Video Killed the Chess Star

Bareev together with Kramnik and Hensel are shame for the chess world. Why do they use such dirty tactics??

Topalov showed many times he is number one. Do you remember the game against Karpov where he mated him with two knights against a pawn in time difficulty position. Exactly Karpov was the one that publicly defended Topalov yesterday. Maybe he knows how things in Russian chess work and this is stupid disgusting awful propaganda. Ugly.

Yes, accept it, the champion is not Russian. And will not be for a while. Topalov is number one. It is a fact. Live with it communists, long live chess.

It's the suspicion of foul play, not it's reality that has the potential to ruin chess in a similar way to how drugs have ruined track and field athletics.

The suspicion of cheating has to be removed by making it pretty much impossible. If that means glass separators, delayed broadcast of games, metal detectors etc., then we have to do it.

Otherwise chess will drown in a sea of accusation and counter-accusation, with evidence so flimsy it will make this video of Danailov look convincing.

LOL:)
You want to see funny conections. We already know that Hensel and Martin Breutigam are close friends. We also know that Kramnik and Bareev are friends. But why did it get published in an Ukranian newspaper??

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3660

Misha Savinov........ One of the co-owners of Komersant. How ugly can it get? It looks like an organized mafia. No, actually it looks like Stalinism.... hm, who said that before me??

Anyhow, it is so deep and ugly, smells bad. And from that suffers the best player after Kasparov retired.

We also know that Danailov & Topalov are friends. :o

"There hasn't been this much talk about a grainy homemade video since Paris Hilton twitched and wiggled her way to stardom" ...

What a dissapointment that after that introduction and your words, watching the video was absolutely worthless. I didn't resist the temptation to watch the video by myself and of course, it proves nothing and it is just one more of the conspiracy theories (to see something and create a fantasy world when this means what the person wants to believe) ... Everyone knows that if you are going to cheat at that level, you wouldn't be that obvious.

In conclusion, for some reason, a group of people is trying to create bogus theories of cheating just because for the pleasure of doing so. Because it is much easier to destroy reputations than to create great things by yourself. It is much easier to criticize a grandmaster move using a computer as referee, than to learn to play like a grandmaster, because some people find easier to damage others than doing something with their lives.

I do believe Topalov works harder than any other grandmaster in the world in order to suceed; he can compensate in this way the limitations of talent he might have (for example, his endgame play) and I believe some people just did not like that. I am not fan or him, because he seems to be one-dimensional person, as most of top chess players today; the fact that someone as Danailov is his manager and Topalov seems to lack understanding of the real world. But putting him in the position of "evil" is absurd and is just something that apparently some GMs have interest in publicize (I wonder why). I believe that a person who really cheats at that level (if there is actually someone) should be people a lot smarter (in the human ans social side) than Topalov.

I believe this is the main reason chess (which is a magnificent activity) is not that "fashionable" or popular, or marketable today as intellectual activity, because with the players we have had in the latest years in the top have corroborated the idea that you don't even need to be emotionally intelligent to be a top chess player, you don't need to have a career and talent for other area of knowledge (I agree with Karpov in the criticism he made once about it), you don't need to learn about the outside world (look Topalov and others, for example) ... and the worst of it, you don't need to be human to play it at top level ...

"In conclusion, for some reason, a group of people is trying to create bogus theories of cheating just because for the pleasure of doing so"

@Sandrochess, many things you say are right. But the theories are not for fun or pleasure. It is all economical interests.
Who created the Grand Slam? Danailov. Who is going to take money from it? Danailov. Who's chess player is winning? Danailov's.

The Russians hate him. They cannot stand that a small funny man with strange gestures takes all away from them. Something that has been theirs for 50 years.

Russians, the despotism is over, eat your hats!!!!

"The #1 champion of taking countermeasures should be Topailov in order to remove all doubts."

Careful there. "Topailov" is a portmanteau that the more childish Topalov-haters came up with. I'd be cautious to avoid using it.

I really hate the idea of having to wall off the players. One of the aspects of great tournaments that I like is being able to walk around either as a player or a spectator, have a look at others' games, go out for a smoke, retire to a corner to stand on one's head (if you're Nimzovich.) It's part of the atmosphere of chess, or ought to be.

Topalov and Danailov have spent so much time together that they may actually communicate non-verbally.
Possibly even without being consciously aware that they do it, unconsciously, as in between married couples after many years together.
Not necessarily cheating but communicating states, attitudes, expectations.

Stop the anti-Russian racism already, geez.

Btw, apparently the worst and most immoral Russian-commie-KGB-Putinist of them all, the Brezhnev lackey, the jailer of Korchnoi's wife and son, the Prince of Darkness, the grease-haired villain, evil incarnated, yes, Anatoly Karpov himself, supports Danailov in this.

Russians are not a race, they are a nation and international politics is between state nations (mostly, it can also be between ideologies or theologies).

crying "racism!" has become the perfect word to throw in order to supress a political critique, almost the perfect thought control device.

marca wrote:
"The Russians hate him. They cannot stand that a small funny man with strange gestures takes all away from them. Something that has been theirs for 50 years."

I can't help but think you're missing something here, marca ;) I know it might have escaped your attention in the "Toiletgate" circus, but your guy lost. And the last 50 yrs include Bobby Fisher and the Baku-born Garry K. And non-Russians (myself included) hate the manipulative schemer Danailov as much as any Russian. Which is a shame, as most of us liked (or were at least indifferent) to Topalov before recent events.

Or maybe you mean Danailov's taken over the organisation of chess from the Russians? Yep, all those super tournaments in Russia over the last 20 yrs ;) but finally the hero Danailov's snatched the mantle from their grasp, with his charm and single supertournament in Bulgaria.

I'd be more worried by Danailov if his scheming wasn't so transparent and self-destructive. It'll be interesting to see how long it takes him to sufficiently alienate the sponsors and other players (despite the filthy lucre on offer). Heck, even Topalov might wake up un-brainwashed some day (or FIDE might follow their regulations and ban the pair for unethical behaviour... hounded into oblivion by a herd of flying pigs).

In general I agree with migstradamus's [ :-) ] comments : this video proves nothing but it may look suspicious.
Some people should consider taking suitable measures.
Hey, Mig, what about the first day married ? ;-)

I am shocked by some of the postings here.

I saw the video on Kommersant. It is a great video. And my opinion was that Danailov was definitely signaling Topalov especially in the last moves as he cut his finger across his neck as he turned and walked away. To me that was a definite bold signal to Topalov. To me it was definite evidence of Danailov and Topalov cheating. Leaving absolute certainty that they cheat.

How some people can brush that under the table is beyond me. I know some people are simply rabid Topalov fans who can see nothing but their hero in Topalov but I see a cheat.

The only suitable punishment is a lifetime ban from all fide chess.

I say lets get the evidence so good that all the Topalov fans will agree they are guilty. We should hire super professionals who will nail their butts to the wall. They are guilty for sure. No chess fan should rest until they are brought to justice.

I looked at the fide chart of Topalov's elo and I see direct evidence that he started a big spike up in 2004. I think that must be when this signaling started. It probably got going at the Tripoli world knockouts in 2004.

Recently Danailov said he would play a WCC match in Moscow just give him 2 days notice. Yes Danailov & Topalov can get ready in 2 days because they use a computer program to cheat. That statement alone by Danailov is pretty much an admission that they cheat.

Just my opinion. I know the Topalov fans will 100% totally disagree with me and take the exact opposite position. I say well and fine. I will respect your position. Please respect my position.

By the way, I was a Topalov fan up to game 5 of Elista. It is their behavior at that time that turned me against them. so do not blame my opinion on anyone else. My opinion begins with a direct observation of Danailov and Topalov's behavior over game 5 in Elista and climaxes with a video of Danailov's signaling.

Frank H, you're crazy if you seriously think it's 100% certain Topailov is guilty. There is more than zero evidence but still very little.

Frank H,
Are you in the dirty scheme of Hensel???
Marca said it:

"Bareev together with Kramnik and Hensel are shame for the chess world. Why do they use such dirty tactics??

Topalov showed many times he is number one. Do you remember the game against Karpov where he mated him with two knights against a pawn in time difficulty position. Exactly Karpov was the one that publicly defended Topalov yesterday. Maybe he knows how things in Russian chess work and this is stupid disgusting awful propaganda. Ugly."

Chess is going to be dead if these Breev Hensel mafia comes in. Mmmmmm, and where is Zhukov???? He will appear.

I may be zonked but I'm not blind. Why is this guy more nervous than Topalov himself? By the looks of it, you'd think it was Danailov playing the game, not Topalov.

So this guy walks in, stands there staring at Topalov as if it was his own life at stake and fidgeting, then leaving after each move mobile in hand, not looking at the monitors btw so basically having no clue about the position on the board, and this is normal?

I do not find the video as being a proof for cheating but it is enough in it to make one suspicious and begin spinning in doubts.

It may very well a new plot of Danailov to create scandal and publicity, it may be non-verbal communication (just interaction or/and cheating), it may be nothing but random behavior overinterpreted as communication.

Enough that cheating can not be ruled out for sure. It is as Kramnik's mysterious disappereancs in the bathroom, no proof but one can't be certain either of what happens.

For everyone's pace of mind glass sperators and video surveillance must be introduced in all major tournaments.

Chess starts to feel as "intercourse with condom", not as good as before but better than nothing.

Linares will be interesting. How will
Topa perform with all those video cameras watching him? :)

"Chess is going to be dead if these Breev Hensel mafia comes in. Mmmmmm, and where is Zhukov???? He will appear."

Yeah, let's have some more toilet-gate matches like in Elista, that'll put some class back into chess.

Mig: "Bareev is one of the few players to express their concerns and suspicions on the record but many of them do it in private. Even a boycott of Topalov was discussed, an idea for abandoned for many obvious practical reasons."

This is the thing I find most interesting about this situation. I knew of a few GMs that had declared suspicions (Kasim and Leko) but did not know that the level of distrust was so widely spread. Though it is hard to get a good feel for what "many of them" means in terms of numbers, the fact that there are many more than the known accusers who harbor doubts is significant to me.

I would consider these expert opinions on the matter of evaluating the probability of Topalov's sudden rise to the top without outside aid. I already had some suspicion just due to probability alone, based on my knowledge of elo and the chance of such a rise historically. I was willing to give Topalov all the benefit though because I know I do not have anything substantial other than mathematical improbability. But knowing that fellow experts who have a much deeper understanding about the game of chess and top GM play than I do are also expressing contempt for Topalov's play does make me adjust my variables a bit.

Sure, it can be sour grapes and such, but most of these players are the same ones who are willing to acknowledge a superior player openly if warranted (Kasparov). Coupled with Danilov's "protesting too much" about others' cheating and the fact that Topalov lost his match with audience blocking screens while dominating without them, and, to me, there is some suspicion that cannot be denied. Again, the sudden rise in elo after establishing his 'norm' historically is the thing that makes me wonder the most, these little other things just add to it over time.

Do I know Topalov is a cheater? Of course I don't. But, if there was some all-knowing prophet who could tell us if he did/does cheat, what odds would I need to bet, say, $1000? I say give me 2-1 odds and I'd be willing to make that bet, with a small expectation of profit (in other words, I think the chance he has cheated in the past is at least ~ 33%).

When the screens go up in future events, lets see how Topalov fairs. If he drops back to his historical elo performance PRE-San Luis, well, I do think its another piece of the puzzle revealed.

While I despise Topailov and think there is a good chance they are in fact cheating, this particular video proves absolutely nothing.

Kramnik is showing his true colors. Somehow people forgot how he outmaneuvered Shirov for WC match against Kasparov after being crushed by him in Prague. I am afraid that Kramnik will try to avoid playing in Mexico and at the same time retain chess crown. That is why he and his accomplices try to create this unhealthy atmosphere, in hope that they can undermine FIDE's new WC cycle.

As much as I loathe Danailov, there's not one bit of evidence in the video that could be used in a court of law other than circumstancial. As others have posted, I too believe we will get a better picture after the screens go up.

>
-Posted by: Ovidiu at February 10, 2007 17:07

Nicely done Ovidiu!

Chess starts to feel as "intercourse with condom", not as good as before but better than nothing.
-Posted by: Ovidiu at February 10, 2007 17:07

Nicely done Ovidiu!

Hi Mig,

I was told that you have very interesting material from Elista: pictures of computer cables from the cieling,the resignation of the second Appeal's Committee and other stuff.For some reason you are not able to publish them,but on the other hand you publish everything againts Topalov and Danailov immediately.Do you have something personal againts them,or this is only my feeling?

It would be interesting to see a ratings graph (Jeff Sonas?) with a line for "The Computer" or perhaps individual brands "Fritz" etc, and we could see exactly when computers caught up with and surpassed Topalov.

If the GMs-are-cheating theories are right, then each great player of our day has had to face a moment of truth, when he (or she) felt compelled to admit that the computer played better chess. Given most of their egos, the moment was probably delayed, and it was not until the computer was far better, that the player admitted to himself the truth.

It would only be sometime after the player had that moment of truth, that the cheating would begin.

Perhaps some players even earlier had to admit the computer played tactics better, and might at that moment see the advantage of computer consultation (cheating), for tactical advantage.

Or perhaps the trigger could come earlier if a player became lazy, and reliant on the computer for "the answer."

Younger players today have to face the fact that they will never be better than the computer. (?)

We have just been through a unique period where the computer surpassed the human in chess, and the players have had to face that fact. My basic point is that it is only after a particular GM has had to admit that the computer is better, a kind of psychological break occurs, a trigger, that the cheating could then begin. Maybe a ratings graph would help us pinpoint those moments for any particular GM.

tjallen

Chess starts to feel as "intercourse with condom", not as good as before but better than nothing.
-Posted by: Ovidiu at February 10, 2007 17:07

Well, if one of the players carries herpes I prefer safe chess.

Somehow I feel that Kasparov retired at the right moment.

I am indeed cautious to avoid using the name "Topailov". At the moment I won't endanger myself and continue to use it.

Of course, Mig is right : this video proves absolutely nothing and it's now too late to "prove" any cheating occured (i.e. in the past). So we are left with preventive measures (i.e. for the future).

However, to me, the most suspicious behaviour in this video and in what Breutigam described in his article is that Danailov goes out and uses his cellular after every Topa move. In fact, he doesn't even wait to be out of the hall to seize his phone in his pocket. Of course, he will always be able - in court or elsewhere - to find an excuse. Maybe a fan without internet connexion?? We'll have to wait how - and if - he explains this, but the doubt will remain.

GM Alex Finkel wrote Linares/Morelia preview for WCN

"Time for New Heroes?"

http://wcn.tentonhammer.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1145

Marca's comments of course are not worth responding to...

Danailov might want to go out of the playing hall and get a strong player or engine's analysis to find out how his man is doing. It's really not that remarkable: we all use Shipov, Mig, Seirawan, Polgar, etc., to get evaluations of positions and I would expect an equally low-rated player (Danailov probably even worse than most of the posters on here) to want to get a high-rated player's perspective on what is going on. His "gestures" strike me as normal behavior for a slightly hyper restless man to experience while watching the game...there is really no gesture he makes that one of us doesn't make on a regular basis. But maybe I missed something in the video?

>Linares will be interesting. How will Topa perform with all those video cameras watching him? :)

In the Corus rounds where it was acknowledged even by the Chessbase guards that Danailov "played no role", Topalov was blazing away, playing his best chess. Behind the screens in the Elista bunker, Topalov was the only human to beat Kramnik in 2006 and it can be argued that the final outcome was merely a blunder on his end to finish the job. I think that Topalov gets injected by extra motivation in light of all this "annoyance". It may work in his favor in Linares.

D.

Hi Yuriy,

Danailov is by no means a weak player. He is an IM and had an ELO rating of 2466 when he stopped playing tournament chess in 2001. So he will have no trouble understanding what is going on at the board.

"Why is this guy more nervous than Topalov himself?"

This I don't find surprising at all. He has a stake in how Topalov does, and he has no control over the situation.

Anyway, I found the video pretty disappointing. I didn't see anything that would indicate Danailov is anything but twitchy.

I found highly curious to see who are the ones making and publicizing those especulations on Topalov. Whether he has cheated in the past or not, is something that nobody of us really knows; but three things are clear:

(a) Nobody works in chess nowadays as hard as Topalov and his team (in opening preparation he is ahead of every other top player, for example) -this does not mean he is the best or most talented player, of course-

(b) Some people wouldn't like to see Topalov performing well, and some people wouldn't like to play some matches and they know that if more people suspects of Topalov, he would have a lot more pressure that could affect him.

(c) Experience in a lot of activities has shown that cheaters or conspirators in top hierachies are incredibly smart and have the ability to manipulate people's opinion. Danailov is too obvious in his intentions to be that kind of person and Topalov does not look not smart enough (in things different than chess)

My conclusion is that if Topalov is cheating, then someone else is doing it and that this paranoia is a way to distract people's attention -to something we don;t really know-

Re: Claim filed by Danailov against Breutigam (on Susan Polgar's blog). I'm lazy to produce the direct link...

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

If Danailov can produce the Corus tapes in Court and display convincingly that Breutigam is making up things passed as facts then he has a bona-fide case. Obviously, you cannot fight this without some factual evidence coming forth. I somehow cannot imagine that Danailov is so stupid as to be popping in and out of the playing area, while making phone calls in between. Let's see what happens this time. This is exactly what has been called for him to do – come forth with the evidence. I think that a Courtroom is a better venue than ACP, or even FIDE.

D.

I'm afraid I don't understand this.

This video purports to show Danailov signalling in round 11, 2006. Result for that round - Ivanchuk Topalov 1/2 - 1/2?

All that risk for a draw? I don't buy it.

Finally, I don't find anything untoward or even unnatural in the video.

One man's "finger across the neck" is another's adjusting a tie.

Very pertinent information, Sebastian, a 2466 would definitely have a better idea of when his player would want help and when an easy indication would make a difference. I just never heard of high level chess players being business managers for others, and Danailov behaves like a second-rate street swindler/hustler, so I assumed that's what his background was.

Nonetheless, even a 2466 would probably be interested in a stronger player or an engine's analysis of his man's position--even the GMs benefit from such input.

I pretty much agree with Mig. Hating Kramnik or Topalov is pointless by now. The spectre of cheating is what's causing the problems and since one can never prove Kramnik or Topalov has cheated, it's best to move on and quell future doubts.

Susan again copied news without the link

http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?id=h1326

Also: "I don't remember making any signs," Danailov commented. "People just can't bear the fact that Vesko is number 1."

http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=76488

Mig,
perhaps, you should not have made any comments regarding the content of the video. difficult to do of course, when you're the blogmaster, but it would have been more impartial.
now you seem to be suggesting things, or better yet, waking dragons. bad idea. the topic has ben debated to death, and yes, measures must be taken.
and duh ! they will be taken. how obvious is that ? which supertourney wants to be the one without "anti-cheating" measures ? but why should they be taken by the Topalov team ? ridiculous.

anyway ...

"Careful there. "Topailov" is a portmanteau that the more childish Topalov-haters came up with."

I hadn't seen it at all before Mig started using it. And what is childish about it? I found it funny and fitting.

