Several people sent this in, and I'd probably have mentioned it even if it were the first time I'd heard it. But this rumor was going around GM chess circles less than a week after San Luis finished, according to a review of my inbox. A GM wrote in then to say that several friends had listened to a San Luis participant suggest that Topalov had received assistance during the games. I discarded this rumor of a rumor for what I should hope are obvious reasons. Now it's back in a form only slightly less scurrilous, in a Bulgarian report of a Hungarian report. The worst of it is the pathetic anonymity of the accuser, if indeed there is one.
An unnamed participant in the World Chess Championship in San Luis, Argentina, has accused Chess King Bulgarian Vesselin Topalov of using unallowed measures to win the title, index.hu reported.
According to the article published on the site the allegations remained secret because of "games behind the curtain." Such allegations, however, are common for the chess world. It is not clear who has raised the allegations against the Chess King, but this man claims that during several games aide Ivan Cheparinov and manager Silvio Danailov have helped Topalov.
The site reports that after each move of Topalov, Cheparinov has used computer analysis of the game and has then secretly signaled the chess king for the next move. Peter Leko has also voiced his suspicions that Topalov has used unfair advantage by sitting on the same place during the entire championship. FIDE however, has not undertaken any measures due to lack of evidence.
Bizarre. I haven't been able to track down the original Hungarian report, perhaps because I can't read Hungarian. I doubt it offers any more information. [Below József provides a link and summary of the original. Predictably opaque.] Topalov's other excellent 2005 results make this rumor blatantly ridiculous. (Or he's the greatest cheater of all time, pulling it off in Linares and Sofia too. No.) As the SNA articles says, wacky allegations are hardly rare in world championship chess. That doesn't mean computer cheating shouldn't be worried about in general, however. As others, including Kasparov, have said, it's worth much more attention than drug testing, if only to cut down on such foolish stories.
hay what's this?, i am completely shocked.??
Accusation without substance whatsoever: nonsense motivated by jealousy.
What is surprising about this?
Go ahead and dismiss it as 'nonsense motivated by jealousy' (is this not, btw, a standard 'defense'?), but open your eyes and take a look around. The way the world works isn't pretty.
It's funny, I was actually proposing this theory to my little brother during the tournament (that Topalov was receiving computer assistance, due to his amazing ability to quickly spot complicated computer moves)...after which Topalov promptly failed to win a completely won position against Peter Leko, I think it was, in the second half. I guess it would make sense for them to stop running the risk of getting caught once the title was all but secure.
At any rate, it would certainly be very easy to cheat like this. Forget hand signalling, just implement a small device on his leg (even inside the body to be completely safe from discovery - remember how much money a world championship title could be worth - people have certainly mutilated themselves for much less), operating through a wireless connection, giving him the optimal move by morse signal or something.
He wouldn't even have to use it very much - just when time got short or the situation too complicated for humans.
We'll never know, I guess, but considering how much cheating goes on in all other areas of sport and human life in general, I wouldn't be very surprised if this rumour was true - or at least somebody else was discovered to do it.
Topalov doesn't seem like a cheater to me, but who knows?
Did they dismantle his chair too? Seriously, this sounds like sour grapes without some sort of solid facts presented while the tournament was being contested to back it up. Of course all the daffy conspiracy theory lovers will be ecstatic over this.
if someone is not willing to risk their name on this (forgoe anonymity) then i see no reason to take it seriously. although the laughable same-table allegation makes any and all further san luis accusations seem petty by default.
He did find an unusual number of "computer moves" (i.e. best solutions) in complicated positions and he found them rather quickly (if the transmission was correct in this regard), but so did Kasparov all the time which leads us to the conclusion that it is possible for a) Kasparov and b) other GMs in top form.
Having said that, it's true that chess now has a severe "silicon" doping problem and we should not simply dismiss such allegations, but investigate them (under the presumption of innocence, of course).
The players were checked for electronic devices at the entrance of the playing hall. This makes electronic transmission directly to the players highly improbable.
As Cheparinov is being accused, where was Topalov's second during the games? Did he have access to a computer? And if he did, how should he have been able to transmit the moves to the playing hall? Did Danailov show an unusual cough pattern in critical phases of the games or did he feel compelled to suddenly change his seat in the playing hall...? ;-)
Regarding the "anonymity" of the accuser, it's pretty obvious who he is, given that the first article appeared in Hungary...
Perhaps Elvis and a gaggle of Yetti's in a black helicopter beamed moves to Topalov?? Isn't there a way to blame Bush while we're at it?
Nah....Bush isn't smart enough to use the required technology let alone play chess to a high enough standard. On this one I say he's innocent.
Of course this is all rubbish...Pray, how come he missed the computer moves that would have allowed him to put Anand away in a winning ending in the first cycle? Surely, Anand would be the one player he would most like to win against, to remove the claim by Vishy's fans that "he did not lose to Topalov".
It's a shame that such drivel even gets exposure time...
How cheap by the Hungarian GM... First Topalov's chair, now this... And some people here implying that Topa might have microchips in his body... How pathetic can people get?
1) I absolutely don't think Topalov cheated
2) As for example Nigel Short has pointed out, it would certainly have been *possible* to cheat, and therefore the potential problem should be taken seriously
3) Several people have said this is an accusation "without substance", etc. Yes, right now. But if the accuser comes up with convincing arguments the situation changes. Otherwise, of course, it's just a pathetic act on the same level as Kasparov's in 1997 or Fischer's in 1962. (And I both hope and think that is the case.)
