(I would have been tempted to ignore slime, but ChessBase put it up and it needs to be addressed.) Just when you thought this had hit rock bottom, Danailov sinks to new depths. Search depths, that is. I don't know if this Bulgarian article has any more info than this one posted to ChessBase. In it, Danailov says that after careful examination, Kramnik's moves coincide with the "first line" of Fritz 9 to xx% in each game.
Of course it takes only a little common sense and knowledge of how these stats can be easily manipulated to challenge this accusation, especially since no methodology is given. That is, Fritz's first line after how long? If you let it think for eight minutes per move, say, and then look back at its output there usually will be three or four reasonable moves as "first" at different points. If you pick the one you want it's hard not to find the GM's move in there somewhere unless he blundered. Next, with recaptures and other nearly forced moves the correlation is going to be 30-40% range just to start. Unless they are hyper-tactical, most GM games match well over 50% even at a set time for analysis. By hand-picking your spots you can get the correlation as high as you like excepting blunders.
The stupidest part of this is that in game two, in which Kramnik supposedly mirrored Fritz 87% of the time (which would be high even by GM standards), he committed three serious, result-changing blunders Fritz wouldn't even consider! Try to get your Fritz to play 31..Bf8 or 53..Re1. So we are supposed to believe that of only six moves Kramnik didn't match the comp, half were major blunders that would have lost or allowed a draw had Topalov played correctly? Idiotic. His missing 17.Ne4 in game 3 is another refutation. Or did he not cheat only on moves it would have helped him immensely?
It will take the chess community all of a few hours to run the games through standardized testing at different speeds show that 1) these numbers are wrong unless you manually pick a move from the list and 2) Topalov''s correlation with Fritz is very close to Kramnik's. I say that 98% of what Danailov says correlates with the first line produced by his ass.
And this guy is going to be a major roller in the chess Grand-Slam? He might very well be the end of professional chess as we know it!
I was willing to let the first set of complaints slide without too much negative backlash... but this is just ridiculous. This guy should be out of chess. What a scumbag.
Where are the matching percentages for game 5?
BTW, Danailov does not accuse Kramnik in anything. He is just providing statistics :))).
Danailov aims at two things:
a) he is trying to distract Kramnik both physically and psychologically,
b) he is providing fresh material to the non-chess media of Bulgaria which show Topalov as the victim in this situation.
Mig, it seems obvious to me that Danilov has 'carefully' crossmatched the thinking time of Fritz 9 with the length of Kramink's visits to the toilet...
Just kidding of course...
Kramnik is going to gain another full point or two in proceeding games. Believe me, he is just a head above Topalov, and making him angry that way will never help.
On the suggestion of sacking Danailov, it's said that he and Topalov have a contract without end date (pardon my English). The rumour is that Danailov gets a 50% cut of the profits. If this is the case sacking Danailov could be very expansive for Topalov.
looks like kram has walked into topa's preparation. he's half an hour down on the clock already. hopefully topalov will overpress and lose, the twat.
Topalov and Danailov should be boycotted. They are destroying chess as we know it and we love it, just to put their hands on WC title.
bobo. you are right. Danailov lacks the honesty to articulate the implication. what else would you expect from such a slime but slurs, innuendo and falsehoods.
What else can he mean but an accusation of cheatring? Are we supposed simply to sit back and say, well that is jolly interesting. No!¬ It is his clear intention to libel Kramnik. Do they have libel laws in Russia? I do hope so.
I wonder whether Topalov really understands the damage that has been done to him by his manager. Topalov did seem such a reasonable guy - recall that great pair of photos playing a simul against 7 and 10 year old girls in Mexico (they were sisters). It was so sweet.
Nothing but sour bout this ...
Just some preliminary observations on the latest Danailov attempt to get the match called off before his protégé loses:
(1) Presumably some of the games have taken place in the area of Kramnik’s meticulous preparation. Presumably he uses a computer to help him prepare; presumably he has a fine memory.
(2) We need to know the coincidence of Topalov’s moves with Fritz 9 or other engine.
(3) We need to know the coincidence of Kramnik’s moves with Fritz 9 in other tournaments—especially those tournaments that took place before Fritz 9 was ever released.
