Long Walks with Kramnik

Sorry, Mig, I disagree.
I am entirely in favour of letting the players be off-stage as much as they like. "The perceived possibility of cheating" can be dealt with easily.

Agreed, Mig. Find some way to encourage players to stay visible during the match.

And you're absolutely right about the worst part of this: the defamatory allegations of cheating. Is there a point at which Kramnik can sue Topalov? When do these allegations cross the line?

Your idea about the effect this would have on Topalov if he believed it to be true is subtle -- and makes sense. Reminds me of a story from the World Cup in June, where the German goalkeeper was seen taking a piece of paper out of his socks before the penalty kicks against Argentina. Apparently, it contained a "cheat sheet" of the penalty-taking habits of the Argentina players. Duly psyched out, the Argies missed rather badly. The nice part is the rumour going round that there was nothing written on that sheet of paper: just the suggestion or implication was enough to unhinge the opposing team. Of course, it's nicer when your mind-games work on your opponent, rather than on you yourself...

I disagree with mig.

The players are not in the contest of who can stay visible the most. They are in the chess contest. The point of competition is to make the best chess moves possible, not to adhere to someone's idea of what they should do. How much time the players spend on stage is irrelevant. If Kramnik feels he can do better when he doesn't sit at the board the whole time, more power to him.

Perceptions are like xxxxxxx. ..everybody has got one and everybody's is different. People have already posted here with scenarios of cheating that don't require the player to go offstage ( body signal receivers, shoes, etc.). Should we also come up with ways that would eliminate these options of cheating? Perhaps playing naked with opponent's manager neing allowed to examine the oral cavity whenever he feels like it. Ultimately the burden of evidence in accusations of cheating should always be on the accuser. For all of his complaining, Topalov has not come close to producing evidence of Kramnik cheating.

It's not a contest of who can stay visible the most and I would have said the same without any allegations of cheating at all. The potential for cheating factor is just added weight to an obvious problem. It's bizarre to have players wandering around, especially out of sight of the public. There's no reason for it at all and it fits right in with the sense of entitlement the top players have that leads them to play 20-move draws in invitationals.

It's a sporting event; there are obligations and there should be professional standards. If you feel you make the best chess moves possible sitting on a sofa wearing shorts and slippers, stay home. You don't spend money on webcams and the massive bandwidth to support them to see shots of an empty stage. Players want bigger prizes and to be treated like professionals. Well, those things require professionalism. Staying in view is about the least we can ask!

Yeah, Topalov blaming his quick play mistakes on Kramnik. That's good.

Well, I for one would like to see them at the board, but I walk around sometimes when I play OTB.

"...there are obligations and there should be professional standards."

Who should draw up the professional standard regulating presence at the board during play? I nominate...Mig!

Of course when kasparov went to his Hotel Room, in the middle of a game, or when he simply leave the building instead of resigning in front of the public (againt Radja), Mig remaint silent.
When Kramnik does the same thing that all the other champs did it in the past, then he is showing lacks of respect for the public. Gimme a break....

Well, as long as it's not a televised event (and elista didn't even have live webcams, which in itself is pretty pathetic these days) who cares what the players are doing. Apart from the few hundred people in the audience none of us would know whether the players were dancing kalmykian folk dance on the stage or wearing a clown suit (or both at the same time).
There were plenty of precautions taking to eliminate any chance of possible cheating so I really don't think we should care what the players did. I think everybody agrees that cheating was pretty much impossible (even Topalov acknowledged this after game 6 or 7).
Besides, Kramnik likes to pace between moves. Now, how annoying do you think it would have been for Topalov if Kramnik had wandered around on stage for 2-3 hours per game. I think Topalov should be quite happy that Kramnik had somewhere else to go.

I thought it was bizarre that the game position was displayed in their private rest area, encouraging them to leave the board. Apparently not too many others thought much about it though. No one's even mentioned that as a problem.

This argument that a Kramnik should be allowed to use the rest area for the purpose of finding "good" moves is ridiculous. It had the reverse effect on Topalov and would be distracting to many players at the very least.

Your opponent makes a move, then immediately disappears in some hideaway? Since when has anyone played against an opponent that does that?

The penalty for leaving the board should be having to take a mental image of the position with you. Of course, the less astute will disagree.

This is ridiculous. Chess is not a spectator sport and never will be. Noone is interested in watching two guys sitting at a table for hours. Sorry- poker barely makes the grade as a televisable spectacle.

There will never be any money in chess. Any thought to the contrary is just wishful thinking.

Making Kramnik stay on stage to prevent cheating is one thing- but justifying it as a sport is foolish beyond belief.

I love chess- but it is not a sport. I enjoyed following the match on the Web, but you would have to pay me to sit and watch it live in an auditorium. I suspect most chessplayers feel the same.

"it wasn't his fault that the appeals committee locked the bathrooms..."

Why not, when this and even much worse things was what he demanded? Doesn't make much sense to say "hey, it's not my fault that my friends in the AC gave me what I threatened to leave the match for if I didn't get!" Especially when what I did demand went even far longer. Have we forgotten that Topalov demanded that the players should no longer be allowed to use their relaxing rooms (!), a demand that seems specifically designed to exploit Kramnik's arthritis? Not his fault? Not unreasonable? Give me a break.

Topalov said in the Game 6 press conference that he'd overreacted and made a mistake. That he believed Kramnik's play was fair, and that his continuing to play in the match proved that.

Here he tells a different story, claiming that he did then and still does have doubts. The shock of losing seems to have made him rewrite history in his mind to try to find an excuse. He would not have kept playing if he'd had serious doubts, he said so himself. But that's not the way he remembers it now.

Apparently he was spooked very badly and it made him see Kramnik as some kind of tactical Superman. He not only didn't see the mistakes at the time, he hasn't seen them even now, after having had time to examine the games closely.

What got him in trouble, as Mig says, was the public accusation without evidence, and the subsequent public relations campaign (Danailov's phony Fritz statistics). His bad sportsmanship after the fact, claiming not to care about the world title, et cetera has only made things worse. Knowing that he has dreams about he and Kramnik in a nightclub, just the two of them, takes it from the realm of bad sportsmanship into the bizarre. Why did he tell us that? Hints that Kramnik has faked his illness were just plain tacky.

It's possible that the rules may need to be changed in future, but in the middle of a match was no time to do it. It was odd seeing Topalov boast one moment about never breaking a contract, then a few paragraphs later, sneer at the idea of Kramnik justifying his behavior on contractual grounds. As of now though, there's no rule against wandering. Whether there should be is another question. (This is all vaguely similar to the Korchnoi-Spassky "Box" controversy of 1977, even though computer assistance wasn't an issue then).

Bottom line is that Topalov's behavior was extremely deleterious to the game. You don't hit the panic button and call the press when you have suspicions, reasonable or not. Topalov doesn't understand this, and so is likely to do it again next time. The danger is increased by the fact that he's just broadcast to the world the deep fears that he has about this issue. Other players may try to play on those fears. (See Theorist's soccer example). People who aren't cheating may try to subtly hint that they are, just so as to unravel the old boy even further. You know your Lasker; the threat is worse than the execution.

Topalov needs to be stopped before he disgraces the game even further. Either get some kind of promise from him to go through proper channels the next time, or let the organizers proceed with their various plans to blackball him.

If cheating is really a concern, it is not obvious that one is more likely to cheat in a restroom than on the stage. If anything, eye contact with members of the audience is a more valid concern that some unspecified restroom cheating strategy.

Yes, it is a sport. So is basketball. If Michael Jordan felt he would perform better if he went to the lockeroom every 5 minutes - it is his right to do so. I may think it is unprofessional to do a lay up when one can dunk a ball, but a pro player who wants to save his energy may disagree with me, so who am I to tell him what to do?

I don't see how my rights as a chess spectator are violated if a GM spends a lot of time in his rest area. I don't come to look at seating men, I came to see a quality chess game. If Kramnik wants to spend all his time in a john or if Topalov wants to sing "I feel pretty" backstage, it is of no concern to me. I come to see great chess. They can do anything they want (within the limits of their contracts), but as long as I get to see them move the pieces - that is fine with me.

There may be some people who want to see players' during the whole game. Some may even be more interested in seeing rest areas more than the board itself. But as a chess fan , I don't care about what is going on off the board - I only care about chess.

"it wasn't his fault that the appeals committee locked the bathrooms..."

Why not, when this and even much worse things was what he demanded? Doesn't make much sense to say "hey, it's not my fault that my friends in the AC gave me what I threatened to leave the match for if I didn't get!" Especially when what I did demand went even far longer. Have we forgotten that Topalov demanded that the players should no longer be allowed to use their relaxing rooms (!), a demand that seems specifically designed to exploit Kramnik's arthritis? Not his fault? Not unreasonable? Give me a break.

Posted by: acirce at October 27, 2006 15:53

Acirce:

Maybe, you really need to take that break. Kramnik agreed to the composition of the appeals committee in advance. If he so obviously knew that it was loaded with Topalov's friends then he should have protested the composition earlier, not when the decision went against him. You shouldn't be blaming Kramnik team's incompetence and stupidity on Topalov and his team.

"let the organizers proceed with their various plans to blackball him.
Posted by: Graeme at October 27, 2006 15:54"

No organizer in his right senses is going to blackball Topalov. Topalov is, by far, the most exciting top player in the world today. You can post all the crap which you want to post but blackballing Topalov is not going to happen.

I really hope Kramnik whoops on fritz then these cheating allegations will really look funny. Of course then the fritz team will accuse him of using fritz, but the fritz frequency statistics will be quite useless.

dirtbag: Yeah, if Kramnik didn't win the match, I bet the incompetence and stupidity of his team would come back to haunt him. But that didn't happen.

Yeah, and good thing Topalov has all those smart and competent people on his side :) Maybe now that chess didn't work out for him they can enter intelligence and competence world championships.

On these display boards in the bathrooms -- can you move the pieces around?

Heh, dragging out the old chestnuts. I was silent on Kasparov leaving the board in Linares 2003 because I didn't know about it. I'm not even sure I knew about it before it was published in NIC. Wow, big conspiracy. "Those who cannot attack the thought, attack the thinker." That and, "if all else fails bring up Kasparov."

But I'm perfectly happy to use that event as another example to strengthen my case. No way should players be off the reservation like that. If it's an emergency an arbiter goes with you. A table with tea and water and biscuits off to the side, fine. A shared bathroom, dandy. But an area with its own sofa and demo board?! Crazy. Why bother coming to the board, or to the auditorium? Just have them at home with a webcam and an arbiter, the way we've done online tournaments in the past.

If by bathroom, you mean toilet, there are no display boards there.
If you mean "rest area", or whatever you want to call it, I suppose you can, but you are not allowed to.

acirce, you seem not to understand the meaning of "fault." Had the appeals committee done the correct thing and agreed to closer controls on the restrooms, or something else reasonable, it would have been a non-issue. Kramnik's time in the bathroom was remarkable and Topalov's team remarked on it. Obviously this eventually led to the big mess, but there's no reason to criticize Topalov for the original complaint itself. It was the method of delivery and tone that were objectionable. If you complain that your opponent is slurping his water at the board and the appeals committee bans the players from drinking, that's not on the player who made the original complaint.

Now that is a good point, Mig. Thanks.

indeed, mig. why not just let them sit at home and play over the net? As long as there is an arbiter in place and any possibility of cheating has been ruled out I really don't care what the players do while they play. All I see is the moves relayed on ICC/playchess anyways.
The day you get live TV coverage of a match then you can indeed make demands on players to be on stage, be dressed nicely, etc. but that is not going to happen.
Lets face it, chess is not a spectator sport (game?). I love following live games on the net, but I would be bored senseless sitting in an auditorium looking at 2 people sitting still for 7 hours.

Mig says : "the main point is true: his original protest was not unreasonable and it wasn't his fault that the appeals committee locked the bathrooms"

Not talking about the way Topalov team received the Kramnik "reality show tapes", i think that to be angelic to this extent calls for... another word. Dunno... Since you cannot be that naive, you force me to look for other explanations...

You call that journalism ?? I mean telling people of the whole world reality they had no eyes to see by themselves ?? "It wasn't his fault... " Do you really think that in your soul ? I cannot believe it. You are either partial or stupid or well paid for writing this BS. I am sorry but too much is too much.

well, the bottom line is that Topalov destroyed Danailov's reputation and from now on chess is going to be plagued by the paranoia of electronic cheating done via subcutaneous implants for Morse coding and transmission of moves
[ Nf3 = -'' --' -' ]

we know that Krapov doesn't cheat, he is too old for playing with kids electronics, but why wont any ambitious young master take the 2900 Fritz to second him when playing in tournaments ?
Just for checking for blunders or when in real difficulty to be sure

Kramnik may have cheated, I was surprised myself that he did not do any serious tactical mistakes all match.
We can see in this Essent tournament how common they are amongst computerless (i.e. clueless) GMs

From now on each GM game must be webcam supervised and each player scanned for electronics and dental metal fillings when he gets into the playing room.

As for Danailov's demands in the public release, they came after they initially filed a protest directly to the committee. Four days earlier, I believe.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3370

It didn't say anything about not being allowed to use the rest areas. After that protest was (apparently) ignored, they went public. This was objectionable and wrong in my opinion, although I'm not sure if the committee denied the first protest with an answer or simply ignored it. Maybe it was filed incorrectly? But I desperately don't want to get bogged down in this garbage again. Especially since even if we take everything Topalov says now as sincere his behavior was still atrocious and many of his comments now are dishonorable.

lakejen: let me say I never attended a top level chess game. But I chess is almost as good if you watch it on the internet. I can relax on my sofa (kinda like Kramnik in his restroom), listen to ICC radio commentary, have my shredder do the dirty work, while sipping my favourite beverage. What is not to like?

