Bareev together with Kramnik and Hensel are shame for the chess world. Why do they use such dirty tactics??

Topalov showed many times he is number one. Do you remember the game against Karpov where he mated him with two knights against a pawn in time difficulty position. Exactly Karpov was the one that publicly defended Topalov yesterday. Maybe he knows how things in Russian chess work and this is stupid disgusting awful propaganda. Ugly.

Yes, accept it, the champion is not Russian. And will not be for a while. Topalov is number one. It is a fact. Live with it communists, long live chess.

It's the suspicion of foul play, not it's reality that has the potential to ruin chess in a similar way to how drugs have ruined track and field athletics.

The suspicion of cheating has to be removed by making it pretty much impossible. If that means glass separators, delayed broadcast of games, metal detectors etc., then we have to do it.

Otherwise chess will drown in a sea of accusation and counter-accusation, with evidence so flimsy it will make this video of Danailov look convincing.

LOL:)
You want to see funny conections. We already know that Hensel and Martin Breutigam are close friends. We also know that Kramnik and Bareev are friends. But why did it get published in an Ukranian newspaper??

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3660

Misha Savinov........ One of the co-owners of Komersant. How ugly can it get? It looks like an organized mafia. No, actually it looks like Stalinism.... hm, who said that before me??

Anyhow, it is so deep and ugly, smells bad. And from that suffers the best player after Kasparov retired.

We also know that Danailov & Topalov are friends. :o

"There hasn't been this much talk about a grainy homemade video since Paris Hilton twitched and wiggled her way to stardom" ...

What a dissapointment that after that introduction and your words, watching the video was absolutely worthless. I didn't resist the temptation to watch the video by myself and of course, it proves nothing and it is just one more of the conspiracy theories (to see something and create a fantasy world when this means what the person wants to believe) ... Everyone knows that if you are going to cheat at that level, you wouldn't be that obvious.

In conclusion, for some reason, a group of people is trying to create bogus theories of cheating just because for the pleasure of doing so. Because it is much easier to destroy reputations than to create great things by yourself. It is much easier to criticize a grandmaster move using a computer as referee, than to learn to play like a grandmaster, because some people find easier to damage others than doing something with their lives.

I do believe Topalov works harder than any other grandmaster in the world in order to suceed; he can compensate in this way the limitations of talent he might have (for example, his endgame play) and I believe some people just did not like that. I am not fan or him, because he seems to be one-dimensional person, as most of top chess players today; the fact that someone as Danailov is his manager and Topalov seems to lack understanding of the real world. But putting him in the position of "evil" is absurd and is just something that apparently some GMs have interest in publicize (I wonder why). I believe that a person who really cheats at that level (if there is actually someone) should be people a lot smarter (in the human ans social side) than Topalov.

I believe this is the main reason chess (which is a magnificent activity) is not that "fashionable" or popular, or marketable today as intellectual activity, because with the players we have had in the latest years in the top have corroborated the idea that you don't even need to be emotionally intelligent to be a top chess player, you don't need to have a career and talent for other area of knowledge (I agree with Karpov in the criticism he made once about it), you don't need to learn about the outside world (look Topalov and others, for example) ... and the worst of it, you don't need to be human to play it at top level ...

"In conclusion, for some reason, a group of people is trying to create bogus theories of cheating just because for the pleasure of doing so"

@Sandrochess, many things you say are right. But the theories are not for fun or pleasure. It is all economical interests.
Who created the Grand Slam? Danailov. Who is going to take money from it? Danailov. Who's chess player is winning? Danailov's.

The Russians hate him. They cannot stand that a small funny man with strange gestures takes all away from them. Something that has been theirs for 50 years.

Russians, the despotism is over, eat your hats!!!!

"The #1 champion of taking countermeasures should be Topailov in order to remove all doubts."

Careful there. "Topailov" is a portmanteau that the more childish Topalov-haters came up with. I'd be cautious to avoid using it.

I really hate the idea of having to wall off the players. One of the aspects of great tournaments that I like is being able to walk around either as a player or a spectator, have a look at others' games, go out for a smoke, retire to a corner to stand on one's head (if you're Nimzovich.) It's part of the atmosphere of chess, or ought to be.

Topalov and Danailov have spent so much time together that they may actually communicate non-verbally.
Possibly even without being consciously aware that they do it, unconsciously, as in between married couples after many years together.
Not necessarily cheating but communicating states, attitudes, expectations.

Stop the anti-Russian racism already, geez.

Btw, apparently the worst and most immoral Russian-commie-KGB-Putinist of them all, the Brezhnev lackey, the jailer of Korchnoi's wife and son, the Prince of Darkness, the grease-haired villain, evil incarnated, yes, Anatoly Karpov himself, supports Danailov in this.

Russians are not a race, they are a nation and international politics is between state nations (mostly, it can also be between ideologies or theologies).

crying "racism!" has become the perfect word to throw in order to supress a political critique, almost the perfect thought control device.

marca wrote:
"The Russians hate him. They cannot stand that a small funny man with strange gestures takes all away from them. Something that has been theirs for 50 years."

I can't help but think you're missing something here, marca ;) I know it might have escaped your attention in the "Toiletgate" circus, but your guy lost. And the last 50 yrs include Bobby Fisher and the Baku-born Garry K. And non-Russians (myself included) hate the manipulative schemer Danailov as much as any Russian. Which is a shame, as most of us liked (or were at least indifferent) to Topalov before recent events.

Or maybe you mean Danailov's taken over the organisation of chess from the Russians? Yep, all those super tournaments in Russia over the last 20 yrs ;) but finally the hero Danailov's snatched the mantle from their grasp, with his charm and single supertournament in Bulgaria.

I'd be more worried by Danailov if his scheming wasn't so transparent and self-destructive. It'll be interesting to see how long it takes him to sufficiently alienate the sponsors and other players (despite the filthy lucre on offer). Heck, even Topalov might wake up un-brainwashed some day (or FIDE might follow their regulations and ban the pair for unethical behaviour... hounded into oblivion by a herd of flying pigs).

In general I agree with migstradamus's [ :-) ] comments : this video proves nothing but it may look suspicious.
Some people should consider taking suitable measures.
Hey, Mig, what about the first day married ? ;-)

I am shocked by some of the postings here.

I saw the video on Kommersant. It is a great video. And my opinion was that Danailov was definitely signaling Topalov especially in the last moves as he cut his finger across his neck as he turned and walked away. To me that was a definite bold signal to Topalov. To me it was definite evidence of Danailov and Topalov cheating. Leaving absolute certainty that they cheat.

How some people can brush that under the table is beyond me. I know some people are simply rabid Topalov fans who can see nothing but their hero in Topalov but I see a cheat.

The only suitable punishment is a lifetime ban from all fide chess.

I say lets get the evidence so good that all the Topalov fans will agree they are guilty. We should hire super professionals who will nail their butts to the wall. They are guilty for sure. No chess fan should rest until they are brought to justice.

I looked at the fide chart of Topalov's elo and I see direct evidence that he started a big spike up in 2004. I think that must be when this signaling started. It probably got going at the Tripoli world knockouts in 2004.

Recently Danailov said he would play a WCC match in Moscow just give him 2 days notice. Yes Danailov & Topalov can get ready in 2 days because they use a computer program to cheat. That statement alone by Danailov is pretty much an admission that they cheat.

Just my opinion. I know the Topalov fans will 100% totally disagree with me and take the exact opposite position. I say well and fine. I will respect your position. Please respect my position.

By the way, I was a Topalov fan up to game 5 of Elista. It is their behavior at that time that turned me against them. so do not blame my opinion on anyone else. My opinion begins with a direct observation of Danailov and Topalov's behavior over game 5 in Elista and climaxes with a video of Danailov's signaling.

Frank H, you're crazy if you seriously think it's 100% certain Topailov is guilty. There is more than zero evidence but still very little.

Frank H,
Are you in the dirty scheme of Hensel???
Marca said it:

"Bareev together with Kramnik and Hensel are shame for the chess world. Why do they use such dirty tactics??

Topalov showed many times he is number one. Do you remember the game against Karpov where he mated him with two knights against a pawn in time difficulty position. Exactly Karpov was the one that publicly defended Topalov yesterday. Maybe he knows how things in Russian chess work and this is stupid disgusting awful propaganda. Ugly."

Chess is going to be dead if these Breev Hensel mafia comes in. Mmmmmm, and where is Zhukov???? He will appear.

I may be zonked but I'm not blind. Why is this guy more nervous than Topalov himself? By the looks of it, you'd think it was Danailov playing the game, not Topalov.

So this guy walks in, stands there staring at Topalov as if it was his own life at stake and fidgeting, then leaving after each move mobile in hand, not looking at the monitors btw so basically having no clue about the position on the board, and this is normal?

I do not find the video as being a proof for cheating but it is enough in it to make one suspicious and begin spinning in doubts.

It may very well a new plot of Danailov to create scandal and publicity, it may be non-verbal communication (just interaction or/and cheating), it may be nothing but random behavior overinterpreted as communication.

Enough that cheating can not be ruled out for sure. It is as Kramnik's mysterious disappereancs in the bathroom, no proof but one can't be certain either of what happens.

For everyone's pace of mind glass sperators and video surveillance must be introduced in all major tournaments.

Chess starts to feel as "intercourse with condom", not as good as before but better than nothing.

