Paranoid Delusional Behavior on Topalov's part.

It's really a pity.

Play the match over in a sealed room and Topalov would lose again.

Total Sour Grapes.

There are lots of logical reasons why this doesn't make much sense

1. The way Kramnik allowed Mate in 2 which was overlooked by both Topalov and Kramnik
2. The score would not have been 6-6, in case Kramnik was cheating
3. I cant see how such cheating can be done in Rapidplay?

Cheers..

I can not believe Topalov can be so delusional. What an idiot! I really hope FIDE and Kramnik turn down the match offer from Topalov. I do not want to see Topalov play chess anymore. After such accusations Kramnik does not have to play this "KGB did it"-loser.

You're right, Mig, it's not even worth taking the piss.

I do wonder about the journalists though. What's the point in printing trash like this? I suppose just that it sells your paper, and if you don't print it without asking any questions, you don't get to interview the great man again.

And Topalov? What does he really think? My impression actually is that he's a child who probably does think this sort of stuff. I suppose it's no worse really than footballers come out with.

My first thought was: why would Kramnik give this delusional moron a chance at a rematch? But my second thought was: Kramnik will just laugh all the way to the bank.

Kirsan's little green men and Topalov's paranoid ramblings: chess is so odiously colourful...

I can see the headline now:

"Topalov smashes his TV set--finds wires inside--blames Kramnik"

The bottom line is that computer cheating is set to become next paranoia in chess. Get used with idea that you will have learn some electronics so as to make sense of the next generation of tournament regulations.

Of course, Mig, you know better. You were looking up polonium, yourself, right? It is rather arrogant to think you know the Rusians didn't cheat.

I think noone has lived in Russia, right?
Tell the dead guy he is delusional...

It's amazing at how confident everyone is that Kramnik didn't cheat... what people seem to be forgetting is that Kramnik started this entire fiasco with his extremely suspicious behavior in the rest area... this match was played in Kramnik's backyard, and it just so happens that Kirsan was at a meeting with Putin during the match.

I am not saying Topalov is 100% correct... but Kramnik is no saint... and people confidently proclaiming Kramnik didn't cheat are simply ignorant

It's amazing at how confident everyone is that Kramnik didn't cheat... what people seem to be forgetting is that Kramnik started this entire fiasco with his extremely suspicious behavior in the rest area... this match was played in Kramnik's backyard, and it just so happens that Kirsan was at a meeting with Putin during the match.

I am not saying Topalov is 100% correct... but Kramnik is no saint... and people confidently proclaiming Kramnik didn't cheat are simply ignorant

i found myself even rooting against the team from Sofia in Champions League. clown.

I am sure half of what Topalov claims is utter paranoia, but chess has a reputation for government entities getting involved in matches.

I find it difficult to believe that no cheating took place.

If Topalov gets a rematch in Sofia, I wouldn't be surprised if he were approached and offered an opportunity to cheat.

Zaur,

In most civilized justice systems, the burden of proof is on the accuser. Topalov has provided little evidence that Kramnik cheated and what he has provided is rather faint and ridiculous (we can all think of many reasons Kramnik would choose to spend most time in the bathroom and he hasn't exactly played computer-precision chess in this match). Until Topalov provides us with more than accusations, we dismiss the charges. To do otherwise is an impossible task of "proving so-and-so hasn't cheated".

It's amazing how many people are ready to even suspect for one second that Topalov might be right. He is talking the worst, most nonsensical BS in ages. I guess some buy it due to the widespread Russophobia these days but it's really utterly irrational.

But sure, KGB feeding him the moves seems like a quite efficient way of cheating.

Btw, is he really saying that cheating took place during the tiebreak games as well? I'm not sure I completely got that (due to the "Later he had.." part.

This is like the twlight zone.

Yes, I think so, acirce. I like the twist though that they were cheating - obviously - but the reason this didn't produce any good play is that they didn't bother getting a sensible operator for the machine, so just some KGB squarehead sitting there tapping out the first move it thought of. 'Cos that's obviously what you'd do, right?

thats the great thing about accusations; they're very difficult to disprove. for example, i accuse all of you of opening a copy of My System last month. anyone care to try and prove their innocence?

The sooner this guy Weaselin Toiletlov quits chess the better. He and Danailov have become a disgrace and are spilling their crap on the chessworld. I think they should be cut off and not be invited to anything.

Topa: go get your head examined, you are only a sad puppet of Danailov repeating his crap. Grow up and start thinking - if you got a brain! I don't want to see your games anymore - or if I must I hope you start/keep losing and fade away. Too bad, once I liked your style, now you have none and it disgusts me.

I am sure that Kramnik cheated as much as I am certain of the existence of God, nobody has proved their unexistence.
On the other hand absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, they remain "sub jure".

Was Bronstein ordered to lose the the 1950 match with Botvinnik ? or Alekhine assasinated or a collusions of soviet-GMs set against Fischer ?

Acirce,

How are Topalov's claims utter BS?

Was he threatened? Was there a network cable? Did he legitimately feel like he was in danger? If Kramnik won but made the same claims, would you believe him?

I don't think anyone here feels that Topalov is correct about cheating. However, What some are saying is that his claims aren't unreasonable or particularly unbelievable considering the parties involved.

Look, if you even slightly acknowledge that Korchnoi and other Soviet Union era chess players might have been pressured or convinced to lose games (based on mostly anecdotal evidence), then you can't automatically throw out Topalov's claims.

Poor Topa, he sounds so naive, like an idiot savant parroting his Svengali manager. It's really sad. The lamentable cables fantasy reminds me of Robert De Niro in Brazil.

There was no indication of cheating, there is definitely no proof of cheating, if you are going to cheat you don't do it by having some KGB operative feeding you the Fritz 10 moves (?!?) most definitely nobody cheated during the tiebreak, an internet cable running through the ceiling is of as much use as a cigarette lighter even if somehow Kramnik had known about it, everybody knows that Kramnik's health problems are very real and not a "lie", need I go on about why they are complete BS?

The question of whether Kramnik cheated or not is a non-issue. It's too absurd even to argue about. More interesting is the kind of stories that Topalov has latched onto to explain why he lost. They're not simply insane, delusional and paranoid ones; they also absolve him of culpability. It wasn't his fault he lost; evil forces (Russia! The KGB!) were set against him. It seems a curiously impotent mindset for someone who aspires to be a champion -- which is probably why he isn't one.

This is how it sounded when Topalov returned to Bulgaria:

"Interviewer: Are you sorry that the match took place in Russia?

Topalov: No, Elista is a great place with very nice people. The organization was perfect. The problems that occured could have occured at any other place."

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3428

I wonder what Shirov or Kamsky have to comment on this. The guys who've met both Topalov and Kramnik over the board. Shirov's opinion would be particularly good to hear - given that isn't exactly inclined to agree with Kramnik usually.

Shirov commented on this blog that the match happened because the Russian government wanted it.
(of course this doesn't mean that he agrees with Topalov charges but I wouldn't be surprised if he were to)

Mig, did you check how authentic this interview was. It's too much...must be fabricated. I cannot imagine Topalov saying those things.

Total paranoid or else he studied Fischer's character so well that he has suddenly become him!

This can't be true.

Duncan

He (Topalov) is accusing Kramnik of what he actually did in San Luis, and he could not do in the match. Analyze the games and check the computer accuracy ratio (using rybka) and you will see the results, you will be amazed. Danailov knew it and was expecting Kramnik should do the same as Topalov did and that is the reason of toilet paranoia

Why total paranoid ? Russia is a dangerous place these days.

Kramnik may have become part of the "system" as Karpov was once. I do not find impossible they wanted to make sure that Kramnik would win.

Sigh..

I am sorry but Kirsan needs to take danilov and Topalov to task before the FIDE ethics committee. Slandering a member federation (Russia) slandering a fellow professional (Kramnik). I think a year sispenion from FIDE events would not be to harsh and Danikov needs to be declared persona non grata like Quinteros and Calvo for extremely minor lapses. In the case of Dr. Calvo his crime was the truth written down.

If KGB (FSB, actually) was really involved, then:
1) Topalov would not be able to find any cable;
2) Kirsan would not grant the Commission to those jerks before the match, and would not voice his support to their absurd decisions, becasue he'd be involved into KGB actions (he can be easily managed by KGB being totally dependent on Putin's favor as a corrupt businessman and politician);
3) Topalov would never be able to get (illegal) access to tapes.
The list can be easily continued.