Come on, guys! This video obviously shows cheating! And it is not only Danailov who is ’’in the team’’. If you stop it at 00:53 you will see an old lady receiving advice in her left ear. Then she whisper it to the man with the red shawl who’s (innocent) correcting his socks. He’s job is, while everyone watch on Danailov, to forward the advice to Topalov. Now, you can see how Topalov, when he saw all that, take his ’’thinking pose’’ waiting for the signal from the man with the red shawl.
The old lady is Danailov’s nephew disguised as an old woman and the man with the red shawl is his (boy’s) stepfather.
Sorry for bad english…

I found the name "Magician from the Toilet" name fitting for Kramnik.

Come on guys,it's completely clear that for some reason Mig and Chessbase hate Topalov and Danailov.This is obviously big and well organized campaign againts them.The only question is WHY Mig and Chessbase hate Topalov and Danailov so much? What terrible thing they did to Mig?

One more question Mig:Do you know personally Topalov and Danailov?

loopus is not able to give at least only one! concrete fact from what it can be derived Mig hates Topailov.

like loopus talk dumb fellows

You are all barking up the wrong tree(s)! I know for a fact that both Kramnik and Topalov are receiving help from aliens in parallel universes who are fighting for total hypercosmic domination! It's tachyons, people, tachyons!

>loopus :"WHY Mig and Chessbase hate Topalov.."

I do not believe that Mig hates Topalov. If you look back long enough to his postings he was, vaguely (i.e., politely) rather pro-Topalov and anti-Kramnik.

And so was the world chess "community" in general simply because Topalov's chess was (is) more spectacular and richer in fresh ideas, more incisive and courageous than that the dry, sterile ( and often only short, premature ejaculations) of Kramnik.

But all these changed 180 degrees during the Elista events and, yes, here the hugely popular Chessbase.com website was pivotal in shaping the new attitude. The campaign to demonize Topalov, to portray him as a dirty tricker, was very successful.

To avoid this it would been enough to point out that Topalov was understandably greatly disturbed by Kramnik's frequent disappearances out of the video surveillance cameras (what else they were present for then ?), and in fact right on his demands to have that stopped , since everybody who had played on ICC knew how unnerving was to suspect cheating but to not be able to resolve your doubts.

However they kept on pedalling on the lack of proof for the cheating accusation when the issue was exactly the uncertainty, and this in turn made Topalov appear as being someone who was just very bad guy bent on bullying.

But Chessbase didn't and doesn't hate Topalov either.

All their "work" was calculated self interest since Kramnik was their guy for the $1 mil "WCC" match to promote Fritz, and he is in general their poster, falg ship, boy for marketing.

It was not about "ethics" but about calculated gain. As far as ethics goes they love as if they will have to hate later and hate as if they will have love again one day, i.e., nothing personal, nothing right or wrong, it is about money (just read the passionless article of F.F. about his recent exchanges with Topalov.. as if *nothing*, nothing at all my friend, has happened)

In other words Chessbase follows its interests and Mig just follows what is the fashion, what are the prevalent attitude of the chess community.
That is the safe way to be in general, whatever the kind of "community, if you want to accepted, rewarded, and avoid being "excommunicated".

He safely follows the fashion but I do not believe that he indeed hates Toplaov for all his negative statements he began to pour out after "the change".

What is necessary to realize that has become as a real problem and change in chess after the Elista in not only comp-cheating, installing cheating buffers and do whatever it takes to keep it credible, but that we need few news-gates-websites.

Just as in poltics we need more than one state or political party controlled TV channel if we want to keep it fair and truthful. Chessbase has been the first very succesful one and thus it has played up to now alone the game of shaping the mood and beliefs of the "public".

While the video doesn't prove a thing, I'm not sure how some people can just dismiss it as nothing.

How appararent does it have to be? *If* Danailov wanted to signal, wouldn't he behave pretty much like he does in the tape? Or would he tug his left earlobe x number of times indicating the rank, and then the right earlobe y number of times indicating the file? Followed by cupping his chest to indicate that, yes, it's the queen that's supposed to move there?

The footage is something. It doesn't prove or disprove anything. But it's not nothing. It's something.

Ovidiu, sweetie, can we please stop this nonsense about how Topalov was disturbed by Kramnik's trips outside video surveillance?

For the millionth time, Topalov would never have known about these trips had his team not requested the tapes of what should have been Kramnik's private room. All Topalov could see was Kramnik going offstage. He couldn't know, and would never have known had his team not gone looking for it (nor if the officials had done their job, of course) how many times Kramnik went out of reach of video survellance. So if he was disturbed by the fact once he knew it, he only had himself to blame, and by the time he knew it, he was already 2-0 down.

If there has been one thing illuminating about this scandal, it is how conclusively it has proved the old adage that a lie is halfway round the world before the truth has got its boots on.

"Ovidiu, sweetie, can we please stop this nonsense about how Topalov was disturbed by Kramnik's trips outside video surveillance?"

1) Yes, his team requested the tapes. Why did they request them? Was because of the frustration due to the result? Probably, yes. Did the fact that Kramnik left the board at every opportunity serve as a hint for them as to what to request? Probably, yes.

2) Once they knew that Kramnik spent so much of his time in the toilet, it is normal that they were disturbed by that fact.

Well, to change the continuing cheating focus a little, we now have the results of the Parsvnath International Open, in which IM D P Singh played.

Singh is currently rated 2523. He scored 5/10, achieving 96th place in the field.

Performance rating calculation is made difficult for two reasons: first, the tournament website lacks first round results; second, in round 7 IM Singh drew with an unrated Pakistani player. Imputing a 2000 rating to these two opponents gives a performance rating for Singh of 2096, a really astonishing 427 points below his “rating”.

Remarkably, as the chessbase photos make clear, they are still letting him wear a hat!

Hang on I'm wrong. Singh mauled FM Ashwani in the last round, giving him 6/10 and a PR of 2166, which is only 357 points below his rating.

or to put it another way, his rating will drop to around 2470, so no GM title for him then.

I thought Mig, that you was a trustful person, but your words are clearly chessbase´s words. I don´t understand what do you want, but I´m sure that it is for your own benefit. I´m a chessplayer, I has participate in a national final at my country, and I know of what I´m talking about. Mig and chessbase, please stop this.

>Topalov would never have known about these trips had his team not requested the tapes of what should have been Kramnik's private room.>

and this proves what ? that the trips didn't happen ? or that they wouldn't have "really" happened had Topalov, and then us, never known what was going on ? Tortured logic.

Kramnik was missing most of the time from the table, anyone would have started asking himself what his opponent was doing all that time.

But, possibly, Kramnik thought that he would get away with it exactly because he knew that Topalov was not allowed to see the tapes.

>Topalov would never have known about these trips had his team not requested the tapes of what should have been Kramnik's private room.>

and this proves what ? that the trips didn't happen ? or that they wouldn't have "really" happened had Topalov, and then us, never known what was going on ? Tortured logic.

Kramnik was missing most of the time from the table, anyone would have started asking himself what his opponent was doing all that time.

But, possibly, Kramnik thought that he would get away with it exactly because he knew that Topalov was not allowed to see the tapes.

Ovidiu, good thoughts. Just one more thing -- at some point these things do become 'personal'.

I thought that Chessbase might wisely steer clear of this latest outburst because the evidence presented amounts to nothing. In fact, it's a joke. So I thought, but we see that F.F. concocted another very "selective" poison extract and omitted the parts that don't suit his indictment.

Good. All 'pretense for objectivity' has been dropped now. It's a mud fight all around. I think Chessbase lost their "virginity" claim of a reasonably trustworthy source. No, people are not that stupid (all the time).

D.

---bareev---
"But in 2005, a simply unbelievable jump took place. At some point, it became obvious that there was help from the side. What is most annoying is the primitive method. We assumed that he was more accomplished – with a chip implanted in his ear, for example…”

Bareev joked that “insisting on a partition between the stage and the auditorium was Vladimir Kramnik’s best move”
---/bareev---

Does anyone know whether Bareev's quotes should be taken literally? I've heard he has a sarchastic sense of humor.

"Does anyone know whether Bareev's quotes should be taken literally?"

I doubt it.

Of course the interesting question about this video is whether the same sort of behaviour on Danailov's part could have been observed before 2005.

Well? Anyone?

Some people here need to work on their reading comprehension skills.

Posted by: Ovidiu at February 11, 2007 10:55:
">Topalov would never have known about these trips had his team not requested the tapes of what should have been Kramnik's private room.>

and this proves what ? that the trips didn't happen ? or that they wouldn't have "really" happened had Topalov, and then us, never known what was going on ? Tortured logic. "

Ovidiu, that logic is fine. If Topalov is so sensitive about what he might see on a tape he shouldn't have access to in the first place, then it is best not to watch the tape. If a Peeping Tom gets a heart attack or goes crazy while he is watching a woman, whose fault is it - his own or the woman that is not even aware she is being watched? Besides, Topalov played BETTER after he received access to the tapes than before, so this "he was disturbed" argument doesn't work anyway.

Topailov is getting what he deserves now. Karma is not a tricky concept. Chessbase and Mig published all accusations made by Topalov, so it is only fair they publish accusations against him. There is no anti-Topalov conspiracy. The only anti-Topalov campaign that did take place was undertaken by Topalov and Danailov themselves with all their ridiculous claims and allegations. And these little things that come up now about Topalov cheating - they only serve to generate pro-Topalov sentiment anyway. And in case you haven't noticed Mig made it clear that the video doesn't prove anything.

Ovidiu, leaving the board when it's not your move is perfectly normal. Many players do it practically every move. It's rubbish to say 'anyone would be suspicious' of frequent trips to the private rest area: it's simply not true.

What it 'proves' is exactly what I said: if Topalov was distracted at all it was because of his team's improper behaviour and because they didn't focus on trying to win the match by playing better.

Of course Topalov's gang probably knew that Kasparov had made a similar complaint in 2000, long before computers were much use. I dare say they had their gambit planned before the match.

As to Kramnik 'expecting to get away with it' (you don't think this begs a bit of a question at all?!) because only the arbiters could see the tapes, I find this a curious notion.

The orchestra of FF, CH and VK are trying to continue the mud story although their former allies are abandoning them one by one.

I am positively surprised by the clear stand of Susan Polgar and Anatoly Karpov against all this fiasco of Chessbase and their cronies.

Susan Polgar proved herself courageous enough to go against any temporary wave of insanity. Others preferred to follow the wave and discredited themselves even further...

(you don't think this begs a bit of a question at all?!)

Thinking and Ovidiu? Get serious. :)

Ovidu,

That is exactly the point. There was *nothing* (!) in the contract or regulations that could have prevented Kramnik from being on stage only long enough to make his move and then retire back to his private room. So long as it was Topalov's turn, Kramnik was free to be on or off the stage, at the playing table or away from it. This has been a standard practice of WC matches. I was present during Kasparov-Anand match in NY and sometimes players would resurface at the board, make a move and immediately disappear from the stage again. And nobody was disquieted by that! It was well known that Kramnik's illness made it difficult for him to remain in the same position for any considerable length of time, so his desire to be off the stage, in his room where he can pace or rest on the couch makes perfect sense. If Topalov was so disturbed by this absence, he *should* have asked the *arbiter(s)* to check the video from Kramnik's room and if the *arbiters* were satisfied that nothing was amiss that was supposed to be the end of it! And it would have been, had the said arbiters and the Appeals Committee did their job!

Posted by: Giannis at February 11, 2007 11:40
"The orchestra of FF, CH and VK are trying to continue the mud story although their former allies are abandoning them one by one."

I'll put it this way Giannis: Kramnik connection to the Kommersant story is not proven any better than Topalov's cheating.

And exactly how is VK "continuing the mud story"? Did he accuse Topalov of cheating? Or maybe his manager issued a press releas documenting the % of Fritz'-like moves of Topalov? Or maybe he has claimed in his interviews that Topalov cheated? Or maybe he promoted a book called "Toilet war" written by one of his buddies? NO, THAT WAS ALL DONE BY TOPALOV. Had Kramnik done 1/10th of what was done by Topalov regarding the cheating accusation, we would never hear the end of it from Topalov fans. The hypocrisy of certain Topalov fans is amazing, though I guess it shouldn't be surprising.

Heheh, I follow fashion? As set by ChessBase?!? Hilarious. My items nearly always precede ChessBase by at least a day on any topic and Elista was no exception. (And note the Kommersant item appeared here well in advance as well.) I have very clear opinions on what went on there and made them quite clear here, as well as my rationales. Those who want to invent conspiracies post-facto are welcome to do so, of course, but they have yet to say anything intelligent about how ChessBase should have acted. Reporting on reprehensible actions is not taking responsibility for those actions or an act of aggression against the person who committed them.

Of course the "ChessBase is biased" crowd is requesting bias by ChessBase by insisting they not report anything that might reflect badly on Topalov. Major mainstream news outlets talking about this stuff IS NEWS. It is the responsibility of ChessBase to mention these things. Why on earth should they, and only they, be forced to wait until there is conclusive proof of something before mentioning that everyone is talking about it. They are a CHESS WEBSITE, not a court of law. What possible justification can the conspiracy theorists give for demanding a news blackout of that sort? Why the demands for censorship? Write to Kommersant if you like. But all this shooting the messenger and demanding censorship is embarrassing.

"Bad/controversial news is icky, let's put our heads in the sand" is not a worthy reaction and it won't lead to solutions. Pretending these concerns aren't valid is foolish. It's too late. The players are alarmed and action must be taken to eliminate this stuff. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away any more than you can stop a war by kicking out all the journalists from the war zone.

It is ridiculous to say that until there is conclusive proof of cheating nobody (meaning only ChessBase and me, apparently) should mention the possibility of cheating, the accusations about Topalov, or anything else. If Anand or Svidler came out with comments about it, should we black them out, too? After all, there's no proof of anything. No, that's not how it works. Top players talking about very important topics in the chess world is news. Mainstream newspapers talking about investigating it is news. Nobody is saying it's proof or anything of the sort. But it's most definitely news.

ChessBase doesn't have an anti-Topalov bias. Reality has an anti-Topalov bias. He who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw toilets.

Russians really really hate that a Bulgarian is better than them. And now Bulgaria is in EU too, hah hah.

Kramnik's toilet breaks (perhaps with a pocket chess set) give far more scope for cheating. After all, he won didn't he?

Danailov looks like a frantic mother hen, sure, but nervous tics (ignored by Topalov) do not transfer information.

After reading the article, I thought I
was going to see some _quality_ cheating
footage, but instead got nothing. That
makes me seriously disbelieve the support of
the cheating accusations.

Does anyone have footage of Danailov's behavior when he's _not_ in the view of Topalov -- in order
to establish a baseline?

Russianbear, I believe in karma too. These things started way before Elista. I was in Europe last Summer when I got the glimpse of the 'chip in the brain' theory. I remember my first thought back then: "I hope it doesn't get ugly..." Back then, before Elista, before the toilet, Game 5, whatever, it already smelled like something's up... ..like a psychological campaign of the kind we've seen before.

Hey, just to be clear – I am not blaming the Russian people. The average tyotka from Svredlovsk couldn't care less and probably has more pressing daily issues than the finer points of chess. I strongly urge all to refrain from nationalistic and bigoted remarks!!

What I do believe is that Russian "interests" play a role. The signature is unmistakable.

And I'm not exonerating Danailov and Topalov either.

So, where are we now? In the mud… A typical political war by negative means -- compromising materials being floated around and indiscriminately editorialized to fit the slant. Unfortunately, I lost hope that the mudslinging will fizzle away… At Corus and the joy around it I thought that we have a good chance to forget about the non-chess issues. We even started talking like friends for a bit…

D.

Mig: ChessBase doesn't have an anti-Topalov bias. Reality has an anti-Topalov bias. He who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw toilets.

Mig, there was a lot more than just reporting the news. They are craftily editorialized. Political proclamations don't alter reality and people see that eventually. The glass house was erected around Topalov in order to suffocate him. I think it should be shattered, even at the price of wasting a toilet seat or two…

D.

on Judits Site the usual bias goes on. She appeals at Kramnik and Topalov to make announcents each, that he thinks the other does not cheat. Thereby she ignores the fact that Topalov himself is the only one who accused the other of cheating so far.

Now that is bias!

It often follows the following pattern. Topailov makes unworthy agression to Kramnik, Kramnik may defend or not, doesnt matter. Then she says:

"Both shall return to chess".

Simple, isnt it?

Judits Site is the only one here which has bias, it has been proved with many facts.

In Bridge scandals, crude signals were often used such as number of fingers and position of fingers and angle of fingers to indicate, e.g., the number of diamonds in the hand. They were detected since the organizers kept comprehensive video records. If the Corus organizers had attached a spy secretly to Danailov (instead of relying on the Dutch amateur) we could have time-indexed video to compare his number-of-, position-of, and angle-of finger signs (viewable in the amateur's video) more formally to the games.

Also, of course, having a manager take up station close to his player in line of sight should have banned by Corus TDs from the very start.

Ellrond - You mean Susan's site.

Seems that the pro-Kramnik crowd is resorting to ad-hominem attacks as they run out of arguments since this ridiculous video has established that an estimated 10% of the Corus-06 spectators has been signalling poor Topalov who had to sort out this mess instead of thinking about the position on the board...

About the babble:

"Peeping Tom"

Are you serious ?? Now it's Topa's fault that he knew that Kramnik purposefully avoided anti-cheating measures by spending most of his time in a room w/o video surveillance but with internet access ? Of course if the guy spends most of his time away from the board (an insult in his own right) only to come back with good moves whereas at the board he plays relatively weaker, you start wondering.

"The only anti-Topalov campaign that did take place was undertaken by Topalov and Danailov themselves with all their ridiculous claims and allegations."

Not true. After San Luis (when it was clear who Kramnik's opponent would be) a character assassination attempt against world #1 Topalov was started and it's only natural that team Topalov took defensive action.

As for ChessBase:

Have they ever distanced themselves from the drivel of their man Breutigam in "Sueddeutsche" ? No. The difference between your blog Mig, and their news site is that you comment on it ("Looks like a whole lot of nothing to me." for example) whereas they just cite articles/"news" (if they suit them of course) regardless of how ridicilous the "news" is. The net-effect is that this crap from this "Dutch fan" gets amplified as the average reader takes it for granted since ultimately it has been featured by a prominent chess news site.

On another note: seems to me public benchmarks of Fritz against other engines have disappeared from the net - has ChessBase lawyered up ?

I find Danailov's behavior in the video a bit odd, but not suspicious. Take a look at others in the video and you will see a lot interesting manerisms. Only by comparing his behavior during the games to his behavior at press conferences, opening ceremonies etc. could one form any real suspicions.
Nor do I find it unusual that Danailov appears more nervous than Topalov. Look at the coaches, agents, fans, parents, etc. at any sporting or theatrical event and you will see many similar cases.
Other "evidence" of Topalov's cheating involves his rapid progress in recent years, which is a bit unusual for his age. However, it appears that most of this improvement is due to his strong work ethic, especially in opening preparation. This is an area where access to a computer during a game is not much help. Perhaps Ivan Cheparinov deserves much of the credit. Topalov is simply talented enough to make the most out of the novelties. The sacrifices and openings he has played are not favored by computers, but he has missed moves (for himself and his opponents) that the computers never miss. If he was using a computer, it is hard to believe that he wouldn't use them when most advantageous.
There is ample evidence that cheating occurs in chess (making it newsworthy), but I do not believe that any of the top players are involved. These allegations are just part of the game beyond the game that has been with us for some time.

poisoned pawn at February 11, 2007 13:45
"Are you serious ?? Now it's Topa's fault that he knew that Kramnik purposefully avoided anti-cheating measures by spending most of his time in a room w/o video surveillance but with internet access ? Of course if the guy spends most of his time away from the board (an insult in his own right) only to come back with good moves whereas at the board he plays relatively weaker, you start wondering."

