FIDE Nixes Topa Challenge

Ok, just to get this going:

"Silvio Danailov’s response came immediately after the game of Topalov finished. He said, as reported by the Bulgarian NTV, that the decision of FIDE will be reviewed one more time in the international sports court in Lausanne.
Silvio added that the law is on his side in that case and he is not worried about the outcome.
According to unconfirmed information, he also suspects that Kramnik and FIDE have led secret negociations for a match of Kramnik with another player after Mexico 2007.

Expect official statement by Zhivko Ginchev."

http://www.veselintopalov.net/article/the-sports-court-in-lausanne-will-decide

Well what do you know? FIDE has finally stumbled in to doing something right. Now, from out of the horses... mouth, it's FIDE and Kramnik having secret negociations. He sickens me. The sad part is that people have died for less. No, it's not a death wish on him, I just want him out of our misery.

There's a lot of money involved. Since the title will have a 6-month expiration date anyway... if I were Kramnik, (but of course I haven't gone through what he's gone through), I might negotiate with two non-negotiable points.
1. Danailov must be in Sofia during the entire match;
2. The match must not be played in Bulgaria.

And one condition to FIDE: Assuming that he's really going ahead with giving back control of the world championship to FIDE, the condition that he be included in Mexico even if he loses this match.

I have a feeling that something of that nature might be in the offing anyway. Given the status quo, it strikes me that the Mexican organizers would prefer a tournament with both Topalov and Kramnik. There might be some logistic hurdles with 9 players instead of 8, but what's a couple of extra days when you're putting on the Greatest Show on Earth? They don't want it to be remembered as "the tournament that excluded the world's #1 ranked player."

That is it. That is IT !!!

No more fooling around.

Vasaline Topalov is going to hire Bobby Fischer as his Public Relations Man. Certainly a smooth talking guy like Bobby Fischer will help Vasaline's reputation.

Now the meeting of 2 Paranoid Schizophrenics will be interesting.

I thought they locked up guys like Vasaline in the Nut House.

"According to unconfirmed information, [Danailov] also suspects that Kramnik and FIDE have led secret negociations for a match of Kramnik with another player after Mexico 2007."

What a great psychic our friend Silvio is! Not only does he know (without possible confirmation) what's going on behind closed doors in FIDE (through his spy Giannis? no, impossible) or in Kirsan's head, but he already knows that Kramnik will (play and) win in Mexico! I'm impressed... and oh so happy...

Frank H,

Are you going through puberty or you are a grown up idiot?

According to rumors circulating on shesspro.ru (incl. Yu. Vasiliev), FIDE has struck a deal with Kramnik to guarantee him a match with the winner of Mexico, if it is not he. If this is true, then Silvio is not much off the mark.

"then Silvio is not much off the mark."

Considering Danailov is supposed to be friends with Zurab Azmaiparashvili he may have inside information. But Danailov has told so many non-truths now, how are we to know when we should believe him?

If they're doing that, then you'd think it was a step on the road to letting Topalov in instead of Kramnik, wouldn't you? Of course, Kramnik might not want to agree that.

Perhaps a good start would be for Kramnik to acknowledge that he believes he is under contract to follow FIDE's regulations as far as the title goes. Without it, negotiations between Topalov and FIDE have all the effectiveness and meaningfulness of a soap bubble fight.

My guess is, Kramnik prepares to immediately challenge the Mexico winner for the match in case he does not win the tournament. He can negotiate with FIDE to make sure they do not change this rule as mandatory part of his contract to play in Mexico.

WOW Ray Derivaz, I would love to work as a spy for Veselin! Silvio, I'm waiting for your offer :-)

Susan's recent comments about Kramnik and Topalov inspired a few thoughts of my own about Susan's ongoing battle with Sam Sloan:

Don't expect this ugly mess to end anytime soon! It would take a gigantic gesture by one side to let the other side have the last words to end this mess. But do we really expect that will happen?

I personally have no intention to read their comments about each other. I think both are in poor taste. But obviously dirt sells so how do you suggest both sides to zip it up and move on?

Both Polgar and Sloan work for chess in the way they think is best. By the way, I would like to defend the blogs of both Susan and Sam. They are well known chess websites. Their job is to bring you interesting chess stories, just as countless other chess websites. I may or may not agree with their opinions from time to time but so what? No one can agree on all issues.