4) I don't think it's Leko. That thing in the article probably just refers to him briefly talking to the arbiters during the tournament about Topalov always having the same seat. Despite the sensationalist exaggerations from Short, I haven't seen anything indicating that he thought it was a big deal.
5) I've heard that the "unnamed participant" will be voicing his accusations in a coming issue of New In Chess. And that, according to van Wely, he is Kasimdzhanov. Well, my apologies in case this is totally wrong, but otherwise it seems people would believe it's Leko.
Topalov should have lost his first game to Leko, but it was Leko that played conservatively, and lost! Today's grandmasters use computers for helpful analysis in openings, middlegames, and endgames. Today youth such a Nakamura play computer like. I think this is the new influence of computer use for chess that trains the player differently than say going over Nimzovitch's My System, and other old ways of training. I have found that even I in tournament games play computer like moves in certain opening, middlegame, and yes, endgame positions. I have used only the brain I have for this, but was amazed to see programs like Junior, Fritz, and Shredder pop up the same move I chose! I have been using chessbase and chess programs for a number of years now. So to find that it has influence my chess to the better is no surprise. But using computers to cheat has never been in my mind! I do not think we saw computer cheating at san Luis, just the results of computer study and influence, that the players take with them to the board!
Sorry but this is all baloney. NO WAY did Topalov cheat. Impossible.
One big problem with the so called theory is that he only needs to do that on a few moves. well that is impossible. either you defer to the computer or you defer to your own self. if you try to do both at the same time there will be too much inner conflict and the results will be disasterous.
Playing chess and especially playing chess at a high level is all about having confidence in yourself. without that there is no hope.
It is simply impossible to go back and forth between your inner self and a computer.
Another thing. every move is critical. I sat here on the internet along with many other people live. some people were using computer programs and would post the computer analysis. how often did someone stand up and shout out. HOLD IT this is a critical position. we need to get this analysis to the player. NEVER did that happen. we all know every move is important. and many times at what I might have thought was an important move where a player might make a mistake. well the player played the best move. he played the best move because he is a top player.
and lastly. My computer is often wrong. I find it fascinating to watch how the players are so much better than the computer.
The most remarkable game on the internet was the game between Kramnik and Leko involving the Marshall Gambit. All the computers had Kramnik winning by a huge margin of like over 4 or 5 pawns. when suddenly Leko who was in deep thought on all the moves suddenly was winning by 4 or 5 pawns. the computer evaluations suddenly reversed in a most dramatic fashion. Leko was obviously playing far beyond the ability of the computer.
As I watched the San Luis games I knew deep inside that the moves the players were making were in most cases the best moves or very good moves. I do admit that in some cases the various players did not play the best move or a good move. but never did I know that until after the move was made.
I can state with total confidence that none of the players at San Luis cheated using computer assistance during the games. that is rediculous.
However, I also do not think that drug testing is appropriate for chess players. but that overall if a simple procedure can be implimented that someone is not using wireless communication to pick up on computer moves, then we will have to give strong consideration to doing that. not because the top players are cheating but to prove the high quality of the games. to show the nay sayers that the games are being played honestly.
Obviously the testing for computer cheaters makes more sense than drug testing.
Lastly, I know that ICC has developed numerous ways to detect the use of computer assistance. I am sure if they go over all the games of San Luis they will not find any incidence of computer assistance.
I sincerely hope that this topic is immediately dropped. it is not good for chess to have its integrity challenged at the top level.
San Luis was a great tournament and I dont like seeing anyone try to destroy that greatness.
Tommy
Censorship will only create more suspicion. The best way to refute these claims will be a proper investigation. There were many witnesses in San Luis. Did either Cheparinov or Danailov show any suspicious behavior? Would they have been able to signal any "decisive moves" to Topalov? I guess that the answer is no.
I'm surprised that no one accused him of having people with telepathic abilities sitting in the audience to manipulate his opponents' thoughts. I am paranoid of paranoid people.
What color was his yogurt?
granted, he probably isn't in on this one ... but, at their next face to face, shrub could at least ask God tell him if it's true or not and put this nasty rumor to bed.
Hi Mig,
Here is a link to the original index.hu article:
http://index.hu/sport/2005/sakkvb/topalov1108/
I guess you can find a Hungarian translator if you want, so I will not try to give you a full translation, just a short summary:
The article does not offer any proofs and does not name the accuser, either. It states however, that he is one of the San Luis participants, but "according to their knowledge" not one of the Hungarians.
After briefly describing the accusation (this part is nicely summarised already based on the Bulgarian report), it mentions that the accuser went to Fide but Fide did not take any action due to lack of evidence. It also adds a short and mysterious sentence that the reason for the accusation not becoming public so far is the existence of a secret agreement. However, it does not specify who would be involved in this agreement.
The article then goes on to give a historic review of similar accusations in the past, also stating that it is typical in the world of chess. In this part it also mentions Lékó's complaint during the race (about Topalov having always the same seat), but this is referred to as a separate incident.
I am very doubtful about the content of the article, but I would be interested in the source of the information. My guess is that the accusations come from chess circles and the news portal just received the information from some Hungarian chess sources.
Best Regards
József
Chess and paranoia...cradle to grave.
I thought something was up during the tournament....
He played much stronger than he had at Dortmund. I thought it might be 'smart drugs', but I'm definitely interested in seeing where this thing goes, and to see if the facts bear this out.
I think all chess players should reserve judgment, pro or con, until more information comes out.
