BladderGate Revisited

The important questions, in the order of their importance are:

1. Are reasonable measures taken to prevent GMs from being able to use computer in the bathroom?

2. Does it make any sense to reverse the bathroom decision and dismiss the committee that issued it, while not reversing the outcome of such a decision?

3. Is Kramnik playing like somebody using a computer?

4. If Topalov does not believe the original bathroom decision is right, is he under moral obligation to give the point back?

5. Is there anything unethical about spending your entire thinking time in the bathroom?

6. Are you happy with how this match is ran, and if not, what will you do to try to change how chess matches are organized in the future?

As far as intenet access in the bathroom goes, I am as much a skeptic as anyone. Before this match, if I were asked how a toilet in Kalmykia looks like, I would imagine a bush in a steppe, not some hi tech room with internet access.

But as for that Bulgarian info, I think someone (Team Kramnik? Organizers? Journalists? :)) should look into that. Sounds like it is either an outright lie by Bulgarian state TV channel or (in a more interesting scenario), a further evidence of corruption in the ranks of FIDE officials and a possible reason for major scandal.

Questions for whom? Asking appeals committee members about "moral obligations" is rather pointless. We could also add that what makes sense isn't necessarily relevant either! The "outcome" of the decision to close the bathrooms could be considered anything that happened subsequently. The forfeit of game 5 was not the direct outcome of the appeals committee decision to close the bathrooms, for example. It continued down a chain of events.

Anyway, as I think most of us agree, if the answer to 1) is "yes" then they should have quietly thrown the protest away. And if the answer is "no" they needed to say so and revise procedures. Instead they said yes, implied no, and screwed everything up.

This should be a big dissapointment to both players. No matter how brilliant their next games are going to be, the media will just keep going on about this stupid affair.
Interesting use of the kidneys tag, btw.

i dont think that the comittee made their decision coz FIDE wanted to help topalov or coz FIDE is corrupted as it is widely speculated. maybe the comittee was simply scared just scared that topalov would abandon the macth and their intentions were to found some sort of compromise to save the match and nth else. sure they made a mess but maybe their intention were good after all.

Gilles, I agree. But the thing is: the road to chess matches from hell is paved with good intentions.

Re: 3. Is Kramnik playing like somebody using a computer?

Not to my knowledge. But a better question would be: Where there steps in place to guarantee that no one was cheating, either by using a computer or by electronic communication?

Re: 4. If Topalov does not believe the original bathroom decision is right, is he under moral obligation to give the point back?

There is no such moral obligation! It is Kramnik's fault for not playing on. Having a private bathroom is not a prerequisite for playing chess. IMO, Kramnik should have laughed off the whole matter and played on. It is not Topalov's fault that Kramnik decided to forfeit a game.

Re: 5. Is there anything unethical about spending your entire thinking time in the bathroom?

There is nothing unethical, but it isn't the normal way chess is usually played. It is, on the other hand, cause for suspicion. Such contests should be beyond reproach and steps should have been in place to guarantee that no one was cheating.

Re: 6. Are you happy with how this match is ran, and if not, what will you do to try to change how chess matches are organized in the future?

IMO, this issue is not going to go away. It is reasonable to assume that computers are going to continue to get stronger, and electronic cheating will have to be seriously monitored.

I don't agree Gilles. Anyone can see from the timing of the complaint and the timing of the decision being told to Kramnik right before the game prove that this was not just an innocent mistake.

The appeals committee doesn't have fiat. They can make decisions but they need to make them within the rules. You can't just start rewriting regulations and contracts.

Why isn't FIDE getting on for not showign up for the press conferences. I thought the regulations clearly indicated the players had to show up for these conerences.

So let me get this straight --

If Topalov wins than all his cheating, unsportsmanlike, political power play, win any way possible approach is acceptable??? The ends justify the means??? That is what many of you are saying just because you like Topa's style of play. (previous days blog in paticular). I like his chess too but the WCC title match loses all integrity and value when it is run like a corrupt police state.

Mig,

The questions are mostly for us. Though perhaps the answer to question #1 is best resolved to the satisfaction of the players involved and/or appellation committee.

Steven,

3) I would like to point out you that it's virtually impossible to guarantee no cheating. Even if you tie the players to the board hand and foot, there is possibility of things like electronic transmissions, receivers disguised as ears, even some sort of code. If Kramnik is not playing like somebody using a computer, then I must pose two more questions: a) who really cares if he is? I mean, if I use Deep Fritz to blow twenty games nobody will blink twice. b) more importantly if he doesn't seem to be using cheating, based on the level of his play, why limit how much time he spends in the bathroom?

4) I am tempted to agree. But it would seem to me that a chess match should not be just a competition but an attempt to prove who is the better man at the board. I would not want to become champion on the basis of a committee making the wrong decision on bathroom access. Also, if pacing or heck, peeing, is the only thing that enables Kramnik to play high-level chess, why shouldn't we allow him to do so?

5) Don't know about that. A lot of chess players spend their time pacing the stage, staring intently or otherwise doing a lot of unusual things. If there is no way to cheat in the bathroom we shouldn't stop them from engaging in activities that enable them to paly optimally.

6) I was referring more to the way FIDE has handled disputes and the decisions they handed down.

Off the subject, but..

I can't understand why they allow Topalov and Kramnik video access to the game position from their private restrooms.

Does anyone else find that a bit surprising?

Who's idea was that? If they allow that, why not go a step further and let them make their moves from there too?

In response to question 3, the answer seems to be a pretty sure no. Stefan Fischl posted an analysis of Kramnik's play vis-a-vis Fritz and it did not appreciably differ from the way Topalov played or with a control group (the players at Sofia 2005).

The post is here: http://www.chessninja.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=001334;p=2#000029

Since this is the only non-anonymous person who analyzed the games and is willing to state their methodolgy (that I know of), I think this is probably the best of what we have out on the internet.

"The Theory of Commodes", is the title of Chapter 4 of J.C. Hallman's The Chess Artist (published in 2003).

Much in that chapter is pertinent to this thread -- starting from the second of two quotations that open the chapter. Quotation 1 is from Kasparov; No. 2 is from Hans Ree, from his 1997 book, The Human Comedy of Chess, and it reads: "The reader can see that I am beginning to show distinct signs of paranoia myself. That's what you get when you think too much about Russia."