But the same can be said by hockey or football or basketball. It is just more comfortable to watch the game at home or at a bar instead of freezing your ass of on a stadium. You get the expert commentary that you don't get while you are in the arena - same as in chess. But still, there is that something that you are missing, when you are not really there. Same with chess
- no matter how good your home watching experience is, there are some things that you just wanna see in person.

Take a look at this file that has a footage of Kramnik winning the final rapid game and tell me you wouldn't want to be there to witness that! The crowd went crazy!:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=va9Hxr7bfEk

So I guess my point is, chess can be exciting spectator sport, but we shouldn't worry about people being away from the board, chances are both guys will be at the board when the most exciting things happen.

Not reading all of these but I will say that Mig you are 100% correct.

The players should be given a limit to their 'off-stage' time. Perhaps 10 minutes per hour of time control, something like that. Take a dump before the game starts, whatever. I'm a huge Kramnik fan but excessive time away from the board is unsportsmanlike at best.

It IS relevant where the player is during the time the game is being contested. Non-present players (or, the dreaded fear of) create an uncomfortable PR issue with sponsors who,hopefully, pay big bucks to have these guys show up and play. The on-site 'fans' want to see the players grimace, squirm, bite fingernails, contemplate, etc., etc., and all that is part of the psychological warefare going on, and the enjoyment of watching a big match.

The chess arena IS the 64 squares and the stage on which it is set.

There also is the issue of unintended distraction a player may cause by pacing about the stage if forced to be present on stage for a minimum amount of time. That would need to be dealt with.

But, all these perceived problems are solvable. Football is played on a field, baseball, a diamond, Hockey, a rink. Chess is played on a board, on a stage, between 2 people, and that is where it should be.

We should stop coddling these guys and drop the gloves and have at it....

http://chess-training.blogspot.com

Okay, Mig,

Let's draw up a regulation to govern your latest crusade.

--On the chess table, in addition to the board, pieces, and chess clock, shall be located an additional "rest-clock" for each player.
--Each player shall "punch out" on the rest-clock when he leaves the table, and "punch in" on the rest-clock when he returns.
--Each player shall be allotted away-from-board "rest-time" in the amount of ten minutes per hour.
--A player who exceeds his rest-time allotment, whose "rest-area" flag falls, shall lose the game on time.
--Players claiming physical disability, weak bladder, constipation, or other extenuating circumstances may petition the arbiter, before the start of play, for additional time to be added to the rest clocks.

Is this what you have in mind, Mig?

Mark, just because football is played on the field doesn't mean we should require all football players set up tents and live on the field between matches. As long as football players do what they are supposed to, spectators are happy. Chess requires a GM to make some number of moves in 2 or 2.5 hours. As long as they do it, what's the problem? I don't see why we should require them to spend more time at the table than they deem necessary - we don't ask that from the football or hockey players.

There is a question :
Do players really need to have a private restroom ?

The solution is not locking the bathrooms, this would be ridiculous and will debase chess from a high intellectual activity to a toilet issuse.

The solution is the "advanced chess" that Kasparov tried to promote once.

Computers still need us, we have positional knowledge that they don't yet posses.

Well I agree, Russianbear that hockey, football, etc is a lot more cool to see in real life than on TV (one reason i don't have a television). However chess is rather different. I have not been to any "top-level" match but I have played in a big open tournament with some reasonably big names (beliavsky, harikrishna and a young carlsen to name a few). However as soon as I finished my game (and I had a couple of very quick losses) I usually went over and had a quick look at the top boards. That lasted around 30 seconds, before I got bored looking at a lot of men (and a few women) sitting absolutely still, and went home.
Now give me a good bone-crunching hockey tackle or a beatifully executed football dribble. That's good live sport. Chess is not.
Theres a reason that 60000+ spectators turn up each and every week for a regular manchester united league match, while you have 50 spectators at the chess WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP!
I did see that clip with Kramnik winning the last blitz game, and to me it basically sounds like Kramnik's team went wild and not really anyone else (though I was pretty ecstatic back home, being a long time Kramnik fan)

I don't need any regulations beyond "The players should be present on the stage at all times. Exceptions are made for prompt visits to the [shared] restroom [which means toilet] and to the [shared] refreshment area at the side of the playing area.

That's the way most tournaments are already run. Those complaining that this is some hardship have never attended a GM tournament. Private rest areas with demo boards aren't exactly standard equipment, and for good reason. Against a computer (as in Bahrain) it doesn't matter as much because the element of distracting your opponent isn't there. But if I'm a sponsor that bit above or something similar goes into the rules.

Players who need to go outside to smoke are another problem with this. I suppose we could coddle the addiction and call it a medical need and send an arbiter outside with them.

one question: Did anyone actually know that Kramnik went to his restroom after each move, before the first press realease from Topalov? I for one had no clue.

"Did anyone actually know that Kramnik went to his restroom after each move, before the first press realease from Topalov?"

No, and we still don't.

It seems to me we have this backwards. when I play in a tournament I am happy when my opponent leaves when it is my turn to make a move. that leaves me in quiet. with no distractions. I really dont want my opponent sitting across the board fidgeting around. I rather he leave.

my opponent will also waste a few seconds coming back to the board.

I do the same. I feel it is good manners to leave the board if my opponent has a difficult decision. I keep checking to see if he moved and then sit down immediately. notice what he moved and then work on my move.

I see this happening at chess boards all around the room. I have tried to watch the top boards at the world open. too boring and never has everyone been sitting down at the tables. there are always more than one grandmaster walking around the room or at least away from his board. this is very common.

I have watched some recent tournaments on the internet with web cams and the gm's do the same thing. they get up and walk around. the players are not disturbed by this.

the worst thing that could happen would be to have my opponent pacing back and forth on the stage while I am trying to think. that would be very distracting. I rather he leaves the stage and comes back after I make a move.

so lets get real here. do not try to fix what is not broken or you will ruin a good thing.

I think the most surprising thing here is Mig's take that "There is some whining." That is an incredible understatement.

--"I have never ever breached a signed contract. I am not Kramnik. How often has he withdrawn with vague complaints of fatigue?" Classy.
--"Our protest against Kramnik's behaviour...everyone condemned" Everyone? In Sofia, or what?
--"You can't do that, can you?" Exactly why not? It may be a consideration for future matches, but it wasn't until Toppy was down 0-2.
--"Kramnik reacted like an injured innocent."
--"He thought he could get away with anything."
--"Was Kramnik my opponent or was it Kramnik assisted by a computer?"

This was one long hit-piece with perhaps one semi-solid argument hidden inside.

My understanding of the video is that Kramnik might leave the board and then go to a rest area and then from the rest area back and forth to the bathroom several times and then finally return to the board.

Therefore he might leave the board once and go to the bathroom 5 times before returning. This entire things is totally blown out of proportions and we are not discussing the real issues.

So in a sense he went to the bathroom once. but since he went in and out 5 times before returning, Danailov counted it as 10 times when he only left the board once. I said 10 because Danailov doubled the numbers.

Friend Frank H,

finding something distracting has 100% to do with your psychology at that moment.
If it is good, then everything is OK.
If you are in trouble, everything is BAD !
(we are talking for normal circumstances, OK?)

The best athletes in all sports are the ones who never irritate and have constant concentration capabilities.
Kramnik is better in this than Topalov. For sure.

lakejen,

of course chess isn't as popular as football. But 50 spectators number is a little misleading. Elista is not exactly a center of the world. But there were 500 000 people logging into official WC website, and there were thousands watching the game on different servers. Even in football not a lot of matches can draw this many people, and we are comparing two completely different animals - a game that is accessible to every person in the world to a fairly intellectual game which is not easy to learn and is even harder to master.

But still, there is something to see in chess, too. I was too young in 1987 (or 1985 for that matter), but if I had the chance to see Karpov play Kasparov in game 24, I don't know, there is probably no other sport even that I would rather attend. Maybe, if the national team of Russia or Ukraine made it to the finals of the World Cup, but as Pele once said when asked when USSR would win the World cup of footbal: "you will win World Cup the year Brasil wins the Hockey World championship". Chess will not be as popular as some other sports, but still on the very top level it can get pretty exciting.

I'm sure that if Kramnik had been moving the pieces on the demonstration board we would have heard plenty about it. That really is a crazy suggestion.

But I don't mind at all about where the players spend their time and understand perfectly that some people may prefer to pace about restlessly. I'm like that myself. It helps may brain to work. I like to sit, stand, pace, lie down even on the floor if I can etc ... and forcing a person to stay sat down in a chair, getting a headache seems to me an unfair measure in favour of those who are good at being sedentary.

I've heard that Ivanchuk likes to go out and play 'horsies' in surrounding meadows.

In terms of making chess played at a classical time control interesting and engaging, we need to find entertaining commentators, perhaps even delivering bios, stats, factoids etc. every now and again. There has to be some way of filling the gaps, especially during those long middle game thinks.

As many others have pointed out, ensuring the presence of a couple of average blokes at the board all the time contributes little to visual excitement.

I thought the coverage of the Kasparov-Short match on Channel 4 was quite entertaining and could be built on ...

Also, I had the impression that these comments by Mig represent a bit of a change from his position during the match. That's fine, everyone has the right to change their mind, but it is normal to give some kind of background about the evolution of ones thinking in such cases. I apologise in advance if such a background was posted and I missed it

M

Mig,

"exceptions are made for prompt visits to the shared toilet..."

Please explain how this would work in practice. After every third move, Judit walks to the toilet, remains there for two minutes, then returns. What, if, anything should the arbiter do?

Mig is back to adoring Kramnik.

Call me a conspiracy lover, but I've got the feeling this latest barrage is somehow connected to the Mexico debacle...

>>No organizer in his right senses is going to blackball Topalov. Topalov is, by far, the most exciting top player in the world today. You can post all the crap which you want to post but blackballing Topalov is not going to happen.
>>

You haven't been following along. Organizers are talking about it **already**. Ignoring it won't make it go away. This whole idea one player is so indispensible that people just have to put up with anything he does is a holdover from the Fischer days. Topalov is not Fischer, he's nowhere near being a household name. He's virtually unknown outside of the chess world.

No organizer in their right mind wouldn't at least consider avoiding him. One more outburst like the last one, and Topalov would do far more damage to any tournament than the good his play might bring.

Just put your partisanship in check and listen to what I'm saying. I haven't said to blackball Topalov and that's it. I've offered as a reasonable **alternative**, to invite him, but to extract a promise from him not to do any such thing again. To promise to go through proper channels next time he has suspicions. If he were asked to do that and flat out refused to do it, then you'd better believe he'd be blackballed. No organizer would put up with that. If they did, they'd have to put up with it from all those other players too.

Well if I was behaving within game guidlines, and my opponent felt I was distracting him, then I would expect him to tell me. we can discuss the issue and try to resolve it. It is not appropriate to go over board on it. I deserve at least one notification that my opponent feels I am distracting him.

If I were away from the board, I would never feel I was distracting him. If I was walking around the board looking over his shoulder then I would think I was distracting him. Kramnik was given no warning that he might be distracting Topalov. My personal opinion is that Kramnik was not distracting Topalov. The problem was with visions of insanity dancing in Topalov's head.

It is not Kramnik's responsibility to change his own life to suit Topalov's fears and inner demons. Topaov should first get some serious psychological help to become a stable normal human before pushing his inner demons onto someone else.

In fact my belief is that if Kramnik changes his behavior to suit Topalov's inner demons then he only reinforces the demons. It is far better for Kramnik to say to Topalov. No I will not change my life for your inner demons. You will have to solve your inner demons first.

that is better because it says the solution is to fix the problem at its source. The source of the problem is Topalov's inner demons, the problem is not Kramnik's behavior.

Well that's exactly my point, Russianbear. there are lots of people interested in chess, and following the games on the net. However when it comes to watching in person is a different thing.
I think you could get a decent viewer rating if you showed chess on TV in the right format. But unfortunately nowhere enough to compete with the bigger sports. TV is almighty when it comes to sponsorships and unfortunately we just don't have the media coverage that is required.

>>I don't need any regulations beyond "The players should be present on the stage at all times. Exceptions are made for prompt visits to the [shared] restroom [which means toilet] and to the [shared] refreshment area at the side of the playing area.
>>

This is probably something the sponsors will decide on an individual basis. Topalov's awful behavior aside, the computer may change the way we have to do things, including tighter controls. The security at San Luis was horribly lax, with managers and people with open notebooks running Fritz in the same room.

Certainly, the idea of making the game look more professional, and trying to keep the players "on the field" more might be a good idea. It won't, by itself, prevent cheating. Eugene Varshavsky, at the World Open, almost never left the table.

Just because Kramnik probably wasn't cheating, and just because Topalov was horribly out of line doesn't mean that we should automatically reject any ideas like this in the future. But the rules should be set and stuck to before the event begins.

I disagree with 'team Topalov being innocent and the FIDE Appeals Committee being at fault'

Team Topalov would be innocent if team Topalov submitted a good faith protest, but that is not the case. On the contrary, this is part and parcel of a deliberate psycho war where

*** team Topalov had team members dedicated to inventing bad faith protests en masse in a planned and organized way since the beginning of the match so as to unbalance Kramnik and hence, the outcome of the match ***

This is clear from the way the protests are submitted, not to the arbiter first as they should have been, but directly to the clearly incompetent Appeals Committee, and accompanied with open letters to the public.

The psycho war began even before the match, Danailov admitted later on that the purpose for accrediting a 'sorcerer' on the Bulgarian team was to put pressure on Kramnik.

See also the interviews of Kramnik's seconds Rublevsky (translated by Russianbear) and Motilev (translated by Vlad Kosulin) in another thread, revealing how the pscycho war was conducted by the Bulgarians behind the stage.

To me, the despicable means used in the Bulgarian psycho war is clearly proven on a 'balance of probability' standard of proof.

Even with a competent Appeals Committee in place, such a bad faith barrage of protests is sooner or later likely to induce a mistaken decision of the Appeals Committee that would influence the match outcome, e.g. a free point for Topalov.

