After hearing a little misinformation, it appears Ukraine's Sergey Karjakin really is settling in as a new player in the deep Russian stable. He just finished equal second in the Moscow blitz championship, won by Grischuk. Nice report with photos from Misha Savinov at ChessBase. But the funky new September rating list still gives Karjakin's federation as Ukrainian. How long does such a transfer usually take? Are there eligibility issues for him playing team events for Russia? Amazingly, even though he's #20 in the world, he wouldn't make the Russian Olympiad team right now. Since they reduced the size of the squad to five, he's preceded on the Elo list by Kramnik, Morozevich, Jakovenko, Svidler, and Grischuk. Scary.
What was the last transfer of allegiance at a commensurate level? Shirov going to Spain? Are national federations allowed to set their own rules, strict or lax, or does FIDE have oversight on such things? That is, if the Russian federation said it was okay for Karjakin to play in the Russian championship in a few months, would FIDE have anything to say about it? How about in the Euro Team Ch coming up even sooner? Or do they only set restrictions on the Olympiad? Anyway, it appears likely Karjakin will be playing with a Ukrainian flag on his table in Bilbao at the Grand Slam Final Masters starting on the 6th. Or we could have one of those fun situations where officially he's playing for Ukraine but gets a Russian flag by request. Throwback to Karpov-Korchnoi shenanigans. Just as long as they don't play The Internationale...
"Since they reduced the size of the squad to five, he's preceded on the Elo list by Kramnik, Morozevich, Jakovenko, Svidler, and Grischuk. Scary."
Agreed. Mig, in your personal opinion (I'm not asking for a factual statement) if Seirawan was asked to play on the US Olympiad team, what do you think he'd say?
He'd say no. No one would ask him to play for America anyways as they have stronger people now with Nakamura, Onischuk, Shulman, Kamsky, Akobian.
I'm not arguing strength. He's ranked higher than Shulman and Akobian.
Why doesn't he play for the US? He used to, didn't he?
Mikkel, years ago Seirawan did play for the US. He doesn't play at all now, but if he did, there's no reason to think he wouldn't play for the US.
Seirawan only plays in the Dutch league now according to this article(http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5731). I believe he retains US citizenship, but I'm not certain. Doesn't much matter either way. Wonderful and charming person! And I still wish Inside Chess was still arriving in my mailbox every two weeks!
I didnt get the last sentence: "Just as long as they don't play The Internationale..."
FIDE Handbook (http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook?id=19&view=category) explains these rules. Note the "...and clearance of the case by the FIDE president."
- A player who has resided for at least three years in a country of which he or she is not a citizen after the date on which FIDE shall have received notification of change of Federation pursuant to 3.3 may become a registered player of a Federation after a thorough examination and clearance of the case by the FIDE President.
- Provided that a player did not participate in a FIDE competition including continental individual and team events 5 years prior to the date of notification, the period of residence shall be reduced to one year in his new Federation before he can play for his Federation.
- A player may at any time transfer from one Federation to another Federation with the consent of the Federation to which he or she wishes to transfer.
- The notification of change of Federation shall be the responsibility of the new Federation and must be accompanied by a Notification Fee of EUR 130 and supported by evidence of residence signed by the player and certified by his or her new Federation. Notification of change of Federation shall be submitted on the prescribed form in Annex A.
I think Karjakin could play in Russian Championship, as Amonatov (TJK) did. Sveshnikov (LAT) and Tkachiev (FRA) have played in Russian preliminaries before. Interesting, that before all >2700 were seeded directly to the finals, but this year Motylev (2710) is playing in preliminaries and already lost in the first round.
I think i read about the playing of 'The Internationale...' in Kortchnoi's book, 'Persona Non Grata'.
I see that Seirawan has been quite a bit more active recently than I'd thought: 23 rated games in the past 5 years, all in the Dutch league.
23 rated games in 5 years is like a game in 2.5 months. That's pretty active.
