Should a fellow GM OPENLY call out for a cheating investigation against another GM without any personal proof or direct knowledge of the situation or should this be done through proper and official channels?
Short pushes for cheating inquiry
Leonard Barden
Thursday February 1, 2007
The Guardian
Nigel Short, the former world title challenger, has called for an International Chess Federation inquiry into cheating allegations against the world No1-ranked grandmaster, Veselin Topalov of Bulgaria. (Here is the full story by Short)
Is this a professional, ethical or moral action to make public charges? So does this mean that fellow GMs should have the right to openly question and accuse other players? How should one deal with this? What should FIDE do? Can this be proven? What happens if FIDE investigates and finds the claim false? What should be done about the false accuser?
These are just some of the difficult questions that often come up. What do you think? How should this be handled?
** I just read some of the comments. Please carefully read what I said before you start to attack me or other posters. I have never said that an investigation should not take place or we should let any player get a free pass. I asked should any player be allowed to make accusations openly or publicly or should this be done through proper and official channels.
he is absolutely justified in his call. by your argument nobody can call for an enquiry against his suspicious colleague in any profession for that matter. he did not say that he was cheating unlike mr danailov-hole did against kramnik.
I think any player who has concerns should be able to raise this issue if they think someone is cheating, however, it would be better if this was done through some official judicial channels of FIDE and only if found to be true should it be made public.
Susan, I think your concern over the image of chess partially distorts your perspective. If Topalov cheats, he should be exposed. As for raising such issues, Topalov’s team did much worse in Elista and since then. Accusing Kramnik of cheating, and comparing Kramnik’s win to Litvienko’s assassination – all this was not based on evidence either – where was the evidence that KGB assisted Kramnik?
Personally, I don’t believe that Topalov cheats, but if Short does, he should be free to call for an investigation. How direct a proof do you need? Actually witness cheating? Circumstantial evidence should be enough to be allowed to talk.
Nigel “I played Bobby” Short is spot on.
As always.
These videos should have been published. Long time ago. I can’t imagine that it would be too difficult to decipher their code (if there is any).
Danailov’s behaviour is extremely suspicious. If Danailov would be an usual dad watching his son (lets say with less 2500 ELO)….well, what do you think? Such dads wouldnt be allowed to watch their sons when they behave like that. At least not in the non-FIDE tourneys that I have played.
Going straight to the press? Unprofessional, but not unethical and certainly not immoral.
This is all fine and dandy for Short to call for an investigation.
But why is it that under similar circumstances and far more suspicious behavior in Elista – like Kramnik going XXX number of times to his private restroom — the Topalov Team was vilified over asking questions?
Short is a bizarre character, no question about it. So many examples that everyone knows. Great player, extremely questionable behavior off the board. Why not call for an investigation of Kramnik as well.
So, Topalov needs to cheat to beat Van Wely?? A guy who didn’t deserve to be there in the first place? And what happened to the cheating when he lost to Svidler in a crucial late round? All that cheating and he could only manage a tie for first at Wijk? There is no sense to this.
Lots of jealousy out there, isn’t there?
“… or should this be done through proper and official channels?”
The wording of this question is biased.
There are no “official channels” worth mentioning. FIDE is a tiny organization, whose investigative competencies were displayed by its Appeals Committee in Elista 2006. The group of guys who run Corus is even tinier.
Either there is video of Danailov or there ain’t. Until there is, this is all balony.
Like Carl Sagan used to say: “Extraordinay claims require extraordinary evidence”.
I see no evidence here; just rumor and innuendo. It was unethical for Short to publicly air his mere suspicions.
I am glad to see talk of cheating techniques shifting to low-tech, which is a bigger threat. You cannot frisk someone whose only gadgets are a cell phone and a wink.
Gene Milener
http://CastleLong.com/
In his coverage of San Luis (Arg.) Short made fun of the people who complained about Topalov’s seating arrangement or something like that… He was all “buddy-buddy” with Team Topalov back them.
And Chessbase, they’re so funny — Short witnessed something “sinister”… Then why did he wait 1.5 years to say the “sinister” thing that he witnessed?
