Danailov's Next Press Release

This made me actually laugh out loud for the first time in longer than I care to remember! Thanks, Mig.

That was fast, Mig. Nice.

Wish I found that picture amusing. But it isn't.

Speaking of chess dirt, there was mention of dirt in Open letter by Bareev and Svidler, as well as Bareev's interview.

bad taste.

man, chess is cool, but wouldnt be chess without mig!

Good one.

It was either that or a chat transcript between Kramnik and Mark Foley, but I figured too many people wouldn't get that one. Maybe a pic of him having lunch with Kim Jong-Il?

Wow, here's another one:
http://tinyurl.com/pqk4k

78% OF FRITZ FOUND IN KRAMNIK'S BATHROOM

is surely where Danailov is headed w/ his next press release.

I haven't laughed so hard in a long time. Well done folks!

Wasn't Danailov the jerk who basically imploded Ruslan Ponomariov's career by derailing the Kasparov match? Oh yeah....not enough rest days!

this reminds me of the old Bert is Evil stuff...

Great post, Mig.

Based on today's game, the new conditions of the match, imposed by FIDE, apparently are not a problem for Kramnik: "The Challenger (Topalov) shall receive an extra point for his handicap, and shall also play white three times in a row." Too bad for Topalov that FIDE didn't spot him TWO extra game points for free, the advantage of white in EVERY game, and perhaps also a pawn or two for good measure (or at least an extra free move in each opening). The match might have been closer and more dramatic under those conditions. Danailov should suggest it for Topalov's rematch.

That was wonderful, Mig. Special thanks.

So the tactic out of camp topalov is to say anything that chess professionals will laugh at and club players will argue over, so we will all be distracted, while they use politics to get points put on their side of the score sheet.

Nice one...:-)

Yikes, Mig!

It could have been funny had it been any other scene from Daley Plaza. Choosing the picture seconds after the head-shot with Mrs. Kennedy grabbing pieces of her husband's brains off the back of the car isn't funny. I might have laughed if it he was behind the trees on the Grassy Noll or in the window of the Texas Book Depository. I get your point but it is in too poor taste to laugh :/

Nice pic Jeff. :)

This is in poor taste Mig. I suggest you pull it off the site.

The "appeals committee" gambit is tapped out.

The "Fritz" press release will get no traction.

Look for Danailov to escalate. Watch him walk on stage at the beginning of Game 8, tomorrow, and insist that Kramnik be "frisked again."

Danailov should request the right to examine the sewage from Kramnik's toilet. I am sure he can come up with more good stuff then.

I enjoy good humor as well as anyone, but what in many documetaries has been determined to be a piece of the late John F. Kennedy's skull and brain sitting on the center of the trunk, which Mrs. Kennedy is just starting to reach for, is reprehensible Mig...no matter how well intended.

I have to agree.

Bad taste.

Funny, but in bad taste.

Expect a visit from the CIA very soon, Mig, and be sure your estate and will are in order.

Can anyone do the analysis of Topalov's Fritz % vs. Kramnik's? I assume that they are similar. Also note that being on the defensive (as Kramnik tends to be) often brings about more "only move" situations that are clearly best -- and therefore a higher Fritz correlation.

Shouldn't both these guys play best moves (or very near best) at least 70% of the time? They will sometimes play better moves than Fritz would too...those ones are tough to measure of course -- we need Garry.

-Andrew

Andrew,

That is obvious to everyone with the exception of Danailov.

And, we certainly do not need Garry clouding the issue further.

Well lets be clear. Either Topalov revokes the point now or its too late. Firing his hireling after taking advantage of his tactics is hardly convincing.

In the meantime it appears Topalov's strategy has a point. :)

I agree, this is in bad taste. That picture is depicting real horror and grief, it's not something to put in comic book. The point can be made with another picture just as well.

This is disgusting

I wonder if Danilov is pandering to a home crowd that may buy into some of this. I don't know. Is MTel going to stick with this guy?

The idea itself is funny but the graphic is disgusting.

I am very much amused! But then, of course, I am often partial to things that are in bad taste, particularly if they make a striking point.

Wait, so the bit before he gets shot is fine, because ... he still might not get shot? Could go either way? Lighten up, people.

Mig,

In retrospect, perhaps a photo of the execution of Anwar Sadat on 6 October, 1981 would be more in tune with the job Danailov is doing:

http://www.siyassa.org.eg/egypttales/car/oct_sadat_assasination.jpg

Might as well offend everyone Mig, not just us stateside...

:)

The match will go on for a few more games, giving Topalov a chance to "catch up." But if Topalov does not catch up, will this match really be played out to a Kramnik victory? Or will Kirsan trot out the Campomanes gambit?

1) Danailov goes completely berserk.
2) Citing the acrimonious atmosphere, Kirsan calls off the match, declares that WCC matches don't work, and invites both men to the next FIDE WCC tournament.

Superb graphic and very witty - lighten up folks - good taste just isn't as funny...

al,

Good taste is better than no taste at all. Similar to the old adage, "it's better to p****d off than p****d on."

Wait a minute!!!!

That 6'4, thin, ailing guy we've been trying to hunt down for the last five years or so?!

You don't think!?

!!!Breaking news!!!

Topalovs manager Silvio Danailov has now presented another demand for change in the playing conditions. The Bulgarian team manager argues that he cannot accept that Topalov has to play games of chess on a chessboard, espetially when he will be forced to do so with the black pieces the next game. He stresses, that after 3 whites, it means an illegal alteration of playing conditions. He therefor demands Kramnik to be locked in his private bathroom by a neutral FIDE attendant after the clock of game 8 is started.
The FIDE president has promised to take this demand seriously.
Chess fans all over the world ar eager to find out how that issue will be resolved.
The autcome is unclear.

I just read he released this 15 minutes before the game.
Danilov shoudl be ejected from the playing hall. Clearly he really is not tryign to do anything except bother Kramnik. This should not be tolerated by officials. By now *everyone* knows if you have a beef you should make it within 2 hours of the game ending. the fact that it was done right before the start of the game makes it clear he is just being a nuisance.

"!!!Breaking news!!!

Topalovs manager Silvio Danailov has now presented another demand for change in the playing conditions. The Bulgarian team manager argues that he cannot accept that Topalov has to play games of chess on a chessboard, espetially when he will be forced to do so with the black pieces the next game. He stresses, that after 3 whites, it means an illegal alteration of playing conditions. He therefor demands Kramnik to be locked in his private bathroom by a neutral FIDE attendant after the clock of game 8 is started.
The FIDE president has promised to take this demand seriously.
Chess fans all over the world ar eager to find out how that issue will be resolved.
The autcome is unclear."

Susan Polgor comments:

This is very sad. Both sides are to blame. I hope everyone would just stop with this nonsense and that they would play chess! Win with dignity! Lose with Grace!