It gets better. Here is Hallman's description of the toilet at a chess club -- not in Kalmykia, but in Moscow:

"I continued on and soon arrived at the conclusion of the theory of commodes. There was no toilet in the bathroom, and it was a bathroom only in the sense that it was where the chess players shat. A hole in the floor was covered by two planks, the wood near the rim rotting, splintered and stained from the splash of men with illness or poor aim. I left my water there, but came away thinking of Russia as a nation of mighty sphincters."

"The [Appeals] Committee may decide on the following matters: ...
f) all other matters which the Committee considers important."

Does this give them the authority to change the playing conditions in clear breach of the match regulations?

I don't think that a court will agree with such a literal interpretation of the rules. You always have to take context and common sense into account when interpreting a contract.

To Mig

I want to mention that TV reports say what Zhivko Ginchev says live. And Zh.Ginchev is an official member of Topalov's team.

P.S. If both bathrooms are wired, then we are screwed. This is not an World Chess Champion match but a circus.

I am positive about only one thing:
If Kramnik manages to win the match, the matter is closed. And by the way, in eyes of general public, the good image of chess will be restored (a hero won over bastard, happy end).
Any other result, including Topalov winning +4, creates a very unpleasant situation of chess world divided over the outcome:
- some will say that the FIDE Champion is jerk and have won behind the board;
- others will say that he is the best and is truly legitimate Champion, but he does not play fair;
- some will say that he is the best and is truly legitimate Champion, and he behaved according to situation;
- and some will demand a new match to close the open issue.
IMHO, if Topalov wins, his status will be questionable at least, and his reputation is broken for years.

LOL!! Awesome post Jon Jacobs. I think I have to buy that book now.

To: chillirat,

You write: "So let me get this straight -- If Topalov wins than all his cheating, unsportsmanlike, political power play, win any way possible approach is acceptable?"

I do not accept your subjective interpretation of events, but perhaps I missed something (although I tried to read all the reports), if so please correct me.

But in my opinion, the open letter by Kramnik's team was closer to being unsportsmanlike than the letters put out by Topalov's teams. To my knowledge, Topalov's team merely suggested that Kramniks behavior was suspicious, they never claimed that he was cheating. On the other hand, Kramnik's team has suggested that Topalov's team was preparing to plant false evidence. The statement was: "I have received information that the Topalov team might try to involve Mr. Kramnik in another scandal. According to this information they might be planning to create a situation by somehow manufacturing “evidence” to prove that Mr. Kramnik is cheating." This statement appears to go far beyond any statement by Topalov's team.

If anyone should be accused of unsportsmanlike conduct, it is Kramnik's team and not Topalov's team. In the reports which I've read (and I hope I've read them all), Topalov's team was much more circumspect!

Steven Craig Miller:

Topalov's team has implied that Kramnik's visits to the bathroom could be used for cheating. Henzel's press release implied that Topalov team may cheat. I don't see how Topalov Team's behaviour is more sportsmanlike. Danailov several times suggested that Kramnik may be cheating - that is a personal attack on Kramnik. Henzel press release is not an attack on Topalov, it is an attack on peope who surround Topalov and who seem to lack class or sportsmanship. Therefore, since one side attacks Kramnik directly, and the other only attacks some vague Topalov Team members, the two cannot be compared. Frankly, given what we know about Danailov, Henzel's concern is understandable.

To Russianbear

Dude, thanks god that Silvio is not russain but Bulgarian cause thats what is missing for Kramnik - a good manager. If Silvio was russain and was Kramnik's manager, then he would have been announces as a hero of Rusia.

To: Yuriy Kleyner,

Re: #3 you wrote: "more importantly if he doesn't seem to be using cheating, based on the level of his play, why limit how much time he spends in the bathroom?"

IMO, the ruling by the Appeals Committee was incorrect. IMO, Topalov's team had a right to be suspicious, and ask for some extra measures to be taken in order to reasonably guarantee that Kramnik was not cheating. IMO some sort of a compromise should have taken place. I would place fault on the Appeals Committee's ruling, IMO they went too far.

Re: #4. I would largely concur with you. But a number of mistakes were made. Kramnik (and Topalov) should have seen to it that neutral arbiters were placed on the Appeals Committee. And it was Kramnik's fault for not playing the forfeited game.

Re: #5 you wrote: "If there is no way to cheat in the bathroom we shouldn't stop them from engaging in activities that enable them to play optimally."

I completely agree with you here!

1. I also take some of my best decisions in the toilet, but in a chess game ... is it so important, so altering that if you do not have the same toilet that produced the 3:1 result, you are ready to forfeit a game?

2. I think I asked this question before with no answer (Sorry if I have missed it!), so I try again.

The monitors in the rest area and the restroom, what do they show? Do they show the 64 sqares of the table they play from above? Or do they show a diagram of the game so far, or do they show the actual stage.
I just want to make this clear.
Because if they show the stage, then Kramnik from inside his rest area (or toilet) has the advantage of watching Topalov on the stage (his reactions, his expressions etc., at least the visible mental state). While being in the rest area/toilet Kramnik is invisible for Topalov.

If this is the actual situation then all the talk about Topalov's camp getting access to Kramnik's rest area video and thus gaining knowledge of Kramnik reactions are baseless. If anything they can watch Kramnik after the game, but he is watching Topalov "during" the game. So he still has advantage.

This would refute also the questions about Topalov glimpsing at Kramnik's rest area on the arbiter's monitor.

3. I read in one of the Russian sites, that Topalov was alone on the stage, made a move and hesitantly looked towards the camera "Did you see this? I made a move!"
This goes also into the subject of Topalov needing the opponents presence in order to play better. If Kramnik is watching him from inside, he "has" in a way Topalov's presence already, while Topalov is playing alone with the presence of the camera.

Sorry for the confusion, my numbering has nothing to do with Yuriy's.

Jon, thanks so much for adding some (dark) color to this discussion. I was in Leningrad chess club once, probably used the toilet since there was no McDonalds nearby ;) and it was not memorable like that. The club room was magnificent by the way, as big as a hotel ballroom but with European architecture (crown moldings etc. etc.)

The Appeals Committee is bending over backwards (if there's a pun in there, it's unintentional) to avoid offending Kramnik when indeed they do wonder what he's doing in there that he only needs to do during chess games. If Kramnik's side presses the point too hard, they may force the Committee to say it in plainer words, thereby making explicitly reasonable the actions of both Appeals Committees. Perhaps they should do so now anyway, as it is necessary to defend the threat of a possible lawsuit by Kramnik's side.

