Topalov's ABCs of Elista

Paranoid Delusional Behavior on Topalov's part.

It's really a pity.

Play the match over in a sealed room and Topalov would lose again.

Total Sour Grapes.

There are lots of logical reasons why this doesn't make much sense

1. The way Kramnik allowed Mate in 2 which was overlooked by both Topalov and Kramnik
2. The score would not have been 6-6, in case Kramnik was cheating
3. I cant see how such cheating can be done in Rapidplay?

Cheers..

I can not believe Topalov can be so delusional. What an idiot! I really hope FIDE and Kramnik turn down the match offer from Topalov. I do not want to see Topalov play chess anymore. After such accusations Kramnik does not have to play this "KGB did it"-loser.

You're right, Mig, it's not even worth taking the piss.

I do wonder about the journalists though. What's the point in printing trash like this? I suppose just that it sells your paper, and if you don't print it without asking any questions, you don't get to interview the great man again.

And Topalov? What does he really think? My impression actually is that he's a child who probably does think this sort of stuff. I suppose it's no worse really than footballers come out with.

My first thought was: why would Kramnik give this delusional moron a chance at a rematch? But my second thought was: Kramnik will just laugh all the way to the bank.

Kirsan's little green men and Topalov's paranoid ramblings: chess is so odiously colourful...

I can see the headline now:

"Topalov smashes his TV set--finds wires inside--blames Kramnik"

The bottom line is that computer cheating is set to become next paranoia in chess. Get used with idea that you will have learn some electronics so as to make sense of the next generation of tournament regulations.

Of course, Mig, you know better. You were looking up polonium, yourself, right? It is rather arrogant to think you know the Rusians didn't cheat.

I think noone has lived in Russia, right?
Tell the dead guy he is delusional...

It's amazing at how confident everyone is that Kramnik didn't cheat... what people seem to be forgetting is that Kramnik started this entire fiasco with his extremely suspicious behavior in the rest area... this match was played in Kramnik's backyard, and it just so happens that Kirsan was at a meeting with Putin during the match.

I am not saying Topalov is 100% correct... but Kramnik is no saint... and people confidently proclaiming Kramnik didn't cheat are simply ignorant

It's amazing at how confident everyone is that Kramnik didn't cheat... what people seem to be forgetting is that Kramnik started this entire fiasco with his extremely suspicious behavior in the rest area... this match was played in Kramnik's backyard, and it just so happens that Kirsan was at a meeting with Putin during the match.

I am not saying Topalov is 100% correct... but Kramnik is no saint... and people confidently proclaiming Kramnik didn't cheat are simply ignorant

i found myself even rooting against the team from Sofia in Champions League. clown.

I am sure half of what Topalov claims is utter paranoia, but chess has a reputation for government entities getting involved in matches.

I find it difficult to believe that no cheating took place.

If Topalov gets a rematch in Sofia, I wouldn't be surprised if he were approached and offered an opportunity to cheat.

Zaur,

In most civilized justice systems, the burden of proof is on the accuser. Topalov has provided little evidence that Kramnik cheated and what he has provided is rather faint and ridiculous (we can all think of many reasons Kramnik would choose to spend most time in the bathroom and he hasn't exactly played computer-precision chess in this match). Until Topalov provides us with more than accusations, we dismiss the charges. To do otherwise is an impossible task of "proving so-and-so hasn't cheated".

It's amazing how many people are ready to even suspect for one second that Topalov might be right. He is talking the worst, most nonsensical BS in ages. I guess some buy it due to the widespread Russophobia these days but it's really utterly irrational.

But sure, KGB feeding him the moves seems like a quite efficient way of cheating.

Btw, is he really saying that cheating took place during the tiebreak games as well? I'm not sure I completely got that (due to the "Later he had.." part.

This is like the twlight zone.

Yes, I think so, acirce. I like the twist though that they were cheating - obviously - but the reason this didn't produce any good play is that they didn't bother getting a sensible operator for the machine, so just some KGB squarehead sitting there tapping out the first move it thought of. 'Cos that's obviously what you'd do, right?

thats the great thing about accusations; they're very difficult to disprove. for example, i accuse all of you of opening a copy of My System last month. anyone care to try and prove their innocence?

The sooner this guy Weaselin Toiletlov quits chess the better. He and Danailov have become a disgrace and are spilling their crap on the chessworld. I think they should be cut off and not be invited to anything.

Topa: go get your head examined, you are only a sad puppet of Danailov repeating his crap. Grow up and start thinking - if you got a brain! I don't want to see your games anymore - or if I must I hope you start/keep losing and fade away. Too bad, once I liked your style, now you have none and it disgusts me.

I am sure that Kramnik cheated as much as I am certain of the existence of God, nobody has proved their unexistence.
On the other hand absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, they remain "sub jure".

Was Bronstein ordered to lose the the 1950 match with Botvinnik ? or Alekhine assasinated or a collusions of soviet-GMs set against Fischer ?

Acirce,

How are Topalov's claims utter BS?

Was he threatened? Was there a network cable? Did he legitimately feel like he was in danger? If Kramnik won but made the same claims, would you believe him?

I don't think anyone here feels that Topalov is correct about cheating. However, What some are saying is that his claims aren't unreasonable or particularly unbelievable considering the parties involved.

Look, if you even slightly acknowledge that Korchnoi and other Soviet Union era chess players might have been pressured or convinced to lose games (based on mostly anecdotal evidence), then you can't automatically throw out Topalov's claims.

Poor Topa, he sounds so naive, like an idiot savant parroting his Svengali manager. It's really sad. The lamentable cables fantasy reminds me of Robert De Niro in Brazil.

There was no indication of cheating, there is definitely no proof of cheating, if you are going to cheat you don't do it by having some KGB operative feeding you the Fritz 10 moves (?!?) most definitely nobody cheated during the tiebreak, an internet cable running through the ceiling is of as much use as a cigarette lighter even if somehow Kramnik had known about it, everybody knows that Kramnik's health problems are very real and not a "lie", need I go on about why they are complete BS?

The question of whether Kramnik cheated or not is a non-issue. It's too absurd even to argue about. More interesting is the kind of stories that Topalov has latched onto to explain why he lost. They're not simply insane, delusional and paranoid ones; they also absolve him of culpability. It wasn't his fault he lost; evil forces (Russia! The KGB!) were set against him. It seems a curiously impotent mindset for someone who aspires to be a champion -- which is probably why he isn't one.

This is how it sounded when Topalov returned to Bulgaria:

"Interviewer: Are you sorry that the match took place in Russia?

Topalov: No, Elista is a great place with very nice people. The organization was perfect. The problems that occured could have occured at any other place."

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3428

I wonder what Shirov or Kamsky have to comment on this. The guys who've met both Topalov and Kramnik over the board. Shirov's opinion would be particularly good to hear - given that isn't exactly inclined to agree with Kramnik usually.

Shirov commented on this blog that the match happened because the Russian government wanted it.
(of course this doesn't mean that he agrees with Topalov charges but I wouldn't be surprised if he were to)

Mig, did you check how authentic this interview was. It's too much...must be fabricated. I cannot imagine Topalov saying those things.

Total paranoid or else he studied Fischer's character so well that he has suddenly become him!

This can't be true.

Duncan

He (Topalov) is accusing Kramnik of what he actually did in San Luis, and he could not do in the match. Analyze the games and check the computer accuracy ratio (using rybka) and you will see the results, you will be amazed. Danailov knew it and was expecting Kramnik should do the same as Topalov did and that is the reason of toilet paranoia

Why total paranoid ? Russia is a dangerous place these days.

Kramnik may have become part of the "system" as Karpov was once. I do not find impossible they wanted to make sure that Kramnik would win.

Sigh..

I am sorry but Kirsan needs to take danilov and Topalov to task before the FIDE ethics committee. Slandering a member federation (Russia) slandering a fellow professional (Kramnik). I think a year sispenion from FIDE events would not be to harsh and Danikov needs to be declared persona non grata like Quinteros and Calvo for extremely minor lapses. In the case of Dr. Calvo his crime was the truth written down.

If KGB (FSB, actually) was really involved, then:
1) Topalov would not be able to find any cable;
2) Kirsan would not grant the Commission to those jerks before the match, and would not voice his support to their absurd decisions, becasue he'd be involved into KGB actions (he can be easily managed by KGB being totally dependent on Putin's favor as a corrupt businessman and politician);
3) Topalov would never be able to get (illegal) access to tapes.
The list can be easily continued.

My guess is that if this interview is authentic, than Topa is either in serious mental trouble, or he just tries to create as much noise as possible to get onto newspapers first pages again, as he did during the match. Anyway, they know their re-match offer will be declined (too late, no financial guarantees, etc), and try to make up a new scandal, IMHO.

Topalov may as well not be mentally ill but rather a smartass. There is a general distrust in the West of the polically corrupt (and violent) Putin's Russia. And for good reasons : the recent spy story, Politovskya murder, Larisa Yudina (Kirsan's murder) and all the rest.

In such context Topalov is simply riding the wave with such accusations. They may be even true but they are as hard to prove as anything else.

But has Kramnik has joined some groups of interests in Moscow, entered the political sysment ? Karpov's life history makes such suspicious seem not that absurd. You actually need political support when you get at this level
and Kramnik is not any "revolutionary" character.

PS to Kosulin, Kirsan situation is not that simple, he has enemies in Duma who tried to bring him down but failed..it is very, very complicated.

what is there to say other than i sincerely hope Kramnik will NOT give this idiot a rematch.

If Kirsan were 1/10th the ruthless dictator he is accused of being, Topalov would not be getting away with this garbage. What an embarrassment for Bulgaria and for chess.

For me, the most bizarre sentence in this interview is: "So we shut up and continued the match." That's just incredible.

Mig, can't you sign up Shirov, Kamsky and other top GM's to post comments on your blog.

GM Shirov - hope you regain your place in the top 10 again. Do you also feel like Tal did in his later years when asked why his games not as spectacular as before: ..have a poke in there and you have six defenders or something?

GM Kamsky - take it easy on Vishy, will you? do you have regrets of raking a break from the chess? Almost like Martina Hingis..

Violating FIDE's Code of Ethics can lead to being "excluded from participation in all FIDE tournaments or from specific types of tournaments for a period of up to 3 years" -- http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=A10

Of course, there is no specification about what kind of offense that would lead to what kind of punishment, but if this is not enough for exclusion at least for a while, then I really have to wonder what would be.

Already in Elista, the Kramnik team asked for FIDE's Ethics Commission to investigate the case. Since then, it's only getting worse every time he opens his mouth.

I would seriously like to see this happen. Maybe not for 3 years, but something. That would hopefully teach him a lesson. If not, it would alienate him from FIDE so that he would stay out deliberately in the future. That would be nice too. Of course, the best thing would be a sincere apology, but that's not going to happen.

What is going to happen is that controls against computer cheating are going to be set in all major tournaments, to avoid such situations/accusations repeating.

Of course it would be nice if FIDE were to do somnething about this but since it won't
the problem will be addressed and solved by the organizers of the major tournamnets.

"What is going to happen is that controls against computer cheating are going to be set in all major tournaments, to avoid such situations/accusations repeating."

Yeah but this was exactly what was done in Elista! I doubt that many other events in chess history has had that strict anti-cheating measures enforced. I would have thought to that it should stop this kind of ridiculous accusations, and that was of course the intention. It didn't, so it won't in the future either. It was just a vain hope.

hi all
the man tell you the truth about how he feels in the match and you men you all know about Elista more than Topalov who played there by himself
you just preffer to be premeditated and to stay with closed eyes
this is called ignorance
sorry for harsh words

The issue with Ethics Commission is that if they put sanctions on Topanailov, Topa and Co. will use this to start a huge PR campaign on "Russians dominating FIDE", "Kramnik afraid of playing Topa", etc. And it wouldn't be easy for FIDE and Kramnik to prove who is who in the general public opinion. It is much easier to soil somebody compared to cleaning your reputation up. It is usually easier to attack, and hard to defend. And it is almost impossible to bring Topa to a civil court, because he just issues an opinion.

and its funny to me that many here share the opinion that Kramnik shouldnt play new WC match with Topa
why? cant understand :) the games were exciting, werent they?

The Elista event signals that the problem has to be taken seriously from now on in tournamnent-play , not only ICC. It was the first high level scandal.

This whole issue (measures/countermeasures) is still at the beginning. Jon Jacobs, who posts here, should be able to tell us more about it.
I understand he has organized a meeting on this topic in New York recently.

There will be changes in (serious) tournament regulations all over the world to meet this problem.
The "drugs in chess controls" was another imaginary problem, more gibberish from Kirsan but in fact we have real "doping" problem to solve.

Imaginary problems is something that Kirsan/FIDE can solve, the real ones....we will see.

thenewone,
There is no time left for the match to be played in time. Period.

My favorite part:
"What do you think of President Ilyumzhinov?
- He's a businessman and he simply needed to have a Russian champion. It's nothing personal. He got the order."

So much ingratitude!

Ray
why Topalov should be gratefull to Iliumzhinov? Did he give him his world champion title?

Vlad:
there is enough time. Look at the calendar

oh Vlad sorry
in the last sentence I forgot something:
Period.

It just occured to me that in ancient times, when, following the Prague agreement, a Kasparov-Ponomariov match was scheduled to determine FIDE's opponent for Kramnik and thereby unify the World Championship, one Silvio Danailov was Manager of Ponomariov (just as Carsten Hensel is Manager of both Kramnik and Leko) and supposedly spoiled that match by urging his man not to accept the addition of a few completely insignificant rest days. It stood to reason that after this failure Kasparov wouldn't have a chance to get a shot at the title any more, and consequently retired. Thus, Danailov has really been extremely influential in recent chess history. Funny how amongst all our Danailov-bashing of the last months nobody ever accused him of killing the King. Wouldn't be completely unreasonable to say that. Or maybe I don't remember all of this correctly.

I'm sick of these bizarre allegations. If a grandmaster wants to cheat he DOES NOT NEED TO CHECK WITH HIS COMPUTER MOVE BY MOVE. Not even I would need so, and I'm a lousy C class player!

Topalov should retire out of shame.

I am very sad. I am sure I have said this before with reference to GM Topalov, but now I am completely unable to find any excuse for his behaviour.

I hope Kramnik sues.

thenewone,
They both play at the Corus tournament Jan.13-29.
Topa is also supposed to play in Linares/Morelia after that.
The match shall finish 6 month in advance before the Mexico start Sept 12. To finish the match before March 12, it have to start not later than February 20th.
May be, for Topa playing the title match a week or two after a big tournament is fine, he stated numerous times that for him the title is nothing and he is playing just for money, but for everybody else the WC match is the EVENT, and players must be prepared appropriately to show the best chess OTB, not the behind the scene performances.

oh, so it was Danailov who ruined Kasparov-Ponomariov match ?

as I remember there was more than "few rest days" to their disagreement...but I can't remember exactly what

Oh, my God, now "Kramnik Central" will come abuzz. Unpleasant interview to read on a good day like today, but that's life.