For a correspondence player.
Yes, the former World Junior Champ and 4 time US Champ has had a very distinguished career. He's been rated as high as 2653 (in the 90s before rating inflation was so bad). In 98 he played on the silver medal US Olympiad team (Alex Yermolinsky, Alexander Shabalov, Yasser Seirawan, Boris Gulko, Nick De Firmian, Gregory Kaidanov) that finished only 1 point behind Russia! In 99 he played a 10 game match against Adams that was drawn.
And what is wrong with the Internationale?
The last time a big gun switched federations and then had flag problems... perhaps the Bosnian contingent going over to Holland?
Youth Was Served
In 2002 the US had a veteran Olympiad team of players that included 2002 Aeroflot Open Champ GM Kaidanov (GM Shabalov came in 4th and I don't know why he wasn't on this team), but they got smoked and came in 41rst. The team included GM Seirawan, GM Gulko, GM Benjamin, GM Christiansen, and GM Ivanov.
Playing the Nimzo Indian Defence against Sokolov is not a good idea. In his last 23 games he has only 4 losses against Ponomariov, Aronian, Judit Polgar, and Naiditsch.
"And what is wrong with the Internationale?"
I don't know...what's wrong with Stalin? Mao? Castro? Sure, they made some mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes.
No doubt Seirawan had a "very distinguished career" and was formerly part of the world top. But your examples are from the 1990's, and one might wonder if his still-official rating reflects his current strength. He plays just enough games in the Dutch league to avoid getting an inactivity stamp, but many of them are against weaker opponents (<2500).
The same question marks might apply to Susan Polgar - still #1 US woman on her own list, but her last rated games are from the 2004 Calvia Olympiad. Or indeed to Garry Kasparov (last rating 2812), who would now be world #2 (one point behind Topalov) if inactive players weren't removed from the official list at some stage.
Agreed.
Ratings are an extremely rough indicator of future success. Generally speaking I think that you need to be 2600+ to be successful at the highest international levels. This doesn't mean you can't win international tournaments though if you are below 2600. Here's an example of a player rated 2596 winning, although I don't consider an average Elo of 2518 to be the highest international levels by any means. From Chessbase
"Greg Kaidanov wins Gausdal Classic
17.04.2008 – The event took place, as it does every year, in the Norwegian town of Gausdal, with seven GMs in the A Group (average Elo 2518), one lady (IM Irina Krush) and one untitled player. The winner with a 2727 performance was US grandmaster Gregory Kaidanov."
"Or indeed to Garry Kasparov (last rating 2812)"
The King would swiftly regain his throne if he so chose, there's no doubt in my mind.
More photos of the Moscow blitz here: http://chesspro.ru/_events/2009/blitz1.html
So anyone can transfer federation with the consent of the transferred-to nation? Any federation want me?
canada would take you. be warned the chess here blows goats.
The King would swiftly regain his throne if he so chose, there's no doubt in my mind
Might not be so easy. Computers and deep preparation with seconds are now commonplace.
Yes.
Papua New Guinea.
HardyBerger wrote: "The King would swiftly regain his throne . . ."
Speaking of which, Mig: how about the upcoming K-K exhibition match? How are you helping Garry prepare? I think the match is way exciting: give us some news!
''HardyBerger wrote: "The King would swiftly regain his throne . . ."''
No. Cheshire cat wrote that.
"The King would swiftly regain his throne if he so chose"
Plenty of doubt in my mind... :o)
Hardy, that man invented deep preparation !! I read some fascinating stuff, by Rowson, or maybe someone else, who got to glance into his prep files- they were awe-inspiring.
frogbert, who do you suggest would beat him, were he to return in full force?
I agree completely. I remember his battles in the Botvinnik Semi-Slav and the later comments (on his opening preparation) by Seirawan and others in the know.