None of Danailov's statements have been a fraction as inflammatory as many of the statement posted on this forum, and yet Danailov is criticized for having stepped over the line. This lack of civility towards Danailov appears as a double standard.

>>Susan Polgor comments:
This is very sad. Both sides are to blame. I hope everyone would just stop with this nonsense and that they would play chess! Win with dignity! Lose with Grace!
>>

Never heard of Susan Polgor. Susan PolgAR, however, the lady Grandmaster, says that Kramnik has suffered a great deal through no fault of his own.

http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3397

Bet that Polgor person gets teased about her name all the time, huh?

For the record, I don't have any problem with the joke.

I can only imagine how hard it must be at times to always be "neutral"...

"Well lets be clear. Either Topalov revokes the point now or its too late."

My ideal scenario is that Topalov picks up a point between now and Game 11, and then Kramnik smokes him in Game 12. That would make for maximum excitement, coupled with a just result.

Does anyone know what other GMs, if any, are represented by Danilov?

Yeah but don't say her real name, or she will sue you.

Susan Polgar has been embarrassingly clueless about this whole issue. Anyone know why?

"Susan Polgar has been embarrassingly clueless about this whole issue. Anyone know why?"

To the contrary, her comments have been extremely sensible and level-headed — unlike most of those that appear on message boards.

The sad thing about this mess is that we forget about the game itself.

What is today's turning point? Was 12.a4 really bad? What opening should Topalov choose for the next games? Should he try to win with black, etc.

Fermat,

Beware! You will provoke the Polgar Pixie!

[An anonymous fairie, posting under different names, who leaps to Susan's defense whenever her wonderfulness is called into question: "How can you attack someone who has done so much for chess?"]

"I have randomly selected three of Bobby Fischer's games from 1970-1972m selection of Bobby Fischer's games, comparing how often his moves agreed with Fritz8's suggestions:

Parma - Fischer, 1970: 30/42 moves after 15. Nd5 by Parma

Fischer - Petrosian, (Game 1) 1971: 24/29 moves after 11...d5 by Petrosian.

Fischer - Larsen, (Game 1) 1971: 25/28 (!) moves after 13...fxe5 by Larsen.

The total agreement percentage in these games is 79.8%, very similar to the 78% shown in Kramnik's games.

The implication is clear: Fischer's dramatic performances in the early 70's were due to aid from Fritz8!" posted by matallko at chessgames.com

So the tactic out of camp topalov is to say anything that chess professionals will laugh at and club players will argue over, so we will all be distracted, while they use politics to get points put on their side of the score sheet. Seems they are going to need a lot more politics in this match.

caption: "Russia frustrates Kennedy with Berlin Wall once again" or "Kasparov not the first K to fall victim to the Berlin Wall".

Yuriy

Polgar Pixie! ... ROFL

Harsh, but amusing. You should consider contributing to ogrish.com.

"What is today's turning point? Was 12.a4 really bad? What opening should Topalov choose for the next games? Should he try to win with black, etc."

I think 25.g3 or 33.h5 might have been turning points, but frankly Topalov made a lot of passive moves after reaching an initially promising position.

I am sure Topalov will be looking for winning chances with Black. In the first place, it's his personality. In the second place, time is running out.

for all of the Danailov bashers - don't forget that the Chess Grand Slam was his idea, and, although very similar to the Chess World Cup series in the late 80-ies, if it works, it will be sth good for the game.

Time for Topalov to try 1.e4 as White and something more double-edged than what he's been playing as Black, maybe even the Benoni or the King's Indian (gasp!). I'd suggest the NimzoIndian but figure K would just play 3. Nf3 to draw the sting out of it (i.e., go into a QID instead...zzzz...). Or if he's really desperate, how about a Dutch...?!

25. g3 was uncharacteristic of Topalov. Everyone, Every machine, Every patzer expected 25.g4. Even the angelic Susan Polgar was at a loss for words (if you can believe that).

"25.g3 (I just do not get this move. This is a move I would joke as a "mouseslip" if they were playing online. I have no explanation for this move. Perhaps he was not sure of what to do and just wants to confuse Kramnik.)"

"for all of the Danailov bashers - don't forget that the Chess Grand Slam was his idea"

Yes, even bad people can do good things: Stalin and railroads, Hitler and industrialisation, JFK taking a break from trying to assassinate foreign leaders and crush Central/South America into natural resource dispensers for the US to help with human exploration of outer space. And Danailov has his chess grand slam idea (which isn't bad). But, did he really come up with it?

Thanks guys for speaking about chess!

I'd personnaly think that 1.e4 should not be played by Topalov: Berlin and Petroff are too good for Kramnik.

Why not 1.c4 and if 1...c6, then 2.e4. But I guess Kramnik would not play c6 against 1.c4

Susan Polgar has been uncharacteristically pro-Topalov. Even today while commenting on Danailov's "Analysis", she says : "I really wish everyone would just stop with these open letters and press releases and play chess".

Com'on Lady, can't you rebuke Topalov-camp's latest bluff in a straightforward manner! She is still trying to avoid pointing finger when even the most die-hard fans (if there are any non-Bulgarian fans left!) of Topalov would call it an absolutely rubbish attempt of off-the-board attack on Kramnik. Who is "everyone", I don't see who else, other than Topalov Team, is at fault in the latest mud-slinging.

We are not witnessing an election here but a sporting contest. Any mature person can do an objective analysis and tell who is been at the wrong side. Kramnik was "unwise" to forfeit the game 5, but he definitely did not insult or made reckless accusations at Topalov.

When running a blog, you are acting as a coordinator between blog-posters and you are also supposed to give an honest and objective opinion rather than making diplomatic statements like some politician running for a Presidential post.

-Amit

"But, did he really come up with it?"

Joshua, I understand your argument, but I can't find anything to the opposite. I think it was his idea.
He is trying to make chess like tennis.

UNcharacteristically?

Rustam,

Chess Grand Slam is not Danailov's idea. It is only different name for Chess Grand Prix, which was introduced (and later discontinued) in late 80s by GMA or PCA, during the days of Kasparov and Karpov.

-Amit

'Susan Polgar has been uncharacteristically pro-Topalov. Even today while commenting on Danailov's "Analysis", she says : "I really wish everyone would just stop with these open letters and press releases and play chess".'

She also says: "Danailov just made another stunning accusation. He said that Kramnik's moves match Fritz 78% on average. This is getting just absolutely ridiculous! I am very disappointed with this latest press release. This is no longer a World Championship. It has become a circus, a total embarrassment to the World Championship crown."

And later, "It is another black eye for Danailov and chess. Even if he believes that it is true, he should complain to the committee and not through a press release. This is unprofessional and unacceptable."

Someone explain to me how that is pro-Topalov. She is as disgusted with it as we all are.

