Department of Oxymorons

My favourite quote from the verdict :)

"Mr. Veselin Topalov was the FIDE World Champion and his reputation, as a person and as a player, was and is very high."

in real life topalov reputation as a person is sh**y,not as bad as his manager the barbarian danilov.those 2 have no class,no caracter..for a change,as a player topalov proved his class,but not good enough.

What FIDE should have written:

""
Dear Topalov and Danailov, your actions were illegal and you acted as very naughty people.

We are angry at you and do not want you to do this thing again for the next year. You can then feel free to do so and we will probably warn you again.

In the mean time, we have arranged to allow your player Topalov to take part in the World Championship although we have promised the whole world that you are out. We are showing you that we have a large heart.

Please do behave - especially until next year.

Thank you.
""

Actions were needed. Punish him and not give him a rematch just like that.

Disgusted,

Duncan

A reaction by Danailov from the chess site of NY Times:

"In a telephone interview from Amsterdam, Danailov said that he did not agree with the decision because videotapes of the players private rest areas during the match, which he said showed Kramnik taking frequent trips to the restroom (where there were no cameras), had been destroyed and so it was not possible for the commission to examine the evidence that had led to their allegations."

Full article can be read here = http://gambit.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/29/world-chess-federation-rules-on-ethics-violations-no-more-dunderheads/

How convenient that in the KBG country key evidence is destroyed. No doubt, evidence removal, life threats, and threats to any person who knows the truth to revoke the signed documents, journalist spreading misinformation attempting to discredit the victims are all well known methods. Oh, geee, look at this:

On 17th July 2007 Mr. Valery Bovaev, Chairman of the Executive Committee World Chess Championship match 2006, informed the EC, through the FIDE Office in Elista, that “according to the statement of the Head of the Administration of the informational resources of the Republic of Kalmykia Mr. Namsinov, who was in charge for the security and tapes as well during the Championship match, the video tapes from the Topalov-Kramnik match have been destroyed”. Prior to receiving to this report, FIDE Offices have never been informed of Mr. Valery Bovaev’s decision.

Chess journalist Dimitrije Bjelica received a reprimand for "misbehaviour of a personal nature" when he circulated messages calling the President of the Turkish Chess Federation, Ali Nihat Yazici, “a small dictator as Campomanes and small pawns of FIDE”, “a slave of mafia from FIDE”, and accusing him of “corruption”.

How interesting that Russian Kramnik and Turkish Ali Nihat are suing journalists and former world champions just because they expressed their opinion. Why not Western country folks suing Russia or Turkey? How about free speech? Are not Topalov and Short allowed to express their views and call people morons, pimps, KBG slaves, crminals or whatever they want?

"Are not Topalov and Short allowed to express their views and call people morons, pimps, KBG slaves, crminals or whatever they want?"

Morons and pimps and slaves, yes; criminals and cheaters no -- if untrue.

An accusation of cheating is *slander* if done knowingly and subject to civil penalities in the U.S.

It's comical and typical FIDE that tapes involved in a notorious scandal could be "destroyed", but if anything I'd say Danailov probably arranged it to give himself a minor get-out clause.

Of course no-one disputes that Kramnik used his toilet regularly, so the tapes are utterly irrelevent to the ethics case, but nevermind. The simple fact is that Danailov/Topalov didn't provide an iota of evidence for Kramnik cheating, unless you're credulous enough to believe that internet cables running through the ceiling of a toilet used by both players is "evidence".

Caleb - try looking up slander and libel, or reading FIDE's code of ethics.

SH

If your manager receives an email in which you are accused of being moron, pimp and puts this in your HR record, this will work for you and is perfectly legal? Could this be done unknowingly? One can easily pay to some journalist to write whatever, and fabricate evidence that you are moron. This may result in severe material damages to you and your family. That would be fine?

One of the key things about Toiletgate is that the players swapped bathrooms between rounds - The Topalov camp's statement about the wires in "Kramnik's Bathroom" are therefore completely spurious.

This amounts to a slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket. A six month ban for T and a lifetime ban for D would have been more appropriate.

Why bother with the oxys when theres ample supply of the real deal?

Caleb,
Free speech is not synonym to freedom to outrage.
And democracy is not anarchy.

About courts – if that interests you… Courts do not issue injunctions for publishing of facts. Facts: “FIDE President is Ilymzhinov. FIDE President reports to Putin and receives orders from Putin. Putin was a KGB officer. The Russian intelligence service org reports to Putin. Putin was working for KGB in Dresden, Germany. Chessbase received $40,000 from FIDE President to market Fritz in Elista. Chesbase received $$$ in promotion / cash for Kramnik – Fritz match in 2007. Chessbase has commercial interests to support Kramnik. Mig was paid by Chessbase for journalistic work. Russia benefits from having the Russian world champion.”

FIDE or anyone who is paid by FIDE’s President (like Global Chess) may as well be in a conflict of interest and cosidered irrelevant in Kramnik – Topalov dispute, and is unethical for FIDE’s EC to handle it. Danailov has rights to publish his analysis of Kramik moves when compared to Fritz. He did not fabricate this analysis, and therefore the courts would treat it as subject matter expert findings (would check analysis of course). The courts would look unfavorable at the fact that video tapes are destroyed by the Russian team. Evidence is destroyed intentionally only when you want to hide something. The fact that the match was held in Russia, would also look very unfavorable for Kramink’s camp. Furthermore, if Danailov makes public accusations that Kramnik is cheating and cannot prove them, he would be liable for material and personal damages to the accused. Danailov accusations may be true, but if he does not have evidence, the court would rule against him. Because the courts are full of abusers who are lying in order to get something.

Sometimes you may think that you are telling truth, but you are providing false info, because you were misled, or you have irrational (not based on facts but on speculations) fears, or you have a limited knowledge of topic. Courts treat false info, as false info, regardless of causes. Therefore- pick a topic that you know very well (in public) and collect evidence (you can legally voice-record conversations; emails and written documents are good) which can support your claims. Witnesses are most likely waist of time, as it ends up one witness against the other. If one side provides false and malicious info, and the other side proves it, than witnesses could be useful. The courts trust the “clean” record party. Statements which cannot be proven and are harming accused carry serious legal implications. Courts rule against the false (and/or malicious) accuser and he could end up owning $$MM. Courts do not approve of calling people ”thugs” or impacting otherwise their basic human rights, provoking material or reputation damages. All it takes is a written proof (“false info”), and you are doomed. That is not to be confused with free speech, where you criticize (and disagree with) some government decisions, which is perfectly fine. The laws for governments are different than for commercial or private claims.

Breach - “Mig is Chessbase prostitute.” Breach -“GM Bolgan of Moldova is their most famous non-prostitute export.” Breach - “The Monroi morons are no doubt figuring out.” Beach - “The USCF is run by hysterical housewife (Susan Polgar).” Breach – “Gata’s father is nothing more than a thug.” This is not democracy and free speech, but clear verbal abuse, intended to harm others.

"Breach - “Mig is Chessbase prostitute.” Breach -“GM Bolgan of Moldova is their most famous non-prostitute export.” Breach - “The Monroi morons are no doubt figuring out.” Beach - “The USCF is run by hysterical housewife (Susan Polgar).” Breach – “Gata’s father is nothing more than a thug.” This is not democracy and free speech, but clear verbal abuse, intended to harm others."

Crewman,

Breach - You sound like a "poopy-pants."

I figured that the tapes being destroyed would trigger off boring conspiratorial stuff. Of course it would have been strange if they had been kept so long after the match had ended. They were never intended for anybody but the arbiters to see and it may well even have been explicitly regulated that they would be destroyed afterwards. Who thinks the Kramnik-Lékó tapes still exist?

I take everything served with a grain of salt. How much would cost to hire a few people, send them on some blogs and sites to spread misinformation about any issue. If statements against Chessbase are made by someone employed by ICC (competing for on-line chess clients), against Susan Polgar by Bill Goichberg employee (who believed that Susan is competing for the same position of USCF President), against electronic scores by DGT who has alternative (or competing) live game products, against Gata by Short (who was competing for the same prize fund), court fees could be prohibitive. Payments could be offered for discrediting Topalov and covering up for KGB operations (as they are allegedly offered for votes).

