Kramnik-Topalov g12

Oh no. Well, I guess we have to live through this.

Good Morning, Mig. Almost 15 moves gone but better late than never

Looks like a tense game ahead despite the exchanges: black on the kingside, white on the queenside. Black has surely left it too late to defend against the minority attack, so it'll have to be counterplay.

Well, I wouldn't have managed to get up 7am (luckily I don't have to - it's 1pm over here...) So praises in any case!

lucky fellow.. it is 4:54 am here and now

anyone can give a computer evaluation of the current position?

Topalov should be able to do that. he he

Now THAT'S funny, stringTheory

b5 played...My patzer understanding of chess says that white has a more pleasant position

... and my patzer understanding of chess says that white may be better but it is much easier to play Black after Rac8...

"white may be better but it is much easier to play black" wins second prize for the most absurd chess-related thing ever been said after Danailov's toilet cheating appeal.
Congratulations.
:)

Hi.

I can not see the game. Who has the better position at the moment?

Kramnik might get into severe TP later on. he has 47 mins to complete 18 moves.

unclear, guest, to my eyes. Minority attack position with Topalov having played ...g5 and ...f5, and subtle manoeuvres occurring for and against ...f4.

I don't think Kramnik's in time trouble yet, especially as he really has no serious worries in this position. It's more accurate to say that Topalov, as usual, is playing very fast.

At this point, 43 minutes left to make 17 moves.

anyone has ideas about this move 24. ...g4? i am not a good chessplayer, but wasn't the idea of g5 to push the f-pawn? what s the idea of blacks play here? any potential initiative left for b?

I guess he still has another g-pawn!

..g4 cements the e4 knight, I suppose. And stops any undermining ideas with g4 (which some engines were calling for, I hear).

Not that rare, junior. One side has a slightly better position, but no obvious way to capitalize on it. The other might not have the advantage but has no problems to deal with and can quietly develop, make moves, waiting for opponent to overreach or make a mistake. Kramnik is notorious for being on the other side of, and playing very well in such positions.

Live Game-Relay + WM-Chat on www.deep-chess.de

After move 25 for White, Kramnik has 40 minutes to make 15 moves. No sweat.

White's position HAS to be easier to play, now that Topalov has played g4. I guess Black will have to advance his other g-pawn to g5 now, if he has time. But that will only expose his King further, which will have to be a concern at some point.

I would think that White can seriously consider giving up his B for the Ne4 just to solidify the pawn structure, but then I'm only an 1800 player, so what do I know?

And stringTheory, I think you meant to say that Kramnik's toilet could give a comp eval.

Does Potalov have any winning chances here? H2 seems to be his only target here. Looking at the clock, Kramnik is propably sitting in the toilet.

After 24 ... g4 Topalov followed up with 25 ... Rh6. The g4 pawn is supposed to lock the White h-pawn on h2. But White can still play Bxe4 and h4 at some point. If Black plays gxh3 en passant, White's King will find a cozy square on h2.

Meanwhile White is about to completely over-run Black's queen-side. Kramnik now has to make 14 moves in 38 minutes, so it really doesn't look like time trouble, unless compared to Topalov's 64 minutes.

After 24 ... g4 Topalov followed up with 25 ... Rh6. The g4 pawn is supposed to lock the White h-pawn on h2. But White can still play Bxe4 and h4 at some point. If Black plays gxh3 en passant, White's King will find a cozy square on h2.

Meanwhile White is about to completely over-run Black's queen-side. Kramnik now has to make 14 moves in 38 minutes, so it really doesn't look like time trouble, unless compared to Topalov's 64 minutes.

"Potalov" good one!

Kramnik is ripping out the moves fast now. After 28 Qa3 it looks like he can either force the exhange of Queens or win the a-pawn. It looks like we're in for a LONG endgame, and I would think that Kramnik now has all the chances. Does anybody have access to a titled player's opinion? Blogger is down at the moment, so I can't even see S. Polgar's analysis.

I cann't see Susan's analysis,too.

Well, you can have access to mine. I've got no idea. HTH.

(actually they're quite optimistic about White at e3e5.com, but then they're generally quite enthusiastic about Kramnik's positions).

Sometimes I wonder whether watching would be more exciting, or less, if one knew the first thing about the game. Perhaps about the same - wonderfuly democratic if so.

28 ... Rb7 played. Kramnik will probably think a little bit over this one. Rxb7 looks like a dog, so I imagine Kramnik is trying to decide between Qf8 and Rb1.

Come one guys, who else has some ideas?

Is there a free website that shows the moves "live" or with minimal delay? I've been watching on the chessbase site but there is a long lag before they update their site.

Topalov and Danailov caught viruses on Wednesday: http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=71062

http://worldchess2006.com/main.asp?id=1117, Guido

Kramnik choose 29 Qf8. 29 ... Rxb8 30 Qxb8 followed quickly. According to the official site Kramnik has 30 minutes to make ten moves. Topalov is running out of pieces to stage an attack. Perhaps 30 ... Nd2 with the idea of 31 ... Nf3+ 32 Bxf3 gxf3 will give him some hope of exploiting Kramnik's weak back rank. I just don't see how he will have enough material, though, after 33 h4. I don't think Topalov can play g5 immediately because the White Q can just hop back to f4.

Thanks rdh

http://www.worldchess2006.com/main.asp?id=1117
live game here

Some comp evaluation please? If a titled players opinion is not availiable ofcourse..

Black can play his knight to c4, which practically forces Rxc4 or Black just play Qg6 and Rxh2 with a better position. With bishop + 2 vs rook and weak light squares for black it looks like that would be about equal. Many repetition possibilities for both sides.

34 Bf1 equal Rybka, Mig, they tell me.

It's fun watching these two play. They're completely destroying any ideas I've got, lol.

33 ... Nc4 played. Kramnik has 25 minutes for 7 moves, so he's far removed from any time pressure. I think he'll play 34 h4 gxh3 en passant 35 Bh1. That should kill Black's attack, and he can concentrate on getting his Rc1 into the action. In riskier fashion, he could play 34 Rxc4, sacking the exchange for a pawn (after the White h-pawn and both Balck c-pawns fall), but that has to be too risky.

thx

Ah, I was a few moves back it seems, looking at a line with Ke2, when Be1 doesn't make much sense!

Mig, I've always wondered what is your ratitig/playing strength. I guess you mainly just have time to dominate the chess web world. Good job.

Duh, I completely missed Bf1. But that's why I'm a lousy 1800 instead of a good 2700 player.

34.... Qxh2? 35.Qxf5+ Kh8 36.Qf8+ Kh7 37.Bd3+

New around here, Guido?!

This is still looking very drawish. White can't give up the bishop without getting perped. The queen takes on h2 and then cuts across to a1.

Yes rdh, I only come out for World Toilet Chess Championships.

Meanwhile, playing for a win with 35.Rb1 is risky because of Nd6 followed by ..Qxh2 and White's perpetuals evaporate because the knight is covering e8. Black is then threatening breakthroughs with ..f4 and ..c5 with demolition.

Well, so much for "clash of styles", looks to me as if Topalov plays like Kramnik and vice versa, not just in the opening with reverse colors, but also in the middle game. Pretty exciting middle game, though

Yah, he swapped on c4. Now White has to be careful. Black has several tactical options hidden in here. ..c5 to clear the rank for the rook to come over and attack via b6, for example. And ..f4 - ..g3 to break though and create open lines, usually while keeping the perpetual in hand. Still, I don't see Kramnik falling into any of it as long as he has more than a minute per move.

35.Rxc4 dxc4 36.Bxc4 Qxh2 37.Qg8+ Kg6 38.Qe8+ Kg5 - only move - looked interesting, but 35.Bxc4 dxc4 36.Rxc4 Qxh2 37.Rc5 is played - looks VERY drawish to me, with a small edge for white because of pawn structure - but perpetuals are all around, aren't they?

"Danailov contracted a skin rash" Well, I hope the skin rash stays with him for life, it caused him to quiet down a little and therefore makes him a better human being

Congratulation, Vladimir!

40...Rh6...doesn't that win??

40..Rh6 41.Qd3= only move to draw but easy to find.

Eval at move 40?

Maybe not...40...Rh6 41. Qd3! Rh1+ 42. Kg2 Qa1 43. Qxf5

38..f4 is even playable immediately, but obviously quite risky for Black and White can perp at will. ..Qb1 looks like the safest bet.

Well, after 40. Qd3, maybe 40...g6 first?!

My God, blogger is useless! Not only is it impossible to access Susan Polgar's commentary, but when you go to the relevant post in Firefox, you get to the blog of Latif Bolat, a Turkish folkloristic singer. Last week she had to share URL with a transvestite and his mildly digusting photos for the better part of a day.

After looking at the position for only a few seconds, it seems that 40. ... Rh6 is answered by 41. Qd3. If then 41. ... Rh1+ 42. Kg2 Qa8 43. Qxf5+ Unfortunately, at the office there is little time for more complete analysis.

Now after 41.Ke2 Topalov can continue to play for an error with 41..Qe4, threatening ..Rh6 and ..Rh2. White has to keep finding moves, although they don't seem that hard. 42.Qd3 looks sufficient, although even then Black can keep the queens on the board with 42.Qf3+, although with the pressure against f5 it's hard for black to get his rook into the attack. ..g6 or ..Kg6 would block its access to the h-file.

I don't have any moves past 36. What's happening?

Only try left now is 42..Rh6.

so, if 42. Rh6, 43. Qd3 g6!? what for white...

Ah, the Polgar site is up again, and the misdirect in Firefox seems to be history. Now, if only FIDE's live feed would work properly...

44 Qc2, perhaps?

42..Rh6 43.Qd3 g6 44.Qc4/Qb3 (44.Qb3 a tad simpler, I guess.)

Maybe then Qc2?

43.Qd3 is forced; White must have the threat of Qxf5+ or he's dead. If ..g6 Qc4! and the queen infiltration saves the game for white. Actually Qb3 is even more forcing.

I guess we are in for a draw unless someone screws up. Yay for an extra day of fun and games!

Good call acirce.

Well, assuming this game ends in a draw, it looks like FIDE requires:

for Kramnik to be awarded the title, he must win over the board BOTH regular and rapid games

for Topalov to be awarded the title, he must win over the board the rapid games only, his over the board loss of the regular games does not count

Game drawn! Tie-breaks tomorrow.

Do tiebreak games start at the same time as the ordinary games?

The FIDE site has been totally constipated for five minutes now. Arrghh. I get flashbacks to the cup almost a year ago.

Draw!

Well that's it isn't it? Though I'm a Topalov fan, surely the title is Kramnik's (6-5). Topalov may win the tie-breaks, but that would have as much validity as any of the recent FIDE World Champion titles (excepting San Luis).

Does anyone else have a strong suspicion that Kramnik will lose the tie-breaks and much litigation and argument lies ahead?

Draw agreed. It looked drawish from the very beginning. Both sides had some traps to be wary of, but neither player fell for the bait.

This last game 12 is looking like a draw (after 43. Qa6d3), leaving the point score tied 6:6 for the match.

- - - - Is This Really the LTC Chess Championship Match? - - - -

Any long time control WCChampionship match that is won by playing a game of Rapid or Blitz is, by definition, not genuinely a long time control WCChampionship match.