Team Topalov and Topalov himself is therefore very well at fault for the despicable means used in his psycho war.

Don't try to sell black is white. The complaint was unreasonable and can't be detached from it's tone or the public manner in which it was delivered.

OK perhaps you could accept it, with some reservations, if Kramnik actually had been playing this tactically faultless chess Topalov deliberately LIES about. The reality is that Kramnik's game was nowhere near his career heights and full of tactical blunders and oversights in the first four games. Funny that they underline in their protest the time Kramnik (presumably) spent in the loo before his 16th move in the 3rd game. They try to draw/insinuate a connection between Kramnik's tactically accurate 16th move and the time he spent away from the cameras. What they "forget" to mention is that Kramnik then fails to follow up with the crushing and computerish 17.Ne4!. You would be excused to think that an experienced analyst of Kramnik's ability might actually look deeper than two half moves in his "Fritz"(sic) analysis. Total nonsense, with nothing to back it up. If Topalov really believes that, he is losing it big time.

And before all that comes the dilemma that Topalov's camp couldn't see what Kramnik was doing in his restroom, and it's not far fetched to believe that a member of the biased appeals committee probably hinted them about Kramnik's frequent toilet visits.

Forcing players to stay on the stage in a world championship match is of course total nonsense. This is not reality TV. It's the classical World CHampionship match, and the players should be allowed the means to play their best chess possible. If player A cannot fully concentrate without pacing around a lot between moves (or has medical reasons to do so) then he without a question should be allowed to do just that. Pacing around at the stage could distract his opponent, so pacing around in a rest area is a natural solution.

Chess on TV (yeah right) we want to see him on the stage for 4 hours and not just for 2 hours and 37 minutes.. name me one chess player who actually would care about such thing?

Right.

Inspite of admiring Kramnik, i would rather see Almira at night in my dream instead of Kramnik...
Mig has a right that only the supcion that your opponent might use computer assistance can dramatically affect your game. I think that whoever have played internet chess knows well the sentiment/
As far as Topalov accusations are considered, they are ridiculous. Not only were they groundless but also in a very inappropriate timing (2-0). Topalov ruined one of the most valuable thing one has, his reputation, and this..thanks to an incompetent manager.

Topalov sure comes across like a sorehead these days. If his team can't prove charges of cheating he should do what many wise politicians have done over the years who were fairly certain they had been screwed in an election but couldn't prove it: congratulate your opponent and work towards the next battle...or at least pretend to so as to show the public you're a graceful loser. Like many others I used to admire Topalov. Now, I'd slap a Topy action figure out of my kids hand. Oddly enough, the idea of Topalov and Kramnik hitting a club or bar together minus managers or entourage's is a damned good one. Haven't these guys known each other for many years? Or has Danailov always protected his boy from getting too friendly with the other top GM's?

This strange private restroom arrangement will not
happen again. All the talk is just water under the
bridge now. I don't want to dwell on just how ridiculous
it is to disappear off the board after each move into
the toilet of some private quarters.

If Topalov plays solid, entertaining chess, he'll be
invited to more tournaments than he can posibly play in.

Kramnik's holly warriors will never be pleased with
any reasonable arrangement and the bitching will only
escalate as Mexico rolls nearer.

D.

>>
Well if I was behaving within game guidlines, and my opponent felt I was distracting him, then I would expect him to tell me. we can discuss the issue and try to resolve it. It is not appropriate to go over board on it. I deserve at least one notification that my opponent feels I am distracting him.
>>

Worse yet, Topalov kept insisting that Kramnik's behavior *wasnt* distracting to him. It seems clear now that it was, but he refused to admit it.

His name is Pottylov, not Topalov. Please, let us at last call things by their right name in future.

Yet another argument for Kirsan in favor of faster time controls.

And since we're in the mood for making rules, what about the composition of players teams?
Has the Topalov team ever cared to address the question of the roles of many of the people in their player's team?
Or is it only Topalov's innuendos that need a full and fair investigation?

Perhaps the sour grapes are part of a shrewd Danailov plan to eventually win all the fans back with a dramatic display of sportsmanship..a WWE style "face" turn. He'd be more popular than ever then. Yeah. He's probably laughing at all our righteous discussion. Of course it doesn't matter whether it will be a sincere apology or just more manipulation. We'll likely never be able to know for sure.

Absence from the board in a rigorously cheating-proofed environment is not a pervasive chess problem. There is, in the media, one complainer: Mig. And there is, in top-level chess, one complainee: Kramnik.

The world champion has a serious illness which may require movement to keep from arthritic stiffening. Is the entire point of this latest crusade to deny Kramnik any accommodation to his health/stamina issues? Or is the point merely to embarrass him?

Neither of the players had any say at all about the composition of the original Appeals Committee. In particular, Kramnik had no say about the Appeals Committee that was biassed against him, i.e. all members of the Appeals Committee were FIDE officials supposedly to be neutral in a match where one of the players was the FIDE champion.

The fact that the players have no say in this regard may be without precedence in a worldchampionship match.

The first news on the new Appeals Committee was that Kramnik and Topalov agreed to the composition of the new Appeals Committee. But strangely enough, when the actual composition of the new Appeals Committee was announced, one of the members was a member of the old Appeals Committee and even became the chairman of the Appeals Committee (Vega), and the two new members of the new Appeals Committee were still biassed against Kramnik with the same conflict of interest as before.

My current view is that an exhausted Kramnik (he did all the negotiations himself) was cheated in the negotiations for the new Appeals Committee. We will see as new information keep coming to surface.

I think for some reason, Mig seems to always support either support Kaspy or Topalov. Either way the first protest was released to the press threatening Topa will leave the match. Thats not the proper way to complain. What Topalovs team did just affected the appeals committee as well. They were probably thinking Topalov might seriously leave the match. Where is Kramniks faults in these events apart from peeing frequently or liking the smell of bathrooms. Strange reasoning from Mig to support Topalov that the complaint was valid, may be it was, but you dont release it to media and threatten to walk away putting pressure on the appeals committee

"There is some whining, but the main point is true: his original protest was not unreasonable and it wasn't his fault that the appeals committee locked the bathrooms and that this in turn caused Kramnik to sit out game five."

I take issue with this statement. The original protest was totally unreasonable. I am shocked that you can make the above statement.

Personally I would never play tournament chess, at any level, under conditions that restricted the number of times I could get up from my chair. Most grandmasters would feel the exact same way, and that's probably one of the reasons why so many of them have gone on record backing Kramnik. Getting up from the board to pace around is a routine habit, and it's tolerated by organizers and spectators alike. This even ignoring the fact that some players, like Kramnik, have medical conditions and are virtually forced to move about every now and then.

Remember, the organizers are the ones getting together most of the money and treating us chess fans to free shows, and so far they have decided that allowing the resting areas is not a serious problem for them. Private rooms have been a part of world championship matches for decades, and clearly the exploitation of said rooms by the players is nothing that's frightened away audience members. Poll the audience in Elista, chances are most of them didn't really care if Kramnik stayed on stage for the full six hours of the game or just three. His behavior is hardly the huge display of unprofessionalism that Topalov tries to make it seem.

In today's age of chess computers, obviously extra security measures, like inspection of the rooms, are necessary to eliminate cheating possibilities. But as long as these are taken (and they were in Elista) complaints like those made by the Topalov team are completely groundless. If Topa was--as he claims-- genuinely unnerved about Kramnik being away even after the inspectors had gone over the bathrooms with a fine tooth comb beforehand, the fear was irrational and he should consult his psychologist to help him deal with it.

*calling Freud*

whiskeyrebel: "Plot to win the fans back..." ?!?

What are you talking about, man? Topalov has plenty of fans and
visibility. Perhaps more than ever. Despite all the nerdish crap
released by the little minds who hate his guts, they too watch his
games religiously, if only for the hope to see him lose.

The plot is simple, if he plays well, he's got the headlines. It's the
same for everyone.

D.

I admit I had never really stopped to think about the legitimacy of Topalov's complaint. Staying away from the board for so long is a bit disrespectful to the game, the opponent and the fans...
its interesting to think how the issue reflects their personalities/styles as well - Topalov wanted Kramnik to stay at the board and fight it out, and Kramnik wanted to make the match more of an impersonal intellectual exercise.

IMHO, the on-stage vs off-stage debate has sofar not produced any object, or at least not a clear object.

If the object were to prevent cheating, then on-stage presence alone would certainly not be an effective measure. Far better would be to work out comprehensive anti-cheating rules (one of which may or may not be on-stage presence), how to best enforce those rules, etc.

If the object were to ensure visibility, then the question arises visibility to whom?
a) Visibility to the audience?
b) Visibility to the opponent?
c) Visibility to the match or tournament officials?

On a) chess is not a spectator event in the same way that a boxing match is, but say that there is a low level need for visibility here. What exactly does 'low level of visibility' here mean?

On b) chess has taken off on the internet without visibility to the opponent at all, but say that there is a low level need for visibility here, same follow-up question as in a) (however, with presumably quite different answers!)

Similarly c) requires separate analysis

If the object is 'sportsmanship', then I frankly don't know how to relate such intangible quality to such tangible on-stage vs off-stage presence.

Anyway, I do not say that I have all the final answers to all of the issues in this on-stage vs off-stage debate, I just want to point out with the above examples (and with respect to you all) that the debate sofar is not very constructive, simply because it lacks clear objects.

"Topalov has plenty of fans and visibility. Perhaps more than ever." Yeah, right. Visibility for sure, but fans? I guess this guy is trying to imitate Topalov in being delusional, although the dream of being alone with Kramnik certainly beats it.

As a tournament player, I agree that as long the players verifiably do not receive any illegal assistance and do not break any other rules, they should be allowed to do whatever they want during the game, including the use of a private rest area. What if you simply dislike your opponent and do not want to stay in his presence while it is his turn to move? Or what if your opponent keeps irritating you in some way (coughing, making faces, etc)? Also, I, like Kramnik and many other posters here, like to walk between moves, and most of opponents would certainly prefer the walking player to go away and not to make noise around them.

Also, is it a fact that players' rest rooms in Elista had demonstration boards? Where was this information taken from?

I would imagine that for players of Kramnik's and Topalov's level the presence or absence of such board would not make much of a difference.

Can't Topalov understand that making opposing statements during interviews does not make him looking honest?
I'd say, Topalov needs help from a psychologist.
P.S. It looks like we see a rise of a new psychological disorder "kramnik-dependent depressive syndrome": first Kasparov, then Topalov. After losing to Kramnik, they both couldn't stop whining and insinuating. We need more matches for a statistically valid conclusion. Leko had match drawn, and he is all right, as Shirov is.

"I admit I had never really stopped to think about the legitimacy of Topalov's complaint. Staying away from the board for so long is a bit disrespectful to the game, the opponent and the fans..."

ross, if you think that playing your very best chess is the way you can best serve the game, and that leaving the board for lengthy periods helps you to do so, the argument collapses.

I don't understand how it makes you more professional if you stay in the board longer or go to the rest area. A professional is not a person who has more obligations than how to move the pieces. A professional is someone who gets paid and can move the pieces better than most. I do not see any fundaments in Mig's allegation. If the FIDE is worried about cheating then put metal detectors, cameras everywhere the can go, but not restrain them from relaxing (how ever they do that) therefore they make worse moves.

(Sorry for my English, I tried my best.)

Vlad--

Good point re Kasparov and Topalov.

But I'm still trying to figure out whether
a) the Elista match was "lousy" (Kasparov) or
b) Kramnik played with a super-human computer-like precision (Topalov).

Why a GM should worry about the fans instead of the position while playing chess is beyond me. Kramnik himself correctly said that a painter never asks the audience what they want him to paint.

I personally used to leave the board after every move and would return after seeing that my opponent had made a move. Good manners dictate that I wouldn't do outrageous things to try to distract my opponent, but there's no reason I should inconvenience myself because his nerves are feeble. Besides, every strong chessplayer knows that the best way to rattle his opponent is to make strong moves, and Kramnik is more than capable of doing that without assistance from anyone or anything.

Well you're off really off on this one. You said,"There should.. rules..to keep players on the stage. the perceived possibility of cheating can do a lot of damage to the players".
World championship chess is brutal. The stess level is tremendous there is no way around that. Look at the history in the last 30 years. All the accusations, all the shannigans; why? To unsettled the opponent and relive one's internal stress. Does Topalov really think that Kramnik cheated to win those first two games. Was Topalov's play so precise that the only explanation could be Kramnik is cheating? Did fritz help Kramnik find bXf8?? in the second game.
Mig we don't help the situation when we give in to players unreasonableness(fears, paranoia or rants to unsettle the opponent.)If you initiated changes Topalov's team would have found something else. eg. Kramnik seemed to be looking at a player in the audience 5 times before making his move.etc. Players need to move around and visit restrooms to relive stress.It's an insult to Kramnik to even consider taking Topalov's accusations seriously enough to initiate change.

I used to have patzers left and right complain about me cheating because I'd just pick of the pieces they'd leave en prise. I can't help but read the same thing into Topa's comments. If he plays weak moves and loses, how can he complain?

Also, and I know this has been said time and again, does Topa forget that Kramnik blundered into mate in game 2? Does he also forget that Kramnik failed to find the most convincing continuation in game 3? Does the computer only come into play after Topalov's nerves fray and he makes a losing move?

I disagree with Mig on this one. I remember Kasparov spending very little time seated during several games when he played a match against Anand in New York at the World Trade Center in 1995. Furthermore, how would anybody enforce such a seating time rule? It would necessitate an additional clock to measure it. It is just impractical. Chess would become something like a musical chairs contest.

'if you think that playing your very best chess is the way you can best serve the game, and that leaving the board for lengthy periods helps you to do so, the argument collapses.'

I was putting myself in Topalov/fans position..2 1/2 hours seemed like a long time to be away from the board (first two games). There is the sporting aspect to be considered here as well which is Topalov's point...I was always better shooting foul shots in an empty gym myself..