A bit too much bias there, poisoned pawn.

1)Kramnik did not "purposefully avoided anti-cheating measures". Spending time in a bathroom is not violation of any rules. Kramnik was as much a subject to anti-cheating measures as Topalov was.

2)Internet access in a bathroom: there is no evidence it was there. There may have been some cables but it is not clear whether they really did provide access and were not just random cables one would see in a ceiling of any other office building. Also, once the players were searched, there was no way for either player to use any device to cheat OR to connect to internet, so the whole internet access is irrelevant because of this. Or are you going to claim that, like I mentioned in another thread, Kramnik was able to connect to internet like Neo connects to the Matrix in the matrix movies - by plugging the cable into his own head?

So spending time in a bathroom was not the issue. Besides, later Topailov claimed that Kramnik even cheated during the tie-break, when he was sitting at the board, so the whole toilet discussion shouldn't matter because according to Topailov one can cheat just as well without going anywhere (and if these recent claims about Topalov are correct, Topailov sure are right about that).

3) going away after your move is not an insult, but a very common practice on that level. Kramnik didn't play weaker when he was at the board - in fact he won tie-break with the same +1 score as the classical part of the match.

4)and yes, it IS Topalov's own fault. If he wanted to spy on Kramnik and get some useful information like seeing Kramnik react to certain moves in what was supposed to be a private room - and if Topalov is psyched out by something Kramnik does (which I strongly doubt because like I said, Topalov played BETTER after he got access to the tapes) - it is his problem. It is definitely not calculated attempt by Kramnik to psych Topalov out, like someone claimed, simply because Kramnik would never think Topalov could get access to that video footage.

"Not true. After San Luis (when it was clear who Kramnik's opponent would be) a character assassination attempt against world #1 Topalov was started and it's only natural that team Topalov took defensive action."

Not true. team Topalov took defensive action when Danailov responded to the rumors in chesspro.ru article (and by the way he managed to be more offensive to Kasimdzhanov and Morozevich than I ever seen them be to him). In Elista Topailov started an offensive of his own.

Dimi said he believed in karma, but Topailov accusing Kramnik in response to accusations by Barsky is not exactly the same as Topailov being accused after he was accusing others. Kramnik didn't accuse Topalov of cheating, but Topalov did accuse Kramnik. There is a major difference there. I don't see why Kramnik should himself be the target and be responsible for Barsky's article, but there is definitely karma at work when Topalov gets a taste of his own medicine.

Has Morelia/Linares (and other supertournaments) tightened up on their anti-cheating measures? If so, in what ways? I don't expect full disclosure which would perhaps be counterproductive, but I don't see any indications that anti-cheating measures are being tightened up!

one thing I haven't heard mentioned re Topalov/Danailov is that they apparently felt strongly that a player should stay at the board long before the match in Elista. I read the interview in New In Chess (May 2005), and Danailov is talking about imitating Fischer (a 'double edged move' no doubt) and he says, 'Stay at the board all the time like Fischer. Don't walk like the Russians.'
Whatever else they may have done wrong, I can at least respect their opinion of what is the most classy and the best way to play a chess game.

Seriously,

anyone who sees Danailovs behaviour here to be "suspicious" must have a very dire problem. This is exactly my pose I take when I contemplate a problem, look at a piece of art in a gallery etc. The only thing that might be at least remotely unusual is his fast paced exit after (supposedly - we don't even see that) Topalov makes his move.

I despise Topalov/Danailov just as much as anyone, but this is a serious piece of witchhunt.

poisoned pawn at February 11, 2007 13:45 wrote:
"Of course if the guy spends most of his time away from the board (an insult in his own right) only to come back with good moves whereas at the board he plays relatively weaker, you start wondering."

1) To spend most of the time away from the board is NOT an insult, it's a matter of convenience. poisoned pawn, when was the last time you played in a tournament?!

2) As to the second part of your statement, we only have your speculations and that is not good enough. Give the facts, if you can! Kramnik's best games of that match (standard # 10 and rapids ## 2 and 4) were played almost entirely at the board!

ross,

Danailov's opinion is nothing more than Danailov's opinion. Fischer liked to sit at the board. Other supergreats like Alekhin and Kasparov did not. So what?

How depressing is this thread? It reads a bit like this:

Topalov cheated.
No he didn't, it's a Russian smear campaign.
No it isn't, look at the gestures Danailov makes on the video.
They aren't signals, they're nervous fidgeting. Kramnik is the real cheat - in Elista.
Kramnik didn't cheat - he has an illness and how was he supposed to get messages from cables in the ceiling anyway? Na na, na na na.
And so on, and on, and on...

Can we have stricter controls at chess events asap please? I'm not sure the shaky edifice of chess as a professional sport can sustain these sort of lurid allegations for long without collapsing entirely under a pile of mobile phones, cables and chess software.

Hi Mig,

Why you did not answer to my question?

You show this funny video of Danailov-Topalov,great job,fantastic evidence.But why you never show the pictures of the computer cable and the other real documents from Elista?What is your problem,man?

>Ovidu,This has been a standard practice of WC matches. I was present during Kasparov-Anand match in NY and sometimes players would resurface at the board, make a move and immediately disappear from the stage again. And nobody was disquieted by that!>

Andrei,

Back then when Kasparov-Anand was held computer cheating was not an issue, or at least not at top level and not on usual hardware.

But things have changed lot since and computer cheating has has become a bubble waiting to burst in the last years. It did so at Elista helped by Kramnik's odd, inviting speculations, behavior.

We will see this year what can be done.

It may bring all the professional chess down or it may make it become something of a spy house with video and electronic surveillance of every single moment, move, and gesture.

Chess arena is not a court of law to dismiss a charge because it can not be proved, it is enough that it can not be dispproved to paralyze everything. The old "beyond a resonable doubt"
is of no much hope here since we know well how reasonable is the chessplayer.

Silvio, I presume? This video is not evidence of anything in my opinion. I said this in my article. Reading is fundamental.

There is no evidence that Topalov cheated. There was the possibility. My concern is eliminating that possibility in the future.

If you can explain how a cable inside a bathroom ceiling means anything at all to anyone I'll be happy to run all sort of pictures of them. There is similar wiring in every bathroom in every modern building in the world. There is such wiring inside my bathroom ceiling (oops, caught!). It goes from place to place from room to room. I used to do network installations for a living and have pushed and pulled every sort of cable through every sort of space between every sort of room in a building. It doesn't mean you can access it or that you would be able to do anything with it even if you could break open the ceiling and get to it.

Again, and slowly this time: How. Can. You. Cheat. With. A. Cable. Inside. The. Ceiling?

Keep repeating it. Until you answer that, nothing more is necessary. Here's the math: Kramnik + frequent bathroom visits + wiring inside the bathroom ceiling = no possibility of cheating. Danailov + cell phone + going in and out + direct line of sight with Topalov + fidgeting = possibility of cheating. Possibility.

But if you want more we have the additional info that the pictures you refer to were 1) composed by monkeys (one shows a wire from the ceiling going into someone's hand and a totally different network cable coming out. Magic!) and 2) sent out with slanderous intent by one of the participants in the match. But wait, don't get distracted! How. Can. You. Cheat. With. A. Cable. Inside. The. Ceiling?

Documents? Kutin resigning because he doesn't understand you can't cheat with wires inside the ceiling? Just because other people are gullible idiots doesn't mean I have to be one. How. Can. You. Cheat. With. A. Cable. Inside. The. Ceiling?

Dimi, okay, YOU write the articles for ChessBase. Let's see how you would cut and paste articles and links in a fair and balanced way. They barely editorialize at all, if at all. Time to put up or shut up about all this bias crap. Tell us what they should do differently.

Mig,
You are a strange guy. You claim to know something about technology, still you do not take in consideration the UTP on the cable. Please correct your upper post it is funny.
And Dimi is right, chessbase are not right to republish and not comment.

Elista, what is 'the UTP on the cable', and how one would use it before the ceiling was opened up? Can you be more specific?

How. Can. You. Cheat. With. A. Cable. Inside. The. Ceiling? "The UTP on the cable" doesn't make sense in English or any other language. UTP is simply a type of cable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unshielded_twisted_pair

I know lots about cables. I also know you can't cheat in chess with one in your ceiling unless you have access to it and something to read what it's putting out. If Kramnik could connect to a cable, what he is holding to do that (a computer, it's called) would be the problem. So either he had a computer and could open the ceiling to access the cable or all this cable in the ceiling stuff is total garbage. So you're saying Kramnik had a computer but the real problem was the cable inside the ceiling? Why would he need to access the cable in the ceiling since he already had a computer with him?

How. Can. You. Cheat. With. A. Cable. Inside. The. Ceiling?

Ah, now you want ChessBase to editorialize everything. That should go well.

How about the computer was also in the ceiling, but was quickly removed?? Maybe besides cables, you understand from "Russians manners in chess".
Why don't you ask Kasparov? He knows very well the treatment in the match with Karpov.
Say something now Mig.

Elista, the second try at you. Kramnik would use what tools to open up (break) the ceiling and then patch it up after the game(s)?

How.Can.You.Believe.Bareev

No second tries confused,
Karpov had 20 GMs behind him playing against Kasparov. That is why Karpov knows how things function and what the propaganda level is and defends Topalov. I hope you are not confused anymore. There were many helping Kramnik in Elista.

Mig of course is silent. He was asked the same question about Russian tactics in chess. He avoided it. He knows it is true.

Hahahah, the computer was in the ceiling! Of course! Yes, when you have pictures of that, let me know! Brillante! What do Kasparov and Karpov have to do with this? Blame the Russians! Global politics! Ceilings! Toilets! Blah blah blah. Distract, distract, distract. It almost worked in Elista, didn't it? We aren't all idiots. We are talking about your accusations of Kramnik cheating. Pay attention. All the motive in the world doesn't matter if you don't have the possibility of cheating.

How. Can. You. Cheat. With. A. Cable. Inside. The. Ceiling?

I don't have to believe Bareev or anyone else. I linked to an article in which he speaks his mind on the issue. I specifically state his comments are of a circumstantial nature and that he worked with Kramnik. If a top player accuses Kramnik of cheating I'd report on that, too. But all we have on the side of attacking Kramnik is you guys making yourselves look stupid with photos of broken ceilings and cables. Really, you should be embarrassed if this is the best you can do. Color-coded yogurt was much more convincing.

> Kramnik + frequent bathroom visits + wiring inside the bathroom ceiling = no possibility of cheating

With all due respect, how can you be so sure ? They play in hostile territory, Kramnik has state support up the ass (1), KGB^H^H^HFSB has plenty of opportunities to prepare the facilities - for all you know the cable is an antenna emitting low-energy signals in the range of 2 meters and the watch at Kramnik's wrist isn't a nice Blancpain but in fact a receiver.

You have written down an equation. Now you also have to prove it.

(1)
- "final" Appeals Committee decisions get overturned
- Committee gets dismissed
- presidential airplane declined landing
- doping test gets renounced as soon as the "right" guy has won
- organized smear campaign against world #1 Topalov since the days of San Luis

Jejeje, Mig is silent, he won't answer all my silly accusations about nothing! Wahhh! What about what Kramnik ate that day! Haven't you analyzed his food!? And x-ray his chair!

I don't care if Kramnik is a lieutenant-colonel in the FSB, it doesn't mean he can break open ceilings and connect to a UTP cable with his ear. C'mon, what's the next distraction since you have no evidence of even the POSSIBILITY of him cheating?

Mig,
Have you followed the epic match Karpov-Kasparov?? Did you ask Kasparov about the additional stories? Well, here is your mistake. You should have.

My suggestion, go live in Russia for a while. You will change your point of view.

Straight question, is it so difficult to remove a laptop before the inspection? And why some of the tapes of the first rounds are missing? I think not the apelative commision should have been fired but the whole organizing committee. It is a tremendous mistake that you seem to miss. Comments?

The clowns at Topalov's so-called "fan site" at it again: http://www.veselintopalov.net/article/coincidences

Kasparov! Karpov! Russians! Organizing committee! Disappearing invisible computers inside ceilings!

Funny stuff, thanks. Still waiting for any evidence at all that suggests the possibility Kramnik cheated other than your paranoia.

My only evidence is the knowledge of the tapes missing, Mig. And the many strange things reported by Russian media. I do not read chessbase, they say it is biased, but I prefer original sources. Where do you get your info from?

Direct question, what about the tapes missing?

Mig,
What annoys me is that you are giving in one of the cases posibility of cheating and in the other with so many strange events around you deny it. Seriously you have to think about it. I do not say Kramnik cheated. I say chances are about equal that any of them cheated.

No, "poisoned pawn" we don't have to indulge every high-tech wonderland fantasy. Because if we did it would mean every player *could* be cheating in every game in every event and the entire conversation is meaningless. This is why we go on observable facts instead of wild fantasy. Which is why the visual signaling possibility is troubling and "Kramnik had the KGB and James Bond on his side" is a waste of time.

That someone had machinery undetectable by metal detectors and wands and all other normal means is a fabulous way to simply say "oh yeah, well prove he DIDN'T cheat!" Which is of course never possible the same way you can't prove God doesn't exist. What we must do is reduce the viable possibilities of cheating.

that last one was giberish..... you did not answer about the tapes.... But you believe a Hensel signed article and a strange video of a manager where people around him are gesticulating more.
Mig, people will laugh at you.

The only ones laughed at here are the insane paranoics going on about the great conspiracy against Topalov, the evil cunning Russians, the almighty KGB and bizarre technological fantasies. Btw, I have this hairdryer here and I figured I'd use it as a laser cannon. Or I'll do a bit of time travelling with this empty Coke bottle. Perhaps go back to 1969 to prove my moon landing hoax theory.

Acirce,
What country are you from?

No more questions.

Not giving up on the internet cable in the ceiling yet. Another (small) difficulty:

The picture of the toilet shows a very high ceiling. How could anyone reach it w/o a ladder?

Elista, you have any insides about that? The report about the cable is in bulgarian (russian?) Cannot read it.

What picture of a toilet, confused??
It never came out...

Missing tapes! Awesome. Do "missing tapes" mean Kramnik had a computer in his rest area or bathroom? No. Another distraction. You keep trying to use negatives as proof of positives. We don't have video from the bathroom so he was cheating. There was no computer in the ceiling so he must have had one.

As I explain here for the final time, it is possible to cheat by going in and out and talking on a cell-phone with someone using a computer and walking back and making signals to a player. Very possible, quite easy to understand. This possibility should be removed. Not for Topalov, for everyone.

Next, it is NOT possible to do anything with a UTP cable inside the ceiling of your bathroom. As for disappearing computers and disappearing tapes and disappearing XXX, these are fantasies, not possibilities. Yes, every player *might* have a disappearing computer. Is this something we can discuss? Of course not. You can just say after your game, "My opponent cheated!" "Really, how?" "He went to the bathroom and accessed a computer that later disappeared! But I have no evidence of this." This is not a useful or reasonable discussion.

You keep tossing out increasingly fantastic things to make it sound like there are "so many strange events." There weren't. There was one strange event, that Kramnik went to the bathroom a lot. This was strange and worthy of investigation. Everything else is garbage with no meaning or relationship to the possibility of cheating. That Ilyumzhinov dismissed the committee is an entirely separate issue. Feel free to accuse them of favoritism or pro-Russian sympathies or anything else. (Topalov got a free point in exchange, seems fair enough.) But we are talking about cheating, about receiving outside assistance in a game of chess.

And when it comes to that, to cheating, no one has even come close to demonstrating Kramnik had a chance to do that by any means of which we aware. If he has super fantastic electronics beyond human comprehension, what can we say? It's not something we can discuss other than to say we need to have strong anti-electronic-cheating measures in place. Which is what I and many others have been saying for years anyway.

We have constantly heard that there was "a cable in Kramnik's bathroom", but the Vega/Kutin declaration actually says that "during the inspection they have founded computer cable going to the toilets of the rest rooms..."

If there was such a cable in Topalov's bathroom too, then IF there was some magical way to use it to cheat, Topalov could have used it just as well as Kramnik.

But maybe not. The devilish Russians put it in the CEILING as part of their cunning plan. Kramnik, being so much taller than Topalov, was the only one who could reach it!

Mig, there are too many strange things to close my eyes.Every day something strange was reported, not by Danailov, but by Russian media.
Now it is sad that they take it on Topalov, and he is a very nice guy. And you help them? You should go hide somewhere..... I do not know why I keep on reading here since you present the point of view in a twisted way.
Think global, not marginal like the so called thoughts are exposed as your arguments. Have the benefit of the doubt.
Discussion closed.

[quote] I say chances are about equal that any of them cheated[/quote]

There is something that make me laugh a lot there.

Elista : there was a secure area.
Corus: there was none.

Then for some people it was the very same thing, and that changes nothing to the others: cheating is equaly propable.

To anyone with some logic, it is much more difficult to cheat in a secure zone than in a non-secure one.

So, it is unequal: It was more easier to cheat in corus than in elista: cheating in elista was about 1% and cheating in corus was about 99%.

Why do i give 1% for elista? god, aliens, smurfs could have done something couldn't they? ;)

On the other hand: there are people who believe that cable found in a ceilar was the very prouth of a cheat, without explaining the process: what was link to the cables? and how?

In corus, the probability of a cheat was much more probable: the process was explain: phone call when the opponent played a move, going in the scope of the cheater-player, comunicating like sign language,during each important moments and so and so...

I don't say that they cheated. But in one case, the cheat is easy to do, and gived no very evidence.

So, what is strange: topalov seems to be good only when the security is missing.he's a good player , one amongst the best.

All that mess started when danailov saw the glass! Is it a mean that they were angry to see that their signal-cheating-probable-process was not more possible?

Everything could have ended well during the argumebt after the fake round 5 in elista: topalov could have beheaved himself like a great champion by giving up the free-point and demanding danailov to give kramnik some excuses. He missed to act like a champion ...but he is not.

>No, "poisoned pawn" we don't have to indulge every high-tech wonderland fantasy.

Mig, wake up, we are in the year 2007, this scenario is a piece of cake nowadays, no wonderland needed.

> Because if we did it would mean every player *could* be cheating in every game in every event and the entire conversation is meaningless.

Not every player goes to the toilet 50 times a game. That was the "observable fact". And no, he didn't want to walk, he closed the door. And no, he didn't need to drink a lot, he doesn't do this in other tournaments. And I didn't say the receiver it undetectable - they detect what they think is a watch.

I don't accuse Kramnik of cheating, I say there was the possibility, a fact that everybody seems to deny. That's what is called "bias".

That's certainly a nice-looking, white cable on veselintopalov.net, but where's the actual evidence that it's even a UTP Cat-5? Can't see any 8P8C plugs. How would Kramnik utilize a cable with no plugs? Sink his teeth in it and hope to be granted an IP address somehow? And then maybe log onto ICC and chat up some unregistered guest to hand some him some fresh engine evals.

Could just as well be a coaxial cable for an internal tv system.