If Blitz is used to determine the winner of this Kramnik-Topalov match, then the title being won would be more accurately described as the Chess & Blitz World Championship, as an objective matter of plain fact.

Blitz already has its own events and champions. How sad that Blitz has been allowed to infect proper long time control chess, even the most important long time control event in all of chess. Not only infect it, but be the game that determines the winner!

If the match is tied after the regulation 12 games, the two players should keep playing long time control games until the next decisive game creates a match winner.

Oh but the problem is that, under the current rules of chess, draws are so frequent that the match may well run on way too long. Exacerbating the problem is that White has such a large unfair advantage that additional games must be added in pairs.

If the dual problems of (A) high draw rate and (B) unfair White advantage are so severe that long time control chess needs to be supplanted in its own title match by Blitz, then those two problems are indeed severe.
We can fix or reduce those two problems by improving the rules of chess, so we should fix them.

Or we can let Blitz continue to decide who is the long time control chess champion of the world: lame.
There is good reason why Blitz has never before been allowed to determine the winner in any other classical match World Chess Championship match (not that giving draw odds is any better).

Gene Milener
http://CastleLong.com/

Since it appears that Topalov still continues to refuse to play game 5 on the chessboard alls we can say is:
CONGRATULATIONS TO KRAMNIK FOR WINNING THIS MATCH 6 TO 5!

I think Kramnik took doping during the game, that the reasonable answer why he trip too often to the toilet. And because of FIDE now under auspice IOC, so Kramnik's urine must be check it.

Lets just hope Kramnik wins the rapids and we have an agreed world champion.........

Stuart: Yeah. Thus the 13-year dream of unification may effectively end on Friday the 13th.

Kramnik should arrive to the board tomorrow, sit down on the White side and play 1.d4, start the clock... and if Topalov refuses to play declare himself the winner by forfeit after an hour has went. 7-5!

So if you decide to turn one of the greatest titles in competitive human events over to a corrupt organization, then have it screw you over and then decide that you don't like the way they are screwing you and take them to court, is there still one of the greatest titles in competitive human events to care about?

Kramnik shows up tomorrow, starts the clock and claims himself the winner, when Topalov doesn't play Game 5 over. Topalov declares himself the winner when Kramnik doesn't show up for tiebreaks. Both men claim half a million dollars and retain claim to the title of world champion.

Well, instead of rapids and blitz, FIDE could just declare Kramnik and Topalov co-champions. (And Leko too, while they're at it.) That would at least create an excuse to invite both to the next WC tournament.

Speaking as someone who was disgusted by Topalov's team's tactics and was hoping that Kramnik would win the match without tiebreaks being necessary, I don't think Kramnik can claim that he has won the match 6-5. He's not claiming that the 5th game shouldn't count, but that it should be replayed. If it is replayed, there's a chance that Topalov would win it and tie the match 6-6. So by his own logic the match has not ended with a Kramnik victory.

Both guys got something good out of this game. Topalov didn't implode, and he actually had a mild winning chance if Kramnik had not played accurately. Kramnik can now say he was +1 in the games actually played.

"If the match is tied after the regulation 12 games, the two players should keep playing long time control games until the next decisive game creates a match winner."

No one in his right mind would ever agree to that, as it gives too big of an advantage to whichever player has the first White. You need rapid tie-breaks, or a "first to win N games" rule. After Karpov-Kasparov, I don't think we'll see the latter ever again.

I also think the quaint tradition of draw odds to the reigning champion should finally be buried. Every other sport settles it on the field somehow. And as in every sport, overtime rules are not ideal, but you need a mechanism to end it in a reasonable amount of time.

Obviously, because of the forfeit, most people won't take Topalov fully seriously should he win tomorrow. Kramnik, in a sense, has nothing to lose. But I wouldn't bet against Kramnik. He has played a higher percentage of accurate moves than Topalov.

Kramnik was the real world champion before the match and he proved it again. Topalov played well - almost as well as Leko in Brissago. I don't care if Kramnik blows Topalov off the board in rapids.(or vice versa) I do not believe they have any relevance to this competition. The only way they would is if Topalov agrees to play game five over the board and beats Kramnik to truly tie the score. Otherwise this match is OVER as far as I'm concerned.

I do hope Topalov agrees to play game five over the board. (despite the fact that this gives him the only legitimate way to beat one of my favorite chess players.) But given his conduct I doubt he will.

Congratulations to Mr. Kramnik for drawing a match with The World Champion.
But his chances in the rapid play-offs are slim. Especially if he do not change his toilet visitation pattern. He will be out of time on move 15 :))).

Nonsense, Marc, boxing champions retain their title on a draw.

I make it a million to one against Topalov agreeing to play game five. He was a see-you-next-Tuesday last week and he's still one now.

Game 5 hasn't been played, so it doesn't need to be re-played. The game is yet to be played.

Any bets on who will win the tiebreaks? It seems to me that Topalov's style is better suited to blitz, but that Kramnik has a better record in the format.

And after all, Karpov, with a style comparable to Kramnik's, did excel at blitz.

You know I'm really getting a feeling in my bones that this is going down to the armageddon game.

If they follow the same time schedule as orinally then the games should start at the same time as all the others.

Regulations:

If the scores are level after the regular twelve (12) games, after a new drawing of colours, four (4) tie-break games shall be played. The games shall be played using the electronic clock starting with 25 minutes on the clock for each player with an addition of 10 seconds after each move.

If the scores are level after the games in paragraph 3. 7. 1, then, after a new drawing of colours, two (2) five-minute games shall be played with the addition of 10 seconds after each move.

If the score is still level, the players shall play a single decisive sudden death game. The player, who wins the drawing of lots, may choose the colour. White shall receive 6 minutes, black shall receive 5 minutes, without any addition. In case of a draw the player with the black pieces is declared as winner.

I also watch WWE Wrestling and I have to say, the parallels and drama are scarily similar. Anybody else share that opinion?

Mig,
you mention, as an unlikely case, that Topalov might "decide" to play game 5. So, is it really the case that it is UP TO TOPALOV to decide whether this game will be played or not? Normally one would think that this is a decision which can only be taken by the arbiter - or, in this case, by the new Appeal's Comittee, or by Kirsan, or whoever. Not by the players, anyway, but by someone who applies the rules of the match, or the rules of chess. Is this case an exception?

That can't be right, Mark C. White receives 6 minutes and black receives 5? Surely it's the other way around?

Congratulations to Vladimir Kramnik of defending the title!

As for the so called tiebreaks,
the following links are interesting. These are unofficial rapid and blitz performance ratings calculated by Stefan Fischl:

Performance in rapid games 2000-2006 (up to 03/09/2006):
http://members.aon.at/sfischl/rapid.txt

Performance in blitz games 2000-2005:
http://members.aon.at/sfischl/blitz.txt

As these ratings show, just because Kramnik plays slower in classical games, doesn't mean he is inferior in rapid or blitz.

Nope black gets less time but draw odd.

Do they play the openings they have been playing or junk like 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 especially in the blitz?

I think 2 clear wins for Topa in Rapid Chess.

Reason:
-Time will play more a role, here Topa is actually better,
-the opening will play more a role, here Topa actually better
- agressive but inaccurate play is more suited to low time controls, and Topa better in agressive chess

Dan - I think Kramnik can claim the win on the assumption that Topalov is (presumably) refusing to play Game 5 over the board.

Mig - I don't agree that Topalov has nothing to gain by playing Game 5. The only way most chess players will currently accept him as undisputed World Champion would be for him to play Game 5, win it to level the match and win the tie-breaks (which though somewhat unsatisfactory was always anticipated as being the way to resolve a drawn match). Otherwise, Topalov goes into the tie-breaks risking either losing to Kramnik or winning a hollow victory. That said, with all the confusion in recent years, there's sadly something to be said for having any claim on a title and Topalov would still have that by winning the tie-breaks (especially in the eyes of FIDE).

when are the tiebreak games? tomorrow or is there a rest day.
Sirocco the idea is to put the onus on White to win. A draw in the game is actually a loss in terms of the match, hence the extra minute to even it up a bit. Top players usually choose Black given the choice.

Yeah, indeed, Kramnik has already won the classical part of the match 6-5 over the board and can truly call himself the old and new Classical Chess Champion of the World, with recognition of least 95% of public opinion.

Topalov could still win the rapid part of the match, though, and would then be the Rapid Chess Champion of the World.

But I guess, the real reason why Kramnik wants to play the rapid games, is that he also wants to win the title of Rapid Chess Champion of the World.

Now, that's a truly unified title! Vladimir Kramnik, Classical and Rapid Chess Champion of the World!

Go, Kramnik, go!

Gooo topa:)
Tomorrow is your day!

>>
Speaking as someone who was disgusted by Topalov's team's tactics and was hoping that Kramnik would win the match without tiebreaks being necessary, I don't think Kramnik can claim that he has won the match 6-5. He's not claiming that the 5th game shouldn't count, but that it should be replayed. If it is replayed, there's a chance that Topalov would win it and tie the match 6-6. So by his own logic the match has not ended with a Kramnik victory
>>

I totally agree with what Dan posted (I posted something similar in the ChessNinja messageboard). Even by Kramnik's argument, he hasn't won it yet and hence needs to turn up for the tie-breaks. What would be preferable would be to have game 5 replayed first - thought it is clear that Topalov/Danailov won't agree to that.

Kapalik

Marc,

Whichever player has the first white would only get a small advantage: the chances of getting a win with white in one given game are not really that high, especially when countered by probability of loss with white. And after one game, the advantage is turned over to the other opponent.

There really isn't a way of setting up a tiebreak without giving somebody the white first.

A true Topa fan here, with all my heart I support him against the Russian comunistic authoritarian machine behind Kramnik.
Go Topa gooo!!!!!! Classical and rapid chess champion tomorrow!!!!!

What are the rating changes?

Of course game 5 was played, and legally so. Kramnik was a few meters away watching his flag fall. The forfeit stemmed from provocations by Topalov's camp and a poor decision by the appeals committee, but they had the authority to do what they did. Kramnik should have played. Under protest, sure, but you have to play. Later, Topalov should have had an attack of conscience and agreed to play at 3:1. But he was under no obligation to do so. That includes no moral obligation since he obviously feels his protest was valid - and that he wasn't responsible for the decision of the appeals committee.

A forfeit is part of a process. It doesn't really matter HOW right or wrong the decision was the player was protesting. Too many cameras in the hall, for example. Had Fischer walked away at 0-2 since they wouldn't give the forfeited point back, would he have been a big martyr hero like Kramnik is now? No, because most people felt his complaints were trivial (and typical).

That many here apparently feel Kramnik being locked out his bathroom was a far more serious affront than noise in the hall and the other playing conditions Fischer complained about, they say he was justified in not playing chess that day. I disagree. Not about judging the seriousness of the complaint or the decision, but about the player's responsibility to accept these things and to show up to the board. The Topalov complaint was lame, the decision incorrect (and overturned), but neither was an outrage to human dignity. Not playing cannot become an acceptable option.

Kramnik is a principled guy and it worked to his disadvantage here. He didn't want to give Topalov a psychological advantage by playing under terms dictated by his complaint and it cost him a full point. And/or he was convinced Ilyumzhinov and Zhukov would come to his rescue and give the point back.