Charley, a few other Brits and Americans, I suspect -- you guys don't know s*** about how the system works in Russia, so please reserve judgement. You haven't seen it from the inside like I have.

I've no idea whether Topalov's alegations are true, or not, but to be dismissed out of hand is like trying to refute reality.

D.

Come on Mig, you are very quiet.

Your guy lives in fear, you are looking up polonium, the spy is dead, Larisa was murdered.

But you dismiss anything Topalov says.

Kramnik couldn't/ wouldn't cheat? Fritz 10 isn't so strong? Bladder control is not relevant?

What on earth does Litvinenko, Yudina and Politkovskaya for that matter have to do with the match in Elista??? Is this what is called "hysterical mob"?

Dimi,

That was my point too, not that Topalov is necessarily right but being given what is going on in Russia nowdays what Topa says is quite plausible ( and impossible to prove either way).

Nevertheless he should shut up and forget it.
He should have realized all these before agreeing to play Kramnik in Russia.

Ovidiu, I too prefer that Topalov is quiet because I get seriously annoyed reading some of the reactions. Reminds me of a Komsomol gathering when one after the other the good boys condemn the "instigator, provocateur, reactionary..."

I enjoyed better watching how the Kranmik camp tries to swallow Mexico 2007.

But then again -- all these years there was one rule: "Shut up, or..." So, why can't he say what he thinks?

D.

Although I find myself doing it often enough I don't really like repeating myself, let alone repeating others. As I said at the time and since, barring new information I'd much rather talk about chess. I have tried to only put this stuff up every few weeks at most unless there is something from one of the principals, like this interview. (I.e. if Danailov had said the exact same things I probably wouldn't have run it.)

As for the content, that's all been gone over too. My opinions haven't changed. Without getting into the endless hair-splitting on legalities (and without reading this entire thread; I just woke up!), I think that 1) Kramnik's bathroom behavior was odd enough to warrant a protest. 2) There was no evidence of wrongdoing and the protest should have been dismissed or handled in a non-invasive way. (Inspections, etc.) So the original decision to lock the bathrooms was wrong. 3) Kramnik should have played game five under protest. 3.5) The forfeit was probably the only real possible outcome after he didn't and this wasn't directly Topalov's fault. 4) Topalov/Danailov's subsequent (and ongoing) campaign of slander and scandal was calculated and possibly premeditated. First to distract Kramnik during the match and now to deflect responsibility for Topalov's loss. 5) There is still absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing on Kramnik's part, either materially or by deduction from looking at the games. In case it's not clear, I do not believe Kramnik received any external assistance.

I have also said that the Russian establishment, via Zhukov, was firmly behind getting this match to happen and giving Kramnik all possible support. It's quite possible Ilyumzhinov got a Kremlin-flavored kick in the pants after the appeals committee locked the bathrooms. But theory isn't what matters. There was no visible manifestation of this support in ways that affected the results unless you count Topalov's paranoia possibly damaging his play. (If you believe he is sincere about thinking Kramnik was really cheating, which I'm not sure of. He may be talking himself into it.) The one big decision, the forfeit, ended up in Topalov's favor. I feel that was essentially the correct (legalistically) result, but it certainly doesn't indicate favoritism toward Kramnik.

Of the many ironies around this is that prior to Elista there were scads of rumors about Topalov receiving signals (San Luis, Sofia, Linares) and not a few top players seem to believe this. I was/am willing to chalk it up to sour grapes since he was kicking so much butt, but Elista added a flavor of deflection and transference, as well as simply making him less sympathetic and less trustworthy. Again, mostly sad.

Dimi, the only good thing for chess that may come out of Topalov's accusation is the chess people realizing that the time has come for the computer cheating issue in OTB-play to be taken seriously.

In this sense yes, there is a point in do them.

Otherwise he is only harming his reputation and gets accused of paranoia as Fischer was accused after the 1963 TC.

There are two problems with the "it was Russia" comments.

1) We're not talking about "Russia", we're talking about Kramnik. Either this guy was implanted with a non-existent Fritz when aged 5 or he's a brilliant talent who was clearly a class better than Topalov for a decade. Kramnik's play in this match was below his previous standards, which makes you wonder why he'd bother to cheat so incompetently.

2) This was played in Elista, and Ilyumzhinov and FIDE obviously favoured having Topalov as their champion (he was the FIDE champion, after all, and enthusiastic about Mexico... and so on). The appeals committee debacle obviously went in Topalov's favour, so to then come out and claim he lost because of unfavourable conditions is ludicrous. Sure, Zhukov and co. might have put some pressure on to get the match played out, but that's supposed to be what Topalov wanted ;)

p.s. anyone got any idea which move Topalov's claiming is computer-inspired in the tie break? Just idle curiosity...

Sadly, the World Championship title means very little now thanks to men like Ilyumzhinov and Danailov. Who really cares anymore who the "champ" is?

True, "Mail It In". The situation has become miserable and tainted by politics and back stage frauds since 1948 when FIDE and USSR took the control of the title.

many guys here wrote: FIDE that FIDE this
it seems they think FIDE is a monolith and they forget who is Iliumzhinov and who is Iliumzhinov' boss
i repeat: it is just ignorance
to ignore Topa opinion and feeling is premeditate
they was there -- you were not
its simple
cheers

I find it hard to believe that Topalov said this, the whole story is so absurd and sad.

Sorry, this thread has got so bizarre that I can't resist adding this (incidentally, do the loons chiming in actually outnumber those with a grip on reality, or are they just more vociferous?):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6183561.stm

Speaking of Russians,Mig don't let them mess up Garry with that polonium insanity!

"sad" ? no reason to be depressed, Corus is coming and Kramnik will have the opportunity to silence the critics by remarkable play, Topalov too will be there.

Kirsan just won the contest "Man of the year 2006"in Russia,category "For fortifying the sports pride of Russia"(or something like this)
Congratulations Kirsan!!!Apparently you did a great job!
Guys are you so naive to believe that the FIDE and his president were supporting Topalov???

Kirsan was the one who upheld the decision to give Topalov the free point with Black. He gave Kramnik nothing that he didn't already have before the Appeals Committee took it away.

What exactly did Kirsan do now that illustrated this massive Kramnik bias?

Kirsan "man of the year" ? what is life...did Larisa got one for..say, "most remebered corpse" ? or that one went to Politkovskaya ?

I'm not 100% sure, but I believe this the first time Topalov has directly accused Kramnik of cheating. Previously he and even Danailov have talked more vaguely. This could be important legally as well as being remarkable. The world #1 accusing the world champion of cheating shouldn't be dismissed as sour grapes. If he can't back it up, and he can't, why shouldn't there be censure or worse? This may end up being a Big Deal. I'm more annoyed about this the more I think about it. Imagine it in another sport.

It would be good if Kramnik were to sue. He will win for sure, there is no proof, but from then on each tournament will have electronic surveillance and will monitor what the players to do each step.
A trial and the arguments around it would change the way most tournamnets are held nowdays.

I must say that Topalov isn't much of a man. The poor guy hasn't learned to take responsibility
for his life. He's just a puppy that does whatever his master, Danailov, commands him to do.

Just a little thought. If Topalov was so unhappy playing in Russia, might it not be conceivable that Kramnik would not enjoy playing in Bulgaria?

maybe so guido, or maybe not, but what does it have to do with the issue ?

Kramnik will not play a rematch in Sofia that's sure. Not clear then what is the point of this "challange", what is to be achieved except some psychological advantage for Topalov in the months to come.

Maybe Topalov wins all that he plays in soring 2007 and, added with Kramnik's refusal, he may feel the champ again.

Ignorant of the circumstances of Larisa's decease, and referring to Ovidiu's message, I think it might be possible that an award for "most dismembered corpse" was bestowed?

And Sofia is the CAPITAL and not exactly comparable to playing in a Russian republic with rather extensive autonomy ... right? This is what Topalov meant when he said he didn't have a problem with Elista since he considered it "FIDE territory". It's not like it took place inside the Kremlin under Putin's supervision.

Meanwhile, the Bulgarian President is intended as patron of the rematch according to Danailov's proposal.

Until now, I thought that all those baseless allegations were just part of Danailov Gambit, but now we seem to have proof that Topalov was supportive of these tactics.

With this new development I think the suggestion form Mr. Hans-Walter Schmitt (the Minaz Organizer, http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3418), that is ban Topalov from all major tournaments.

LAT

FIDE may ban him from Kalmykia but who will care at Corus, W-Zee, Linares or M-Tel of what Kirsan says.

Topa's lamentable cables fantasy brings to mind Terry Gilliam's Brazil. Same sort of mindset, too.

I think he may be living in that same place as the film "Brazil."

This guy's a joke. I thought he looked fairly normal and together for a top chess player. However, it seems that being Danailov's chess boy toy for all these years has really created a mad man.

If an opponent of mine went into the toilet that many times in a game, I'd be suspicious as hell too, even if I couldn't definitively prove anything. Consider what you'd think if this happened to you at a tournament before calling Topalov paranoid.

Within a couple of years, Topalov and his "manager" will have become little more than the weakened embodiment of a tiresome near-cliche. Now what each of them needs most is to share about six months' worth of intensive couples therapy, and perhaps to seek advice concerning long-term psychotropic medication...--

A most amazing explanation for all this:

After a long day at the chessboard, Topalov and Danailov like to relax and unwind in their living room, watching the World Wrestling Federation on satellite TV.

One day, shortly before Elista, they come up with the idea of reanimating a moribund chess scene by marketing it like professional wrestling:

--a little "champion" with a funny beard and strange dreams;
--his demented, reptilian manager;
--a sorcerer;
--mysterious accomplices making odd handsignals.

A secret cable hidden within the ceiling of Restaurant Chevermeto in south Sofia reveals Ovidiu, Danailov and Topalov hard at work plotting their next move:

OVIDIU: You had an idea how to hype this Kremlin nonsense?

TOPALOV: I dunno.

DANAILOV: Veselin will eat some rancid feta chess. We'll rush him to the hospital and call the newspapers.

TOPALOV: Can't I just pretend to be ill, like Kramnik?

DANAILOV: Our doctors will discover that Veselin's got Polonium poisoning.

TOPALOV: From bad feta cheese?

OVIDIU: It's just pretend, Veselin.

DANAILOV: Then, even though you're "ill" you'll win Corus.

TOPALOV: How?

DANAILOV: You won San Luis. Same thing.

OVIDIU: Polonium is fatal, is Veselin supposed to die or something?

DANAILOV: After Corus he'll go to Lourdes, have a religious experience and be cured. Any doctor in the world will certify he's Polonium free. That will PROVE he'd been poisoned.

OVIDIU: Waiter, please bring us some feta cheese.

Topalov is a disgrace for chess. What I find the most despicable is how Topalov and Danailov keep saying that Kramnik cheated and yet they want rematch. Actually, the normal human reaction to the cheating would be to never play the cheater again. Boycott the cheater, etc. So, the fact that the keep seeking rematch just shows to me that they do not really think Kramnik cheated. That makes the allegations all the more ridiculous.

And it is not just cheating allegations. He claims that conspiracy against him was so huge that even his LIFE was in danger. And yet he wants to play rematch as soon as possible? Why is that? You just played a match against a cheater and you barely escaped death and now you want to do it again as soon as possible? That is what we are supposed to believe? I would have more respect for Topalov/Danailov lies had they been more consistent with one another. Of course, if Topalov really believed that his life was in danger AND that Kramnik was a cheater he would never ever agree to rematch because that would mean he would just be risking his life again without a chance of actually winning.

And how stupid is the fact that they are asking for rematch while giving such interviews? I mean, what - they think Kramnik will not agree to the rematch but they think that if they accuse him of the most horrible things he will all of a sudden go "oh, when you challenged me to a rematch I wasn't going to play you, but now that you are saying I am a cheater and a part of a KGB conspiracy that would go as far as killing you- yes, I would be happy to give you a chance to play me". This is so moronic I can't believe they are doing this.

I hope this interview misquoted him, but then again, there can only be so many newspapers that misquote you. It seems that it is likely to be accurate since Topalov has shown his ugly face in the other interviews, too.

I hope Topalov gets banned for this. 1 year or 2 or 3 - I don't care. But this is damaging to the game of chess. Topalov is absolutely disgusting and I hope he loses every game he plays from now on. The word that really comes to mind is "scum".

And to all those who think there may have been some sort of a Russian conspiracy to help Kramnik win Elista match - do you not remember the facts? Kramnik got a point AND a game with white stolen from him! This has to be the worst conspiracy ever! If this is how Putin agents supposedly help Kramnik, then I am sure Kramnik and his fans do not want any help.

And let me get this straight: Putin got Kirsan and others to go out of their way to help Kramnik win - and as a result Topalov got 1 point odds and an extra game with white? Ok. So what would happen if Putin had been neutral? Would Topalov then get 3 point odds and have 5 more games with white than Kramnik? Nice thinking.

Russianbear, nice essay but I hope that you won't fall again into the same trap (albeit reversed 180 degrees) that Topa fell : of trying TO PROVE now that Kramnik did not cheat.

We just don't know. There isn't enough evidence, it remains a suspicion. Kramink could have cheated but he might have had just a bladder problem.

What is important here is that such situation should never repeat. Measures should be taken so as the players behavior can be fully monitored during tournaments. No gaps in supervision allowed, no nerve racking suspicions again.

Perhaps never playing in Russia again (unless if Kasparov wins the elections)would be an appropriate solution?

Greg Koster, you're right on with the Danailov / Topalov WWE analogy. I've made posts occasionally on other threads pointing this out, but folks seem to think I'm joking. Even Ali reverted to wrestling schtick to create excitement before bouts. Doesn't Kirsan seem to pattern his charachter after power hungry heel owner Vince McMahon? ( especially when changing stipulations at the last minute ). Maybe even Kramnik's in on it...if not, he sure executed a smooth and effective overnight face turn at Elista. When they eventually stage a re-match it'll have to be in a "steel cage" style secure setting to prevent outside assistance. Need I add to convince doubters, the "toilet" angle is 100% straight out of Vince's playbook. Finally, chess will soon work on TV in the U.S. and attract corporate bucks!

The best defence is the attack : Topalov was suspected of cheating and now it seems everyone forgets him and suspects Kramnik... But as it has been said : who do you think is the main suspect ? Kramnik, a genius of chess, a former child prodigy with one of the best positionnal understanding in chess history or Topalov, an "anonymous" top level player for years who began to play very sharp games, with tactic fireworks in every part of the board and earn suddenly almost 100 elo point past thirty ?

Some very important facts seems to have been ignored in these discussions and they contained major problems for the Topalov supporters:

Before each game the players were subject to security checks for devices.These checks revealed nothing for either player that would cause suspicion.

Before each game each rest room and toilet area was checked by security and with a representative of each player present whilst the checks were going on. These checks did not reveal anything suspicious for either player.

