The Cable Guy

Anyone who has seen The Matrix knows exactly how Kramnik used the cable to recieve information.

Mig,

I agree that for the best of everyone we should take some precautions, EVEN if we believe that nothing has happened (i.e. Topalov did not cheated)

I would like to say, that the rational behind the appeal comitee decision, in Elista was exactly the same. They knew that Kramnink has done nothing, but in order to erase any possible doubts they chose to close the toilets. Even if the incedents are not identical, you must realise that the idea of removing doubts is the same.

Kramninks reaction was not to play. The publics reaction was that the appeal comitee should resign.. But they just did, what you ask FIDE (and organisors) to do now. Remove doubts.

I would also like to remind to people, that Topalov acccepted to have the glass between him and the audience at the match in Elista EVEN IF IT WAS NOT IN THE CONTRACT.

So comparing these two cases, I deduce that Topalov was more willing to remove doubts about cheating allegations that Kramnink was.

Ah, by the way, I personally believe that none of them cheated.

I disagree with that logic. There is a vast difference is between someone's opponent accusing him of cheating during a match and demanding changes and the community recognizing the need to make changes to avoid further damage.

That is, if Topalov had never said anything about toilets in Elista there would never have been the slightest thought of Kramnik cheating. Even now nobody is going to move to ban trips to the bathroom or cables inside the ceilings of chess halls. The entire concept is ridiculous. In start contrast, the signaling issue has been going around Topalov for a while and has now hit the surface in the mainstream press with several top players going on the record. And even if you take the world #1 out of the equation, we all recognize now that signaling is a danger and measures should be taken.

Kramnik has nothing to do with anything, for one. He was accused of impossible crimes by his opponent in one case and hasn't spoken on the other. Topalov has been accused of possible crimes by many people but no proof has come up and it never will. So we need to stop making it about those individuals and deal with the problem. And that's not ceiling cables!

Another interesting thing to say to those accusing Topalov's performance in San Luis and his jump in rating after 2005 as proofs for computer aid, is the following:

In Elista there was a glass between the players. Topalov could not have cheated in this match. He still lost marginally (-1 in slow play. I do not count rapid since this is different). He had better positions and lost probably because of lack of nerves/match experience (or class if you prefer).

Kramnink is supposed to be excellent match player. So anyone coming so close to beat Kramnink in a match cannot possibly be a bad player. This match showed Kramnink being marginally better match player, which means that Topalov (being more risky) is likely to be better tournament player (on this his recent success was based).

Also, Topalov, before and during the first couple of games, he was obviously very confident (overpressing in drawn position in 1st game). That would not be the case if his success the last 2 years was the outcome of using computer aid, since he knew that there was a glass and he could not use the hypothetical computer aid...

Well, if you're going to get into the ultra-circumstantial performance analysis aspect, consider whether or not Kramnik would have lost those two games without the bladdergate distraction. But that's not really the point. Everyone knows Topalov is very, very strong. He had results at the very highest level long ago.

Mig,
very good summary. I totally agree with your conclusions except on one point:

I do think that the video proves something. It shows quite clearly that signalling is very *possible* and *could* be happening right there.
Not ever having visited any events myself I was really shocked to see how easy it would be and that Topailov make no effort to disperse any doubt of assistance.

The equivalent to athletics would be something like this: Say there is a performance enhancing drug (=computer assistance) which is impossible to detect, once applied. And say that syringes of this stuff are found with the trainer of the world champion (that would be the cell phone and the direct line of sight). What good would it do for them to say "Oh, but we never!"?

I am not saying Topalov cheated - but I think that a player of this level and his trainer must be aware of the damage that their suspicious behaviour does to the sport. And why oh why are they so damnably callous about it? This is no laughing matter (as their response to journalists questions seems to suggest), this seriously damages the image of the sport. And this is what they can be blamed for.

And to make things even worse, their reply to this (to go back to my athletics analogy) is not to throw away the bloody syringes but to point at the colour of their opponents track - as if that would make him run faster or as if their own track had another colour. Simpy horrible.

I would like to say, that the rational behind the appeal comitee decision, in Elista was exactly the same. They knew that Kramnink has done nothing, but in order to erase any possible doubts they chose to close the toilets. Even if the incedents are not identical, you must realise that the idea of removing doubts is the same.

Kramninks reaction was not to play. The publics reaction was that the appeal comitee should resign.. But they just did, what you ask FIDE (and organisors) to do now. Remove doubts.
...
Posted by: derida at February 14, 2007 01:59

But as you say yourself, there was no doubt whatsoever ("they knew that Kramnik had done nothing wrong"). The players & rooms were checked for metal devices, so it makes no difference where Kramnik spent his time - the only thing I get from those photos is that the toilet seems a pleasant enough place to spend some time ;)

The appeals committee should simply have rejected the complaint out of hand. No doubt Topailov would then have come up with some other trick, but the match might have lasted longer under normal conditions.

Re: Topalov cheating - I'd have dismissed it out of hand until this "we're all as bad as each other" campaign, trying to drag Kramnik down into the mud. Given e.g. Danailov quoting Fritz statistics you either have to acknowledge that as a malicious attempt to distract Kramnik, or an admission that his own charge cheated (Topalov's stats are of course more damning, if you're taking that as proof of cheating). I'd go with the malicious attempt, for what it's worth.

In any case, there clearly needs to be some segregation of players and coaches. Even without signalling a Danailov who's always up-to-date with the computer assessment of a position & in line-of-sight with his player is likely to convey an idea of the assessment, whether deliberate or not.

Mig,

"Topailov" should be short for Topalov and Danilov? Fine, but why don't you simply put Topalov and Danilov or a similar combination instead of using "Topailov"? It's just childish and tasteless. It also gives the impression that you have smth against them. If you are worried that it would take too long to spell out their names in full, maybe you should make sure to copy it so you can paste it?!

>you must realise that the idea of removing doubts is the same.>

Precisely !

Many arguments can be now given against Topalov cheating by signaling, and could have given against Kramnik cheating during his too often trips the bathroom in Elista (he may have had health problems or whatever) but the point is
the same : not "proving" since such situations can can not be proved, the point is "remove uncertainty", doubts, and the need for arguments altogether.

>I would also like to remind to people, that Topalov acccepted to have the glass between him and the audience at the match in Elista EVEN IF IT WAS NOT IN THE CONTRACT.>

YES. Topalov did what was rational to do so as to end the problem and suspicions rather than try to "prove" that he was not cheating, you don't need "regulations" and FIDE committe decisions with both people willing to solve a problem.

Wot's with the whole "Topailov" name-calling, Mig? No matter how many "I'm not insulting anyone" excuses you come up with, ie., practical; Topalov and Danailov said they're one; I don't want to free Topalov from responcibility; but Danailov is a force unto himself - very tricky; so they insult Kramnik and this makes "Topailov" ok, I mean, accurate - did I paraphrase you correctly?

However, why do I still feel you're being insulting? I mean, it just sounds like you wanna have your cake and eat it too! Like, blog somewhat journalistic but have a clever way to vent with a good, legalized insult - hey, we all like to call someone whose pissed us off a "beeping beep!"

But why don't you just be honest? Or if you are, I apologize - seriously!

This stuff about Topalov agreeing to glass when it wasn't in the contract is all very well, but nothing was in the contract about playing conditions. It was specified that these should be agreed before the match (UK contractual lawyers will perceive that this is nonsensical, but maybe Elista/Swiss/whatever law is different), including all the other anti-cheating measures that were agreed to.

It is certainly a point in Topalov's favour that he agreed to it, but "EVEN THOUGH IT WASN'T IN THE CONTRACT" is misleading.

I hope this all dies down.

But for now, a few tournaments with good security will help calm things. Hopefully!

Interestingly, I went over to Kramnik's website yesterday, and there is nothing about all this controversey. Or at least not a discussion. Very calm over there.

I find the Kramnik cheating allegations based on the cable evidence prima facie ridiculous. After realising the basis of the allegations against Topalov, namely that Danailov used a hand gesture to signal information of a binary nature, I find the cheating allegations against Topalov also to be prima facie ridiculous. Both theories, whether its the one based on the cable, or the other one based on a hitherto as yet mystical signalling protocol implemented by facial twitches and hand movements whose only damning property is resemblance to normal human movement, belong in cloud cuckoo land. As an aside, I have to say I remain completely unconvinced by the supposed strength of this "binary" signalling scheme. You need to have the move, and having the first move in a computer combination without knowing the rest is a sure way of self destruction. The chances that a situation arises in a game where a "danger" signal or a "take action" signal would be useful given the strength of the protagonists is frankly ludicrous. This is as ridiculous as saying that somebody signalled Kramnik in Elista by the absence or presence of a cable in his bathroom.

>>Topailov seems to think that anyone who doesn't agree with them that ceiling cables are the same risk as signaling is biased against them. I sincerely don't understand this. >>

Ceiling cables are one thing, but he could never have accessed them if they hadn't let Kramnik take that ladder into the bathroom with him. Would it have been asking too much to have the referee confiscate that?

Mig, what about of the paper signed for VEGA and KUTIN? don't think is a good idea question them about the authenticity of that paper?

Graeme, you are completely right. I always thought Kramnik was innocent, but the ladder convinced me in the end. Come on! A country struck by poverty, and then they put the only web cable and the only ladder of the country in Kramnik's toilet? A coincidence?

I think not! This proves once more the Russian bias against our Vesko; he did not receive the same generous treatment as the local hero. No ladder for him. No wonder he lost!

I can't wait for the candidates matches to start. This drivel about hand signals and cables is wearing thin.

Mig, is there any talk about restricting the playing hall to players and arbiters at these big-cheese events? Perhaps using curtains to cordon off the playing area? In this modern world of technology, it seems that it is likely these big events have the games displayed on overhead chess boards for all to see. I'd like to see the defacto 'playing area' cordoned off with curtains or non-players removed from the playing halls to avoid any of these signalling issues in the future.

What do you think the short-term, tournament setting solution is?

It's very easy to cheat if a cable is available, and your failure too see that tells very much. BTW, what about the letter? Any official explanations?

Mig, let's forget the picture of the cable, Topalov can not prove something with that,but now we can concentrate in the letter signed by VEGA-KUTIN.Can somebody ask those two guys about the authenticity of that paper?

"Of course the unusual thing would be to break open the ceiling of any room in any modern building and not find cables."

Yeah, there are netcables everywhere, sure. Including anti-cheating made rooms. Accept it: Topalov was right, there was real reason to believe in cheating. BTW, what about the letter? Any official explanations?

One can't help but get the feeling that Topailov's team is spamming the comments section... someone did remark earlier on how Topailov's team seems to treat everyone else as idiots who'll fall for their lines by insistent repetition.

Give this "Topailov" stuff a break - really its distasteful and does your argument no good. Mig seems to have missed the point about the computer cables - of course we know about the pictures before, but we did not know that the 2nd appeals committee resigned because the we were NOT TOLD COMPUTER CABLES WERE FOUND EARLIER. Lets assume for a minute there was nothing suspicious happening, why did chessbase.com not publish this letter - the point is not the computer cables but that they were not told of their discovery. Everything coming out of chessbase.com is completely one-sided.

"Lets assume for a minute there was nothing suspicious happening, why did chessbase.com not publish this letter - the point is not the computer cables but that they were not told of their discovery."

Did ANYBODY ELSE publish this letter until Topalov's site did? Did Chessbase KNOW about the letter?

Hi Roy! Are you somehow related to the famous football player? Didn't see you here before!

Mig, would it be possible somehow to show the country (or the first part of the IP-address) of a poster? From time to time I have the impression your blog is visited by somebody suffering from schizophrenia, which causes him/her to post under many different names.

As about the letter of Vega and Kutin, probably it is real. So? What does that prove? If I'd know how Kramnik could smuggle a computer and a ladder (both not containing any metal) past the security check, I'd be very suspicious. But now?

Yes, this letter was published before, by ChessToday if no-one else.

One plausible explanation of why Vega and Kutin were not told about the cables is that no-one thought they were interesting or important. So the Bulgarians want to rip the ceiling open and tear the cables out; so what? Then Azmai and Makro got booted and their mates Vega and Kutin didn't like it, the Bulgarians asked them to sign such a letter, and they did.

I mean, Vega at least is obviously an idiot since he went along with the initial Appeals Committee decision, which all reasonable people agree was fatuous. I know nothing of this Kutin, which is why I've been asking people to post who he is. Sounds like no-one knows.

