Kramnik-Topalov g4

Pressure makes diamonds out of coal they say. We can only speculate as to the effect upon the human intellect in emotional/psychological situations. Look at how many world class athletes choke in playoff or title games/series. (e.g., MVP A-Rod?)Or Majors in golf (Hefty at PGA, Norman's meltdown at the Masters?) Interestingly, the players here each get the 1/2 mil payday, but the prestige of the title is the real prize. That is the real explanation for both of their questionable moves in critical situations. One thing for sure, whatta match! I only wish my wayback machine worked and the real rules applied: 24 games. Imagine that! Namaste...

OneSong,

would they already be at each others throat if it would be 24 games? The fact remains that 24 games would be fantastic for us chessnuts, but if explain to other people that it takes 24 games and close to 2 months to decide whose the new WC you'll get a lot of funny looks =). My ideal scenario (regardless of who wins) is that Topalov pulls one back in the next 5 games and that we get a classic shootout in the last 4 games. I think we have seen nothing yet...

I'm just happy with what happens. Topalov's ego was becoming a little bit too fat. His pre-match declarations, his sentences a few months ago - wasn't he saying that having 60 more points than Kramnik he had nothing to prove against him, and that he was the legit world champ ? - all this makes the score even better.

First point, I am convinced that Kramnik plays just better chess than Topalov. Second point, I much rather Kramnik's quiet behavior. Quiet, wise, reasonnable, doing his best to save the match tradition, he's a deserving title holder. And anyway, despite of what most people say, he played Kasparov in 2000, Leko in 2004 and Topalov in 2006, defending his title almost as frequently as most of his predecessors.

Kramnik was open to play any official challenger sent by fide, he fullfilled his part of the prague agrements, he did everything he could.

You cannot blame Kramnik for Fide's mistakes, nor is Kramnik responsible for Kasparov not playing against Kazimdjanov in Burj El Arab (where everything was already booked for the match), and so on...

Topalov's match planned against Radjabov, acting as if the match against Kramnik was already won, was so insulting that any honnest person should be happy to see his livid face today.

Last remark, (2849 + 2763 + 2813)/3 = 2798 , which means that Kramnik has acquired and defended (till now) his title against the strongest opposition a world champion has ever had to face.

But again, most people (essentially patzers) will find that his style is arid, uninteresting, boring ... and that it's way funnier to watch Topalov or Kasparov or Shirov. Well, maybe he does not takes big risks on the board, but on the other hand he plays no dubious sacrifices, no ?! moves ... he just plays chess.

Yesterday, he was quite close to beat Topalov in a game where nothing did happen. Very few people can do that to Topalov. In fact, apart from Kramnik, nobody can do that to Topalov today. And that's precisely why Kramnik is world champion and will remain world champion.

Well if FIDE messed up with Radj then they can always accept Radj's money and enter him into the tournament in Mexico. That would make 9 players. To make it even, so that one player does not always have to sit out, they can also include the loser of the world championship match that is currently underway. So a tournament of ten. It sounds a bit messed up, but it cleans up the mess I guess.

FIDE messed up a number of things that's hard to enumerate. Even if the match between Topalov and Kramnik is played today, the disapearing candidate matches, the rule allowing any +2700 player to play a match against the world champion, the ever changing rules, all this is just bad.

After a lot of promises linked with the fide elections, fide's regular dismal organization level is back.

I actually don't mind the rule that anyone over 2700 *can* play the WC if the world champ agrees. The world champ is the one putting his title on the line, let him make some money with it. If the World champ doesn't want to play the match its his choice. More big matches means this is good for chess.

As long as the World Champ *must* play a match agaisnt the qualifier everyone is treated fairly.

Obviously if FIDE is serious about continuing the "Tournament champion" idea we woudl never have any WC matches without this clause. Maybe they shoudl say they can play someone rated in the top ten, instead of over 2700.

If my memory serves me well the rule says that the WC cannot reject a match offer from a 2700+ player IF the prize money is > 1 million $-deciding whether the match will take place or not is left solelfy on FIDE. Stone age :)

Wow what a game! Seems Topalov has something prepared because my deep-patzer chess knowledge doesn't give me any chance to understand why does white have enough compenstaion in this (move 17.Nc4) position.
Anyone computer evaluation pls.

Topalov used less than 2 minutes of clock for the first 18 moves, so it must have been home prep. I cannot see any motivation for giving away the h2 pawn.

The games have been very enjoyable so far. I'm glad that this match isn't played between Kramnik and Leko for example. :)

As for the position in this fourth game, I wouldn't even trust computer evaluations. But imho white has sufficient compensation and a decent position with some winning chances (after 20. Ra5). Or at least the position is unbalanced.

I agree Ville.
Though I cheer for Kramnik, Topalov's all-out style makes games very interesting. Let's look and see whether Kramnik can hold this one.
Junior's evaluation of position would be nice.

I hope Kramnik wins AND pulls out of the tournament waiting to play a match against the winner of same..........

I don't have anything against Kramnik, but everyone knows the reason these games are so interesting is because of Topalov's involvement, much more so than Kramnik's.

Winning is the most important thing and Kramnik is a fantastic player, but for me there is always more enjoyment watching somebody who is also interested in the artistic and creative aspect as well. Someone who wants to win playing beautiful games. And that is Topalov.

If he loses, he will still be the one whose games everyone will want to see.

Regarding nerves, it would be interesting to hear the players' own thoughts/speculations about how the tension surruounding these games might have affected their move choices and their ability to concentrate completely on the problem at hand at all times during each game.

Better yet, given their large entourages, it's a reasonable bet that at least one member/trainer on each contestant's team is explicitly delegated to keep an eye on the emotional angle -- a little empathic probing here and there, a pep talk when needed, and the like. After all, that's what sports-team managers regularly do. (In fact it's probably the toughest part of a team manager's job. You or I could probably make decisions about when to bunt, pinch-hit, send our pitcher to the showers, etc., nearly as well as Joe Torre: that is to say you or I could manage a ballGAME; but of course we could never begin to manage ballPLAYERS.)

My work focuses on helping amateur chess players monitor their own emotional states during play, so as to be aware of internal and external distracting influences at a stage when those influences would be below the level of consciousness (and therefore far more dangerous) for most players. If you are fully aware of what you are experiencing, you are better equipped to adapt to it and, hopefully, sidestep the potential distraction and stay focused on the board.

I've often thought these same processes must apply to strong players too. I don't have much sense of how the emotional trigger / focus / loss of focus dynamic in top-level chess differs (if at all) from the amateur context; I've never spoken with a pro about it in any detail. So, it would be interesting to hear Kramnik or Topalov speak in depth about what they were feeling (not just what they were thinking, i.e., analyzing) at key points in the games: did his heart race, did he ever feel "caffeinated", ever feel euphoria or despair, did an unwanted thought (from his life outside the chess match) ever intrude into his consciousness during the game, etc.

Champions are made of flesh and blood like the rest of us. Knowing that the emotions described above can (and have) knock at least 200 points off my chess strength for at least a move or two, I'd hazard a guess the same is true of Topalov or Kramnik. Of course even with 200 points off their base each would still be playing GM moves (2600) -- which is (arguably) consistent with the types of errors they've been making.

Mr. Jean-Michel:

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I am no expert on the typical chess fan's opinion, and I agree that most probably enjoy Topalov's playing style the most. However, many enjoy Kramnik's style precisely because for them it is a clear distillation of a different blend of artistry.

Is one more effective than another?....

I am not predicting who will win the match, but what Kramnik is doing today is a thing of beauty.

Mr. Hendrich:

I would certainly not disagree with you. I would only ask you this: what do you enjoy more, Kramnik - Leko or Kramnik - Topalov?

If you enjoy Kramnik - Leko more, then by all means I would say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But if you prefer Kramnik - Topalov, then I would only say that perhaps Mr. Topalov brings a little something extra to a chess match.

Respectfully yours.

Funny how Ruslan stands in stark contrast to his hero Kramnik. I like Kramnik too but I find the partisanship ridiculous. The best matches are between players of contrasting styles and temperaments. This is a classic. Enjoy it.

"If you enjoy Kramnik - Leko more, then by all means I would say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But if you prefer Kramnik - Topalov, then I would only say that perhaps Mr. Topalov brings a little something extra to a chess match."

These two players have already produced four more interesting games than the first four games of Kramnik-Leko. But just as Topalov deserves some credit for making this match so lively, Leko deserves some blame for making the other match so dull.

But although today's match was not a short draw, I thought Topalov played like a deer in the headlights. There were opportunities today, and he passively let them go by.

Draw. After being slapped Topa is now too careful...

I don't know if that's true but regarding those that say that Top can really string a number of wins together once he gets going:

He's done so in tournaments. There, each game is different, especially your opponents are different and mostly not of the same strenght each day. You can win one game because you were lucky. You can win the next because you're playing the lowest seed. The next game, your opponent is impressed by your last two wins and tries to slow things down. He plays too passively and looses. You gain major confidence and go all-out in the fourth game, and winning a brilliant attacking game with a sacrifice that objectively is unimpressive if not dubious. etc.

All that doesn't work if you play the same guy over and over. There's no taking breaks, there's no difference in playing styles, you don't get a lowest seed twice in a tourney, both players are reasonibly well rested and so on.

Top went all-out in two games and lost because of stupid mistakes. Now, he tried playing very solid chess and was close to being overrun in one of them, and simply put to a stop in the second one. He knows that he _must_ start scoring. But how in the world is he going to do that?

Just four Whites left for Topa, needing at least two wins (and that assumes he doesn't lose again).

"Leko deserves some blame for making the other match so dull."

It's clear to me that you have no idea what you're talking about... Did you even watch game???

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1309482

Also... Ruslan, did you make this page?

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1005524

"It's clear to me that you have no idea what you're talking about... Did you even watch game???"

Of course. Did you? After Leko got to plus 1, he basically stopped playing. I'm not saying there were NO interesting games, only that it was not consistently fighting chess.

It's not so clear what exactly is "Fighting Chess??"

Not everyone is name Alekhine, Tal or Kasparov. Sometimes playing the position is good.

It is not Kramnik's style of play that sometimes makes chess games less exciting; rather it is the still unsolved draw problem inherent in the currently chosen rules of chess.

Jean-Michel asked which I would rather see, Kramnik-Leko or Kramnik-Topalov? My answer: which ever leads to fewer draws (without excessive blunders). Any player's "style" of play is a secondary consideration for me. Each successful style has its own kind of beauty, and the more styles the better.

Will the chess world get serious about reducing the draw problem before say the year 2050? Or will the "tyranny of tradition" maintain its grip?

One controversial but inventive solution is Clint Ballard's "BAP" (Ballard Antidraw Point system). BAP is being tested in a significant tournament, on 2006/10/13-15 in Bellevue WA USA, being organized by Clint Ballard:

http://www.slugfest7.com/public/department2.cfm

There is nothing and absolutely nothing wrong with a good fighting draw, like we saw over the last two days, a draw in which both GMs give it their all, punch and counter punch and eventually find themselves in an even drawn position. Some of the most exciting games in the history of chess and soccer alike have been draws. That the outcome didn't deliver a victor or prove somebody superior is no sleight on the quality and beauty of chess played.

I think it's fair to say though that today was the first "Kramnik" game--positional chess rather than dynamic. Interestingly, it was also the one in which Kramnik had the least success. I am getting the feeling that Topalov is simply not as good at dynamic chess as Kasparov, Fischer and a few of his other predecessors.

Parsnips, if you are unable to see the difference between Leko's style of play and Topalov's, I despair of being able to explain it to you.

"But again, most people (essentially patzers) will find that his style is arid, uninteresting, boring ... and that it's way funnier to watch Topalov or Kasparov or Shirov."

As a patzer, I take offense. As a baseball fan, I prefer pitching duels to home run derbies. As a newbie chess fan, I find the arid, uninteresting, boring play fascinating. I watch with awe - only having the vaguest idea of why Kramnik is doing what he's doing - finding out three, four, five moves down the line the whys and wherefores...

But, unless my noob-patzer sensibilities are completely off, in the case of the present match it's precisely Topalov's madnesses that makes Kramnik's paint drying so much fun to watch.

Yin and yang. All that sort of business.

(First post, month-long lurker, month long player, ICC 941. Hi all!)