I just think others are using his methods very effectively nowadays and they've got a lot more computing power. Imagine a bank of a few powerful servers, running Rybka, Fritz 11, Shredder 11 and a few more, poring through several opening systems and then a full-time second (or 2) creaming off and polishing their combined analyses.
That kind of effort is now affordable to several top GMs and would narrow the gap between a returning Kasparov and the others.
When you say " a lot more computing power", I assume you mean that they have more now than back then. For sure; and thus the gap is narrowed. But I should think his prep would be even more impressive given today's resources. One can argue that previously he had resources unavailable to other top GMs, e.g. assistants etc-although he was certainly not alone here (e.g. Karpov). But it was never just the prep, of course. It was his massive sheer playing strength and will to win. Look at how he destroyed Anand, who was always excellently prepared. The only one I could see beating him today is Kramnik, who is not only a great player in his own right, but whose style seems to be the "antidote" to Kasparov's. The young players still have not quite taken over the top spots yet; and Kasparov has a fine record against the rest of the older generation. But even so, I feel that Kasparov would have a fair to good chance of beating him, especially given the "grudge" match it would be-he would prepare fanatically and give it his all. (Not that I'm trying to say that he took the previous match too lightly-all creadit to Kramnik for his achievement).
This is all wool and dreams of course, he will not be back, and is only my personal opinion. But if anyone disagrees, I would be intereseted to hear who they think could beat him, if he was allowed a year to get back into it. Just for fun. :)
''But it was never just the prep, of course. It was his massive sheer playing strength and will to win''
Well said, cat. There was a lot more to Kasparov than opening preparation. Seirawan talked about his practical middlegame strength and considerable endgame expertise. I think the quote was 'he tends to draw the endgames where he's worse and win ones where he's equal or better'. He was a truly universal player in the mould of Boris Spassky (at his best) and Alekhine.
Despite the foregoing, I think Anand and Topalov would give him a good match. Carlsen is still too young and Ivanchuk and Kramnik just can't match him.
Well, I started quite a discussion, and didn't even mean to ... ,:). As you said, other players have learnt a lot from Kasparov, I would say not only regarding his approach towards and depth of opening preparation but also concerning other aspects of the game. Just like Kasparov learnt a lot from Karpov, particularly regarding endgames.
I would disagree with you regarding "Kramnik ... can't match him". Wasn't he on (almost) even terms with Kasparov, not only in their match but also concerning their overall career score [once Kramnik was strong enough]?
And what about Nakamura's chances against Kasparov? ,:)
Kramnik's lifetime score against Kasparov in classical chess is 5-4 not counting draws. That's not too shabby.
It's definitely true that much of it is that he didn't let himself get intimidated the way many others did. He talked about it many times.
I adore some things he said in a 1997 interview reprinted in "The Day Kasparov Quit":
========================
- You don't get a kick solely by virtue of having beaten Kasparov?
- That has to do with self-respect. If you think that beating Kasparov is something exceptional, you don't respect yourself as a chess player. It has always surprised me when people get so hung up on a victory against Kasparov. Then it seems as if it happened by accident. I don't believe I defeat Kasparov by accident. He is slightly stronger than me, but not even by that much. So why, then, would you not beat him sometimes? Short also beats me sometimes, although the gap between me and him is bigger than that between me and Kasparov. Why should Short be deliriously happy when this happens? The idea that Kasparov is so exceptional is a myth that has been created by the journalists. He would lose far more often if everyone understood that he isn't.
========================
That's one of my favourite lines: "If you think that beating Kasparov is something exceptional, you don't respect yourself as a chess player." Reading this kind of stuff makes you start to understand why Kramnik was the only one in his generation who was really able to deal with Kasparov.
'And what about Nakamura's chances against Kasparov?'
Zero to None.
You're dreaming. He definitely has a chance against Kasparov... much better than Karpov now.
Agreed, unless Naka plays like he did at the NH.
"The idea that Kasparov is so exceptional is a myth that has been created by the journalists."