If you feel that the spectacle of chess consists of two not too good-looking men in their twenties or thirties staring intently at a chessboard I don't know what to say. Perhaps you would also suggest grooming tips and brilliancy prizes for "most amusing stare"? I and most chess fans seem to be interested in chess because of the moves made on board. Kramnik looking at the board between making those moves is entertaining for a total of, oh, I don't know one minute?

If staying at the board prevents a player from being able to make his best move, I will gladly let him stay in the bathroom, play solitaire or read a book. Nobody here would agree with the idea that being professional would require of Kramnik to make worse moves for the sake of the cameras.

Yes, ross.
I see no reason to change my statement.

Yander: Visibility for sure, but fans? ...delusional...

Fans too.

Speaking of delusions -- it is very apparent that by design or not,
Mig has managed to touch a raw nerve with a core of radical Kramnik
supporters who have mobilized to form a wasp nest in a permanent state
of alert on his blog. This goes prior to Elista. Undoubtedly it will
go on for the future. Putting things in perspective, it is rather
amusing. Here you can read people telling you with a straight face
that it is perfectly Ok to disappear for N hours into a private,
unobserved area during a WCC match. This bubble's gonna burst. Other
bubbles too. See it coming...

D.

yes I have done that at a tournament, read a book during the game when it was my opponents time to move. It really is very boring waiting for someone to move especially if you have played many games. the chess player is very intelligent and his mind is not satisfied with nothing to do. and many times there really is nothing to do until the opponents makes his move.

Now I do admit there are times in a game or even some games where I was not able to take my attention away from the board. I usually played better on those games. but there were days were I just had to get away from the board. And I might add that it really helped to get away. Only once can I remember where I messed up leaving the board. But I really learned a good lesson from that. I messed up when my opponent took a very long time to make his move and I forgot what I intended to play, felt confused and blundered. I learned a real good lesson and never made that mistake again.

That is what makes playing a chess game so much fun.

C'mon Frank, nobody disputes the need to walk, read newspaper, take a
real bathroom break, do yoga, whatever. But common sense demands this
to be done within a reasonably controlled environment for the duration
of the game -- adjacent room, whatever. Not getting locked into a
private, unobserved restroom; wandering out to a hot dog stand on the
street; walking the dog in the park, etc. Is this acceptible behavior
during a match??? You guys claim to be tournament players, some of you
-- are you telling me that you spent N hours in the restroom?

D.

Can we change the subject to something much more intriguing: Topalov's dreams. I am fascinated by the image of Topalov and Kramnik strolling the streets and ending up alone in an 'exclusive' nightclub. Is this the exlusive club of world champions, a hip NY one or something you would find in the red light district? Is there somebody out there who can interpret this dream?

yes, i can interpret it. Topalov finds kramnik sexually attractive...

yes, i can interpret it. Topalov finds kramnik sexually attractive...

> Is there somebody out there who can interpret this dream??

pyschoanalytically speaking it is quite transparent

Toppy is homosexual and as we know he has been deeply bound to Danailov since his teen years.
Their relation is particularly strong and the sexual tie is compounded with their teacher-manager-parent vs.student-pupil relation.

However he has fallen for Kramnik during this tense, dramatic, emotion stirring match that is why he wanted Kramnik to "share the toilet" (standard gay thing) with him, or at least be with him at the board all the time.

He now has wet dreams of spending time only with him, partying in the nightclubds etc.
The dream also says that his relation with Danailov is getting close to the end.
His libidinal fixation on Danailov has got loose and now is searching for other males to attach to.
At this moment Kramnik is on his focus. He has beaten him and Topa is obssesed now with Kramnik.

"Kramnik in my mind" is the new love song
for Toppy.

"What if you simply dislike your opponent and do not want to stay in his presence while it is his turn to move? Or what if your opponent keeps irritating you in some way (coughing, making faces, etc)?"

Good point. Lately I played against someone who was constantly drilling in his nose. Mind you I was sitting the whole time in front of him at the board? Of course not, I left the board everytime it was possible.
I think people who want players the whole time sitting at the board have never played themselves. The are talking like women who try to talk about football.

You guys watch it! Homophobic and sexist remarks are frowned upon, or worse. This is a family oriented forum too. Hold your fantasies in check.

D.

You may want to read the GM Reuben Fine's book on the psychology of chess players.
Fine was an MD and for a while the president of American Pyschoanalytical Association.

I usually thought that Fine's psychoanalytical observations on the latent homsexuality of the chess players was the standard Freudian gibberish
( and a reflection of his discontent over his failure to become world champ) but the recent Topa-Kramnik affair in the toilet and Topa's dreamworks had me reconsider this.

The problem is NOT about standing up or walking during opponent's thinking time. The issue is about "restrooms".
In most events (open and even closed), there are no restrooms for the obvious reason that no space is available for large numbers of players. There are just a few shared toilets. In an individual match you only need to provide two private rooms, and this is the only reason why the organizers even thought of giving the players the luxury of a room where to relax on their own.
Kramnik had no restroom in Torino (his comeback tournament after his illness), and played his best chess without feeling any need to be away from the board for long periods.
So, the solution is simple. Abolish private restrooms for future one-to-one matches and people like Danailov will have to invent some other excuse to lodge their complaints.

people, have u seen the live video of course 2005 on play chess?
i still remember leko walking all the time during his 21 move win against burzon so i think its comman for top players to not sit otb during thier games

people, have u seen the live video of course 2005 on play chess?
i still remember leko walking all the time during his 21 move win against burzon so i think its comman for top players to not sit otb during thier games

Next we have Topalov releasing his shrink reports to Hollywood tabloids like wannabe starlets...My subconscious mind forced a different soul mate on me...but my body is grieving the loss of my old partner...etc

Chess Fans all over the World, you finally did it: I am totally fed up and disgusted. You blame FIDE, corrupt officials, quasi dictators of remote countries, egomaniac players, paranoid Topalov, childish Kramnik, pure evil Danailov, rampant incompetence, greedy sponsors, the KGB, oil interests, russian yoghurts, german software companies, .....etc. etc.

BUT THE PLAIN TRUTH IS YOU JUST DON'T DESERVE BETTER.

I for one would love to see great players play chess be it in Mexico or anywhere else. You real chess fans cling to pseudo traditions and rather screw the sponsor. The closing of kramniks toilets is an outrage. But the breach of a contract with a sponsor is an moral imperative. Just great ! Players at the board for the spectators to see: not necessary to the real chess fans, because "Just the moves count" and hey: real chess fans get the moves from trial accounts on playchess or icc anyways.

But what to expect from socially depraved individuals with a notoriously low ambiguity tolerance. Isn't the paranoia normal if one lives and breathes by set of strict rules and always looks for the trap behind an opponents move?
Topalov using a computer in San Louis: Sure, how else could he gain so many points. Claiming that Kramnik called Svidlder on his cell phone while taking one of his long distance walks: an Outrage! A parapsychologist on the team: Only real chess fans could even believe that they are for real. Why not make the semi transparent wall completely solid, after all only the moves count. Yes, i am still talking to YOU the real chess fan!

To a real chess fan any change from any pseudo tradition is a precursor to changing a sacred rule of chess itself. As this would render years of practice in his cave obsolete, the real chess fan has a natural tendency to resist change and an affinity to the "good old times". Money is not an object to the real chess fan because he doesn't have any. This makes it rather easy to judge "selfish" sponsors, big coorperations, greedy managers, corrupt officials and outrageous server fees. A nice side effect is that they have enough time to become expert lawyers, referees, marketing professionals based on a few tidbits on some internet news sites: Remember just the moves count! Its just like being there! Real chess fans can be found in all rating classes, including prominent GMs and even former and current WMs. Only difference: The latter got some money from gullible aficionados!

To the real sponsors: Beware! Chess can severely damage your image!

>Chess can severely damage
>Posted by: A former Chess Fan at October

You are deluding yourself just as the drug addicts do when they say that they can quit anytime.
Once a chess fan always a chess fan.

This said now come to your senses let me know what you think about Janisch Gambit in Ruy Lopez.. pretty sharp isn't it ?

Such rant as yours is self validating by proving that chess players love the game so desperately much that they get literally mad when its reputation is tainted in any way.

BTW, Susan Polgar copied on her blog Mark Crowther's entries from chessninja, but 'forgot' to copy even a single one of the opposing entries, and asked: "Mark is a level headed person, do you agree with him?"

Yet another manifestation of Susan Polgar's sense of neutrality, I guess. Wonder if not Mark himself is embarrassed to be copied in such an outrageously out of context manner, I would be.

Well, the plain truth is that 'a former chess fan' does not deserve to be a chess fan indeed

To Ovidiu: Often the truth can not be found in remote locations or by an penetrating understanding of complex problems but quite simply by looking in a mirror. I just dared to take a peek....

"You don't spend money on webcams and the massive bandwidth to support them to see shots of an empty stage."

C'mon, the webcams are only for the opening moves and the time trouble; the parts of the game where the players have enough time to wander around are just as boring to watch when they sit in their chairs.

Topa saced two pawns. Very optimistic.

Essent round 6: Topalov had a superior position, but blundered two pawns away and has thrown everything including the kitchen sink at Polgar's King.

Polgar blundered back, allowing Topalov to sacrifice his Bishop at g7, with exciting tactics!!!

I would think that Polgar is lucky to still have a slight advantage, watch this game, guys!

Judith was winning but cave in to pressure with
34..Qe7 ? (34..Qc6 wins by -2.30 )stepping right into the Topa's tricks along e-file and f6-d5 knight jumps..

Once again chess is psychology, one just can not handle the pressure even if (s)he is won.

So much about "objective truth" and the "science" of chess.

34...Qc6 35.Bxg7 Nxg7 36.Nf6+ Kh8 37.Qd3 Nxf6
38.Qxd8+ Nfe8 and black wins

Oy, I think Polgar is getting spooked in the few moves before time control

BTW, this is an instance where video coverage showing facial expressions and mannerism would be great, the web cam on the official site does not cut it

'I would imagine that for players of Kramnik's and Topalov's level the presence or absence of such board would not make much of a difference.'

I disagree, and I think this is the real issue rather than the restroom itself. Rather than try and enforce an 'on stage' rule which is unfair, just remove the demo boards and the players will be 'forced' to spend more time at the board. Not seeing the board for long periods of time wouldn't bother Kramnik much if he was playing me I'm sure, but playing Topalov? I think you would find him sitting at the board more. No one can say removing the demo board is unfair as it was a luxury to begin with.

zero, could you double-check your line after 34 ... Qc6? There was no bishop on the board.

I didn't know that such a board exists. Surprising news. It would be better to remove it.

Ugh! Judit made the time control! Strange that Topalov could not take advantage of any of the positions just before time control!

This game may not be the best because of the blunders on both sides, may not even be the most logical in terms of outcome and what have you, but it is sure the most exciting game of Essent by far!!! Ugh!!!

ttacf, let me enjoy the game, there will be post-mortem analyses everywhere, I am positive

Now Topalov was winning but he was afraid of being mated in h1 by some Rd1+ Kh2/ Qd5 tricks..thus
he chickened out and played defensively 38. Kf1

38.Qf4 would have won the exchange or mated

38.Qf4 Nxf6 (38...Rxg5+ 39.Qxg5 Qxf6 40.Qxf6 Nxf6 41.Rc4 winning) 39.gxf6 Qd8 40.Rc7 1-0

if 41..Rd1+ (which was what Topa maybe feared)
42.Kh2 Qd5 43.Qh6+ and White mates first

oops, that was someone else that posted the line

I am in euphoria, I guess, because Judit is up again after time control with a devillishly risky looking King march

Topa's attack has run out of steam, he could have won once but now 38.Qf4! is all past and gone.
However now it is time for Topa to blunder something exceeded by his desire to win at any costs.

A lot of second and third moves by Topa in this game. Terrible.

He outplayed Judith nicely in the middle game.

He exchanged her good light squres bishop, got the thematic d4-d5 push when it seemed unlikely that he would ever get it by using dirty tactical tricks (Re5 and d5 and if exd5 the Nf5 is hanging) and he also got the Bb2 and Qc3 battery firing.

Thus somehow he got all that one could have wanted in such postion and then he blundered (gave ?) two pawns for a pressure that just didn't work out...but it was close to do so...

So I guess we can forgive him this game if he eventually loses to Judith as we all want.

This see-saw game looks over now after Qa8! of Polgar. The pawn endgame on the other board looks very drawish, so Polgar wins the tournament! (NOT official)

What is Topalov's rating in games played behind a glass screen?

what a heck is Mamedyarov doing ? he forced this pawn ending now let's hope he is ok with it

Judit won the game! OFFICIAL!

But both players are now playing the pawn endgame surrealistically, now everything can happen

One more treat from the interview department, this time with Silvio Danailov. INterview translated from the NRC Handelsblad, one of the Netherlands best newspapers and together with Volkskrant probably the least sensasionalist.
"Toiletgate haunts Topalov"

Despite the fact that the WC-match still haunts Topalov's mind, he is nonetheless present at the Hoogeveen Essent tournament.

Hoogeveen 28 october,

Smiling, Silvio Danailov shows us a metal miniature toilet he took from his pocket. In the potty-section (best I could come up with,S.) of it an engravement says "Kramnik 2006". Topalov's manager had it produced in Bulgaria after the much-discussed match in Russian Elista.

The match was overshadowed by the "toilet-affair" and it still haunts the minds of Topalov and his manager, who is present at Hoogeveen to play in the double round Essent tournament.

.

Says organisers van den Berg:
"Nobody had expected the match to escalate as much but we go with the flow and get a lot of media attention because of the Elista affair. everybody is still talking about it."

Danailov too, is talking about it (or thought it wouldn't escalate, the Dutch text doesn't specify,S.). Danailov was the one who filed the protest about the abundant toilet visits by KRamnik, thereby insinuating that the Russian was aquiring computer assistence. The FIDE appeals comittee honoured the bulgarians protest. As a consequence KRamnik refused to show up at the board and was forfeited. He refused to share a common bathroom with TOpalov. Following this, a large part of the chess world fell over Danailov because of his "ridiculous"(quoted, as being from the portion of the chess world that fell over Danailov. Not my ", S.).

