Dortmund 2006 Begins

Comments

Gee, what a surprise to see Kramnik involved in a "short draw" game... ;-). OK, he was Black, so the blame lies with Gelfand.

I'm not a database guy, but am curious: did the Gelfand-Kramnik R1 "clash" ever "leave theory"? If so, how many "new moves" (plies) were played?

Thank goodness I went out and rode my bike this morning, instead of wasting time watching that game!
Posted by: geeker at July 29, 2006 16:26

Kramnik didn't mind a short draw with Black, Gelfand did not want to get Kramnik unduly excited...
I suppose it's understandable. But nice it is not.
Posted by: Charles Milton Ling at July 29, 2006 17:57

I am always surprised how many really good experts and commentators are involved in this anti-draw-campaign. Just think a bit further... it is all game theory. If you make a short draw you give more chance to others - especially young guns - to collect more points and get the trophies. So it is part of the game, and it is not a problem. Just invite some new and ambitious participants to top tournaments.
Posted by: Aless at July 29, 2006 18:06

That's the problem, there are many good reasons for the players to make short draws. That's why it should be taken out of their hands. There are many good reasons for players in other sports to agree not to play and get paid for it anyway, but the rules don't usually allow for it.

The young guns learn to do the same thing in time. And our current mentality of who is the best is based on rating no matter how many short draws you make so invitations will continue to go to the highest rated players, not the most entertaining ones. (Thankfully in a few cases they are the same!)
Posted by: Mig at July 29, 2006 18:25

Well, this non-issue aside, I am very happy that Leko got a good start... he really, really needs a good tournament to build up confidence again. It looked to me like his position was in disarray for a while though. But perhaps he was always fine?
Posted by: acirce at July 29, 2006 19:28

Any reason why it's such a short event this time? 7 rounds isn't the Dortmund I remember.
Posted by: macuga at July 29, 2006 20:02

Why not award .75 points for a draw with black and just .25 for a draw with white? Gelfand wouldn't have been so accommodating I'm sure.
Posted by: Steve K at July 29, 2006 20:09

.75 draw with black?
Seems like black would try to draw all the time then.
Posted by: Mouse at July 29, 2006 23:36

I remember reading Miles lamenting that when he dropped below 2600 his invites dried up.

He was particularly upset that in a tournament where he placed highly (playing his usual brand of interesting chess) he was replaced with a 2600+ drawmaster.
Posted by: Babson at July 30, 2006 02:58

I remember reading Miles lamenting that when he dropped below 2600 his invites dried up.

He was particularly upset that in a tournament where he placed highly (playing his usual brand of interesting chess) he was replaced with a 2600+ drawmaster.
Posted by: Babson at July 30, 2006 02:59

Yeah, Kramnik often reminds us why the Sofia rules were implemented. In top tournaments with a lot of online audience rules a la Sofia should be standard.

Players want to preserve energy some will argue. Well top chess is top sport. In top sport you have to be fit. In Tour de France you must cycle the full distance, even at days when you are tired.
Posted by: Akselborg at July 30, 2006 06:02

Nigel Short has said several times in interviews that short draws are mainly a problem with a few selected players, and that tournament organizers could largely eliminate the "problem" by not inviting those players. Seems reasonable to me: if a GM agrees several "disgraceful" draws in an event, why should he expect to be invited to similar tourneys?
Posted by: geeker at July 30, 2006 06:53

Why not just make a draw offer 0-0 (that's zero each, not castling!), and only grant 0.5 each to "genuine" draws, i.e. stalemate, bare kings, insufficient mating material, etc. While we're at it, ban the "optional" three-move repetition rule too. If a player is forced to make a losing move on the third iteration, then so be it.
Posted by: DR at July 30, 2006 07:12

Imagine, you are Arkadi Naiditsch... or maybe you are Radjabov... (not very unpleasant, is it?). What would you prefer, to have field of already world class playes who are just about to prove once again their superiority, or a bit tired, powerless oldies making short draws? Well, I would prefer the latter... and kill them just to be the new star.
A tournament is a process and there are some guys who are slower and they try to slow down the process - but without Kramniks and Lekos and Gelfands, just with Kasparovs and Shirovs, we could never have Grischuk and Radjabov, who used there chance once or twice. The old slow ones are not bad ones, why to give 0-0 to short draws? It is just natural selection.
Posted by: aless at July 30, 2006 07:36

In fairness to Kramnik and Gelfand, the position really did look dead =. A kibitzer running Rybka had it evaluated 0.00. Gelfand and Kramnik are two of the strongest technical players on earth. Neither was going to end up losing in that position. White had no more advantage so there was no objective reason left to play for a win because of having started with the white pieces. It would have been nice to see a few more pieces come off of the board first however.
Posted by: Andrew Dimond at July 30, 2006 08:53

Yeah, you can say the same thing about the starting position, too. There were eight minors, four rooks, two queens, and fourteen pawns. No forced repetition in sight. If that position is dead the game is dead. One of the objectives of chess is to outplay your opponent. That you should immediately offer a draw when you feel your first move advantage has dissipated is pathetic stock exchange chess.

Again, it makes sense for the players to do this sometimes. This is why it should be taken out of their hands as has been proven successful with the Sofia rules, for a start. Shame clearly doesn't work.
Posted by: Mig at July 30, 2006 09:55

I totally agree. It is stupid that you can get half a point for taking a day off. The Sofia rules have been a success, so why not extend them to apply everywhere?
Posted by: Spud at July 30, 2006 11:04

QUOTE
Posted by: Andrew Dimond at July 30, 2006 08:53
Yeah, you can say the same thing about the starting position, too. There were eight minors, four rooks, two queens, and fourteen pawns. No forced repetition in sight. If that position is dead the game is dead. One of the objectives of chess is to outplay your opponent. That you should immediately offer a draw when you feel your first move advantage has dissipated is pathetic stock exchange chess.
/QUOTE

Not true. After 1. e4 white has more space, a lead in development, a dangerous pawn, and the initiative.

Seriously, open tournaments (as opposed to invites or matches) will (and do) suffer when it becomes like the HP Global Challenge. Some grandmasters put out $1,000 in expenses, had to fight hard every single round (the "no draw" rule was in effect), and earned a cash prize of (wait for the fanfare) $20.

The HB had a $500,000 purse and a turnout of 50 GMs.

By contrast Aeroflot had a purse of $175,000 and a turnout of 140 GMs.

(info from polgar's blog)

Earning a living playing chess is tough for the average GM.

Scenario A
11 moves and a handshake puts $2500 in his pocket.

