Good summary amd clear analysis of the situation Mig. I guess everyone would agree that the most important tournaments and matches should, from now on, use one way viewing glass as was used at Elista?

Very well written Mig. Nicely thought out. Good ideas expressed very well.

I think the easy way to do the tournaments is to put the players into a separate room and restrict those who may enter the room. I can only guess that these one way glass partitions are very expensive and not so easy to obtain.

I would vote for separate rooms over the next year and then phase in glass partitions. I favor the separate rooms for a year to give strong signal to the public that the games are being played fairly with no cheating. I think a separate room is more secure than glass partitions. One year is simply one tournament since most are on a yearly basis. And using a separate room should cost no extra or only a minimum amount extra in some cases.

I certainly hope we can put this controversey to rest very quickly. It would be nice to see Fide take a stand on the issues.

One way viewing glass is not a solution since the external world still can analyze games in the _real time_ and it is only a matter of figuring out a clever way (electronic signals to a body strap?) of passing moves to the players. Delaying the demo board by a fixed amount of time solves the problem much easier and better.

For the record, I do not believe either Kramnik or Topalov cheats IMHO. (just look at the games from 90s involving those two, and also between them...)

Are you sure there is no proof? Nigel Short, the official commentator of San Luis says that the whole event was recorded. So it is possible that they (FIDE) may find proof if they examine all of the San Luis footage that they have avaible.

Delaying the internet broadcast by 10-15 minutes is already close to being accepted. Makes things harder at no cost. Someone in the audience would have to send and receive moves.

The word "proof" should not be used lightly. It's almost inconceivable that anyone would or could use signals so regularly and specifically that it could be identified as such. Just a few tips would be more than enough and even if there was a camera on the signaler(s) the entire time it would be very tough to prove anything. To a reasonable doubt, maybe, but there's no such consistent footage of the audience.

After reading the beginning of the latest Chessbase report:

"We have been taken to task by the Topalov web site for "falsely attributing statements to Nigel Short" about his observations during the world championship in San Luis. Really? "

You realize once more by reading this paragraph that this whole thing seems to be more an argument between the Webmaster of veselintopalov's website (of course, you know that is not Topalov who put the messages) and Chessbase website.

In this era of blogs, myspaces, etc; people like to be heard, but then when you have the means to put your opinion and perspective in a more influential Website, some people cannot resist the temptation of imposing their truth, damaging the quality of information we receive; of course, conspiracion theories and a lot of crap is mixed too, unfortunately among the good and informative content.

This is not the first time we question Chessbase, but I may ask: If we assume the vesilintopalov's site is not sufficiently serious or responsible (or the ones who run it are not more than desperate attempts to manipulate opinion), why Chessbase would bother in reply their message in a second report?? It does not look very good. Now if a blogmaster put another comment against Chessbase, them they are going to reply too? No, because the issue became personal.

This is as pathetic as when you see in a blog (or sites as chessgames) two people kibitzing for pages contradicting each other. Definitely, the whole thing should be handled in more professional terms and if a legitimate chess organization has something to say, manage it in the most responsable way, for the ultimate benefit of chess.

Kudos on an article! Agree with the whole analysis of the situation completely.

As for delaying the internet broadcast...For open level events that might provide some protection, but if we are talking about Wijk and Linares, you've got to be kidding. If somebody decides to cheat at that level, he will find a "friend" to sit in the audience and text out moves. In 5 years the texting part will be irrelevant as Fritz on a mobile phone will be just as good as on PC.

Playing in a separate room with no audience seems drastic and unlikely to be implemented. In terms of stopping physical signalling by observers of the players delays on demo boards/ internet transmission are an alternative to one way glass presuming the observers cannot see the moves played on the actual chess board from the audience area. The main cost of the one way glass is the large glass unit itself as the chemical coating is relatively cheap. Still the more this problem is analysed the worse it all seems....

nice summary but lacking a few key details. does video footage of San Luis exist? If so, who has it? Who all can see it? can we see it on Youtube? also no quotes from Kasparov? what about Kasparov finding the video evidence suspicious?

putting the cart before the horse .. if there is video evidence of cheating, Topa is not the FIDE champ .. which means Elista was not a unified championship .... what does it all mean?

Very well written, Mig. You have succinctly presented the issue, current opinion and your views on a topic that has been agitated ad nauseam. The whole thing about cheating is that even the merest suspicion of it will make people's interest in chess disappear. You are so right in proposing that we must think of ways to prevent the possibility of signalling and communication. The time lag thing is the best first step. Even the audience, at important tournaments at least, needs to be kept away far enough to have to see the moves on a demonstration board or a large screen, because text messaging thru cell phones makes it possible for the analysing computer to be remotely located.

2cent's delayed demo board solution:

1. players use laptops with privacy screens affixed instead of regular chess boards (laptops are already used during amber blindfold so this is not entirely new).

2. the audience on site can see players, and the demo boards (but not the boards on the computer screens)

3. each demo board for spectators on site, including chess commentators, plus a feed to internet is delayed and shows at most the previous to the last move ie it is never current.

4. (optional/future) players are examined for hidden cameras.

I agree with the main points here (about the need for anti-cheating measures etc.). One quibble, though: several of the letters criticizing Chessbase for the way they published the article (or publishing it at all) also criticize Topalov. GM Rowson, for example, is hardly a "Topalov jihadi" (not a phrase I would have chosen). The "fan bias test" is insufficient to dismiss all the criticism of Chessbase as "guff."

Chessbase perhaps might have been spared some grief had they distanced themselves more carefully from the article at the start (looking back, they're very enthusiastic about Herr Breutigam's credentials in that original report, and they could be seen as making an implicit argument for the seriousness of the article's case in starting out portentously "This is a very grave question to ask . . .").

This whole situation is starting to look a lot like something out of a plot by SPECTRE, the secret organization that James Bond battled in several movies. They used to send messages to chessmaster Kronsteen in napkins that Kronsteen would read through the bottom of his glass of water as seen in "From Russia with love." Something to add to the already known elements of this intrigue: plumbing, wires inside the ceiling, hand signals, electromagnetic waves, and now ... napkins.

I just want to say that I like Chessbase. I support their publishing all their chess material including this one. I am in favor of getting the information out to the public. Chessbase is a news reporting organization and I do not think we should be criticizing them for reporting the news. I support Chessbase. They do a great job. Everything about this controversey of cheating is news.

Look at all the news reported on Barry Bonds in baseball. All of it is considered news. Here the cheating alligations are critical to chess. It is all news. Keep reporting it.

It reminds me of the old saying. The news was bad so they kill the messenger. LOL. Stop focusing on Chessbase.

Let us go deeper into the behavior of Danailov and Topalov. Lets get the definitive proof that he is innocent or guilty and end the matter. Bring in professionals to watch these 2 guys and video tape everything. Have them play chess on a poker / blackjack table in a gambling casino. Everything will be recorded by the best professionals. They know how to spot the cheating in a casino. It can be done.

Frank H,

Even Chessbase themselves admit now that they saw nothing wrong in Topalov's behavior. In case the Kramnik jihadis missed it, here it is again from http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3649 (somewhere in the ...middle of the page) :

----------------------------------------------
Chessbase 3 February 2007:

We would like to add one more note: during our stay in Wijk aan Zee we kept a sharp look-out for any signs of signaling by Silvio Danailov or Topalov's second Ivan Cheparinov, during rounds six, seven and eight.

We can state with a fair degree of certainty that no signaling took place. Danailov and Cheparinov were mostly in the press center, and when they were not there we did not spot them in the playing hall.

We could have mentioned this as an editorial comment to our report on the article that appeared in the Süddeutsche Zeitung, but then we would also have had to mention that a number of people claimed to have seen signaling in earlier rounds (thus corroborating the story in the Süddeutsche). Neither observation is conclusive, one way or the other, and so we abstained from editorial comment.

Frederic Friedel

And for some more "healthy skepticism" to add to Frederic Friedel's comments, see my stuff at http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/Corus2007.html and some links therein.

Admittedly a shameless plug, but hey, (*) I still seem to be the only one who's published any hard data, and (**) what I really need are some more volunteer data-gatherers...

I'm not sure how much one-way mirrors and broadcast delays are going to help if players are still allowed to spend half their time unsupervised in another room.

It's all in the detail...

I find that no listing of Topalov accusations on Chessbase, whether as a reprint or a blurb or anything else, is not accompanied by ridicule and scoff from the staff. Deservedly so? Sure, but that's not the point. Some of these statements do not come out till weeks later.

Then first this Breutigam piece and then the Short accusation surface. Both are rather ridiculous..I already talked about how Breutigam piece is fluff in another thread, so I will not repeat it here. Short, as others pointed out, waited a year and a half, till the point that there was little possibility the allegations could be verified, acted upon or otherwise have something done with that could actually make a difference. His story is a lesson in how mentally unstable hacks can get media attention.

Instead of getting dismissed until further evidence comes along, Chessbase gives both these bizarre random witnesses immediate prominent feature on their page.

