The previewed interview with FIDE prez Kirsan Ilyumzhinov is out and translated at ChessBase. Some more on the May candidates matches as well as mentions of using jamming technology to prevent transmissions and cheating thereby. Barsky's long article (pre-Elista) on Topalov's cheating potential included extensive comments from an espionage specialist on how to cheat-proof an auditorium. But I still say that for top professionals the risk of being caught with a device on you is simply too great; it would mean immediate incontrovertable proof and likely banishment. (Amateurs, who are being caught regularly with such things, have little to lose.) So low-tech signalling and such, impossible to prove 100%, is more of a realistic threat.
On Kramnik and Mexico, this turns out to be the same old weak statement: "Vladimir has never once said that he will not play in the Tournament of Eight in Mexico." True, and as far as I know Vladimir has never said he was not abducted by aliens. That doesn't mean he can tell you where to get good borscht on Neptune. Not saying you're not is not saying you will. Knotty and naughty of Ilyumzhinov, if predictably so.
On the new WCh proposal, none of the many concerns raised by Kamsky, Shirov, and others in these threads are mentioned. It's good that it has been floated in time for feedback; let's hope they actually listen.
Kirsan's "jamming technology" may be as fictional as much else he is uttering. He is the master of "lots of talking make it true".
A neat "low-tech" means can be using inaudible, low frequency (<20 Hz), infrasounds. Actually such sounds easily pass through walls thus it won't be necessary for the relay guy to be in the auditorium.
These comments on Kramnik's participation in Mexico City really amount to no commitment at all. I'm puzzled a bit. Mig mentioned "There were extensive negotiations about this going on behind the scenes, not all of them friendly. There will now likely be a new contract signed, perhaps at a public press conference." Where did that info come from?
Good sources, including within FIDE. (Which is part of the problem, I suppose.) The negotiations are still going on. There are all sorts of worst-case scenarios flying around but I don't see any reason to contribute to the rampant speculation. Last I heard the main points remaining were getting financial guarantees for Mexico and giving Kramnik "loss odds" of the right to be the first to challenge the Mexico winner if it's not him. They want that in place behind the scenes before any public signing. But I don't like putting such anonymously sourced stuff in the main items.
Mig,
Isn't the fact that Kramnik played in the 2006 WCC match make him bound to the rules of that match? And doesn't those rules state the LOSER (Topo Gigio Monkey Boy) miss the next cycle, and the winner (Kramnik) enter the tournament?
If so, what is the problem? It seems clear to me Kramnik is bound by contract to play in Mexico by virtue of winning the WCC.
He is, but basically he is saying that the contract is full of holes and that since FIDE has failed in related obligations (the candidates, for example) the existing contract won't hold water. So either he can not play and FIDE can try to sue him or they can try to work something out. Right now they are trying to work something out. If they don't, expect Kirsan and Co to go into attack mode and wave contracts around. But for now it's all smiles in public.
Kramnik could drop out of the Mexico tournament that he doesn't want to play. Topalov could be inserted into the Mexico tournament that he DOES want to play. And Kramnik could play against the "world champion" in a 2008 match.
But this won't work since Kirsan can't be trusted to stage a 2008 match.
If Kirsan can't be trusted to stage a match, all proposals are pretty much worthless.
Thanks for clarifying that Mig. Its an important point. It was obvious one way or another there were holes in the contract. You probably did think they were done but I wish you'd made it clear the negotiations were ongoing, you probably factored in the fact Ilyumzhinov said the negotiations were over I guess.
Well, the problem is negotiations are never over, as we see. Even though contracts WERE signed here we are. When was the last time we saw things go according to the first announced plan? Contracts aren't worth the paper they're wiped on in the chess world. This is just the latest evidence. And there are so many conditions on and under the table you never know who backed off or contradicted whom first.
With these negotiations going on it looks as certain that Kramnik will play.
A refusal would have been one "out of principle".
It seems however that Kramnik has decided to hand over the WCh-title to FIDE. This has been agreed the question is now is only for how much. Kramnik is limited himself in his deamnds by how much Kirsan can pay for such "good".
Negotiations may produce anything from Kramnik playing the winner of Mexico to failure to come to terms and Kramnik not playing at all. That's the funny thing about negotiations, the very fact that they are taking place is no reason to assume how they are going to turn out.
"Kramnik could drop out of the Mexico tournament that he doesn't want to play. Topalov could be inserted into the Mexico tournament that he DOES want to play. And Kramnik could play against the "world champion" in a 2008 match."
The problem is the Mexicans, who paid for a tournament that includes the current WC, not a mere qualifier for a match to be held later.
"It seems however that Kramnik has decided to hand over the WCh-title to FIDE."
He handed over his title because he didn't have a better option. With all of the top players committed to FIDE, organizing another Dortumund-Brissago cycle was out of the question.
Marc,
I'm suggesting that Kramnik wouldn't dispute the Mexico winner's "world championship" title.
Mexico would have its world champion. And the Kramnik jihadis [does it take an "s"?] would whisper to each other that the "real" title would continue in their hero's possession until the 2008 match.