Linares will be interesting. How will
Topa perform with all those video cameras watching him? :)

"Chess is going to be dead if these Breev Hensel mafia comes in. Mmmmmm, and where is Zhukov???? He will appear."

Yeah, let's have some more toilet-gate matches like in Elista, that'll put some class back into chess.

Mig: "Bareev is one of the few players to express their concerns and suspicions on the record but many of them do it in private. Even a boycott of Topalov was discussed, an idea for abandoned for many obvious practical reasons."

This is the thing I find most interesting about this situation. I knew of a few GMs that had declared suspicions (Kasim and Leko) but did not know that the level of distrust was so widely spread. Though it is hard to get a good feel for what "many of them" means in terms of numbers, the fact that there are many more than the known accusers who harbor doubts is significant to me.

I would consider these expert opinions on the matter of evaluating the probability of Topalov's sudden rise to the top without outside aid. I already had some suspicion just due to probability alone, based on my knowledge of elo and the chance of such a rise historically. I was willing to give Topalov all the benefit though because I know I do not have anything substantial other than mathematical improbability. But knowing that fellow experts who have a much deeper understanding about the game of chess and top GM play than I do are also expressing contempt for Topalov's play does make me adjust my variables a bit.

Sure, it can be sour grapes and such, but most of these players are the same ones who are willing to acknowledge a superior player openly if warranted (Kasparov). Coupled with Danilov's "protesting too much" about others' cheating and the fact that Topalov lost his match with audience blocking screens while dominating without them, and, to me, there is some suspicion that cannot be denied. Again, the sudden rise in elo after establishing his 'norm' historically is the thing that makes me wonder the most, these little other things just add to it over time.

Do I know Topalov is a cheater? Of course I don't. But, if there was some all-knowing prophet who could tell us if he did/does cheat, what odds would I need to bet, say, $1000? I say give me 2-1 odds and I'd be willing to make that bet, with a small expectation of profit (in other words, I think the chance he has cheated in the past is at least ~ 33%).

When the screens go up in future events, lets see how Topalov fairs. If he drops back to his historical elo performance PRE-San Luis, well, I do think its another piece of the puzzle revealed.

While I despise Topailov and think there is a good chance they are in fact cheating, this particular video proves absolutely nothing.

Kramnik is showing his true colors. Somehow people forgot how he outmaneuvered Shirov for WC match against Kasparov after being crushed by him in Prague. I am afraid that Kramnik will try to avoid playing in Mexico and at the same time retain chess crown. That is why he and his accomplices try to create this unhealthy atmosphere, in hope that they can undermine FIDE's new WC cycle.

As much as I loathe Danailov, there's not one bit of evidence in the video that could be used in a court of law other than circumstancial. As others have posted, I too believe we will get a better picture after the screens go up.

>
-Posted by: Ovidiu at February 10, 2007 17:07

Nicely done Ovidiu!

Chess starts to feel as "intercourse with condom", not as good as before but better than nothing.
-Posted by: Ovidiu at February 10, 2007 17:07

Nicely done Ovidiu!

Hi Mig,

I was told that you have very interesting material from Elista: pictures of computer cables from the cieling,the resignation of the second Appeal's Committee and other stuff.For some reason you are not able to publish them,but on the other hand you publish everything againts Topalov and Danailov immediately.Do you have something personal againts them,or this is only my feeling?

It would be interesting to see a ratings graph (Jeff Sonas?) with a line for "The Computer" or perhaps individual brands "Fritz" etc, and we could see exactly when computers caught up with and surpassed Topalov.

If the GMs-are-cheating theories are right, then each great player of our day has had to face a moment of truth, when he (or she) felt compelled to admit that the computer played better chess. Given most of their egos, the moment was probably delayed, and it was not until the computer was far better, that the player admitted to himself the truth.

It would only be sometime after the player had that moment of truth, that the cheating would begin.

Perhaps some players even earlier had to admit the computer played tactics better, and might at that moment see the advantage of computer consultation (cheating), for tactical advantage.

Or perhaps the trigger could come earlier if a player became lazy, and reliant on the computer for "the answer."

Younger players today have to face the fact that they will never be better than the computer. (?)

We have just been through a unique period where the computer surpassed the human in chess, and the players have had to face that fact. My basic point is that it is only after a particular GM has had to admit that the computer is better, a kind of psychological break occurs, a trigger, that the cheating could then begin. Maybe a ratings graph would help us pinpoint those moments for any particular GM.

tjallen

Chess starts to feel as "intercourse with condom", not as good as before but better than nothing.
-Posted by: Ovidiu at February 10, 2007 17:07

Well, if one of the players carries herpes I prefer safe chess.

Somehow I feel that Kasparov retired at the right moment.

I am indeed cautious to avoid using the name "Topailov". At the moment I won't endanger myself and continue to use it.

Of course, Mig is right : this video proves absolutely nothing and it's now too late to "prove" any cheating occured (i.e. in the past). So we are left with preventive measures (i.e. for the future).

However, to me, the most suspicious behaviour in this video and in what Breutigam described in his article is that Danailov goes out and uses his cellular after every Topa move. In fact, he doesn't even wait to be out of the hall to seize his phone in his pocket. Of course, he will always be able - in court or elsewhere - to find an excuse. Maybe a fan without internet connexion?? We'll have to wait how - and if - he explains this, but the doubt will remain.

GM Alex Finkel wrote Linares/Morelia preview for WCN

"Time for New Heroes?"

http://wcn.tentonhammer.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1145

Marca's comments of course are not worth responding to...

Danailov might want to go out of the playing hall and get a strong player or engine's analysis to find out how his man is doing. It's really not that remarkable: we all use Shipov, Mig, Seirawan, Polgar, etc., to get evaluations of positions and I would expect an equally low-rated player (Danailov probably even worse than most of the posters on here) to want to get a high-rated player's perspective on what is going on. His "gestures" strike me as normal behavior for a slightly hyper restless man to experience while watching the game...there is really no gesture he makes that one of us doesn't make on a regular basis. But maybe I missed something in the video?

>Linares will be interesting. How will Topa perform with all those video cameras watching him? :)

In the Corus rounds where it was acknowledged even by the Chessbase guards that Danailov "played no role", Topalov was blazing away, playing his best chess. Behind the screens in the Elista bunker, Topalov was the only human to beat Kramnik in 2006 and it can be argued that the final outcome was merely a blunder on his end to finish the job. I think that Topalov gets injected by extra motivation in light of all this "annoyance". It may work in his favor in Linares.

D.

Hi Yuriy,

Danailov is by no means a weak player. He is an IM and had an ELO rating of 2466 when he stopped playing tournament chess in 2001. So he will have no trouble understanding what is going on at the board.

"Why is this guy more nervous than Topalov himself?"

This I don't find surprising at all. He has a stake in how Topalov does, and he has no control over the situation.

Anyway, I found the video pretty disappointing. I didn't see anything that would indicate Danailov is anything but twitchy.

I found highly curious to see who are the ones making and publicizing those especulations on Topalov. Whether he has cheated in the past or not, is something that nobody of us really knows; but three things are clear:

(a) Nobody works in chess nowadays as hard as Topalov and his team (in opening preparation he is ahead of every other top player, for example) -this does not mean he is the best or most talented player, of course-

(b) Some people wouldn't like to see Topalov performing well, and some people wouldn't like to play some matches and they know that if more people suspects of Topalov, he would have a lot more pressure that could affect him.

(c) Experience in a lot of activities has shown that cheaters or conspirators in top hierachies are incredibly smart and have the ability to manipulate people's opinion. Danailov is too obvious in his intentions to be that kind of person and Topalov does not look not smart enough (in things different than chess)

My conclusion is that if Topalov is cheating, then someone else is doing it and that this paranoia is a way to distract people's attention -to something we don;t really know-

Re: Claim filed by Danailov against Breutigam (on Susan Polgar's blog). I'm lazy to produce the direct link...

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

If Danailov can produce the Corus tapes in Court and display convincingly that Breutigam is making up things passed as facts then he has a bona-fide case. Obviously, you cannot fight this without some factual evidence coming forth. I somehow cannot imagine that Danailov is so stupid as to be popping in and out of the playing area, while making phone calls in between. Let's see what happens this time. This is exactly what has been called for him to do – come forth with the evidence. I think that a Courtroom is a better venue than ACP, or even FIDE.

D.

I'm afraid I don't understand this.

This video purports to show Danailov signalling in round 11, 2006. Result for that round - Ivanchuk Topalov 1/2 - 1/2?

All that risk for a draw? I don't buy it.

Finally, I don't find anything untoward or even unnatural in the video.

One man's "finger across the neck" is another's adjusting a tie.

Very pertinent information, Sebastian, a 2466 would definitely have a better idea of when his player would want help and when an easy indication would make a difference. I just never heard of high level chess players being business managers for others, and Danailov behaves like a second-rate street swindler/hustler, so I assumed that's what his background was.

Nonetheless, even a 2466 would probably be interested in a stronger player or an engine's analysis of his man's position--even the GMs benefit from such input.

I pretty much agree with Mig. Hating Kramnik or Topalov is pointless by now. The spectre of cheating is what's causing the problems and since one can never prove Kramnik or Topalov has cheated, it's best to move on and quell future doubts.