Now I am not saying this is a capital case of media bias. But I don't feel that Chessbase coverage of both sides has been very equal. Then again, if Topa's side continues to spew idiotic venomous garbage, why shouldn't he end up with all the journalists in the community antagonized against him?

What's all this "ChessBase admitted" crap, as if they had previously said anything to the contrary. Frederic's brief comment - added to calm the jihadis - doesn't even contradict anything in the newspaper article. In fact, it has been their ONLY statement about what they saw there. It looks like ChessBase is part of a pro-Topalov conspiracy.

Please don't start up with the letters again, as if ChessBase should either print all or none. Some of the letters criticize Topalov, so? This is bias? If ChessBase receives 200 letters criticizing him and 20 in favor, should they run three of each? We went through all this pseudo-objectivity silliness during Elista. That the letters ChessBase published reflected the fact that an overwhelming majority of fans and players supported Kramnik was supposedly bias on their part.

"Still the more this problem is analysed the worse it all seems....
Posted by: Andy at February 3, 2007 22:07"

-----------------

Exactly my sentiment. Think about it. Fritzes and Rybkas will become even stronger (thus increasing the benefits of cheating), transmission devices much smaller and smarter, tournament organizers will have to spend much more money on drastic anti-cheating measures (they have no choice - otherwise the whole thing will become one huge farce that will make toiletgate and danailovgate pale in comparison), which will in turn inconvenience and drive away the chess public (how would you like a sporting event held in some kind of a bunker with no live transmission and no live audience?), which will be already disillusioned by the atmosphere of suspicion and widespread accusations of cheating (inevitable and already starting to happen) and by the obvious absurdity of implementing extraordinary security measures to deny human players access to basic knowledge that any fan can buy for $29.99. Any one of those things alone can severely damage or even kill a sport, but when they start to form a vicious circle... All of that probably means that the only forms of human chess that can survive in this era of AI and technology are blitz and random.

So Yuriy, at what point do they publish something, when incontrovertible proof comes along? As with Barry Bonds? Or when a major newspaper writes an article? Or when a top GM makes comments? It would have been bizarre not to publish either of them. Should Danailov's press releases during Elista not have been published? I suppose they could have reported the game five forfeit as "for unknown reasons."

As I said in the main item, the fact that Breutigam's "fluff" corresponded very closely with what others saw and had been seen before made a difference as well. Short spoke now because of that article, it's not as if it's a coincidence. They aren't bizarre or random. Or prominently placed, for that matter. Everything on the page comes and goes with the same size and shape. Either it's there or it's not.

And as you suggest, it certainly hasn't helped to have them sending out increasingly antagonistic releases. And what, exactly, would a photo by Breutigam of Danailov have shown? Him wearing glasses or not wearing glasses? Talking on his phone? Big deal. It would have been even more laughable. Following him around with a video camera wouldn't have been practical. So either you believe Breutigam's description, one, and believe that what he describes is suspicious, two, or you don't.

Anyone making bias comments needs to explain how it should be covered. If, say, one of the San Luis players sends in comments, should they be ignored? Why? I'm not sure why people are saying we should bury this. It's not pretty, but there's a way through to an important debate the community should be having.

In Breutigam's article, part of the suspicious behavior involves Danilov making calls on his cell phone. Of course interception of phone call content and even the wrapper (the numbers involved and the time of the call, etc) cannot be obtained without a court order.

But, having that info would go a long way to answering the questions involved, at least in this one case. The phone companies know who Danilov called, when, and for how long. That alone might be enough, if there is some way to obtain this data (legal or not). Is there a way to force a legal confrontation in which this phone call evidence could come to light?

But there is a more interesting and fun possibiity. As anyone following the US controversy about wiretapping knows, every bit of every phone call everywhere is scooped up by the various secret agencies of every powerful country. And many cryptographic experts are chess lovers besides. And surely they know, or could find out, what the Content of Danilov's phone calls consisted of, and could leak it somehow...? No, surely even if they love chess, their sense of secrecy and the protection of methods and means would prevent them from revealing what we'd like to know, right? Hmmm...

tjallen

News about news is NOT news. It is gossip.

True-ish, but not true. Gossip is personal and this is professional with serious implications for the entire sport. Again the comparison to athletics and performance enhancing drugs is apt, if not perfect. When rumors and allegations and a lot of circumstancial evidence come up, it's news. When top players talk about other top players, it's news.

By the way, I am just finishing James Bamford's book, The Puzzle Palace, about the NSA and its British equivalent, the GCHQ. In the section from pg 168 to 173 (in my paperback copy) Bamford discusses the attempts to suppress a book on cryptology, written by David Kahn. Kahn agreed to suppress about six paragraphs, which Bamford reproduces on pg 172-3. The last paragraph mentions that among GCHQ's best cryptanylists was... "C. H. O'D. Alexander, one of England's chess champions."

Plus I've read elsewhere that both John von Neumann and Alan Turing were big chess fans, along with being heavily involved in the crypto community. That is the basis of my remark above, that cryptology experts are often also chess lovers. I just wish one of them could let everyone know, if there is something to know, about the content of Danilov's cell phone calls. But it is doubtful that any of them would break the secrecy of their jobs, as Bamford makes clear, they are very quiet, as they should be.

tjallen

Mig you can try as long as you want to convince us that you are from another world but facts are facts:

17 January:
Danailov, together with the organisers of the most famous tournaments Corus, Bilbao and Linares, announce their agreement to form the Grand Slam in chess. An important news item which Chessbase "ignored" completely.

26 January:
Topalov, still the world's No.1, is rolling over everyone in Corus sailing for 1st place. He is also about to face Kramnik (with white) over the board the next day.

So on the 27th of January, how does the opposite organised group of Breutigam, Chessbase, Mig and Short react to Topalov/Danailov successes in and out of the board?

Of course by releasing again all the mud against Topalov, initially through the German newspaper where Breutigam writes, and then by "reprinting" it to Chessbase together with their direct or indirect endorsement of Breutigam's and Short's allegations.

But now, and after all the disgust this group has received worldwide, one by one is trying to "correct" themselves and pretend that they never meant to endorse the accusations against Topa.

At least Frederic Friedel of Chessbase was brave enough to state the truth directly. Although not brave enough to make a seperate item on his website with flashy headlines, as he did with his pal's Breutigam article. But anyway, even this is a step forward.

Let's take this for what it is - the behavior of Danailov has been nothing but one of the most disgusting behaviors by a manager/second/team member since Rustam Kamsky.

When has the bulk of the chess world dealt with Danailov?

1) When he convinced Ponomariov (or made decisions of his own accord) to go bonkers of absurd minutiae, causing the match to be abandoned, and Pono missing out a half million dollar payday and the experience of a Kasparov match. Ponomariov's career has never recovered.

2) Turned Topalov from one of the most beloved chessplayers to one of the most hated over some egregious behavior. Running around laughing about toilet stuff post-Elista didn't help.

So, uh, what good does this guy Danailov do? He manages you and all of a sudden he costs you money.

Yeah, great guy.

1: Grand Slam? Where's all the info? It was even less than they said last time, in fact. Nothing added, nothing concrete. And what does this have to do with anything? Is it a big bad ChessBase conspiracy against Linares and Corus?

2: Maybe you should read the things you are talking about. ChessBase put up a report from a German newspaper after it came out. They continued to put up daily reports on Corus. I put up a tiny item with a link (long after everyone here started posting about it constantly) and no added information and got back to Corus.

As for "organized group" you are making a joke of yourself. Next ChessBase will be the second JFK gunman. They are a chess software company with a chess website, not ClearChannel. Your suggestion that they should not have reprinted such an article is silly. You still haven't explained 1) what ChessBase did that was wrong and what they should have done instead and 2) how ChessBase would gain from these accusations. Each time someone comes up with some information you don't like you just add them to the big bad conspiracy even if they have no relevant connection and are obviously speaking for themselves.

Btw, if you want to talk about things like truth you should post them under a different name. You've proven once again here you don't understand the word. It doesn't mean "what I think, in exclusion to all other information."

Jfern: But Pono got a large chunk of the money in advance and kept it, which is why Kasparov suggested that perhaps Danailov is a genius for his work on the 'paid not to play' model. Game 5 in Elista was similar. First win without playing.

At least ChessBase prints everything. Although veselintopalov.net claims to print the full text of the letter Short sent to Danailov, I'm still searching for the following part:

"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."

As for the "Grand Slam", was there even a press conference announcing it? It was planned on the 18th of January, but that day there was a big storm in Holland. It was advised not to travel after a certain time, and many events were cancelled. Maybe this press conference as well?

Mig,
very nice thoughts and post commentary. However, you ignore everything said on Topalov's site. They have some interesting points showing internal connections.
It has Hensel's fingerprints all over it. What's more, it is very crapy, hard to believe. Don't you think?

Internal connections? Such as? Suppose that their information is correct, that "Breutigam received the task to write the book directly from the players’ manager Mr. Hensel". What kind of internal connection would that prove?

What will be next? Something suggestive like "Van Wely lost quickly to Kramnik in the last round, without a fight. He is on the payroll of ChessBase. A coincidence?" Another internal connection? Come on!