A neat "low-tech" means can be using inaudible, low frequency (<20 Hz), infrasounds. Actually such sounds easily pass through walls thus it won't be necessary for the relay guy to be in the auditorium.
-Posted by: Ovidiu at December 20, 2006 12:56
Ovidiu, do you have any sources to back this claim? I Googled infrasounds, and all I could find were articles about animal communication via infrasound. To be viable for cheating the detector would have to be very compact in size for easy concealment and the power levels suitably low so no one would feel the physical shaking. I'm not so sure this is possible if the wave is propagating via ground and detected seismically. At higher frequencies, despite power losses due to floors, walls, and other objects the operator need not be in the auditorium typically (your cell phone works from indoors does it not?).
It would be nice to have some more details about the jamming they're implementing. Of course, making such info freely available would give an advantage to the cheaters. Anyone have a link to the Barsky article? One potential problem with (very) broadband jamming, I believe, is that they may not have enough power to saturate the cheater's receiver despite the advantage of close physical proximity.
It looks to me as if Kramnik holds the trump cards these days. Everyone is after him, Kirsan, Topalov, Danailov, Mexico City, and 51.7% of the chessninja population. What a change from the pre-Elista days, when it was Kramnik who was chasing the other spoons in the chess tea cup.
http://www.veselintopalov.net/article/2-million-and-a-press-conference
"Manager Silvio Danailov is ready with the bank guarantee of 2 million dollars and will present it in the FIDE central until the end of the week. The news was reported by Zhivko Ginchev for focus-news.
Last week Ginchev reported that the documents for the money should be send in the beginning of the week. However, technical formalities have delayed the process."
Technical formalities? What's that supposed to mean? Does he have the documents or not?
Didn't he actually have definite funding when he sent in the challenge, and now he's still trying to get it? If you recall, it came very soon after Kirsan told Vasiliev that no official proposal had been received... and it was obviously written in a haste.
Well, aside from speculation all we can say for sure is that the challenge is STILL not official. The match regulations say the proposal has to include a bank guarantee. Time is running out quickly...
The way Kramnik abuses FIDE and the chess public with all this 'will play/will not' is 10 times worse than any real or imaginary offense that Danailov/Topalov might have done. The ends have never been good when contracts loose any meaning.
This is one more proof why regularly scheduled WCC events are the way to go, otherwise the system gets abused and becomes a joke. I am amazed how people just take it and do not feel the least bit irritated by all that. It's absolutely sick and shows a lack of a strong organized body to manage the sport. I'm new to watching all this and that's why it impresses me perhaps...
D.
Dimi, I agree that all this must be confusing to someone who is "new to watching all this". Once you become acquainted with what is going on, you will not be confused, but annoyed/disgusted/nauseated.
Every now and then, I am asked by friends of mine who are interested in chess in a harmless way what is really happening these days.
I have to tell them, in so many words, that top-level chess has become a farce.
What impressed me most after the Elista match, is that Ilyumzhinov publicly stated (well, if I am not wrong) that he will invest, partly, his own money to the organisation of the candidates matches. Another example of the FIDE absurd. There are sponsors in the chess world, indeed. If they does not wish to invest money into projects of the Ilyumzhinov's team, so what does it mean?! Until Ilumzhinov will go, there will be nothing sensible, as I think. He is simply unadequate (as he was once desribed by the one of his own supporters). The guy told to journalists at press conference how he met aliens. I never heard something like that before. The overall atmosphere in FIDE also has influence on the behaviour of the top players, as we can see. Really pity. Chess is an interesting game, but from outside chess-players may look as complete idiots.
I suppose the Topalov challenge will not materialise. Even if all the conditions should be met it is hard to believe Kramnik would agree to play him in Sofia after all that has been said and done.
How can Topalov not be automatically seeded in Mexico? This tournament is going to amount to a bad joke without the #1 ranked player in the world in it.
Infrasound waves are somewhat difficult to receive as an object smaller than the distance between waves is a poor receiver for those waves. Infrasonic receivers work best when quite large (think elephant ears).
Unless you can sneak in an elephant or a whale under your shirt, train a pigeon* to tap code on the tournament hall window or bury a microbarometer under your seat I don't think directors have to worry about infrasound for a long while to come...
*disputed by some
babson, an 20 Hz sound has a 17 meters (!) wavelength and yet you can hear it even if your's ear accoustic mechanisms are in the 1-2 centimters range.
The big ear of the elephant is an issue of capturing as much sound as possible, of amplification , similar with the big "parabolic ear" of radio-telescopes. Not an issue of frequency (infrasound) but an issue of compensating for the losses in the intensity of the signal when attempting to communicate over very long distances.
There would be no such problem in our case, we speak here of 200-400 meters, and the advantage of being inaudibile and very penetrable remains.
Nevertheless, such attempt of cheating can be easily shot down even by an amateur by using a computer, a microphone, and then taking the Fourier transform (any audio editig software comes with such features, even WavePad) of the "noise" in the auditorium and see if there are constant "peaks" in the 5-20 Hz band.
I am a fan of Kramnik and I liked the way he defeated Topalov amidst all the controversy. But he should play in Maxico. It will be a great injustice to players like Anand if Mexico just turns out to be a Qualifier to play Kramnik in 2008. In a fair world, if Kramnik refuses to play, FIDE should strip his title and replace him with Topalov in Mexico.