But Yuriy, Fischer hadn't a tenth of the dynamism of Kasparov, so it's strange you mention them together. If anything his style was more akin to Kramnik (though not as static by half), working with ever-so-slight positional improvements (his Tal-channeling brutality against Rubinetti and Panno in '70 and R Byrne at Sousse was exceptional). It was almost antithetical to Kasparov's style, so it's a huge drag they never faced each other in the 80's. Kasparov the pawn-thrower against Fischer the pawn-grabber, man oh man, Borg vs McEnroe. This match is more Sampras vs Roddick.

Clubfoot

Yes, when I first started playing chess and learning about Fischer, that's the first thing I learned about him. Fischer was -very- materialistic; he was a pawn-grabber indeed. Fischer did not play very many speculative sacrifices like Tal did. But when Fischer did sacrifice his opponent was doomed, just like Petrosian.

and yet they both played the najdorf...

Hi xcb,

This patzer agrees. Actually I think stylistic differences in chess transcend ability. At every level you have tacticians, positional players, hypermodern defenders, and anything else. It has more to do with personality than strength and accuracy. It makes the game more fun even at the class level when your opponent looks at the same position in a different way.

These first four games have been great. They have a Buenos Aires 1927 feel to them.

The last two games were marred by one particular problem.
First Kramnik takes cxd5 (I see no reason to label exd5 risky), then today Topalov takes with a wrong piece on c4. I hope they get their recaptures right before the match is over.

Good point, Yermo!

"The last two games were marred by one particular problem. First Kramnik takes cxd5 (I see no reason to label exd5 risky), then today Topalov takes with a wrong piece on c4. I hope they get their recaptures right before the match is over."

There have been inaccuracies by both players in all four games. They are not engines. Topalov's errors have been huger, which is why we're at 2-0.

What do engines have to do with the examples I gave?
Does one have to be an engine (or have one implanted in his a55) to play good moves?
Both times White went for an immediate draw from a promising position.
This could mean that both players were affected by the mutual blunders in Game Two more than they're willing to admit.
Fear of blundering is worse than blunders themselves.

Hey, Clubfoot

I agree that Fischer was not solely a dynamic player--I merely think that when he did play dynamic chess few people equaled his brilliance. Also perhaps I have a slightly different concept in mind. I was referring to ability to brilliantly analyze complex positions vs ability to rely on amazing technique to grind out a small advantage. The latter is a trait I associate more with Karpov and Kramnik, out of the older names Botvinnik and Alekhine come to mind, perhaps incorrectly (I am not as familiar with them as I am with more modern GMs). The former with Kasparov, Fischer, Capablanca, Tal.

I'm not sure the situations in Games 3 & 4 are so similar.

In Game 3, Kramnik seems to have weighed the risks/rewards and decided a draw was fine with him. Anyone familiar with Kramnik's known playing style cannot have been surprised. I trust Kramnik's evaluation of the position and match strategy more than Yermo's.

In Game 4, I don't know if Topalov has spoken yet about the c4 capture. No one has suggested he missed a win. By the time this happened, it looked pretty equal to me. Indeed, there were several misses by Topalov that seemed to me more significant than this one.

"Parsnips, if you are unable to see the difference between Leko's style of play and Topalov's, I despair of being able to explain it to you."

Yes ok... Leko doesnt find himself in worse positions playing on... There is difference one.

Difference two... Leko was never down 2-0 in his match with Kramnik... ok noted.

Leko hasnt missed any clearly forced wins in his match with Kramnik... Ok noted once again

What were you trying to explain?

Parsnips, you are confusing the MATCH situation with playing style.

Even before the first pawn was lifted, Leko and Topalov were different types of players. It's pretty widely agreed that Leko has a certain lack of killer instinct. (According to Mig, Leko himself has acknowledged this.) His swoons late in tournaments are illustrative. When he got to +1 against Kramnik, he thought that would be good enough, and he started offering early draws even in games where he was better. Had the 14th game been drawn, we'd be having a very different conversation right now. But it was entirely typical of him to think +1 was good enough--which it wasn't.

Even Topalov's most ardent detractors have to admit that his blunders in Games 1-2 are atypical of him. Topalov himself admitted that any GM ought to see a Mate-in-4. Obviously those mistakes are a party of history, but you don't describe a player's style based on two games. In general, Topalov is a more aggressive player, and that was the right style to beat Kramnik. That style has gotten him to better positions in 3 out of the 4 games. If you're Topalov, that's exactly what you wanted.

I am not discounting the blunders, but someone who blunders like that is not only NOT playing world-champion quality chess, but isn't even playing great tournament chess.

Regardless of Leko vs Topalov vs Kramnik vs Anand vs etc, it's clear to anyone that's followed the games of Topalov and the rest, that only Topalov consistently fights to the bitter end in almost all of his games. There's not much left to see at the conclusion of most Topalov games.

Anyone that can't see that difference between Topalov and the rest of the elite has not looked at many games between elite players.. period.

Someone previously argued that Topalov drawing the last half of San Luis, implied that he was as lazy as the rest of the elite. That's crazy, because while he may have played more conservatively while leading the pack there, he still played most of those games to a an obvious conclusion.

I can't count the number of times I've seen a great matchup between other elite players reach an interesting and even critical position, only to have the two players shake hands and agree to a draw. It's sickening. Then, if there's a press conference, they try to explain how the position was equal. I guess they think we are all idiots sometimes. Topalov rarely dissapoints in his games.

"Someone previously argued that Topalov drawing the last half of San Luis, implied that he was as lazy as the rest of the elite."

That's bull. My exact words were that he takes a draw when it suits his needs just like any other GM does - especially if doing so is just being responsible.

Calling the "rest of the elite" lazy is just outright idiotic, pardon my french.

"he takes a draw when it suits his needs just like any other GM does"

You don't give up, do you?

What is your point?

You started this debate by admonishing my comment that the first game was typical Topalov, and that some of the posters didn't recognize it as that, because they hadn't followed his and other elite players games for very long.

You dispute my statement by pointing out that he drew his games in the last half of San Luis? I don't get it. That is not an argument unless you are trying to say he gave early draws to his opponents there. It's hardly relevant anyway, as he was leading by 2 points in the most important tournament of his life. The draw with Svidler, for example, practically guaranteed him first place as Svidler was the only one left chasing him then. Even so, he played very interesting chess in most the last half.

Look at any other tournament, where the players have the option to agree to early draws. You will see the difference between Topalov and the rest. It's impossible to ignore unless you have blinders on. I'm not saying Topalov is better then everyone else either. Just that he fights to the end and his games are almost always interesting, unlike many of the other elite players (particularly when they play each other)

Thanks in advance!

Marc Shepherd, I'll agree with most of what you said. But your comment that someone who blunders the way Topalov has is not playing world-champion quality chess or even great tournament chess, may seem obvious to most people, but I'm not sure it's so clear-cut to me anymore.

We probably got spoiled by that dominant KKA (and before that, the Kasparov-Karpov) era when the top guns rarely made obvious mistakes during high-profile moments. I think the ascension of Topalov is an anomoly when it comes to the number 1 ranked player in the world - someone who can afford to make mistakes, and even lose 1-2 games a tournament, and STILL finish at or near the top. And I'm going to keep riding this faith until this match is over and I see it official that Topalov has lost this match.

I repeat, Topalov has made these kinds of mistakes before. This is NOT atypical of him in my opinion. He trapped his own bishop against Polgar in Corus 2005. He had three ways to polish off Leko in a topical Sveshnikoff in the first cycle of Linares 2005, and chose the only move that went from a win to a draw. In the second cycle of San Luis 2005, he let Morozevich's one attacking piece, a knight, move like five times just so it could threaten perpetual. In the Morelia leg of Linares this year, he went from a strong initiative to near death against Aronian with a disastrous f pawn move.

He MAKES MISTAKES. I believe this is a product of the kind of tension he forces onto the board and his OPPONENT. So far, Kramnik has benefitted from these mistakes while making few of his own. So he's seemingly up an insurmountable lead. Saying that blunder-free chess is close to world-championship quality chess makes sense if you're talking about Kramnik-Leko. There were only a few games in that match where I felt nervous tension and actual energy being expended. When both players are working their tails off (Topalov, as the initiator, and Kramnik, more often than not, the responder) you get mistakes. It's still championship quality chess. If Topalov loses this match, I am still going to salute him and believe him AND HIS PERFORMANCE to be championship quality chess.

But I still think he can win this match, despite those two or three big errors in the first two games, and maybe with some more blunders to come. Because that's how he wins games.

By the way parsnips, thanks so much for that chessgames link of Kramnik's worst games. I like Kramnik and even I thought that was funny.

Ok, that might have been a little harsh. To make up for it, I quote the Leko's introduction in his annotation of his game against Aronian in Dortmund. That game is in the issue of NIC posted in the other item:

"The Dortmund tournamen has a unique tradition in that he lots are drawn as early as the end of April or the beginning of May. The main idea is to have nice publicity a few months earlier and to help German chess fans plan their summer holidays. If you have no time to stay throughout the event you at least have the possibility to choose in advance which games would most interest you. For us professionals it can also be very important.
In other events you can basically make only general preparation, and even if you have done a great job in a certain field you may not have a chance using it for the simple rfeason that you have the wrong colour against the wrong guy.
In modern chess, in wich you are confronted with so many opening problems, this is a very interesting way of fighting against the so-called 'against this line there is nothing' or 'I had no time to prepare against this system' problem that is many times the reason of a quick draw. It is not that the players don't want to fight, if you only have the slightest chance you keep torturing your opponent, but many times it's a mutual neutralisation on the hightest level.
After this long introduction, let's get to the game and see what happened.

1. e4

A little surprise! This game was played in the fifth round, but to finish the story I have to return to the drawing of lots. I drew four whites and three blacks, which at first glance looks great, but when I had seed that as a 1.e4 player in my first three games I would always have to face the Marshall, my happiness fell apart! Me fooling around with some Anti-Marshall meant that I ran the risk of getting nowhere except to a quick draw or self-destruction, as seen lately in a couple of examples.
Basically, I understood that if I wanted to fight in this tournament, I would have to choose the no-summer-holidays option and work at home even at a constant 30+ degrees Celsius! As a result, I came up with 1.d4 in my first and third game, but I had planned to switch back at the right moment and give 1.e4 another chance. Yes, playing a super tournament is not just 10 days of work!

1. .. e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6!?

'C'mon, what's this?' people may ask after my long introduction. Not only does he talk so much, now he even goes for the most boring opening, the Exchange Spanish! Sorry, yes I have not come up with any brilliant novelties in these games, but I was following the strategy of trying to get something playable by avoiding modern lines to get fresh positions not necessarily for the theory but for myself. ...

And so on. Peter is one of the most amiable annotators and his annotated games are alone worth the money.

But anyway - I hope that somewhat settles the "lazy" part...

"You don't give up, do you?"

you don't seem to either. But let's just let it rest, shall we?

The whole debate seems to be revolving around who plays for a draw and who plays for a win. I'll leave it for the fans of both participants to discuss. I don't have a personal stake in the outcome of the match and I about equally like/dislike both players.
I made a point about the quality of play in the last two games. In my opinion, it was below par. There were hardly any tactics and a lot of pointless shuffling of the pieces (Game Four). It may just be that the players needed a break after the tension-filled start.
But Topalov's time to mount a comeback is short.
I still wonder what made him choose Rxc4 allowing Kramnik to liquidate with ...f4

Leko's comments on game against Aronian - 20xx?

"The Dortmund tournament has a unique tradition in that he lots are drawn as early as the end of April or the beginning of May. The main idea is to have nice publicity a few months earlier and to help German chess fans plan their summer holidays. If you have no time to stay throughout the event you at least have the possibility to choose in advance which games would most interest you. For us professionals it can also be very important.
In other events you can basically make only general preparation, and even if you have done a great job in a certain field you may not have a chance using it for the simple rfeason that you have the wrong colour against the wrong guy.
In modern chess, in wich you are confronted with so many opening problems, this is a very interesting way of fighting against the so-called 'against this line there is nothing' or 'I had no time to prepare against this system' problem that is many times the reason of a quick draw. It is not that the players don't want to fight, if you only have the slightest chance you keep torturing your opponent, but many times it's a mutual neutralisation on the hightest level.
After this long introduction, let's get to the game and see what happened.

