WCh Interviews a Go-Go

"You don't want to end up with damaging pseudo-objectivity of the sort we see in the media on topics like climate change. A few thousand scientists on one side, a handful of corporate stooges on the other and it's a "debate" with equal time to both sides. Ridiculous."

You make so many good points, it's just, you have a knack for choosing bad examples (JFK)...

A simple referense to Susan's blog would have suffered.

I try not to antagonize people needlessly. I haven't followed her blog enough to comment and really don't see why people come here to bash it. From my understanding Susan simply feels the need many in the public eye have to please all the people all the time. When this turns out to be impossible, as of course it is, there are inevitable contradictions and conflicts. It's not easy to find your own voice on complex issues when faced with so many people who aren't interested in doing any thinking. Cable news hosts and talk radio types solve this by presenting everything with 100% certainty, an equally undesirable extreme.

I don't know. It was not until I discovered this site, whose comments I have read quite a bit of, that I realized that the chess community is not as biased as chessbase makes them out to be. When anyone can post, instead of editors selecting who they want to print, then it's more evident what the proportions are. Then again, a bunch of GMs who probably like their own toilet breaks and easily drawed games are not going to give the same sample as chess fans who post on the daily dirt.

I encourage someone to select an adequate sample from this site or others to determine where the percentages lay.

Sorry, you are right, it was meant as a joke and not bashing. People will make up their own minds, and I think they already have by now, so I thought it harmless, but you are right, no need to antagonize needlessly.

Then you have many other issues. For example, the same guy posts anti-Kramnik babble here under 20 different names (same spelling mistakes, same IP number) over and over. Signed emails, especially from known individuals and players, are a little more concrete.

I'm still wondering how Topalov can justify the press release about how Kramnik's move matched Fritz. That was pure slander and nothing but.

All that's missing now is for Bobby to chime in from Reykjavik on how the match is a giant fix.

Mig,
What do you think about this one
http://www.veselintopalov.net/article/the-day-before-game-11
Do you thing there may arrise a doping scandal?

Is it possible that tomorrow they stop the match?

What Susan blog?
She does not care about the conflict. She does not take sides. She just hopes that we will be able to watch excuting chess.

Every news site has covered all the press releases as far as I know, people just don't like what they're reading from the Topalov side. There have also been plenty of nuanced opinions about this affair.

There is an assumption that FIDE are for Topalov but I just wonder how warm and fuzzy they're feeling towards Silvio Danailov after he's screwed up their second championship match in a row.

I'm sure Topalov's cut off from the real world during the match, he may indeed be in for a bit of a shock when he plays in a normal tournament again. That said you know he is a great player to watch, I just feel a little differently about him now than I did before the match.

As to the Veselintopalov.com site, its hard to tell if its official, semi-official or fan, I have a feeling there is some connection to Topalov's camp. In which case this is another worrying development. Probably Kramnik will just ignore it, he seems to have got past the angry stage.

Anyone for an armageddon game later in the week?

hm.....
No other side is posting the news (at least not in a language I understand)
www.veselintopalov.net seems to get it directly from Elista, although they cite some Bulgarian and Russian sources.....
I am confused

After Topalov's hilarious comments, I hope organizers never invite him to any more tournaments. The fact that he is defending that scumball manager of his does not speak well for his character.

In chess, fans can't boo and heckle a player, because that messes up the players, just like golf (in football, a silent count, properly executed, negates the impact of crowd noise, but still crowd noise takes away the ability to use a hard count to draw over-agressive pass rushers off-sides). So the only way Topalov will see consquences for his actions is if sponsors ban him, like how CBS decided to not air a Michael Jackson production in 2003, even though it would have been a hit because the person has no equal on stage. Speaking of shoes, Stephon Marbury has a new sneaker out for $15.00. I applaud him for that. From personal experience you can go to poor area and visit the most ghetto mall and they'll have dozens of shoe shops with insanely expensive shoes. When you have a player of Marbury's ability selling a shoe for cheap, then it can do a lot.

Well, Mig, after your comment I finally understood what made Topalov so angry with ChessBase. Indeed, the reader's letters... Hard to judge. ChessBase was clearly at the Kramnik side at the moment, otherwise such selection of letters simply would not be published at all. They are not obliged to publish any letters. But if really so many readers supported Kramnik in their mail - than what? ChessBase stood with their readers, it is quite normal. As I remember (maybe I am wrong...), there was no explanation of why these letters are selected for publication and what is a general picture with a feedback. It was possible to say in the article that most of people, who wrote, supports Kramnik. Then it would look more objective (pseudo or otherwise) and would not look as the site's hidden policy/opinion. For me it was quite clear that ChessBase supported Kramnik when I saw publication of these letters. Not that I was so much surprised. Not that it is a crime. But ChessBase could expect that Topalov team would consider it as an attack, something like that. You know, in the USSR it was popular to publish the "worker's letters" against someone - before to destroy the person's life completely in the more official ways (prison, etc etc). But such letters would never appear in the paper "by mistake". The media, even democratic ones, should not hide their strong opinions (if they really have them indeed) and publish the "worker's letters" instead. This is what I want to say.

By the way: why you call ChessBase "they" and not "we" ? Are you co-operating with them still? :-)

Ah, so you shouldn't publish reader letters if they all say the same thing? Brilliant!

I haven't worked with ChessBase in a long time. I help them out with things now and then as friends.

I agree that the accusations of cheating were slanderous. I also think that the forfeit bordered on childishness. I have not read much in detail, but am given different impressions about the chess community's percpetions from reading here and on chessbase. One individual may be contributing an abundance of anti-Kramnik propaganda here, but there are others like myself who have lost respect for both off the board.

But seriously, what then should you do. If people like Seirawan, Nunn, and Levy are writing letters that all come down on one side, do you not run them? Do you wait until someone of similar stature writes in to support Topalov? Why? Is that "objective?" No, that's self-censorship that is actually slanting your coverage by omission in the other direction.

Is there something similar to this for Topalov?

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

Your memory fails you, I'm afraid. The ChessBase reader letter article started with this: "The general view was heavily in favour of one side of the conflict, and to some extent aggressively critical towards the other. In the following selection we have only excluded letters which were gratuitously insulting, clearly libelous or orthographically chaotic. Some of the letters are, we admit, borderline in tone or taste. We would normally not publish such letters, but in this exceptional case, in order to give a true cross segment or public opinion as presented to us.