Just a clarification question: was it impossible
for Kramnik to have a mini-computer then flush
it down the toilet after use (with the cable)?

Oscar,the letter it could be irrelevant even if VEGA-KUTIN accept they signed it.The most relevant is the information behind the letter that they can provide to the chess media.I think they know more about this matter.It is a big
shame chessbase.com is avoiding publish this
letter.

Good reason for the chess community to black out both this and the signaling accusations--both are stupid unsupported pieces of yellow journalism that are not worthy of being acknowledged until somebody comes up with evidence that supports either allegation. If Woodward and Bernstein came to Bradlee with either this or Breutigam's piece, he would laugh them out of his office.

Vega was on the first appeals committee. He must have known about the cables. If he didn't, put the blame on Danailov.

Danailov just wants to be as popular as Topalov, but he doesn't have the chess talent to do it, so he is using the press to make himself a household word in the chess community.

Boris Kutin is the president of the European Chess Union (ECU): http://www.eurochess.org/content/view/38/43/

He openly supported Ilyumzhinov, although the ECU supported Kok.

It is just another one of those wild guesses that he or Vega would have important information. However, that is quite unlikely. In their letter they complain they were not informed about the presence of the cables (you know, cables, Russia, Fritz & Kramnik) and only found out far later. Doesn't sound to me that they know much.

And surely veselintopalov.net would publish that important information if it existed, right?

Freddy's traveling to Morelia so I put up the cable item at ChessBase just now. I even corrected a bunch of Danailov typos in the original just to show what a spiffy fellow I am.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3670

By the way, there is a much better version of the Topailov video available now. The audio is entirely convincing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utfJDtRannc

Thanks for posting the cable item at CB Mig. This was the fair thing to do. I am also of the opinion none of them cheated. However I do believe that people connected to Kramnik innitiated this controversy after Topalov won San Luis and that Topa felt obliged to react in his own way. Tit for tat.

rdh: I mean, Vega at least is obviously an idiot since he went along with the initial Appeals Committee decision, which all reasonable people agree was fatuous.

--------------------

Closing the private, unobserved, not to mention cable laden restroom was as reasonable as requesting screens and all of the other reasonable security measures that were discussed so far. The ‘fatuous’ part is how the Appeals Committee got blown out of the water and asked to leave town…

D.

P.S. Prolonged exposure to “group think” creates a very skewed notion of what ‘public opinion’ means and the benchmark for ‘reasonable’...

I know that Kramnik is tall, but even standing on the toilet would not get him reaching the ceiling, I think. Did he climb on the fountain?

Dimi wrote

Closing the private, unobserved ...was as reasonable as requesting screens and all of the other reasonable security measures that were discussed so far.
...

That's correct but it has taken to some people few months of, passionately, talking nonsense and trashing Topalov to get here.

The bitter acrimony of the first two K-K matches occured just before I began to follow chess, but I still vividly remember their frosty relations in the late 1980's and 1990's (a bit less so now). But man o' man has Topalov & Co. created one of the most hostile feuds I can remember in recent times. Read this line regarding Corus 2007 from the Topalov website:

"It was obvious how Topalov won a shared first place with style, and Kramnik had to struggle every move to achieve a fourth place."

Every move, huh? Did Kramnik almost resign before playing 1. Nf3 or 1. d4? Poor undefeated Kramnik. I like Topalov's chess, but if he allows drivel like this, the cables, etc., to continue coming forth from his own website, then it appears he lacks as much intelligence and class away from the chessboard as he possesses on it.

Then again, who doesn't love a good chess feud, however one-sided this one may be.

Bravo, Mig, bravo!!
It was high time somebody cut through the BS.

Bravo MIG!Your comentary about the article in Chessbase are patetic like always.Keep it like this,your future is great.If you want to learn how to write,check from time to time veselintopalov.net.This guys have a class,they are not ignorant like you.

Yes Ovidiu and that proves the old adage: he who controls the media controls everything. [In that respect think of Gary Kasparov and his uphill fight.]

Now reading how the appeals committee got chased out of town and these guys “claiming that they signed a document that was not supposed to exist” – Jesus, Holy Lord, the whole thing stinks to High Heaven. I’ve never seen something like that… This is way out there… This is not something that Danailov wrote, don’t blame it on him. Having read all that I’m starting to get interested in the book actually.

I blamed Topalov for his reckless rhetoric. I was amazed to see it coming from a mellow and soft-spoken guy like him who is not new to losing. But now I imagine myself having endured something like this. Ethics investigation, baloney – they should start by fixing the house first.

In the meantime I hope we can watch some good chess in Linares. Away from all this…

D.

"Note to those who missed this explanation in the comments awhile back. I use the term "Topailov" not to insult anyone but for practical reasons."

you are an idiot.

"If you want to learn how to write,check from time to time veselintopalov.net.This guys have a class,they are not ignorant like you.

Posted by: loopus at February 14, 2007 16:37"

They could sure do with a class or two ;)

Re: phase two of the spam war - "The Letter".
Danailov/veselintopalov.net, why don't you provide a full English translation of the toilet inspection "protocol" on your site? Your readers are missing out on some comic moments, as the "Bulgarian experts with their special equipment" go on the rampage with a tube of polyfilla (the detail is great).

The inspection was on the 1 October and after filling in holes and removing a few cables, the toilet was declared fit to use.

Why exactly does it matter if Vega (privy to the original ludicrous decision of the Appeals Committee) says he didn't know about the inspection? (Bovaev and Nikolopulos were there from among the organisers - oddly Kramnik's team weren't invited or declined to attend the party)

If there was anything truly significant found there I suspect we'd have heard about it from another member of the toilet inspection crew - our friend Danailov (no, ceiling cables don't count). Trying to rustle up some unspecified conspiracy for an event you witnessed directly smacks of real desperation.

You use topailov in a derogatory way... showing your bias.

Haven't any of you guys heard about Fiberglass ladders?

He had the ladder in his lunch box that is why the metal detector did not pick it up.

oops, should have read the Chessbase article first! Nevermind - good to see the inspection protocol translation made the light of day ;)

>>Now reading how the appeals committee got chased out of town and these guys “claiming that they signed a document that was not supposed to exist” – Jesus, Holy Lord, the whole thing stinks to High Heaven. I’ve never seen something like that… This is way out there… >>

Look out Mig does not want us to discuss Religion and Politics. That is why no one ever mentions Russian and Bulgarian interests.

Dimi, I would never guess you were such a Holy Roller. Do you vote as a Conservative Christian for Bush? Look out the Liberal Democrates might get back into power. Americans are fed up with the RD and TK arguments.

note below: you might guess correctly that RD is Republican Democrat. and TK is Topalov Kramnik.

I estimate there are less than 100 people who argue on these blogs about TK. There are 7 billion other people in the world who are getting on with their life and don't even know about this argument. Is there a mathematician who can come up with a percentage?

I want everyone to raise their hands who can tell me that they will lose sleep tonight over who wins this argument. LOL. WOW 6 billion hands just shot up.

Now there are 3 things not to talk about in polite company. Religion and Politics and Chess.

I must be sick. I have to admit I kind of enjoy reading almost all of the comments. A few comments are a bit hard to believe. Keep having fun guys. I know Dimi will. Who else is having fun arguing?

"If you want to learn how to write,check from time to time veselintopalov.net.This guys have a class,they are not ignorant like you.

Posted by: loopus at February 14, 2007 16:37"

If having "class" means "to distort", "to slander", "to tell partial truths", and "to mislead", or even "to lie", then yes, they certainly do have class.

Hmmm...flushable computer, interesting idea. Hopefully when he logged on it was microsoft.

But wait! This just in: electrical outlets were found in Kramnik's Elista toilet! We'll that clinches it, he must have cheated!

Kenny, if you feel somewhat jaded and wanna talk about gun control, women's issues and the minimum wage you can shoot me an e-mail: dimitar@pontix.com

Here, I stick to chess and related issues.

D.

Dimi

>>Kenny, if you feel somewhat jaded and wanna talk about gun control, women's issues and the minimum wage you can shoot me an e-mail>>

If I had a gun I would shoot myself. No women issues thank goodness. All the women have left me and I finally have happiness. Minimum wage no one wants to pay me that much.

I like you and I enjoy reading your opinion. I actually feel you are one of the better people at working logically through this mess. You are doing a good job. I just like to tease people sometimes. So I pick on those who I feel are more solid. I call it a little male bonding. LOL.

Anyway I came to say that NASCAR is having cheating problems at the top. Very interesting write up on ABC News.

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/story?id=2874645&page=1

The articles seems to have parallels to our problems in chess.

My ride to the sanitarium just arrived. They want me there for observations. See you later alligator.

This is really pathetic Mig. For over two month you were hiding PHYSICAL evidence of Kramnik cheating (or backfired attempted of cheating) in Elista and at the same time you devoted many post to ALLEGATION about Topalov's foul play. Now you say that you never believed that either was true. What a surprise! And how strange that your post (as well as the one on the Chessbase site) appeared only after Danailov published copy of documents showing that members of Appeal Committee were ready to resign after they discovered FIDE organized cover up operations. Let's make it clear, nobody wanted to resign when UTF cable was found in Kramnik's bathroom; Appeal Committee wanted to resign after learning that information about that UTF cable was hidden from them. So, what was your comment about Nixon and cover up operations a few days ago, I forgot it ...?

Hi, Mig! I've changed my mind and you know what - I love the "Topailov" thing! But you should have one for Kramnik too? It's only fair. You claim to be balanced; well, how about... um, I've heard people say "Drawnik" - because of Vladimir's style of play. Distasteful? Ok... how about "Kramsel" - it's just like your "Topailov" Player-Manager merge; Kram(nik) + Hen(sel), get it! It's a lot better trippingly on the tongue too. And I bet if you think real hard you could roll out some good excuses: like, that Hensel "speaks in the name of Kramnik"; umm, oh, that one about crediting the actions and words of the player with the manager could work; what else, um... influence; responcibility; practicality (my personal fave!); accuracy - but that dosn't really work in your excuse either, so well scrub that ... whoa, whoa! - can I hear you murmur that it's still not the same as your crafty nameplay?

Gee-whiz! And I thought it was!

Dude, seriously, I being totally moronic. However, no less than your silly, I-don't-mean-to-offend insult! You should really rethink that insult. Cause it is, dude, no matter how many coats of paint you apply over it.

"Mig" is honorifically collapsed from (Mi)chael (G)reengard, in the same way "Topailov" is honorifically collapsed.

Yeah, cool. "Mig" is a very cool name. But there's no coolness attached to "Topailov" in any form, shape, meaning, or honorific excuse, no matter how you spin it - paalease!

@Tomish
What is so insulting about this? Who is being insulted? Topalov by being associated with his manager or vice versa? They say they speak with one voice, that they are one person even - so?

I think the term "Topailov" signifies that they are both responsible for all the BS - as they are. And "Topailoopus" or "Topailovomish" are, although definately cooler, a bit cumbersome.

Yeah, Topialov is not cool. Its just petty and childish. If you want to hold Topalov responsible for everything Danailov says, that's fine, in the same way that when a company spokesperson says something, it's fair to attribute it to the company. But if you're going to use Topialov I won't blame others if they start using Migasparobase.

Every time Mug uses Topailov he should get a new name himself. Greentard, for example.

Are you kidding! I mean, you just okayed the name "Kramsel." Do you think Vladimir would enjoy reading that in a high-profile chess blog?

Whoa, dude! That argument is so wrong! Look, I may have got you wrong, and upfront apologies if I have - but what I glean from your name-calling acceptance is: if a celebrity, sportsperson, etc., within the public sphere does something wrong, this gives a social commentator who (and this is the crux) purports to neutrally observe the public sphere sudden license to be insulting. Right? (I mean, it's not as if Mig isn't aware that "Topailov" maybe insulting, or else he wouldn't have tacked the excusitory footnote).

"And "Topailoopus" or "Topailovomish" are, although definately cooler, a bit cumbersome."

Gesh...

Ok, I see your point if the word "Topailov" has any insulting meaning (in Bulgarian) that I am not aware of. As for the "Kramsel"...hmmm. They never said that they are one, which is the whole point of "Topailov".

As for objective journalism - this is not what a blog is for. Mig has always said that he is voicing his subjective view.