Scenario B
A 6 hour brain drain gives him a 50% chance at $5000, and a 50% chance at $0,

Shouldn't it be up to the GM to decide how to play his games (in tournaments where he is paying his own way)?
Posted by: superpatzer at July 30, 2006 11:09

This has gone around a hundred times. We're talking about invitationals with sponsors and not opens with entry fees. Tournaments where you pay an entry fee are a different matter, although I still don't see why chess requires a draw offer rule. It's simply not a natural part of sport. We have become used to it and rationalize it in various ways. But it really doesn't make any sense.

As for 1.e4, somebody always has the move. Barring bizarre blockades, a board full of pieces and pawns should be played out.
Posted by: Mig at July 30, 2006 11:19

Hard to see any reason to even watch Kramnik when Morozevich is playing...
Posted by: MD at July 30, 2006 12:17

Kramnik and Gelfand are good friends. Most likely, Gelfand is helping Kramnik for the match. Any well-informed person could reasonably conclude that this was going to be a draw beforehand.

In the US, it is like a game between De Firmian and Christiansen or a game between Fedorowicz and Joel Benjamin. These are always going to be draws.
Posted by: patzer at July 30, 2006 13:15

Once again Mig doesn't miss an opportunity to say something nasty about Kramnik. How very predictable!
Mike
Posted by: mike gleason at July 30, 2006 13:47

Mig wasn't saying anything nasty about Kramnik. I hesitate to put words in his mouth, but I am sure he considers him a superlative player.
He was, however, saying that he dislikes games that are not contested. And I am sure he feels that way no matter who is involved.
Posted by: Charles Milton Ling at July 30, 2006 15:19

I think the solution to the draw issue is quite simple and doesn't require any rules changes at all. Simply require all results to be definitive, as is done in knockouts. If the game ends in a draw, then the players play rapid or blitz until they have a result. That way if they both want to play rapid they can have a 10-move draw and proceed directly to rapids. If one (or both) players doesn't want to play rapids, then they will try REALLY hard to get a decisive result. It works in tennis...
Posted by: Paul Massie at July 30, 2006 15:21

I think Paul Massie's idea is interesting. A lot of sports have an overtime period if regulation ends with a tie score. The only problem I see with it is the fatigue factor.

If two players battle for 5 hours to a draw, then have to play tense rapid games, they would be at a disadvantage in the next round. It seems the best sporting strategy in that scenario would be to agree to quick draws to get to rapid-play and save energy. Press to win only when you have white against a weaker player in regulation. I don't think that is the direction most of us want chess to go.

Probably just the Sofia rules are the way to go. Still, even those probably reduce the quality of play in elite event slightly. Humans make more mistakes when tired. It would be more interesting from a sporting perspective, but probably fewer nearly flawless masterpieces would be played. So it's rather a question of do we want interesting competitions or a higher level of play with more short, boring draws? I think I'd probably prefer more consistently interesting games and less accuracy.
Posted by: Andrew Dimond at July 30, 2006 15:49

There are always pros and cons to draws.

Organisers could simply avoid inviting "drawmasters", but these players are usually very strong and organisers would be limiting their field of invitations by ignoring them.
Additionally, there is some interest in inviting drawmasters: having different styles of play in the same event can be interesting, and it is also a challenge for other players to destroy their defensive strategies.

Pehaps the simplest way would be for FIDE to create a rule whereby no draw offers can be made before 40 moves have been played. You force the players to sit down the same amount of time and make moves. So while they're at it, why not play for a win?
Additionally, forcing players to make moves could lead them into making mistakes, therefore having greater number of decisive games. Often, a weaker player gets away with a draw against astronger opponent because they agree to share the point in less than 20 moves. If the same weaker player was obliged to play at least 40 moves, it would remain to be seen whether the position is still drawish... (class has to appear sometime!).

I'm not in favour of blitz games or other means to have a decisive result. Just remember the Radjabov strategy in Tripoli: short draws in long games, hoping to outplay the opponent in blitz games. And that's not what we believe "real chess" to be...
Posted by: Kogi Kaishakunin at July 30, 2006 18:25

Why should we fiddle with .75 points for Black or dis-inviting 2700 drawmeisters or other kludges? The Sofia rules take care of everything, not by adding complexity but rather by subtraction: get rid of the draw offer! Brilliant simplicity. And just look at the results. Tooth-and-nail competitive games with more decisive results. Even the draws are hard-fought games. Long live Sofia!
Posted by: ComputoJon at July 30, 2006 21:11

I understand why players leverage the fact that agreed draws are allowed. Balancing the risk vs. reward of contesting the game, has to be weighed against their tournament standing, the strength of their opponent, and their own form. That's just smart tournament strategy.

But for those who are serious about improving the earnings opportunities for professional chess-playing, they have to realize that fans do not pay for competitors to "not play". Will abolishing the ability to agree to draws immediately bring in millions of dollars to chess? Of course not. Take a look, however, at the sports that have grown in commercial success, and the common denominator is that they continually focus on ways to deliver competitions that are exciting and dramatic.

Back in the 80's, during the glory days of the NY Open, I paid $5 one year to spectate at a round of the International A section. I entered the playing hall about 90 minutes into the round. 3 of the top 4 boards had already agreed to draws. Lesson learned .. the remaining days I was there I checked out the International B section instead. It was free, and all the players were battling fiercely because norms were at stake.

In 1990 I considered going to NY City to see one of the Kasparov v. Karpov WCC games. I was willing and able to pay the travel & living costs, had the vacation time available to get off from work, and like any true chess enthusiast, was thrilled at the possibility of seeing in person two of the greatest chess players ever slug it out. But I didn't go, because 1. Each player was allowed a certain number of postponement days, and 2. The players could agree to a short draw. So I made my trade-off: the risk of 1 or 2 happening was not worth the potential reward.

How many people would show up for an NBA playoff game if the rules allowed the two teams to agree to a draw after 5 or 10 minutes of play? How much money would the TV networks pay to carry the games if such agreed draws were allowed? Answers - Not many & not much!
Posted by: RP at July 30, 2006 21:29

The match between Elisabeth Paetz and Irina Krush is being billed as between the strongest female German chess player and "the strongest female player in the USA." Am I missing something?
Posted by: morning at July 30, 2006 21:38

Strongest *active* player, I guess.
Posted by: macuga at July 30, 2006 23:09

Why is it "nasty" to refer to Kramnik as fragile? He just spent half a year on the DL and, staying in context of the comment, plays more short draws than any other top player. He has spoken out on the right of players to play short draws. He's also very close to the organizers at Dortmund. Ban the draw offer.
Posted by: Mig at July 30, 2006 23:34

Draws are inevitable in chess. It would be strange to expect a player to avoid a draw even when it is in his personal best interest to take a draw. His goals are for the tournament, and the current game is merely a means to that end goal.

I dislike the rule of the upcoming Kramnik-Topalov match which says that if the match is tied at the end of the scheduled 12 games, then it shall be decided by rapid and blitz games. Rapid and blitz leave a bad feeling.