1. e4

A little surprise! This game was played in the fifth round, but to finish the story I have to return to the drawing of lots. I drew four whites and three blacks, which at first glance looks great, but when I had seed that as a 1.e4 player in my first three games I would always have to face the Marshall, my happiness fell apart! Me fooling around with some Anti-Marshall meant that I ran the risk of getting nowhere except to a quick draw or self-destruction, as seen lately in a couple of examples.
Basically, I understood that if I wanted to fight in this tournament, I would have to choose the no-summer-holidays option and work at home even at a constant 30+ degrees Celsius! As a result, I came up with 1.d4 in my first and third game, but I had planned to switch back at the right moment and give 1.e4 another chance. Yes, playing a super tournament is not just 10 days of work!

1. .. e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6!?

'C'mon, what's this?' people may ask after my long introduction. Not only does he talk so much, now he even goes for the most boring opening, the Exchange Spanish! Sorry, yes I have not come up with any brilliant novelties in these games, but I was following the strategy of trying to get something playable by avoiding modern lines to get fresh positions not necessarily for the theory but for myself. ...

4 ...dxc6 5.d4 Draw agreed.

"We both saw the queens would come off, and rather then exert myself further to a likely half-point, I offerred a draw so I could save up energy for my all important game the next day against Vallejo."

"An interesting game, and I imagine Aronian was quite surprised by my choice of openings..."

google ''chess jokes'' and then scroll down to the 2nd link and see a member of the board of education at Berkley make ignorant and slanderous remarks about the game.. she makes racists comments and blames her insecurities and social issues on a game/sport.. the site that promotes this post is finitechess.com

The jokes are simply ... JOKES. Maybe if you have that in mind, and know a little about the culture of Berkeley, California, you will get the humour.

What is the point of your post Lwolf123? It looks particularly inane when Leko in fact played 5.0-0 and won in 63 moves. Leko was expressing how he sees it. Some people are confident and don't care if they are a little bit unsure about the position and think they can win from any decent position. Others are pragmatic and say the position is equal, therefore the result will most likely be a draw. This is like life. Is there any reason someone should be taunted for their character? Leko still plays enough beautiful chess, so why do we care that he agrees a draw or doesn't always play the critical continuation? We all value the warrior, but why isn't the cautious general who waits to strike of value as well? Why do we focus on the warrior? I think we are all so focused on what is wrong with draws and on results that we ignore the chess. Let's face the facts, if there is even one interesting top-level game in a round of any tournament, that is enough to keep even the most jobless of us busy for a day analyzing. In a way we are so obsessed with the characters of the players, that we forget about the game itself. This is very sad.

It's a joke. I thought someone might get a laugh from it. Sorry, I won't post stuff like that anymore.

Just serious stuff from now on.

I am a little confused here. Maybe someone can clear this up.

1. topalov plays for wins. kramnik for draws therefore topalov is better and kramnik is a bad guy playing for draws when he is +2.

2. topalov plays lots of wins in first half of San Luis and goes up +2. He then plays 7 games for draws. that is smart and good of topalov to play for draws when he is +2.

Seems like there is some defect in logic here. Maybe it is simply the weeping and nashing of teeth of the Topalov fans as their hero does not make the grade. Worshiping a false hero can be very painful.

Frank,

You are so dense, light must bend as it passes your head.

I don't know who called Leko lazy. I certainly would never say that. Any of my posts about him concerned his playing style, which has nothing to do with laziness.

Lwolff123

I thought you were not going to tell any more bad jokes. and here you have me rolling in the isles laffin my bippie off.

All Right everyone. Turn toward Lwolff123 bow down and worship. Hail Lwolff. the new laugh man from comedy central.

Mig! I don't know if this http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3368 is yours or mr. Friedel's, but could you please correct the extremely annoying mix-up of the perfomance ratings, given as: Topalov 3003, Kramnik 2553?!?!?! It's Kramnik who is leading, for Christ sake!!!

The thread became a troll. And why? Because one chess player is a fan of Leko, while another doesn't likes his style. Such a shame.

Some people above made strange remarks to me, as if I was a Kramnik fan. I'm a fan of nobody. But I'm just happy when the guy with overinflated ego gets deservingly bashed. That's simply justice, and I love justice.

I'm fed up with topalov typical fans. Before the match, everybody was supporting Topalov and his attacking style, forgetting that the man had showed a lot of very negative points during the last 2 years.

Therefore, I warmly support Kramnik, and am happy to see the score today. Having a good memory, I can also remember that Kramnik is not Kirsan's friend (far less than Topalov), that he has won 7 times Dortmund, 3 times Linares, some other supertournaments, has positive records against Anand, Kasparov, and Topalov, and basically against any active top player. I still remember that before his illness, Kramnik went up to 2811. And Kramnik has defeated Kasparov in a match where he proved that he was stronger than the strongest player ever, making him - quite logically - the new stronger player ever.

In London 2000, Kasparov was at his rating all time best (2849), and quite close to the match, he went to Linares and won the tournament with a 3 points margin. Kasparov at his peak proved to be weaker than Kramnik.

That's why, before the match, I was certain that Kramnik would crush Topalov. 2813 is not enough to come with Kramnik's real level, even Kasparov implicitly says that Kramnik is stronger than him.

Would Kramnik be a little bit less conservative, would he take more risks, he'd certainly be able to cross Kasparov's all time high at 2849. But he's not an agressive player, just a calm and nice guy. Therefore, his drawing tendancies give him a rating that does not shows his real force, which, if he has no physical problems, shall be far higher than 2800.

While you're at it, the colors are mixed up, too. Kramnik had white in the first game.

Four players have crossed the 2800 bareer, Kasparov, Topalov, Kramnik and Anand. Out of them, one has positive records against the three other ones. Isn't it a good reason to call him the strongest player ever?

Ruslan,

first of all due to rating inflation I wouldn't see this as a clear indication of Kramniks superiority...
second of all,Kramnik did beat Kasparov and deserves every credit for that but after that he didn't really dominate the chessworld the way Kasparov and Karpov did after their title... if he wins this I hope he really puts down some decent results ...

Hey Ruslan,

completely agreeing with your general thrust, but according to my database, that one player is Kasparov *grin, who leads against Topalov +10=17-6, against Anand +23=46-8 and against Kramnik +22=80-21.

But I haven't checked how many of those are rapdid games...
(besides, I'm not a fan of Leko, I just like the guy and think it's completely out to call him - or any other SuperGM - 'lazy' just because he draws a lot)

Kramnik leads against Kasparov. Just select the chess games. By the way, Kasparov leads 10-6 against Topalov, while Kramnik's score is 13-5. On the other hand, Kasparov totally dominates Anand, while Kramnik's results against Anand are just a little bit better.

Kramnik's performance on the 20 games he played since his come back to chess in june 2006 is 2868. But you also must consider that on this 4 month period he was preparing his match against Topalov, and that therefore he was forced not to display his opening preparations at Turin and Dortmund.

Victories against Aronian, Naiditsch (16 moves), Bruzon, Topalov two times, Leko, Jobava and Alexandrov. Draws in all the other games (weakest player was rated 2632). 8 victories and 12 draws against top players. Not too bad for such an arid, uninteresting, drawish, non agressive, slow and passive player.

I remember all the heated discussions during San Luis, "Topalov is true WC, Kramnik is not worthy, bla bla bla". For some mysterious reason, some people almost took it as a given that Kramnik wouls never be able to play chess at the highest level again, if he ever had in the first place. If for nothing else, I'm happy to see Kramnik proving them wrong, though you do almost as good a job proving it, Ruslan ;-)

The match is still young, anything can happen, but I hope this match will give people some pause and maybe reconsider a tendency to not look further back than a couple of years when contemplating the workings of this world... :-)

And yes, Kramnik is very lucky to be ahead +2, Topalov played brilliantly in first two games...

ROFL @ Lwolf123! The dense joke was really funny, and an extremely well deserved rejoinder for trolling.

Elista airport is closed since the 25th. On the 24th, Kramnik was winning his second game. Maybe Kirsan was afraid to see his dear friend Veseline leaving a little bit too early ?

Ruslan: "The thread became a troll. And why?"

Look at your posts

D,
The thread became a troll almost 40 posts after my last words.
My role in the discussion between Lwolf123, Albrecht VDL and Frank H was equal to zero, they developped their troll without me.
In fact, the discussion starts becoming a troll exactly 37 posts after my last words, and when I come back, I come back statint that the thread became a troll. How can I be called responsible for this Mr D?

... and about my posts, well I'm just fed up with so called topalov fans who give the feeling to consider that the outcome of the match only depends on Topalov being able to focus on his chess.

A huge part of the chess world (including more patzers than good chess players) and Topalov himself were considering or saying that Kramnik was a minor parameter of the match equation. Therefore I'm happy with the 3-1 score.

Kramnik is 'not worthy' of calling himself WC because he never won a WC title. Of course he is a great player, and if he wins this match he will be WC.

As quoted by Tom..."Second of all,Kramnik did beat Kasparov and deserves every credit for that but after that he didn't really dominate the chessworld the way Kasparov and Karpov did after their title... if he wins this I hope he really puts down some decent results".

May be, he wasn't as dominant as Kasparov or Karpov, but he did win Dortmund 2001, Linares 2003 and 2004. Only tournament where he wasn't playing well was Corus, (although in 2001, he did play well.

In general, Ruslan makes several good points here. Several Topalov (and Anand fans too) put Kramnik down very easily, especially after a bad year in 2005 for him. But, he has handled all the pressures well and has come back in top form in Elista (so far atleast) and in Olympiads. Also, it is a bit irritating to see Topalov taking a dig at Kramnik talking about the ELO difference between them. Hopefully, Kramnik wins here and confronts Kirsan and co in the future. Cannot imagine Topalov doing that, especially with Silvio Danialov as his aide. :)

"I'm a fan of nobody". I guess this is a Ruslan joke. I still can't quite figure it out though.
Still, if Kirsan does still hate Kramnik, I guess that is one point in Kramnik's favour.

1.Topalov didnt play for draw in second part of San Luis. Look at his games against Morozevich, Kasidjamov, Adams before writing such nonsense.
2. It is lucky that Topalov plays in this match. if it would be Leko than first game would be drawn by repetition with Ne4 Nd2. second game leko would never played g4 and the game would be a quick draw. 4th game would be drawn around move 25. one might say that Topalov wasnt very smart to play so risky but for the chess fans it is great.

ruslan, take it easy, perhaps you need to take a few deep breaths? Substitute Kramnik for Topalov and vice versa above, and your description fits you to a T. The first step along the path to full health might be to stop shooting straw men?

"Four players have crossed the 2800 bareer, Kasparov, Topalov, Kramnik and Anand. Out of them, one has positive records against the three other ones. Isn't it a good reason to call him the strongest player ever?"

A year or two ago, Jeff Sonas had a great series on the best players ever. Depending on what criteria you use, there are numerous answers. Unlike Ruslan, Sonas corrects for rating inflation.

IIRC, Kramnik isn't best-ever by any known definition, but assuming he goes on to win this match, his legacy will take a huge step forward.

Bulgarian news bureau claims Topalov threatens to leave match unless Kramniks toilet visits are surveilled.
Bad match nerves? Bad loser? Or does he have a point? /Jens

Veselin Topalov May Leave Game with Kramnik

28 September 2006 | 14:45 | FOCUS News Agency

Elista. The world Champion in Chess Veselin Topalov could leave the game for the title with his opponent Vladimir Kramnik in Elista. This will happen in case the organizers of the event do not carry out the requests of the Bulgarian delegation, the press secretary of Topalov – Zhivko Gichev reported for FOCUS News Agency. Video records showed that Kramnik went to a particular bathroom more than 50 times during play. This was the only bathroom with no surveillance cameras installed. According to the Bulgarian delegation, going more than 50 times in a bathroom with no surveillance cameras look little suspicious. The Bulgarians want both players banned from going to the bathroom in question and only be allowed to go to secured bathrooms with cameras after permission from judge.

from the press conference after game 4:

Kramnik: "There are many different kinds of games… To be honest, I thought we’ll be able to finish in two hours today – there was almost nothing to play with. But Veselin wanted to continue, and so we did. Frankly, for the rest of the game I was more concerned about making it to the TV to see a Champions League match. I agree, this encounter was kind of boring, but this is the only such case. Although there was still some tension in it."