This is so scummy it’s below contempt. Nigel is acting like trash, sorry to say it, but it’s true.
I am willing to bet that this is still the continuation of the Kramnik-Topalov war. I am just about certain that Nigel Short have seen Topalov to play chess many times. Now he figured out that Topalov cheats? What is the true probability of that?
——————-
Bottom line:
We got to the point where cheating in chess is technologically possible. There is no way out, FIDE will have to figure out how to screen players, press, audience for hardware and disallow such hardware to be carried to wherever they are playing chess.
—————–
Meanwhile?
As long as there is freedom of press, little anyone can do. At one point or another, somebody will sue an accuser, lose a bunch of money at the courts and after that everybody will be far more careful to make ill-established accusations, carried directly to the media.
Gabor
I wish people could grow up and not do this trial via press announcements.
If someone has a beef and even some circumstantial concerns, they should go to FIDE and discuss it. They can make it even more powerful by having a couple other GMs ask for a private meeting with FIDE.
It is totally unprofessional to do it any other way. It also hurts the sport to have people reading about all of this cheating acquisations and at the end of the day nothing.
If it is determined that their was cheating then it should be publicly stated by FIDE along with the sanctions.
When I hear people whining to the press, I can only assume that they have no evidence and they are hoping to affect public opinion because they have weak claims.
Nigels trash talk exposes who Nigel is.
There is no proper channel Susan, I think he is justified to call for an enquiry.
Is this the same Nigel Short who bailed on FIDE? Is this the same Nigel Short who sold his soul to coach the Iranian team?
Yes, and this is the same Nigel Short who moved to Greece to avoid paying taxes in England. Nigel doesn’t care about anyone but Nigel and he’ll do anything to stay “important”.
I am really disappointed by Short.
Why didn’t he bring up his suspicion during his coverage of San Luis. Back then he was bragging that he was Topalov lucky talisman because Topalov was winning when he followed the ritual of inviting him for breakfast.
If Short waited so long to weigh on the matter he should have brought hard evidence. Now he simply looks like another Judas turning against the Messiah after enjoying his last meal.
Kavalek was probably right to question his character when he suddenly turned on him recently accusing him of extortion long when Kavalek was given a lot of credit in his bid to challenge Kasparov for the World Championship.
I offered a definition of “reasonable cheating accusation” in Susan’s earlier thread here. Main excerpt: I propose that any such accusation must be backed up by observational evidence of (at least) one of these types:
(a) Reports of signals, as in the bridge scandal and M. Breutigam’s article in last Saturday’s Sueddeutsche Zeitung (translation by ChessBase.com), with witness confirmation.
(b) Possession of illegal playing or transmission devices, as seems to be the main factor in the Umakant Sharma case from last month’s Asian Games in Doha.
(c) Suspiciously high match rates to specific chess program(s), but then you must provide data and log files to back up your claim.
Comments, anyone? By the way, Leonard Barden has always been a careful user of language, something I admired 30 years ago! He recognizes the distinction between an inquiry into the allegations and an open accusation against a specific person. Thus I read his column as a gentle “J’adoube” of Nigel Short into the former position…
its a free world…anybody can say anything….perticularly nigel short!!!. its upto others to decide whether to believe it or not…
Any player should be able to make an accusation openly and publicly, so that others can watch out for recurrence of the issue. If a player keeps making baseless accusations his credibility will suffer and no one will take him seriously.
Maybe the official channels are unsatisfactory for a resolution of this type? I don’t think we will soon see Susan bringing her complaints about the USCF to Sam Sloan although he is on the Board of Directors. I think US Chess, the USCF would have been better served, and acted more professionally, if the whole Sam Sloan issue was not made public laundry but it was
Somethings have to go outside of channels!!!
Topalov has laughed off the idea that hand signals could help his play.
That is rediculous statement. Obviously hand signals could help. It is more a matter of were they used to help him. That Topalov does not mention.
What Nigel Short did was courageous and proper. FIDE does not have a procedure for complaints. And FIDE continues to ignore the problem. It seems necessary for public pressure to be put on Fide to do something about this problem.