My guess is that if this interview is authentic, than Topa is either in serious mental trouble, or he just tries to create as much noise as possible to get onto newspapers first pages again, as he did during the match. Anyway, they know their re-match offer will be declined (too late, no financial guarantees, etc), and try to make up a new scandal, IMHO.

Topalov may as well not be mentally ill but rather a smartass. There is a general distrust in the West of the polically corrupt (and violent) Putin's Russia. And for good reasons : the recent spy story, Politovskya murder, Larisa Yudina (Kirsan's murder) and all the rest.

In such context Topalov is simply riding the wave with such accusations. They may be even true but they are as hard to prove as anything else.

But has Kramnik has joined some groups of interests in Moscow, entered the political sysment ? Karpov's life history makes such suspicious seem not that absurd. You actually need political support when you get at this level
and Kramnik is not any "revolutionary" character.

PS to Kosulin, Kirsan situation is not that simple, he has enemies in Duma who tried to bring him down but failed..it is very, very complicated.

what is there to say other than i sincerely hope Kramnik will NOT give this idiot a rematch.

If Kirsan were 1/10th the ruthless dictator he is accused of being, Topalov would not be getting away with this garbage. What an embarrassment for Bulgaria and for chess.

For me, the most bizarre sentence in this interview is: "So we shut up and continued the match." That's just incredible.

Mig, can't you sign up Shirov, Kamsky and other top GM's to post comments on your blog.

GM Shirov - hope you regain your place in the top 10 again. Do you also feel like Tal did in his later years when asked why his games not as spectacular as before: ..have a poke in there and you have six defenders or something?

GM Kamsky - take it easy on Vishy, will you? do you have regrets of raking a break from the chess? Almost like Martina Hingis..

Violating FIDE's Code of Ethics can lead to being "excluded from participation in all FIDE tournaments or from specific types of tournaments for a period of up to 3 years" -- http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=A10

Of course, there is no specification about what kind of offense that would lead to what kind of punishment, but if this is not enough for exclusion at least for a while, then I really have to wonder what would be.

Already in Elista, the Kramnik team asked for FIDE's Ethics Commission to investigate the case. Since then, it's only getting worse every time he opens his mouth.

I would seriously like to see this happen. Maybe not for 3 years, but something. That would hopefully teach him a lesson. If not, it would alienate him from FIDE so that he would stay out deliberately in the future. That would be nice too. Of course, the best thing would be a sincere apology, but that's not going to happen.

What is going to happen is that controls against computer cheating are going to be set in all major tournaments, to avoid such situations/accusations repeating.

Of course it would be nice if FIDE were to do somnething about this but since it won't
the problem will be addressed and solved by the organizers of the major tournamnets.

"What is going to happen is that controls against computer cheating are going to be set in all major tournaments, to avoid such situations/accusations repeating."

Yeah but this was exactly what was done in Elista! I doubt that many other events in chess history has had that strict anti-cheating measures enforced. I would have thought to that it should stop this kind of ridiculous accusations, and that was of course the intention. It didn't, so it won't in the future either. It was just a vain hope.

hi all
the man tell you the truth about how he feels in the match and you men you all know about Elista more than Topalov who played there by himself
you just preffer to be premeditated and to stay with closed eyes
this is called ignorance
sorry for harsh words

The issue with Ethics Commission is that if they put sanctions on Topanailov, Topa and Co. will use this to start a huge PR campaign on "Russians dominating FIDE", "Kramnik afraid of playing Topa", etc. And it wouldn't be easy for FIDE and Kramnik to prove who is who in the general public opinion. It is much easier to soil somebody compared to cleaning your reputation up. It is usually easier to attack, and hard to defend. And it is almost impossible to bring Topa to a civil court, because he just issues an opinion.

and its funny to me that many here share the opinion that Kramnik shouldnt play new WC match with Topa
why? cant understand :) the games were exciting, werent they?

The Elista event signals that the problem has to be taken seriously from now on in tournamnent-play , not only ICC. It was the first high level scandal.

This whole issue (measures/countermeasures) is still at the beginning. Jon Jacobs, who posts here, should be able to tell us more about it.
I understand he has organized a meeting on this topic in New York recently.

There will be changes in (serious) tournament regulations all over the world to meet this problem.
The "drugs in chess controls" was another imaginary problem, more gibberish from Kirsan but in fact we have real "doping" problem to solve.

Imaginary problems is something that Kirsan/FIDE can solve, the real ones....we will see.

thenewone,
There is no time left for the match to be played in time. Period.

My favorite part:
"What do you think of President Ilyumzhinov?
- He's a businessman and he simply needed to have a Russian champion. It's nothing personal. He got the order."

So much ingratitude!

Ray
why Topalov should be gratefull to Iliumzhinov? Did he give him his world champion title?

Vlad:
there is enough time. Look at the calendar

oh Vlad sorry
in the last sentence I forgot something:
Period.

It just occured to me that in ancient times, when, following the Prague agreement, a Kasparov-Ponomariov match was scheduled to determine FIDE's opponent for Kramnik and thereby unify the World Championship, one Silvio Danailov was Manager of Ponomariov (just as Carsten Hensel is Manager of both Kramnik and Leko) and supposedly spoiled that match by urging his man not to accept the addition of a few completely insignificant rest days. It stood to reason that after this failure Kasparov wouldn't have a chance to get a shot at the title any more, and consequently retired. Thus, Danailov has really been extremely influential in recent chess history. Funny how amongst all our Danailov-bashing of the last months nobody ever accused him of killing the King. Wouldn't be completely unreasonable to say that. Or maybe I don't remember all of this correctly.

I'm sick of these bizarre allegations. If a grandmaster wants to cheat he DOES NOT NEED TO CHECK WITH HIS COMPUTER MOVE BY MOVE. Not even I would need so, and I'm a lousy C class player!

Topalov should retire out of shame.

I am very sad. I am sure I have said this before with reference to GM Topalov, but now I am completely unable to find any excuse for his behaviour.

I hope Kramnik sues.

thenewone,
They both play at the Corus tournament Jan.13-29.
Topa is also supposed to play in Linares/Morelia after that.
The match shall finish 6 month in advance before the Mexico start Sept 12. To finish the match before March 12, it have to start not later than February 20th.
May be, for Topa playing the title match a week or two after a big tournament is fine, he stated numerous times that for him the title is nothing and he is playing just for money, but for everybody else the WC match is the EVENT, and players must be prepared appropriately to show the best chess OTB, not the behind the scene performances.

oh, so it was Danailov who ruined Kasparov-Ponomariov match ?

as I remember there was more than "few rest days" to their disagreement...but I can't remember exactly what

Oh, my God, now "Kramnik Central" will come abuzz. Unpleasant interview to read on a good day like today, but that's life.

Charley, a few other Brits and Americans, I suspect -- you guys don't know s*** about how the system works in Russia, so please reserve judgement. You haven't seen it from the inside like I have.

I've no idea whether Topalov's alegations are true, or not, but to be dismissed out of hand is like trying to refute reality.

D.

Come on Mig, you are very quiet.

Your guy lives in fear, you are looking up polonium, the spy is dead, Larisa was murdered.

But you dismiss anything Topalov says.

Kramnik couldn't/ wouldn't cheat? Fritz 10 isn't so strong? Bladder control is not relevant?

What on earth does Litvinenko, Yudina and Politkovskaya for that matter have to do with the match in Elista??? Is this what is called "hysterical mob"?

Dimi,

That was my point too, not that Topalov is necessarily right but being given what is going on in Russia nowdays what Topa says is quite plausible ( and impossible to prove either way).

Nevertheless he should shut up and forget it.
He should have realized all these before agreeing to play Kramnik in Russia.

Ovidiu, I too prefer that Topalov is quiet because I get seriously annoyed reading some of the reactions. Reminds me of a Komsomol gathering when one after the other the good boys condemn the "instigator, provocateur, reactionary..."

I enjoyed better watching how the Kranmik camp tries to swallow Mexico 2007.

But then again -- all these years there was one rule: "Shut up, or..." So, why can't he say what he thinks?

D.

Although I find myself doing it often enough I don't really like repeating myself, let alone repeating others. As I said at the time and since, barring new information I'd much rather talk about chess. I have tried to only put this stuff up every few weeks at most unless there is something from one of the principals, like this interview. (I.e. if Danailov had said the exact same things I probably wouldn't have run it.)