Confronted with that criticism Danailov just shrugs his shoulders. No, it's hadn't been a psychological warfare. Says Danailov: " I sleep well at night. We had the right to file a complaint. Our protest has been upheld by the AC after reviewing the tapes. There was a reasonable doubt. When Kramnik returned at the table he often moved instantly -and often tactically correctly. NOw we're the bad guys and the one who locked himself in the bathroom for two hours is the good guy."
That the AC controversial to some and biased towards TOpalov's camp, acoording to some, Danailov doesn't say. He is critical of FIDE President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov's role. He reversed the AC ruling about the toilets. "Ilyumzhinov is Russian. Kramnik is Russian. Need I say more?" He gives a single example:
"The bulgarian jet that should pick us up wasn't authorised to land for four days, it could land only after Kramnik won the tiebreaks".

Danailov is not worried about any lost reputations:
"The positive thing about Elista was the worldwide media coverage od chess. Chess needs showbusiness element, otherwise it's way too serious for the general public".

Danailov is already looking for sponsors for a return match in Sofia. He estimates that he can raise about 2 to 2,5 million dollars. Many Bulgarian companies are willing to sponsor the match. "Veselin is the most famous sportsman of Bulgaria. Everyone is proud of him".

A possible problem might be a refusal by Kramnik, who will meet Topalov again at Wijk aan Zee, to enter a return match. Danailov: "It's rediculous. That Kramnik has already refused to play. He wants to keep the World Title for two years, without playing. Or maybe he just wants his private toilet from Elista".

------------------end---

Has anyone already studied the Mamedaryov endgame? Is it really won?

Mig, you are flat wrong. The "Sport" of Chess has never demanded that the players staple their butts to their seats. Chess is NOT about physical movement whatsoever. It is a competition between intellects. If you are going to have a competition that is going to last over 7 hours, then you will need to have a rest area.

I doubt that Kramnik was away from the board much during those 4 rapid chess games. Maybe we ought to do away with Classical chess altogether, to reduce that "threat" of cheating?

I can't think of any scenario where turning a chess game into a "sitzfleisch" battle would improve things. It wasn't so grand in the Louis Paulsen vs. Morphy games, that's for sure.

If Topalov becomes paranoid, and imagines cheating scenerios, it is up to him to either furnish proof, or to suck it up and refuse to psych himself out.

Topalov could have tried to negotiate precedent setting match conditions, whereby the players did not have their "rest rooms". He didn't. He didn't, because he only became troubled by Kramnik's departures AFTER he started losing, and needed to find a reason for his own blunders.
If he falls apart due to a "perceived possibility of cheating", then THAT is a truer test of his ability to compete under pressure.

Can you believe it, Sokolov managed to lose that drawn pawn endgame. Even if he won, he would be last. But since he lost, Mamedyarov is tied with Polgar for shared first/second at 4.5/6, not sure about the tiebreak rules.

Mig, If it's THAT important to you (or the organizers ponying up the $$), then give the "Problem" can be mitigated by incentives, rather than by growing a forest of new regulations delineating "professional behavior".

As for the WebCams: they are not interesting, because they hardly capture any action. The most exciting thing that might have been show would be Topalov taking off his jacket, or Kasparov putting his watch back on. It would be **duller** yet to see players glued to their seats. At least when one of the players gets up and leaves the board, there is a glimmer of **physical** action.

What next, Mig? Would you penalize a GM for wearing a loud neck tie? An ill fitting suit?

It's a sporting event; there are obligations and there should be professional standards. If you feel you make the best chess moves possible sitting on a sofa wearing shorts and slippers, stay home. You don't spend money on webcams and the massive bandwidth to support them to see shots of an empty stage. Players want bigger prizes and to be treated like professionals. Well, those things require professionalism. Staying in view is about the least we can ask!

Hmm... so that's a loss of 14 points for Topalov from this tournament? Takes him to 2799, I think.

So, that's a loss of 14 points for Topalov this tournament (I think)? Takes him down to 2799?

>Has anyone already studied the Mamedaryov endgame? Is it really won?

yes it is won, very neat

Black can not defend is Qs pawn and it can not use the penetration it gets by sacrficing them.
White get back just in time to pick the f7 pawn

Chess is not sports. IT IS GAME.

Vlad,

By your definition, soccer is also not a sport because it's a game. Chess is as much a sport as anything else. If you've ever played a long tournament, you're well-aware of the importance of physical conditioning needed in chess.

ON this situation, I can only say the following:

- Any person who has played classical chess on the board knows that if you are playing an opponent that continuously go to the bathroom, regardless the reason, this is something that might bother you.

- I believe that Kramnik's visits to the bathroom were due to a psychological tactic to distract Topalov. Not for cheating (I don't think neither Topalov or Kramnik did that), but they were aware that this might disturb Topalov.

- Topalov was not psychologically strong to avoid being affected for this and in an act of desperation of his team, they started some absurd conspiracy theories, with the obvious consequence of instant impopularity among the fans.

*************

IN ROUND 6 OF ESSENT, POLGAR DEFEATED TOPALOV AGAIN!!!!!

Mamedyarov did the same with Sokolov, so they share first place in the tournament. Tie break criteria favoured Mamedyarov. Congratulations to Judit!!!!!!!! CONGRATS TO JUDIT!!

IN Barcelona, Lenier Dominguez defeated Ivanchuk and won the tournament with 8/9!!!!, 1.5 points ahead of Ivanchuk who was second. The game was very nice and Dominguez make a sacrificial attack to win; there were moments when he repeated moves twice, having doubts on the winning continuation, but he was able to find it. CONGRATS TO LENIER.

>Lenier Dominguez defeated Ivanchuk
>won with 8/9, 1.5 ahead Ivanchuk

are sure he wasn't cheating ?
looks very suspect to me, who is this Lenier ?

"Kramnik may have cheated, I was surprised myself that he did not do any serious tactical mistakes all match.
Posted by: Ovidiu at October 27, 2006 16:40"

-- Apart from allowing the mate in three in game 2, obviously.

I feel old: anyone apart from me remember the Korchnoi-Spassky match in 1977, when Spassky wouldn't stay at the board, and instead analysed from the rest area? Korchnoi ignored it, and the pressure of appearing alone on stage, and spanked him.

Lenier Dominguez and Lazaro Bruzon are the most important Latin American chess players in the world. They are both from Cuba and rated over 2650 in the Fide list. Lenier is 22 years old and is remembered for being the surprise player (together with Kasim) in the 2004 knockout FIDE world championship (he was eliminated for Radjabov in the quarterfinals just because the sudden death game was drawn and Dominguez had white).

He has won the Capablanca in memoriam twice, is the current Cuban champion (a position he is alternating with Bruzon in the last years), a very interesting player. Unfortunately for Dominguez and Bruzon, their development has been difficult for the lack of trainers (considering the big difference in level with other cuban players) and the economic situation in Cuba.

For example, the Capablanca in memorial was not organized this year, because there was not enough support to bring to Cuba top players to participate and compite with both local talents (last year they brought Ivanchuk and Jobava).

> Apart from allowing the mate in three in game 2, >obviously.

Well, well, Dr. Dave, he must have do it on purpose precisely so as to ward off possible arguments , i.e. pre-emptively since the whole match was ahead.
Kramnik is a subtle thinker who thinks many moves ahead and you just fell for such a deep trap in the opening ( of the match).

Sandor wrote :
>Lenier Dominguez ..has won the Capablanca in >memoriam twice, is the current Cuban champion..

I was joking, pouring gasoline into the fire for making fun of the cheating hysteria.

Congratulation to GM Lenier Dominguez for such an impressive result.

Rating changes, according to the online FIDE ratings calculator, after Essent. (These may be altered slightly with Topalov's adjusted rating after his match with Kramnik):

Mamedyarov: 2728 +15 = 2743 (!)
Polgar: 2710 +17 = 2727
Topalov: 2813 -14 = 2799
Sokolov: 2670 -18 = 2652

Here's a rough stab factoring in the Topalov-Kramnik match, where Topalov would lose 10.8 points if game 5 was rated. I rounded up - Polgar would go from +17.4 to +16.8.

Mamedyarov: 2728 +15 = 2743 (!)
Polgar: 2710 +17 = 2727
Topalov: 2802 -14 = 2788
Sokolov: 2670 -19 = 2651

Now a million $ question is:

Who will appear in Topa's dream tonight?

Kramnik or Judit?

"yes it is won, very neat

Black can not defend is Qs pawn and it can not use the penetration it gets by sacrficing them.
White get back just in time to pick the f7 pawn"

You are right. He just needs to take the f7 pawn and then push the e6 pawn. Doesn't matter that Black has already´eaten the other white pawns. Coldl blooded played by the shark.

>You are right. He just needs to take the f7 pawn and then push the e6 pawn. Doesn't matter that Black has already´eaten the other white pawns.>

yes and it doesn't get any better if he tries to take the e5 pawn instead of the h4 one,
for instance ..

1...Kc6 [1...Ke6 2.h4 b4 (2...f6 3.exf6 gxf6 4.Kc5) ] 2.h4 b4 3.axb4 axb4 4.Kc4 b3 5.Kxb3 Kd5 6.g5 Ke4 7.Kc4 Kxf4 8.Kd5 Kg4 9.Kd6 Kf5 10.Ke7 Kxe5 11.Kxf7 Kf5 12.Kxg7 1-0

"I feel old: anyone apart from me remember the Korchnoi-Spassky match in 1977, when Spassky wouldn't stay at the board, and instead analysed from the rest area? Korchnoi ignored it, and the pressure of appearing alone on stage, and spanked him."

Maybe you only remember what you want to hear?

"This match featured one of the more bizarre disputes in Candidates history. At the beginning of Game 10, Spassky, losing badly, and trying to calm his nerves, began spending all his time in the relaxation box set up for him at the side of the stage, analyzing from the demonstration board, and only coming out to make his moves. Korchnoi, insulted tried to stop this behavior, and Spassky actually forfeited Game 12 when the arbitration committee initially ruled against him. Korchnoi game the forfeit back and continued the fight, but went to pieces in the dispute, losing 4 straight games, one by hanging Bishop and Queen in succession. Eventually the dispute was solved by moving the demonstration board. and Korchnoi pulled himself back together to win, but his tendency to come unglued over small disputes did not go unnoticed in the 1978 Championship Match."

http://members.aol.com/graemecree/chesschamps/world/cand1977.htm

Or maybe this website has an innacurate description of events?

If not, then there is a precedent. The demonstration board was moved AWAY from the players private rest area, in order to settle the dispute.

Oh my dear, I did not know that.

So that's why Kramnik did what he did !!.
But then Topa was right, he just tried to fight back somehow in these "mind games"..and got outplayed even more by being him who got to be judged as the "bad guy"....well, well, Kramnik, really devlish moves.

So, here goes another chess year for Topalov. For many this would be considered a succesful year, but considering his ambitions, it is rather checkered. There hardly was a tournament that he didn't start 0:2 in the early stage. Sometimes he pulled off miracles, sometimes, he didn't.

We will have to watch and see what happens next year.

In the meantime, I will checking Kramnik Central regularly to see what's the scoop. I'm sure Mig will keep the crew on high alert.

D.

I understand that Korchnoi was upset. Only moving to the board and then moving out again is not sportmanship.

EARLIER:
{
Posted by: Vlad kosulin at October 28, 2006 12:32

Chess is not sports. IT IS GAME.
}

The terms 'sport' and 'game' are too vague for the quotation to constitute an assertion.

I say...

[1]
Chess is a 'digital' sport, whereas tennis is an 'analog' sport.
Unlike tennis, chess is never a game of inches or millimeters. It matters not whether the knight is placed in the direct center of the square, or sloppily touching a neighboring square.

The great advantage of a digital sport is that fans can re-spectate a game from decades ago in the comfort of their own home; indeed we chess fans routinely do this. We see exactly what the two players saw (in digital terms). And this re-spectating can be done without the temporal delays of the original live game.

The only way to re-spectate an old analog game is by watching video, if you can get it. But analog sports turn out to be highly dependent on the live element for them to be interesting. Cable TV ratings have proven people have no interest in re-watching old Wimbledon finals matches.

Chess is a sport that engages the mind of the spectator far more than tennis does. I believe this helps explain why we chess fans enjoy reviewing old chess games.

[2]
Chess is a sport. If you want to question the application of the 'sport' label, ask the question of golf. Two golfers in the same tournament have no interaction with each other (other than perhaps one waiting for the other to putt). Tennis certainly does have constant interaction (I have to run to where ever you hit the ball to).

Without direct interaction between players, an activity probably should not be labeled as a 'sport'. The lack of a more finely nuanced term in the English language is probably why golf is called a 'sport'.

Chess is as intensely interactive as is tennis. Chess is more of a 'sport' than is golf.

Gene Milener
http://CastleLong.com/

Mig commenting on how chess professionals should or should not behave during a match reminds me of those terrible color commentators in sports telling the audience how a pro athlete should play his position, even though the commentator has never stepped onto the field himself (and is probably 100lbs overweight as he makes his comments). Just laughable - and insulting to those who actually ARE professionals and thus whose opinions on the matter actually count.

Mig, how about playing more than just a handful of rated, actual tournament games every decade or so before daring to tell chessplayers how their playing environment needs to be laid out in order for YOU to deem it "professional". Do you really think your 0.5 rated games/year average justifies you telling others how their game should be run, what is proper for a WC match, what is professional? Laughable and arrogant.

>Chess is a 'digital' sport, whereas tennis is an 'analog' sport.
The only way to re-spectate an old analog game is by watching video, if you can get it. But analog sports turn out to be highly dependent on the live element for them to be interesting. Cable TV ratings have proven people have no interest in re-watching old Wimbledon finals matches.>

You are wrong.