A world champion should play and prove his supremacy in all possible ways. Roger Federer still starts from Round 1. He will be laughed at if he says I have won this n times and I will play in the finals directly.
The Elista rules blocked communication by radio signals and by the senses of sight, touch, and taste. Three decades ago, Korchnoi's team invented countermeasures against ESP. That leaves smelling and hearing.
In a game involving a two-choice crisis point, the cheating player could make a signal and then go into a long think. Depending on whether the computer advised daring or caution, the player's associates could fill the playing hall with spectators who were a) highly perfumed or b) had just eaten beans.
Also be alert for suspicious patterns of coughing. Opponents' teams should be prepared to "jam" these signals by hringing their own perfumers, farters, and coughers.
"an 20 Hz sound has a 17 meters (!) wavelength and yet you can hear it even if your's ear accoustic mechanisms are in the 1-2 centimters range"
The formula you are using is for sound waves in air, not infrasound of the type that "easily pass through walls". Infrasound wavelength is generally calculated to be approximately 2.4km.
I am not terribly interested in discussing acoustic theory, suffice it to say that using infrasound for cheating is by no means a simple "low tech" operation - especially when other methods are far simpler.
I have never not said nothing about not ever reaching 2800 within December 2007. Never.
Q
Its surely not about transmission. Its about an effective searching of the participants in the first place.
The other thing I would like to know is if its an open secret that certain GMs are providing computer services for cheating Grandmasters. ie is it widely known who is cheating and who is helping with the cheating? My feeling is that GMs know nothing of the sort. In which case what's suddenly brought all these accusations on?
cynical,
Any microphone would pick it, it would simply not do it as good as it does it its resonance range.
Just try using you comp's micro and a software for spectral analyasis. (save .wav since .mp3 cuts off the unaudible to shrink file's size).
Any micro is similar to the human ear, which can still pick 17 m waves albeit it is its best in the 1-2 centimeters range.A good micro would do it.
At any rate, it doesn't really matter, I wanted to point out how easy is if you know your physics and think a bit. Of course there are always true to their minds idiots who would try ridiculous means and get caught just because of this.
But the solution is not demanding chess players learn engineering in addition to the Polugaevsky variation of Najdorf.
The solution is "political" so to speak.
Agree to always have conditions that each player can hire and use his team of experts freely in the playing space.
Have such big matches always being held on "neutral" places where no player can fully control the settings/building.
Have tournament organizers hire experts teams, preferably offical, that would guarantee safety and reward with a prize those who manage to break through so as to prove them false, etc.
It is an unpleasant new problem in chess but it is here to stay. Nobody likes it, it is understandable that they don't want to think about it since it only increases the costs.
Just as with worldwide islamic terrorism that it drives all prices higher by forcing airline/transportation companies to have additional costs to increase security. But the alternative is worse.
That terrorism analogy does seem appropriate.
Searched at the airport, then again at the entrance to the tournament hall. Sigh. Plus, the entry fees will go up to pay Ovidiu and his team of "experts"
My solution to both: stop flying to chess tournaments.
That would be giving up, Yermo.
I was suggesting fighting the jihadi. Of course, just as with the extremists, only a few chess players would try cheating, thus such security measures may seem at first unreasonable.
At first however, if not checked they will be the ones who will win.
Do you have better ideas ? A "FIDE electronic police" checking tournaments at random or, CIA like, secretly and sentencing to "life off board" those caught..or something ?
You could ban live spectators. The only people allowed in the playing hall would be the players and two or three officials. People could still watch the game via internet or broadcast, as long as they were a certain distance from the playing hall. Probably a measure this extreme would only be used for world championship matches.
If you are willing to go that far then why not having them playing a metallic cage, a Faraday-cage, that would black almost any EM-wave.
It would be fun to watch them "fighting" such setting.
Anyway, I am out of ideas for now but if this is not solved chess will be played in few years only by 1200 amateurs (who would not cheat since what they want is to have the amusment and fun of the game).
The "serious", fanatic, chessplayers are known to be willing to do almost anything to win a game.
When will we finally get real about battling computer cheating?
The only way to fully stop cheating in chess is to ban chess playing. Without chess games taking place, potential cheaters will feel like fools trying to come up with ways to avoid a system for playing the game that will never take place.
Unlike other ideas such as anal cavity search, transmission suppressing and sensory deprivation tanks, banning chess is simple, direct and effective.
Other proposals under consideration such as banning players from seeing opponents' moves (thereby preventing using computers for opening preparation) and attaching bells to players' necks so that their location will be known at all time, in my view, do not go far enough in solving the current problem.
I doubt that, Ovidiu. It's been weaker players who've been caught cheating so far. I can't see anyone caring much about players at the strong amateur level cheating - I certainly can't get excited about it. At the Isle of Man tournament in October there was more than one player who spent perceptible amounts of time during their games looking at Kramnik-Topalov (or what they said was Kramnik-Topalov) on laptops. I'm talking about players of 2200-2450 here. No-one seemed too fussed. It's only a game, after all.