That implies that any information at all has come out, which it hasn't. Making stuff up doesn't count as information. It's a serious accusation, a criminal one, and to make it without any proof, or even the courage to put your name on it, is pathetic and slanderous.
"It's a serious accusation, a criminal one, and to make it without any proof, or even the courage to put your name on it, is pathetic and slanderous."
Hmmm, - unless, of course, a player had witnessed it directly, and it was as (objectively) true as it was 'pathetic and slanderous'. I'm reserving judgment - more evidence may be forthcoming.
So that person says, "I witnessed it directly" and it's another matter entirely. As it stands the story may as well have said someone accused Topalov of shooting JFK. (Which he did.)
My main hope is that the accuser will be flushed out; then it might at least get interesting instead of silly. Two of the San Luis participants I consider good friends have told me it definitely wasn't them and both said it shouldn't be dignified with discussion unless something concrete came up.
"mig: So that person says, "I witnessed it directly" and it's another matter entirely. As it stands the story may as well have said someone accused Topalov of shooting JFK. (Which he did.)"
According to one of the other posters, this source may be revealed in the next New In Chess, and it might be Kasimdzhanov. Who knows? If he saw something, he should talk about it. Even if nothing can be done to strip Topalov of his title, it might lead to tighter security measures in such big(-money) events in the future. I mean, with the possiblity of cheating in the air, why would Topalov's (or anyone else's) seconds be allowed in the playing hall? You should eliminate any such possibility of cheating. With a 2700-plus player, all you need is one signalled move to give him the correct IDEA as where to take the position (whereas I would have to be signalled around 42 in a row).
I have an intuitive suspicion about the tournament, based on the dramatic leap in Topalov's strength between Dortmund and San Luis. But I'll reserve judgment, presuming innocence, but I'm interested in hearing what evidence might emerge.
I certainly support Mig in his opinion that making cheating accusations without having some kind of proof is wrong. However, I would like to disagree with some people above who say that computer cheating is either hard to pull off or would not help the player because sometimes computers are wrong, or the player would not be able to combine it with his own ideas.
If there are spectators in the room, they would all have to be searched, too, to ensure that no one receives help electronically from someone watching the game on the internet and analyzing on his computer. Then they could convey the information to the player via e.g. facial or hand signals. One way to check the behavior of a particular spectator would be to look at the videotapes. I wonder if any such tapes exist for San Luis. Assuming there was no illegal assistance, it would actually be in Topalov's interest to clear his name.
Knowing just one move that is suggested as best by a 2800+ computer program can be of tremendous help. Any GM/IM player who had experience with computers can decide in most situations whether to trust the program or not.
Finally, there is certainly enough cheating in chess in general, even at the GM level (I don't necessarily mean computer cheating). Without knowing the person, it is impossible to say whether he would cheat. I don't know Topalov at all, and I assume most others who post here don't know him either, so I don't see how anyone can claim that he definitely could or couldn't do it.
The thought had not crossed my mind until now. But Linares and Sofia are not good arguments to me--in one he got lucky with the schedule and the other was on his home turf. More importantly, in neither did he show these kind of results.
IM Kriventsov,
Please, it is unpleasant and unhelpful to advise GM Topalov on how he should "clear his name". So far we have nothing but an anonymous third-party allegation, which may or may not have originated from a member of the chess world. When this person reveals themself, with any shred of evidence, it will be time for names to be cleared.
IM Kriventsov,
Unlike Nick, I agree with you that Topalov has had harm done to his reputation that requires addressing. It is unpleasant and unhelpful for anyone to pretend that rumors are not damaging to a person's name. I personally hope that his amazing performance can be put down in history without blemish--if deserved. It would be terribly arrogant to completely ignore information given from someone in the know, even if they currently prefer to be anonymous.
I agree with Nick, it is unhelpful and most definitely unpleasant to request that Topalov suffer the indignity of subjecting himself to checks. After all, the accuser won't even show his(her?) own face. If the accuser had such a strong case, why didn't he lodge a former protest during the tournament instead of shouting now after the championship is over and the players have all left on their planes?
At this rate, after every big tournament, the winner will have to be very busy. Running around to prove his innocence just because someone suggested that he cheated.
stendec: I vote with Faulks. You say "it would be terribly arrogant to completely ignore information given from someone in the know, even if they currently prefer to be anonymous." But we do not have information from someone in the know. We have an article in Hungarian, unsigned, on the index.hu website, of whose general reliability I for one know nothing, which STATES that there is information from "a participant" (does this mean one of the eight?) but does not state how the author got it, whether at first or second or eighth hand, and does not state whether the "participant" (if any) was "in the know" or uttering baseless speculation.
While I was watching the games on ICC, more than one person kibitzed things like "Topalov has a computer implanted in his butt." Offhand, I think that this article, as it stands, is no more convincing than such a kibitz.
While we're on the subject, the fact that a person writing here, anonymously, states that he or she has "heard", from some unidentified source, that GM Van Wely said (no info on where or to whom) that GM Kasimdjanov is going to make this accusation in NIC does not constitute very much evidence that GM Van Wely ever said that, or that GM Kasimdjanov will actually make that accusation in NIC.
p>
These accusations are ridiculous. If anyone witnessed Topalov cheating, it was their obligation to immediately alert someone. It is the players responsibility to uphold the integrity of the game and the tournament. Not turning in a cheater during the tournament is a massive injustice to all the other competitors. Imagine being the guy who came in second just because another player didn't turn in a cheater. This mindset is deeply entrenched and upheld in tournament golf...even if you have no chance of winning, you have a duty to police everyone in your group in order to protect the field. Not reporting cheating is almost as bad as cheating in the first place.