It reminds me of when the World Cup Soccer finale was decided by those misnamed "penalty" kicks (what penaly?); or when the NBA decided its basketball finale with a game of Horse.

Kramnik & Topalov should play additional long games until either player wins. Yes White has an inherent advantage, so the extra games could solve that by adopting the "pie" rule. This would avoid dragging out the match if say Kramnik wins game 13 with White, then Topalov wins 14 with White.
Posted by: Gene_M at July 31, 2006 00:48

Your hatred of Kramnik (and don't try to deny it) and your persistent obsession with him are tainting an otherwise great chess journalist. It's like you were Kasparov's bitter, beaten left hand typing these pieces.

Kasparov agreed to a number of un-fought draws against Kramnik despite being -1 and then -2 down in their match. That was a World Championship match, and he takes a 14-move draw with white in a must-win game with most pieces left on the board. They later paid a sponsored 4 game exhibition match in which all 4 games were un-fought / boring / short draws.

Not everyone have Topalov's or Morozevich's unlimited energy and thirst for fight. If the position is potentially very drawish, against a good friend who you know will play it well, what is exactly wrong with conserving energy for further rounds from the competitor's perspective? He is playing for himself. Like the catenaccio teams in football(soccer).. for the result.

This is nothing new in Chess. These draws have always existed. Take any major tournament from 1970's or 1980's, seek the games from your database and browse thru them. You will find many short draws. It's always been part of chess.

You may not have noticed but Kramnik isn't the only culprit by any means, and I'm not sure if he is the worst either. There are Leko, Svidler, Gelfand, Bacrot...

There are many figures in the chess world more deserving of the peevishness of a chess journalist. (And you are definitely one of the most well known, even if you are going to say this is just your personal blog.)

Sometimes this blog is looking a bit too much like Kasparov's propaganda tool.
Posted by: Richard Teichmann at July 31, 2006 01:14

A top grandmaster agrees to a short draw when he calculates that his odds of winning the event are aided more by taking a short-draw rest-day than by tiring himself chasing a 5%(?) winning chance.

While playing the white pieces, behind in the Kramnik match, even the fighting Kasparaov agreed to short draws of eleven and fourteen moves.

For the peanut gallery to demand that a top grandmaster sacrifice his personal prospects for the general good of chess is as absurd in Dortmund 2006 as it was in London 2000.

Maybe it's best to ban the draw offer or universalize the Sofia-type rules. But until that happens what's the point of whining at players who're doing their best within the rules?
Posted by: greg koster at July 31, 2006 01:46

Sure, it makes sense for top players to pursue short draws as long as it's in their best interest.

That's why we should change their interests - by disinviting drawmasters - so that their interests align more closely with those of chess lovers.
Posted by: macuga at July 31, 2006 02:14

Kasparov was troubled by personal problems during his WC match against Kramnik, that explains his short draws even when he was down by two points.
Posted by: Leto at July 31, 2006 02:14

Because we're chess fans and it doesn't need to have a point. It's a disgraceful exploitation of a terrible cultural trend in the game and it should be fought on every level. Apart from simply complaining and commiserating as fans the way we would about a boring football game, there's nothing wrong with shame and encouragement. When players fight hard and to the end we say good things. No reason not to criticize when they don't. As I said above, just because it' makes commercial/tournament strategic sense for a player to do it doesn't mean it's correct, good for the game, or that we have to like it or make excuses for it.

And of course it's wrong no matter who does it, and thank god we have people here to bring up Kasparov's two short draws from six years ago every time the word "draw" is mentioned. (Kasparov did it a few times so everyone is exactly the same, apparently. Drawing 5% of your games in 25 moves or fewer is the same as 25%.) I was there in London watching an auditorium full of spectators, many of whom came from outside of London, look on in shock as they realized those games were over. (The organizers hastily brought out some of the commentators to play blitz with each other on the stage for a while.)

It is in no way absurd for us to criticize such behavior. It's is natural and perhaps even useful. Public pressure is not insignificant, especially in our small world. Until the organizers finally get their act together it's also about all we've got.

As for "Teichmann's" comment, please go back and read the item. Gelfand comes off far worse. And my dislike for their drawish tendencies is founded and isn't some personal jihad against those individuals. It's certainly not Kasparov's. Or was that 19 move draw part of some Kasparov propaganda campaign? Christ, what idiocy.
Posted by: Mig at July 31, 2006 02:25

Richard T--

Kasparov was a blustering and intimidating bully. For a few short weeks in the fall of 2000, however, someone stood up to Kasparov. While losing the Kramnik match, Kasparov took short draws with white, thereby displaying that which lies at the heart of every blustering bully.

Kramnik exposed Kasparov. Kramnik must be punished.

Thus Kasparov's friend, Mig, passes on few opportunities to excoriate this "personality-free mute who comes out of the corner to move a few chess pieces on occasion." An interesting take on an individual whose gaunt shape betrays a battle with debilitating arthritis.

Behind it all is the fervent but futile hope that if enough abuse is heaped on Kramnik, somehow all traces of Kasparov's less than courageous conduct when the two met in London will evaporate.
Posted by: greg koster at July 31, 2006 03:04

You try to hide it, or explain it away, but those of us with a couple of functioning brain cells can see through your repeatitive and boring tirades.

"Not that you're going to have Sofia rules in a tournament organized on the fragile Kramnik's home turf"

One can see Kasparov standing behind your back when you write such drivel, shouting encouragement in a state of frenzy... "Yes, yes... yes!!"
Posted by: Richard Teichmann at July 31, 2006 03:07

What on Earth are you talking about? You were the only ones rattling on about Kramnik here. I certainly didn't abuse him anywhere. And of course, Kasparov must be destroyed. HE'S NOT PLAYING. HE ISN'T PART OF THE DISCUSSION. THIS IS DORTMUND. KRAMNIK IS PLAYING. LONDON WAS SIX YEARS AGO. Your fantasies about everything, no matter how unrelated, being some sort of Kasparov conspiracy are pure comedy. I guess it makes you feel useful, fighting against some great power? Most of my recent comments about Kramnik were positive, but of course they don't fit into this moronic little plot you've worked out and so must be ignored, as with most facts.

And who's this mute you are talking about? I never said that about Kramnik. Or did you just take something generic I said and assume it was about Kramnik? I can't see why you would think that phrase describes him, please explain.
Posted by: Mig at July 31, 2006 03:14

Right, "Teichmann," like Kasparov reads this. You just can't stick to facts. I explained the remark. Any refutation? Or just more drivel about conspiracies?
Posted by: Mig at July 31, 2006 03:15

I have been your reader for as long as you have been writing on chess in English. I have liked your personal style of writing.

This is not a conspiracy, and you may notice that several people have noted the same (all hallucinating and imagining things I presume?).