> do not go far enough in solving the problem
Yuri, nor does good jokes , but it signals that one is unwilling to deal with it, yet.
>it's only a game, after all
rdh, such mentality prevails when you don't care any longer about something. It may be that this will be the future of "chess after computers", just as the art of swordmanship after the firearms.
Andy: I suppose the Topalov challenge will not materialise. Even if all the conditions should be met it is hard to believe Kramnik would agree to play him in Sofia after all that has been said and done.
Andy, if Danailov can pull $2M in such short order then he deserves the 'Manager of the Year' award. I hope it's not just wishful thinking, but real money. As far as 'all said and done' -- you forget that we're talking cash here, it's not like a night walk in downtown Moscow... And the FIDE rules -- I didn't write them -- but they are there. Unfortunately, with these soft rules and slippery contracts these days, it's like a Banana Republic...
Larry: How can Topalov not be automatically seeded in Mexico? This tournament is going to amount to a bad joke without the #1 ranked player in the world in it.
The only worse joke is that Danailov/Topalov actually signed it. So, here it is, what was intended for someone else perhaps, comes and bites you in the butt :-). Credit to them though, they haven't questioned the contract they signed...
D.
Chicken Little,
So far the accusations of computer cheating at the highest level of chess are limited in their basis to "it could have happened" and "somebody played very well". Forgive the rational members of the community who prefer to worry about the real issues.
I think it premature to buy into all the Kramnik was cheating paranoia of Topalov and the previous Topolav was cheating rubbish. Of course its possible and the reasonable thing to do is implement measures to try to minimise the risk -for matches this really is quite simple if you have independent technical advice. For tournaments there is a bit more involved. There is an element of self policing - other players are suspicious and watch everything like hawks. On the other hand I think Mig is maybe slightly sanguine about no top player risking cheating. titled players [GM] have already been caught using computers in internet tournaments. Non computer forms of cheating have a long history with some big names involved. As an aside I really dont know if the Botvinnick consulting his opening notebooks in the toilet story is a chess urban legend or has any substance but I think everyone knows cheating in some form has gone on.
I also think this stuff about the Russian state throwing its technical prowess and resources to ensure a Russian wins/retains the WCC is way over the top. Its a cold war attitude that frankly does not exist anymore. In those days the USSR thought showing they were the best at chess ballet etc would prove the superiority of communism. Now they have oil and especially gas they dont need that sort of tonic. Incidentally how come the russian team gets spanked and aremnia win the team championship?? Where is the russian state helping its team out with all its intelligence service skills and computer cheating prowess etc. In the old communist days I think it might have done - not now. Its also important not to underestimate the tremendous psychological strain that cheating using communicated computer chess moves would put on a player. Its an active process in real time not like athletes taking drugs months or even years before races to improve training and subsequent performance.
Of course as long as there are large sums of money at stake there is a possibility of a top level player taking computer assisted cheating seriously. However I think a professional magician might be more successful at evading controls and winning games at a tournament than a top level player.
> On the other hand I think Mig is maybe slightly sanguine about no top player risking cheating. titled players [GM] have already been caught using computers in internet tournaments.>
I guess they were not "rational members of the community" as Yuri would have it. Who else would take so serious a game ?
Forgive me and Mig if we don't consdier unnamed Internet tournaments to be "top players" "at the highest level of chess".
Yeah, no one in the top 10, maybe no one in the top 100 even (?), has ever been caught cheating. Not face to face, anyway (I recall hearing the name of some upper-tier GM, I forget who, that was supposedly caught on ICC). And, no animal shall sleep in a bed WITH SHEETS.
Moreover, it's never happened that a top player cheated and got caught. Therefore, it's something we never need worry about, we can safely ignore the possibility until after it's happened.
Admirable logic, Yuriy.
A few months after Elista introduces the strictest anti-cheating measures seen in the history of the game, people are sitting here desperately trying to figure out a way to avoid cheating.
Not because there is any real concern about cheating under these circumstances, since it would have been virtually impossible to do in an efficient way, but because some guy started to ramble like a madman about KGB conspiracies and whatnot.
The lesson?
Wasnt the winner of the Dortmund tournament caught cheating in an Internet tournament. I am talking about Naiditsch. Wasn't his reponse to being caught "well everyone else was cheating too."
Eo!
Acirce's standards are different. As per acirce, Sweden is an example of a state with police brutality.
Eo's post was a comment to the earlier talk about cheating in internet tournaments, not to me.
I find it fascinating in an odd kind of way that you think it's so absurd to imagine police brutality in Sweden that you bring that up again and again in the belief that doing so makes you score an easy point against me. However, in the future perhaps you could take that on a police brutality blog.
Kramnik's cheating secret revealed!!
http://www.chessbase.com/news/2006/kirsan14-kramnik.jpg
Just look carefully...
Hmm... perhaps you may enlighten those with subpar attention to details?