I think the real problem at San Luis was the presence of Dr Zhukar as Svidlers second......:)
Yes, consider during the championship, remember one of the players was even petty enough to complain to the arbiters that Topalov "had an unfair advantage, because he sits in the same place every round!"
If they should complain about such a thing, imagine what would happen if one of them spotted Topalov cheating. All Hell Would Break Lose during the tournament! An even bigger protest than the chair thing would be lodged. The fact that it didn't mean that
1) The whole accusation is false.
or
2) The "participant" who complained is having a case of sour grapes, complaining falsely only after the entire thing is over, and hiding his/her face also.
It seems very natural to me that one of those mighty players would rise to the occasion after the retirement of Kasparov and pick their game up a notch. Haven't we all experienced growth spurts in our playing ability? There's an X-factor at all times to be considered in top level chess. To the accuser: BACK IT UP or SHUTUP. Topalov doesn't owe anyone the time of day until this is done.
I believe that in the united states it is written into the law that the accused has the right to have his accuser testify in court face to face against him. that a person can not be deemed guilty from an anonymous accuser.
the very essence of anonymous accusations is rediculous and should have no weight.
Everyone should immediately dismiss this totally phoney and false accusation against Topalov. It is not in the interests of Chess to continue to spread this false accusation.
Topalov won fair and square. He is the world champion. he is the best currently active chess player. Let us not lessen his reputation by continuing to talk about this disgrace.
I witnessed directly Topalov being frisked for anything electronic before the games in San Luis (as were all players).
So how could this rumour even have started?
Tommy, what do you know? You know nothing. The only thing is that the idea of Topalov cheating threatens the construct in your mind which you call reality and that's why you simply refuse to entertain the idea (unless you have more serious reasons, as to being on the side who actually benefits from the cheating in some way).
As for how it's done, if you can't think of a way that hardly means there is no one in the world who can.
As for your comment on the wonderful nature of the legal system in the us, just consider how terrible the results of it are. That particular point, having the right to face his accuser looks and sounds good on paper, but in real world has very little weight, for various reasons which everyone can imagine for themselves.
That's all your whole america is, anyway...fancy lines on paper that mean nothing.
PS: The saddest thing is, everyone knows it...but everyone (except for few dissidents who have more integrity than a sewer rat) pretends to being so wide-eyed as to not understanding at all what the f'n problem is.
As such cheating is technically possible, at least in theory, I can see no reason why we should not talk about it. Barring discussion and creating taboos will only facilitate real fraud in the future.
The accuser isn't completely anonymous. He is described as a participant of San Luis, but not one of the Hungarian players, so he is either Anand, Svidler, Morozevich, Kasimdzhanov or Adams.
Thanks to József who was so kind to give a summary of the original article, we know that "the accuser went to Fide but Fide did not take any action due to lack of evidence".
Furthermore the article states that "the reason for the accusation not becoming public so far is the existence of a secret agreement. However, it does not specify who would be involved in this agreement".
It seems like a good idea to ban all electronic devices from the playing hall, particularly mobile phones, in order to prevent any suspicion of cheating from the outset.
I think the accusation itself, based on what we all saw in San Luis, is ridiculous. Despite his outstanding overal result, there were several games where Topalov stood worse, and other games where he failed to capitalize on an advantage. Some positions looked very dubious, especially in the latter half of the tournament. Should we also discount his opponents' errors, such as Svidler-Topalov, or Topalov-Anand (after Topalov had blown a winning position, then later again blowing a winning position)?
So, it's "his good moves were computer-generated and his not-so-good moves weren't"? Huh?
We're not talking about Clemens Allwermann, the German Class-A player who beats GMs and announced mate-in-8 (if you all recall that story). We're talking about a 2788-rated player who prepared thoroughly and who played with a fighting spirit equalled by no one else.
All hail Topalov! FIDE World Champion. Now if we can just get a unification match with Kramnik, then chess titles will stop being compared with boxing titles.
I'm with Whiskeyrebel on this, and not just because he has a cool nick. An accusation where you don't even have the decency to show your face, is not worth anything.
To Martin: Until someone ACTUALLY admit to having said this, the accusor is completly anonymous. The rest is just rumors.
To anyone who means Topalov should adress this, what the **** could he say?????
To prove that he did not cheat is impossible, it can not be done! This is one of the main reasons that "innocent until proven guilty" is important. And there is nothing he can say, except "I did not cheat" and variations thereof. What good would that do?
Topolov was the only player who managed a draw against the fearsome Hydra in Humans vs Computers Tournament in Amsterdam where he pushed for nearly 7 hours...with a winning position he nevertheless failed to win that game but showed his character.
On the other hand, quiet regardless of whether we dismiss these accusations or not it should make FIDE think very hard. In criminal practice the toughest nuts are cracked with the help of circumstantial evidence. Very often investigators specialise in 'sniffing out circumstantials'. Just because there's not enough 'physics' in the evidence doesn't mean we shouldn't take precautions to prevent any future potential fraud.
A sophisticcated screening system as well as smart-drugs test should be put in place by FIDE. It is a must for a world championship. Perhaps even the playing hall should be screened by specialists to make sure 100% laboratory conditions (e.g. players play in TV-like studios with arbitres but behind closed doors).
Paranoia or not, the fact is chess is an intellectual and sophistictaed game just like those who play it, not to mention the merits of external forces...