But the bigger question is - why would Kramnik need network connectivity if he already had a laptop in the room? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Did he somehow forget to install Fritz or Rybka before setting up this monumental cheat, or maybe he only brought an iBook with no ability to run strong chess software? Or could it be he had arranged some kind of secret hotline to Hydra in Abu Dhabi for some real processor-heavy analysis during his breaks?

Fascinating stuff.

Let's keep ignoring all the reasons for why it was IMPOSSIBLE to cheat in the bathroom, and believe that it was possible (and in the existence of unicorns while we're at it). Then the number of visits has no bearing on the possibility. You could use it 2-3 times per game at some critical moments. Topalov could have been cheating exactly as much as Kramnik. In fact, why it is considered so important that Kramnik made many brief visits between the moves (see Topailov's "statistical sample" from the first open letter) rather than fewer but longer is beyond me. Wouldn't you be better off taking your time while you're in there if you are going to cheat? Sorry, forgot that we are supposed to be irrational here. The Russians! KGB! Aaahhh!! They're coming to get me!

acrice,
Russian, prejudiced, close minded...... say thank you, cause you really look funny.

Elista, I am talking about this picture: http://www.veselintopalov.net/images/64.jpg

The ceiling is very high indeed. How to reach it w/o a ladder? Can you translate to English the report about the cable? That would be helpful.

(something strange about the picture itself -- note, unless I am missing something, there is no reflection of the ladder in the mirror on the picture -- yet the mirror shows a hand with a watch -- was the pic doctored?)

Twisted? I have my opinions, that's all. It's a blog of them. I try to explain them but I don't expect everyone to agree with me. I have nothing at all against Topalov, or at least I didn't until he started ranting about cheating fantasies with no evidence. It offends me. But I have defended him in general and in specifics here many times. He seems like a pleasant person and I hope he has a long, happy life. That doesn't mean I need to agree with him that Kramnik cheated. Or with you that there is evidence he could have cheated.

Also as I've said many times, it's bizarre to suggest that a chess website shouldn't mention it when the mainstream press runs extensive articles on the possibility that the world's #1 player cheated. It would be absolutely incredible to ignore such stories. And if you think I am endorsing Bareev or anyone else, go actually read my article for the first time. Read my words and don't just cry about the fact I linked to the video and the article.

acirce: Of course there were similar cables in both bathrooms, as well as throughout the entire building.

poisoned pawn: you aren't talking about possibility at all. You are talking about suspicious and/or strange. Kramnik could go to the bathroom 100 times and it doesn't give him any more possibility of cheating than if he went to the bathroom three times as long as the bathroom and the player are inspected and safe. It was unusual behavior by Kramnik, absolutely. It does not make him a magician or the owner of technology beyond the detection by the people there (including representatives of his opponent). The bathrooms and the players were examined thoroughly on a regular basis, even taken apart. Nothing was ever found that would demonstrate the possibility of outside assistance. Again, the "but he might have had super-amazing technology we can't detect" discussion is not rational or based on any evidence. We can only deal with what we can understand. Possibility versus fantasy. Worrying about signaling versus worrying about disappearing computers.

Don't any of you watch baseball? How does the catcher signal the pitcher? Why does Danailov stand in a direct line of sight with Topalov and make odd, purposeful hand gestures?

"I have nothing at all against Topalov, or at least I didn't until he started ranting about cheating fantasies with no evidence."

So you decided to support the Kramnik non evidence???? You contradict yourself.

Mig, in your interest, develop some critical thinking.

What support? You don't even read what I write. I reported on two major newspapers running long stories discussing signaling accusations. I also linked and discussed Topailov's accusations during Elista. Remember Elista? We all reported the accusations. But it quickly became obvious there was no possibility (that word again) for Kramnik to cheat.

Folks, examine closely this photo:

http://www.veselintopalov.net/images/64.jpg

The hand with a watch in the mirror would have to be behind the ladder ie the ladder would have to be shown in the mirror as well, but it is not. How to expaine this??? this is harder then a mate in 2. Help.

Elisa, can you apply some critical thinking to this problem and explain this apparent contradiction in the picture?

Mig: thanks. I know there are all kinds of cables everywhere, but it wasn't obvious to me that a specific type of cable has to be running "throughout the entire building".
Of course, even less reason in this case to pretend it means anything at all.

Confused,
you are confused. There is no hand, no watch, what are you looking at? The picture seems perfectly fine.... I can do a pixel analisis for you, if you want. Give me a day.

Mig: thanks. I know there are all kinds of cables everywhere, but it wasn't obvious to me that a specific type of cable has to be running "throughout the entire building".
Of course, even less reason in this case to pretend it means anything at all.

Please no analysis of these idiotic photos of cables that run through every modern building. It's really embarrassing. Cables! In walls! Wow! Watch out guys, the next News Flash: Information can also be sent wirelessly! Did Kramnik have wi-fi reception in his elbow?

Andrei,
Yes, and he had it long before Elista. If you don't respect it, that's your opinion, but you can't say he 'invented' his beliefs when Topalov started losing the match.

Mig,
You care about the videos, not about the photos. Should I call you prejudiced or narrow minded? Please, give me the correct definition of this selective posting........ If you do not make a new post about the news you are clearly taking side. Than make one about taking side. But staying like this closing eyes is not good.

All stories are not equal. Photos of what and produced by whom? They don't show anything of interest and were manipulated and produced by and for Topailov. You could take pictures of your laptop and send them to me and I wouldn't publish those, either. I don't understand why I would publish them when their only purpose is to fabricate controversy.

In contrast, Kommersant and the German newspaper produced long items discussing a serious issue, the possibility of outside assistance via signaling. I ran the video because many people here complained they couldn't see it at the Kommersant site. I myself said it didn't prove or disprove anything.

Slowly now:

Case 1: The possibility of cheating with signals is real. The possibility exists. Many players have discussed this possibility. Two major newspapers ran stories about the possibility the world #1 was doing this. Several top players commented about their suspicions. One of the papers posted a much-discussed video purportedly showing this happening. It is of critical interest whether or not this is true. In my opinion it's inconclusive.

Case 2: There is no known possibility of Kramnik cheating in his bathroom. His opponent, after releasing various slanderous documents and accusing Kramnik of cheating, sends out composed photos showing holes in a bathroom ceiling and some cables. None of them, even if they weren't composed, would mean anything regarding Kramnik's ability to receive external assistance. There is nothing newsworthy about them now either. No players have come forward with comments or suspicions, no evidence has been added to the discussion since Elista. No news and old as well. It is only being revived to distract attention from the Topalov accusations, as you are doing here.

Elista,

take a closer look at the mirror. The object on the right edge in the middle looks like a 'hand with a watch and a ring on the ring finger'. Since the mirror is a reflection, that would be a left hand of a person standing in front of the mirror. Good so far?

If you argue there is no hand shown in the mirror, skip the rest.

Possible problems: (1) the other hand on the picture has already a ring - hmm. maybe the guy wears 2 rings (2) the mirror does not reflect the ladder at all - not even a small piece of it even though one would assume the hand in the mirror belongs to the same guy holding the cables who is next to the ladder. So if the hand is shown the ladder would have to be shown as well. Note also that the mirror shows at least 5 tile columns on the wall ie deep enough for the ladder to be shown especially if the hand is shown.

The cables hanging from the ceiling do not look the same as the 2 white cables sticking out of the hand -- it must be some logical explenation for that too I suppose.

Well Mig,
Topalov will be on the scene in Morelia, Kramnik will hide as a mouse. Go on supporting him, you just lost one of your readers. As a true fan of Topalov and his behavior, his attention, and fighting spirit I will not return to this blog. Go ahead, there are many communists that want to read you. I live with the benefit of the doubt and cannot close my eyes.
I really thought you are open minded, now I will just have to read chessvibes.

ross,

You misunderstood me: I do not claim that Danailov came up with this opinion (that players must be present at the table all the time) in the middle of the Elista match - not at all! But I equally do not consider his opinion binding with respect to any chess player who does not share it. Danailov is entitled to his point of view - of course, but he has no right to impose it on others. Thus, this opinion of his as far as the situation is concerned is simply irrelevant.

You don't even read my articles or my comments, Elista. You're only here to post slander and inventions and you will not be missed. Of course you'll be back, probably under another name. Your kind always returns and never learns or changes. Impervious to reason.

"How. Can. You. Cheat. With. A. Cable. Inside. The. Ceiling?"

A highly sophisticated clamp-on ammeter provided by Russian intelligence, of course. Jeez!

Is there any reason for this discussion to continue?

Given the evidence that is presented and realistic, it seems as though one can establish two things:

1) There's no reason not to give Topalov and Kramnik the benefit of the doubt. I don't care to go into the discussion of magical technology or Danailov adjusting his tie in games Topalov drew.

2) There has to be increased security at major events. At the very least the players have to be separated from the spectators (both those there physically, and those who can contact the players). If we do that, then we can reasonably dismiss most cheating accusations, and then super-tournaments won't be the miserable things they are already.

I know that everyone agrees with #2, yes?

Frankly, I wonder if the people accusing Kramnik or Topalov of cheating aren't just looking for a flamewar. This thread made progessively less sense as the day wore on. It's pretty clear that Elista is going to think Kramnik is cheating not matter what, and Frank H is going to feel the same exact way about Topalov.

Considering that there's not going to be any sort of progress, ever, in this debate, can we just eaqse off it for a bit and start discussing ways to improve security? That's the only thing that is going to improve this situation.

> Nothing was ever found that would demonstrate the possibility of outside assistance.

The point is that in this Russian controlled environment they would not really be interested in finding something that would indicate Kramnik has outside help in the first place. Add to that Kramnik's strange behaviour - long absences from the board, upon return always playing strong moves immediately without thinking while blundering sometimes when thinking at the board.

> Again, the "but he might have had super-amazing technology we can't detect" discussion is not rational or based on any evidence.

You keep talking talking about "super-amazing technology" while this was really not needed to deceive the Bulgarian delegation with their certainly limited equipment they had with them.

But now we turn the tables and you prove that this handy+signalling scheme is so easy to implement as you claim. Tomorrow you play against Kasparov, you get the signals (openly but non-verbal) from new Mrs. Mig who is on the phone with your pal operating your fav engine. If you succeed to win, you must have revolutionized coding theory and will by famous over night!

Maybe it is worth pointing out that the Kommersant video was about the game Ivanchuk-Topalov from Chorus 2006. This is not the tournament Breutigam writes about (Chorus 2007). Before that game, Round 11 of 13, Topalov lead Anand by half a point and he had to defend a difficult endgame against the third-placed Ivanchuk. With Topalov's victory on the line, any nailbiting or headscraching by Danailov makes sense to me. On the other hand, I am not aware of any cheating accusaations against Topalov during Chorus 2006.
In general, it seems wrong to me that Danailov can sit in the first row in San Luis with a laptop on his knees and eye contact with Topalov. No matter whether they cheated or not or wanted to cheat or not, even the information whether Danailov looks relaxed or worried after checking the current position with his laptop is too much.
In the German Bundesliga this weekend there was a live internet commentary from the playing hall. First the arbiter wanted to prevent this, but was persuaded not to do so. The problem was that one of those guys got up and talked to some player. I do not think they cheated, but it would have been too easy.
I think there are only two ways to avoid this possibility in top-level tournaments. Either make sure that players cannot make any eye contact with spectators (the other way around is of course fine) or make sure that spectators do not have cell phones/laptops and cannot leave the hall to gain access to such information. The first one should be the feasible option.

poisoned pawn: please no mythmaking about "playing strong moves immediately" and such. There has been absolutely no demonstrated correlation between Kramnik's absences and his moves, let alone the quality thereof. The only thing strange, the only thing, was how often he went into his bathroom.

The point of avoiding fantasies is that they ALWAYS work. I say they had metal detectors and you say the KGB would easily foil them. Case solved! No, we have to deal with reality. We can't sit here and spin tales about technology that is impossible to detect and magic disappearing computers. By those arguments there is never ever a way to do anything so we should give up now and just assume everyone cheats. Meanwhile, signaling is a clear and present danger.

It's not about Kramnik this and Topalov that, it's about dealing with the destructive force of accusations and the threat of cheating.

I have drawn my conclusions about what is going on. Topalov wins San Luis and other tournaments quite convincingly. Some players, mostly Russians and some of them connected to Kramnik, start spreading rumours about cheating. Topalov waits for his chance and tit for tat accuses Kramnik of cheating in Elista, Russian soil. That's it, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth as the saying goes. I dont believe Topa or Kramnik ever cheated because the evidence presented so far is very weak. However the accusations will go on at the expense of the already weak reputation of chess because both players benefit from the (bad) publicity that is being generated. The only solution would be for Fide to intervene vigourously and announce severe punishment to (i) any player caught cheating AND (ii) any player that accuses another one of cheating without solid proof. If this is not done the vicious cycle of false accusations will go on and on forever.

"Go ahead, there are many communists that want to read you. I live with the benefit of the doubt and cannot close my eyes."

This blog is a stupidity magnet. Why is it that chess blogs attract some of the sorriest most pathetic candidates for euthanasia of any blog type across the net?
Russianbear, acirce, rdh and others, are like the windshield of sanity squashing the hordes of retards that descend on this blog, making it just barely readable.

"That's certainly a nice-looking, white cable on veselintopalov.net, but where's the actual evidence that it's even a UTP Cat-5? Can't see any 8P8C plugs. How would Kramnik utilize a cable with no plugs? Sink his teeth in it and hope to be granted an IP address somehow? And then maybe log onto ICC and chat up some unregistered guest to hand some him some fresh engine evals.

Could just as well be a coaxial cable for an internal tv system.

But the bigger question is - why would Kramnik need network connectivity if he already had a laptop in the room? That makes no sense whatsoever."
-Posted by: molby at February 11, 2007 21:02

Good points Molby. The other thing that makes me wonder about the two pictures I see on the Topalov site (http://www.veselintopalov.net/images/64.jpg and http://www.veselintopalov.net/images/62.jpg) is that you never see the connector. It looks very much like a single piece of cable (rather than 2 cables) which was merely passing over the bathroom, and whoever tore the ceiling out just yanked down a bunch of slack. Anyone know of a photo which actually shows the connector?

To the tell the truth Mig I am also of the opinion that your coverage has been somewhat biased against Topalov. If you posted this stupid video you should have also posted the stupid cable pictures. It is only fair.

It might be worth noting that if Kramnik had computers that could defeat metal detectors he wouldn't need to be playing chess for a living. Patenting and selling the technology would make him fabulously wealthy in no time.

I think Kramnik is off the hook mainly because he has been playing like this ever since. Chess fans know what he can do and what he has done.

Now with all the scrutiny, I guess we just have to wait and see if Topailov performs the same in the next event, it will clear the air.

ed, Mig actually posted a picture of the Kramniks bathromm earlier (it was some high-tech-stuff - I must admin, but I doubt it helped a lot in Rapids), and by the way, if you look very carefully the whole video about Dainalov, it actually proves more or less that no visible signs of cheating took place so in that sense that video servers more Topalov's purposes - but for any intelligent person it's clear that there can be no justified bias other that what Mig expressed earlier.

Wow, you guys had quite a party here while I was gone to a party...

Funny how people got stuck on "jacks" and "metal detection"... Hey, you can snap RJ-45 jack to a CAT-5 cable in 23 seconds (if you're slow). And I wouldn't put my trust on the metal detectors in the Elista circumstances considering the parties involved. You don't need a big device. Bottom line, a player shouldn't disappear to a private restroom during a WCC match. Suggesting that the probability of cheating is low in such circumstances is irresponsible.
It's safer inside of the playing hall, on stage. Just like it is safer for all managers to be outside of the playing hall during major tournaments.

Unfortunately, "suspicion" is being printed indiscriminately and treated as currency these days, while nonsense sold as "circumstantial evidence" (just look at that silly video and how it was sold to the audience). This creates inflation and lack of trust.

D.

There is much more behind that meets the eye, my friends. The Cold War has never ended, not even with desintegration of the former Soviet Union, down in the deepest dungeons of Kreml, the dreams of world dominance are still being dreamt.
Important members of opposition have been poisoned by polonium, the war for ever-dwindling oil supplies rages on, and chess is naturally only yet another weapon being used in this perpetual struggle.
Of course Russians are angry, because after investing millions of rubbles into developing a ceramic CPU to advice Kramnik, their champion won only by a narrow margin - and only in rapid games, when Danailov running back and forth with his cell phone was much slower than Kramnik's implanted ceramic monster-computer.
Americans are, of course, behind Topalov, their inexhaustible monetary reserves pouring through suspicious bank accounts into Danailov's hands. China gives gracious loans to USA, because those two parties have already agreed upon the new spheres of influence. New Zealand came too late this time, having no representative in the field of top-level chess to push its interests.
And so while you are enjoying the neat combinations performed by the current chess elite on tournaments like Wijk Aan Zee, the ex-KGB operatives and CIA zealots are slitting their throats in the sewers of Amsterdam, famous Japanese chef Tsukemoto Takeshi loads his sashimi with radioactive isotopes that would make Mendelev's hair stand, islamists are oiling their aging AK 47s and supreme command of Pentagon is frenetically searching their maps "where the hell is that country named Bulgaria?".

So be vigillant, my friends, next time you play on an important tournament and win too many ELO points too quickly, watch your back! You never know if the plain envelope sneaked into your pocket by a curiously unremarkable individual contains a fat wad of plutonium-marked rubbles, a roll of blood-stained dollars, anthrax, or perhaps an invitation into the ex-masonic, post-Templar circles that actually rule this world!

"Great claims require great evidence" (Carl Sagan)
This video is nothing, I don't understand why people waste their time and ours with such gossip.

ed, I'm not interested in what other people define as fair. I'm interested in not being an idiot. I'm not going to publish whatever I'm sent by the next sore loser with a digital camera. "Here's a photo of my opponent drinking coffee! The temperature of the coffee was a signal!"

The questions raised by the possibility of signaling are relevant. Topalov happens to be the subject of them. Major papers investigated this; one of them ran a video clip. That I personally think it's inconclusive and therefore worthless doesn't mean the topic isn't very relevant. The questions about cables inside a bathroom ceiling are not relevant and the fact that Kramnik's opponent is the only person sending them out is not a coincidence. If they had even a remote possibility of relevance I'd probably still publish them, but they don't.

The Kramnik-Topalov aspect of all of this is being blown up by Topailov when in reality it has little to do with Kramnik at all. The rumors (even the video) about signaling predate Elista by months, even years. The main reason they hit the front pages now is because everyone is interested in cheating after Topailov launched Bladdergate in Elista. In an attempt to deflect this attention away from Topailov, they release this comical photos of nothing at all and insist they are evidence. While we waste our time discussing whether or not they are, we aren't talking about signaling, which is an actual threat. Mission accomplished.

The Topalov team is obviously present on this thread, and he/she/they are very annoying. For what it's worth, I'm now in the *TOPALOV IS CHEATING* camp.

I also believe that a Topalov without PC would lose to Kramnik 5:2 ratio in a match where only wins count.

hallo mig,

the guy you talked with seems to feel trapped in a corner. he can justify anything because (he thinks) the other guys are the really bad ones.

thanks for this spirited discussion.

So no-one knows how Danailov always used to behave? That's the key question, is it not?