I think GM Zsuzsa Polgar's (does she actually prefer the Americanised "Susan" now? I've never seen her preference stated. Anyway...). I think GM Zsuzsa Polgar's stance here is trying to be as politic as possible. The problem is, that there aren't always two balanced sides to every story. Sometimes there are 10. Sometimes none are correct. Sometimes there's only one. In this case, it's not an "everybody's fault" type scenario. I think she realises this, and her comments are evolving along these lines.

I think it was actually good to start out with a wait-and-see approach before picking sides, in the case of a public and highly-viewed chess figure like herself. Lots of people read her blog, and I know a lot of people in the US, especially young players, take her word as gold. This was the right approach. Now most of us here, we're nobody, we can come out and say Topalov's the bad guy and Danailov's an a..well, Mig would not approve. But we have no need to be cautious. GM Polgar does.

And no, I'm not a Polgar Pixie, just pointing out that maybe people shouldn't be so quick to judge her approach to this affair.

oh well, maybe it is rather easy to explain, s. polgar just dance at the mood of the public opinion, so if ppl start suddenly to love danailov then she will mad about him ;)

I think GM Zsuzsa Polgar's (does she actually prefer the Americanised "Susan" now? I've never seen her preference stated. Anyway...). I think GM Zsuzsa Polgar's stance here is trying to be as politic as possible. The problem is, that there aren't always two balanced sides to every story. Sometimes there are 10. Sometimes none are correct. Sometimes there's only one. In this case, it's not an "everybody's fault" type scenario. I think she realises this, and her comments are evolving along these lines.

I think it was actually good to start out with a wait-and-see approach before picking sides, in the case of a public and highly-viewed chess figure like herself. Lots of people read her blog, and I know a lot of people in the US, especially young players, take her word as gold. This was the right approach. Now most of us here, we're nobody, we can come out and say Topalov's the bad guy and Danailov's an a..well, Mig would not approve. But we have no need to be cautious. GM Polgar does.

And no, I'm not a Polgar Pixie, just pointing out that maybe people shouldn't be so quick to judge her approach to this affair.

Marc,

My opinion on Susan was not based on just one post. For last several days, in almost all her posts, she has been very diplomatic and always tryig to project a neutral image. I have not been the only one to observer this and she had received many posts (from others) questioning her lack of clear-cut rejection from first day of the dispute. She actually tried to clarify her own stand because of such posts and her clarifications were again diplomatic. Her summary statement was that she does not want to take sides. But we are not fighting a war here. If somebody is making clear insults at the other, as a blogger, she can definitely point it, in unambiguous words. In my opinion, Kramnik did just one thing wrong and that was to forfeit Game 5. That was also a mistake in a stressful situation when he had limited time to think and it was not a insult to anybody. Not like, Tpalov's Team, which had no situation to face, had ample time and they used it to make a disgraceful accusation before Game 5.

I can definitely cut-and-paste her own comments from her blog-site but then I don't wish to make this blog-site a forum of debate between two of us on this secondary topic.

-Amit

Amit,
I mentioned that in my first post, but thanks for repeating it. The Chess Grand Prix had less prize money, that's why it quickly disintegrated. Plus nobody was bound to participate the way the Grand Slam is supposed to do it.

This just in: Danailov says that he and O.J. Simpson have concluded, after a 10-year investigation conducted at golf links all over the world, that Kramnik murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.

People talk smack a lot more when they won't have to meet face to face with the person they are talking smack about. Zsuzsa will probably see Topalov sooner or later, hence she may speak a bit more diplomatically.

"My opinion on Susan was not based on just one post. For last several days, in almost all her posts, she has been very diplomatic and always trying to project a neutral image."

And my point is that being "neutral" and "diplomatic" (which she certainly was, at first) is not the same as being pro-Topalov. I have never — not once — seen a pro-Topalov post from her on this issue. What she DID do, is to portray both sides. Some people were offended that she did not instantly rush to judgment. Why should she? Those who want the instant rush to judgment can easily find it on this message board.

Mrs. S. Polgar is clearly biased towards Topalov. She has several times committed to be a fan of him, say known GMs.

When theres no support to Topa at all, she says "less are supporting Tope". She showed respect to Danailov on "My Weekly Commentary" 2nd Octobre. She critized me for citing that on ICC. When Topa should stop making nonsense, she says "both should stop nonsense" and so on and so on.

Questions?

I am seriously concerned that Danailov will attempt to plant a Pocket Fritz in Kramnik's bathroom and then pretend he "found" it during the pre-game inspection.

I'm not joking.

A few years ago, I thought that the 9-11 was organized by Al Qaida and by Ben Laden.

Then, I did researches, open my eyes, and came to the conclusion that Al Qaida does not exists and has never existed, that Usama Ben Laden works for the CIA, and that Bush, his family and a few close friends had killed 3000 US citizens in order to restrict freedom in USA and to favor their own interests.

But today, thanx to Silvio Danailov, the truth is coming to the surface : the 9-11 attacks were in fact organized by Vladimir Kramnik.

Danailov just issued another press release; it turns it is wasn't Mrs. O'Leary's cow after all...

Joshua,
she signed her letter to Kramnik as "Susan".
Her whole self is very Americanised compared to the old Zsuzsa back in Hungary. I was shocked to see this change when I first read her blog.

But she is doing a useful, generous and badly needed promotional work for chess, and criticizing her is pointless. There are big problems in the chess world to be focused on and to criticize, and her work is not among them.

What is this particular forum about?

I tried to say: Ok, lets talki about game 7, maybe lets talk about Mr. Danailov, now I see people talking about Zsuzsa Polgar ... it seems that this is an opportunity to talk about anything.

So, I want to congratulate Ignatius Njobvu for defending successfully in this week his Botswana Open Chess Championship title.

oh man those are big news, let me join in and congratulate mr njobvu. congratulations

Collyeratis: a concern that Topalov team may plant something in Kramnik's bathroom and then pretend to "find" it is something that I've seen many people mention on different forums.

Apparently, Kramnik's manager has realised that Topalov's team will stop at nothing. See this:

http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3403

"I am seriously concerned that Danailov will attempt to plant a Pocket Fritz in Kramnik's bathroom and then pretend he "found" it during the pre-game inspection.

I'm not joking."

Made the same remark on ICC. I wouldn't put it past them. Unlikely but not impossible.

The initial problem here is that they were allowed to negotiate another match on the condition that Topalov wins this one. The Radjabov match (where is the money coming from?) is at least 2x more lucrative than this Kramnik match, with Topalov alone netting a minimum one million dollars (you can read the details on his homepage www.veselintopalov.net). So for them the difference between winning this match and losing it is at least that and probably more (Mexico City, possibly another cycle of individual matches?). They have so much money at stake, with no middle ground. If they lose there is no future income in sight. With a win they can make enough money to last themselves a lifetime.

