Taking Shorthand

What is this about then:

"With reference to your email to Geoffrey Borg regarding the above event, I attach the link to the FIDE Code of Ethics.

http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=A10

If any party believes that they have a complaint under this code, then it should be forwarded to the FIDE Secretariat at office@fide.com who will then forward it to the Ethics Commission.

The laws of chess have not been amended for the refusal of players to shake hands. The matter was discussed in Antalya at the Ethics Commission and the Arbiter's Council but no final decision was taken. Further consideration will be given to the matter.

Regards,

David Jarrett
Executive Director"

http://rules.chessdom.com/anna-rudolf-case

Personally, I was also under the impression that it had not become official yet. Are you 100% sure?

IMHO this rule is completely ridiculous. One thing is to yell at someone or insult him, but I think the chess player should have the freedom not to give his opponent a handshake if he just doesn't feel like doing so. But again, I started with imho...

Santiago

I suspect the arbiters have simply made a huge blunder. This could get ugly -- we will see how it turns out.

I think the special competition rules about player conduct - if any - would be the rules the players need to adhere to. Are there any competition specific rules in this case? Yes, there are the Regulations for the 2008 - 2009 FIDE Grand-Prix which would seem to be the relevant rules here.

http://fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=DD10

'13.4 The players shall shake hands (or shall greet each other in a normal social manner in accordance with the conventional rules of their society) before the start and after the end of each game. If a player fails to meet these requirements and after being asked to do so by the Chief Arbiter, then he will lose the game immediately.'

Thanks Timo.

Maybe this is even what is meant by "FIDE Tournament" in the Presidential Board's decision? I.e. not just any FIDE registered event, but for example FIDE World Championship tournaments or FIDE Grand Prix tournaments.

Since Corus 2008 is not part of the Grand Prix that does not apply here.

Ouch.

FIDE'S INSANE CONTROL

Like drug testing, this is another example of FIDE's insane attempt to control the behavior of players. Topalov and Kramnik stopped shaking hands during their title match in 2006 and neither player was penalized. Karpov refused to shake Alburt's hand at the Malta Olympiad and nothing happened.

The real scoundrels are those who rule FIDE.

Obviously Short trapped the poor Dutch arbiter who didn't know which rule is official and which is not. Chessdom has a very detailed report: http://www.chessdom.com/corus-chess-2008/short-cheparinov-live

"I suspect the arbiters have simply made a huge blunder. This could get ugly -- we will see how it turns out.
Posted by: acirce at January 20, 2008 09:16"

1. e4 c5 1-0??

What happens in the case of round 9 Topalov-Kramnik when both players dont wish to shake hands? danailov has already gone on record saying that Topalov wont extend his hand.

The Chessdom people are linking the Anna Rudolf case with this; they also say that the game may be replayed as the arbiter's decision was wrong (see the rudolf incident).

Danailov's appeal letter added to the item now.

Use a Proxy Shaker, such as Ms. Polgar.

The warring parties can both shake the hand of the Proxy.

All is well in chessland.

Silvio Danailov officially appealing to Vladimir Kramnik is just brilliant.

I am not too sure that Danailov's appeal letter helps matters. The text of the letter seems to be written by BORAT.

-LAT

But upholding an illegal forfeit against a member of the Topailov camp would be some poetic justice too.

Is anybody else not really surprised that Short is involved in something ugly again? Reading the Chessbase report also firmly puts the crybaby-cheater hat on his head.

In a break with precedent it looks as though Danailov has perfectly reasonable grounds for an appeal here :) If the arbiter didn't give Cheparinov a warning, that is.

Hopefully this will be contained and we'll avoid yet another circus.
Not that Nigel is a very huggable material, but I believe that the
enforcement of a handshake is a good thing, even it being a fake one.

D.

"After consulting with Cheparinov, and explaining the situation, the arbiter told Short that Cheparinov was now prepared to shake hands after all. However, given that he had already twice refused to do so, and that Short’s equanimity had by now been totally destroyed, the latter insisted that the offence had already occurred, and that Cheparinov should be forfeited."

So even assuming this IS an official rule, neither Short nor the arbiter were able to read and interpret it properly. The case seems to be pretty clearcut. "1-0??" indeed.

There seem to be different versions of the rule in question. One version (no idea whether it is the correct one) states:

"Any player who does not shake hands with the opponent (or greets the opponent in a normal social manner in accordance with the conventional rules of their society) before the game starts in a FIDE tournament or during a FIDE match (and does not do it after being asked to do so by the arbiter) or deliberately insults his/her opponent or the officials of the event, will immediately and finally lose the relevant game."

I believe Short argued that by refusing to shake his hand twice, there was a deliberate, planned insult. And in this case no warning by the arbiter is required ...

Danailov on Topalov-Kramnik (not) shaking hands in Wijk'08: http://interviews.chessdom.com/silvio-danailov-january-2008

But he is only referring to the handshake rule. And if refusing to shake hands is included in "deliberately insults", there is no need to state it specifically and with the extra words about not doing so after being asked by the arbiter added.

I hope these shenanigans won't distract from the nice Anand win over Topalov. A typical positional crush from Vishy.

and btw, "BEFORE the game starts"?? Wow. What kind of genius formulated the rule?

Back to the chess- in one of the more keenly anticipated games in the A group, Anand thumped Topalov.

Mig, thought it wasn't too clever putting the comment about Topalov being distracted in your article. I hope he is professional enough to put his friend's problems to one side and not to use t as an excuse. What next, Kramnik getting upset and losing because van Wely got his move order mixed up and blundered an exchange?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought Chessdom was a pro- Topalov/Danailov organ.

I fully support the forfeit of Cheparinov. If this precedent is established as the rule, then it will certainly stop it happening again. For example, Kramnik and Topalov will now be forced to shake hands this week. I think it is better that this has happened in the B event rathen than the A event.

Some history: Karpov - Korchnoi, Baguio City, 1978. Korchnoi is dominating the play in the first few games, and Karpov is just surviving. Game 8. Without warning, Karpov refuses to shake hands. Korchnoi becomes agitated and plays very badly - Karpov wins the game.

It is no good complaining afterwards - you need to stop this sort of deliberate insult at the source. The best way is by making the offending party lose the game by forfeit.

I guess probably what happened is that after 1.e4??, it has been proved that 1 ..e5 leads to equality, but 1 ..c5 leads to a winning position for black. Once Short realized his huge blunder saw the claim of forfeit (BTW, does anybody knows why the protest was made after each player made their first move and not before?) as the only alternative to save the game :)

Mcb, after looking pictures of Short after the forfeit, I sincerely doubt he took the refusal as a such a big insult that would make him becomes agitated, I guess when you offer to shake hand a person you have "insulted" before, you are not exactly a saint and you are aware you might get a refusal. But as gentlemen, both players should move on and play the game instead of some lame excuses... sad day for chess.

Sandorchess, Cheparinov was not at the board when Short played 1.e4. Then he arrived, played 1..c5, refused to shake, etc.

Cheparinov surely realizes that there are tens of players with similar rating who could replace him in the B group next year. Organizers probably take note of this sort of behaviour, especially when it happens on their doorstep. It is more reminiscent of a high-school clique than a bold statement. Doesn't seem like he should have been forfeitd though.

If Chessdom had any basis for their statement that Short "threw some baseless accusations against Mr. Cheparinov", I'd like them to quote those accusations. Presumable they aren't because they can't and it is just their usual bias showing.

About that Bagio city anecdote, Korchnoi was not without blame as he was mounting psychological pressure on Karpov accusing him of imprisoning his son etc.

Short says that he made his first move because Cheparinov did not appear on time. Later, when Cheparinov eventually came he refused shaking hands with Short and made his first move. Then, Short made one more attempt to shake hands with him. Cheparinov refused once again and Short contacted the arbiter.

Chepa's forfeit is handy, as now Topa will have an excuse to withdraw from the A group in protest, thereby eliding his mediocre performance.

That Danailov pets on Chessdom ... I love them.
Actually anybody knows who is the mastermind behind them? Master Silvio himself?

Now, I happen to think that Short and the arbiter behaved correctly. Cheparinov was obviously deliberately being insulting, and he paid the price. Cheparinov should stop being a cry-baby -- and perhaps next time he won't try such a petty little tactic again. (Trying this sort of thing against Short is like trying to cheat off the class swot at school: you know he won't have any problem going to the headmaster).