Who is this Kutin?

ok, I looked at that video and was completely and utterly confused. I didnt even realise what the signal was supposed to be, until I read this blog and it was revealed to be a finger being drawn across the neck or something. This is complete and utter balderdash. That is a signal to Topalov? Nobody even knows whether he actually saw this alleged signal, he might have been looking in the opposite direction. If this is the "proof", its completely and utterly pathetic. I must confess to having had some doubts about Toaplov because of this continued outcry. However if all it is is Danaolov fidgeting almost exactly how any nervous person would be fidgeting, I completely and reservedly support Topalov all the way. Go man, rip 'em apart in Linares, and get your revenge.

unreservedly, not reservedly

"So no-one knows how Danailov always used to behave?"

I don't intend to troll, but Danailov just looks like a dirtbag. You can just read a person's character off the face for many people, and Danailov is one of them.

"I dont intend to troll.."
You just know with a comment like this that somebody is intending exactly the opposite. In the past several hundred years, society has been trying to move away from judging people on appearance. Nobody can help the face they are born with. People were burned at the stake for example, for looking like witches. Their accusers had the same confidence in their ability to "know", just as SH.

I agree with that this single video proves nothing. On the other hand, Topailov´s antics during Elista proves that they are capable of anything. When it comes to ethics, they'd propably sell their mothers if it helped them to win.

Mig,

I would like to know your opinion on the second Appeals comm. resignation ? The document on the Topalov site can difficultly be fake.

Thanks

1.0 Is there anyone out there who doesnt think one way glass and delay in transmission is a necessity for top level chess tournaments?

2.0 If Topolav continues to perform with these safeguards in place thats the end of the matter

Therefore if these simple safeguards are put in place the issue will be resolved. There is really nothing else to say is there?

I watched this 3 times and I am very disappointed after all the hype - all I see is a man resting his head on his hand and scratching here and there.
Also, note that there are OTHER people in this video doing the same - for example, the greyhaired dude with the glasses near the end. Now, who might that one be signaling to?
If this is "proof" then I am the queen of England. Heck, it is not even remotely suspicious. Anyway, paranoia is a must..

exactly RQ, this is ridiculous

Since everyone else is too shy to put it, I'm taking the liberty to link to Susan's Polgar latest post: http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2007/02/supporters-of-topalov-fire-back.html

Andy: 2.0 If Topolav continues to perform with these safeguards in place thats the end of the matter

You're right. But I thought that was proven already at Corus 2007. As I've pointed out before, even the staunchest cheat-haunds did not question his best games at Corus2007. At the same time, what if he has a bad showing in Linares -- he's a human too. End at #4, let's say. What then -- you're setting the man in a difficult spot: it's a LOSE-LOSE situation. If he wins, he cheats, if he loses he cheated before...

On Cablegate: It bears repeating for the slow or uninitiated -- the only reason why these cables became relevant is because Kramnik spent a lof of time in this toilet without video surveillance. That's it.

D.

No Dimi, If he wins with the safeguards on, with the glass walls on, he is in the clear. IT is not lose lose. Topa should show his skills on the board. In an environment which has no way for anyone to signal to him.

Even if they don't cheat, a player should not have access to any reaction of the audience. If the coach in the audience smiles after an opponent move, the player could already know his opponent played a blunder and that he should look for a winning move (like when your solving a problem you're only looking for a cheapo). The glass is a must, not only for cheating but also for normal human reactions.

xtra

pomda, I though they already did that in Elista. I do not think that Topalov played that bad at all.

D.

yes Dimi, I think the same. The point is simple - instead of getting paranoid, Topa (and his superbly gifted manager :-) )should concentrate on the board. There is no need for a good player like Topa to indulge into antics like releasing the toilet wars book during a chess competition. It only devalues his status, it makes more and more fans like me to reconsider their heroes. By focusing on Kramnik, Topa gains nothing. It only adds fuel to fire against him. By speaking bad of others, you can never earn respect.
Topa played well in Elista as well as in Corus. He should continue the same. I am sure results will speak for themselves.

Posted by: Dimi at February 12, 2007 10:44

"pomda, I though they already did that in Elista. I do not think that Topalov played that bad at all."

Actually, he did play badly - relative to his other performances. He has put up a lot of 2800 performances recently without the screen, but when he played with the screen in Elista, his performace rating was only 2702. I am not saying he cheated, but it seems like his performance WITH the screen was not good enough to be convincing proof that he plays equally well with or without this measure.

2702? Oh, but that is based on Kramnik's official rating, and as Danailov pointed out, Kramnik actually played at 2900-3000 strength in Elista, "much better than Kasparov and Fischer."

Since Topalov tied the classical match, it means that his real performance rating was also 2900-3000.

And this in spite of playing in an extremely hostile environment, with the biased Russians only giving him ONE free point with Black, and with death threats lingering over him. Put it all together and you have to conclude that Topalov's feat in Elista is the greatest achievement in the history of chess.

If Topalov - and indeed his claqueurs - wanted to win respect they would say, "Yes, I have seen this video and I can see how my actions could be misconstrued. In fact I assure everyone that they were innocent, but of course one should be above suspicion. I apologise for allowing this suspicion to arise and in future I will confine myself to the press room while Veselin is playing."

However, they don't want respect, of course. They prefer whining and accusations.

All this 'this proves-nothing' or 'is-this-video-all?' stuff is entirely beside the point, obviously. The whole point of signalling in public is to ensure that your actions can bear an innocent construction also. The issue is pattern.

On that theme, another obvious question - how did Danailov behave in Elista? Was he still in the auditorium constantly making faces, then rushing out and making mobile calls (always supposing a hell-hole like Elista has mobile reception, of course)?

Anyone?

Giannis,
Thanks for the link.
Finally we know that cables were found not only in Kramnik's bathroom, as Danailov constantly said during last 4 months.
May be, they had to demolish the whole building to find even more cables, some of it going over arbiter's room or personnel closets. Does this mean, arbiters and/or building personnel were involved to transmission of computer moves to Kramnik? I can't belive Danailov missed this obvious sign of cheating from those Russian evils!
Regarding Mr. Kutin and Mr. Vega, immediately after they were assigned their Elista posts, there was a heated discussion everywhere about their personalities and relationships with Azmaiparashvili&Co.

Why didn't Corus organizers post a monitor on Danailov so we could later analyze his movements and gestures more carefully? Here is a manager running in and out of the playing hall with a cell phone, repeatedly taking up position near his player, and the organizers don't "organize" surveillance? The amateur video, with Danailov's busy fingers reminiscent of a third-base coach's signals, could have been the tip of the iceberg. But the organizers let Danailov toddle around fairly close to the stage in line-of-sight, why? If they are going to let him up close, we would need (as in the world of bridge) comprehensive video with a time index to check up on things later. Now that the cover is blown on the whole thing, we've missed the chance to really get a good video story.

Historical note: that's how the clumsy MIT student squad cheating was detected in a major bridge tournmaent with their finger signalling. The video analysis was able to map the finger signals to the play. Their signal was as stupid as this: finger contortions to represent the number of diamonds in the card hand. Time-indexed video blew their scheme wide open. Who is to say what the chess signal scheme is, but it might be just as stupid.

Note here, the signal can be very brief, as simple as the start-square or end-square. This means only one square need be transmitted. In the amateur video, the following finger positions were observed (as well as variations in the number of fingers): fingers to cheek, fingers to nose, fingers to pocket, fingers to mouth, and various switches between these formations. Each formation was held for a few seconds. It looked like a baseball game. If this plethora of finger gesturing means nothing, that story too would be well served by the organizers taking manager antics more seriously.

Now that everybody missed the boat, the only thing they can do is ban the manager from line of sight to the player. Which is too bad, because there might have been some really good video to watch.

Well, I am sure Corus had surveilance cameras everywhere, but their purpose was surveilance monitoring. I am not sure these records can be released and be shown to the general public except the court order is issued. Of course, some authorities (did I say FIDE?) could be asked for investigation. FBI did not hesitate to start the investigation of the strange loss of Vlad Klitchko with signs of poisoning. What is strange, nobody tried to blame Klitchko on this probe or to find his close relationships to FBI. Are boxing fans smarter than chess ones???

It amazes me that the video is actually consistent with BOTH versions.

If Topalov and Danailov wanted to cheat, and decided to use signaling instead of taking the risk of being caught with an eletronic device, then Danailov's behavior would be very much like the one that is shown.

On the other hand, I am a nervous person with many gestures, and if I was watching the tournament alive, and had a particular interest in one of the games, I would probably have a similar behaviour, perhaps even making similar things with my hands and fingers.

Well, the video took this discussion to the point of no more progress. Whatever is said from now on will be just repetition. Who suspected that Topalov cheated is now more convinced then ever. And who thought otherwise is also convinced. The only thing that remains is to take concrete steps to avoid any suspection of cheating in the future.

RB: but it seems like his performance WITH the screen was not good enough to be convincing proof that he plays equally well with or without this measure.

Playing Kramnik in a match setting is a different matter. The same applies to Kasparov too… (1) He was the only man to beat Kramnik in 2006 and as I said before, it can be argued that he rather blundered the whole thing in a manner similar to how he blew it against Svidler in Corus. (2) Convincing proof wouldn't be if he had played 2802 as well. You need several tournaments in order to draw a conclusion up to any degree of confidence.

rdh: If Topalov - and indeed his claqueurs - wanted to win respect…

Don't get pompous on me, would ya? It's irritating. Now, if you want to win some _respect_ you'll acknowledge that even the most prosecutorial elements did not find anything wrong with Danailov's behavior in Corus 2007 past round 3, let's say. Look at Topalov's results. How do you like them?

Kosulin: Finally we know that cables were found not only in Kramnik's bathroom […]

But one man spent more than an unusual amount of time in there. Get it now?

To Ginsburg, rdh, acirce, etc: Are you suggesting that Topalov cheated in Corus 2007?

Last comment (need to run).

I believe that all precautions should be taken in future tournaments.

I also hope that as far as Corus 2007 is concerned, Danailov's intent to file against Breitingam is not an empty bluff. A nice beginning would be to get all the Corus tapes and nail and impale that guy. Based on all of the accusations that I have seen so far, they lack substance, seem twisted and invented, at best. If that can be brought to Court, it'll be a good step for chess to free itself from this curse.

Have a good working day,

D.

I hope nobody seriously expected a 2-3 minutes long clip to be anywhere close to being close to being a proof.

It doesn't mean that people have not been making independent observations of allegedly suspicious behaviour from Topalov's team in various different events, including not only the "signalling" but the going in and out, in and out making phone calls between moves.

I think people are missing the point and that the video clip is even contributing to it insofar as it is perceived (sometimes presented) as "the evidence". This anonymous Dutch fan did get suspicious without any other reason to suspect Danailov in particular and without even knowing who it was. He actually spent considerable time observing him and noticed what he viewed as suspicious behaviour. Obviously a 2 minutes long clip won't cover that. And apparently he's not the only one who has observed similar stuff since early 2005. This is why it should not be ignored. It's not very much, and I don't believe in signalling taking place myself, but more than nothing. The toilet visits in Elista was literally nothing. Before Jan 26 I thought the same about the allegations against Topalov.

On the other hand, perhaps it's not really an innocent Dutch amateur but, say, the Anti-Topalov Association chairman Frederic Friedel himself in a cunning bluff.. or some KGB agent, or perhaps some well-known Chessbase stooge like Breutigam (or Shirov, Van Wely or anybody else who has ever authored a Chessbase CD/DVD) who did the filming and made the story up to besmirch Topalov's reputation. Or was it Lautier? Tregubov? Hensel? Putin? Kramnik? Can you prove he didn't? No? Well, there you go.

"To Ginsburg, rdh, acirce, etc: Are you suggesting that Topalov cheated in Corus 2007?"

No.

How should I know? I'd be surprised. Chances he's cheated at some point in the past - I'm very disinclined to believe cheating allegations in general but I'd say about 10%.

Breutigam observed the same sort of stuff as the video. It seems others have too. This injured innocence is out of place. The point is not that this could only be observed if Danailov was signalling. The point is that if Danailov was signalling this is what you'd see. It's so obvious that he shouldn't be doing this that there's only one remotely classy thing to do - come out and apologise and say it won't occur again. Chances of that happening - well, I'm not a betting man, but I'd say zero. Wouldn't you agree?

Not sure what you mean; how do I like his results? He's a good player achieving good results. But he's acting like an utter prat. I would have thought I'd made that clear.

As for lawsuits, have you read New in Chess?? It's a good thing for chess Kramnik's got more sense.

rdh,
I am not a NIC subscriber. What did I miss?
Thanks,
Vlad

By the way, Mr. Danailov said so many times he is going to court to sue FIDE, Kramnik, a Spanish journalist, a German journalist, etc.,etc...
We also heard Mr.Hensel asking FIDE Ethics Commission for investigation, ACP asking FIDE for investigation on Topalov-Danailov non-verbal communication (cheating), etc., etc...
It woulod be so nice if instead of talking the talk they walked the walk, and instead of rumors we could discuss real decisions and confirmed proven facts.

This has got to be the stupidest evidence ever...

That Topalov from several feet away would be able to even tell what Danailov is doing with his right index finger, on a side of the face that's even pointed away from Topalov, and want to bet the outcome of a game on it? All for the faint possibility that DF would discover some major advantage that he has not seen?

If I understand the video correctly, Danailov is making the signal immediately prior to leaving the hall. Which is the exact opposite of how you would expect things to go.

Many a poster have correctly pointed out that making a single gesture is unlikely to even convey useful info to the player. This isn't bridge where knowing how many clubs your partner holds can make a difference.

It's of course possible that after returning to the playing hall Danailov made a series of gestures which pointed out to Topalov that he should play Bishop-C-1. But that is not reflected in the video. What is seen is one man who is not standing still watching a chess game. If that is evidence of cheating, I got an entire food court at my local mall you can arrest.

None of this crap would even be happening if it wasn't for persistent belief that being informed of a chess engine's #1 selection would radically improve a player's game and have him make different selection at the board.

Yuriy; I agree, that's the missing piece in any jigsaw. How much would it help anyway? I know Kasparov says 'a lot', but I don't think we know that until some 2700 player agrees to give it a try, which I consider unlikely to happen.

Vlad: interview with Topalov in which he says that his life was threatened in Elista, that Kramnik was cheating the whole time both before and after game five, especially in the rapids, as Topalov could tell by observing Kramnik while he went through the metal detector (when he looked nervous, apparently) that the moves were being provided by unskilled operatives from the KGB (which was why he still had a chance, 'if you gave Illescas that job they'd kill me'), the computer cables and resignation schtick, and a whole lot more of the same kind of stuff. You didn't miss a lot in other words, unless by some chance you still thought Topalov personally was any higher than a snake's belly.

The most completely absurd thing about this allegation of Kramnik cheating in Elista is the most obvious one - it's said he was able to get away with it there because of state support, KGB nanotechnology and so on. But then he goes to Corus and plays at the same level, same style. And at Torino - higher level, same style.

Say what you like about the anti-Topalov campaign, but at least it has a consistent story to it.

whoops, of course in the last sentence I meant "would radically improve a 2730+ player's game and have him make different selection at the board." Me or you, I am sure it would and could help out quite a bit.

What I like best is the complete incompetence of the Russian government agency supporting Kramnik.

First, they allow the appeals committee to issue a ruling that would prevent Kramnik from having access to the computer.

Then, they forget to remove the wires after removing the computer.

Last, they allow team Topalov to photograph the wires.

BTW, so far I have seen no source go on record as saying that the wires ended somewhere near Kramnik bathroom ceiling in a computer port or even a USB connection.... Notice the wording "they have founded computers cable". No word of an outlet. Which is kind of like saying the building has been wired for Internet access, you know, like you would expect a half decent organization to do when conducting a chess championship?

Agreed: one might add wondering why they bothered with the whole cables thing since all the time they had a secret undetectable method which they used later in the mtahc.

One of the most striking things about Danailov's propaganda methods is his lack of respect for the intelligence of his audience. Although probably he is right in this regard and propaganda is more effective without detail. Goebbels was the same, as friend Godwin would no doubt have me point out.

FIDE were just as bad during the match, with Makro's absurd blustering.

Screens go up...Topalovs rating goes down.

Kramnik beat Kasparov
Kramnik beat Leko
Kramnik beat Topolov

Kramnik is unified world champion...

Astonishing to me is not only the willingness of sane people to debate and engage loons, but my own compulsion to read it all.

Incidentally, doesn't any plausible theory of cheating (on either side) need to explain the role of the seconds? (I suppose I'm thinking of Elista here.) I imagine that each team included players immersed in their own careers, with too much to lose personally by being implicated in a cheating "ring" -- and that for their employer to cheat without their knowledge (whether direct or on the evidence of moves, etc.) would be close to impossible. And would either Topalov or Kramnik risk the possibility of a disgruntled former second "coming clean" at some murky point in the future -- perhaps when contracts are being renegotiated or another world championship cycle is being organised?

rdh,
Danailov does not underestimate the audience intelligence. His audience is much higher than those Internet-enabled chess fans. He is about making money from rednecks who will buy his new toilet pot book, this is the only explanation I can imagine about his campaign of histeria in Bulgarian mass media he started and continues to fuel. Didn't you notice that 90% of Topalov's defendants here are from Bulgaria? With my full respect to them and to the nation of Bulgaria, they fell under the pressure of having the chess world champion who treats the title and them too low, and his mananger who khows how the propaganda mechanics works, IMHO.
We can't blame Bulgarians for this. Nobody can stand against the professionally managed mass media propaganda.
By the way, when I heard that the President of Bulgaria publically voiced his word of full support to Topalov during the Elista scandal even before the facts were released, it reminded me the President Bush saying "He is just bad guy". Well, if the U.S. President can base his justice on such a strong evidence, why others can't?

rdh,
Danailov does not underestimate the audience intelligence. His audience is much wider than those Internet-enabled chess fans. He is about making money from rednecks who will buy his new toilet pot book, this is the only explanation I can imagine about his campaign of histeria in Bulgarian mass media he started and continues to fuel. Didn't you notice that 90% of Topalov's defendants here are from Bulgaria? With my full respect to them and to the nation of Bulgaria, they fell under the pressure of having the chess world champion who treats the title and them too low, and his mananger who khows how the propaganda mechanics works, IMHO.
We can't blame Bulgarians for this. Nobody can stand against the professionally managed mass media propaganda.
By the way, when I heard that the President of Bulgaria publically voiced his word of full support to Topalov during the Elista scandal even before the facts were released, it reminded me the President Bush saying "He is just bad guy". Well, if the U.S. President can base his justice on such a strong evidence, why others can't?

By the way, the changed Danailov's behavioral pattern during last gamews in Corus does not mean there was no help from some other anonymous person. If we assume Danailov signalled to Topalov, we could aslo assume he had a backup in case he gets hooked. We know how close are Topalov and Danailov. What we do not know, does Danailov have some other 'nephew' close enough to serve as trusted backup in cheating. The only way to stop such speculations would be to get professional analysis of Corus and San Luis tapes from a trusted forensic exam agency. But who will pay the bill?

After having learned that I am a candidate for Huntsville's death chamber I stumble on this cute little statement:

> [...] Danailov just looks like a dirtbag. You can just read a person's character off the face for many people [...]