Final point,the players played in an enclosed glass room with specific security measures in place to avoid computer/external cheating.

Topalov- unless you have concrete evidence which can be viewed, you are at immense risk of being sued for libel throughout the world.

To be fair to Topalov (not that he deserves it), he always played very sharp games with tactical fireworks all over the board - it was just he blundered too often and lots of his ideas were unsound.

I don't think it's that inconceivable that he suddenly calmed down/prepared openings better and became stronger, though seeing the way his mind works I'm no longer inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

In any case, I really think Kramnik should pursue accusations this serious in court. Hopefully, for the sake of chess, FIDE would then step in with a ban and Kramnik would accept that and drop the legal action (the problem is this might all be part of the Topalov/Danailov master plan - you can just see Danailov licking his lips at the chance to continue this circus in court, or with even more publicity).

The idea that Kramnik will ever sit down and play a match with Topalov now beggars belief, though knowing chess...

Guitov,do you have some understanding of chess????

And "suspicions" on Topalov were given only in the Russian medias and I believe it was the start of an well-organized campaign against Topalov.So this campaign was a success as we could see now

Such big matches should be held only in neutral countries. It would have been all too easy for the Russians to install communicating devices for Kramnik in his bathroom, they were controlling the whole setting/building.

Ovidiu, I agree about neutral countries. This time it was a country (Ilyumzhinov's private city in his private kingom, with FIDE minions to do his bidding) that favoured Topalov. Playing in Sofia would be a travesty.

As for the communicating devices - so you really think Kramnik went into the bathroom (incidentally checked beforehand) and climbed up to the ceiling, removed some panelling, pulled down an internet cable, connected it to his cleverly concealed non-metallic PC (remember the metal detectors?)... and then proceeded to receive moves which he seemingly didn't play, as if he had he wouldn't have got into the positions he did.

It's all patently absurd. Sure, we can't prove anything 100%. I can't prove you got into a time machine and killed Kennedy, but I think you'd agree making that accusation against you wouldn't exactly be reasonable...

Re: the suspicions about Topalov being the work of the Russian media. I think you'll find it was just the opinion of a few of the players at the tournament, only one of whom was Russian, as far as I know. I can't see Russia was really hell-bent on seeing Anand as FIDE WC instead of their eternal enemy, the Bulgarians! ;)

Ok should have written : "an "anonymous" top level player for years who began to WIN 90% of very sharp games". Stanleys, I think you do not know anything about chess history, just one of this Topalov fan who starts having interest in chess in the past 3 years. Have a look at these 2 pages http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/PlayerProfile.asp?Params=199510SSSSS3S132258000000151000000000029610100 and http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/PlayerProfile.asp?Params=199510SSSSS3S068986000000151000000000016810100. The questions about recent Topalov's performances have not only been raised by russian medias but also by some very respectful and strong players (and others than Dolmatov and Morozevich since you seem to have a russian phobia).

mishanp, I wrote here before that the bottom line of this "cheating affair" is that time has come for the computer cheating problem to be taken seriously and the worries of guys as Topalov understood, not ridiculed as some mindless Kramnik idolaters do here.

But Topalov should shut up or use a softer approach because he has no proof. He should have worried before going to play Kramnik on his home turf, Russia. A place where Topa could not control anything and where Kramnik could have cheated easily if he wanted and Topalov could have only "spin in circles" wondering whether it was happening or not.

We will likely never konw for sure if Kramnik did it in his many bathroom trips but it doesn't matter now anymore, it is over. Important is the lesson, computers are here to stay and this has to be dealt with when such big matches are held.

Duncan,
You are right. Topalov is a fan of Fisher for a long time. He said many times that this is the player he admires.
But even in that case, the Russian machine support for their players has a long history. Maybe not all that Topalov says is true, but somewhere between the lines is what actually happened in Elista....

Computers were dealt with, Ovidiu. They were taken very seriously and you can't exactly claim not having a camera in the toilets for Toppy's team to watch was a security breach.

After the "complaint" they upped the security even more. And again - this wasn't Kramnik's home turf - he was playing in FIDE's home city with his friends on the appeals committee.

If Topalov still thinks Kramnik was cheating in the tie-breaks there's no security system on earth that's going to counter that level of paranoia.

marca,

I agree that 'somwhere between the lines' of Topa's rant is actually the truth of what happened in Elista 2006.

Fischer recovered after the 1963 TC shock and beat the Russian support machine eventually.
If Topalov keeps playing the level he has reached recently he will defeat it too in the end .
He can go on ranting as Fischer did but, more important, he has to learn the lesson of Elista, make sure in other match negociations that computer cheating opportunities won't be again available.

Guitov,man you didn't say anything about your understanding of chess.Ok I'll tell you something about me if you're so interested:
I'm not considering myself as a strong player,but I am playing competitive chess since 1989 - and my actual rating is +2200
Among other things,one that particularly interests me is the chess history and I think i know much more than you here
Take a look at Topalov's career from 1993 up to now.Look at his performances in WC cycles,starting from 1993 Interzonal tournament.You'll see that he gradually improves his results and the culmination is San Luis
Calling "an anonymous top level player for years",somebody who already won in 1996 many major tournaments,culminating at the 4th position in the world ranking and finishing second in the "Chess Oscar"contest clearly shows that you're just one of the Kramnik fans who start having interest of chess this year!
Among the "very respectful and strong players" who raised questions about Topalov's performances only one name comes to my mind(besides Moro and Dolmatov) - Moro's trainer Vladimir Barskyi.His articles were such a shame!!Do you want a link or you already know them?

I agree with marca and Ovidiu

I wonder that if Topalov is telling even half the truth, the situation in Russia may be much worse than I thought it was.

Of course it seems like Topalov has lost his mind, but how can you know? Very strange things have been reported from Russia lately.

Political interests have driven sports in a lesser corrupted countries and chess is a big thing in Russia.

"Before each game the players were subject to security checks for devices.These checks revealed nothing for either player that would cause suspicion.

Before each game each rest room and toilet area was checked by security and with a representative of each player present whilst the checks were going on. These checks did not reveal anything suspicious for either player.

Final point,the players played in an enclosed glass room with specific security measures in place to avoid computer/external cheating."

Yeah, there were jamming devices present to prevent electronical communication. All put together makes it virtually incomprehensible how efficient cheating would at all have been possible. But these are just insignificant little details, of course. Because, you know, the Russians...umm.... the Russians, you know. KGB and all that. You know. Remember Litvinenko.

Elista was Topalov's home turf. Sofia would be Topalov's home turf. Sounds fair.

Of course we should expect such trash from acirce who considers Sweden to be an example of police brutality.

Huh? I don't even know what you are talking about. I vaguely remember a discussion where I mentioned that police brutality is a problem in Sweden. It's odd that you would deny this.

Russianbear,

Nicely done.

Two points:

1. Doesn't Topalov realize that the more he goes on with his baseless allegations, the less chances he has of maintaining enough credibility to secure a return match with Kramnik?

2. It is really extraordinary that some in this thread have said that the proper conclusion about the 'toilet scandal' is that "we will never know". Suppose I saw Ovidiu looking intently at a child in the playground and then I went around suggesting that he is a paedophile. According to the standards of some people in this blog, I may not be able to prove the allegation, but this only means that we'll never know... Really extraordinary.

Voyiakis,

You have chosen the wrong example. Suppose that I saw you going with the child in the bathroom, closing the door behind you, and then getting out and leaving 20 min later. While I can not prove that you are a pedophile, since I couldn't see what happened behind the closed door, let me suspect you.

Inaccurate, Ovidiu. Your twist of my example violates the rules of analogy. You are taking for granted that there was a "child" in Kramnik's toilet. If you want to be consistent, you need to say, "What if there was a child in there? I'll never know. So let me suspect you of paedophilia". Again, quite an extraordinary thing to believe.

Em,

Your insinuations against Ovidiu are truly baseless, scandalous, and disgusting, but all in all, you've done a public service by highlighting the need for playground supervision.

Thats sad. But that should be a hind for young men that play chess: Dont focuse only on chess, also do other sports and make sure you have a life.
In case you only focuse on chess you might end up like Topalov who know goes desperatly because he has "lost all".

Ovidiu,

> You have chosen the wrong example.

He hasn't. It definitely IS an obsessive rhetorical figure of yours to permanently repeat unsubstantiated allegations voiced by others, after your own intro "it cannot be proved that ...".

Em,

Kramnik may have had other reasons to spend too much time in the bathroom : a bladder problem, an obssesion that such places are safer or that they facilitate analysis, etc.
But for everyone else it was highly suspicious. A chess match was going on at the same and that place was lacking surveillance.

In fact it is a no brainer, why is so difficult for some Kramnik lovers to understand what is Topalov complaining about ? or perhaps that "love is blind" is the diagnosis here ?

cb, he did

Ovidiu, have you been watching too much of the Matrix? Just take the red pill, be done with it -- and leave us alone.

I am providing you some feedback from realiy "theorist". Talking only with those who agree with you is equivalent to talking to yourself.

Can I also just point out how sad it is that all this rubbish is being spouted in the same week that David Bronstein died? Could the gulf be any starker?

I'm afraid you're still missing the point, Ovidiu. Topalov did not just entertain suspicions. He has actually made ALLEGATIONS against Kramnik both during the match and later.

In particular, you do not seem to appreciate that going public with one's suspicions entails two things: First, one needs to back them with proof (which Topalov has manifestly failed to do). Second, if no proof is forthcoming, it is completely immoral to continue airing the original suspicions or even to suggest that "we'll never know". If the soundest conclusion is that the allegations are unfounded, then they ARE unfounded and ought to cease immediately. I cannot understand how such a basic point of morality can escape your notice.

Perhaps it hasn't helped that the question hs been presented as one of fact: did he or didn't he? Topalov and his supporters trade on the idea that we would only know the full truth if we had vision of Kramnik's toilet and so, lacking that bit of evidence, what we know will always fall short of the full truth. What is more extraordinary is that they want to use this idea in order to fuel THEIR OWN version of what happened!

"But for everyone else it was highly suspicious."

Blatantly false. It may have been highly suspicious for paranoid people like you and Topalov. Don't drag the majority of us, who are reasonable people, into this bizarre notion.

Voyiakis:

If someone is staring intently at a child in the playground, or likes to go to bed with children just to cuddle, or goes 50 times to the restroom during a WCC match -- this is all strange behavior. If he throws a fit being asked to abstain from any of the above then that's really suspicious.

You want to experiment -- go to a Greek village and stare intently in someone's wife/child/cow, etc. See what you get. They may not appreciate your practical joke/experiment cause they "know" that "suspicious" is "bad"...

D.

>

Another classic from Ovidiu: a truism that is completely misapplied. You're absolutely right about "talking to yourself". But let's not pretend that conversing with you is somehow *automatically* the opposite: a mutually beneficial, flexible exchange of ideas. Really, it isn't; it's like talking to a brick wall.

But (and here is your characteristic mistake -- which of course applies to your analysis of the Topalov situation) just because something is "not A" does not mean that it's necessarily the "opposite of A." It could just be something else.

Dimi,

I am glad you agree that we should group Topalov's attitude with that of Greek village peasants... Exactly my point.

People, how many of you know how the Russian machine functions???? Ask the great Garry Kasparov, he knows well. When he played against Karpov, he played against 20 GMs at least. And poor Topalov?? He is not even Russian.
Of course Kramnik will not play a rematch... and of course he will lose big time in Mexico, simply because it is not Russia.
The truth about Elista will come out, but in many many years when it will not matter that much. The way it was with Fisher, Bronstein, Krochnoi, etc etc.
My suggestion, go to Russia, live for a while, talk to people. Then you will believe what Topalov says, and you will know it is a very small part of the truth.

Em,

You seem to not have read my previous posts. I have kept saying that Topalov should shut up (or at least soften his tone) and swallow the pill since he can't prove what he charges. Yes we know that Kramnik could have cheated in that conditions and that he had all the reasons to do it but, since it can not be proved, let it pass and next time think twice before playing in Russia a Russian and for nothing else than W.Chess Champ.

On the other hand I like to have him saying what he says because, the other point in my previous emails, this will force everybody to acknowledge the problem of lack of regulations from FIDE to deal with the computer cheating issue in OTB chess.

FIDE is busy with gibberish problems as drug doping when in fact it has a real problem to address.

It's a little known fact that Kramnik has never won a tournament outside of Russia. It's even less known - yet! - that the reason for this is lack of KGB support, although there have been several attempts at Topalov's and Anand's lives.

Ovidiu: please explain how Kramnik could have been using his toilet visits to cheat.

And while you're at it, can you explain why Topalov could NOT have been using HIS toilet visits to cheat, and otherwise why you keep singling Kramnik out.

Ovidiu,

Your last post provides the best example of the attitude I have been criticizing. I will simply copy it for focus:

"Yes we know that Kramnik could have cheated in that conditions and that he had all the reasons to do it but, since it can not be proved, let it pass and next time think twice before playing in Russia a Russian and for nothing else than W.Chess Champ"

Let me just say that it is utterly immoral to suggest that Kramnik 'simply got away with it'. Blogs are places of free expression, but they offer no license to anyone to flout moral standards.

> "It definitely IS an obsessive rhetorical figure
> of yours to permanently repeat unsubstantiated
> allegations voiced by others, after your own
> intro "it cannot be proved that ...".
> Posted by: cb at December 16, 2006 09:40

> "... Kramnik could have cheated in that
> conditions and that he had all the reasons to do
> it but, since it can not be proved, let it pass ..."
> Posted by: Ovidiu at December 16, 2006 10:21

Ovidiu, it is an obsessive rhetorical figure of yours to permanently repeat unsubstantiated allegations voiced by others, after your own intro "it cannot be proved that ...".

Bravo Emmanuel, that was nice :)

Sour grapes or not, Topalov is not baseless in what he feels. Whether he should express it so openly or not is a choice that may be driven by many factors: pure anger, cold calculation, etc.

He gets interviewed a lot -- when before a friendly journalist it is possible to let it loose. So what? Doesn't Gary say a lot of "things" about his prior opponents? Was Karpov truly a bad guy helped from above? Who knows? Can Karpov sue? I don't think so. Chess guys take themselves too seriously, I doubt the courts do the same... But I much rather read an interview from the heart. Amazingly, they all make the front pages...

Topalov has a pretty clean sheet as far as other competitions/competitors go. Not one or two, bitter losses too. Let the "court" take that into consideration... :-)

But to be criticised by folks who themselves raised the accusation level long before Elista is disingenious. To be criticised by folks who spent their time plotting how Kramnik can skirt Mexico 2007 or bet only 48.73% of his title is plain ridiculous.

Anyway, it seems that Topalov brings entertainment. That's a lot to get from a chess player... :-)

D.

No, Bronstein brought entertainment. Topalov just brings a circus.