We would like to stress that we have not left out any letter that supported the minority opinion. And it is also relevant to mention that more than half the letters arrived before the articles by Yasser Seirawan and John Nunn had appeared on our news pages."

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3386

It's amazing. 2 weeks ago everyone loathed Kramnik and thought Topalov was the greatest thing in chess. Now everyone is universally against Topalov. Very impressive.

I love playing chess, but all this bickering really has made me realize how utterly bankrupt this game is. Maybe if people who play chess had any social skills we might see civil play and women in this game.

I still go with Topa, Kramniks behavior is highly suspicious

Mig
answer me why for god sake a site like ChessBase.com would piblish such letters?
Kramnik has to play with Fritz... "Topalov must be destroyed".
Chessbase IS biased, no argue.

a typical PR-campaign.
A typical black PR-campaign against Topalov -- cause it instead of settling down the conflict it puts more oil in the fire
just like in 40's in USSR.

ps:
and plz tell us the nicks of the guy with many IP that defended Topalov here
I want to congratulate him

No,no, RWP, all this just gives chess a larger-than-life quality ;-)

Ego's clash in every sport, the important point is not to get too much worked up about it, instead, log on and play a few relaxed blitz games (or go down to the tennis court with your buddy), and it will be ok in the end.

John,
I do not know why you exclude me, but I never loathed Kramnik, and was highly sceptical to Topalov's nature since his first after-San-Luis comments (and I admit I was neutral to him before, may be, because I did not watch him much).

'The World Championship fiasco has not gone down too well with the 36-year-old (Veselin Topolov accused Vladimir Kramnik of taking too many bathroom breaks, suggesting that he was cheating). "It's great entertainment, no doubt. But there is no place for such things in sport. He (Kramnik) was accused not of something he actually did, but something he could have done, and losing a game was extremely unfair to Kramnik. To say that it could have been handled better would actually be putting it mildly. The event is tainted now," he said.' Anand interview

To all who keep insisting that Topalov is somehow in the right, where is his support at the professional level? While there have been hundreds of GM's supporting Kramnik and many famous players signing open letters also in support of Kramnik, I can't find any who support Topalov. Maybe I am wrong, so can Topalov supporters tell me what GM's support him? Is it only Bulgarians and amateur Ninja nutcases that support Topalov?

Look guys, you are all confused.... Topa never said a bad word against anyone. You are mixing concepts.
Well, Kramnik did say a lot, although chessbase did not report it

No, the question is why would someone WRITE such letters. As the introduction to the letters article points out, it's a cross-section of what was sent in. And calling a letter signed by dozens of GMs a "PR campaign" is rather odd. Campaign by whom and to whose benefit?

thenewone,
You got the point. There is a conspiracy. The whole world is against our lovely Vesko. We are get paid by ChessBase, Fritz, and Gazprom.
By the way, where can I get my share?

So elitsa, how do you explain away Topalov's press release saying Kramnik's moves matched Fritz? (When his own moves match similarly and when such matching is totally normal.) A friendly gesture?

Have you seen that most that signed the letter are ACP????
And the rest are Russians... well sorry, it is quite obvious

I don't think that any (non-Bulgarian) corporation would want to be associated with someone who has 95% of the public opinion against him, it would be counterproductive. I would think that the public relations managers google Topalov, and FIDE perhaps, and run away.

Apple computers, when their market share fell to 5%, tried the slogan "Think Different", but it did not work, even with pictures of good guys like the Pope and the Dalai Lama.

Mig,
Have you really checked fritz and Topa?? This tournament the numbers are much lower. In the second game when the machines were giving 2 points disatvantage for Topa he found a way to a 3 move mate.... and he blundered.
Still the point is Topa is more creative. The numbers of Kramnik just says he is old school and boring.

OMG Mig! This "drug testing" better be another FIDEistic joke. What? Performance enhancing drugs in chess? Is this so the loser can have more strength to throw the chess board and pieces at the other player's manager? I think it is now physically impossible to dig any lower for dirt in this matter. But we shall see...

Vlad, Mig

come on guys -- theres no whole world conspiracy, and you know it (I know it too :))

There are interrests and money.
Just link the facts.

Who will play Fritz just a month later? Isnt it the best player in the world?

Yes, it is.

>>"ChessBase could have done more to get "the other side" from FIDE and such, but it's not as if they wouldn't have printed it had it been sent in."

As a matter of fact it irritates me when they post all the nonsense (not to use profanity) that comes out of those fide hacks. For example they posted the comments of Macropoulos. Chessbase definately is not biased.

Topalov will get burned by Ilyumzhinov. Everybody who's ever gone in with that guy got f**ked eventually.

thenewone is right... link the match with fritz, Kremlin, and Kramnik

elitsa,
Topalov never said a bad word about anyone? Well, may be the real issue is that many people just don't understand that for you and for Topalov the following should be interpreted as warm words:
"(Kramnik) never adhered to any principles and has always been led by his current personal interests."
If so, I agree with you. Because I can say the same about Veselin. But with different meaning, unfortunately.

chillirat

i do not need a GM's opinion to differ black and white

do you?

elitsa,
match Topalov, Radjabov, and FIDE.

Right, always better to talk conspiracy instead of facts. Facts are so annoying. Like the fact that a huge majority of people found Topalov's actions disgusting. I'm still waiting for suggestions about how ChessBase's coverage could have been different/better in this regard. By NOT posting the opinions of readers and GMs?

The biggest favor ChessBase could have done Topalov would have been to not publish his own press releases.

Vlad it is not only Topalov opinion (about Kramnik's principles and personal interrests)
And this is hardly an offense.

thenewone,
So if you share Topalov's opinion on Kramnik, this is not an offense, but if thousands of people share unfavorable opinion on Topalov, this is offense.
Thanks for explanation.

From: http://www.veselintopalov.net/article/the-day-before-game-11

The day before game 11 (updated) · Oct 10, 06:58 PM

Veselin Topalov spent his rest day in the steppe around Elista. He was accompanied by Ivan Cheparinov, Francisco Vallejo, and Alexaned Onishtuk. He also tried traditional regional dishes.
Before that, the four of them visited the oldest tree in Kalmykia, the 120 years old "Lonely poplar". It is considered holy by the local people. It is 20 km from Elista and is visited every day by Budhists.
At the same time not much information has been released about Kramnik’s rest day. However, strange news was reported by Zhivko Ginchev. He said that Kramnik refused to make a doping test after game 9. The test has been requested by the chief of the medical commission Iana Belin, as reported by topsport.bg. "Everything here is very strange, but what can we do about it," commented Silvio Danailov for the Bulgarian newspaper Novinar. From the Bulgarian delegation also find it strange that such a test comes after the two consecutive victories of Topalov.