ROFL!! Ouch.

Sore loser.

"Zhivko Gichev reported for FOCUS News Agency. Video records showed that Kramnik went to a particular bathroom more than 50 times during play. This was the only bathroom with no surveillance cameras installed."

Can we get confirmation of this from someone else? There's been no mention of this whatsoever on ChessBase or TWIC, and I'll bet that they would if this happened.

Well, this could be true. Why else would Danailov have brought a "parapsychologist" (whatever that means) to Elista? The Bulgarians are trying to re-live Baguio or what?

Hihi, now Topa will complain that Bxf8 was a computer move...

Marc, I would strongly advise you not to use Jeff Sonas' current version of "Chessmetrics" as any sort of authority to quote.
It is one of the most ridiculous attempts at a rating system that I have ever seen. You start losing rating points if you have been inactive for just a month??
Proof is in the results he gets, eg The World Championship Tournament of 1948 had Botvinnik, Reshevsky, Keres, Euwe, and Smyslov playing, with the sixth person chosen, Fine, declining to participate. Yet at the very time this tournament was being played, Sonas has Najdorf second on his list (and by a wide margin), and Stahlberg (who??) third!! Sonas also does not seem to be aware of the 1944 Championship of his own country [USA] in which Denker sensationally came ahead of Fine. He has Fine removed from his list in that year for being "inactive". Many similar absurdities can be found.
The fact that Sonas has thrown in his lot with Keene's absurd "Warriors of the Mind" (Alekhine 18th - excuse me) surely says something, too.
While Sonas does have a lot of good stuff, anything based on his rating system ain't.

avarage moves per game in the 2 matches;
kramnik-leko 2004: 35
kramnik-topalov 2006: 57

Chris B,

Gideon Stahlberg was a strong player who was a candidate in 1950 and 1953. I think his and Najdorfs high place was due to the fact that he and Najdorf stayed in Argentina during the war and thus were untouched by WOII, the rest of the players you name had no such luck... . Even now eloratings don't say everything (as the kramnik fans keep telling us =)) and back then they even didn't have them.

The formal complaint: http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/event/kratop06/kratoppress.html
has come in from Silvio Danailov about the amount of toilet breaks Kramnik is taking. Hard to take this at all seriously, except given the bad mouthing Topalov has had behind the scenes over the last year about "computer" help this seems a dangerous road to go down. Personally I think its all rubbish but I think there is a dangerous level of paranoia on the issue amongst the top ranked players right now. I think once you start looking for problems and possiblities for cheating you can find them. Did I see some press conference where Danailov was denying some accusation about a chip being planted in Topalov's head?

Chris B, I do not entirely agree with everything Jeff Sonas has done in his rating system. But he has come up with a reasonable and objective measure that facilitates comparisons of players across eras, something that cannot be done with raw FIDE ratings. In any rating system, one can point to anomalies.

In the particular series that I referred to, Sonas talked about the various ways the "best-ever" debate could be looked at *analytically*, which I thought was entirely valid, even if you use someone else's ratings.

Clearly the standing of Vladimir Kramnik at his peak versus Anatoly Karpov at his peak will never be answered with absolute precision. But at least Sonas provides answers based on objective data, rather than the usual fan-rants that one finds on sites like this one.

By the way, the question of whether one's rating should be "punished" for inactivity has been much debated, and not just by Sonas. There are good arguments both ways.

Another story about Topalov's delegation's complaint here: http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?id=n96686 . Kramnik visited it 50 times during play?

maybe he has some medications to take(?)

It's easy for the Topalov team to demand such strict bathroom conditions when they already have a chip implanted in Topalov's brain.

What happened to the good old youghurt gambit?

Another reason to support Kramnik. Topalov is cheating by using telepathy, btw :-)

Ruslan,

I don't know where you got your information from but according to chessgames.com database, Kramnik does not have positive scores against either Kasparov or Anand. Kasparov beats him by 22 to 21 and Anand beats him by 18 to 12 (excluding draws).

Btw: Kasparov beats Anand by 23 to 8.

Tom,
Elo ratings do give a reasonable idea. Sonas' are considerably more random; you simply cannot trust them to mean anything much.
Many other players stronger than Stahlberg were also in the 1950 and 1953 Candidates. In 1953, Stahlberg finished stone cold last out of 15 players, a whopping 3.5(!) points behind second bottom Euwe. In 1950, Stahlberg was seventh out of 10, in a tournament that didn't include Botvinnik, Reshevsky and Euwe.
The WW2 performances of Najdorf and Stahlberg in Argentina do not mean much as no other top players were there, so there is nothing much to measure them against.
Botvinnik, Smyslov, Reshevsky and Fine were safe in their homelands during WW2. Only Keres and Euwe of the six were in the battle zone. Indeed Najdorf and Stahlberg were considerably more touched by WW2 than those first four - Najdorf lost his whole family, while both were cut off from their homelands.
If you need another example, Sonas has Lasker losing a whopping 150 points for being inactive in 1912 and 1913 to be 10th(!) behind Duras, Teichmann, Marshall, Tarrasch, Nimzovitch, etc. Yeah, right. He 'gets it all back' with St. Petersburg 1914. Of course, in reality, he was pretty much the same strength all along.

chessgames.com has about 1/10 of the games that are part of MegaBase 2004...

Funny, I bet the Parapyschologist or whomever is also on Topo's team is doing this potty thing. To think that Kramnik is cheating to achieve losing positions is 100% paranoia. I have lost some respect for the Topalov team. And am reminded of the cheating accusations/attacks from the San Luis tournament...does this warrant further conversation?

"I don't know where you got your information from but according to chessgames.com database, Kramnik does not have positive scores against either Kasparov or Anand. Kasparov beats him by 22 to 21 and Anand beats him by 18 to 12 (excluding draws)."

These include rapid, blitz, blindfold and everything you can think of. Kramnik has a plus score against both in classical chess.

Harry Potty,

I don't understand. In San Luis, the accusation were AGAINST Topalov.

Maybe Kramnik is not feeling well or has a weak bladder, but 50 times is a bit much if he does not have these issues. However, one can argue that his bathroom breaks have not necessarily helped his play... despite his +2 score.

The bathroom complaint sounds like a mind game that Bobby Fischer would play. People excuse Fischer's whining because he defeated the Soviet chess empire. At the moment, the Topalov team just look like sore losers.

But remember, when Topalov was winning big, people accused HIM of cheating. Somehow, it seems people can't just tip their hat to to a great player.

Well, it is a known fact that Kramnik has a plus score against Kasparov, Topalov and Anand. It is just that chessgames.com also includes things like rapid, blitz and blindfold in the records. But in classical (and let's face it, only classical matters), Kramnik does indeed have a plus score against those guys.

I think this "chip in head stuff" is really rather worrying. Susan Polgar, fo instance, has it on her website. When I offered some gentle criticism of this palpable nonsense, it was explained to me on ICC that it was all a joke. But in the nature of gossip, urban myth and all that, the joke quickly becomes the perceived reality. If this is supposed to be a joke, its unfunny and dangerous. If its not a joke, it is simply ludicrous.

On the face of it it looks reasonable to demand stricter measures to avoid possible cheating, but he seems to be saying that the rest rooms should no longer be allowed to be used at all.

This is completely unreasonable.

As pointed out on another site, who would benefit from that? Topalov or someone with lesser stamina who is suffering from arthritis?? I thought the rest rooms were there for a reason, and as he points out, it does have video surveillance anyway.

What an utterly despicable.. well... insert something here, I won't take the risk of being censored.

So, what's the story with the Topolov's blue "armrest"...and the appearance of one for Kramnik in game 4?

Topa's Toilet Gambit will probably find its way into the mainstream media. At last, publicity for the match! Unfortunately, it will be the kind of publicity that makes chess look ridiculous.

If you knew one toilet did NOT have video cameras i bet you'd use that one too !!!

Danailov does not believe himself that Kramnik is cheating (one look at the first three games is enough to show the absurdity of it, and Danailov is a chess master). All he wants is waging psycho warfare... and see if Kramnik loses his nerves.

I hope this "protest" has the same effect as Topalov's comment about Kramnik not being in his league: Vladimir will gain even more motivation. One third of the match is gone and Topalov is two points behind, so his manager resorts to "other measures." It will backfire!
Danny

Wait, is the 50 times a game number just an extrapolation from that 10 minute sample? If so, that's a hilarious misuse of statistics. Or is Kramnik actually going to the bathroom after every move? That would seem suspicious, not to mention bad for concentration, but wouldn't someone else have mentioned this if it were happening? Is anyone on the ground in Elista able to confirm that Vlad stands up and leaves after every move?

"but he seems to be saying that the rest rooms should no longer be allowed to be used at all.
This is completely unreasonable."
acirce, how did you come up with this. you normally have much better comprehension. read again
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3370

Sim,
According to my database based on Mega and CBM, Kasparov has +1 vs.Kramnik (+22-21=80) in all games, but under the classical time control he has -1 (+4-5=41). Their last decisive game was from 2001.

Anand vs. Kramnik:
all games: +6(+18-12=82)
classic: +1(+6-5=42); what is interesting, Anand have lost to Kramnik no single classic game with white pieces (Kramnik lost 2 games with white 10 years ago)!

Marc,
Thank you for your reply.
On the inactivity question, something certainly has to be done at some stage - either removal from the list, or 'punishment'; of course you cannot have Fischer at 2780 for 20 years. I would think some sort of mild 'punishment' starting after, say, 2 years would be reasonable. But after only one month is quite ridiculous, and must seriously affect the ratings, eg, see the Lasker absurdity [in my reply to Tom], which is obviously caused by this.
In view of this, I cannot consider Sonas' system either reasonable or objective, and the anomalies in it are much more serious than in the Elo system [which could also be improved]. Therefore, also, any "best-ever" analysis based on it is a foundation based on sand.
Elo based his initial ratings on iterations of results for the period 1968-70 (I think; or something similar). I cannot see why you could not do the same for, say, the period 1894-96 [or earlier, whenever] and move forward from there. There could be various ways to control inflation or deflation, thereby getting a comparison across eras. One very interesting and good looking way is at: http://members.shaw.ca/redwards1/

I guess they meant 50x over all games. Then it's about 10x per game. Given that all the games have taken about 5-6 hours, and Kramnik maybe _is_ taking medication or has to drink a lot _because_ of medication, a toilet break every half hour or so is no longer really, really suspicious.

And I agree: If I knew which restroom is without surveillance, I'd use that one too...

******Wait, is the 50 times a game number just an extrapolation from that 10 minute sample? If so, that's a hilarious misuse of statistics. Or is Kramnik actually going to the bathroom after every move? That would seem suspicious, not to mention bad for concentration, but wouldn't someone else have mentioned this if it were happening? Is anyone on the ground in Elista able to confirm that Vlad stands up and leaves after every move?*******

He did this back and forth stuff also in his match against Kasparov, he has practiced his cheating ways for many years. Notice how Kramnik's performance went down after the Kasparov match, as his opponents found methods to beat his Shredder-assisted play. But then Rybka comes on the scene, and Kramnik suddenly performs several hundreds of rating points better.

Coincidence? One would be naive not to be suspicious.

/joking off

jhoro:

"...we demand:

To stop the use of the rest rooms and the adjacent bathrooms for both players."

What am I not comprehending? Is it my English that's bad, is it yours or is it Danailov's?

whats the score between kramnik and kasparov in classical chess?

Anand's last loss to Kramnik is dated 2002. Since then he got +1 in 2003 (0 classic), +2 in 2004 (+1 classic), and +2 in 2005 (+1 classic) totaling to +5 (+3 classic). But now if Kramnik is back in shape, he can fix this insulting score, IMHO.

acirce, maybe you should keep reading...
"In relation to the above, and to ensure the best conditions for fair play and rule out all suspicions we demand:

1.To stop the use of the rest rooms and the adjacent bathrooms for both players.
2.If a player needs to go to the bathroom, he can use the public bathroom, but only with permission from the Arbiter and accompanied by an assistant arbiter.
3.The Organizing Committee should present the video tapes from the rest rooms to all journalists accredited in the press-center so that they can verify for themselves the facts described by us.
"

Well, if would seem logical, that there are strict rules for the amount of times one can leave the board during the game!? In Boxing, fighters bash each other for 12- 15 rounds, and cannot leave the ring, for whatever reason!! Allright a 6 hour chess game is different, but time-outs should be strickly stated in the rules, and enforced. If the number of time-outs, actually times one leaves the board to stretch, is not enforced, it should be. IMHO

"What am I not comprehending? Is it my English that's bad, is it yours or is it Danailov's?" no, you are just being yourself

And Kasparov leads Topalov 14-6 not 10-6 like you said. Please get your facts right.

jhoro:

What's your point? He says the rest rooms should not be used. That's what I said. I did NOT say he demanded that no bathrooms should be used. So what are you arguing?