If Danailov / veselintopalov.net does not like something, be it the news that a rematch before Mexico is not possible or an article in the newspaper, they never try to set the facts straight. Instead of answering the issues raised (rules of FIDE, strange behaviour) they immediately start a new attack, trying to divert the attention. I find that very annoying.

It has become clear that Danailov acted strangely in many places, Mexico, M-Tel, Wijk aan Zee. Too many people, players, even Dutch amateurs, have confirmed this. Does this imply he signalled Topalov? Of course not. Maybe he is just very nervous during the game of his pupil. Then just say so, instead of screaming murder and pointing fingers at people who report this.

Oscar, Danailov is always strange, but why the article got published the day before Kramnik Topalov???? Hmmmmm.... just a strange coincidence. Well, it's been too many of them. Maybe it is also a coincidence that the first man who supported Kramnik in Elista was the Fritz boss. Maybe it was a coincidence that Zhukov played a main role in Elista. May be it is coincidence that he is one of the bosses of KGB.......
Take half of this as coincidence, then the rest is too much.

Marca, why the book about Elista got published the day before Topalov-Kramnik???? Hmmm... just a strange coincidence. Well, it's been too many of them.

Of course the article and the book were published shortly before Topalov-Kramnik. In that way they would get far more media attention. The story of Breutigam was only published in the newspaper on the day itself. Many newspapers are larger on Saturdays (so that their customers have something to read during the weekend), it is very well possible that there was no space available on other days.

Could you back up at your allegations about the Friedel (the "Fritz boss" and Zhukov) with facts? I fail to see how printing all news is helping out Kramnik. Proof about a link of the KGB with the match would be highly interesting. Please don't hesitate to share it with us!

Zhukov is what? Bizarre. And who is the "Fritz boss"?

It was published the day before Kramnik-Topalov? Why don't these guys go crazy about the Topalov team publishing their book on Elista slandering Kramnik on, you guessed it... the day before Kramnik-Topalov? And this was most definitely planned in advance - and you don't have to cook up any kind of far-fetched theories about connections to Topalov.

Oh, the book I mention is "Toilet War", by Zhivko Ginchec. Strange enough it has not been kept silent at all by ChessBase:

http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3635

Of course this news item is part of their evil scheme, although I have failed to see how and why. Very clever, those ChessBase dudes!

Yes, of course. Chessbase giving all that attention to Topalov's book obviously means they're biased against Kramnik.

Well Oscar,
I do want to share everything, but it has been shared long time ago. Just look in news, even chessbase mentioned it somewhere. Of course without analizing. They say something, just republish. As always....
I want to say that the book date could have been a coincidence. No material was published from the book, even on the topalov site that everybody thinks supports topa to the end.
Also please research some information on govermental functions of Zhukov. You will be amazed.
Think about it.

Praise the Lord, for I have seen the light! At first I thought "What a strange coincidence! veselintopalov.net only printed a part of the letter that Short sent to them. Only the part that supports them, but not the part that calls for an investigation.".

But thanks to marca I have realized that this is part of the immense KGB/ChessBase/FIDE scheme to make Topalov look bad! Surely the Bulgarian site, known for its objectivity, would have printed those lines. IF they had received them.

I am sure now that the KGB has intervened here as well. It is common knowledge that Topalov has been declared "enemy of the state", and instead of transmitting moves to Kramnik in Elista they now concentrate on tainting the name of the nr 1 in the world.

The only thing I'm sure about yet is the way they acted. Did they intercept the e-mail of Short, removed the last paragraph, and sent the rest to veselintopalov.net? Or did Short never send that paragraph, but was he threatened by a Russian hitman, after which he claimed to have sent that last paragraph as well?

Eh, marca, now you say ChessBase only republishes, not analyses the news. But all those horrible accusations against Topalov they made by themselves, not by others! Surely there exists a page where it says something like "We, ChessBase, think Topalov and Danailov are way out of line here. We support our man Kramnik all the way!". For that is what you claimed previously.

Just show me the facts. A link will do.

That Zhukov is very, very important in Russian chess and Russian politics is a known fact. But until know I have seen no fact that he somehow influenced the course of the match in favor of Kramnik. Could you provide us with one? Surely, if it is that clear, it must be very easy to give us some factual information.

By the way, do you think that the KGB helped Kramnik by sending him moves, as Topalov claims?

I'm not 100% sure, but I believe this the first time Topalov is directly accused of cheating by people connected with Kramnik-Hensel team.

Previously they have talked more vaguely.
This could be important legally as well as being remarkable. The world #1 accused of cheating shouldn't be dismissed as sour grapes.

If the author can't back it up, and he can't, why shouldn't there be censure or worse ??

I am sure that Chessbase, being the fair people they have always been, will delete the article from their website.

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. Blatant cheating accusations at the highest level are not at all common. It damages both players and the sport.

Ovig

Oscar,
What is the sense of the last paragraph of Short's letter???? It brings no information. It is just a weapon of defense for people who cannot look the truth into the eyes.
You of course take the corus of chessvase and sing along. Because it requires thinking and small research (well, in Russian also) to find out the simple economically profitable connection. It is obvious but impossible to prove. It will require something more powerful than Zhukov, and such a thing is not present.

Why didn't Kirsan stand his initial position of the first letter to the players, but had to make a new one?? Kramnik broke the rules in game 5, eversed a committee decision, and basically did whatever he wanted. Why?? He had the support.

I cannot prove it. But it smells. And not from Kramnik's toilet.

You dragged me into this discussion. I do not want to go back to Elista. The thing is, the book was not used (not yet), and the article was republished by chessbase at blazing speed. Fot other news it takes them ages. Lame.

I will keep on reading chessbase, but from now on I will know they are either not independant, or just do not have the ability to differenciate between gossip and news.

"Kramnik broke the rules in game 5, eversed a committee decision, and basically did whatever he wanted. Why?? He had the support."

It was FIDE that broke the rules. They did it on Topalov's request. And if you recall, Kramnik WAS FORFEITED in game 5, and did NOT get the point back, so quite obviously he couldn't "do whatever he wanted", exactly because he did not "have the support".

Why do the Topalov fans so love to ignore the elementary facts here? The whole world saw what happened and some people insist that Kramnik was favoured (!!) in Elista!? How totally bizarre is that?

The last paragraph of Short is not informative? Isn't that something that should be left to the reader to decide? Tsss... If I wouldn't know better, I'd think the webmaster of veselintopalov.net started his career at ChessBase!

You claim that Kramnik did whatever he wanted and got his way - sorry, but I don't buy that. What did Kramnik achieve? A minor decision was overturned, the committee replaced, but the main thing, a loss by default, still stands. Surely the mighty Zhukov could have changed that as well, couldn't he?

I fail to understand the "simple economically profitable connection" or "the book was not used". Could you be more specific about that? It seems you don't only fail to deliver facts, but even can't substantiate rumours.

offtopic:

@acirce

Yeah, I read in chessbase that. But in Russian media they do not support so much Vladi. Isn't that strange?? In sport express I think, they wondered howcome a players protest can fire a whole committee.

Oscar,
No Elista anymore:) The future is ahead and it is obvious. If Topalov hadn't blundered against Svidler he would have been clear first. Still he is N1 in the lists. That is what is ahead.

Zhukov.... do a small research I leave it to the reader ;)
The book... it contains fotos, stories etc. all talking against Kramnik. Why were they not republished the day before the game Topa Kramnik? But the story in chessbase could not wait a day.... Gossip.

The profit. The world champion played against Fritz, not just a top GM. If you fail to see the promotion difference I do not know what to say.

Mig,

You keep repeating questions for which you have received the answers more than once.

So you better find some other defence for your actions and for those of your German friends. If you cannot come up with any new argument, then you can make use of the wise old saying: Silence is Gold.

It would have protected you from many slips last week.

Such a pity marca, most of my answers were not answered. Why it is a coincidence that the book is published a day before the match, and that it is not a coincidence that the article is published on the day itself. Why it is normal that an important part of the letter by Short is missing on the topalov site. Whether you believe Kramnik was sent moves by the KGB. Why the allmighty Zhukov did not order the 5th game to be replayed, or where the facts how he won the match for Kramnik can be found.

Just the same, repeating again and again, "just look it up, everybody knows but you". Well, if even you can't give me a link, then who can?

Still I fail to see how ChessBase supported Kramnik in Elista. Yes, it would be more profitable for them if he won, that is clear. If only you had made clearer which "economically profitable situation" you were talking about, I would have understood that at once. But you can't even point out how they supported him.

Their report about the book appeared earlier than you think, albeit in German (they are Germans, you see, probably with Russian ancestors):

http://www.chessbase.de/nachrichten.asp?newsid=6245

It also says they don't have a copy of the book, so quoting text and pictures from it would be quite hard, wouldn't it?

You are right about something: the future is ahead and it is obvious. The large gap between Topalov and the rest becomes smaller and smaller. He lost many points in Elista and Hoogeveen, and gained only a few in Wijk aan Zee. He even had to share first place with two other players.