So let's just pretend that this is all paranoia, we still need to make sure a world championship is not exposed to a potential fraud.
Jools, This is all tongue-in-cheek...right?
sacateca,
I know that there is no accusation against topalov.
I know there is an obscure web site that claims there is a rumor of an accusation.
I know how strongly Susan Polgar came out against this accusation on her web blog. she is the sister of one of the participants. go to http://www.susanpolgar.blogspot.com/
I am able to notice that everyone has an OUT. a way to claim they are innocent of this rumor.
When there is posted on the FIDE web site an official notice of an accusation then we can discuss it. until then we should uphold the honor and integrety of chess and of our world champion.
Do I have a vested interest in upholding the integrity of chess. you bet I do. I have the same vested interest that everyone who reads this blog has. I play chess and I want it to be considered a good game to play. I want chess to become more popular.
Sacateca I think both of us think everyone in the world is just like us. I think they are all honest and you think they are all dishonest. now what does that say about you and me.
I would be willing to have a discussion on how to make sure there is no cheating at a tournament. but I am not willing to have a discussion of Topalov cheating at San Luis. Remember there is NO accusation that he cheated. there is only unspecified rumors that someone might have heard a rumor that someone else might be sour grapes. and this is in an obscure web site. dont make me laugh. this is rediculous.
Tommy
From the responses to my previous post, it seems that I was not quite clear there. Here is what I wanted to say, with some additions:
1) The accusations of cheating in chess in general are not ridiculous. Without stating any names, I know for a fact that some GMs cheat (not necessarily with a computer, but a person who cheats in one way is likely to cheat in other ways, too, given the right incentive). Therefore, in any future competitions the possibility of cheating should be minimized by placing the players in a separate room during the games and providing a video broadcast for the public.
2) Topalov does not have to prove anything at this point. However, if there is an easy way for him to actually prove that he is innocent and clear his name from accusations (such as by looking at a videotape that shows the behavior of his team during the games), this would be good both for him and for chess in general. Therefore I was wondering if any such tapes might exist.
3) As follows from the accusation, Topalov did not need to have any electronic equipment in order to cheat, so the fact that he was screened for it does not by itself prove his innocence.
4) Computers are not perfect, so even if somebody uses computer help, they might still end up in a worse position against a 2700+ player, so this also proves nothing one way or the other.
5) In my opinion, closing your eyes and pretending that cheating is impossible is not a very wise policy for the future of chess.
Orwell is not only turning, he's beginning to spin.
Let me begin by restating that I don't believe that Topalov cheated and I also don't think that he has to "clear his name".
But this is an interesting opportunity to reflect about the possibilities of cheating in chess which have appeared due to the development of modern technology.
When you think about it you will find that it's incredibly easy to develop a code by which a person in the audience can indicate a certain square to a player without raising any suspicions. You only need eight hand gestures, four for each hand, combined with 8 items/positions, e.g. "pen in left shirt pocket" etc. To include pieces in that code would be a bit more complicated (8x8x5=320), but not impossible. Of course, the person in the audience would need a mobile phone in order to get the moves, or somebody would have to enter and leave the playing hall on a regular basis. This would be impractical for all moves of a game, but it is not inconceivable for certain "decisive moves".
The only way to prevent this will be to ban all electronic devices from the playing hall, including from the audience.
The only reason why this accusation against Topalov may not be taken seriously is that at the moment there does not seem to be any proof to confirm it. However, the potential possibility of a top chess GM cheating is no less than that of a top athlete taking illegal drugs to enhance performance. It is not a wild conspiracy theory by any means.
YES...exactly....the possibility certainly exists. But there's also a distinct possibility Topalov's reputation in this case will be unfairly smeered (and that of the world of chess) without reason unless the accuser publicly apologizes if no evidence can be presented.
Cheating in at the top level of athletics has been proven conclusively many times. There is a huge difference. That cheating is *theoretically* possible is not irrelevant, but it would be ridiculous to bring it up every time someone has a great result.
Btw, yesterday Garry Kasparov showed me the latest copy of 64 and he was asked about these rumors by the editor, Roshal. So it's been going around.
Mig, you are absolutely right. It is ridiculous to explain every good result by cheating. However, as long as the world understands that Topalov is innocent until somebody shows a proof of his cheating, I think this particular rumor may have a big positive side to it if it makes FIDE and organizers of top chess events more serious about excluding the possibility of illegal computer assistance (as opposed to the preposterous drug tests that they used to require). Thus, I am not unhappy about these allegations.
A "Theory" that has no proof (evidence) to support it should not be taken seriously. Such accusations are both wild and reckless. Of course, generally speaking, it is within the realm of possiblity that computer assistance can be utilized by a GM at an elite tournament. However, it doesn't seem to be an easy thing to pull off. In all fairness to Topalov, it ought to take something other than a surprisingly strong performance in order for him to be made the focus of such accusations. Even worse is the implication that Topalov must somehow "prove his innocence"--something that simply cannot be done, either form a logical or scientific framework.
It's interesting to note what a widespread psychological trope paranoia is amongst chess players. This is even more strongly manifest amongst the Top players. It's difficult to accept getting beaten--and to do so in a way that suggests that one is simply outclassed--without resorting to blaming supernatural or nefarious influences to explain the failure.
A "Theory" that has no proof (evidence) to support it should not be taken seriously. Such accusations are both wild and reckless. Of course, generally speaking, it is within the realm of possiblity that computer assistance can be utilized by a GM at an elite tournament. However, it doesn't seem to be an easy thing to pull off. In all fairness to Topalov, it ought to take something other than a surprisingly strong performance in order for him to be made the focus of such accusations. Even worse is the implication that Topalov must somehow "prove his innocence"--something that simply cannot be done, either form a logical or scientific framework.