Let the paranoia continue ...

Well done Hensel. Of course now Kramnik is going to be fined because his insinuations are violating FIDE's Code of Ethics. ;-)

And the beat goes on and on and on...

TWIC has this, and also a press release:
http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/event/kratop06/kratoppress6.html

I am getting tired of saying how disgusted and sad I am. I really am.

topalov is a scrotum full of crap with all his acusations. i hope turks invade bulgaria tonight.

Of course the reply now will be that the latest release from Hensel is just more evidence of Kramnik's cheating. An obvious ploy so that if the cheating device is found, it is a plant, just as was predicted.

It's turtles all the way down.

Great comment, nice allusion, Chuckles!

Folks, Polgar is just putting the two miscreants at ease...

http://www.comic-mint.com/media/client/2416_spy-vs-spy-92-jan-1965.JPG

...before the hammer comes down!!!

Silvio Danailov -- " Thus, out of 5 games – 78%** of GM Kramnik’s moves match with the first line of Fritz9."

** Actually (41+40+40+30+14) / (65+46+46+40+18) = 165/215 = 76.7%, as Jeff Sonas notes.

If you can't even had add how do you think your going to win WCC???

Silvio Danailov -- " Thus, out of 5 games – 78%** of GM Kramnik’s moves match with the first line of Fritz9."

** Actually (41+40+40+30+14) / (65+46+46+40+18) = 165/215 = 76.7%, as Jeff Sonas notes.

If you can't even add how do you expect to win WCC???

(If I cant write, how can I expect to post?? I know, I know... pardon me). 8D

Poor Danailov, what he did was apparently computing the mean value of the percentages (63+87+86+75+78)/5=77.8

He probably used the same type of absurd mathematics to extrapolate from incomplete data his fanciful 'Kramnik visited the relaxation room 25 times at the average and the bathroom more than 50 times'.

Mig - your ill advised attempt at humor is not amusing. Please consider removing the image.

SharkBite

Kramnik was also spotted at Waco and Ruby Ridgem by means of the Heaven's Gate flying saucer.

I believe it entirely wrong that Topalov wasn't questioned on the press release from Silvio Danailov released (two in one sentence but there you go I don't have a thesaurus) during the game.

I think players should in general be at least somewhat protected from intrusive questioning. But when your camp produces something so calculated, so irresponsible and so against the spirit of the game (but unfortunately not of this match) then you really do have to answer for it.

Did you approve of its release and do you
endorse the contents? are not only not unreasonable questions but actually essential questions at this stage. Especially as there was, in its own quiet way an apology at the end of game six about the handshakes threat by Topalov.

As Mig points out the issue of how long Kramnik spends on stage is an arguable one. Players should be on stage most of the time. Its an issue of the rest room and not of the toilet.

I don't mean to undermine this by making a flippant point but I couldn't resist, partially because it only occurred to me yesterday when I was playing. I'm not advancing it as a theory {and please I stress this}, although its more plausible than the one we saw today, and it might be what I'd do! {although probably not}

I played my second game of the season yesterday. Played nicely, missed the win, played averagely, should be a draw, opponent in time trouble, played a risky move, he made a ?? move, I won, in fact Fritz points out Nb4+ wins out of hand for him something he and I didn't notice even after the game.

But I like Kramnik didn't spend a lot of time at the board, walked about, went downstairs so I could have a cigarette (I know, I'm desperate to give them up but there you go) can't smoke at the board you know. Did I mention that when I used to do real work for a liveing I used to smoke in the toilets? OK there's my none theory, wrong but make 3000% more sense than Danailov's.

mig, I note both you and Yassir have been quite hard on Geurt Gijssen for starting the clocks for the fifth game, given that GG was aware of the changes in playing conditions, and that as Chief Arbiter, he had the power to call a technical timeout.

I am sure you are aware of Geurt's column at the Chess Cafe website, "The Arbiter's Notebook" and if you are a regular reader, you know GG is a stickler for the rules, and he is literally a walking FIDE chess rulebook. I suspect no one is considered a more knowledgeable and competent match arbiter than he. Furthermore, I suspect he has more arbiters' experience than anyone in the world, having arbited (?) in the tens of thousands of games by now. Also, he has been on the FIDE chess rules comittee forever, and has made this job his life work.

Certainly he will be called upon to explain himself by the regular readers of his column, and by fans of both players. I bet he gets thousands of letters asking about game 5, and I look forward to seeing his justifications for his decisions.

If you are a regular GG reader, you will know that he can be rather prickly (easily irritated) with uninformed questioners, and his answers are often of the form, "If you'd just read the rule book, it clearly says..." So, if we want to learn something from him (he's been silent so far), I'd suggest we word our questions carefully, and we may learn something from him in the next couple month's columns.

For example, I'd love to hear what happened in the 22 minutes between Topalov's appearance at the board for Game 5, and the starting of the clocks. According to the rules, the arbiter should have started the clock exactly on the scheduled round starting time, but Geurt did not. He waited 22 minutes - for what? What happened that faithful-to-the-rules GG delayed the starting of the clocks? Topalov should only have to wait 61 minutes to claim a no-show forfeit, and instead, Topalov had to wait 83 minutes - why? Did Geurt try to negotiate with Kramnick himself? Did he deliver an ultimatum, like, if you don't come to the board, I threaten to start your clock? (Which he should actually have already done?) What happened in those 22 minutes? I've seen no reporting on those 22 minutes, except the picture of K sitting there in his resting room.

Sorry this is so long, but I have immense respect for Geurt, his experience, knowledge, and judgement... but I, too, have questions about his actions. Why did he start that clock, and why 22 minutes late?

tja

mig, I note both you and Yassir have been quite hard on Geurt Gijssen for starting the clocks for the fifth game, given that GG was aware of the changes in playing conditions, and that as Chief Arbiter, he had the power to call a technical timeout.

I am sure you are aware of Geurt's column at the Chess Cafe website, "The Arbiter's Notebook" and if you are a regular reader, you know GG is a stickler for the rules, and he is literally a walking FIDE chess rulebook. I suspect no one is considered a more knowledgeable and competent match arbiter than he. Furthermore, I suspect he has more arbiters' experience than anyone in the world, having arbited (?) in the tens of thousands of games by now. Also, he has been on the FIDE chess rules comittee forever, and has made this job his life work.

Certainly he will be called upon to explain himself by the regular readers of his column, and by fans of both players. I bet he gets thousands of letters asking about game 5, and I look forward to seeing his justifications for his decisions.

If you are a regular GG reader, you will know that he can be rather prickly (easily irritated) with uninformed questioners, and his answers are often of the form, "If you'd just read the rule book, it clearly says..." So, if we want to learn something from him (he's been silent so far), I'd suggest we word our questions carefully, and we may learn something from him in the next couple month's columns.