Per Mig, I'm imagining the exact same story with "Kramnik" replaced for "Topalov".

Wow... Danailov sitting nearby, Kramnik making eye contact with him repeatedly, at the game's critical junctures... possibly receiving signals... Danailov coughs, Kramnik plays Nc5...

You're right, that is one monster of a story!

Oscar,
Seriously, use your IQ andd goole "Zhukov".

Also please, I answered all your questions, the book, Fritz connection. But you keep on asking. It is common sense, but impossible to prove. See the actors, what they can gain from the situation and then think.

I also want to ask you a question. How many interviews and public games with amateurs, kids etc. did Kramnik do as a Wc? Why will he not participate in Linares? Why does he already have an arranged rematch for after Mexico?

At the same time how many public promotional and for fun games Topa did as a Wc? Do not try, the answer is many, difficult to count. Did he and does he participate in major events? Don't try, the answer is yes. Will Mexico be interesting without him? Maybe, but not as much.

Conclusion, from the financial interests that ruined Elista chess suffered. It lost the brightness that Topa was bringing into it, and is still without a Wc. Because a Wc is among the people, talking, promoting chess. Not at home with Fritz.

Do not understand me wrong, Kramnik is a nice man. But his position is not right, he is a top GM, but not a Wc. It is sad for chess.

Who should be? I would not say definitely Topa. Topa would be great. But also Radjabov and Aronian. Very nice open guys, need some experience.

marca, it seems you still don't understand what the words "fact" or "link" mean. No info on Zhukov and how he won the match. You keep telling me again and again that it can easily be found on the net, but fail to give one single link. You claim that everything is so obvious, with ChessBase as well, but you can't even give a simple example. The book? They mentioned it, well in time. They didn't keep quiet about it at all.

Contrary to the Topalov site, who left out an important part of a letter.

You only choose to "answer" a few of my questions. You complain about me asking new questions, while you yourself constantly make new allegationes. Now you claim something, that is only a very vague rumour: that Kramnik will get a rematch if he doesn't win Mexico.

Then you revert to the same tactics as the Topalov site: you try to divert the attention. What has the fact that Topalov might better for publicity than Kramnik to do with the whole issue? Nothing.

You easily find information about Alexander Zhukov. That much is clear. He's Russian Deputy Prime Minister. So? We already knew that. Everybody did. Is it now we are going to be "amazed"? Or is it when marca is finally able to substantiate his rather more far-reaching claims?

And you claim that Zhukov "played a main role in Elista". Care to tell what this role consisted in? Not that he was in the Organizing Committee, but what he actually DID that made such a difference (in contrast to the Appeals Committee and Kirsan).

Great, we need World Champions who are "nice guys". I guess it's okay if the WC's manager isn't a nice guy though.

who is this Giannis? Maybe Susanpolgar or her friend truong posting here under pseudonym?

Susan's view on the whole story will be: All behave badly and should return to chess. Sic!

That's what she always sais to new bottom-line behavior of Topailov to throw dust over this.

Danailov must have a strong contract with Topalov to bring things so far. This will come to a bad end for Topalov, things are getting out of his hand. If all things collapse the usual excuse "I was under the control of Danailov" will apply. You will see, its every time the same

No Steve,

We need a World Champion

a) who doesn't take draws in 10-15 moves,

b) who plays all the games til the end,

c) who plays in all top tournaments and not only the "convenient" ones,

d) who believes that being World Champion means winning games not drawing them,

e) who keeps us from ...sleeping during his games.

I guess it's not much to ask from a top player in any sport. If you have forgotten if such World Champions exist, I remind you of Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, Topalov. Have a nice day.

Oscar,
Zhukov has a governmental function as acrice told you, one of the functions of this position is to control KGB. That means, he is something above law in Russia.

Some news about Zhukov and chess

http://www.veselintopalov.net/article/kramnik-gives-important-press-conference

Today in the “Central Chess Players House” Vladimir Kramnik gave a press conference together with Alexander Zhukov, Vassilii Smislov, the chief of President’s Putin administration Arcadii Dvorkovich

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3396

Kasparov in the article:

Well, there's obviously some for supporting Kramnik. Alexander Zhukov has mobilized resources for this, now we see Svidler and Bareev heading to Elista. Kramnik's team is becoming as big a state priority as the old Karpov teams!

And in the same he says

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

Of course Kasparov doesn't put proof. It is impossible. Can you prove that 20 GM's were helping Karpov in his match against Kasparov? No, but everybody knows it. Did things change in Russia so fast, or you Oscar do not know how stuff functions there?

Dvorkovich, Zhukov, Putin..... how deep can it get?

And the Fritz Kramnik connection cannot be denied, the boss as I told you arrived in Elista hours after the scandal with a charter. Do you also want a link for that or you know how to use google?

Now having this in mind think again about Elista and Topalov claiming extreme outside pressure from KGB and other institutions.

For the sake of God, KGB doesn't even exist you ignoramus, it was dismantled in 1991.

For the sake of God, acirce, KGB still exists and it has been renamed to FSB (Federal Security Service).

Try to find better arguments.

No, the KGB was dismantled. The FSB is a different organisation, not the same with a different name. If you mean FSB, then say so, but saying KGB instead is wrong and only done as a trick to make sure people associate to the old Soviet system.

yeah acrice,
giannis is very right in his last posts. He gives perfect definition for behavior of a world champion. And your KGB comment is funny. Maybe everybody should update their history and ask some local Russian people how the country functions.

Haha!

How naive... Acirce believes that FSB fired the KGB staff (see "agents") and hired new ones! Now I got it..! LOL

marca, the discussion on how and where a World Champion "should" play is entirely separate, but you and Giannis can discuss that with each other if you so desire. I'm not interested.

Now if you would like to substantiate your claim that "one of the functions of [Zhukov's] position is to control [FSB]", please do. Don't just claim things and pretend that your claiming them makes them true. Why would the Deputy Prime Minister have that function?

By the way, I do not believe that Kramnik cheated in Elista.

Even if there was indeed some infrastructure set up for any future use (suspicious or not), after Danailov's "revolution" in the 4th game, they wouldn't dare to make any use of it.

Just to make things clear before anyone associates my comments for KGB/FSB with cheating allegations against Kramnik.

Why would a Deputy Prime Minister have that function?
Because he does. It is like this, try to change it if you want ;) Of course you should not worry because there is no KGB, just FSB.

marca, thank you for giving "facts", at last.

Friedel, who writes also news items for his site, goes to Elista, therefore ChessBase is supporting Kramnik. I get it. I thought they were only biased in his favour, but, as you write, there is a Fritz-Kramnik connection. Probably you want to say that Friedel went there to hand over an improved version of Fritz, or something else to help.

You also back up your claims with an article of Kasparov. Surely you know Gary Kimovich has a grudge against his successor? That he rather cut off his right hand than use it to write something positive about Kramnik, or the Russian government he is fighting?

And what exactly is your claim about Zhukov? I thought you wanted to say he did something illegal, something above the law, using former KGB connections to win the match for Kramnik.

But from the information you provide I only see that he supported Kramnik. Maybe even called in some extra grandmasters to help him. So?

I'll do you a favor. You can say whatever you want about Zhukov. How he influenced the match in an illegal way, using KGB tactics to defeat Topalov. And you do not even have to give facts here. Just be very, very clear, so that there is no misunderstanding possible what Zhukov did exactly. But what was it?

Chessbase is clearly at fault for continously publishing articles that do nothing but list a number of strange things that might be connected to cheating on Topalov's side. Is there proof? Is there anything serious inside? No. But still CB deems it to be important enough to continously put them on the webpage.

Topalov has not made many friends in the last months, and from what i can see rightfully so. This has made him a target. Let's assume somebody were to watch, let's say Ivanchuk for a while. I cannot imagine a more sportsman chessplayer. After cautious evalutaion of this i could find that he scratches his head more often in complicated positions. He also might tap his feet four times, sometimes five times. And to elevate this to "major news" i could also see that a buddy of his walks back and forth in the audience and leaves the playing hall every five minutes.

Is it wrong to assume that if this article would be published in some major newspaper (who i would assume have no editor whatsoever who can judge what happens or does not happen at chess events), one cannot simply continue to publish it? Not without making a clear statement of a professional chess magazine that no proof is inside this, not even an allegation? Because i for my part would feel very bad to ruin the reputation of a player by throwing dirt at him and hide behind "Hey, we're only quoting. What does it matter to us that by us republishing this we inform the whole chess world instead of some readers in Germany."

But hey, the last part cannot be really expected, right? In order to make chess interesting, to get some spicy "news", someone apparently has to suffer. Toplaov is currently not very much liked, so lee's take him...

And as a last point: does anybody think this "news" would have surfaced if the Kramnik-Topalov match had never happened? I don't think so either...

But of course it's very good for the Kramnik fans to drive the discussion out of the chessboard and on subjects like cheating, gossip, etc.

They know that on the chessboard Kramnik is the worse World Champion of the last 35-40 years. As I have said before, he is the only WC to finish ...last(!!) in a tournament: http://www.fide.com/ratings/trarc.phtml?event16=1527&codt=16

marca,
I see, just another thing on the long list of things that you can't prove but "everybody knows", I guess.