Last time I checked 6 Mio innocent people got clipped based on arguments like this. Nonetheless I am grateful that the author has summed up so nicely what the argumentation of the increasingly desparate pro-Kramnik crowd amounts to:

irrationality

Ok, lets finish off the math part: Mig has stated two equations (namely Kramnik didn't/couldn't cheat in Elista whereas Topalov perhaps (probably?) does cheat) but has failed to prove any of this. Attempts to disprove the first equation were rejected as "fantasies" from a "wonderland". This leaves only one conclusion: those equations are part of Mig's axiomatic system, in other words they cannot be proved or disproved, they are just given in Mig's little Daily Dirt Universe (MlDDU). I am fine with that, every blogmeister is entitled to his own set of axioms, but they should by stated as such. Btw, the picture of the cable in Kramnik's toilet was printed in the largest german chess journal, therefore it seems not so absurd to run this story as Mig wants us make to believe.

In the real world - outside MlDDU - the following facts hold:

- Kramnik's unusual long/frequent visits to the only room w/o video surveillance and his immediately playing strong moves without thinking on his return to the board. The concern about this correlation was voiced in NIC 8/2006, and there was no explanation nor counterstatement published from Kramnik's side, so all in all, allowing the #1 player in the world to know a thing or two about chess, it is safe to state that this correlation in fact exists.

- Kramnik's panicing when his toilet gets locked - he seems to be unable to play without it - he even throws away a whole point.

- The decisions concernig the Appeals Committee and it's decisions getting overturned (did somebody take orders along from Sochi?)

- Kramnik's refusal to play a rematch even if he gets 1 Mio $ - what is he afraid of ? After all those years of talk that the WC should be decided in a match, now all of a sudden he play's in Mexico ? Highly inconsistent.

- Kramnik's past: please spare me all the excuses and legal details of his 5 year-long maneuvering - fact is from a historical perspective he refused GK a rematch until the latter finally gave up and retired, thus stealing 5 years of life time from him and depriving the chess world of perhaps the best player in the history of the game. Not to mention his playing in 2000 in spite of having lost to Shirov. This all shows what his ethical standard is and how he operates.

This thread is not about Mig's harmless "there is a general danger to chess in form of signaling - let's do something about it". No it is about Kramnik intimates specificly accusing Topalov of cheating. But after comparing the "evidence" of the Breutigam-attack in form of this ridiculous video with the above facts one might draw his own conclusions.

It's also the case that Topalov could not cheat in Elista but Kramnik could in Corus. We don't have to focus on the persons involved to recognize the real problems and separate them from those that only exist in the head of lunatics.

poisoned pawn,
1) Kramnik's visits to the bathroom are not unusual. Many players during WC matches spent most of their time out the scene. Kramnik himself behaved exactly the same during his match with Kasparov. Regarding making strong moves immediately after returning, is B.S. No evidence was ever provided even by Danailov. Only general speculations.
2) Kramnbik's reaction to the locked toilet was correct. He faced the contralt and the match rules violation.
3) Regarding the Appeals Committee, let me ask just one thing. Mr.Danailov was talking for months that he is going to sue FIDE, Elista organizers, and Kramnik. Where is the suit? Another confirmation that Mr. Danailov does only make the noise.
4) Regarding re-match, there are 2 natural reasons:
- team Topalov's Elista and post-Elista behavior does not provide any reasons for Kramnik to approach them;
- while for Topalov the WC title match means only money, and he would play for 1 megabuck under any sircumstances even in bathroom, is this chess or checkers, for Kramnik WC title match is a special event on it's own, as for many of us.
I don't even count that Topalov's offer is in violation to FIDE rul8ings.
- your passage about 5 years of maneuvering forces me to laugh. If GK wanted the re-match, he had to do his homework. Oh, I know, now you will blame Kramnik for inability of FIDE, GK, Pono, and Kasim to do their part of Prage agreements.

well, i say this without venom, without chagrin, without partiality, and without the slightest interest in the outcome (can there be one?) of this ludicrous posturing conspiracy-theory dripping techno-wizardry driven foolish debate. It is all a disservice to our game to elevate these groundless accusations beyond their current status as a blind (or at least myopic) little set of strategies.

Poisoned pawn, i really think you are a wee bit demented. Just a wee bit. And a bit aint too bad comparted to some relevant alternatives. Probably, you need to take your tablets.

- Kramnik's unusual long/frequent visits to the only room w/o video surveillance and his immediately playing strong moves without thinking on his return to the board.

Posted by: poisoned pawn at February 12, 2007 15:36

I know this "correlation" is pure Danailov bs anyway, but you've got to laugh at coming to the board to make a move "without thinking" being given as evidence of cheating. It never occurred to you that you can think anywhere, whereas you have to go to the board to make a move!?

Theorist: "Incidentally, doesn't any plausible theory of cheating (on either side) need to explain the role of the seconds? (I suppose I'm thinking of Elista here.) I imagine that each team included players immersed in their own careers, with too much to lose personally by being implicated in a cheating "ring" -- and that for their employer to cheat without their knowledge (whether direct or on the evidence of moves, etc.) would be close to impossible. And would either Topalov or Kramnik risk the possibility of a disgruntled former second "coming clean" at some murky point in the future -- perhaps when contracts are being renegotiated or another world championship cycle is being organised?"

Just to address this point (and this point alone), I do not think seconds need to be informed of the most inner-inner secrets of a camp's strategy to win. They can be used like mercenaries - fight their particular assigned battle (i.e. "find opening novelties vs the Catalan or the Najdorf") without being told the grand master plan (how a particular person employed a system of cheating with a different member of the camp in previous events). Seconds would need to be hired even by a cheating camp for appearances alone, but if the camp knew they were just for appearance, they can be easily kept in the dark about what was REALLY going on.

In Elista, seconds on both sides could have performed a very useful duty (find novelties) and been kept out of the 'real loop' easily, IMHO. Only the player and his very close signaler would have to be in-the-know.

misha,

poisoned pawn is telepathic which is how he can tell Kramnik makes his moves without thinking. Just like that he also knows that Kramnik did no thinking anywhere else.

Does anybody know if were there any monitor hook-ups in the bathroom?

Stern and theorist,

Hard as it may be to believe, it's not impossible to find a few unethical GM and IM-level players in chess.

Yuriy: "Hard as it may be to believe, it's not impossible to find a few unethical GM and IM-level players in chess."

I don't find this hard to believe at all simply due to money pressure in a pretty barren profession. However the possible exposure to blackmail (especially if we are talking about unethical GMs) or an unforeseen "crisis of conscience" by a minor member would dictate a strategy of keeping seconds in the dark and the pool of in-the-know personnel to an absolute minimum.

My point was that it is very easy to have different levels of membership even within a team, and to even harbor secrets within. And camps for chess championships are more mercenary in structure than most other types of national teams.

By the way, do you, guys, remember that during Elista there were team Topalov members with unknown responsibilities? And they were never seen as having any connection to chess before?

IN MY OPINION KRAMNIK DEVALUATED THE TITLE DUE THE NEXT 5 REASONS: 1)KRAMNIK NEVER QUALIFIED TO BE A LEGITIMATE CHALLENGER TO KASPAROV IN THE 2000.HE WAS HANDPICKED. 2)KRAMNIK WAS DECLARED WINNER AFTER "TIE" THE PRAGA AGREEMENT SEMIFINAL IN BRISSAGO AGAINST PETER LEKO. 3)AFTER PUT THE BRISSAGO MONEY IN HIS WALLET KRAMNIK REFUSED PLAY KASPAROV BECAUSE THE MATCH KASPY-KASIM WAS NOT PART OF THE "CONTRACT".WHY KRAMNIK KEPT
SILENT ABOUT THIS CONCERN AFTER THE MATCH
KASPY-PONO WAS ABORTED AND AFTER FIDE DECIDED
TO MATCH KASPY WITH THE WINNER OF LIBYA 2004?.
KRAMNIK EVEN KEPT SILENT AFTER KASIM WON LIBYA
AND EVEN BEFORE HIS MATCH WITH LEKO.WHY?????.
4)THE MATCH WITH TOPA WAS THE SOLUTION FOR THE RUSSIAN SUPPORT TO THE KIRSAN REELECTION. 5)KRAMNIK CAN NOT WIN HIGHEST RATED TOURNAMENTS.

SO WHAT IS THE NEXT TRICK IN MEXICO 2007 TO HELP
KRAMNIK TO KEEP HIS TITLE?

CALOGERO, I think you just devalued the Caps button.

Thanks for the comments, guys (Stern and Yuriy). For the record, I too think the question of cheating is ridiculous. Kramnik, in particular, is beyond reproach.

Indeed, now I think of it, I'm interested not so much in the possibility of seconds helping K or T to cheat (although I think the question is worth raising simply to cut through some of the more exotic conspiracy theories: conspiracy theories need conspirators!); but I'm mostly curious about the mechanism by which the group of seconds works (how can people who would otherwise be competing for a livelihood come together and help each other? I understand the mercenary part. But it's not like a science lab, where you have to leave all your lab books behind when you leave: the knowledge gained is lodged in these guys' heads. How can you stipulate how they use it subsequently? Doesn't that require a certain level of ethics in and of itself? And what is the nearest non-chess parallel? A political strategist, perhaps?) But of course this is another thread...

Theorist, I really do not see how one can pull a cheating act with the help of seconds. I mean this is like a bank heist. Someone has to die to cover the tracks. Call me naïve, but I don’t see how something like this can be pulled off without it turning into a blackmail situation down the road. Really, this is so grave that defies the imagination.

D.

Caologero,
What part of
Kramnik BEAT Kasparov
Kramnik BEAT Leko
Kramnik BEAT Topolov
Kramnik is UNIFIED WORLD CHAMPION
didnt you understand?

VLad Kosulin:

1) see "mishanp"
2) [...] Kramnbik's reaction to the locked toilet was correct. [...]
I am not lawyer nor do I have access to the contracts/relevant regulations so I cannot judge if it was legally correct (can you?). But Kramnik's reaction - sitting in front of his locked toilet like a pigheaded child - was completely unnatural. I mean a dispute over a toilet - give me a break. If he doesn't have to hide something, why not just use a public toilet ?
3) [...] Where is the suit? [...]
I don't know, maybe Mr. Dainalov was busy raising the money and submitting the papers for a rematch ?
4) [...] any reasons for Kramnik to approach them [...]
He didn't need to approach anybody since he was approached - USD 1 Mio seems enough reason to me.
[...] he had to do his homework [...]
You want GK to have to "qualify" by playing against Kasimdzhanov and the like ? Are you serious ??

shane bonetti: [...] Probably, you need to take your tablets.

Wow, did you come up with this all by yourself ? If this statement reflects your intellect I am impressed (in the negative sense of course).

mishanp: [...] It never occurred to you that you can think anywhere [...]

Do you want to state the fact that there was a demo board in relaxation area ? But since it has been established that Kramnik spent most of his time either going to or in his toilet (officially w/o a board) is it that you want to tell me Kramnik plays blindfold chess when the world championship is at stake ? And what about my earlier statement, that Kramnik's (rare) blunders seem to have occured when he was actually staying at the board ?

To be a real WCC is not enough only beat the
current champion Coolhandluke,is not enough just
be handpicked.Fischer became WCC not just because
beat Spassky but he beat Petrosian ,Taimanov,
Larsen and the rest of the opposition.
If the Kramnik title is not an aberration what
is the reason to continue with qualifier cycles?
Let's continue with handpicking processes.
When Kramnik beat Leko?

I'm not a great chess player... but i'm really really good in understanding people, reading people.
I'm not talking chess now, i'm talking money... for the winner, big money! then I watch Danailov, Topalov and Kramnik... read what they say, gestures, etc...
Hey, but this is an easy one! CAN'T YOU SEE??? this is what amaze me!

Theorist - about seconds; you are right; there are ethics involved. It is common for agreements to be reached that novelties found in preparation can or cannot be used later on. And of course opening secrets shared cannot be revealed to others. Gazza fell out with Vladimirov about this last, for example (unjustly, or so he later admitted). There are many references to the kind of agreements made: Belyavsky talks in his best games book about the arrangement he made with Kasparov, for example, and Kramnik in interviews in 1996 about seconding Kasparov in New York. (where the deal was there was no deal, rather unusually but basically because Kramnik played different openings anyway).

You make a good point about seconds and I'm not sure I share Stern's confidence about being able to keep some seconds out of the loop; ones you work with before the match yes, ones on the spot I'm not so sure. Topalov took pains to meet this point in his New in Chess interview by saying (absurdly of course) that Kramnik's team hadn't known and it was unskilled KGB operatives running the computer. But this is rather the point about Topalov: his rise coincided with appointing a single full-time dedicated second. After all no-one thinks Topalov was cheating in Elista (when he had others also) because of the glass. But undoubtedly the allegations did start at the time when he put in place the necessary conditions for this stuff. On the other hand, of course, these are also very useful conditions for becoming stronger.

I continue to be amazed by the success of Danailov's lies - look at poisoned pawn spouting this rubbish about Kramnik only playing strong moves on his return to the board, for example. It's instructive - I suppose anyone who listens to football supporters discussing referees after a match shouldn't be instructed, but then they're only football supporters. I find myself instructed, anyway.
Still wondering how Danailov behaved pre-2005 and in Elista, anyone? Also, Mig, I take it this is not the same video reputedly shown to Gazza which may or may not exist?

mishanp: [...] It never occurred to you that you can think anywhere [...]

Do you want to state the fact that there was a demo board in relaxation area ? But since it has been established that Kramnik spent most of his time either going to or in his toilet (officially w/o a board) is it that you want to tell me Kramnik plays blindfold chess when the world championship is at stake ? And what about my earlier statement, that Kramnik's (rare) blunders seem to have occured when he was actually staying at the board ?

Posted by: poisoned pawn at February 12, 2007 18:48

1) Nothing's been "established" - all we really know is that Danailov and co. were allowed to watch a video that should have been exclusively available to the arbiter - and then lied about the number of "toilet visits" it revealed. Apart from crude insinuations I don't recall any break-down of where/how Kramnik spent his time.

2) Yep, there was a demo board

3) Your blind-fold comment is of the usual calibre. The only thing that makes blind-fold chess error-prone is that you don't get to see the board at any point during the game - so it's possible even for a super-GM to lose their way in all the variations/actual positions. Kramnik here was in the situation of having the board available if he ever had the slightest doubt as to the position. You don't need to be the best blindfold player in the world (as Monaco suggests he is) to cope with that ;)

4) re: blunders at the board - yep, the tiebreaks when Kramnik didn't leave the board were full of blunders, weren't they? Again, I don't recall any break-down of blunders and time spent at the board - where was that? Kramnik tends to blunder in bad/difficult positions, as most of us do - Fritz melt-down excepted ;)

Gosh, guys! What would be so difficult finding Kasparov hiding in Kramnik's closet in Elista! Kasparov wasn't in that closet! Kramnik did not cheat!

Stern,--yeah, we seem to generally agree, but you only really need a couple of seconds, (heh, that didn't mean to be a pun) and it would be easier to make sure they are your friends or people who would go along with it than deceive them during your preparation and training and try to explain them the inevitable oddities.

On a different note:

there is a guy in the local chess club who can't stop whistling and humming while thinking over his move. He has been asked to stop but can't, sometimes he even does it while looking at other people's games. He is now not allowed to kibitz :) but of course you can't stop him from thinking over his own moves. Eventually my friend Arthur suggested he bring a small pocket chess board, on which he replicate all moves and then take it to the other side of the room to think and hum/whistle all he wants.

The point of the story? Even if there was no demo board (and everything I read suggested there was) there are ways for Kramnik to keep track of the position away from the board. It's really not hard.

– How do you assess the opponent’s strategy – trying to keep you away from the relaxation room by making the moves fast?

- (Kramnik) I think they just want to create uncomfortable conditions for me. Indeed, I got used to spending my time in the relaxation room during the WCC games. There is a demonstration board, and one can keep thinking about the position; the air is fresher, and nothing disturbs you. The opponent’s strategy aims at disrupting my rhythm. However, I have no problem sitting quietly at the board. I don’t think such strategy is justified – there is no real reason to make mediocre moves quickly only to disrupt my rhythm.

http://www.worldchess2006.com/main.asp?id=1094

rdh: "You make a good point about seconds and I'm not sure I share Stern's confidence about being able to keep some seconds out of the loop; ones you work with before the match yes, ones on the spot I'm not so sure."

You have more experience in this than I do, but I do remember reading a second's account of Elista (Kramnik's I think?) where he stated that most of the 'on-the-spot' seconds for both teams only rarely attend the actual games. He said that it was when the player was actually playing that the seconds got a break and some rest time! So if they are tasked with just finding opening novelties or analyzing the last played game, would they really be more in-the-know than, for instance, the opponent or mere attendees?

Also, a second who was not told the "truth" about his camps cheating might have strong suspicions, but it would be both against his interest to disclose his suspicion (monetarily at least) and, if he did choose to, would not mean he had more proof of his suspicion than others leveling the same accusations. He sees the same moves as we all do, and probably witnesses less 'hand-signaling' then others. So I don't see how it is harder to keep him from your biggest inner secret. You just don't tell him. And if he comes out later saying he *thinks* you cheated but admits that no one in the camp ever acknowledged that they were, well, then he just joins the other GMs already grumbling behind the scenes but without real proof. Bad, but no worse than before, and certainly not at the level of a true 'insider' with documentation coming out.

Also, I don't think the number in the inner-most circle needs to be just two.

One thing I don't know is if it is common to have seconds during non-matchplay events like San Luis or Corus. I would guess not, and it is here that no real security was in place.

I just watched the video again and realized that it's not Danailov who is signaling Topolov, but the white haired women to the right of Danailov. She's obviously speaking into something and relaying messages to him. No wait, Danailov just signaled her and she's leaving the premises. Oh...too bad she wasn't followed out with a camaera, I'd like to see what she is speaking into. No I'm not paranoid, I'm a chessplayer.

[...] I continue to be amazed by the success of Danailov's lies - look at poisoned pawn spouting this rubbish about Kramnik only playing strong moves on his return to the board [...]

rdh:

How can you accuse somebody of lying if you are not even able to reproduce the statements ?

1) "upon return to the board he always played strong moves"
2) "he blundered mainly when staying at the board"

Both do not exclude the possibility that he might also have played strong moves while staying at the board, therefore your wording doesn't apply at all.

Without lapsing into your snootiness: I myself am amazed and find it instructive how people like you let themselves manipulate and knee-jerkingly, without own consideration adopt a view advanced by some spindoctors having ulterior motifs (cf. this crap video from "Dutch fan" so prominently featured by certain media).

Stern, having seconds that are not in the know would mean having fake practice, strategy sessions, etc. Many many hours of hard work. Unnecessary drain on a Super GM who is already stressed enough and is taking a whole different approach to the match.

And I don't agree that having a second come out would be "just another GM". Imagine the bombshell effect of Cheparinov saying he thinks Topalov received hand signals or Bareev saying there was something funky about Kramnik's behavior at Elista.

chesstraveler,

I showed the video to a lady not familiar with chess without any explanation today. She was also captivated by the white-haired lady and wondered why the camera man paid any attention to the inconspicuous businessman in suite and tie, watching the game.

Yuriy: "Stern, having seconds that are not in the know would mean having fake practice, strategy sessions, etc. Many many hours of hard work. Unnecessary drain on a Super GM who is already stressed enough and is taking a whole different approach to the match."