As for the content, that's all been gone over too. My opinions haven't changed. Without getting into the endless hair-splitting on legalities (and without reading this entire thread; I just woke up!), I think that 1) Kramnik's bathroom behavior was odd enough to warrant a protest. 2) There was no evidence of wrongdoing and the protest should have been dismissed or handled in a non-invasive way. (Inspections, etc.) So the original decision to lock the bathrooms was wrong. 3) Kramnik should have played game five under protest. 3.5) The forfeit was probably the only real possible outcome after he didn't and this wasn't directly Topalov's fault. 4) Topalov/Danailov's subsequent (and ongoing) campaign of slander and scandal was calculated and possibly premeditated. First to distract Kramnik during the match and now to deflect responsibility for Topalov's loss. 5) There is still absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing on Kramnik's part, either materially or by deduction from looking at the games. In case it's not clear, I do not believe Kramnik received any external assistance.

I have also said that the Russian establishment, via Zhukov, was firmly behind getting this match to happen and giving Kramnik all possible support. It's quite possible Ilyumzhinov got a Kremlin-flavored kick in the pants after the appeals committee locked the bathrooms. But theory isn't what matters. There was no visible manifestation of this support in ways that affected the results unless you count Topalov's paranoia possibly damaging his play. (If you believe he is sincere about thinking Kramnik was really cheating, which I'm not sure of. He may be talking himself into it.) The one big decision, the forfeit, ended up in Topalov's favor. I feel that was essentially the correct (legalistically) result, but it certainly doesn't indicate favoritism toward Kramnik.

Of the many ironies around this is that prior to Elista there were scads of rumors about Topalov receiving signals (San Luis, Sofia, Linares) and not a few top players seem to believe this. I was/am willing to chalk it up to sour grapes since he was kicking so much butt, but Elista added a flavor of deflection and transference, as well as simply making him less sympathetic and less trustworthy. Again, mostly sad.

Dimi, the only good thing for chess that may come out of Topalov's accusation is the chess people realizing that the time has come for the computer cheating issue in OTB-play to be taken seriously.

In this sense yes, there is a point in do them.

Otherwise he is only harming his reputation and gets accused of paranoia as Fischer was accused after the 1963 TC.

There are two problems with the "it was Russia" comments.

1) We're not talking about "Russia", we're talking about Kramnik. Either this guy was implanted with a non-existent Fritz when aged 5 or he's a brilliant talent who was clearly a class better than Topalov for a decade. Kramnik's play in this match was below his previous standards, which makes you wonder why he'd bother to cheat so incompetently.

2) This was played in Elista, and Ilyumzhinov and FIDE obviously favoured having Topalov as their champion (he was the FIDE champion, after all, and enthusiastic about Mexico... and so on). The appeals committee debacle obviously went in Topalov's favour, so to then come out and claim he lost because of unfavourable conditions is ludicrous. Sure, Zhukov and co. might have put some pressure on to get the match played out, but that's supposed to be what Topalov wanted ;)

p.s. anyone got any idea which move Topalov's claiming is computer-inspired in the tie break? Just idle curiosity...

Sadly, the World Championship title means very little now thanks to men like Ilyumzhinov and Danailov. Who really cares anymore who the "champ" is?

True, "Mail It In". The situation has become miserable and tainted by politics and back stage frauds since 1948 when FIDE and USSR took the control of the title.

many guys here wrote: FIDE that FIDE this
it seems they think FIDE is a monolith and they forget who is Iliumzhinov and who is Iliumzhinov' boss
i repeat: it is just ignorance
to ignore Topa opinion and feeling is premeditate
they was there -- you were not
its simple
cheers

I find it hard to believe that Topalov said this, the whole story is so absurd and sad.

Sorry, this thread has got so bizarre that I can't resist adding this (incidentally, do the loons chiming in actually outnumber those with a grip on reality, or are they just more vociferous?):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6183561.stm

Speaking of Russians,Mig don't let them mess up Garry with that polonium insanity!

"sad" ? no reason to be depressed, Corus is coming and Kramnik will have the opportunity to silence the critics by remarkable play, Topalov too will be there.

Kirsan just won the contest "Man of the year 2006"in Russia,category "For fortifying the sports pride of Russia"(or something like this)
Congratulations Kirsan!!!Apparently you did a great job!
Guys are you so naive to believe that the FIDE and his president were supporting Topalov???

Kirsan was the one who upheld the decision to give Topalov the free point with Black. He gave Kramnik nothing that he didn't already have before the Appeals Committee took it away.

What exactly did Kirsan do now that illustrated this massive Kramnik bias?

Kirsan "man of the year" ? what is life...did Larisa got one for..say, "most remebered corpse" ? or that one went to Politkovskaya ?

I'm not 100% sure, but I believe this the first time Topalov has directly accused Kramnik of cheating. Previously he and even Danailov have talked more vaguely. This could be important legally as well as being remarkable. The world #1 accusing the world champion of cheating shouldn't be dismissed as sour grapes. If he can't back it up, and he can't, why shouldn't there be censure or worse? This may end up being a Big Deal. I'm more annoyed about this the more I think about it. Imagine it in another sport.

It would be good if Kramnik were to sue. He will win for sure, there is no proof, but from then on each tournament will have electronic surveillance and will monitor what the players to do each step.
A trial and the arguments around it would change the way most tournamnets are held nowdays.

I must say that Topalov isn't much of a man. The poor guy hasn't learned to take responsibility
for his life. He's just a puppy that does whatever his master, Danailov, commands him to do.

Just a little thought. If Topalov was so unhappy playing in Russia, might it not be conceivable that Kramnik would not enjoy playing in Bulgaria?

maybe so guido, or maybe not, but what does it have to do with the issue ?

Kramnik will not play a rematch in Sofia that's sure. Not clear then what is the point of this "challange", what is to be achieved except some psychological advantage for Topalov in the months to come.

Maybe Topalov wins all that he plays in soring 2007 and, added with Kramnik's refusal, he may feel the champ again.

Ignorant of the circumstances of Larisa's decease, and referring to Ovidiu's message, I think it might be possible that an award for "most dismembered corpse" was bestowed?

And Sofia is the CAPITAL and not exactly comparable to playing in a Russian republic with rather extensive autonomy ... right? This is what Topalov meant when he said he didn't have a problem with Elista since he considered it "FIDE territory". It's not like it took place inside the Kremlin under Putin's supervision.

Meanwhile, the Bulgarian President is intended as patron of the rematch according to Danailov's proposal.

Until now, I thought that all those baseless allegations were just part of Danailov Gambit, but now we seem to have proof that Topalov was supportive of these tactics.

With this new development I think the suggestion form Mr. Hans-Walter Schmitt (the Minaz Organizer, http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3418), that is ban Topalov from all major tournaments.

LAT

FIDE may ban him from Kalmykia but who will care at Corus, W-Zee, Linares or M-Tel of what Kirsan says.

Topa's lamentable cables fantasy brings to mind Terry Gilliam's Brazil. Same sort of mindset, too.

I think he may be living in that same place as the film "Brazil."

This guy's a joke. I thought he looked fairly normal and together for a top chess player. However, it seems that being Danailov's chess boy toy for all these years has really created a mad man.

If an opponent of mine went into the toilet that many times in a game, I'd be suspicious as hell too, even if I couldn't definitively prove anything. Consider what you'd think if this happened to you at a tournament before calling Topalov paranoid.

Within a couple of years, Topalov and his "manager" will have become little more than the weakened embodiment of a tiresome near-cliche. Now what each of them needs most is to share about six months' worth of intensive couples therapy, and perhaps to seek advice concerning long-term psychotropic medication...--

A most amazing explanation for all this:

After a long day at the chessboard, Topalov and Danailov like to relax and unwind in their living room, watching the World Wrestling Federation on satellite TV.

One day, shortly before Elista, they come up with the idea of reanimating a moribund chess scene by marketing it like professional wrestling:

--a little "champion" with a funny beard and strange dreams;
--his demented, reptilian manager;
--a sorcerer;
--mysterious accomplices making odd handsignals.

A secret cable hidden within the ceiling of Restaurant Chevermeto in south Sofia reveals Ovidiu, Danailov and Topalov hard at work plotting their next move:

OVIDIU: You had an idea how to hype this Kremlin nonsense?

TOPALOV: I dunno.

DANAILOV: Veselin will eat some rancid feta chess. We'll rush him to the hospital and call the newspapers.

TOPALOV: Can't I just pretend to be ill, like Kramnik?

DANAILOV: Our doctors will discover that Veselin's got Polonium poisoning.