Susan again copied news without the link

http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?id=h1326

Also: "I don't remember making any signs," Danailov commented. "People just can't bear the fact that Vesko is number 1."

http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=76488

Mig,
perhaps, you should not have made any comments regarding the content of the video. difficult to do of course, when you're the blogmaster, but it would have been more impartial.
now you seem to be suggesting things, or better yet, waking dragons. bad idea. the topic has ben debated to death, and yes, measures must be taken.
and duh ! they will be taken. how obvious is that ? which supertourney wants to be the one without "anti-cheating" measures ? but why should they be taken by the Topalov team ? ridiculous.

anyway ...

"Careful there. "Topailov" is a portmanteau that the more childish Topalov-haters came up with."

I hadn't seen it at all before Mig started using it. And what is childish about it? I found it funny and fitting.

Come on, guys! This video obviously shows cheating! And it is not only Danailov who is ’’in the team’’. If you stop it at 00:53 you will see an old lady receiving advice in her left ear. Then she whisper it to the man with the red shawl who’s (innocent) correcting his socks. He’s job is, while everyone watch on Danailov, to forward the advice to Topalov. Now, you can see how Topalov, when he saw all that, take his ’’thinking pose’’ waiting for the signal from the man with the red shawl.
The old lady is Danailov’s nephew disguised as an old woman and the man with the red shawl is his (boy’s) stepfather.
Sorry for bad english…

I found the name "Magician from the Toilet" name fitting for Kramnik.

Come on guys,it's completely clear that for some reason Mig and Chessbase hate Topalov and Danailov.This is obviously big and well organized campaign againts them.The only question is WHY Mig and Chessbase hate Topalov and Danailov so much? What terrible thing they did to Mig?

One more question Mig:Do you know personally Topalov and Danailov?

loopus is not able to give at least only one! concrete fact from what it can be derived Mig hates Topailov.

like loopus talk dumb fellows

You are all barking up the wrong tree(s)! I know for a fact that both Kramnik and Topalov are receiving help from aliens in parallel universes who are fighting for total hypercosmic domination! It's tachyons, people, tachyons!

>loopus :"WHY Mig and Chessbase hate Topalov.."

I do not believe that Mig hates Topalov. If you look back long enough to his postings he was, vaguely (i.e., politely) rather pro-Topalov and anti-Kramnik.

And so was the world chess "community" in general simply because Topalov's chess was (is) more spectacular and richer in fresh ideas, more incisive and courageous than that the dry, sterile ( and often only short, premature ejaculations) of Kramnik.

But all these changed 180 degrees during the Elista events and, yes, here the hugely popular Chessbase.com website was pivotal in shaping the new attitude. The campaign to demonize Topalov, to portray him as a dirty tricker, was very successful.

To avoid this it would been enough to point out that Topalov was understandably greatly disturbed by Kramnik's frequent disappearances out of the video surveillance cameras (what else they were present for then ?), and in fact right on his demands to have that stopped , since everybody who had played on ICC knew how unnerving was to suspect cheating but to not be able to resolve your doubts.

However they kept on pedalling on the lack of proof for the cheating accusation when the issue was exactly the uncertainty, and this in turn made Topalov appear as being someone who was just very bad guy bent on bullying.

But Chessbase didn't and doesn't hate Topalov either.

All their "work" was calculated self interest since Kramnik was their guy for the $1 mil "WCC" match to promote Fritz, and he is in general their poster, falg ship, boy for marketing.

It was not about "ethics" but about calculated gain. As far as ethics goes they love as if they will have to hate later and hate as if they will have love again one day, i.e., nothing personal, nothing right or wrong, it is about money (just read the passionless article of F.F. about his recent exchanges with Topalov.. as if *nothing*, nothing at all my friend, has happened)

In other words Chessbase follows its interests and Mig just follows what is the fashion, what are the prevalent attitude of the chess community.
That is the safe way to be in general, whatever the kind of "community, if you want to accepted, rewarded, and avoid being "excommunicated".

He safely follows the fashion but I do not believe that he indeed hates Toplaov for all his negative statements he began to pour out after "the change".

What is necessary to realize that has become as a real problem and change in chess after the Elista in not only comp-cheating, installing cheating buffers and do whatever it takes to keep it credible, but that we need few news-gates-websites.

Just as in poltics we need more than one state or political party controlled TV channel if we want to keep it fair and truthful. Chessbase has been the first very succesful one and thus it has played up to now alone the game of shaping the mood and beliefs of the "public".

While the video doesn't prove a thing, I'm not sure how some people can just dismiss it as nothing.

How appararent does it have to be? *If* Danailov wanted to signal, wouldn't he behave pretty much like he does in the tape? Or would he tug his left earlobe x number of times indicating the rank, and then the right earlobe y number of times indicating the file? Followed by cupping his chest to indicate that, yes, it's the queen that's supposed to move there?

The footage is something. It doesn't prove or disprove anything. But it's not nothing. It's something.

Ovidiu, sweetie, can we please stop this nonsense about how Topalov was disturbed by Kramnik's trips outside video surveillance?

For the millionth time, Topalov would never have known about these trips had his team not requested the tapes of what should have been Kramnik's private room. All Topalov could see was Kramnik going offstage. He couldn't know, and would never have known had his team not gone looking for it (nor if the officials had done their job, of course) how many times Kramnik went out of reach of video survellance. So if he was disturbed by the fact once he knew it, he only had himself to blame, and by the time he knew it, he was already 2-0 down.

If there has been one thing illuminating about this scandal, it is how conclusively it has proved the old adage that a lie is halfway round the world before the truth has got its boots on.

"Ovidiu, sweetie, can we please stop this nonsense about how Topalov was disturbed by Kramnik's trips outside video surveillance?"

1) Yes, his team requested the tapes. Why did they request them? Was because of the frustration due to the result? Probably, yes. Did the fact that Kramnik left the board at every opportunity serve as a hint for them as to what to request? Probably, yes.

2) Once they knew that Kramnik spent so much of his time in the toilet, it is normal that they were disturbed by that fact.

Well, to change the continuing cheating focus a little, we now have the results of the Parsvnath International Open, in which IM D P Singh played.

Singh is currently rated 2523. He scored 5/10, achieving 96th place in the field.

Performance rating calculation is made difficult for two reasons: first, the tournament website lacks first round results; second, in round 7 IM Singh drew with an unrated Pakistani player. Imputing a 2000 rating to these two opponents gives a performance rating for Singh of 2096, a really astonishing 427 points below his “rating”.

Remarkably, as the chessbase photos make clear, they are still letting him wear a hat!

Hang on I'm wrong. Singh mauled FM Ashwani in the last round, giving him 6/10 and a PR of 2166, which is only 357 points below his rating.

or to put it another way, his rating will drop to around 2470, so no GM title for him then.

I thought Mig, that you was a trustful person, but your words are clearly chessbase´s words. I don´t understand what do you want, but I´m sure that it is for your own benefit. I´m a chessplayer, I has participate in a national final at my country, and I know of what I´m talking about. Mig and chessbase, please stop this.

>Topalov would never have known about these trips had his team not requested the tapes of what should have been Kramnik's private room.>

and this proves what ? that the trips didn't happen ? or that they wouldn't have "really" happened had Topalov, and then us, never known what was going on ? Tortured logic.

Kramnik was missing most of the time from the table, anyone would have started asking himself what his opponent was doing all that time.

But, possibly, Kramnik thought that he would get away with it exactly because he knew that Topalov was not allowed to see the tapes.

>Topalov would never have known about these trips had his team not requested the tapes of what should have been Kramnik's private room.>

and this proves what ? that the trips didn't happen ? or that they wouldn't have "really" happened had Topalov, and then us, never known what was going on ? Tortured logic.

Kramnik was missing most of the time from the table, anyone would have started asking himself what his opponent was doing all that time.

But, possibly, Kramnik thought that he would get away with it exactly because he knew that Topalov was not allowed to see the tapes.

Ovidiu, good thoughts. Just one more thing -- at some point these things do become 'personal'.

I thought that Chessbase might wisely steer clear of this latest outburst because the evidence presented amounts to nothing. In fact, it's a joke. So I thought, but we see that F.F. concocted another very "selective" poison extract and omitted the parts that don't suit his indictment.

Good. All 'pretense for objectivity' has been dropped now. It's a mud fight all around. I think Chessbase lost their "virginity" claim of a reasonably trustworthy source. No, people are not that stupid (all the time).

D.

---bareev---
"But in 2005, a simply unbelievable jump took place. At some point, it became obvious that there was help from the side. What is most annoying is the primitive method. We assumed that he was more accomplished – with a chip implanted in his ear, for example…”

Bareev joked that “insisting on a partition between the stage and the auditorium was Vladimir Kramnik’s best move”
---/bareev---

Does anyone know whether Bareev's quotes should be taken literally? I've heard he has a sarchastic sense of humor.

"Does anyone know whether Bareev's quotes should be taken literally?"

I doubt it.

Of course the interesting question about this video is whether the same sort of behaviour on Danailov's part could have been observed before 2005.

Well? Anyone?

Some people here need to work on their reading comprehension skills.

Posted by: Ovidiu at February 11, 2007 10:55:
">Topalov would never have known about these trips had his team not requested the tapes of what should have been Kramnik's private room.>

and this proves what ? that the trips didn't happen ? or that they wouldn't have "really" happened had Topalov, and then us, never known what was going on ? Tortured logic. "

Ovidiu, that logic is fine. If Topalov is so sensitive about what he might see on a tape he shouldn't have access to in the first place, then it is best not to watch the tape. If a Peeping Tom gets a heart attack or goes crazy while he is watching a woman, whose fault is it - his own or the woman that is not even aware she is being watched? Besides, Topalov played BETTER after he received access to the tapes than before, so this "he was disturbed" argument doesn't work anyway.