(4) We need a “base-line” for determining whether 78% is a high proportion of coincidence or not. Danailov should provide hard statistical evidence (that is, a thorough study with data from lots of tournaments with other grandmasters) that 78% is a ratio that is statistically significant. (It doesn’t seem that high to me).
(5) The number 78% doesn’t take into account the nature of the move: some moves are more unusual or more forcing than others.
While again, this is an attack beneath Kramnik’s dignity to respond to, he should not rise to the bait and walk away from this match. That would simply play into Danailov’s hands. The only hope for Danailov and Topalov is to hang onto their worthless title because Kramnik will not continue. Kramnik should not grant them their wish.
Money is only part of the equation. NOT sacking Danailov could be costly in other ways. Incidentally, why does Danailov draw attention to the stats of game 6? Surely it undermines his tacit accusation?
SirKy and passarino,
If twats and scumbags could sue for defamation, you guys would be in real trouble.
OPEN LETTER TO SILVIO DANAILOV
In the name of the chess-programming computer world we would like to thank Mr. Danailov for his important contribution. His analysis proves clearly that Fritz 9 is already 78% as good as reigning classical world champion Vladimir Kramnik! In fact, Kramnik's play in Elista - i.e. the remaining 22% of moves that Kramnik played and Fritz 9 was not capable to consider - teaches us what still has to be improved in our computer programmes to make them as good as possible to come at least close to Mr. Kramnik's strength.
Mr. Danailovs worries that go along with his analysis also make us especially proud of Fritz 9, since they imply that a player of Topalov's kind can be defeated by Fritz 9. Mr. Danailov, as soon as you think that Veselin Topalov has improved his play to be able to compete with Fritz 9, let us know, so we can arrange a match! As long as Mr. Vladimir Kramnik plays that strong, it is him who will be considered as the worthy candidate to play a match man-machine as he will do in the million-dollar-match in the fall of 2006 in Germany.
Regards
Maelzel
Topalov is extremley popular in Bulgaria. More than Pete Manning in USA. This of course translates into multiple endorsements. It is in his (and his manager) interest to present himself not as a looser but as a victim to Bulgarian public.
Anyone has can give evaluation of the current position? I am at work and cannot access engines:(
Now that Danailov successfully stole a point from Kramnik, you'd think he would at least be quiet now.
But no, he's shamelessly continuing with his little schemes. I hope Danailov realizes that even if Topalov wins this match as a result of his little games, most people will not accept Topalov. Kramnik will still have followers; and the unification will have more or less failed.
It is indeed starange why Danailov is referring to game 6. Doesn't it invalidate his accusation or is he saying that despite the controversy, Kramnik continue cheating.
I think Topalov is under complete control of Danailov for some reason - not sure what, maybe he is indebted to him or respects him too much or sees him as a father figure.
There are too many interviews of Topalov where this comes out. E.g. in San Luis Toppy mentioned that he offered a draw to Kasim because that's what Danailov told him before the game (even though he was ahead).
Kapalik
I don't have an engine but my simplistic evaluation is that Topalov is still in his preparation and Kramnik isn't, and I'm not wild about Black being forced to concede the bishop on d5, which looks like a sign of distress to me - the normal trade on c6 has several advantages for Black relatively. I fear for Kramnik here.
I'd love to know more about what they think in Bulgaria. It's hard to see how to portray Topalov as a victim - unless of course it's overcoming the wicked cheating Russian.
Danailov is like a more malicious and more conniving Rustam Kamsky.
I asked Victor Mikhalevski about the statement, he said "I believe it's the same strategy, I don't really think they suspect use of a computer"
rdh my patzer thoughts on the position.
White is more active and seems to have kingside attack options. Black is solid, has no weeknesses, and if the game reaches ending black will be better due to d4 pawn. Also the pawn structure offers me that black's black bishop is the better one and exchanging the white bishop was not so painful. Besides, exchanges generally favour black in this position.
I expect Junior showing something like +=0.35 in this position, though I might be very-very wrong.
Better chess players, pls correct me :)
Yes, Topalov has made it clear many times that his current success is down to leaving all off-board matters strictly in the hands of his agent. It may be that he doesn't know some of what's going on. It's hard to believe he could be such a hypocrite as to go into the press conference and say what he did and then knowingly release this sort of nonsense.