For example, I'd love to hear what happened in the 22 minutes between Topalov's appearance at the board for Game 5, and the starting of the clocks. According to the rules, the arbiter should have started the clock exactly on the scheduled round starting time, but Geurt did not. He waited 22 minutes - for what? What happened that faithful-to-the-rules GG delayed the starting of the clocks? Topalov should only have to wait 61 minutes to claim a no-show forfeit, and instead, Topalov had to wait 83 minutes - why? Did Geurt try to negotiate with Kramnick himself? Did he deliver an ultimatum, like, if you don't come to the board, I threaten to start your clock? (Which he should actually have already done?) What happened in those 22 minutes? I've seen no reporting on those 22 minutes, except the picture of K sitting there in his resting room.

Sorry this is so long, but I have immense respect for Geurt, his experience, knowledge, and judgement... but I, too, have questions about his actions. Why did he start that clock, and why 22 minutes late?

tja

I have just turned on my computer. This picture is in very bad taste and is not funny.
This is an excellent site, forums and commentary.
There is no need to stoop to Danailov's level.

Yuri Vasiliev confirms that after Game 7 there were separate press-conferences. And during his press-conference Kramnik first said about the contract violation, and continued in an undertone that, may be, this is even better. After that he said that he had never seen so unethical behavior of an opponent, aspecially from Danailov. And made a proposition to ask the FIDE Ethics Committee to investigate the matter.

And one more picture: Ilumzhinov ammounces that the forfeit can't be dismissed:
http://chesspro.ru/match/images/photo/vas_89.jpg
Look at background.

If everyone had stuck to the letter of the rules in the appeals committee then there wouldn't have been this particular problem. I agree Geurt Gijssen is like that. Absolutely to the rules, even the ridiculous ones such as the one he forced through whereby in blitz if you take your opponents king you lose not your opponent. He wants rules that makes arbiters lives easier rather than players. It doesn't make him flexible at all (which was maybe needed in this case) but I'm absolutely sure his interpretation of the rules as to what he had to do was correct. Whether common sense would have served the situation better is another question. But we have this in football in England, one the one hand managers ask for consistancy on the other common sense. You can't have both unfortunately.

PS. Of course Geurt Gijssen's reasoning would have been simple. Its not my job to second guess or to rehash the decisions of the appeals committee. Having thought about this (after a cig) he may very well be right.

http://chesspro.ru/match/images/photo/vas_89.jpg

I feel sick.

I love this photo. Yes, the guy is indeed completely insane.

Very interesting questions Mr Tjallen!

I am also curious to know if there is any info on what GM Aleksander Onischuk and GM Francisco Vallejo Pons think about the whole mess.
They might give an interesting first hand explanation on what really Team Topalov is.

Is it "Team Topalov" with hired manager, seconds and ?psychic?; or is it "Team Danailov" with a boss trying to win the money at all costs, who has employed a psychic, "who-knows-what-they-do" shady characters, ah and also of course employing Topalov and his seconds.

Wow, of all the photos of the match I think that one is what we'll all remember. Do we need any more proof that he's completely lost it?

If you noticed, Danailov tries to imitate an American used car salesman style of 60th. Even tactics is similar, IMHO.

I guess, his approach is as following: they are closed corporation, money making machine in the business of chess. And because the current chess world is like wild mid west, he behaves accordingly.

"And one more picture: Ilumzhinov announces that the forfeit can't be dismissed:
http://chesspro.ru/match/images/photo/vas_89.jpg
Look at background.

Vlad Kosulin
"

See, this is what I was talking about!
Danailov is bad, he is a cancer, he is a scumbag etc. I don't argue that.

But the comments by Vlad Kosulin that are posted with the link to the photo, are pure propaganda. How do you know what exactly is Kirsan announcing at the moment of that laughter? It is called an insinuation and manipulation Vlad, you are doing what Danailov is doing!!! You could just continue with your broken logic with something like "God, I hate Topalov!"

A picture is worth a thousand words! Please don't add your imaginable context.

svilen,
I am innosent:
http://chesspro.ru/match/reports/
If you can't read Russian, the picture is located after numbers 5, 3-1, and 3-2.

In that picture, Silvio Danailov makes Howard Dean look sane (YEEHAA speech).

The "Polgar Pixie" (great moniker) is Paul Truong, her manager.

Also I am really glad to see Peter Svidler's comments regarding some possible regret by Topalov. If Topalov REALLY has regret, please give back the forfeit win you loser.

Sorry, Vlad Kosulin!

What I thought to be your words, were the words of Jury Vasiliev. I have read his articles before and he has my respect, but in this case his article is understandably biased, hence I still think the photo and the context are manipulative and doubt their true character. He has even invented a "poem" that is supposedly Topalov's.

I read similar reciprocal biased and untrue articles in the bulgarian press.

I don't want to defend Danailov, he deserves all the negativity. But the true Topalov is well seen on the pictures in the same article. And his pictures are very different that Danailov's...

further evidence that mig greengard is the greatest living chess journalist / witticist / polemicist and so on ... oh and vladimir kramnik for russian sportsman of the year ...and finally i hereby nominate danailov to the dishonorary ancient scottish title of mental mcmental from loch mcmental ...

svilen,
Have ever heard about good cop/bad cop trick?
15 years ago I worked for a company where the president was very, very nice person, and the first vice-president - just brutal jerk. Guess, why the president was happy of him?

comon people, in that picture danailov saw God!

Well, that photo says it all.

I will now say something that might seem a bit strange. I feel sorry for Topalov.

I know full well that he is an adult and responsible for his decisions, which include the choice of his manager.

But let us remember that he lost his parents at an early age. Danailov was the man who accompanied him on his way to the top. It is not absurd to imagine that a quasi-parental relationship exists. And Danailov did a very good job.

Topalov is a genius at chess, and probably only at chess. I am, I hasten to add, not saying that he is unintelligent, but I can well imagine that he knows little of business, the marketing of Super GMs, etc. He entrusted all that to the man he considered his friend.

And - from what we have now learned of Danailov - I can imagine what their contract might look like. It is probable that Topalov cannot fire Danailov immediately without risking extremely costly lawsuits, and he is hardly in a position to bail out right now.

In some way, his moves in Game 7 seemed to me to reflect the frame of mind I think he is in. Many were completely un-Topalovian.

Do remember that Topalov has always been a pleasant, modest, friendly person - sometimes even seeming slightly in awe of his own achievements. I believe that person still exists.

He must rid himself of Danailov, that is obvious. That may be harder than we think.
Perhaps Topalov is suffering more in Elista than we think.

Advocatus diaboli

Vlad, good allusioin with the "good president/bad vice-president" trick.
But I believe what we have is the sligthly, yet substantially different "bad boss / nice employee" kind of relationship.

I had no idea about the extent of it. I believe Topalov did not/(does not yet) have idea about the extent of it.