Alright, I guess you guys have a point about theses scores including non-classical games.

Topalov's bathroom complaint is not the first one.
Silvio also complained after the game 2:
http://topsport.ibox.bg/news/id_69034250
He mentioned open windows in Topalov's restroom during game. Could not they close it themself?
He complained that they were not invited to the procedure of checking the player's rooms before games.
He mentioned that there were strangers found entering players rest rooms.
There was no check in enforced in the playing hall to prevent observers from having electronic devices (cameras, cell phones).
This was not an official complaint, but organizers took it seriously.
P.S. I use word 'restroom' here not in american meaning, but as a room for taking rest ;-)

My guess is that Mr. Danailov is trying to put a pressure on Vlad to break the psychological advantage Kramnik got over Topalov, nothing more and nothing less.

acirce, it was my comprehension. i took "rest room" as "restroom" in your post. you were correct

Vlad, Sim:

I believe Kramnik has +5-4 against both Kasparov and Anand in classical games.

Not to be a potty mouth (ouch, bad pun), but if Kramnik really does need to piss that often, that's quite alright, but he should inform organizers about it. I would say inform the press but he is a rather private individual.

Possible reasons Kramnik is going to the bathroom:

1. Take medication
2. Does not feel comfortable in front of everybody watching (thinking, not peeing)
3. Nerves
4. He likes to pace and do so by himself
5. Wants to talk to himself outloud

This is not something unaccomodatable, but he should acknowledge how it looks and explain his habit. Otherwise it looks like psychological warfare.

I don't believe for a second Kramnik is cheating. His play has had quite a few inferior choices (cxd5 and Bxf8 are probably precisely the kind of moves computer would tell him bring an advantage). Also, since this is the kind of thing that would immediately get noticed and investigated, the risk is hardly worth it. No computer company would want to book a match with him, he wouldn't get invited to tournaments--it's hard to see Kramnik risking his livelihood in a manner that would lead to him getting caught.

The fact that Danilov brings up the possibility of pulling out over unsubstantiated easily explained and easily fixable charge in the first communique to organizers suggests desire to abrupt a badly going chess match.

Isn't request for no rest rooms a bit much? Is it unprecedented? I remember Kasparov using rest rooms heavily in his match against 3d Fritz. Other than that I have to admit I haven't really followed the use of restrooms in top chess events. Can Mig enlighten us, perhaps?

One more article in the long list of Danailov's rudiness acts.
The player has a right to spend as much time in his room as he wants. This is usual since Botvinnik times. Topalov prefers to sit 6 hours in front of the desk? This is his right. Vlad prefers more comfortable sitting. There is no rule violation here.
If the bathroom was checked before the game, and there are security measures enforced during the game, why can't Kramnik spend as much time in the bathroom as he wants? May be, he feels his hands are wet, or he does not like his hairdress and needs a mirror, or whatever.
But I'd like the schedule to be published what happened before and after blunders they both had.

P.S. Mr.Danailov should ask to update the PGN standard to include the special annotation mark for a player's bathroom visit, including timing. This would be a millennium top ranked innovation in game analysis!

Nice try, Topo. Kramnik's 'restroom' activities have nothing with your missed chances (i.e. Forced Win) in Game 2 and your reluctance to force a draw in Game 1. Those were your choices, not Kramnik's.

The implication is obvious: they are accusing him of cheating.

Kramnik doesn't need to cheat to beat this chump. Topalov is very much like the new model year in a sports car. Everyone is all high about it, then after a few months they realize it's the same old thing with a little more polish and spit on the hood.

If I were Kramnik, I'd think that this probably means that the Topalov camp has come to the agreement that they can't win this match by fair means anymore. I'd have a chuckle and feel very, very relaxed on my rest day.

Anticipating your questions - yes, I did some consultation with Kramnik's team.

Mr.Varshavsky,

Shouldn't Kramnik's team raise a question in front of FIDE for some punishment (fine etc.) to Topalov's team for such ridiculous press-releases discussing the issues which are not in the reglament of the match?

V,
did you borrow him your stuff or was he getting something tailor made and you just had to show him how to handle it properly? Always interesting to know what goes on behind the stage ;o)

I suggest that they install video surveillance cameras in both players' toilet stalls and then present these recordings to all press members for careful study. Otherwise, the reputation of chess as an honest game will be tarnished forever.

I think Kramnik will have a good laugh about this.

POTTYGATE!

I've understood kramnik to be a not-so light smoker....which could definitely have something to do with his broom trips and the real reason why Topalov wants to prevent them.

It would seem that the Bulgarian sorcerer wanted to cast a piece of c*** into someone's brain and it went accidentally into Danailov's.

This whole protest is so ludricous as to be hilarious if it was not about such a serious matter.

Russianbear, Sim,

Below is a full list of decisive classic games between Kramnik, Anand, and Kasparov I found. Feel free to correct me. Some games could have non-classic time control.

Kramnik is +5-5 to Anand (my previous statement was incorrect, I missed one game):

Sofia, 2005: Anand-Kramnik 1-0
Dortmund, 2004: Anand-Kramnik 1-0
Dortmund, 2001: Kramnik-Anand 1-0
Dortmund, 2000: Kramnik-Anand 1-0
Dos Hermanas, 1999: Kramnik-Anand 1-0
Tilburg, 1998: Anand-Kramnik 1-0
Belgrade, 1997: Kramnik-Anand 0-1
Dos Hermanas, 1996: Kramnik-Anand 1-0
Amsterdam, 1996: Kramnik-Anand 0-1
Las Palmas, 1996: Kramnik-Anand 1-0

Kramnik is +5-4 vs. Kasparov:

Astana, 2001: Kasparov-Kramnik 1-0
WC-2000: Kramnik-Kasparov 1-0
WC-2000: Kramnik-Kasparov 1-0
Novgorod, 1997: Kramnik-Kasparov 1-0
Linares, 1997: Kasparov-Kramnik 1-0
Dos Hermanas, 1996: Kasparov-Kramnik 0-1
Amsterdam, 1996: Kasparov-Kramnik 1-0
Novgorod, 1994: Kasparov-Kramnik 1-0
Linares, 1994:Kramnik-Kasparov 1-0

WATER CLOSET GATE!

If Danailov's protest is successful, perhaps Kirsan will announce new articles of protocol for the second half of the match: players are forbidden clothing onstage and must relieve themselves during play in a pair of rook-shaped chamberpots. This strategy could lead to more exciting opening choices, ie the Dirty Sanchez variation of the Spanish, the KI Donkey Punch Attack and the Pink Sock Pirc.

Dortmund 2004 was not a classical game. It was a rapid tiebreak game. The classical 2-game minimatch was tied after two draws. Anand won the tiebreaker 1.5-0.5

Vlad,

I think you got them, except that Anand's win over Kramnik in Dortmund 2004 has been a rapid tie-break game. Dortmund was not all classical that year - they had two groups of 4 players, followed by short 1 on 1 matches with rapid tie-breaks.

So like I mentioned before, Kramnik leads both Anand and KAsparov +5-4 in classical games.

I don't know why I post anymore. acirce beat me to it again.

Thanks for correction. As a big fan of Vlad, I am happy you were right! ;-)

One more thing to notice: in his letter, Danailov names himself as a "Manager of the World Champion". Does this mean they consider Kramnik not a champion agian?

Chrisb, my praise of Sonas's work was his series on "greatest ever." No matter who's rating system you use, you come up with different answers depending on the criteria. For instance, you could look at:

-- Longest reign as world champion
-- Highest rating level achieved
-- Largest gap between #1 and #2
-- Longest period as #1
-- Best overall performance in tournaments
-- Best overall performance in match play
-- Best overall performance in W.C. match play
-- Best performance in one tournament
-- Best performance in one match

And so forth. By none of these metrics would Kramnik be the best player ever, whether you use Sonas's ratings, FIDE ratings, or my grandmother's ratings.

'One more thing to notice: in his letter, Danailov names himself as a "Manager of the World Champion". Does this mean they consider Kramnik not a champion agian?'

They never did. Barring a huge turnaround in the next week or so, they will soon.

They shoudl allow the opposite team to search the private rooms before each game. Then there clearly should not be anyone going into these private rooms other than the players during a game. They should remain secure just as though there were $1 millinion in cash sitting in there. This should take care of it.

No need to publish video of Kramnik on the crapper.

Danilov is not accusing Kramnik of cheating he is sayign that going to the bathroom 50 times in 7 hours is suspicious. I think he is correct on that, it is suspicious. I think he is also correct that no other people shoudl be aloowed in these rooms - at least not after they are inspected.

Based on the timing of the moves (for example he took a long time before playign the losing Bxf8,(game 2) the inferior cxd5(game 3) and took along time before he skipped the appearantly winning Ne4 and played Bxe7 instead (game 3)) and Kramniks comments I find it almost impossible to beleive he had computer assistance.

Jeff,

Tape evidence can be tampered with. I suggest that proceedings in the bathroom be broadcast live--this could finally lead to chess being televised to good ratings and being entered into Olympics. And here you thought Kirsan's idea was full of crap.

In all seriousness, the more I look at this press release the less I like it. To make these demands sound like an ultimatum and to do so publicly, after four games have gone by, really does not look good. The mature approach would have limited the request to confining Kramnik to X number of unexplained bathroom breaks per game and allowed more time to negotiate.

Topalov's psychics complains – could not affect a moving target. Pride aside – play naked and piss under the table ;-)

"niceforkinmove: Based on the timing of the moves"

Exactly! When he is thinking over the board for a long time, he sometimes makes inferior moves (or even blunders, in game 2). Coming out of the rest room -- excellent moves.

I think that's why they annotate his activities between moves 15 and 16. He makes three bathroom visits before he plays the excellent move 16, Topalov responds quickly, and Kramnik then makes an inferior move 17 over the board.

Thanks for the data Vlad.

As for this 'recent development', it is not unusual for a player to get up after every move -Kasparov does it himself (out of hypertensiveness). But going to the toilet after every move (???) may require a more imaginative explanation.

Dear skip totheloo,
Danailov published Kramnik's schedule before move 16, but he said nothing about move 17.
Even more, Danailov states "The behavior of Mr. Kramnik is very similar to the above during all games played so far."
What made you believe Kramnik makes inferior moves when sitting before the board? Personal feelings?

"Chrisb, my praise of Sonas's work was his series on "greatest ever." No matter who's rating system you use, you come up with different answers depending on the criteria. For instance, you could look at:

-- Longest reign as world champion
-- Highest rating level achieved
-- Largest gap between #1 and #2
-- Longest period as #1
-- Best overall performance in tournaments
-- Best overall performance in match play
-- Best overall performance in W.C. match play
-- Best performance in one tournament
-- Best performance in one match

And so forth. By none of these metrics would Kramnik be the best player ever, whether you use Sonas's ratings, FIDE ratings, or my grandmother's ratings."

Russianbear writes:
Actually, if I remember correctly, Kramnik's performance in BGN 2000 match is the highest rated World championship performance. It may not be the best on chessmetrics list, but with ELO ratings, I think it may be. Also, if Kramnik keeps up what he is doing in this Elista match, he may set a new record. I didn't do the math, but my guess is +3 against Topalov in this match could be the highest performance rating ever in a WC match. Of course, this match is far from over.

Not that I think Kramnik is the best ever, of course. I don't think he is in the top 5 either. But if he beats Topalov in this match, I think it will be hard to make a case that he doesn't belong in top 10 ever. If he wins with a +2 score, indeed one could claim that Kramnik is one of all time great mtach players, and he would indeed be close to top 5, at least on my list.

"As for this 'recent development', it is not unusual for a player to get up after every move -Kasparov does it himself (out of hypertensiveness). But going to the toilet after every move (???) may require a more imaginative explanation."