But from what I can find the FSB is subordinated to the Ministry of Justice which is headed by Vladimir Ustinov and in turn subordinated to Putin. Where does Zhukov enter the picture? If you don't give us a real answer this time either I will stop wasting my time.

Suppose Kramnik is really the worst world champion of the last 40 years. Then who is this Topalov, who is not even the world champion?

"I guess it's not much to ask from a top player in any sport. If you have forgotten if such World Champions exist, I remind you of Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, Topalov. Have a nice day."

I know hardly anything about chess history. What tournaments did Fischer win after becoming WC ?

Who is Topalov?

a) FIDE World Champion 2005-2006,

b) Winner of most top tournaments 2005-2007,

c) World's No.1 in the Rating List since 2005.

Apart from the above, Topalov is the most exciting player on the chessboard after Kasparov's retirement (BTW, Gary's last game was a loss to Topalov).

Is this enough for you Oscar?

acrice,

>>>"No, the KGB was dismantled. The FSB is a different organisation, not the same with a different name. If you mean FSB, then say so, but saying KGB instead is wrong and only done as a trick to make sure people associate to the old Soviet system."

Good point. Let's quote Topalov:

"The trick is that no professional player was implicated, and those who told him the moves were fans or from the KGB."

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3553

Giannis, Oscar needs to live in Russia for a while.
But speaking about chess, yes, Topalov is the one that makes the game interesting in the last years.

Fritzed.

We said it already, KGB has not been dismantled, it is KGB under a different name. Unless you and Acirce believe that KGB's staff (see "agents") were fired and FSB hired ...new ones!

And anyway, Danailov has already stated that Topa never said these things in the interview.

Giannis,

I will give you the benefit of the doubt on points a) and b) (althought they are now being questioned - cheating allegations, etc. - I will wait for *definitive* proof of foul play or lack thereof).

On point c) - #1 by what margin? And what's this margin worth if he loses a match to a player 60+ points below him?!

As to being "the most exciting player on the chessboard" - this is strictly a matter of opinion and personal preference and not an argument at all. Neither is Topalov's active participation in amateur chess - it's fine and good that he does it but this has nothing to do with holding a WC title.

Finally, Fischer was one of the best WC *challengers* (if not *the best* one) but he was certainly the *worst* WC title holder in history.

You deliberately missed the point, Giannis. Funny you!

May I correct you on some small details? Topalov was considered only the number 1 on the elo list a year after Kasparov retired, april 2006. If Gary Kimovich would start to play again, Topalov would fall down to second place immediately. And you conviently forgot to mention that several of those first places were shared ones.

Furthermore, Topalov plays interesting chess, but so do Morozevich and Shirov. A matter of taste of course. I think it would be more correct to mention that.

There is one thing I do not understand. This Topalov guy is the best, the greatest, and that Kramnik dude is bad. Why is Kramnik the world champion?

You can say he cheated, no problem. Just tell us how. He destroyed the ceiling in his bathroom, and the KGB (FSB, sorry) repaired it immediately after each game? And how he managed to cheat during the rapid games, when he could not leave the board. Giving proof, links, facts, is not necessary. Just give some details, the way you think it went. Feel free to explain everything to us!

Giannis,

With Danailov saying so many things, his word means pretty little (in my eyes anyway). The journalist stated that he has Topalov's words on tape - that is *irrefutable* proof. And if Danailov is so certain that the journalist is lying - why not take him to the court. But he will never do that - for obvious reasons!

I find some of the arguments in defense of Topalov a bit absurd.
Like; it's ok for Topalov to cheat because Kramnik plays too many draws.
Or; don't mind the allegations, it's all Chessbase's fault.
Or; the KGB, FSB (whatever) is behind it. (Because Topailov said so? Riiight.)

I never said and do not believe that Kramnik cheated. Read above. And Kramnik is indeed the World Champion. That doesn't mean that he is the best player. Greece won the Euro-Football in 2004. Does that make it the best football team in Europe? Of course not.

Topalov is still No. 1 in the World Rankings and he also won the latest top tournament (Corus) where Kramnik was trailing behind Topa all the way til the end.

So please keep me away from cheating allegations and gossip. You can go to Chessbase, Nigel Short and Martin Breutigam for such nonsense.

I was a Topalov fan, but no it seems that his briliant play was not all his own. For the rest of his fans, once the players can no longer see the spectators and anti-electronic counter measures are finally in place for the top tournaments, Topolov will fall from the top or refuse to play.

You heard it hear first and when it happens i will copy and repaste.
Giannis, Oscar, and the others, I hope you still post then. It will be nice to see all the crow eaten...

"Some of the letters criticize Topalov, so? This is bias?"

I don't even know if Mig directed this in part at my comment (far above). But for the record my (slightly more complex) point was that it is possible to criticize Chessbase for something other than the ridiculous charge of "anti-Topalov bias," and that people did in fact do just that in their letters. You can find Chessbase's coverage to tend just a little bit toward the sensationalist and inflammatory (contrast, say, the calm reasonableness of TWIC) without even liking Topalov (I don't). But Mig unhelpfully conflates any objection to Chessbase with the belief in a vast anti-Topalov conspiracy.

I believe that all these issues regarding who said what on which magazine or website are distracting everybody from the real issue here: How to prevent dishonest acts such as signaling moves from occurring during tournament games at the highest levels of chess?

I agree with Mig that finding conclusive proof against somebody suspected of signaling moves is quite difficult. On the other hand, an approach similar to the one followed by many casinos can be taken which is inviting the individual suspected of signaling to leave the property.

For those who believe that hand or body signaling are farfetched techniques, you may read "Bringing Down the House" by Ben Mezrich which recounts - with ceratain level of dramatization to protect some identities, etc. - the famous case of the team of MIT students that defeated some of the largest casinos in Las Vegas to the tune of millions of dollars using a combination of sophisticated mathematical techniques and signaling through gestures.

I get it. Kramnik is not the best player, Topalov is. Yet he lost to Kramnik. Now I don't get it.

Why did Kramnik win? You say yourself it was not by cheating.

If I get a free point against a weaker player, and 6 games with white versus 5 with black, I'll win. Chess is no football, you know.

Topalov is still nr. 1 in the elo list, but that is largely based on his previous results (i.e. without Elista and Hoogeveen).

No Oscar,

Elista and Hoogeven have already been included in the list and Topalov is still No. 1.

The Corus tournament has not been included yet, and when it is the distance between Topa and the No. 2 will be even greater.

I'd like to ask people who have read /Toaletnata Voina/ please for some more information about the nature of the allegations from Elista:

(1) According to allegations based on the videos, with what frequency did Kramnik /close the door/ on entering the bathroom?

(2) From floor plans, how big was the remainder of the rest area in comparison to the size of the bathroom?

(3) What testing procedure was used to compile the "coincidence statistics" in Silvio Danailov's Oct. 4 letter?

(4) Are there allegations of cheating *on specific moves*? Veselin Topalov mentioned one move in Game 4. Was it the freeing pawn sac 21...c5!---?

Thanks in advance for informative answers---information helps everyone. ---Ken Regan (IM, Assoc. Prof. of CS)

Giannis, the elo list is based on previous results as well. The great successes of Topalov, such as in Argentina 2005, are the base of his current nr 1 position.

If one looks at the results of 2006 only, forgetting everything about the past, Kramnik would be the number 1 (by a wide margin). But I have to confess: I used a ChessBase product to calculate those results. It might be biased!

Kramnik would be No. 1 by wide margin..? LOL!

Oscar, make better calculations because with only 2006-2007 results, Topalov is still No. 1 even that way.

"Oscar, make better calculations because with only 2006-2007 results, Topalov is still No. 1 even that way."

Kramnik had a clearly higher performance rating in 2006: http://members.aon.at/sfischl/cl2006.txt

Sorry, but Topalov's extra half point in Corus is not enough to catch up.

Doesn't mean Kramnik is better, of course. I'd say they are so close in strength it's impossible to tell.

Ken,

I don't have answers to the first three of your questions, but the fourth concerns Game 4 of the rapid phase and in particular Kramnik's 21.Rab1, which apparently blew Topalov's mind away... (and mine too!)

It tells you something about the paranoid state of the man (even months after the event!) to attribute the fact that his opponent's found a beautiful idea over the board to computer assistance. Pathetic

For Topalov I took into account:
- Corus
- Linares
- M-TEL
- match with Nisipeanu
- Elista
- Hoogeveen

61 games, prestation rating 2784

For Kramnik:
- Torino
- Dortmund
- Elista

29 games, 2833

A difference of 59 points, a wide margin (according to Topalov even another class). But maybe did I miss something?

Of course the difference would be smaller when counting Corus 2007, but still Kramnik would be on top: 2790 for Topalov, for Kramnik 2823.

People, what else will you come up with to defend KFC Drawnik?

Kramnik has a smaller rating than Topalov so using "performance" for their match in Elista is completely paranoid! If they make a draw in a game between them, it means that Kramnik is better because he has less rating??