Emmanuel:

I trust a Greek peasant with my child more than I would an honest freak. Because we turned our back on suspicious behavior, now we can't let the children go to school alone.

D.

Dimi,

Of course he is not baseless in what he says but try to get his "blinded by love" fans here to think straight even for a second over what happened.

Topalov became nervous when he saw how much time Kramnik spent in the bathroom, outside of the surveillance cameras.

How could he dismiss the idea that Kramnik was cheating ? and how could have got rid of doubts ? he went on "spinning in circles" (as he said )--over what was truly happening.

Furthermore he was playing in Russia, it would been all to easy for high tech communication devices to be installed for Kramnik in that bathroom.

Ovidiu, your tenacity in the face of all reason is made only more impressive by your inability to direct your own comments and "doubts" towards yourself. You cling to this little nugget that Kramnik *might* have been cheating like a drowning man afraid to let go of the last shred of flotsam from the shipwreck. The obvious question surely is: what's in this for you? What do you stand to lose? Why is your Topalove so strong?

Of course Topalov didn't know anything about Kramnik's bathroom visits until his own team SPIED on Kramnik, reviewing the video recordings from his private relaxing room, and told Topalov about it. Also one of those pesky details we are supposed to forget about.

Topalov says "And if he's not doing anything wrong, what's the problem?" --- the typical argument for a Big Brother society. With this mentality perhaps Topalov himself should apply for the FSB.

Through the looking glass... (adapted from Ovidiu's last post)

Kramnik became nervous when he saw how the Appeals Committee and the FIDE President favoured Topalov.

How could he dismiss the idea that Topalov was cheating ? and how could have got rid of doubts ? he went on "spinning in circles" (as he said )--over what was truly happening.

Furthermore he was playing against the FIDE chamption, it would been all too easy for FIDE officials to ensure some on- and off-the-board advantages for Topalov.

Do you see how pananoia sets in?

hey guys what is your problem with Topa?
if he was an american guy you all would be blaming bad-bad Putin and evil Russia
cheers

In a mature chess world, this is how the situation would have been handled:

Topalov to his team: Hey guys, Kram is sure going to his room a lot. What's up with that?
Team to arbiter: Hey, Kram is going to his room a lot. Considering all the allegations of computer cheating swirling in the world today and the importance of the match, we would like the explanation.
Arbiter to team Kramnik: Your behavior is within the rules, yet suspicious. Please explain it.
Kramnik: I like to pace around, it helps my thinking and arthritis--I go to the bathroom because I don't like the idea of having surveilance under videotape.
Arbiter conveys the explanation to Topalov.
Topalov: Well, we are gonna have to take his word for it. It's plausible, he is not playing very computer-like, and there is no real evidence of his cheating.

Frankly, Topalov's interview comes off not as complaints of a wounded victim of a cheating, but like ramblings of a frantic paranoid lunatic (there was a wire in the celing, it was the fans or the KGB who passed the moves (if he knows who it was how could he be unsure which), claim that he knows for sure Kramnik didn't convey the message to his team, that Kramnik cheated during rapids but it's never really explained how).

Theorist,

There isn't anything in this for me, unlike your case since you ask such question. This in turn allows me to look objectively at what happened.

The Chessbase.com propaganda machine during the match (they wanted Kramnik WC for their Fritz-match) has apparently brainwashed you and few others into believing that Topalov is a some sort of mindless thug accusing and attacking Kramnik.

As some other also realize (Mig for instance) such thing hasn't been part of Topalov life story, part of his character.
How then such radical change of personality?
Simple, in fact it was the case that he had good reasons to do what he did and to say what he says.

Oh, brilliant. Here comes the old myth about Chessbase's "propaganda machine" on top of everything. Perhaps they wanted Kramnik to win, but it certainly didn't leave much of a mark in their reporting. If you actually read it, that is.

"How then such radical change of personality?"

He has never been playing, not to mention trailing 2 points behind a player as solid as Kramnik, in a World Championship match before.

San Luis was not as prestigious as this match, of course, but who knows what would have happened if he had started to lose instead of going 6.5/7.

Or perhaps the idea was simply to appeal to the irrational Russophobic sentiments - well, it worked better for Korchnoi back in the days of the USSR, but even today a lot of people seem to buy into it.

"Or perhaps the idea was simply to appeal to the irrational Russophobic sentiments - well, it worked better for Korchnoi back in the days of the USSR, but even today a lot of people seem to buy into it."

This theory gets some support by the fact that Topa-Danailov's story started to get worse after Litvinenko's death. As far as I know Danailov only began to speak about vague "threats" that made him "fear for his life" after that. They might have thought that now people were more likely to believe that kind of stuff.

"old myth" acirce ?
they as good now as they were before

chessbase.com first published the rematch news as : "Danailov challanges Kramnik"..few hours later, after protests, they changed to "Danailov, Topalov challanges Kramnik"...

they as biased as "Radio Teheran" asked to report
on Israel

Ovidiu: argumenta ponderantur, non numerantur.

"chessbase.com first published the rematch news as : "Danailov challanges Kramnik"..few hours later, after protests, they changed to "Danailov, Topalov challanges Kramnik"..."

Umm, okay, and this is supposed to prove what?!

You could make a much stronger case for Chessbase being biased against Seirawan based on the fact that they initially reported that he missed the mate in one even after Kramnik's ..Qe3. They removed it after a while since it was not true. I personally think it's called a "mistake", much like Danailov forget the word "thousand" in "US Dollars one million and five hundred thousand", but I'm sure the least plausible explanation is always true.

Sometimes people just crack, Ovidiu. Sometimes their "inner nature" just takes time to express itself. Sometimes circumstances get the better of them. Why does anyone's behaviour change? How well do you really know Topalov? As Acirce says, how many times had Topalov been in this situation before? (Answer: never). Why is everything so simple for you?

And before you tilt your lance at the Chessbase propaganda machine, can you please explain which facts you are privy to that they didn't report, or which facts they misreported?

And, really, are you honestly trying to suggest that Topalov's erratic behaviour confirms his accusations? If I threaten to come to where you live and beat you up, will that threat (not the execution, note) convince you that I must be right and you wrong?

The only question that remains is this: what in the world -- what piece of evidence -- could possibly convince you that Kramnik *didn't* cheat? Can you conceive of anything? Are there any circumstances whatsoever in which you'll concede that Kramnik didn't cheat? From where I'm sitting, I can't imagine what that evidence could be for you -- and that simply confirms that this "conversation" is fruitless.

There's a silver lining in all this, though. No-one, not even Ovidiu, can feel that Kramnik's obliged to play this guy now.

I love the bit in the interview about Kramnik wanting to keep his title without defending it... weeks after he did just that!

It's not only that Topalov's accused Kramnik of cheating and working with the Russian mafia... he's also said that Ilyumzhinov was bribed into giving the match to Kramnik (by giving Topalov a point!).

You can't burn more bridges than this guy. I can't see how FIDE can avoid imposing some sort of a ban. He's written his chess obituary, which is sad. He was popular and if he'd sacked Danailov he might even have escaped this with some credit. Now, for all we know, it might be that Danailov's a calming influence on Topalov!

"I love the bit in the interview about Kramnik wanting to keep his title without defending it... weeks after he did just that!"

This was exactly what Danailov wrote in his press release in November 2005 explaining why Topalov turned down the UEP match offer that Kramnik accepted. Sometimes it's really hard to understand this kind of people...

Ok, not exactly. He wrote "However, by the looks of it, [Kramnik] has decided to seize the title for the rest of his life." (?!) Quite odd under the circumstances.

Theorist, what can convince me that Kramnik did not cheat would be a tape with his doings in the bathroom in one of his too many trips.

mishanp, that FIDE will ban Topalov seems rather unlikely. Chessbase managed to arouse enormous simpathy for "Kramnik as victim" during the match but that wave has subsided. We are back to Kramnik as usual (which means different things to fans vs. non-fans)

"Topalov became nervous when he saw how much time Kramnik spent in the bathroom, outside of the surveillance cameras. How could he dismiss the idea that Kramnik was cheating ? and how could have got rid of doubts ? he went on "spinning in circles" (as he said )--over what was truly happening."
-Posted by: Ovidiu at December 16, 2006 11:00

Ovidiu happily takes up Toppy's cause of attempting to convince the public that his loss was the result of a psychological disadvantage. Who do you think gained a psychological edge when the protest was upheld and the bathrooms closed? More importantly, who gained a free point as black due to Kirsan's/appeals committee unwillingness to have the forfeited game replayed - fairly significant in a 12 game match wouldn't you say? I really wish they'd decide whether it was psychology, Kramnik cheating, or threats of physical harm and KGB involvement which were to blame for the outcome; that they adopt the multi-pronged approach of airing all these accusations is reminiscent of rdh's comments in an earlier thread about not taking on clients who constantly refer to "their enemies" without focusing on anyone in particular. Of course, if enough people lend them credibility because "we can't prove otherwise", they'll keep riding the scandal for all it's (not) worth. Pathetic.

Ovidiu wrote: "Theorist, what can convince me that Kramnik did not cheat would be a tape with his doings in the bathroom in one of his too many trips."

How will you know you're looking at the real videotapes?

cynical gripe,

You built a straw man and then you ripped it off with gusto. Lonely business however as I did not said anything like "Topalov lost because of psychological disadvantage"

What I wanted to stress was that Topalov's story made sense alone, -- as opposed to Chessbase propaganda during, and after, the match, which wanted to have it that Topalov was only trying attack and disbalance Kramnik since Kramnik was leading in the match. Topalov was genuinely worried that Kramnik might be cheating.

"Chessbase propaganda during, and after, the match, which wanted to have it that Topalov was only trying attack and disbalance Kramnik since Kramnik was leading in the match."

When did Chessbase say that?

> Topalov was genuinely worried that Kramnik might be cheating.

Ovidiu, you forgot to add " ... but it cannot be proved".

"mishanp, that FIDE will ban Topalov seems rather unlikely. Chessbase managed to arouse enormous simpathy for "Kramnik as victim" during the match but that wave has subsided. We are back to Kramnik as usual (which means different things to fans vs. non-fans)"

Tend to agree about FIDE, but that's only because they're a comically badly run organisation.

As for Kramnik's reputation: at no point in Kramnik's career has there been the slightest suggestion that he's cheated - or that's he's anything other than a fantastically strong player.

Sure, people might wish Kramnik adopted more of an attacking approach, or defended his title yearly, but it's only in the minds of Topalov & Danailov that this whole fantasy's been concocted.

The general opinion of Kramnik is anyway irrelevant to FIDE's actions here. Topalov's clearly broken the law, though I doubt Kramnik would want the hassle and stress of taking it to court, so I'd hazard a guess that breaks even FIDE's code of ethics ;)

I'm reading through Chessbase's reports from Elista again, and still can't find any of their so-called Kramnik bias. Let me know where it is. Savinov's report after game 4 echoed the version of the Topalov apologists that with their press releases they simply "retaliated" after Kramnik's remarks on the press conference.

I definitely don't find where they say that "Topalov was only trying attack and disbalance Kramnik since Kramnik was leading in the match."

They were publishing statements by some people to that effect, but they also published press releases, interviews and statements from the Topalov camp, as well as the statement from Makropoulos, as well as the open letter from Bulgarian grandmasters in defence of Topalov, etc. What is the problem exactly?

>And, really, are you honestly trying to suggest that Topalov's erratic behaviour confirms his accusations?>
theorist,

What I honestly try to suggesst is that Topalov is not out of his mind with his accusations and there are enough reasons for being suspicious of what happened in Elista.

Some people deal bad with uncertainity. Not only, obviously, Topalov but also few people here who "know" for sure that Kramnik did not cheat as if they were with him in the bathroom.

Ovidiu, what if I said that Topalov's merely kicking up a fuss to deflect attention away from his own (unsuccessful) cheating in the match? How could you refute it? I mean, it's at least *possible* isn't it?

> Some people deal bad with uncertainity.

How very true, Ovidiu! One should all be very careful when we question personal integrity of others with too much uncertainity in our arguments. Emmanuel tried to explain this. "Moral" was the keyword.

-- We should ...

self-defence was the key word

For consideration...

In the middle of the match I ran into an IM who told me Kramnik actually WAS cheating, but only on himself (or perhaps his girlfriend): he apparently hasn't been able to quit cigarettes and was slipping into the bathroom to smoke. If nervous, a smoker will often smoke only half the cigarette, go away, then return shortly to finish; Kramnik saw a lot of difficult positions early in the match, which may have caused smoker's stress and therefore additional rest-area trips.

If it was a smoke-free building as well as a smoke-free stage, perhaps Kramnik was doing it by the bathroom window, walking out to look at the rest-area screen, then returning to smoke more. And anyhow he probably had several reasons for not wishing to be observed smoking cigarettes on-camera before or after the protest.

But back to the Topa interview: who else but Danailov could have concocted an accusation that "exonerates" Illescas by asserting that Kramnik got all his help from a weakling? So Danailov is willing to cross the line so far that he gets Topalov's assistance in an effort to "excuse" all of Topalov's wins?? "Wow Veselin, why'd you have to go and beat him so often? But don't worry baby, I've figured out a way around it for us..." Yikes. Danailov may be the Eugene Landy of chess.

Mig might be right that the Topalov's comments in this interview are at least actionable. In the cold light of this, one hardly needs to be "blinded by love" to see the pathology behind Ovidiu's whole-cloth argument.

Clubfoot,

Interesting comparison with Landy and Brian Wilson.

Of course there was epic paranoia and increasingly bizarre accusations and insinuations in Fischer-Spassky and then, especially, the Karpov-Korchnoi matches. Kasparov accused one of his seconds (Vladimirov) of selling opening analysis to Karpov during the 1985 match and removed him from the team. (That was, I believe, after Kasparov lost three in row and the panic from that combined with the somewhat justifiable paranoia about Karpov's state backing, which is also a factor in Topalov's case. Losses + paranoia = accusations.) Anyway, it was essentially accusing Karpov of cheating, if in a more subtle and clean-hands way than what Topalov says Kramnik was doing. And of course Kasparov's allegations about Deep Blue getting human help on at least a move or two in the 1997 rematch are well known. In a way that is the most similar!

Still, the loser continuing to explicitly state his opponent cheated without any evidence is no small thing, especially since computer cheating is indeed a serious threat today. And the pseudo-details as well. What move in the 4th game would only a computer have played? First I'd heard that one.

Chesstraveler

Thanks but you know, I probably should also follow Koster and whiskyrebel and point out the additional examples of Jim Cornette, Skandor Akbar, Kim Chee and Floyd Creachman.

Perhaps "21.Rab1!! – an amazing move with fine tactical justification. It had a stunning effect on Topalov, who started taking time and eventually lost ground" (from Savinov's report)?

yes it was very computer-like move
when you think your opponent uses computer help such a move can make you to lose ground
nerves you know

I like the "smokin' in the boys' room" theory. But I think the fiancée (who is after all French) can deal with it: according to NiC 2006.8, Kramnik is lighting up once again.