Why? I can well imagine doing that myself if I had access to one. Just to name one reason, if there are no cameras there you avoid the feeling of being constantly watched.

I think it's extremely silly to even consider this an issue. It's easily the most absurd since Baguio.

If Topalov only visits the bathroom 4 times per game that is not any less odd.

And yes, Kramnik is very lucky to be ahead +2, Topalov played brilliantly in first two games...

Posted by: Alkelele at September 28, 2006 06:44

Yes, I fear this is going to cost Topalov this mini-match. In a 12-game match, you cannot play two beautiful games and score 0 combined points from them because of blunders (57 ... f5??, 32 Qg6+??).

Skip totheloo

I agree with Vlad Kosulin here. Why are you making these claims? Are you there so you can see when he is at the board and when he is not?

Nonetheless some pretty funny posts here. :) Kramnik's not the only one who does some of his greatest thiniking on the toilet.

Ok on the chessbase site they post two letters. The first (after game 2) made the following allegations:

"We are not satisfied with the checks carried out on the players’ rest rooms. Members of our team were not invited to attend these checks. We are surprised by the fact that the window of Topalov’s rest room was open during play.

Outside people have been in and out of the players’ rest rooms during the match.

No appropriate security checks have been carried out on spectators, to ensure they are not carrying electronic devices, such as mobile phones and/or cameras with flash."

All of these allegations are are to my mind legitimate concerns. However, the second letter, which was public, just talks about the number of bathroom visits. If in fact FIDE corrected/addressed the porblems from the first letter than the second letter is indeed ridiculous.

let leave the russians to go to the bathroom as much as they like to!
it's a call for tolerance!
:)

The first letter was dated Sept.24, and Sept.26 FIDE claimed all concerns were fully resolved. After game 4 we got letter #2. Should we expect letter #3 after game 6 in which Mr.Danailov threatens that Topalov would migrate to Island if Kramnik continues wearing his magic glasses?

Sigh.
This will be all over the media, I am certain, and reinforce what most people think anyway: grandmasters are crazy.

@Charles Milton Ling:

Silvio Danailov is IM not a GM :)

Dear Vlad,

The excellent (and computer-recommended) move 16.Bg5 was made after the frequent visits to the bathroom. Topalov answered quickly with the pretty much forced Be8. Then Kramnik, without going to the restroom, over the board, preferred to simplify things with exchanging the bishop, which is inferior to 17.Ne4 (the computer recommendation). Ne4 was analysed to win on playchess.com. Satisfied?

inferior
How do you know he did not go to the bathroom before playign 17.Bxe7?
He took a *long* time on that move.

Exactly, inferior. So unless someone is seriously suggesting that Kramnik is using engine help to play only one move at a time - not actually looking at *lines* - Danailov's own example is devastating for his "argument".

If that's what Kramnik was doing, he would be the least skilled computer cheater ever, and he would be down 0-4.

inferior,
Your note just confirms my belief that Topalov's suspitions are baseless.
If Kramnik made move 16 with computer assistance, and Topalov's response was a forced move, can you believe Kramnik was so stupid to remember only move 16 itself without any variations?
If Kramnik made move 17 without reflection, as you say, this clearly confirms that Kramnik prepared move 16 himself. He just miscalculated. This would never happen if he used computer to make move 16.

May I ask you where did you find game notation with players reflection time?

"The excellent (and computer-recommended) move 16.Bg5 was made after the frequent visits to the bathroom."

Even I noticed 16.Bg5 (though I did not calculate it in detail). And I'm a terrible patzer.

In case of rheumatoid arthritis, it is important to make sure to be active by doing exercise that must not be too violent or exhausting but targeted at keeping the muscles flexible and working properly so as not to make them diminish or rigid which could cause even more pain.
Kramnik suffers from chronic polyarthritis. The worst thing for this is to sit at a chess table for hours. It is also a condition that can vary in effect from day to day.
I suspect Kramnik is doing exercises to try to relieve some discomfort he is very likely to be suffering.
He has been very private about his illness in the past, and I would imagine he would prefer to do his excercises in the bathroom, which is the only place available without video surveilence.
I do not believe for one second that he is receiving, or indeed needs to recieve, any assistance.

Excellent observation, Philip. It would explain everything to everyone's (even *IM* - thanks, "thenewone" - Danailov's) satisfaction, I trust.

Thank you, Philip, your post confirms my suspicions.

Can I ask for source on this just because there is a lot of dubious medical information floating on the web?

If Vlad is in fact playing top level chess while having to do anti-arthritis exercises every few minutes, his performance is really amazing.

(Far fetched explanation ensues)

Player goes into the bathroom, taps on the pipes a code something like, "Bxf5", he leaves the bathroom, comes back a couple minutes later after the computer analysis is complete, listens for the answer "Rc4", thinks for a minute, taps on the pipes "b3" as a reply, and then leaves the bathroom again, and comes back a couple minutes later with the results of the next analysis "Ra4"...

Of course, I seriously doubt this is going on, but given the fact that the bathrooms are searched, it seems like one of the only ways to do this, given the (alleged) pattern of bathroom (not rest room) visits.

Wasn't there an old Tony Orlando song about this? "Knock three times on the ceiling if you want me (to play Qf1)..."

The notion of Kramnik cheating is absurd. In fact, it smacks of something right out of Absurdistan. The Topalov team should focus less on the potty-trips of their opponent than on trying to figure out why their charge keeps miscalculating or misjudging positions. Topalov has, by and large, been a graceless "world champion". He's been the recipient of such good faith (due, of course, to his manner of playing); for his team (or him) to be squandering that faith with shabby tricks like this is sad (at best).

What else could we expect from Mr.Danailov? He shows his nature for years.

An utterly desperate move by Topalov, who

--holds up chess to universal mockery,
--makes a fool of himself,
--loses the sympathy he enjoyed as a victim of cheating accusations,
--shows up and alienates individuals who had taken great pride in staging this event: the FIDE president and staff.

Topalov's threat to quit the match sounds hollow given that it would cost him
--$500,000,
--any hope of participating in the next WCC cycle,
--his reputation,
--Kirsan's everlasting enmity

Kramnik won't be upset, he'll be amused.

Sitting across the board from Kramnik tomorrow after pulling this stunt, imagine Topalov's embarrassment.

Don't worry, this story won't be in the mainstream media, unless Kramnik is actually cheating (or Topalov actually pulled out). Right now it's kind of boring, and it would take 3 times as long to explain who the players are and what they're playing for as it would to explain what the 'protest' is about.

It all reads like a bad movie: the emotionally inept chess champion; the dodgy used-car-salesman manager; the tinpot dictatorship setting (complete with fornicating faun logo and garish golden Buddhist temple backdrop). I wouldn't be surprised to find Borat himself popping up in one of the webcasts (perhaps he's in the toilet).

If Topalov is truly entertaining this as a possibility, he is done. Look at how Kasparov collapsed against Deep Blue after he was psychologically undermined by the believe (whether erroneous or not) that the opposing team was cheating. Unless he can come back to reality and focus on the chessboard rather than conspiracy theories, this match is over already even if he keeps playing.

Is it possible that Topalov's team is doing this so that they themselves can cheat? I mean, a request to use public bathrooms instead of private ones sure sounds suspicious. If anything, it will allow greater possibilities for cheating - and they can plant analysis near the toilet kinda like they planted the gun in Godfather movie :)

Sadly, Kramnik will only be amused if the threat is appropriately dismissed by FIDE. If Kramnik's ability to do whatever it is he needs to do in the bathroom is impeded, he might be cringing and too uncomfortable to smile.

A decent individual would, in fact, be embarrassed to pull a stunt like this. But management like Danailov won't be (and perhaps Topalov neither if he approves), just like the stunts Karpov's management used to pull in his heyday or some of the stuff Korchnoi and Fischer employed in the 70's didn't cause them to lose any sleep.

"I wouldn't be surprised to find Borat himself popping up in one of the webcasts (perhaps he's in the toilet)."

Danailov: Can we put camera in men's toilet?
Ilyumzhinov: No.
Danailov: Why not?

Marc,
On the post of yours that I first responded to, you had said 'Sonas corrects for rating inflation'. It was from this that I assumed that you had used Sonas' Chessmetrics Ratings.
Anyway, I found the article that you referred to [I presume it's 'The Greatest Chess Player of All Time' - in 4 parts]. I agree with your latest post; this bit of the article is quite good. Probably some sort of weighted average of these factors would have to be worked out; a decent set of historical ratings would be essential as well. Yeah, Kramnik is nowhere near the best ever.
For most of the article, however, Sonas does indeed extensively use his ratings, with conclusions that may well be unsound, and in any case meaningless because you just don't know whether they are unsound or not.
Indeed right in Part 1, he uses another absurdity that I had noticed. He states [by using his ratings, based on hardly any results] that "Lasker entrenched himself at the top of the list at the tender age of 21, in the summer of 1890". This sort of tripe really does annoy. Lasker was almost a complete unknown in 1890, just a minor master - he had only just started playing seriously; Sonas has him as top in the world! Lasker only started making any sort of waves in 1892; the 1893 Tarrasch-Chigorin match was widely regarded as one between the two best players in the world apart from Steinitz. In 1894 Lasker approached Tarrasch for a match; the 4-time big tournament winner felt Lasker to be so beneath him that he told him to buzz off and win some tournaments. Lasker instead went to America and took the Title from a 58 year old Steinitz. Not many were convinced, and indeed Lasker only came third at Hastings 1895. Only at St Petersburg 1895-6 did Lasker finally start to assert his ascendancy. I'm afraid I just cannot believe in Sonas' stuff.

Russianbear,
You would have to take the inflation out of the ELO ratings to be able to make a real comparison. See the very interesting site I mentioned in my last post - this would enable you to do this. You may well be right anyway as ELO ratings only go back to 1970. However, if they did go right back, I'm sure some of Lasker's wins; Capa's win over Lasker; and possibly Botvinnik's return 1961 win (13-8) over Tal would be higher rated performances.
Possibly Kramnik might just squeeze into the top 10, but I would hardly claim that someone who has lost to Kamsky, Gelfand and Shirov; and only just drew with Leko can be called 'one of the all time great match players'!

Kramnik suffers from a form of arthritis known as Ankylosing spondylitis.

One of the side effects from that horrible disease is ulcerative colitis, a form of inflammatory bowel disease. It effects the intestine, particularly hte colon, with characteristic ulcers. The main symptom of active disease is usually diarrhea mixed with blood.

Frankly, there is a perfectly reasonable explanation of Kramnik's "bathroom habits" that doesn't require too much imagination.

I knew this was going to happen cause the Bulgarian Sorceror's witchcraft is not working here. Amusing.

Assuming Kramnik's frequent restroom breaks are indeed health related — as I believe they are — it makes the quality of his play all the much more impressive.

Chris B,

I have to say I am not convinced that there has been any rating inflation at all. As far as I am concerned, top players of today play better than they did 30 or 50 years ago, similar to how modern football and basketball players are much better than those of the past. I am not convinced that the strength of the top players has not increased proportianally to the rating increase and therefore I don't think you can claim that there has been rating inflation. For all we know, ratings may have deflated (meaning, it takes a much stronger person to have a rating that a person of the same rating had in the past), but top players of today are so strong, that their rating has grown anyway.

Indeed, maybe some of Lasker's blowouts may be rated higher if we projected ELO back in time, but I don't know how reliable those projections would be in the first place. But Capa vs. Lasker is indeed a worthy example.

As for Kramnik's losses to Kamsky and Gelfand go, we already had a discussion about those in the forum. Kramnik was like 19 at the time of those matches - so young that most people would probably not even make it to the candidate matches stage at such a young as he did, anyway. So I don't know if you can use them against him, because even though he lost- how many people have been such strong contenders for the world title at the age of 19 that they lost in quater and semifinals of the world championship cycle?

And as for the match with Shirov - yeah, that is indeed quite a bad thing on Kramnik's resume. But then again, pretty much every World champion had a match loss at some point of his career. But if Kramnik beats Topalov, in addition to beating Kasparov, it makes him one of the very select group that won multiple World championship matches. And if you add a title defense against Leko, he will join Karpov as 3 time title holder and only Steinitz(4), Lasker(7), Alekhine(4), Botvinnik(5) and Kasparov(6) will have more World championship titles than him. If he wins this match, Kramnik will certainly cement his place in chess history.