It is not because your "analog" versus "digital" issue but because in such cases only the drama of the final result matters not the unfolding of the game that is brainless in itself.
The tennis or soccer game is almost mindless and the excitement of the game is given only by the uncertainty over who will win.

[ and of course that in the old games we know or can find beforehand who won ]

And viceversa, those old phases in "analog sports" that were indeed exceptional technically, those who had some thought behind them, ARE broadcasted over and over again no matter how old.
For instance Pele's executions in football in the 1960s.

>Mig commenting on how chess professionals should or should not behave during a match reminds me of those terrible color commentators>

precisely the way they "should" behave is the subject of the contracts they sign, there is no apriori good or bad way, that what negociations are for

I can somehow understand Topa is irritated about Kramnik walking out of the stage so often. But this is because he has never played a match like this before. If he had more experience he would have not allowed to have a demo board in the restroom.
He could not complain about this thing anymore because it was written down in the contract, thus he came up with the toilet story.

Is it a fact that players had demo boards in their rest rooms during the Elista match? Where did this information come from?

I saw it on a photograph of the restroom.

>He could not complain about this thing anymore because it was written down in the contract, thus he came up with the toilet story.>

I think you are right.

Kramnik played him for a fool. He (is) was more experienced, more subtle, in such nerve games and benefited from the advice from the russian chess federation. Such big matches were their speciality for a long time.

Topalov tried to fight back somehow, he knew that he must do something back, but only suceeded to appear as a fool and phoney.

A thing that likely Kramnik anticipated as he knew well the uncouted Topa-Danailov team style and how negatively they will be perceived once they open their mouth in public. Bur we did not know them and he needed a way to provoke them to come out into the light.

And we all bought into this public relations manoeuvre that Kramnik wanted us to buy into.

He outsmarted us too.

Yes, Kramnik is a smart actor.
According to the demoboard: I just saw a picture of it with the starting position and thought it is decoration. Is it confirmed that the arbiter made moves on the board?

Right Stern, because only professional players should ever be allowed to comment on professional sports. To take that logic one step further, only people who have played a sport at the highest level should even be allowed to watch it.

I've spent much of the past decade writing about professional chess, working on professional events, and talking to professional players, organizers, and sponsors. I also work closely with someone who played in, let's see, eight world championship matches. Saying my playing recently would improve upon my qualifications to talk about world championships makes no sense. Club chess and open events have just about nil in common with the needs and customs of professional events, let alone world championships. How many elite events and matches have you attended and covered and organized? How many sponsor and media meetings? How many television interviews and newspaper articles and press releases? How about discussing the actual argument at hand instead of attacking me personally?

What is professional is in the eye of the beholder, not just the players. It's also in the eyes of the sponsors and the organizers and the media (not to mention the bloggers and the fans). If Rublevsky wants to play the Olympiad in a Hawaiian shirt, fine. But if I'm paying him to appear in my invitational and want to present chess as a serious professional sport, I want a dress code. Even sports with uniforms have dress codes OFF the court. The NBA had a controversy about this recently. Do you think the people who implemented the NBA off-court dress code were all former pros? Would that matter? It's a business and they have people who are doing what they think is best for that business.

In the UK there has been a vast change in the way football (soccer) is covered. In the past there were professional broadcasters and journalists aided by former professionals. Now its almost always former professionals.

There are advantages to being a former pro but the former players (especially if just retired) tend to pull their punches and don't want to upset their friends in the game.

In chess too commentaries by professionals are sometimes just half truths or even lies, especially about openings or an attempt to get one over on their rivals.

There should always be a mix of commentary.

I know I've changed over the years. I used to really take sides and get caught up in the battles, both personal and professional in the chess world. I also used to accept the logic some players use for frankly ridiculous behaviour.

When I was a kid I used to really side with Bobby Fischer and how he was totally betrayed etc etc. Then I did 10 years real work. That's when you realise in a lot of cases these guys are spoiled rotten.

One should respect them for their ability over the board, but their behaviour and views (say their grasp of politics both in chess and real life) is likely to be as flawed as anyone elses.

That said I do believe there should be a professional association where they shape their professional life to a certain extent. But sadly their inability to compromise in any way has meant this has been of limited success. An example of what can be accomplished is women's tennis and Billy Jean King. They took control of their own destiny and took it from a poor to a rich sport, something that never would have happened if they'd left it to the men in tennis who didn't have the vested interest in a good result they did. But they also compromised to get this. At the moment you put 10 top players in a room you'd probably get 11 opinions.

Just want to note that apparently there were monitors provided in the restrooms, but they were replaced by demo boards at the request of team Topalov

Mark Crowther wrote

>One should respect them for their ability over the board, but their behaviour and views (say their grasp of politics both in chess and real life) is likely to be as flawed as anyone elses.>

Right on Mark,

How about Kasparov's "1000 years added" to
History ? or Fischer's Jewish conspiracies and 9/11 interviews ? or now Topalov and the Bulgarian paraspychologists (Duna or something).

Or even chesswise, didn't Fischer claim that he refuted the King's Gambit, just after Spassky won against him with it (Fischer blundered in a well won position in the middle game).

Chess is an exquisite, psychotically fascinating universe, but alas it is only 64 squares big.
I loved the 1920s times when chess players were playing worse but they were having PhDs in math and philosophy as Lasker or were able to draw inferences from chess to life as Nimzowitsch.
Today they seem to know chess well and solipsistically nothing more.

according to the disput: do we watch football games that are thirty years old and we already know the result. Not much interesting for me. But the reason why we play chess games that are thirty years old is that we do not know them. I do not replay games that I already know (just for preparation). Indeed, an overaverage club player is someone whom you would call a semi-professionell in other sports, if you keep in mind how much time he spends with chess every day. Therefore he can hardly be compared with a beer belly football watcher who dies not watch to learn, just to be entertained.

Yes, Mig, let's discuss the actual argument at hand:

1) Do you really see leaving-the-board in a cheating-proofed environment as a serious chess issue?

2) After every third move, Judit walks to the toilet, remains there for two minutes, then returns to the board. What, if anything, should the arbiter do?

3) Imagine a great chessplayer (Tal, Tony Miles, whoever) suffering from painful health problems relievable by laying on a sofa, bathroom trips, or movement. Do we settle for watching him at the chessboard for three hours only? Or would it be more entertaining for the fans to make him sit at the board in pain for six hours?

4) Since few in the chess world besides Kasparov, yourself, Topalov, and Danailov seem to give a damn about this, why not launch a more relevant Elista-related crusade: sanctions for defamatory press releases/public comments during a major chess event.

"I loved the 1920s times when chess players were playing worse but they were having PhDs in math and philosophy as Lasker or were able to draw inferences from chess to life as Nimzowitsch."

The good ol times :D
I'm not sure if the players were worse, depends on the opening. Take an opening that has not developed much (like the dutch stonewall). Do you think Kramnik or Topa could beat Capablanca in this opening, I doubt.
What I like most about this time is the chess books, mainly the ones by Alekhine ("On the Road to the World Championship 1923-27", or "Nottingham International Chess Tournament 1936" which is my favoured chess book).

ovidiu: I'm not sure. The majority of top players still seem to be intelligent, well-educated folk. People love giving the example of Lasker, but he was the exception, not the rule, even in his time. Granted there were more PhDs in chess back then, but if you look at the top 15 players in 1900 (according to Chessmetrics), they were:

1. Lasker
2. Tarrasch
3. Pillsbury
4. Janowsky
5. Maroczy
6. Charousek
7. Chigorin
8. Burn
9. Schlechter
10. Lipschutz
11. Steinitz
12. Blackburne
13. Alapin
14. Lipke
15. Showalter

As far as I know, Lasker had a PhD, and Tarrasch was a medical doctor, but other than that, none of these gentlemen had any great intellectual achievements to their name outside of chess. I think the isolated examples of Tarrasch, Tartakower, Lasker, etc. make one see chess in the early 20th century as more intellectual than it really was.

>I'm not sure if the players were worse, depends on the opening. Take an opening that has not developed much (like the dutch stonewall). Do you think Kramnik or Topa could beat Capablanca in this opening, I doubt.>

Kramnik did not beat Topalov in the Stonewall structure in the last game of Elista, let alone that he would have beaten Capa in it.

I was just pre-emptively anticipating the counter-argument that they were playing worse because they devoted time to become educated in other fields as well. The present times are then even worse if they dont at least play better if chess is all that they seriously think about.

macuga,

I was talking about 1920-30s (Lasker, Reti, Alehin, Euwe, Nimzowitch, Botvinnik ) but nevertheless you may be right and I am "biased" by selecting only the educated one.
Of course that's not the way to draw statistical conclusions and, after all, Dr. Nunn writes quite well and is a pleasure each time chessbase publishes something of him.

I stand corrected, thanks.

Hensel acting quickly setting things straight.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3460

In reading that I'm beginning to think that Topolov is starting to familiarize himself with Morphy, Steintz, Rubinstein, Nimzowitsch and Fischer. One can check-in but they can't check-out, and I'm not talking about Hotel California.

Greg's right I think Mig has lost the plot on this one. First off I dont think comparing GM tournaments to matches is like with like. Chess is not a spectator sport like tennis or boxing. So Mig would have both guys having to remain in view, on stage whatever apart from exceptional bathroom visits. You cant legislate for that they both signed up for the rules and conditions of the match and Tophead started whining when he was 2-0 down about Kramniks behaviour which was completely within the rules. It was not a reasonable complaint at all - it was complete bollocks frankly. Just unprofessional cannot imagine Kram complaining or whining on after the event. Not having a demo board in the rest room is possible. Webcams/bandwith I dont think these are considerations they generate really marginal or no income. Sponsors dont give a damn about rest room time (press conferences are much more important plus match profile player profile and chess profile generally) As for spectators they soak up the live atmosphere etc the moves not how much time they can watch players sitting robo like at the board. Incidentally take a look at video of spassky's lunatic top speed striding up and down on the stage in his opponents eyesight (on Fischer documentary video against Petrosian) really offputting.

In the end is just about someone losing and being too immature to take it properly

I did ask, in one thread in the middle of the match, what is normal behavious when you have an individual rest room and a separate toilet provided. The answer is that you can't say what normal behavious is because it happens so infrequently.

What Mig is saying is, is it desirable to have such facitilies? Its a good question to which the answer is yes or no or maybe. But once such facilities are agreed you have to go back to my original question.

I'm a perepetetic chess player, I'm not gifted with great sight of the board but often I get ideas when I'm not at the board and rarely sit around at the board when my opponent is thinking. Its probably not good or wise to do that but I don't even think what my opponent thinks. I really rather doubt Kramnik did either.

I agree with Greg and Stern.

Mig is just protecting the pesos he stands to make if FIDE is allowed to destroy the World Championship.

The good news is Kramnik is still the real champ, recognized by FIDE and everyone else. His leverage is tremendous and he is smart enough to not defend his title against seven opponents at once. More money to be made with the alternatives, with or without FIDE (Radjabov match, Topalov rematch, etc...)

We just have to notice that people are different ;)
Not long ago they broadcasted the "Rising Stars against Old Masters" (or what the name was) and there were some interesting studies to do. Like Ulf Andersson's treatment of his pencil, looked like nervous attacks. Not to mention, he resigned against Carlsen in a drawish position.

Every chess player in the world shows himself to the spectators, seated at the board, thinking, for several hours. Isn't that enough? For what grand goal are we going to start
--monitoring away-from-board time
--requiring doctors' waivers
--focusing public attention on the health concerns of pregnant women, the weak-bladdered, the constipated, the arthritic?

Maybe someday there'll be a WCC match in which each contestant lounges in his rest area for the entire game: walks in, makes his move, punches his clock, walks out.

Until that day comes, let's not contribute to the absurd attempts of Topalov and Danailov to divert the spotlight from Kramnik's great triumph and from their own shockingly unsportsmanlike conduct.

Yeah, Mig is sooo right. They should stay sitted the whole game long. Sponsors pay for this. If the players can't endure it, then disqualify them. Just the same in tennis, player shouldn't be allowed to rest every two games. Sponsors pay them to play tennis, not to sit on a chair eating bananas. It's the same in boxing, sponsors pay them to fight, not to sit down at the end of each round and get massaged. Same thing in socker, why the hell are the teams allowed to suspiciously disappear in the bathroom in the middle of the game for 15 minutes?

I'm glad Mig is only commenting on chess.

cadlag,

Your comparison is meaningless! Chess is a game of MINDS not LEGS! What matters is the idea, played out on the board, and as a spectator I cannot care less whether the player is thinking about this idea on or off stage and whether he is sitting or walking or lying down or whatever during that time.

cadlag,

O-ops! I guess you were sarcastic, in that case disregard my post.

A wise man once said, things are never as good as they first appear to be, things are never as bad as they first appear to be.

Guess what, the wise man is wrong with more and more information coming to surface about the Elista match. Kramnik looks better and better all the time, Topalov/Danailov and FIDE look worse and worse.

Mig: “Saying my playing recently would improve upon my qualifications to talk about world championships makes no sense.”

It makes COMPLETE sense. Let me put it to you this way – when was the last time you even ATTEMPTED to do physically what you are asking competitive chess professionals to do, i.e. sit at the board for 5-7 hours straight while playing a chess game under classical time controls, with only occasional bathroom breaks? Any attempts at doing this in the last 5 years? OK, lets say you have. Now add in the factor of a live viewing audience, even if it is only 40-50 people or so, nevertheless, all eyes in the room are on you, and you cannot even pick your nose, knowing you are being watched? Have you played a game in that condition as well? I can answer that for you – no. Now add in the extreme pressure of a match game of the greatest significance, in the chess world and in your life personally. I KNOW you haven’t had a game like that.