But in any case, why is it that Danailov has become directly involved in the two most absurd chess fracas of recent memory: Toiletgate and now Handshakegate (or perhaps Greeting-gate). Are his players really that piss-poor that they can't just play chess without some crass attempt at psychological "warfare"?

I would guess that this incident was manufactured by Danailov in order to establish what would happen if Topalov refuses to shake with Kramnik on Tuesday.

Isn't it strange that we get so many rook and pawn endings in this tournament?
Carlsen liquidated his position against Gelfand with some nice technique but then found out it's another tablebase draw! Bacrot is fighting another one against Koneru right now.

This hand-shake scandal is so nasty that they should take care of it and resolve the whole story ASAP. Chess can not afford such issues. Danailov should teach this kid some respect and sportsmanship rather than hatred and cheap behavior.

If the chessbase report is basically correct, and Cheparinov was willing to shake hands after being informed of the consequences, then it should be quite easy: The appeals committee revokes the decision, and the game will be played. And next time Short wants make a plea, he will have a hard time to convince any arbiter of anything.

The writing of the rule is so ambiguous as to be open to any and all interpretations; typical FIDE.

Short would be especially sensitive to the idea of 'loss of equanamity' right now given what happened not long ago during the world cup when a player showed up only at the last second, upsetting Short so much that Short lost even with a huge time advantage.

Artin, rook and pawn endings are the most common endings as far as I know. The good thing for our education is that we are seeing some of them played out to the bitter end (not that the GMs need to do so).

Two quick questions questions:

1) I heard a rumor that Adams and Kramnik have been replaced on the appeals committee; the former for shared nationality with the Nige and the latter for prior issues with the Danailov camp. Is there any meat to this?

2) If, during their game in two days, Kramnik and Topalov do not offer to shake the other's hand at all, would it mean that BOTH will be forfeit? The other 12 players should watch this with avid interest...

Last I heard Kramnik and Polgar were whisked away from their board to a meeting room and the door was locked while the appeals committee met. I hope the official site is prompt with results and details. The whys here are as important as the what.

In all my years of tournament chess, I can not once remember not shaking hands with my opponent before and after a game. Not shaking hands seems adolescent to me and the outcome a waste of time and energy for such a small matter as this thread continues to verify. This matter appears to be indicative of top flight chess only--where politics rears its ugly head. When chess is mixed with politics, you get...politics.

Hopefully toiletgate and handshakegate will never meet, cause there could be some hygeine issues...

I'm constantly amazed that Danailov either doesn't seem to care or doesn't seen to know better than release an appeal letter that's abound with orthography errors. If this guy was representing me, this would've been the first and last letter he ever wrote on my behalf.

As far as the appeals commitee is concerned, sending them a latter that could've been written by a 3rd grader is just so disgraceful and a sign of disrespect, yikes.

What would happen if an Armenian chess player plays against a Turkish chess player and refuses to shake his hand (or vice versa) for political/historical reasons?

Dasnailov misrepresents the rule.
According to FIDE Rules of Play, arbiter does not have to explain Cheparinov the consequences, he just has to ask Cheparinov to shake hands. If Cheparinov refuses, then the game should be forfeited.
It is not clear though did arbiter first just asked Cheparinov to handshake, and only after refusal explained the consequences after which Cheparinov had shown his will for handshake. If this is correct, then the forfeit is obvious.
But if arbiter explained the rule immediately to Bulgarian, without just asking him first to shake hands, then the decision might be questionable, and can be considered a serious mistake from arbiter's side.

Oh this is so nice: "Korchnoi was not without blame as he was mounting psychological pressure on Karpov accusing him of imprisoning his son"

By excluding Korchnoi's son from university and by sending him to GULAG for few years, Soviets obviously did not put any psychological pressure on Korchnoi. Korchnoi did by raising the matter in mass meadia.

"Despite Fischer's protests, antics, and tantrums away from the board, it was well known that his behavior was always impeccable at the board."

Well, expect for the incident in 1960 when Fischer swept the pieces off the board against Najdorf.

http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_js/js_Najdorf_Life_games.html

It appears that Cheparinov willfully pushed the poorly written rule it to its limits. Likely coached by Danailov to violate the spirit of the law while stopping at the brink of a clean break. Quite enough to disturb Short. A difficult decision for the appeals committee. Principles of English law might favor Short, whereas principles of US law (more literal) would probably favor Danailov's appeal. Most equitable: reprimand Cheparinov and order the game to be played Monday, with plenty of time allowed for psychological preparation. Kramnik is in a difficult position, and has another opportunity to prove his class.

Topalov surely was distracted, because even Anand was. Anand said on the press conference (Chessvibes Video):
"And also I was a little bit disoriented, because of what was going on between Short and Cheparinov. So I kind of decided to play a save move (12.000) and go there and have a look."
:-)

UPDATE from Wijk:
Nigel emerged from the committee room in a huff. Before grabbing his coat storming out of the building, he said, "of course they want me to play tomorrow." And then, "There's no way I'm playing, that's for sure!"

Isn't it funny that whenever things are going badly for them on the chessboard these people are creating a scandal out of nothing. Just to remind you Topa is at -1 and Chepa was at abysmal = in group B (now at -1).

Regarding the issue itself, I think FIDE mandating handshakes is wrong. It just clutters the rulebook with ambiguous and unnecessary rules and gives an opportunity to slimeballs like Danailov to generate scandals.

"I'm constantly amazed that Danailov either doesn't seem to care or doesn't seen to know better than release an appeal letter that's abound with orthography errors. If this guy was representing me, this would've been the first and last letter he ever wrote on my behalf." - I don't know if it is fair to say that. Danailov does speak good Russian, which is perhaps even more important than English in the chess world. And that came in handy in Elista - as perhaps the fact that Kramnik's manager Henzel wasn't able to speak Russian hurt Kramnik as Kramnik had to be a part of a lot of negotiations himself instead of having his manager represent him. Danailov has his shortcomings (obviously) but I don't think his language skills are a big problem. I think the urgency of the complaint was more important than proper grammar. And Danailov can put up a (mostly) intelligible press release/statement in both Russian and English in a very short time, and that is more than can be said about most people in the chess world, including managers.

What about David Jarrett's (FIDE executive director) statement mentioned by Chessdom on the Anna Rudolf case, especially the "The laws of chess have not been amended for the refusal of players to shake hands."? In a related discussion taking place at a popular greek chess forum, administered by a FIDE official, it is also stated that the rule is not yet in effect.

From TWIC "Cheparinov won the appeal and the game is scheduled for tomorrow but Short's reaction is that he will not play."

From a humble amateurs point of view I find the forfeit atleast morally correct as far as I have understood the reports on what actually happened.

The part of the rule that demands that the arbiter informs about the rule and thus gives the player a chance to change his bad behaviour is obviously included in a rule for a reason. This reason should obviously be that the player may be unaware of the rule and what he is risking by not shaking hands.

In this case it is clear that the player was very well aware of the rule before refusing to shake hands and in my humble opinion the arbiter thus did the right thing.

More disturbing is that it is very clear that this another piece of work by mr Danailov. It is very sad to see that he continues NOT to be a chess manager, but a manager of bad behaviour.

Has Danailov considered a career in the WWE?

"From TWIC "Cheparinov won the appeal and the game is scheduled for tomorrow but Short's reaction is that he will not play."

Leaving aside the hate towards Danailov and his pupils, Short's attitude has been the worst. Or do you guys think that actually he felt deeply offended and emotionally affected to play due to Cheparinov's refusal to shake hands?

With this behavior Short is trying to fuel an innecesary controversy, as he is behaving (that's not new from him, we have read from him his comments about Miles, for example) in a showy and outspoken way. When Kramnik was seemengly affected by some antics, he reacted the way a first class players should do. When Short, "supposedly" was affected by a violation of the rules, he has reacted -what a shame-, the way a second class player would do... Is he a second class player now?

@kosulin,
the debate on how much responsibility an individual has for the system/nation that he represents is still going on. My point is that Korchnoi directly accused Karpov of sending his son to jail. If this was valid then just imagine sporting events with Americans taking place - you would have the players accused of guantanamo, occupation of iraq, agent orange etc etc

Kramnik's class is consistent with his chess style. Short is overstated all around. Hopefully Short will accept the decision and do his best to concentrate on chess. Good move by the Appeals Committee!

"When Kramnik was seemengly affected by some antics, he reacted the way a first class players should do"

By forfeiting a World Championship game?