For the past few years your writings on Kramnik have a had personal, bitter feeling to them, that has bordered on hateful at times. It seems irrational. What has he ever done to you? I think that's the question that leads people to mention Kasparov in this context.
I have observed this trend in your writings for years (like many others I'm sure) and this is the first time I commented.

Leko has been, if possible, an even bigger drawmaster, but he hasn't got 1/5 of the ire you have shoveled on Kramnik shoulders. You even seemed to make fun at his illness / belittle it. It's like a campaign to get people to dislike the 14th World Champion, one of the best players in the history of the game. One might argue that his chess during the 80+ game unbeaten run against 2700's (that included winning the World Championship) was as close to perfection as any player has ever got in the game. I for one loved to watch it. He made it look so easy.

Next time call the tournament organisers 'fragile' or 'without personality' if you have a problem with it. Kramnik is entitled to do what is best for himself without having his decency and personality as a human being questioned. He comes across as a friendly, easy going fellow and doesn't deserve it. He has done more for chess than 1000's of us put together.

Sorry for having an opinion. It's of course idiotic.
Posted by: Richard Teichmann at July 31, 2006 03:38

I have been your reader for as long as you have been writing on chess in English. I have liked your personal style of writing.

This is not a conspiracy, and you may notice that several people have noted the same (all hallucinating and imagining things I presume?).

For the past few years your writings on Kramnik have a had personal, bitter feeling to them, that has bordered on hateful at times. It seems irrational. What has he ever done to you? I think that's the question that leads people to mention Kasparov in this context.
I have observed this trend in your writings for years (like many others I'm sure) and this is the first time I commented.

Leko has been, if possible, an even bigger drawmaster, but he hasn't got 1/5 of the ire you have shoveled on Kramnik shoulders. You even seemed to make fun at his illness / belittle it. It's like a campaign to get people to dislike the 14th World Champion, one of the best players in the history of the game. One might argue that his chess during the 80+ game unbeaten run against 2700's (that included winning the World Championship) was as close to perfection as any player has ever got in the game. I for one loved to watch it. He made it look so easy.

Next time call the tournament organisers 'fragile' or 'without personality' if you have a problem with it. Kramnik is entitled to do what is best for himself without having his decency and personality as a human being questioned. He comes across as a friendly, easy going fellow and doesn't deserve it. He has done more for chess than 1000's of us put together.

Sorry for having an opinion. It's of course idiotic.
Posted by: Richard Teichmann at July 31, 2006 03:39

I have been your reader for as long as you have been writing on chess in English. I have liked your personal style of writing.

This is not a conspiracy, and you may notice that several people have noted the same (all hallucinating and imagining things I presume?).

For the past few years your writings on Kramnik have a had personal, bitter feeling to them, that has bordered on hateful at times. It seems irrational. What has he ever done to you? I think that's the question that leads people to mention Kasparov in this context.
I have observed this trend in your writings for years (like many others I'm sure) and this is the first time I commented.

Leko has been, if possible, an even bigger drawmaster, but he hasn't got 1/5 of the ire you have shoveled on Kramnik shoulders. You even seemed to make fun at his illness / belittle it. It's like a campaign to get people to dislike the 14th World Champion, one of the best players in the history of the game. One might argue that his chess during the 80+ game unbeaten run against 2700's (that included winning the World Championship) was as close to perfection as any player has ever got in the game. I for one loved to watch it. He made it look so easy.

Next time call the tournament organisers 'fragile' or 'without personality' if you have a problem with it. Kramnik is entitled to do what is best for himself without having his decency and personality as a human being questioned. He comes across as a friendly, easy going fellow and doesn't deserve it. He has done more for chess than 1000's of us put together.

Sorry for having an opinion. It's of course idiotic.
Posted by: Richard Teichmann at July 31, 2006 03:41

Some technical glitch? It said error text could not be send. Refreshed the page to make sure. Seemed so. Re-send it and then three posts appear at the same time. Sorry..
Posted by: Richard Teichmann at July 31, 2006 03:44

Seems that the big guns are contagious. Short draws also for Krush and Paetz... Or perhaps I don't understand these positions...
Posted by: Leon at July 31, 2006 04:29

I have nothing personal against Kramnik, but it's simply disgusting to have draws when all the pieces are on the board. I mean, come on, it's the first round of a tournament, the first 19 moves and you agree to a draw? What is that? What kind of a sport allows you to appear for such a short time and claim your point like that? This is simply ridiculous and disgusting and I'm sure anyone who likes chess would agree with me. I don't care if Kramnik is sick or if he's tired, this is a top-level tournament, players have to be fit to play on the top level, otherwise they just go down. In what other sport can you go in a top level competition and not compete because "you have to preserve you engergy"? And when I come to think that Kramnik answered (according to chesspro.ru) at Dortmund that his goal there was to play some tournament games of good value and reveal as few as possible novelties, I guess he considers a 19 move first round draw a game of good value or what I simply have no words for champions like him, this is really disgusting.
Posted by: Rossinantes at July 31, 2006 04:36

Haha.. poor old GK has revealed his opinion of Kramnik.."personality-free mute who comes out of the corner to move a few chess pieces on occasion."

I remember the original thread and the comment Mig made, and he was saying he prefers Kasparov's fire to the above. Kramnik was in no way mentioned or even relevant in that discussion. There's a saying if the cap fits, wear it! Is that why GK attributed this to describing Kramnik? I think you're doing Kramnik a disservice GK, he's much better than that, and certainly doesnt need your condescension. Freud would have a field day analysing you..
Posted by: d at July 31, 2006 04:51

If the trend of people turning this blog into a slanging match about Kasparov v Kramnik continues, I can see many people such as myself making a choice they do not want to make: never reading this blog again.
Discuss short draws, discuss Dortmund, discuss whatever topic the item pertains to, but please please resist the temptation to make this into an artillery range for massive fragile egos. It's very tedious, not why we should be here.
Posted by: Nick Murphy at July 31, 2006 05:12

On the question of short draws putting sponsors off, can someone help me with the facts? Dortmund's had the same sponsors for how many years now? And they've invited Kramnik how many years in a row?
Posted by: rdh at July 31, 2006 08:15

It's not so correlative, unfortunately. Traditional sponsors are traditional sponsors, they want to be associated with the game and pay little attention to the games themselves. Thank god for them. Heck, remember last year when Dortmund blacked out the live broadcast just for giggles? But if we are going to move beyond the largesse of a few rich guys (again, bless them) and a few traditional tournaments in chess-mad countries - i.e. become a professional sport that can offer a legit return on investment for investors - then we can't have 20-move draws mucking things up. It's already hard enough not knowing when the games will end. You can't add, "and we have no idea if the players will bother to play today" to the package.
Posted by: Mig at July 31, 2006 08:37