Hi, guys!

Very interesting discussion here. I'd like to offer my take on that "Russians badly wanted Kramnik to win" theory. Its supporters mention Fischer and Spassky, Korchnoi and Karpov, Karpov and Kasparov, etc – and it all begins to look very plausible! But they compare totally different times, of course. Up till the 1990s chess was a national sport in Russia, strongly supported by the state, which often used it in its propaganda. The match between Spassky and Fischer was a minor reflection of the Cold War. Korchnoi was a political enemy, whom the Soviet state wanted to crush. Both Karpov and Kasparov had powerful supporters at the top of the Communist Party – hence the clash.

But was there "the hand of Kremlin" in the Kasparov-Short match? I doubt it. Did Moscow have vested interests in the match Kasparov-Anand? I don't think so. Did anyone in KGB lose sleep during the match between Kasparov and Kramnik in London in 2000? Probably not... Was Russia in shock when Kramnik was losing that match to Leko with one game left? Don't kid yourself! So, what is so different now?

Chess is no longer as popular in Russia as it used to be. More importantly, it has lost propaganda role. Therefore I doubt that Putin cares much who is the current world champion – a Russian living in France or a Bulgarian living in Spain!

When Danailov was answering allegations that Topalov was cheating in San Luis, he said something like that: "You are damaging chess. Shut up - or we will see you in court!". I wish he will follow his own advice. If he does not, then Kramnik should!

GM Alex Baburin, Ireland

What Rab1 was was a very strong move and once you see Black can't take on c3 it's not exactly magic. Also, just about everything else is inferior for White. Now, had White played 21.Rdb1 (the second computer recommendation) it would have really attracted some attention.

Isnt it obvious? There was a network cable in the ceiling because a midget FSB agent was hiding up there with a laptop feeding Kramnik the moves. Mind you, he wasn't analyzing with your standard Fritz, Rybka, or Shredder program but a custom program built by Russian authorities. By cleverly playing weak moves and appearing to "overlook" a mate, Kramnik squashes doubt that he is cheating. He can throw one game and just clean up.

Mr. Baburin,

Well said.

Seconded: well said indeed, GM Baburin.

I'd add that Putin has revived the "strong Russia" rhetoric that would lead to sport promotion and such. Bread, circuses, etc. Note I don't believe there was interference. But the existence of a high-ranking government figure like Deputy Prime Minister Zhukov taking over the chess federation speaks to changing priorities. You could only expect the head of a player's federation to support him, but when that head is also a senior federal official you can at least add a little more to your conspiracy theories.

Like most Russians who knew that the event was taking place, Putin was rooting for Kramnik. But insofar that he cared at all from a political perspective, it must have been more important for Russia's image that the match took place - and, most importantly, was actually finished - than who won it.

This kind of interference I can imagine - telling Kirsan he has to solve the mess. But it's a bit hard to do more than that.

of course, telling Kirsan that he has to solve the mess
its enough for Kirsan -- Putin is his boss you know

Wow, has Topalov completely lost it? I'm a little more scared by how many people seem to take his claims seriously.

Steve,

No one takes it seriously.

Even Ovidiu says there's no evidence and that Topalov should just shut up. No evidence of Kramnik's wrongdoing and abundant evidence of Topalov's bad behavior. Tough position for a Topalov shill.

Ovidiu's interminable versions of "you never know" and "you can't disprove it," are the last refuge of a reality-denying sophist. Follow Ovidiu's "arguments" to their foundation and you'll find him arguing that you can't prove the existence of yourself, Topalov, or anything at all.

It can't have been Rab1 Topalov meant because he says it was in the fourth game 'when he already had me beat'. It's impossible to imagine what moves he means, but then he obviously didn't mean any move; he just knew he was talking to a lapdog journalist who wouldn't challenge anything he might say.

The whole thing is SO reminiscent of Diana fantasists. There's no rational discussion with epistemological fundamentalists like Ovidiu. What's that EM Forster book that starts off by asking how anyone knows there are still cows in the field once we can't see them?

If Topalov is really picking out Kramnik's Rab1, perhaps the following is relevant from Misha Savinov's interview with Tigran Nalbandian http://www.chesscafe.com/misha/misha.htm (here talking about being Kramnik's second):
---------------------------------------
MS: So you mostly studied openings?

TN: Yes; mostly black openings. And the preparation was quite effective, as the match was essentially won with the black pieces.

This experience led to one of the most awe-inspiring moments in my chess life. Imagine: a man sees a position for the first time in his life and instantly suggests the best move available, which can only be confirmed after many hours of analysis! This is one of the facets of being the chosen one.

People say Capablanca was also capable of doing such things, while Smyslov would attribute it to having been a chess player in a previous life, thus having played the position before. However, it is one thing to read about it, and quite another to see it with your own eyes!

MS: Kramnik usually has his seconds’ test his own ideas, which can be a rather routine and technical procedure, is there any room for fun and enjoyment?

TN: Yes, although such work is not very romantic. You sharpen a certain idea, sometimes for an entire evening, and then Volodya comes and spoils the whole analysis by spotting an alternative on the first move. In the beginning, it is difficult to become accustomed to it. However, there is the pleasure of exploring new worlds and pushing forward into the unknown. This is a great joy for an analyst. And it is even more exciting in the company of such a genius.
-------------------------------------
As it seems Topalov might really believe all the junk Danailov was coming out with, I wonder if it's something to do with the parapsychologist (?) they had on their team. Maybe Topalov's sudden rise is linked with some sort of hypnosis and he really ends up believing Kramnik's a patzer who can't play without a computer and that he(Topalov)'s the undisputed best player in the world.

Robert J. Topalov

This garbage goes beyond 'paranoia', a term used to excuse the person who spouts this stuff.

The implication is that RJT's mind is diseased and he cannot see reality.
I do not buy that. I think RJT's character is revealed, not any mental disease.

Interesting comments.

Perhaps getting sued is exactly what Danailov wants -- let's see all the tapes now... I leave it for you guys to analyze all the possibilities. And they are many.

Kramnik will never bite on this one.

The story is just a blogger's dream, I think. Not much more.

Of course, with every surprise coming from Russia lately one starts to wonder about things. Crazier things have happenned. And nobody is crazy enough to predict what else can come out of Kremlin's catacombs. At the same time the Russians have been blamed for a lot of things that they have nothing to do with. But that's where "reputation", "suspicious behavior", etc. become a factor.

D.

The same garbage from Ovidiu's partner, Dimi. Just keep repeating "maybe this, perhaps that."

Mr. Koster, behave yourself.

You were there with kramnik in that restroom, right? Then no more maybes, just tell us what you saw.

D.

"You were there with kramnik in that restroom, right?"

Maybe. You can't disprove it. With all the strange things going on in Russia these days, who knows?

There is some inconsistency. Virtually no one defended Topalov when in sommer Dolmatov (btw a former Kramnik's personal trainer and also his current coach in the Russian national team) directly accussed Topalov on using assistance from outside, in an interview for the Russian mega newspaper. Later Dolmatov repeated the accusations in the newspaper. Perhaps many people believed that Topalov was cheating?! Perhaps Topalov started to believe that it is just normal to accuse someone without a real proof? Kramnik has his right to deal with this, indeed. But those who were silent after Dolmatov's accusations should have enough reasons to be silent now as well. If Topalov would have recieved sufficient (and deserved) support in the chess communty, probably nothing of this would happen. In reality, he could not begin the match in a normal conditions, becasue so many people were excited, and waited him to prove that he is not a cheater. The match atmoshpere was damaged before the beginning. No, I do not think that everything what Topalov says is right.

Hello Mikhail. That doesn't make sense to me mostly because the accusations about Topalov didn't receive much publicity, for one. I've never even seen the Dolmatov article, though I've heard of it and seen a few quotes. Two, back then it wasn't Topalov's *opponent* in a world championship match making accusations as is the case now. He's the world's #1 player and what he says is going to get a lot more attention than whatever Dolmatov says. The biggest players on the biggest stage get attention.

Next, perhaps you are right in saying that Topalov didn't receive much support because some people actually believed it. The circumstantial evidence (results, mostly), the rumors, players and spectators talking about signalling, all had been circling for nearly a year. I publicly rejected such accusations repeatedly, but mostly they were simply ignored. (And Dolmatov has a history of extreme comments.) But when the #1 player himself goes on the record like this it's another matter entirely. As I wrote above, had Danailov said this I would have probably ignored it (again).

If Topalov really felt such pressure to prove himself not a cheater (which I doubt), accusing his opponent of cheating is hardly the way to do it. All we can do is make sure we have standard anti-cheating measures all the players are happy with so we can survive this. Top-level chess is already damaged and it could get much much worse if we don't act quickly.

Mig, "acting quickly" isn't part of FIDE tradition but if Toplaov keeps voicing strong his concerns, just as Fischer did with his "collusion paranoia" and other crazy ideas, there will be change eventually.

The cheating issue should have been addressed openly and directly before the Elista match and and a solution found for player's "bathroom breaks". The way that FIDE dealt with was amateurishly : "trust us, be a Kramnik fan, have no doubts, he is maybe smoking but he does't want his girlfriend or his mother know about it".

Just as Fischer's once Topalov is today quickly labeled as "crazy" for what tomorrow will be everybody's demand and concern. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Well Ovidiu we can ignore the bathroom breaks cant we as Topalov has stated that he absolutely believes Kramnik cheated at the rapid games where he never went to the toilet and hardly ever got up from the table always had his jacket off and was under the view of camera and audience and Topalov the whole time. Well lets here it from you is such a suspicion or belief reasonable [or not unreasonable] or was there no reasonable basis for Topalov to believe this. Its based on Kramnik apparently shaking when checked with a scanner and his computer like play in the 4 rapid games. You might also want to speculate on the communication system for the computer generated suggestions - I believe the receiving device would have to be implanted in his ear probably surgically or his tooth [technically possible to have a tiny phone receiver implanted in your tooth under a cap]

Of course if true it represented a dramatic adavance technically on all the previous normal time games. Perhaps you will speculate that they saved this deadly technique to guarantee success in the rapids and indeed thats why they agreed to the rapids in the first place. Come to think of it isnt that why Kramnik has agreed to play Mexico - with this technical covert chess communications scheme he just cannot lose. I see its all becoming clear now..........Oh by the way the equipment available to block signals in every media over a small defined area [micro waves radio waves everything] is available and not very expensive

Topalov isn't voicing concerns. He's making stuff up and making accusations. And the cheating issue WAS addressed, and in exhaustive fashion, before Elista. Both bathrooms inspected, electronic scanners used, one-way glass on the stage, etc. That Topalov has invented for Kramnik a perfect system of which he has no details is not a concern or anything actionable. You can ALWAYS say that. No matter what happens you simply say "they had a perfect system to cheat that evaded all detection and countermeasures" and the argument ends there. Not constructive, useful, or rational.

And people, many people, were on about this long before Topalov started in with this about Kramnik. That glass wasn't put in at Topalov's request, but Kramnik's. The bathroom breaks weren't an issue because the bathrooms and the players were thoroughly inspected. While I feel they should be on the stage, that's a non-issue according to the rules that were in place. As of yet we haven't heard any credible suggestion that Kramnik had the capability of cheating or any circumstantial evidence (unusual moves, results) that he did.

The important thing is to standardize and maintain improvements of countermeasures so this garbage can be discarded. I'm hearing "this will be the death of the pro game" more and more these days. One thing to make sure of is that the penalties are known and so severe no one will risk it. Not wanting to risk being caught with a device would force low-tech methods like signaling, so barriers will be needed. This is sad, especially at events like Corus where the players are right there with the masses - part of its charm.

"...but if Topalov keeps voicing strong his concerns, just as Fischer did with his "collusion paranoia" and other crazy ideas, there will be change eventually."

With no evidence of Kramnik misconduct and abundant evidence of Topalov's bad behavior, Ovidiu is reduced to arguing that sometimes "crazy" ideas turn out to be sound.

By that logic one could just as easily argue, as Fischer does, that the following idea might turn out to be sound: "these f*cking Jews are thieves, they are liars, they are mother f*ckers, and it's time we took care of these bastards."

Ovidiu is reduced to arguing sophistic nonsense, but it gets tedious after awhile and distracts the blog from more useful issues, which is plainly his intent.

Shame on you, Topalov! Finally, all top players have to say what they know!

From a psychological point of view Topalov words are very interesting and debunking: It's probably exactly the way he used to cheat:

Topalov:
"Kramnik didn't say anything to anyone on his team"

"The trick is that no professional [player] was implicated ..."

"I think he had something on his body..."

How will Topalov fare after his latest nonsensical slanders?

Folks will deal with Topalov the way you'd deal with someone who'd just crapped his pants. You'd try to be polite and pretend everything was normal, but both of you would know that you were both pretending. That'll be quite a burden for him to carry around.

Organizers can count on Kramnik acting like a professional: he mainly ignores Topalov's slanderous provocations, he refuses to join the San Luis/Topalov-bashing. When asked about Topalov, Kramnik simply replies that Topalov is a great player, but that he doesn't care to talk with him.

With Topalov, organizers are put on notice that NOTHING they can do: glass shields, signal blocking, tieing the players to their chairs, can shield them (or their players) from Topalov's cheating allegations.

I guess the same thing's crossed all our minds, Micha! (Another weird point is Danailov quoting Fritz statistics for Kramnik when we all know that on that basis Topalov would be the confirmed cheat)

Though I'd say if it tells us how Topalov actually cheated it would be that he did, as the accusations went, have good chess players (Cheparinov, even Danailov) signal him moves in San Luis. And he did crush his opponents...

It's certainly a vastly more plausible story than Kramnik having the KGB signal almost random moves to him in a situation where no contact was possible without James Bond gadgetry.

That said, I'd still tend towards either 1) Topalov becoming warped psychologically after the previous false accusations against him, or 2) An utterly cynical, if misguided, psychological warfare campaign by Danailov and Topalov.

>You can ALWAYS say that. No matter what happens you simply say "they had a perfect system to cheat that evaded all detection and countermeasures" and the argument ends there. Not constructive, useful, or rational.>

I find rather logical than irrational but indeed exasperating. It just as the "arms race", as the continual evolution of defensive measures and countermeasures to overcome them. It is an illusion to believe that after the computer cheating is once addressed it will also be the end of the problems with it. It will be a short break before you will have to deal with it again because of the technological advance.

>I'm hearing "this will be the death of the pro game" more and more these days. >

well, many have death wishes (or at least to have Topalov banned once for all form chess).

Casino gambling hasn't died because of cheaters using high-tech communication devices but they have installed all sorts of security measures.

Before computers it wasn't that a problem in profs chess (Petrosian "signaling" Spassky in the Fischer match ?) but as it becomes clear that Fritz consistently plays better than any top GM it will become a constant worry.