So Kramnik did sit on the appeals committee after all. I thought he had recused himself through his manager. Anyway, a good, reasonable decision by the Appeals committe which will leave everyone unhappy.

FIDE is absolutely right. If his team and manager are not satisfied with the decision they are free to pack their belongings and go back home. We don´t need them here to mess things up.

"So Kramnik did sit on the appeals committee after all. I thought he had recused himself through his manager."

Yes, that's what Chessdom reported. No idea why.

They also said he would be replaced by Erwin l'Ami.

Who is this l'Ami? Well someone informed me that according to Danailov, l'Ami is going to be Cheparinov's second in Sofia... Heh. No wonder Chessdom would have liked him to rule on the case. Have they been working together before?

Cheparinov refuses twice to shake hands. Then, after the warning that this might cost him the game, he is willing to shake hands.

A man who sticks to his principles.

There is a limited but positive role for formal rules of etiquette. Short's initial complaint was right.

But Short over-played his hand when he refused to accept the subsequent acquiesence of Cheparinov as a victory for Short on this point. Short needed to show a little flexibility at that moment, as there were abundant extenuating circumstances.

This reminds of how Kramnik was too inflexible, unimaginative, and emotional in how he chose to fight back against the closing of his private bathroom (vs. Topalov 2006).

Had Short accepted Cheparinov's acquiesence, this incident would have helped to solidify Kirsan's pronouncement as a FIDE rule. Now it seems too hot to handle.

Looks like yet another Danailov client will receive a point partly thanks to his manager. Who will be the next self-destructively inflexible player to lose a free point to the Danailov clan?

A fierce competitor, Lance Armstrong never let little stuff like this get in his way, or even distract him. Lance blew past little problems without giving them the time of day. That attitude would have well served Kramnik and now Short.

yeah, he never let antidoping tests get in his way.
chess history is full of psychological attacks like that. i find it normal than chess players react to that, even if in this case Short isnt right.still, i wouldnt find it very surprising if he goes down easily tomorrow.

Cheparinov should learn some manners, the arbiter should learn his rules, Short should learn to seek decisions on the board.

The appeals committee took a common sense approach. In a two-edged situation, they found a balanced solution, avoided the doubtful forfeit, and suggested a practical approach for the future.

If I remember last year correctly, neither Kramnik nor Topalov looked like he would refuse the handshake. It was just a matter of not offering one. The new rule has a funny consequence in such a case: Theoretically the arbiter could demand the handshake, and if neither obliges, forfeit both.

The wording of the new rule is a bit awkward.
"Any player who does not shake hands... and does not do it after being asked..."
The rule doesn't differentiate between who offered the handshake and who declined it. But then, it's quite an impossible task to codify good manners.

>>Despite Fischer's protests, antics, and tantrums away from the board, it was well known that his behavior was always impeccable at the board.>>

Well, not exactly. Getting into a loud shouting argument with Lothar Schmid, while Spassky was trying to think in Game 3 is not exactly what Emily Post would recommend.

And Fischer too, forfeited his share of games. Two against Reshevsky, one against Gipslis, one against Hort, one against Larsen, and of course, the one everyone knows about, against Spassky, as well as an entire world championship match and his place in the 1964 Interzonal.

An incidental homage to Fischer? Maybe so.

In the ChessVibes interview, Danailov clarifies on the Topalov-Kramnik handshake (or lack thereof) situation saying that they are "both men" and won't "ask for the point like a child".

I should be outraged, I know. But this was the single funniest thing I've read this year. Can the Kingpin write-up be far behind?

The behaviour of Topalov-Danailov in 'toiletgate' was disgraceful but Nigel Short does not exactly smell of roses. He has a history of making provocative, unsubstantiated allegations and can be a model of disingenuity. In this case my sympathy is entirely with Cheparinov. I don't see why a chess player can not demonstrate that there is no love lost between him and his opponent by not shaking his hand but be perfectly polite and sit down to an honest game without gamesmanship. When rebuffed, rule or no rule, Short should have shrugged his shoulders and got on with the game. Instead of not abiding by the Appeal Committee's decision as he has said he would, he should play the game tomorrow and try and whip Cheparinov over the board. I doubt his chess is up to that.

The rule is just nonsensical, proving that a good chess strategist does not have to be even a mediocre law-maker.

If the purpose of the handshake rule is to avoid intentional humiliation by one player of another, then it fails miserably.

One can just refuse to shake hands, and only do so after the arbiter requires it -- i.e. after the insult has occurred.

Additionally, as others mentioned, if neither player attempts to shake hands, the game can go on, according to a literal interpretation of the rule.

It's somewhat scary to think that lawmaking is just as poorly thought out in actual government -- after all, the FIDE alpha dog is the president of a country.

Alex,
Ilumzinov is not president of a country. He is president of a region. Think about this as a governor of a US state.

jaideepblue,
If you believe that Karpov was just an individual representing his country during his battle vs. Korchnoi, then our discussion on the matter (Korchnoi insulting Karpov) is meaningless.

i, for one, have never lost.

*picks nose*

*offers hand*

You're right Vlad K. -- I was fooled by the name "Republic of Kalmykia" and my general ignorance of the political details of the region. At any rate, it seems that republics, while not completely autonomous, still have more autonomy in the Russian Federation than most provinces/"oblasts."

My point is not affected though -- Kalmykia still has some autonomy. And the problem of bad law making is not restricted to God-forsaken parts of the Russian Federation either.

This whole situation is totally ridiculous.

Although each of the players may be blamed for their respective roles in this incident, I agree that the main problem is the FIDE rule itself.

It is the rule itself (which is very poorly and ambiguously drafted and does not really serve its purpose of eliminating insults) that allowed this little incident to become a huge scandal the result of which left everyone unhappy.

One would think that FIDE would hire a competent lawyer to give advice on and to draft its laws.

"Any player who does not shake hands with the opponent... before the game starts..."

The game started with Short playing 1. P-K4 (given in English descriptive notation not only because of his nationality but also because of his penchant for playing the Evans Gambit).

Therefore, Short's insistence on shaking hands after the commencement of the game (indeed, after
Cheparinov's reply, 1...P-QB4) may be construed as an improper attempt to disturb the Bulgarian's equanimity.

It may well be that Cheparinov deliberately refrained from appearing at the board when the round started just so he would not be in a position of having to shake Short's hand.

As has been pointed out above, the rule has a Borat-like quality... certainly in keeping with the many clown-like decisions of the minor central Asian despot who rules FIDE.

Techically, Short has no case. He could have waited before making his first move (thus starting the game), but it is likely an arbiter would have come by and punched his clock for him.

He will have to wait to play black against Cheparinov and be at the board before the first move is made if he wishes to extract his satisfaction according to the letter of this ambiguous rule.

1. FIDE rules should allow someone like Topalav to lodge an ethics complaint if someone like Nigel Short accuses him of cheating. Nigel should be then asked to provide proof, or shut up, and be fined.

2. Of course a GM should forfeit the game if they refuse to shake hands with their opponent.

A professional chess game is not a civil court battle between two hostile litigants. In this case its a sporting event, sponsored by a respected corporation. If Cheparinov didn't want to shake Short's or anyone else's hand, he should have refused the invitation, and stayed at home.

I think a pre-game hug would be in order.

You should not lose a chess game because you don't shake hands with your opponent. That seems simple and obvious.

The gesture is really not disrespectful enough to deserve a major sanction, either. It's actually an appropriate way to show lack of cordial feeling towards your opponent, a way that doesn't make a big scene out of it.

Mark at TWIC sez Short sez he won't play tomorrow, although maybe if Cheparinov's apology is really really nice... There may be an irony supernova if Short is forfeited after all this.

All this petty haggling and bickering about what is appropriate and/or inapropriate about something as simple as a handshake is why chess will never become a major player in the real world of corporate sponsorship.

Boardroom CEO: "People why should we financially back an "amusement" that the average person finds boring, when these pinheads can't even show enough civility before the start of an encounter without a confrontation, of one form or another. Chairs, bugs in a light, parapsychologists, telepathy, toilets or even a handshake, etcetera? These people obviously have serious mental deficencies."

Laughter and agreement around the room.

CEO: "Now, lets move on to some real money makers and leave all this nonsense and paranoia to all those little people who actually spend hours blogging about this crap. Most of them don't have any real financial stabilty and very little they can liquidate anyhow. A total waste of time, enery and marketability. Perhaps they can find some President of a region somewhere, most lkiely another nut, that will finance the elite of this group out of pocket, so the rest may continue to believe that somehow this is important and really matters in the larger scheme of things. Oh well, as has been said, garbage in, garbage out.