IF you look at Danailov's statement, it says that there is a high degree of correlation between Kramnik's moves and Fritz's moves. Nowhere does he accuse Kramnik of cheating. Mig and Chessbase are guilty of paraphrasing inappropriately.
A number of arguments have been put forth to show that Danailov's statistics are worthless:
(a) Fritz's first move can change depending on how long one runs Fritz allowing one to "cherry pick" the result (so Mig).
(b) Kramnik made at least three serious blunders, they prove he wasn't using Fritz (so Mig).
(c) There is no comparison from other games by top players to know if 78% is high or low (so Crowther).
Regarding (a), this is speculation on Mig's part, he offered no proof that Danailov cherry picked Fritz's first move, he could have used a fix time for all of the moves. (On the other hand, no proof is no proof, perhaps Mig's speculation is correct.)
Regarding (b), to my knowledge Danailov has not suggested that Kramnik consulted Fritz after each and every move. It is possible that Danailov might explain the blunders as times when Kramnik didn't consult Fritz.
Regarding (c), as most people should know, and as as Crowther rightly pointed out, statistics are meaningless unless we have some type of comparison. Is 78% high or low? If one could show that most other WCC games average out at around 80%, then 78% proves nothing. On the other hand, if most other WCC games averaged out at 70%, one might begin to wonder what was going on.
But there is a larger issue at stake here, namely the assumption by many that it is simply impossible for Kramnik to have cheated, thus any suspicions which Danailov might have must be BS. And while I think it highly unlikely that Kramnik cheats (or at least I hope this to be true), the fact is many respectable people do indeed cheat. In the real world, some priest are pediophiles, it wasn't too long ago that the number 1 accounting firm in the nation got caught cooking books, many major league athletes take illegal performance-enhancing drugs, seemingly respectable Republican politicians send sexual explicit text messages to minors, and the list could go on. The fact is, seemingly respectable people do indeed cheat. Even Martha Stewart got caught cheating.
I hope that Danailov's suspicions are unfounded, but in this day and age, I do believe that Danailov has a right to be suspicious. And it seem to me that it is only prudent for some effort to be made to guarantee that no one is cheating during the World Champion Chess match.
I don't know about giving up the light bishop. When Black gets mated in this line it's normally with some breakthrough on the light squares - d5 of course, or a sac on e6/f7/g6. The light bishop helps stop this. If it's traded on c6 then the pawn that comes to c6 helps stop it too by covering d5. But maybe it's not so bad. I suppose 20...Ne8 now is possible, is it?
If Danailov had adopted any sound methodology, you'd imagine he'd say so. And if Kramnik was cheating, you'd think he'd pick the tactical moments. Fritz goes straight for 17 Ne4 in game 3 and loves it. If Kramnik IS cheating, then for sure he needs to sack some of his backroom staff.
Dirtbag, get a grip. This sort of denial is pathetic.
The behaviour of Topalov's team is disgraceful and they should be ashamed of thmselves.
Anybody heard of any GM support for Topalov and Danailov- specifically if Ponomariov or Radjabov have commeneted? Or are they keeping their heads low for a while?
Will be interesting to see if Pono keeps Danailov as his manager...
@rdh: What breakthrough on d5 ? there is a blockading knight ! Kramnik knows what he's doing. After all, his play is 78% computer perfect :-).
Also I wonder, if Topalov really believes that Kramnik is playing so well, then this could have rather a negative effect on Topalov's play than a positive. It seems as if they are saying: Kramnik is too strong for us.
Is this PsyOps? If I were Kramnik, these accusations would leave me so pi$$ed-off that I could not play straight.
I perverse part of me hopes the accusations are true; real cheating does not bother me as much as the false accusation of cheating.
1. I've watched all games with Rybka 2.1 MP, Deep Shredder 9 and Deep Junior 9 with 2GB of hash each. Rybka used 2 CPUs, DS and DJ - 1 CPU each. Topalov himself made many moves from first line of my Rybka at the time the move was translated on PlayChess. And 95% of moves suggested by Shredder were exactl matches to Rybka (and to Topalov) ones.