If someone is to blame for that 19-move 1st round draw it is Gelfand, not Kramnik. Kramnik achieved his objective (draw with black) with ease. We could question this strategy but it's quite reasonable. He just wants to win this tournament. And what is Gelfand's objective? I think it's players like Boris who are turning some high-level tournaments into boring spectacles.
And, besides, Anand makes more short draws than Kramnik. But everybody loves Anand, right?
Posted by: marc at July 31, 2006 09:01

Percentage of *white* draws in 25 moves or under, 2002-present:

Kramnik 19.8
Leko 16.4
Svidler 16.3
Anand 14.8
Gelfand 14.2
Aronian 9.9 (against significantly weaker opposition 2002-2004)
Morozevich 6.1
Kasparov 5.4
Posted by: Mig at July 31, 2006 09:22

yeah, and people will vote with their feet. What time I can spare, I spend on the Morozevich game (today against Carlsen). Havent even bothered to check whether Dortmund have live games. If it isnt another love fest (draws) spearheaded by Kramnik and Leko, it will be against the norm.
Posted by: d at July 31, 2006 10:00

I just want to point out that it's absurd for any of the amateurs here to think that top chess players owe them something. The sponsorship point may be valid, though I doubt that playing out Berlin endgames or trading off the pieces after 25 moves of Najdorf theory is ever going to get chess on ESPN or sponsored by Nike. However, there's no sense to d's idea that "voting with his feet" is meaningful, or the implicit assumption by many amateurs that they're in a position to judge 2700+ players' fighting spirit. How much do all of you pay Kramnik or Morozevich to watch their games? How many spectators are there even at a WC match (200?)? Being a chess fan is not the same as being a fan of Major League Baseball or pro soccer, because there's no one buying season tickets for thousands of dollars, no TV broadcasts with millions of viewers, etc. Chess never will be like those sports because most people don't like it, it's hard to understand, and it's too slow. It will always be a low-revenue sport for a small circle of people. If organizers and players feel that they will get more satisfaction out of Sofia rules, they will adopt them. If you're someone watching for free on the internet and you don't like how things are run, get some money together and run a tournament the way you want it to be, or at least find a way to monetarily support the players you respect. If you put no money or material support into top-level chess, how can you have expectations of what top-level players will give you? Just be thankful that we can see so many games, both short draws and long battles, without even leaving our computers.
Posted by: Chris Garos at July 31, 2006 10:38

I like the suggestion of replaying a game with faster control in case of short draw (whether the criterion should be "less than 3 hours or less than 40 moves"). Although maybe the score of short draw shouldn't necessarily be: 1, 1/2 or 0. Could be 3/4 for a win and 1/4 for a loss. Or 4/5 for a win, 2/5 for a draw, 0 for a loss.

However it would be a little technical to implement and understand.
Posted by: zarghev at July 31, 2006 10:58

What will prove of interest in a future event is the number of "short draws" that will not occur in the Topolov-Kramnik World Championship Match. Kramnik had better bring it, because Topolov certainly will.

In regards to Chris Garos, I couldn't agree more.
Posted by: chesstraveler at July 31, 2006 11:27

Garos, if Morozevich, Shirov and Anand are playing a tournament, I would pay for online access. If Kramnik, Leko and Gelfand are playing I wouldnt. Savvy?

And this is nothing about style, before those self styled "connoisseur" of Chess start bleating that a draw where nothing happens is superior to superficial fireworks. I'm refering to replaying 10 moves of theory and calling it a day.
Posted by: d at July 31, 2006 11:29

Someone up above alluded to Kasparov's personal problems as the reason for his short draws with white against Kramnik in the 2000 match? Has this ever been substantiated? Didn't Kasparov say that he was rebuilding his openings?
Posted by: RS at July 31, 2006 11:39

Reply to Chris Garos:

I agree with your statement that top players don't owe anything to amateurs. But the corolarly is also true! And that's the dissapointing point .. all chess lovers could work together a bit more to promote the game. And as you know, amateurs have indeed put their money on the line to create opportunities for pro's .. and the results have not always been as positive as you would think they should be. For example, there is a class player out on the west coast who brokered a deal to sponsor the US Championship for 10 years. The story of the wholesale draws on the top boards of the 2003 event was well publicized. Not the dramatic climax that the organizer was looking for, after creating a $250,000 prize fund, and securing media and sponsor exposure. Sure, the player acted in their natural self-interest, all within the rules. But it was a big loss for advancing the cause of professional chess. And remember, those sports that you mentioned - MLB, pro soccer, weren't always as lucrative as they are now. The pro organizations worked hard on identifying and implementing the things that would improve the commercial success of the sports.
Posted by: RP at July 31, 2006 11:43

Meanwhile, there are some interesting publications at ChessPro site. Yesterday, S. Danailov published an article “Topalov: fantasy, paranoia, reality…”. In fact, this is a reply to a number of publications in Russian press, most of all “The great schemer” by IM Vladimir Barsky in a popular Russian sport magazine PROSport, implying that there were doubts that Topalov could achieve his successes without some computer help. So Danailov stroked back. Just a quick translation (from Russian) of some lines:

“It all started from anonymous statements by some San Luis participants… I think it’s time to tell the following story. First, the names of those anonyms were known from the very beginning: GMs Morozevich and Kasimdzhanov. Morozevich was the first, and then his second Barsky joined him… They both think they are geniuses. One as a chessplayer, another as a journalist - but for some strange reason the world does not recognize them as such… In the third round of San-Luis, our hero having white(!) has proposed a draw to Topalov on 11(!) move. Of course, he had received an immediate refusal and then disgracefully lost… The biggest our sin was that we told about it to Russian press… and all his Russian fans suddenly learned that their hero and genius was just ordinary coward… He could not bear such a blow and decided to get revenge…

As to the second San Luis public procecutor, GM Kasimdzhanov, after his win in Libya in 2004 (it is difficult to name that tournament a world championship as many leading players did not play there) this gentleman did believe that he was in the same cohorts as Capablanca, Alekhin, Kasparov and Fischer. Unfortunately, a world champion must maintain his status playing in super-tournaments and winning them. It is not possible just lying on a sofa and shouting non-stop “I am a champion!” while getting mediocre results in tournaments as some “classics” do… Kasimdzhanov did found the originator of his failures. It was Topalov…I advise all the pretenders to cheap fame to think twice before writing such nonsense because next time we meet in court.”

Today, R. Kasimdzhanov provided a short reply. In particular, he wrote:

“1. I have never made any anonymous statements that Mr. Danailov mentioned.
3. I don’t think that Mr. Danailov chess qualifications are good enough to judge my chess ability.
5. Mr. Danailov has reproached A. Morozevich for the draw proposal on 11 move. Worth recalling in this regard that at the same championatship in San Luis it was Danailov who made a draw proposal to me twice before Kasitmdzhanov - Topalov game in 13 round.”