Even if you want to take out results of 2005, because obviously it doesn't fit you to calculate it, Topa has won more tournaments. Including Corus 2007 where Kramnik was left behind in the whole tournament.

Unless of course you believe that the only way for Kramnik to be No. 1 is to sit home and pray that Topa loses rating. In that case he indeed has some (small) chances if God listens to his prayers! :-)

Giannis,

#1: The name of the World Champion is Kramnik. Trying to mock the name of the great player does you no honor.

#2: Kramnik needs no defence: he IS the World Champion, a holder of the title that Topalov is clearly desperate to get, yet for all his good tournament performance and superior (for now, anyway) rating placement was unable to get and will not be able to get at least for another year. Furthermore, should his and his team's unsportsman-like behavior continues, I do not believe he deserves to be the WC, whatever his chess performance is. An unexciting World Champion is by far better that an obnoxious one!

@ acirce, what is the fun to post here with all this nerds around who resist to learn disputing? The percentage of nerds in DD is way higher than at the message boards, which you already left. No puns intended, just curious.

REQUEST FOR HELP!!

Does anyone have a link to the Dutch TV video of the last moments of the Elista match? The Russian report on YouTube is good, but it does not include all the footage from the last three moves and, more importantly, Topalov's blunder, Kramnik's response and Topalov raising his head and shaking Kramnik's hand. This is a piece of chess history... Please let me know if you have any video link.

Giannis, first you laugh because you think Topalov played better in 2006-2007. When you are proven wrong, you say we should also count other years or different ratings. Or that winning tournaments is more important than elo. What shall it be?

If you think Topalov is the better player, why wouldn't a draw in a game Kramnik-Topalov not be a little better result for the first than for the second?

But ok, I made new calculations. I put both players on 2780 for Elista and Corus 2007. Then the performance of Kramnik is still better: 2813 versus 2797.

So while it is true that Topalov is nr 1 on the elo list, the performance of Kramnik in 2006-2007 was better. I would not draw the conclusion that Topalov is the best player currently from these figures. Nor Kramnik by the way; the difference is not that big.

Mig,
Forgetting about evidence of cheating for a second, bizarre behavior shouldn't be allowed either. In this category I would include Kramnik's bathroom trips, Danailov's apparent phone calls, gesturing, etc., Kasparov going to his hotel room (from some of the footage I've seen, I'm surprised more players haven't complained about all Garry's histrionics as well, but that's a different issue, I suppose.)
You said as much about Kramnik's bathroom trips at the time if you recall.
You joke about receiving help through the wiring as if this is ludicrous, but its possible at least. Why should any of these players get to play these mind games where they can create the appearance of cheating to throw off their opponents?

One thing to remind:

A big scandal started in Elista when topalov's team saw the window glass .

Now, the reason why topalov's team was so angry was more and more easy to find: they could not have their gesture cheating trick like in all the other tournaments since San luis...

All the rest is only a mess created to disturb people mind in the wrong way!

The very questions are:

1. Why Topalov can defeated everybody when there are no safety zone around the players...?
2.Why topalov did play like a strong GM but no more when there is a safety zone around the players?

It's the central point where every body must focus !
There is nothing relevant to give some credit to all danailies... all of them where :no more no less...

-Zukhov helped kramnik to cheat? A total nonsense! with all zukhov power it's impossible to explain why kramnik lose a free point in the course!With such a help he would have had at least a draw...
-Fritz help:rybka is far beyond fritz. And no program would ever consider to play Fxf8 in the second game of Elista... no more cxd5 in the 3rd game for kramnik...
- no use to take each point one by one: they are bad jokes...

Eyewitness are a better proof than pure fake verbal nonsense.

Topalov is not the so great mighty fighter you think: just see the short draw he made in corus with radjabov: nothing new nor relevant there:they played an analyse published in a german chess magasine.Oh great! they can learn by earth the move and lose time on the clock to fool people and to make them beleive that it was a good fight...

LOL...

Beryllo,
good question. :-(

Emmanuel,
http://www.chessbase.com/eventarticle.asp?newsid=3426 - scroll down to the bottom of the page to where it says "Here are the last seconds in Dutch", click the link. Still works for me. But I'm not able to download it. But the Russian report is great too - I love Hensel letting off that yell a little more than a minute in.

Wow, this thread really exploded in a very short time - thanks to the couple of Topalov jihadis.

Anyway, it seems like I am too late and Giannis and marca have been refuted numerous times on pretty much all the major points but I will still make just a few points:

On KGB: totally ridiculous arguments by Giannis. It is a known fact that KGB doesn't exist anymore. And there is no need to fire and hire people in order for an organization to be different from its predecessor. Had Bulgarian secret service hired and rehired all its people? Or is exactly the same organization that it was during the Soviet times? What about Bulgarian government? If Russian Federal Security Service is still KGB, then I guess by the same logic, our Bulgarian friends still reside in socialist People's Republic of Bulgaria.

And speaking of People's Republic of Bulgaria, I think our Bulgarian comrades try to project on Russia their own feelings and insecurities. They would want you to think that Russian government or the FSB cares about who holds the chess title and yet I personally doubt that Putin can tell Kramnik from Copernicus. At least Kramnik doesn't fly on Putin's plane, like Topalov flies on Bulgarian president's plane. And I remember seeing reports of Bulgarian secret service getting access to playing facilities during the Elista match after game 5, but I don't remember seeing reports of FSB doing the same. So it seems like Topalov gets more state support from his country than Kramnik gets from his.

And it is funny how Bulgarians bring up the KGB and all those things. But wasn't Bulgaria the staunchest ally of USSR? If I remember correctly, People's Republic of Bulgaria was so eager that it was more Soviet than USSR itself, kinda like some of the smaller Allies of Nazi Germany were better Nazis than Hitler and some of the weaker US allies are tougher on terrorism than Bush.

So, given the facts, it is hard to take the KGB claims seriously, but when they are coming from the (former) People's Republic of Bulgaria, the claims become outright laughable. I said this before - if this was a KGB plot, it has got to be the worst plot ever: YOUR guy who got a free point without playing and an extra game with white. If all the influence of the mighty Soviets (oops - I mean Russians) and KGB (oops - I mean FSB) resulted in Topalov getting an extra point and extra game with white, what would happen if KGB wasn't involved? Would Topalov get 5 extra points and 5 extra games with white?

Anyway, we are arguing in circles. I think it is obvious that Topalov's fans are still upset about Topalov getting beaten by a superior player in the world championship match - not even an extra point and and extra game with white was enough for the Bulgarian.

As for the claims of ChessBase being biased, they were refuted so well so many times that I don't really feel like spending time on them.

RB

acirce: I think Beryllo was trying to say that it would be good if you came back to the message boards . And we have another TONC tournament that is about to start:

http://www.chessninja.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000308

Many thanks, acirce!

Russianbear:

All good points.

But you know..uhhh....the Russians, you know. KGB, you know. They did it. That is, they did something. I have no idea what I am talking about, and much less able to substantiate whatever it is I am talking about, but the Russians did something - remember, the KGB...uh..something.

Thanks for the invitation back, but I'm afraid it won't be just yet.

Topalov won 2 games Kramnik won 3 classical chess games in a match recently. Kramnik then went on to beat Topalov in a rapid play off. This actually happened and it is why Kramnik is known as the World Chess Champion. The World Chess Champion is not determined by the player with the highest chess rating or bestowed on the person who plays the most interesting chess. Just thought these simple facts needed restating after all the madness of comment. In addition can all these Topalov fans give their opninion do they think Kramnik cheated in the rapid games? I do not think either player ever cheated.

Who is the best player, Kramnik or Topalov? It seems to me that if the relevant criteria is a match, then Kramnik is the best one. If it is by rating, it´s Topalov, and if the criteria is any regular tournament (like Corus), the best is Topa. Anyway, what I want to point out is that none of them is perfectly dominant considering all criteria.

Who is the cheater, Kramnik or Topalov? My guess here is that none is. Remember that being caught cheating means ruining your career, at least for those guys. Its simple too risky, and after all these scandals, it has become riskier: now, many (journalists, foes, etc) will look actively to find out concrete evidence! I am not denying that someone can profit from beeing accused of cheating, it certainly intimidates the opponents.

Am I siding Topalov or Kramnik? While I enjoy much more Topa`s entrepreneurial approach to chess, and started supporting him at Elista, this whole situation showed, at least for me and perhaps for the general public, that Kramnik is a much more centered person. As a father, I try to teach my kid that good values are at least as good as success. How can you attract younsters to the game if it is a shame? Top players also are role models for the kids, that is, they have a broader chessic responsability. When I tell my kid about the greats of the past, I usually say that Fischer was a better player, but Spassky a better person, and that makes a huge difference. One day I will try to explain him Korchnoi, but that is another story.

Goosfraba for everybody.

Yes Russianbear and Acirce, you can continue congratulating each other but numbers are facts:

Topalov lost one and only match inside Russia but he is still No. 1, with an even wider gap in 2007 (after Corus) to Anand and Kramnik than before.