Chesscafe.com will publish next week an exclusive interview with Topalov. A new book about the match with Kramnik, written by Topalov, is also being advertised by Chesscafe. I wonder what Fide will do if Topalov continues to accuse Kramnik of cheating in this interview or in his new book about the match.

seriously: if nigel short calls azmaiparashvili a dunderhead ("a stupid person") then doesnt azmaiparashvili have to claim/prove that nothing in his actions indicated that he was indeed a stupid person ? is it an insult to call a stupid person stupid ?

Let's say it's an insult. The question is if it should be illegal and/or punishable by FIDE sanctions. I don't like the idea of psychological warfare during a world championship match. But I like the idea of "if we don't like what you say in an interview we will ban you from tournaments for a year" a lot less.

I have no idea how many of the posts here have come from outside the USA or not, but I am enjoying the different perspectives of how "free speech" is being interpreted on this thread. One argument that I find the most fascinating is "Free Speech is not (a) synonym to freedom to outrage." I'm not speaking for anyone else on this thread, but that line of thinking always scares the hell out of me, so-to-speak. I always flash back to when I read WE by Yevgeny Zamyatin years ago and what can happen when that particular type of thought is initiated into the law of the land.

To those of you from other governing bodies, please don't get me wrong. "WE" in this country are losing more of our personal freedoms on a regular basis, and quite frankly (I believe) too many here have become apathetic to response.

"Danailov has rights to publish his analysis of Kramik moves when compared to Fritz. He did not fabricate this analysis, and therefore the courts would treat it as subject matter expert findings (would check analysis of course)."

Danilov's analysis cannot be considered "expert" in any sense. For starters, he didn't give any analysis at least that I'm aware of...he just gave a percent figure in which Kramnik's moves matched Fritz (did he give any examples? Topalov himself was pretty vague and hard to pin down). However, if I'm wrong please link to this 'expert' analysis of Danilov's.

Danilov also made claims that no-one can verify, and his "analysis" cannot be duplicated by others as he gives no details (computer and processing power used, length of time used per move, did he count forced moves as Fritz moves or not?, did he count opening moves as Fritz moves or did he wait till opening theory ended, etc etc etc).

Therefore, he either fabricated most of the "analysis" including the percent move match, and/or twisted things in an attempt to demonstrate that Kramnik was cheating. It was part of a pathetic attempt at a smear campaign that was probably designed to throw Kramnik off his game. It was so poorly done that it would only fool the computer illiterate, and probably not even most of them.

"Freedom of Speech," in the U.S., is a thoroughly misunderstood concept. Its basic purpose is that, with specific exceptions, you are allowed to say what you want without fear of arrest or violence--a necessary right to specify in a time when offending a government official could get you hauled off in irons.

It is commonly misinterpreted now to mean "I can say whatever I want and there shouldn't be any consequences, because we have freedom of speech." This pops up often in the entertainment industry when a celebrity says something awful and gets boycotted; somehow they think freedom of speech was supposed to prevent that. Not so.

In the U.S. there are three major ways to directly violate freedom of speech, and say something illegal.

1. Public safety. This is the old "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" example. Speech is *not* protected when it falsely threatens public safety.

2. Fighting words. This is a little-known but very real exception to free speech: when your words can reasonably be expected to result in violence, they may *not* be protected speech. If you insult someone's mother and get punched in the face for it, don't assume that he'll be the only one charged.

3. Slander. When you say something untrue, that results in harm to someone's reputation or income, it is *not* protected speech, and is probably illegal. If the Topalov/Danailov comments were being challenged under U.S. law, this is where they'd fall. Note: the truth is *never* slander, but the burden of proof falls on the speaker. The rules are about the same if written instead of spoken, but then it's "libel." And both would be charged, if this were a U.S. thing.

There are other exceptions to free speech, but these are the biggies that anyone can do all by themselves. Telling state secrets is not protected speech, for instance, but you have to *know* some before you can tell them.

I agree cheating allegations are wrong. But, we need to look at the context also. This was an unfair match up to start with and unification was forced upon Topalov. Win or lose, it was a win (or OK) situation for Kramnik. Topalov would stand to lose in case of a loss which is what happened. I don't believe Topalov would have made similar accusations against Anand or Kasparov.

I don't think the issue is about free speech. We all agree free speech is desirable. The issue is about the reputation of the international chess circuit as a whole. In the case of Topalov and Danailov I actually agree with Fide's decision. First a reprimind and a warning, then harsh punishment: if you continue to spread cheating accusations without clear proof we will banish you from Fide events for x period of time. Topa and Danailov can continue their diffamation campaign (thus free speech is preserved) but not under the auspices of events that fall under Fide's flag. That is the price any player or organizer has to pay for benefiting from Fide's brand name. Don't forget that Fide grants titles and ratings, which is how most professional players get their reputation. Those who are not happy with Fide should attempt to change it from inside (via the political process) or go create another organization.

Thanks for the post Chris. Nice summary.

Very well said Chris. Could you adminster this blog, as a voice of reason. People need it.

I believe the response by Chris to be the most objective and "correct" interpretation of what is considered Freedom of Speech in the U.S.. Unfortunately, these guidelines are not as black and white as they may seem and without wanting to open up a whole can of worms, I will only reiterate that these basic guidelines are becoming more constrictive on a regular basis. Oh, what the hell, one example I see is political correctness as a modern day form of McCarthyism. From my perspective it subjugates a person to one particular line of thinking that is considered correct and therefore the only way to express oneself; i.e. Jennnifer Shahade's response to Mig in the thread "Norms in the News fits the bill nicely. Long term, similar to the frog in the pot of water and slowy increasing the heat until...

Aside from legal action (civil lawsuits, criminal proceedings), FIDE is the governing body of a sport. Topalov may be free (or "free") to say whatever he wants but there may be consequences. If an organizer decides he doesn't like something a player has said and therefore won't invite him, that's not a free speech issue at all. It's about the consequences of your actions and the freedom of others to respond to your statements.

This is what was misunderstood by many around the Don Imus firing. Al Sharpton was one of the people rallying against him and for CBS to fire Imus. Oddly, when I went to see the Broadway play "Talk Radio" a few months ago Sharpton joined the cast after the play to talk with the audience about the media and of course the Imus affair was a popular topic. He pointed out that he did not disagree with Imus's *right* to say the things he said. But he had the right to pressure CBS to punish him for saying those things. That's free speech all round in action and nothing to do with the real meaning of censorship. Don't confuse rights with commercial interests. I have a right to say what I want but I don't have the right to be paid by CBS to say it.

There is what is called "commercial (or market) censorship," something of a misnomer, that refers to, say, good literary fiction that won't sell like Harry Potter not finding a publisher, or commentators of one political bent not finding as many outlets as those of the other party. But even if there is a vast conspiracy, it's a private one and therefore usually not a real rights issue.

Unless there is a real or implicit contractual status with the players it's hard to imagine FIDE being able to fine Topalov the way more organized and centralized sports organizations often fine players for everything from uniform irregularities to profanity. But banning him from FIDE events, or removing him from the rating list, etc. is within their power. I suppose he could sue them for the lost income, but I expect FIDE would have the right to defend what they deem to be the best interests of their organization. Essentially having the right to refuse service to anyone, as it were.

E.g. the NFL has the power to ban Michael Vick from playing in their league. Players have sued teams and the league over such suspensions and fines in the past, but they have things pretty well nailed down these days. US pro leagues fine coaches and players all the time for criticizing the referees because it damages the perceived integrity of the sport. They probably have similar powers when it comes to player-on-player accusations, although come to think of it I don't think anyone has been disciplined for making critical remarks about Barry Bonds and others caught up in the doping scandals in baseball. But most of the players are cautious about not making direct accusations. Garry Sheffield (and many other players) took some whacks at Bonds but I don't think he ever said, "Bonds is a dirty cheat" or "Bonds took steroids." I suppose that would lead to either action by the baseball league or a lawsuit from Bonds.

You have right to say what you want and when you want? Like - your father is a thug, and your mother is a prostitute. Or make insults which damage someone's earnings. BS. No you do not. What an awkward comment. Chris explained it well. People you meet on a way up are the same people that you meet on a way down. Being nice is as easy as being ass to people, but karma is much better. By the way, since when is chess sport?

Since the First Amendment does not protect "fighting words," it's up to each individual state whether to prohibit offensive, derisive or annoying words spoken by one person to another.

Generally speaking however, words alone (no matter how abusive), are insufficient justification for the use of force.

So theoretically the insultee-batterer will always be charged. But the insulter will be charged only if he's in a state which prohibits his insulting words.

Isn't Topalov FIDE's interest? FIDE champion on the one side of unification. How come firing him would serve the purpose??