I suggest that FIDE and tournament organizers hire specialized professioanals to do the "bugs" and electronic surveillance. There are such companies on the market (or at least former KGB or CIA officers now unemployed) and they in turn will guarantee that no unacceptable info travels around.

In fact the problem is not electronic cheating but lack of professionalization in chess (or, logically equivalent, the problem is the existence of FIDE).
The Corus guys will solve it first while FIDE will limp behind and do it well "always next time".

Just a quick note:

Even though I disagree with most of what Ovidiu has to say about the Elista match, I think he deserves credit for eventually admitting that Topalov's story has been simply made up to excuse his painful loss. Many others who gave credence to Topalov's accusations have been less open-minded.

Ovidiu is also right that the issue of computer assistance is an open challenge for competitive chess. However, he should admit that if cameras in bathrooms or forced stage appearances are all the additional measures it takes to ease everyone's minds about cheating, then the debate becomes rather trivial...

Well,
As a Topalov supporter I have to say something here. Elista is gone. Topalov lost there. Nobody knows how, was it stress, KGB, or something else. The only way to prove that he is better is a rematch. It will be great for him and for all chess fans.
I read an hour ago topalov's site. It seems Kramnik is not informed.... But FIDE and Kirsan do not deny rematch and almost confirm it.
http://www.veselintopalov.net/article/ilymzhinov-comments-on-the-rematch

And at the same time there is a 6 months between the championships. How will they make it? Topalov has already confirmed Linares....

If opponent after everz move disappears in a bathroom for a long time. Then returns and makes quickly a computer-like move. Then goes back to the bathroom... What would _YOU_ think?

What surprises me, is that Topalov and company talk about KGB. In Russian Federation there is no such state organization. It was wiser to refer to "secret services". But, KGB is the name which is long time gone. If I am not wrong, Belorussian intelligence agency is called like that one in Soviet times...

Anyway... Both behavior and play of Kramnik and Topalov put too much questions.

Yeah it is true Alfil del Rey.....
Just one small thought, what if they already talked about making two matches and everything is just a big scandal organized by FIDE so that everybody takes more money? Sounds like great business....

Yeah, I just made financial calculations:) Kramnik will not refuse. A million dollars is good enough.
FIDE wanted sponsors they found a way. It is called a scandal.

"And at the same time there is a 6 months between the championships. How will they make it? Topalov has already confirmed Linares...."

Yes, Topalov will have to drop out of Linares. Let's see him do that and eat his words about never withdrawing from tournaments since he "is not Kramnik".

Of course, the match will not happen unless something miraculous happens. I think the chance that it takes place is 5-10% at most.

marca,
If Topalov lost because of the "KGB or something else" then there's no point in a rematch. Unless he can identify and neutralize these mysterious influences Topalov would just lose again and be forced, again, to complain about mysterious influences.

Handling stress is part of the game and there's no one better at it than Kramnik. If Topalov lost because of "stress" then maybe we ought to give the next title shot to a calmer, more stable challenger.

Alfil,
If I was playing in an environment as cheating-proofed as possible, if my opponent were Kramnik, and if he came back to the board and played an outstanding move I'd say, "uh-oh."

mmmm... the financial side convinced me. It will happen, and Topalov will play Linares because he is friends with the boss.
They will just break the 6 months rule

Mig,
waht do you expect from Topalov? To keep silence? Its not serious to expect that he can find proofs -- if a government machine is against him...
Did RJF proved his accusations against Russian GM's making draws between them? No. But that was the truth, and you know it.
Come on, Mig, if Topa was an american you'll be the first one who will give him a support. And just because he isnt a citizen of a great country, his words are taken as 'paranoia'...
cheers

The alleged Curacao draw pact is not proved. But in that case at least it's easy to imagine that it could have happened. Topalov's insane ramblings can be dismissed out of hand simply because they are so completely absurd. Sadly, I have enough experience of online chess "fans" that I am not even surprised that so many people are taking him seriously.

Why is no one listening to Topa? You think this would be the first time the russian government has done something atrocious to protect the title?

Do you idiots really not understand how this could be employed in rapid play? Have you heard of wireless? Give me $1000 and I could have a device in your tooth or ear that could send you audio and a button camera on your shirt.

Yeah that sounds looney right? Kramnik wanted the title. The russian government wanted the title. Do they care if their plan sounds looney? I don't think so.

It's simple and I believe it was done. Live with it. Topalov has to.

Topa needs docta.

everybody needs a docta :)
including you and me :)

Why is no one listening to Topa?

Maybe because he has the cheek to place himself and his imaginary predicament on the same level as that of a man who died horribly of radiation poisoning? That, itself, is enough for me to write Topalov off either as a delusional man-child or the tool of one.

acirce,
Curacao draw pact is easy to imagine to you now
For many people it was |and it still is) hard to believe that such a players could do something like that.
So the words of RJF was 'completely absurd' to them too but that fact doesnt have influence on the matter of things and the truth.

Nope, that is rubbish. No matter what you think about the Soviet Union, and no matter what you think about whether the known facts bear the theory out, imagining that a few players say to each other "hey, let's draw the games between us to conserve energy" is the easiest thing in the world.

The inmates are overrunning the asylum.

And yes, even in 1962, when Neanderthals were still walking around, they had developed the intellect necessary to do that.

off topic but btw of Putin's Russia :

more fuel for Islam :

RUSSIA is to begin supplying Iran with nuclear fuel early next year despite mounting concern in the West that this could accelerate Tehran’s plans to build a nuclear bomb.....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2508381,00.html

i see the point of acirce, greg koster and other russian bloggers:
Putin is an angel, Russia is heaven and Kramnik is sinless
Danailov is devil, Topalov is his pupil and Bulgaria is a hell.
What to say... Everybody has a right to have personal POV.

The point is, of course, that the super-strict anti-cheating measures in Elista made it virtually impossible to cheat in an efficient way. Now, doing it the way Topalov suggests is... well, if you seriously believe that he might be right, no further conversation is of use.

Oh, Putin's new crime - fueling "islam" (??!) by doing fully legitimate business with Iran. But articles like that give valuable clues as to why all these anti-Russian sentiments are "fueled" in the West. The headline says Russia "defies West", and if you don't bow before the west you will be demonized, it's as certain as a law of nature.

Oh dear, the innuendos have begun again. If you think that Topalov has made a fool of himself with his ludicrous accusations, you must be an obsessed Kramnik-fan; a Putin supporter; a Russia-lover; a hater of the civilized world; a naive and shortsighted buffoon and the like.

Is it so difficult to agree that finding Topalov's accusations are dead wrong does not entail any of the above? Please, no more of the "I know what they are capable of" stuff... It leads nowhere and shows absolutely nothing.

oh Emmanuel
you got the truth, you know all about Elista better than Topalov
may be you are Kramnik?

Kasparov is today in the headlines news with his march in Moscow "Russia without Putin".

It is not chess of course but at least is about a chessplayer who is famous not because he still hide in his 30s from his mother (in the bathroom, to smoke) or about one who "spins in circles" over not knowing something for sure until he loses his mind.

I was accused myself in another thread of being a friend of Putin's government. Just for the record, I am not. But all the hysteria about Russia is relevant for this subject - nobody would have suspected anything, or even pretended to suspect anything, if the match had taken place in Sweden or Germany - so it needs to be analysed.

As for Kasparov, I wish his dealings with Limonov and his National Bolsheviks were better known. Here is a picture from the rally: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C4D121CF-0AF3-454C-8B3F-25CAFEBB59E7.htm

thenewone & al.: I love the name of this blog but I don't think Mig meant it THAT literally. Neither "daily" nor "dirt".

david bandel,
----------
Why is no one listening to Topa?
----------
Err, what do you think this whole blog entry's about? It's one thing to listen - another to agree with all his mad ravings.
----------
You think this would be the first time the russian government has done something atrocious to protect the title?
----------
As someone said above, times have changed - no-one particularly cares about chess. It has almost zero political capital. The days of the cold war are long gone, and if you think Putin and co. really care if Kramnik, or Anand, or Short, or Topalov holds the title you're deluding yourself.

I deeply dislike the Russian government, but it's a heck of a jump from that to claim that the man who beat Kasparov (and who Kasparov considered his worthy successor) suddenly needs to resort to cheating.
-----------
Do you idiots really not understand how this could be employed in rapid play? Have you heard of wireless? Give me $1000 and I could have a device in your tooth or ear that could send you audio and a button camera on your shirt.
-----------
Wireless communication was blocked in the venue I thought, but that aside... of course you can always come up with some incredibly unlikely but "possible" means of cheating. You just have to ignore the facts of the actual chess moves played, all the absurd contradictory statements from the Topalov camp, Kramnik's whole career and character... and so on. Yeah, we're absolute idiots to consider any of those things.
---------------
Yeah that sounds looney right? Kramnik wanted the title. The russian government wanted the title. Do they care if their plan sounds looney? I don't think so.
---------------
Er, yeah, pretty looney. Again, if the Russian government was so keen why did they allow Topalov an extra white, an extra point and to play with Topalov's friends on the appeals committee in the FIDE president's home city? And why aren't they making anything of this great victory for them? Obviously Kramnik couldn't simply defeat Topalov in classical and rapid play, as he has for all of his career.
--------------
It's simple and I believe it was done. Live with it. Topalov has to.
--------------
Simple!?? Your belief is based on absolutely nothing, and therefore worthless. Repeating something like that without any evidence is libel.

Emmanuel, you have tried valiantly, and with the sharpest of edges, but it's to no avail. What we are talking about here is not reason but prejudice. Leave the Ovidius of this world to wallow in their loony conspiracy theories; it evidently serves some deep-seated purpose -- and who are we to deprive them of that comfort?

Here's a thought. If Topalov accusing Kramnik of cheating, if FIDE's rotten handling of world chess is drawing this much commotion, imagine how much bitter chatter there would have been if this board existed when the first K-K match was cancelled! wow.

Or the Karpov-Korchnoi matches....

there were no computers back then, they could have spent all the time in the bathroom

kasparov's march news

CBC News, Canada: Chess giant Kasparov leads anti-Putin rally
Newsday: Moscow cops can't stop Rally
CNN: Moscow sees rare opposition rally
Guardian Unlimited : Hundreds detained ahead of anti-Moscow rally
Fox: Anti-Government Protest in Moscow

hehe:)
next headline, topalov and kasparov march against Russia and KGB.

It is obviously unnerving to Topalov and his fans that even though he stole a win and a game with white from Kramnik in a relatively short 12 game match, he still lost. The rest is just sour grapes. References to KGB and all is just an attempt to save face.

As for epistemology and things like "maybe Kramnik didn't cheat, but maybe he did" - all I can say is: the exact same thing can be said about Topalov: we don't have 100% certainty that either one of them didn't cheat. Of course, we hardly have anything that we know with 100% certainty. But of course, it is at least as likely that Topalov cheated in Elista (or in San Luis) as Kramnik. Actually, it is possible that Topalov cheated during every single tournament in his career, with the backing of Bulgarian KGB (or whatever it is called). Of course, the chances of that are really small, and that is exactly the reason why rational people do not accuse others of doing these things. There is such thing as presumption of innocence - and Kramnik deserves that as much as Topalov does. The burden of proof is on the accuser and proof is something that Topalov is lacking. Even if you don't believe in presumption of innocence, and think Kramnik has to PROVE his innocence, then to be fair, you have to assume that Topalov also has cheated and then Topalov has to prove his innocence as much as Kramnik does. Of course, there is a reason why that wouldn't make sense - as it is pretty much impossible to prove you DIDN'T do something. So yes, earlier comments were correct in saying that Kramnik cannot prove his innocence, but really, neither can Topalov. Topalov cannot prove he didn't cheat in every single game he has ever played. Whether or not this is a valid reason for others to accuse him of cheating is another story.

As for reasoning like "Russia/Russians have done horrible things in the past so it is likely Kramnik cheated" - does one really need to refute that? I mean, with reasoning like that, hardly any wins in any sport could be accepted. USA dropped atomic bombs on civilian targets (cities) in 1945 - so does it follow that Fischer cheated in 1972 match because the Americans are all immoral? I know it is ridiculous, but it is not more ridiculous than some of the claims made earlier in the comments to this blog entry. If we decide whether a person cheated or not by whether or not the government of his country has committed some acts we consider immoral, then there probably was not a single honest winner in the history of sports, and that includes those from Bulgaria.

Topalov is just a pathetic creature. He lost not because his opponent was cheating but because his opponent was superior. Except for 2005, which was a year Kramnik had to battle his disease while Topalov was having the year of his life- Kramnik had a much better head-to-head record and a superior career. To imply that Kramnik needed to cheat and did cheat against Topalov is ridiculous. It is sad that instead of admitting he lost to a better player, Topalov chose to start cheating accusations. Topalov had a chance to become the 15th world champion, but instead he ruined his reputation, embarrassed himself and became perhaps the most pathetic figure in chess history. I am just glad that the Topalov , guy who didn't have the character to be the World Champion, also didn't have the chess skills to be one.

Kasparov is making waves, eventually he will be taken seriously as a politician.
That's is good for him after all. Why keep playing chess at 40? what can still be exciting about chess ?
Politics is another game, new one, thus one is back again to the excitment of playing(of course if you get shot you can call it checkmate but won't help much)

Russianbear,

Very nicely done.

Nicely put, Russianbear!

The Kramnik fan club is coming out from the (bathroom) hiding "nicely put !, well done !" to support eachother. It seemed that they were in retreat for a while...but no, they could form a political party.

> That doesn't make sense to me mostly because the accusations about Topalov didn't receive much publicity, for one. I've never even seen the Dolmatov article, though I've heard of it and seen a few quotes.

Mig, well, there are many chess worlds. In the Russian-speaking chess world (one of the most important ones) absolutely everyone knew about Dolmatov accusations and some remarks from the San-Luis players. (Nothing to say about forum discussions, etc) As both Danailov and Topalov speaks Russian well, they belongs to this world.

>Top-level chess is already damaged

True.

>and it could get much much worse if we don't act quickly.

In my view, the worst and craziest of the chess people are the FIDE quys (well not all of them of course, only the key figures). In such atmosphere, some garbage always will find its place. A public movement against Topalov? No, thanks.

Why is it Kramnik fan club ovidiu ? Because Russian bear makes logical arguments ? Because Topalov lost respect from chess fans like me ? Because Kramnik gained respect from chess fans like me ? Because ACP censured Topalov's manager? Topalov made himself a joke with his manager's antics.

We're hearing the final bellows of a dying elephant, but it's refreshing somehow that Ovidiu appears to believe Kramnik used the bathroom so frequently to smoke -- if only because it affords him the opportunity to call Kramnik a coward for doing so.

To sum up: Kramnik is a mama's boy and Kasparov a man's man, right? Well, for one thing we definitely know that Kasparov's mother avoided the spotlight throughout her son's career. Come to think of it, has she ever been photographed?

rdh, I believe the EM Forster novel was titled The Longest Journey. That was a fun comparative.