However, let's appreciate all the good things that they have to offer. It is time we look for positive things instead of negative. Let's enjoy the best of what they have to offer.

lol, well put greg.

Vlad, I don't understand. If Kramnik plays in Mexico and does not win, he loses his title, right? If then he plays a match against the new world champ, he should be playing the match as a challenger, right?
Now, if you say that he may lose the FIDE title but still retains the classical chess title because he hasn't lost it in a match, then no reunification ever took place in Elista and the so called claasical chess title, in the line of Steinitz and Kasparov, is still being usurped by Kramnik.
Hmm, how will FIDE react to this?

Miguel, I will make it simple. If I cross an apple with a peach, I may create the world's tastiest fruit. But it won't be a peach.

You can hold a match between FIDE's champion and classical champion and say the winner is the greatest player in the world. But that won't make it possible for the classical championship to change hands under any but classical rules.

Hm, "classical rules". What are those? A 24 game match? 12 games? 6 games? The first to win 6? The first to win 10? Are these all equivalent "calssical rules"? Do you expect Kramnik to fare equally well under all of them?

"However, notwithstanding the six month provision in the regulations, if both players can agree to a mutually acceptable date and conditions, then FIDE will assist in the organization of this match."

Just hilarious - someone at FIDE must have a sense of humour.

And indeed Chessbase - I've been enjoying their strapline that 'it is not certain that Kramnik will agree to play in Bulgaria'. Is that Hell I see freezing over?

Kramnik should be replaced in Mexico by Topa. Kramnik should play a match against the winner of Mexico. As regards Mig's argument re keeping the Mexico sponsors happy I say: Keep the credibility of the World Champion at all costs and the prestige associated with that will bring sponsors back. Dont put the cart before the horse. If Topa won MExico what a rematch in store - there would be no problem getting sponsors............... Despite being a complete thug it can't be argued that Danilov is a marketing dream.........

Nice, Greg.

Let's stick to the existing agreement instead of messing around with the sponsors, organisers AND the other Mexico participants. Chances are that 2007 will only see a _temporary_ interruption of the classical match tradition, which is not unprecedented, this already happened in 1948. If we go back to the match format afterwards, having one WC tournament (as utterly abhorrent as this is) is not the end of the world.

Long term seems like the FIDE solution is that they have a semi-annual World Cup. The winner has the right to play the World Champion in the intervening year. This seems quite sensible - one can quibble about the format of the World Cup, but overall this is sensible. I don't see why the World Champion cannot play in the World Cup (and would want to if this didn't stop him being World Champion).

Short term we have contracts signed with Kramnik and Mexico which will yield the World Champion from the Mexico tournament. To maintain the matchplay tradition and square the circle of the long term plan, the winner of this tournament (if it is not Kramnik) should accept a challenge from Kramnik in 2008. If this is secretly agreed between Kramnik and FIDE then I say this is good and sensible.

After that the FIDE system has a chance of working in the long run.

The money challenge can also be kept as an idea - as long as the legitimate challenger (World Cup winner) gets to play his match regardless and the money challenge fits into the schedule - the regulations probably need to be improved from what we have at the moment. Perhaps the World Champion is obliged to take on one money challenge in a 2 year interval as long at meets minimum conditions - perhaps he is obliged to take the maximum cash offer or some formula involving cash and rating (to prevent him from avoiding unpleasant or dangerous opponents).

Karpov said a World Championship match takes a year off your life. I'm not sure we should have too many of them. One every two years is, if anything, too much.

When I said semi-annual - I did of course mean once every two years instead of twice a year.

I want matches max every 3 years and i dont want too many World Champions i.e. it should be hard to unseat the champ so that only the very best succeed.
Think of the great names that have been champs. I'd hate to see a flukey winner of Mexico getting added to that pantheon.

The world cup in soccer has only been won by 7 countries and has all the more prestige because of that.

Acrice, let's not be ridiculous. The only reason for the WC tournament in 1948 was the fact that the World Champion died. Holding a championship tournament, while there is a living legitimate champion is doing away with tradition.

You can't have it both ways. If you believe that traditional way to determine the champion is the right one, then Mexico shouldn't be a World Championship. If you believe that tradition is obsolete, then Mexico is the way forward.