Topailov is getting what he deserves now. Karma is not a tricky concept. Chessbase and Mig published all accusations made by Topalov, so it is only fair they publish accusations against him. There is no anti-Topalov conspiracy. The only anti-Topalov campaign that did take place was undertaken by Topalov and Danailov themselves with all their ridiculous claims and allegations. And these little things that come up now about Topalov cheating - they only serve to generate pro-Topalov sentiment anyway. And in case you haven't noticed Mig made it clear that the video doesn't prove anything.

Ovidiu, leaving the board when it's not your move is perfectly normal. Many players do it practically every move. It's rubbish to say 'anyone would be suspicious' of frequent trips to the private rest area: it's simply not true.

What it 'proves' is exactly what I said: if Topalov was distracted at all it was because of his team's improper behaviour and because they didn't focus on trying to win the match by playing better.

Of course Topalov's gang probably knew that Kasparov had made a similar complaint in 2000, long before computers were much use. I dare say they had their gambit planned before the match.

As to Kramnik 'expecting to get away with it' (you don't think this begs a bit of a question at all?!) because only the arbiters could see the tapes, I find this a curious notion.

The orchestra of FF, CH and VK are trying to continue the mud story although their former allies are abandoning them one by one.

I am positively surprised by the clear stand of Susan Polgar and Anatoly Karpov against all this fiasco of Chessbase and their cronies.

Susan Polgar proved herself courageous enough to go against any temporary wave of insanity. Others preferred to follow the wave and discredited themselves even further...

(you don't think this begs a bit of a question at all?!)

Thinking and Ovidiu? Get serious. :)

Ovidu,

That is exactly the point. There was *nothing* (!) in the contract or regulations that could have prevented Kramnik from being on stage only long enough to make his move and then retire back to his private room. So long as it was Topalov's turn, Kramnik was free to be on or off the stage, at the playing table or away from it. This has been a standard practice of WC matches. I was present during Kasparov-Anand match in NY and sometimes players would resurface at the board, make a move and immediately disappear from the stage again. And nobody was disquieted by that! It was well known that Kramnik's illness made it difficult for him to remain in the same position for any considerable length of time, so his desire to be off the stage, in his room where he can pace or rest on the couch makes perfect sense. If Topalov was so disturbed by this absence, he *should* have asked the *arbiter(s)* to check the video from Kramnik's room and if the *arbiters* were satisfied that nothing was amiss that was supposed to be the end of it! And it would have been, had the said arbiters and the Appeals Committee did their job!

Posted by: Giannis at February 11, 2007 11:40
"The orchestra of FF, CH and VK are trying to continue the mud story although their former allies are abandoning them one by one."

I'll put it this way Giannis: Kramnik connection to the Kommersant story is not proven any better than Topalov's cheating.

And exactly how is VK "continuing the mud story"? Did he accuse Topalov of cheating? Or maybe his manager issued a press releas documenting the % of Fritz'-like moves of Topalov? Or maybe he has claimed in his interviews that Topalov cheated? Or maybe he promoted a book called "Toilet war" written by one of his buddies? NO, THAT WAS ALL DONE BY TOPALOV. Had Kramnik done 1/10th of what was done by Topalov regarding the cheating accusation, we would never hear the end of it from Topalov fans. The hypocrisy of certain Topalov fans is amazing, though I guess it shouldn't be surprising.

Heheh, I follow fashion? As set by ChessBase?!? Hilarious. My items nearly always precede ChessBase by at least a day on any topic and Elista was no exception. (And note the Kommersant item appeared here well in advance as well.) I have very clear opinions on what went on there and made them quite clear here, as well as my rationales. Those who want to invent conspiracies post-facto are welcome to do so, of course, but they have yet to say anything intelligent about how ChessBase should have acted. Reporting on reprehensible actions is not taking responsibility for those actions or an act of aggression against the person who committed them.

Of course the "ChessBase is biased" crowd is requesting bias by ChessBase by insisting they not report anything that might reflect badly on Topalov. Major mainstream news outlets talking about this stuff IS NEWS. It is the responsibility of ChessBase to mention these things. Why on earth should they, and only they, be forced to wait until there is conclusive proof of something before mentioning that everyone is talking about it. They are a CHESS WEBSITE, not a court of law. What possible justification can the conspiracy theorists give for demanding a news blackout of that sort? Why the demands for censorship? Write to Kommersant if you like. But all this shooting the messenger and demanding censorship is embarrassing.

"Bad/controversial news is icky, let's put our heads in the sand" is not a worthy reaction and it won't lead to solutions. Pretending these concerns aren't valid is foolish. It's too late. The players are alarmed and action must be taken to eliminate this stuff. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away any more than you can stop a war by kicking out all the journalists from the war zone.

It is ridiculous to say that until there is conclusive proof of cheating nobody (meaning only ChessBase and me, apparently) should mention the possibility of cheating, the accusations about Topalov, or anything else. If Anand or Svidler came out with comments about it, should we black them out, too? After all, there's no proof of anything. No, that's not how it works. Top players talking about very important topics in the chess world is news. Mainstream newspapers talking about investigating it is news. Nobody is saying it's proof or anything of the sort. But it's most definitely news.

ChessBase doesn't have an anti-Topalov bias. Reality has an anti-Topalov bias. He who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw toilets.

Russians really really hate that a Bulgarian is better than them. And now Bulgaria is in EU too, hah hah.

Kramnik's toilet breaks (perhaps with a pocket chess set) give far more scope for cheating. After all, he won didn't he?

Danailov looks like a frantic mother hen, sure, but nervous tics (ignored by Topalov) do not transfer information.

After reading the article, I thought I
was going to see some _quality_ cheating
footage, but instead got nothing. That
makes me seriously disbelieve the support of
the cheating accusations.

Does anyone have footage of Danailov's behavior when he's _not_ in the view of Topalov -- in order
to establish a baseline?

Russianbear, I believe in karma too. These things started way before Elista. I was in Europe last Summer when I got the glimpse of the 'chip in the brain' theory. I remember my first thought back then: "I hope it doesn't get ugly..." Back then, before Elista, before the toilet, Game 5, whatever, it already smelled like something's up... ..like a psychological campaign of the kind we've seen before.

Hey, just to be clear – I am not blaming the Russian people. The average tyotka from Svredlovsk couldn't care less and probably has more pressing daily issues than the finer points of chess. I strongly urge all to refrain from nationalistic and bigoted remarks!!

What I do believe is that Russian "interests" play a role. The signature is unmistakable.

And I'm not exonerating Danailov and Topalov either.

So, where are we now? In the mud… A typical political war by negative means -- compromising materials being floated around and indiscriminately editorialized to fit the slant. Unfortunately, I lost hope that the mudslinging will fizzle away… At Corus and the joy around it I thought that we have a good chance to forget about the non-chess issues. We even started talking like friends for a bit…

D.

Mig: ChessBase doesn't have an anti-Topalov bias. Reality has an anti-Topalov bias. He who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw toilets.

Mig, there was a lot more than just reporting the news. They are craftily editorialized. Political proclamations don't alter reality and people see that eventually. The glass house was erected around Topalov in order to suffocate him. I think it should be shattered, even at the price of wasting a toilet seat or two…

D.

on Judits Site the usual bias goes on. She appeals at Kramnik and Topalov to make announcents each, that he thinks the other does not cheat. Thereby she ignores the fact that Topalov himself is the only one who accused the other of cheating so far.

Now that is bias!

It often follows the following pattern. Topailov makes unworthy agression to Kramnik, Kramnik may defend or not, doesnt matter. Then she says:

"Both shall return to chess".

Simple, isnt it?

Judits Site is the only one here which has bias, it has been proved with many facts.

In Bridge scandals, crude signals were often used such as number of fingers and position of fingers and angle of fingers to indicate, e.g., the number of diamonds in the hand. They were detected since the organizers kept comprehensive video records. If the Corus organizers had attached a spy secretly to Danailov (instead of relying on the Dutch amateur) we could have time-indexed video to compare his number-of-, position-of, and angle-of finger signs (viewable in the amateur's video) more formally to the games.

Also, of course, having a manager take up station close to his player in line of sight should have banned by Corus TDs from the very start.

Ellrond - You mean Susan's site.

Seems that the pro-Kramnik crowd is resorting to ad-hominem attacks as they run out of arguments since this ridiculous video has established that an estimated 10% of the Corus-06 spectators has been signalling poor Topalov who had to sort out this mess instead of thinking about the position on the board...

About the babble:

"Peeping Tom"

Are you serious ?? Now it's Topa's fault that he knew that Kramnik purposefully avoided anti-cheating measures by spending most of his time in a room w/o video surveillance but with internet access ? Of course if the guy spends most of his time away from the board (an insult in his own right) only to come back with good moves whereas at the board he plays relatively weaker, you start wondering.

"The only anti-Topalov campaign that did take place was undertaken by Topalov and Danailov themselves with all their ridiculous claims and allegations."

Not true. After San Luis (when it was clear who Kramnik's opponent would be) a character assassination attempt against world #1 Topalov was started and it's only natural that team Topalov took defensive action.