TOPALOV: From bad feta cheese?

OVIDIU: It's just pretend, Veselin.

DANAILOV: Then, even though you're "ill" you'll win Corus.

TOPALOV: How?

DANAILOV: You won San Luis. Same thing.

OVIDIU: Polonium is fatal, is Veselin supposed to die or something?

DANAILOV: After Corus he'll go to Lourdes, have a religious experience and be cured. Any doctor in the world will certify he's Polonium free. That will PROVE he'd been poisoned.

OVIDIU: Waiter, please bring us some feta cheese.

Topalov is a disgrace for chess. What I find the most despicable is how Topalov and Danailov keep saying that Kramnik cheated and yet they want rematch. Actually, the normal human reaction to the cheating would be to never play the cheater again. Boycott the cheater, etc. So, the fact that the keep seeking rematch just shows to me that they do not really think Kramnik cheated. That makes the allegations all the more ridiculous.

And it is not just cheating allegations. He claims that conspiracy against him was so huge that even his LIFE was in danger. And yet he wants to play rematch as soon as possible? Why is that? You just played a match against a cheater and you barely escaped death and now you want to do it again as soon as possible? That is what we are supposed to believe? I would have more respect for Topalov/Danailov lies had they been more consistent with one another. Of course, if Topalov really believed that his life was in danger AND that Kramnik was a cheater he would never ever agree to rematch because that would mean he would just be risking his life again without a chance of actually winning.

And how stupid is the fact that they are asking for rematch while giving such interviews? I mean, what - they think Kramnik will not agree to the rematch but they think that if they accuse him of the most horrible things he will all of a sudden go "oh, when you challenged me to a rematch I wasn't going to play you, but now that you are saying I am a cheater and a part of a KGB conspiracy that would go as far as killing you- yes, I would be happy to give you a chance to play me". This is so moronic I can't believe they are doing this.

I hope this interview misquoted him, but then again, there can only be so many newspapers that misquote you. It seems that it is likely to be accurate since Topalov has shown his ugly face in the other interviews, too.

I hope Topalov gets banned for this. 1 year or 2 or 3 - I don't care. But this is damaging to the game of chess. Topalov is absolutely disgusting and I hope he loses every game he plays from now on. The word that really comes to mind is "scum".

And to all those who think there may have been some sort of a Russian conspiracy to help Kramnik win Elista match - do you not remember the facts? Kramnik got a point AND a game with white stolen from him! This has to be the worst conspiracy ever! If this is how Putin agents supposedly help Kramnik, then I am sure Kramnik and his fans do not want any help.

And let me get this straight: Putin got Kirsan and others to go out of their way to help Kramnik win - and as a result Topalov got 1 point odds and an extra game with white? Ok. So what would happen if Putin had been neutral? Would Topalov then get 3 point odds and have 5 more games with white than Kramnik? Nice thinking.

Russianbear, nice essay but I hope that you won't fall again into the same trap (albeit reversed 180 degrees) that Topa fell : of trying TO PROVE now that Kramnik did not cheat.

We just don't know. There isn't enough evidence, it remains a suspicion. Kramink could have cheated but he might have had just a bladder problem.

What is important here is that such situation should never repeat. Measures should be taken so as the players behavior can be fully monitored during tournaments. No gaps in supervision allowed, no nerve racking suspicions again.

Perhaps never playing in Russia again (unless if Kasparov wins the elections)would be an appropriate solution?

Greg Koster, you're right on with the Danailov / Topalov WWE analogy. I've made posts occasionally on other threads pointing this out, but folks seem to think I'm joking. Even Ali reverted to wrestling schtick to create excitement before bouts. Doesn't Kirsan seem to pattern his charachter after power hungry heel owner Vince McMahon? ( especially when changing stipulations at the last minute ). Maybe even Kramnik's in on it...if not, he sure executed a smooth and effective overnight face turn at Elista. When they eventually stage a re-match it'll have to be in a "steel cage" style secure setting to prevent outside assistance. Need I add to convince doubters, the "toilet" angle is 100% straight out of Vince's playbook. Finally, chess will soon work on TV in the U.S. and attract corporate bucks!

The best defence is the attack : Topalov was suspected of cheating and now it seems everyone forgets him and suspects Kramnik... But as it has been said : who do you think is the main suspect ? Kramnik, a genius of chess, a former child prodigy with one of the best positionnal understanding in chess history or Topalov, an "anonymous" top level player for years who began to play very sharp games, with tactic fireworks in every part of the board and earn suddenly almost 100 elo point past thirty ?

Some very important facts seems to have been ignored in these discussions and they contained major problems for the Topalov supporters:

Before each game the players were subject to security checks for devices.These checks revealed nothing for either player that would cause suspicion.

Before each game each rest room and toilet area was checked by security and with a representative of each player present whilst the checks were going on. These checks did not reveal anything suspicious for either player.

Final point,the players played in an enclosed glass room with specific security measures in place to avoid computer/external cheating.

Topalov- unless you have concrete evidence which can be viewed, you are at immense risk of being sued for libel throughout the world.

To be fair to Topalov (not that he deserves it), he always played very sharp games with tactical fireworks all over the board - it was just he blundered too often and lots of his ideas were unsound.

I don't think it's that inconceivable that he suddenly calmed down/prepared openings better and became stronger, though seeing the way his mind works I'm no longer inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

In any case, I really think Kramnik should pursue accusations this serious in court. Hopefully, for the sake of chess, FIDE would then step in with a ban and Kramnik would accept that and drop the legal action (the problem is this might all be part of the Topalov/Danailov master plan - you can just see Danailov licking his lips at the chance to continue this circus in court, or with even more publicity).

The idea that Kramnik will ever sit down and play a match with Topalov now beggars belief, though knowing chess...

Guitov,do you have some understanding of chess????

And "suspicions" on Topalov were given only in the Russian medias and I believe it was the start of an well-organized campaign against Topalov.So this campaign was a success as we could see now

Such big matches should be held only in neutral countries. It would have been all too easy for the Russians to install communicating devices for Kramnik in his bathroom, they were controlling the whole setting/building.

Ovidiu, I agree about neutral countries. This time it was a country (Ilyumzhinov's private city in his private kingom, with FIDE minions to do his bidding) that favoured Topalov. Playing in Sofia would be a travesty.

As for the communicating devices - so you really think Kramnik went into the bathroom (incidentally checked beforehand) and climbed up to the ceiling, removed some panelling, pulled down an internet cable, connected it to his cleverly concealed non-metallic PC (remember the metal detectors?)... and then proceeded to receive moves which he seemingly didn't play, as if he had he wouldn't have got into the positions he did.

It's all patently absurd. Sure, we can't prove anything 100%. I can't prove you got into a time machine and killed Kennedy, but I think you'd agree making that accusation against you wouldn't exactly be reasonable...

Re: the suspicions about Topalov being the work of the Russian media. I think you'll find it was just the opinion of a few of the players at the tournament, only one of whom was Russian, as far as I know. I can't see Russia was really hell-bent on seeing Anand as FIDE WC instead of their eternal enemy, the Bulgarians! ;)

Ok should have written : "an "anonymous" top level player for years who began to WIN 90% of very sharp games". Stanleys, I think you do not know anything about chess history, just one of this Topalov fan who starts having interest in chess in the past 3 years. Have a look at these 2 pages http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/PlayerProfile.asp?Params=199510SSSSS3S132258000000151000000000029610100 and http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/PlayerProfile.asp?Params=199510SSSSS3S068986000000151000000000016810100. The questions about recent Topalov's performances have not only been raised by russian medias but also by some very respectful and strong players (and others than Dolmatov and Morozevich since you seem to have a russian phobia).

mishanp, I wrote here before that the bottom line of this "cheating affair" is that time has come for the computer cheating problem to be taken seriously and the worries of guys as Topalov understood, not ridiculed as some mindless Kramnik idolaters do here.

But Topalov should shut up or use a softer approach because he has no proof. He should have worried before going to play Kramnik on his home turf, Russia. A place where Topa could not control anything and where Kramnik could have cheated easily if he wanted and Topalov could have only "spin in circles" wondering whether it was happening or not.

We will likely never konw for sure if Kramnik did it in his many bathroom trips but it doesn't matter now anymore, it is over. Important is the lesson, computers are here to stay and this has to be dealt with when such big matches are held.