They will be all cheating in Mexico City no matter what! They will all come with realms of analysis done by computers at home. They will all hope that other guy’s computers didn't find what their computers found. The problem of professional chess is not Danailov's character. The problem is caused by cheap and widely available software which would send all these world champion contenders home with a score embarrassingly close to 6:0. And they all know this! They all know that the impact of something which costs less than a good dinner could alter result of any game. As a result, if Leko's manager scratches his groins twice during the tournament then other managers will accuse him of sending messages to his player. Or if Aronin's second goes to toilet and not flush ... damn it, he must be sending a cryptic messages to Leon. These things will not go away. If anything they will become even worse since computers are gaining advantage over humans all the time. Sooner or later we will have to admit that there is an intellectual duplicity going on in professional chess.
Bogdan,
You are the only person I've ever heard of who equates computer preparation BEFORE a game with computer help DURING a game.
You are either way smarter than the rest of us or way dumber.
c1: just look at kramnik's face. there's a connection in form of innocuously-looking straws going to his ear (for audio), his eye (for video), and intravenously (to pass information through blood).
Dear Jon,
Before Elista, before computers, and LONG before this thread, cheating has been a concern in chess. There is a difference however between being concerned with cheating and the mass hysteria over hi-tech cheating/computer help being spread by Ovidiu and others in this thread.
The former calls for some rudimentary measures to be taken to prevent electronic transmission, inspection upon entry to playing area, close examination of playing facilities. Such have been successfully implemented at several events recently.
The latter calls for surrender before unstoppable power of technology and acts as though our sport has been devastated, when in reality very few instances of computer cheating have occurred. I am of course aware of the situation at 2006 World Open. But my question is whether the cheating there took place through low-frequency infrasound or high positron emissions? Or was it a rather awkwardly put together and somewhat obvious low-tech operation?
Bogdan is talking about something else indeed, he is "off topic", but he has a point in what he says. Bareev had it that "nowadys we dont find the novelties, Fritz does it for us".
It is already the case that GMs come to the board to robotically enact their in depth computer analysis, to play strings of moves deeply and sharply (+3000) thought out by Fritz.
What is played nowdays by top GMs often is a sort of "advanced chess", and one played out off board, and seen for the first time ever by some comp brain.
The future of chess is secure but it belongs to comps.
Ovidiu, it is of the essence of a game that it is taken intensely seriously while it is being played, but that once it is played, it is gone. If it isn't recognised that it doesn't really matter, there is less joy in it.
Simon Barnes in the Times is always very sound about this (for UK readers), although like so many columnists he has run out of much to say and thus repeats this truism rather too often.
To be honest I find the whole thing comical. Of course where professional chess and livelihoods are concerned it's different, but some clown with a balaclava and a hearing aid ripping off contestants in the under 1400 section of the US Open. I can see steps have to be taken to a certain extent, but you've got to see the funny side. All those incredibly weak players striving to win ten grand for their bumbling is funny enough at the best of times, but once they start putting on balaclavas in a Florida June....
As for Naiditsch using computers in one of these absurd internet competitions, no doubt he was right that everyone did. I mean, what did anyone expect? The future of unsupervised internet chess for money is certainly bleak, I would say.
Mig,
Something interesting was published on Topalov's site. There is a translation of an interview with Hensel. If the translation is correct, then we do not have a cold war but a rather hot one.
http://www.veselintopalov.net/article/team-kramnik-replies
Here is the original:
http://gazeta.ru/news/sport/2006/12/22/n_1018010.shtml
I cannot accept what the managers are doing. Both Topalov and Kramnik are nice people, the scandal is becoming a personal issue. And thi is not good for chess.
What is the status of this site? Is it indeed in some way Topalov’s official site?
If so, his gang continue to amaze. They say themselves that the interview is not authentic. So naturally they will be seeking a retraction from ABC – or will they? If I was quoted in extenso with words I hadn’t said I’d sure as hell be asking questions of the newspaper.
Then the site itself says that this is a compilation of things Danailov has said. So fine: does Topalov stand by them or not?
Even Topa’s supporters can’t find this weaselling very attractive, can they? Or don’t they care?
I see the gorgeous Silvio has replied. He wants to know why the resignation of the second Appeals Committee was hidden. Good question. Who were they? Ah, he doesn’t say.
I said they were like Diana. We learn in the very same post that Veselin will be giving a Land Rover to children in need in Bulgaria. Bless. You couldn’t make it up, could you?
You're begging the question there a bit, marca. I doubt that Hensel acts much without Kramnik's instructions. Danailov I'm not so sure. And we only have this site's word for it that this wasn't a true interview with Topalov. Whether the Spanish press are in the habit of making up direct quotes I couldn't say; even the gutter press here would be wary of an entire faked interview exposing them to considerable libel damages (making up the odd quote, sure. Paying out six-figure sums to persons libelled in invented interviews, not so good, would be their attitude.)
Hey rdh,
What is wrong with Veselin's giving money and donating his car to children??
Anyhow, chesswise Danailov is crazy... I cannot see where he is going with the acusations. But why does Hensel attack Topalov?????
Let's see if I have this right, Marca,
On December 14 an "interview with Topalov" is published with patently absurd allegations of
--cheating via chess-retarded KGB agents, and
--rapids-play cheating "proven" by an unspecified "computer-move" in the fourth game.
On December 19, Chessbase News reprints the Topalov interview.
Team Topalov then waits until
a) legions of his demented followers rush to defend the absurd allegations and
b) Carsten Hensel files a formal complaint with FIDE, news of which is published on December 22.