As for ChessBase:

Have they ever distanced themselves from the drivel of their man Breutigam in "Sueddeutsche" ? No. The difference between your blog Mig, and their news site is that you comment on it ("Looks like a whole lot of nothing to me." for example) whereas they just cite articles/"news" (if they suit them of course) regardless of how ridicilous the "news" is. The net-effect is that this crap from this "Dutch fan" gets amplified as the average reader takes it for granted since ultimately it has been featured by a prominent chess news site.

On another note: seems to me public benchmarks of Fritz against other engines have disappeared from the net - has ChessBase lawyered up ?

I find Danailov's behavior in the video a bit odd, but not suspicious. Take a look at others in the video and you will see a lot interesting manerisms. Only by comparing his behavior during the games to his behavior at press conferences, opening ceremonies etc. could one form any real suspicions.
Nor do I find it unusual that Danailov appears more nervous than Topalov. Look at the coaches, agents, fans, parents, etc. at any sporting or theatrical event and you will see many similar cases.
Other "evidence" of Topalov's cheating involves his rapid progress in recent years, which is a bit unusual for his age. However, it appears that most of this improvement is due to his strong work ethic, especially in opening preparation. This is an area where access to a computer during a game is not much help. Perhaps Ivan Cheparinov deserves much of the credit. Topalov is simply talented enough to make the most out of the novelties. The sacrifices and openings he has played are not favored by computers, but he has missed moves (for himself and his opponents) that the computers never miss. If he was using a computer, it is hard to believe that he wouldn't use them when most advantageous.
There is ample evidence that cheating occurs in chess (making it newsworthy), but I do not believe that any of the top players are involved. These allegations are just part of the game beyond the game that has been with us for some time.

poisoned pawn at February 11, 2007 13:45
"Are you serious ?? Now it's Topa's fault that he knew that Kramnik purposefully avoided anti-cheating measures by spending most of his time in a room w/o video surveillance but with internet access ? Of course if the guy spends most of his time away from the board (an insult in his own right) only to come back with good moves whereas at the board he plays relatively weaker, you start wondering."

A bit too much bias there, poisoned pawn.

1)Kramnik did not "purposefully avoided anti-cheating measures". Spending time in a bathroom is not violation of any rules. Kramnik was as much a subject to anti-cheating measures as Topalov was.

2)Internet access in a bathroom: there is no evidence it was there. There may have been some cables but it is not clear whether they really did provide access and were not just random cables one would see in a ceiling of any other office building. Also, once the players were searched, there was no way for either player to use any device to cheat OR to connect to internet, so the whole internet access is irrelevant because of this. Or are you going to claim that, like I mentioned in another thread, Kramnik was able to connect to internet like Neo connects to the Matrix in the matrix movies - by plugging the cable into his own head?

So spending time in a bathroom was not the issue. Besides, later Topailov claimed that Kramnik even cheated during the tie-break, when he was sitting at the board, so the whole toilet discussion shouldn't matter because according to Topailov one can cheat just as well without going anywhere (and if these recent claims about Topalov are correct, Topailov sure are right about that).

3) going away after your move is not an insult, but a very common practice on that level. Kramnik didn't play weaker when he was at the board - in fact he won tie-break with the same +1 score as the classical part of the match.

4)and yes, it IS Topalov's own fault. If he wanted to spy on Kramnik and get some useful information like seeing Kramnik react to certain moves in what was supposed to be a private room - and if Topalov is psyched out by something Kramnik does (which I strongly doubt because like I said, Topalov played BETTER after he got access to the tapes) - it is his problem. It is definitely not calculated attempt by Kramnik to psych Topalov out, like someone claimed, simply because Kramnik would never think Topalov could get access to that video footage.

"Not true. After San Luis (when it was clear who Kramnik's opponent would be) a character assassination attempt against world #1 Topalov was started and it's only natural that team Topalov took defensive action."

Not true. team Topalov took defensive action when Danailov responded to the rumors in chesspro.ru article (and by the way he managed to be more offensive to Kasimdzhanov and Morozevich than I ever seen them be to him). In Elista Topailov started an offensive of his own.

Dimi said he believed in karma, but Topailov accusing Kramnik in response to accusations by Barsky is not exactly the same as Topailov being accused after he was accusing others. Kramnik didn't accuse Topalov of cheating, but Topalov did accuse Kramnik. There is a major difference there. I don't see why Kramnik should himself be the target and be responsible for Barsky's article, but there is definitely karma at work when Topalov gets a taste of his own medicine.

Has Morelia/Linares (and other supertournaments) tightened up on their anti-cheating measures? If so, in what ways? I don't expect full disclosure which would perhaps be counterproductive, but I don't see any indications that anti-cheating measures are being tightened up!

one thing I haven't heard mentioned re Topalov/Danailov is that they apparently felt strongly that a player should stay at the board long before the match in Elista. I read the interview in New In Chess (May 2005), and Danailov is talking about imitating Fischer (a 'double edged move' no doubt) and he says, 'Stay at the board all the time like Fischer. Don't walk like the Russians.'
Whatever else they may have done wrong, I can at least respect their opinion of what is the most classy and the best way to play a chess game.

Seriously,

anyone who sees Danailovs behaviour here to be "suspicious" must have a very dire problem. This is exactly my pose I take when I contemplate a problem, look at a piece of art in a gallery etc. The only thing that might be at least remotely unusual is his fast paced exit after (supposedly - we don't even see that) Topalov makes his move.

I despise Topalov/Danailov just as much as anyone, but this is a serious piece of witchhunt.

poisoned pawn at February 11, 2007 13:45 wrote:
"Of course if the guy spends most of his time away from the board (an insult in his own right) only to come back with good moves whereas at the board he plays relatively weaker, you start wondering."

1) To spend most of the time away from the board is NOT an insult, it's a matter of convenience. poisoned pawn, when was the last time you played in a tournament?!

2) As to the second part of your statement, we only have your speculations and that is not good enough. Give the facts, if you can! Kramnik's best games of that match (standard # 10 and rapids ## 2 and 4) were played almost entirely at the board!

ross,

Danailov's opinion is nothing more than Danailov's opinion. Fischer liked to sit at the board. Other supergreats like Alekhin and Kasparov did not. So what?

How depressing is this thread? It reads a bit like this:

Topalov cheated.
No he didn't, it's a Russian smear campaign.
No it isn't, look at the gestures Danailov makes on the video.
They aren't signals, they're nervous fidgeting. Kramnik is the real cheat - in Elista.
Kramnik didn't cheat - he has an illness and how was he supposed to get messages from cables in the ceiling anyway? Na na, na na na.
And so on, and on, and on...

Can we have stricter controls at chess events asap please? I'm not sure the shaky edifice of chess as a professional sport can sustain these sort of lurid allegations for long without collapsing entirely under a pile of mobile phones, cables and chess software.

Hi Mig,

Why you did not answer to my question?

You show this funny video of Danailov-Topalov,great job,fantastic evidence.But why you never show the pictures of the computer cable and the other real documents from Elista?What is your problem,man?

>Ovidu,This has been a standard practice of WC matches. I was present during Kasparov-Anand match in NY and sometimes players would resurface at the board, make a move and immediately disappear from the stage again. And nobody was disquieted by that!>

Andrei,

Back then when Kasparov-Anand was held computer cheating was not an issue, or at least not at top level and not on usual hardware.

But things have changed lot since and computer cheating has has become a bubble waiting to burst in the last years. It did so at Elista helped by Kramnik's odd, inviting speculations, behavior.

We will see this year what can be done.

It may bring all the professional chess down or it may make it become something of a spy house with video and electronic surveillance of every single moment, move, and gesture.

Chess arena is not a court of law to dismiss a charge because it can not be proved, it is enough that it can not be dispproved to paralyze everything. The old "beyond a resonable doubt"
is of no much hope here since we know well how reasonable is the chessplayer.

Silvio, I presume? This video is not evidence of anything in my opinion. I said this in my article. Reading is fundamental.

There is no evidence that Topalov cheated. There was the possibility. My concern is eliminating that possibility in the future.

If you can explain how a cable inside a bathroom ceiling means anything at all to anyone I'll be happy to run all sort of pictures of them. There is similar wiring in every bathroom in every modern building in the world. There is such wiring inside my bathroom ceiling (oops, caught!). It goes from place to place from room to room. I used to do network installations for a living and have pushed and pulled every sort of cable through every sort of space between every sort of room in a building. It doesn't mean you can access it or that you would be able to do anything with it even if you could break open the ceiling and get to it.

Again, and slowly this time: How. Can. You. Cheat. With. A. Cable. Inside. The. Ceiling?

Keep repeating it. Until you answer that, nothing more is necessary. Here's the math: Kramnik + frequent bathroom visits + wiring inside the bathroom ceiling = no possibility of cheating. Danailov + cell phone + going in and out + direct line of sight with Topalov + fidgeting = possibility of cheating. Possibility.

But if you want more we have the additional info that the pictures you refer to were 1) composed by monkeys (one shows a wire from the ceiling going into someone's hand and a totally different network cable coming out. Magic!) and 2) sent out with slanderous intent by one of the participants in the match. But wait, don't get distracted! How. Can. You. Cheat. With. A. Cable. Inside. The. Ceiling?

