange queens on the white quares. This is only possible with Rxa4, followed by Rb4/Qb5 or Qc6/Qc4. A human plan to me, I might have played it also. It's natural.
It's more surprising to me that Kramnik got in such a bad position with two white rooks on the g-file against his king ...
It's as if a man wearing a clown suit, holding clown props, and speaking like a clown, grants a New York Times interview. The Times depicts him accurately. And the man's followers complain: "You're making him look like a clown!"
This is a question I raised elsewhere too:
If Danailov can cannot see or hear what Kramnik does in the bathroom, how can he conclusively state that Kramnik never drank more than half a glass of water. I imagine there being some sort of well or some streaming water for Kramnik to wash his hands, so he could have drunk galleons without anyone ever noticing.
Just an observation.
Two things in this interview seem immediately false.
First, Danilov claims the Fritz10+Kramnick centaur plays below the rating of the two parts (Kramnick at ~2800 and Fritz10 supposed 3200), whereas most centaur players (Nickel for instance) claim the centaur will play at a HIGHER rating than either of the two parts.
Second, if K+F10 did in fact play at a "2900-3000" rating, as Danilov claimed, then Kramnick would have beaten Topalov by much more than he did. An alleged 150 point rating difference should have K winning 6.5 - 3 (67% - see Sonas or Elo's charts).
tjallen
Reading sander's comment, I expect Danailov to say: "My dog drinks from the toilet" Yuck Yuck, daily c***
With a traditional centaur the rider can see what the horse thinks is desirable and why. I'm not sure it's a proper comparison.
I don't think we have much data on how world champions perform when they have computer suggestions being beamed to them every other move or so. I rather suspect the answer would actually be not that well, but as I say the date doesn't really exist.
I just want to punch him in the face...
Am I the only one?
http://chess-training.blogspot.com
Nickel is not claiming that centaur chess players play better based on some loose analogy to a mythological creature. Nickel is claiming that the machine half of the combination will play most moves (tactically better than human half) while the human will make occasional (rare?) corrections for cases where the horizon effect causes the machine blindness. Also the human might improve the computer move for "deep positional considerations" that the computer does not yet evaluate correctly. If the human limits himself to those considerations, then the pair will play better than either half alone, acc to most centaur players.
tjallen
>>FOR THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WHO WANTS TO MOVE ON ...
>>
If you actually went to the trouble to take a *poll* of that nature, then you can hardly qualify yourself as one of those who wants to move on. How many people did you survey? Was it a scientific poll?
Tjallen, understood. But in order to overrule the machine effectively you need to know why it's saying what it's saying. Otherwise you substitute your move based on deep positional considerations and it turns out that it had some not-that-deep tactical considerations in mind.
Bobo wrote:
"Before commenting "the interview" maybe one should pay attention to the following facts.
1)Source is some RUSSIAN language Ukrainian newspaper. Those who read russian may go to the main page of the newspaper and find all sort of stories about killings, robbery, fires and other crimes :). Reliable source indeed :).
2)It was not an interview but a private conversation which the author grabbed and formed as an interview.
3) "Objective" Chessbase site put english translation of it in a hurry without consulting Danailov whether it was his interview or not."
Most of Bobo's weird comments have already been commented on (and why does a newspaper having reports of killings and robberies make it unreliable!??).
I just wanted to add that the translation on the Chessbase website actually gives Danailov the last word (seems pretty objective to me). On the website it continues:
"Now Kramnik's preparing for his match with the computer program Fritz which starts in the German town of Bonn in a month. At the post-match press-conference in Moscow the world champion Vladimir Kramnik responded to his opponent's suggestion of a rematch:
"Now's not really the time for the sort of soap operas that could go on for ever. Moreover it's unsporting to ignore candidates other than Topalov". The Russian's manager Carsten Hensel added: "We had to struggle not only with Danailov but also with his whole team. Over the course of four days all the videotapes ended up with Topalov's team and were watched in the presence of the appeals committee. That wasn't their first foray. They submitted four protests with only one aim: to affect Kramnik, to ruin his concentration. His patience ran out when they invaded his privacy. They had to be stopped, otherwise it would never have ended. So Kramnik and our whole team fought to the end. I've only got one thing to say about Danailov: such a man should have no future in chess".