What's funny, Danailov did not compare Kramnik to Rybka. Is this name taboo for him? ;-)
2. Now it is clear. Topalov does not want to play match. They are looking for any way to cancel.
Don't put words in my mouth, I can speak for myself. My point was that you CAN use such methodology, or lack thereof, and that barring any accompanying statements about what method was used, it should be considered worthless or worse. Similarly, point out how markedly fruitless Kramnik's cheating has been is just that. I'm tossing it up there.
The latest from Danailov - he asked Gormally to join Topalov's team ....
LooooL Danny
If anyone is interested: Junior 8 shows =
IM Barsky wrote an article in which it was suggested that Topalov might be using Rybka. Barskies article reminded me of conspiracy theory, but it had more "proof" in it than Danailovs current statement.
Article in Russian here: http://prosports.ru/index.ipj?clsid=3795239278-6953-16397-191&method=getArticle&id=73936&rubric_id=39361
Danailov replied (in Russian again: http://www.chesspro.ru/match/before/2/) with an article consisting mainly of ad hominem attacks and a couple of arguments (good enough to debunk the conspiracy theory). Now, when I reread Danailovs attacks on Barsky I feel the urge to replace "Barsky" with "Danailov" and send that article to Danailov himself.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but that's how chess programmers measure the success of their evaluation function, by comparing them to how human top GMs play. So it's not at all surprising that after years of painstaking fine-tuning, computers do a fairly good job of imitating humans.
So Kramnik outplayed Rybka up to now?
What if this is the greatest setup in chess history?
What if Kramnik, knowing that his chess understanding is much deeper than Topalov's one (even Kasparov had to admit this), but suffering from very limited support from chess professionals and from chess communite just gave Danailov a bribe? ;-)
By the way, why Kasparov did admit Kramnik understands chess deeper than Topalov? Was he honest? What if he just say so, because Kramnik already beat him? Saying that Topalov plays better would mean, he can beat Kasparov, also!
I doubt Fritz would outplay Rybka...
Can someone run this analysis on Topalov's moves? I bet high 70's isn't that out of line for GMs...
A minute ago somebody on PlayChess said he will register with nick 'Danailov' to frighten opponents :-)
Even Lance Armstrong cheats.
Lance Armstrong is a cyclist, that doesn't count. They all cheat. Except Tom Boonen of course, I'm a Belgian :)
interesting position now. two knights vs two bishops. black has control of the c file though, but there are no entry points on it into white's position.
Man, and I honestly thought the worst was over.
SIGH.
Oh, I think the worst is over. Kramnik has stabilised the position, forced Topalov to regroup his queen to the centre, and I think there's a good chance a draw will be agreed soon, though it looked a bit dodgy earlier on......oh, sorry, I see what you mean.
After very detailed analyze of all Danailov's statements of the match we would like to present to your attention coincidence statistics of the moves of GM (Grand Monkey) Danailov with recommendations of an insane chimpanzee.
1. His client goes down 3-1 in a match, and Silvio starts watching endless clips of people going to the bathroom.
2. He makes ape-like noises, and scratches his underarm in excitement after his client wins a game by forfeit.
3. Every time he sees someone eating a banana during a press conference, he makes absurd accusations at everyone he sees, and begins writing open letters.
Thus, it is clear that Silvio Danailov is a chump, er, chimp.
Sincerely,
Banana Float
Once again, there seems to be a convergence in circumstance with the most ignoble professional sport of the last couple of decades: Pro Boxing
These silly protests by Danailov are reminiscent of Don King, the bloated and gradiose manager and promoter of Mike Tyson. When an out of shape, overconfident, and ill-prepared Tyson got knocked out by "Buster" Douglass, King started poring over videotape to try to get the result of the Boxing match reversed, or at least nullified. King claimed that Douglass had received a "Long Count" when he had been knocked down in the match by Tyson. What King did to Tyson's career is on record for all to see.
Tom Boonen? Is he a World Champion? No ... maybe he doesn't cheat then.