More laughter...

I a, sorry but Short started the game when he made the first move on the board and started Black's clock. Cheparinov arrived at the board with his clock running so he didn't have the opportunity before the game to shake hands. Cheparinov was under no compulsion to shake hands during the game. but only before the game. If Short chooses not to play tomorrow he should be forfeited. The arbeiter should dis-qualify himself for being unable to understand written rules.

The handshake video ends with both players walking off. Where's the video of the arbitrator talking to Cheparinov and then Cheparinov at least gesturing that he will shake his opponent's hand? I'm not long on Short (pun totally intended) but I think a video that shows that Cheparinov was ready to shake hands would really be the smoking gun for the Topalov camp.

It looks like Cheparinov was playing a game of Brinksmanship, which backfired on him. He may have even been induced to make the "gesture" by Danailov. It is obvious that Cheparinov was familiar with the text of the new FIDE rule. He was quickly willing to oblige the Arbiter's demand that he shake Short's hand. Thus, he was ultimately always willing to shake Short's hand but only wanted to do so in the context of being "officially compelled" to do so.

It's a bit of a Draconian punishment, but it is worse than having one's cell phone ring--which also results in a forfeiture.

It is clear that Cheparinov's initial refusal to shake hands with Short was a calculated insult (rather poorly calculated, it turned out), so the Arbiter's decision to forfeit Cheparinov was reasonable. It was more reasonable, I believe, to give Cheparinov a stern rebuke, but to allow him to go back and shake hands with Short, and continue with the game. Given the way the rules read, that would have been the less heavyhanded action. Howeverm typically for FIDE, the new rules on behavior are not clearly delineated. While it is obvious when a player refuses to shake hands, it is not so clear what constitutes an insult to the opponent. The arbiter defined the insult in a broad manner.

Just as well, since while the decision might have had unfairly harsh ramifications for Cheparinov, it is very good that the Arbiter ended up making examples of him (and his boorish behavior). If Cheparinoc had "gotten away with it", others would have emulated him. You can bet that Danailov and his troupe would have engaged in further boundary testing in future events.

Even if Cheparinov gets the decision reversed on appeal, no player will want to go through the wringer like that.

What sort of whinger makes an official complaint because their opponent wont shake their hand, talk about pedantic BS.

I suspect however that Short fully expected his handshake offer would not be accepted and was hoping to have Cheparinov forfeited in order to get a free point. If so, how weak!

Short certainly does have a knack for keeping himself in the headlines (not by accident I am sure), jusst a shame it has nothing to do with excellent play.

After seeing the video of Cheparinov refusing the handshake, I'd say Short did the right thing to complain. Also the appeals committee did the right thing to have the game replayed since the arbiter didn't request Cheparinov to greet Short.

In the future however what they should do is that in such instances the situation is clarified while the player's, that refused to shake hands, time is running. Also this time would not be returned, but lost. So in yesterday's incident Short would have - after C's refusal - pressed his opponent's time running without making his move as the sign that he will complain. If the one refusing the handshake would now press the clock after this he'd be forfeited without further investigations or requests - of course after the non-handshake is confirmed.

All in all I hope Cheparinov will get zero invitations until he learns to behave.

Apparently Bulgaria, unlike most civilized countries, does not put a high value on manners.

Let's face it. We must applaud Danailov's team of putting chess in the news albeit for the wrong reasons. Sometimes I wonder whether he is being paid by FIDE as a marketing machine. When do you find yourself talking about chess with non-chess players? It's to discuss issues like toilet- or handshake- gate. So there is the positive side in all this.

FIDE's idea of implementing this new rule in Dresden can have bad consequences. OK...so now you have to do a handshake. There are still many ways you can insult a player with a handshake. For example (Danailov take note):

1. Go on the chess board. Put a glove on your right hand. Shake hands. Remove gloves and continue.

2. Scrape your hands off some dusty place to dirty them. Shake hands. Proceed to wash hands.

Oh what fun...chess can be so amusing!

And by the way, I wonder whether the arbiter who did the bad decision will get penalised. After all he could have avoided all this by following the rules and not allow himself become influenced by people.

Duncan

I heard that Danailov was offered a position as United States Ambassador to the United Nations.

I guess I must be in the minority.. Personally, I have always believed in the old principle of innocent till proven guilty. There are documented cases of people being sprung from death row because of new forensic evidence, as well as people being exonerated after being executed. To me its generally only good enough to condemn a man if he is proven guilty, incorporating some due process. In the case of a capital murder trial, this is a verdict after a trial, by a jury of one's peers. In the case of sport, it is usually a hearing sanctioned by the governing body, or by the involved parties themeselves, or something that is at any rate approved by the general community involved in that activity, that hears evidence and gives a forum for the accused to defend himself. By this token, I consider Topalov to be innocent of charges of cheating by recieving computer assistance. I remain unswayed by arguments that it is difficult to prove etc. If it is impossible to prove, he is innocent, end of story. i.e. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. On this point, personally I find it reasonable that Topalov and his camp should be considerably incensed by the kind of accusations that I read in Mig's link. In fact I wonder why they dont sue. Anyway I think Cheparinov was unaware of any handshake rule, and expressed his personal distaste of Nigel. When informed of the rule, he agreed to conform. I can see that Nigel might have been affected, but hard cheese, he isn't the most diplomatic of souls, and does not hesitate to descend to levels that might be termed distaseful by reasonable observers in his reporting, such as in his crowing over Miles. Personally, I really dont care if he forfeits and leaves.

Cheparinov's apology duly received: http://www.chessvibes.com/

The apology letter
Posted in the comments section in chessvibes by doctorspock:

Dear All,

I accept the decision of the Appeal Committee and on the name of chess ,the

chess fans and showing respect to the opinion of my colleagues would like to state the following:

I apologize officially to Mr. Short, to the Organizing Committee and the sponsors of Corus chess tournament.

I am ready to play the game today at 13’30 and will shake hands with Mr.Short according to the decision of the Appeal Committee.

Best regards,

Ivan Cheparino

And then there are Neanderthals like Ivanchuk with palms the size of frying pans, who if he "shakes" your hand just right, reduces it to a bloody mass of skin, cartilage and flesh...

They are playing!

Short is masta playa.

People comment that the video shows how bad Cheparinov behaved. I think the contrary and I will explain why.

Someone for any reasons may not want to handshake with another player. Whether this is legal, or moral is different issue and we ignore it for now.

It was from the first instant of the video, obvious that Cheparinov did not want to shake hands, and Short was well aware. The first second of the video is sufficient to make up our mind about Cheparinov (if we think that he was justified or not). The fact that he refused to handshake we knew before the video so nothing is added.

Now Short insist to handshake. It is pretty obvious to everyone, including Short, that Cheparinov has decided not to shake hands and insisting is only playing theater for two reasons. Make it seems bad and make sure he can claim the victory.

If we think that he should claim the point and he desrves it, then we should say that the video doesn't change our opinion about any of the players, since Cheparinov did what we knew and Short did what was necessary to gain the point.

If we think that he should have played on, then obviously the video shows that Short behaved baddly.

In none of these cases the position of Cheparinov is worsen after seeing the video...

"If we think that he should have played on, then obviously the video shows that Short behaved baddly.

In none of these cases the position of Cheparinov is worsen after seeing the video..." - huh? I didn't really care much before I saw the video, but after seeing it I thought Cheparinov behaved like a jerk. Now, I don't like Short much at all, but when a guy - a chess legend in his own right-extends you his hand, you shake it. I can understand Karpov refusing to shake Korchnoi's hand after the numerous provocations and slander by Korchnoi directed at Karpov, but what has Short ever done to Cheparinov?

I think Short only insisted on handshake because he wasn't sure Cheparinov saw him extend his hand the first time. Cheparinov was kinda looking down the first time.

But like someone mentioned on the forum, I would very much like to see Danailov trying to REVERSE a forfeit.

@derida
You wrote: "Whether this is legal, or moral is different issue and we ignore it for now."

Why?

Oh yes, I see: "I think the contrary and I will explain why."

That's why.

Replay started on time, a Najdorf. Photo of handshake on the official site. Cheparinov just sacrificed a pawn for some initiative.