Sorry, about the "Topailovomish" thing. I am aware it is completely beside the point. I just couldn't resist the sound of the word. No insult intended. Neither by associating you with Topailov or with loopus (whose trolling above just got on my nerves).

"Ok, I see your point if the word "Topailov" has any insulting meaning (in Bulgarian) that I am not aware of. As for the "Kramsel"...hmmm. They never said that they are one, which is the whole point of "Topailov"

So "Topailov" is okay? But you don't like "Kramsel?" That's so unbalanced, it's gross! If a manager says he speaks "as one" with his or her client he represents, it's a way of saying they agree. Not the sudden right to read or warp what they said as something more than that.

I could warp that same logic with Hensel's "I speak in the name of Kramnik," - and say, read into it as a weird wedding vow! Hence, "Kramsel." Or warp it into a political alliance between Russia and Germany, called the "Kramsel Treaty." Dude, I could go on...

It's still an insult!

Considering that Danailov raised Topalov, the ties between Topalov and Danailov seems to be permanent, and the term Topailov seems therefore to be quite durable too.

Hensel is just Kramnik's agent, albeit a very capable one. But Kramnik could easily appoint an equally capable agent Johnson, and we would have to change Kramsel to Kramson or whatever.

I'm not saying "Kramsel" is any more of an insult than "Topailov". As far as I am concerned, you can "Kramsel" all you like. You have to admit though, that Topailov's behaviour credits the name a lot better than Kramsel's.

I still don't see the insult. I think plays on words like that are quite common, even in neutral media. In Germany they are, anyway. They can be used to illustrate things. I can remember that the German Minister for family, Ms. van der Leyen, was referred to as Ms. "van der Leiden" (as in suffering) in a German newspaper. I am not saying that this (or "Topailov", for that matter) is particularly brilliant but I can't see how it hurts anyone. Especially when refering to someone who is dealing in real insults (see topalovnet).

Now that's reeeally stretching the excuse!

I was not trying to make an excuse as I think none is required. Some people, of course, are willing (even eager) to be insulted by anything.

But we digress.
Why are we talking about the pc way to refer to people who do not care to show the slightest correctness themselves but continue to slander and insult, doing great damage to the sport?

the name "Topailov" is not for the convenience of the writer but for the reader.

it makes reading easier, since you do not have to read everytime the phrase: "Topalov and Danailov, which say they are one person," instead.

Just Topailov. its ok.

"I was not trying to make an excuse as I think none is required."

Dude, then why on earth do you keep coming up with so many, er, explanations - is that a better term?

"Some people, of course, are willing (even eager) to be insulted by anything."

Huh?

"Why are we talking about the pc way to refer to people who do not care to show the slightest correctness themselves but continue to slander and insult, doing great damage to the sport?"

Because this makes you just as bad, if not worse than them. Why should we take anyone seriously if they refer to the person in a serious conversation without regard? Does this make you in anyway better? Should I take you more seriously than the person you just offended?

"the name "Topailov" is not for the convenience of the writer but for the reader."

Please, don't treat the reader like an idiot. There's no convenience in name-calling - no matter which, how, when, and why you dress it.

The cables' plastic housing was coated with tiny platinum iridium spheres with top secret new poison unknown to the bulgarians, and Kramnik was busy in the toilet rubbing his hands on them. At the end of the game, would shake topalov's hands and impregnate him with the pellets, thereby poisoning him. Kramnik has spent years developing an immunity to the poison during secret kgb spy training.
This is the plot on Topalov's life! DON'T YOU SEE. THE RUSSIANS ARE OUT TO GET YOU!

Tomish

Yes, I think "explanations" is a better term, as you (and others) seem to require one.

And again my question to you in the waning hope of an answer: What exactly is so offensive about "Topailov"? Does one of the two, here amalgamated for the sake of brevity and wit, not want to be associated with the other? Is one so much baser or better than the other?

It makes me just as bad or worse? Whoa! I think what you mean to say is that you feel that it discredits the argumentation. I feel different - ok. Anything beyond that, let alone being as "bad" as these two - I should hope not.

Btw, careful there, I might find the "Dude" offensive. I have a name, you know.

Ok....

:-)

Chuenthe, I apologise if calling u "dude" offended u (but I hav a wee inkling it didn't...) Howeva, if I causd offence, a rich heart-felt sorry, my friend (I hope!) I loathe insults and I didn't intend to cause any offense!

"Yes, I think "explanations" is a better term, as you (and others) seem to require one."

Er, no I don't. An insult is an insult, no matter how many excuses or explanations for it you invent. We all know she wouldn't, but let me put it this way: what if Susan Polgar referred to Kramnik as "Kramsel" in her blogs, with the same little excusitory footnote as I used? Is that ok?

"And again my question to you in the waning hope of an answer: What exactly is so offensive about "Topailov?"

Gesh, this is getting circular and boring (on my behalf, coz I've said this in so many forms as to why, so maybe it's my fault) - ok, "Topailov" is offensive because, simply: would Topa and Danailov be offended reading their family names distorted on the the world stage? In a high-profile chess article? And from a respected commentator?

Warm and fuzzy?

Surely the point is that Topalov and Danailov need a bit of ridicule? Insulting isn't the right word. Of course the nickname pokes fun at them. They need it.

Dimi, no commentator in the Western world thinks the Appeals Committee was anything other than crazy. If you think I'm wrong, post a link.

Ok, lets agree to disagree.

I personally would not be offended to have my family name mangled up
- even if this was world stage (it's a blog).
- even if this was a high profile chess article (it is a blog).
- even if Mig was a respected commentator (and not a bald blog writer, albeit a very good one).

And of course, you can call me "Dude", friend. Not Susan Polgar, though - she can't.

Gotta run now. Have a good one.

I could not have said it better, rdh.
(and, in fact, I didn't)
Thanks.

>But wait! This just in: electrical outlets were found in Kramnik's Elista toilet! We'll that clinches it, he must have cheated!

Not entirely far-fetched ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_line_communication

It's not only the fact that Kramnik theoretically might have had the possibility for network access in his private unsurveilled room, but this in combination with his behaviour that - after neutral arbiters and the original members of the Appeals Committee had studied the video tapes - led to his room being locked up. Plus the attempted cover-up of the findings that we have come to know now.

"And there assume some other horrible form,
Which might deprive your sovereignty of reason
And draw you into madness? think of it:
The very place puts toys of desperation,
Without more motive, into every brain
That looks so many fathoms to the sea
And hears it roar beneath."

In 2005, Topalov was walking, lending his mind to God when he had a vision. It transformed him…

In 2005, Topalov became the greatest player in the world. The spirit of Tal and the opening professionalism of Botnovick communed spiritually into his soul and he became a bishop wielding king-killer, in the name of the the one true King. Topalov ascended to the heights of the chess scene and took the world by storm as Kasparov fled in pursuit of blunders political. A real chess player! a risk taker with aspirations from the top! skyrocketed to an amazing 6/7 performance in the first half of the World Championship in San Luis and went on to easily clinch victory from the lesser chess players. Kramnik, finally out of excuses (his back hurting, too tired to play, etc) existentially gulped. Something would have to be done to stop the burgeoning whirlwind of chess wizardry sweeping the chessdom. A challenge! Negotiation! Rejection? Nay, a reunification match at last! No more excuses, Kramnik secured his half a million and now needed something to stop the phenomenon, hallowed be his name--Topalov.

The jig was up. Kramnik could no longer rest on his laurels. He thought of retirement, living with his beautiful fiance, enjoying a peaceful married life reading literature, drinking fine wine and hobnobbing with artists; but he was restless in his soul. He was not ready to step down. He tried coming up with new, cutting edge openings with his seconds, but after awhile he put it all aside in a fury of frustration, dramatically sweeping the pieces off his analysis set. His improvements were paltry compared to the perpetual fount of brilliance Topalov and Cheparinov's collaboration so effortlessly yielded. Kramnik's pride burned in search of a solution, of some kryptonite. The days of trekking in the enchanted wilderness for days looking for the chessmaster's stone were over. He lacked the energy of his youth. He cut his off his mane long ago and settled down into a groove, which soon became a rut. His girlfriend gave him the energy and inspiration crucial to his current status, but the truth was Kramnik was never capable of outshining a star like Topalov and he knew it, no matter how inspired. But what did his wife or anyone understand of such matters as the pride and joy of winning? Of the glory of inflicting an impending checkmate or securing the crucial draw to establish oneself as champion of the world, undisputed king of chess itself. No, having reached such a height he would not let Topalov take it from him, no matter what it would take.

And so it was that Kramnik let darkness into his heart.

Kramnik made a deal with the FSB, which was done easily enough and the necessary arrangements were secured. Of course, Kramnik and Topalov made considerable concessions to enforce security, but Kramnik knew his method was failsafe, having gone over it with the FSB many times. It hurt his pride a bit that he was going to win by trickery, but one look at Topalov’s manly confidence and he was filled with disgust. How could this man be favored by the chess God’s, he thought? Kramnik, now filled with envy, focused it on his task The wire had been laid, victory was only hundreds of bathroom breaks away, he could taste it...

Everyone was searched, the bathrooms were swept clean and checked, but right above the ceiling, where no one suspected, there was placed a UTP-5 wire, waiting for Kramnik…The method was simple, Kramnik, after the usual opening blitz, would get up from his chair when he needed assistance. He would walk into the bathroom where a few moments earlier by means of new technology an FSB team of agents in a van across the street (marked Cleaning Van) had jammed the video feed and replaced it with prerecorded video of Kramnik using the restroom. But Kramnik only had a few minutes to act before the film looped. He climbed from the toilet, to the sink, to the support bars and reached the ceiling panel. Sweat condensed upon his brow. He slid the ceiling tile and removed the wire, bringing it down. He took off his glasses and took out the screw, which contained a customized Rybka computer and then took a paper clip, connecting the mini computer to the screw. Soon, after a few minutes, he had to get back. He put the wire back, stepped down from the sink and the toilet and then put on his glasses, looking into the microscopic LED screen for the reading. He then quickly screwed his glasses back in, flushed the toilet and hurried back…

Kramnik had only planned to do this procedure a few times in a match, but over the board Topalov’s resilience was so immensely powerful that even with a few powerful computer moves Kramnik found himself overwhelmed. He no longer trusted his judgment and began to rely more and more on the computer analysis. He learned how to hop strait onto the bar after going into the bathroom and going through the procedure in a couple of minutes, so desperate was he. But, it paid. Kramnik won the first two games. Topalov prayed for chess kids in inner city schools and for grace in his own life, confessed his sins and let free his heart, unconcerned with the game. He knew if he played his best and gave his heart to God, God would be pleased and His will would be great even if Kramnik ultimately won. But Danailov could not understand it. He became suspicious of Kramnik, who made much noise going to the bathroom and would come back out of breath, playing his move as soon as he returned. Finally, it became too much after four games and he protested, eventually finding the wire…

Mig,

>Both Veselin Topalov and his manager Silvio Danailov have said that they speak with one voice and once that they are "the same person."

It's not Topa's fault that there where attempts to separate the team and he had to state the obvious: that his managers statements reflect of course his own views. Him not being a native English speaker, I think you could give him some slack whith regard to the wording "the same person". In the given context it is quite clear what was meant.

>I don't want to credit Topalov with everything Danailov says [...]

You absolutely don't have to. It is really simple and not at all uncommon: Mr. Danailov represents world #1 Topalov.

I think - and forgive me for saying this - your explanation is rather tricksy. Given the obvious fact that your neologism is very likely to be perceived as an insult, it would be more interesting if you put the cards on the table and explain why you might want to do that to a team, which during the last years has enriched the chess world whith exciting games, powerful concepts (Sofia rules) and a successful new tournament (M-Tel Masters).

‘there where attempts to separate the team’.

Jeez, you people are thick! Can’t you understand? Many people really liked Topalov before this happened. They liked his play and his openness. Then Danailov started his ridiculous behaviour and many of those same people found it repellent. But they wanted to keep on liking Topalov. So they hoped – against hope, as it turned out – that Topalov didn’t know what Danailov was doing in his name and would come out after the match and say something sensible.

There weren’t ‘attempts to separate the team’. There were attempts to be as fair as possible to Topalov. Not everything is a conspiracy.

You remind me of the dwarves in the Narnia book – the one with Puzzle the donkey; is it The Last Battle? The ones whom Aslan can’t help because they won’t eat his food, but who understand that ‘the dwarves are for the dwarves’.