Very well said Mig, respect!

I too am interested in the rating changes. In fact, the rating changes are probably the only thing that everybody accepts and will hsve no associated controversy.

I completely agree with Mig and Mark Crowther on this point. HE. SHOULD. HAVE. PLAYED.

Sirocco, Mark is right, White gets the time odds not Black, because BLACK IS GETTING DRAW ODDS. Literally: read Mark's / FIDE's final sentence. ("In case of a draw the player with black pieces is declared as winner.")

This is actually a widely used procedure in the US, down to even amateur-level tournaments. The 6-5 time odds vs Black-gets-draw-odds formula was used at first, but after a couple years experience it came clear that strong players were always choosing Black in this set-up (presumably with success, else the pattern would have changed -- just as finance pros say when they try to justify equating "expected returns" on an investment with historical long-term returns). So the organizers in the US boosted White's time-odds to 7-to-5, aiming to better offset Black's draw-odds advantage.

Mig - fair points but the World Chess Champion is supposed to be exactly that. It's just not the behaviour of such a title holder to need the help of free and unjustified points to prove he is the best. Can you imagine Kasparov or Fischer claiming the title solely because they got a free point? On that basis, I'm confident I could draw a 2-game match with Kramnik if I offended him and he didn't turn up to play the second game. I don't think anyone would think I had a claim at being the World Champion (or even as good as him) though!

After more than a century of being spoilt with execeptional World Champions, the chess community will now only accept a World Chess Champion who plays and acts like a champion.

Kramnik did what he had to do. Not playing cannot become an acceptable option, but neither can corruption.

"Nonsense, Marc, boxing champions retain their title on a draw."

I actually had that in the back of my mind. Given what a farce boxing is, I thought no one would have the chutzpah to suggest it as an example chess should emulate.

"But game 5 was played, and legally so."

Ummmm, that's actually a debatable point, Mig.

Since FIDE's actions after game 5 indicate that FIDE itself is aware that they tried to unilaterally alter the contractual obligations of FIDE to the players, and thus can be construed as an admission of blame, it is not at all clear that the game was played "legally."

If this were a US based event then I'd actually give Kramnik about a 75% chance of prevailing in a legal battle. FIDE's backpedalling after the game 5 fiasco hurt their case a great deal.

I am not sure in what jurisdiction Kramnik can file his legal case, or what laws apply to the contracts signed. But in more than a few legal venues, Kramnik would have a very good chance of prevailing in making the claim that game 5 was not legally played.

d and Jon,

Yup, I got it with Mark's 11:36 post... Obviously, I shouldn't have skimmed his 11:29.

Mig, I think your comments miss the point that the match is played according to a legally binding contract. Kramnik was under no obligation to fulfill his responsibilities if FIDE failed to meet theirs. Of course, none of this has been legally tested yet but I think it is premature to say the forfeit decision was valid (and the court may well be entitled to take both the unreasonableness of topa's complaint and the appeal board's decision into account).

Yuriy, if what you were saying as true, there would be real matches resolved that way. There aren't, and it's for a reason.

So, contrary to what I believed until yesterday's Hensel anouncement, the tiebreaks will be played. But, effectively, we are still in the same situation.

Only if Kramnik wins the tiebreaks will there be an undisputed champion.

Otherwise FIDE (aided by 'Potalov')will have succeeded in ruining the unification process. This should not come as a big surprise, but it's frustrating to see them display, month after month, their glaring incompetence.

Oh well...whatever, if Kramnik wins tomorrow, and I think he does, it's all moot.

But as a bad omen, it's Friday 13th!

DWagle, it is a de facto situation because under the conditions that were then in effect as applied by the match officials, the clock was started. That's the point. The players have an obligation to play, not say, "There may or may not be legal issues we may eventually discover, so I'm going to sit out until a bunch of lawyers decide." This is why we have match officials and appeals committees.

You have to play at some point, it's a sports event. You can't break for a few days to figure out technicalities any more than a football game would be halted for a few hours while the teams' lawyers consulted with a judge about whether or not an on-the-field decision was legally correct. We do the best we can in action to find the best balance of expediency and accuracy and we live with those decisions. Some sports using instant replay we can see sacrificing expediency for more accuracy, for example.

So, you play. You protest and you play, and then the lawyers can get to work on it. But you always play because that point ain't comin' back.

When a choice is made, you start down a certain path. If the scenario beginning the path that led to Kramnik getting forfeitted was completely illegal, isn't it possible to go back and totally nullify that path (from start to forfeit)? That's what I think should happen.

Mig
You can decide who is champion based on who has the better lawyers and more pull with the appeals commitee. Others will base it on who wins more games in a World championship match.

No Kramnik did not play game five. I notice you contradict yourself here. "Of course game five was played..." And then you say "Kramnik should have played" Well which is it? Did he play or not? If Kramnik didn't play game five (which he obviously didn't) but "...game five was played..." Who did Topalov beat? Hensel? Or maybe it was Danilov that beat Hensel? This is your test to determine the World champion?

Ultimately they played this match to see who could play the best classical chess as decided by who wins more classical chess games. So far Kramnik did that. If Topalvo refuses to play all the classical chess games then 6-5 is where we are left.

Even I (a lawyer myself) refuse to beleive Topalov, or Kramnik, is a better *chess player* based on who has lawyers that are more persuasive to a judge. You (or I or even Kramnik now) may not have liked Kramnik's decision not to play game five under different conditions than agreed to. However you can in no way say this reflects his *chess ability.* To decide who is better at classical chess I have to go on the results of classical chess games. Right now its Kramnik 6 Topalov 5.

If they play game 12(or game 5 whichever you wnat to call it) then Topalov can tie the match and bring in the agreed upon tiebreaks. Otherwise its over.

Fischer was a different circumstance on many levels. We both know it so why even bring it up unless your jsut grasping at straws.

"but they had the authority to do what they did."
Mig, this your statment is not right. They had no power to accept the protest of Topalov's team (the protesta should be submitted after 2 hours after the game)

What does it mean: "Under protest, sure, but you have to play."? After signing the scoresheet no way to protest the result. This is written in the FIDE handbook.

Mig -- I don't disagree with your point but with your wording. But a de facto valid result (which I agree we have) is not the same as a game being legally valid.

The former is what happens when the arbiter signs the results form. The latter is what happens when an appropriate legal authority reviews whatever legal complaints have been raised.

The reason I say that I give Kramnik only a 75% chance were this in a US court is that the de facto result does carry some legal weight.

Frankly, I think Kramnik erred, not when he refused to play game 5, but when he agreed to play game 6 with the forfeit standing. At that point he should have walked away from the match and taken it to the courts.

My guess as to why he didn't is that the legal venue of choice for FIDE is probably in Kirsan's living room . . .

KRAMNIK 6
TOPALOV 5
FIDE 1

Congratulations to Kramnik, who has not only succeeded in defending the title by defeating Topalov, but has also beat FIDE!

In the words of Borat "Topalov is a CHEAT, and I crush him!"

I think we can soon see appeals scandal on the official or topalov's site again... the one of kramnik is sooo slow

Oh cut it out. Sorry if you can't figure out what I meant by "Kramnik should have played." I'll spell it out. He should have moved the chess pieces instead of sitting in his rest area. Clear enough? Legally, of course it was played. Look at the score. Topalov won. This isn't that difficult.

People can believe whatever they want. I'm not interested in trying to convince anyone Topalov won game 5 in a fair and honest way. I don't think he was evil for taking the point either, but obviously I feel he should have agreed to start at 3:1 or I wouldn't have started a petition saying so. I'm just taking issue with this concept that Kramnik is a hero for not showing up that day, or that he is the winner now at 6:5. We all know he won more games over the board. We know the complaint and decision were to some degree malicious and erroneous. But that's not the same as saying Kramnik should have sat out or that the forfeit (not the complaint, not the decision) was not correct. He didn't show up, he had to be forfeited.

Mig, I can't understand your - supposedly "legal" - logic.

Firstly, are you a lawyer?? Do you know the contract?? Do you even know what country / legal system is the agreed reference of said contract??

Secondly, what could Kramnik have hoped of his appeal if he had showed up and lost Game 5?? Reopening of his private toilet for Game 6? It was a no-win situation, produced by Danailov's (remember him?) dirty psycho warfare and the AC's incompetent/biased decision.

Mig, It is not a de facto situation if the clock was started under conditions which breached Kramnik's contract. To expand on my previous point: the court will have to consider 2 questions: was kramnik's contract breached and, if so, were FIDE reasonable to expect him to play? The test of reasonableness here could involve considering whether playing under those conditions caused Kramnik a material disadvantage. Kramnik could certainly cite the psychological aspect as well as any personal need he had for a private toilet. Of course, we don't know the exact terms of the contract but the burden is on FIDE to prove their decision to start the clock was legal, not on Kramnik to justify his decision not to play.

This wasn't a missed call. This was corruption, or at least utter incompetence, at the organizational level, and was basically acknowledged by FIDE by their firing of the responsible parties. The game was played, and Kramnik lost. But if he had played, the corruption would have continued. Kramnik looses a point yes, but he did what he had to do to even the playing field. Now the proper authorities need to deal with the corruption.

Mig is simply citing a well known rule not just in chess, but in all sports, that if the official decision goes against you, you must keep playing, even if the decision is wrong. You protest later.

Since the forfeited Game 5, Kramnik has been "playing under protest." He could have done that, but actually sat down at the board and moved the pieces. His result by doing that couldn't possibly have been any *worse* than it turned out, and it might have been better --- i.e., he might have won or drawn the game, instead of Topalov "winning" it with zero effort.

The appropriate authority DID review it; that was the appeals committee. They were the law of the land up until the point they were dismissed by the FIDE president. As the next committee correctly pointed out, they don't have the power to overturn the results of the decisions of the previous committee. The FIDE president can, and did, overturn their ruling on the bathroom, but he did not do this until after Kramnik lost game 5 by forfeit (and then failed to file a protest in time!).

“You know I’m really getting a feeling in my bones that this is going down to the armageddon game”

Mark C, you may well be correct, because FIDE will find a way to forfeit a rapid game for Kramnik to replenish, then FIDE will find a way to forfeit a blitz game for Kramnik to replenish. Perhaps FIDE will then find a way to forfeit the armageddon game too?

I have never seen a football game start when the other team doesn't take the field because they are alleging agreeemnts have not been followed. Lets say the teams have a mix up as to whether its a home or away game. Would both teams start kicking off recovering the ball and runnign for touchdowns for the full 60 minutes? after all that way lawyers and judges might later award them the win and they can thereby take home the Football championship trophy? No, of course not, becasue that would be silly and infantile and certainly no proof they are deservign of the title "world football champion".

In every sport they get this stuff straightened out and then start the game. Thats what FIDE, Topalov and Kramnik, should have done. This whole starting the clocks business is nonesense even beyond the fact aht it violates the clear rules of the game. Would Kramnik be able to concentrate or would the aggravation of the Blatant rules violation cost him concentration and the game.

Well, the lawyers seem to disagree with Mig on the legal aspects of game 5. Myself I don't know. I think what everyone should agree on is that none of us actually knows anything for sure because we haven't seen the match contract(s). You can't just say that anything the arbiters and appeals committees do is legal or they could force Kramnik to play with knight odds next.