Well. First I think that Cheparinov behaved badly. OK?

BUT I said that this was deduced by the fact that he refused to shake hands. Now the way he did it is irrelevant. Obviously if he has decided not to shake hands, he will stick to this even if the another person takes his hand and forcefully puts it in Short's hand.

Therefore, the bad thing was his decision not to shake hands. The rest is just theater by Short to gain sympathy and maybe the point.

Now whether the action of Short is justified (Cheparinov we said that is not), depends on whether you believe that he had the moral or legal right to win the point by default. If you believe so (i don't) then correctly he pretended that he was really hoping for Cheparinov to change his mind. If you believe that he shouldn't gain the point, then Short's actions in the video, are to be critisized.

In both cases the judgment of Cheparinov (which is bad according to me) does not change while seeing the video, after I make some thoughts and realise that it was just a show to makes us feel bad for Short.

Short is winning on move 30. Extra protected passed pawn on d5. Still a board full of pieces so anything can happen, but this is +-.

Short needs to exchange some material with Nf3.

Time to resign for Cheparinov after the time control

"The rest is just theater by Short to gain sympathy and maybe the point."

Not quite sure about that. I think that over-reaction after being deliberately insulted played a major role in his decision. I also believe that Short over-reacting due to the insult has been intended (and pre-calculated) by Danailov.

"... depends on whether you believe that he had the moral or legal right to win the point by default."

I don't.

Wonder if they will shake hands when Cheparinov resigns?

I find it strange that shaking hands is a part of the rules of chess.
Shaking hands is an act of friendship. If you are forced to shake hands, then it loses its meaning, it becomes hypocrisy.
I think that a person should have the right to refuse to shake hands with someone.
I have never refused a handshake before a game but I can image situations where I should do it.

Short gave away the passed pawn for an exchange. The position is simplified to a R+B against B+N ending with face to face pawn duo on the same side. Is it still winning for Short?

Kibitzers on Playchess think it's winning, but difficult, for Short. If bishops exchanged (leaving rook v. knight), definitely winning. Rook v. bishop in endgame described as a draw. So, we will see....

Just what I was going to say about the two simplified endings. However it's far from apparent how Nigel's going to manage to exchange the bishops.

Didn't K and K engineer a stalemate draw to avoid speaking? What price a 50-move draw here on move 200 or so - with perhaps a disputed draw claim thrown in?

The purpose of the handshake is not display love for your opponent,
but to show respect for the integrity of the game. The game should be
protected from politics, personal issues etc. and the handshake is the
barrier where the game starts and all of the rest is left behind. In
that respect, I didn't like the behavior of my guys in this case --
public display of dislike is a matter of poor manners and Danailov
should know better.

Reading all the chatter after a day in the mountains -- wow, Chess is
such a lovely, never-endning soap opera, rich of audience projecting
their own little world into it... Funny and quite entertaining if one
realizes just how irrelevant on the grander scale of things all this
is despite all the heat.

D.

P.S. Let's see if Cheparinov can hold off Nigel on this one... A
lovely soap-opera indeed, if he manages.

Tricky endgame but there are many ways to lose with imperfect play. You can't really force the bishops off but you can eventually force the black bishop off the long diagonal, at which point holding the g6 pawn will be very difficult.

Short will likely torture him down to zeitnot if possible before making his move for progress (g4). It's the same practical approach Kramnik used on Aronian, with dividends.

Nicely said, Dimi. A rare occasion in which we are of one accord. :-)

It'll be funny if Chep wins on time because of no increment.

Of course if Nigel remembers the Krasenkov episode he might not be so keen on the torture-to-zeitnot approach!

Dimi,

I've had no qualms disagreeing with you in the past and perhaps in the future. I don't know if you read my last post or not, but I can say that we are in harmony on this one. Nice for a change.

So, 1-0. Look forward to a video of the end on youtube, then.

And anyone know? Did they??

So, 1-0. Look forward to a video of the end on youtube, then.

And anyone know? Did they??

Short wins in 72 moves. Nice game. Unsound pawn sac by Cheparinov but White already had a good position and Black was hard-pressed for good moves.

Well done Nosher.

I will admit that I was not totally convinced that losing that lovely pressure and winning the exchange for the pawn was winning - but it seems Short had it under control.

Guess that's why they pay them the big bucks and stick GM after their names...

Regardless of the game's quality (which I think was remarkable), Short-Cheparinov was the most dramatic game of Corus 2008 in every aspect so far. Looking forward to Kramnik-Topalov tomorrow.

Welldone Nigel. Experience and better nerves tell in such occasions.
Corus was a total misery for Chepa and Topa. They should learn that they can't fight the whole system by their miserable team (!) and cheap conspiracy and pre-calculated tricks. These guys are pretty much talented chess players (or at least computer program operators with a good memory!)
They should change both their manager and their manerism. I'm sure Bulgarian chess and the whole chess world will benefit.

P.S: Nigel can try for a career in acting after retirement from professional chess. I will buy ticket for his movies.

Here's an idea: Kramnik could shake Topalov's hand, and then make a big production of cleaning his own hand with hand sanitizer.

Ha! Short simplifies to a win by opposition. How instructive. TheNige prevails. I can't think of a better ending.

Short should've done that yesterday and went on with his business.

I'm sure it was sweet for Short even if it wasn't short and sweet.

Congratulations, Nigel Short, this was the right response.

what we really need video of is kramnik signing the appeals committee decision!

"Lance blew past little problems [...]"

And he propably "blew" a couple of other things as well.

Mig wrote:

"I'm in favor of cracking down on gamesmanship of the surprise no-shake variety."

Oh come on! That is a weaselly way of hedging, so as to exclude Kasparov's refusal to shake hands with Shirov from consideration.

Just because Kasparov announced his no-handshake policy in advance does not make it any more sportsmanlike than Chepa's behavior.

Kasparov may have had justification (Shirov had leveled baseless accusations of game-fixing against him), but then so would Cheparinov.

Mig - In your article on this conflict, you wrote:

"This 'recommendation' interpretation doesn't jibe with my understanding of the Presidential Board statement, which I think is a de facto rule."

I think I know what is going on here. The original Presidential Board's announcement (as quoted on www.chessbase.com) started like this:

"Having discussed several recent cases in different chess tournaments where the attitude of players toward their opponent or officials, journalists etc. was not acceptable under conventional social behaviour, the FIDE Presidential Board – at the suggestion of President Ilyumzhinov – decided on setting up strict rules regarding such behaviour."

Just contemplate the use word "suggestion" here. It simply means that Kirsan himself came up with this new rule. However, Danailov seems to think, mistakenly, that "suggestion" applies to the rule itself.

Guess that's all. Btw, I like "all sic".

Eh? I wasn't trying to excuse Kasparov at all, HLM. I was explaining why I support the rule and why a no-shake is gamesmanship, not a simple personal decision. Because the shake is such an ingrained part of the game it comes as a disturbing surprise that puts you off your game when your opponent refuses. It's not a friendly gesture anymore; it's part of the game's protocol.

Shaking, as has been said by many above, is where the game begins (and usually ends) and all the BS is left behind. I said at the time that the whole no-shake with Kasparov and Shirov was silly (Wijk 2001) and reiterated that when he decided to shake again (Linares 04: "If you think this sounds childish you won't get much disagreement around here..."). At the time I hadn't given it much thought, really. There was no rule or suggestion of one, so it wasn't much of an issue. It just seemed silly. That said, if you aren't expecting one, not getting one can't mean as much as if you are, which is why banning it would also solve the problem, I suppose!

Go, big Nige! That must have been a sweet victory.

Mig, thank you for the clarification.

From the official site: "According to Short, the two shook hands after the game too." Good.

I will be disappointed if Topalov does not extend his hand to Kramnik tomorrow. It would be so misguided not to be cordial that I have no words... In fact, I think it is totally stupid. This will be a defining moment for me to see whether these guys "get it" or not... Let's see.

D.

If players don't want to shake hands it's because there is animosity or some confilict between them, so it's got nothing to do with gamesmanship anymore. Both players know the score.

Easy to make lovey-dovey statements from the sidelines, but do you shake hands with somebody who insulted you? Conflicts like these are -luckily- rather exceptional so we have come to take the handshake for granted. But if my opponent, prior to the game, calls me every dirty word under the sun I'm supposed to shake his hand at the board?