Duncan,
You are right. Topalov is a fan of Fisher for a long time. He said many times that this is the player he admires.
But even in that case, the Russian machine support for their players has a long history. Maybe not all that Topalov says is true, but somewhere between the lines is what actually happened in Elista....

Computers were dealt with, Ovidiu. They were taken very seriously and you can't exactly claim not having a camera in the toilets for Toppy's team to watch was a security breach.

After the "complaint" they upped the security even more. And again - this wasn't Kramnik's home turf - he was playing in FIDE's home city with his friends on the appeals committee.

If Topalov still thinks Kramnik was cheating in the tie-breaks there's no security system on earth that's going to counter that level of paranoia.

marca,

I agree that 'somwhere between the lines' of Topa's rant is actually the truth of what happened in Elista 2006.

Fischer recovered after the 1963 TC shock and beat the Russian support machine eventually.
If Topalov keeps playing the level he has reached recently he will defeat it too in the end .
He can go on ranting as Fischer did but, more important, he has to learn the lesson of Elista, make sure in other match negociations that computer cheating opportunities won't be again available.

Guitov,man you didn't say anything about your understanding of chess.Ok I'll tell you something about me if you're so interested:
I'm not considering myself as a strong player,but I am playing competitive chess since 1989 - and my actual rating is +2200
Among other things,one that particularly interests me is the chess history and I think i know much more than you here
Take a look at Topalov's career from 1993 up to now.Look at his performances in WC cycles,starting from 1993 Interzonal tournament.You'll see that he gradually improves his results and the culmination is San Luis
Calling "an anonymous top level player for years",somebody who already won in 1996 many major tournaments,culminating at the 4th position in the world ranking and finishing second in the "Chess Oscar"contest clearly shows that you're just one of the Kramnik fans who start having interest of chess this year!
Among the "very respectful and strong players" who raised questions about Topalov's performances only one name comes to my mind(besides Moro and Dolmatov) - Moro's trainer Vladimir Barskyi.His articles were such a shame!!Do you want a link or you already know them?

I agree with marca and Ovidiu

I wonder that if Topalov is telling even half the truth, the situation in Russia may be much worse than I thought it was.

Of course it seems like Topalov has lost his mind, but how can you know? Very strange things have been reported from Russia lately.

Political interests have driven sports in a lesser corrupted countries and chess is a big thing in Russia.

"Before each game the players were subject to security checks for devices.These checks revealed nothing for either player that would cause suspicion.

Before each game each rest room and toilet area was checked by security and with a representative of each player present whilst the checks were going on. These checks did not reveal anything suspicious for either player.

Final point,the players played in an enclosed glass room with specific security measures in place to avoid computer/external cheating."

Yeah, there were jamming devices present to prevent electronical communication. All put together makes it virtually incomprehensible how efficient cheating would at all have been possible. But these are just insignificant little details, of course. Because, you know, the Russians...umm.... the Russians, you know. KGB and all that. You know. Remember Litvinenko.

Elista was Topalov's home turf. Sofia would be Topalov's home turf. Sounds fair.

Of course we should expect such trash from acirce who considers Sweden to be an example of police brutality.

Huh? I don't even know what you are talking about. I vaguely remember a discussion where I mentioned that police brutality is a problem in Sweden. It's odd that you would deny this.

Russianbear,

Nicely done.

Two points:

1. Doesn't Topalov realize that the more he goes on with his baseless allegations, the less chances he has of maintaining enough credibility to secure a return match with Kramnik?

2. It is really extraordinary that some in this thread have said that the proper conclusion about the 'toilet scandal' is that "we will never know". Suppose I saw Ovidiu looking intently at a child in the playground and then I went around suggesting that he is a paedophile. According to the standards of some people in this blog, I may not be able to prove the allegation, but this only means that we'll never know... Really extraordinary.

Voyiakis,

You have chosen the wrong example. Suppose that I saw you going with the child in the bathroom, closing the door behind you, and then getting out and leaving 20 min later. While I can not prove that you are a pedophile, since I couldn't see what happened behind the closed door, let me suspect you.

Inaccurate, Ovidiu. Your twist of my example violates the rules of analogy. You are taking for granted that there was a "child" in Kramnik's toilet. If you want to be consistent, you need to say, "What if there was a child in there? I'll never know. So let me suspect you of paedophilia". Again, quite an extraordinary thing to believe.

Em,

Your insinuations against Ovidiu are truly baseless, scandalous, and disgusting, but all in all, you've done a public service by highlighting the need for playground supervision.

Thats sad. But that should be a hind for young men that play chess: Dont focuse only on chess, also do other sports and make sure you have a life.
In case you only focuse on chess you might end up like Topalov who know goes desperatly because he has "lost all".

Ovidiu,

> You have chosen the wrong example.

He hasn't. It definitely IS an obsessive rhetorical figure of yours to permanently repeat unsubstantiated allegations voiced by others, after your own intro "it cannot be proved that ...".

Em,

Kramnik may have had other reasons to spend too much time in the bathroom : a bladder problem, an obssesion that such places are safer or that they facilitate analysis, etc.
But for everyone else it was highly suspicious. A chess match was going on at the same and that place was lacking surveillance.

In fact it is a no brainer, why is so difficult for some Kramnik lovers to understand what is Topalov complaining about ? or perhaps that "love is blind" is the diagnosis here ?

cb, he did

Ovidiu, have you been watching too much of the Matrix? Just take the red pill, be done with it -- and leave us alone.

I am providing you some feedback from realiy "theorist". Talking only with those who agree with you is equivalent to talking to yourself.

Can I also just point out how sad it is that all this rubbish is being spouted in the same week that David Bronstein died? Could the gulf be any starker?

I'm afraid you're still missing the point, Ovidiu. Topalov did not just entertain suspicions. He has actually made ALLEGATIONS against Kramnik both during the match and later.

In particular, you do not seem to appreciate that going public with one's suspicions entails two things: First, one needs to back them with proof (which Topalov has manifestly failed to do). Second, if no proof is forthcoming, it is completely immoral to continue airing the original suspicions or even to suggest that "we'll never know". If the soundest conclusion is that the allegations are unfounded, then they ARE unfounded and ought to cease immediately. I cannot understand how such a basic point of morality can escape your notice.

Perhaps it hasn't helped that the question hs been presented as one of fact: did he or didn't he? Topalov and his supporters trade on the idea that we would only know the full truth if we had vision of Kramnik's toilet and so, lacking that bit of evidence, what we know will always fall short of the full truth. What is more extraordinary is that they want to use this idea in order to fuel THEIR OWN version of what happened!

"But for everyone else it was highly suspicious."

Blatantly false. It may have been highly suspicious for paranoid people like you and Topalov. Don't drag the majority of us, who are reasonable people, into this bizarre notion.

Voyiakis:

If someone is staring intently at a child in the playground, or likes to go to bed with children just to cuddle, or goes 50 times to the restroom during a WCC match -- this is all strange behavior. If he throws a fit being asked to abstain from any of the above then that's really suspicious.

You want to experiment -- go to a Greek village and stare intently in someone's wife/child/cow, etc. See what you get. They may not appreciate your practical joke/experiment cause they "know" that "suspicious" is "bad"...

D.

>

Another classic from Ovidiu: a truism that is completely misapplied. You're absolutely right about "talking to yourself". But let's not pretend that conversing with you is somehow *automatically* the opposite: a mutually beneficial, flexible exchange of ideas. Really, it isn't; it's like talking to a brick wall.

But (and here is your characteristic mistake -- which of course applies to your analysis of the Topalov situation) just because something is "not A" does not mean that it's necessarily the "opposite of A." It could just be something else.

Dimi,

I am glad you agree that we should group Topalov's attitude with that of Greek village peasants... Exactly my point.

People, how many of you know how the Russian machine functions???? Ask the great Garry Kasparov, he knows well. When he played against Karpov, he played against 20 GMs at least. And poor Topalov?? He is not even Russian.
Of course Kramnik will not play a rematch... and of course he will lose big time in Mexico, simply because it is not Russia.
The truth about Elista will come out, but in many many years when it will not matter that much. The way it was with Fisher, Bronstein, Krochnoi, etc etc.
My suggestion, go to Russia, live for a while, talk to people. Then you will believe what Topalov says, and you will know it is a very small part of the truth.

Em,

You seem to not have read my previous posts. I have kept saying that Topalov should shut up (or at least soften his tone) and swallow the pill since he can't prove what he charges. Yes we know that Kramnik could have cheated in that conditions and that he had all the reasons to do it but, since it can not be proved, let it pass and next time think twice before playing in Russia a Russian and for nothing else than W.Chess Champ.