Is it me, by the way, or all these numbers daft anyway? If you’re using Fritz, you dig down the line it suggests, and if it doesn’t turn out so good, you go back to the beginning and its evaluation has changed. I imagine if you’re a computer cheat you stick your tame GM helper in the back room and he does the same thing. So you won’t be able to replicate the moves you get no matter how long you leave the thing running. This is why GMs can still prepare better than amateurs, basically. Of course in a sharp tactical position just spotting the tactics will sometimes help enormously, but still you’d need a skilled operator. Which Kramnik evidently didn’t have at least in 2004 - Kramnik-Leko, anyone?
Danilov is scum.
If I were Kramnik, I'd challenge Danilov to a match. Silvio can have access to Fritz, but he will be required to wear a mouth gag at all times. Danilov will also not be allowed to use the toilet at any time during the match.
If Kramnik happens to lose for some odd, unforseen reason, I think Topalov will be the most hated world champion in history.
Topalov has meekly followed the charismatic Danailov--right over a cliff. One wonders what the terms of Topalov's contract with Danailov are; likely, Danailov has seen to that Topalov will be legally bound to him for many years to come. Worse, Danailov is obviously cozy with the sleaziest politicos in the upper echelons of FIDE. Thus, the odds are against FIDE taking a sensible measure, such as Blacklisting Danailov from involvement in chess events, or even appearing at chess venues.
If we compare Danailov to King, I am afraid for Vlad. Remember how another Vlad, Klitschko, lost to Brewster, being poisoned?
@fff: Until a few weeks ago he was, yes. Note that being a world champion and winning the tour de france (the most prestigious event) is not very correlated in cycling. Winning the tour de france and cheating, however ... . But I regress.
Back at the game, are we seeing some sudden complications with the b-pawn vanishing, or can some engine assure us this is all going to burn out to equality very soon? To the naked punter eye it seems that White may possibly have stubbed his toe somewhat.
acirce: I *knew* the worst wasn't over. The whole toilet thing was just a beginning. They don't want to lose so just get ready for more and more ridiculous stuff. It's just what they do, anything that will abort the match.
One can't rely on reason or "class" here. Yesterday Topy said he didn't believe Kram was cheating, and today they come up with this.
Nothing to be proud of, but that's or business, right?
The Appeals Committee (Version 1.0) receives much opprobrium from the Chess Community--deservedly so. However, Seirawan has correctly pointed out that the Chief Arbiter of the match, Geurt Gijssen, also made a mistake. Indeed, Gijssen's error might have been the most consequential of all.
For some reason, Gijssen seems to be the "Star" arbiter of the Elite Chess World. Undoubtedly, he is objective, and scrupulously honest. No doubt, Gijssen has an eye for detail, and is well prepared and organized in his duties.
However, I expect that dozens of International Arbiters (Accredited by FIDE) share those qualities. Why is Gijssen preferred over them?
Gijssen strikes me as "Hard" (rigid) man, from the same cloth as a Kenesaw Mountain Landis.
Gijssen handled the crisis in a ham-fisted way. He ought to have steered the match to a safe harbor by using his authority to declare a technical delay, and postpone Game #5--at least until such time as Ilyumzhinov was about to return to Elista and make his Executive decision.
In addition to being honest, and to following the letter of the law, a good Arbiter must have common sense. Gijssen has mastery over FIDE regulations, but he seems to obtuse to understand the spirit of fair play.
In the old days, the Arbiter's job used to be given to a more or less retired Grandmaster, one who has experience as player in an Official FIDE event. This made sense, in that it was a way to provide extra income to a chess player, rather than a professional chess official or politician.
Here are Seirawan's observations, on ChessBase
http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3398
"Now the Chief Arbiter, Geurt Gijssen, compounded the first two mistakes by making a mistake of his own: 22 minutes after game five had been due to start, he pressed the clock and the game officially began. With hindsight it can readily be seen that Gijssen should have realized that the playing conditions had been changed without the approval of both players.
....Instead of starting the clock, Gijssen should have called for a further delay to settle the issue of the bathroom. Indeed, he should have insisted that the playing conditions of the previous games be reinstated until both players were in agreement. If the issue could not be settled in a timely manner, Gijssen should have called the game an official time-out.
Once the clock had been started, the train wreck was in motion. The outcome was clear. Kramnik forfeited game five. Topalov signed the score-sheet, as did Gijssen."