This is a ridiculous statement that explains why many don't like or respect Kramnik, but they do Anand. Anand has respect for the game, the history of it, and the greatest player of all time.
Spot on.
Not only that , many forget that Kramnik had the golden oportunity of working as Garry´s second , and also enjoyed the benefits of being his protegee (sort of )for a while .
Working and studying with Kasparov must help you a little bit to prepare for him me thinks.
"Anand has respect for the game, the history of it, and the greatest player of all time".
Yes, how dare the 22-year-old Kramnik suggest that Kasparov is a slightly stronger player but that it's perfectly normal to beat slightly stronger players from time to time :) Better to allow yourself to be psychologically overwhelmed like Anand (-12 against Kasparov)and most of the other players of Kramnik's generation.
If you want to read some warm words from Kramnik about Kasparov read the last section of this: http://www.kramnik.com/eng/interviews/getinterview.aspx?id=61
But seriously, if you think people "[didn't] like or respect" the young Kramnik because he came out and played fearless attacking chess against Kasparov you really must have come to chess as late as Manu.
As for being a second - as always that works both ways. Kasparov got the hard work and new ideas of the most talented young player around - just as you can imagine Carlsen helping Anand is also mutually beneficial. I know you're hurting from Brazil-Argentina, Manu, but it's an odd thing to try and use to diminish Kramnik :)
I´ve already lost my faith in this team since last year , but yes, it hurts :)
On Kramnik : stop being so sensitive , nobody is diminishing him, it is just logical that someone who shares the every day work (and the thought process) of Kasparov finds easier to ¨lose the fear¨ that someone who didn´t.
If you ask me , that extremely defensive attitude of you is a scar that Kramnik left on his fans by never giving Garry the rematch .
:)
"nobody is diminishing him"
So... Onischuk and hdghg weren't trying to diminish Kramnik. And your starting a post with "not only that" wasn't agreeing with them? You may as well admit to yourself that you're obsessively devoted to knocking Kramnik - it's better to accept the truth, it'll set you free :)
" it is just logical that someone who shares the every day work (and the thought process) of Kasparov finds easier to ¨lose the fear¨ that someone who didn´t."
I suspect some people worked with Kasparov and ended up shattered mentally! But sure, there might be an element of familiarity helping Kramnik - what you also need to bear in mind, though, is that he'd already played Kasparov a number of times, showing no fear, and even being the first to claim a win (when he was 18). So the causality doesn't really follow.
What is diminishing is to say that Kasparov being exceptional is a myth created by journalists :)
¨ So the causality doesn't really follow.¨
Mmm , yes it does , do i have to remind you about how Garry insisted on taking him to the olympiads?
Didn´t you see ¨my path to the top¨ ? There are plenty of teacher-pupil anecdotes in that dvd , most of them are from before Kramnik won his first game against Garry...
¨You may as well admit to yourself that you're obsessively devoted to knocking Kramnik ¨
Why would i? He is not a concern anymore...:)
Seriously , look in a mirror ,by the way you are defending him one can say that it is you the one with the obsession.
Don´t tell me you have a poster in your room and stuff like that , it would be spooky.
I haven't even seen "My Path to the Top", so I think we can see who's more obsessed :)
I ve seen every dvd available in the web , i like chess you know.
Instead of relaxing you are just proving me right , but im glad that you don´t have the poster.
Both defenders and detractors of Vlady would find this short interview very valuable on understanding Kramnik´s relationship with Garry.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1322
Please don't pretend that you don't understand Kramnik's point. Leave that to the true trolls.