It seems that interesting times are ahead…
Posted by: Valchess at July 31, 2006 12:43

ha ha ha topalov hceat, yes? he use geekbox to relay move to brain yes? please go now mr topalov we no need you no more.

allow me explain how topalov cheat, yes?

1. he no relay move because all moves are relay via big network call internet
2. he receive move via some mode communication inside playing room
3. he no play like kasparov 2800-style because when kasparov no win it big event but topalov lose lose lose then win win win so big curve in rating but end up with same rating performance at the end
4. in san luis he always sit same table
5. his rise immediate after reach 2700-plateau many years earlier, yes? that no normal.

topalov big cheater man please go now away from chess and join other cheater like landis and gaitlin.

chop suey hang bang
Posted by: Chop Suey Hang Bang at July 31, 2006 13:20

Kasimdzhanov is a sore loser, and suffers from delusions. Kasim actually believes he could beat Kasparov in a match ;p The guy is merely a 2600 grandmaster who got lucky with the rapid tiebreaker system in Libya 2004.
Posted by: Leto at July 31, 2006 13:30

Mig is know for his way of supporting and bullying certain playetrs. GM Gelfand noted this a few years ago in a chess magazine and expressed his hope that chess journalism is not only all the crap that comes from a certain argentinian guy. But the man most likely knows this. Not all Elite GM like his coverage.
Posted by: Alex at July 31, 2006 13:32

kasimdzhnov no sore loser he only defend himself against libel by topalov camp yes? i still lie in bed but wake up anwer this blog post.

please allow me to explain again topalov losing in libya:

1. it make sense topalov lose in tie-break or blindfold (amber) or blitz because it harder to get computer assistance, yes?
Posted by: Chop Suey Hang Bang at July 31, 2006 13:34

please no insult mig he quote fact about kramnik yes and you no dispute fact only opinion yes? argentina does not produce crap they produce best players in all sport except ice hockey and best artists in piano violin and chess and also best music in tango yes?
Posted by: Chop Suey Hang Bang at July 31, 2006 13:37

Dedicated, planned top level cheating IS possible. And impossible to detect. The technology does exist, and it is not even that expensive.

You can have a little device taped to your leg inside your trousers. Your assistant can be miles away watching the game on internet. He has different programs analysing your game and can move pieces on his analysis boards. Then he sends his advice to the recieving device in simple morse code (easy to learn and agree on) using simple radio waves.

Even if the transmission was caught by an outsider by some miracle, the code would be cryptic and would offer zero solid evidence. Beep, beep, beep. What the hell? Nothing.

It would be nice if someone took this problem seriously. It's here and it's here to stay when these players are playing for hundreds of thousands of dollars at the top.

The problem is that it's impossible to detect/prove and there's nothing you can do about it. If a 2700 wants to be a Landis or a Gatlin he can do it, with the difference that there is no chance he will be caught. He will become a 2800, and there is nothing we can do about it. Nothing.
Posted by: Richard Teichmann at July 31, 2006 13:40

For what it's worth, I think Mig has consistently criticized short draw offers as unsporting, no matter who is playing. Kramnik, it so happens, does this more often than most players at his level.
Posted by: Marc Shepherd at July 31, 2006 14:23

Richard Teichmann, if the cheating you're describing is "impossible to detect," then how do you know that anybody's doing it?

Personally, I think the world is controlled by Martians. The problem is, they're impossible to detect.
Posted by: Marc Shepherd at July 31, 2006 16:22

Where did I say that I know of people who would be doing it? It has duck to do with Martians. It's not scifi, it doesn't require UFOs or complex inventions. It's basic existing technology, easy to learn and easy to use.

It's a simple, logical and substantiated FACT. There are means to cheat in top level chess with zero chance of being caught. We know from track and field sports that people are ready to use harmful substances for the gain of money and fame. I think it's naive to think that there wouldn't be chessplayers eager to exploit all means possible to e.g. escape poverty. 2600 could become a 2820 with the help of cheating. All it needs is a small, silent device to recieve radio waves taped to your body under your clothes, and an assistant can send you computer advice, analytic help from miles away... all coded, the little device vibrating the code against your skin. Impossible to track down. It's not even expensive. IMs could do it to play like 2600's and higher. Perhaps they are just talented and have worked hard...

No one can deny this clear fact. Does the technology exist? Yes, it does, and it's not even that complex. You can conclude everything from that fact. There is no way to detect it, no way to prove it. Only suspicion. I don't know if any players are doing it YET, but the awareness of this fact is not being unnoticed (see the vocal suspicion by Morozevich, Kasimzhanov... you can only wonder how much of this suspicion is already happening behind the said players backs and how many agree with it). The world of top level chess will run into a state of paranoia in the next 5-20 years, with accusations of cheating becoming more and more vocal and never will there be ways to prove said accusations.. Eventually we will have tournaments in shielded underground bunkers.

Joking a bit, but it's a concrete and serious concern. You can't detect martians... but I can prove to you that radio waves, devices to recieve them and computer chess programs do exist. It's as simple as that.
Posted by: Richard Teichmann at July 31, 2006 16:44

I think it would be very interesting to put Teichman´s cheating scheme to the test. It really does not look that complicated. (Maybe I´ll try it)

Posted by: Francisco at July 31, 2006 17:55

Richard Teuchmann said:

"Even if the transmission was caught by an outsider by some miracle, the code would be cryptic and would offer zero solid evidence. Beep, beep, beep. What the hell? Nothing."

"No one can deny this clear fact. Does the technology exist? Yes, it does, and it's not even that complex. You can conclude everything from that fact. There is no way to detect it, no way to prove it".

It seems your lack of technical knowledge in the field of communications has allowed you to get carried away to the point of imbecility.

Your claim that, even if intercepted, an encrypted message could not be deciphered, is absolutely ridiculous. Though it's not my personal area of expertise, encryption is not so very new (remember Enigma?), and countless hours have been invested in breaking very complex codes. If you think you could just come up with some lame substitution code off the top of your head that would make a cryptography student even break a sweat, think again. There is at least, what, a week for a major tournament to be completed - ample time to decypher.

Even more outlandish, though, is your claim that these wireless transmissions could not be detected or prevented. Detection is certainly possible, expecially considering that better quality receivers are available than what would be taped to one's leg or chest, not to mention that the receiving antenna could be much better placed (on a leg underneath a table is certainly not ideal). It is clear that a sophisticated spectrum scanning algorithm would be needed to identify the signal of interest amongst all the other traffic, but this is not impossible by an means, even if the signal is 'buried' among others. How about prevention though? Would a good quality metal detector not suffice? All players would be scanned every time they sat back down at the table. This is much less invasive than a physical search, and should work unless you can come up with a tiny antenna + receiver containing no metal parts. This is also better than detection since the culprit would be caught red handed, and could be dismissed on the spot.