The Elista will go down as a huge disaster for Topalov even if he manages to win 3 in the last 5. And only then he will realize that Danailov went for the money no matter what (no matter he ruined Topalov's reputation)

Will Danailov use this in his nextpress release?

http://mayakovsky.narod.ru/Kramnik/KramniksRestDaysInBahrain.htm

Mig, you could have made the joke with a less tasteless picture. Somebody is dying in that photo. It's a pity we've become so numb to what used to be called "common decency".

CML--

Nicely done.

Agree with Charles Milton Ling at 21:09.

Legend has it that ten or fifteen years ago, there was a teenage genius with a manager playing a quasiparental role (or maybe it was a parent playing a quasimanagerial role). The mgr made some decisions that made the teenager rather unpopular. The teenager soon retired from chess.

Were the former prodigy to return to chess many years later, I'd be he'd be extremely popular with fans.

Two points:

1) Mig, the picture is offensive
2) Danailov, the picture makes us seriously question your sanity
3) Topalov, don't think we've been fooled into putting all the blame on Danailov - if he really doesn't represent you, then we'll have to question your intelligence

I guess that was three points. =)

CML--

Another side of that coin--

Up until now we've been dismissive of the cheating allegations directed against Topalov. But there's obviously no reason to continue that courtesy.

--Danailov is a sharp character with a win-at-all-costs style. He appears to have a dominating and extremely influential role in Topalov's life.

--Opponents who play with cheats can often sense something wrong. The "favorite chair" complaints at San Luis may have symbolized concerns of this sort.

--Topalov's rating shot up 75 points from July 04 to July 06. Is this normal for a 29-31 year-old? Paging Jeff Sonas.

--Topalov seemed confident going into San Luis versus Anand, Leko, Svidler, et al. But the pre-match Elista photos showed him looking stiff and, to my eye, scared. My take was, "The world expects me to kick ass, but without help I'm a WHOLE LOT weaker than this dude." Or maybe he just realized he'd forgotten to pack his lucky teddy bear.

--I don't know what to make of Kasparov's insinuations about Topalov cheating. After San Luis Kasparov was praising Topalov to the skies. What changed?

I, for one, admire Silvio Danailov.

This great man is working towards unification of the chess world in a new and innovative way. And at the cost of his very reputation!

Past attempts at unification failed due to incessant, ego-driven squabbles. Danailov, however, has put aside his ego and acted in a truly shameless manner, thus rallying the support of the entire chess community behind one champion: Kramnik.

Has anyone hitherto displayed such determination? Such character? The name "Danailov" will forevermore be associated with lofty ideals, and the sacrifice of one's self for the greater good of the community.

Cheers to this hero of the modern age.

I usually insist on a Bat-Signal to summon me on such short notice, but Greg's always been nice to me, so here you go...

In the past 50 years, the top eight increases in Chessmetrics rating between age 29y0m and 31y0m, out of all players who ended up in the top 50 at age 31y0m, were:

#1. 114 points: Alexander (Nenashev) Graf, went from 2592 (world rank #186) August 1991 to 2706 (world rank #14) August 1993
#2. 105 points: Vitaly Tseshkovsky, went from 2576 (world rank #96) September 1973 to 2681 (world rank #23) September 1975
#3. 101 points: Evgeny Vladimirov, went from 2596 (world rank #142) January 1986 to 2697 (world rank #20) January 1988
#4. 97 points: Igor Khenkin, went from 2561 (world rank #226) March 1997 to 2657 (world rank #48) March 1999
#5. 81 points: Raul Sanguinetti, went from 2591 (world rank #55) February 1962 to 2672 (world rank #19) February 1964
#6. 77 points: Lev Alburt, went from 2565 (world rank #123) August 1974 to 2642 (world rank #49) August 1976
#7. 77 points: Bent Larsen, went from 2622 (world rank #39) March 1964 to 2699 (world rank #16) March 1966
#8. 64 points: Arshak Petrosian, went from 2595 (world rank #112) December 1982 to 2659 (world rank #42) December 1984

On the other hand, the greatest jumps from age 29y0m to age 31y0m by someone already in the top-20 were much smaller, probably because most elite players already peak by age 29. In fact, I only see 11 players who have actually improved by 5+ points (from age 29y0m to age 31y0m) over the past 50 years. Very interesting:

#1. 42 points: Viktor Korchnoi, went from 2728 (world rank #9) March 1960 to 2770 (world rank #3) March 1962
#2. 37 points: Leonid Stein, went from 2704 (world rank #12) November 1963 to 2741 (world rank #6) November 1965
#3. 22 points: Tigran Petrosian, went from 2742 (world rank #6) June 1958 to 2764 (world rank #3) June 1960
#4. 21 points: Ulf Andersson, went from 2700 (world rank #14) June 1980 to 2721 (world rank #9) June 1982
#5. 19 points: Lajos Portisch, went from 2702 (world rank #14) April 1966 to 2721 (world rank #12) April 1968
#6. 18 points: Zoltan Ribli, went from 2689 (world rank #20) September 1980 to 2707 (world rank #16) September 1982
#7. 8 points: Vladimir Akopian, went from 2706 (world rank #14) December 2000 to 2714 (world rank #15) December 2002
#8. 7 points: Boris Gulko, went from 2703 (world rank #13) February 1976 to 2710 (world rank #12) February 1978
#9. 6 points: Boris Gelfand, went from 2724 (world rank #9) June 1997 to 2730 (world rank #11) June 1999
#10. 6 points: Evgeny Bareev, went from 2712 (world rank #11) November 1995 to 2718 (world rank #10) November 1997
#11. 6 points: Michael Adams, went from 2744 (world rank #8) November 2000 to 2750 (world rank #7) November 2002

Going back further in time, you see much greater increases. Not sure why. Korchnoi's 42-point increase would only be 11th all-time. The top ten increases among players already in the top-20 at age 29y0m:

#1. 212 points: Ignatz Kolisch 1866-1868
#2. 141 points: Efim Bogoljubow 1918-1920
#3. 78 points: Richard Reti 1918-1920
#4. 69 points: Wilhelm Steinitz 1865-1867
#5. 61 points: Jules de Riviere 1859-1861
#6. 58 points: Miksa Weiss 1886-1888
#7. 56 points: Geza Maroczy 1899-1901
#8. 51 points: Jose Capablanca 1917-1919
#9. 45 points: Louis Paulsen 1862-1864
#10. 43 points: Vasja Pirc 1936-1938

The WWI ratings might be suspect due to lack of games and inactivity penalties during the war (so the ratings for Bogo, Reti, and Capa might be somewhat low in 1917-18), so basically in the past century, nobody already in the top-20 has ever shown a convincing 50-point increase from age 29y0m to age 31y0m. A few in the 30-40 range, headed by Pirc and Korchnoi, but that's it. Now these are Chessmetrics ratings, of course, but they should be comparable to FIDE ratings. I think there's some interesting food for thought here about playing style too and how aging affects you.