It is all very well now - a posteriori - to say that Kramnik should have played Game 5 under protest. We know what the score after 11 games is. We didn't at the time.

There's been a fair amount of 'Kramnik, should he lose, will sue FIDE' and so on.

Um, exactly what court would take this on, jurisdiction-wise? And assuming this hypothetical court handed down a judgment, why would FIDE accept the decision? Exactly what sanctions can this theoretical court levy against FIDE for refusing to abide by its decision?

And besides, gaining a title via legal action, or even through disqualification, never quite tastes and feels the same as *actual* victory--look at Oscar Pereiro...assuming that does happen.

In summary, no matter how silly it may seem to have the World Championship being decided by rapid and blitz games, tomorrow will indeed for all the marbles of pseudo-legitimacy. Granted, if the winner then promptly does poorly at a series of high-profile tournaments...

"Legally, of course it was played."

Gah .. NO, Mig, that's the point!

We don't KNOW if this was played LEGALLY.

From where I sit, not having seen the full contract but only excerpts, here's what I _KNOW_:

The conditions of the match seem to have been unilaterally altered by FIDE for game 5.

Legal question: did they have the authority to do that?

FIDE, after game 5, issued several major "mea culpas" they restated use of the toliets, they fired the appeals committee, etc.

Legal question: is this an admission of fault?

Etc.

The point is, it is a court, not FIDE, that decides questions of legallity.

The game was not "played," but a result was entered based on FIDE's decission. The legal question is if FIDE did in fact have that authority or not.

From what we know, there is ample reason to suspect they did not have that authority. IF they didn't have the authority, then the game result isn't "legal."

I have never seen a football game start when the other team doesn't take the field because they are alleging agreeemnts have not been followed. Lets say the teams have a mix up as to whether its a home or away game. Would both teams start kicking off and recovering the ball and runnign for touchdowns for the full 60 minutes? after all that way lawyers and judges might later award them the win and they can thereby take home the Football championship trophy? No, of course not, becasue that would be silly and infantile and certainly no proof they are deservign of the title "world football champion".

In every sport they get this stuff straightened out and then start the game. Thats what FIDE, Topalov and Kramnik, should have done. This whole starting the clocks business is nonesense even beyond the fact aht it violates the clear rules of the game. Would Kramnik be able to concentrate or would the aggravation of the Blatant rules violation cost him concentration and the game.

Actually, we don't need to see the match contracts to know the forfeit was valid. Kramnik didn't show up at the board. The arbiter had no choice but to start the clock and then forfeit him. You guys, lawyers included, are arguing the wrong thing. The validity of the forfeit has nothing to do with the correctness of the appeals committee's decision.

You are arguing that the match rules were violated (may have been violated) by that decision while I'm saying those rules weren't violated *by the forfeit*. Had Kramnik protested the forfeit he might have had a chance. Had he played under protest he would have more of a chance (assuming in both cases demonstrable legal violations did occur). By not playing and then not protesting, he removed himself from reasonable avenues of legal defense regarding the result of game five.

I disagree with the assertion that game 5 was legally played. That’s exactly the issue to be decided in a court battle Kramnik vs FIDE. If the court finds that FIDE has breached the contract, then the clock was illegally started, and game 5 has NOT been played in a legal sense.

And since previous posters have mixed the legal issue with non-legal issues, I do that too and say: no matter what the outcome of the legal battle, in at least 95% of public opinion,

Kramnik has already won the classical part of the match 6-5 over the board! He is the old and new Classical Chess Champion of the World!

Congratulations, Vladimir!

Mig,

Great summary. I couldn't have stated it better myself. Topalov's behavior was unsportsmanlike, but Kramnik should have played game 5. The only reason he should replay game 5 is if he wants to win back the chess fans that he has lost from his unethical behavior, but that point is legitimately his. Kramnik can sue, but he'll lose. It's 6-6 with tiebreakers to come. If Kramnik loses the tiebreak, I don't agree that 95% of the chess fans will support Kramnik. He should have played game 5 and then all of this argment would be moot.

cynical asks 'Um, exactly what court would take this on, jurisdiction-wise? And assuming this hypothetical court handed down a judgment, why would FIDE accept the decision? Exactly what sanctions can this theoretical court levy against FIDE for refusing to abide by its decision?'

Kramnik would be suing FIDE for breach of contract. All contracts of this kind are legally enforcable. It is not usually a condition of sporting contracts that all refereeing decisions should be correct. However, it appears that the toilet arrangements were (conditions of contract). The court must allow the possibility of *remedy* - can the wrong be undone - as well as *compensation*. It is likley, that in the event of a favourable result for Kramnik, FIDE would be faced with a choice about whether to order game 5 to be replayed or pay, what would undoubtedly be considerable, compensation.

To: Mig,

You wrote: The Topalov complaint was lame, the appeals committee's decision incorrect (and overturned), but neither was an outrage to human dignity. Not playing cannot become an acceptable option.

I concur with you completely. I think you summed up things nicely!

It's a terrible bloody shame that the match will now be decided by speed chess. Of course the match has to go ahead now as agreed, but the terms were very bad from the start.

I could vaguely imagine an excuse for such a thing if they were playing in a convention hall in a major city that had another event scheduled for next week. But they are playing in "Chess City" in the special hall for chess matches. This made, and makes, no sense at all.

On a different note, I am puzzled by Kramnik's rook shuffling on moves 22 through 25, accomplishing in four moves what could have been done in two. I thought it looked computer-like, and someone on Polgar's blog said that these unintuitive moves matched computer suggestions.

Admit it Mig, you don't know your ass from your elbow here. You keep contradicting yourself, you keep pretending to know the legal basis of the question. The forfeit isn't doubted. The question is about the validity of the game 5. If there is no game 5, then there is no forfeit. Many Lawyers, including a 2400 rated guy from London have given their views that there is a strong basis for Kramnik's case here. You don't offer any concrete arguments, why you think, this wouldn't be the case.

So we can conclude, that it is again your pathological and irrational hatred of Vladimir Kramnik that is shining thru, or has Garry hi-jacked your keyboard again?

Kramnik sacrificed a point to obtain a fair and reasonable playing condition (the conditions he contracted to play under). It is unlikely playing "under protest" would have achieved the same outcome. Kramnik won't get the point back, but if Topolav "wins", Kramnik will still maintain some rights and fighting ability. Again, under the circumstances, rediculous as the toilet thing seems, I beilieve Kramnik did what he had to do to have a chance to win this match. He had to remove the corruption.

If Kramnik plays the rapids he agrees with 6:6. If he thinks he is the winner by 6:5 he does not need to play the tie-break.
So, playing the rapids does not make sense at all.

People have mentioned sports analogies with bad calls, but players do strike in sports when they feel mistreated..comparing this to a 'bad call' isn't quite analogous to the situation Kramnik was put under.
I don't agree with the idea that he should have played no matter what.

i think the point is not if the forfeit was legal or not.in any other sport, an AC wouldn't have taken such a demand into account. can you imagine an arbiter taking such a complaint seriously in the NBA finals?the whole world would laugh at it. the problem is not only in danailov's, what he did is not as strange(sadly). what is stunning is that the AC had accepted it.i think kramnik's was right by not playing because it would have been like acepting that they can do whatever. he may have played and won the game, but at the 6th game they would have thrown another thing. if you accept to play under that conditions you're already lost.it's not about having a private toilet, it's about not leaving them to do whatever they want to.
thanks

Forgot to mention that 6:5 is not a valid result. There's one game missing ;) The sum of points must be 12.

It is no use dismissing the views of lawywers when this is clearly a legal question. (No one seems to disagree about the ethical issues). Kramnik's decsion not to play will not be the subject of any court ruling. If anything, it strengthens his case because it makes clear he did not accept the changes to his conditions. I suspect he may have been well advised on this point.

For me the only thing that matters is who proved they are better at classical chess based on beating the other player at the game. My opinion as to who is deserving of the title of chess champion has to do with who proved themselves at the game of chess in a World chess championship match. It has nothing to do with lawyers, or managers and thier influence over Appeals committees.

Forcign changed the conditions of the match on Kramnik hours before a game was unfair and startign the clock was unfair. I do not need some Judge in switzerland to inform me on this point. The judge may get it wrong and he is entitled to his opinion. But I don't accept it. Anymore than I care what some judge in Switzerland would say about who was legally champion in 1994.

Mig:
Will you be waiting months or years with bated breath for the lawyers and judges to decide who you shoudl consider the true champion?

What rules of chess did starting the clocks violate? You are arguing about contracts we haven't even seen, for one, not the rules of chess. It was about bathroom access, something not found in the Laws of Chess last time I checked.

As the match regulations make clear, the appeals committee is omnipotent. They can make the players wear funny little hats. It's right there in the regulations. Now then, some of their decisions might be silly and some might violate the player contract. So, you sue them. You sue them blind. You sue them for every last goat for violating your contract. But first, you play chess. It's a legal issue, not a sporting one. You agreed to play under the rules and rulings of the appeals committee and that's what you do, you play.

If your lawyers then show that the decision was illegal AND that it put you at a sporting disadvantage, a court might say that FIDE owes you damages. If that disadvantage is judged big enough to have cost you the game or the match, FIDE might be told to pay an ungodly sum or replay the game/match. But by forfeiting, and then not protesting, no matter what the court says you aren't going to have that option on the menu. You might still win a bundle for the contract violation, who knows? The judge asks what the worst case scenario was for going ahead and playing under the stated disadvantage? Answer, a loss in game five. Well, that's what happened anyway and you didn't protest, so what's the argument for replaying the game?

I agree with part of Mig's take on this, and agree that FIDE has the right to do anything they want with their own title. Heck, if they really felt like it, they could cancel the tiebreaks entirely and declare Topalov the winner, just because, and we'd be left having to say the same thing (i.e. "It's unfair, but hey, that's the ruling.")

But Kramnik has said openly that he wouldn't recognize any title change based on the forfeit. Since his title isn't an "official" title, we have to make up our minds too. Accept it or not, the same as before. Since the point was to see who was the better chessplayer, and since Topalov lost the chessic contest (and since the legal contest will take forever to decide), I'm going to keep recognizing Kramnik as Classical Champ, unless he relinquishes his claim.

I certainly agree that Kramnik himself played a role in making this harder for us. Playing Game 5 under protest would have been infinitely better than playing Games 6-12 under protest. On the other hand, better that he should change his mind late rather than never, or else we'd have never gotten to see the last 7 games.

Speaking of Spassky, can anyone imagine how hated he'd be today if that match had ended 12-12 and the forfeit had been one of Spassky's 12? And he was in the right. The cameras were in the contract and he'd already given one forfeit back.

Mig-

actually, I'd feel a lot better about your argument if you acknowledged its limits and discussed how you know what side of the line you are on.

For instance, if the appeals committee punched kramnik in the face after each move? Surely, you don't think he should still be required to "show up and play"?

I don't know if locking the bathrooms and giving out video tapes to the other side is on this or that side of the line. But I don't think you are addressing the real issue: leaving aside all lawyering- was the appeals commitee cheating for topalov? Was the playing field unlevel? how much unlevelness do you think someone should put up with before walking away in disgust, and refusing to agree to other sides claims to victory, regardless of "started clocks".