On the other hand I like to have him saying what he says because, the other point in my previous emails, this will force everybody to acknowledge the problem of lack of regulations from FIDE to deal with the computer cheating issue in OTB chess.

FIDE is busy with gibberish problems as drug doping when in fact it has a real problem to address.

It's a little known fact that Kramnik has never won a tournament outside of Russia. It's even less known - yet! - that the reason for this is lack of KGB support, although there have been several attempts at Topalov's and Anand's lives.

Ovidiu: please explain how Kramnik could have been using his toilet visits to cheat.

And while you're at it, can you explain why Topalov could NOT have been using HIS toilet visits to cheat, and otherwise why you keep singling Kramnik out.

Ovidiu,

Your last post provides the best example of the attitude I have been criticizing. I will simply copy it for focus:

"Yes we know that Kramnik could have cheated in that conditions and that he had all the reasons to do it but, since it can not be proved, let it pass and next time think twice before playing in Russia a Russian and for nothing else than W.Chess Champ"

Let me just say that it is utterly immoral to suggest that Kramnik 'simply got away with it'. Blogs are places of free expression, but they offer no license to anyone to flout moral standards.

> "It definitely IS an obsessive rhetorical figure
> of yours to permanently repeat unsubstantiated
> allegations voiced by others, after your own
> intro "it cannot be proved that ...".
> Posted by: cb at December 16, 2006 09:40

> "... Kramnik could have cheated in that
> conditions and that he had all the reasons to do
> it but, since it can not be proved, let it pass ..."
> Posted by: Ovidiu at December 16, 2006 10:21

Ovidiu, it is an obsessive rhetorical figure of yours to permanently repeat unsubstantiated allegations voiced by others, after your own intro "it cannot be proved that ...".

Bravo Emmanuel, that was nice :)

Sour grapes or not, Topalov is not baseless in what he feels. Whether he should express it so openly or not is a choice that may be driven by many factors: pure anger, cold calculation, etc.

He gets interviewed a lot -- when before a friendly journalist it is possible to let it loose. So what? Doesn't Gary say a lot of "things" about his prior opponents? Was Karpov truly a bad guy helped from above? Who knows? Can Karpov sue? I don't think so. Chess guys take themselves too seriously, I doubt the courts do the same... But I much rather read an interview from the heart. Amazingly, they all make the front pages...

Topalov has a pretty clean sheet as far as other competitions/competitors go. Not one or two, bitter losses too. Let the "court" take that into consideration... :-)

But to be criticised by folks who themselves raised the accusation level long before Elista is disingenious. To be criticised by folks who spent their time plotting how Kramnik can skirt Mexico 2007 or bet only 48.73% of his title is plain ridiculous.

Anyway, it seems that Topalov brings entertainment. That's a lot to get from a chess player... :-)

D.

No, Bronstein brought entertainment. Topalov just brings a circus.

Emmanuel:

I trust a Greek peasant with my child more than I would an honest freak. Because we turned our back on suspicious behavior, now we can't let the children go to school alone.

D.

Dimi,

Of course he is not baseless in what he says but try to get his "blinded by love" fans here to think straight even for a second over what happened.

Topalov became nervous when he saw how much time Kramnik spent in the bathroom, outside of the surveillance cameras.

How could he dismiss the idea that Kramnik was cheating ? and how could have got rid of doubts ? he went on "spinning in circles" (as he said )--over what was truly happening.

Furthermore he was playing in Russia, it would been all to easy for high tech communication devices to be installed for Kramnik in that bathroom.

Ovidiu, your tenacity in the face of all reason is made only more impressive by your inability to direct your own comments and "doubts" towards yourself. You cling to this little nugget that Kramnik *might* have been cheating like a drowning man afraid to let go of the last shred of flotsam from the shipwreck. The obvious question surely is: what's in this for you? What do you stand to lose? Why is your Topalove so strong?

Of course Topalov didn't know anything about Kramnik's bathroom visits until his own team SPIED on Kramnik, reviewing the video recordings from his private relaxing room, and told Topalov about it. Also one of those pesky details we are supposed to forget about.

Topalov says "And if he's not doing anything wrong, what's the problem?" --- the typical argument for a Big Brother society. With this mentality perhaps Topalov himself should apply for the FSB.

Through the looking glass... (adapted from Ovidiu's last post)

Kramnik became nervous when he saw how the Appeals Committee and the FIDE President favoured Topalov.

How could he dismiss the idea that Topalov was cheating ? and how could have got rid of doubts ? he went on "spinning in circles" (as he said )--over what was truly happening.

Furthermore he was playing against the FIDE chamption, it would been all too easy for FIDE officials to ensure some on- and off-the-board advantages for Topalov.

Do you see how pananoia sets in?

hey guys what is your problem with Topa?
if he was an american guy you all would be blaming bad-bad Putin and evil Russia
cheers

In a mature chess world, this is how the situation would have been handled:

Topalov to his team: Hey guys, Kram is sure going to his room a lot. What's up with that?
Team to arbiter: Hey, Kram is going to his room a lot. Considering all the allegations of computer cheating swirling in the world today and the importance of the match, we would like the explanation.
Arbiter to team Kramnik: Your behavior is within the rules, yet suspicious. Please explain it.
Kramnik: I like to pace around, it helps my thinking and arthritis--I go to the bathroom because I don't like the idea of having surveilance under videotape.
Arbiter conveys the explanation to Topalov.
Topalov: Well, we are gonna have to take his word for it. It's plausible, he is not playing very computer-like, and there is no real evidence of his cheating.

Frankly, Topalov's interview comes off not as complaints of a wounded victim of a cheating, but like ramblings of a frantic paranoid lunatic (there was a wire in the celing, it was the fans or the KGB who passed the moves (if he knows who it was how could he be unsure which), claim that he knows for sure Kramnik didn't convey the message to his team, that Kramnik cheated during rapids but it's never really explained how).

Theorist,

There isn't anything in this for me, unlike your case since you ask such question. This in turn allows me to look objectively at what happened.

The Chessbase.com propaganda machine during the match (they wanted Kramnik WC for their Fritz-match) has apparently brainwashed you and few others into believing that Topalov is a some sort of mindless thug accusing and attacking Kramnik.

As some other also realize (Mig for instance) such thing hasn't been part of Topalov life story, part of his character.
How then such radical change of personality?
Simple, in fact it was the case that he had good reasons to do what he did and to say what he says.

Oh, brilliant. Here comes the old myth about Chessbase's "propaganda machine" on top of everything. Perhaps they wanted Kramnik to win, but it certainly didn't leave much of a mark in their reporting. If you actually read it, that is.

"How then such radical change of personality?"

He has never been playing, not to mention trailing 2 points behind a player as solid as Kramnik, in a World Championship match before.

San Luis was not as prestigious as this match, of course, but who knows what would have happened if he had started to lose instead of going 6.5/7.

Or perhaps the idea was simply to appeal to the irrational Russophobic sentiments - well, it worked better for Korchnoi back in the days of the USSR, but even today a lot of people seem to buy into it.

"Or perhaps the idea was simply to appeal to the irrational Russophobic sentiments - well, it worked better for Korchnoi back in the days of the USSR, but even today a lot of people seem to buy into it."

This theory gets some support by the fact that Topa-Danailov's story started to get worse after Litvinenko's death. As far as I know Danailov only began to speak about vague "threats" that made him "fear for his life" after that. They might have thought that now people were more likely to believe that kind of stuff.

"old myth" acirce ?
they as good now as they were before

chessbase.com first published the rematch news as : "Danailov challanges Kramnik"..few hours later, after protests, they changed to "Danailov, Topalov challanges Kramnik"...

they as biased as "Radio Teheran" asked to report
on Israel

Ovidiu: argumenta ponderantur, non numerantur.

"chessbase.com first published the rematch news as : "Danailov challanges Kramnik"..few hours later, after protests, they changed to "Danailov, Topalov challanges Kramnik"..."

Umm, okay, and this is supposed to prove what?!

You could make a much stronger case for Chessbase being biased against Seirawan based on the fact that they initially reported that he missed the mate in one even after Kramnik's ..Qe3. They removed it after a while since it was not true. I personally think it's called a "mistake", much like Danailov forget the word "thousand" in "US Dollars one million and five hundred thousand", but I'm sure the least plausible explanation is always true.