And one more picture: Ilumzhinov ammounces that the forfeit can't be dismissed:
http://chesspro.ru/match/images/photo/vas_89.jpg
Look at background.
Posted by: Vlad Kosulin at October 4, 2006 19:53

Vlad,

Both men behind Ilumzhinov are looking somewhere in an upper direction. What are they BOTH looking at? Is Danailov reaction more related to waht he's seeing there than what is been told by Ilumzhinov? It's pretty easy to crop a picture like this and put something out of context! It's also easy to pick a couple of words in a whole text and put it out of context.

Vlad,
the picture is indeed pricesless. Thanks.

I also fail to see anything wrong in Geurt Gijjsen actions. Let's remember that the arbiter has to obey the rulings of the appeals comittee. Many times the appeals comittee has reversed a decision of the arbiter, and he must accept it even if he is sure that such ruling is incorrect.

The only thing unclear to me is the reason for the 22 minutes delay. I read somewhere that the forfeit was declared at 16:22, but it should be at 16:00 hours by article 6.5 (although it says "unless the arbiter decides otherwise").

Clubfoot: "That was wonderful, Mig. Special thanks." Aww... Clubby is just a misunderstood wee lad who needed a special hug. Either that, or he stopped mixing his medicines.

Danailov has been paying too much attention to the Bulgarian media and has forgotten that Topalov needs also a positive international image...

http://chesspro.ru/match/images/photo/vas_89.jpg

two evil men, one blatant, the other subtle, but no less evil

Svilen, you can't be serious! You've read Yuri Vasiliev's articles before and he has your respect?? Am I going mad - isn't this the same Yuri Vasiliev who produced that absurd hagiography of Ilyumzhinov during the election - all about how he'd wrestled snakes in his cradles, passed all his exams at five, could have been the greatest chess player ever but gave it up to follow his saintly calling as leader of his great people, and so forth. Much the sort of thing Stalin's people used to write, or going further back Herodotus.

If this article is by him then I'm certainly willing to believe the caption doesn't correctly describe the events taking place, in fact I'd be amazed if it did.

rdh,
I admit I am not well informed about Yury Vasiliev's history of written articles. I have read some, even do not remember which and when. I said I respect him, exactly because i have no prejudice of what might come under his name.

But in "this" article, the photos, the context he added, the poem he put in Topalov's mouth are exactly the type of manipulation and propaganda, that we have come to expect from Danailov.

Thank you for answering me in the other post. No need to translate here similarly biased bulgarian articles.

I am hoping that Topalov is realising what has happened and the extent of it, and I am hoping he can stop the future scandals from coming.

Svilen, I’d be interested just to know how this is playing in Bulgaria. I can imagine that the lay audience must seriously think Kramnik may be cheating, and I can imagine the sort of stuff the media has about that. But no serious person can think that, surely? Or am I wrong – do people like Kiril Georgiev seriously imagine this?

There’s no two ways around it, surely? Unless you think there’s a genuine possibility Kramnik’s cheating (which Topalov has said he doesn’t – is that being reported?) then Topalov’s behaviour is ridiculous.

And presumably this Russian-conspiracy stuff gets much more credence over there than here? I don’t really see how this is supposed to work – if Putin seriously wanted to he’d have told Ilyumzhinov to overturn the forfeit or else. It comes back to the same thing – if there is any Russian conspiring it would have be to give help with cheating.

I’ve heard that most E European forums – not just Bulgaria - are very pro-Topalov. It’d be fascinating to hear the sort of thing that’s being said – a lot more interesting than all of us on here expressing our disgust over and over, really.

I was playing at a tournament with a lot of Russian GMs when the thing broke, by the way. They speak too fast for me to keep up when they talk among themselves, but from what I could tell, there was a good deal more amusement there than outrage on Kramnik’s behalf. Of course these were journeyman GMs. These tend to be rather anti the elite because they liked the payday from Kirsan’s MM knockouts, and resent the supertournament circuit. Maybe that’s it.

Another enlightening piece of work by Jeff Sonas

I nominate him for the annual Daily Dirt cash prize.

Hi... am REALLY not at all impressed with the use of this picture in this context. Haha yes let's look at her in shock after the violent death of her husband, then let's laugh at Kramnik superimposed on the image. Very funny.

Idea funny at root, image not. No taste.

I normally love this blog

Sorry the picture grossed some people out. Honestly I didn't even consider which exact frame it was; I was just looking for some space on the grassy knoll where the pic I had of Kramnik would fit. I wasn't looking for anything gory or shocking. It could have been one from far away, anything. Which I suppose proves the point that I'm insensitive, not something I'd ever deny anyway. As I said in the message boards....

It's a parody using an iconic photo of a famous event that is well known for spawning conspiracy theories. Clubfoot in the Dirt comments said something about how Danailov, after his toilet cheating and Fritz-maching theories, would next come up with something about how Kramnik was in the Zapruder film. It could have been anything conspiracy related. Kramnik as Deep Throat, Kramnik as OJ's 'real killers', Kramnik hiding the WMD in Iraq...

I wouldn't use a photo of a random dead guy or something for shock value. The Zapruder images are a constant of our cultural currency. Sure the photo parody is tasteless exploitation of that familiarity, but I can't imagine anyone being shocked by it any more than by a picture of the Twin Towers in flames. It's simply too familiar.

As for the "some things are too serious/sad/whatever" to joke about line of thought, that's something I rarely, if ever, subscribe to. Your mainstream late-night talk shows are joking about Congressional pedophelia on a nightly basis. No comedian's set is complete without a riff on the war in Iraq. As I've said before, this doesn't mean everything is funny to everyone. That will never happen. It should be enough to realize that one man's tasteless is another man's hilarious, something the millions of dollars brought in by the movie "Jackass 2" should confirm beyond any doubt.

Yeah but Jackass 2 is tiresome unfunny tasteless, not offensive tasteless.

And if you can't imagine anyone being more shocked by this than by a Twin-Towers-burning shot then I seriously think you could do with reflecting on cultural taboos and their wellsprings - this is a moment of private grief and tragedy, admittedly in public, but not by choice. Another shot would have been a lot better.

A man is dying, his despaired wife is crying.
A shoot has just broken his skull. Really there is too much pain and grief to appreciate humor.

Actually, the "shock" is what makes it all work.

I looked at the familiar image and thought "what the f*** is Mig doing NOW??!"

Then I saw Kramnik standing there nonchalantly and I totally lost it. Folks from other offices walked in to see what I was laughing at.

The particular frame is irrelevant---you've seen the image a million times, you don't really "look" at it any more.