Most bad calls in other sports happen out of their real time nature. That's why everyone accepts it. There is no other way.

But that is not the case here. And it seems to me that Kramnik is right to take that into consideration when deciding whether or not this playing field is level.

Why should kramnik possibly have to 'sacrifice a point' to ensure his terms of contract were met?

"In every sport they get this stuff straightened out and then start the game."

That "straightening out" consists of a decision by the officials---who, in this case, decided against Kramnik.

Every sport has its rules for what happens if the opponent doesn't show up. In chess, the rule is that the clock starts, and if enough time goes by, it's a forfeit. If a football team didn't like an official decision, and decided not to come onto the field, that too would be a forfeit.

Isn't it funny. Mig uses 5000 words and all you hear is "I hate Kramnik, I hate Kramnik, I hate Kramnik..."

Think hypothetically for a moment... What would have happened if Kramnik played game 5 under protest?

Would he have gotten his private toliet back? I doubt it.

Would the appeals committee been replaced? I doubt it.

Would Dan/Top team made another accusation? I would not be surprised.

Would the old appeals committee bow to the Dan/Top team's new accusation? What do you think?

Kramnik achieved a restoration of the match conditions by not playing game 5. That's what was accomplished. It legitimized (sort of) 11 games of the match.

Further suppose Kramnik played game 5, and then lost the match. Kramnik sues FIDE in some jurisdiction, and wins. What happens then? Does FIDE reschdule game 5-12 all over again starting with Topalov down 3-1? What a mess that would be...

Kramnik could clear everything up if he would just win tomorrow.

Yes, you should get your head out of your ass, OO, it echoes in there.

Mig, look at it this way: people say Kramnik is the champion now for the same reason why they said Kasparov was the champion in 1993, even though he "legally" forfeited the title in 1993. FIDE may forfeit who/what they want, but the reality is that in 1993, 1994, etc. Kasparov was the world champion, and as of now, Kramnik is the world champion. Yes, FIDE forfeited Kramnik for not showing up for game 5 under their conditions (actually he did show up, he just wanted to play under the legal conditions, but that is beside the point). But FIDE also forfeited Kasparov for not showing up to play a 1993 match under their conditions. It seems that if one accepted Kasparov as the world champion in 1993, one has to acknowledge that Kramnik is the world champion now, no matter what happens in tie-breaks tomorrow.

Mig is absolutely right about this, imo. Kramnik should have played under protest rather than allow his time to run out. It's not as if they told him he couldn't go to the bathroom at all!
Kramnik lost the high ground when he petulantly sat outside a locked bathroom rather than walking into the next room and playing, imho.

>>As the match regulations make clear, the appeals committee is omnipotent. They can make the players wear funny little hats.
>>

They can make the players play in the nude? Or play checkers instead of chess? They can stop the match before Game 1 and name Topalov the winner without play?

What you're saying is that, legally, the entire contract is null and void except for one clause. I'm no lawyer, but does that really seem likely? Isn't it more likely that they have the right to make any ruling **that doesn't violate the letter of the contract**?

I don't know for sure, and the legal questions will take forever to resolve. The Chess public should only care about who won the chess games, not the legal games, not the fashion games, not even the manners and sportsmanship games. Kramnik won the chess games. That told me what I wanted to know about who the better *chessplayer* was. The official ruling is of secondary importance. Who really cares about the FIDE title anyway? It expires in a few months anyway.

'The appeals committee is omnipotent'? But the appeals committee does not have responsibility for honouring a contract. FIDE does and it is they who Kramnik will sue.

And I just don't understand why you think Kramnik's refusal to play would alter his legal position. It would certainly be reasonable for the the court to decide that the decision to start the clocks put Kramnik at a disadvantage whether he played or not.

Yes, Mig says that Kramnik should have played even if Makropoulos kept pulling his hair and Azmaiparashvili kept punching him in the face. Not that Mig would have complained!

The line goes somewhere. Not that Mug (oops a typo there) would want to acknowledge it. He just knows better than many lawyers because he just does. He doens't need to give any rational reasons, because he just does. (And Kramnik sucks by the way)

Also Mig is in the organizing committee for the 2007 Mexico City Championship, and doesn't like the idea that Kramnik's victory might eventually decline it into a qualification tournament of considerably less appeal.

Good point, bioniclime. By agreeing to play game 5 Kramnik certainly would risk to face other unethical action by Danilov and FIDE. Only strong reaction could prevent any further dirty tricks by FIDE.

IMHO, the option for Kramnik was to leave Elista.

Freitag: Kramnik has clarified the issue with his last open letter, he does not agree with the FIDE score, but he will play the rest of the match under protest, and reserves the right to sue FIDE if the unplayed game 5 has a bearing on the awarding of the FIDE title.

If I were Kramnik, I would not sue FIDE for the title, but only for game 5. The court would only rule on game 5, but that would invalidate the whole match.

But who cares about the rapid portion of the match? Frankly, I don't give a damn about it. Kramnik has already won the classical portion of the match 6-5 over the board!

The problem is everyone wants to be on a side, and force everyone else to be on a side. Like most things, it's not so easy. That's not to say I'm neutral, as anyone who has been reading this blog for the past few weeks can see. Like most, I entirely sympathize with Kramnik in this. Topalov's protest was frivolous and probably malicious. When it was followed up by accusations of computer cheating I lost any respect for him and his team.

That doesn't mean I joined a jihad against him, or that every single thing Kramnik did/does is correct. It's not contradictory at all to understand that morality and correctness are not zero-sum. Kramnik could have walked away from the match entirely after his bathroom was locked and many here would have cheered him. That doesn't mean we all have to agree it would have been the right thing to do legally or ethically.

I'm not suggesting Mig has any vested interests; just that he is hopelessly confused in thinking FIDE's rules would take precedence over contract law if the matter came to court.

>>Freitag: Kramnik has clarified the issue with his last open letter, he does not agree with the FIDE score, but he will play the rest of the match under protest, and reserves the right to sue FIDE if the unplayed game 5 has a bearing on the awarding of the FIDE title.
>>

He said more than that:

"Should the decision of FIDE regarding the fifth game have any influence on the awarding of the World Championship title, with Mr Topalov receiving the title after being granted a free point for the unplayed game, Mr Kramnik declares unequivocally: “I will not recognize Mr Topalov as World Champion under these conditions,"

Question, though, for Mig and everyone. Does the contract even *mention* the Classical Title at all? Granted, this is recognized by everyone as a "Unification Match", but does the contract actually mention such a thing as a "Classical Title", or give FIDE any control over it, omnipotent or otherwise?

You know what Danailov says. Agreement only exists when there are signed documents. Everything else is just words. If the contract doesn't give FIDE the right to administer the Classical Title, then they don't have that right.

I agree with Mig's point that Kramnik's forfeit will not be overturned, regardless of the legal ramifications.

However, the technical result of the match is less important than the perceived result throughout the chess world.

If Topolov wins, no one will consider him a credible champion and Kramnik will maintain his status (rightly in my opinion) as 'Classical World Champion'.

Mig is right!

I read many posts that say that failure to play is not cause to forfeit a round. You see Gary K refused to play and we want to call him world champion after 1993. Using this logic, Bobby Fischer is still the REAL world champion. Come on, it is silly! The title is determined over the board and if you fail/refuse to play you forfeit.

The only reason Gary K could lay claim to the title is that he was far superior to the rest of the top players at the time and we all knew it. FIDE controls their title. If you want to lay claim to the FIDE title, you have to play by FIDE rules. If another organization can establish a more credible title then the FIDE title becomes pointless. Crying about your bathroom and security video tapes is silly.

With that said, I think FIDE is corrupt, needs to be replaced and I hope Kramnik wins to settle the dispute.

I think Kramnik has taken a position of ethical and legal integrity throughout. He refused to play under conditions which breached his contract; then agreed to continue once those conditions had been restored, while reserving the right to challenge the forfeit decision should it affect him materially. This is consistent behaviour which strengthens his case. It also highlights the quality of his team (which clearly involves legal adviders) compared to Topalov's.

Matt, yes, the title is determined over the board and over the board Kramnik won with 3 wins and 2 losses. Fischer isn't relevant because not only he refused to play, he actually resigned as the World champion and retired. Neither Kasparov in 1993 or Kramnik now resigned their titles.

Yes, if Kramnik wants to claim FIDE title, he has to play by their rules. But don't forget there were two titles on the line - hence the "Reunification match". FIDE can administer their title however they want, even claim Topalov really won the match with 100-0 score. But the classical title that Kramnik has put on the line was defended by Kramnik in this match. It is not like most people care about the FIDE title, anyway. People didn't care about FIDE title in 1993 when Kasparov(abd Short) proved superiority on the board, and they will not care about FIDE now, after Kramnik has proved his superiority. What matters is the classical title and Kramnik has defended it today.

A best of 11 match won 6-5 by V. Kramnik. Congratulations to a deserving winner!

>>Um, exactly what court would take this on, jurisdiction-wise? And assuming this hypothetical court handed down a judgment, why would FIDE accept the decision? Exactly what sanctions can this theoretical court levy against FIDE for refusing to abide by its decision?
>>

There's a Sports Arbitration Court where FIDE has been successfully sued before. Susan Polgar got a wad of cash from FIDE over the way her title was stripped from her.

As for Mig's example of a football team refusing to take the field, I see the point, but it seems like a different situation. In football, the league owns the teams, and can do whatever they want with them. FIDE doesn't own any players (though they do own the FIDE title), they simply contract for their services. They booked Kramnik and Topalov to appear and perform on a certain number of "concert" dates, but breached their contract (apparently), and so legally, one of those shows never took place at all.

But again, the legal mess could take years. As a chessplayer, I don't care about who has the better lawyer, the better manager, or the better fashion sense. I care who won the chess games. Kramnik did.

And Topalov, the man formerly recognized as a great fighter, the man who said that Kasparov should be ashamed of himself if he accepted the Linares 2005 trophy on tiebreak after losing to Topalov in the tournament, this man is now perfectly happy to take a trophy ahead of a man that he lost to.

This guy isn't champion of anything. FIDE can "officially" name Kirsan as world champion if they like. Doesn't mean I have to salute it.

I'm just not going to recognize a guy who lost over the board as the champion. If I wanted to do that, I'd have recognized Karpov in 1993.

Mig
You are trying to play lawyer for Topalov and argue its clear cut in his favor, but your wrong about the regulations. They do not give the Appeals committee the right to do whatever they want. In fact it explicitly restricts thier right to even *hear* complaints about the conditions after they were agreed upon. That is what the regulations say. I can read them with my own eyes. You can too if you choose to. I don't need to have a Swiss lawyer read it for me.

If Mig is correct in thinking the appeals committee, as "the law of the land," could do whatever they want, then Danilov was a fool for not asking his buddies to award Topalov the entire prize fund regardless of the result of the match. Mig if Danilov had done that and they had agreed only you and a few others would agree they had the power to do that.

There is an interesting legal question as to whether the appeals committee had the power to change the match conditions agreed to by the parties before the match. If they did not what are the available remedies? Who plays in San Luis and who stays home? These legal issues are not cut and dried, and they are interesting and perhaps even delightfull questions for lawyers, judges and law professors.