In game 6, Kramnik played 18 ... Bc5-b4, spending a move to avoid the exchange of dark square bishops. Then he played 23 ... Bb4-c5, spending another move to force the same exchange. The relevant pawn structure doesn't change in that time. It's obviously a close decision whether to exchange those bishops, but I think a human would make a decision and go with it. The switching seems computer-like to me. Can a strong human player give me another explanation?

>

RussianBear, as much as our opinions on some of this drama have differed, I have to say that this line made me laugh, and (sadly) is right on the mark.

David Quinn: Yes, lots of people, including among other Svidler's net annotations. However, for the record, and yet again, ...Bc5-b4 attacks a5 and hence forces Nb6 and the trade of Black's passive knight on d7, which is strategically very important for Black. Black can always force the exchange of bishops later.

It is not a close decision. 18...Bxd4 would be a very poor move indeed IMHO (I am 2400 ELO, so not a strong player but I assume from your post stronger than you; as it happens this is reasonably obvious to me but a search of the net will reveal GM annotations making the same point).

It is completely obvious that Kramnik is not cheating. Computers play six-man positions instantly and perfectly, yet Kramnik (and Topalov) both handed the half-point back and forward in the very difficult six-man position in game two. In game three, immediately after the very visit to the loo mentioned in the protest (before move 16), Kramnik passed by the very strong 17 Ne4, and gave a move in reply in the post match conference (17...Ne5) which is more or less refuted by the engines.

This is incontrovertible: it is not possible for any intelligent person either to conceive that Kramnik is cheating or that the Bulgarians honestly thought he was. The protest was a flagrant breach of the laws of chess (the ones about distracting the opponent) and should have been immediately thrown out and Topalov fined 10% of his match fee. There is only one language Danailov understands.

Steven Craig Miller: it is not obvious to me that you are aware that the lavatory was inspected and agreed upon by both sides before the match and can be searched before each game, that there are electronic screening measures in place, and that the players pass through metal detectors. All these measures to eradicate cheating were agreed before the match, as much to prevent this sort of nonsense as anything else. The Bulgarian behaviour has been disgraceful.

Yeesh, why can't I quote right? The comment I was referring to was "the road to chess matches from hell is paved with good intentions."

I suppose the match has some drama, but it is hardly exciting. On the other hand, when we compare this to Kasparov--Kramnik, or Kramnik--Leko, it's not much different. A 12 (now, 11) game match is simply too brief to create enough opportunities for worthwhile games.

Given Kramnik's lack of vitality, one must consider the possibility that he is--even with such a short match--running out of gas. On the other hand, if Kramnik manages to make it to the Tie-Break games, one should not necessarily consider Topalov to be the favorite. Kramnik probably has a better track record with Rapid Chess games, and certainly has more experience coping with the pressures. Moreover, stamina will scarcely be an issue, in a game that lasts an hour.

It's almost funny: Even with (seemingly) the best of intentions, Kirsan manages to be King Midas in reverse.

To: Russianbear,

You wrote: "Danailov several times suggested that Kramnik may be cheating - that is a personal attack on Kramnik."

IMO, you are exaggerating things by calling Danailov's statements a "personal attack." We leave in a society where seemingly respectable people do indeed cheat. Priests and Congressmen are pediophiles, many major league athletes take illegal performance-enhancing drugs, even Martha Stewart got caught cheating, etc. IMO it is reasonable to ask that measures be taken to assure that no one is cheating.

Kramnik's behavior was outside the norm, it could easily be construed as suspicious. Topalov's team had a perfect right to ask for extra measures to be taken in order to guarantee that no one was cheating. It is wrong to misconstrue such a protest as a "personal attack." IMO, the Appeals Committee took things too far, they should have made some effort to have greater surveillance of the restrooms. But IMO they should not have done much more than that. Then if that didn't meet with Topalov's approval, it would have been up to Tapalov as to whether or not he played under those conditions. But even though I feel that the Appeals Committee took things too far, they were not completely unreasonable, I don't understand why both players couldn't have shared the same restroom. IMO Kramnik made the wrong decision, he decided to forfeit a game rather than play. IMO, Kramnik should have laughed off the whole matter and played without forfeiting a game.

To: rdh,

You wrote: "Steven Craig Miller: it is not obvious to me that you are aware that the lavatory was inspected and agreed upon by both sides before the match and can be searched before each game, that there are electronic screening measures in place, and that the players pass through metal detectors."

Actually, I was aware that such measures existed.

You wrote: "The protest was a flagrant breach of the laws of chess (the ones about distracting the opponent) and should have been immediately thrown out and Topalov fined 10% of his match fee."

Is there a body of chess jurisprudence upon which you can prove your assertion or is this merely your personal subjective opinion here?

Mig, Mig, Mig, I do wish first of all that Chessbase would stop putting this drivel up, and secondly that non-lawyers like you would stop talking about law.

Yasser's original article was ludicrous - absolutely embarrassing; it was plain he hadn't even read the regulations he was commenting on. Macieja's is better but still gets nowhere near the heart of the matter.

Chessbase do not 'confirm' that the Appeals Committee had power to do what they did, and if they do pretend to 'confirm' that they were wrong. In any event while eminent grandamasters of course have interesting views they are not lawyers and do not speak with any authority on this sort of question. I am a lawyer but only a UK one and I believe the law of the contract is probably Swiss law. If Chessbase want to say anything of interest on this subject they need to get a Swiss lawyer to comment.

The passage in question details the SORTS of complaints the appeals committee can deal with. That is a different thing from the POWERS they have. It is clearly right as Macieja says that the complaint in question was one they had jurisdiction to deal with.

The powers the committee has are not well defined in the regulations (a document drafted with an incompetence I have rarely seen equalled). The most guidance we are given is 'The Committee shall endeavour to find binding solutions that are within the true spirit of the FIDE motto, Gens Una Sumus.'. It is an open question whether that entitles them to override the rather clear contractual provisions that the facilities shall not be altered after the match began and that 'each player shall be provided with a toilet'. Personally I find this an unlikely proposition and believe Kramnik is right to say that the Appeals Committe decision was beyond their contractual powers, but my opinion, while worth more than yours or Mr Macieja's, is not really worth a row of beans beside that of a lawyer in the relevant jurisdiction or indeed that of someone who has seen the contract (why on EARTH are these documents secret, by the way, shouldn't we know what our Federation has signed up to do?!).

