Here by popular demand is your item on the latest round of insults, insinuations, and idiocy that followed in the wake of the German newspaper article on Topalov's manager's suspicious behavior during Corus. (Since acting suspicious is subjective and isn't a crime there is no need to call it "alleged suspicious behavior.") ChessBase first put up excerpts of some of the fall-out and follow-ups in mainstream papers, including some chess columns. One was a DNA Sport item that interviewed Nigel Short, who was a commentator at the San Luis, Argentina, FIDE world championship tournament. (Most of my San Luis coverage with lots of links is on the Oct 05 archive page.)
That, of course, is where Topalov blitzed to a dominating victory. At the time and immediately after the event there were a few grumbles from Topalov's competitors about his seating position, the strange habits of his team during the games, and the ease with which he could have been signaled (little security on site, lots of coming and going). The comments by players were made almost apologetically and were mostly discarded as sour grapes and confusion at how Topalov could crush them so easily. There were stronger statements made off the record and in 2006 a few Russian columnists rattled sabers and stirred the rumor mill about high-tech cheating. Behind the scenes a few people who had attended various top events in 2005 and 2006 compared notes on the odd activity they had or hadn't seen Topalov and his associates engage in at several events. Videos, pictures, stories, most of them corresponding with what the Süddeutsche Zeitung story reported.
Short's money quote: "It is my understanding that the majority of players in San Luis privately believe that Topalov received signalling from Danailov during play. The essence of these allegations, which I heard personally from disgruntled players in Argentina at the time, was not that Topalov constantly received computer advice but only at critical junctures. Indeed, if one were to cheat, a player of Topalov’s strength would only need two or three computer moves per game to put him at an overwhelming advantage vis-à-vis his opponents."
[By popular demand, this final paragraph of Short's reply to Danailov, which was cut by the Topalov site and therefore deserves greater consideration. "I stand by my remarks about wanting an inquiry. As you are doubtless aware, the chorus of suspicion about the alleged signaling between you and Veselin is very loud indeed and comes from many different quarters. Indeed in my 24 years as a chess professional, I have never heard anything like it before. The allegations are of a very serious nature and it is important, for the sake of chess, that the truth is learned. As you do not have anything to be concerned about, you should welcome this proposal."]
There is now a follow-up at ChessBase with some clarifications on a mild misattribution and more from Short, as well some reader letters. I'm a little mystified at all the "ChessBase bias against Topalov" guff people are coughing up because they chose to reprint the Süddeutsche Zeitung article. I know fans will be fans, and jihadis don't care why something negative about their hero is being said. But it would have been bizarre to ignore something like that appearing in a major paper. Another factor is that it wasn't much of a shock for the CB guys, who, like me and most other people on the circuit, had been talking about and in some cases seeing similar behavior for quite a while. In sum, while there is no proof of Topalov receiving signals, not reprinting that story would have been inconceivable, if not irresponsible. Imagine the Miami Herald reporting allegations that Peyton Manning is taking steroids and American football websites ignoring it because they had no proof. Hell, it has never been proven that Barry Bonds ever took steroids but it's been the biggest story in baseball for years. News about news is news. The fan bias test is simple: imagine the exact same story coming out but replace the name "Veselin Topalov" with "Vladimir Kramnik" or "Garry Kasparov" and be very honest with yourself about what your reaction would be.
To go into the obvious, there is little similarity between this and what happened in Elista during the Kramnik-Topalov match. There one of the players and his manager filed a protest about Kramnik's bathroom visits (which was reasonable, although they shouldn't have had access to the video) and followed it up with public declarations of suspicions (not reasonable). Topailov continued by publishing spurious statistics alleging Kramnik was receiving computer assistance during the match (unforgivable). Again, this was one of the participants saying these things about his opponent while a world championship match was still going on. Topailov continued by ripping open bathroom ceilings, mocking-up photos and sending them out far and wide pretending they were evidence Kramnik was cheating. They even sent such things from false email accounts, pretending to be Russians who attended the match. And when we all wanted to believe this was just sour grapes and a way of coping with the loss, especially back home in Bulgaria, Topalov gave the ABC interview in which he flatly stated he believed Kramnik cheated.
Yes, there was a protest in San Luis about Topalov; Leko complained that Topalov was the only player who always sat in the same place. The most relevant difference is that there was never, ever, even a hint of the possibility that Kramnik cheated in Elista. His frequent bathroom trips were unusual, but unless you believe he was receiving clues through the plumbing (or electrical wires inside the ceiling), it's only weird. Consistent behavior that looks a lot like signaling is another matter. Proof? No. Enough to start an investigation and to hassle Topalov? No. Does he get the benefit of the doubt with me? Yes. Worth taking precautions in the future? Absolutely.
This isn't mass hysteria or a global conspiracy of jealousy to tear down Topalov. Nor do I think it's payback for Topailov dragging chess into the toilet in Elista. I don't doubt those two things are potential factors, but so far it hasn't been visible. In reality, very little has been said. There are legit concerns not always expressed in the most responsible way. The best thing we can do now is take measures to remove all doubt by preventing the possibility of signaling and electronic communications at top events. My gut feeling is that one, Topalov is a great player who has raised the level of his game and should maintain a top-three position for the next five years. Two, Danailov has a documented history of reprehensible behavior and that makes it easy to assume he would stop at nothing.
Leadership is needed and FIDE has been as quiet as you might expect from a group for whom "ethics" is a four-letter word. Bessel Kok will have some influence soon, but that won't affect traditional events. The Grand Slam of Corus, Linares, Sofia, and Bilbao that is coalescing might also realize how essential anti-cheating measure are, but Danailov himself is one of the prime movers in it. I suppose this is a chance for him to turn his own anti-cheating rhetoric into action.