Documents? Kutin resigning because he doesn't understand you can't cheat with wires inside the ceiling? Just because other people are gullible idiots doesn't mean I have to be one. How. Can. You. Cheat. With. A. Cable. Inside. The. Ceiling?

Dimi, okay, YOU write the articles for ChessBase. Let's see how you would cut and paste articles and links in a fair and balanced way. They barely editorialize at all, if at all. Time to put up or shut up about all this bias crap. Tell us what they should do differently.

Mig,
You are a strange guy. You claim to know something about technology, still you do not take in consideration the UTP on the cable. Please correct your upper post it is funny.
And Dimi is right, chessbase are not right to republish and not comment.

Elista, what is 'the UTP on the cable', and how one would use it before the ceiling was opened up? Can you be more specific?

How. Can. You. Cheat. With. A. Cable. Inside. The. Ceiling? "The UTP on the cable" doesn't make sense in English or any other language. UTP is simply a type of cable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unshielded_twisted_pair

I know lots about cables. I also know you can't cheat in chess with one in your ceiling unless you have access to it and something to read what it's putting out. If Kramnik could connect to a cable, what he is holding to do that (a computer, it's called) would be the problem. So either he had a computer and could open the ceiling to access the cable or all this cable in the ceiling stuff is total garbage. So you're saying Kramnik had a computer but the real problem was the cable inside the ceiling? Why would he need to access the cable in the ceiling since he already had a computer with him?

How. Can. You. Cheat. With. A. Cable. Inside. The. Ceiling?

Ah, now you want ChessBase to editorialize everything. That should go well.

How about the computer was also in the ceiling, but was quickly removed?? Maybe besides cables, you understand from "Russians manners in chess".
Why don't you ask Kasparov? He knows very well the treatment in the match with Karpov.
Say something now Mig.

Elista, the second try at you. Kramnik would use what tools to open up (break) the ceiling and then patch it up after the game(s)?

How.Can.You.Believe.Bareev

No second tries confused,
Karpov had 20 GMs behind him playing against Kasparov. That is why Karpov knows how things function and what the propaganda level is and defends Topalov. I hope you are not confused anymore. There were many helping Kramnik in Elista.

Mig of course is silent. He was asked the same question about Russian tactics in chess. He avoided it. He knows it is true.

Hahahah, the computer was in the ceiling! Of course! Yes, when you have pictures of that, let me know! Brillante! What do Kasparov and Karpov have to do with this? Blame the Russians! Global politics! Ceilings! Toilets! Blah blah blah. Distract, distract, distract. It almost worked in Elista, didn't it? We aren't all idiots. We are talking about your accusations of Kramnik cheating. Pay attention. All the motive in the world doesn't matter if you don't have the possibility of cheating.

How. Can. You. Cheat. With. A. Cable. Inside. The. Ceiling?

I don't have to believe Bareev or anyone else. I linked to an article in which he speaks his mind on the issue. I specifically state his comments are of a circumstantial nature and that he worked with Kramnik. If a top player accuses Kramnik of cheating I'd report on that, too. But all we have on the side of attacking Kramnik is you guys making yourselves look stupid with photos of broken ceilings and cables. Really, you should be embarrassed if this is the best you can do. Color-coded yogurt was much more convincing.

> Kramnik + frequent bathroom visits + wiring inside the bathroom ceiling = no possibility of cheating

With all due respect, how can you be so sure ? They play in hostile territory, Kramnik has state support up the ass (1), KGB^H^H^HFSB has plenty of opportunities to prepare the facilities - for all you know the cable is an antenna emitting low-energy signals in the range of 2 meters and the watch at Kramnik's wrist isn't a nice Blancpain but in fact a receiver.

You have written down an equation. Now you also have to prove it.

(1)
- "final" Appeals Committee decisions get overturned
- Committee gets dismissed
- presidential airplane declined landing
- doping test gets renounced as soon as the "right" guy has won
- organized smear campaign against world #1 Topalov since the days of San Luis

Jejeje, Mig is silent, he won't answer all my silly accusations about nothing! Wahhh! What about what Kramnik ate that day! Haven't you analyzed his food!? And x-ray his chair!

I don't care if Kramnik is a lieutenant-colonel in the FSB, it doesn't mean he can break open ceilings and connect to a UTP cable with his ear. C'mon, what's the next distraction since you have no evidence of even the POSSIBILITY of him cheating?

Mig,
Have you followed the epic match Karpov-Kasparov?? Did you ask Kasparov about the additional stories? Well, here is your mistake. You should have.

My suggestion, go live in Russia for a while. You will change your point of view.

Straight question, is it so difficult to remove a laptop before the inspection? And why some of the tapes of the first rounds are missing? I think not the apelative commision should have been fired but the whole organizing committee. It is a tremendous mistake that you seem to miss. Comments?

The clowns at Topalov's so-called "fan site" at it again: http://www.veselintopalov.net/article/coincidences

Kasparov! Karpov! Russians! Organizing committee! Disappearing invisible computers inside ceilings!

Funny stuff, thanks. Still waiting for any evidence at all that suggests the possibility Kramnik cheated other than your paranoia.

My only evidence is the knowledge of the tapes missing, Mig. And the many strange things reported by Russian media. I do not read chessbase, they say it is biased, but I prefer original sources. Where do you get your info from?

Direct question, what about the tapes missing?

Mig,
What annoys me is that you are giving in one of the cases posibility of cheating and in the other with so many strange events around you deny it. Seriously you have to think about it. I do not say Kramnik cheated. I say chances are about equal that any of them cheated.

No, "poisoned pawn" we don't have to indulge every high-tech wonderland fantasy. Because if we did it would mean every player *could* be cheating in every game in every event and the entire conversation is meaningless. This is why we go on observable facts instead of wild fantasy. Which is why the visual signaling possibility is troubling and "Kramnik had the KGB and James Bond on his side" is a waste of time.

That someone had machinery undetectable by metal detectors and wands and all other normal means is a fabulous way to simply say "oh yeah, well prove he DIDN'T cheat!" Which is of course never possible the same way you can't prove God doesn't exist. What we must do is reduce the viable possibilities of cheating.

that last one was giberish..... you did not answer about the tapes.... But you believe a Hensel signed article and a strange video of a manager where people around him are gesticulating more.
Mig, people will laugh at you.

The only ones laughed at here are the insane paranoics going on about the great conspiracy against Topalov, the evil cunning Russians, the almighty KGB and bizarre technological fantasies. Btw, I have this hairdryer here and I figured I'd use it as a laser cannon. Or I'll do a bit of time travelling with this empty Coke bottle. Perhaps go back to 1969 to prove my moon landing hoax theory.

Not giving up on the internet cable in the ceiling yet. Another (small) difficulty:

The picture of the toilet shows a very high ceiling. How could anyone reach it w/o a ladder?

Elista, you have any insides about that? The report about the cable is in bulgarian (russian?) Cannot read it.

Acirce,
What country are you from?

No more questions.

What picture of a toilet, confused??
It never came out...

Missing tapes! Awesome. Do "missing tapes" mean Kramnik had a computer in his rest area or bathroom? No. Another distraction. You keep trying to use negatives as proof of positives. We don't have video from the bathroom so he was cheating. There was no computer in the ceiling so he must have had one.

As I explain here for the final time, it is possible to cheat by going in and out and talking on a cell-phone with someone using a computer and walking back and making signals to a player. Very possible, quite easy to understand. This possibility should be removed. Not for Topalov, for everyone.

Next, it is NOT possible to do anything with a UTP cable inside the ceiling of your bathroom. As for disappearing computers and disappearing tapes and disappearing XXX, these are fantasies, not possibilities. Yes, every player *might* have a disappearing computer. Is this something we can discuss? Of course not. You can just say after your game, "My opponent cheated!" "Really, how?" "He went to the bathroom and accessed a computer that later disappeared! But I have no evidence of this." This is not a useful or reasonable discussion.

You keep tossing out increasingly fantastic things to make it sound like there are "so many strange events." There weren't. There was one strange event, that Kramnik went to the bathroom a lot. This was strange and worthy of investigation. Everything else is garbage with no meaning or relationship to the possibility of cheating. That Ilyumzhinov dismissed the committee is an entirely separate issue. Feel free to accuse them of favoritism or pro-Russian sympathies or anything else. (Topalov got a free point in exchange, seems fair enough.) But we are talking about cheating, about receiving outside assistance in a game of chess.

And when it comes to that, to cheating, no one has even come close to demonstrating Kramnik had a chance to do that by any means of which we aware. If he has super fantastic electronics beyond human comprehension, what can we say? It's not something we can discuss other than to say we need to have strong anti-electronic-cheating measures in place. Which is what I and many others have been saying for years anyway.

We have constantly heard that there was "a cable in Kramnik's bathroom", but the Vega/Kutin declaration actually says that "during the inspection they have founded computer cable going to the toilets of the rest rooms..."

If there was such a cable in Topalov's bathroom too, then IF there was some magical way to use it to cheat, Topalov could have used it just as well as Kramnik.

But maybe not. The devilish Russians put it in the CEILING as part of their cunning plan. Kramnik, being so much taller than Topalov, was the only one who could reach it!

Mig, there are too many strange things to close my eyes.Every day something strange was reported, not by Danailov, but by Russian media.
Now it is sad that they take it on Topalov, and he is a very nice guy. And you help them? You should go hide somewhere..... I do not know why I keep on reading here since you present the point of view in a twisted way.
Think global, not marginal like the so called thoughts are exposed as your arguments. Have the benefit of the doubt.
Discussion closed.