Danailov is physically repulsive. There are some ugly dudes on this planet, like Scottie Pippen, but they're ugly in a non-physically revolting way. Not Danailov. It's probably the drool/reptilian sinisterness/smugness combo.
>>Dr. Ricardo Calvo was declared "Persona non Grata" by FIDE, for simply writing an article that contained some inconvienient truths.
>>
That is a good point. I'd forgotten about the Calvo case, but Danailov has gone much farther.
The idea that there's some kind of conflict of interest as long as the world champion is involved is a non-issue. If Rule 2.2.9 weren't supposed to apply to the World Champion, it would say "This doesn't apply to the World Champion, who everyone can defame as much as they like".
There'd be an obvious conflict of interest in having defamee Kramnik vote on sanctions for defamer Danailov/Topalov. Kramnik would have to abstain from the vote, of course.
@ovidiu
Agaín game 2 Elista.
A more computeresque variation would be the following: 24.- Rb4 (instead of Rxa4) 25.Rag1 g6 26.h4 Qxa4 27.h5 Qb3
This is an advanced chess variation. If Kramnik had pulled out this there would be more reasons for doubt.
I find it harder and harder to take any comments on this matter seriously:
"But then why did he close the door every time? If you are walking up and down, it is logical to open the door, not close it."
Wow, what an astounding leap of logic based on absolutely nothing. If Kramnik went to the bathroom for privacy, then he would close the door. I have no idea why walking up and down is something you don't do in private.
"But the most disturbing was, that, after leaving the toilet, Kramnik immediately made very strong computer moves. He always made his mistakes whilst sitting at the board. This occured when Veselin replied immediately and Kramnik could not escape to the toilet. Therefore in the second game he overlooked checkmate in two moves: this problem he had to solve alone at the board."
If Kramnik was seriously using the computer why would he have qualms about walking to the bathroom during the time he had to think? And how did this incompetent ever manage to play so poorly in game 9 (Rybka had a day off?) and then triumph in rapids when presumedly cheating was unlikely?
"it is impossible to win against someone who is making, in each game, 80 percent computer moves."
It is amazing how many times this number has been touted by Danailov. Yet not once have I heard him explain:
1. What the percentage was for Topalov in this match.
2. What the percentage was for Topalov in San Luis.
3. What the percentage has been in other world championship matches in history, ones who didn't have computers available.
4. What the cut off time interval was for the computer when Danailov ran the program.
5. Whether opening moves are included in the 80 percentage, and if not, how many moves into theory the machine started.
"Is a new match possible?"
Rematch possibility is one good reason to maintain good relations with other chess players.
SH:
Well, buster, you can't trash talk and complain of the same. Right?
D.
The percentage of computer moves does not say much. If you analyze your games you might also get a range of 75-80. The more exchanges you do the higher the percentage (a taken queen should be taken back). To make a better analysis you have to take out the obvious exchanges that are the only moves in a position.
According to the match Kramnik-Topalov. In game 3 Kramnik had a big opportunity to get in a +- position by playing Ne4. He did not do it, this is more a proof that he only plays in what he believes.
The percentage of computer moves does not say much. If you analyze your games you might also get a range of 75-80. The more exchanges you do the higher the percentage (a taken queen should be taken back). To make a better analysis you have to take out the obvious exchanges that are the only moves in a position.
According to the match Kramnik-Topalov. In game 3 Kramnik had a big opportunity to get in a +- position by playing Ne4. He did not do it, this is more a proof that he only plays in what he believes.
A few observations about some of the above comments:
1) I agree with rdh about the difference between normal "centaur" play and the sort of quasi-centaur image which Danailov is attempting to paint of Kramnik in the WCC match.
On other threads I have seen several people argue that being given move suggestions every two or three moves -- or even only once or twice in an entire game, at critical points -- would be sufficient to dramatically strengthen a GM's play.