It's interesting to note what a widespread psychological trope paranoia is amongst chess players. This is even more strongly manifest amongst the Top players. It's difficult to accept getting beaten--and to do so in a way that suggests that one is simply outclassed--without resorting to blaming supernatural or nefarious influences to explain the failure.
If there existed a video recording of people who were supposedly giving signals to Topalov during the games, I do not see why proving his innocence would be all that hard. And it is conceivable (don't know how likely) that at such a high-level competition there could have been somebody recording the audience.
Also, I do not see anybody claiming that Topalov "must" prove his innocence. In my posts I just said that it would be to his advantage to put these rumors to rest.
Topalov should take legal action against this sore loser of Leko.
Yo, anonymous at 19:14: perhaps Leko should take legal action against YOU, since now you are the one spreading baseless rumors. There is no information that Leko made this charge - even the anonymous article says that the anonymous accuser is not Hungarian. (In fact, since everything is anonymous and unattributed, there is not a lot of reason to believe that either Svidler or Kasimdzhanov or Anand or Adams or Morozevich made such an accusation either.)
p>
I just want to say up front that I don't believe the rumors, but I want to add that I don't see why people think someone must be in the room to pass signals to someone.
With nanotechnology and things like cochlear implants, there is no reason why a player could not have a tiny implant that just gives off tiny pulses or buzzes when fed a signal from a distance (perhaps from a player with a PC in a hotel room, for instance). Good playes don't need to have entire moves fed to them. They can just get signals when their partner sees a particularly critical position, and all the person should need to do is give the square that is important. For instance, if at this moment the h6 square has a critical tactical weakness, all the signaler needs to do is 8 buzzes for 'h' follwed by 6 buzzes for 6. It may sound funny, but how are you ever going to catch such a thing? You can't tell a player they can't have an ear implant or some other similar device that is ostensibly for true health reasons.
I find it hard to believe that someone like Topalov, who has been in the top 10 for many years, would intrust the result of his chess games to someone else using a computer. To be serious, one would need more than a copy of Fritz and a laptop, Hydra was running on something like 32 processors, such a computer is not your normal laptop.
I think Topalov performed well enough this year to prove that he earned his title. Though cheating is possible in even simpler ways than electronic means. A strong player and second like Cheparinov can have a pocket chessboard(not that he had) he can analyse several variations moving the pieces. As we can all say that would make his advice much stronger than his rating. He can only use very simple gestures to point out which piece should be moved. I wouldn't trust him as a 2800 all the time, but when you are down on time, or do not feel confident at times that would be a solid help. Controlling only the team members is not making sense since they can signal it through a third person. I think the best is to isolate the top level tournaments like WC, Linares, Corus from the audience giving only demo board and video coverage in a seperate room.
Knight_tour, my understanding is that Topalov was screened for electronic devices and did not have any on him, for health reasons or otherwise. Theoretically in the future it could be a problem, but such person would be under suspision at once, and it is not very expensive to screen possible signals.
Steven Craig Miller, I am sure Topalov is rich enough to afford a multiprocessor system if he wanted to cheat.
Xchess, I don't believe if I were Topalov that board analysis by Cheparinov would be of any help to me. Even I am strong enough so that I don't really need a board to analyze a position better than someone 200 points lower rated can do with a board within the same time, and I'm about 350 points below Topalov.
But isolating the tournaments is definitely a good idea.
I think it was the freedom hating terrorists. In fact, if Osama Bin Laden shaved, he would look A LOT like an older version of Topalov.
Either that, or the Masons. Those guys give me the creeps.
How about alien abduction? That could explain where the electronic device was hidden!
Topalov should be accused of chickening!
He just officially rejected to play with Kramnik in a match with pize fund of approx $1,4 Million net (after taxes) plus income from sponsorship deals. The main reason: financial compensation is not that big to afford possible loss of FIDE Champion privilegies.
This is just funny: FIDE Champion states that the FIDE were not happy with the match, and he will play only if he gets more money than offered!
And between us: he have not published his book yet, which should bring him some bucks, also! If/when he loses, who will buy it?
So, who is the chicken? And is he looking only for the golden eggs?
Well, I would take it easy with the insults. Somehow you should respect even weird decisions like this one... I guess...
*sigh*
Mr. Kriventsov,
I was never suggesting that anyone did use such a device, but only pointing out that it is silly for people to act as if one must be getting signals from within the room. With modern technology there are amazing things that can be done if one only tries. I just hope such cheating never takes place within chess, but given that cheating seems to happen in every other major sport, it would be naive for people to just ignore the possibilities, therefore I agree with what you said earlier about it being important to have such a discussion about it.
That is ridiculous. Topalov had a very good tournament. A good year over all.
What I am really seeing is that he thinks he is the the Classical World Champion or something equal to that? What a joke! He doesn't want to put in a worthless title against one over 100 yars of tradition!
I really liked Topalov until he started with his immaturity that is lower than Kramnik's. Kramnik was very immature in the 2001-2002 but now he really wants to play and defend his title.
I wanted Topalov to become the WCH but now I want Kramnik to remain WCH because Topalov would do worse with the title than Kramnik. Topalov also shouldn't be the one declining Kramnik's proposal, he has no rights whatsoever. Is FIDE Champ really worth something?