As to enriching chess by wonderful new concepts like the Sofia rules, you do know that these same rules were in force in tournaments forty years ago run by wicked Soviet Union, I take it?

As to the rest, if you can’t see why Topalov/Danailov have made themselves ridiculous, there’s probably nothing anyone can say to explain it to you.

>I don't want to credit Topalov with everything Danailov says [...]

You absolutely don't have to. It is really simple and not at all uncommon: Mr. Danailov represents world #1 Topalov.
[...]
Posted by: poisoned pawn at February 15, 2007 07:35
----------
Actually it's extremely uncommon for a manager in chess, or any other sport, to spend much more time talking to the media and boasting about his/her own activities than the player does - e.g. it's not really clear if the veselintopalov.net website is there to promote the player or the manager.

For what it's worth - not taking Danailov's words as representative of Topalov was a case of giving the player the benefit of the doubt. Mistakenly, it turns out.

p.s. I see rdh just beat me to saying the same thing

p.p.s. nice, straw_in_wind!

Believe in the impossible
Lewis Carroll

"I can't believe that!" said Alice.

"Can't you?" the queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again, draw a long breath, and shut your eyes."

Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said. "One can't believe impossible things."

"I dare say you haven't had much practice," said the queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

The foundation of the Topalov Danailov Controversey

Lewis Carroll / The Queen would be so proud of Danailov. Nixon says stonewalling only works for so long then it collapses. The Ancient Greeks said the Truth shall set you free.

In the US, celebrity gossip reporters sometimes make up cute nicknames to refer to a famous couple. Like "Tomkat", to refer to Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes.

I've always assumed that "Topailov" was a chessical riff on this, and never imagined it to be an attempt to mock Topalov and Danailov.

NIC referred to them as the Two Toppys, or just the Toppys. It seemed an affectionate nickname given to them by other players before this whole Elista thing broke out. Or half affectionate anyway as most liked Topalov but Danailov didn't exactly inspire warm fuzzy feelings in others.

I really hoped Topalov was going to disavow the words and actions of his manager. We Topalov fans couldn't believe Topalov would stoop to such dirty tricks and that Topalov was going to tell Danailov to stop the public slandering of Kramnik. We were wrong.

rdh: Dimi, no commentator in the Western world thinks the Appeals Committee was anything other than crazy. If you think I'm wrong, post a link.

1) Brilliant idea -- who needs referees, committees, courts, etc. Let the commentators decide.

2) On the merits -- was it so unreasonable to close an inexplicably frequently attended room outside of camera surveillance? A toilet, mind you, one of several... You mentioned that Danailov is ill advised to walk the halls of any Tournament. I agree. Now, invite yourself to apply the same critical thinking.

3) The commentators -- the view will shift. I predict it here. People sympathize (rightfully) with the plight of the victim. Kramnik did well in that role. With the filtered news we got from Elista that sense was amplified dramatically. Now with the unprecedented campaign against Topalov taking place, and one so devoid of any merit, you will see a shift. Probably even a quick one. Even the avid Topalov-haters perceive that the strategy is wrong.

Recently I scolded a man from Eastern Europe (from a rather limited background) about applying his own critical thinking instead of turning into a zombie of commentators and journalists. If what the commentators said gives you comfort, dear rdh, then I suspect you're quite far from the pinnacles of Western thought.

D.

Regarding 'topailov' -- I've always believed that no one can dissuade a fool from showing who he is. Playing name games? I mean, just how stupid can that be? It puts a tag on the person using such: (1) attitude, (2) low class, (3) not very smart.

I must admit, I've had the impure thoughts of concocting quite a few such names, but can't force myself to go that low. It would be remedied somewhat by a creative and catchy name, but this is not. It's just dumb.

D.

>[ChessBase publishing the photos]

No kidding. And guess what: all of a sudden they have switched their style to a thoroughly critical journalism with all kinds of attenuation ("Well, here, for what they are worth, are The Pictures."). There is even some attempted fact-checking, although they fall short of explaining why somebody would sign and distribute a paper which is meant to be a "draft" (was it perhaps "you better take a couple of K $ than mol Po"). By contrast for example not long ago they coolly cited - without further comment - Bareev in Kommersant word by word except for the part that immediately exposes that he is talking nonsense (namely when he attributes Topa's 0/2 in the first two games to the screen). So much for quoting GM's accusing Topalov of cheating.

>I'm saying signaling is a danger.

Yes, you keep saying that. Have you tested it, come up with a feasible encoding ? What exactly do you want to signal ? In order to not raise any suspicion you have an extremely limited transfer rate at your disposal. No way you can signal whole computer lines, at most 2-3 (half) moves per game and of what use is that if he doesn't see the right continuation ? What you could signal is very rudimentary information (e.g. the opponent has blundered), but of what use is that at that level compared to the distracion to the player ? I think the only danger here is uninformed media blowing up a non-issue that could cause organizers all kind of problems. Not only to separate the audience from the players but think also of players taking a stroll and looking at each others games in a World Championship with some plyers from the same nation.

[...] the video of Danailov proved nothing at all.

Yes it does. Contrary to what the ongoing smear campaign against world #1 Topalov is trying to accomplish, it absolves him 100% of any wrongdoing.

I'm sorry, have you people lost your minds? The highest rated player in the world is behaving like a loon, his manager is clearly off with the fairies too -- and you're whingeing because of the incredibly mild insult of "Topailov", a word that is "insulting" only to the extent that it actually captures something significant about this sad saga. Get a grip! Fight a battle that's worth fighting. The rehabilitation of your idol -- and this is really what you're attempting -- is going to take something more substantial than objecting to a little word.

I've always assumed that chess was a bastion of intelligence, attracting some of the very best minds of our species. Comments like some of those above in this thread make it clear that this couldn't be further from the truth. But, given the rubbish and drivel currently spouted by the highest rated player in the world, the real stupidity is that I'm surprised at all...

>[...] and the players alternated loos in the early rounds anyway?

And what is that supposed to mean ? Well, if the conclusion one should draw from this were that Kramnik cheated "only" every other game and the match result of course nonetheless has to be annuled, I am fine, I would go with that. Remember: it was Kramnik - not Topalov - who went to his lavatory all the time.

Poisoned Pawn writes:

"And what is that supposed to mean ? Well, if the conclusion one should draw from this were that Kramnik cheated "only" every other game and the match result of course nonetheless has to be annuled, I am fine, I would go with that. Remember: it was Kramnik - not Topalov - who went to his lavatory all the time."

Well, if that is the conclusion one should draw, then one should probably leave conclusion-drawing to those with a better aptitude for it.

Theorist, you missed the point entirely. I said that 'Topailov' puts a tag on those who use it. It says something about them. I'm sure Topalov/Danailov don't care. Personally, I'm fine -- it shows me immediately who is who and at what level I can expect them.

Enjoy your theories,

D.

Theorist et al.: please don't embarrass yourselves by insulting and personal attacks - if you don't understand the argument you can always ask.

You still seem to be saying that going to the bathroom all the time means you are cheating. Or that a cable inside the bathroom ceiling means you are cheating. Or that a combination of these two things means you are cheating. Explain.

And no, I don't have to explain in very small words one of the thousands of ways signaling is feasible just to entertain the trolls. It hardly needs to be complex to be effective anyway. It could be two or three moves per tournament, not even per game, and have a major impact. Not even moves, just: [arm shift meaning "do I sacrifice here?"] [cell phone call] [one finger on neck meaning "yes, it's strong]. The perceived need to send many moves or even moves at all is a red herring. But even that would be easy enough and similar has been done before in other games, including the bridge scandal mentioned here many times.

Dimi, that only shows you aren't willing to do any critical thinking. There isn't a consistent point of view from those who use the term even if you say so. I think it's 1) funny and 2) easier than writing the silly "Topalov/Danailov" over and over. And it seemed a natural reaction to the goofy "we are the same person" comment by Danailov. Telling me it's a dire insult "just because" is mindless and confusing.

As for name games, as others have pointed out they are quite common and only occasionally derogatory. When they are, it's usually intrinsic, which in this case it is not. It's just a combination of their names. "Karjak," "Super-Mariov," "Moro," these are hardly insults and I use them all the time. "Drawnik," in contrast, is used as an insult to Kramnik by those who feel he draws too many games.

poisoned pawn said "Well, if the conclusion one should draw from this were that Kramnik cheated "only" every other game and the match result of course nonetheless has to be annuled, I am fine, I would go with that. Remember: it was Kramnik - not Topalov - who went to his lavatory all the time."

Certainly an interesting conclusion, poisoned pawn, not one that most would come up with either. I think the most usual conclusion would be if there was some way to use the cable for cheating, then both Kramnik and Topalov could have used that cable. Number of trips to the bathroom is irrelevant. Go 20 times, use the cable 3 times. Go 3 times, use the cable 3 times.

By your logic, it makes just as much sense to say Topalov cheated "only" every other game.

"I've always assumed that chess was a bastion of intelligence..."

Now I know you are trolling. :)

poisoned pawn,

You cannot have a cake and eat it too, sorry! If in your mind the discovery of the cables signifies *possibility* (however remote and ridiculous!) of Kramnik getting outside help and, therefore, is sufficient to demand an investigation (even though nothing concrete was ever found!), by the very same logic the video of Danailov indicates *possibility* of Topalov getting outside help and, therefore, is sufficient to demand an investigation - even though nothing concrete was ever found. And if you absolve Topalov and Danailov from any suspicion because the video is inconclusive - by the very same logic you must absolve Kramnik from any suspicion because the cable discovery is also inconclusive. It's both or none here.

Poisoned Pawn: thanks for the offer, but I feel I understand the "argument" quite well. Your tendentiousness is indeed breathtaking, and I compliment you on it. It appears that no obstacle -- practical or logical -- is large enough to be a real impediment to your conviction that Kramnik cheated. Such conviction is normally called faith (if one were being less charitable, zealotry), although you have chosen a somewhat unconventional outlet for it. In any case, I admire it and hope that it does indeed fulfil whatever function you would intend for it to have in your life.

Dimi: your point is a good one, and I apologise if I missed it. One need only observe, of course, that there's not a thing that can't tell someone something about about the "level" of another person and one's "expectations" for them. And while I'm happy you've found a signal to make your life less complicated in that respect, it's a truism that cuts both ways...

Hi Mig,

a ‘dire insult’ it is not. But shows an attitude. People who like shortness use Topa. Again, I personally don’t care and you’re certainly not obliged to appear impartial. Still, if I was a close friend of yours I might insist in private that you drop it.

As far as the frequent toilet visits – the reasonable precaution of closing that unobserved room was what the Appeals Committee did. Or you don’t agree it’s reasonable? Them being run out of town as a consequence is where the strange part started. Then the second committee, etc. Very weird, something between incompetence and a coverup. BTW, did the match continue without a fully functioning Appeals Committee? I’m trying to find that out.

As far as the sign language and the allegation against Topalov/Danailov -- the avalanche is in full progress. You certainly know that it was on Channel 1 in Russia sport’s emission and the usual characters Bareev/Short took part. Yurii Vasiliev had something to say to the contrary and so forth. We will see how that plays out.

Regards,

D.

P.S. I was tempted attimes to use Migbase, but (1) I think it’s low-class (for this forum) to do so, and (2) bad manners to come on your blog and say something less than positive about you, personally. If I have issues, I’ll excuse myself from here and use other forums. Or make my own, whatever.

I agree with rdh with regard to poisoned pawn. It would appear that he's simply a troll playing devil's advocate for his own bizarre gratification.

>Daniel Andrews: Certainly an interesting conclusion, poisoned pawn, not one that most would come up with either.

Daniel, please give yourself more credit -- if someone runs constantly to location X during an event of that magnitude, would you not investigate 'why' that is? Come on.

The same logic applies to Danailov, supposedly making phone calls and popping in and out of the hall. You're right to wonder what's going on.

Now the part that we need to find out –

(1) while we do know that Kramnik went N times to location ‘X’,

(2) we are yet to find out whether what has been alleged of Danailov is true indeed. I know Mig suggested that there are (unnamed) people who claim that to be the case, but I have seen (named) people who say that’s not the case.

As to (2), I am sure that more evidence will be presented and I eagerly anticipate to see how the Breutgam affair will complete.

Regards,

D.