-> Another press release before game from Danailov, this time about how Kramnik using doping!?
Can Danailov make himself look even more rediculous?
Time will tell. :D

By the way, kramnik.com has an open forum. veselintopalov.net - does not. Who is talking about peudo-objevity?

Well guys,
If you know how Russian conspiracies have worked during these years, you may know that Topa is being constantly attacked and that all the chess fans that are against him are their victims
communism still works in that country.

Mig,

look only at the Barsky name in the GM's letter supporting Kramnik

that was the guy who started a campaign in russian media accusing Topalov as a computer aided cheater

did you know that?

Many are forgetting the one who truly is the screwup here: not Kramnik, not even Ilyumzhanov or Topalov. It's Danailov. Everything he touches turns to dogdanailov. He's a danailovkicker, a worthless danailoveating piece of danailov.

I do honestly think that at the current time, Danailov is the most destructive, harmful entity to chess.

Joshua you havent the information needed to clear up whole picture
Do you know a history of this conflict? Who started it?

>> "look only at the Barsky name in the GM's letter supporting Kramnik"

Who's Barsky?

Topalov was accusing Kramnik of cheating. You can't get more direct than that.

Even Spassky takes Kramnik's side in comparison with what happened to him against Fisher:

"He stressed that Bobby's disputes were with the organizer, never with the opponent, unlike Topalov's attacks, which are directed against his opponent on the board. Spassky made it unequivocally clear that his support is with Kramnik, and that he doesn't consider Topalov's actions to be proper."

But damn, another Russian. ;)

Joshua: satanailov?

Mig, on the subject of full disclosure, do you think you could give us the pseudonyms of the guy who keeps writing in support of Topalov under different guises? I think we should be told -- not least so that we can guage the "true" level of feeling on this (excellent) site.

me

you didnt know who is Barsky???

why then you argue about something you havent a clue?

I do not know of a single 2400+ player (except Topalov himself and his sleazebag manager) who supports Topalov in this matter. There are probably a few somewhere in the world (Bulgaria, maybe?), but the overwhelming majority of professional players are on Kramnik's side. This includes many non-Russian players who are well-respected in the world for their objectivity and integrity, such as Anand, Seirawan, Nunn, Short, and others. None of these players were Kramnik's friends any more than Topalov's before this match. Of course, those who supported Kramnik and/or didn't like Topalov before the match (such as Barsky) are also supporting him now.

What Topalov has done so far is both ruining the reputation of chess in the eyes of the world and is destroying the legitimacy of this unification match. There is not a shred of evidence that Kramnik did anything inappropriate. He is not even playing better than his usual level. When Topalov was accused of cheating after San Luis, while there was also no direct evidence of cheating, at least his level of play has gone up sharply compared to what it was before. Still, if anyone accused him, it was not Kramnik, and he can't be faulted for it.

"I also think that the forfeit bordered on childishness."

Perhaps, but I think it's important to remember that Kramnik had little time to consider his options before the start of the game. A rash decision?

And here are some questions for the rapid Topalov supporters:

1) Who threatened to abandon the match over his opponent's visits to the bathroom?
2) Who expressed concerns that restroom and bathroom inspections were made "only by experts of the Organizing Committee"?
3) Who threatened to refuse the pre-game handshake?
4) Who continues to refuse joint press conferences?

I know which actions I find more childish.

Stan

you insist that Barsky just "didnt like Topalov before the match" ???
did you read the Barsky' article?
if you didnt, your judgement means nothing

Thenewone,

Why do you care about Barsky? What does he have to do with this?

I have read Susan Polgar from the beginning. She definitely supports Topalov. for those who do not believe this. then her simple attempt to claim that she is neutral and that kramnik must be just as much at fault as topalov is the juice that has turned her web site into the crazy topalov fan club. the blog has gone berzerk over there.

her neutrality is to blame kramnik at least equal to topalov. that only gives energy and credibility to topalov's injustice. and she defends it with an iron will that I have only seen in a woman and Nixon stonewalling it over watergate. Of course Bush stonewalls Iraq and so far he is holding on. but when you are wrong then you are wrong.

Many older posters are very disappointed in susan polgar. many have left her site in disgust with her fake neutrality. I think she would do better if she were simply more honest and said she supports topalov. at least then she can be honest about her opinion.

I suspect that she is angling for a job with fide. and she really wants to support kirsan and fide so she can get the job. I guess everyone is kissing kirsan's tail now that he is so entrenched.

and topalov sees this. so he must say to himself. it works for kirsan so it will work for me. corruption is the way to go.

what else can be happening. corruption only leads to more people joining the corruption for the money. money money. oh boy. they say it makes the world go around.

Anyway I feel that Susan has really hurt her reputation with her stand on the match.

Oh, and it's incredibly embarrassing to think that Onischuk should be Topalov's second through this whole ordeal. It will be interesting to see what he and Vallejo Pons have to say after the match.

Stan

so read the Barsky'article (published in the right moment when the contract for the match in Elista was signed) and try to figure it by yourself

Susan Polgar does an enormous lot of chess promotion, which is great, but her web site, blog, aticles are nauseatingly self promoting.

Self promoting ok..., but she exaggerates.

(just my personal opinion)

I like Susan's website, it is human directed

On Saturday, Topalov had a more opinionated interview in the Bulgarian press, reproduced at ChessBase here. His "my manager Silvio Danailov did an extraordinary job" will go down in history in the same category as Bush's "you're doing a heckuva job, Brownie" after Hurricane Katrina.

A better example would be the GOP leadership who extolled the virtues of Tom DeLay, and defended him to the end. Never mind that DeLay was a disaster for the Congress--and for the country as a whole. The point is that he was adept at getting the job done: the "job" being to raise barrels of cash for the GOP candidates.

Likewise, Danailov got the job done (free point!). Putting ethics aside (as Topalov has obviously decided to do), Topalov has every reason to be pleased with Danailov. Recall that not even all the parapsychologists in the 70s were able to induce Kortchnoi to lose by forfeit.