1.4 million is not enough! What is this, Kramnik vs Leko? Make it 2 million then we'll talk! Is what Topalov is probably thinking.
That makes two theories so far: 1) Topalov is a chicken 2) Topalov is greedy as hell.
I wouldn't assume any of this to be true without further confirmation. But it is pretty obvious since before that problems arise from the fact that the top players in general tend to demand ridiculous sums when they get the chance to.
Topalov woud be a real chump if he just took the first offer that came along. He has the upper hand, so he should be patient. If he agreed instantly then a) the match likely would not take place anyway, b) his price would be known.
Just like we don't announce our strategy out loud at the board it's a safe assumption that there's a lot going on behind the scenes. WC Matches are negotiated...not rushed into..right? Public statements early in the negotiation phase can be made to help either side improve it's bargaining leverage. It's fun to speculate, but silly to get too worked up and angry at this point. Why on earth would either the Kramnik or Topalov sides be revealing all their cards?? Poker, boxing and pro-wrestling fans will understand this instinctively.
The negotiations have broken down, the UEP deadline has expired, Kramnik has said "Okay, I'm going to move on" .. I don't see any reason to assume this is not the end of Topalov-Kramnik.
I also don't see why Topalov has "the upper hand". What does this mean? Kramnik doesn't *have* to play Topalov. He doesn't need Topalov. If Topalov turns his offer down, too bad for chess fans, but Kramnik himself doesn't suffer. He keeps his title, the most prestigeous title in the whole world of chess, and can start the process of finding another challenger.
People, Kramnik's offer to Topalov is ridiculous... Why should Topa play Kramnik for the same amount as Leko did last year?
The 1,000,000 USD Topa requested sound logical since he puts an official title on the line against someone who hasn't qualified from anywhere. Kramnik's title is officially valid as Fischer's...
Well, we better get used to this kind of rumors. From now on, they will probably be heard after every big tournament, specially if someone has a convincing win.
The most remarkable thing about this hungarian article is that ANYBODY could write a text like that and post it on the Internet. Perhaps I do it myself, it would be interesting to see if somebody takes it seriously.
If someone shows his face in public and says that in loud voice, it would become at least a concrete accusation. Right now, we have nothing at all.
On the other hand, though I doubt that Topalov cheated, the possibility that a top player could cheat, if really wanted to, is real. For me, it is this possibility, an not the hungarian article, that should be discussed seriously.
Off-topic, but Tim Krabbé wrote his opinion about Fischer’s allegations that the Soviets had a conspiracy against him in Curacao 1962. You can read it in item 299 of his “Open chess diary”, in the link http://www.xs4all.nl/~timkr/chess/chess.html .
Wow - he turned down the money. Topalov just sacrificed any claim he had to the world championship. It seems pretty clear to me now that Kramnik is still world champion, and Topalov is FIDE champion for 2005.
Well, we better get used to this kind of rumors. From now on, they will probably be heard after every big tournament, specially if someone has a convincing win.
The most remarkable thing about this hungarian article is that ANYBODY could write a text like that and post it on the Internet. Perhaps I do it myself, it would be interesting to see if somebody takes it seriously.
If someone shows his face in public and says that in loud voice, it would become at least a concrete accusation. Right now, we have nothing at all.
On the other hand, though I doubt that Topalov cheated, the possibility that a top player could cheat, if really wanted to, is real. For me, it is this possibility, an not the hungarian article, that should be discussed seriously.
Off-topic, but Tim Krabbé wrote his opinion about Fischer’s allegations that the Soviets had a conspiracy against him in Curacao 1962. You can read it in item 299 of his “Open chess diary”, in the link http://www.xs4all.nl/~timkr/chess/chess.html .
Dear Giannis,
First of all, Topalov can not put the title on stake anyway, because this was supposed to be not the match for FIDE Championship, and FIDE was clear about this.
Second, in case of losing vs. Kramnik, Topalov would lose much more important thing than the FIDE Tournament Champion title he holds: the position of the strongest chess player, publicity he got after San Luis, which can bring him real money, and the qualifying place in the next FIDE cycle. Because it is obvious, he is not very confident in his winning chances vs. Kramnik, he wants to secure as much bucks as he can on the first occasion, or avoid playing at all.
Dear Giannis,
First of all, Topalov can not put the title on stake anyway, because this was supposed to be not the match for FIDE Championship, and FIDE was clear about this.
Second, in case of losing vs. Kramnik, Topalov would lose much more important thing than the FIDE Tournament Champion title he holds: the position of the strongest chess player, publicity he got after San Luis, which can bring him real money, and the qualifying place in the next FIDE cycle. Because it is obvious, he is not very confident in his winning chances vs. Kramnik, he wants to secure as much bucks as he can on the first occasion, or avoid playing at all.
A number of people claim that the threat that a top player might try cheating with a computer is a real threat. Another person claimed that Topalov could afford a multiprocessor system if he wanted to cheat. But I wonder. What are the facts? How many top GMs study chess using a computer with a multiprocessor system? How many top GMs owns a multiprocessor computer which they think plays chess much better than they do themselves? I really would like to learn how top GMs study chess today. Do they all own computers which play superior chess? For I was under the impression that Deep Blue (which no longer exists) and Hydra were fairly unique, or are they now ubiquitous?
"Lastly, I know that ICC has developed numerous ways to detect the use of computer assistance"
How when your opponent can easily use pocket
fritz to avoid detection *sigh*
I've totally given up on Internet Chess it's a joke waste of time rife with clowns who don't
give a sh** about fair play or the rules and
I got fed up with the terrible sportmanship too.