Yes, but back at the game, it looks as though our hero is going to reply in the best possible way, no? White looks close to lost here - someone take pity on us workers and tell us what the silicon and GM commentators are saying. It looked like Topalov missed either 36....Nb6 or some associated tactic.
As PhishMaster on ICC, I have probably become one of the most famous kibitzers during relays over the past 9 years. I never hide the fact that I use a computer to aid my analysis and I am considered fairly expert at it having been a ChessBase customer since Fritz 2 and ChessBase 1 back in 1990. So I speak with a certain amount of expertise when I say that these guys over 2700 who play classical positional chess (clearly Topalov's or Moro's style might not lend itself to this comment quite as much since they are more free thinkers) can frequently get well over 80% the same moves as an engine once they are beyond the opening. They are amazing and I have seen Kasparov, Anand, Leko, and Ponomariov all do this in the past.
Dave "Fluffy" Vigorito even mentioned a recent Carlsen game that I had mentioned to him where the kid got about 15 consecutive moves the same as the computer.
I told you a thread ago that Danailov would continue with any any nonsense. You can be sure it will came with another the next days.
Mig,
The stupidest thing is that if Danailov and team knew that Kramnik was using Fritz 9, then why tell the world ? Its as if all the moves by Fritz 9 are right all the time. What an endorsement for Chessbase. The logical thing to do is to find the hole in the lines and use it !
a Vulcan
The great thing about accusations of cheating is that they explain *all* evidence. If Kramnik plays the best moves too often then he's obviously getting them from a chess engine. If he plays bad moves then that obviously shows how badly he plays without the computer.
The sad thing is how it's now practically assumed that the best move in a game is a "computer move". I guess Fritz et al. really are the best players in the world.
The match regulations provide for a player being fined up to 10% of the purse for unsportsmanlike conduct. It's well past time to start demanding that.
I did the same type of analysis quite recently when trying to bust a guy who I though was cheating on ICC. I analyses about 10 games of players rated 1800-2200 on ICC for comparison. Although I used the top 2 lines instead of just the best line, my correlation still ended up around 70% on average (albeit with huge fluctuations - right from 30% up to nearly 100%).
So in comparison with that I really don't think 78% correlation for a guy like Kramnik sounds like a lot. If anything I would probably have expected it to be higher.
Who the hell is Pete Manning?
It's kinda like Pandolfini's solitaire chess column where you have to guess the moves the master played throughout a whole game, and then you get this grading scale at the end which, in my own experience, inflates your rating about 300 points. Anybody who knows anything about chess will get most of the moves right--it's the few tough ones that separate the best from the rest of us. Saying you played "almost" the same moves as Kasparov doesn't mean a whole lot if you still drop your queen when you diverge.
Actually:
Higher coincidence percentage would only mean that Kramnik plays more Fritz-like than Topalov, which is not that shocking considering how different the two styles are.
As far as cherry picking, if Danailov is logical man, he would use the time approximately estimating the time Kramnik took for bathroom breaks.
The most decisive evidence would be comparing the Fritziness of Kramnik's moves before which he took a bathroom break versus the Fritziness of Kramnik's moves before which he didn't.
I predict Kramnik will win at least one more game. Even with black, he is able to achieve superior positions to Topalov in every game so far.
Mig, I just noticed tag 'jackass' you put for this item. Right to the point!!!
Danailov Pseudo-science accusations at best.
I can't think of one GM who would say the "playing 80% of fritz's moves during a game once out of book" was in any way unusual. Matter of fact, I would say that the playing of Fritz 9 moves less than 70% might result in a negative score for most GM's in your average GM tournament.
Chess engines/comp. speeds have progressed that far.
We strive and strive to mimic human play in our chess programs. We begin to achieve real results - just look a the recent games of all the top engines - and this Danailov a$$clown comes along and presents his pseudo-science as fact, loaded with his 'implication' that Kramnik is cheating.
Of course, defenders of him don't hesitate to point out that he never really said Kramnik was cheating. But, sometimes the message is read between the lines.
Topalov has alot of explaining to do for the behavior of his manager.
Topalov fans can rest in their comfort that Corus was an abberation against inferior opponents.
It is Topalov who is not in the same class as Kramnik, Kramnik being his senior.