I personally believe that Topalov and Danailov cheated by sending information via signals. I do not have the proof. But I make the judgement based on the character and actions of mostly Danailov and then the actions of Topalov. I believe their actions have been advertising that they are cheating for a long time now.
NOT only should the videos be looked at carefully but the corus tournament should have had a big group of videos focused all the time on Topalov and Danailov for this expressed purpose of answering this question. FIDE is not doing anything and thus the situation is getting much worse. The sooner the world knows the truth the better.
If he is cheating then ban him and be done with the problem. If he is innocent then prove it and be done with the problem. The only way was to have full video coverage of Danailov and Topalov for every game of Corus.
Fide invests millions of dollars on a world championship and refuses to spend just a fewe dollars on video. That is silly. Real professionals could have come in and set up Corus beautifully ahead of time and taped everything for a minimal cost compared to the cost of this crisis.
I believe he has cheated and will be exposed. The truth is going to come out. They can not hide it forever.
But Nigel is not really the issue, is he? Danailov’s behavior as described has certainly been, at minimum, very odd and deserves a bit of a review, it seems to me. I stand with the pack who believe Topalov to be a very exciting and creative player whose play is hardly in the computer mold. Probably the outcome will be confirmation that Danailov is just a very odd duck, and we can say we knew that already. Innuendos will continue to fly unless FIDE can put the issue to rest.
Topalov lost to Svidler late in the tournament because the accusations were already published and he and Danailov decided not to chance it in that game. He lost because he is not that good a chess player.
If he had gone the entire tournament without the cheating help he would have scored way down. He probably did not cheat in Mexico last year and got killed. but he came back to linares where I guess he could cheat and won his games. Something is deadly wrong here.
He lost in Essent recently also. Not a big tournament or maybe no chance to cheat.
San Luis was a total disgrace. Danailov sitting so close to Topalov for the entire tournament running analysis of the games. How rediculous can one get at a world championship. FIDE is out to lunch. Fide has just been asking for cheating.
Interesting we haven’t heard from GM Gary Kasparov directly on this controversy. I’d like to know what he thinks about it.
As for GM Nigel Short being quiet until now about the allegations of cheating by Topalov at San Luis …yes I do believe he should have said something. However, it’s possible he was told not to say anything for fear of retribution from the Topalov team demanding the names of the accusers.
As for GM Judit Polgar not believing the allegations against Topalov…well…we can’t fault her opinion in this matter. She is a GM and she’s entitled to believe whatever she wants. However I find it hard to believe she’s publically speaking out disbelieving the allegations against Topalov as if this is the FIRST time she’s heard about these rumors. She must have heard whispers about Topalov possibly cheating in San Luis.
Is this a professional, ethical or moral action to make public charges? So does this mean that fellow GMs should have the right to openly question and accuse other players? How should one deal with this? What should FIDE do? Can this be proven? What happens if FIDE investigates and finds the claim false? What should be done about the false accuser?
Susan
All these questions project way into the future. The answer is to live in the NOW moment. Not to answer hypothetical questions that do not yet exist. Also to recognize that RULES are bad to live by rules and laws. One needs to learn to live by asking god in each moment. In one case god might tell you to say yes and in another case the answer will be no. Rules are not the way to live. Here is a story.
This guy finds someone in the gutter. Jesus tells him to take him home feed him and let him sleep overnight. so the guy does it and it works out great. the next day he sees someone in the guter and he does the same thing but this person robs him. he then goes and tells Jesus. Jesus says well you asked me in the first case but did not ask me in the 2nd. I would have told you to leave that guy in the gutter because he would rob you.
Live in the now moment. Ask god each question. Expect different answers. Do not live by Rules. Do not decide ahead of time.
The above poster hears voices I don’t hear. Life would be less interesting anyway if we didn’t need to rely on our own decisions.