There were any number of procedural inadequacies by the Committee all of which tended to prejudice Kramnik. It is an open question what effect these have: at the very least they are presumably breaches of contract on FIDE's part. If Kramnik asked for the fifth game to be postponed in the light of these (especially the failure to receive written representations and the lateness of both the complaint and the decision), and FIDE refused, then I think FIDE may find that decision very hard to defend, but (i) I don't know that Kramnik did and (ii) what would follow from such a wrong decision is not clear.

Assuming it is right that FIDE was in breach of its contract in failing to provide the agreed private lavatory then it is again an open question whether that entitled Kramnik to refuse to play until they rectified the breach. This is a pure question of contract law and the Laws of Chess concerning forfeited games have nothing to do with it, contrary to what a lot of posters seem to think. It seems probable to me that in UK law Kramnik was entitled so to refuse. I am told US law would be less favourable to him, depending on whether FIDE's breach was 'material'. However my opinion and any US lawyer's opinion are probably not worth the proverbial pitcher of warm spit, because what counts is Swiss law, and as to that I've not heard any worthwhile opinion expressed.

I thought, by the way, that Macro had been made Observer of the World Championship, a specially created post. I assumed that carried a nice stipend to go with the one he's already had for his splendid service as chairman of the Appeals Committee, and therefore constituted the usual favour a man like Makro would expect in return for getting quietly out of the way. No?

reply to steven craig,

Yes my post was written in subjective language, only because what is happening in Elista is so obvious.

There are many posts and many open letters from GM's that have explained the off the board smear campaign that Topalov's team has been waging ever since he went down 3-1 early in the match. With the express goal to discredit and distract Kramnik and use the bias of FIDE to 'earn' them a one point handicap in the match. Topalov himself has said he is not proud of what he has done and that Kramnik has been playing fair.

I would consider the planting of a device by team Topalov the next logical step in the progression of their actions. The Kramnik letter was simply cutting them off at the pass.

As to your apparent lack of understanding of these events and the motivations behind them I humbly suggest that your feelings toward the players is clouding your objectivity.

p.s. Anyone know of any open letters from GM's supporting Topalov? I have not been able to find any.

To RDH I am around 2200 so you qualify as a strong player in the context of my question. The qualification was generally intended to make a 1500 player at least think a minute before shooting up his hand. Thanks for the notes. I only saw 1 or 2 people's annotations probably not including Svidler. Where does he post?

In game 2, did Kramnik make any mistakes (i.e. throwing away a win, not just a move that a human judges as "inferior") once it got to 6 men? I don't recall that he did, and he did give up material to get to that 6 man position that's tablebased, just one of several reasonable ways he could have played the ending once he had the advantage.

You use some pretty strong language to dismiss what still seems a reasonable wondering. Perhaps Topalov himself gives it credibility. He's playing fast now to make it harder for Kramnik to leave the board. He basically blitzed out the last 20 moves of Game 8, and Kramnik got thoroughly outplayed in that time despite using much more clock time so that he was flirting with time pressure. This proves nothing, but to me it suggests that Topalov believes he benefits by reducing Kramnik's time away from the board.

Jon, I guess the story of the Moscow chessclub toilet is much more recent than my visit which was long ago. The general conditions for chess have gone to hell since the Soviet Union disbanded, now when the toilet breaks they just pull it up and use the hole where it was. In the (now) St. Petersburg facility, that would be unfortunate since it's on the second floor!

SCM: oh, it's personal opinion of course. For the reason I gave above, it is not credible that the protest was based on any genuine belief. If any doubt existed the absurd Fritz press release removed it. It's a campaign to destabilise Kramnik, and it's worked, of course.

(at least the fine is based on the reported provision in the contract which allows FIDE to withhold up to 20% of the purse of either player for unsportsmanlike conduct).

I continue to be amazed at the lack of imagination of people such as yourself who say that Kramnik should have played game five. Even if you yourself wouldn't want a personal space to retreat to in the face of the tension of such a pressure-cooker match, you can surely understand that some people might. And that having negotiated for one and agreed anti-cheating measures, to have it taken away on such insulting grounds and at such short notice would be sufficient to place you at a disadvantage? Here's Kramnik told the night before the game that he's been accused of cheating and asked to explain behaviour. He finds out for the first time that the authorities have made tapes of him when he thought he was observed only by the arbiter to his opponent, without telling him. He learns four hours before the game that he's been egregiously insulted not only by Topalov, someone he's known and spent tie with on cordial professional terms for years and years, but also by the Appeals Committee, who have ignored two contractual provisions specifically intended to protect him from this sort of thing, and another two intended to protect his private space.

I don't know about you, but I'd have been in no state to play. I'd have been far too angry: I would certainly have wanted to punch Topalov, especially as he will have been well aware that Topalov knew beyond any possible doubt that there had been no such cheating. I think he showed considerable force of character by being willing to play that day at such a disadvantage even if his private space was re-opened.

I don't, by the way, know any strong player (say 2400 and up) who disagrees that Kramnik would, or that certain personalities might, have been at a considerable disadvantage in this situation.

I think Kramnik's side was quite right to protect against the planting of something during bathroom inspections. The request, while unpleasant like everything on this topic, was quite reasonable and in order. This is about security not trust, certainly at this point.

David Q: Svidler is at chesspro.ru. I don't have the exact page but it's fairly obvious once you're there. Now I've posted Svidler I have doubts; it might have been notes I saw by Baklan(?). But Svidler's notes are worth finding anyway.

The missed win in game two was where he played...Re1; according to the same notes it's necessary to play ...Re3 (a very non-human move) to control b3 in some improbable variation. I think the Nalimov six-man base might be on the internet somewhere if you're interested - try googling Nalimov six-man tablebase - or failing that you can always sling Chessbase a few bob.

I do use strong language: I honestly don't see how any unbiased observer who knows the game could consider this protest remotely justified, and of course as a lawyer by trade and a chessplayer by night, as it were, this area combines my two interests.

For those who wanted to hear Howard Stern's take on the chess controversy (see end of last thread), but didn't get a chance to ftp the file, here is a link to get it not involving ftp:

http://rapidshare.de/files/35767635/hschess.mp3.html

Choose 'free' and download.

Mig, I'm glad that finally you started "discovering" the truth...

But you insist that the decision of the Appeals Committee violated the rules.