Saying "let's play Mexico, then return to tradition" is like saying "let's dethrone the Royal family, hold the election of the Queen of England, then return to tradition". Ending up with Her Majesty Victoria Beckham will be priceless.

"The only reason for the WC tournament in 1948 was the fact that the World Champion died."

What's that got to do with anything? By the way, it was still possible to use a match format.

"If you believe that traditional way to determine the champion is the right one, then Mexico shouldn't be a World Championship."

No, it shouldn't be a World Championship. But there is already a binding agreement. That's kind of the point. You can't always demand to get whatever you want regardless of the circumstances.

In the very unlikely event that all the parties involved agreed to change the format, great...otherwise, let's not insist on it.

Here is a priceless example of unbiased Bulgarian media:

http://standartnews.com/en/article.php?d=2007-01-29&article=3069

"FIDE Ridicules Topalov
The Bulgarian grand master won the Wijk aan Zee tournament, but was denied a return match for the chess crown

The World Chess Federation FIDE practically mocked at Bulgaria's best chess player of all time GM Veselin Topalov. Despite his attractive style, Topalov could not overpower the Russian lobby in the Federation.

"There will not be a return WCC match," FIDE President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov said flatly, first quoted by the Russian radio Mayak. "Theoretically, we cannot take the responsibility for such a match, because, according to the FIDE regulations, a possible return match should begin on February 11, for the World Chess Championship in Mexico starts in six months, Ilyumzhinov said.

This cold shower comes after Topalov's team fulfilled the FIDE requirements and deposited US $2 million for the prize fund and the initiative was supported by Bulgarian President Georgi Parvanov. However, these efforts proved insufficient to overpower the Russian lobby in the Chess Federation. There are even rumors that the Bulgarian Grand Master will not be admitted to the World Chess Championship.

Meanwhile, Topalov delivered the one in a row heavy blow to his enemies, winning the prestigious tournament in Wijk aan Zee. Having the black pieces in the last round, he scored a draw against Teymour Radjabov in twenty-six moves and headed the standings with 8.5 pts."

If Topalov does not play in San Luis, it could be anybody's tournament. Anyone who plays well in that tournament will be the winner. And everyone will fancy their chances. Of course we will need to wait for the full quorum to finalize. But any guesses? I think that Anand, Svidler, Kramnik have the best chances. Maybe Aronian or other dark horses?

Regards,

SJ

You probably mean Mexico, SJ, not San Luis.

I'd say even if Topalov plays there, it can still be anybody's tournament. Topalov hasn't exactly been head and shoulders above the rest lately.

Topalov would be a favourite, I would say.

But assuming Kramnik, Anand, Svidler, Moro, Leko, Adams, Aronian and Pono (say; I actually forget which quarter Radjabov is in) then I would expect the winner to be either Kramnik or Aronian. Of course Svidler or Anand may be in better shape by then.

"The only reason for the WC tournament in 1948 was the fact that the World Champion died."

"What's that got to do with anything? By the way, it was still possible to use a match format."

Doh, weren't you arguing that there were already tournaments in history, so Mexico doesn't break with tradition completely?

The tradition (as I see it) says that to dethrone a champ you must beat him in a match. There is no tradition what to do if there is no champ at the moment: you can play match (Steinitz-Zukertort) or you can play a tournament (1948). But that's not the situation at the moment. There is an alive, active and undisputed champ.

As for binding agreements... For whom exactly they are binding? Neither I, nor you saw them, so we can't really discuss them intelligently.

I do agree though that we can't always get what we want. Based on that principle, Kramnik will simply not play Mexico, unless some sort of a deal protecting his rights is reached (say a right to rematch with the winner). Why? Because there is nothing in it for him.

Suppose you hold the Mexico as a championship without Kramnik, you get the split title, unification match and the whole thing all over again. So if Kramnik doesn't play Mexico, he will automatically get a match with Mexico winner. If he does play in Mexico under the current scheme, he is just one of 8 guys with the same claim to the title. If I'm Kramnik, this seems like a no-brainer.

"Because all peaches look different, there is no such thing as a peach."

Nearly all of those conditions would fit for classical rules, since all would confirm match superiority.