The DVD thing was a joke, Manu! If you had a link I'd download it :)
I was looking into that interview Acirce mentioned from Novgorod 1997 (and found more posts by Acirce on other sites - I hope you don't mind if I repost some of the sources you quote). The next question reads:
"DJtG:
VK: "
Talking of diminishing other players the context of the interview with Kramnik was Kasparov in the final round claiming that Gelfand was throwing the game in order to let Kramnik win the tournament in place of Kasparov - they actually drew in 76 moves. Kasparov of course never apologised & you can see Gelfand's comments here: http://www.msoworld.com/mindzine/news/chess/gelfand.html
Of course the whole idea of it being a great crime to be critical of Kasparov (despite Kramnik calling him a genius and saying he was the better player at that time...) is ludicrous given Kasparov's history of criticising other players. But never mind...
The quotes which didn't work are (hopefully it'll be visible this time):
"DJtG: You seem to know something about Kasparov that the others don’t. You are the only player that regularly beats him.
VK: The only secret is forgetting against whom you are playing when you are sitting opposite him. I also regard Kasparov as a player of genius, of course, but no more. He also makes many mistakes, possible fewer than us, but still quite a lot. So why wouldn’t you be able to beat him in one single game? Beating him in a match is a different story, but in one single game? On the other hand, it goes without saying that it is nice to defeat him. Like here. It means that he didn't play particularly well, of course, but I certainly played a good game..."
Correct, the interview took place the day after the tournament ended and it was clear that Kramnik was still (rightly) upset over these shameful accusations that were made by Kasparov as well as, apparently, a certain Topalov :) Maybe Manu wants to comment on that?
"During the last few days, my relationship with Kasparov has become somewhat strained. We talk to each other and everything seems fine, but then I hear that he is saying strange things about me behind my back. A friend of mine once told me that you never know exactly what kind of relationship you have with Kasparov. You think that you are friends, but maybe the friendship is long gone.
The things he was saying yesterday are too silly for words. It's a matter of mentality. I know from experience that the people who get worked up about such things are the people who are capable of such behaviour. I would never suggest anything like this. It is totally against my principles. I will never buy or sell a game. It was very annoying. Imagine I had won that game; it was close enough, after all. Then suddenly everyone would think that I had bought it. The only explanation I can think of is that he wanted to attack me somehow. I find it very disappointing. I am very angry about it."
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1302282
But I agree, the really disrespectful thing here is for Kramnik to suggest that Kasparov was only the best player in the world by a bit, rather than by extremely far :) Glad that we have that sorted out. True gentlemen like Anand would never make such insults.
Interesting interview , i didn´t know about that incident , although it doesn´t change the fact that Vlady has very mixed feelings about Garry.
About the dvds ,i wont tell you to use emule because it would be piracy ;)
"Talking of diminishing other players the context of the interview with Kramnik was Kasparov in the final round claiming that Gelfand was throwing the game in order to let Kramnik win the tournament in place of Kasparov"
Of course, Kasparov saying things like that and worse isn't exactly news, compared to Kramnik he has probably said at least ten times more stupid things in his career.
"Please don't pretend that you don't understand Kramnik's point"
The point is obvious, but for many other top players Kasparov was unbeatable decade after decade so it's understandable if beating him was a big thing for many. That it would happen far more often if they didn't fall for some journalist myth about his playing strength is possible, but he was a very exceptional player and I guess to what extent you agree with Kramnik will depend on how you look upon him and Kasparov.
Thanks acirce and mishanp.
Kramnik shows the proper respect for Kasparov's playing ability and the proper contempt for his absurd insinuations.
So it wasn't disrespectful towards Kasparov (and the game and its history) but towards those players who rarely beat him even though they were not really all that much weaker? That Kramnik is kind of taking away their joy when they finally do beat him? That is a more interesting idea, but it wasn't what Onischuk fan said and you agreed to. And they shouldn't really be that unhappy about Kramnik showing the way to do well against him.
Top GMs don't fall for myths created by journalists, they had trouble against Kasparov because there never has existed a better chess player.
Of course they don't fall for myths created by journalists. Others do.
Many top players had much more trouble against Kasparov than they should have if you are only looking at the difference in skill.