Daniel J Andrews,

If you don't accept the asymmetry due to the length/frequency of the lavatory visits (fumbling out, connecting and stashing a device) you must accept it due to the fact that team Topalov filed a complaint which led to the closure of the lavatories. Wouldn't make much sense if Topalov were depending on it for cheating, would it ?

Why, Poisoned Pawn, can't you see a classic double bluff when you see one?

Amati,

Those are two entirely different situations: one is "only" a tournament (albeit supertournament), the other a World Championship. In the first case having the audience near the players was normal (until now) and every player would have had the same opportunity to cheat by signaling so to speak (we know Mr. Dainalov because he is prominent, but what friends from the other players where in the audience ?). World Championship is more important and should only by held in a sterile environment. So recapitulating, having Mr. Dainalov in the audience of Wijk was per se normal, but that in a World Championship one of the players has potential network access is unacceptable.

Sorry, Poisoned Pawn, can you correct that last sentence? As has already been pointed out, BOTH players had potential network access in at least the first 5 games (unless we are to assume that the construction of one of the bathrooms changed radically after game 5, when the players stopped swapping bathrooms each game -- and I would like to hear/see any evidence along those lines).

rdh: As to the rest, if you can’t see why Topalov/Danailov have made themselves ridiculous, there’s probably nothing anyone can say to explain it to you.

Oh, I missed that jewel, let me indulge myself…

As far as ridiculous, the feelings are mutual perhaps. You did leave an impressions on me during my very first visit here by blurting the ‘Topalov cheats’ tune after Game 8/9 in Elista? Never mind screens, him staying at the table, not jumping to location ‘X’ after every move, etc. Topalov wins and ‘Bingo’, the cheat theory marches forth.

Obviously, being ‘fair & balanced’ is not you strong side and I accept that. Now, having said that, I should tell you also that I like discussions in a difficult, even hostile environment, better than around a bunch of one line ‘Yey-sayers’ who generally just vent. I find it very educational to see how people react and their minds wonder when presented with facts they do not like. As far as the cheating theory goes, you’re an interesting test vehicle to see what's next...

For which, I thank you.

D.

Theorist, was it not pointed out to you already that although both players migh have have visited the networked toilets:

1) Only one filed a complaint (T)
2) The other visited the area all too frequently (K)

Where is the difficulty in comprehension, here?

Sotty, if I sound too terse.

D.

Dimi, the issue presented was as structural one ("potential network access") not a practical one (who filed complaints, who used the bathroom more). Moreover, again, it simply wasn't accurate to say that ONE player had such "access", since the bathroom was available to BOTH players. We all have our own views on how plausible it might be for one player or the other to take advantage of the access (as construed: I, of course, don't believe the "access" to be there in the first place), but that doesn't affect this particular aspect of the debate, which, to reiterate, concerns simply the structure of poisoned pawn's argument.

No need for apologies, either!

Following the story I have started to feel sympathy for poor Vesko. Just imagine him at the board watching Kramnik capturing the pieces confidently while the view to compassionate Danailov, the one who raised him, is blocked by a cold glass wall. It must still haunt him.

Theorist,

>[...] BOTH players had potential network access in at least the first 5 games

Presumably you mean "rounds" instead of "games". Are you suggesting that Topa needs help from an engine even if his opponent insults him by not showing up ? Are you trying to by funny ? As I said, world #1 Topalov demonstrably didn't use the rooms as extensively as Kramnik and saw to it that they get locked (thx Dimi).

>[...] to your conviction that Kramnik cheated.

Never said that. To recap my standpoint:

1. the chance of Kramnik having cheated in Elista is strictly greater than 0 contrary to blogmeister's (and others) belief (due to looks or whatever irrrational arguments have come up so far)
2. when the thing with the cables surfaced in Elista it should have been sorted out instead of being brushed under the carpet - even if it meant to go back to square one
3. the baseless smear campaign against #1 Topalov unleashed by Breutigam/Bareev and many others is utmost disgusting

"What you could signal is very rudimentary information (e.g. the opponent has blundered), but of what use is that at that level compared to the distracion to the player?"

Erm, the odd extra point. If Topalov knew Kramnik had blundered in Elista I imagine he'd have found the mate-in-3.

"People who like shortness use Topa"

That's it! "TopaDan" ;) It'll add a touch of the exotic (Indian subcontinent/restaurant?) to this whole debate. "Topailov" strikes me as clumsy.

Poisoned Pawn, I was going to construct for your edification an elaborate double bluff scenario, in which Topalov's move to close the toilets was simply an elaborate smokescreen to deflect attention from his own toiletty cheating, etc., but I can't be bothered.

I will offer this for you to chew on, though: I would regard the intelligence of a cheating strategy based on installing network access in a toilet, and then running off to the toilet 40 times a game, to be roughly as stupid as installing network access in a toilet, and then insisting that the toilet be shut.

Theorist, the double/triple bluff scenarios are interesting, but purely academic.

The non-academic part is that the Appeals Committee got shafted out of town when they closed the frequently attended location ‘X’ by Kramnik. The Second Appeals Committee cleared the area soon thereafter… It seems that the Appeals Committees were not comfortable to perform their duties. Wonder why? Pressure, perhaps? Can you explain that part? Avoid esoteric theories, please.

Regards,

D.

Actually, I think the double/triple bluff scenarios are instructive in that they point out logical or practical absurdities. One needs to explain why situation X is possible but situation Y is not. The practical objections to Kramnik having cheated are so overwhelming (where does one even start enumerating them?) that only absurdity is left.

As for the Appeals Committee -- they seem to me to have been a complete joke anyway, ineffectual, cowardly -- in whichever incarnation. If they were in anyone's pocket, I would imagine it to have been FIDE's rather than the Mother Country's (remember the composition of the first committee; and didn't they forfeit Kramnik?...). I wouldn't take the discomfort of the Appeals Committee to be indicative of anything other than that of people out of their depth performing a job for which they were ill-equipped.

Sorry Theorist, here you’re truly acting irresponsibly. You say that the Appeals Committee was “ineffectual”. Ok. I agree. I also say that extreme pressure was used on them – just look at this guy writing a resignation letter stating as a reason the cables found and then claiming that he never saw cables?!? Now, these guys are not some trash collected from the street, they are people with well established track record. These crazy things and wanting to leave, but the airport closed? You want to serve in these conditions Theorist – do you know just how quickly they’ll knock your theories out of your head? That goes to show you that extreme pressure was used against them. As a result of that they were ineffectual. Don’t you think that this calls for an investigation!

Well, if this match had occurred in normal state it would have been invalidated on the spot due to tempering with the officials. Anyway, I’m not calling for that because I firmly believe that Topalov should stay as far away as possible from this mess. He was a Champion once, his name is in the books. There are better things that he can do from here on. If they have any sense in their heads they should come looking for him, not the other way around.

D.

mishanp,

>>[...] but of what use is that at that level compared to the distracion to the player?"
>Erm, the odd extra point. If Topalov knew Kramnik had blundered in Elista I imagine he'd have found the mate-in-3.

Hmm, if you are talking game 2 I have to ask how closely do you follow chess ? Topa KNEW it was inferior but was surprised that his opponent played it. And having calculated all the Bg5 lines (which Kramnik didn't see, that's how you become WC nowadays) where the queen goes to the h-file he missed Qc7. This was a psychological problem, Mr. Danailov could have been signaling all day, and Topa would still have missed it. But thanks, this is a nice counter-example for all this signaling bs.

...I’ll excuse myself from here and use other forums. Or make my own, whatever.

Posted by: Dimi at February 15, 2007 14:21

please do it.

livan: please do it.

Is that all, moron?

D.

poisoned pawn posted: Wouldn't make much sense if Topalov were depending on it for cheating, would it ?

True enough. I still don't believe Kramnik or Topalov have cheated, just not enough evidence for it.

Dimi posted: If someone runs constantly to location X during an event of that magnitude, would you not investigate 'why' that is? Come on.

Yes, I would. And they did investigate. And they increased security to rule out cheating by computer use. Likewise Topalov's manager was acting suspicious. And they investigated. And they will increase security to rule out cheating by signaling.

There is only so much security you can employ. No matter what is done, someone will come up with a scenario about how the other person might have cheated (or did cheat) despite all evidence to the contrary. If either of them cheated they will have to come up with a better way to cheat next time as security will be watching for cables, disappearing computers, and twitchy audiences. If they are cheaters they will eventually get caught even if they have implants. I emphasize again, I don't think either of them have cheated.

For the next K-T match we could force the participants to sit buck naked in a one-way glass electronically screened box for the entire match, and I'm sure someone would still say one of them cheated, and then proceed to show us all the circumstantial evidence, and explain how it was done.

"...I’ll excuse myself from here and use other forums. Or make my own, whatever.

Posted by: Dimi at February 15, 2007 14:21

please do it.
Posted by: livan at February 15, 2007 19:29"

veselintopalov.net doesn't have a forum yet?

"veselintopalov.net doesn't have a forum yet?"

They wouldnt want their unique perspective on reality tainted by the opinions of outsiders.

Hmm, if you are talking game 2 I have to ask how closely do you follow chess ? Topa KNEW it was inferior but was surprised that his opponent played it. And having calculated all the Bg5 lines (which Kramnik didn't see, that's how you become WC nowadays) where the queen goes to the h-file he missed Qc7. This was a psychological problem, Mr. Danailov could have been signaling all day, and Topa would still have missed it. But thanks, this is a nice counter-example for all this signaling bs.

Posted by: poisoned pawn at February 15, 2007 19:21

Yep, +2 and not losing a game against Kasparov in a match - it's so easy to become WC ;)

Again - yes, Kramnik and Topalov missing mate-in-3 is understandable psychologically in the given position. But give it to an 1800-rated player and say black's just made a horrible blunder and they'll probably find the mate. There's a huge difference to only suspecting your opponent might have made an "inferior" move.

Or going in for some reductio ad absurdum, do you really want to suggest that in e.g. the Carlsen/Navara game from Corus, Carlsen would still have missed the win if he'd been signalled that Navara had blundered with 31...g5?

Sure, state that Topalov didn't cheat - I even tend to agree with you - but to suggest that even crude signalling wouldn't help is ludicrous.

It's wierd that there's some topalov fanbase that will go beyond common sense to argue things.
Shall we call them Patzelov from now on ? :p

siron: veselintopalov.net doesn't have a forum yet?

Not that I know of. But it ought to, I guess. Yet, that's a sensitive subject -- what kinds of topics are appropriate at such forums. I wouldn't go to Kramnik site and have the conversations we've had here recently. It's just not right.

-----------

gokuson: It's wierd that there's some topalov fanbase that will go beyond common sense to argue things. Shall we call them Patzelov from now on ? :p

We? Which fraternity do you represent? I suggest you start by saying something that makes sense first and then 'we' will see how common/uncommon it is.

----------------

toppleover: They wouldnt want their unique perspective on reality tainted by the opinions of outsiders.

Well, try! Offer some new perspective, if you can. As you've seen already, Topalov fans are very open minded people who neither run away from a pleasant conversation, nor hide in the safety of 'group think'.

Have fun,

D.

Patzerlov spotted !! o.0

dimi said "I suggest you start by saying something that makes sense first"

1) On the evidence we have, it cannot be proven that either player cheated in Elista.

2) On the basis of the evidence we have, it cannot be proven that Topalov cheated in San Luis or Corus.

(Everyone agreed up to this point? Topalistas? Patzalovs? Sane people of every stripe? mmmmmk...Cool!)

The more controversial stuff.

3) Elista is the only instance Kramnik has been directly accused of cheating.

4) The suspicion of Topalov receiving help has been levelled by GMs Rustam Khasim(spelling please), Bareev, Morozevich directly and GM Short says other people of similar standing agree with it privately.

5) The evidence which is presently in circulation doesnt prove Topalovs guilt to any reasonable person.

6) The protestations of innocence by Topalov in no way prove his innocence to any reasonable person, because of the range of people who independently level similar accusations.

7) The lack of accusations against Kramnik, and lack of evidence in Elista should convince any reasonable person of Kramniks innocence.

Dimi

These things have been pointed out endlessly, but still:

1. The Appeals Committee were wrong to permit Topalov’s team to see the tapes of Kramnik in what he believed to be his private space. This was unthinkable. Surely you can see this?

2. The AC should not have considered a protest made out of time. Simple compliance with the regulations they were there to administer.

3. They should not have made a decision so close to game five. Again, simple compliance with their duties outlined in the regulations.