Which rules were violated? The crap by Seirawan which even Macieja felt obliged to correct in Chessbase? Or the crap by Kok, again in Chessbase, who thinks that an arbiter can overturn a decision of the Appeals Committee?

Mig, although I disagree with you in most issues I think that you are one of the few capable persons in western chess to understand what is really going on in Elista. And part of it is that you might also have been brain-washed for a few days by the one-sided description of the story...

Svilen: you sound like an intelligent and reasonably unbiased chap and presumably Bulgarian, which makes you a fairly rare bird on this particular subject, so I don't understand why you keep complaining about Kramnik observing Topalov from his restroom. These are the contractual arrangements which were agreed between the parties before the match, and that's an end of it. If Topalov wants to go into his restroom to observe Kramnik unobserved when it's Kramnik's move, he can do that.

The restroom on the other hand is supposed to be private. Giving the tapes of that to one party without the other's consent was an outrage.

I really can't understand why you can't see that.

Regarding their relative skill at rapid chess, I would like to call attention to the webpage of the same Stefan Fischl again; this is the most reliable rapid ratings list that I know of. It has Kramnik 26 points above Topalov, although Kramnik apparently has no games from 2006 in there.

http://members.aon.at/sfischl/rrating.txt

David Q: Here's Svidler

http://www.chesspro.ru/match/events/9/

It's better explained in some other notes, but that'll do.

rdh:
I keep coming back to it because many people posted protests, not for the fact that the tapes were given to the Bulgarian team against the rules, but because supposedly Topalov has gained some indispensable knowledge about Kramnik's reactions to moves.

>The restroom on the other hand is supposed to be private. Giving the tapes of that to one party without the other's consent was an outrage.

By the way did they give the tapes from the restroom (the toilet) or from the rest area? I think it was the rest area.

Giannis, repeatedly saying that something is crap, even if you'd like it to be, doesn't make it so. Seirawan I agree is not worth discussing, but Bessel Kok is right to say that a class arbiter would have found a way round the situation. There is a number of fairly obvious ones. How do you think they postponed game six?

Does anyone know of any open letters from GM's supporting Topalov? I have not been able to find any.

Steven,

You bring up the point that few other people besides me had mentioned which is that Kramnik was aware of who was on the committee from the beginning and if they were really so objectionable and obviously bious he should have vetoed them and asked for different members. Looking at the list, I distrust Azmaiparashvili and don't know much about the other two. Kramnik's judgement is probably right but he should have used it earlier. Yet should that mistake really make a difference in the final score of a chess match?

Svilen: Translation problems. I'm a Brit and we don't call toilets restrooms. The tapes given were, as you say, of the rest area, not of the toilet (of which there are no tapes).

But these people are right. Over the board you may keep a poker face. You may then go into your private area and look worried. For this to be disclosed when you think it isn't going to be may place you at a competitive disadvantage. I agree though that this is far-fetched and, to me, not the main point. The simple fact is that procedurally these tapes should not have been made available and that a confidence was being breached. Kramnik was clearly angered by this, and anger is a very disabling emotion when playing chess. It was disgraceful and if FIDE were an organisation which ran on anything resembling proper principles the persons responsible would be sacked. Indeed the Bulgarian team even asking for them shows their utter disregard for proper behaviour.

It's interesting: either the Bulgarians asked for the tapes when they could have had no grounds at all to suspect (well they never did, of course, but even the flimsy excuse of the toilet visits), OR they were tipped off in the first place by FIDE officials. Neither does anyone much credit.

The more I post about this the worse FIDE's conduct (and Topalov's) seems to me. I almost hope that there IS a trial just so we can all have a good laugh reading the judge's comments about FIDE (which will be lacerating, whoever wins). Sadly the judge is unlikely to grasp or comment on the enormity of Topalov's conduct - it takes a chess player to appreciate that.

Yuri: it's easy to say that now but Kramnik had only so much negotiating position before the match. Being on the Appeals Committee is usually a sinecure, and it's hard to blame Kramnik for taking the view he had better things to negotiate about. It's not like he was playing Korchnoi: Topalov hasn't any history of this kind of stuff (although one agrees that Danailov's presence might have been a warning).

It wouldn't have been easy to persuade FIDE to kick Azmai and Makro off before they cocked up, anyway. As I expect you know the job used to be done by respectable people chosen by the players. Now its part of Kirsan's corrupt system of course; the regulations stipulate that these jobs should be given to the boys and that they shold be nicely paid for doing nothing. I expect Kirsan would have had to pay Azmai and Makro to give up their bunce: he probably wouldn't have been very keen on that.

rdh:

Thanks for the link to Svidler. It's in English! :) Do you have a link to an index in English? I found Svidler's notes to Game 2 there by blind groping around but would prefer a more streamlined method.

I like Svidler's notes quite well. Even though he says that Topalov had no chances in the 6-man ending of Game 2.

To: Yuriy Kleyner,

You wrote (in part): "You bring up the point that few other people besides me had mentioned which is that Kramnik was aware of who was on the committee from the beginning and if they were really so objectionable and obviously bias he should have vetoed them and asked for different members. ... Yet should that mistake really make a difference in the final score of a chess match?"

It shouldn't have, unfortunately, that was the path Kramnik decided to take. Kramnik took it upon himself to forfeit a game. And for what? He didn't want to share a toilet with Topalov. IMO, Kramnik showed poor judgement.

*** Waring: I do not consider the decision of the Appeals Comission proper nor do I condone the behaviour of Topalov and Danialov, I am just trying to get the facts straight"

A few remarks (my read on the facts):

* First of all Kirsan did not overturn the decision of the Appeals Commision, he just got Topalov to agree to allow Kramnik the use of his bathroom.
* Second of all he did not formally dismis the Appeals Commision. "They resigned to make a compromise possible". Kirsan probably told them to do so informally, but still it wasn't a real slap on the wrist. Makro was appointed as FIDE Observer after his resignation.
* "In principle, I fully share your point of view regarding roles and responsibilities of match officials, however in this particular case, according to the point 3.17.1 of the Match Regulations:

* Quote form the article by Macieja:

"The [Appeals] Committee may decide on the following matters:
a) an appeal against a decision by an arbiter,
b) a protest against a player's behaviour,
c) a complaint alleging false interpretation of the regulations,
d) a request for the interpretation of specific regulations,
e) a protest or complaint against any participant, or
f) all other matters which the Committee considers important."