In contrast, nobody benefitted from Katrina: Bush's praise of Brown was a misguided attempt to cover his butt with happy talk and photo ops.

'chillirat i do not need a GM's opinion to differ black and white do you?' thenewone

So the answer to my question, (where is the professional support for Topalov?), is that what chess professionals think about the World Chess Championship does not matter? Could you stick your head any further in the sand?

I do agree with this situation is black and white, the universal support from chess professionals for Kramnik demonstrates this fact. Now if your asking me who's opinion I trust more, yours or entire professional chess community? Mmm... that's a tough one...

Now the answer is vast worldwide conspiracy against Topalov, when three weeks ago he was quite popular in the chess world. Could it perhaps be possible that Topalov is the one who is wrong and not the rest of the planet? Just maybe?

I think Danailov did well to shadow Topalov from all the bs that was flying against him, and as well got a free point. Nothing bad, since Kramnik is nervous and unstable and ready to react to all provocations.
Kramnik is also arrogant and hopes Kremlin will defend him.
Well, sorry Mr. Kramnik, you will be defeated on the board.

I used to be a susan polgar supporter until she began to support topalov against kramnik over game 5.

I used to be a topalov fan until game 5.

Now I strongly support Kramnik. and sit out on Susan Polgar. I like a web site where I can trust the moderator to be honest. I think Mig does a great job in a very difficult position.

if susan polgar lived in Bulgaria I would expect her to support topalov. but I find it very dishonest to support topalov while trying to falsely claim she is neutral. I will grant that she does not understand "neutral"

she seems to think that means blaming the victim for being attacked. it is like blaming the one who is raped for looking nice and the rapist as the poor guy had no choice but to rape her. it is all the same argument to me. neutral to her is to blame the victim 50% for being raped and not holding the rapist accountable 100% for his own actions.

she just does not see this. I am sure she thinks she is neutral. but most people do not accept her form of neutrality. I hope a close friend can sit down with her and get her to understand what is going on here.

Well, I take it all back. This is a quote from some bloke called "Garry Everding", posted up now at Polgar's blog as the first large entry:

"While it's doubtful that these allegations [of Kramnik cheating] will be proven, new research from economists at Washington University in St. Louis offers strong evidence that Soviet chess masters very likely engaged in collusion to gain unfair advantage in world chess championships held from 1940 through 1964, a politically volatile period in which chess became a powerful pawn in the Cold War."

I'm sorry, but where exactly is the link between Kramnik and the Soviet masters of the cold war? Placing them in adjacent parts of the sentence suggests some sort of relationship where none can be found. It's pernicious: we'll never know whether Kramnik was cheating -- but all the Soviet chessplayers of the 40's were: you make the connection.

My suspicion is that Polgar's simply oblivious to the way that this sentence can be read ("oh, while we're on the subject of cheating, here's something to think about", etc.). But, really, she should know better. Shouldn't she?

(I suppose I should be posting this on Polgar's site (sorry, Mig), but since it's relevant to the discussion here...)

I don't think much of the idea of Blackballing Topalov. That said, while the tournament invites to Topalov might still be forthcoming, it wouls be appropriate to make a significant reduction in his appearance fees. According to rumor, half of what Topalov earns supposedly goes to Danailov, anyway. Reducing the fees would have the effect of souring the milk a bit. If Topalov is indeed shameless, he'll still feel humiliated by the very tangible diminution in his professional value (earning capacity). He'll be faced with two unpleasant choices. 1) Forego the tournaments, and lose income, becoming marginalized to boot 2) play more frequently, and in less prestigeous events

One thing is for sure: Danailov ought to be declared "Persona non grata" at the tournament sites. The chess world ought to have no qualms about boycotting him. If FIDE had any sense, it would officially ban Danailov from involvement with FIDE sanctioned events.

elitsa,
You wrote: "Kramnik is also arrogant and hopes Kremlin will defend him." If this is not slander - what is? How can you possibly know what Kramnik does or does not think about, what he does or does not hope for? What arrogance!

well what are you going to do about the new Grand Prix. it is suppose to be Danailov's idea. and I read some speculation that Danailov might take control of the individual tournaments through his control over the grand prix.

it seems to me that Danailov is a pretty smart guy who is working many angles at once. If Danailov is running the circuit and his boy wins and he gets 50% from topalov it seems like he is the winner coming in the back door. I am sure he will be paid very well for running the circuit also. so he just might collect from both sides.

Hope Susan will never will be forced by FIDE to share toilet with Topalov ...

All that's missing now is for Bobby to chime in from Reykjavik on how the match is a giant fix.

Posted by: Ashish at October 9, 2006 17:13

I was thinking the same way! This match has raised the eyebrows of a lot of people. No doubt, Fischer would be apt to conclude to worst from such shenanigans.

Of course, if the match result has been fixed, it has been doen in the worst possible way. And the notion that the moves of the games have been scripted is even more absurd.

Of course, this may just be a big conspiracy to convince people that the match is NOT fixed.

Comments that take shots at Susan Polgar? Because she likes A over B? Come on. Get Freakin' Real. And she is going for FIDE? She would be the best thing that ever happened to FIDE and it will never happen. Read about her history. FIDE jammed her up many, many times. She has been persecuted because she is a woman, because of her faith (which Kasparov's heritage didn't endear him to FIDE either!) and mostly because of her skills. Most importantly, there is are only two people on this planet that (and Garry chose to change the world of Russian politics) REALLY have dedication to promoting chess FOR chess. Susan should not be recognized as anything other than our only active Ambassador for the Royal Game. That requires promotion. Look at the history by the Caspian Sea and tell me that there is any substance there for THIS promotion called Unification. Now Chessistics is POLARIZED (Polgarized, hehe?) over a toilet? (Sidebar: John Krapper invented the flush toilet, hence the root word...) Historically, this whole episode will be judged as the will of men trying to triumph over the Spirit of the Royal Game. I promise all of you that Chess will live on long after all of the pathetic participants, including me, are passed away to dust in the wind. Let us honor the GAME and cease with this trivial, self righteous (we are all human after all), judgemental destructive distraction. How about Unity... Togetherness... Mutual Appreciation... or has the Game that we love been victimized by the same disfunctional attitude that causes W.A.R.= We Are Right? Give Peace A Chance For God's Sake (if not your own) and the only GAME of Dignity that remains: Chess.