ONLY THEN, on December 23, is there (an immediate) denial that Topalov ever made such absurd and inflammatory statements!
This interesting chain of events leaves the nutcase wing of the Topalov fanclub out on a limb having defended Topalov's absurd non-interview. And leaves Hensel filing a protest against an interview which never took place!
Did Danailov consult with Bobby "the Brain" Heenan before pulling off this latest buffoonery?
rdh,
I see the funny side but it would be sidetracking to stress it. Judging from the sarcastic replies posted here (Yermo, Yuriy, Greg) it is clear that it is too soon for debating the cheating issue. For most people seem to prefere to ignore it for now and (vainly) hope that it will not grow more troublesome; and the masses (though not known for their foresight) decide if anything is done in such kind of situations. The benefits of democracy.
True that Ovidiu,
Even Topalov's site does not mention any cheating issues. They report that cable is found, etc but nothing direct.
I do not think there will be a proof. Everybody knows Russia was behind Kramnik. How exactly? Maybe one day we will know. But Topa should concentrate on chess now.
And Danailov? Well, he talks a lot. Maybe somewhere there he asys the truth, but since he does not have proof.....
Nothing’s wrong with it at all, marca. It’s lovely. But some of us would think it more decorous not to boast about it. A bit like the late lamented Princess’ unannounced and incognito visits to children’s hospitals, which the Daily Mail was so good at obtaining photospreads of.
Still, let’s say you want to boast about it, almost all of us would think it more decorous not to post news of it in the very same post as you announce that you’ve not really been libelling your major professional rival. Otherwise some people might wrongly see it as a crude attempt to influence public opinion.
Yermo, Yuriy, and Greg,
You must know Russia better. Don't you think that there is a chance that Kramnik received outside help in Elista??
And a question to all. Kasparov is a politician. Why doesn't he say anything about Elista???? Is he happy that a Russian won and unhappy because it was the illegal way?
You astonish me, marca. So it’s OK if Topalov’s site says nothing direct but leaves everyone to work it out?
If Danailov or Topalov wants to be believed, a plain, detailed, unadorned account of what occurred, seen from their own point of view, is required. Not all this childish innuendo and leaking of ‘new facts’ (something else the Diana folk love, by the way – there’s the same screamer on the Daily Mail billboards about once every six months – DIANA: NEW REVELATIONS).
It’s not a question of proof: it’s a question of conducting themselves properly.
(Kasparov's said plenty about it, surely?)
You astonish me, marca. So it’s OK if Topalov’s site says nothing direct but leaves everyone to work it out?
If Danailov or Topalov wants to be believed, a plain, detailed, unadorned account of what occurred, seen from their own point of view, is required. Not all this childish innuendo and leaking of ‘new facts’ (something else the Diana folk love, by the way – there’s the same screamer on the Daily Mail billboards about once every six months – "Diana: New Revelations").
It’s not a question of proof: it’s a question of conducting themselves properly.
(Kasparov's said plenty about it, surely?)
"Don't you think that there is a chance that Kramnik received outside help in Elista??"
Trivial facts:
- There is a theoretical, but very small, possibility that Kramnik received outside help.
- There is a theoretical, but very small, possibility that Topalov received outside help.
- It would have been much more difficult to receive outside help in Elista than in the overwhelming majority of chess events, even if any of the players wanted to.
gazeta.ru is famous for its extremely stupid and unreliable coverage of chess events (and is a butt of so many jokes by the more "serious" sites, like chesspro.)
However, this time around they may be on to something. Izvestia (viewed, I think, as a more credible source) also has an article on the subject: http://www.izvestia.ru/sport/article3099681/
And speaking of Kramnik's alleged cheating, why would anyone even consider such an idea without a single shred of evidence?
As it happens, the gazeta.ru article is lifted from the Izvestia one word for word (minus a few paragraphs) and even cites Izvestia as its source.
dz,
What did Kasparov say??? Nothing direct, he did not deny the possibility that Russians helped Kramnik, the way Karpov, Botvinik, etc were helped against opponents.
As acirce says, the possibility is small. Only Topalov and Kramnik know the actual events.
I am sorry, I must have missed something again, but what does Kasparov have to do with it?
dz,
You know very well about the match Kasparov-Karpov how it ended. You also know that Kasparov often expresses his opinion on FIDE. And that he is a politician. Well, about this scandal he does not say anything, no comment we see from him. This is not standart.
Mig, since you are close with him, ask him for opinion. If he does not comment that means that there is a serious possibility of cheating in Elista. This will be the biggest proof.
I would say, it is exactly the opposite. Obviously, there is no love lost between Kasparov and Kramnik, so if Kasparov had had a slightest indication of Kramnik's cheating, we most certainly would have heard about it by now.
Kasparov, by the way, was very outspoken on the poor quality of play by both Kramnik and Topalov in the match. As he joked, the most interesting game (by far) of the match was the fifth one.
dz,
I am talking about aftermatch comments, not in match...... and there are none.
The Kasparov's comments I am referring to were made during the Tal memorial in Moscow, that is well after the match.