Point f doesn't even matter, point b is of the essence, Topalov did complain about Kramniks bathroombehaviour. So I believe that the Appeals Commision was allowed to decide about this matter. About the timing: "All protests must be submitted in writing to the Appeals Committee not more than two (2) hours after the relevant playing session, or the particular infringement complained against." Does anyone has an idea when exactly Topalov did complain? And when did the playing session of that day end (if there was any)?

And to end this post, 3 questions:

* Legally I think the sticky point won't be whether the Appeals Comission was wrong (they were!) but if it was enough of a base to refuse to play game 5. Does the contract become void if the playing conditions are changed or do you first have to go to trail to get the contract declared void because of the changed conditions? (any legal experts out there?)
* Composition of the Appeals Comission: If Kraminik didn't get his say before the match I don't understand why he did start the game. Considering the precedents in about every match since Fischer, a neutral AC would be quite important. Does anyone have an idea if Kramnik did have his say or did he just left FIDE decide by itself (a sure way to mess things up if you ask me!)
* The videotapes: Both participants did agree to be videotaped but does this allows the AC to hand them out to one of the two parties, legally speaking?

rdh

Like it or not, Bessel Kok is full of crap.

Now he is applying for a job to Kirsan while 3 months ago he was "fighting" against him in the FIDE elections.

And to answer your question, no arbiter can postpone a game when the other player is already at the board waiting for his opponent who is "resting" next to the chess board.

The 6th game was postponed well before it started, not by the arbiter but by mutual agreement of both players.

Maybe you are a good lawyer in the UK but I wouldn't say so for your knowledge of basic chess regulations.

And the "hot potato" in Makropoulos interview:

>

Smoking guns smelling...

I think rdh is making a lot of sense. However, amid all the talk of contracts and lawyers, and the boundaries between, and interactions of, the laws of chess and good old-fashioned law law, something important has been missed.

The simple fact is that, whether "legally" gained or not, Topalov should be under simple ethical constraints to give back the point from the 5th game. All the speculation about the extent of his involvement with Danailov's increasingly bizarre actions are beside the point: the fact that he is willing to hold onto that point renders him utterly culpable. Moreover, were he to relinquish his ill-gained point, it would immediately render all the legal (or should I say, legalistic) arguments meaningless.

I believe Topalov's actions are ethically reprehensible. By far the greatest censure should be reserved for him. The means to show the watching world his idea of sportsmanship, to distance himself from Danailov, to rescue his public image -- and, not least, to demonstrate good moral character, rest firmly in Topalov's powers. That he chooses not to exercise these powers is the most shameful aspect of a thoroughly degrading state of affairs.

Wow, sincere thanks to rdh for his legal thoughts on how Kramnik's privacy has been invaded.

Furthermore, Makropoulos' letter also stipulates a legal nonsense, in that "the appeal on closing the toilet in the rest room is groundless". The toilet in the rest room has been inspected and agreed to by both parties and became legally binding => Makropoulos did not understand the term "de facto and de jure" in Hensel's appeal.

Yet furthermore, team Kramnik neglegted to formally appeal to the highest legal authority within FIDE, i.e. the FIDE President, to nullify the forfeited game 5, and have the game 5 replayed. The neglect came about in the chaos at the time, but in hindsight, it would be to no avail either to appeal to the person who made the wrong decision to close the toilet in the rest room in the first place. As we all know by now, Kirsatan has used a specious legal argument to justify committing an injustice.

Topalov to give up the point???

Why, to approve Kramnik's attitude of "I'm playing in Russia and I will do whatever I want"?

Topalov made the right decision. Take the point and make Kramnik understand that Topa will not be any kind of push-around boy.

Further on the injustice done to Kramnik, I feel that an appeal to a Swiss court, or any court for that matter, would be to no avail to Kramnik, so sorry I feel about him.

The reason of my belief is that to win the appeal, or any appeal for that matter, you have to show that the decision below is wrong. In this case, Kramnik would have to show that the decisions made by FIDE were wrong, i.e. in non-compliance with the FIDE rules and regulations that Kramnik agreed to, express or implicit.

However, the FIDE rules and regulations "are drafted with an incompetence I (competent lawyer rdh) have rarely seen equalled". This makes Kramnik's task a practically impossible one, since these rules and regulations cannot be used to formulate any sensible legal test for legally deciding whether FIDE's decisions are right or wrong.

And in the absence of a clear showing that the decision below is wrong, no appeal court would be willing to overturn the decision below.

My guess is, that Kramnik will have to live with the injustice done to him, again, so sorry I feel for him. I hope rdh has a different opinion.

Giannis,

The fact that you think Kramnik has some kind of 'home turf' advantage by playing on Russian soil shows how completely ignorant and/or biased you are. Kramnik is playing the FIDE champion in a FIDE tournament with FIDE referees at the FIDE capital now being personally overseen by the FIDE president who has given Topalov a FIDE sanctioned handicap. Are you blind or Topalov's girlfriend???

Now that the match is tied taking into consideration the point stolen from Kramnik, FIDE shamelessly proclaims: "The match starts anew!"

Is FIDE and Topalov planning to repeat the theft until Kramnik cannot replenish the points stolen from him?

chillirat,

Kirsan is powerless in front of Zhukov. Do you have the slightest idea what Zhukov represents in Russia? Do you know his government position? If you do I would suppose that you are either blind or Kramnik's girlfriend.

If you don't know a thing about Zhukov, do a little homework (or ask Mig) and stop wasting our time with your ignorance.

And to get back to the sporting side of the match, I feel sorry for all the Kramnik fans. The 8th game was a powerful show by Topa which demonstrated that Kramnik is a piece of cake even in "solid" positions.

Still, I am not sure that Topa will win this match. In games 1 and 2 he seemed to completely underestimate Kramnik. If he repeats this mistake we might end up with Kramnik as world champion. A nightmare for all of us who want to see beautiful and imaginative chess at the top ranks...

Well said, Theorist, on ethics or the complete lack of it.

Just want to add that the unholy symbiosis between Topalov (chess) and Danailov (evil) is unprecedented. Alekhine (or Fisher or ...) for example, was a single person, excelling in chess, but mediocre in evil, and that was bad enough.

But in this unholy symbiosis we have a specialist duo, each excelling in their respective area of expertise

Gosh, I need to stop, I get so worked up, it's not funny

Giannis, Kramnik is an acquired taste.
He can do things practically no one else can.