So my question is, how can you possibly know how important it is to the competitors to have the freedom to leave the board, to retreat to an area where there are no eyes upon them (even if it is just to scratch their nuts or pick their nose in private), to be alone with their thoughts for a while, especially over a 14-16 day pressure cooker? Don’t you need to have at least some form of analogous experience to begin to comment whether or not a private restroom is important to the psyche of a chess competitor at that level?

You seem to be saying that it is more important, more ‘professional’ that the players give up this private time ‘for the good of the game’, even if you don’t know how much of an effect that would be to the players’ competitiveness. That would be like me saying that all baseball players should sign autographs for fans up to the very last second before play – it is more popular for the fans that way. Forget it if you would like to meditate or pray or get a message from the trainer or blast rap music from your iPod to mentally prepare – that is ‘unprofessional’ since paying fans would rather you autograph their baseball instead. Your mental state is far less important than the fans’ expectation. Also, during the games, you should sit in a lawn chair near the batting circle instead of inside the dugout – fans can’t see you if you are hiding in the dugout, and they have paid to see you after all. Your reaction to a close play or a big hit should be visible to the fans, not hidden in some ‘private room’ (dugout).

Mig: “Club chess and open events have just about nil in common with the needs and customs of professional events, let alone world championships. “

This is somewhat true, but makes my point even stronger. Again YOU have no idea what it is like to participate in a professional event, and thus your suggestion that pro players sit from most of the time at the board comes from pure speculation on how reasonable and acceptable this is to a true professional competitor. And even so, if for instance you had experience playing for the top prize in an open event, playing at a ‘highlighted’ stage board with at least some eyes on you, and with either money or a FM/IM/GM norm at stake (personal pressure), then you would have a leg to stand on. True an open event and a match are not the same, but they ARE at least comparable, if on a small scale (and it isn’t that incomparable, at least in the physical endurance part). BUT YOU DON’T EVEN HAVE THAT! In fact your qualifications on being able to judge how reasonable your suggestions are of staying at the board throughout the game are just about as low as can be – you haven’t even played a classical game in over 5 years! At least some of the commentators on this board (most of which seem to disagree with you) are drawing from recent examples of their own classical games, and how important it was for them to be able to walk around. Your comments come strictly from thin air, and it is extreme hypocrisy since you haven’t sat at the chessboard for the 5-7 hours you demand of others for yourself in ages.

Mig: “How many elite events and matches have you attended and covered and organized? How many sponsor and media meetings? How many television interviews and newspaper articles and press releases?”

Hah, your own strawman. I have a simple answer – zero to all questions. Note only does that not matter, the difference is I know my place and thus have not commented on what a competitive chess player should or should not do to be deemed “professional”. I have no idea and thus keep my mouth shut about it – you should too. I leave it up to them to decide (and their contracts reflect how important it is to them). I HAVE stated things from a fan’s standpoint – that watching chessplayers in action is the same as watching students take their SATs – because I am qualified to make that fan observation.

But doing all these things you list (meetings??? Interviews??? press releases???) does NOT qualify you to pretend YOU know what it is like to compete in chess, and what freedoms and physical movements are important to a professional chessplayers’ psyche during play. You really don’t see the difference? It is like I said before, being a reporter who covers an event does not make you qualified to speak as if you knew what it was like to be the athlete/chessplayer. Your bringing up such desperate ‘credentials’ as a substitute to actual experience is again laughable. All these things you list as your credentials pale in comparison to the single poster who plays consistently in just a weekend open event, and then speaks of the comfort he derives from walking around during one of his classical, documented, and rated games. True experience versus paper credentials – I’ll take the former’s opinion every time. You don’t even have that meager level of experience!

Mig: “How about discussing the actual argument at hand instead of attacking me personally?”

In this case, the qualification of the presenter is directly related to the argument. It is not an attack to state the obvious – you have no qualification (even in the slightest) to suggest what is reasonable for competitive chessplayers to endure during play of a game, or how important his freedom of movement is to his actual playing ability. None. It is your own righteousness that makes you see it as an attack instead of a logical position to take against you.

I presented my qualifications for discussing world championship chess events. You say I'm not qualified to do so because I've never played in a world championship. This is trivially refutable and was trivially refuted. We all have opinions and they should be judged on their merits. Particular areas of experience and expertise deserve respect, and they get it. Comments from players should be weighted as such. This doesn't mean all others are invalid de facto.

I write from the perspective of a fan, organizer, and member of the media with experience with top level chess in those roles. The discussion is about the projection of chess as a professional sport and you don't have to be a player to have thoughts on this. I didn't opine on how it felt to the players, but that's not the only relevant perspective on the issue.

If you only want to hear from players, or believe that they are only ones whose opinions matter on anything to do with chess, that's your preference. I don't write as a player or try to simulate the point of view of a top player. But I certainly know a lot of them and have worked with a lot of them and attended many top events and worked on many top events. These are desperate credentials? They seem quite relevant to the discussion. I recall exactly one event that had a private room with a sofa and demo board and it was a computer match with zero spectators on site.

Please don't invent my opinions. Next you'll be saying I recommend they be physically restrained to stay at the board. They can wander around the playing area all they like, snack, look at the other boards, go the bathroom (where nut scratching and nosepicking can be done to the heart's content), etc, just like chessplayers have been doing for hundreds of years. This idea of having a personal area to hang out and look at a demo board and perhaps a video feed of your opponent is silly and should die in the cradle. The potential for high-tech cheating is just an extra, if unnecessary, reason. Unless, that is, you can actually argue the issue and explain why such a thing is actually necessary and not just a bizarre and misguided perk that damages the image and marketability of the game and, most likely, the quality of play.

Ah, but you have already disqualified yourself from having an intelligent conversation since you're not a world championship player, which is a shame. Why not cable TV and a selection of DVDs if they say that helps them play better? Massage? What if they want to play in the nude, or only run out to make a move on the board and run back? Is there no point at which you would say perhaps there should be standards of play not governed by the preferences of the players?

If not, too bad, because as much as we want the players to be happy they are professionals who depend on sponsors and the public to feed themeselves and their families. Therefore we usually have to find a balance between professionalism and undue burden. Players are made to give press conferences, for example, they don't usually want to. Many tournaments have dress codes and most don't provide private rest areas. I don't consider staying in the playing area an undue burden.

Since I'm not a top player I say this from looking back at a few thousand events over the past 150 years and the players who survived them without private rest areas and without asking for them. I can imagine trying to explain to the photographers at the world championship why the stage was empty. I'll just say "you have no idea what it's like, and neither do I, so eff off."

Btw, I'm not sure where you got the impression I've never played in a tournament. I played dozens of classical games (some with adjournments!) in club championships and tournaments every year for around five years back when I had time to play. I certainly wandered around a great deal. Doubtless it would have been dandy to have a private room with a demo board. But then nobody wanted photos of me. Nobody was paying me thousands of dollars, or tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, to play in their event. (I won $175 for first in a Sunday rapid and once beat Oscar Panno when he blundered a piece in a superior endgame. Maybe when we get around to a thread on how to beat Panno I'll be allowed to speak.)

"This idea of having a personal area to hang out and look at a demo board and perhaps a video feed of your opponent is silly and should die in the cradle. The potential for high-tech cheating is just an extra, if unnecessary, reason."

That possibility can be eradicated, so it is no reason at all.

"Unless, that is, you can actually argue the issue and explain why such a thing is actually necessary"

Because walking around the stage could distract the opponent (or could be deliberately used to distract him. Don't put it beyond Danailov/Topalov. "You are 2-0 down. Now start walking around him when he is thinking, Veselin." For some players the peaceful rest area probably helps them to concentrate better and thus adds to the quality of play.

"not just a bizarre and misguided perk that damages the image and marketability of the game and, most likely, the quality of play."

Image? Marketability? To people who don't know the moves? Because all the chess fans care about is the quality of the play. And it's of course also the main thing the players care about. Leave it to them to decide what's best for their chess.

It's a non issue whether they spend 2.5 hours or full 4 hours at the board. There are like 100 people in the audience, and for whatever TV pipe dreams you had, wasn't the plan to cut and edit it anyway, like in Poker (not that it would ever attract any audience outside of chess fans).

Your arguments are weak, so it's little surprise no one seems to be agreeing with you.

There's simple explanation for Mig's silly arguments: he is following a "rescue" campaign for the Mexico "World Championship" farce. If you read carefully it began a few days ago when he claimed that Kramink's title is not "unified" until he plays (and wins!) in Mexico!!!!!

He is facing a tough situation: the organizers are threatening to withdraw their offer if the tournament doesn't produce a legitimate world champion and that, in turn, means that Mig's income as the Mexico site's webmaster is gone.

Mig realizes that a "World Championship" tournament without Kramnik and without Topalov is a farce, so he is implementing his "rescue" plan: discredit Kramnik and his title and befriend Topalov - FIDE will find a way to include Topa, no matter what.

There you have it. Mig's plan of attack. A bad plan (everyone disagrees with him and can see how weak his arguments are), but a bad plan is better than no plan, in Mig's view.

hopefully, Mig will be smart enough to realize his putting the final nails in his credibility's coffin. Time to do some damage control...

BTW, I agree with Stern: Mig is not qualified to determine what's appropriate in Championship matches.

Mig is completely out of line, as most posters here have said.

Excellent post by Stern.

There is a new article on Chess Base (www.chessbase.com) regarding how computers evaluate the strongest players in history. This is based not on scores, but rather, on analysis of the moves. A variety of criteria were used, and the article itself makes for an interesting read.

The outcome of the computer evaluation may excite some controversy. The program picked Capablanca followed by Kramnik on most of the criteria. Capablanca's selection is hardly surprising, given the logic and clarity of his style. It is perhaps rather surprising that Fischer was not ranked higher, since he was also noted for clarity and accuracy.

The fact that Kramnik placed second does however bear on the issues faced in the recent match against Topalov. The computer's preference for Kramnik implies that in any given game, a larger share of his moves will agree identically with the moves chosen by an advanced computer program.

This creates the potential for a spurious correlation -- this may have been the source of the accusations made against Kramnik. If an observer were to evaluate Kramnik's play using a computer, they would find a high correlation between his moves and the program's recommendations. This does not of course imply use of a computer, but rather, reflects the fact that his style (and arguably, his mental processes) are closer to the style of play generated by the algorithms.

Expressed another way, output from advanced algorithms can correlate with a particular type of human mind, even if the two have never been in contact.

Mig:

Ignore the trolls. You don't have to present your credentials. Everybody knows that you are qualified to comment on World Championship and other related issues. If somebody like Mark Crowther questions your credentials, then it is a big issue. Otherwise, just ignore the anonymous trolls.

Stop saying "at the board" as if it's a refutation. I'm talking about private rest areas outside of the playing area. You can walk around all you like and go to the bathroom all you like. People can still file protests but there haven't been many so we can give the bizarre hypotheticals a rest.

Ah, glad you have eradicated cheating. Saying so makes it so? Solved! Of course it's a factor. There was this match once, in Elista...

Yes, to amateurs, and to the media. They want to see the players. So do people who know the game. I talk to them all the time. And where do you get the idea that they can't play good chess without these private rooms? They've been doing it for a long, long time.

And no, the players do not get to decide alone, not unless they are playing for free. As I said, it's a balance. If there is only one person in the audience, and that person is the sponsor, and he wants to see the players, he gets to see the players or there isn't a tournament. And many top events have spectators, some even with paying spectators.

My arguments must be good because you have failed to say anything against them or to provide any sensible reason why we suddenly must have private rest areas other than "the players want them." The existence of these rooms doesn't stop players from being on the stage and distracting their opponent anyway, unless you would like to force them to make their moves and then go to their rooms. Or are you holding the quality of play in Elista up as an example of how these rooms improve things?

I hadn't read most of this thread and now I see a bunch of the Kramnik Is God crowd seems to believe this has something directly to do with Kramnik. (Surprise, surprise.) I was going on about this (players belong on stage) long before the match started, long before we had any knowledge of Kramnik's bathroom needs. If someone has a medical problem, it can be dealt with. But you don't make the rules to fit the exceptions, you make them for the needs of the event and the sport (players, organizers, sponsors).

What does any of this thread have to do with Mexico or my work with their website? You guys are in a bizarre fantasy land. Who is discrediting Kramnik here? I'm saying that chessplayers belong on stage. Anything else is just in your diseased, hating minds.

Good lord, this thread is bizarre. I hadn't realized it had turned into jihadiville. Plan of attack? Mexico? Eh? In the original item and in my follow-ups I was simply pointing out that having the players looking at a demo board out of sight in a private room is silly. Now it's all part of a big conspiracy to attack Kramnik?! Pathetic, truly pathetic. You guys are so desperate to hear what you want to hear you can't even think straight anymore, if you ever could. "Whatever Mig says it must be an attack on Kramnik, even if that makes no sense! Circle jerk!" Even if an unspecified number of posts come from the same people it's getting out of hand.

It is surprising how vitriolic the private room supporters are in their arguments. I guess if they can't make sense, they might has well be arrogant and hateful while they are at it.

Mig wrote:

"If Kramnik doesn't play in Mexico he hasn't unified anything other than 500K with his bank account. Either that or you don't understand the concept of unification. Champion + FIDE + cycle. Swooping in to beat Topalov in a match and then telling FIDE to sod off is not unification, it's that opportunism you're talking about. Especially if he'll be breaking a contract."

Looking at the crazy statement above, it's hard not to conclude Mig is in the middle of an anti-Kramnik campaign.

Even FIDE recognizes that the title has been unified, to everyone's satisfaction. Except, of course, Mig.

He calls the Mexico ONE-SHOT thing a World Championship Cycle.

You know what?

There's no evidence WHATSEVER than these Mexican organizers are commited to ANY sponsorship beyond their tournament. A single tournament IS NOT A CYCLE.

Everyone knows that. Everyone knows that the real champion is Kramnik - he beat Kasparov and has not lost to any challenger, thereby keeping his title.

Mig will deny it, but his anti-Kramnik agenda is quite transparent. To the extent that he will attack those who point out the obvious.