4. They should not have changed the playing conditions when the regulations laid down that they could not do this. Makropoulos’s semantic argument that they had not done this was unworthy even of him. Perhaps one can excuse him on the grounds that English is not his native language, but not otherwise.

Had they had the first idea of their duties, then when the request to see the tapes was first made it should have been denied and they should have promised to look at the tapes themselves. After that they could either have told Topalov there was nothing suspicious, or if they thought there was then they could have allowed an inspection of the lavatories. The cables could have been removed, as they were, and that would have been the end of the matter.

Makropoulos is a man I find difficult to work out. The idea that his ludicrous time control would make chess more marketable to TV is a good example. I always considered that no-one could be that stupid and that only an actual pathological hatred of the game and consequent intent, possibly subconscious, to destroy it, could account for his devotion to this idea. However, I have been assured by people who know him personally that he actually is that stupid. Similarly, on this occasion only an absolute moron, in the technical sense of someone who is literally incapable of forming a rational thought, could have imagined that Kramnik would play game five in the circumstances. I had therefore presumed that Makropoulos must have intended the destruction of the match, but again, I have been told that what happened came as a genuine surprise to him.

It may or may not be a bad idea for players to have private lavatories in world championship matches (although I’m not quite sure what people want. Hidden cameras in the toilet bowl?). But that is not the point: the point is that having agreed that at the start of the match it was entirely inconceivable to change the arrangements in the middle of a match.

As to going by referees' decisions, of course this is right. But when the referee ceases to abide by the rules he is meant to be administering, he loses this immunity.

And whether we should abide by referees’ decisions is a different question from whether a given decision is right or wrong. Your rhetoric about ‘shall we just let commentators decide’ ignores this point: commentators’ opinions are relevant to the latter, not to the former.

You must be thinking of someone else about games eight and nine in Elista. I never suggested Topalov was cheating during those.

Actually, I probbly did use the word 'cheating' in the sense that I considered Danailov's release of Fritz statistics during the match to be cheating. I stand by that comment. Not even Topa's most ardent supporter could be proud of that.

You may accuse Makropoulos for many things BUT, even his worst enemies (that actually know him) acknowledge he is very smart (which is not neseccarily a virtue). (Personally I was really amazed when I heard him speaking in a council meeting..)

How else could he be on power for so long? He has no money himself to offer, and no big interests support him. I also remind you that he was fide vice-president, even before Kirsan became president. (he was also 7 times champion of Greece, strong IM, and president of greek chess federation for 25 years)

I disagree with Makropoulos about the time control (and many other things), but I would not call someone stupid for that.

As for the decision in Elista...

you said:

"only an absolute moron,...,could have imagined that Kramnink would play game 5 under these circumstances"

I strongly disagree. (you honestly think that you are smarter? )

I personally think that the only reason Kramnink did not come to play game 5 was because he was sure that his opinion will pass due to the support of Zukhov. Ofcourse this backfired eventually, since he lost the game.

I remind you, that we ask from FIDE and organisors to make sure nobody (Topalov) cheats, by putting glass between players-audience etc. Now, even if the Elista case was different, the appeals comittee decision had this aim. Remove doubts. It is hard to imagine someone quiting the match for closing a toilet.. He may protest, but not appearing at all? A person could do that ONLY if he knows he has support, which was the case for Kramnink (Zukhov).

Note here that I am not personally supporting the decision. What I say is that it was not that irrational, and the most irrational thing was Kramnink not playing.

Also, I remind you that Topalov did accept to have glass between players-audience, and that was also no in the contract.

But say, Kramnink did not ask for this. And by round 5 we have Danailov doing continusly guestures. The appeal comittee decides to but a glass after Kramninks protest. Would you justify Topalov quiting the match? Or you would say, ah he was cheating.. (I suppose the appeal comittee wanted to avoid having people accusing Kramnink, even if they did not believe that he was cheating)

I do not want to say whether the decision was right or not, neither to support Makropoulos in general. BUT Kramnink not participating in game 5 was overeaction (most players that supported him said that this was a wrong move), therefore it is not a reaction somebody with rational thought would expect (I am sure if Topalov was in his place, he would file a complaint BUT play on).

>>
"It was obvious how Topalov won a shared first place with style, and Kramnik had to struggle every move to achieve a fourth place."

Every move, huh? Did Kramnik almost resign before playing 1. Nf3 or 1. d4? Poor undefeated Kramnik.
>>

Reminiscent of some of the stuff Alekhine used to write about Capablanca.

What makes it funny is not that it's untrue, but that Kramnik is vulnerable to the exact OPPOSITE charge. Struggle every move?? It was more like he wasn't trying at all. GM draws left and right, Pettroff's everywhere. I wish he had struggled every move.

Derida, I don’t know how to say this any more clearly. It was not rational for the AC to disregard the regulations it was interpreting.

How has Makropolous stayed in power for so long? Easy: he’s a crook, a yesman and a power-hungry gangster. These are useful qualities in politics. Intelligence is not. So he’s an IM. So am I. So’s Danailov. I can assure you that doesn’t impress me.

It suits you of course to characterise Kramnik’s decision as ‘quitting the match for closing a toilet’. However, Kramnik had also discovered that the AC were prepared to release tapes of him to the other side without his knowledge, and to ride roughshod over the regulations. (and of course to give houseroom to deeply insulting and utterly fatuous allegations, although that they were arguably entitled to do).

I agree Topalov might well have played, but then he’s a monomaniac puppet and devoted to the acquisition of money. Kramnik isn’t. We could go on like this all day: all I can say is that if anyone expected Kramnik to play after the committee’s decision their judgment turned out to be seriously wrong.

After all, if Karpov and Korchnoi both say they wouldn’t have played, it’s a fair bet there’s a wide spectrum of personalities who wouldn’t have done.

What’s beyond me is why anyone should have thought Kramnik ought to play. The very thing the regulations are supposed to protect players from – an upsetting appeals committee decision shortly before a game – has happened, and the reason why it’s happened is that the appeals committee have utterly failed to carry out their duties according to the regulations. It’s clear that the very least Kramnik should have been entitled to was a postponement and the appointment of an Appeals Committee which had some idea of their duties.

I agree with you that it is possible that the Appeals Committee were well motivated. But that doesn't alter the fact that they weren't fit to run a whelk stall, as we say in the Labour Party.

Dear rdh,

I said Makropoulos being an IM (in the 70-80's not today) is just one indication (even if not quite an IM, I know that this on its own is not that impresive) of not being stupid. Also, being in power, and knowing to manouver well, is definetely something that requires (some sort of) inteligence. (he is NOT a yes man. he is the one that usually decides the policies (for good or bad:))

I really believe that the decision was not so outrageous (if wrong) to justify Kramnink not playing. You are entitled of your opinion, and I respect it, but you cannot call stupid people who disagree with this. I am not willing to start again arguing about this, since a lot has been said already and arguments circulate.

So we have: a) Appeal comitee doing something over their duties (according to you and other people)
b) Kramnink not appearing for game 5

The match eventually continued with Kramnink losing game 5. The main reason for this, was that this was the only way to continue the match legally, since otherwise Topalov would win in the court. So judging from that, and assuming Kramnink (and his manager mainly) could have known this, it means that Kramnink by abstaining from game 5 decided to either stop the match or lose a game. Since he continued, the first choise is excluded. So he decided to lose one game, in order to have his toilet open. Well, this means one of the three things:
i) He misjudged
ii) He thought that this was a crucial issue for his image
iii) He was cheating

I belive i) to be true. This means that a rational person (not misjudging) would play game 5.

Now, since many people would argue that he was cheating, it does not seems very rational for him, if he wants to remove doubts from his name to refuse to play. The best way to clear his name would be to play and win with toilets closed.

I believe that the situation came as result of several persons fault (including the comitee). It was Topalov+Danailov, that filed the appeal (not illegal, but likely a bit imoral). Then appeal comitee failing to predict Kramninks (possibly irrational) behaviour. Kramnink (possibly relying on Zukhov) insisting to much by abstaining from game 5. The fact that the match was held in Russia. The fact that the appeal comittee was (possibly) Topalov friendly. The last two were accepted by both sides, butt things would be different if they hadn't.

And speaking of good intention and labour party.. Most people in the world would not even acknowledge the good intentions of your (new)labour goverments...

We are not speaking of whether Kramnik’s decision not to play was rational, justified or anything else (I think it was both of those, but of course you can disagree with that: he has called it himself an ‘emotional’ decision). But we are speaking of whether or not it was predictable. And I continue to think that if Makropoulos did not predict it then he was a fool (it goes without saying that he was wrong).

You should not believe everything Ilyumzhinov tells you about the legal advice he received. But yes, obviously what happened created a difficult situation, since either the forfeit was valid or the reason it wasn’t valid was that FIDE had failed to run the match according to its contractual obligations.

I simply cannot understand how anyone can say that the appeals committee’s decision was not outrageous. The regulations say no protest later than two hours after a game. There is no power to extend this time limit. They entertained such a protest. End of. I don’t see any scope for debate about it.

What do you say anyone could say in defence of their decision? Do you say they were somehow entitled to ignore the regulations, or what?

rdh said "I simply cannot understand how anyone can say that the appeals committee’s decision was not outrageous. "

I agree, at the time everyone thought it was outrageous too. That is why they were summarily dismissed.

At the time as I recall, the widely held view was that the appeals commitee was stacked in Topalovs favour. Amazing how these revisionists like to rewrite history isnt it?

The regs stated that Kramnik (& Topalov for that matter) had their own washroom facilities. That was contractual.

Topalovs complaint wasnt altogether unreasonable, but showing Topalovs team the video of kramnik going to the bathroom then locking it was totally unreasonable.

Given that there was a video how did any whiff of a hint of cheating come about anyway?

The answer is this shower of liars..the Topalistas just BS their arses off at every opportunity and assume people who watched (and listened) to the event live suffer amnesia.

Thanks for posting the link to the new, improved version of the signaling video, Mig. It really opened my eyes (and ears) to what was truly going on!

toppleover, you were doing quite well, until you got a remission. To help you (as well as others) cope with that ailment we have created a little aptitude test that can also serve as a cheat sheet. Keep a copy of it close by, you may need it when you start to feel confused by the information debris. Mr. rdh, a very ‘special person’ in our ranks, flunked the test several times. The next edition of the test will be in pictures, since challenged people sometimes do better with visual clues.

Elista Standardized Aptitude Test (E-SAT)

Entity A: Chess Player
Entity B: Chess Player
Entity C: Appeals Committee

Location: H: Playing Hall
Location: X: Unobserved Room. A Toilet.
Location: Y: Observed Room: A Shared Toilet.

Event A: Chess Match between Entities A & B
Event B: Entity B goes N (N=50) times to Location X. (Normal N=3/4)

Question 1: What should Entity A (Player) Do?

a) Do Nothing

b) Request Clarification. Protest Event B.

Question 2: What Should Entity C (Appeals Committee) Do?

a) Do Nothing. Event B is highly unusual but Ok (per contract). Suspicious Behavior is good for Chess.

b) Redirect Entity B to Location Y (Observed Location, A Shared Toilet). Eliminate Suspicion.

Dimi, get a grip really. What does it matter how many times he went there. Maybe he had some problems with health, maybe he was smoking or maybe just nervous. To cheat he´d just need to go once.

>[...] Meanwhile, Topailov are accusing Kramnik of cheating and saying, without any non-magical explanation of how this is possible, that common ceiling cables are in some way proof of this.

Few weeks ago a man walks into a nearby service station shop with a gun in his hand. As a consequence the clerk empties the cash register and hands him the money. And this is where the mystery part of the story begins: couple of days later somebody recognizes the man and he gets arrested. Why ? I am completely dumbfounded and fail to understand this. Due to the absence of any corpse there is no proof whatsoever that the man would actually have killed somebody ! Also the gun might have been unloaded or even been a non-functional replica !

"The threat is stronger than the execution!"
- Aaron Nimzowich

OK, Dimi, I give up. Since you simply ignore any point I make, there is no point in debate.

I will though observe that the same Appeals Committee pointed out that N=50 was simply a Danailov lie. The fact that you still repeat it tells any objective observer everything they need to know.

RDH: OK, Dimi, I give up. Since you simply ignore any point I make, there is no point in debate.