So can Topalov. And the things he can do are more exciting and therefore more "accessible", for lack of a better term.

But I have not seen either of them playing their VERY best in this match.

We may still, although it is asking much of them to be able to rise above the acrimony of the disputes still unsettled.

Giannis,

Once again you are so wrong. Kirsan is not Russian puppet, at least not when it comes to FIDE. If that were the case the official score would be 4-3. (Unless for some unknown reason Zhukov wants his own countryman to lose), either way, it is Topalov who has an OVERWHELMING home court advantage, NOT Kramnik. And please dont tell me what i know or dont know about Russia since you dont know the first thing about me. Understand this is not personal to me and if I offended you with the girlfriend crack, my apologies.

Chillirat,

No offense, my apoogies for my girlfreind crack too.

But you are dead wrong.

The scandal isn't about Kirsan (fortunately) keeping the correct score. The scandal is that Kirsan tried even to negotiate the score! He even went so far as to declare that the point is a matter of politics! In which other sport would a federation president put its regulations under negotiation and politics so bluntly?

Zhukov was pressing for a 3-1 score, Kirsan tried to impose it but instead found a wall of strong will by Topalov, Makropoulos, Azmaiparashvili and FIDE's Swiss lawyers who were laughing when they heard that a result could be altered without the other player's agreement!

So either the score would stay 3-2 as per regulations or Topalov would (rightfully) walk away. Kirsan and the Russians took then the lesser evil approach: continue the match and hope that Kramnik wins...

An MD from Chigago posted a disturbing idea. Kramnik may suffer from obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and feel a need to wash his hands when under stress. If Topalov's team learned this from studying the tapes, and is able to frustrate Kramnik, this could be a serious problem for Kramnik, and the release of the tapes would have enabled the psyops.

man I am getting that beating a dead horse feeling...

Giannis, Kirsan does have the power to override the appeals committee, declare the forfeit null and void, and decree the round be replayed. But he not motivated to do so because Topalov is FIDE champion and one of a small percentage of professional players to support Kirsan on his re-election. Kirsan politically owes Topalov, where as Kramnik opposed Kirsan on re-election and is a political enemy. Kirsan is pure politician and though his actions are often wrong, they are predictable.

OK, I repeat once more:

If Kirsan would override the Appeals Committee then Topalov would walk away and have a winning case in court (according to the FIDE lawyers). That would mean THE END of Kirsan in FIDE.

In order to also save face to Zhukov, Kirsan "leaked" the FIDE lawyer's correspondence to SportExpress.ru so he would show that "look, I'm a good boy, I tried but it was legally impossible".

My opinion? Kirsan saved the match, and his position in FIDE, by making under pressure the correct decision. But if Kramnik loses this match because of this forfeit, Zhukov will never forgive that Kirsan failed the mission. It could be the end of Kisan's political career. And the end of his FIDE-term as well.

Next time chillirat I will be charging for all this information. If you knew how to read Russian and searched, you could find all this information in various Russian forums. So try to open your eyes and see what is really going on in Elista instead of eating the crap of Chessbase...

rdh said:
"The powers the committee has are not well defined in the regulations (a document drafted with an incompetence I have rarely seen equalled). The most guidance we are given is 'The Committee shall endeavour to find binding solutions that are within the true spirit of the FIDE motto, Gens Una Sumus.'. It is an open question whether that entitles them to override the rather clear contractual provisions that the facilities shall not be altered after the match began and that 'each player shall be provided with a toilet'. Personally I find this an unlikely proposition and believe Kramnik is right to say that the Appeals Committe decision was beyond their contractual powers, but my opinion, while worth more than yours or Mr Macieja's, is not really worth a row of beans beside that of a lawyer in the relevant jurisdiction or indeed that of someone who has seen the contract (why on EARTH are these documents secret, by the way, shouldn't we know what our Federation has signed up to do?!)."

I'm not a lawyer anywhere but my own mind, but I'll jump right into the legalisms here ...

I had the impression (it's great not having text to point to :/) that there was something about the Committee maintaining fair match conditions. So then if it suspects outside interference, it would use the power that you ascribe to it, to do just about whatever believes that it needs to do.

I think the rights of the match, or FIDE, come ahead of the rights of the players. (But the players have the right to be paid a big hunk of moolah risk-free and tax-free!) So where some people might expect courtroom-like procedures based on due process or other individual rights, it's not like that. FIDE owns its title and retains a lot of absolute discretion.

Noone needs a chess champion as Kramnik. Thats what I think - boring chess, always complaining and demanding...

From game 8 press:

Very funny. After kramnik has his a$$ handed to him by Topalov in a brilliant game, he starts whining about lucky, and miracles! What an idiot! Topalov lost a lot of goodwill by his manager's antics, but kramnik's moaning and bi$$ing is pathetic.

The contrast couldnt be more: Kramnik bsing about painting, and artists etc. And here is what the Topper says:

Bravo!

Go topper! Give kramnik a smacking so he stops having these affected self-serving vision of mircles and painters!

"Kramnik: But the game developed unsuccessfully – the opponent was lucky to see all his pieces arriving at proper locations sharp on time. His position did not fall apart almost by a miracle"

"Topalov: I will abstain from judging his play, but the ending is very complex."

Very funny. After kramnik has his a$$ handed to him by Topalov in a brilliant game, he starts whining about lucky, and miracles! What an idiot! Topalov lost a lot of goodwill by his manager's antics, but kramnik's moaning and bi$$ing is pathetic.

The contrast couldnt be more: Kramnik bsing about painting, and artists etc. And here is what the Topper says:

"There were many draws in recent matches (Kasparov-Kramnik and Kramnik-Leko) because the players did not want taking risks, and not because the level of play was higher. Draw is a normal result by itself, but quick draws is a big problem for chess, and we must take measures against them. People must enjoy our games, otherwise what are we playing for?"

Bravo!

Go topper! Give kramnik a smacking so he stops having these affected self-serving vision of mircles and painters!

Artichoke: FIDE may own its title but once it signs a contract the position is governed by the relevant contract law and nothing else. 'Individual rights', beyond the ones created by that contract, have no meaning.

Giannis: there's not much point debating a lot of what you say but for the benefit of others:

(i) if you imagine that the advice Ilyumzhinov has released in public is the same as the advice he has actually received then you are naive. Lawyers always tailor very carefully any advice they know is going to be made public. He is bound to have received private advice which may even differ substantively and is certain to be very different in range, detail and tone.