In the meantime, and while Kramnik is looking at Topa's back in both the rating list and Corus, you can continue talking about all these KGB and FSB funny stories if it makes you feel better... :-)

Phew it hardly seems worth commenting but here goes being the World Chess Champion not no 1 in the rating list is the pinnacle of chess success. It also means you earn a lot more money. That is what being a chess professional is all about. I clearly remember Topalov stating before the match that Kramnik's rating was too low for him to be a serious contender I thought at the time that that was an ill judged and immature comment. Many of us including Kasparov knew that Kramnik had a deep understanding of chess and was a serious contender - so it proved. Topalov's play is much more exciting and dynamic I guess Kraminik would be the first to admit that. Kramnik plays as he does to win within the rules if the game what an earth else is he supposed to do????

"So Yuriy, at what point do they publish something, when incontrovertible proof comes along? As with Barry Bonds?"

Please stop bringing up the same analogy over and over again. The allegations of steroid use against Barry Bonds while not incontrovertible should be and were based on something more serious than various individual allegations of "I think he is using steroids." Nor is incontrovertible proof required to publish allegations. But that doesn't mean reporting shouldn't be held to a higher standard than chessbase has so far.

If multiple random observers independently report seeing Danailov do X to chessbase, they should publish it. I would even say that you should not report anonymous sources.

"Or when a major newspaper writes an article? Or when a top GM makes comments? It would have been bizarre not to publish either of them."

Nigel Short and Martin Breutigam have said and published many things through the years. They have gone unmentioned. And many more relevant interviews given by Kramnik, Danailov, etc. in Russian newspapers have gone untranslated and unpublished by Chessbase. Frankly, Breutigam's article is ridiculous. Comments from "one of the spectators". The main observer, who I think is Breutigam himself, is the only one seeing this happening, as there is no statement in the article from anybody else corroborating it. The quote from Van Wely which is designed to be a mountain but in reality is a mounthill of "oh really?"--see the Van Wely video published elsewhere on this site. The arbiter's comment of "sure, sure, whatever you say."

Let's take the test you gave up. A random French newspaper publishes allegations during Kasparov match that somebody (and it never says who) saw Garry pull out a Deep Fritz in the hallway and punch in some calcluations and then go back to the board and make a winning move. What would we say: "Did you inform the arbiter?" "Did anybody else see this?" "Who is the person who saw this?" And while a major newspaper might republish this report, the reality is that it shouldn't, because reports of allegations feed and are in fact the primary source of allegations.

"Should Danailov's press releases during Elista not have been published? I suppose they could have reported the game five forfeit as "for unknown reasons."

Absolutely not. This is allegations brought before arbiter panel that it is going to be taking actions on. A press conference by one of the participants alleging cheating would also be an appropriate report.

"As I said in the main item, the fact that Breutigam's "fluff" corresponded very closely with what others saw and had been seen before made a difference as well."

Wasn't this report public before Breutigam's article? If so, he could have easily seen nothing, taken an earlier report and claimed to have seen the same thing. That, according to your standard, would be an easy way to make a difference. Especially sad considering the possibility that Topalov in fact cheated on earlier occasons but not this time.

"Short spoke now because of that article, it's not as if it's a coincidence."

Has he explained why he did not report this to the arbiter? Or did he?

"And what, exactly, would a photo by Breutigam of Danailov have shown? Him wearing glasses or not wearing glasses? Talking on his phone? Big deal. It would have been even more laughable. Following him around with a video camera wouldn't have been practical. So either you believe Breutigam's description, one, and believe that what he describes is suspicious, two, or you don't."

Or you see that he has no evidence to support his allegations in which case you wait for the evidence (not proof, mind you, evidence) and hold off publishing until then. What kind of evidence? How about a report from another person on the same day as having seen the same thing? How about Breutigam turning around to another guy and saying: "hey, are you seeing what I am seeing? Check out what Danailov is doing." Then Breutigam could quote that other guy in his article. How about a statement from the arbiter that he intends to watch the activity of Silvio Danailov in the next round more thoroughly or some such?

"Anyone making bias comments needs to explain how it should be covered. If, say, one of the San Luis players sends in comments, should they be ignored? Why? I'm not sure why people are saying we should bury this. It's not pretty, but there's a way through to an important debate the community should be having."

One of the San Luis players is a very very different situation. Then it becomes a matter of public war of statements between two well-known members of community, and can and should be covered as such. Hostility between Karpov and his two WC antagonists for example has gotten a lot of coverage in just such a format. Something like "Susan Polgar says she saw Topalov cheat" would also kinda qualify under this and maybe even "Mig saw Danailov use Morse Code" since you are somewhat well known.

I also thought that the relative tone of these two reports: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3635
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3633

is a lot more in German's favor. It's not the end of credible chess journalism, but it's exactly how people stop being considered "fair and balanced."

"News about news" theory: You can take a look at the editors of the german and the english CB news sites and M. Breutigam holding hands here: http://www.chessbase.de/2006/bonn/P1060801.jpg (in the report http://www.chessbase.de/nachrichten.asp?newsid=6145 where this is taken from CB also devotes a portrait picture to their author M. Breutigam). Now if working with a nameless author, why of all GM's that would have done the better job (and in case of eastern europeans at a lower price), this dude gets the mandate for the "official" Kramnik-Leko (pseudo) match book ? This in combination with the Kramnik-Fritz match (although there exist stronger engines - a fact which was carefully hidden in the press coverage) clearly shows that these three parties (Kramnik/Hensel - CB - M. Breutigam) depend on each other and have common business interests. Everything against Topalov that comes out of that corner is carefully coordinated and timed.

"jihadi": Well it doesn't take a jihadi to see that world #1 Topalov plays exciting interesting fighting chess whereas Kramnik is basically a specialist for short draws which may be a good match strategy but is not attractive to sponsors and makes life reporting of chess events impossible. Kramnik is bad for chess development - if every GM would play like him chess would by dead instantly. Topalov showed up in Essent despite the Elista disaster and took it like a man whereas Kramnik wimps out at the slightest sign of inconvenience. Also Topalov seems to be a decent guy whereas each time Kramnik opens his mouth he either insults the chess audiance (see his "painter" theory) or the organizers (latest in that category: "I did not try especially hard in this competition. There was no big motivation." http://www.chessninja.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=001449 This is how he honours his Corus 07 tournament invitation).

1) I don't know why Mig answers so feraciously everytime somebody criticize the objectivity of Chessbase (and he does not seem to understand that criticize Chessbase does not mean liking Topalov, I don't, for example).

Well, Mig posted in the past for Chessbase; is he still connected to them? Is Chessbase a channel to see Mig's alter-ego? The analogy of Barry Bonds to justify actions seems to be a desperate way to defend his point. Why Mig? You have been very informative in the past, why this situation seems to change everybody's personality?

2) I like TWIC and I like the way they handle these situations. I like Chessbase too, but only when they talk on something different than sensasionalism and World Championships.

3) As I mention before, the tone of them seems to be against veselintopalov.net's websmaster. I mean, if that site is not serious enough, why they bother answering to it? Is not falling into the same category?

4) This wouldn't go so far if FIDE would make a stand to defend players' rights and being more assertive in their politics. Biased kibitzers and chess journalists or people like Danailov navigate in the waters of uncertainity and ambiguity and take advantage of it. And FIDE and the current organization is plenty of it.

5) Would this avalanche of conspiracy theories in chess (Russian politics, KGB, Signaling, etc) be smaller if the "X-files" or similar series or films wouldn't exist?

The funny thing is that Chessbase (and Mig for that matter) act as if there wasn't a shed of doubt that republishing the Süddeutsche article is of good taste and wisdom. They make it sound as it if was a 100% correct decision.

A have doubts about people who don't doubt themselves :)

"Everything against Topalov that comes out of that corner is carefully coordinated and timed."

Okay. So, suppose you are right. What are all those nasty things Chessbase keeps writing about Topalov? Somewhere else it was written that he is slandered continuously, so there must be many examples.

I myself couldn't find more than the reprint of the Breutigam article and the DNA article, besides the second news item about the DNA article. And didn't consider them to be orchestrated or biased, but ok - maybe I'm biased as well.

I also fail to understand why damaging the name of Topalov would be good for ChessBase. Even if you suppose Kramnik is "their man", and that they want him to look good - what would they win by Topalov looking bad? Would they suddenly sell more Fritz's if Topalov got a suspension, or if he stopped playing chess? I don't think so. On the contrary: the chess games of Topalov make people enthousiastic about our beautiful game, so they buy more. So what would be their motive?

If there exists a ChessBase-Kramnik connection because of his match against Fritz, it exists already a very long time. Kramnik played another match with Fritz, you see. Hence that "connection" also existed when Topalov was winning all those tournaments. And I can't remember that they wrote that negative about Topalov then. When did that change?

Maybe they got an order of Zhukov. People who have lived in Russia know what I mean...

giannis spoke:

"No Steve,

We need a World Champion

a) who doesn't take draws in 10-15 moves,

b) who plays all the games til the end,

c) who plays in all top tournaments and not only the "convenient" ones,

d) who believes that being World Champion means winning games not drawing them,

e) who keeps us from ...sleeping during his games.