Isn't Topalov FIDE's interest? FIDE champion on the one side of unification. How come firing him would serve the purpose??

I have not heard of "Fighting words" as a legal concept but I don't believe "Your mother's a cow!" falls into that category. That's pretty much legal. "Your mother should be killed," on the other hand, or, definitely: "Let's go kill your mother" is incitement to action, criminal action, at that, and falls into a legal category that's different from free speech.

Chesstraveler, thank you for your post at 15:23. I am glad others catch on to the fact that aside from anti-government speech, it is precisely the outrageous and the unpleasant speech, the one that's noxious to members of the public (and especially to its majority), that is most in need of protection.

Mig, of course, FIDE has a right to punish its members for what they say. What is being discussed is whether it SHOULD in fact punish people for what they say. I don't like the idea that a GM may get banned for a year for criticizing FIDE or for describing a situation where he feels that cheating occurred but where he doesn't have a strong proof. And such are the implications of these rulings. Many people are siding with FIDE simply because they don't like Short or Topalov, or because they find themselves on the winning side of this ruling. Wait till Morozevich calls Danailov a lying self-promoting buffoon and we will see what is said then.

Greg, thanks for your post at 17:48. (and I am not being sarcastic) The only other person I have ever heard bring up the point that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech" should mean that CONGRESS shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, and that such a right may be exercised by individual state legislatures, was Ann Coulter. I disagree with her on this but it's a good reminder of what the First Amendment actually says.

Yuriy,

You and Coulter are arguing whether speech PROTECTED by the First Amendment ["Congress shall make no law..."] can nontheless be prohibited by the States.

Since the 1920's the Supreme Court has held that First Amendment Free Speech is one of the "liberties" the Fourteenth Amendment refers to when it says "...nor shall any STATE deprive any person of... LIBERTY ... without due process of law."

i.e. the "Incorporation Doctrine."

I was discussing whether speech UNPROTECTED by the First Amendment, can be prohibited by the States. (Yes).

Hey guys,"talking about cheating" have all of you realized that in Mexico 2007 WCC the Curacao Phenomenom could be repeated because the facts of 4 russian players taking part in a tournament of 8,and that one of them has the warranty of a final match with the virtual winner.The "crown" can stay in russian hands if some results are arranged in that tournament.50% of the crown is already reserved to the russian side.

Very interesting (didn't know even the first has been fourteenthed)--so we can then say that the free speech on state level is protected by the fourteenth amendment, and on the federal level by the first. However, if we are talking about speech unprotected by the First Amendment (treason, slander, etc.), it can be prohibited not just by the states, but the federal government too.

Ann Coulter invoked on a chess blog...it just feels wrong.

"...
Mig, of course, FIDE has a right to punish its members for what they say. What is being discussed is whether it SHOULD in fact punish people for what they say. I don't like the idea that a GM may get banned for a year for criticizing FIDE or for describing a situation where he feels that cheating occurred but where he doesn't have a strong proof. And such are the implications of these rulings. Many people are siding with FIDE simply because they don't like Short or Topalov, or because they find themselves on the winning side of this ruling. Wait till Morozevich calls Danailov a lying self-promoting buffoon and we will see what is said then.
..."
Posted by: Yuriy Kleyner at August 31, 2007 19:45

I wouldn't lump the cases of Short and Topalov together. In Short's case FIDE actually upheld the right to criticise FIDE officials, just objecting to the choice of words used (but note there's no suggestion of any significant punishment - certainly not a one-year ban).

Topalov/Danailov blatantly broke a number of the points of the FIDE code of ethics, especially: 2.2.9 Players or members of their delegations must not make unjustified accusations toward other players, officials or sponsors. All protests must be referred directly to the arbiter or the Technical Director of the tournament.

Note again, it's ok to query the other player's behaviour with the arbiter/lodge an official complaint. This would already be enough to achieve Danailov's aim of knocking Kramnik of balance, but of course he wasn't willing to stop there - and had to e.g. put out a press release with Fritz statistics, publicly accusing Kramnik of cheating (on the basis of zero/nonsensical evidence). Then the whole toilet/cables/KGB debacle. Of course the ethics committee should take action if a justified complaint's made against actions that so grossly break the code (though this being FIDE no-one particularly expected anything to come of it!).

As to Morozevich - if he calls Danailov a "lying self-promoting buffoon" it would partially depend on the situation (if he's involved in a tournament/match with Topalov at the time the case against him will be stronger). Anyway, he might get away with lying and self-promoting as provable, but buffoon sadly isn't true - for all Danailov's faults he's clearly not an idiot ;) It's an interesting question whether someone like Danailov would want to complain and risk scrutiny in a situation like this.

I don't approve of FIDE imposing a punishment (but why suspended?) just because it's anti-Topalov. Some sanctions against e.g. Morozevich would have been appropriate if Topalov had complained after being called a cheat in San Louis. Unless of course Morozevich could prove his case.

mishanp:

Buffoon does not mean idiot, but rather something like (amusing) pompous/ridiculous person. Wikipedia says it may originate from the italian "buffare" meaning to puff out one's cheeks. Sounds like Danailov to me...

So officials can be criticized as long as FIDE approves of choice of words and complaints about cheating can be made, but only to the officials. (who, if the choice of words is appropriate, perhaps are not the best individuals to rule fairly) You can not take your case to the press, at least unless and until FIDE rules in your favor. Which probably won't happen if the arbiter or technical director or the appeals committee are dunderheads. You are right that the two cases are not the same. But both rulings are not on the side of the right of public criticism of FIDE and I find that disturbing. It will be interesting to see what a reprimand really means.

Hopefully this decision will inject a little bit of law & order regarding the cheating psychosis that has gripped the sport. Topalov was the object of some the ugliest and most unsubstantiated insinuations and even outright allegations. The stage is set for complaints against the likes of Bareev, Moro, etc.

D.

From the report on Chessbase' website:

"On 17th July 2007 Mr. Valery Bovaev, Chairman of the Executive Committee World Chess Championship match 2006, informed the Ethics Commission, through the FIDE Office in Elista, that “according to the statement of the Head of the Administration of the informational resources of the Republic of Kalmykia Mr. Namsinov, who was in charge for the security and tapes as well during the Championship match, the video tapes from the Topalov-Kramnik match have been destroyed”. Prior to receiving to this report, FIDE Offices have never been informed of Mr. Valery Bovaev’s decision."

Suspicious? The least to say...

What is with all the discussion of free speech? Nor do I understand the immediate discussions of courts (something chess players seem to do repeatedly). Who cares? Danilov and Topalov acted like jerks, and seriously damaged the credibility of the world championship match. What kind of dork is Danilov to have toilet watches made? The kind of guy who gets 'L's on the forehead in a bar, that's who.

These two seriously damage the already poor reputation of professional chess. Just about everything Danilov does in public is a ?? annotation, and Topalov is mostly ? lately. If you want to see high class matches with sponsorship in the future, quit defending the poor behavior, and demand better. If you want a to continue the current status, where only the FIDE will pay for these things, then accept the professionals acting like kids fighting in a sandbox.

Joke of the day: Q: What do you get when 4 chessplayers are in a basement?

A: A Whine-cellar

The obvious solution to preventing another "Toiletgate" in the next World Championship Match is to have just one bathroom, with two stalls for toilets, to be shared by the players. There can be a communal, semi-private lounge area, which would also be shared by the players. Ideally, this area would not even be offstage, although the lounge space may be sheltered from audience view.

Presumeably, at the World Championship Tournament in Mexico City, there won't be 8 separate bathrooms, each assigned to a specific player. Likewise, if they want to sit down away from their chaessboard, they may need to lounge in the same room.

The FIDE Ethics Committee did the best that they could do....in doing the minimim to punish the serious transgressors, such as Danailov.

It is likely that Danailov will put FIDE to the test, by opening his trap. Probably, just as soon as things start to go wrong in Topalov's next match.

A policy needs to be codified, that anyone bringing a cheating accusation based on matching a computer must provide log files and a report including methodology to support the accusation. (Just as with any other kind of lab test or scientific experiment.) This is a concrete matter for TDs to know.

You cannot codify any possibility that a moron can come up with, there were other allegations from Danailov, and some you would be hard pressed to have thought of beforehand. How could anyone predict Danailovs toilet facinations?

XX trips/per hour to the john – caught on tape – viewed by the arbiters too… Can a World Chess Title Match get any freakier than that? This should be codified out – otherwise the gamut of possibilities gets too wide – not exactly the perception of a clean competition.