The main concept of "classical rules" is beating the champion in a match of reasonable length. It should not be too short (making luck too much of a factor) or too long (making endurance a primary factor).

"Doh, weren't you arguing that there were already tournaments in history, so Mexico doesn't break with tradition completely?"

Well, I said Mexico might just be a temporary interruption, and so not really necessarily a big deal on the whole. Whether there have been such interruptions before isn't that relevant, but the fact that there was does illustrate my point. You explained WHY there was a tournament, but that doesn't change the fact that there was a tournament but that tradition was still saved and still considered so.

"You explained WHY there was a tournament, but that doesn't change the fact that there was a tournament but that tradition was still saved and still considered so."

Ha! I also explained why 1948 tournament wasn't a breach of tradition, but Mexico WILL be a breach.

It's really simple, if you include Mexico and Saint Luis in tradition, you should also include Khalifman, Pono, Anand, Kasim...Did I forget anybody?

Yuriy, you missed the point. Now think again.

The idea that the winner of a round robin tournament should be called the world champion is absurd. We already have Linares, let's just declare Aronian the champ and say it's done.

Just share whatever your point is in a more comprehensible manner.

Susan Polgar is just another example of a hysterical woman. The fainting single mother, the "psycho ex," etc. She is a walking cliché. Totally pathetic.

Women's chess is an oxymoron. Men play chess and women have no noticeable disadvantage, except their lack of reason and common sense. Is it any wonder they are just vehicles for reproduction?

George,

Wasn't your own mother more than simply a "vehicle for reproduction?" Didn't she also take care of you, wipe the babyfood off your forehead, change your diapers, teach you decency, politeness, kindness?

Sounds like George's "mother" didn't do any of that...unfortunately?!

George, what does that have to do with the discussion topic?

All that being said George, I'd still hit it.

I think "George" is really George Costanza, driven to crazed misogyny because he can't find a girlfriend who can stand to be around him for more than a few days.

ET, lol

"Just share whatever your point is in a more comprehensible manner."

Yep, hopeless. Apples and peaches....

you hang out with d at all, sab?

Is it just me or does anyone else get creeped out that Topolov's used car salesman is always hovering around his pet chess boy. Talk about riding on coat tails...

Well I do not know, but Topalov will participate in Linares, Kramnik not. Again the Russian is hiding like a mice.
On the other hand Danailov launched an open campaign against Kirsan. He claimed he is a pawn in Russian hands or something like this.

http://www.veselintopalov.net/article/the-sports-court-in-lausanne-will-decide

Would a man write this sort of slush?

http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2007/01/unfortunate-medical-emergency.html

Somehow the "hiding like a mice" image doesn't fit Kramnik. How about "hiding like a giraffe?"

Well, Danialov IS the reigning expert on the subject of a person being a pawn in someone else's hands.

"Would a man write this sort of slush?" Good question, George. Here's another one:
"Would a man write the sort of posts which appear today under the name 'George.'"

Yeah, I didn't know Dave Sim was a chess fan.

Obscure comic-book-geek joke. Basically Sim was a Canadian artist, creator of the independent comic "Cerebus", who went a little soft in the head after his wife left him and turned his book into a series of rants about how women were inferior, empty creatures who sucked the life out of men, especially creative guys like him. (Well, his creativity did take a nosedive...)

greg koster: "Well, Danialov IS the reigning expert on the subject of a person being a pawn in someone else's hands. "

Nice one, greg. For some reason, it reminded me of "Being John Malkovich".

Please tell me that Danailov is a delusional fool, but not that the "alleged" deal of Kramnik getting preferential treatment ahead of the Mexico2007 tournament is true. It is inconceivable that any one player can hold the chess community hostage to such an extent, unless the long hand of Kremlin is doing the puppet show in the grim manner of the past.

D.

If "the Russians" can get the Mexico tournament re-configured into a de facto qualifier for Kramnik's WCC title, then we'll have a rare example of power aligning with wisdom.

Dimi--

Sorry, I can't tell you that Danailov is a delusional fool. I don't think he's delusional.

Chesspro.ru reports Kramnik will play in Mexico. Details here :

http://www.chessninja.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=001448

George,

real men stay away from the drivel you care to write. Can you tell us who is responsible for your warped views? Was it a domineering mother who kept your equally mal-adjusted father under thumb? You are indeed a pitiable person. I would suggest conseling. This may help you with you your obvious insecurities dealing with women. Good luck.