I guess it's not much to ask from a top player in any sport. If you have forgotten if such World Champions exist, I remind you of Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, Topalov. Have a nice day.
Posted by: Giannis at February 4, 2007 09:19 "

spoken out of Susan's heart...

She would add: hey we need a champion

1 who accuses the world champ directly of cheating generating publicity and more price money

2 who wins points outside the board to make chess a fair sport

3 who's behavior leads us and serious GM to think of esoteric signalling technique and boosts thereby new areas of science

4 who effortless matches the computers strength with more then 95% precision

5 who makes inexcplicable jumps of strength due to hard work, like Floyd Landis and Marion Jones before him

My own strong feeling is that Mr Veselin Topalov had cheated, cheats, and will proably still try to continue to cheat. No proof just my personal impression. I'd like to be wrong...

Posted by: Giannis at February 4, 2007 14:52
"Topalov lost one and only match inside Russia but he is still No. 1, with an even wider gap in 2007 (after Corus) to Anand and Kramnik than before.

In the meantime, and while Kramnik is looking at Topa's back in both the rating list and Corus, you can continue talking about all these KGB and FSB funny stories if it makes you feel better... :-)"

Giannis, let's not forget YOU are the one who is " talking about all these KGB and FSB funny stories" :) Well - as long as that makes YOU feel better :)

As for Topalov versus Kramnik, yes - Topalov was half a point ahead of Kramnik in Wijk and he may have a little higher rating. But I don't think it will trouble Kramnik that much, after all, he is the 3 time the world champion and he has beaten Topalov in a head-to-head match. The only thing Topalov has on him is the ability to beat weaker people, which explains both Topalov's higher rating and Topalov's better results in a tournament like Wijk. But as far as playing against the tougher competition, Kramnik is superior. He is better than Topalov head-to-head. And he is better when other strong players are concerned, see Performance against opponents rated 2700 or higher (Classical games 2000-2006), for example:
http://members.aon.at/sfischl/po2700.txt

So I think Kramnik will have to settle for having a better career than Topalov, and for staying the world champion. I wonder if it will be hard to do :)

Oh yeah Russianbear.

If you exclude the games you prefer and include only the games which favor KFC, then KFC might look better than Topa.

We are talking about RECENT results, not 7-8 years ago. I'm sure that you can go to the time when they were both 12 years old, in order to find the numbers which might suit you...

RECENT results continuously prove that Topa is a worthy No. 1, whether you like it or not!

***By the way, as long as you people don't object in using the name Topnailov I see no bad in using the names Drawnik or KFC...
Note for new customers: K stands for Kramnik :-)

From chessgames.com:

Overall record: Vladimir Kramnik beat Veselin Topalov 24 to 13, with 42 draws

Viswanathan Anand beat Veselin Topalov 20 to 13, with 37 draws

Garry Kasparov beat Veselin Topalov 14 to 6, with 16 draws

Perhaps Topalov's current slightly higher rating and a better tournament perf is a result of his aggressive pursuit of weaker players during tournaments (just like Moro does with the weak opposition).

Giannis, if you think the fact that Topalov is more likely to beat people in the lower end of the table is more relevant than the fact that Kramnik can not only beat Topalov head-to-head but also does better higher rated people - more power to you. I just don't think many would agree. I sure don't.

You want recent results? Kramnik beating Topalov in a match is a recent result. So is Kramnik having a better performance rating in 2006. Basically, Topalov had one great year, which was 2005, the rest of his career he has been inferior to Kramnik's - it doesn't matter if you take 2006 or 2004 or 1995 or 1994. So there is no need to pretend that Topalov dominates relevant statistics - it is simply not true. Topalov had one great year which was 2005 and which corresponded with the peak of Kramnik's illness. But even the still-yet-to-recover Kramnik outperformed Topalov in 2006, which was probably the second best year in Topalov's career.

And like confused points out, Kramnik dominated Topalov even prior to Elista. Sorry, but Topalov is simply an inferior player, compared to Kramnik. He may have raised his level of play in the recent years, but as Elista showed, he is still inferior.

And as for Chessbase coverage, as people on the message boards point out - they posted every allegation by Topalov its only fair they post every allegation against him.

I wouldn't be so quick to praise Kramnik in Elista. His first 2 game wins came from inferior/lost positions. Doesn't strike me as proof of a "superior" player. At most, better match psychology...

Murali, Kramnik's play in Elista may not be praiseworthy, but he ended up winning. Some of Topalov's (or pretty much every other player's) wins came from inferior/lost positions, too. I remember Topalov coming back to win several games in 2005 where he was lost/inferior. You win some, you lose some, as they say, and Kramnik won when it counted the most and Topalov didn't. That's the difference between a simply great player and the reigning world champion.

Kramnik missed wins in game 3 too. That's chess.

I've read the whole thread, and now I'm regretting wasting my time. However, I knew I would when I started reading, and I did it anyway.

I need help!

confused, Anand's big plus score is due to his superiority in rapid chess. In classical games, I think Topalov is +1 after Corus. He's at the very least equal. It's actually the same if you check Anand-Kramnik, Anand has a big lead if you count all kinds of games but in classical Kramnik is +2.

Witnessing the spastic death of professional chess. Screens, no audience, electronic jamming equipment, blood tests, programs, nanotechnology and toilet breaks, what sponser in there right mind would be associated with this garbage. I really hope Carlsen has a college picked out, because chess isn't going to be a living much longer. The champion isnt going to be the best player, he or she will just be the best that bothered through lack of other financial opportunities to stay competitive. When a teen wins the championship everyone will know the end has come.

Comps killed proffessional chess already. Some strong GM's were caught cheating over internet. Many more were clever enaugh not to be caught. Why wouldn't they cheat OTB, where money is bigger?. The cheaters are already among us and all the paranoia is justified.

Chessbase lacks of objectivity. Shame on you chessbase. I´ve been reading that page for two years and recently, since FIDE election it has changed to benefit a little group of people. Be serious, please. I don´t think we can call "reporters" to people who writes with guts and not with brain.

Obviously the cheating allegations are deeply damaging to chess, a point that I don't think has quite sunk in with the players.

Much of that which has been published is little more than tittle-tattle and personal opinion however. If film exists it needs to be out there.

No-one has satisfactorily explained to me why, if its so obvious that Danailov is signalling to Topalov over at least two and a half years why no action has been taken.

On the one hand people say "he's definitely cheating you know", on the other hand they go a bit quiet when I ask "what did you do?" Did you send your second out there to follow him and complain when he did something or even just stand next to him and make it obvious you were monitoring? or maybe your girlfriend with a digital camera? or maybe you saw the signalling and immediately brought it to the attention of the arbiter.

None of these things happened as far as I'm aware and this is the most troubling part of the allegations.

I've always been doubtful about the cheating by passing on moves, Danailov may in fact be waging mind games against the opponents rather than signalling to Topalov which in itself should be stopped.

I've always thought it would be utterly obvious if it was going on. What seems to be being said is that it was utterly obvious but we didn't do anything which I find absolutely impossible to believe, in fact I would have thought someone would have decked him by now if that was the case.

First, kudos to Mig for an excellent colum! Style and judgement: I'm your fan again...

Second, I'm surprised that there hasn't been much comment on the fact that Topalov's fansite "edited" the mail sent by Short to Danailov, in order to leave only the part where he reiterated he had not personally seen anything amiss during San Luis. In fact, they cut the hurtful part about Short's support of an official investigation of the matter. Here it is, as given by http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3649 :
"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."
Cristal-clear and well-written too!

Mark, thank you--it's nice to know that some people still understand that investigative journalism is more than reprinting dubious German articles and anonymous allegations.

BTW, if you go to the Leko link above, it appears that he in fact is not accusing Topalov of cheating, all he is doing is complaining to the organizers that Topa got the same seat every day.

Yuriy Kleyner said: "BTW, if you go to the Leko link above, it appears that he in fact is not accusing Topalov of cheating, all he is doing is complaining to the organizers that Topa got the same seat every day."

...which is interesting. Have the organizers and/or Topa ever explained why he got this privilege? According to the link they didn't do anything after the complaint.

The Leko link after one click takes you to the report for round 6, filed by GM Nigel Short for Chessbase.

Go to the report for round 7 and you will find:

"I should begin with a correction: I mentioned yesterday that there had been an official protest about the fact that Topalov has thus far always played on the same table. As he is number eight in the draw, there is nothing the least bit unusual about this, by the way. Apparently an official protest requires the deposit of $500, refundable in the event of winning the case. This has not been forthcoming as of yet. Therefore it would be more accurate to term the continuing protests “unofficial”. Apologies for inadvertently misleading anyone."

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2666

At first one might ask "why would #8 get the same chair?" but I guess if you assign chairs based on initial seed you could end up with a set up where a GM ends up in a slot and the others moved around.

My question is, though, if such a set up is common and "there is nothing the least bit unusual about this" why would two experienced tournament playing GMs like Leko and Short find it odd? They must have seen it before.