Danailov should challenge Kramnik to a match.
"Of course, defenders of him don't hesitate to point out that he never really said Kramnik was cheating."
Indeed, he doesn't.
Since everybody seems to agree that 78% doesn't mean anything, he probably just did a noble thing and published these figures to *clear* Kramnik from suspicion. LOL
Hummm
It seems that danailov is very intelligent: Like in the firsts claims: There are NO words accusing directly: everything is suggested .
It gives topalov a point once,he was thinking that kramnik would be dumb once more time.
What is shocking: topalov and fide 's silence about that manager who is acting to ruin all the match
Danailov's purpose is quite clear: he wants to do everything to make kramnik leave the match and the country but with a score , not in favor of topalov ok, but with mathematicaly enough games left to let uncertainty about a seemingly outcome of the match in people's mind...
He his no dumb as we can think: very intelligent, subtle, word choosen perfectly...
So, I want to say another hurray for kramnik bravior.
For Topalov's team ... they don't deserve any words ;oP
Since it is a WC match, I wonder if it's possible to check the games by some method, e. g.
a) ICC's method of checking internet games for possible use of computers.
b) ?'s method of checking postal games for possible use of computers.
Well, maybe one should not check at all.
Did anyone else notice that Danailov's arithmetic is wrong regarding Kramnik's moves matching Fritz?
(41+40+40+30+14) / (65+46+46+40+18) = 165/215 = 76.7%
He said it comes out to 78%.
Jeff--
Has anyone figured out Topalov's "Fritz rating" for this match? For San Luis?
i propose that ICC and Playchess should asses the case, and the San Louis Case. Theyve much experience in finding computer assistance.
My question is: Why is danailov so convinced that Kramnik cheats? Does he know it is possible?
Yeah, Jeff
He averaged the five ratings out rather than averaging the total "first line" percentage over five games: (63+87+86+75+78)/5=77.8
Anyone want to make fun of the 63 percentage in the first game? What, was Kramnik still trying to tune his urinal to Fritz radio?
"Pete Manning" is the result of an illicit liaison between Pistol Pete Maravich and Archie Manning. :)
This disgusting behaviour has gone far enough.
I have a very strong urge to go to Wijk-Aan-Zee and BOO Topalov when he shows up.
Let's see how he likes _that_.
See the analysis by poster "Littlefish" on the chessninja bulletin boards. http://www.chessninja.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=001334;p=2
Using a different chess engine, he found correlation of 79% for Kramnik, 75% for Topalov; and for the 6 players at the Sofia tournament they were all between 81% and 72%.
So Danilov's accusations are a load of ****.
Sorry, to get to Littlefish's exact post, the above URL should read
http://www.chessninja.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=001334;p=2#000029
I think the programmers of Fritz should be congratulated for producing such an accurate imitation of a top GM's play. However, the percentages given show that the programmers still have a way to go to achieve the ultimate goal of playing like a top GM all of the time. Keep up the good work...
someone reported a very high correlation for bobby fischer in 1972 against spassky. a little higher than kramnik. he used a fritz8.
so maybe Danailov wants to infer that Bobby Fischer was using Fritz8 25 years before fritz8 was a program.
I can believe that Danailov would plant "evidence" on Kramnik to win the match if he gets a chance. Danailov is dangerous.
There probably is a good reason for the correlation. Fritz programmers input the grandmaster moves and use it to fix certain constants in the program. so fritz and all programs are purposely trying to immitate the grandmasters especially the best ones. this is all public knowledge for many years.
I don't know of too many sports organization that would stand for Topalov's manager's antics. The Fide president should examine the contract for the match, and if there is no clause saying the manager must be present at the match, he should just deport this wingnut out of kalmykia. Danailov is likely the cause of Topalov's uncharacteristic bad play. He is Topalov's Rasputin.
Whose interest is Danailov serving? He keeps upping the stakes of this match, trying with all his might to create international incidents. Can I only half-humorously ask that if Topalov were to lose another game, would Bulgarian honour be salvaged if Topalov were to be stabbed with a ricin-tipped umbrella?
Danailov's behaviour suggests he is a on a mission to have a Bulgarian win, and if that proves impossible, sacrifice the future of professional chess.