Whenever game became complicated Topalov INVARIABLY got the upper hand. On the other hand, this doesn’t seem to be the case when there was a precise endgame play needed with a series of accurate moves (vs Kramnik). Topalov started complicating the game with great confidence. In normal games he doesn’t do too well. This is unmistakable. Why would a GM sac exchanges without clear winning lines? AND (invariably win). I don’t remember even Kasparov playing like that. This is suspicious.
The right move at this point is for Danailov to require all these Corus surveillance tapes and take that German journalist to Court. They should be reviewed in Court, under the proceedings of a libel suit what exactly is deemed a provocative behavior. That’s the only way to have a decisive outcome — either punish the accuser for false accusations, or admin guilt.
The attacks on Topalov’s credibility started long before Elista and probably will continue as long as he’s a threat for the Title. The ominous signs of a new full scale attack on Topalov were obvious when he started doing well at Corus (reading some of the Russian media). There is no doubt that these are the interests around Kramnik, going all the way to Kremlin.
Nigel, I believe, is a sad pawn, seeking attention in this case.
D.
Anonymous said:
“Why would a GM sac exchanges without clear winning lines? AND (invariably win).”
Anybody that follows Topalov knows that the Exchange sacrifice is now a trademark of his game. Everybody is buying this nonsense that Topalov suddenly got strong in San Luis. You should go back and play his games in the FIDE knockout of 2004. Topalov was steamrolling everybody and looked like the World Champion until he ran into a Kramnik like player in Khazimzhanov. You should play his game against Kharlov in this tournament where he sac his two rooks plus some more woods.
Was Danailov in the picture back then?
Topalov is like a fish in the water in exchange sac lines in the Queens Indian as he played them repeatedly against Ponomariov and Anand in Sofia 2004 as well as in Wik an zee this year. Even his exchange sac against Carlsen was based on a known game.
Topalov Chess is 21st Century Chess, Tal like tactics based on deep Computer preparation. I don’t believe it is GM strength play assisted by Computer in key juncture of the game as implied by Short.
I don’t need to see the videos. Now that the accusations are out let’s see how Topalov does in Linares and the rest of the year. Let’s see if he suffers the same fate as the Indian player that was suspected of cheating. Let’s see if he drops out from No 1 to No 12 in the rating list.
It is sad to see how quick people are to believe the worse in others. Suspicious behaviour?
Once you have the suspicions to start with, that is when the behaviour appears in a dark light.
People think they have become suspicious because of the behaviour, but it is the other way around. They notice the behaviour because they are already suspicious, picking up on whatever fits their theory, not noticing the things that don’t.
You can always pick and choose the facts that fit with what you already believe. That is why people argue around and around on Topalov v. Kramnik, Right v. Left, never listening with an open mind to the other person, with only room for their prior beliefs.
It is human nature, but a very sad part of it. Open your mind to other thoughts, and you will see a much brighter world with much nicer people than you had previously thought.
Jean-Michel,
Don’t be condescending. Topalovs sudden rise was always suspicious.
It was unprecidented. No GM has ever made a jump the way topalov did relatively late in his career. But time will tell the truth.
Topalov is superstisious. He did admit that. As Short reported in San Louis, he demanded to eat breakfast with him everyday because it brought him good luck. Obviously, Short being at the breakfast couldn’t possibly help Topalov. A rational explenation for Topalov wanting Danailov in the audience is his superstisions (that can affect his psycology and thus even the quality of the game).
FIDE needs to have a formal channel to address these kind of issues since they will come up again and again. Unfortunately, open letter is the mean at the moment and reputations are on the line.
I will root for Anand and may be Aronian in the Linaries. It would be good to see nice guys at the top again. I think Anand has enough chess left in him to beat Kramnik and Topalov to reclaim his position at the top.
Why would you need an inquiry if you already have concrete proof? Nigel believes there are enough clues to warrant an investigation, and whether he says that secretly within “proper channels”, or shares it with the rest of us is, to me, beside the point. The main issue here is do we or don’t we have someone cheating? But if you asked me, the process of figuring that out should be as transparent as possible, meaning the public gets to follow.
I am impartial.