Kramnik is favourite of the russian government unlike Fischer; so Russianbear arguments are not logical at all, pom. His arguments are demagogic. Arguments of a member of the Kramnik-fan-club :)

"What can still be exciting about chess?"

Chess is dull? Then why are you here?

Ernst, I am not 40, I suggested that Kasparov found it no longer rewarding at 40 (too many years of playing) and just in time jumped in another boat to continue his life travel.

Russianbear: nicely put !, well done !

"The Kramnik fan club is coming out from the (bathroom) hiding "nicely put !, well done !" to support eachother. "

Ovidiu, rest assured, when you put together a nice persuasive coherent argument for Kramnik having cheated, for chess being dead, for taking Topalov's case seriously, for overwhelming ridiculousness of dynamic chess, or for anything else, I will pat YOU on the back too.

Yuriy, I do not wait for such thing to happen from you, I was pointing out how "political" are the debates here. Golubev has written some balanced points of view, I am left to masquerade by reverse mirroring the "pack" of mindless fans of Kramnik.

Surely you mean fans of reality. Do have the decency
to eventually get tired of being a clueless troll and move on.

Right you are, Clubfoot, and thanks. Hard to believe I once read the novel, given how little I can now remember of it. Just shows how completely education was wasted on me.

Ovidiu,

The hi-fives seem to be mostly addressed towards the same post, the one the Russianbear made at 2:21 today. It is a well-written, persuasive, detailed, post, summing up accurately the lack of logic behind Topalov's allegations. A few people have taken shots at you or at Topalov. They didn't get the praise. The articulate argument did.

If you are in fact masquerading as a mad Topalov fan I look forward to hearing your real views. Until then, you are supporting a war over something you don't even believe in.

Mig,

we should welcome stringent scrutiny of any cheating allegations, coupled with an unambiguous penalty of ban for life if an offender is caught red handed. We're at that stage when the threat is very real. Even worse, it is believable.

Let me state that I'm not blinded so much as to buy every word Topalov is saying in this interview. There are inconsistencies and the tenor is emotional. But I can understand the general sentiment though. Secondary, of course, is whether he really said it, translation, etc, but let's assume he did.

I wish that all future allegations against Topalov, or anyone else are equally scrutinized.

D.

Russianbear: Topalov is just a pathetic creature.
-------------------------------------------------

Hmm, that's quite a scrutiny. It so happened that the very first message I read in this forum (excerpt below) left an impression on me with its unapologetic and brazen plotting to save Russian pride. This is the epitome of what is to fear. It's real, it's here and it's not contained to Russianbear alone, but some who can do something about it.

Anyway, sorry to interrupt the Komsomol gathering, the hi-5's can continue now. Topalov's crazy.

D.

Russianbear (Oct 2006):
"Topalov is very dangerous when he starts a winning streak. He has tasted blood and now he will be unstoppable. Kramnik knows this so the best option for him now is to rake up the issue of game 5 and on that pretext get the match alted. I hope he heeds my advice and saves the prestige and honor of all Russians."

Thanks for the kind words,everyone :)

Dimi,

hate to disappoint you, but the quote from October 2006 isn't mine. Just some dupe using my name. Most likely it is someone who was upset with something I said either here or on ChessNinja forum:

http://www.chessninja.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi

Either way, it was probably a Topalov fan pretending to be me, not a case of Russian paranoia. I thought it was clear enough from the quote itself, but apparently you really feel Russian think that way.

It turned out great: some Topalov fan pretended to be me and said something ridiculous and other Topalov fans jump on it months later. I could follow your lead and say that Bulgarian apples don't fall far from the Topalov tree in terms of cheating and falsification - but unlike you I am going to give Topalov fans a break and not claim that one jerk's action reflect on the character of other fans or "some who can do something about it", like Topalov.

Russianbear: Either way, it was probably a Topalov fan pretending to be me...

Sorry to hear that. You should have let us know. Does that happen often?

D.

Not really. And I file abuse reports. ISPs take identity theft quite seriously these days, even internet cafes. I found the comment you quoted, not Russianbear. Came from one of the trolls whose IP resolves to India. (Just to continue the nationalistic bent.) I changed the name on those posts to "Troll from India" just for posterity's sake.

Good work, Mig! It's nice to see cheap insinuations factually disproved, for a change. If only the same could be done for the rest of the Topalovian comments ;)

I think the answer is very simple, Kramnik cheating, if not for what everytime going to toilet. If not cheating, Kramnik will make one move blunder more than Topalov did!

"we should welcome stringent scrutiny of any cheating allegations, coupled with an unambiguous penalty of ban for life if an offender is caught red handed. We're at that stage when the threat is very real. Even worse, it is believable.

Let me state that I'm not blinded so much as to buy every word Topalov is saying in this interview. There are inconsistencies and the tenor is emotional. But I can understand the general sentiment though. Secondary, of course, is whether he really said it, translation, etc, but let's assume he did.

I wish that all future allegations against Topalov, or anyone else are equally scrutinized."

I'm just curious, but did you say the same thing after the insinuations against Topalov after San Luis, or when Dolmatov accused him outright?

Thank you for the clarification, Mig.

The original comments sounded very Korchnoi-like to me -- he said something similar: "Quit while you're ahead, cause the guy plays strong at the end".

D.

The Arab world will conquer Bulgaria!
Bulgarians are cheaters!

Most of the posts above miss the point. And the point is that computers are by now better players than world champions. Moreover, the gap is widening in favour of computers with every day. This works on many levels, accusations of cheating are only the most visible side. Fisher pointed it a few years ago stating that (do not remember exact quote but the sense was very close to the one below) "all chess on high level is cheating". He was right once again, simply put, no GM can prepare without computer help these days. Accordingly, the one with better, more powerful computer has a good chance to come a move further in his "home analysis". This sort of "advantage" if not already, will become in the near future decisive factor in games between humans. Let's face the truth, computers killed chess a creative endevour.

Most of the posts above miss the point. And the point is that computers are by now better players than world champions. Moreover, the gap is widening in favour of computers with every day. This works on many levels, accusations of cheating are only the most visible side effect. Fisher pointed it a few years ago stating that (do not remember exact quote but the sense was very close to the one below) "all chess on high level is cheating". He was right once again, simply put, no GM can prepare without computer help these days. Accordingly, the one with better, more powerful computer has a good chance to come a move further in his "home analysis". This sort of "advantage" if not already, will become in the near future decisive factor in games between humans. Let's face the truth, computers killed chess as a creative endevour.

Yes computers are stronger, but they're not consistantly stronger than humans, if you play computer moves then it shows. I've made a lengthy commentary on it in the latest TWIC http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/twic632.html

I'm persona non-grata to Danailov now after an exchange of e-mails on the subject.

Mark,
Thank you for your interesting article. However, I wanted to say that accustation of using computers during the game form only a small part of much bigger phenomenon. To the wit,I think it is safe to say that at any moment, any of the top GM is running a few computers to check on his favourite openining lines. And if grandmaster X is using only 2 comps and granmaster Y is using 5 of them then Y has a real edge. I do not claim that Y would always win with X, I just say that Y has a real advantage. To put it the other way, if any of top GM would stop using computers in his "home preparation" he would risk being out of the top in short time. Moreover, since computers are getting better and more powerful virtually with every day this process of replacing "preparation" with "computer cooked preparation" will play bigger and bigger role in chess. My question is- what is the difference between going to WC to get the winning move from your computer (I am not accusing Kramnik of cheating just making a point) and making the winning move from memory, though the move was found by your computer during "home preparation"? There is no difference.

“I’m persona non-grata to Danailov now after an exchange of e-mails on the subject”

Sorry Mark, but LMAO! Who cares about being a persona non-grata to someone who is himself persona non-grata to the entire world! LMAO!

On the other hand, though, Bogdan, you could argue that computers have made everything much more democratic. In the past only a handful of players had the state resources or money to hire people to help them prepare/analyse adjourned positions. Now any teenager with Fritz is in with a chance - I take your point better/more computers help, but I'm not sure it's that significant next to the mere fact of having a computer at all, and knowing how to use it cleverly.

That said, I do think you're onto something. Topalov's strategy in the match was to play nondescript novelties which got Kramnik thinking while Topalov had presumably done a huge amount of computer checking at home. I imagine the fact that Kramnik tended to deal with most of the problems over the board fed Topalov's paranoia, but he needs to wake up and realise that that's simply why Kramnik's world champion.

My sincere apologies for the tone of my previous post, I did not mean to be facetious. Nonetheless, I do stand behind the substance of my remark.

Read a good portion of this. It was pretty funny, to be honest. The ammount of pure illogic has been staggering, on both sides of the argument. I did want to point out annecdotally that I have seen plenty of logical point by point arguments from the Topolov detractor's, while the Topolov supporters have offered very little other than some vague associative "evidence" along with the logically indefensible cry that because Topolov was there and we were not, he is to be given more credit, even if others have provided convincing counterpoints.

Yes, he should not be dismissed out of hand, but then many people have made an effort not only to dismiss, but to deconstruct his rather absurd claims. If you Topolov supporters want to make a better job of defending him, you should respond with your own logical posts, not with simply ignoring those who logically discredit you.

Someone should do something to get Topalov out of his misery. It seems to me that FIDE, once again, does not take the adequate steps since it is its responsability to protect the reputation of our beautiful game.

Hence, FIDE should set up an official meeting with Topalov (like FIFA did with Zidane in football) and demand once for all proof of this supposed Elista cheating. Two possibilities arise : 1) Topalov can prove it and Kramnik loses his title bla bla bla, who believes this **** ? and 2) Topalov has nothing but allegations, supposed threats and whatever he will imagine, which obviously fits reality, and in this case FIDE should enhance the sore loser to stop whining his very cheap accusations by taking sanctions. This is again its responsibility since 1) FIDE ran Elista, and therefore is as well accused, of either cheating with Kramnik or at least incompetence by not preventing the irregularities, and 2) because FIDE must protect the World Chess Champion image and reputation all over the world.

But, it won’t be a surprise to many, FIDE will not. What else, then ? Clearly enough, it looks like Topalov is going to keep on crying his BS as long as some prestigious tournament organizer decides to boycott him. Having been banned, once should be enough, from Corus or Linarès, the symbolic being obvious, Topalov and Danilov would, hopefully, reconsiderate their stirring up dirt mean strategy. The sooner the better.

Michko, Saint-Maur

So Mig,when I'm providing a link for you prooving the cheating accusations about Topalov in the Russian press, it's not published.
But when guys like Ahmed Badur submit anti-Bulgarian posts,there is no problem.

Ok I'll post it again.It's an article from Moro's trainer in Russian,but I am sure that you could find somebody to translate it for you http://prosports.ru/index.ipj?rubric_id=35228&getArticle=74009&id_issues=3157

2 points, of course I don't care about Danailov. I rather be on that list than the one he quoted of respectible journalists uncritically publishing his stuff.

Secondly of course Topalov's strategy is to play positions that he's studied in detail with computers and his opponents haven't. Its his new twist on the Kasparov strategy of studying certain openings with the aid of computers to extreme depth. Everyone is using computers (but not only computers) to do the research. Of course this is leading to more computer like play. None of that is cheating but yes its killing the game, some 1.e4 openings in particular have become unwatchable for me as they particularly lend themselves to this approach.

Ok Mark,let's accuse Topa of killing the chess game too :)
I could not see any problem preventing his opponents from analyzing the openings.
Excuse me, but your arguments seem at least naive to me

I have but one question:
If Topalov thinks that Kramnik is unbeatable because of the technology he using with the help of Kremlin-KGB (whatever) then why did he issue a challenge to him?

-Amit

I think you misunderstand my point. Actually Topalov's approach to computer analysis leads to more interesting games because he is analysing positions which aren't necessarily favourable to him, just ones that are likely to produce good results for him.

The standard GM approach is to take their repertoire and analyse it to death but because that often involves the same set of openings, say the Petroff, the analysis has almost done the opening to death. Its computer analysis that's in danger of killing the game not Topalov in this case. But maybe it will lead somewhere we're not expecting in the long term and there will be a way of keeping things interesting.

On computer analysis killing the game, it may depend on what you mean by 'game'.

Senor Shirov who sometimes post here, has indeed confirmed on more than one occasion that computers are 'eating up' the game, and he presumably refers to his own creative style of play.

On the other hand, Senor Topalov with his humungous level of energy and motivation, uses computers to keep finding opening lines that 'produces good results for him' although they may not be objectively 'favourable to him'.

Perhaps this is what Monsieur Kramnik means by 'his low quality opening novelties'? If so, that must have been insulting for Senor Topalov indeed, regardless of whether the insult is intentional or not. Perhaps that's why Senor Topalov 'retaliates'?

In any case, computer use differs according to what is meant by 'game'. In one type of computer use, chess-machine Capablance felt what Shirov is lamenting about. In another type of computer use, Kramnik looks down at what Topalov is indulging in.

I have no clue what is meant by computers killing the game. To me chess looks just as alive as ever if not more. It has changed nature somewhat, especially on top levels of course, but very little has been "analysed to death" or is close to, I see that as over-dramatic alarmism.

I love the way that Topolov says Kramnik continually cheated, but he still missed that "easy" (ie for a computer) mate, which Topolov also missed. The argument kind of dies there and then. Everything Topolov says can be ignored. End of discussion. Move on.

Which is annoying, because during the match (before the crazyness) I was supporting Topolov.

By the way, great post Russianbear.

I don't think you've quite understood how conspiracy theory works, Mart007. Looked at in the proper light, ..Bxf8 actually goes to prove Kramnik was cheating, not the reverse. No grandmaster of this class would overlook mate in three if replying on their own resources, obviously. So the only explanation must be that Kramnik was having moves piped into his ear and that the operator typed in g7 instead of g8, and Kramnik of course relying on this made the fatal move. Of course, the operator wasn't a chessplayer, (see Topalov's comments) so this is quite likely, really, and in fact goes to support Topalov's account of events.

You see how it all fits together when you really take the trouble to look at the evidence properly?

stanleys, your post included a five-digit number that set off the automatic spam filter. I hope you don't think I sit here manually approving every single comment. And we thought Topalov was paranoid!

Ok Mig,thanks for explaining me the problem!
But before making a statement,it's not bad to know all the facts about it,am I right?And as I could see you know only a little of what has been said and written(and GM Golubev already pointed it to you)

P.S By the way I was speaking about who started the cheating accusations and not whether Topalov is paranoid or not
P.S.S Check the link if possible.The article is really sensational!

rdh--

I don't think that's what happend.

Rather, Kramnik a) swapped off queens, b) simplified the games, c) "overlooked" a simple mate, d) forfeited a game, e) lost two games over the board and f) dragged the match out to the fourth game of the rapids tie-breaker so it would LOOK like he hadn't been cheating.

The original plan was for him to do his bathroom cheating in critical situations, only once or twice a game, so as not to arouse suspicion. But some combination of niotine addiction and nervous bladder ruined that plan.