D.

P.S. Off to Burning Man…

Curacao Phenomenom?....what is that????

It seemed a bit strange that FIDE acted on Topalov/Danailov's allegations of cheating by Kramnik, but didn't on Short's allegation of cheating by Azmaiparashvili. They seemed to lump the latter in with criticisms of Azmaiparashvili's actions at the Elista or in his capacity as a FIDE official -- but it seems distinct to me, and comparable to the Topalov/Danailov actions.

Short was warned, but it would have been nice to see FIDE address his cheating allegation as well.

"It seemed a bit strange that FIDE acted on Topalov/Danailov's allegations of cheating by Kramnik, but didn't on Short's allegation of cheating by Azmaiparashvili. They seemed to lump the latter in with criticisms of Azmaiparashvili's actions at the Elista or in his capacity as a FIDE official -- but it seems distinct to me, and comparable to the Topalov/Danailov actions."

They just thought it wasn't unreasonable to call Azmaiparashvili's retracting of a losing move in a key game against Malakhov 'cheating' even if it was with Malakhov's consent. Not much to say about that. Doesn't mean they agree with Short that it was cheating, or that they don't.

Bpt,

It harkens back to 1962, when Fischer accused Geller, Keres and Petrosian of an alliance. Supposedly, they would play for draws amongst themselves to save energy; whereas Fischer had to play every game full throttle to win the tournament. I believe it was sour grapes on Bobby's part for his 4th place finish, when he had expected to finish 1st.

Dimi,

Burning Man can get pretty "freaky."

Actually Fischer accused Korchnoi of being part of the conspiracy, or at least strongly implied it. Just drawing is after all not going to win a tournament, so his supposed role was to throw games to the other "Russians". For what is presumably political reasons this is not very well remembered today.

acirce,

To tell you the truth, I don't remember that. Especially considering that Korchnoi finished behind Fischer at Curacao. It wouldn't surprise me one iota if he had though.

acirce,

I just went over Kasparov's version in MGP #4 and Korchnoi's involvement is not mentioned. Do you have a source where it is indeed implied?

Korchnoi:
"Fischer said that there was a conspiracy against him. In reality the conspiracy was against the young players: me, Tal and Fischer. And since all of us were in bad shape, the conspiracy succeeded. Petrosian won, managing to trick even his friends and co-conspirators.
Q: Who were the conspirators?
A: Petrosian, Geller & Keres. This was a rare agreement not approved by the higher-ups--the GMs acted from their own initiative."
(that's from Magsport.ru, 2006 interview)

Another quote on euruchess.org, this one originally from gazeta.ru:

Korchnoi: "I led after half of the four-round tournament, but then Rona Yakovlevna Petrosian interfered. She managed to come to an agreement even with Paul Benko, who ran from socialist Hungary to the US. That's back in that era! And the always afraid Paul Keres helped aid the success of Tigran Vartanovich Petrosian."

God can only imagine what would have been said by one of the two great paranoids (Viktor or Robert) if Geller went to the bathroom one time too many.

Thanks Yuriy. That shines another light on the incident.

Well, Fischer cited one Quick Draw (of just 14 moves), in which the Final position was probably winning for Black.

FIDE wisely changed their Candidates' Final structure to a Match format in the next WC cycle (1965). Of course, leave it to Kirsan to go beyonf having a Candidates' Tournament to determine the WC challenger, but to make the World Championship a Tournament itself!

[Event "Curauao ct (20.06.62)"]
[Site "25"]
[Date "1962.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "Paul Keres"]
[Black "Petrosian"]
[ECO "B36"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "28"]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 5.c4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Nxd4
7.Qxd4 d6 8.c5 Bg7 9.Bb5+ Bd7 10.Bxd7+ Qxd7 11.cxd6 O-O 12.Bg5
Ne8 13.Qb4 Nxd6 14.f3 a5 1/2-1/2

Follows is some discussion from Chessgames.com, which cites some of Timman's analysis from his Book on the 1962 Curacao event:

"From the final position, Timman's analysis ran

15. Qa3 h6 16. Bf4 Nc4 17. Qb3

17...Rac8 New move.

A) 18. Rd1 Qc6 19. O-O Nxb2 20. Nd5 Kh7 21. Rc1 Qd7 22.Be3 a4 23. Qb4 e6 24. Rxc8 Rxc8 25. Nb6 Qd3 26. Nxc8 (Shredder 6 evaluation -3.22 at 19 ply) with the likely continuation Qxe3+ 27. Kh1 Nd3 28. Qb1 Nf2+ 29. Rxf2 Qxf2 30 Nd6 a3! and suddenly Black is completely winning because of the threat to win the a pawn or exchange queens on b2.

B) 18. O-O Nxb2 19. Nd5 a4 20. Qa3 Kh7 21. Kh1 f5 22. Rae1 fxe4 23. fxe4 e6 24. Bxh6 exd5 Shredder evaluation -2.53 at 17 ply. Black can rescue the knight with a timely Nc4 to make this one work."

Timman devotes a page and a half to this game in Curacao 1962, mostly dealing with Fischer's charges that it was a "Phony Draw". Here are his variations:

"15 Qa3 is forced." ... "His best option now is 15...h6 in order to force the white bishop to a worse square. After the forced sequence 16 Bf4 Nc4 17 Qb3 Rfc8 White has the following two possibilities.

A) Rd1 a4! Qb4 (after 19 Rxc7 axb3 20 axb3 Nxb2 21 Nd1 White would swap on d1 and penetrate with his rooks, causing death and destruction. The knight sortie 21 Nd5 won't do either in view of 21...Ra1+ 22 Kd2 Rxh1 23 Nxe7+ Kh7 24 Nxc8 Rd1+ and wins)19...Qe6 20 0-0 Nxb2 21 Qxb2 Bxc3 22 Qxb7 Qxa2 and the passed a pawn cannot be stopped. After 20 Nd5 (instead of 20 0-0) White is in insurmountable difficulty as well."

As can be seen, many of the ideas are similar to 17...Rac8 variation, down to the a pawn being the trump card to push the evaluation to a clear win in one variation.


"B) 18 0-0 a4 19 Qb4 Nxb2 20 Nd5 Nd3! 21 Qxe7 Rd8! and White is in dire straits indeed. 22 Nf6+ for example fails to 22...Bxf6 23 Qxf6 Ra6 and wins. His best bet would seem to be 22 Be3! Bxa1 23 Rxa1 Qxe7 24 Nxe7+ and now things would not be entirely clear after 24...Kf8 25 Nd5. After 24...Kh7! however, Black should be winning.
My conclusion is that Fischer was correct in declaring that Petrosian agreed to a draw in a winning position."

Curacao 1962 page 186

I think the Curacao trick could be repeated if Kramnik decides NOT to win the tournament in Mexico,anyway after all that tournament is a qualifier to get the next Kramnik challenger.NOT to win is a good tactic to avoid directly Topalov,even Kramnik results could affect or benefit determined player in Mexico.Under this condition it could be easy get a russian winner to ensure a russian match the next year not only because 4 of the 8 players are russian,but because the easy and comfortable Kramnik's situation.Kramnik should give a chance to Ivanchuk offering his place in Mexico and wait for a challenger instead create a circus.

The sanctions against Topalov and Dainalov were reasonable and consititute a final warning against any repetitiom of their behaviour. The unavailable videos are irrelevant unless they showed kramnik sitting on the toilet with a laptop or otherwise accessing information.which they dont. Nor could the videos justify Topalovs comments that Kramnik was also cheating in the rapid playoff games when he never left the board. The discussion about free speech is largely irrelevant as sports organisations have the right to regulate members behaviour even if such behaviour is neither illegal not civilly actionable in the jurisdiction in which it occurs. There may be some limits on this which allow their deciisons to be subject to judicial review (not observing the principles of fair justice or sanction grossly disproportionate to the offence for example.) The decison against Short on the other hand was different. I thought Azmai was complaining because Short accused him of cheating. "I might add that Azmai is singularly inappropriate for such work having, by his own admission, cheated in winning the 2003 European Championship.” not because he criticised Makropoulos and him of spending time in their hotel rather than working and of being "dunderheads" and that was why Makrpoulos didnt complain. I guess all the documents Short submitted were aimed at proving the cheating by Azmai. So the Commission accepted as a fact that Azmai cheated and that therefore his comment was a legitimate expression of a critical opinion about whether a known cheat should be on a world chess championship appeals committee. It all makes sense now!