Sometimes people just crack, Ovidiu. Sometimes their "inner nature" just takes time to express itself. Sometimes circumstances get the better of them. Why does anyone's behaviour change? How well do you really know Topalov? As Acirce says, how many times had Topalov been in this situation before? (Answer: never). Why is everything so simple for you?

And before you tilt your lance at the Chessbase propaganda machine, can you please explain which facts you are privy to that they didn't report, or which facts they misreported?

And, really, are you honestly trying to suggest that Topalov's erratic behaviour confirms his accusations? If I threaten to come to where you live and beat you up, will that threat (not the execution, note) convince you that I must be right and you wrong?

The only question that remains is this: what in the world -- what piece of evidence -- could possibly convince you that Kramnik *didn't* cheat? Can you conceive of anything? Are there any circumstances whatsoever in which you'll concede that Kramnik didn't cheat? From where I'm sitting, I can't imagine what that evidence could be for you -- and that simply confirms that this "conversation" is fruitless.

There's a silver lining in all this, though. No-one, not even Ovidiu, can feel that Kramnik's obliged to play this guy now.

I love the bit in the interview about Kramnik wanting to keep his title without defending it... weeks after he did just that!

It's not only that Topalov's accused Kramnik of cheating and working with the Russian mafia... he's also said that Ilyumzhinov was bribed into giving the match to Kramnik (by giving Topalov a point!).

You can't burn more bridges than this guy. I can't see how FIDE can avoid imposing some sort of a ban. He's written his chess obituary, which is sad. He was popular and if he'd sacked Danailov he might even have escaped this with some credit. Now, for all we know, it might be that Danailov's a calming influence on Topalov!

"I love the bit in the interview about Kramnik wanting to keep his title without defending it... weeks after he did just that!"

This was exactly what Danailov wrote in his press release in November 2005 explaining why Topalov turned down the UEP match offer that Kramnik accepted. Sometimes it's really hard to understand this kind of people...

Ok, not exactly. He wrote "However, by the looks of it, [Kramnik] has decided to seize the title for the rest of his life." (?!) Quite odd under the circumstances.

Theorist, what can convince me that Kramnik did not cheat would be a tape with his doings in the bathroom in one of his too many trips.

mishanp, that FIDE will ban Topalov seems rather unlikely. Chessbase managed to arouse enormous simpathy for "Kramnik as victim" during the match but that wave has subsided. We are back to Kramnik as usual (which means different things to fans vs. non-fans)

"Topalov became nervous when he saw how much time Kramnik spent in the bathroom, outside of the surveillance cameras. How could he dismiss the idea that Kramnik was cheating ? and how could have got rid of doubts ? he went on "spinning in circles" (as he said )--over what was truly happening."
-Posted by: Ovidiu at December 16, 2006 11:00

Ovidiu happily takes up Toppy's cause of attempting to convince the public that his loss was the result of a psychological disadvantage. Who do you think gained a psychological edge when the protest was upheld and the bathrooms closed? More importantly, who gained a free point as black due to Kirsan's/appeals committee unwillingness to have the forfeited game replayed - fairly significant in a 12 game match wouldn't you say? I really wish they'd decide whether it was psychology, Kramnik cheating, or threats of physical harm and KGB involvement which were to blame for the outcome; that they adopt the multi-pronged approach of airing all these accusations is reminiscent of rdh's comments in an earlier thread about not taking on clients who constantly refer to "their enemies" without focusing on anyone in particular. Of course, if enough people lend them credibility because "we can't prove otherwise", they'll keep riding the scandal for all it's (not) worth. Pathetic.

Ovidiu wrote: "Theorist, what can convince me that Kramnik did not cheat would be a tape with his doings in the bathroom in one of his too many trips."

How will you know you're looking at the real videotapes?

cynical gripe,

You built a straw man and then you ripped it off with gusto. Lonely business however as I did not said anything like "Topalov lost because of psychological disadvantage"

What I wanted to stress was that Topalov's story made sense alone, -- as opposed to Chessbase propaganda during, and after, the match, which wanted to have it that Topalov was only trying attack and disbalance Kramnik since Kramnik was leading in the match. Topalov was genuinely worried that Kramnik might be cheating.

"Chessbase propaganda during, and after, the match, which wanted to have it that Topalov was only trying attack and disbalance Kramnik since Kramnik was leading in the match."

When did Chessbase say that?

> Topalov was genuinely worried that Kramnik might be cheating.

Ovidiu, you forgot to add " ... but it cannot be proved".

"mishanp, that FIDE will ban Topalov seems rather unlikely. Chessbase managed to arouse enormous simpathy for "Kramnik as victim" during the match but that wave has subsided. We are back to Kramnik as usual (which means different things to fans vs. non-fans)"

Tend to agree about FIDE, but that's only because they're a comically badly run organisation.

As for Kramnik's reputation: at no point in Kramnik's career has there been the slightest suggestion that he's cheated - or that's he's anything other than a fantastically strong player.

Sure, people might wish Kramnik adopted more of an attacking approach, or defended his title yearly, but it's only in the minds of Topalov & Danailov that this whole fantasy's been concocted.

The general opinion of Kramnik is anyway irrelevant to FIDE's actions here. Topalov's clearly broken the law, though I doubt Kramnik would want the hassle and stress of taking it to court, so I'd hazard a guess that breaks even FIDE's code of ethics ;)

I'm reading through Chessbase's reports from Elista again, and still can't find any of their so-called Kramnik bias. Let me know where it is. Savinov's report after game 4 echoed the version of the Topalov apologists that with their press releases they simply "retaliated" after Kramnik's remarks on the press conference.

I definitely don't find where they say that "Topalov was only trying attack and disbalance Kramnik since Kramnik was leading in the match."

They were publishing statements by some people to that effect, but they also published press releases, interviews and statements from the Topalov camp, as well as the statement from Makropoulos, as well as the open letter from Bulgarian grandmasters in defence of Topalov, etc. What is the problem exactly?

>And, really, are you honestly trying to suggest that Topalov's erratic behaviour confirms his accusations?>
theorist,

What I honestly try to suggesst is that Topalov is not out of his mind with his accusations and there are enough reasons for being suspicious of what happened in Elista.

Some people deal bad with uncertainity. Not only, obviously, Topalov but also few people here who "know" for sure that Kramnik did not cheat as if they were with him in the bathroom.

Ovidiu, what if I said that Topalov's merely kicking up a fuss to deflect attention away from his own (unsuccessful) cheating in the match? How could you refute it? I mean, it's at least *possible* isn't it?

> Some people deal bad with uncertainity.

How very true, Ovidiu! One should all be very careful when we question personal integrity of others with too much uncertainity in our arguments. Emmanuel tried to explain this. "Moral" was the keyword.

-- We should ...

self-defence was the key word

For consideration...

In the middle of the match I ran into an IM who told me Kramnik actually WAS cheating, but only on himself (or perhaps his girlfriend): he apparently hasn't been able to quit cigarettes and was slipping into the bathroom to smoke. If nervous, a smoker will often smoke only half the cigarette, go away, then return shortly to finish; Kramnik saw a lot of difficult positions early in the match, which may have caused smoker's stress and therefore additional rest-area trips.

If it was a smoke-free building as well as a smoke-free stage, perhaps Kramnik was doing it by the bathroom window, walking out to look at the rest-area screen, then returning to smoke more. And anyhow he probably had several reasons for not wishing to be observed smoking cigarettes on-camera before or after the protest.

But back to the Topa interview: who else but Danailov could have concocted an accusation that "exonerates" Illescas by asserting that Kramnik got all his help from a weakling? So Danailov is willing to cross the line so far that he gets Topalov's assistance in an effort to "excuse" all of Topalov's wins?? "Wow Veselin, why'd you have to go and beat him so often? But don't worry baby, I've figured out a way around it for us..." Yikes. Danailov may be the Eugene Landy of chess.

Mig might be right that the Topalov's comments in this interview are at least actionable. In the cold light of this, one hardly needs to be "blinded by love" to see the pathology behind Ovidiu's whole-cloth argument.

Clubfoot,

Interesting comparison with Landy and Brian Wilson.

Of course there was epic paranoia and increasingly bizarre accusations and insinuations in Fischer-Spassky and then, especially, the Karpov-Korchnoi matches. Kasparov accused one of his seconds (Vladimirov) of selling opening analysis to Karpov during the 1985 match and removed him from the team. (That was, I believe, after Kasparov lost three in row and the panic from that combined with the somewhat justifiable paranoia about Karpov's state backing, which is also a factor in Topalov's case. Losses + paranoia = accusations.) Anyway, it was essentially accusing Karpov of cheating, if in a more subtle and clean-hands way than what Topalov says Kramnik was doing. And of course Kasparov's allegations about Deep Blue getting human help on at least a move or two in the 1997 rematch are well known. In a way that is the most similar!