You left out 'deliberately ignored a tablebase win', gregk. Such an egregiously clumsy attempt to avoid suspicion must be the clinching piece of evidence, surely?

It reminds me of Bronstein's comment when Botvinnik said that his strategy during the 1951 match of using Botvinnik's favourite openings, the French and Dutch, had been misconceived and had rebounded upon Bronstein - "what score in the match was he reckoning on, if I had not abused his favourite openings?!"

Good point mishanp. But it does not take much from my argument that there has been a lot of intellectual duplicity in chess lately and that the situation is getting worse. Somehow people focus on ridiculus and superficial theories like "did Kramnik have a computer in his WC?" or "did Danailov pass computer analysis to Topalov during the match?". These are of secondary importance at best. What is really important here is that both came to the match supported by thousend of hours of computer analysis. May be one has to use stronger words than just "supported", may be the truth is that things reached such a level that without this computer analysis anyone of them would be lost before match started. Remember how easily Topalov won two games in a row and then how easily he lost one to Kramnik? For me an important question would be "did they win at the board or because of home preparation?" and if the answer is "home preparation played a role" then the next logical question is "was it computer work?". I am not accusing any of them of anything. I am just making a point that such question are of primary importance to the integrity of the game.

rdh, your whole argument is stupid. You claim that Kramnik missed the "mate in 3" intentionally, is an evidence of cheating, simply because no GM at his level can miss mate in 3. Well, hundreds of GMs (even World Champs) have missed some of the simplest checkmates and even Topalov missed it in that game. Isn't it :)

-Amit

This might help you out, Amit:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm

Bogdan,

Using a computer to PREPARE for a chess game is like running alongside a motorcycle to prepare for the 100-meter dash

Using a computer DURING a chess game is like riding a motorcycle during the 100-meter dash.

If the Russian government was as involved in the proceedings of this match as claimed by Topalov and several of his fans: transmitting moves to Kramnik, coming up with the mysterious alternate system of cheating for rapids, closing the airport, making Topalov feel threatened for his life, wiring Kram's bathroom, etc., then surely one step it would never avoid doing is making sure the Appeals committee ruled in Kramnik's favor and if not that, certainly making damn sure the restart of the match would begin with the annulment of Game 5's result.

No bought referee ever awarded a disputed penalty kick in the goal of the team that paid for him. There is no way an organization like the KGB or FSB, having committed itself to staging the match and getting a Russian champion, would have not taken the simple step of intimidating the committee and Kirsan to rule in Kram's favor.

"No bought referee ever awarded a disputed penalty kick in the goal of the team that paid for him."

And THAT is what makes the KGB's plan so devilishly CLEVER! Don't be fooled, Yuriy!

> Don't be fooled, Yuriy!

Have we arrived at what might be the only working mode of discourse in this thread? I wouldn't mind ...

Yuriy,
you make me wandering about the way you're so sure about what would do FSB in Elista
it seems you're an expert in secret services

ps:
your using of word 'if' is pleasant :-) in bulgarian there is a proverb: If my grandma was a male...
if-if, you know :-)

thenewone,

How did you find out?

Yuriy is a long-standing KGB-FSB member, intimately involved in the foulest chicanery. One night in his sleep he was heard mumbling that Litivenko was poisoned just to take the spotlight off the KGB's Elista deviltry.

News you can use: Why were the wires concealed in the Elista bathroom CEILING? Because Kramnik is tall and could reach them, and Topalov is short and could not.

"in bulgarian there is a proverb"

It goes the other way around, I think: if my grandma had some interesting attributes, she would be grandpa. Or a more polite version: if my grandma had wheels, she would be a tramway.

greg, how did you know this Yuriy' secret?
may be you too is 'long-standing FSB-member'?
tell us the truth we had to know it
cheers!

Greg,
your analogy is funny but completely wrong. If using computer during preparation for a chess game were like running along bike to prepare for running competition then most GM would not use computers for preparation at all. I think that a better analogy would be to compare doing homework in Spanish class by using computer software to translate a Spanish text into English versus cheating on test. For me no difference, cheating in both cases. You take credit for an intellectual work which is not yours. I would extend this analogy further and argue that, with time, translation software will take over work of translators since it is cheaper and faster, similarly in chess more and more novelties in openings (that is were games between top GM are decided) are worked out by computers. This is just more efficient for professional chess players to focus on technique and leave opening preparation and search for new ideas for computers.

Bogdan,

"This is just more efficient for professional chess players to focus on technique and leave opening preparation and search for new ideas for computers."

So how exactly would you change the rules of chess to implement your ideas?

Greg,
I have no idea how to do this. It could be that I misused word "cheating" in this context.I mean, if everybody among top GMs is "cheating" in this way, then may be it is better to say that the game is "evolving" into something new. Have you noticed that they do not adjourn games in serious tournaments any more? If a game between Kramnik and Topalov had been adjourned then a few computers at Moscow State University would have been humming all night long (change to Sofia State University if you are Kramnik fan). In a way, it would be still interesting. Though this way chess becomes more and more like American wrestling. I mean, it really does not matter that much who is making moves if they are result of computer analysis.

Bogdan,

I'm sure there's a point to all this. I'm just having a hard time understanding what it is. Anyway, best wishes on your chessic speculations.

Returning, in an utterly off-topic way, to Kramnik-Fritz game one, Karsten Mueller GM has an article at chess cafe in which he says that Kramnik missed the win not with 30 a4 (instead of 30 e3!) but 29 Nd5.

http://www.chesscafe.com/mueller/mueller.htm

He doesn't comment on 30 a4 at all, mind, so he doesn't necessarily contradict other commentators. KM is a well-respected (although not as well-respected as Kasparov, of course) endgame analyst, so man-machine buffs might be interested.

More rumors, now on Topalov actually cheating and paranoidally projecting the accusation on Kramnik.

Topalov has a parapyschologist in his team who during the games continuously tries to telepatically send him comp moves.
The pyschic guy sits in the hotel room in front of Fritz and foucuses to send Topalov comp's best move.
There are some studies/cases apparently confirming the possibility of telepatic communication in between persons that have established a good personal relationship ("rapport" or "transference").

First, from what I understand, either Topalov or Danailov mentioned after the match that parapsychologist was never on the team and that it was only announced as gamesmanship and an attempt to throw Kramnik off his game.

And second - I very much doubt that serious studies confirm the possibility of telepatic communication, and definitely not when it comes to telepatically relaying something as concrete as Fritz moves.

I have a theory for how Kramnik could have gotten the computer moves using the cable that was in the bathroom though: there is a jack in the back of Kramnik's head, where the cable can be plugged in. So he connects to KGB the way Neo connects to the Matrix in the Matrix movies.

"I know kung fu" :)

Russianbear :))))

Knowing full well the general centiment of the chess community on this forum, nevertheless I would like to make some observations. Certainly, we can only talk about some assumptions and suspicions, not about charges in dishonest game, i.e. cheating. For charges there would be some legal statements and conclusions, instead of set of questions by a person, who is like me may be quite curious. So, let's construct a logic chain of reasonings for it is owned only by the information collected by bits and small pieces. Ready? Then let's begin!
First, on occasion of frequent circulations to the toilet room. I am prepared to believe an idea that Vlad did not feel well for some time and his frequentness of using the toilet room during games may have been caused by the medical reasons. Someone at a forum has already been counted up that frequency of the given visitings during games could be those that breaks between visitings could be reduced till 12 minutes. ОК, the exact information in this case is not present, and I am ready even to add magnanimously as much, another words, we have an interval somewhere on the average in area of 24 – 25 minutes. Agree? We shall look narrowly now at this fact more closely. After the games were played Kramnik usually on a regular basis gave the press conferences to reporters lasted on 40 - 45 minutes, one of them even was extended for 1.5 hours (I watched it myself on TV). During those press conferences Vladimir did not move from his seat. Strange? There is a tricky question now: attacks of his illness do come only during games when waiting is becoming not an option? Something here looks fishy to me. Second. Topa is not a fool to file official charges, while not having reliable proofs of it, otherwise his exchange with Kramnik would occur not in the correspondence form through the correspondent of the Spanish mass-media, and either on PolitBureau of FIDE, or in a court. But, in my opinion, he has the right to state his suspicions and publicly declare them. He perfectly understands the stakes for him in this scandal and that conducting similar interview does not improve his reputation. Having recognized, that has supposedly got carried away during a match and that he was wrong with his suspicions in the first place would add some PR points for him. However, he goes on a principle and as you have correctly noticed, burns behind himself all bridges and continues to keep Mr. Danailov as a public liaison between himself and the sponsors. You can think about it differently, but it is impossible not to admit his adherence to principles and not giving up on his team. Let’s go further. Third. Somehow it seems odd to me that compromiss offer "to exchange" rooms of rest and toilets after each game instead of using, as we remember, the uniform converted female toilet in a hall, has not met understanding and support from Kramnik. You can reasonably explain it somehow it therefore as Vladimir prefers to keep silent? How he should become attached" to his original toilet as to refuse to exchange it for any another? Here, fellows, you cannot blame it on consequences of an arthritis all you will not write off, it is necessary to think up a more serious reason. Forth. I am far from any charges and I act as absolutely "not interested" person. Simply it seems to me, that some questions to Kramnik has already ripened and he cannot sit out more in defense idling and gnoring them. That’s his move now, if you wish, and he has to demonstrate something in order to defeat utterly hearings and conjectures discussed above. A continuing silence may serve him badly.

Not bad, igarvel, but I think your reasoning is flawed. Kramnik's behaviour was suspicious, yes. Kramink's reasons for so many trips also aren't very good. But precautions were taken to prevent cheating in the bathrooms. Therefore, Kramnik is free to do whatever he likes in his own bathroom for as many times as he'd like to do it regardless of what we would like him to do. He has no need to explain to the general public what he was doing in there. This whole mess could have been handled quietly and dropped quietly once inspection teams confirmed there was no way for Kramnik to cheat.

And there is nothing he can say that will "defeat utterly hearings and conjectures discussed above". There will always be a fringe of people who won't let facts change their beliefs. We can see evidence for that on chess message boards everywhere.

igarvel, it is not to have someone challenging Kramnik who is reasonable for a change. I'll addresss the most important points you made.

First (on excuses for bathroom visits being strange): this assumes Kramnik should for some reason explain himself. But, like Daniel J Andrews pointed out, precautions were taken to prevent cheating in the bathrooms. Going to bathroom is not against the rules and Kramnik (or Topalov) could do it whenever they wanted. So Kramnik doesn't need to explain himself.

Second (on Topalov only being able to accuse in interviews): You say "Topa is not a fool to file official charges, while not having reliable proofs of it, otherwise his exchange with Kramnik would occur not in the correspondence form through the correspondent of the Spanish mass-media, and either on PolitBureau of FIDE, or in a court." The key point was mentioned- Topalov doesn't have proof. That is what seems to be the problem with interviews. If Topalov doesn't have enough proof for court, it seems illogical to make public accusations. Also, there is a difference between voicing concerns and accusing of cheating. Anyway, now it seems like Topalov has distanced himself from the ABC interview, so all of this becomes less relevant.

Third (on Kramnik not agreeing to use a public toilet). One can understand why it could be uncomfortable for him to switch to another toilet. There may be different reasons. Maybe Kramnik simply doesn't want to change the original agreement. Or maybe he doesn't want to be forced to use another toilet because it means his opponent controls what he can or cannot do - off the board, which is the first step to possibly getting control on the board. Or maybe he doesn't want to use women's toilet (which was what they were offered as the alternative, I believe), because it is embarrassing to know that your opponent made you go to the ladies room. Or maybe he doesn't want to (pardon me) smell Topalov's whatever. Or maybe he doesn't want to walk (or doesn't want Topalov to walk) and have a view of the audience - and I believe it was indeed the case that when one walked to that alternative toilet, one could see the audience. Or maybe Kramnik is superstitious and doesn't want to change his "lucky" toilet after he won 2 out of first 4 games. Or maybe he developed affinity for the toilet in his restroom. Or maybe he is a spoiled primadonna that doesn't want to share stuff with others. Or maybe he just doesn't want to switch toilets - and doesn't have any particular reason at all. Or maybe it is all of the above. Or maybe it is something else. Again, Kramnik doesn't have to explain himself here. He can just say he wants the past agreements not to be violated and that is what he said.

Fourth: I don't think Kramnik needs to explain himself. A lot of the things asked are private matters and he definitely doesn't have to answer if he doesn't want to, especially, since it wasn't proved he did something wrong. If something needs explanation is some of the ridiculous things that were said/written by Topalov/Danailov.

russianbear!

thenewone,

1. I have read Mitrokhin's "Shield and Sword" archive of KGB's actions during the twentieth century.
2. I have enough understanding of logic to conclude that if there is a massive conspiracy by organizers to throw the match one way, they would not try to accomplish it in a very difficult and problematic way (jacks, computers, phantom rapid cheating) while at the same time causing rulings that go the other way in above-board decisions (Kramnik's forfeit of Game 5, toilet temporarily being made unavaible).

Both statements are true. It is up to you to choose the explanation.

Now if you will excuse me, I am still a little freaked out that Greg heard what I was saying in my sleep. I knew I should not have let him install that toilet.

Cheating prevention:

Let them play naked!

Positive side effect:

Greatest boost thinkable for women's chess...

;-)

Here's my paranoid theory. Kramnik assumed that FIDE officials didn't want to give him a match for the world championship so for a few years he developed "arthritis" and played badly so then they allowed him to have a world championship match because they assumed he would lose. Stupidly they didn't even include a provision for the world champion to be retained in the candidates' cycle putting tremendous pressure on Topalov who was under even more pressure because he needed to win the match to play a second million dollar world championship match. Kramnik shows up and plays well creating further paranoia. How could Kramnik suddenly be playing well? Topalov and his manager crack under the pressure as well as the pressure exerted from Russians wanting a Russian champion. Meanwhile, Kramnik laughs himself all the way to bank. Now everyone wants Kramnik to be world champion because he's "sane and good for chess." Kramnik can garner all the endorsements and he still shows he has a sense of humor my giving a computer that he could easily beat and very easily draw if he wanted to a one move mate. That shows that underneath it all Kramnik still hasn't sold out to the big money completely. Right?!

The funniest thing among Topaolov's manager's accusations was when he accused Kramnik of using Fritz to cheat. Why use Fritz to cheat when you could use Rybka?

Paranoid wrote:

"The funniest thing among Topaolov's manager's accusations was when he accused Kramnik of using Fritz to cheat. Why use Fritz to cheat when you could use Rybka?"

Maybe Danailov was paid by the makers of Fritz to create some extra publicity for their product?

Kramnik is a cheater

Really? Why do you think so?

FIDE's Ethics Commission is announcing a public hearing on Topalov's case.

http://www.fide.com/news/download/Ethic-Topalov.pdf

Thanks, acirce.

I wouldn't hold my breath though