I've always had my doubts about that. I've followed the whole centaur business pretty closely since the first "Freestyle" event (organized last year by the owners of Hydra), and I well understand the distinction drawn by rdh.
My view had been that since computers analyze differently than humans, just knowing the computer's move choice (especially for only a small fraction of moves during a game) not only wouldn't help one's play; it might even hurt.
On the other hand, recently Mig quoted Kasparov saying that indeed a single computer-generated suggestion given during the right point in a game would be enough to help one super-GM defeat another super-GM. So I'll have to concede that my view was mistaken -- at least in the super-GM vs super-GM context. (I stand by my view in the amateur context; and consider the question still open for the in-between zone of say, 2350-2650 strength levels. Perhaps rdh may want to comment on that.)
Still, even conceding that a player on Kramnik's level would benefit if sent computer moves at some but not all points in a game without any access to the engine's "thoughts", that doesn't mean his play would improve all the way to the level of a true "centaur" -- i.e., to 3200+ or whatever if the engine was Rybka.
And yes, traditional centaur play if handled properly should be STRONGER than that of EITHER the human OR the engine component. A critical reason is that -- in slow time controls at least -- the human member of the team can at least briefly run through every important line and sub-line the engine used to justify its move choices and its evaluations. The human can then guide the engine to consider other alternatives, perhaps deep into one sub-line, that the computer initially (and wrongly) dismissed.
So when all is said and done, the engine and the human end up plugging the gaps in one another's respective tactical "visions" -- thereby generating an end product that is stronger than either taken alone.
This is a key point that people commenting on various Dirt threads in the past have failed to understand.
2) The question of whether Danailov intended his remarks for public consumption is reminiscent of similar debates/controversies that occur from time to time in US electoral politics.
The most famous in my lifetime was perhaps Jesse Jackson's infamous racial slur ("New York is Hymietown") while campaigning for president in 1988 (or was it 1984?) My recollection was he later explained he'd said it around a dinner table, either not knowing a reporter was present, or assuming anything he said at the table was off-the-record and wouldn't be quoted.
Just last week Hillary Clinton's GOP challenger for her Senate seat (whose name I don't even know -- which I guess says all there is to say about this particular Senate "contest"!) was widely quoted calling the senator "ugly", saying she had had face-lifts, and he couldn't understand why Bill with such a wide choice among potential mates had picked her. This clown, too, found himself forced to explain that his remarks were made off-the-cuff and he'd assumed they wouldn't be quoted.
However, the circumstances of the Danailov interview that's being discussed on this thread strongly suggest that he had every intention of being quoted.
I don't even think it's necessary to weigh Mig's judgment on this question (augmented by mine -- that makes two professional journalists) against that of "Bobo" who's been defending Danailov on this thread.
That's because the question (of whether Danailov was speaking for public consumption or not) doesn't even properly come up for discussion, until (or if) Danailov publicly claims that he wasn't, that his remarks were meant to be private, or he was misquoted, etc.
Bobo, has Danailov come out anwyhere disavowing that particular interview? Until he does, we have every reason to assume it was indeed an official interview... and all you are informing anyone about is your own irrationality, if you claim it wasn't.
This is amusing. Guys get rattled again...
Confusion and righteosness when mixed leave an unbearable stench of dead brain matter. Chessbase knows that well -- yesterday they pulled a pure marketing ploy, wrapped in dirt, thinly veiled as pretense of righteous indignation. The way it's going Chessbase may be the publishers of Danailov's "incoming" book. Far fetched? Not so sure. They know that 50 bathroom visits resonates better with the masses than GM analysis or squeaky, boring press releases. Fritz 10 at the center -- wow, money talks.
Undoubtedly, had Topalov won the stench would have been 10 times worse. While Danailov keeps doing his bit, I didn't see any Medals of Honor being won on the other side either. Before, during and after the match, it was all about Topalov cheating. Win or lose. If he wins, it's because he cheats, if he loses it's because he doesn't cheat. At the climax after games 8 & 9, there were loud calls from all sides for Kramnik to quit before it's too late. Tartuffe would blush.