Pathetic.

It seems to me an easy solution (aside from the computer/signalling device checks, which were present in Elista anyway) is to have no demo boards in the restrooms. Going to the toilet, sitting on the sofa, having a smoke - do those things as often as you like, but work out your moves at the board.

I find it hard to believe Mig's statement, as quoted by vitor.

Are you saying that Kramnik fought bravely to defend his title only to get the opportunity to give it away a few months later to the winner of one specific tournament?

Why did Kramnik play a WC match against Topalov in the first place then? Was it just to give him a first chance to lose his title, with nothing to win in the balance but money?

Sorry Mig, but that's not the way this match was advertised to the chess community. If 'World Chess Championship Match 2006' doesn't mean that the winner of the match is World Champion, then something is seriously wrong.

Let me quote Kirsan Ilyumzhinov: 'This great match will undoubtedly end any confusion about the World Championship status after the unfortunate schism which occurred in 1993.'
http://www.fide.com/news.asp?id=978

I understand that you're concerned about the sponsors not getting the world championship that they expected in Mexico, but you shouldn't blame anyone but the con who sold them a fake world championship in the first place.

Ask Kramnik that question, not me! Why did he play in Elista if he didn't want to unify his title with FIDE? Because that's what he did. Kramnik and Topalov agreed to no draw odds because no one was defending his title, as such. They were playing for the reunified title, which means Kramnik's classical + Topalov's FIDE. Obviously if Kramnik doesn't play in Mexico nothing will be unified anymore (that actually happens the moment he says he isn't playing in Mexico and is replaced). The winner of Mexico will then be the FIDE champion and Kramnik will be the "renegade" classical champion (again) and there will no longer be a unified champion. Unification means classical title with FIDE. If he leaves by not playing in Mexico, nothing is unified. As for Mexico, Kramnik is now FIDE champion and by playing in Elista Kramnik agreed to the role of being FIDE champion. That means defending his title in Mexico, which was already signed and sealed. Kramnik knew this, as his statements and Hensel's made clear before the tournament. All of this is entirely beside the point of whether or not you think he *should* play in Mexico so you'll have to pick a fight elsewhere.

With knockouts, semi-rapids, and now a Linares-style WCC tournament it would be FIDE, not Kramnik, that would be "renegade" to the Classical WCC tradition.

The best result for chess would be if Kramnik and Zhukov can leverage Kirsan and the sponsors into an event with some classical legitimacy; not a fourteen-game title defense against seven challengers. Let's hope they can do it.

Agreed on both points; I was only pointing out that whether you take a side or not, "unified" it ain't going to be unless something big happens. Which will mean, again, that when Volokitin says he "wants to be world champion" as he did in his Cap d'Agde interview, we don't know what that means. If you think it's bad for us, most of the players really hate being put on the spot about it. (For years, "who is the world champion?" has been a popular interview question.) Most don't want to get into politics. They don't want to be told they have to pick a side. Others are quick to do just that, of course, but in my experience they vast majority are really tired of it. They wince and say something diplomatic and on we go.

Btw, the 2007 World Almanac, coming out in a few weeks, revised its tiny chess champions section at the last minute to include the unification match. They also changed the past champions to reflect and explain the classical vs FIDE schism. It would have been tough to explain why there was a unification match if Kramnik isn't listed as a champion previously as they had it before (from FIDE of course).

Kramnik always wanted a cycle after he won the title. And as it actualy turned out, he went through the Dortmund/Brissago and San Luis/Elista cycles.

Go, Kramnik, go! Go through the Mexico City/My Hometown cycle!

The pro's of private rest areas in a World Championship match:

+to ensure the players have all the means available to play their best chess.
+if you ask the players the tension in a match is much higher than in a tournament. an area of peace and quiet can help players to concentrate
+many top players need space to pace around between moves / if players are forced to pace around on the stage, it could distract the opponent or be deliberately used to distract him

The con's of private rest areas in a World Championship match (as per Mig):

-cheating (You have 24/7 video surveillance of the areas, like in Elista, and the problem is eradicated. Toilets will remain a source of paranoia and controversy as long as we have people like Danailov around).

-It would hurt chess as a professional sport because sponsors and audience (whoever they are, not chess players anyway, because chess players care about the moves played) want to see the players on the stage for full 7 hours instead of 4 hours and 53 minutes during a long tiring game.

*

Whether it actually would hurt chess as a professional sport, and whether ANYONE except Mig would want to see them on the stage for full 7 hours is of course open to question. But if a player says that rest area helps him to concentrate and consequently play better chess (like Kramnik says) who is Mig to question the player's opinion?

Well, how about having a stage split into three parts? The board could be in the middle part, while the parts of the stage to the left and right, respectively, could be the designated rest areas. These areas could be separated from the middle stage by curtains so that a player withdrawing to his/her rest area is not seen by (and is not disturbing) his/her opponent. However, all parts of the stage could be seen by the audience.

Everybody would be happy: e.g. Topalov would sit at the board, while Kramnik could pace along 'his' part of the stage, not seen by Topalov (because they are separated by a curtain or whatever). MiG would also be happy because he could watch them both.

Mig wrote:

>>>>Ask Kramnik that question, not me! Why did he play in Elista if he didn't want to unify his title with FIDE? >>>

He played in Elista because that's how the title would be unified. And he succeeded in unifyingt it by winning the match. You're about the only person in the world who will deny Kramnik has successfully unified the title. Pretty weird!

>>>>
Kramnik and Topalov agreed to no draw odds because no one was defending his title, as such. They were playing for the reunified title, which means Kramnik's classical + Topalov's FIDE.
>>>>

Blatantly false.

If they were not defending their respective titles, we would still have Topalov as FIDE World Champion and Kramnik as Unified World Champion, and we know that's not true. Why do you, Mig, keep making these ridiculous arguments? You come across as really desperate to justify the pretense that Mexico is a legitimate World Championshio event.

>>>
Obviously if Kramnik doesn't play in Mexico nothing will be unified anymore (that actually happens the moment he says he isn't playing in Mexico and is replaced). The winner of Mexico will then be the FIDE champion and Kramnik will be the "renegade" classical champion (again) and there will no longer be a unified champion.
>>>

You are the only person in the world ready to embrace the winner of the Mexico tournament (without the participation of Kramnik and Topalov!!!!) as "World Champion". It's a pity Khalifman doesn't have a chance of winning this "World Championship"...

Face it: there is NOTHING legitimate about this Mexico Tournament being a World Championship. You may have a few thoudand pesos..err, reasons...for calling it a World Championship, but it just ain't true.

>>>>
Unification means classical title with FIDE. If he leaves by not playing in Mexico, nothing is unified.
>>>>>

It's a little too late for this silly argument: the title was unified a few weeks ago.

>>>>
As for Mexico, Kramnik is now FIDE champion and by playing in Elista Kramnik agreed to the role of being FIDE champion. That means defending his title in Mexico, which was already signed and sealed.
>>>>

Being World Champion is not about participating in illegitimate, fake "World Championship" tournaments. We know that. And you used to know that (remember your San Luis position???), before you got hired by the Mexican organizers...$$$$$

>>>>>
Kramnik knew this, as his statements and Hensel's made clear before the tournament.
>>>

Kramnik is not obligated, in any way, to become part of this farce.

>>>>
All of this is entirely beside the point of whether or not you think he *should* play in Mexico so you'll have to pick a fight elsewhere.
>>>>

I'm not trying to pick a fight. I'm just exposing the fallacy in your argument. I know you don't like to be told the truth, but it's time to ask yourself how come virtually everyone disagrees with you on these matters...

Wake up, Mig: your gig i$ in danger and there'$ nobody to blame, except for Kir$an and your current employer'$ $urprising lack of common $en$e.

In a way, I under$tand where you are coming from...

"Ask Kramnik that question, not me! Why did he play in Elista if he didn't want to unify his title with FIDE?"

This (as well as a million similar comments) implies that Kramnik's intention is to ditch Mexico and split away if he doesn't get it his way. Never ever has he said he will do that. It's just a bunch of people assuming it for no reason.

Victor,

Please compose your argument before making it. You've gone over a lot of points that conflict with each other in an attempt to discredit Mig.

Listen, none of us has any say over the world championship. In case you've forgotten this, Kramnik et al. agreed that FIDE would be the sole body responsible for conferring the title of world champion. I prefer that they not do it in such a silly manner as this, but FIDE has the right to declare its tournament in Mexico as the world championship and also has the right to declare its winner the world champion.

Mig is speaking nothing but good sense. There's no reason to continuously attack him because he doesn't agree with the destructive decision that many of us want Kramnik to make. Do we want to have no world championship cycle at all? Of course not! Right now, we have one in need of repair, but it exists nonetheless. Repairing it after Mexico City should probably be one of FIDE's top priorities, but the key is that it has to wait until after Mexico City. FIDE has more credibility with Kramnik as its champion, and Kramnik has more credibility with a system behind him. The whims of some purists shouldn't break that up, because none of the screaming purists are able to produce anything that can keep their pure system in place.

I disagree, Merv. The reunification only makes sense if FIDE can provide a proper cycle. Whoever wins Mexico will not be crowned a MATCH world champion, and will not be the 15th world champion. So why would FIDE even bother to create a cycle for a title that no longer exists?

As I understand Mig is saying that Kramnik agreed to play under FIDE when he participated in the world championship in Elista. Right, but that makes sense only if FIDE respects its own part of the deal, that is to keep the world championship tradition alive (with matches, not tournaments). If reunification means that from now on the world champion is decided by tournaments, then it is not a reunification at all, and Kramnik would be well inspired to move away from this farce while it is still time.

I would have expected that a long time proponent of matches like Mig would have agreed. Now Mig is basically saying, we have to move on no matter what, for the good of the sponsors. This is definitely a radical change in attitude, and that's why people react rather violently to it. They righteously feel betrayed, and so do I, because Mig doesn't explain this change. He prefers to call his readers a stupid Kramnik-Is-God crowd, while we're in fact just defending the match tradition.

Mind you, the match tradition was inherited from Kasparov. Out of all people, Mig should understand better than anybody that we just want to defend the title, not the man that currently holds it.

It should be pointed out that this make-believe Mexico "World Championship" concoction has no precedent in the history of chess: no REIGNING champion was ever required to defend his title in a tournament.

It is absolutely outregeous to pretend that this is anything other than Kirsan's latest hallucination enabled by the disconcerting lack of common sense on the part of the Mexican organizers.

It is hard to believe that nobody told them that the odds of a legitimate, unified Classical World Champion defending his title against 7 opponents simultaneously are close to zero.

But then again, perhaps everyone was counting on Topalov winning the match...

The good news is that perhaps, just perhaps, our Mexican friends still qualify for a full refund, in which case the solution to their problems could be very simple: get the money back fom FIDE and start negotiating with Kramnik.

Because Kirsan has no leverage whatsoever; his argument that FIDE was in control of the title acquired some value for a few months, fueled by Topalov's excellent tournament results. That's no longer the case, and it is going to be impossible for FIDE to convince anyone other than Mig that Kramnik is not the holder, owner and administrator of the World Champion's title.

Mig is making the exact same error Kasparov made: betraying his long held beliefs in the hope that Kirsan can be of some financial/professional help to him (in Kasparov's case it was professional - his quest to regain the title; Mig, not being a FIDE-rated player, is angling for some financial gain). Kirsan fooled Kasparov and, apparently, he is now fooling Mig and Mig's Mexican bosses.

They can't say they were not warned...

:-)

Good observation that no reigning champion was ever required to defend his title in a tournament.

As Karpov pointed out, the underlying motive for Kirsan deliberately devalueing the title by hook or by crook is because he does not want the champion to have more prestige than he himself has.

But any champion had and has alwas had a whole lot more prestige than any FIDE president. For example, Euwe is remembered for being a champion rather than a FIDE president.

Let's protect the value of the title by keeping the match tradition!

"As I understand Mig is saying that Kramnik agreed to play under FIDE when he participated in the world championship in Elista. Right, but that makes sense only if FIDE respects its own part of the deal, that is to keep the world championship tradition alive (with matches, not tournaments)."

That used to be FIDE's part of the deal, but it wasn't part of the deal Kramnik agreed to in April this year. He agreed on Mexico City 2007 as a World Championship tournament and to defend his title there (or forfeit it). It's possible for all we know that after Elista he is legally entitled to do otherwise. If he's not, I can't see him breaching a contract for the first time in his career.

acirce, where did you see that Kramnik agreed to play in Mexico to defend his title in a tournament or forfeit it? I've done a 'Kramnik' search on Chessbase website, but I've found nowhere around april 2006 any such statement from Kramnik...

Okay, I found this from Kirsan Ilyumzhinov:

'An important point is that the winner of the Topalov-Kramnik match will play in the next FIDE World Championship, which will be held in Mexico City. The loser, even if it is the current title holder Topalov, will have to start from scratch and play in the World Cup. Classical chess world champion Kramnik will play in the next "Tournament of Eight" in Mexico if he wins the match against Topalov. If he loses he will have to play in the World Cup. These conditions have been agreed in the contract and signed by both participants of the Elista match.'
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3051

First of all, I think we should be very cautious before taking for granted any statement from Kirsan Ilyumzhinov. But even if we believe Kirsan, then this statement just means that the winner (Kramnik) agreed to play in Mexico. It doesn't explicitly mean that he will defend his match title there, does it? Kramnik may indeed have agreed to play in Mexico, but I seriously doubt that he ever signed any contract where it says that Mexico will be a world Championship TOURNAMENT and that he will defend his MATCH title there. It's just wishful thinking from Kirsan.

cadlag: ? It was well reported at the time, confirmed by Kramnik, then confirmed before as well as after the match. Let me see later today what I find.

But this thing about "tournament" versus "match" title is irrelevant. There is no such thing as tournament title and no such thing as match title other than de facto. Kramnik is World Champion, not Match World Champion.