(ii) You are also naive in what you say about postponing games. The arbiter himself may not have the power, but he could have used his influence to see that it happened; for example he could have suggested to Kramnik that he apply to the president for a postponement under 3.23.1 and got on the phone to Ilyumzhinov (maybe he did, of course, we don't know).

I find your conspiracy theories ludicrous. If Zhukov is really all-powerful in Russia he's got a funny way of showing it.

Theorist: Obviously. I assumed it went without saying that Topalov was completely dead to any ethical notions.

zero: The only provision for appealing to the president is 3.23.1 from the appeals committee. There is no time limit on these appeals. All this stuff about Kramnik failing to protest or appeal or whatever is smoke and mirrors. It is the presence of a reference to this in Sand's letter which makes me doubtful about him. I haven't seen any competent legal analysis which suggests that could possibly be relevant.

Tom: the protest was made about 24 hours after the end of game 4.

GO Topa!!!!!!!!
We want an e4 today, active play. Show Kramnik he should do sit and rethink his chess abilities and style in the wired bathroom!

David Q: That site is crap for navigation, I agree. I don't have a link to a sensible English index, no.

Mig gives some of the analysis for game 2 if you look at this blog piece for game 2, and it's been posted in other places. It's not in dispute: indeed it couldn't be for anyone with Fritz 9 and the tablebases which come with it. Topalov could have saved himself with Kd7 at some moment - maybe move 55? As I say, to my mind this is the end of the matter where rational people are concerned.

Steven Craig Miller: your continued refusal to make any effort to understand what playing these matches is like is really rather impressive.

Speaking by the way of elephants in the room and Bulgarian ethics, another elephant which perhaps deserves a run - just for exercise - is the fact that Bulgarian is one of the nations whose players are most notorious for selling points in international opens. Ethics really ain't their thing in that part of the world.

Give it up rdh, no one cares about your hatred of Bulgarians. Go Topalov!

Topalov's web says that he will probably play d4 in order to avoid exchange of pices. I still hope for an e4
Topa! Win today!

i dont belive that this crying baby toalit watcher danailo bubit topalov still has fans

As an opera fan, last night I was listening to "The Rake's Progress" (music by Igor Stravinsky, libretto by W.H.Auden) and stumbled upon this passage which seems to summarize perfectly well the relationship between our two Bulgarians:

"I may have made a bad mistake
Yet I can tell who in that pair
Is poisoned victim and who snake".

By the way, I'm convinced that Topalov will recover his reputation as soon as he gets rid of this embarassing father-figure.
Almost every chess player now respects Gata Kamsky, partly because of his comeback but also because we feel he was not responsible for his father's outrageous behaviour (which in the case of Nigel Short actually went so far as death threats, something Mr. Danailov has spared us so far).

"Both in Slovak and Czech math slang, there is an
expression "bulharska konstanta" (Bulgarian constant). It is a number that, if applied to the final result of your calculation, will produce
the expected result." (I'm citing my friend VB here.)

Any similar usage in other languages?

d4!
Topalov's site guessed. Do they have internal information?
http://www.veselintopalov.net/article/wcc-round-9-preview

move 1. d4!

kramnik resign yet?

I beat my friend in chess last night who is about 400 points stronger than me, and I played black.

A trip to his unsupervised bathroom at every move was all it took.

Go topa! Yesterdays strategy of moving fast and keeping kramnik out of the unsupervised potty paid off!

Wait a minute. so team Kramnik wanted that glass wall be put in place cuz they thought Topalov would cheat and the wall was put up (1st change to conditions), then team Topalov wanted bathroom closed cuz they thought Krmanik would cheat and the bathroom was closed (2nd change to conditions). Topalov kept playing after Kramnik's request was carried out, Kramnik did not play after Topalov's request was carried out.

Forget it, i feel no sympathy for Kramnik any more. he was totally wrong in skipping that game. winner of match at +1 is world champ.

rdh,

Hmm, you know, I think up to this point I was still under assumption that the players were allowed to loo at appellation committee and veto a member or two. But now I see the contract neither specifies the procedure nor grants the participants such rights.

I disagree that the result was due to Kramnik not having negotiating power. Kramnik had the only piece in the world Kirsan lacked: the World Championship. Knowing he was stepping into the lion's den he might have wanted to make sure the guards were not the ones most likely to stab him with a pike. And yes, I do accuse Kramnik for negligence in his approach to negotations. In his interview with Sport-Express he gave shortly after the match was announced he said he didn't care about the money, the place, the financial split, the length, the tiebreaks, etc. of the match. That's the kind of non-chalant approach ("Match at any cost") that gets you to a situation like this.

Steven,

As an organizer you don't force a forfeit over a technicality like that. You (Steven) agree that there is a very high likelihood no cheating is taking place. In that case we have a situation where a committee that decides to rule against Kramnik on a minor point that's important to him though perhaps not to most people. If this leads to a walkout threat by one of the parties, you don't force strict adherence to a minor ruling, you get both players/managers to the table and negotiate a reasonable compromise which is to the satisfaction of both parties.

rdh

So English 'lawyers' don't mind the fact or appearance of cheating by all the toilet trips?

(There was a fake fff posting above, can I sue him?).

He's in MAJOR trouble now with Rxf7!

WAY TO GO TOPALOV TAKING DOWN THE RUSSIAN OVER THE BOARD ONCE AGAIN - TOPALOV 5 Kramnik 4!!!

racerx, the screen was put there by agreement before the first game. Don't be silly.

fff: no serious person imagines for a moment Kramnik was cheating with a computer. If you do then you're a fool. He missed a tablebase win; what more evidence do you want?

Still, Topalov wins today and it's clearly over; Kramnik has gone. It wouldn't surprise me if he resigned the match. Sad day: Topalov's cheating/psycho tricks have paid off.
I see Susan Polgar has gone so far as to call it a 'ridiculous and unprofessional accusation' today.

"If Kramnik loses this match because of this forfeit...It could be the end of Kirsan's political career. And the end of his FIDE term as well."
Giannis, you beauty! You have hit the nail on the head! I agree! I agree! I agree!
This is THE big issue of this match now, much more important than who of Kramnik or Topa deserves to win. The overriding important thing is to get rid of Kirsan. For this reason, it will now be GREAT if Topa wins (I was neutral as to who I wanted to win at the start of this match.)
The most extraordinary irony of all this is that Topa is Kirsan's mate.