To me the match ended cleanly and definitively -- the rapid games, pure and simple, conspiracy out the window. On that day, at that moment Kramnik was the better player. That was the match.
Where does all that lead? It puts a tremendous strain on Topalov and he may crack. Kramnik's actions will be scrutinized much more in the future. FIDE wins in all cases.
Chess? Well, it may antagonize the purists, but the dirty undercurrent surrounding chess may be good for traffic, possibly pay a few bills too. Reporting on it may prove an irresistible temptation.
The sad part -- Radjabov presented us with a gem of a game yesterday. But it's like the kids are throwing pearls at swine. It's embarrassing.
I'm out on this subject.
D.
Mig, the only one with an "addiction" is Danailov. It's not as there are people posting on the Topalov/Danailov situation in the absence of any context. There was Topalov playing in Essent, and making news by his poor start and disappointing final result. Danailov showed up with his toilet prop. Dutch TV covers "Toiletgate" and the implications for the Essent event, and make a cute little video.
Now, Danailov again makes the news, by giving an interview in which he does more than merely parrot earlier accusations, but pushes the boundaries of bad taste by making new innuendos that are even more egregiously outragious. If Danailov stops making news, the story dies. Both FIDE and tournament organizers can do alot to make sure that Danailov stops making news.
Telling outrageous lies for local consumption, lies so moronic it'd waste your time to answer, lies he knows you won't believe, Danailov reminds me of "Baghdad Bob."
============================
Bad example! "Baghdad Bob" was ultimately shown to be more accurate, and have greater credibility than the spokesmen for the coalition forces.
Remember that Baghdad Bob had always unequivocably denied that there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.
Mig, This is "Daily Dirt" right??...keep it coming:-)......I agree with the sentiment that Danailov has to keep his boy in the news, especially if he is kept out of Mexico 2007.
======================
Good point! If the gutter politics of the Chess world cannot be discussed in a forum called "The Daily Dirt", then where can ib be mentioned?
For those who are offended by such posts, I have a simple suggestion: Don't read them.
C'mon, y'all can stop at the first time that you encounter the name Danailov, can't you?
I do agree with Sandor that I would prefer to have have threads about the upcoming Tal Memorial, than about Danailov. However, it is not as if there is a lack of space on the Web to accomodate both.
Finally, I do find it ironic that Danailov contually gives free publicity about Fritz to the media, and then expects that ChessBase could resist covering the controversy.
Doug,
Of course Baghdad Bob uttered an occasional truth. No one's perfect.
No doubt, Topalov must have been thrilled at the prospect of playing Rapid Chess games, since Kramnik would scarcely have any opportunity to make a visit to the toilet, while the games were ongoing. As it turned out, a Kramnik who forced (by circumstances) to stay at the chesstable ended up achieving better results then when he was leaving the table after each of his moves.
Do you think that Topalov ever concluded that the computer assistance that Kramnik (supposedly) received was in the end outweighed by Kramnik's loss of quality reflection time?
Many players have "rationally" sought to exploit their opponent's time pressure, by blitzing out moves when they needn't do so. Often, they get "hoist by their own petard".
Note that Topalov's tactic of moving fast, in order to exploit Kramnik's abscence from the chess board, is just as "rational" even if Topalov didn't believe that Kramnik was cheating by using Fritz. However, it is irrational for Topalov to hold the belief in the first place, since there was no evidence at all to support such a belief. Indeed, Kramnik's play lacked any brilliant tactics, and contained gross blunders; hardly suggestive of computer assistance.
=============================
"A final note, is that (while I personally am sure that kramnik did not use any help for the reasons mentioned all around), Topalov was really scared that he did. This is obvious by the fact that he kept on playing very fast (even when he was leading the match), and one quite rational explenation is that he wanted Kramnik not to visit his restroom..."
If Kramnik had indeed cheated, he would have maximized his time in the toilet room. Instead, he went in and out many times.