Let me add my two cents to the discussion about accusing Topalov team of cheating.
Please do not forget that for a long time the Bulgarian KGB was notoriously known for their secret dealings and operations. Attempts to assassinate the Pope John Paul II, murder of dissident Markov in London, secret works on telepathy (remember the famous Baba Vanga Dimitrova?), to name just a few. If we willingly assume that someone would be able to obtain a piece of their know-how that was already in the works in KGB labs, the whole cheating operation could become practically untraceable. And why not suggest that it could be someone else who could assist in this operation during the tournament, not necessarily Danailov or Cheparinov? Too much is at stake, and these people are shrewd, and they can calculate many moves in advance, and they are confident that the whole thing would be rendered as almost unproven. And who would know better about KGB abilities to conduct their operations than the former citizens of socialist camp who participated in San Loius tournament?
One of the San Luis players without the guts to identify himself, and without producing a shred of evidence (Topalov sat in the same chair every day at San Luis??! Topalov won a lot of games??!) seeks to link Topalov's name with cheating.
Maybe Topalov is cheating. Maybe Kasparov cheated. Maybe Kramnik cheated. Maybe your momma cheated. Without some evidence it is grotesque and unfair to link Topalov or anyone else with cheating. Knock it off.
Greg Koster, are you nuts, what evidence can you obtain in case of transmitting computer moves by telepathic means? One does not even have to be present on the same premises to assist his partner in this. Regarding the proof. Can you, for example, find the source of the wind blowing? Or earthquake? Uh?
Stay naďve, my friend, if you prefer this state of mind. The technology that made A. Stefanova and V. Topalov world champions will be taught in schools in a couple of years, trust me on this.
The fact that Topalov did intentionally drew games against Anand and Morozevich proves one more time that he is shrewd and smart enough to cover his operations. Or, possibly, at times when his telepathic session is over, cannot simply finish the winning game successfully.
The person who came up with accusations is very well aware of the obstruction he may get from the skeptical public, that’s the reason he may correctly hide his identity. Cannot blame him for this. Wouldn’t you do the same thing in his situation?
I think we are near the death bed of chess as we know it. JMHO.
Greg Koster, are you nuts, what evidence can you obtain in case of transmitting computer moves by telepathic means? One does not even have to be present on the same premises to assist his partner in this. Regarding the proof. Can you, for example, find the source of the wind blowing? Or earthquake? Uh?
Stay naďve, my friend, if you prefer this state of mind. The technology that made A. Stefanova and V. Topalov world champions will be taught in schools in a couple of years, trust me on this.
The fact that Topalov did intentionally drew games against Anand and Morozevich proves one more time that he is shrewd and smart enough to cover his operations. Or, possibly, at times when his telepathic session is over, cannot simply finish the winning game successfully.
The person who came up with accusations is very well aware of the obstruction he may get from the skeptical public, that’s the reason he may correctly hide his identity. Cannot blame him for this. Wouldn’t you do the same thing in his situation?
I think we are near the death bed of chess as we know it. JMHO.
An original and devious move, IAmWizard, posting a comment meant for April 1, here in January!
You and jegutman ought to put your heads together...imagine the synergy of ideas that might emerge from such a collaboration:
Bush Used Telepathy to Cause W. Virginia Mine Explosion....
Fundamentalist Israeli Clique (or, better yet, the Doug Feith gang that used to be part of the Bush White House) Used Telepathy to Give Ariel Sharon a Stroke, Derailing Mideast Peace Process.
I am merely expressing my opinion, Jon Jacobs, and you have every right to laugh about it whilst not being familiar with a way of life in the socialist state. And for the sake of the war on terror we may soon find out some nasty surprises from the White House as well. The paranoid? Probably. My business is to caution you.
What is the big deal? Everytime somebody wins with some authority a tournament or something big in sports, these "accusations" happen. I wonder there is people in France accusing cyclist Lance Armstrong for cheating in 1999 (!, not even 2005, 2004, for example). So it seems that the advice for a future sportsman in the future would be: If you want to win, win with discretion; otherwise, some accusation will arise (even without any proofs) ...
In today's globalized world, with access to the internet, every anonimous accusation could be made and some people are not aware of the consequences of those statements, made just "for fun?". When people don't suffer consequences, are not conscious of the dangers of speculations.
As I guess, I am sure some people is writing that Kramnik's alleged illness is fake and just an excuse. Leave people in peace. If they are guilty, truth eventually comes up, without major intervention!
If someone is that good they must be cheating, i mean chess is too complicated for humans to be good so the only real explanation is that they all were cheating but topalov had the best computer.
lol at last comment. toppy was only overshadowed by kaspy, so toppy's real deal, not a cheater.
I trust Peter Leko and Vishy Anand completely. I think Topalov cheated and his performance in Morelia-Linares proves this to be so!!!!
Yes, but if Anand or Leko won with +7 and now scored -2 they would, by your knowledge of the situation, be victims of the same accusations. Topalov has always been streaky, going back to 1996. His great results in 2005 weren't so amazing as to be a sign of foul play. He's been in the top 10 for a long time. Even Anand, a model of consistency relatively speaking, has had a few minus scores over the years.
Here is a article on the topic from russian newspaper if anyone is interested:
http://www.kommersant.com/p741182/FIDE_investigate_claims_Topalov/
I visited this page first time to get info on people search and found it Very Good Job of acknowledgment and a marvelous source of info......... Thanks Admin! http://www.reverse-phone-look-up.net