This whole mini-scandal was only possible because of this new and misguided rule.
Like somebody else already mentioned, they are going to have to make an extra rule forbidding "the cleaning of the hand with a napkin after the shaking of the opponents hand", which is what I would be inclined to do if they'd force me to shake hands against my will. Obeying the rules of chess is one thing, leave common courtesy at the discretion of the players.

Wonder what happen in say football, or rugby, where some players without much love lost shake hands before the game, if a player refuses.

nigel crushes the boy from bulgaria. what a stunning sporting triumph. massive kudos to short.

"But if my opponent, prior to the game, calls me every dirty word under the sun I'm supposed to shake his hand at the board?"

If your opponent insults you s/he may be forfeited according to the rules. Not sure how that applies though if s/he insults you in the days or weeks leading up to the game??? I think the main point behind the handshake rule is to prevent just what happened to Short--he stuck his hand out and was rebuffed. If both players don't like each other and no-one offers their hand first, then by mutual agreement they don't shake hands.

What I'd like to see is a couple of players satirize the handshake rule by refusing to shake hands, but then enthusiastically embracing each other before the start of the game. :-)

Cheparinov doesnt need to get involve to the politics between Danailov/Topalov/Short.
He should just shake the damn hands and play the game of chess....

Since Short won, Kramnik might want to follow his tactic, i.e. offering to shake hands (which Topalov will dutifuly ignore), and winning the game in the end.

As for Short coming late, Apparently it wasn't on purpose, just had too much red wine during his late night chat with Friedel.

Kudos to Kramnik! It was a fair decision. But I guess for him the temptation was rather big to take Danailov's appeal and, um, flush it down the toilet...

Btw, I like the fact that Danailov didn't even get the appeals committe members' names right! It was Krasenkov instead of Adams.

That's because Adams was replaced by Krasenkow. Presumably because Adams and Short are countrymen.

"FIDE's idea of implementing this new rule in Dresden can have bad consequences. OK...so now you have to do a handshake. There are still many ways you can insult a player with a handshake. For example (Danailov take note):

1. Go on the chess board. Put a glove on your right hand. Shake hands. Remove gloves and continue."

Hehe, that's cute. I like it! Of course, the player who donned the glove could still run afoul of the FIDE injunction against insulting one's opponent. It looks as if the arbiter has much discretion to interpret and apply THAT rule (as well he must, if the rule is to be effective)

I won't get into the issue of whether people are correct to deplore Short on the basis of hsi accusations against Danailov and Topalov. However, it is not clear that Short ever directly insulted Cheparinov by name. Thus, Cheparinov would have little basis for offense. But if there is the entity "Topailov", then perhaps we ought to regard the refusal to shake hands as the action of the entity "Cheparailov" It is clear that Cheparinov was being used as a way of testing the limits, and assessing the reaction of the Arbiter, in advance of a planned incident prior to the Topalov--Kramnik game.

As terms of future invitations to Topalov and Cheparinov, Danailov ought to be required by the tournament organizers to promise that he will not even set foot in the country where the tournament is being held, while the event is taking place.

The top tournaments ought to band together and issue a joint statement to the effect that if Topalov behaves like a candy*** in any future event, that the Elite events will refrain from inviting him. He'll just have M-Tel--that's all

Short seems to be taking his lines from
Huckabee; a plague on them both.

I don't see Danailov as necessarily involved
in Cheparinov's act--if a friend of mine were
accused of cheating, and I believed the
accusation false, I wouldn't shake hands with
the accuser. Short's repeated thrusting of an
unwelcome hand is the offensive behavior.

I would like to know precisely where and how I am alleged to have defamed Cheparinov. His spokesman, Silvio Danailov, is curiously vague on the subject. Nor, may I add, have I ever accused Topalov of cheating.

@Nigel Short,
The interview with Vijay Tagore from DNA:

Nigel Short, a former world championship finalist, tells DNA that Topalov could have received external help. “It is my understanding that the majority of players in San Luis privately believe that Topalov received signalling from Danailov during play. The essence of these allegations, which I heard personally from disgruntled players in Argentina at the time, was not that Topalov constantly received computer advice but only at critical junctures. Indeed, if one were to cheat, a player of Topalov’s strength would only need two or three computer moves per game to put him at an overwhelming advantage vis-a-vis his opponents.”

The British GM says he observed something sinister in San Luis, where Topalov bulldozed his rivals to emerge a run-away winner. In fact, Topalov had 6.5 from seven games which could be equivalent to running 100 metres in about 9 seconds at that level of competition. “In San Luis I did observe, indeed I was quite struck by the fact, that Danailov sat in close physical proximity to Topalov during play. Furthermore, his not infrequent entering and exiting the hall would have provided facile opportunities for receiving communication from a third party. In fact any half-decent player with a laptop and an analysis engine is likely to be better appraised of the position, upon entering the room, than the GMs seated at the board themselves.”

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1077079

With Danailov as the "signaller" presumably the "half-decent player" would be none other than Cheparinov.
(Correct me if my understanding of this is wrong)

Well done jaideepblue. However, as I pointed out in my well-known letter to Silvio Danailov, which was published on the topalov website (incompletely) and the chessbase website (completely)only the phrases in quotation marks are mine. The rest is entirely the interpretation of the Vijay Tagore - the interviewer. I have never stated anywhere that Topalov cheated in San Luis. One only needs to read my foreward to the book of the event by Gershon and Nor to understand my views. Furthermore, you should note that Cheparinov is nowhere to be mentioned.

Nigel Short,

I didn't say you defamed Cheparinov. But surely he believes
that you accused a friend of his of cheating, and you can't expect a friendly response. I think that your quotes in the Tagore interview carry a lot of innuendo--somewhat like what
Topalov was saying about Kramnik during the match--and that
your reaction to Cheparinov's behavior is disingenuous.

Congratulations on a well deserved win Nigel! I think you should get two sets of ELO points for beating him twice :).

Nice win for Short, but his comments "there is a God and he is not Bulgarian" showed no taste at all. After such a moral victory, show some class!

After Topalov's stunning victory today, perhaps the Bulgarians had the last word. I'm sure Topalov will let that game speak for itself.

Finally had the courage to browse through the Chessbase article on Nigelgate – I can’t believe the soapy, slippery juice that oozes out of that writing…

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4402

"The English grandmaster was still shaking as he sipped his glass of
red wine. It was clear that the refusal by his opponent to accept his
handshake had had a deeply disruptive effect on his emotional
balance."

I mean, what kind of a buffoon would produce such pompous hyperbole?? He acts like he’s been violated in a far more rearing manner than a refused handshake.

"...despite the egregious manner in which he had been treated. I
finally managed to meet up with Nigel at around 11.30 that morning, by
which time Cheparinov's 'apology', as cynical and insincere a
document as I have ever read, had duly been handed in, precisely 12
minutes before the required deadline."

Grotesque and more grotesque… Aren’t people writing such things a little bit embarrassed?

D.

This new rule is stupid & does not solve anything. You cannot turn a [stupid, mean, or contemptible person] into a nice person by making a rule about it.

But if Short gets criticism, Cheparinov should get more.

1) It was Cheparinov who started by refusing to shake hands.
(He has every right to do this if he wants to as far as I'm concerned. Nobody forces you to like it however. Nobody is stopping you from drawing your own conclusions.) At worst one could say they both acted bad. Short got kicked & kicked back.

2) If you think it wrong for Short to invoke this rule, then blame the rule. Short did not make the rule.

3) As mentioned on TWIC: "the regulation was pointless if you could insult your opponent, wait to be ordered by the arbiter to shake hands and then continue on as if nothing had happened"

trm, you're just reciting obvious things. I am all for the proper
handshakes too. In fact I am disappointed that Topalov did not break
the schism today by offering a handshake to Kramnik.

But you seem quite naive and rather uninformed about your analysis of
the Mr Short's situation, particularly considering the soapy way it
was treated by the article cited above. Apparently, he was quite
"emotional" and disturbed about a refused handshake the other day...
Yet, has someone asked about those other people and their "feelings"?
Because it was exactly 1 year ago, after a good winning streak at
Corus, when the nastiest and ugliest rumors of cheating spread like
brushfire against the Topalov camp. It was then when Mr. Short
delivered the master stroke, by driving his stiletto straight in the
heart of the Bulgarian team -- for an insider to the San Louis
tournament to call for a special investigation -- that was quite a
damnation. It choked me and ruined my Corus experience. A greater
betrayal by a person who was held close and loved by the team could
have never been invented. Chessbase picked on it and all sides started
piling on the Bulgarian team. That was far more than a rejected
handshake in my book. And hard to forget too... Although that we
should forget and move on for the sake of the game.