There once was a player who couldn't be beat,
Everyone gasped 'what a great feat',
'how do you do it'?
asked a young student,
'It's easy', said Topalov, 'when they allow you to cheat'.

Dear Barnie,

Please allow me to make this as directly and clearly as possible. Obviously, you and others will choose to believe what you want no matter how incorrect it is. I see it hundreds of times a day on my own blog. I will only state this once on this forum. I apologize to Mig upfront for being off topic.

1. I have said countless times that the actions of Danailov are INEXCUSABLE. The tone and wordings of his letters are very unprofessional. I even question Topalov's decision not to part ways with Danailov. This does not mean I support Kramnik. It means that I find the actions of Topalov's camp wrong, very wrong.

2. I have also said countless times that it is wrong for Topalov to accept the forfeit win, even if FIDE insisted on it. Many people in the chess community will never forget this. It was a wrong decision even if he thinks he deserved it. Again, this does not mean I support Kramnik. It means that I find the actions of Topalov's camp wrong.

3. I have NEVER said that I blame both equally. That is a total lie. I said all three sides are to blame (some more than others with FIDE and Danailov leading the big percentage). Once again, this does not mean I support Kramnik. It means that I find the actions of Topalov's camp wrong.

4. Please don't insult my intelligence by saying that Kramnik has been a Saint during this whole match. Yes, the Appeals Committee made horrendous mistakes and I also said so many times. However, somebody has to big enough to allow the other side to make the last word. This does not mean I support Topalov.

5. I could not care less who wins. It does not make an ounce of difference for me. I have friends on both sides and I want to see a unified World Champion. I am a chess fan as well as a chess professional. I just want to see exciting chess without the unprofessional open letters or silly press releases from any side. I feel that with strong leadership, this matter could have been resolved to everyone’s satisfaction without making it into a scandal.

6. The problem is there are lunatics who believe that unless I support Kramnik 100%, I am against him and I support Topalov. That is like saying unless I appreciate Bishops 100%, it means that I hate Bishops and will only play with Knights. And to make their silly points, these lunatics have to lie, insult (me and everyone who disagree) and spam the same nonsense hundreds of times.

7. I have been a victim of my own supporters in the past. While I appreciate people supporting me, I ask that they do not behave that way. There is no need to spam other websites dozens of times to defend me or insult others. It is good to have a civilized debates or discussions. There is no need to get hostile and rude.

8. If I wanted a job with FIDE or Bessel, I could have had it. My phone rang many times but no thanks. I want no part of the destructive politics. I hate chess politics. I am interested in promoting chess, especially for kids, without ugly bureaucracy and dirty politics. That is why I formed the Susan Polgar Foundation. I have enough work to do in chess while taking care of my 2 children.

9. If people want to believe in lies and nonsense then there is nothing I can do about it. I have no problem if people do not like me or do not agree with me. They are more than welcome to do that. But it is sad that people would try to put words in my mouth, make up things that I never said, or pretend to be me and post on various sites.

10. Just remember, there are always many sides of every story. Do not be so hasty in jumping into conclusions without knowing all the facts. Today, Anand spoke out against Topalov and stated this match has been spoiled. He believes that the 2007 World Championship in Mexico City will determine the true World Champion. Guess how long it took for fans of Topalov and Kramnik to bash Anand?

I am not rooting for either side. I would just like for everyone to behave more professionally for the sake of our sport. If that is too much to ask then I have wasted your time. I hope we can agree to disagree. The last word is yours :)

Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
www.SusanPolgar.com

It is interesting how many more supporters Topalov has in the US than in the UK, in fact. Whether it's kneejerk anti-Commie prejudice or the usual US fondness for cheating theories in mind games, I couldn't say, but it's really very noticeable.

Susan P; how come you are suggesting on your website that Topalov is playing fast to keep Kramnik out of the lavatory? I find it hard to believe you actually believe this nonsense, so isn't this just fuel to the he's-in-the-toilet-a-lot-it-must-be-dodgy brigade?

To those (Bulgarians?) who think Russians are after Topalov:

I hate to ruin your little illusion. You know, the one. "Big evil Russia is after us, the only thing Kremlin is doing is how to undermine Topalov and pay off every single chess professional in the world to come up with anti-Topalov press release. KGB are after Topalov and Danailov. etc". The truth is - Russia is the place where Topalov has the most fans. Actually, the place, where he HAD the most fans. However, a lot of people in Russia were disguisted with the dirty tricks of Team Topalov and are now rooting for Kramnik - the same reversal that happened everywhere. I would say that still around 20 percent of Russian chess fans are pro-Topalov - that's probably more than in the west, where around 90% seem to be pro Kramnik now. And Putin and Kremlin have other things to worry about other than Topalov. If anything, Russian organizers would rather screw Kramnik out of a point, like they did in game 5, then to appear biased. And everyone knows Kalmykia is FIDE land and Topalov is FIDE champion (at least for now) so Kirsan would likely be favoring Topalov, who has been loyal to him, rather than the Kramnik, who is much less convenient guy for Kirsan to have as the champion. So I suggest some people stop the paranoya and face the facts: there is no anit-Topalov russian conspiracy, there is bad sportsmanship and stupid press releases on Topalov's part that have made public opinion swing towards Kramnik.

Well, considering the good things that Susan Polgar does do, I wish I could believe her, when she says that she is not taking any sides.

One of her latest postings without any comments on her blog is the latest Topalov interview with the headline "He has never adhered to any principles"

I wonder what she would feel if she had been on the receiving side of things, i.e. someone else has published a statement about her, without any comments but with the headline "She has never adhered to any principles".

This is far from an isolated occurrence, a pro-Topalov and anti-Kramnik pattern can be recognized on her blog, but I stop for now.

rdh,
Actually, Topalov himself confirmed during an interview that he played fast to keep Kramnik out of rest room.
Regarding US Topalov supporters, I haven't seen any yet. Which does not mean thay do not exist, of course.

Mig,
This subject of Kramnick not taking an "in-competition" drug test ought to be the topic of an individual post, with your usual historical context-setting. This is not a trivial matter!!!

There are several facts to consider here:
1. FIDE wants to be part of the Olympic movement, I guess for $ reasons. This means they must ascribe to the Olympic rules on drug testing. Several years ago, this might have been okay, because the Olympic movement only tested for muscle-related performance-enhancing drugs up to the mid-90s. And there is some sense to the notion that a chessplayer might add a little to his/her rating or performance with amphetamines (uppers - alertness). Rumors in the 1980s had Karpov taking amphetamines to keep alert against Kasparov. Unclear whether this might matter, since anyone can drink coffee or smoke a nicotine cigarette without fear. (Nicotine has shown to improve performance in some tests of acuity/alertness).