In any case, are you suggesting that according to Kasparov, Kramnik may have cheated in a way that made his play outrageously bad? I can not speak for Kasparov, of course, but I would speculate that Kasparov would credit Kramnik himself with that.
"Judging from the sarcastic replies posted here (Yermo, Yuriy, Greg) it is clear that it is too soon for debating the cheating issue. For most people seem to prefere to ignore it for now and (vainly) hope that it will not grow more troublesome; and the masses (though not known for their foresight) decide if anything is done in such kind of situations."
No, Ovidiu. What is clear is that none of us who choose to realistically evaluate the current threat, have your intelligence and divination skills. You are a true Cassandra, foretelling us our doom, while we are Neroes playing violin while Rome burns.
marca wrote:
"Yermo, Yuriy, and Greg,
You must know Russia better. Don't you think that there is a chance that Kramnik received outside help in Elista??"
marca,
Sure. I also think there is a chance that you are really Vesselin Topalov posting on here in disguise. However, I would like to see some substantial evidence in support of either proposal before lending it weight.
I am afraid I don't know what you mean by "You must know Russia better," so I better not respond to that part for now.
To contend with the cheating issue, there's a right way and a wrong way.
Once could negotiate, in advance of a match, provisions for pat-downs, rest-area searches, metal-detector scanning, signal-blocking, and a glass shield.
Or one could and run around like an idiot with a miniature toilet and a stupid grin.
99.9999% of the chess world prefers the first approach. Team Topalov and their shills in this blog prefer the second.
rdh, It's nice of you to post here, but you would do well to remember this is being read by some of your customers. Me, for one (I bought your best-known book not long ago).
So think twice before you risk jumping into bed with Ben Finegold. Yeah, we can see that in contrast to him, your IQ is in triple digits; still, expressing contempt for amateurs is not where "professional" chess ought to be going.
No group of people has the right to say, "We own chess, our events deserve to have their integrity protected, while yours don't because you don't play well enough."
And by the way if it weren't for open and amateur events, how would people develop their potential to become IMs in the first place? We can't all move to xxxx (insert name of your favorite "chess-developing country" here) to steal an easy shot at playing in an Olympiad.
The Soviet state had one model for identifying and nurturing early chess talent. That may be what they're now doing in China: some Dirt reader, Daaim I think, once posted that there is almost no grass-roots chess scene in China, only GM/IM events, so their titled players presumably have been under state tutelage from the beginning.
My country has a different model. If a kid is female, and/or has wealthy parents, they can get special attention (i.e. quality coaching) from an early age. Everyone else slugs it out on the amateur tournament circuit. Even the favored few who CAN afford a pro coach, play most of their serious chess in open and amateur events, and that is where they must prove their potential to advance further toward professional status. In other words, it isn't all First Saturdays and Olympiads and Pan-Am Youth, even for them.
In this respect, the World Open and its ilk resemble baseball's minor leagues: they're the "farm team," where a nation's chess future is planted and grows. Far from a perfect analogy, but applicable in some respects, I think.
http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/twic.html#news563
Bessel Kok signs agreement with Ilyumzhinov. What it actually means I don't know. With some guy called Alexey Orlov on the board along with Bessel and Ilyumzhinov who knows how it will work out.
Yes, JJ, you're probably right. But you seem to be under the impression I'm a professional. I'm not. And I'm afraid I do think that it's more important to stop people cheating in professional than amateur events; call me what you will.
I don't at all think it's more important to stop people cheating in events I play in than under 1400 events (at least not for my own sake; I can see the ones who genuinely compete for the prizes might take a different view). I'm not that bothered about people cheating against me, and I just can't get that bothered about people cheating in the World Open really either. There's nothing comical about weak players - we've all been weak players once - but I do find weak players competing for ten grand prizes comical, I'm afraid. Of course amateur tournaments are a seed bed. But this notion that weak players should compete for more than nominal money prizes is pernicious; the growth of it is one of the things that holds back my own country's chess, and I expect it's the same in yours.
Very interesting Mark. Finally something concrete comes out of that. Well, at least concrete information. Funny that they signed it in Prague. Perhaps 4-5 years too late that part of the Prague Agreement will finally be honoured.
rdh has a book out? What is it? And who is rdh - If that is not a secret, of course :)
marca:
"You know very well about the match Kasparov-Karpov how it ended. You also know that Kasparov often expresses his opinion on FIDE. And that he is a politician. Well, about this scandal he does not say anything, no comment we see from him. This is not standart.
Mig, since you are close with him, ask him for opinion. If he does not comment that means that there is a serious possibility of cheating in Elista. This will be the biggest proof."
- Yes, the fact that Kasparov refuses to comment on some crazy conspiracy theories sure seems suspicious. However, Kasparov also doesn't comment on the possibility that there will be the End of the World on January 1, 2007. I guess it is clear indication that he knows something and that "there is a serious possibility" of that.
I don't know what it means either, Mark, but I do know what 'memorandum of understanding' means to a UK lawyer: it is a synonym for 'toilet paper'. There are only two types of legally enforceable document entered into by businessmen: contracts, and things that are not contracts. A 'memorandum of 'understanding' is merely a pious hope.