However, my opinion of who is world chess champion is not goign to be determined by how these issues are decided. Yours shoudln't either.

Well said Graeme!

Unless Kramnik and Topalov accept tomorrow's winner as the legitimate champion, I would bet that neither gets paid.

Heh. I bet both come around pretty fast if that is the case.

$500K for a chess player ain't peanuts. Plus, each has to pay salaries and other expenses.

There will be a compromise. Bet on it.

parrot9: Exactly, contract law takes precedence over FIDE rules if the case indeed lands before a court.

Hensel cited the relevant chapters and subchapters of the contract in one of his earlier open letters, and I happen to believe that he has a strong case.

In this context, FIDE rules are hopelessly weak in a legal sense. For example, how on earth can they declare themselves omnipotent? That's utterly ridiculous and a court would likely place little weight on such self-declared omnipotency. Although, Kramnik and his lawyers WILL have to find their way through this labyrinth.

Here's for irony. Note the part about counting toilet visits!

From New In Chess 2005/3, on Linares:

"As the tournament winner withdrew to his suite, all attention focused on Veselin Topalov, who needed little time to decide that this shared first place was the biggest success in his career so far. Now both he and his manager also felt that the time had come to express their view on the tie-break system that favoured Kasparov. Acording to Danailov, everyone had seen who was the best player of Linares 2005 and Kasparov "should be ashamed of himself" if he accepted the trophy at the prize-giving. Topalov had similar thoughts, "It's a stupid system. You might as well count the number of times that we went to the toilet. But I don't care about the trophy. I know that I have beaten him and feel that I am the moral winner.""

So instead of the unification, we have even bigger mess than before.

Fact is that in a true classical tradition Kramnik would remain a champ even with a tied score. Maybe Karpov could beat Kaspy in a rapid tie-break in 1987?

Topalov didn't show a decisive edge, at most he can tie Kramink when he gets a "free" point. Blunders are not an excuse, they are his problem!

@ acirce
Nice one...LOL

I think everyone can agree that "unification", the supposed objective of this match has utterly failed. So where do we go from here?

Further discussion is almost pointless, unless Kramnik wins tomorrow, it will be a mess.

But what about this:

Imagine you are (co-)World Champion. You are to defend your title. The conditions are:

I) 11 games, with 5 whites to you.

II)
1) If you score +2, you defend your title.
2) If you score +1, there will be a rapid play-off for the title.
3) If the match is tied, you lose your title.

Would you accept such conditions? Or sue?... ;-)

Mig,
You are wrong about the forfeit.
Kramnik was under obligation to play the match according to the contract he signed. The breach of the contract by one side (FIDE) usually means that other side (Kramnik) is free from obligations if opposite is not the clause according to the contract (whichwais highly unlikely to be included). The game five had never being played under the contract conditions, therefore, it did not belong to the match regulated by the contract signed. After FIDE agreed to play in accordance to the contract, the match was continued. From game 6.

If Kramnik doesen't win tomorrow that is. As the Americans say, he is the only one who can bring balance to the force.

The best indicator is that in the space of two days it's gone from the Topalov fans telling me I'm obviously biased in favor of Kramnik to the jihadis on the other side telling me I hate Kramnik. Love that interweb.

My point about the appeals committee being omnipotent is a simple statement of fact according to the match regulations. Again, if Kramnik thinks the committee is out to get him, and it certainly isn't hard to imagine they were, he can walk or he can play. Instead he walked for one game, failed to protest the forfeit in time, and then continued to play.

Obviously the situation was a total disaster and we can track it back to how the committee was assembled. That doesn't mean we have to turn our brains off and see it as all on one side or the other. Had Kramnik played game five under protest he could have had the same conversations with Ilyumzhinov about the contract, etc., that got the decision overturned after the forfeit. Is it possible that the provocations would have continued and that Kirsan would have ignored Kramnik and that only something as dramatic as a forfeit would have changed matters? I suppose, but I think the threat could have been stronger than the execution.

For some reason a few loons are acting as though I'm blaming Kramnik for the whole mess, as if they haven't read this blog before today. I'm saying Kramnik could have handled it better by playing game five under protest and that's about it.

What this could possibly have to do with my work with next year's Mexico championship I have no idea. Who I personally want to win has zero impact on who will, obviously. The organizers probably prefer Topalov because he has visited Mexico several times and was very popular, and he speaks fluent Spanish. So? It's a scheduled and funded FIDE world championship event and a bunch of nuts, myself included, yakking about Mexico becoming a candidates event after this UNIFICATION MATCH isn't going to change that. As a match lover myself, I'd be all in favor of such a thing! Heck, I'll even propose it to the organizers. But let's not go crapping all over our own new carpet.

Obviously, because of the forfeit, most people won't take Topalov fully seriously should he win tomorrow. Kramnik, in a sense, has nothing to lose. But I wouldn't bet against Kramnik. He has played a higher percentage of accurate moves than Topalov.

--Posted by: Marc Shepherd at October 12, 2006 11:17

Boy you got that part right.

Kramnik is clearly the favorite because he is the better rapid player and he has played far fewer ??-moves than Topalov in the classical part of the match, which will be key at the faster time controls.

Mig, it is very strange now that you are talking about the validity of game 5 result. What were you doing when he went to play game 6? Changing sides is so easy with you? How much can you hide from the truth? Do you believe in justice?

Interesting Linares reminiscence. Garry's attitude then was more gracious than Topalov's. He implied that he didn't care too much about the final round, having clinched at least a share of first place for his farewell appearance. Garry spoke well of Topalov after San Luis (but might have been motivated by resentment towards Kramnik). Ah. The egos of chessplayers! A study in narcissism!

Hopefully Kramnik will win tomorrow and this debate will all be academic. Even in that case, reunification may not last long if Kramnik refuses to play in Mexico and FIDE refuses to re-define that event a qualifier for a WC match with Kramnik.

If Topalov wins tomorrow then we are back to square one on reunification.

In passing I would give some credit to Topalov for making this a good fighting match and to Kramnik for his resilience, particularly in the last three games since he looked at on his feet after game 9. It's just a shame they can't play at least 4 more classical games to decide it properly.

Only a court can answer the question, if Kramnik had to play or not.

The CAS normally follows the following rule: You have to play, but you can afterwoods make a claim that the result doesnt count. Then there maybe a regame (that occured already sometimes) or the result is fixed by CAS (already occured).
If you cont play you normally forfeit.

One exception only to that: If the breach of the conditions is such severe, that an instant play is not possible under what circumstances whatsoever and instant action is needed at all needs, then you can decline playing.

So the rule of the court will depend, if it thinks that the breach was such severe.

“Fact is that in a true classical tradition Kramnik would remain a champ even with a tied score”

Well said, NikonMike, that means that as far as the classical portion of the match is concerned, even including the awarding of the stolen point to Topalov, the 6-6 tie means that Kramnik remains the classical champ.

Now we can talk about donating the rapid title to Topalov, if that’s what he wants so badly

Going a little too far invoking "tradition" rather than actual regulations. Kramnik agreed to tiebreaks rather than draw odds.

Wow!
Before game 12 Bulgarians accuse Russians again:
http://www.monitor.bg/article?sid=&aid=97635&cid=1&eid=862
This time the President of Bulgarian Chess Federation Stefan Sergiev said the Russians use an unknow psychotropic weapon!!!
Also, Danailov said that they have no psychic in the team, and this was just a pre-match attempt to put more pressure on Vlad

now Topa makes a new insult (will Topa stop insulting ever?):

Presidential airplane not allowed by Russian authorities

On Wednesday Bulgarian president Georgi Parvanov chartered a flight for Veselin Topalov. Authorities, however, did not allow the plane to enter Russian territory without any reason given.
“This is a scandal,” Mr. Silvio Danailov said.

According to gossip (or Kamsky, if you'd like), FIDE is putting up 15K per Candidates match to be played in - ta da! - Elista!, in April.

Anyone hear otherwise or can confirm? MIG? SAVE US!!!!!!!!

Danailov can paranormal abilities and can see the future! He also said that the plain for Kramnik WILL BE allowed without any delays!

OK guys we will have a lot of stuff to debate about after the tie-breaks, but for now, can anybody tell me their exact timings (please specify in CET or EST or GMT)? The official website is pathetic!

Thanks

If you frame it that way, sure. Certainly when we nonconform we must prepare to face any consequences. But that doesn't mean that there should be consquences. To use an extreme example, should Rosa Parks have been thrown off the bus for refusing to sit in the "right" section? No, but she had to prepare for the case certainly (I'm not trying to make comparisons of a landmark civil rights movement and this ridiculous chess fiasco over toilets - I'm just using it as an example). Quite simply Kramnik made an action and faces the consequences, something for which he had to prepare. If your employer threatens to beat you and you don't show up to work and the employer fires you, then that is a consquence for which you have to prepare (but once the employer is fired then you can probably demand your job back (maybe even with backpay)).

acirce: 99,9% of the public don't know and don't give a damn about FIDE regulations, contracts, etc.

What they do know is who wins more games over the board:

Classical Champ is the one who wins more classical games in the match

Rapid Champ is the one who wins more rapid games in the match

Blitz Champ is the one who wins more blitz games in the match

Armageddon Champ is the one who wins the armageddon game

The public have spoken...

I also heard a rumor about 15K in Elista. This was from the Presidential Board meeting in September, 2006. This is less than many World Cup participants made! Is this how Kirsan really values the Championship cycle?

Mig
you say "My point about the appeals committee ebing omnipotent is a simple statement of fact based on the regulations"

But then you seem to agree with second appeals committe saying they don't have power to overturn the forfeit.

Which is it? Are they omnipotent under the regs or not?

Beleive me when I say this is a legal mess. Any lawyer who watched must have been just like me cringing as error upon error was piled ontop of this mess. If the appeals committe is omnipotent then what business did Kirsan have in stepping in? There are numerous numerous issues that have not even been addressed on any boards.

Don't decide who think is the champ based on some judges ultimate ruling on these legally convoluted events. Who proved they were the champ by beating the other player at chess? Thats all we should be interested in.

Mig you have this agenda where you believe we would all be better off if players were forced to play even if the conditions violate thier agreements. Your views on this match are consistant with this view. Others disagree and think it should be more the opposite. FIDE should stop shoving the players around changing the rules mid match or mid cycle (as in matches turning into tournaments etc.) and be *forced* to keep thier commitments. The latter group are not just "blathering".

Why did Kramnik shuffle his rooks in such a computer-like way today, moves 22-25? I would not worry, if someone could tell me that they know he didn't go to the unmonitored area during that time.

Oh please, David.

>>For some reason a few loons are acting as though I'm blaming Kramnik for the whole mess, as if they haven't read this blog before today. I'm saying Kramnik could have handled it better by playing game five under protest and that's about it.
>>

I'm ambivalent on that question. Certainly I'd prefer Kramnik to have played Game 5 under protest.

Let's ask this, then. Is Kramnik a hero or a goat for reconsidering and agreeing to play the remaining games before he'd resolved the Game 5 business? We all thought he was being magnanimous at the time (we held out hopes that the forfeit wouldn't matter in the end), but things have changed a bit. Did he make things better or worse by not walking out? Maybe if he had walked out, they'd have argued a bit, reached an agreement, and had it in place before Games 6-12 were played.