[quote] I say chances are about equal that any of them cheated[/quote]

There is something that make me laugh a lot there.

Elista : there was a secure area.
Corus: there was none.

Then for some people it was the very same thing, and that changes nothing to the others: cheating is equaly propable.

To anyone with some logic, it is much more difficult to cheat in a secure zone than in a non-secure one.

So, it is unequal: It was more easier to cheat in corus than in elista: cheating in elista was about 1% and cheating in corus was about 99%.

Why do i give 1% for elista? god, aliens, smurfs could have done something couldn't they? ;)

On the other hand: there are people who believe that cable found in a ceilar was the very prouth of a cheat, without explaining the process: what was link to the cables? and how?

In corus, the probability of a cheat was much more probable: the process was explain: phone call when the opponent played a move, going in the scope of the cheater-player, comunicating like sign language,during each important moments and so and so...

I don't say that they cheated. But in one case, the cheat is easy to do, and gived no very evidence.

So, what is strange: topalov seems to be good only when the security is missing.he's a good player , one amongst the best.

All that mess started when danailov saw the glass! Is it a mean that they were angry to see that their signal-cheating-probable-process was not more possible?

Everything could have ended well during the argumebt after the fake round 5 in elista: topalov could have beheaved himself like a great champion by giving up the free-point and demanding danailov to give kramnik some excuses. He missed to act like a champion ...but he is not.

>No, "poisoned pawn" we don't have to indulge every high-tech wonderland fantasy.

Mig, wake up, we are in the year 2007, this scenario is a piece of cake nowadays, no wonderland needed.

> Because if we did it would mean every player *could* be cheating in every game in every event and the entire conversation is meaningless.

Not every player goes to the toilet 50 times a game. That was the "observable fact". And no, he didn't want to walk, he closed the door. And no, he didn't need to drink a lot, he doesn't do this in other tournaments. And I didn't say the receiver it undetectable - they detect what they think is a watch.

I don't accuse Kramnik of cheating, I say there was the possibility, a fact that everybody seems to deny. That's what is called "bias".

That's certainly a nice-looking, white cable on veselintopalov.net, but where's the actual evidence that it's even a UTP Cat-5? Can't see any 8P8C plugs. How would Kramnik utilize a cable with no plugs? Sink his teeth in it and hope to be granted an IP address somehow? And then maybe log onto ICC and chat up some unregistered guest to hand some him some fresh engine evals.

Could just as well be a coaxial cable for an internal tv system.

But the bigger question is - why would Kramnik need network connectivity if he already had a laptop in the room? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Did he somehow forget to install Fritz or Rybka before setting up this monumental cheat, or maybe he only brought an iBook with no ability to run strong chess software? Or could it be he had arranged some kind of secret hotline to Hydra in Abu Dhabi for some real processor-heavy analysis during his breaks?

Fascinating stuff.

Let's keep ignoring all the reasons for why it was IMPOSSIBLE to cheat in the bathroom, and believe that it was possible (and in the existence of unicorns while we're at it). Then the number of visits has no bearing on the possibility. You could use it 2-3 times per game at some critical moments. Topalov could have been cheating exactly as much as Kramnik. In fact, why it is considered so important that Kramnik made many brief visits between the moves (see Topailov's "statistical sample" from the first open letter) rather than fewer but longer is beyond me. Wouldn't you be better off taking your time while you're in there if you are going to cheat? Sorry, forgot that we are supposed to be irrational here. The Russians! KGB! Aaahhh!! They're coming to get me!

acrice,
Russian, prejudiced, close minded...... say thank you, cause you really look funny.

Elista, I am talking about this picture: http://www.veselintopalov.net/images/64.jpg

The ceiling is very high indeed. How to reach it w/o a ladder? Can you translate to English the report about the cable? That would be helpful.

(something strange about the picture itself -- note, unless I am missing something, there is no reflection of the ladder in the mirror on the picture -- yet the mirror shows a hand with a watch -- was the pic doctored?)

Twisted? I have my opinions, that's all. It's a blog of them. I try to explain them but I don't expect everyone to agree with me. I have nothing at all against Topalov, or at least I didn't until he started ranting about cheating fantasies with no evidence. It offends me. But I have defended him in general and in specifics here many times. He seems like a pleasant person and I hope he has a long, happy life. That doesn't mean I need to agree with him that Kramnik cheated. Or with you that there is evidence he could have cheated.

Also as I've said many times, it's bizarre to suggest that a chess website shouldn't mention it when the mainstream press runs extensive articles on the possibility that the world's #1 player cheated. It would be absolutely incredible to ignore such stories. And if you think I am endorsing Bareev or anyone else, go actually read my article for the first time. Read my words and don't just cry about the fact I linked to the video and the article.

acirce: Of course there were similar cables in both bathrooms, as well as throughout the entire building.

poisoned pawn: you aren't talking about possibility at all. You are talking about suspicious and/or strange. Kramnik could go to the bathroom 100 times and it doesn't give him any more possibility of cheating than if he went to the bathroom three times as long as the bathroom and the player are inspected and safe. It was unusual behavior by Kramnik, absolutely. It does not make him a magician or the owner of technology beyond the detection by the people there (including representatives of his opponent). The bathrooms and the players were examined thoroughly on a regular basis, even taken apart. Nothing was ever found that would demonstrate the possibility of outside assistance. Again, the "but he might have had super-amazing technology we can't detect" discussion is not rational or based on any evidence. We can only deal with what we can understand. Possibility versus fantasy. Worrying about signaling versus worrying about disappearing computers.

Don't any of you watch baseball? How does the catcher signal the pitcher? Why does Danailov stand in a direct line of sight with Topalov and make odd, purposeful hand gestures?

"I have nothing at all against Topalov, or at least I didn't until he started ranting about cheating fantasies with no evidence."

So you decided to support the Kramnik non evidence???? You contradict yourself.

Mig, in your interest, develop some critical thinking.

What support? You don't even read what I write. I reported on two major newspapers running long stories discussing signaling accusations. I also linked and discussed Topailov's accusations during Elista. Remember Elista? We all reported the accusations. But it quickly became obvious there was no possibility (that word again) for Kramnik to cheat.

Folks, examine closely this photo:

http://www.veselintopalov.net/images/64.jpg

The hand with a watch in the mirror would have to be behind the ladder ie the ladder would have to be shown in the mirror as well, but it is not. How to expaine this??? this is harder then a mate in 2. Help.

Elisa, can you apply some critical thinking to this problem and explain this apparent contradiction in the picture?

Mig: thanks. I know there are all kinds of cables everywhere, but it wasn't obvious to me that a specific type of cable has to be running "throughout the entire building".
Of course, even less reason in this case to pretend it means anything at all.

Confused,
you are confused. There is no hand, no watch, what are you looking at? The picture seems perfectly fine.... I can do a pixel analisis for you, if you want. Give me a day.

Mig: thanks. I know there are all kinds of cables everywhere, but it wasn't obvious to me that a specific type of cable has to be running "throughout the entire building".
Of course, even less reason in this case to pretend it means anything at all.

Please no analysis of these idiotic photos of cables that run through every modern building. It's really embarrassing. Cables! In walls! Wow! Watch out guys, the next News Flash: Information can also be sent wirelessly! Did Kramnik have wi-fi reception in his elbow?

Andrei,
Yes, and he had it long before Elista. If you don't respect it, that's your opinion, but you can't say he 'invented' his beliefs when Topalov started losing the match.

Mig,
You care about the videos, not about the photos. Should I call you prejudiced or narrow minded? Please, give me the correct definition of this selective posting........ If you do not make a new post about the news you are clearly taking side. Than make one about taking side. But staying like this closing eyes is not good.

All stories are not equal. Photos of what and produced by whom? They don't show anything of interest and were manipulated and produced by and for Topailov. You could take pictures of your laptop and send them to me and I wouldn't publish those, either. I don't understand why I would publish them when their only purpose is to fabricate controversy.

In contrast, Kommersant and the German newspaper produced long items discussing a serious issue, the possibility of outside assistance via signaling. I ran the video because many people here complained they couldn't see it at the Kommersant site. I myself said it didn't prove or disprove anything.

Slowly now:

Case 1: The possibility of cheating with signals is real. The possibility exists. Many players have discussed this possibility. Two major newspapers ran stories about the possibility the world #1 was doing this. Several top players commented about their suspicions. One of the papers posted a much-discussed video purportedly showing this happening. It is of critical interest whether or not this is true. In my opinion it's inconclusive.

Case 2: There is no known possibility of Kramnik cheating in his bathroom. His opponent, after releasing various slanderous documents and accusing Kramnik of cheating, sends out composed photos showing holes in a bathroom ceiling and some cables. None of them, even if they weren't composed, would mean anything regarding Kramnik's ability to receive external assistance. There is nothing newsworthy about them now either. No players have come forward with comments or suspicions, no evidence has been added to the discussion since Elista. No news and old as well. It is only being revived to distract attention from the Topalov accusations, as you are doing here.

Elista,

take a closer look at the mirror. The object on the right edge in the middle looks like a 'hand with a watch and a ring on the ring finger'. Since the mirror is a reflection, that would be a left hand of a person standing in front of the mirror. Good so far?

If you argue there is no hand shown in the mirror, skip the rest.