Still, the loser continuing to explicitly state his opponent cheated without any evidence is no small thing, especially since computer cheating is indeed a serious threat today. And the pseudo-details as well. What move in the 4th game would only a computer have played? First I'd heard that one.

Chesstraveler

Thanks but you know, I probably should also follow Koster and whiskyrebel and point out the additional examples of Jim Cornette, Skandor Akbar, Kim Chee and Floyd Creachman.

Perhaps "21.Rab1!! – an amazing move with fine tactical justification. It had a stunning effect on Topalov, who started taking time and eventually lost ground" (from Savinov's report)?

yes it was very computer-like move
when you think your opponent uses computer help such a move can make you to lose ground
nerves you know

I like the "smokin' in the boys' room" theory. But I think the fiancée (who is after all French) can deal with it: according to NiC 2006.8, Kramnik is lighting up once again.

Hi, guys!

Very interesting discussion here. I'd like to offer my take on that "Russians badly wanted Kramnik to win" theory. Its supporters mention Fischer and Spassky, Korchnoi and Karpov, Karpov and Kasparov, etc – and it all begins to look very plausible! But they compare totally different times, of course. Up till the 1990s chess was a national sport in Russia, strongly supported by the state, which often used it in its propaganda. The match between Spassky and Fischer was a minor reflection of the Cold War. Korchnoi was a political enemy, whom the Soviet state wanted to crush. Both Karpov and Kasparov had powerful supporters at the top of the Communist Party – hence the clash.

But was there "the hand of Kremlin" in the Kasparov-Short match? I doubt it. Did Moscow have vested interests in the match Kasparov-Anand? I don't think so. Did anyone in KGB lose sleep during the match between Kasparov and Kramnik in London in 2000? Probably not... Was Russia in shock when Kramnik was losing that match to Leko with one game left? Don't kid yourself! So, what is so different now?

Chess is no longer as popular in Russia as it used to be. More importantly, it has lost propaganda role. Therefore I doubt that Putin cares much who is the current world champion – a Russian living in France or a Bulgarian living in Spain!

When Danailov was answering allegations that Topalov was cheating in San Luis, he said something like that: "You are damaging chess. Shut up - or we will see you in court!". I wish he will follow his own advice. If he does not, then Kramnik should!

GM Alex Baburin, Ireland

What Rab1 was was a very strong move and once you see Black can't take on c3 it's not exactly magic. Also, just about everything else is inferior for White. Now, had White played 21.Rdb1 (the second computer recommendation) it would have really attracted some attention.

Isnt it obvious? There was a network cable in the ceiling because a midget FSB agent was hiding up there with a laptop feeding Kramnik the moves. Mind you, he wasn't analyzing with your standard Fritz, Rybka, or Shredder program but a custom program built by Russian authorities. By cleverly playing weak moves and appearing to "overlook" a mate, Kramnik squashes doubt that he is cheating. He can throw one game and just clean up.

Mr. Baburin,

Well said.

Seconded: well said indeed, GM Baburin.

I'd add that Putin has revived the "strong Russia" rhetoric that would lead to sport promotion and such. Bread, circuses, etc. Note I don't believe there was interference. But the existence of a high-ranking government figure like Deputy Prime Minister Zhukov taking over the chess federation speaks to changing priorities. You could only expect the head of a player's federation to support him, but when that head is also a senior federal official you can at least add a little more to your conspiracy theories.

Like most Russians who knew that the event was taking place, Putin was rooting for Kramnik. But insofar that he cared at all from a political perspective, it must have been more important for Russia's image that the match took place - and, most importantly, was actually finished - than who won it.

This kind of interference I can imagine - telling Kirsan he has to solve the mess. But it's a bit hard to do more than that.

of course, telling Kirsan that he has to solve the mess
its enough for Kirsan -- Putin is his boss you know

Wow, has Topalov completely lost it? I'm a little more scared by how many people seem to take his claims seriously.

Steve,

No one takes it seriously.

Even Ovidiu says there's no evidence and that Topalov should just shut up. No evidence of Kramnik's wrongdoing and abundant evidence of Topalov's bad behavior. Tough position for a Topalov shill.

Ovidiu's interminable versions of "you never know" and "you can't disprove it," are the last refuge of a reality-denying sophist. Follow Ovidiu's "arguments" to their foundation and you'll find him arguing that you can't prove the existence of yourself, Topalov, or anything at all.

It can't have been Rab1 Topalov meant because he says it was in the fourth game 'when he already had me beat'. It's impossible to imagine what moves he means, but then he obviously didn't mean any move; he just knew he was talking to a lapdog journalist who wouldn't challenge anything he might say.

The whole thing is SO reminiscent of Diana fantasists. There's no rational discussion with epistemological fundamentalists like Ovidiu. What's that EM Forster book that starts off by asking how anyone knows there are still cows in the field once we can't see them?

If Topalov is really picking out Kramnik's Rab1, perhaps the following is relevant from Misha Savinov's interview with Tigran Nalbandian http://www.chesscafe.com/misha/misha.htm (here talking about being Kramnik's second):
---------------------------------------
MS: So you mostly studied openings?

TN: Yes; mostly black openings. And the preparation was quite effective, as the match was essentially won with the black pieces.

This experience led to one of the most awe-inspiring moments in my chess life. Imagine: a man sees a position for the first time in his life and instantly suggests the best move available, which can only be confirmed after many hours of analysis! This is one of the facets of being the chosen one.

People say Capablanca was also capable of doing such things, while Smyslov would attribute it to having been a chess player in a previous life, thus having played the position before. However, it is one thing to read about it, and quite another to see it with your own eyes!

MS: Kramnik usually has his seconds’ test his own ideas, which can be a rather routine and technical procedure, is there any room for fun and enjoyment?

TN: Yes, although such work is not very romantic. You sharpen a certain idea, sometimes for an entire evening, and then Volodya comes and spoils the whole analysis by spotting an alternative on the first move. In the beginning, it is difficult to become accustomed to it. However, there is the pleasure of exploring new worlds and pushing forward into the unknown. This is a great joy for an analyst. And it is even more exciting in the company of such a genius.
-------------------------------------
As it seems Topalov might really believe all the junk Danailov was coming out with, I wonder if it's something to do with the parapsychologist (?) they had on their team. Maybe Topalov's sudden rise is linked with some sort of hypnosis and he really ends up believing Kramnik's a patzer who can't play without a computer and that he(Topalov)'s the undisputed best player in the world.

Robert J. Topalov

This garbage goes beyond 'paranoia', a term used to excuse the person who spouts this stuff.

The implication is that RJT's mind is diseased and he cannot see reality.
I do not buy that. I think RJT's character is revealed, not any mental disease.

Interesting comments.

Perhaps getting sued is exactly what Danailov wants -- let's see all the tapes now... I leave it for you guys to analyze all the possibilities. And they are many.

Kramnik will never bite on this one.

The story is just a blogger's dream, I think. Not much more.

Of course, with every surprise coming from Russia lately one starts to wonder about things. Crazier things have happenned. And nobody is crazy enough to predict what else can come out of Kremlin's catacombs. At the same time the Russians have been blamed for a lot of things that they have nothing to do with. But that's where "reputation", "suspicious behavior", etc. become a factor.

D.

The same garbage from Ovidiu's partner, Dimi. Just keep repeating "maybe this, perhaps that."

Mr. Koster, behave yourself.

You were there with kramnik in that restroom, right? Then no more maybes, just tell us what you saw.

D.

"You were there with kramnik in that restroom, right?"

Maybe. You can't disprove it. With all the strange things going on in Russia these days, who knows?

There is some inconsistency. Virtually no one defended Topalov when in sommer Dolmatov (btw a former Kramnik's personal trainer and also his current coach in the Russian national team) directly accussed Topalov on using assistance from outside, in an interview for the Russian mega newspaper. Later Dolmatov repeated the accusations in the newspaper. Perhaps many people believed that Topalov was cheating?! Perhaps Topalov started to believe that it is just normal to accuse someone without a real proof? Kramnik has his right to deal with this, indeed. But those who were silent after Dolmatov's accusations should h