D.

Hand-shaking between men is a European tradition, just as kissing a lady's hand is. If a Short plays a Polgar he would display poor manners by extending his hand first instead of waiting for her to do so. Etc, etc. Why should an international body such as FIDE enforce a Eurocentric ritual - cheerful and elegant and familiar to some of us as it might be - when certain other ethnicities may find it odd, unpleasant, and even repugnant? Would Short engage in a nose-to-nose touch if he played an Eskimo IM? Hand-clasping makes sense only when it's reciprocal and willing. Making a rule of it is as ridiculous as anything coming from FIDE.

Sheldon, I think that the spirit of the FIDE ruling is to require the
display a cordial acknowledgement of your opponent. The technical
manner in which this is done is secondary. I am sure that if in
certain cultures or religions a hand touch is not acceptable and they
prefer to show a different form, such as bowing, etc. then that could
be communicated and pre-arranged. I agree that the sport needs this
kind of cordial acts somewhere in the rules.

I found it quite childish and disappointing that neither Topalov nor
Kramnik had the greatness of spirit to realize that the one who raises
above the nonsense is the one who offers his hand first. Very
regrettable on the background of some great chess between the
two. It's not a sign of greatness to act in such way. Petty, very
petty...

D.

>In fact I am disappointed that Topalov did not break
>the schism today by offering a handshake to Kramnik.

Why ?

Kramnik came later to the board than Topalov - where I live the person that enters a room or joins a group has to greet first. Therefore it was Kramnik who didn't shake hands, not the other way around. Also - thanks to Short - extending your hand can now be interpreted as a desire for playing the "Short gambit" - a thought that a player of the class and calibre like Topalov must be uncomfortable with.

Anyway, what's with this sudden enthusiasm for handshaking, have the faggots taken over or what ? The rule is ridiculous as has been shown by the glove counterattack to the Short gambit. It only feeds hypocrisy. And pathogens.

Short may be pleased with himself fooling around and begging for attention - but lets not forget that people like him invented and spread those ridiculous and completely unsubstantiated computer cheating accusations after San Luis (a direct consequence of those was Toiletgate) and thereby inflicted damage to the career of one of the greatest attacking players of all time and chess in general.

By the way follow the YouTube link to see what Short really thinks of handshaking.

poisoned pawn, as usual, you're sharp like a razor... I agree with the
basic points, except this one -- you ask WHY? Just because -- walking
the higher road is no shame. It's not a weakness, its a strength.

D.

TOPALOV REHABILITATION PROJECT:

1) Renounce his contract with Danailov. [Turning over all his possessions to Danailov and declaring bankruptcy would be a small price to pay to escape from the "one entity" and reclaim his individuality.]

2] Insist on playing only in cheating-proofed venues.

Topalov had more respect (and probably more self-respect) as a top-five player before San Luis/Elista than he would ever have, even as a #1 player, afterward.

Greg Koster, that is an opinion expressed as fact. Your usual kind of spiel.

I'm afraid point 1) of Greg Koster's rehabilitation project won't be too simple to achieve. Dominating father-figures such as Danailov are not easy to get rid of. Even after all these years, Rustam Kamsky recently wrote an open letter in which he threatened that his son(completely unaware of the whole thing, I guess) was going to switch his nationality once again from the US to Russia unless he got some more money from sponsors in the States.

Point 2), on the other hand, seems to be doing well. In the "Liga de Campeones" played in Vitoria last November, Topalov scored an excellent 7/10, 1.5 points ahead of the rest of the field, despite the presence of a very thick one-way glass screen (plenty of references available on the web or in the latest New in Chess). From what I gather, the vast majority of independent observers consider the cheating allegations against Veselin to be completely baseless (Mr. Silvio's personality is of course another matter).

Greg, thanks for the Trojan Horses.

Point 1) Danailov, good or bad, likeable or dislikeable is a top
professional chess manager. He has managed two World Champions and has
quite a few things going on for him. There are other young GMs who
would be interested to be represented. He is not easily
replaceable. Sure, we can and must criticize him for some things. Now
everything was handled properly. Far from it. They desperately need a
semi-literate person who has spent a few days in a corporate
environment to handle their PR. But replaced? By whom? Just to
please some extreme Kramnikbot? I am afraid you have to learn to live
with him and like hiom too because he is far more interesting then the
other boring bureaucrats and nerds in the field.

Point 2) This is an insult!! How dare you! In my eyes you shrink to
the size of a knucklehead with such worn out and disgusting comments.

D.

Topalov has been doing some dubious things in the past two years. Kramnik has been doing same for the past seven.
Who needs the greater rehabilitation?

Kramnik had more respect (and probably more self-respect) as a top five player before refusing to give Kasparov a proper qualifier in 2001 than he would ever have, even as 'World Champion', afterward.

yeah, Chris B, spot on. Prugno and Dimi, Greg's "points" were I'm sure tounge in cheek, but I was referring to his last statement "Topalov had more respect (and probably more self-respect) as a top-five player before San Luis/Elista than he would ever have, even as a #1 player, afterward."
i.e. opinion expressed as a fact, , which it isnt.

oops, tongue, not tounge

"Kramnik had more respect (and probably more self-respect) as a top five player before refusing to give Kasparov a proper qualifier in 2001 than he would ever have, even as 'World Champion', afterward." - Boooring. Kasparov didn't defend the title for 5 years between 1995 and 2000, but Kramnik should have gone out of his way to get Kasparov one in 2001 - a year after he beaten the guy? That doesn't seem fair. But as early as 2002 Kasparov could qualify to play Kramnik in Dortmund qualifier. Then Kasparov could qualify by beating Pono. Then Kasparov could qualify by beating Kasimdzhanov. If we count, there are more second chances Kramnik has given Kasparov in a few years than there are first chances Kasparov has given to the whole of chess world in 5 years prior to losing the title.

Booooooooring, RussianBear. Read about 10,000 previous comments by ChrisB to understand why you are wrong.

Well, clearly you've missed about 10,000 previous comments by me that explain in detail why those 10,000 previous comments by ChrisB are absolutely wrong.

Mig. I am a white belt subscriber, and I have not been getting the white-belt issues for several months now.

Either start sending them again, or REFUND MY MONEY!!!

Hello Eyal. I saw your email this afternoon. I was unable to produce or send the newsletters while I was stuck in the Bahamas for the past five weeks due to a family emergency. I asked my wife to send out a notice when she got back on Jan 2 but from what I can tell that didn't go so well. (My mass-mailing software is wacko even when I use it...) I just got back home last night and am straightening things out. I plan to both give refunds AND start sending them out, and I apologize for the hassle. - Saludos, Mig

Russian Bear, you clearly havent understood those comments by ChrisB, because I've never seen a refutation by you. All the best!

1) The players should always shake hands before the game starts.

2) The lowest ELO-ranked player is obliged to offer the hand first.

Russianbear,

I know the truth is boooring to you. Dishonesty and misrepresentation are far more 'interesting'.

It would be appreciated if you would refrain from dishonest argument.
You know perfectly well that I was referring to the qualifier proposal that was set in stone by the end of 2001, not a World Championship match. Indeed the WC match itself did not take place until 2004, the longest wait for a new champion to defend his title since Capablanca [apart from the Fischer forfeit].

And Kasparov had serious intention of defending his Title circa 1998 - it was not his fault that his intended qualifier [a decent one by the way], a Kramnik-Anand match, did not come off.
And Kasparov did prepare seriously for a Shirov match.
Kasparov also proposed a match with Karpov in 1997, which Karpov declined.
He also defended his Title just 2 years after the Short match against a challenger who qualified from a decent qualification series that was organised by Kasparov himself.

I can never understand how you think Kasparov could have qualified by beating Pono when Pono (due to no fault of Kasparov) wouldn't play the match. Please explain this. What exactly was it that Kasparov could have done?

Kasparov could have qualified by beating Kasimdzhanov, yes. But to what avail? Kramnik had clearly indicated in his interview with Vasiliev straight after the Leko match that he would likely refuse to play the winner of said match. So again, please explain what Kasparov could have done to obtain the challenger match with Kramnik that he would have qualified for.
I do not see any 'chances' given by Kramnik to Kasparov at all here.