The distiction between stating facts ie he was cheating and stating an opinion you are an idiot is absurd and unworthy of the committee members

The tapes couldn’t show anything inside the toilet (there was no video recording in there).

The tapes only showed how many times during the game Kramnik was entering the toilet, a number which would subsequently justify (or not) Topalov’s action to complain about it… And this number (25 times? 50 times?) is now very well hidden for ever, thanks to the secret services of Kalmykia...

Presumably not that well hidden, since the Appeals Committee referred to it. I forget how the conspiracy theory runs exactly; perhaps they had some motive for misrepresenting it in JudgeTrend world.

There is no conspiracy theory rdh... It is indeed SO NATURAL to visit 25 or 50 times the toilet during a game... I'm also wondering what was the motive to have these tapes destroyed...

Freaky conduct--

--show a large up-spike in your rating at a relatively late age
--become the only super-strong player in recent memory who's not super-strong at short time controls
--show a dramatic fall-off when playing in cheating-proofed events
--show up at Elista with a "sorcerer" and a crew of people with no evident function
--explain how one of the best chess players in history, working with computer assistance, couldn't win the match until the fourth rapid game (chess-retarded FSB agents)
--bitterly complain of cheating, laughingingly play with tiny toy toilets
--make sure you have a seat where you and your manager can easily and frequently look up at each other,
--have your manager stride pull out his cell phone and quickly out of the playing hall after every move
--demonstrate that you have no ideas or opinions apart from those of your manager; that you are personally dominated by him
--publicly discuss your dreams of cruising Moscow nightclubs with your rival

--have I forgotten anything?

gk,

Love it!

Does "it" stand for "under age prostitutes" that you pointed out to have been frequenting ?

Concerning the Curacao story and the possibility of seeing something like this in this Mexico tournament, I think the problem for Kramnik is that he can manipulate (if he wishes) the results of his opponents against him, but not against themselves. And none of the other Russian players (besides Kramnik) has the stability to win the tournament (in my opinion), even with that help.

The only way I believe Kramnik can manipulate the tournament is by losing easily against Aronian or Leko (or anyone different from Anand with a hot streak duting the tournament), in order to avoid facing Anand in a match. The problem with that is players like Aronian or Leko can go easily from first or last place in a tournament and from brilliant to horrible games in consecutive games.

--------

It is possible we can have a decent website for the WCC Championship in Mexico in order to watch live games and results?. Besides Corus, there is no other supertournament with a decent website for live transmision. Right know I am watching live from the PGA tour webpage the final round of a tournament (yes, I am sorry, I also like golf!) and one wonders why this seems to be impossible in chess. I know, there exists a big difference in money for running those sites, but ...

chesstraveller, about Fischer's claims/insinuations regarding Curacao, including the less known, see this thread:

http://www.chessninja.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=000982;p=1

"It is indeed SO NATURAL to visit 25 or 50 times the toilet during a game.."

Irrelevant. He can do whatever he wants in the toilet room in privacy including picking his nose or staring in the mirror and chanting to himself, "you are the best, you are the best". Since there is no way to cheat in the toilets, the number of times he went in there is irrelevant. These visits are just Danilov's smoke screen to upset Kramnik and thereby gain an advantage for Topalov in the match. If Kramnik hadn't visited the bathroom that often Danilov would have found something else. Incidentally if Danilov had told the truth in the first place we actually might know how many times Kramnik went to the bathroom. It would still be completely irrelevant but at least those with the toilet-fixation would have at least one actual fact to play with.

Now what I find unnatural is Topalov's ability to sit at the table for 6 or 7 hours without getting up risking blood clots and a strained urinary bladder. No doubt he was getting Fritz moves telegraphed to him through vibrators in the chair. Did someone take the chair apart and look for wires afterwards? :-) btw, I'm being silly with that accusation...wish those who think Kramnik cheated would realize they're being just as silly.

acirce,

Thank you for the information. It still remains unclear to me that Korchnoi may have thrown those games; considering that Fischer still had (after that time) good relations with Korchnoi. IMO, if Fischer truly believed Korchnoi's involvement, he would have written him off immediately. I think I will classify it under another unsolved chess mystery.

"In the next cycle I lost in turn to each of the three leaders. It was this that persuaded Fischer to write after the tournament that I had been chosen 'as a sacrifice' by the Soviet delegation. Surely he wasn't being serious! I am incapable, by character, of being a sacrifice, the more so since, if I had won those three games, it wouldn't have been Petrosian who won the tournament!" -- Korchnoi in Chess is My Life, 1977

Korchnoi is a rather erratic witness, and some of what he says should be taken with a large pinch of salt. However, if the Soviet authorities (or Petrosian's wife) had forced him to throw games when he had a good chance of winning the tournament, I'm sure he would have said so, in no uncertain terms.

(As an example of Korchnoi's reliability - immediately after the paragraph I quoted above, he accuses Petrosian of helping Benko win a critical adjourned game against Keres. His claim that Keres would have otherwise won the game, even though Benko stood slightly better, sounds implausible, although I admit I haven't looked at the game)

To Mario:
Of course chess is a sport. Who said sport has to be only physical?

"Korchnoi is a rather erratic witness, and some of what he says should be taken with a large pinch of salt."

Agreed. And a very large glass of yogurt.

"However, if the Soviet authorities (or Petrosian's wife) had forced him to throw games when he had a good chance of winning the tournament, I'm sure he would have said so, in no uncertain terms."

I'm not. You look much better as a victim of conspiracy than its participant.

As far as Keres-Benko, you can take a look here: "http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1072970"

Interestingly, in the comments for this game we also have this from Benko: "In this all-important game, I was a bit better, and adjourned. A while later, Petrosian and Geller came to me in secret and offered to help me beat their own countryman! I was disgusted. Telling them that it would be a draw with best play, I demanded that they leave. However, when we resumed, Keres made an error, and I won."

about the top 3 in Greg Koster's:

"Freaky conduct--

--show a large up-spike in your rating at a relatively late age
--become the only super-strong player in recent memory who's not super-strong at short time controls
--show a dramatic fall-off when playing in cheating-proofed events"

these are neither "conduct", nor exactly "freaky":
- many have had spikes at later age including 3 of the top 5 at the moment - Moro, Kramnik and Chuky
- according to chessbase Topalov was 5th at rapid time-control ahead of Kramnik in 2002
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=522
- the only known cheat-proof event was Elista. Topalov had no visual contact with the audience. from the 11 games against "one of the best chess players in history" Kramnik decisively won only one game. the rest of Kramnik wins were mostly due to blunders caused by Topalov's nervousness, as Kramnik himself notes on his DVD's.

Claims of conspiracy in Curacao are quite laughable. At the moment Fischer simply wasn't good enough to challenge for the crown, that's why he lost and blamed that on Soviet conspiracy of course. Sounds familiar, eh?

What was going on is called practicality. It's easier to win against weaker players and that's exactly what winners tried to do. Remember, recently there was a tournament where 6 gm's and one kid shared the place, but only 6 players could qualify for whatever they were playing. A mini tournament was held and 6 gm's drew among themselves and concentrated on beating the kid. Same thing here.

I can easily believe that there were collusions between Soviet players in late 40, when the dominance of Soviet players wasn't so evident and so the State was worried about the outcome. In Curacao there were no such worries. Benko story clearly confirms that Soviet players were fighting with each other more than with Fischer.

As for collusions in Mexico. Guess what, they are possible. I don't think they will happen, but that the nature of any round robin. That's why it's a dumb idea to have World Championship tournament in the first place. So here's a brilliant thought: why not replace this BS tournament with matches? No collusions in matches...

Yuri,

"I'm not. You look much better as a victim of conspiracy than its participant."

Let me put it another way - this book was published just after Korchnoi defected to the West, and he takes every opportunity to criticise the Soviet chess authorities for mishandling his career. If he was indeed forced to throw away what was probably his best chance of winning the World Championship, it seems odd that he doesn't say anything about it. (And if he had, he would probably regard himself as a victim).

On the other hand, the passage I quoted does leave room for the conspiracy theorists: his response to Fischer's allegations rather avoids the question, and his statement (which I didn't quote) that his play in the third round was affected by fatigue and unfamiliar surroundings is not that convincing, considering the players had just had a week off.

Thanks for the link to Keres-Benko.

A) Lost evidence

B) Top gets a free rematch

C) FIDE gives small slap to Top and Dan, but at the same time claim Top is still of high merit and respected.