Kramnik's crime of the day, apparently, is that he once pointed this out, and managed not to let said "myth" permeate his own subconscious, so that he could successfully deal with Kasparov mentally.
Tomorrow, he will kick a puppy just for the fun of it.
hdghg MISquoting Kramnik:
"What is diminishing is to say that Kasparov being exceptional is a myth created by journalists"
Kramnik's actual quote (in acirce's first post):
"The idea that Kasparov is so exceptional is a myth that has been created by the journalists."
One needs to look closely to find the difference:
"exceptional" means world champion and #1 on the rating list for an extended period of time - not questioned by Kramnik.
"so exceptional" means: you should be awe-struck playing Kasparov and not even think about the possibility of winning against him.
It's a chicken and egg question why Kramnik doesn't agree with the second point:
Die he lose (or never have) _excessive_ respect for Kasparov because their head-to-head score was and remained even? Or:
Did he maintain an even score against Kasparov because - unlike most of his colleagues - he didn't have excessive respect?
As far as Kramnik benefitting from Kasparov is concerned, it was a win-win situation (rather than a one-sided gift from Garry) in both cases mentioned:
Kasparov picked him as his second because Kramnik could help him.
Kasparov got Kramnik on the Olympic team because Kramnik would help the team to succeed (Kramnik then proved him right with his Olympiad result).
@Manu:
"He [Kramnik] is not a concern anymore...:)"
If one of the two players is "not a concern anymore", it's Kasparov - by his won choice and decision.
He has just that kind of magnetism , always accused of cheat, corruption and fixed results ...
Just for the fun of it , was there any other player (historicaly) who suffered so many of this aggravations?
Brilliant, Manu! Others might wait until we'd all forgotten the details to try and turn that incident into an attack on Kramnik, but you rightly assume we're all morons and press on regardless :)
Funny typo - of course it should be "[Kasparov's] own choice" at the end of my last post.
And something else: If there are analogies between amateur and world-top chess (I would say so):
In one of my former clubs, I managed to keep a roughly even score against a clubmate rated 200-300 points higher than me - much more than the ELO difference between Kasparov and the other top 10 players. I am not sure if he didn't like my openings and/or playing style, or if he still kept underestimating me. Anyway, of course I still respected him - it was perfectly fine that he played on the first team while I was on the third team. Yet, at some stage I stopped considering it a surprise or a major achievement if I didn't lose against him. Sort of the "chicken" option in my previous post: due to our even head-to-head score, I "refused" to resign against him before move 1 (I exaggerate for the sake of argument).
You should know that. It was always commonplace in the West to accuse Soviet players of fixing games, for instance throwing games to Karpov or Botvinnik or anybody else who was favoured by someone at the specific time. Most of the accusations were total rubbish.
Here is a not so well-known example involving Kasparov and Tal. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1070236
""exceptional" means world champion and #1 on the rating list for an extended period of time - not questioned by Kramnik.
"so exceptional" means: you should be awe-struck playing Kasparov and not even think about the possibility of winning against him"
I didn't even notice the so or think of the same definitions of the terms as you have when referring (more than misquoting), and I would have made the same interpretation with or without the so. Shirov had maybe been reading too many newspapers, and that is why his results against Kasparov were (so) exceptional. :)
Your anecdote has enlightened my understanding of this type of situations in a way no one else did before , after replacing Garry and Vlady by you and the other gracious placeholder everything becomes clear.
I would say the context of the Kramnik quote is as important as the little word "so" ... . But as far as Shirov's poor record against Kasparov is concerned, I propose a different explanation:
Shirov's style is similar to Kasparov's, but Kasparov was just slightly better at playing that kind of chess. The cumulative effect of being slightly better in each individual game is a huge career plus score.
Kramnik plays different chess, and then other aspects besides 'objective' strength become important. You can beat a "slightly better" player if you force him to play 'your' chess where your strengths and his weaknesses are maximized?