-----------------------------------------------

Dear RDH, no, I do not ignore what you say. Nor I hide from difficult questions. I do not like the ‘sh** & run’ types and I’m not one of them. As you might have noticed, I read your stuff because you’re an influential blogger. And particularly because you represent exactly what I disagree with on a subject I care about. There was just one comment that I missed responding to: Topalov’s interview in NIC. I will comment on that when I get my copy (very soon).

RDH: I will though observe that the same Appeals Committee pointed out that N=50 was simply a Danailov lie.

Ok, let’s say N=25. They said that the number was ‘unusually high’, did they not? Precisely because people debate the irrelevant and get fixated on the inessential, I created the barebones Elista Aptitude Test. Notice, no names, not even cables or other exhibits are mentioned – these complications will be added to the advanced test, but not before the majority pass Test 1.

Regards,

D.

Well, Dimi, the trouble is that your test is rubbish. It might or might not have been desirable for the AC to have the power to deal with a complaint made out of time, but the fact is that they didn't. No other matters arise. Their duty was to hand it straight back. People acting in a quasi-judicial capacity simply cannot go beyond the powers they have been given.

I can't work you out, to be honest. Sometimes you say some quite decent things, but either you can't see this elementary truth or you are disingenuously choosing to ignore it, and I can't tell which.

>>I can't work you out, to be honest. Sometimes you say some quite decent things, but either you can't see this elementary truth or you are disingenuously choosing to ignore it, and I can't tell which.>>

The latter, I think. Someone who really believes what he's saying wouldn't routinely dodge points. He'd believe in his case enough to think he could confront them. Probably he's a fairly smart guy who argues intelligently whenever he can, but knows there are weak points in his case where that approach just won't work. I'd just consider him to have conceded any point that he's ignored more than once, and keep a list.

Few weeks ago a man walks into a nearby service station shop with a gun in his hand. As a consequence the clerk empties the cash register and hands him the money. And this is where the mystery part of the story begins: couple of days later somebody recognizes the man and he gets arrested. Why ? I am completely dumbfounded and fail to understand this. Due to the absence of any corpse there is no proof whatsoever that the man would actually have killed somebody ! Also the gun might have been unloaded or even been a non-functional replica !
Posted by: poisoned pawn at February 16, 2007 15:33 >>

Your analogy makes no sense. Clearly the guy was arrested for robbery (a crime that we know was comitted), not for murder (a crime that wasn't comitted).

You're analogy is equivalent to finding a bullet in someone's pocket (and that's generous, since you've failed to establish that the cable that was in both of their toilets (they switched toilets every game you know), was hooked to anything capable of generating moves.

In any case, your analogy is not even as good as finding a bullet in someone's pocket, and concluding from it that he had others and used them to kill somebody somewhere. You can't even prove that a crime happened in that case, much less who did it.

Why is an analogy needed?

Cables in a bathroom dont prove cheating
A video clip of someone waving their arms about doesnt prove cheating either.

As for dimis apptitude test, that made me laugh.
The appeals commitee were in constant communication with both teams. The ideal solution would have been to AGREE their actions with both sides. An option you didnt include, or even likely consider.

You cannot change the terms of a contract without the agreement of all parties, capice? Not legally, not morally, not ethically.

The appeals commitee definitely overstepped their authority by locking the restrooms which were contractually guaranteed in the terms of the tournament.

Forfeiting Kramnik was entirely legal within the terms of the contract, however the reason Kramnik sat the game out was because those very terms were being breached. Once the appeals commitee broke the terms, kramnik continuing to play would have legally constituted acceptance of the terms which is possibly a reason why he refused to play.

But I suspect dimi is just a Topalov troll, uninterested in logic or reason except within the very narrow and selective areas where they are randomly consistent with Topalovs behaviour.

>Clearly the guy was arrested for robbery (a crime that we know was comitted)

Na, this was no robbery - don't you see ? I mean it's obvious - it was all the clerks fault ! He had absolutely no proof whatsoever that the guy would shoot the gun ! And to take a pile of money somebody absolutely insists on handing over to you is perfectly legit ! No crime at all ! Just between the two of us - me thinks - I mean the police report, the atrocious behaviour of the cleark in general - this is all part of a BIG CONSPIRACY against innocent people walking into shops with a gun in their hand !!!

RDH: Well, […] AC to have the power to deal with a complaint made out of time, […]

RDH, notice that now you shift away from the “merits of the decision”, on to the technicalities surrounding it. I take that as an admission that the merits are good. And history will prove me right – you are not going to see such situation again, as far as toilets are concerned. Therefore, answer (b) on Q.2 is the right one although that some people still struggle with taking the E-SAT1.

As far as the technicalities – there were so many misses in this whole affair, layered one on top of the other that the whole thing is tangled like spaghetti. As far as the 2 hour limit, indeed, this was pointed out by Kramnik. I think that I read something more on that from Danailov, but I need to check. But that does not change the spirit of the decision because that same appeal could have been filed the next day, or so. Also, did you not argue voraciously about similar technicalities related to the 2 hours of appealing the Appeals Committee decision after Game 5, or so? Anyway, we can go into that stuff anytime.

Regards,

D.

Charles: Someone who really believes what he's saying wouldn't routinely dodge points.

Talking about me? How dare you! You owe me an apology! I try to stick to the relevant parts of any conversation even at the risk of appearing doggish at times. I also apologize when I am wrong and routinely correct myself. Of course, I might miss this or that, I have another 39 things to do, but if reminded I do not duck any point. If I am wrong, I say it. The idea here is to reach to some kind of better understanding and interpretation of the facts, not just to ‘outspeak” and “outwit” each other.

D.

toppleover, you almost flunked the test, but I agree that the whole thing was handled rather clumsily. It would have been better to have a discussion prior to that. We’ll add option (c) to Q.2. This does not change one bit the idea about the undesirability of such special unobserved areas in the days of computers and cables.

I gotta run to the mountains. I might have Internet, or not. We’ll be back.

D.

Dimi, your problem is that you are arguing against people who are subject to group-mentality and media-control.
You can't win such arguments, not by being reasonable. For one reason or another, the consensus has been from the beginning, as guided by Chessbase et al., that Topalov/Dainalov/AC are no good and Kramnik is the hero. This image has been created and majority will always swallow the image fed to them.

Sorry, i won't be defending what i say because i've tried talking in this very blog before and the result was nothing short of a disaster. i will not be dragged down like that anymore.

My honest to God opinion is that this is yet another case of juice-control and manipulation.

And i merely make this small comment because i read through this whole thread and it is so obvious to a neutral observer, neutral as far as this discussion goes, that those defending Kramnik at any cost are simply unreasonable because their opinion is unsupportable yet they try to support it with objective and logical arguments. But their opinion is not founded on anything such because their opinion has been decided by someone else, so to speak.

Dimi, you're a braver man than me by tackling this mob :) As are the other few who have tried to point out Kramnik not being squeaky clean in the matter.

rdh,

just one comment. If Kramnink's decision was irrational (which is what I claim) then it would be strange for Makropoulos to predict it. People tend to assume that the chess world champions are rational people, and thus act rationally (and not emotionally..), particularly when this decision affects their chances to win the world championship !

kehaar

the usual flavour of moron who cant mention the word Topalov without referencing the word Kramnik. Go back to bed moron.

Seems the misuse of the words "group mentality" or "group think" have become the latest mantra used to justify a contrary opinion. Keep in mind that group think is not necessarily bad. After all, our societies are based on group think. Most of us as a group think murder, robbery, injustice, cheating is wrong.

If you find yourself outside of group think and/or in the minority, this does not necessarily mean you see things clearer than others, or that you're more intelligent. In 9 out of 10 cases it makes you uninformed, or just another run of the mill idiot.

Having a majority of people condemn unethical and unsportsmanlike behavior, and having them turn against a person who repeatedly and publicly slanders another person is not indicative of group think in a negative sense: It is indicative that most of us have a strong sense of fair play, and is group think in the positive sense.

And it is rather funny that some people keep bringing up the media control issue, and how they've not been brainwashed by it like the rest of the sheep. Instead their opinion is formed by Danailov press releases (some irony in there somewhere). But that's ok though. My opinion of Danailov (and later Topalov when he endorsed his manager's actions) was also formed by their own press releases.

Try this experiment. Print off Danailov's press releases. Have a person who knows nothing about Elista read them in sequential order, and just tell them these were circulated in the middle of a match. My prediction is that they'll end up thinking Danailov is a poor sport, and a nit to boot. Danailov and Topalov are condemned by their own words, no-one else's.

Ken, I don't have a good editor here, so can't address each point. Just a couple of comments.

T & D -- they are certainly not above reproach as some things could have been done better, or not done at all. Still, the information about events prior to, during, and after Elista were filtered in such a manner as to appear that these people are totally baseless in how they feel and probably the worst thing that appeared since Lucifer.

Having said that, I've always believed that they must expunge the word 'Kramnik' out of their vocabulary until such time (if ever) when they have to conduct business with that entity. Discussing the past has surpasses its usefulness at this point – there are so many other, more interesting and less aggravating things to talk about. They should put a gag order on this topic, even if journalists chase them around with pitchforks…

------

People sharing views does not define 'group think'. Shared ignorance based on 'everybody thinks so', 'most of us feel that way', and 'all commentators say so', particularly when defended militantly on those grounds is a "group think". Sometimes you feel like people have found refuge in what they were told once and are extremely unwilling to look at the facts again as more information becomes available. Even here, some guys act like a bunch of church ladies and yell 'Satan' if you suggest that they might have to reconsider this or that.

-----------------

Damn Linares Website. This is a scandal!! I'm stuck here trying to see the games and the thing craps on me. This is unacceptable.

Later,

D.

and now see what you idiots are responsible for ... those who follow this closely might recall my expressed view quite early on that all this cheating stuff, and all you people blabbing on about it, will result in disproportionate weight being attached to it ...

Now this ... the verminous but office holding Azmaiparashvilli says this of cheating: "Having touched on the main problem of chess in the 21st century, namely cheating by means of modern technology during the game"

The main problem! Man, it aint even in the top ten.

By virtue of what do you call Azmaiparashvili 'verminous'? i don't agree at all, i see no evidence whatsoever of him being 'verminous' though i've read a lot of pure slander about him and other FIDE officials.

i see, however, a lot of evidence of many people who are by reputation 'reputable' being in reality 'verminous' but this sort of evidence never holds much sway when it comes to the beast that is 'public opinion'.
Still so many people, for example, admire mr. Short and think he's just the best thing since cheeses.

Kehaar, I think you must be drunk. First of all, Short is a laughing stock virtually everywhere. Second, Azmaiparashivili verminous - try, headbutting Spanish security guards and taking moves back against Malakhov. Then we can talk about the real stuff. Or were those photos all the mags published more Chessbase propaganda?

Dimi, you astound me. There are many bad things that could be said about the AC. But the reason I have been labouring the point about time (I have not ‘shifted’ on to it at all) is twofold: first because you have been ignoring it, secondly because it is so unanswerable.

Of course a timeous protest could have been made after game five. The purpose of the regulations would then have been achieved: there would have been a reasonable overnight period for discussion following any decision, and I do not think we would have seen a forfeit, even after the absurd decision the AC reached.

It is neither here nor there whether participants in matches should have their own lavatories. It was not for the AC to decide that but to administer the regulations of this particular match.

The situation after game five was different, essentially because there was nothing to protest: if the contract entitled FIDE to start the game, then the result was obvious and there was nothing to protest; if it didn’t then equally there was nothing to protest because no game had taken place according to the contract. In any case it made no difference because the AC came out and said they would have dismissed any protest anyway.

Derida: you do not think it is predictable that people may react irrationally?? You surprise me.

But we don’t have to guess. Let’s see what people who know what they’re talking about think. By my calculations, there were eight men alive who had played world championship matches at the time Kramnik made his decision: Bronstein, Smyslov, Spassky, Fischer, Korchnoi, Kasparov, Karpov and Anand (and perhaps Leko).

Out of those:

Korchnoi and Karpov were quoted as saying they would immediately have abandoned the match.

Anand was quoted saying that Kramnik had been unfairly treated (involving himself publicly in a controversy for the first time I can ever recall).

Kasparov didn’t rush into print condemning Kramnik, and for him to miss such an opportunity speaks volumes.

Bronstein and Spassky were both quoted as expressing admiration for Kramnik’s handling of himself.

Smyslov I didn’t see quoted, but he made a point of meeting Kramnik on his return to Moscow.