2. However, since the 1990s the Olympic movement has also tested for locally illegal drugs, and chess players might get implicated there. For example, some Dutch players (and others!) are rumored to analyse while high on marijuana. Plus we've seen on Chessbase where a GM tried kaat while at a chess tournament in the mid-east. Both of these would render an olympic athlete banished, and would render a chessplayer banished if FIDE followed olympic rules.

3. There are now "legal" mind-enhancing drugs... some are only rumored to help (and exhibit the placebo effect?) while others have proved in scientific tests to improve memory (see some drugs used for alzheimers). These drugs may be "chess performance enhancing drugs" and this whole topic DOES deserve serious thought by chessplayers.

Keep up the good work!
tjallen

Theorist,
Can you, please, point me to a scientific research done by economists of St.Luis University?
I am very interested to know which sources and methodologies they used. Because I am afraid, I know more than them about Soviet chess of 1940-1964.

The one thing I don't understand in Susan's post is in what way Kramnik's team is to be blamed for this mess.

I may lack the necessary intelligence, but I don't see anything wrong with the way Kramnik handled the mess created and fueled by Topalov's team.

Maybe he could have done slightly better, but he certainly did nothing wrong.

Susan believes that if Kramnik had his mouth shut and played game 5 being f*cked off, her dream of watching exciting chess would be expanded to one more game. Who cares about players and how they feel? Not Susan. She cares about chess itself.

Susan Polgar posted on 18th October 2005:

"I [i.e. Susan Polgar] would love to see a match between Topalov and Kramnik because of their contrasting styles. However, it should not be a World Championship match. Giving Kramnik a straight title match would be a big insult to some other chess professionals. As I said before, no single player should have the right to hold the World Championship crown hostage. We have a new World Champion who proved himself on the board and on the rating chart. Let the new beginning start with Topalov."

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=13118012&postID=112964532177701727

and click on "show original post"

She has posted dozens of posts of this type in the past promoting Topalov's cause and attacking Kramnik, but denies it now. Pure dishonesty.

Then, what do you think of the type of neutrality in which the criminal and the victim get lumped together?

Don't forget that Susan Polgar wrote in her very blog that she thought the toilet visits were a deliberate ploy by Kramnik, to play mindgames with Topalov and to provoke this whole incident. Initially she had the stance that both sides were to blame. Only later she added that “one side more than the other”.

And don't forget that this very day 9th October Susan Polgar said that all three parties could have "stopped it". But she does not say how Kramnik could have stopped it. How in the hell could Kramnik stop these interviews, press releases and accusations that keep coming from Topalov??

Notice how she also here lumps them together by saying "I hope both sides would just stop with these press releases" while one side (Topalov) is putting forward slanderous lies and accusations (the doping accusation being the latest one) while Kramnik only keeps defending himself against this character defamation.

How can you lump them together unless you have totally lost your moral sense?

There is nothing sensible, nor dignified nor graceful about this sort of "neutrality".

Imagine Judit in Vladimir's place, as a target of such smear campaign. Still neutrality the moral stance? By her so called "neutrality" she only keeps giving Topalov’s position credibility. It wouldn't be a problem if she didn't have a 10,000 readers she keeps misleading.

There is no room for neutrality in the case of a criminal, and a victim. As is the case here.

And ABOVE ALL notice how Susan Polgar, on her blog, deletes all opinions that are contrary to her cherished self-image. She keeps spamming the address of her beloved blog everywhere, in a self-promotion frenzy, but then when the visitors have opinions she doesn't like, she just keeps deleting these opinions while tolerating racist McCarthy style generalisations about "Russians" among other things.

That shows her true colors. And the chess world shouldn’t forget the stance she took on this. Dishonesty is not a nice quality. It isn’t dignified, nor graceful. It all looks like self-promotion. Of nauseating proportions. She is casting pearls and her readers are swine, who are only allowed to agree with her. Only allowed to listen to her wisdom, but not to question it. She only wants to hear over and over again how great she is, and how important she is. Because disagreeing with her is "an insult" like she puts it herself. No criticism is allowed. Especially if it's directed at her. Kramnik, on the other hand, is a free target. To promote and advertise your blog and then to act like that towards your readers is hypocricy.

You quote her directly, and she calls it lies. You disagree with her stance, and she calls it an insult.

Annoyed with such hypocricy you post your comments more than once and she calls you a lunatic.

She has not condemned Topalov. Not once. Today she, herself, took the time to underline the accusations against Kramnik, from Topalov's bizarre interview. People have been mostly pissed off with the dishonest nature of her "neutral" stance. Even her letter to Kramnik was worded to shield Topalov from blame and to promote her own causes. She couldn't just sign Lautier's letter.

In comparison Mig's blog is great. The only place on the net to discuss chess freely.

Barnie, There is no way Susan Polgar would ever sacrifice a shread of her self respect to get a job with FIDE.

There is no way she would ever HAVE to.

Of course she has her detractors. It's a sign of her vast success that some will be nipping at her heels.

But I would bet anything that the overwhelming majority appreciate all that she is doing for chess and the wonderful role model she is for our children

If better information about the drug test comes out I'll do more about it. Right now there's nothing more to do with it. I've written extensively on drug testing and related issues here and at ChessBase. FIDE has a policy of testing without enforcement. Despite the title of this blog I'm not into hyperbole. It could be wrong, simply more provocation, or a trivial matter of scheduling, etc. I don't know if the players are being tested regularly or what. Context matters.

Johnster,
I agree with much of what you wrote about Polgar, but I don't think Susan deletes comments from her blog. At least mine ones are still there (I can't remember all of them, of course, but some comments made by me are still there while being clearly anti-Polgar).
If you do such accusations, you should provide some proof, IMHO.

and since this medium is not exact, listening to Susan tomorrow night on Chessfm should be enlightening and enjoyable

How does Topalov making fast moves hurt Kramnik any? Say, Topalov takes five seconds on each move. Kramnik can still take as much time as he wants on his. I don't follow.

The only conclusion that I can draw from Topalov's comments is that he has taken up smoking crack. What else can explain it?!

Who seriously listens to an economist?