"Shirov's style is similar to Kasparov's, but Kasparov was just slightly better at playing that kind of chess"
Maybe, this sort of angstgegner relations are always interesting anyhow. Sometimes it is just impossible to explain why one player has a big head to head plus, I think Eljanov won five games in a row against Kamsky recently.
"I would have made the same interpretation with or without the so"
Well, misinterpreting Kramnik is something you can't really blame Kramnik for. He expressed himself quite well, despite English not being his first language.
Another Geuzendam quote (cited by acirce on chessgames.com):
"When I ask him whether Kramnik stands a chance of becoming world champion, Gelfand replies without the slightest hesitation. When I ask him whether Kramnik stands a chance of becoming world champion, Gelfand replies without the slightest hesitation. "I hope he will, for two reasons. In the first place because he is my friend, and in the second place because he is one of the few top players with moral values." He gives me a meaningful look. He is still outraged by the insinuations both Kasparov and Topalov made in the presence of journalists during their final game."
(this is from 1997, long before relationships between Kramnik and Topalov formally deteriorated)
That makes perfect sense actually , people who don´t trust Kramnik (as wrong as that may be)didn´t started to think that way in Elista or London ...
For example , since we are talking about Gelfand , anyone remember that game that Kramnik offered him the draw before him running out of time as a sportmanship gesture?, or when Gelfand praised one blindfold endgame that Kramnik played in Amber like something that very few GMs would have been able to play in standar chess?
Well here is the thing , for those who don´t believe in any of the two GMs those could have been pre-arranged games and dishonest behaviour , for those who like them , those were just 2 nice snapshots of great sportmanship.
But one thing is for sure , the people who has doubts about Kramnik started way before Elista .
I don´t think the same aplies to Topalov , the people who think he is a fraude started only after San Luis .
"Well, misinterpreting Kramnik is something you can't really blame Kramnik for"
You just have to accept that there are other opinions than yours wrt the quote:
"The idea that Kasparov is so exceptional is a myth that has been created by the journalists"
I just pointed out that you misinterpreted him. If you viewed his statement as meaning the same as "The idea that Kasparov is exceptional...", which you admitted, then you simply didn't understand what he meant. That's all.
"you simply didn't understand what he meant"
That must be it.
I try and claim to be as neutral and objective as possible: So actually Kramnik and Topalov have something in common - people got jealous and didn't believe in their successes, thus coming up with cheating accusations. The fact that such accusations against Topalov only started after San Luis merely indicates that this tournament heralded or sealed his arrival at the absolute world top, while Kramnik had been there as early as 1997.
Disclaimer: Such accusations are equally unfounded (or at least unproven) in both cases, I never said anything else.
More specifically, it is hard to comment on the two specific games you mention. Did Kramnik offer him a draw in a completely equal position? In a dead-drawn position? In the second case, anything else would be poor sportsmanship. And one GM praising another one's endgame technique, so what?
Actually, a similar incident had occurred earlier this year at Linares in a game between two of your favorite players (runners-up to Topalov on your list). Ivanchuk offered, or conceded a draw to Dominguez in a better, probably won position for him because he had knocked over some pieces in the preceding time trouble. Sportsmanship or dishonest behavior??
"I try and claim to be as neutral and objective as possible"
Not easy but you could do worse :)
The only relevant suspicions are those harbored by the top players. As we will very likely see in the coming years:
No player (except Topalov) will insist on stringent cheat-proofed conditions for a top-level match versus Kramnik, Anand, Ivanchuk, Leko, Carlsen, Aronian, etc.
Every player will insist on stringent cheat-proofed conditions for a top-level match versus Topalov.
In case you are talking about WCH matches i have to agree , no player could ever insist on ANY conditions for a match against Kramnik , specially because he will never qualify for such match.
Ouch.
For the rest of the players who actually have a chance to get near the title ,the conditions shouldn´t depend on how much they trust each other.