Now, let us come to the main issue, from which all the subsequent trouble stemmed - the format of the Dortmund qualifier.
This was modelled largely on the FIDE knockouts. And the bit that wasn't was every bit as bad.
And remembering that the original proposal had a semi-final of only two games.
These FIDE knockouts were widely condemned at the time and well known to be anathema to Kasparov.
So, Russianbear, please answer the following three questions:

(1) How can a format largely modelled on the FIDE knockouts be considered adequate and acceptable as a SERIOUS WC qualifier?

(2) How do you seriously expect Kasparov to have accepted such a format?

(3) Kramnik himself had condemned the FIDE knockouts before this, and was to do so again afterwards. Please explain then why insisting on his Dortmund format isn't the rankest hypocrisy on his part.

Straight answers please. No bs, evading, changing the subject, or disappearing from the discussion - as is what invariably happens when I ask Greg Koster, rdh or acirce such direct questions; I hope you will be different.

Chris B, give up man, there's no point. I gave up long ago.

"2] Insist on playing only in cheating-proofed venues."

Might work, Greg. That way Topalov's paranoid feelings that his opponent is cheating won't psych him out again...on the other hand, maybe he's so paranoid that every cheating prevention method in the world won't be enough for him, and he'll think that somehow, in some way, his opponent is managing to cheat even while seated at the board.

"Yet, has someone asked about those other people and their "feelings"? Because it was exactly 1 year ago, after a good winning streak at
Corus, when the nastiest and ugliest rumors of cheating spread like brushfire against the Topalov camp. It was then when Mr. Short delivered the master stroke, by driving his stiletto straight in the heart of the Bulgarian team -- for an insider to the San Louis tournament to call for a special investigation -- that was quite a damnation. It choked me and ruined my Corus experience. A greater betrayal by a person who was held close and loved by the team could have never been invented. Chessbase picked on it and all sides started piling on the Bulgarian team. That was far more than a rejected handshake in my book. And hard to forget too... Although that we should forget and move on for the sake of the game."
D.
-Posted by: Dimi at January 22, 2008 20:22

"I can’t believe the soapy, slippery juice that oozes out of that writing ........ Grotesque and more grotesque ... Aren’t people writing such things a little bit embarrassed?"
D.
-Posted by: Dimi at January 22, 2008 18:28

It's not often that someone so aptly summarizes their own post.

Wow, Cynical "Wrath", not bad -- we did talk for quite some time with
my wife over a bottle of wine that same evening, so no doubt, my
consequent message might have oozed a little bit of soapy material
too. Plus, you should realize that the audience of that particular
reply was somewhere near that level too. Anyway, good job!! Thank you
for following my writing so closely.

D.

"Russianbear,

I know the truth is boooring to you. Dishonesty and misrepresentation are far more 'interesting'.

It would be appreciated if you would refrain from dishonest argument." - "truth" and "dishonesty"? Well, back at ya, Chris B.

"You know perfectly well that I was referring to the qualifier proposal that was set in stone by the end of 2001, not a World Championship match. Indeed the WC match itself did not take place until 2004, the longest wait for a new champion to defend his title since Capablanca [apart from the Fischer forfeit]." - Yes, and your point is? In 2004 and 2006 Kramnik defended after only 2 years against 2 different people, which is also rather rare in chess history. After Kasparov ruined chess, it was indeed a bit hard to come up with title defenses as often as one would like, so 4 years doesn't seem unreasonable at all. Besides, Kramnik defended soon after against Topalov, and no matter if you consider Mexico 2007 or Bonn 2008 or both as his next title event(s), one can't really complain about Kramnik sitting on the title.

"And Kasparov had serious intention of defending his Title circa 1998 - it was not his fault that his intended qualifier [a decent one by the way], a Kramnik-Anand match, did not come off.
And Kasparov did prepare seriously for a Shirov match.
Kasparov also proposed a match with Karpov in 1997, which Karpov declined." - Funny that this one cames after your little tirade on truth and dishonesty. Now we are comparing Kramnik's actual matches with Kasparov's imaginary ones. But it doesn't seem fair to compare Kramnik's actions with Kasparov's intentions. If we talk about intentions, we would have to admit that Kramnik would want to play Leko sooner than he did.

"He also defended his Title just 2 years after the Short match against a challenger who qualified from a decent qualification series that was organised by Kasparov himself." - But does it excuse him from the chaos he inflicted on the chess world? Besides, that cycle was a one time thing and it seemed like Kasparov was going to handpick challengers (or candidate finalists) from then on.

"I can never understand how you think Kasparov could have qualified by beating Pono when Pono (due to no fault of Kasparov) wouldn't play the match. " - Well, *I* can never understand how you think Kramnik didn't give Kasparov enough chances when he kept giving them one after another and Kasparov refused to play in them.

"Kasparov could have qualified by beating Kasimdzhanov, yes. But to what avail? Kramnik had clearly indicated in his interview with Vasiliev straight after the Leko match that he would likely refuse to play the winner of said match." - Again, this is an attempt to turn a lie into a truth by repeating it often enough. AFAIK, Kramnik has never said (or indicated) he wasn't going to play the winner of that match. Kramnik was clearly committed to Prague and unification did happened mainly because of his commitment.

"Now, let us come to the main issue, from which all the subsequent trouble stemmed - the format of the Dortmund qualifier.
This was modelled largely on the FIDE knockouts. And the bit that wasn't was every bit as bad." - Again, you misinterpret things. It is ridiculous to claim the format of the Dortmund qualifier was modelled largely on the FIDE knockouts. Dortmund had 7 top GMs, (plus a local GM Lutz), which already puts the probability of a Kasimdzhanov or a Khalifman winning the event at 0 percent. Consider the probabilities: what are the chances that FIDE KO will be won by the best player? They are definitely lower than the probability of Dortmund being won by the best player. And even if the best player doesn't win the qualifier like Dortmund, at least the format is such that it pretty much guarantees a decent player as a winner, unlike a FIDE KO. Leko won, and he was a deserving challenger, as can be seen in his tournament record from 2002 up to the Kramnik match. Dortmund was definitely not the ideal format, but to compare it with FIDE KOs is ridiculous.

"These FIDE knockouts were widely condemned at the time and well known to be anathema to Kasparov." - Well, Kasparov didn't mind playing against Kasim and Pono, the two KO winners, so apparently he thought the KO could at least produce worthy challengers to his glorious self for the right to play Kramnik :) And like I mentioned, Dortmund was actually very different from a FIDE KO.

"So, Russianbear, please answer the following three questions:

(1) How can a format largely modelled on the FIDE knockouts be considered adequate and acceptable as a SERIOUS WC qualifier?" - It can't. But Dortmund wasn't and if you look closely, you will find a resemblance between even the best format and FIDE KO.

"(2) How do you seriously expect Kasparov to have accepted such a format?" - Well, by far more seriously than you could expect Kramnik to give Kasparov the rematch after Kasparov insisted on no-rematch clause for the 2000 match. I explained why Dortmund wasn't even close to the randomness of a KO. Kasparov would have excellent chances in Dortmund, definitely higher than he'd have in a FIDE KO, though perhaps not as high as he'd have in a match against a relatively weak KO winner. So the format was not the issue. The issue was Kasparov's unreasonable desire to start on the same level as Kramnik, which he kinda got with the reunification "semifinals" plan. But as it turned out, Dortmund may have been Kssparov's best bet.

"(3) Kramnik himself had condemned the FIDE knockouts before this, and was to do so again afterwards. Please explain then why insisting on his Dortmund format isn't the rankest hypocrisy on his part." - see above. You introduce a false premise than Dortmund was as flawed as FIDE KOs and then milk it for what it is worth. But once this is exposed, the lack of logic in your "points" is clearly evident.

Thank you for that information, Russianbear. You have de-muddied some of the waters. I had initially bought Chris' false premise of Dortmund being modelled on FIDE KO so thought he had made some good points. I should have checked that for myself though especially given the inconsistency of some of his other posts (where's the "embarrassed" smiley face when you need it?). Lesson learned (again).

Russianbear,

In 2002, Kramnik was a newly minted champion in a minor sport, operating outside the auspices of that sport's governing body.

Where would you suggest that sponsorship be obtained for a rigorous Candidates event lacking Kramnik, Kasparov, and Anand?

The only way you were going to find sponsorship for anything approaching a rigorous, old-fashion system of Candidates matches would be if Kasparov participated and Kasparov made it quite clear he wasn't interested in anything but a rematch.