But you wouldn't have to fake anything with your seconds. This would only be true if a) they added no value and b) you were going to risk cheating in every game (perhaps in every move).

Notice that working with your seconds has a good chance to produce a "clean" win for you - a novelty perhaps that is so good that you can easily convert the full point in a crushing position without Rybka. Or obtain an easy draw with black against your opponents favorite opening. We are still referring to Top GMs who can win won positions without aide if a 'natural' process gives them one.

These are very valuable not only in the point they produce in the standing, but in CAMOUFLAGE for those times you need to turn to Rybka in another game. Anything that can reduce your exposure is important for a cheater. You can ever publicly praise your second for finding that novelty, diverting suspicion. It also keeps that second 'in your camp' and not suspicious.

Anyone who is cheating is almost certainly doing so sparingly. Therefore, the 'natural' process of producing wins is still very important, and not just for appearances. You can also couple a very good (but not crushing) novelty found by your second with a few Rybka suggestions in the mid game to produce much higher than normal expectation too. Since (as I understand it) computers still mainly use opening books for the start, finding novelties is still an important (and human) task. So you wouldn't have to fake anything. That is the 'beauty' of it, your mercenaries still add value, but you keep your little secret to yourself and sparingly pull it out.

Yuriy: "And I don't agree that having a second come out would be "just another GM". Imagine the bombshell effect of Cheparinov saying he thinks Topalov received hand signals or Bareev saying there was something funky about Kramnik's behavior at Elista."

You are no doubt right about this of course, and it would be bigger news than if some other GM said things, but I still think that a second wouldn't come out unless he had irrefutable proof, since he a) could be accused by the player as blackmailing the team without proof and b) would have a tough time finding a job as a second again (why hire someone who might be a divisive?). So again, I think he would join the GMs who might say things in private but, lacking proof, know that no good can come from going public. More likely he would grab onto the cheating team with both hands if he knew that they were going to dominate chess and he could draw a check from that.

And it is all the more reason to make sure your seconds are treated as seconds on the team and kept away from your biggest secrets (not just cheating, but your own novelty pool and traps). You can thus always play the 'disgruntled' card to anything they say against you without proof.

It would be great drama if a second did come forward though.

Chesstraveler: […] but the white haired women to the right […]

Yep, that's what I laughed about on Polgar's blog a couple of days ago.

Now, they'll try to drag Gary into this – it's in the air. I can feel it, like I felt the first barrage incoming… I truly think that he has to start acting like a politician and pick his battles – he has the habit of shooting from the hip sometimes (like all great man do) and I hope he can suppress that urge.

D.

With all due respect to ChessBase, what they are doing now more and more looks like a war against Topalov.

Well, Kommersant published some article. But why ChessBase could not ask the ACP Board and verify the (sensitive!) facts, before to put on the top the following "summary":

"The ACP and FIDE have vowed to investigate".

Regarding FIDE I have no idea. But, well... I quitted the ACP board very recently (what was not related, luckily, with this Topalov, Kramnik stuff). Hopefully, my colleagues would explain to the chess world that the whole "ACP investigation" issue emerged from nowhere. I do not want to say more as of now.

I am working in chess journalism for a while, but I must say that I never saw in the past such a massive public campaign against someone.

poisoned pawn,

I assume you have a log for each game of when Kramnik stayed at the board and when he went to the bathroom? Please reproduce it for us.

Stern,

Your comments are intelligent, interesting and non-confrontational. They require actual thinking to respond to. I will try to write back at work tomorrow.

Internet. Cable. Thumb. Mouth. Finger. Neck. Hot. Coffe. Cold. Mountain. Blue. Yoghurt. White. Yoghurt. Red. Bus. Closed. Toilet. Open. Catalan. Paris. Hilton. Paris. Texas. Dutch. Amateur. German. Pro. Bareev. Leko. Moro. Married. Guy. Danailov. Manager. Danailov. Writer. Danailov. Cell-phone. Nokia. Ericsson. Russia. KGB. Plutonium. FF. CH. VK. Rybka. Fritz. Hans. UTP. FSB. Demo. Board. Blindfold. Kutin. Vega. ACP. FIDE. Possibility. No. Possibility. Impossible. Monkeys. Laptop. Communists. Bias…

Poisoned pawn; sorry, couldn't be bothered to reproduce your stuff accurately since you're evidently just making up whatever you fancy anyway. Post some reason to suggest that what you say about Kramnik playing strong moves after trips to the lavatory is true, and I'll respond properly. Until then, you're just a fantasist saying what you'd like to be true.

How it would be if you stopped whining about other posters being horrid to you and concentrated on putting your case forward? If you've got something to say, try and prove it. Shouting isn't proving. You've been called, snootily or not, on what you say are the facts, not only by me but by lots of other people. What say you put up or shut up?

Stern: in principle what you say is true (and I remember the same interview as you do about seconds resting only during the game; indeed I've heard several seconds say this). I just think there'd be a huge strain socially. I'm sure once the team goes back to the flat there's a certain amount of talking about the game. There'd be arrangements to be made; mysterious calls; comings and goings; sudden silences. The patron would be under different pressures from normal for sure, and I just think it would be hard to remember you had to conceal the thing for so long. If it was going on while you were on the ground the whole time trying to work for the common cause, I think you'd have suspicions at least. At the least it'd be a risk factor to consider.

I think everyone had seconds at San Luis except Adams (who had at least some support off site) and Kasim. Only the very top guys have a full-time second who goes everywhere with them; Kasparov had Dokhoian, Topalov of course Cheparinov. Corus I'm not sure; at a non-world championship my assumption is that only the payroll guys like Cheparinov and Dokhoian would be there physically, but I could be wrong.

How exactly you'd use computer help is an interesting subject, I agree. I suspect continuing to play well during the rest of the game is quite a hard trick to master. And if you're going to get help only when useful then I imagine you need a skilled operator on the machine. Or, I suppose, a regular feed which you can access only when you think it's useful. But if you're going to arrange for signals only when useful, then for sure you need a GM at least calling the shots with the computer.

But then this is exactly why it's quite an interesting, if academic, topic to debate: no-one really knows what the most effective method would be or how much information you'd need to be helpful, balanced against the difficulties of transmitting it.

Topalov fans should stop cribbing. Topalov is / was not worthy of Classical World Champion title. He has been good at tournaments,but that does not make him the best player. Forget World Championship, he has not beaten any player above 2700 in a match, be it even a 4 game match.
Danailov and co are a bunch of idiots and i couldn't care less about what they say about Topalov being World's best.

poisoned pawn:
"- Kramnik's refusal to play a rematch even if he gets 1 Mio $ - what is he afraid of ? After all those years of talk that the WC should be decided in a match, now all of a sudden he play's in Mexico ? Highly inconsistent."
As an addition to VLad Kosulin's explanation: Kramnik did NOT refuse a rematch.

Does anyone know for sure if there was an Elista-like one way glass wall (or something similar) in place in the Essent tournament? I keep hearing that but fail to get it confirmed.

Now the people start to understand what kind of JOURNALIST is MIG.He is not independent,not objective and follow Chessbase like a child.He was hiding all the information about Kramnik from his readers.On the other hand he immediately publish all the negative information againts Danailov&Topalov.

Great job Mig,well done.Congratulations!

Posted by: loopus at February 13, 2007 07:40

The only "information" being that after T&D whipped up "Toilet-gate" an inspection of the ceiling showed that as with any modern ceiling in the world there are cables ;) Which were removed... It's not exactly an earth-shattering revelation, is it?

Personally I'd publish all the junk that Danailov comes out with - it does a vastly better job of making him and Topalov look ridiculous than any reasoned argument ever could. As Khalifman mentioned in passing on the "Toilet-gate" book - who really wants to go down in history for having their face plastered on a book above the word "TOILET"? ;)

Plus they'll push their brinkmanship too far - as with Topalov's interview with the Spanish journalist, which of course broke FIDE's code of ethics as well as making a prosecution possible in the courts. It's laughable to hear the T&D supporters (or perhaps the many voices of Danailov himself) trying to imply that Kramnik has "shockingly" come out and accused Topalov of cheating. Which of course he never has. I'd guess Kramnik's dignity infuriates Danailov and co. more than anything else.

rdh already mentioned most of what I was going to say to stern. I too feel that involvement with the seconds during match preparation would be so close as to make hiding the secret from them far more difficult than finding a couple of less than scrupulous seconds who would assist you in your endeavour. This is especially true when your seconds are your friends or are on your payroll.

I have already said earlier that I feel that accepting a SINGLE move from a chess engine during game is a recipe for disaster. Especially considering the kind of dynamic complex lines chess engines are good at, knowing the first move does not help much when the second move YOU had in mind is easily refuted and you completely miss the second move DF or Rybka suggests. Either several consecutive signalling moves are required or you need a more reliable signal (such as receptor in your ear).

Last, on the subjects of seconds coming out with revelation. My point was that we would put more stock in what Cheparinov/Bareev would say than we would in just another player's opinion, not that they are likely to come out. And the reason for this of course is precisely because

a) they would be more likely to have proof (if not physical, then at least stories about weird things the GM and helpers did behind the scenes)

b) the move would not be in the seconds' best interest and would require him breaking away from people he used to be friends with--not something one does lightly

bla-bla-bla-bla

this will not end...never
this is part of the game - fans.
fans defend their favorits.
and some politics make benefits of fans' bias.
we will never know the complete truth but I know for sure that behind all these articles, accusations and allegations there is a bunch of financial and political interests. This arguement is not for the chess dignity...it is all abou money and power.

It's great to hear that there is money and power to be had in chess...this will be good news to everybody looking for sponsors.

"This is all about money and power" is perhaps the most mind-numbing and pervasive stamp of all conspiracy theorists, as it carries no meaning or proof and can apply to absolutely anything.

This whole episode would be good if it sold tickets or merchandise, but it has done nothing but bring more ruin in this European chess soap opera. I can't believe that video got the time of day.

Where is the logic here? I don't believe Danailov-Topalov cheating is possible from the setup shown in the video. Anything out of the ordinary (e.g., prolonged eye contact, head nods, body movements) would be spotted immediately. Topalov would have to do that repeatedly... and he only got a draw?

From the video Danailov is about 15-20 feet to the left and about 80-100 feet in front of Topalov. Topalov would have to turn his head and look through a maze of people to see him.

I'm really surprised at Mark Ginsburg's comparison of signals to baseball. I'm a former baseball player and that is not the way signals are transmitted. In baseball, coaches have an indicator sign and anything after the indicator is the actual command. So a coach can do 5, 10, 15, 50 different signs, but they mean nothing unless you show the indicator sign. The signals are clear and distinguishable, not confusing. This doesn't apply here since Danailov's sequences were unclear with no apparent indicator. Subtle, unclear signs are useless in transmitting chess moves and would only bring confusion to the player receiving the signals.

Neither Kramnik, nor Topalov were cheating. Kramnik is the better match player... Topalov is the better tournament player. That much is obvious.

This.is.nonsense.and.the.latest.of.senseless.egomanical.chess.battles.between.European.men.for.the.last.35.years.

It.is.ruining.chess.

Agreed, Yuriy. It's intellectually lazy and demands of its proponent no further thought.

Daiim.Fischer.was.not.European.and.Kamsky's.behaviour.wasn't.anything.to.be.proud.of.either.let's.stop.with.the.silly.continentism.

Fischer wasn't European. Nor was Kamsky.

Hey Daaim, how about calling them White Devils?
Then again, who were the major players after Fischer? Karpov, Korchnoi, Kasparov, Kramnik, Topalov, none of which falls into the "European" category. Anything east of the Elbe...
I recall Jan Timman referring to his namesake Jaan Ehlvest as "dim Asiatic man" - it was just an innocent jab between friends, of course.

Calogero,
Your saying Leko is WCC? Rules were clear and Leko didnt win. I'm not sure what part of the world your from, but where I live there are winners and losers and Leko was the looser. Kramnik beat the greatest player of my generation and continues a long succesion of champions back to Steintz. Preseason and regualar season victories does not make a champion, only the Championship counts and your guy lost.

daaammmm

I have never seen a better post ruined by a single sentence. Of course it's just the latest in a series of egomaniacal senseless posts by African men for the last 35 months. Some of us prefer to judge those posts for their senselessness and not for the origin of the person who makes them.

btw, the animosity between the not-sure-the-background Kramnik and the Bulgarian Topalov has probably generated more interest in a rematch than the cozy relationship between Kramnik and Leko, Kasparov and Short and also not too hostile Kasparov-Kramnik prior to their match. Adversity between Lakers and Celtics, Yankees and Red Sox, Germany and England, Connors and McEnroe, Redskins and Cowboys sells. Already anticipation for the next game between these two guys is at its highest. Peaceful mature relations sadly do not go as far for the sport. So I don't necessarily agree that this brings ruin.

let me note that I am not making fun of anybody's name in the first sentence--that was meant to be a long drawn out "damn"

There.are.too.many.cranky.people.in.this.blog.who.are.having.their.periods.

How much pay would a GM require to play a match of, say, 6 games to test out the practical value of one or more possible cheating scenarios?

I'm thinking of the "cheat sparingly" scenario in particular: would having access to a top engine's choices at one or two key points in a game, enable an IM (or perhaps even an experienced amateur -- say, me) to pull even with a solid GM?

This could be tested by arranging a match where one side is allowed to cheat, in whatever manner is seen as most in need of testing. Perhaps Chessbase or ICC would be willing to pay the GM's fee for such a match?

While that isn't the same test as one world-class GM getting computer help while playing another world-class GM, I think the results would still be quite interesting and would have at least some applicability to one particular question under discussion...if indeed it really is even a question.

I would have thought that Kasparov's opinion (that just a single computer move per game could give Super-GM A a major, perhaps overwhelming edge over Super-GM B) would be good enough for everyone. It was enough to make me swing my own opinion 180 degrees: I had believed that without any access to supporting lines or computations, being given just a single move couldn't help and might even hurt -- as Yuriy Kleyner asserts above, and as rdh seems to agree with, albeit with apparent reservations. While I still think that's the case for weaker players, in terms of Super-GMs I don't see why Kasparov's opinion shouldn't be accepted by us all as absolutely conclusive....especially when many other top GMs seem to implicitly share his view (judging by how fearful all the top players seem to be about the possibility of being defeated by cheating).

Argh. The argument sinks even lower. Let's start up the Armenia vs. Azerbaijan fistfights now.

The advantage of having computer aid is certainly less if your opponent knows you are doing it, but it would still be interesting, of course.

It's a shame we can't persuade the Cat or those Indian fellas to tell us what info they were getting.

IIRC Kasparov's view was represented as being not so much that a single move but even a 'go-for-it' signal would be significant. It must be implicit in this view that you have a player of considerable strength making the signal. Even if you allow the player to signal that now would be a good moment for some help, the operator still has to know which move represents 'going for it' and which not.

I suspect that a significant problem with signalling would be found, if it were trialled over a long period, to be the efficiency drain caused by occasional miscommuncation and the associated lack of confidence. I doubt it's simple to produce unambiguous signals which can't easily be detected even by a watcher looking specifically for this sort of thing.

Jacobs: This could be tested by arranging a match where one side is allowed to cheat,

Brilliant idea! Damn, I should have thought of it :-) Actually that would be an extremely interesting suite of "controlled cheating" experiments. I can think of a number of things that can be measured. The psychological factor is interesting to test when someone thinks that the other side is cheating. And so forth. Good idea.

D.

All good observations, rdh.

I dismissed out of hand the very possibility of signalling when I first read the rumors (at the time of San Luis), precisely because I figured the top guys and anyone closely associated with them would be under a real or figurative spotlight all the time, so that signalling would be far too conspicuous.

But that turned out to be incorrect, at least up until now.

From now on, we can hope things will be different. Even if organizers don't follow through and implement what seems to be the majority view of Dirt posters -- one-way glass or similar view-blocking partitions between players and spectators at all major events -- we can hope that audience and press will be on-guard, and often armed with video-capable cell phones, so that henceforth there will be a possibility of compiling decent evidence, even unofficially.

Also I thought these top guys would have too much to lose, to risk cheating of any kind. But in that I was clearly wrong: even most Topalov fans here now agree that the fear of being caught or suspected simply isn't an issue at all for Topalov -- he has no good name to lose, nor does he care a whit about having one.

I also thought signalling would be unreliable, as you said. Both the reliability of the communication and the strength-threshold of the accomplice (i.e. must it be a fellow super-GM, or just a middling GM, or could it be someone less strong?), are fascinating empirical questions that call out for a test.

In relation to the accomplice-strength issue, don't forget that a B-player and a C-player won PAL's first "Freestyle" (i.e. advanced chess) tournament 2 years ago. They took home a $15,000 prize after defeating several rival teams that had GMs on them, not to mentions several other teams consisting of top engines (including Hydra) operating without human assistance.

That Freestyle result spawned at least one very long Dirt thread, which readers can look up and review if you're so inclined. I think it is highly relevant to the "cheater's cookbook" question at issue here.

For what it's worth, Nigel Short submits over at Chessgames.com that signalling moves would be "exceptionally easy".

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=12181

Jon Jacobs: [...] even most Topalov fans here now agree that the fear of being caught or suspected simply isn't an issue at all for Topalov -- he has no good name to lose, nor does he care a whit about having one.

--------

What kind of rubbish is that now?

D.

Acirce, to respond to your question of 8:43: it seems there was no glass wall in Hoogeveen last year. One of the pictures on the site of Frits Agterdenbos shows the playing hall:

http://www.chessvista.com/ccms.2054.ChessVista.Essent-Chess-2006-Crown-Group.html

There seems to be some kind of reflection on the photo, but that is probably a coincidence. Because there are these ropes between the spectators and the players, I doubt that there was a physical barrier between them. In 2005, when I visited the tournament myself, there was certainly no glass wall.

Oscar, thanks.

I found this Chessbase report http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3443 - you can see (I think) there ARE glass "walls", sort of, but as it seems at least some spectators are allowed in the same room as the players, although it also looks like there is not space for very many. Was it like this in 2005?

Of course, there being glass doesn't mean one-way glass anyway. So it was probably nothing.

There might be a simple reason for Topalov's bad result in Essent:
According to teh evil chessbase site the good humored Danailov just arrived before round 4 there:
http://www.chessbase.de/nachrichten.asp?newsid=5966

A valid point, siron.

So the statistics from Essent 2006 are as follows:

Danailov absent:
Topa scores 0,5/3

Danailov in the audience:
Topa scores 2/3

Yuriy Kleyner:

[...] I assume you have a log for each game of when Kramnik stayed at the board and when he went to the bathroom?

This angle has been played up a lot. I don't have this kind of information as I was not in Elista. As probably most readers I rely on the interviews and reports. If you don't, how can you know that Kramnik won or even that any game was played at all ? After all you were not there. Otherwise the fact remains that video footage from Kramniks relaxation room was examined by arbiters and members of the Appeals Committee. Upon watching Kramnik's behaviour they decided to lock both rooms. And one has to assume they must have had a reason for it.

rdh:

[...] sorry, couldn't be bothered to reproduce your stuff accurately since you're evidently just making up whatever you fancy anyway. [...]

How can you decide if my "stuff" is made up if you "evidently" failed to grasp any of it ? Check your logic before bothering me over again (and refrain from alleging me whining about anything/anybody).

mishanp:

[...] The only "information" being that after T&D whipped up "Toilet-gate" an inspection of the ceiling showed that as with any modern ceiling in the world there are cables [...]