Stringent cheat-proofed conditions are a must if you want the public to believe that chess can still be played fairly.
There has generally been a presumption of fair play among the top players, and consequently there has been a generally a rather relaxed level of cheat-proofing in their matches.
For example, there was a) relatively relaxed cheat-proofing and b) no cheating allegations in Kasparov-Kramnik, Kramnik-Leko, or Kramnik-Anand.
Whether to protect him from post-San Luis allegations or for other reasons, Topalov's have been the only matches in which the stringent anti-cheating measures have been thought necessary.
There's no reason to burden all the players with these measures when they're thought necessary for only one of them.
I don't know about that; one might mention Spassky-Korchnoi, Fischer-Spassky, Korchnoi-Karpov, Kasparov against, er, whoever Vladimirov was supposed to have sold his secrets to, Kamsky-Short, and no doubt some other ones I haven't thought of. Indeed isn't the story that Kasparov objected to Kramnik's absences from the board in 2000?
"There's no reason to burden all the players with these measures when they're thought necessary for only one of them"
The Topalov is a cheater talk has gone a bit stale, his results that have been (so) exceptional the last years, and no one seriously thinks they are caused by cheating.
Having nothing better to do, I browsed the annexes to the next FIDE Executive Board Meeting (in October)...
(http://www.fide.com/component/content/article/1-fide-news/4112-executive-board-2009-agenda-and-annexes)
and found this -
http://www.fide.com/images/stories/news2009/80th_fide_congress/annex_10.pdf
Here's some of the text...
Transfers between the Federations
2.1 A player who wishes to change his Federation and register under a new Federation must apply through the new
Federation to FIDE for a transfer. A notification fee of €250 is payable for all transfers.
Such consent shall be accompanied with a payment from the new Federation to the old Federation of a
compensation fee (“Compensation Fee”) according to the following scale:
...
FIDE Title/Rating Amount of Compensation Fee Payable
GM rated 2700 and above € 50,000
GM rated 2600 to 2699 € 30,000
GM rated below 2600 € 10,000
IM rated above 2400 € 6,000
IM rated 2400 or below € 4,000
FM or rated above 2300 € 2,000
WGM rated above 2300 € 8,000
WGM rated 2300 or below € 5,000
WIM rated above 2200 € 3,000
WIM rated 2200 or below € 2,000
WFM or rated above 2100 € 1,000
Others € 1,000
Interesting proposal, isn't it?
You can't be serious. A chess federation should pay 1,250 € for any low-level club player who wishes to join it? Why?
And for the higher levels: The logical reaction would be to sell some ELO points to simultaneously raise funds and lower fees.
And for what are they charging a €250 notification fee? Do they throw a party every time someone is changing federations?
That's way over 70 000 dollar for Motylev to change federation unless he tanks in a couple of games to save 30 000, Yifan Hou would be a better buy for below 15 000.
Its for the hookers and drinks, which come from Elista.
This makes some difference, if you read another sentence:
"The old Federation may at any time elect in writing addressed to FIDE and the new Federation to waive all or any part of any Compensation Fee(s) due to it from the new Federation."
Hmmm ... :
Karjakin would have been considerably cheaper if his rating (temporarily) fell below 2700.
From a Dutch point of view: Anish Giri would have been way cheaper if he had switched federations before his final GM norm (he entered Corus C as "FM Anish Giri RUS 2469")?
And I (as well as most others on this blog) probably can never change federations because I am not even worth 1250€ ... .
But seriously, at least for top-level players the rule might make some sense to discourage 'random or recurrent' federation changes - though, if (only) money is involved, the player himself might demand a paycheck at least similar to FIDE's?
And if the money is spent on some worthy cause (e.g. helping chess in developing countries), it would have my blessing. But I am afraid Manu's version is closer to the truth ... .
Its for the hookers and drinks... (Manu)
250 euros would buy some skanky ones.