Vlad Kosulin,
It took me 10 seconds to find the article using google.
http://artsci.wustl.edu/~moul/pdf_drafts/sovietchesscartel.pdf#search=%22%20Washington%20University%20Soviet%20Chess%22

Superfreaky,
Maybe if you read instead of yabbered on you too would listen to economists. They do, you know, have there own Nobel.

Vlad, Ms. Polgar does indeed delete unfavorable comments from her blog. When she appeared on the Howard Stern show I copied and pasted her own quotes about Kosteniuk appearing in Penthouse and stated that if she were to appear on the Stern program she had no moral ground to criticize Kosteniuk for granting an interview to Penthouse. The comments were deleted within half an hour. Not that I care, it's her blog, she can run it however she sees fit, but for Polgar quoting her own comments back to her is a lie and an insult.

Even still, generally speaking, I am in favor of her. She provides a website--free of charge--with news, commentary, puzzles and analysis, which is a gracious service. I don't believe she realizes the key source of annoyance about her is her self-promotion antics, for instance advertising her blog every five minutes on Playchess while we're trying to watch the game. In posting the recent story about Boris Spassky's stroke she even went out of her way to work in a plug for her book, complete with a product link (since removed). This, by any standard, is the definition of shameless self-promotion.

http://chesslodge.blogspot.com/2006/10/susan-polgar-way.html

J.A. Topfke

First off I dont think susans blog is objective and her comments in her own defence are a bit disingenuous. Topolavs team determined on psychological warfare and have adopted attacks never seen before in a wcc ie direct personal accusations that the opponent is cheating during a match. the reason for these tactics is simple: when they fear they are going to lose the match they issues a release to try to disturb Kramnik. The drug testing point is a classic case is has arisen when Topalov is off balance having just lost badly.

Topalov sole complaint is that he does not like Kramniks habit of leaving the chess board after moving - he prefers that his opponent sit at the board while he is thinking. Thats it. Have we all forgotten the Spassky - korchnoi match where Spassky spent the ENTIRE time away from the board ananlysing solely by the demo board and only coming to the table to play his moves. Quite different from Kramniks approach. It caused a storm and upset Korchnoi who went on to win the match anyway

To me mind the real culprit in this is Mr Kalmykia who gave the instructions to close the toilets and determined the forfeit should stand. Well done Kirsan while your dictatorial style seems to work fine for a tinpot russian republic its a diasaster for a sporting organisation. What a prat. As for Topalov I am only surprised that he lacks confidence in his chess playing ability to defeat Kramnik that is the only reason that he has indulged in these tactics of false accusations. I cannot imagine Kramnik doing the same thing and its a question of character. It seesm clear that Kramnik is a more professional confident person who puts faith in his chess playing abilities

Either the Polgar critics missed or willfully overlooked the following paragraph on her blog today, or else she added it only after being flamed here, to take some of the sting out of the criticism (or -- might it be? -- to make it clearer where she actually stands). Granted, it appeared in italics at the bottom of the related post, so could be innocently overlooked.

"I understand that Topalov made this interview for the Bulgarian fans and he may want to please them. I also understand that some of the translations may be off. However, the timing is rotten and the context does not help his image either. That's a double whammy! I would certainly ask these questions: "Why?" and "What does he have to gain by attacking Kramnik or ChessBase?"

As to Polgar's famous self-promotion, I'll say this to Dirt readers: You can have one or the other of the following, but not both:

1) Chess stars who are always their own man or woman (translation: their own CHILD), therefore act and say whatever they feel at all times, and never pay much attention to what business partners or fans might want (poster-boy examples: Kasparov publicly accusing IBM of cheating during the Deep Blue match; and Shirov (?) concluding an Intel-sponsored tournament by giving a speech condemning computers in chess)... or....

2) Chess stars who frame much of what they say and do, while thinking about things like image and marketability.

If it's the former you want, then stop gnashing your teeth and rending your garments and crying rivers of crococile tears about how GMs have to scrape by to earn a living and there's no money in chess and only patzers can make money. And stop complaining about Kirsan, because he's the only "sponsor" chess will ever have, if that's the only way chess stars are willing to behave.

If it's the latter you want, then stop attacking Polgar for making calculated statements, seeking to please many different sorts of fans, and actively marketing herself like a viable commercial brand.

Phil Innes -- hardly the sort of person who would suck up to Polgar or anyone -- published a widely quoted essay a few months back whose title went something like, "I'm Sick of Reading About Susan Polgar." He began by detailing some of her rampant self-promotion. Then midway through the essay, came an Alfred Hitchcock-style flip -- a radical shift of perspective ... and it suddenly became clear that he had come not to bury Polgar, but to praise her. He concluded that the reason so many chess business people resent Polgar is that she is doing precisely what they know they ought to be doing, but aren't.

'Even Spassky takes Kramnik's side in comparison with what happened to him against Fisher:

"He stressed that Bobby's disputes were with the organizer, never with the opponent, unlike Topalov's attacks, which are directed against his opponent on the board. '

Fischer did suspect Spassky's side of spying on him or interfering with him, but then he made the organizer prove that there were no nasty devices in various places. This was certainly described as paranoia at the time, but I can see that Spassky would like it better that all the heat went on the organizer even though the organizer was not suspect.

I suppose Topalov could have done the same thing, berating the organizer for allowing Kramnik to do things he was suspicious of. Perhaps that was harder for him because he represents the organizer, FIDE.

But that doesn't mean that FIDE would be doing the things Topalov's worried about. It would be the opponent, Kramnik. Ultimately, none of these players trusted his opponent (though Spassky sounded rather unaggressive about the whole thing.)

Actually, I really really want to believe Susan. I used to read her blog daily. Unfortunately, I have to agree with those who call her 'a professional hypocrite'. In fact, some of her comments make me want to vomit. Like these:

"If I am Kramnik's manager, I would advise him to stop the nonsense with demanding the apology from Danailov,..."

or

"It is reasonable for the fans to be suspicious with excessive bathroom use."

(the link is http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=13118012&postID=115964848342882663 and click on 'show original post').

I'll add that I totally agree with Barnie and an analogy with people who blame the victim of rape for being raped (because of 'provocative' clothing etc.) has also sprung to my mind while reading Susan Polgar, completely independent of him.

There's no 'objectivity' and no 'neutrality' in blaming both Topalov and Kramnik. It is a disgusting and immoral thing to say.

hey you people who have nothing better to do than bad-mouth others... GROW UP. You are just stirring up trouble. How about some positivity instead of the constant carping.