May God protect chess from characters like Topalov ever becoming World Champions. A man who sh**s in his own carpet floor, sallying the world championship contest that pays him 500 grand, win or lose, by accusing his opponent of cheating merely because he has been more lucky/astute in picking up the up-for-grabs points until now. So, Kramnik saved two lost games and then decided to start cheating because he figured Topalov is too strong for him, huh ? I realy hope now Kramnik crushes him hard, to settle this score for ever and rid top chess of such scumbags.

Now Topa's team in complainingabout Vlad's bathroom breaks, insinuating suspicion.

What a whinger Topa

Go Vlad Go !!

FWIW, the story made the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/crosswords/chess/29chesscnd.html

"Kramnik would never cheat". funny. i've heard same things about Ben Jonhson, Maradona, etc...

Gilles, what's your point ? That because it is possible for Kramnik to do so, there is a good chance that he did it because Cheapalov said so ?

no my point is that these statements that sb wouldnt do it just because he's a nice guy or because somebody "knows he's not the type to do that" are pointless. i dont believe for a second that kramnik was cheating however i think that if he really went to the bathroom 50 times during a game topalov's team has the right to ask whats going on. i played in a lot of opens and i can tell u that when somebody goes to the bathroom 3 or 4 times ppl already start to wonder.

Russianbear,
It depends on what you say the ratings are supposed to measure - Absolute playing strength or the positions of players relative to each other? I think most of us understand the latter to be the case, and this is what Sonas is discussing, too. Anyway, have a look at that site I mentioned [ http://members.shaw.ca/redwards1/ ], very interesting - see what you think.
Kamsky, Gelfand matches, hmmm... can't imagine a 19-year-old Kasparov or Fischer losing to those guys. Indeed, at 20, just a year older, Kasparov won through the 1983 Candidates Matches, beating inter alia Belyavsky and Korchnoi, and by big margins, too.
It's just my personal opinion, but I do not believe Kramnik is entitled to be called a legitimate World Champion after 2002 - see my posts under 'Elista Entourage' as to why. And if Kasparov had qualified for a rematch [under a proper system], I rather doubt that Kramnik would have been any sort of World Champion after 2003. So if Kramnik wins, he would only be a two-time holder, and lucky to be that.
Karpov only a one-time holder - FIDE circuses do not count.
At this stage, I would put Kramnik's place in chess history as something like Euwe - surprise World Championship win against a towering figure, then middling results, and holds title for 2 years only.

Bozoka,

in 2000 match, in London not in Russia, mr.Kasparov had exactly the same requirement to mr.Kramnik.

Make some inquiries if not believing in it

'as the organiser of three world championship matches and a first hand observer or second in five more i can assure everyone that it is absolutely unprecedented for the players to use the public washroom during such a match. if security is to be breached that is a sure fire way of going about it-they may as well tear down their glass protection wall right away if they are going down that insane route. i would tell danailov to "piss off"" metaphorically of course.'

- Ray Keene posting on chessgames.com

Thenewone,

This is the first time I heard about it, and that is precisely the point. If Cheapalov felt any unease with Kramnik's pissing , he could have conducted the arbiter in private and tell him to look into the matter and protect the integrity of the contest, assuming it was threatened at all. If the arbiter refused, and the evidence warranted it, then he could officially protest and do anything he liked. By going public in this hyper-ridiculous,unsabstanbtiate and childish manner, soiling the reputation of the contest and casting suspicion upon an opponent who all that did up to now was to pick up the ruins of Topalov's own play, he's making himself look like he's trying to pull a Materazzi or something, aiming to destroy a superior opponent's equanimity and make him loose control. And that's the kindest assumption I can make at this moment.

Holy...this can't be good for chess in America. If chess didn't have enough problems in the eyes of Americans as a sport that requires toughness, the World Championship Chess match is not about an iron battle of minds, but about how many times a player visits the restroom.

Back in the day such an accusation was duel-worthy. All kidding aside, there is no doubt which of the two still has his honor. It seems Topalov has lost his.

what accusation made Topalov?
Can you cite him?
Thanks in advance.

Russianbear, Karpov 3-time, you are counting the 2 Korchnoi matches, yes you are right - apologies.

Scatologically speaking, this whole bathroom thing is just a bunch of crap!

Thenewone,

Cheapalov and his manager issued a press release, not a memo to the arbiters or something, where he catalogues a 'statistical sample' of Kramnik's visits to the bathroom in relation to the course of the third game. You can find it all on chessbase.com. In it he insinuates that Kramnik must logically be cheating because no man's bladder can be so demanding of his time, and states that unless the issue is resolved by tommorow 10 o'clock, he is out of Elista. What do you make out of this ?

Yep - it stays RIGHT clear of an outright accusation but is as close as it can get.

Bozoka,

stop making insinuations
Topalov did not signed any press releases
read more careful and pay more atention

Re: Rating inflation

It is a non-thing. It doesn't exist, and if it does, it is utterly irrelevant. Ratings do only one thing: measure an individual's performance against contemporaries. It doesn't matter whether in 10 years, the top 10 are all over 3200, it has nothing to do with now, nor will it have anything to do with 10 years after that.

All the arguments over whether there's rating inflation, vs. whether today's players really are that much better, when applying these arguments to Elo ratings, both sides are completely wrong, since both sides are arguing non-existant points.

Thenewone,

Stop being naive or worse. Are you telling us that Danailov is somehow acting on his own accord in this matter ? Even if this whole plan to throw Kramnik off course is his idea and not Cheapalov's, this does not absolve the later from responsibility since he obviously let this matter proceed.

These insinuations seem simply pathetic. Especially when coming directly from Topalov's Manager (and hardly without Topalov's approval one might assume) and when they are based on such feeble "evidence". OK, he went into the bathroom and out of it THREE times during one of his breaks. They made it sound like it was six times or whatever with the "in" and "out". But actually Kramnik visited the bathroom three times. Perhaps first to relieve himself, then to wash his face with cold water, and then perhaps to clean his glasses. It could be anything trivial. Visiting the restroom so many times during a game is not that uncommon. You hear it mentioned during matches. It's not the first time. Bathroom could be bit different, but e.g. to wash one's face with cold water every other move is a perfectly plausible explanation, as are health reasons.

To make such accusations (and they are just that) with so little basis to found them on (especially with the way the games have gone on) and go public about it (instead of handling it behind closed doors) seems just unbelieveable. It's pathetic.

It's a cheap psychological shot and for someone that WAS rooting for Topolov, I'm pissed off about it. Besides, can anyone tell me which current program plays solid chess in the style of Kramnik? It's not like he's been coming up with counter attacks and tactical solutions galore these first four games. I am once again a Kramnik Fan.

where is Mig while this controversy rages? i want to hear him slam the bulgarians.

Heh, now one of the lead headlines on NYT website:

Chess Player Says Opponent Behaved Suspiciously
By DYLAN LOEB McCLAIN 3:26 PM ET

At the world chess championship, Veselin Topalov says his opponent took an excessive number of bathroom breaks.

I doubt if Topalov knew how many times Kramnik went to the bathroom... with his level of concentration. I would venture to say that Silvio Danailov and his team was 99% behind this initiative, so we should not bash Topalov for this protest.

Watching someone go to the bathroom after every move is suspicious, but we need to hear Kramnik's explanation. I see bloggers' explanation of health concerns, but Kramnik has not made such a statement. I believe there has to be some understanding of Danailov's concern... from a manager's viewpoint. We'll see.

Mig just enjoys reading this :-)

It looks like we should welcome back WC Council in the pure meaning of the abbreviation.

So Daaim, Kramnik now stands accused before the world of going too often to the bathroom and has to issue a press release explaining the precise reasons for each and every visit that he made there ? Is there any sense of proportion and of ridicule left in the chess world at all ?

I'm thrilled, noticing that Alexei Shirov just posted to this blog. Mr.Shirov you are God, if you only you were playing in Elista instead of Cheapalov - and we all remember what happened the last time you played a match against Kramnik.

Chris B:

I think you are underestimating Gelfand and Kamsky in Mid 90s. Both were top 5 players at the time. So the fact Kramnik couldn't beat them when he was only 19 is not something I think can be used against him. I probably agree with you that 19 year old Kasparov maybe wouldn't lose both matches - even to the players of that caliber, but since he never played the semifinals and quarterfinals of a WC cycle around his birthday, we will neevr know the answer. And as for Fischer - well, maybe he did't lose to guys like Kamsky and Gelfand in matches when he was 19, but there were no matches then. So he lost to similar opposition in candidates tournaments instead.

And we will never know what would happen if Kasparov decided to play in Dortmund 2002. I cannot assume he would beat Kramnik after winning it. I can't even assume Kasparov would win the Dortmund qualifier. People underestimate Leko. Leko was actually a top player from 2002 to early 2005 - he won Dortmund 2002, and then also won Linares 2003(tied with Kramnik) ahead of Kasparov and Anand. Leko then tied for second (with Kasparov) in Linares 2004 (only behind Kramnik). And right after the 2004 match with Kramnik, Leko won Wijk 2005, ahead of Topalov, Anand and Kramnik. So Leko was a worthy challenger. And it is not Kramnik's fault Kasparov chose not to participate in Dortmund candidates tourney. Kramnik defended his title against someone who deserved to be in the world championship match in 2004. And now he is trying to defend against Topalov, who is the most sensible challenger at this point in time. I don't think you can compare him to Euwe at all. In addition to his match successes, Kramnik had his share of tournament wins while he was a champ, even though people seem to think like he was a terrible failure. He won Linares 2000 (tied with Kasparov) to win the tournament with highest avergae rating in 2000. He won Dortmund 2001, which had the highest average rating of all the tournaments in 2001. He didn't play in 200 because he was preparing for the computer match. In 2003 he again won the highest rated tournament of the year (tied with Leko for first in Linares). SAme in 2004 - hr singlehandedly won Linares, which was the year's highest rated tournament. He had a horrible 2005, and now we know his sickness has been the cause of that. But know that he got treatment, he seems to be doing just fine in 2006. He is no Euwe, who was pretty much a 1 match wonder.

It is difficult to draw a paralel across eras, but I think the most similar player to Krawnik is Petrosian. Both in their primes defeated a declining legend, and are temible match players. Their style is similar, and during their reign both had fair results, but far from the dominance that made legends (Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov).

It remains to be seen if Kramnik following years raises over the record achieved by the great Armenian.

Eduardo,
May be I miss something, but I don't remember any special record achieved by Petrosian. Can you refresh my memory?
Thanks,
Vlad

Read carefully. Well of course Danailov speaks with Topalov's approval. Danailov says that Topalov has decided to go home if the demands are not met. this means Topalov knows all about it and is approving what Danailov is doing. How else can Danailov say that Topalov will go home?

Making ultimatums is childish. children do these things. Adults work toward a solution.

I have up until now admired Topalov but now really have lost faith in him. He is not Champion caliber. Kramnik has conducted himself with champion demeanor for the past several years. I will now throw my loyalty to Kramnik as the champion. I am not picking the best words. but I think you all understand me.

Topalov has badly failed the test of a champion. He is disgracing his own profession. and purposely trying to besmear the reputation of his opponent for his own selfish benefit. He is not a man of honor and integrety.

bye bye topy, you lost one chess fan. I think you will lose a lot more.

Russianbear,
Yeah, ok, maybe Kamsky and Gelfand were fairly strong. Kamsky did slaughter Kramnik 4.5-1.5, while in the last game against Gelfand, Kramnik lost a critical pawn by move 8...
Ah, Curacao 1962, where Petrosian, Geller and Keres had their drawing conspiracy [The sort of reason why the World Championship MUST be matches, not a tournament], which gave them 8 extra rest days in a 28 round tournament in a hot climate - a HUGE advantage. Fischer had a shocking start, which cannot be blamed on the conspiracy, but had recovered by round 12 to be only a point behind the leaders. However about this time, both he and Korchnoi collapsed. The three conspirators, still fresh, made huge strides in the third quarter, while all was woe for Fischer, Korchnoi and Tal. Fischer cannot be judged for his performance in this very unfair contest. I believe that at this time Petrosian was probably the strongest, but in a fair contest Fischer could well have come a very close second. I think he was fundamentally stronger than Keres and Geller at this time.
As concerns Dortmund, I have discussed this at length under 'Elista Entourage', and this thread is probably not the place to discuss it again, but very briefly: I believe Kramnik deliberately made the format of this to be like the FIDE lottery, so that Kasparov would refuse to play in it; or if he did, to maximise the randomness factor, so that the chances of Kasparov having an accident were greatest. Despite protests, Kramnik refused to change it, and Kasparov quite rightly refused to play. It certainly was Kramnik's fault that Kasparov chose not to play in this outrage. From this point on, Kramnik's title is morally bankrupt, like Fischer in 1975.
The tournament record you give for Kramnik is not so hot. Dortmund 2001 was a tie with Topalov, while Kramnik was behind Kasparov at Wijk-aan-Zee 2001, Astana 2001, and lost to him in their mini-match at Moscow 2001. The two Linares victories were an unconvincing and miserable +2, one of which came from a gift point in a lost position.
Perhaps Euwe is not the best comparison, it is difficult to be exact. I rather like Eduardo's idea of Petrosian. After winning the title in 1963, Petrosian won the first Piatigorsky Cup in Los Angeles 1963, then also Buenos Aires 1964 (both times shared with Keres), before going downhill.