= Top claim had some merit.

Why would you destroy tapes that proved Top was wrong?-- You would keep that evidence and burn Top to the ground with it. They did not keep it, instead they destroyed it and gave Top a rematch.

It's a win win for everyone, Another match for both players = more $$ for both players.

Top will beat Kram in next match (planned) and then they will have another rematch....for more $$

Kram/Top have become a rigged best out of 3, to maximize the $$ they get. They have tricked you all into picking sides when really they are on the same side. They know who will win so they know who to bet all their profits on in gambling on the rigged winner.

The Big show is just to hide the true plot.

I agree with you Theyareateam,for me is suspicious that the first videos had some damages due TECHNICAL PROBLEMS and after that all the videos were completely DESTROYED.Those videos are not evidence that Kramnik was cheating of course,but they could show how many often Kramnik visited the toilet meanwhile he was playing.And is more suspicious the way Topo got a free match against WCup winner,i don't want to think Kirsan tried to compensate Topo for something wrong that happened in Elista.Time will tell the true.

And I thought Bobby and Victor were paranoid.

chesstraveler - "To those of you from other governing bodies, please don't get me wrong. "WE" in this country are losing more of our personal freedoms on a regular basis, and quite frankly (I believe) too many here have become apathetic to response."

Yes.

Vote Republican. Save the Constitution. It's the only way.

Uh... jhoro, you wouldn't call #5 in the world "super-strong"?

Many people here still dont get it.

It was impossible to cheat in the bathroom. So therefore it dosent matter if Kramnik was in the Bathroom 1 time during a game or 250 times. There is no rule preventing bathrooms visits. Danailov should have been banned 10 years and Toplaov 1 year.

Looks like Danailov still doesn't get it. He thinks the behavior is ethical as long as he genuinely believes the charge. Looks like we'll be seeing him in the dock again.

Kinda interesting that people have referred and cited various U.S. laws and its Constitution. As far as I know, U.S. law would have no application in any of the cases being discussed. What does the U.S.A.'s Constitution's First Amendment have to do with the Bulgarian Vesselin Topalov being ruled on by a FIDE ethics committee? Some people are probably discussing it just 'cause it came up, but technically I can't imagine it being applicable.

Re, Curacao:

Fischer did accuse Korchnoi of throwing games to the others. He neglected to mention that he was far back in the pack at the time, and had little chance of winning. In fact, Fischer's famous article goes as far out of its way as possible to avoid telling you how he performed at Curacao, and tries to lead the reader to believe that he was in the fight for first.

In the Keres-Petrosian game that Fischer cited, he neglected to mention that he (Fischer) was mathematically eliminated from 1st place at the time it was played. He also neglected to mention that he himself was given a draw in a very inferior position against Petrosian a round later.

There's never been any evidence, or even any real reason to suspect that Korchnoi threw any games. In fact, the circumstances of the tournament strongly suggest the reverse. The only real reason for believing it is a desire to explain away Fischer's defeat. The problem is the thrown games theory doesn't even help do that, since nobody could have won a Candidates Tournament with a +1 score in any case. One might as well ask whether Benko threw the 2 games he lost to Fischer.

According to Fischer, Tal's lost games to the other Soviets were innocent, but Korchnoi's weren't. Fischer's reason for thinking Tal innocent were the same as his reasons for thinking Korchnoi guilty: personal desire. But Fischer himself seems to have quietly recanted the charge. According to Korchnoi, they had good relations after that, and Fischer never discussed the matter with him. Korchnoi's view was that Fischer had realized how ridiculous it was, and been too embarrassed to say so.

Of course Korchnoi had his own sour grapes over Curacao as well. His own excuse for losing is the same as Fischer's: the other guys drew too many games. But if you'll read Chess is My Life, Korchnoi gives an exchange he had with Geller, that shows that he (Korchnoi) saw no value whatsoever in the strategy while the tournament was in progress.

I don't for one moment think that Korchnoi would admit to throwing games if he did so. Has any top-level Soviet GM ever admitted it? And yet they have plenty of theories about when and how others were forced to do so. Bronstein and Geller have both stated that they felt pressure from the top at various points--but both stories are about them not giving in to the pressure and ending up screwed anyway. A proud man like Korchnoi would not want to admit that he was part of an evil unsportsmanlike conspiracy. He doesn't hesitate to accuse others, even Benko, but over the course of his book does he mention a situation where he was swayed by the party to produce a certain result over the chessboard? Or to do something else unethical?

Mind you, of course, none of this means that Korchnoi was part of a conspiracy (and in fact I don't think he was). I just don't think he would admit to it that he was. In fact, all of these guys stories agree on one thing--there was a conspiracy and they weren't involved. I, however, also disagree with Comrade Bender, who seems to think that there could not be a collusion between Soviet players at any point after the 40s. Of course, there could have been: in fact, once the Soviet players' prestige was established internationally, the party took a more active role in management of its players since now it had a reputation to protect. I believe it was Zurich 1954 where there were several reports of active involvement from the higher-ups to make sure it was Smyslov and not Bronstein and definitely not Keres or Reshevsky who advanced.

Korchnoi describes in CIML an opponent being forced to throw a game against him, and him doing nothing to stop it.

jcm

I don't see why the 'conspiracy' has to consist of the 4 Russians (out of 8) acting together.

In this era of heightened internationalism, surely any 4 could get together out of their own perceived self-interests and plot dark schemes?

Talking of conspiracy theories, here is the brand new interview with Topalov:

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

and a book review of 'On The Edge of Elista':

http://www.chesscafe.com/Reviews/books.htm

No outright cheating accusation in the interview, but Topalov makes it clear that he hasn't revised his opinion of what was going on in Elista a bit.
And, according to the book review, in the annotation to one of the games Toppy concludes about Vlad: "But I guess we should not look for moral values in people that do not have them."

"Potential buyers of this book should be aware: in addition to a revealing, enlightening, and satisfying match book, filling perhaps two-thirds of the total pages, they will also find one of the most determined attacks on a chess player’s character that has ever seen print. To be fair, the authors include full texts of letters and press commentary from Kramnik, as well as full texts of letters from the Appeals Committee and FIDE. The reader receives a good summary of both sides of this controversy. And again to be fair, no one can fault a man for defending his own position with vigor. Nevertheless, in their conversations, strategy sessions, commentary, and especially in their tone, Team Topalov betrays an absolute conviction that they are right, coupled with an absolute belief that they are entitled to use every means, fair and foul, to attack Kramnik in whatever way they choose, including the writing of some sections of this book."

Actually Comrad Bender thinks that collusion was possible between any number of players, Soviet or otherwise. Of course it was more likely between Soviet players because they lived under the dictatorship. However I don't think collusion took place after late 40 because it was unnecessary: the gap between Soviet GMs and rest of the world grew too large.

I also find the idea that party dictated the results very convenient to the fans of those players that were close, but never became World Champions. Let's recap the rumors: party didn't want Bronstein to become champ so the pressure in Zurich, Keres wasn't executed only because he promised to abandon his WC ambitions, Korchnoi lost to Karpov in 1974 only because of the party involvement. I see a pattern here.

More from the review of Topalov-Ginchev's book:

"At times they force their interpretation onto events at the expense of painfully obvious alternatives. Thus, during the critical negotiations surrounding the aborted fifth game, Ilyumzhinov reminds Danailov that they have a contract to play Kramnik. Danailov is quoted as responding, “Yes, we’ve signed a contract for a match against Kramnik, not against Kramnik and a computer.” They report that the FIDE President abruptly fell silent at this remark and state: '[Ilyumzhinov] _knows about the computer_ [emphasis added] but he must close his eyes because his bosses in the Kremlin will take off his head.'"

Good grief.

Btw, is this new book just "Toilet War" expanded and updated to include Topalov's annotations and a bit of other stuff?

Korchnoi has admitted to pre-arranging, move for move, his game with Taimainov from Hastings in the 50's, but as far as I know, he's never admitted to throwing a game.

Far from it, when he defected, he made the statement that, though pre-arranged draws in he Soviet Union were common, that thrown games were almost never ordered from above, and when they happened, they were usually the result of some private arrangment (he cited the infamous Taimanov-Matulovic 1970 here).

acirce,

That was my favorite part of the review. (Thanks, LF) Danailov has accomplished the impossible task of making one feel sorry for Kirsan.

The gap between Soviets and Reshevsky in Zurich or Soviets and Fischer in Curacao (and during 72 cycle) was definitely not enough for the party's worry to be unnecessary.