Russianbear: Chesspro.ru reports Kramnik will play in Mexico. Details here :

Very well. Finally!!

Now they have to include Topalov and we've got a legitimate/meaningful Championship.

D.

P.S. Kirsan used Danailov very well up to here. :-)

Topalov really ought to dump Danailov as his manager. The sooner he does that, the sooner he may gain some (much needed) credibility. But I don't suppose there's any chance of that happening...

Everyone, please, remember to breathe....--

Dimi,
Now FIDE have to ban Topanailov twins for a year to gibe them enough time to do some brain de-bugging.

Vlad,
The tyme of Soviet Union is in the past. Dont explain us Who who have to ban.

Welcome to the era Bulgaria vs. other world :-(

Vlad, I think it is time that Russia gets banned (not only from chess).

Vlad, I think it is time that Russia gets banned (and not from chess). Or at least get people like Kirsan elected by their republics and not appointed by Putin.

Comment,
First of all, I am not from Russia, and never was (but have relatives and friends living there, and visited it myself many times in the past).
Second, we can discuss Putin, if you like, but it wouldn't make Topanailov (more 'nailov', and less 'Topa') look any smarter or any more honest he is, and it wouldn't make all that BS he says disappeared.
Second, it is very brave to comment on other nations hiding your own name and nationality.

Vlad Kosulin: Dimi, Now FIDE have to ban Topanailov twins for a year to gibe them enough time to do some brain de-bugging.

Yes Vlad, straight to the Gulag. No, I know that they'll try to make a move, it's in the air.

BTW, the name of the GM is Topalov.

D.

Sure, the name of the GM is Topalov. But how would you address the entity that was formerly known as Danailov and Topalov? TETWFKADAT? After all, Danailov said it himself: Veselin and me are one person.

Oscar, now you can mature a bit. The name of the GM is Topalov. There are other Web forums dedicated to insults and childish behavior.

D.

Dimi,
You are free to read and write in any forums you wish, subject to the owner approval. So are Oscar and me.
And if you do not like insults and childish behavior, how can you read what GM Topalov and Mr. Silvio Danailov say for last year?
And why don't you object when somebody names GM Kramnik Drawnik?
Oh, I know. You are a big fun of friendly humor, and therefore, you accept insulting nicknames for somebody who proved he is better than GM Topalov.
And because you do not like insults and childish behavior, especially direct and obvious lies, you do not read GM Topalov's and his manager Silvio Danailov's interviews, open letters, and press-releases, and as a result, you just do not know what we discuss here ;-)

Vlad Kosulin,

Kramnik has been proven better than Topalov only when playing in Russia. In all other formats and venues Topalov has proved to be way ahead than Kramnik. And that's why Topa is still No.1 in the world rankings.

Giannis,

Topalov has only shown good results so far when playing without a glass wall. That's why he is #1 in the rankings, I guess.

The tournaments in which Topa and Kramnik have both participated lately:

Corus 2005:
3rd place: Topalov 7,5 / 13
4-6th place: Kramnik 7 / 13

MTEL Masters 2005:
1st place: Topalov 6,5 / 10
Last place(!): Kramnik 4 / 10

Corus 2007:
1-3 place: Topalov 8,5 / 13
4th place: Kramnik 8 / 13

Kramnik has a long way to go until he convinces anybody that he is better than Topa. And the only reason Kramnik has any chances in Mexico is because Topa will be absent.

I think Kramnik's +5 score against Topalov is enough proof that he's better than Topalov.

Giannis,

None of the tournaments you mentioned had means of preventing Danailov from giving Topa, shall we say, "emotional support" during the games. Without such support, Topalov is just another 2700 player, as proven by his 2006 end-of-the-year results.

Giannis,
All your examples are from the tournaments. There's a big difference between a match and a tournament - only a person very distant from chess would not know that. Topalov had his chance to show that he is better than Kramnik in the most convincing way possible - in a face-to-face match (rather than by virtue of results against OTHER players, as in a tournament). And he absolutely failed to do so!

Yander,

In that case we will also have to accept that Kramnik's title has been won in a wired Russian toilet. Fair enough.