(at least I suppose even businessmen make wills and enter into faimly trusts and whatnot, but I think my point is clear).
Yuri,
that is not really as you put it. "Cheating" understood as using computer assistance during the game is only the most visible side of the impact computers have on chess. This type of "cheating", I mean "input by a third party" has always existed in the game. But now we deal with different situation. Several months ago, with the advent of Rybka software, computers made leap from 2500-2600 rating range to 2800-2900. By doing so they put themselves virtually beyond human reach. This changed the game.
Danailov's action in Elista was a mere reflection of this fact. If Kramnik went to WC several times - this created a possibility of using computers help on his part - if it were the case Topalov would stand no chance. Danailov only protected his client interest. Let me stress it, it is the very existence of powerful chess software which caused explosion of paranoia. But again, this is only the most visible aspect of computers in chess. Let’s look at some other. For example, there are no adjourned games in matches on top any more. Have you heard Kramnik or Topalov complaining about this? Have you heard any other leading GM opposing this change? No, nobody has voiced any objections. A strange uniformity of opinion in the chess world, isn’t it? There is only one logical explanation to this, namely that if adjourning were allowed then computer analysis would replace human input. In words, next morning, players could equally well submit prints out from their computers instead of playing the game. So again, computers strength creates situations where very integrity of the game is threatened. One could extent this argument to other phases of the chess game like openings. It is not a secret that it is here where games between top GM are decided. If a top GM makes a new sharp move in an opening, don’t you think that there are a few hundred hours of computer analysis behind such novelty? If so, who really is to credit with novelty? Some would oppose calling such situation “cheating” but no doubt there is some intellectual duplicity going on in chess.
By the way on the interesting http://www.izvestia.ru/sport/article3099681/ does it really quote Berik Balgabaev (Russian speakers is this correct, I only have an electronic translation, who is this guy?) suggesting that the article wasn't Topalov but Danailov.
Bogdan, old chap, adjournments went out fifteen years ago, long before computers were that strong. And computers did not leap from 2500 to 2800 in the last year; can you really be unaware that Kasparov already lost a match to one in 1997(?) and that Kramnik and Kasparov could only draw in 2002?
As for intellectual duplicity, I can only think you don't know what the words mean. Everyone knows that GMs prepare with computers, and indeed so do amateurs. That might be a good thing or it might a bad thing, but it's the game and everybody knows it. It's not a vast ethical departure, merely historical progress. The very top players have had seconds who worked on their openings with them since the thirties at least.
I referred earlier to the "nutcase wing of the Topalov fan club." But all the sensible Topalov fans have fled. All that's left is "the nutcase Topalov fanclub."
But for those pitiable Topalov fans, isn't there a silver lining to Elista? Yes, Topalov had the advantages of a forfeit, three straight whites, and the opportunity to kick back and relax in his cabin while Kramnik was personally fighting the match rules controversy.
But doesn't Topalov's narrow loss to the world champion in a cheating-proofed environment tend to undermine suspicions (repeated by Kasparov) that he's merely a top-ten GM who pushed himself to the top by cheating?
My post above was total nonsense; let me try again.
In the eyes of the law businessmen's documents fall into two categories: contracts, which are legally enforceable, and things which are not contracts, which are expressions of hope. 'Memoranda of understanding' are in the latter category.
In other words, it's sweet that they've shaken hands an' all, but that's all they've done.
Apart from inconsequential words on paper, how is the relationship supposed to work, if those words were meant to further that? Bessel working with a whole team for a year on an infrastructure for implementing the cycle and Kirsan, with a single flamboyant interview, casting doubt on all of that effort?
Bogdan,
Take a look at the high-level chess tournaments/matches of the past year and then tell me which ones and how have been drastically different from those of years past because of computers. That's computers, Bogdan, not paranoia over computers. Topalov was accused of using computer chess in several tournaments, even though little about his style of play or behavior suggested it. Then Elista happened and all of a sudden Topalov was no longer cheating, it was Kramnik. Chess fans, ignoring the previous accusations against Kramnik, ignoring Kramnik's gameplay and blunders during the match, decided that the only reason one would want to spend some time in solitude in the bathroom during a match is to use a computer.
marca said "And a question to all. Kasparov is a politician. Why doesn't he say anything about Elista???? Is he happy that a Russian won and unhappy because it was the illegal way?"
Not sure what you're looking for as I don't see a connection between cheating and Kasparov commenting or not commenting on Elista, but in Kasparov's column in New in Chess 2006/8 he has quite a bit about Elista, most of it portraying Kramnik in an unfavorable light.
Eh??
"FIDE president Kirsan Ilumzhinov said to russian radiostation "Mayak" that it is possible that computer will play for United Chess World Title (among computers and humans) in 2007 vs human chess champ. It will be decided in FIDE Congress in Turkey Jan 26–28, 2007. If FIDE Congress will decide to play unified match, the chess engines will play candidates tournament in Elista in May 2007 (at the same place as Kramnik played vs Fritz). Then two strongest engines (who took 1st and 2nd place) will play match in September to decide which is strongest. That engine will play Human World Champ."
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9976
http://sport.gazeta.ru/sport/2006/12/a_1200023.shtml cited as reference