We do agree on one thing though - it remains for tournament organizers to get serious about prevention.
Posted by: Cynical Gripe at July 31, 2006 20:16

The showpiece of chess for sponsors and for the average casual player is the world championship.

Percentage of white draws in 25 moves or under--World Championship Matches from 1886-2004:

The few WCC matches from 1886 to 1981 which featured under-25-move-draws almost always involved either simplified positions or the last few games of a match in which one player had an overwhelming advantage.

Even the great unlimited matches in this period were hard fought:

1927 Alekhine 12% Capablanca 29%
1978 Karpov 12% Korchnoi 12%
1981 Karpov 0% Korchnoi 6%

Then, in 1984, down 0-3 after seven games, Kasparov yielded 13 white draws in his next 16 white games. Karpov eventually followed suit:

1984: Kasparov 54% Karpov 37%

There followed:
1985: Kasparov 25% Karpov 25%
1986: Kasparov 8% Karpov 25%
1987: Kasparov 50% Karpov 0%
1990: Kasparov 17% Karpov 8%
1993: Kasparov 10% Short 0%
1995: Kasparov 22% Anand 17%
2000: Kasparov 25% Kramnik 14%

2004: Kramnik 28% Leko 57%
Posted by: greg koster at July 31, 2006 22:52

There are many sports in which a match cannot end with the participants having even scores. Baseball, Basketball, Tennis, and Golf come to mind. There are also a number of sports in which the match can end with the participants having even scores. Bowling, Boxing, Soccer/Football, and Hockey fall in this group.

However, I can find no instance of a sport in which the two participating sides can agree to an even score without contesting the outcome. I'd argue that this is what makes Chess a game and not a sport.

Viewed as a sport, short uncontested draws are reprehensible -- though may be perfectly logical allowing for each participant to do what he/she believes to be best for himself/herself. Viewed as a game though, short draws are not so offensive.

Our problem with short draws seems to be that we're using a measuring stick based on Chess being a sport, when it's more likely just a game.
Posted by: Karl Irons at July 31, 2006 23:22

"Your claim that, even if intercepted, an encrypted message could not be deciphered, is absolutely ridiculous."

No. It's rather a fact.

"Though it's not my personal area of expertise"

Perhaps you should then avoid making strong comments and calling others imbeciles.

"encryption is not so very new (remember Enigma?)"

Yeah countless of highly educated professionals were working endless hours on the code. This is from wikipedia:

/Although the Enigma cipher has cryptographic weaknesses, it was, in practice, only their combination with other significant factors which allowed codebreakers to read messages: mistakes by operators, procedural flaws, and the occasional captured machine or codebook./

"and countless hours have been invested in breaking very complex codes."

Despite extensive study over the last 200 years experts are still to decipher the Easter Island Rongorongo script.

200 years, countless experts... and you think chess tournaments will have specialist codebreakers to break codes (if they catch them that is. Or in the first place will ever have huge antennas and radio amateurs working full hours during the games) during a 10 day period? Then you can alter the code for the next major tournament if you are feeling insecure.

And how do you tell one weak radiowave that could be anything, and probably gets lost in the noise, kids playing with old radiophones... to make an accusation? I had actually thought about these, and didn't just make a ridiculous claim about martians. It's a serious concern, and you admit this yourself (despite trying to argue the opposite) when you stay this:

"It is clear that a sophisticated spectrum scanning algorithm would be needed to identify the signal of interest amongst all the other traffic, but this is not impossible by an means, even if the signal is 'buried' among others."

/This is not impossible by any means/

I doubt the tournament organisers will call FBI, mate. It is rather impossible.

Last argument, metal detectors:

"Would a good quality metal detector not suffice? All players would be scanned every time they sat back down at the table."

Now we are entering the world of paranoia like I predicted. Even here no solution will be offered. The modern receivers are electronic and can be very small. Again you would need some rather sophisticated top class security equipment (and personnel) and the cheater could have placed the receiver near the metal button of his trousers... "take those off so we can be sure!" No, that's not how it's going to be.

As you can see it would be nearly impossible to get caught even if we had the CIA of the chess world which you envisage (with codebreakers, huge antennas, radio amateurs, and sophisticated security equipment and educated security personnel) which WE WON'T.

Today... any top class grandmaster could cheat, with zero worries he will get caught. The technology is simple, easy to learn, inexpensive. Look at Landis, Gatlin... why would chess players be any different when $100,000's are at stake?
Posted by: Richard Teichmann at August 1, 2006 00:20

How about something like this Teich ? We use similar products in the office and they're prety effective.

http://www.forcefieldwireless.com/windowshield.html
Posted by: Voluminous at August 1, 2006 04:21

That's interesting. Some solution has to be found and the problem need to be taken seriously and not dismissed as 'martians' otherwise the world of chess will run into state of distrust, paranoia and wild accusations in the coming decades.

People are cheating on ICC for ego reasons. e.g. to jump from 2430 or something to 2700+ in the 5 minute pool. Amateurs are cheating in Open tournaments in United States for hundreds of dollars and some passing fame and rating points. Do we consider the superior chess players to be also morally superior compared to the lower levels of chess?

Personally, I suspect they are just better chess players and we are talking multiple times the money compared to e.g. World Open and no other source of income for most of them.
Posted by: Richard Teichmann at August 1, 2006 04:34

There's no doubt that, given a close to 100% undetectable cheating system many top players would be mightily tempted to go that way - just like top athletes do in any other sport, and like many other people do in most other professions. What we 're discussing here is the practicality of the specific method that you've proposed, and I'm curious as to why it hasn't been used before by say, the Soviets to beat Fischer or Korchnoi in the candidates matches, or by Karpov and the establishment to finish-off Garry in the first match, or by GK himself to beat Kramnik. Were counter-measures employed ?? Is the risk and the subsequent cost of been detected so significant that players won't take the chance ?
Posted by: Voluminous at August 1, 2006 07:27

I'm guessing that it's not so much the communcations technology that has recently made it practical as the computer technology. Even in 2000 it's not clear computer messages - which can't be very complex - would have been trustworthy enough to help. Look at Kramnik's Marshall disaster against Leko.
Posted by: rdh at August 1, 2006 07:39

The Enigma analogy is interesting. It seems that decryption in the case of a chess tournament would be vastly easier, because the codebreaker would have access to a form of the *decrypted* output: The cheater's moves. So you let the suspected cheat play twenty moves, or thirty, or 100, and then you have a data set against which you can compare the radio signal and start looking for patterns. Yes, the cheat can conceivably come up with some more complicated language for describing moves (more complicated than "e2-e4" e.g.) but increasing the complexity would presumably make the cheating system also become more and more impractical.
Posted by: Derek at August 1, 2006 08:38

True, but I'm not sure it quite works like that. A 2800 GM, even assuming his real strength is a pathetic 2700, doesn't need, and won't find helpful, regular computer input. He needs it in specific positions. I suppose if you've found out the signals, you can know which moves he had help on and wait until he's played 100 such moves, but it won't just take two or three games.
Posted by: rdh at August 1, 2006 08:48

Yes rdh, this is what I was wondering about basically. Given what was at stake during the old world championship matches, it is to me surprising that some of the parties did not succeed in finding a way to somehow message the player during games, providing assesments from grandmaster analysis - the soviets certainly had the means and motive to do so. But it seems that in the pre-Fritz era such analysis would have been considered more hindrance than help to the grandmaster playing, while the finality of a computer's assesment prety much erases all doubt from the recipient's mind. But I'm curious as to whether such experiments were actually carried out and whether K ( any K or whatever other letter you like ) eventually 'switched it off' not trusting the evaluations of lesser mortals.
Posted by: Voluminous at August 1, 2006 08:48

That's a good point.