This is perverting the facts. Every security setup is as strong as the weakest element in the link. If allowing access to an unsupervised room during the game (braindead in itself) you have to prevent any foul play in that room, and network access doesn't exactly meet that, in fact is totally unacceptable. So a room whith a "modern ceiling" isn't just good enough, either somebody failed to do his job or ... you get the idea.

As for the wording "cable in the ceiling": it's not that the cable is set in concrete or something, there is a hollow space under the ceiling where the cables lie. One can easily access the cables (and stash things there) by removing a plate by hand.

Jon Jacobs:

[...] for Topalov -- he has no good name to lose, nor does he care a whit about having one. [...]

Could you enlighten me as for the appeal of tossing out to the internet for potentially thousands of people to read such a subjective, abusive and baseless sentence (although I must admit there is some irony to it it being posted in a thread about a video allegedly proving Topa cheated but in fact being a mere waste of bandwith).

Yep Acirce, it was like that in 2005 as well. The games of the Crown Group are played in a room separate from the Open Group. This room has glass walls on the outside, but inside there is space for spectators as well. Then there would be nothing between them and the players. It would be possible to walk to their board and make a move yourself :-)

That Topalov played quite bad during the first few rounds is not that strange; it was directly after he disappointedly left Elista. The arrival of Danailov must have cheered him up.

In that sense does Danailov help him, by being in the public, so that Topalov can see him. Many people feel better when they can see somebody who is close to them. Just count the pictures on the desks of many workers...

However, I think it is very unlikely that Danailov helps Topalov by signalling him somehow. I think that the sudden rise (not that much out of the ordinary, actually) of the former FIDE world champion was caused by some major changes.

First of all, a psychological one. I think Topalov mentioned a psycholog, who taught him that losing is not the end of the world, especially if you win many games. Then one in his entourage, by appointing Cheparinov as his second.

First I thought he might have changed his battling style as well, i.e. now he plays until the bitter end and before he did not. However, it seems that the average number of moves in his games was not that different in 2005 compared to other years.

JJ, good point about the freestyle tournament. I don't know though. If you're just going to have the accomplice deciding when to signal, I still think you need a good player. It's not enough to be able to operate the computer properly (and this is certainly a skill in itself independent to some extent of strength); you also need to be able to read the thoughts of a strong human faced with the position.

But then of course you can have the player signalling when he needs help, which would change the equation.

I guess you never know until you try!

Acirce; your link itself says that the A group was played behind glass walls, does it not? Although not whether they were one-way.

"That Topalov played quite bad during the first few rounds is not that strange; it was directly after he disappointedly left Elista. The arrival of Danailov must have cheered him up.

In that sense does Danailov help him, by being in the public, so that Topalov can see him."

Yep, it gives him emotional support. Topalov has made that point himself, for example in New In Chess 2005/5. I don't find that particularly hard to believe although the truly paranoid would probably view it as a pre-emptive excuse...

"This angle has been played up a lot. I don't have this kind of information as I was not in Elista. As probably most readers I rely on the interviews and reports. If you don't, how can you know that Kramnik won or even that any game was played at all ? After all you were not there."

Hmm, I would have thought that the statement "Kramnik won" is actually based on a bit more evidence than just Kramnik saying so.

Posted by: Mikhail Golubev at February 12, 2007
With all due respect to ChessBase, what they are doing now more and more looks like a war against Topalov... I am working in chess journalism for a while, but I must say that I never saw in the past such a massive public campaign against someone.>>

And you haven't seen one now. They publish all Topalov's charges, and you're fine with that. They publish charges against him, and magically it suddenly becomes wrong. This says more about your own biases than theirs.

Charles:

Then provide links to "Sueddeutsche" and "Komersant" publishing any of Topalov's "charges". If you can't, it's exactly that: a massive public campaign against world #1 Topalov. And ChessBase passing on even the most hideous crap uncommented (although they should know better and could/should check the facts e.g. ACP "investigation") if not being directly involved in it (Breutigam?).

You didn't read Mikhail's post. He accused *Chessbase* of a war, not Sueddeutsche and Komersant.

What part didn't you understand? Chessbase has published all the charges, both by Topalov and against him, as is. When Danailov accused Kramnik of matching Fritz's moves 70-some-odd percent of the time, they didn't fact check it, or ask him for his methodology, or even ask what Topalov's percentage was. They just printed what Danailov said. With no objections from you.

Sorry, but this seems too simple a point to obfuscate. Give it up, man.

It's clear that this is very much a classical left brain vs right brain exercise. Also clear is which of the people involved in this discussion are able to turn off the right side and apply logic and reason.

For those so unable, perhaps it's a lack of formal education in critical thinking and/or the scientific method. Irrespective, I simply can't understand how some people can look at what "data" is here and draw the conclusions they do.

I find it highly improbable that either player has ever seriously used outside assistance. None of the "data" is compelling and as rational people have stated it's almost impossible to prove anything with what little exists. That being said, there would appear to be a far greater opportunity for Topalov to have received assistance over a long period of time relative to the isolated incident that Kramink is accused. Does that prove or disprove anything? Absolutely not.

Probably the most ironic circumstance through all this drama: the cavalier attitude displayed by Danailov when facing any sort of questions about he and his charge. For him to make sweeping claims about the KGB/FSB involvement and fail to recognize that the only thing he has thus far used one of the methods perfected by those antagonists he is decrying - distraction and utter deniability with no plausibility to the claims he makes.

Apparently, if he said the sky was green, he expects people to simply be agog with belief without going and looking for themselves even though what he claims flies in the face of every person with a rational bone in their body.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the very definition of propoganda.

2Charles (sorry I do not know who are you):

ChessBase republishes GM Short's statements from the DNA website, after what Short by phone requests them to make some sensitive corrections.
Why it was necessary to hurry? Why not to ask Short, whom they know extremely well, and conducted many interviews with him in the past?

Then, very similarly, they quickly refer to (inaccurate) Kommersant article and make comments. Let's be serious. ChessBase editors know all members of the ACP Board and most of their email address too, be sure about that. So why to hurry? Why not to ask a comment before to republish stuff from the mainstream Russian paper, whose journalist is not an insider of the chess world (like Breutigam)? In fact, the matter was not discussed by the ACP Board and ChessBase simply supported rumours. Some of the ACP board members found news about their "investigation" from ChessBase and other sites who acted similarly.

The current policy is obvious, and it is regrettable because journalists are working with facts first of all, and should try to be accurate - especially when it is SO easy to be accurate.

Regarding the (similarly quick) publication of the translated Breutigam article. This was OK, in my view. (If, of course the author and his paper did not object, but they did not object as we know). I am not agree with people who said that it was necessary for ChessBase to abstain.

MRScary: Probably the most ironic circumstance through all this drama: the cavalier attitude displayed by Danailov when facing any sort of questions about he and his charge.

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

MrScary, you had me captivated until this paragraph. "Cavalier attitude"? The last I heard was that Danailov is seeking a resolution in Court, a place where evidence is presented and judged. Do you have a better suggestion?

Now, speaking of irony, brains and propaganda -- you're threading in an area dedicated to a video presenting evidence that Topalov is cheating. Now, following you call to avoid propaganda, let’s stick to the essentials here. What do you think of that video?

D.

Chessbase isn't much for fact-searching. Never was. Also very tabloid-like in its love for sensationalist headlines and dramatic stories. But what's that to do with Topalov? How is misquoting Short and misrepresenting the intentions of the ACP part of an unprecedented campaign against a certain player? Sloppy, yes. Aggressively anti-Topalov, umm, no.

Charles:

For the future: when you see that I have bothered to comment on your wish-wash you can safely assume that I am trying to help you to realize and correct your flawed logic.
As for this specific case: The sentence with reference to ChessBase's war is the first sentence. But Golubev's statement that you were trying to refute ("I never saw in the past such a massive public campaign against someone") is part of the last sentence and is preceded by a reference to chess journalism in general. Hence "massive public campaign" refers to the collection of coverage by ChessBase and - the other publication that get's mentioned - Kommersant. Facultative: maybe if you try hard enough you might apprehend that the expression "massive public campaign" would not by used when referring to only one paper's (e.g. ChessBase's) coverage. But I don't want to overstrain.

MrScary:

After reading your post - especially the part of my formal education or the alleged lack thereof - I ask you to adhere to your own standards and single out the "data" that enables you to toss out this statement:

"That being said, there would appear to be a far greater opportunity for Topalov to have received assistance over a long period of time relative to the isolated incident that Kramink is accused."

What inside knowledge about Kramnik's own private unsurveilled toilet do you possess ?

Dimi and poisoned pawn objected to being lumped in with other, more open-minded members of the pro-Topalov camp, within my earlier comment that, "even most Topalov fans here now agree that the fear of being caught or suspected simply isn't an issue at all for Topalov -- he has no good name to lose, nor does he care a whit about having one."

In case my meaning wasn't clear, it is simply this: Just about everyone posting here has voiced their disgust for Danailov's antics -- most particularly his act of dragging our noble game into the toilet by going public with transparently scurrilous claims repeatedly in Elista and thereafter.

Although many Topalov fans initially responded, "Wait a minute -- don't tar our hero with Danailov's atrocious behavior; they are two separate people after all," most of those fans have since sadly accepted the rather obvious fact that Topalov himself must bear a good bit of responsibility. Not only did he do nothing to distance himself from his manager's filth; he soon went to issue some similar public comments of his own.

Mind you, I am speaking only of those people who are vocal in their belief that 1) Topalov never cheated, 2) the insinuations against him are unfair, unwarranted, and undeserving of any attention, and 3) both Chessbase's coverage and the latest video are emblematic of propaganda and/or reckless disregard for truth.

For the record, I myself am undecided about point (1), and reject (2) and (3) -- yet I still recognize that these are matters about which sincere people of intelligence can and do disagree.

On the other hand -- and this is my main point -- this blog provides no indication whatever that sincere people of intelligence are disagreeing about the ethics and morality of Danailov's behavior (not whether he is signalling, but simply whether his behavior is acceptable or not).

About the only people I've seen defend or try to ignore Danailov's role in all the scandals, seem to be a tiny (tiny on Dirt anyway; on Bulgarian sites it's probably much larger) lunatic fringe of people doing their best to imitate Borat in the indoor cowboy scene when he gives his speech about Iraq.

Jon Jacobs:

The extract of your blastoma:

- the usual indignities of the kind "no-education-unintelligent-unsincere-whatnot"
- unsubstantiated insinuations about Mr. Dainalov (thereby implicating world #1 Topalov)
- the childlike "because everybody says so it must be true"

Can Kramnik-fans really not do better than that ?

poisoned pawn wrote:
For the future: when you see that I have bothered to comment on your wish-wash you can safely assume that I am trying to help you to realize and correct your flawed logic.
>>

Hey, no problem. I didn't realize when I replied that you were one of the resident trolls here. I can see from your other posts that there's no way I'm going to get any kind of honest reply from you, so let's cut this short now.

As long as you agree that Golubev was wrong in saying Chessbase was waging a war against Topalov, you can argue with yourself all that you want to about the other two. I hear you admit that unsubstantiated allegations are wrong, which means you admit Topalov was wrong. Let's just say that Topalov, Sueddeutsche, and Kommersant are all wrong, and let it go at that.

Mediocre, Mr. Jacobs. Very mediocre. Particularly for an aspiring anti-cheating activist. We in America deserve better material in that role.

D.

acirce: Chessbase isn't much for fact-searching. Never was. Also very tabloid-like in its love for sensationalist headlines and dramatic stories.

You might as well be right. It's hard to draw the line between incompetence and ill intent. Either way, it doesn't look good. I was under the impression that the above mentioned publication specializes in chess and has better credentials.

D.

Charles 2d try:

[...] As long as you agree that Golubev was wrong in saying Chessbase was waging a war against Topalov [...]

First try to understand Mikhail Golubev's 18:55 post. Upon success add to that the fact that ChessBase withholds information about the network cable layout of Kramnik's toilet in Elista and a resignation letter of the new members of the Appeals Committee. This should about tell you if I agree or not. If tomorrow, after some effort of you own, you are still confused, come back and I will gladly help you through.

>>Yuriy Kleyner:

>>[...] I assume you have a log for each game of >>when Kramnik stayed at the board and when he >>went to the bathroom?

>This angle has been played up a lot. I don't have >this kind of information as I was not in Elista. >As probably most readers I rely on the interviews >and reports. If you don't, how can you know that >Kramnik won or even that any game was played at >all ? After all you were not there.

Huh? Nobody said you had to be there or that you had to make the log yourself...just by any even semi-logical thinking you would have to have access to such a log in order to make any sort of a statement about how often Kramnik played strong moves upon return to the board and how often his blunders were when he stayed at the board.

>Otherwise the fact remains that video footage >from Kramniks relaxation room was examined by >arbiters and members of the Appeals Committee. >Upon watching Kramnik's behaviour they decided to >lock both rooms. And one has to assume they must >have had a reason for it.

If one has to assume they must have had a reason for it, then one also has to assume they must have had a reason for unlocking it. It's really easy to argue based on rudimentary logic.

Funny thing is that Daaim is a ... European man. Like Fischer. And Kamsky.

Now i am very curious how Topalov would do against Anand in an advanced chess match ( both aided by computer )

poisoned pawn:
After reading your post - especially the part of my formal education or the alleged lack thereof - I ask you to adhere to your own standards and single out the "data" that enables you to toss out this statement:

"That being said, there would appear to be a far greater opportunity for Topalov to have received assistance over a long period of time relative to the isolated incident that Kramink is accused."

What inside knowledge about Kramnik's own private unsurveilled toilet do you possess ?
___________________

I'll try not to be insulting, but what are you suggesting? That what was found in the ceiling lends any weight to the claim that Kramink used that cable to access outside assistance?

Did anyone check the cable to see what it was tied to? Did it even have connector on the end? Perhaps checking to see if there was network access on it MIGHT make sense if you try to follow their claim.

There are so many things which do not fit into their argument for justifying the hoopla created by Kramnik spending time in the toilet. Yet, the ironic part again is the this is EXACTLY the type of "evidence" used by any propoganda machine.

Ask yourself this, and perhaps you don't know which isn't your fault: Would this "evidence" hold up in a court of law in any civilized country? I hope your answer is no, because based on the information that is available right now, it's laughable. The key is: in the court of public opinion (re: propoganda and politics) the "data or evidence" doesn't need to be compelling. You use rhetoric to stir the hearts and shut off the minds of those you're trying to influence.

So, regarding my "data" comment specifically: Can you not agree that when you compare the two situations and all the real evidence that the possibility of signaling occuring to any player in any tournament anywhwere is far greater then Kramnik having outside assistance in his toilet during the Elista match?

What would be needed for any player to use signaling in any international tournament is already there minus the desire to risk public humiliation to potentially gain an advantage.

Now, following Danailov's "logic" the most fundamental things which would be needed for Kramnik to be guilty are:

1. that specific cable being connected to a network
2. that specific cable having the appropriate connector to be used by some portable device
3. Kramnik having such device in his toilet to be able to use such a connection

If you were Danailov and really thought that Kramnik was cheating in this manner, would you not have checked these very things at least?

Danailov did not provide sufficient evidence for his claim - period. Instead of showing compelling data, he's made broad sweeping statements. I almost fell from my chair laughing about the "statistical proof" of computer matches to Kramnik's moves when it was clear that no attempt to check any other player was attempted. It's remarkable how well-matched all the top players in the world are to computer moves! This is low-grade propoganda easily dispersed with commonly available data. Publishing a book about it was near a master stroke!

How could you not provide comparative data to support such a claim? It wasn't provided because it would not have supported his claim. In the court of public opinion, only a very loose circumstantial correlation is needed to have people rally to your cause. If you can't identify such a blatantly obvious ploy, I don't think anything I say or show here will help you.

I am a scientist looking at the data, not someone's claims and ranting. When you look at the whole picture, my position is that it is more likely that Topalov has received signaling assistance then Kramnik used a computer in his toilet in Elista. Neither chances are zero, both are very small, but Topalov's is higher. There is no conclusive proof to either side right now, period.

Yuriy Kleyner:

>If one has to assume they must have had a reason for it, then one also has to assume they must have had a reason for unlocking it.

Category serious fact-twisting: the first decision (locking them) was made in normal course of events whereas the second came during a phase where rules and regulations where suspended (overturning "final" decisions, people getting fired/threatened) and by Ilyumzhinov's own admission, the whole matter had (openly) turned political.

>It's really easy to argue based on rudimentary logic.

Indeed ;)

MrScary:

>Did it even have connector on the end?

Naiveté ? There are even standard LAN's where no connectcors are needed at all to attach a station (10Base5). You dont't need "connectors" to connect things, as you don't need car keys to steal cars.

>Perhaps checking to see if there was network access on it MIGHT make sense if you try to follow their claim.

Absolutely. I mean that a network cable is actually part of a network seems highly unlikely. Not.

>Can you not agree that when you compare the two situations and all the real evidence that the possibility of signaling occuring to any player in any tournament anywhwere is far greater then Kramnik having outside assistance in his toilet during the Elista match?

No.

>I almost fell from my chair laughing about the "statistical proof" of computer matches to Kramnik's moves[...]

You seem to miss the fact that this unfortunate practice was introduced long ago by the other side (Barskij article).

>I am a scientist[...]

Pathetic. To sum up, your "data" in its entirety consists of the fact that you somehow believe that everything world #1 Topalov and Mr. Danailov are saying is propaganda, whereas what Kramnik and his supporters are saying is not.

Simple

Don't let Danailov or other poitential "message bearer" anywhere near Topalov when he next plays.

Emulating the pro-Topalov conspiracy theorists I suggested sarcastically that the Dutch amateur sending Kommersant the video might really be, for example, Frederic Friedel. Well, now a prominent chess personality promotes this theory.

http://interviews.chessdom.com/silvio-danailov-interview

Q: What about the rumours that there was a campaign against you in Chessbase?

Danailov: Well, many people were asking me the same question. But you know, this is not exactly Chessbase, this is just one person from Chessbase - Frederic Friedel, who is trying to damage our reputation during the last few years. Manipulating the information, manipulating the facts. This guy is completely obsessed with Veselin and me and really wants to hurt us.

Luckily he made a big mistake by publishing the famous video in Commersant and lost a lot of credit, he is not reliable anymore.

Q: Wait a minute, the video in Commersant was provided by Dutch amateur, isn' t it?

Danailov: Ha,ha,ha! Dutch amateur you said, this is a joke or what? Come on, the chess world is so small and everybody knows who was the producer of this video. But for his big surprise the effect was like a boomerang to him.

For example, Friedel was always calling Topalov FIDE world champion and nowadays former FIDE world champion. In the same time he is calling Kramnik World Champion or Absolute World Champion. Can you feel the deference? Actually he is right, Kramnik is Absolute World Champion of spending time in toilet during one match. And please, don't blame me for that, I was not the one who spend about at least one hour during almost every game on the toilet in Elista.

Has anyone noticed that Topalov is involved in EVERY cheating discussion in top-level chess, either as accuser or accusee?

My disappointment that a highly-rated player won't be playing in Mexico is far-outweighed by the likelihood that there'll be no cheating controversies (or other weirdness) without him there.