Fischer and Leko I didn’t see quoted.

It would not seem that your view that Kramnik behaved irrationally is shared by any commentator in a position to know.

Spassky is a personal friend of Kramnik's and Karpov and Korchnoi are hardly known for their integrity. As for Bronstein, i don't know. But the support of these people for Kramnik doesn't exactly prove anything one way or the other.
However, i've always had the notion that Spassky is actually a decent person, unlike many of the other ex-WCs, and perhaps there is something to his support, but even then he's still also a politlcal figure which might compromise him somewhat.

In general, though, these public shows of support are dubious at best, of reality they speak very little, often they say more about politics.

But i'm glad to know mr. Short is a laughing stock, it just doesn't seem so in Chessbase.

I did not comment on whether he was treated correctly or not. What I said, is that this was irrational.

There were 2 rational reactions.

i) Complain and play (by far the best, I believe)

ii) Complain and not play, meaning that he was prepared to default the match. In that case he would still be world champion in the eyes of many people (since he was leading by 3-1)

I believe that from the people you quoted above, nobody suggested that he should default the game but then change his mind...

Karpov and Korchnoi would have defaulted the match (ofcourse if they were playing, (rather than commenting) things might have been different).

How can people say it is unacceptable to play with the toilet closed, BUT it is acceptable to play with one less point?

As for ALL the other players you mentioned, not a single of them suggested that he would have defaulted the game! It is different beliving something is unfair and different that the only solution is to default! I believe (and many others) that this is disproportional action.

And those that are that "sensitive" (Karpov, Korchnoi), I am sure they would also be sensitive in continuing with one defaulted game.

Finally about people acting irrational and predictability. Would you play poker assuming your oponents neither bluf nor have good cards, but they just failed to notice that they have bad cards? In game theory you assume the other players to be rational. And when speaking of the world chess champion (rather than a random person in the stock market), the chance of irrational reaction should decrease.

I am sure Kramnik would have quit the match if the decision had not been reversed. Once it was a new situation arises: obviously he should have been given the point back and obviously anyone but a scumbag like Topalov would have agreed to that, but when they don't, it's a new situation. He might very well have quit, I agree, but I don't see anything inconsistent about deciding not to.

As a last observation about rationality, it's extremely hard to play chess well when you are angry. (hence the timing provision in the regulations) Kramnik has said himself that he was (understandably) 'incredibly angry'. If he'd played and lost, and then said afterwards he'd been unable to play well in the circumstances, just imagine what everyone would have said. Crybaby would have been the least of it.

We are not talking about poker but (in the broad sence) politics. You may think Kramnik's reaction was irrational - and if the widespread admiration for his conduct hasn't persuaded you otherwise (put it down to the media conspiracy, why not?) then I'm not going to. But if you thought it was unpredictable then I think you have much to learn about human nature.

I admit, that the fact that he was angry and therefore could not concetrate, is a good argument for making this, otherwise stupid (for himself), move.

As for the comment about poker.. I made this because poker is a paradigme for game theory (branch of mathematics). Other applications of game theory is economics and politics. (see game theory in wikipedia for example)

While I do believe that in this particular case (Elista) there was some biased from some media, even so, I have not got "a widspread admiration" for Kramninks action. What I have seen, is some sympathy, for someone that was badly treated, and resulted to some unfair condition.

Returning to Makropoulos decision. Do you think that if the comitee dismissed completly Topalov's appeal, Topalov would have continued? Most likely, but if he had quited with making public accusations, would you call this action unpredictable? Makropoulos had to make the judgment of which action would be more likely and which action would be more harmful for FIDE and chess. I do not think that this is trivial, nor that the answer is obvious. Ofcourse, knowing what happen (Kramnink defaulting) helps us pretending that we knew what was the correct decision. But had Kramnink played under protest (not unlikely) things would be diferent.

Finally, we definetly all of us have a lot to learn about human nature :)

I’m sure Topalov would have continued, yes. Of course had the committee done its job we would never have been in this position. The tapes would have been reviewed by the committee. They would have said: we see nothing suspicious but we will instruct the arbiters to keep a particular eye out and if you like you may search the lavatory between games and before each game – in the presence of Kramnik’s team, obviously. Any protest made out of time would have been politely rejected. When these precious cables were discovered they could have been removed. No problem would ever have arisen.

Having acted in the absurd way they did, of course it’s more difficult. There is a febrile atmosphere. Agreeing to watch nine hours of tapes conspiratorially three times naturally fuels an expectation that ‘something will be done’. You can easily see how the committee lost sight of its duties about protests and timing - doesn't make it right, but it's easy to see how it happened. I am sure that Topalov would have felt harshly treated because he’d been complaining about it for days and now he was being denied because of a technicality. There might still have been trouble – to be frank you’re never going to get an accusation of cheating dropped into a high-stake heads-up match without trouble – but it wouldn’t have been so bad.

It would be one thing if the AC had EITHER handled the thing competently from a political angle, OR discharged their duties rigorously under the match rules. As it was, they did neither.

First, I agree that is different acting correctly politicaly with acting according to duties. Kirsan for example, exceeded his duties, by changing the decision of the appeal comittee, and when he said that a possible agreement in the scor would be accepted, was again, something he was not allowed to do. Neither he was allowed to be the president of the new appeal comittee, since it was explicitely mentioned that the appeal comittee cannot have any national of Russia or Bulgary. BUT those were political decisions.

Now, you easily say "the cables would be removed". Do you think Topalov that was losing would take the cables so lightly? What about the games already played?

And after all, the appeal comitte actually said explicitly that they do not believe any cheating has taken place (so they actually rejected the appeal which did NOT request one common toilet) and as Solmon solution, so things can quitely go on, they decided for one common toilet.

By the way. Where are the tapes? (only some segments were availiable. Why were the rest deleted destroyed? These are arguments Topalov could bring and create a chaos..)

I just cannot accept that the sharing of toilet is such a big ofence, particularly when it is followed by the statement that they do not believe any cheating has taken place.

I suppose that this was the appeal comittee thought as well.

Finally, till this post, I did not try to explain the decision, I only tried to prove that it was quite possible (and not that stupid) that the appeal comitte did not predict (or underestimated the probability) that Kramnink would default.

But most of your answers, evolve around the fact that the decision was outreageous in any way, so they should expect any reaction form Kramnink.

Also, I cannot understand which is the duty of the AC if not to take measures for not cheating? They estimated small chances for cheating (and very big for Topalov making an issue of this) and took some decision to guarantee the continuation.

If there was no glass between the players and audience (which was not agreed in the contract, and was just something that Topalov accepted willingly), and there was Danailov making guestures all the time, would the appeal comitte be justified to ask him to leave the audience, if Kramnink made an appeal? Would Topalov be justified to default the next game as a protest?

Also, there was nowhere in the contract mention of having toilets in each rest room. So they did not literally break the contract.

PS: And my personal view on all these:
a) no cheating took place
b) Topalov did this for psychological war and was an imoral thing to do (but not illegal)
c) The appeal comittee misjudged the situation (but did not do any "crime"), partly because they did not take into account that Kramnink would be overconfident due to support of Zukov d) Kramnink made a blunder not playing game 5, probably because he was counting on Zukov
e) Kramnink, after this, showed some class by continuing the match eventually (and winning it in style)
f) I hate Kramnink's chess (although I acknowledge that he is very-very good player) and much prefer Topalov's (and energy and promotion of chess), but I do not praise Topalov in any other respect.

I’m not sure Kirsan did exceed his duties: I haven’t revisited the regulations but they said something pretty close to ‘The President of FIDE can do whatever he likes.’ But probably you’re right.

There are precedents for seconds or hangers-on acting in a distracting way and being removed from the hall: Zoukhar in 1978 and Klein in 1935, for two. The committee would have been entirely entitled to ask Danailov or anyone else to leave.

I don’t understand your question about what is the Appeals Committee for if not to ensure there is no cheating. They are there for lots of things, but their overriding responsibility is to do justice between the players according to the regulations.

I don’t understand either your sentence that my answers ‘evolve around the fact that the decision was outrageous in any way’. Is there a ’not’ missing. And ‘evolve’ = ‘revolve’?

Anyway, I do think the decision was outrageous. Showing the tapes was perhaps the worst of all: no regulations should have been needed for anyone in a quasi-judicial position to know that this was unthinkable. Accepting a protest out of time was obviously wrong. And changing the conditions of the match unilaterally was almost certainly beyond their powers (we don’t know because the contract itself isn’t public, and there is an argument which says that anyway the committee was in some way which I do not understand entitled to overrule the provisions of the contract), and in any case was also flat wrong in my view just looking at the regulations.

I’m afraid your point about their being no provision for separate toilets (Makro’s point, of course) is just wrong. The contract provided that ‘each player should have a toilet’. To an English speaker than means one each, not shared use of a common one. As I say, Makro can only be excused for making this point on the grounds that English is not his native language.

"players would be provided with a private rest-room and toilet" I think was the statment.

Now this can be read:

a) would be provided with, a private rest room, and toilet.

or

b) would be provided with a private , rest-room and toilet.

Note where the commas are. If there was a toilet per player, why not have the world privet before toilet as well? (or having plural, i.e. toilets)

I am not naitive speaker (as you can see) and thus I am not sure...

PS1: So the incomprehensible sentence should have "revolve" instead of evolve and anyway (without the "in" before) I suppose :)

PS2: As for the AC being able to remove Danailov.. I know they could, but similarly I think that they should be elidgible to alter other things (such as toilets) if they think this is for the best. (same as with audience. hypnotize or any other voodoo Korchnoi was complaining for, were most likely unreasonable..)
Note that I personally may had different judgment, but I still believe they are elidgible to make such decision.

Derida, surely one with your name should have a more precise grammatical grasp, no?!

The wording quoted by Makro was 'each player will have a private restroom and toilet'.

'Each player' is a singular. If the word was 'toilets' it would mean that Topalov was to have two (or more) toilets available, and Kramnik another two.

'Each' is what I believe grammarians call distributive. In other words 'each player is to have a banana' means that each is to have his own banana. It doesn't mean that they should have a banana to share. If one wanted to say that one would say, for example, 'The players are to have a banana'.

In English, if one wanted to say that each player could have a private restroom and a toilet which need not be private, one would say 'a private restroom and a toilet'. If there is no 'a' before the second noun then the adjective governs both. Thus 'a red hat and a coat' means a red hat and a coat of any colour. 'A red hat and coat' means that both of them are red.

I interpret contracts in the Engish language for a living and I can assure you that no court would consider Makro's construction for a second.

However, if the contract were at all ambiguous, you can look at how the parties acted. They did in fact provide a private toilet for each player. This suggests that that was what the contract meant. Makro's construction would involve saying that the contract meant that the organisers could provide either two private toilets or a shared one at their option. This is really not likely to have been what was meant, given that all world championship matches since at least 1972 have had private toilets.

I am not sure the world "each" appears. I thought it was " the players will be provided with private rest rooms and toilet"

If "private" is distributive you are right (i.e. if private goes both to rooms and toilet(s), which I doubt). If there was "each player" in the contract, you are also right.

Also, I am not sure that since 1972 they have private toilets. I am sure they have private rest rooms since then, but maybe you are right.

Finally about my nick name.. It is derida rather than Derrida (2 r's) implying that I am not really a linguist :) (actually I am a physicist/mathematician, so I should be excused for language errors:))

Derida (I was wondering about the spelling), my apologies: you are right about the wording, at least according to this

http://www.chessbase.com/eventarticle.asp?newsid=3407

(in fact of course quite possibly the contract is not even in English: for some reason the document is not public, so we don't know).

According to that the wording was ‘shall provide both players with a restroom and a toilet’.

I still maintain that that fairly clearly means a toilet each. After all no-one is suggesting that they should share a restroom. It is a strange construction to say that they should have a private restroom each, but a shared lavatory. And of course as before one can look to what happened: the organisers did in fact provide a separate toilet; presumably they thought that was what the contract provided for.

Makro's straw man argument was that the toilet did not have to be in the restroom. This is clear, but it is not the point.

Looking again at Kramnik's open letter, what he principally says he is outraged by was the release of the tapes (and he's right too; this was an inconceivable act by the AC). I am also reminded that Makro says that the tapes were requested 'at the start of the match' rather than after the Bulgarian team had observed any allegedly unusual absences from the board. This would be a telling fact, if true.