Possible problems: (1) the other hand on the picture has already a ring - hmm. maybe the guy wears 2 rings (2) the mirror does not reflect the ladder at all - not even a small piece of it even though one would assume the hand in the mirror belongs to the same guy holding the cables who is next to the ladder. So if the hand is shown the ladder would have to be shown as well. Note also that the mirror shows at least 5 tile columns on the wall ie deep enough for the ladder to be shown especially if the hand is shown.

The cables hanging from the ceiling do not look the same as the 2 white cables sticking out of the hand -- it must be some logical explenation for that too I suppose.

Well Mig,
Topalov will be on the scene in Morelia, Kramnik will hide as a mouse. Go on supporting him, you just lost one of your readers. As a true fan of Topalov and his behavior, his attention, and fighting spirit I will not return to this blog. Go ahead, there are many communists that want to read you. I live with the benefit of the doubt and cannot close my eyes.
I really thought you are open minded, now I will just have to read chessvibes.

ross,

You misunderstood me: I do not claim that Danailov came up with this opinion (that players must be present at the table all the time) in the middle of the Elista match - not at all! But I equally do not consider his opinion binding with respect to any chess player who does not share it. Danailov is entitled to his point of view - of course, but he has no right to impose it on others. Thus, this opinion of his as far as the situation is concerned is simply irrelevant.

You don't even read my articles or my comments, Elista. You're only here to post slander and inventions and you will not be missed. Of course you'll be back, probably under another name. Your kind always returns and never learns or changes. Impervious to reason.

"How. Can. You. Cheat. With. A. Cable. Inside. The. Ceiling?"

A highly sophisticated clamp-on ammeter provided by Russian intelligence, of course. Jeez!

Is there any reason for this discussion to continue?

Given the evidence that is presented and realistic, it seems as though one can establish two things:

1) There's no reason not to give Topalov and Kramnik the benefit of the doubt. I don't care to go into the discussion of magical technology or Danailov adjusting his tie in games Topalov drew.

2) There has to be increased security at major events. At the very least the players have to be separated from the spectators (both those there physically, and those who can contact the players). If we do that, then we can reasonably dismiss most cheating accusations, and then super-tournaments won't be the miserable things they are already.

I know that everyone agrees with #2, yes?

Frankly, I wonder if the people accusing Kramnik or Topalov of cheating aren't just looking for a flamewar. This thread made progessively less sense as the day wore on. It's pretty clear that Elista is going to think Kramnik is cheating not matter what, and Frank H is going to feel the same exact way about Topalov.

Considering that there's not going to be any sort of progress, ever, in this debate, can we just eaqse off it for a bit and start discussing ways to improve security? That's the only thing that is going to improve this situation.

> Nothing was ever found that would demonstrate the possibility of outside assistance.

The point is that in this Russian controlled environment they would not really be interested in finding something that would indicate Kramnik has outside help in the first place. Add to that Kramnik's strange behaviour - long absences from the board, upon return always playing strong moves immediately without thinking while blundering sometimes when thinking at the board.

> Again, the "but he might have had super-amazing technology we can't detect" discussion is not rational or based on any evidence.

You keep talking talking about "super-amazing technology" while this was really not needed to deceive the Bulgarian delegation with their certainly limited equipment they had with them.

But now we turn the tables and you prove that this handy+signalling scheme is so easy to implement as you claim. Tomorrow you play against Kasparov, you get the signals (openly but non-verbal) from new Mrs. Mig who is on the phone with your pal operating your fav engine. If you succeed to win, you must have revolutionized coding theory and will by famous over night!

Maybe it is worth pointing out that the Kommersant video was about the game Ivanchuk-Topalov from Chorus 2006. This is not the tournament Breutigam writes about (Chorus 2007). Before that game, Round 11 of 13, Topalov lead Anand by half a point and he had to defend a difficult endgame against the third-placed Ivanchuk. With Topalov's victory on the line, any nailbiting or headscraching by Danailov makes sense to me. On the other hand, I am not aware of any cheating accusaations against Topalov during Chorus 2006.
In general, it seems wrong to me that Danailov can sit in the first row in San Luis with a laptop on his knees and eye contact with Topalov. No matter whether they cheated or not or wanted to cheat or not, even the information whether Danailov looks relaxed or worried after checking the current position with his laptop is too much.
In the German Bundesliga this weekend there was a live internet commentary from the playing hall. First the arbiter wanted to prevent this, but was persuaded not to do so. The problem was that one of those guys got up and talked to some player. I do not think they cheated, but it would have been too easy.
I think there are only two ways to avoid this possibility in top-level tournaments. Either make sure that players cannot make any eye contact with spectators (the other way around is of course fine) or make sure that spectators do not have cell phones/laptops and cannot leave the hall to gain access to such information. The first one should be the feasible option.

poisoned pawn: please no mythmaking about "playing strong moves immediately" and such. There has been absolutely no demonstrated correlation between Kramnik's absences and his moves, let alone the quality thereof. The only thing strange, the only thing, was how often he went into his bathroom.

The point of avoiding fantasies is that they ALWAYS work. I say they had metal detectors and you say the KGB would easily foil them. Case solved! No, we have to deal with reality. We can't sit here and spin tales about technology that is impossible to detect and magic disappearing computers. By those arguments there is never ever a way to do anything so we should give up now and just assume everyone cheats. Meanwhile, signaling is a clear and present danger.

It's not about Kramnik this and Topalov that, it's about dealing with the destructive force of accusations and the threat of cheating.

I have drawn my conclusions about what is going on. Topalov wins San Luis and other tournaments quite convincingly. Some players, mostly Russians and some of them connected to Kramnik, start spreading rumours about cheating. Topalov waits for his chance and tit for tat accuses Kramnik of cheating in Elista, Russian soil. That's it, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth as the saying goes. I dont believe Topa or Kramnik ever cheated because the evidence presented so far is very weak. However the accusations will go on at the expense of the already weak reputation of chess because both players benefit from the (bad) publicity that is being generated. The only solution would be for Fide to intervene vigourously and announce severe punishment to (i) any player caught cheating AND (ii) any player that accuses another one of cheating without solid proof. If this is not done the vicious cycle of false accusations will go on and on forever.

"Go ahead, there are many communists that want to read you. I live with the benefit of the doubt and cannot close my eyes."

This blog is a stupidity magnet. Why is it that chess blogs attract some of the sorriest most pathetic candidates for euthanasia of any blog type across the net?
Russianbear, acirce, rdh and others, are like the windshield of sanity squashing the hordes of retards that descend on this blog, making it just barely readable.

"That's certainly a nice-looking, white cable on veselintopalov.net, but where's the actual evidence that it's even a UTP Cat-5? Can't see any 8P8C plugs. How would Kramnik utilize a cable with no plugs? Sink his teeth in it and hope to be granted an IP address somehow? And then maybe log onto ICC and chat up some unregistered guest to hand some him some fresh engine evals.

Could just as well be a coaxial cable for an internal tv system.

But the bigger question is - why would Kramnik need network connectivity if he already had a laptop in the room? That makes no sense whatsoever."
-Posted by: molby at February 11, 2007 21:02

Good points Molby. The other thing that makes me wonder about the two pictures I see on the Topalov site (http://www.veselintopalov.net/images/64.jpg and http://www.veselintopalov.net/images/62.jpg) is that you never see the connector. It looks very much like a single piece of cable (rather than 2 cables) which was merely passing over the bathroom, and whoever tore the ceiling out just yanked down a bunch of slack. Anyone know of a photo which actually shows the connector?

To the tell the truth Mig I am also of the opinion that your coverage has been somewhat biased against Topalov. If you posted this stupid video you should have also posted the stupid cable pictures. It is only fair.

It might be worth noting that if Kramnik had computers that could defeat metal detectors he wouldn't need to be playing chess for a living. Patenting and selling the technology would make him fabulously wealthy in no time.

I think Kramnik is off the hook mainly because he has been playing like this ever since. Chess fans know what he can do and what he has done.

Now with all the scrutiny, I guess we just have to wait and see if Topailov performs the same in the next event, it will clear the air.

ed, Mig actually posted a picture of the Kramniks bathromm earlier (it was some high-tech-stuff - I must admin, but I doubt it helped a lot in Rapids), and by the way, if you look very carefully the whole video about Dainalov, it actually proves more or less that no visible signs of cheating took place so in that sense that video servers more Topalov's purposes - but for any intelligent person it's clear that there can be no justified bias other that what Mig expressed earlier.

Wow, you guys had quite a party here while I was gone to a party...

Funny how people got stuck on "jacks" and "metal detection"... Hey, you can snap RJ-45 jack to a CAT-5 cable in 23 seconds (if you're slow). And I wouldn't put my trust on the metal detectors in the Elista circumstances considering the parties involved. You don't need a big device. Bottom line, a player shouldn't disappear to a private restroom during a WCC match. Suggesting that the probability of cheating is low in such circumstances is irresponsible.
It's safer inside of the playing hall, on stage. Just like it is safer for all managers to be outside of the playing hall during major tournaments.

Unfortunately, "suspicion" is being printed indiscriminately and treated as currency these days, while nonsense sold as "circumstantial evidence" (just look at that silly video and how it was sold to the audience). This creates inflation and lack of trust.

D.

There is much more behind that meets the eye, my friends. The Cold War has never ended, not even with desintegration of the former Soviet Union, down