I agree that there is a lot of tendency to blame Brezhnev & Co. for GMs that missed reaching the top. But you aren't going to tell me the state was not conspiring against Korch in Bagio and Merano, that they were not determined not to give Estonians a national hero or that they wouldn't much rather have Smyslov or Botvinnik at the top than David "Why can't I name my son Lev?" Bronstein. The pattern, interestingly enough, is also that until Kasparov none of the Soviet champions were what you would call "non-desirables," (Spassky comes closest) while a few of the top GMs were.

The number of stories about who was told to throw or draw what where seems to be matched only by the number of people refuting those accusations...you should hear the whopper about Bronstein-Geller that Taimanov claims took place in Zurich.

Let's get real. Here's a result table of Curacao http://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/6163$cix.htm Fischer is 3.5 points behind Petrosian, 3 points behind Keres and Geller. Of course, KGB is responsible for that.

Now let's apply some common sense here. Suppose indeed all Soviet players were in conspiracy to deny Fischer his god-given right to the first place. What would be the best strategy to achieve that? Surely KGB would choose a "winner" as they apparently always did, then compel all the other Soviet players to lose to that "winner" (like it allegedly happened with Keres losses to Botwinnik). But no, apparently KGB god dumber, so they made all their top players to draw each other. This, of course, is the worst possible outcome in a bid for the first place (the only place that really mattered).

These Curacao claims were the most idiotic conspiracy theory in chess history prior to Topalov mentioning KGB officers that transmitted to Kramnik losing moves because they didn't know how to play chess.

As for state "conspiring" against Korch in Bagio in Merano... Conspiring, in what way? Did they abduct Korch, drug him, send Karpov computer moves? Yes, there was an ugly anti-Korch campaign in Soviet Union. There was a disgusting psychological warfare on site (btw waged by both sides). However Korch lost on the board, and there is no doubt who was the better player at the time anyway. So...

I have no doubt that there were a number of cases where people had to throw the game because the Party said so. However, I object when people attribute their own failures to the "hand of KGB". See Fischer in Curacao, Korch everywhere, Topalov in Elista.

Zurich rumours are the most likely to be true. That was indeed the case (the last time before Fischer run in 70) when Soviet domination was threatened. I'm sure that KGB had a field day there at some point.

osbender--

Thanks for providing valuable historical perspective re idiotic chess conspiracy theories. How many years before someone outdoes Topalov's chess-retarded-KGB-agent masterpiece? He's set the bar awfully high.

Re: He's set the bar awfully high. True that. Still, I immediately thought about certain Sergey Bubka...Never misuderestimate humans.

So the State was certain going into Curacao that there were three Soviet GMs who were way better than Fischer? Or that Karpov was going to triumph by a one-game margin in Bagio? Or that the second time around Korchnoi was not going to produce the same kind of dangerously close result? No, of course not: there were roughly six potential winners in Curacao (check out Sonas's rating for the time of the tournament if you don't believe me) and Korchnoi was at the very least close enough to Karpov's level for the latter not to be comfortable. Mind you, I am not suggesting that that's proof the State tried to interfere the outcome--but the gap between the Soviet GMs and their opposition in each of those cases was definitely not too large, which is what you argued originally.

Like you, I think that there was no State-ran conspiracy in Curacao. However, the 12 draws between each of the top players are extraordinary when compared to their results against everybody else, and lead me to think that more than a few of these were arranged between them so the older players could focus their energy on the games against everybody else. While getting the GMs to have pre-arranged draws is not the best way to fix a tournament, it's easier to convince them of doing that than to get somebody to throw games. You yourself described a similar scenario earlier (beating on the kid).

The KGB did not abduct Korch. But they did arrest his son. And you agree that there was other disgusting psychological warfare. However, I also agree with you that Karpov was the better player in both championship matches.

The gap between Soviet GMs and Fischer in Curacao is easy to see. It's enough to look at the table.

Could you please enlighten me as to how KGB was able to fix the results of Karpov-Korchnoi matches? Korchnoj was out of the Soviet Union by that time and KGB could do very little to him short of killing. How much Korch's son mattered to Korch is plain to see. He pretty much sacrificed him when he left the country with the scandal.

As for draws in Curacao... If players themselves want a draw to save energy, it's entirely up to them. There is nothing immoral or underhanded in that approach: happens in the tournaments of all levels. On the other hand, the idea that state forced these draws upon the players is ridiculous, because these draws contradict the very interest of the state: maximize the chances of a Soviet guy winning.

I will try one more time. I never said that KGB fixed Karpov-Korchnoi--my point was that neither in Curacao, nor Zurich, nor Bagio, nor Merano, could the State, or KGB, or whatever you want to call the Soviet higher-ups, be assured going in that a non-Soviet player was not going to win. Yes, Fischer did not win Curacao. However, you would be foolish to conclude on the basis of one tournament that Petrosian, Keres & Geller were heads & shoulders above Fischer, Korchnoi and Tal. In fact, both ratings and reports from the era suggest that if anything Korch and Fischer were viewed as stronger players at the time than Keres or Geller. And of course Korchnoi was definitely in Karpov's league at the time they played, so that was not a time when there was a large gap between Soviet GMs and everybody else either. The only times when I think USSR could be reasonably assured one of its guys was going to win would be mid-late fifties (after Reshevsky, before Fischer) and from roughly 82 to early nineties (when Karpov and Kasparov were just definitely heads and shoulders above everybody else).

As for Igor Korchnoi, Viktor did choose career over family. A lot of fathers make that decision. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't care if their son gets arrested or killed.

Alright, I'll try one more time too. Even if we accept that Fischer in Curacao was already at the same level as Petrosian/Keres/Geller/Tal and Korch, we have 6 players with roughly equal chances of success. Therefore chances of Fischer to win would have been about 17%, chances that one of the Soviet guys wins would have been 83%. IMO that qualifies as "reasonably assured of winning", wouldn't you agree?

Of course Karpov's chances against Korch were nowhere that good, but I didn't argue it either. However, I still maintain that between Zurich and late 60's (when Fischer became a clearly superior player) Soviet domination wasn't threatened. At any point they had 5 players that were legitimate contenders, while West had either 0 or 1.

Meh, now it's a matter of phrasing. It would have been reasonable to place a bet on a Soviet GM winning Curacao, but I don't think 17 percent possibility of failure is enough to feel certain of victory. Like you, I think that Soviets dominated chess after Hague/Moscow round-robin up to the country's collapse, Fischer single run not withstanding. However, I don't think that there was a significant gap between the average level of top Soviet GMs and level of the top Western GM or two during most of that period.

So the State was certain going into Curacao that there were three Soviet GMs who were way better than Fischer? Or that Karpov was going to triumph by a one-game margin in Bagio?

I think they were more afraid of Korchnoi in 1978 than Fischer in 1962. The Soviets simply didn't take Fischer seriously as a world title threat at that time. Whether they should have is another question, but it seems clear that the top three finishers in that tournament were more afraid of each other than they were of Bobby.

If Fischer had ever actually been in the running for first place, perhaps they'd have reconsidered their view, but considering that Fischer still had a losing score 75% of the way through the tournament, there was never any need to worry about him.

Fischer in 1962 simply wasn't yet good enough to be World Champion. If they'd handed him a free match with Botvinnnik at that time, he'd probably have lost it. One only has to seriously study his games from Curacao (which no one ever seems to do), to see that he still had a lot to learn.

>>However, the 12 draws between each of the top players are extraordinary when compared to their results against everybody else,>>

Only extraordinary to one unfamiliar with international chess. Though it's no credit to the game, having the leaders taking it easy on each other and beating up on the weakies is a strategy employed in hundreds of tournaments (take a look at the recent Needleman case for a really extreme example). The only thing that makes Curacao noteworthy is that this time Bobby Fischer was one of the weakies.

"I think they were more afraid of Korchnoi in 1978 than Fischer in 1962."

Definitely. A one on one match is always a more scary situation; Korchnoi was definitely the strongest challenger at the time; then you have to consider that a victory for a traitor would have been viewed more negatively than for an American.

"The Soviets simply didn't take Fischer seriously as a world title threat at that time...If Fischer had ever actually been in the running for first place, perhaps they'd have reconsidered their view"

As I explained in the later post, I was arguing not that they were afraid but that the gap in level was simply not as strong as osbender argued. Fischer won the Interzonal, tied Spassky at Mar de Plata, finished second in Bled. He was a young prodigy on the rise, a man with many theoretical ideas, who nobody knew what to make of--precisely the kind of player that Botvinnik would feel least comfortable against.