If he'd walked out after 5 and not come back, we'd have the same situation as now. Topalov would have lost the chess games but been declared the winner anyway. But in that case, Kramnik's claim would have been weaker. Topalov could claim that he was being denied those last 7 games, where he could have possibly tied the score or taken the lead. Now, Topalov is being denied nothing. There is one unplayed game, but he's said he doesn't want to play it. In fact, he's so keen not to play it, he said he'd walk out if he was made to.

Things would have been so much easier if Kramnik had just played under protest. They'd also be easier if Topalov had any interest whatsoever in proving himself the better chessplayer. Is Kramnik a goat for not walking out after Game 5? I don't know. Maybe. We sure didn't think so at the time, though.

The only hope we have to avoid more years of bickering is for Kramnik to win the tiebreaks. For the sake of our sanity, I hope he does. Leave it to FIDE to organize a Unification Match that unifies nothing.

Notwithstanding the fact that I'm a lawyer, I don't really care about the legal aspects of chess.

If a non-chess player asked me to explain who the "real" World Chess Champions in history are, I would say:

12. Karpov (1975-1985)
13. Kasparov (1985-2000)
14. Kramnik (2000-2005)(His title to my mind became redundant when he refused to take part in San Luis.)
15. Topalov (2005-2006) (He won San Luis which was a valid World Chess Championship).
And now back to 14. Kramnik (2006-??) (Though I didn't think he was entitled to play for the Championship, he beat Topalov over the board 6-5).

None of the above could be considered legal. FIDE wouldn't agree with it. Neither would Kramnik. Neither would Topalov. Maybe nobody here does. It is simply my view as a chessplayer as to who has been the real World Champion at any given time.

I never thought I'd say this before the current match, but I'd be interested in seeing a Kramnik-Topalov rematch though!

Mig wrote: "My point about the appeals committee being omnipotent is a simple statement of fact according to the match regulations."

Sorry, Mig, but you're wrong.

Contract law is pretty universal -- for a contract to be binding, neither side may breach it. Once one side breaches the contract, it is no longer binding.

If the Appeals Committee, as a representitive of FIDE, breached the contractual agreements, then their decission can not be binding for Kramnik.

And frankly, in recinding their decission and firing the committee, FIDE sent a pretty clear signal that there is at least strong reason to suspect that they did not have that authority.

The appeals committee is not omnipotent. They have a power delineated by their contractual obligations to the players.

Where we all agree is that this is a mess.

But to try and argue that there's no legal issue here or that the results of game 5 are clearly valid is simple madness. You aren't that obtuse.

It's a terrible indicator of how totally out of control FIDE is that they've, by their own actions, taken us to the brink of having the world champion determined by a court rather than by play at the chess board. We can all hope that tomorrow Kramnik wins clearly and there is no issue.

But if Kramnik should lose tomorrow, then there are legal questions aplenty.

Only one poster had made this point, so I will chime so that this point of view gets broader coverage:
If Kramnik had been "sporting" and played Game 5 under protest, we would not have seen the overwhelming reaction to the Bulgarian team's antics. It would all have been dismissed under the usual happenings at World Championships. No letters from GMs, Nunn, Seirawan. No letters published by Chessbase. No 300+ comments to Migs Blogs. Try to imagine the state of affairs had Kramnik played game 5 under protest.

So its fair to say Kramnik sacrificed game 5. Now he is trying to reap the rewards.
Should he be allowed to ? Legally ? Morally ? Ethically ? No. yes. No ?

>>
15. Topalov (2005-2006) (He won San Luis which was a valid World Chess Championship).
>>

Why do you feel that San Luis was a "valid" championship, while Las Vegas, New Delhi, Moscow, and Tripoli weren't? In what sense is it more "valid"? Don't you really just mean that you personally happen to prefer the San Luis format to the Knockout format?

>>
15. Topalov (2005-2006) (He won San Luis which was a valid World Chess Championship).
And now back to 14. Kramnik (2006-??) (Though I didn't think he was entitled to play for the Championship, he beat Topalov over the board 6-5).
>>

Now, there's an opinion I hadn't heard yet. Not saying you're wrong, just that I hadn't heard it. I've got an interest in the question, though, since I have a website devoted to the history of the World Championship, and have to figure out how to present all this.

So far I've handled it by having separate pages for the World Match Championship, and the "World Tournament Championship" (my name for the FIDE Title, though they don't call it that themselves).

It makes a certain amount of sense. Match and tournament play are different. I still believe that Topalov is a better tournament player than Kramnik. Kramnik has just proven himself better in match play, but that doesn't change my opinion of their respective tournament skills.

At the moment, the only solution that suggests itself is to put up a section for this match on BOTH pages, and have different scores for each match, with the score in the Classical championship match being 6-5, and the score in the match for the FIDE Championship being 6-6.

That seems incredibly awkward though. I might just wait until the dust settles a bit more before doing anything. There's still the chance that Kramnik will simplify the task by winning the tiebreaks and unifying the two titles. If he doesn't, I dunno, maybe I'll take up Partnership Whist.

If topalov wins tommorrow we will sort of be on square one of reunification but with the added information that of 11 games played kramnik had 6 of the points.

Mig you alwasy disliked Kramnik. You went agaisnt Topalov and Danilov only when absolutely no one in thier right mind supported them. You now see the slightest possiblity to call this match in Topalov's favor and spring on it while claiming all those who dissent from your legal ruling are blathering. At least thats how this jihadist sees it. :)

Dear Kramnik jihadists:

This is the time to advise on the medical aspects. If you feel shortness of breath, burning in the chest area, loss of vision, sudden loss of IQ, and repetitive F- thoughts such as "forfeit", "FIDE", "Friday", etc. -- contact immediately a qualified physician and turn the computer off. Tomorrow will be a trying day for many a frail souls and a medical caution goes into effect. Frequent visits to the restroom are advised.

D.

This is a tremendous blog guys thanks for setting it up Mig. I think Mig is right about the legality point regarding any court challenge which is to say at the end of the day it could only really be about getting some financial damages. The court (Court for Sports arbitration Lausanne??) is not really going to say ok Kramnik you won you are now FIDE champion or alternatively order FIDE to replay the match or replay the game 5 no surely thats a fantasy. (I know it not impossible but unenforceable)

But then by turning up they are both getting the $500,000 anyway right? So at the end of the day Kramnik would be asking for a court to award him money based on damage to his name and reputation. In one sense what they are really playing for tomorrow is the money they could win from a match with Radjabov next year which the FIDE champion may have. It seems (famous last words) that the Azeri's have the money so it could be a nice pay day for Kramnik or Topolav who I suppose would be strong favourites - although perhaps Radjabov would have a better chance against Topalov.

I think it was a really really tough decision for Kramnik to play or not that game 5 - does anyone know whether he would have got his $500,000 (was it in escrow)if he had walked away from the match I think not. In retrospect Mig's point looks strong he ould have played game 5 under protest anyway.

One point I have been making a lot and want to say it again - we keep talking about rules contracts and committees regarding FIDE and the match but in one sense its all a bit of a sham because I think really, FIDE is Kirsan's toy and he can and could do pretty much what he wants with the rules and the Committees etc.

Well, if Kramnik wins tomorrow then he is the unified undisputed World Chess Champion. If Topalov wins he is the FIDE World Chess Champion and the Classical World Chess Champion would be well ......Kramnik! If that happens maybe Kirsan will come up with some more money from those deep pockets of his and organise a re-match! Stranger things have happened .... and I get the feeling Kirsan likes to be the centre of things.

Lets not be too hard on these 2 guys they are only human and lets enjoy the quickplay.

Mig, It's rather annoying that you publish a 'blather update 2' stating -

'Some are making arguments of the legality of the appeals committee's decision. But this has little to do with the correctness of the forfeit or the permanence of that result'

- when some of us have spent a while explaining - and even stating explicitly - that we are arguing about the exact opposite i.e the legality of the forfeit rather than the AC decision.

Your view that Kramnik should have played game 5 is all well and good but it is ridiculous to persist in trying to support it by claiming Kramnik doesn't have a legal case. It is clear from the evidence available that he does have a chance of successfully suing FIDE and that a potential remedy is the replaying of game 5. The only alternative to this for FIDE is to pay huge compensation and live with a champion whose status is not legally recognised (not much of an option at all).

Stop misrepresenting your contributors!

Andy
Although I disagree on the legal issues, they are quite complicated. If kramnik played Game 5 in an angry state of mind and lost, I don't think we would all be saying it was a good idea for him to play. He may have needed some time to cool off we just don't know. That is no doubt why the rules require the protests to be lodged and decided hours after the game not right before the start of a round.

Now as far as the Radja match Kramnik has his match with fritz regardless. Topalov is the only one who has a certain and immediate gain from winning these tiebreaks. So if this were an american swiss tourney we may have to worry about Kramnik agreeing to throw the tiebreaks to Topalov in exchange for a cut of his prize money in the Radja match. :) Somehow I don't think that will happen.

What ever title the FIDE San Luis 2005 tournament had the power to bestow, it was not the one and only primary title that traces back to Steinitz in 1886.

FIDE did not create the classical title, Steinitz and Zukertort did. S & Z created their title as a MATCH World Chess Champion title, not as a mere TOURNAMENT WCC title.

Yes in 1948 FIDE took over management of the MATCH WCC. FIDE used a tournament to bestow the title in 1948 only because the champion was dead. Kramnik is still alive.

The sitting MATCH WCC title holder can offer extra challenge opportunities beyond what FIDE compels the champion to defend. So the comment by Stuart (14:26) above worrying whether this player or that was a valid participant is a non-starter.

Steinitz & Lasker & Capablanca & all the others never considered their classical MATCH WCC title to be some ugly hybrid mix of properly long-time-control games supplanted by short-time-controls measured in several minutes to sudden death. I respect all those historical greats immeasureably more than I respect Kirsan, who is trying to morph the classical title into a TOURNAMENT WCC title.

If you win a match by winning a Blitz game, then you have won a Blitz title (tie-break or not).

On the issue of overturning the forfeit, I have to go with Mig here. By not utrning up for the match and also appealing the forfeit in time, he lost all chances of getting it overturned.

I dont think any court could overturn that. They can award him damages and penalize FIDE.

Kapalik

I agree with G's final point. It's terrible to decide this match by speed chess. Here are some things that disappoint me about this match's arrangements:

No live video feed showing the playing stage to the public, either on internet or television. Why???

Match too short. It's not like they need the playing hall next week for another event!

Match tiebreak with speed chess.

Money split regardless of result. (this is less important to me than the other points)

Match played in home country of one of the players. (But given the money involved, and no other sponsor available, I can see why principle was fudged here.)

Security measures appear to be inept:

1. I don't know how good the metal detection is, but Kasimzhdanov said that in a prior tournament using a metal detector, you could practically get a small mathine gun in.

2. The playing area should probably be enclosed in a Faraday cage, like some rooms of the Pentagon. The jamming they are using instead probably isn't effective against digital signals and can be injurious to health.

3. I think shoes should be taken, since they don't go thru the metal detector, and slippers given to the players.

Mig,
what have you got against Muslims that you use the term 'jihadis' as a term of abuse?

Mig,
what have you got against Muslims that you use the term 'jihadis' as a term of abuse?