Hey mig,

I tried to post a link to my version to Danailov's next press release, but it wouldnt let me. How come?

The server mayakovsky.narod.ru is on the spam blacklist, apparently. The system junked it automatically. It's published now. I can't change that filter much but you can use tinyurl.com to avoid that problem next time. Sorry.

Ok, since the link is now burried under so many responses, I'll repost with tiny url.

Will THIS be used in Danaillov's next press release? :

http://tinyurl.com/l75vv

One could roll back to Zapruder 228 or so for a more tasteful version.

I was only five years old at the time, and I can tell you that it was not a good day.

Mig provides a good service to chess with this blog and I respect that. I've had my disagreements with Mig on journalistic content in the past. Mig is a fan of The Onion (satirical political humour) and has sharp humor but this one cuts across the line of journalism ethics (including copyright issues).

Perhaps some will like this kind of humour, but with Kennedy fatally wounded and his wife caught in the worst moment of her life, there has to be some common decency. How many of us have met such a personal tragedy in life? How about seeing a loved one's head blown apart? No laughing matter.

On Mig's comparison with 9-11... the way this differs from the burning Twin Towers is the personal context (because of the camera angle). With the JFK, you see the facial emotions of his wife, the panic of the moment, the slumped body of the President, his brain matter splattered on the trunk and people scurrying about. Big difference from the Twin Towers burning in the distance.... UNLESS you have close-up pics of people jumping out of the engulfed buildings. I do not believe Mig would utilize such a close-up shot in satire... at least I hope not.

We understood the point of Kramnik in the photo and the intended humour. Fortunately for Mig, this is his personal blog (albeit a good one), but there remain standards for common decency and respect.

What are we saving the world from today? Not enough just to say you found it offensive, eh? No, you felt a need to justify your reaction as a global feeling instead of simply your own. Freud would be intrigued.

It doesn't require epic pondering. This isn't the first time in history someone used a violent or well-known tragic image for humorous purposes. I'm sure Google could turn up many using this very image. That's what makes it a parody. If you find such images upsetting, I'm sorry. But don't lecture me (and everyone else who enjoyed it) about human decency, as if we are terrible people or as if I had malicious intent or had mailed copies to the Kennedy family. It's an incredibly well-known image and the use I put it to was clear.

It's also so blurry that I'm sure anyone who had no idea what it was wouldn't have a clue it even represented anything violent. The power is in its familiarity, which is why I made the comparison to Twin Towers photos.

As for limiting our speech and actions to make sure we never remind anyone of anything bad, the time you say "you almost gave me a heart attack!" when surprised, please say a solemn prayer for those who may have heard you. Some may have lost loved ones to heart attacks. Insensitive wretch. And stay away from all comedy shows, rife with jokes about AIDS, Iraq, George Bush, and other very real tragedies.

It's tragic if you don't realize that the only line I crossed was yours. As other responses here make clear, you aren't a universal arbiter of taste, decency, or humor. That's the very definition of self-righteousness. Lastly, tossing in some hogwash about journalistic ethics and copyright law shows that if you've ever read The Onion, you probably never laughed.

Please don't move on to pitying us poor souls who just don't get why this is so wrong. To us, in this case, you're the one who doesn't get it.

Mig,

I'm not sure which part of my post you are addressing since you didn't include any names; however, I stand by my words (having seen people and organizations sued over similar stuff) and do not pretend to be an "arbiter" of sorts. I'm just giving an opinion like others. Again... the bloggers who found it distasteful understood the humour otherwise there would not be any basis for finding it distasteful.

Your argument seems to be that because others have satirized tragic events so it must be OK (e.g., search on Google, the Onion, comedy shows, etc.). That's a never-ending debate. What I did find funny in your response is how you listed George Bush along with the other "real" tragedies in history.

We still love you, Mig.

"the bloggers who found it distasteful understood the humour otherwise there would not be any basis for finding it distasteful."

I think this statement was even funnier than Mig's mash-up photo. Not unlike, say,

"The Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini wishes to declare the Satanic Verses a brilliant and inventive work of art, charged with beautiful language in the service of addressing the ageless conundra of human belief systems. Bravo Rushdie! For this you must die soon, and slowly, and in great torment."

Keep it coming, Daaim! And you know, the Onion staff always welcomes accidental humour.

Clubfoot,

Let me say it in plain terms so that you can understand it. I do this to be clear on my point.

Because one may find the doctored photo distasteful does not mean that the point of humour was not understood. The humour of the photo depends on familiarity of the assassination (and Kramnik's satirized implication); otherwise, there would be no point.

Let's move on. There's lots of chess to talk about.

Daaim - it's a bad idea to address me as if I'm stupid, for two reasons: first, we might experience a cultural dip which lowers the quality of the blog's discourse; second, I'm far more intelligent than you, which is how I perforated your attack on Mig's joke. But not that I intended to lord it over you - quite the contrary, in fact. The point was to demonstrate an example of humour (albeit at your expense), because you need a laugh more than the average poster.

As my father used to say, "Son, if you can't laugh at yourself...then you can always laugh at your mother."

Clubfoot,

Thanks for your response. My response was in no way to insult you. It's very difficult to communicate in this forum, but my remarks were to clarify my comments and not in condescension.

There was no attack... merely an opinion... just as the others on this blog. Did you attack them with insults (e.g., "I'm far more intelligent than you.") Secondly, I don't believe you know me well enough to know that I need to laugh more.

Lastly, on your quote... I would not laugh at my mother since she just passed away recently. You have no way of knowing that, but it merely shows that people need to be far more sensitive to tragedy.

I would not normally reveal this, but my father was a former bodyguard for President Kennedy, knew him personally and had provided warnings of an earlier assassination plot in Chicago. He was not on the detail in Dallas, but needless to say, the event caused tremendous hardship in my family.

Clubfoot... you need to be very careful with your insults. A more vengeful person (than I) would come calling you... and not laughing.

Not to worry Daaim, I have a thick skin and a wide back. All vengeful persons can apply to me directly via email for directions. And that includes the Two Silvios, Danailov and Dante.

And hey, didn't Clint Eastwood underplay your father in the riveting bodyguard flick In the Line of Fire? Word has it that John Malkovich later turned down the lead role in Being Daaim Shabazz.

Daaim,

The assassination of JFK caused hardship "needless to say" in your family because your father, who was not on duty, was a member of the security services.

This is interesting albeit Stalinist sounding stuff. Please say more, here or elsewhere in writing. The US purges it's services after a big failure and sends ostensibly innocent people to Siberia (Alaska in this case I guess)?

fff,

Thanks for asking.

It is a very protracted, complex explanation... a complete tragedy. I cannot say much more at this time, but more info will be available to the public soon.

Amazing what one can find online, and from the Spartacists yet:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbolden.htm

Wow:

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0217-20.htm

Hats off to your father, Daaim.