Giannis,
Including the tie-break when Kramnik did not go to the "wired toilet" and still crushed Topalov? :)

Giannis,
You have to accept that all Topalov's wins are courtesy of Cheparinov&Co. Topalov gets better position after opening in 99% of games he plays, but fails to materialize on this. May be, because Danailov's sign language is not clear enough yet. Well, they still have room to improve.
Topalov has the No.1 team, but he is just one of many himself.

Improve even more than being No. 1 in the world? For 2 years in a row?

OK, I guess after Kramnik shows that he can win a single event, Topa will try to further improve his No. 1 position..! LOL

Impressive tournament results summary, Giannis. So, aside from Kramnik at the height of his arthritis affliction playing in Bulgaria, Topalov has managed to only score half a point better than Kramnik twice. This in spite of Kramnik's admittedly more conservative style, more suited for head to head battles than attempting to score extra wins against Van Welys and Tiviakovs of this world. What a demonstration of superiority.

BTW, perhaps somebody could correct me on this, but didn't Topalov's only solo first place finish outside of Bulgaria come in San Luis? I am speaking about during his 2005-post rise of course.

And an easy one:

Who is the only World Champion during the last 30 years (at least) who has finished ...last(!) in a tournament?

Oh, common you Kramnik fans... It shouldn't be so difficult for you... :-)

Perhaps it's not Kramnik fans that are the problem here, it's the Topanailov cultists.

But even so, and at the considerable risk of indulging all the ignorant Gianni of the world, here's another head-scratcher:

Who is the only World Champion in the last 30 years (at least) who dropped out of active competition due to illness, only to return and defend his title successfully against a heavily-favored opponent? (hint: it ain't Tal).

We could perhaps go further with "who is the sorest loser in the history of organized sports", a measure that would no doubt place Topanailov in the fast company of Michael Schumacher, the Williams sisters, countless members of U.S. Olympic squads, the '68 Colts, the '81 and '04 Yankees...but that's too fun.

Regarding frequency of world championship matches (back a long way in this thread)...

Between 1951 and 1993 the golden age of such matches there were 15 cycles with 4 rematches and one no show which is 18 matches in 45 years (assuming the cycle starting in 1948). Two of these matches were unlimited and lasted a long time - so count it at approximately twenty 24 game matches in 45 years. This is about one 24 game match every 2 years.

If the matches are only going to be 12 game matches, then I don't see why we cannot get one match per year instead of one every two years.

How easy would it be to arrange a 24 game match in the modern world? Well of these 19 matches, 14 were between Soviets. Of the remaining 5 matches, one was a no show (Fischer-Karpov), one was close to a no show (Spassky-Fischer), two were full of scandal (Karpov-Korchnoi) and one led to a break with FIDE (Kasparov-Short). Based on this evidence it seems that arranging a long match in the modern world will be difficult - since without Soviet coercion it wasn't easy even in the golden age of world championship matches.

So I think shorter matches are here to stay - and it seems to me that more players should get a chance at the title given the lack of commercial appetite for rigorous candidates matches to decide the challenger. So one shorter match per year seems OK to me - with challenger determined by a tournament every two years and a combination of cash and rating (by some formula) in the other year.

I would definitely prefer a proper series of candidates matches with long final matches at a less frequent interval, but one has to accept commercial reality.

Is Topa really the best now?
Many say yes, because he is No.1 in rating. But the difference with tennis is that in tennis rating is calculated only from last year results. In chess ratings are much more conservative (Kasparov as No.1 without single game playes is an obvious example)
I accidentally looked at the Topalov's whole life results, and found that 2005 was the first year in his career he won a top tournament! He won 6 tournaments since then (3 in 2005, 2 in 2006, 1 in 2007).
He can be considered the best player of 2005, no doubt (Linares, Sofia, San Luis).
But in 2006 he won Corus and Sofia, and Kramnik won in Dortmund and won the WC match. He was also the best player in Torino.
By the way, Topalov is as old as Kramnik.
Compare his total of 6 wins in top events to Kramnik's results:
3 times Linares winner
7 times Dortmund winner
1 Corus
1 Tilburg
3 WC match wins (2 wins, 1 draw)
I did not count other events won by Vlad because I do not want to spend my time on finding it's category at that time.