If Kramnik plays and decision is overturned, the game is moot. Might as well tip the king over and not waste time and energy. If Kramnik plays and decision is not overturned, Kramnik still sues. And FIDE probably refuses to change accomodations back to original set-up since Kramnik is at the board and they don't have to worry about the match not happening.

Marc, rapid and blitz have been used as tiebreaks in many matches. Does that mean matches can and should be resolved in such manner?

Mig,
what have you got against Muslims that you use the term 'jihadis' as a term of abuse?

Paul,
Take it easy.
Jihadis use here has nothing to do with or against Muslims.
It could be easily replaced by 'crusade'. But thanks to contemporary politics, the word 'jihad' is much more sound at the moment.

I don't think "jihadi" was being used as a term of abuse, so much as being used ironically to mean people particularly (unreasonably?) committed to a cause.

I hope your question is a joke, Paul Dearey.

I pretty much agree with Mig on the forfeit issue.

Let me throw out another idea on the "what Kramnik should have done" issue. A lot of people are saying things along the lines of, "But Danailov's accusations, and the Appeals Committee's decision, and FIDE's breaking the contract, were SO terrible that Kramnik COULD NOT have continued to play under those conditions and retained any human dignity" and so on." I don't necessarily think that FIDE DID break a contract with Kramnik, but a lot of people say so.

Well, let's say you actually believe this. On that assumption (for the rest of this post), what Kramnik should have done was to announce that he was suspending his participation in the match until the issue was resolved. He should not have gone to the hall, much less to his relaxation room. His position should have been, "you have broken the contract; I am no longer playing this match; you are going to have to renegotiate the contract with me in order to get me to resume play."

The point is that Kramnik should have made it clear that the schedule, and the starting times, and the clocks, and the FIDE rules about forfeiture, and so on, were no longer relevant because the match had stopped, and the arbiter has nothing to do until the match starts up again under a new agreement with a new schedule.

You may think that this is exactly what Kramnik did, or that the difference between what I am suggesting and what he actually did is so teensy that I must be an idiot to talk about it. But here is my point. If you are PLAYING A MATCH, then your actions are governed by the regulations that govern the match. This includes actions that you take because you are protesting something. Kramnik sat in his relaxation room while his clocks were running; the result was a lost game. He might, alternatively, have made 5 moves in the opening and resigned. He might have deliberately put his queen en prise or walked into mate. All of these are ways of losing a point in the context of a chess match. You do not do any of them and hope to get the point back later on.

So if what you actually want to do is stop everything until justice is done and things are settled to your satisfaction, without losing points, you have to make it clear that the match is NOT GOING ON and that nothing that you do is in the context of PLAYING A MATCH. You are NOT playing the match. You are in your hotel room, maybe packing your bags, or seeing the sights, or playing tennis, but your message is that "there is no match at the moment and there won't be until people resolve it with me, my manager, my lawyer, or whoever." You are hoping to make an agreement under which the match will resume.

Instead, Kramnik did a great many things during his protest and afterward which give validity to the idea that a match was actually going on during which he sat out game 5. And if a match was going on, he lost a point by forfeiture.

I would surmise that the contracts stipulate in case of a dispute over the agreed playing conditions, there was a dispute process agreed upon.

Usually, the law, or “common law” is how a reasonable man would be expected to act given the circumstances. Was it reasonable that Kramnik breach the playing contract over the bathroom dispute? Not likely. Unless there is an egregious breech on the part of FIDE or Topalov, Kramnik really has no choice but to show up at the board. (ie. … if FIDE had made him use a public restroom down the hall or not allowed him bathroom privileges at all.)

If Kramnik doesn’t show up at the board - he’s causing damages to the other party. He’s breaching the contract now. One better be sure that your contract rights are being “trampled” upon before going there. In the case of a football team showing up for a game, they incur expenses (travel etc. ) in doing so. If the other team decides not to play -- we are going to have to incur all the time and expenses, preparation, travel, etc. to have to show up for the game again. “You mean we have to fly back in again next week to NY because the Giants didn’t like the bathroom arrangements and so boycotted the game?…!!!” The potential cost and damages to other parties for not showing up for a game on time can be huge.

Any little perceived breach by the other party doesn’t automatically give one the right to not fulfill one’s own obligations to the contract. Suppose in major boxing match, one of the boxers shows up 5 seconds late in the ring -- should the match be canceled and everyone sent home because the other party claims breach of contract? This would be ridiculous. Any little perceived breach could be grounds for breaking a contract and causing damages to the OTHER party.

Contracts are not written in stone. Extenuating or changing circumstances can change obligations to the conditions of the contract even though they weren’t written in the contract.

Topalov may have taken time for special preparation for game 5. Maybe he got up hours early and gave up sleep (to be made up on a rest day) to prepare for game 5. By not showing up at the board Kramnik breaches contract and causes damages to Topalov. Topalov has to re-prepare psychologically for the game again -- either play on a rest day or extend the match. Maybe some people have made other contractual obligations on the rest day and days after the match. People have other obligations too.

What damages are incurred to Kramnik by change of contract (bathroom arrangements) -- if any? Kramnik is going to have to show he was really “put-out” by the new arrangement -- to such a degree that breach of his contract (not showing for the game) was a reasonable course of action. Not likely IMHO.

[sarcasm] …Kramnik -- … Oh, jeese my bathroom arrangements were changed -- stop the world so I can get off. …[/sarcasm]

No.

Krannik has to take the forfeit.

I'm amazed at some of the posts here. "Play no matter what" seems to be a common idea. Let me ask a question that hasn't yet been broached: Are there *any* circumstances under which Kramnik would be justified in stopping playing? If so, what? And what line has been crossed that would make it acceptable in those circumstances, but not these.

I think that Kramnik was commpletely justified in waiting until his agreed-upon conditions were restored before playing Game 5. What other kind of message could get through to such a clearly corrupt and biased committee? The idea of "re-playing" Game 5 after it had already literally been played out over the board is ridiculous. To play on "under protest" would have acheived nothing. So, again, tell me: what sort of change in circumstance would Kramnik had to have suffered to make it alright for him not to play? I would love to know.

Theorist,

He could have "suffered" us not to go 30 times a game into his unmonitored bathroom by himself.

If he hadn't been doing that, the Committee would not have had grounds (nor desire) to lock the bathroom.

One thing that I don't know about all this is whether there was any contract between the players and FIDE with provisions OTHER THAN the match regulations that are posted on the FIDE site. Someone writing on ChessBase for example assumed that there IS such a contract and said that we really have no idea what the legal status of things is until we look at that contract which nobody has seen, and he asked that it be published. Personally I'm not convinced that there is such a contract. I strongly suspect that the regulations are all the provisions there are, and that if there is a separate contract it says no more than that "I, Vladimir Kramnik, agree to the match regulations" or the equivalent.

Does anyone KNOW more than this?

>>
On the issue of overturning the forfeit, I have to go with Mig here. By not utrning up for the match and also appealing the forfeit in time, he lost all chances of getting it overturned.
>>

That is why we have two entirely different matches and two entirely different scores. The match for the Classical Title is over. Kramnik wins, 6-5. The match for the FIDE title continues: Score, 6-6, heading into tiebreaks.

One thing is abundantly clear. Kramnik cannot possibly be the FIDE Champion if FIDE says he isn't. That's just common sense. FIDE could cancel the tiebreaks entirely, announce that they were changing the rules and giving their champion draw odds, and that Topalov had already retained, and there wouldn't be much Kramnik could do except sue them. And win. But he wouldn't get the FIDE title that way, only money.

On the other hand, there's no way the Classical Title is going to change hands and be given to someone who challenged for it and lost. To say we have to go along with that because FIDE says so is nonsense. If we were willing to accept a loser as champion by forfeit, we'd have done it in 1993.

Kramnik isn't the FIDE Champion and he isn't the Unified Champion (at least not yet; he may be tomorrow), but he is the Classical Champion and will remain so no matter what happens tomorrow.

Topalov will not be the Unified champion no matter what happens tomorrow. The best he can do is hang onto his FIDE title.

As far as I am concerned, a match for the world chess title should never be decided by rapid, much less "armageddon" tiebreaks.
Therefore, the match is over today. Or rather, wait, it's NOT over because it has not reached its natural conclusion: to say Kramnik is the winner because he's currently leading is like saying he was the winner after 1 game because the score was then 1-0 in his favour. If Topalov wins the missing game 5 (which will obviously never be played!), then we have a tie and they should decide the winner in tiebreaks (2 games, then two more, etc.), but with the regular thinking time used so far; in case of the other two results, Kramnik is the legitimate world champion.
Wishful thinking? Confusing? Not much worse than everything else we've witnessed in the organization of top level chess these last 15 years :-(
Anyway, all this theorizing sure won't stop me from eagerly following those rapid games tomorrow!

And, by the way,one more thing should be pointed out. Before this match, I can hardly pinpoint any unsporting behaviour by Topalov. Some arrogant remarks in his past interviews or game notes, which are now being carefully scrutinized with hindsight, are certainly no worse than those made by most other elite GMs, with a few laudable exceptions. There were a couple of things about him which I wasn't too fond of (no games annotated in Informator for the last 10 years, not going to Olympiads recently), but I put them down to Danailov's influence. Elista 2006 seems to be the first (and I hope the last) time that his evil genius has taken the upper hand so clearly, which is why I disagree with the idea of organizers boycotting him.

Right on, Larry.

Graeme, you write as you are part of a group "we" that decides on the Classical Champion, and that have already determined that Kramnik has retained that title.

Well you could have the "Graeme Champion" and decide who wins that, but I don't see why you decide on the Classical Champion.

What are all these organizers doing, discussing a boycott of Topalov? Either they are being paid off or they are being stupid. He's about the most dynamic player on the circuit, of that there is no doubt.

If money can be found for other tournaments they are risking the formation of a rival circuit that most certainly includes Topalov.

I don't think it matters one bit to FIDE who wins. They simply want to pull back the title back under their control. It is unlikely that there will be another Kasparov with the stature to be able to break away. The title is institutionalized again even if Kramnik wins.

Whoever wins has to defend it in Mexico -- I'd expect that many leading GMs will be seriously pissed if it turns out that Mexico next year is diminished in order to serve one guy.

D.

Kramnik is already the World Champion. The rapids + blitzes are only for the show: will change nothing.

As far as I'm concerned, Toiletlov and Danaidiotlov can go and start a company called 'Schmuck & Schmuck: The supreme toilet cleaners & inspectors'. I hope they leave the chess scene for good. 'Bye'.

Unbelievable amounts of twaddle. I'll tell you again; anyone who thinks they know the answer to the legal question is either a fool or an expert in sports law who's seen the contract. You can all shout all you like but that's the position.

I particularly liked the chap who said that a contract doesn't exist unless there's a signed piece of paper. The US may be different, of course, but as far as I know the true test, as expressed in chapter one of any contract law book, is actually more like that a contract doesn't exist unless there's an intention to create legal relations.

Changing the subject slightly, what actually happened after Karpov won in Lausanne in 1999 (contrary I dare say to the expectations of every internet blowhard in the US of A)? I presume FIDE were ordered to pay him a bunch of money, right? Anyone know if they paid, or what conditions were attached by the court to non-payment? I don't suppose the judgment is on the web anywhere, is it?