Thus, he did not cheat! Simple!
Doug,
What is your point? First you say Topalov would have blitzed his moves whether he thought Kramnik was cheating or not (which I agree with), then you say he must have thought Kramnik was cheating..
The only reason I can see for Kramnik cheating in such a situation (with so much money and his reputation at stake) was if he was under political pressure to win the match.
His story never did make sense though-- if he liked to 'walk around' why did he close the door when he went into the bathroom? I don't think its nitpicky of Topalov to say this makes zero sense.
Lo primero que deben aclarar los que acusan Kramnik de trampa es como consultaba a Fritz o el programa que fuera.
Yo creo que Kramnik es quien a hecho las mayores a portaciones en las aperturas en los ultimos años. Como dijo en una entrevista de 2004. Porque todos empeazaron a juegar la Sveshnikov o Berlin. Como el dice, se ha preocupado por buscar la verdad en el ajedrez.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1322
to DOug:
Read all the post you quote first..
I first said that rapid is different from slow play (and Topalov is bad at rapid as you can see from his results in Amber through hiss whole carreer). I also pointed out that 6-5 is not that worse than 2.5-1.5 (and given small number of games the deviation is bigger. Also the scor was 1.5-1.5 before the last game, that obviously was heavily affected by the nerves of the players).
Also I did never said that Topalov was rational in suspecting Kramnik. I said that the outside people, trying to give a rational explenation to what happen, could possibly (not nesecerally) conclude that Topalov was afraid that Kramnik cheated (even though this would not be rational from his point of view). (I remind that this belief is based on the speed he played in the few last classical games. Note also than in the rapid games he did not have a time advantage, since he probably was not any longer worried about the toilet...)
You can have a rational explenation for an irrational act.
A similar case would be to say that a rational explenation for Zidane in the football world cup, hitting the Italian player, would be that he was pissed of by some offence he made. This would not make Zidane's response rational..
Mig, what do you think of this one? http://kalm.ru/news/article.php?lang=en&item_id=2 Kasparov was in Elista for the celebrations of Kirsan's re-election? Can this be true or some kind of Kalmykian PR?
Giannis--
Some people suspected that Kasparov was planning to become a pro-democracy political activist. So he showed up at Kirsan's President-of-Kalmykia inauguration to throw them off the track.
"Kaspy in Elista in 2002"
That was back in the 2002 of "Prague agreement" when Kasparov allied back with the corrupt FIDE and the morally reprehensible (remember Larisa Yudina) Ilyumzhinow in the vain hope that Kirsan would somewhow get Kramnik to play him for WC.
So much about Garry's "principles" and ethics.
The really disturbing fact is that Danailov is right on one thing: during the last year Kirsan has been sold out to Putin in order to keep his position as President of Kalmykia. I hope Kasparov now understands how naive was his support to Kirsan at that time...
Kasparov was not naive, he had an interest in Kirsan at the time. Had the negociations of the Ponomariov-Kasparov match went well we would have seen a Kramnik-Kasparov WC match.
Ilymzinow relation with Kremlin is complicated. Many want him out and dont see his absolute power in Kalmykia as a good thing because it challanges the central power that Putin tried hard to strengthen during his reign.
But it isnt that easy, Kirsan is well entrenched.
PS
Fischer interview at chessbase.com
Kasparov's "support" for Kirsan consisted of playing in the Grand Prix series and going ahead with the contractual obligation for a match for as long it seemed reasonable. If you want to call this support, then Kramnik supported Kirsan for the past half year and everybody else largely supported Kirsan for as long as they have been playing.
(If Giannis' link is accurate) Attending Kirsan's inauguration was going a tad beyond the call of duty.
Just basic PR stuff: high-profile appearance upon Kirsan's request. Had Kirsan's inauguration taken place this past summer and if either Kramnik or Topalov had high enough public recognition, they would have been there.
No idea, hadn't heard of it. I wasn't working with Garry at the time. There was a year between my departure from Kasparov Chess Online and my work with him writing and such. I'll ask.