It also raises other fun questions. Like: How much help DOES a 2700 need to hit 2800? One move per tournament? One move per game? Two moves per game? And if the transmission is highly selective, how does his accomplice know when to transmit -- "Only when I drink water using my left hand, go back to the room and get me a Fritz move!".
Posted by: Derek at August 1, 2006 09:10

I don't think you'd have the player signalling. You'd need a trusted and strong assistant - just for fun, let's call him Cheparinov - who has the engines running and only messages when they are very insistent on one particular move in a tactical position.
Posted by: rdh at August 1, 2006 10:43

Teichmann says, "Some solution has to be found and the problem need to be taken seriously...."

Do we actually have a problem? Since the alleged technology is "impossible to detect," we have no idea whether 1 player is doing it, or 10, or 100, or zero.

This conversation was originally about Topalov. The question is, would a second-tier GM plus a computer plus some radio equipment play like Topalov? Topalov has become particularly well known for speculative exchange sacrifices that computers don't tend to recommend. No one has made a persuasive argument that cheating would have produced Topalov's performance, even if it were technologically possible.
Posted by: Marc Shepherd at August 1, 2006 12:04

"I don't think you'd have the player signalling. You'd need a trusted and strong assistant - just for fun, let's call him ********* - who has the engines running and only messages when they are very insistent on one particular move in a tactical position."

Right. It's not an on-going transmission for 40-60 moves. 2-3 moves per game makes all the difference between 2700 and 2800.

To spot couple of such crypted signals from all the noise with phones and everything... it's not going to happen.

The method of cheating in short:

Assistant+computer program(s and analysis boards)+electronic radio receiver taped under the players trousers that silently vibrates the code against his skin for couple of crucial moves per game.

To me it seems (nearly) 100% bullet proof. Shielded playing halls (like suggested above) offering the only solution, but I doubt if we will ever end up there. In the mean while it's free reign for potential cheaters in top level OTB tournies. Would be nice to hear GM opinion on this.
Posted by: Richard Teichmann at August 1, 2006 12:15

I'm not saying that Topalov cheats. I'm saying that cheating is possible and easy to do with a trusted aide, and shouldn't be dismissed as "martians".

You can play speculative exchange sacrifices leading to imbalanced positions where, later on, one computer move brilliance can decide the outcome.
Posted by: Richard Teichmann at August 1, 2006 12:18

I still think yogurt is the way to cheat. Bring back the classics!
Posted by: jonas at August 1, 2006 12:20

It certainly seems assured that continuing technology advances will provide increasingly effective and hard to detect means of cheating. So countermeasures will have to adapt accordingly. And one low-tech way to prevent the scenario that Teichmann described, is to time delay the broadcast of moves to the Internet. A 20 minute delay wouldn't bother the chess fan following along at home, but would greatly diminish the effectiveness of a remote cheat-partner.
Posted by: RP at August 1, 2006 12:43

Once the question is raised however, one does have to say that Topalov has improved relatively late in life beyond what one would have thought possible when he was younger. His sort of leap forward after playing in super GM tournaments for a decade would have drugs testers atwitch in athletics (compare Linford Christie, Michelle Smith, et al).

Personally I think it's rather unlikely as much as anything because I think it's difficult to control the messages you get and when. To do any good at this level you would need, as I say, a strong and utterly loyal co-conspirator. Which, as it happens, Topalov has. And a healthy interest in money rather than principle, of course, which to judge from his public utterances, Topalov also has.

It is undeniably curious that someone who Kramnik used to toy with the way he did in, for example, that knight ending from the Nimzo-English, should suddenly have become so strong. Especially as by all accounts he has always been very dedicated. But I'd certainly prefer to believe it was for real, so let's assume it is, would be my attitude.
Posted by: rdh at August 1, 2006 12:55

Let's see. If 2-3 moves = 100 points, can I reasonably expect to beat GK with computer assistance on maybe 20 moves per game...? Where's Sonas when you need him!? :)
Posted by: Derek at August 1, 2006 13:44

"Eight players meet in a single round-robin so it's a mere seven rounds. A pity, really."

Actually, I don't consider it a pity. It would be better if they reduce it to 4 players. Kramnik, Leko, Gelfand and Svidler. They can keep on drawing amongst themselves without producing a single decisive game.
Posted by: peach at August 1, 2006 17:58

Teichmann,

The point about decryption was only to say it is possible. You seem to feel happy substituting the word "impossible" for something which is quite possible, but not likely with the current measures in place.

You keep saying it's impossible to detect signals with "all the noise and phones and everything" - yet this is exactly what a receiver does. There are distinguishng characteristics of information-bearing signals which specifically allow them to be detected in the presence of noise. They wouldn't likely be using the same frequencies as phones (assuming they wanted it to work and didn't want to be caught be hassled by the authorities for their trouble).

And I hardly see how metal detectors constitutes a "world of paranoia" as you put it. In fact, this sort of measure is exactly what will work - something simple which increases the chances of being caught enough to discourage titled players from even trying to cheat - you have only to imagine the discrace of being caught to believe it. And are you quite sure you'd need a very sophisticated metal detector? I don't think so. Remember also that your receiver needs a mechanism to tap out the received move - this would increase its bulk, and, even if the mechanism itself is not metal, larger electronics would be needed to actuate it. Not too mention the battery.

"Huge antennas"? I think not. It's common knowledge that the antenna size is typically on the order of the wavelength being transmitted (compare your cell phone antenna to the one on your car for FM radio).

"FBI" for spectrum monitoring? You must be watching too much TV. Organizers of good tournaments could surely find the extra money to invest in existing/devloping products if they're serious about it.
Posted by: Cynical Gripe at August 2, 2006 02:22

FIDE already has a contract with the ACP regarding metal detectors, don't they? And, weren't metal detectors used in London 2000 (GK vs VK) and/or San Luis?
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at August 2, 2006 13:28