Chris B.

For the sake of argument, let's imagine that Kasparov had refused to play in ANY qualifier, no matter how fairly organized, and demanded, instead, a straight rematch.

Under this scenario, who would be your coward? Kasparov? Kramnik? Neither?

Greg,
I think the following would have been a fair qualifier:
Semi-final matches plus a final, all of about 12-14 games, the winner of the final challenges Kramnik. Kasparov and Anand, who were streets ahead of anyone else at that time, to be seeded into the semis in opposite halves of the draw; the other two places to be decided from a qualification tournament.
If Kasparov had been offered this and refused, he would indeed have been the coward and at fault, and Kramnik would have had a clear conscience. I already said this under 'Elista Entourage'.
By the way, you have not yet answered the questions I posed you under 'Elista Entourage':
(1) What is YOUR explanation of Kramnik's motive for adopting the Dortmund format?
(2) Can you show any serious intent by Kasparov to avoid a qualifier BEFORE the announcement of the Dortmund format, which was on 15 July 2001?
How about it?

Greg, Kramnik's opportunity to play Kasparov for the title was not the result of a qualification process. Kasparov picked him because he was the strongest and worthiest opponent, since Shirov had a terribly negative score against Kas and Anand was not interested in playing again. And he new that Kramnik's style and talent and knowledge were extremelly dangerous to his title, but he nevertheless organised the match and didn't cop out by playing Shirov and fulfilling his duty in defending the title. So, whatever other adjective you may feel needs to be attached next to Kasparov's name, 'coward' is I believe not one of them. And are you implying that Kasparov got fearful of Kramnik following their match ? Would you put money on him eschewing an opportunity to play him if Kramnik had offered a re-match ?

Just for the record, my understanding is that the Dortmund format was already envisioned by Braingames even before the end of the Kasparov-Kramnik match in 2000. I haven't ever read confirmation of that fact, but I do distinctly remember discussing the Shenyang Chess World Cup in a London hotel lobby with Mig a few hours after Game 12 of the K-K 2000 match, and he said that Raymond Keene and Eric Schiller were planning an identical format for the next BGN candidates tournament. I find it hard to believe that Kramnik was involved in the discussions at that early point, so I really don't think it's accurate to claim that Kramnik somehow conceived the format as a way to introduce randomness and therefore reduce his chances of facing Kasparov.

I believe Kasparov was only interested in a direct rematch against Kramnik. So the question was not the format of the qualification, but the fact that there actually was one.
World Chess Championship is not something people should be voting on. Kasparov failed to show up to play in the qualifier for whatever reason. Does that mean that we can vote Kramnik's title suddenly void?! And award it to the guy who didn't want to be part of the system created by the sponsor? By the way, Kasparov hand-picked Kramnik, because he couldn't get a system goin'! (Kramnik-Shirov they managed to have, but was flushed in the process - as we know.) Was Kramnik to do the same (dump any system to find a challenger) just because Kasparov's venture to create a system failed?! Oh Please!
By the way, was ther a vote after 1927 when Aljechin by all possible means kept Capablanca from getting a new shot at the title? Was there a vote to overthrow Aljechin and reinstate Capa? I think not. Aljechin played Bogolyubov - twice - Bogo, who was a total pushover for him (Compare to Kasparov as Shirov's angstgegner - sorry Mr. Shirov, I am still a fan of yours!)! Kramnik played a very creditable challenger that came on top through a qualification tournament - Leko. So c'mon, Kramnik's title is as legitimate as it gets. Kramnik World Chess Champion 2000->.

Chris B,

(1) I have worked very hard to manually collect all known results from 1843 through 1900, but in the ensuing years there has obviously been a tremendous number of events and so I have had to rely on an automatic import from the Chessbase game database CDs as my source data from 1901 until the present. If there are important events missing from those game databases then I would love to add them in but I have to do that systematically; otherwise I'm not being objective. I'm sorry that Reuben Fine is therefore missing from the 1944 rating list due to the missing U.S. Championship data.

(2) The World War II era is precisely when you need a simultaneous calculation like I did, rather than an Elo-style approach that can only carry ratings forward. Since players are so isolated geographically, you cannot make reasonable comparisons without a closed pool of players, and once two previously-isolated pools are connected, it is important to be able to look backwards a few years and draw new conclusions about other players in those two pools. That lets the ratings quickly adapt to big changes (such as Soviets making more progress during the war than Americans) in a way that the Elo-style approach simply cannot handle rapidly enough. In each monthly list from 1939 through 1961, I start with Botvinnik and look outward for other players in the same pool as Botvinnik. If Najdorf and Stahlberg have ratings, it is because they are adequately connected to Botvinnik within the 4-year weighted span that I use. The 1945 US-USSR radio match was key in re-establishing the relative skill between the Soviets and the Americans but it was nevertheless possible to calculate ratings prior to the radio match.

(3) It may be that it's better to wait several months before "punishing" players. When I invented my formula, I tried many different approaches and weighting schemes, and I found a very happy medium between simplicity and predictive power. I wasn't trying to punish anyone, and if the scheme I arrived at manages to predict results better because players do tend to lose some of their strength when they are inactive (even for short periods), then I'm sorry if you have a problem with that. When I find some more free time to revisit my rating formula, I will be happy to try out your specific suggestion and if it works better at predicting future results, then I will probably use that approach and I will be grateful for the suggestion. It certainly seems like a reasonable one.

(4) Regarding the young Lasker's rating, you can look at the Chessmetrics player profile page for Lasker yourself to see what his results through mid-1890 were. They were pretty incredible even against strong opposition. Obviously it is conceivable that Lasker could have indeed been the strongest player despite not having an opportunity to demonstrate it against Steinitz, Chigorin, or Tarrasch. If so then he would've had to show it by dominating the players he did get to face. Despite what you said about my ratings not being objective (?) one of the benefits of this results-based approach is that we don't have to worry about the political situation and can just look at the objective results without prejudice.

(5) Since you bring up Stahlberg at Zurich 1953, here is a gratuitous listing of the eight worst performances in chess history, based on how many points below rating expectation a player scored during the event:

-6.7: Evgenij Ermenkov (world rank #277), 0/13 at BUL-ch Pernik 1983
-6.2: Mikhail Chigorin (world rank #7), 6/22 at Ostend 1905
-6.0: Gideon Stahlberg (world rank #9), 8/28 at Zurich (Candidates) 1953
-5.9: Isaak Boleslavsky (world rank #14), 1.5/10 at Krynica 1956
-5.8: Kamran Shirazi (world rank #410), 0.5/16 at US-ch Berkeley 1984
-5.7: Hector Rossetto (world rank #52), 1.5/12 at Mar del Plata 1956
-5.5: Jan Plachetka (world rank #130), 2/15 at CSR-ch Decin
-5.5: Max Euwe (world rank #6), 4/20 at The Hague/Moscow (World Championship) 1948

I see hypocrisy all over this wall. Nothing Topalov (Fischer or anyone else) does can negate what they have accomplished. The Topalov team is taking precautions, albeit in a strange way. I would suggest that yes... the Kramnik team should issue a well-crafted press release to clear the air. It would be an exclamation point.

None of us still know why Kramnik has to go to the bathroom 50 times in a match, but we are speculating that is due to health problems. The guy with the headphones at the World Open stated that he had hearing problems. Some cyclists who are using steroids say they are taking "supplements" for certain health conditions. Athletes and sportsmen often use health ailments as reasons to cheat. In addition, there are many ways to cheat in a bathroom without a transmitter and Pocket Fritz. You can draw positions on a paper towel, or pull out a pocket set and all sorts of things.

That being said, I DOUBT that Kramnik was cheating, but of course there is nothing wrong with making sure the venue is secure and free of possible breaches. Many World Championship matches have had these problems; however, Danailov's technique was a bit surprising and undiplomatic.

So far, the Kramnik team has allowed the controversy to take a life of its own. Perhaps they see this as positive for Kramnik since he is drawing more supporters and will make people side with Kramnik. You all assume that if Topalov were up 3-1 that the team would not have made the same protest. We cannot assume this.

Some people posting here are bandwagon fans. Today Topalov, tomorrow Kramnik, then Topalov again. To me Topalov is no less of a champion than he was one week ago. He is no less of a player than the time people were accusing HIM of cheating. He is a great player and good for chess however, like Ruslan Ponomariov and Gata Kamsky, his team may make questionable management decisions. At the end of the day, Topalov's team will not withdraw and we will have one champion.

Daaim,

Making sure that everything is secure in the contest, is one thing. Contacting the officials and the opposite side to adress a concern in private while safeguarding the image of the event is also a second option. But ridiculing the contest and the opposition in such a blatantly idiotic and self-serving manner, by issuing press releases on this kind and making the contest and the players look ridiculous is quite another. If you cannot see the difference between the two, I'm very sorry.

And we all understand that the 'accusations' here were completelly groundless and without any base upon the actual play until now, and they were obviously a ploy to throw Kramnik off course.
An absolutelly shame.

Chris B, you're absolutely right in comparing Kramnik to Euwe in a WC sense. Both were also very strong players, though stylistically different. Euwe had more tactical strength I believe, whereas Kramnik has a profound positional understanding. As for there being no rating inflation, what a bunch of bull. I remember when Mig invoked the name of Tal a long time ago in some far-off thread, to illustrate this very point, and said how ludicrous it is to compare say Tal against a 2650 GM, some people actually genuinely believed that any 2650 GM could match Tal. What a joke. I tell you, its BEYOND IMPOSSIBLE for me to imagine two people missing Rg5+ and Qc7 in game 2, Tal and Kasparov. Its merely impossible for me to imagine a host of other people such as Fischer, Alekhine, Morphy missing this. I can imagine some other strong players (ex WC) actually missing it, but my point is, there is rating inflation. And to categorically say football players today are better than 50 years ago is equally ridiculous. Tell that to Pele and Garrincha

The rating inflation remarkes are actually addressed to RussinaBear, not Chris B aboved

Jeff,
re Kramnik, point noted, yes; Kramnik himself maybe didn't actually create the format, but he sure went along with it and insisted on it; he is an intelligent man, so must have understood the consequences. If he was for real, why were there no discussions with Kasparov and Anand to see what might or might not be acceptable to them? Instead the 15 July 2001 announcement came as a complete bombshell. Upon general disapproval, and loud protests from Kasparov, Kramnik/Keene/Braingames changed the semi-final from 2 games to 4 games and that was all. I'm sure there could have been big changes if Kramnik had wanted to play fair - he must have known what he was doing.
Mr X,
One indeed has to wonder if Alekhine deserved to hold the title after about 1932. But in those days it was a personal possession, so nothing could be done about it. However, FIDE took over in 1946, and they rightly disqualified Fischer in 1975 for refusing to defend it under reasonable conditions. FIDE did not have control of Kramnik's title, but the general understanding was that it was not his personal possession either, and that he was morally bound to defend it under reasonable conditions. My contention is that Dortmund was manifestly unreasonable, so therefore Kramnik should not be considered World Champion after 2002 any more than Fischer after 1975.

Jeff,
Thanks for the post about ratings. I will look carefully at what you have said, and will need a little time to prepare a considered reply. Unfortunately, I have to be out all day tomorrow [I'm not making excuses], so will reply Sunday; it's 2:30 am here now, so have to leave off.