"Only extraordinary to one unfamiliar with international chess. Though it's no credit to the game, having the leaders taking it easy on each other and beating up on the weakies is a strategy employed in hundreds of tournaments (take a look at the recent Needleman case for a really extreme example)."

Are you agreeing with me that there probably was collusion between the top three finishers? Isn't that what happened in the Needleman case? All I mean by extraordinary is "unlikely to occur as a result of 12 competitively played games". Compare the results of the top three against Fischer in the same tournament, none them score more than a +1 but the percentage of decisive games is much higher (50%).

A couple of interesting interviews with Averbakh here support my perception of the situation:
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles183.pdf
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles181.pdf

>>Are you agreeing with me that there probably was collusion between the top three finishers? Isn't that what happened in the Needleman case?
>>

I think there probably was at Curacao, though not necessarily. But I don't think there was in the Needleman case. We had 7 guys, 6 qualification spots, and one guy significantly weaker than the others. The strategy of going for a safe draw against the 5 strong opponents and putting all the effort into the game against Needleman is so obvious that I wouldn't be surprised if all 6 of them arrived at it independently, without discussing it between themselves at all before the games.

>>All I mean by extraordinary is "unlikely to occur as a result of 12 competitively played games". >>

Well, there was certainly that at Curacao. With or without pre-agreement, the three leaders were all satisfied drawing with each other without playing competitively.

For that matter, the same thing happened at Bled/Zagreb/Belgrade, to a lesser extent. Tal and Petrosian drew four games that averaged 18.5 moves each, with no protest from Fischer or anyone else. Does that mean Petrosian and Tal pre-arranged those games? Could be, but I doubt it. At least I've never heard anyone suggest that. I think part of it is a weakness of the quadruple round robin format. After the first quick draw, each player can infer that his opponent's tournament strategy involves drawing with him, which makes it more likely that another one will be offered next time.

>>How convenient that in the KBG country key evidence is destroyed.>>

What key evidence? Certainly not the tapes. We know they didn't contain any evidence of wrongdoing, because Danailov (illegally) viewed them himself and didn't see any.

The only thing the tapes showed was something that no one seems to deny; that Kramnik (legally) wandered around a LOT when not on the move. That doesn't seem to help Topalov with the charge that he made his accusation knowing that the evidence didn't support it. It might help him if he tried to argue that he lost his head and didn't initially cook the whole thing up as a deliberate ploy to disturb his opponent.

It is interesting that Kramnik is placed in a unique position, whereby he is guaranteed a World Championship match, irrespective of the result of the Mexico City WC tournament. He thus has a unique opportunity to influence whom his potential Match opponent might be.

On balance, I believe that Kramnik probably has a strong incentive to strive for clear 1st Place in the event. If he were to win the World Championship tournament, he will have finally put paid to criticisms that he maintains his current position in the Chess World as a result of being the recipient of a "gift"--Kasparov annointing him as the Challenger, despite his previous lack of success in various World Champion cycles. In the Mexico City format, he is starting off on the same footing as his 7 Elite challengers.

Moreover, he probably feels more confident that he can defeat Topalov again (at least, in Over the Board play), than he would be at the prospect beating either Anand or Aronian. If he wins the Mexico City event, Kramnik won't have to face either of them. If he fails to finish 1st, the odds are that one of them will be his opponent.
And the sooner that he plays and beats Topalov, the sooner that he'll have confirmed his position as undisputed Chess World Champion, and probably reassume the mantle of "Best (Active) Chessplayer in the World"

Of course, there are some potential incentives for Kramnik to NOT finish Clear 1st. If he didn't want to win the title of World Champion, based on the tournament result, he could still strive to finish =1st, but not prevail in the ensuing tie-breaks.

It is possible that Kramnik either fears or dislikes Topalov (and Danailov) so much that he would either refuse to play a Match with Topalov, or would do his utmost to forestall or delay such a "rendezvous". In such an instance, it would then be logical for Kramnik to seek NOT to win Mexico City, since then his next match opponent .... would be the winner of Mexico City.

Assuming that Kramnik were to win that Match, only then would he need to reckon on the prospect of playing Topalov. However, Kramnik would face the winner of the the match between Topalov and the winner of the FIDE World Cup event, so there is a real chance that Kramnik would be able to avoid playing Topalov again, and yet retain his title. As an added bonus, Kramnik would have squeezed in an extra--presumeably lucrative--World Championship event, so that he'll have played in 3 official championships within the span of about a year.

>>If he were to win the World Championship tournament, he will have finally put paid to criticisms that he maintains his current position in the Chess World as a result of being the recipient of a "gift"--Kasparov annointing him as the Challenger, despite his previous lack of success in various World Champion cycles.
>>

Not really any different than the way people were chosen for San Luis: by rating. Of the 8 players there, only Kasim could be said to have "qualified" for it (and qualified retroactively in his case).

But I don't think success in this tournament would have any effect on that criticism. People aren't mad at him for being world champion, they're mad at him for not playing a rematch with Kasparov.

Imagine the shrieks we'll hear if Grischuk or Gelfand wins and goes on to play Kramnik.

Unlikely that Kramnik would seek not to win Mexico. He's not going to let his reputation suffer to stick it to a player that he has a huge plus score against, anyway. As long as the match weren't played in Bulgaria, or Godforsaken Elista (though Topalov swears he wouldn't go back to Elista anyway), he'd have less reason to fear that encounter than one with Anand or Aronian. His patience in dealing with Topalov's various idiocies seems to be considerable.

Yeah, in Bled I think such an outcome made more sense. The already drawish Petrosian did not want to battle the smoking-hot Tal, while Tal didn't want to fight against the guy who was one of the toughest defensive players in history, who was very difficult to beat on demand. No need for prearrangement. Tal on the other hand played a very decisive mini-match against Keres, the man whom he was battling for the lead most of the way. That also makes sense to me; one is more comfortable trying to grab the lead in face-to-face combat than hope that you will simply score more pluses against weaker opposition.
On the other hand, in Curacao, there were three leaders in the last two rounds and none tried to break away from each other or to gain on the other guy in face to face games. In a tournament like this one, where only the winner advances and the second-place winner gets nothing (well, next to nothing, he got seeded into next cycle) I think that's poor strategy, unless you have an agreement with the other two guys. Imagine you are Geller, you are half a point behind Tigran with three games left. One game you play against each other and the other two against bottom-feeders. No reason to expect that you would outscore him against the bottom-feeders, so I think your best chance is to try to beat him face-to-face. This didn't happen at Curacao. When you consider that Keres was old and needed rest, and that Tigran and Geller were very good friends, that also supports the conspiracy theory. Of course, none of it proves it. But it's been a fun discussion.

"I think part of it is a weakness of the quadruple round robin format."

To me the biggest weakness is that with today's time controls, lack of rest days, no postponements and massive preparation required, a quadruple round robin would turn into an endurance contest pretty quickly. And while that's part of chess, it should not be the main factor that determines the winner.

Maybe someone can clear this up for me, but in the chessbase article it states that the official explanation for why Kramnik visted the bathroom so often was that he liked to use it as a place for walking.

Later I heard that Kramnik had a medical condition that meant he needed to go to the bathroom alot.

Which is correct? and if he had a medical condition why didn't he say so in the first place? If he was just using the bathroom for walking then why is he now saying he had a medical condition?

>

Are they mutually exclusive, or do some people with medical conditions also like to walk?

>

He did. This should hardly come as a surprise to anyone. He was out of action for several months in early 2006, and dropped out of Corus because of it. Not exactly a secret.

Whoops, looks like I turned the quotes into HTML tags in the previous, and wiped them out.

Wonder if this will work?

Nope, putting the last sentence in italic tags did nothing at all. Bummer.

Of course a medical condition and liking to walk are not mutually exclusive. Just curious as to why he did not point out in his official response to the allegation that his medical condition meant he had to go to the bathroom more often, seems he only mentioned it later in interviews. Which strikes me as a little strange.

One of the most frustrating aspects of this thing is the absence of any sensible information and timelines, largely I suspect because of the spate of lies from Danailov. Did Kramnik in fact ever say that his condition required him to go the bathroom (as in actually make water)? I've only ever seen him quoted as saying that it makes it hard for him to sit still for six hours and that's why he walks around, and that one of the places he walks around is the bathroom.