It seems that as soon as the name "Susan Polgar" is mentioned a whole big bunch of loonies come out one way or the other.

Shameless self promotion = marketing.

Susan Polgar is a businesswoman, marketing her work and she absolutely has the right to (what do Chessbase, the London chess center etc. do?)

I read her first 3 articles on Chess Cafe and decided that she wasn't for me (not very substantial and I do not like the marketing or advertising etc.). However, that doesn't mean that she isn't ideal for other people.

I vote with my feet and have never visited her site. However I don't understand people who have a pathological hatred for owners of web sites, who contribute (often significantly) to the hit count (and therefore increase advertising and income for the webmaster). If you really hate people that much, the way to hurt them most is surely to ignore them and therefore hit them in the pocket. e.g. I will not buy any books that Topalov writes.

All the talk is useless at this point. Either Topalov makes good on the chess board, or he has failed. Just like anything else in life.

Too many blunders accumulate. The rest is just talk. I root for him, but that's all I can do.

D.

'Either Topalov makes good at the chess board, or he has failed.'

Oooooh, the irony.

Vlad, Topalov will say what he likes in interviews at the moment to stir the pot. He might want to break Kramnik's rhythm, but no sane person can think playing fast will stop the opponent cheating with a computer if that's what he's doing. Topalov and his fans trying to imply poor Veselin is being driven to this because of his natural suspicions is pathetic.

2Mig: sorry I have no time to read all accumulated messages here, but just in case if you can read me: Yes I agree of course, in that article ChessBase explained very well what they, generally, received. I would not blame ChessBase, but I still think: they could express their OWN opinion. If you pretend to be neutral but at the same time you are publishing letters which are (with nearly no exceptions) supporting only one side - then you are not neutral anyway (even if you really want very much to be neutral).
[PS A note that above I spoke about the reader's letters only, not about analyses by the Wch experts.]

I'm saying it would be false and misleading to misrepresent the tone and content of the reader feedback to do otherwise. If I receive 200 messages in support of Kramnik and 10 in support of Topalov and want to print reader comments, what do I do? Not print anything? Print 10 and 10, which is censorship in favor of Topalov? (My climate change example above.) Or you can print a sample which reflects the percentages, which is what ChessBase did.

It's not ChessBase's fault that a huge majority sided with Kramnik in the situation and they shouldn't be accused of favoritism when the reader feedback reflects it. Giving a totally false impression of equality in the matter by printing 100% of the letters in favor of Topalov and 5% of those for Kramnik would be unfair to the readers and true favoritism toward Topalov.

Reflecting their readers' opinions is very different from having an editorial voice. Unless you can suggest a better way for ChessBase to handle how they choose to print reader letters, charging them with taking sides is unfair.

Mig, who are we trying to fool?

We all know the business deals of Kramnik with Chessbase. And we all know how easy it is for a major website to provoke "letters of support".

They perform very well as a business and their website is of course dedicated to protect their own (and Kramnik's) interests.

Heh, provoke letters of support. Comedy gold. You can write, why can't you read? People aren't sheep and they aren't idiots. Look around. Even Topalov's supporters realize his accusations were malicious and absurd. There are a handful of loud conspiracy theorists babbling about Kramnik cheating - despite all evidence to the contrary. And no matter what you think of Kramnik's trips to the bathroom, it wasn't worth the appeals committee's decision or this mess.

Mig are you on something? Are you nervous lately?

Why should you go ballistic when I only stated the obvious, that Kramnik and Chessbase are engaged in business and their website is dedicated to protect their interests (obviously and naturally).

Topalov had every right to request a 100% secure environment for him to concentrate on chess. To my eyes his appeal was his right and even more so when he is playing in Russia. The poor judgement of Kramnik's manager is to blame for the lost point, not Topalov.

Open your eyes and look around.

Correlation isn't causation, Giannis. I can see that very clearly. It's a concept you should examine. That ChessBase and Kramnik have a match next month doesn't mean a large majority of fans didn't write in to support Kramnik. Nor does it mean ChessBase was wrong to publish a cross-section of those letters. In fact, the two things can both be true (and are) and be completely unrelated. Your need to combine them is the bias.

If Chessbase had an anti-Topalov bias, wouldn't you expect it to pop out here and there in the months leading up to the WCC match?

But there's not the slightest hint of it.

In fact, as a card-carrying member of the KADL (Kramnik Anti-Defamation League), I had to write Chessbase asking them to STOP referring to Topalov as "World Champion." ["FIDE World Champion," please.]

And even then Chessbase kept writing about: "FIDE World Champion Topalov" and "World's #7 Kramnik."

I've no interest in reading stupid letters calling Topalov names. But I don't remember Chessbase publishing very many (any?) of these.

A few years ago scores of fans wrote in to criticize Kramnik for denying Kasparov a rematch. Chessbase published those letters. Even the moronic, name-calling anti-Kramnik letters.

Giannis, if legions of chess fans and GMs had been critical of Kramnik's team, wouldn't you be outraged if Chessbase failed to print them?

No, I wouldn't care. I have lost my respect for the Chessbase website a long time ago.

Giannis,

How long ago did you lose your respect for Chessbase? Can you recall the article or articles which caused you to lose this respect?

I think Chessbase has gotten better and better.

J.A. Topfke wrote about my post above. Here are the comments from Susan's blog http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2006/10/boris-spassky-recovers-from-stroke.html

Goran said...
Why did you have to attach product link??

Anonymous said...
Some blogger name Goran insulted you by accusing you of placing link in this post. Is it true?

SusanPolgar said...
It is unfortunate that some people insist on attacking or insulting me without provocation and without knowing the full facts. I have not seen this posting. Therefore, I cannot respond to it.

There was a link. It was meant to direct the readers to an nice excerpt about Spassky in my book. But for some reason, the link went to the wrong spot so I removed it.

Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
www.SusanPolgar.com

"without provocation and without knowing the full facts"
http://polgarchess.com/products/1220-1225.php was the "wrong spot". This is clearly product page. That link was a fact and it provoked my reaction.
If questioning her moral is insult, then yeah, I insulted..

I own the domain www.kramnik.net. I am interested in selling it for a very reasonable prize. Anyone interested please contact me at
robertobeaumont@yahoo.com or call me at 763-670-6076
Thank you