But I want to know :
a) How often did Kramnik go to toilet during elista match?
b) How often did danilov take phone calls during corus matches ?
c) If topa cheated, a third person is involved, who anylyses the live games on computer. Was cheparinov visible in the playing hall during corus matches?
>>>
Topalov lost to Svidler late in the tournament because the accusations were already published and he and Danailov decided not to chance it in that game. He lost because he is not that good a chess player.>>
No comment needed on such a biased statement. The article was published after the game with svidler and just before/during the game with kramnik
These video tapes need to be seen the way the Kramnik tapes were seen before an Appeals committee clearly showing him going to the toilet with an amazing frequency and closing the door behind him.
If Danailov wants to drive a hole through these insinuations, he should surrender his cell phone bill and show the numbers he was calling. If these were banks, let’s say (he was working on the $2 Mil right then) he should nail and impale this German prankster in Court.
Let’s see.
D.
>>>Whenever game became complicated Topalov INVARIABLY got the upper hand. On the other hand, this doesn’t seem to be the case when there was a precise endgame play needed with a series of accurate moves (vs Kramnik). Topalov started complicating the game with great confidence. In normal games he doesn’t do too well. This is unmistakable. Why would a GM sac exchanges without clear winning lines? AND (invariably win). I don’t remember even Kasparov playing like that. This is suspicious.>>>>
Sorry to disappoint you but computer usually do not make sacrifices without clear winning continuation. As a whole Topalov’s style is the most non-resembling to computer style as compared to the other top 10 GMs. Topalov said not once or twice that his style would not be so successful against computers which utilize and defend very well positions with higher material on their side. My opinion is that there is too much envy and jealousy in the chess world – in this particular case – against the world no1 ranked, the bulgarian Topalov. In my opinion his play i honest and danailov is just a donkey. If you watch Topalov while playing you can see that when he is on the board nothing else exists around him. part of his great performance is the ability to hyper concentrate – a state that is soo diffcult to achieve and which is soo desired by all chessmen who want to achieve something in chess. this is achieved by hard work and exercising, and mental power.
>>>
Jean-Michel,
Don’t be condescending. Topalovs sudden rise was always suspicious.
It was unprecidented. No GM has ever made a jump the way topalov did relatively late in his career. But time will tell the truth.
>>>
LOL
Why do people take some LIE and wave it like a flag even without checking it. Please check Topalov’s rating variation, compare it to other GMs and then accuse. There is nothing outstanding with Topalov’s escalation on the Chess ELO ratings.
What can you tell for instance for Carlsen’s ot Karjakin’s rating’s then. Thtey are much more suspicious. Come on , you are ridiculous.
sold his soul to coach the Iranian team?
why is that?
Dear Susan
Since you ask if players should be allowed to make public accusations, perhaps you would like to make clear your stand on Your dear Topalov making accusations against Kramnik first. I do not remember your writing even one word in such a clear language when the superb ABC interview of the great Topalainov came up.
Susan, as always your pages are full of interest:
However I wonder if the time has come for you to reconsider allowing anonymous posts – it seems that many topics (not just this one) are hijacked by people with their own agenda who like to hide behind the cowardly cloak of anonymity – besides when a simple viewer, such as myself, reads many comments supporting one side or another, how can we tell if the comments are made by various people or the same person.
Keep up the good work – still the best chess site on the net
🙂
Kind regards
Trefor
I think the campain against Topalov is simply the revanche for his rather baseless accusations agianst kramnik (who was certainly provocative in his behaviour but not cheating).
It would be rather disturbing for a grandmaster that way of cheating. Often such a master can see 2-3 moves forward very fast and by showing him only the first move is rather ridiculous…you only can cheat at that level if you have the time to check diverse variations…
“Sorry to disappoint you but computer usually do not make sacrifices without clear winning continuation. As a whole Topalov’s style is the most non-resembling to computer style as compared to the other top 10 GMs.”
I guess u r missing the whole point here. please re-read the accusations. Unless ofcourse you are a sockpuppet who is presenting a weak argument intentionally for topalov’s defense.
“LOL
Why do people take some LIE and wave it like a flag even without checking it. Please check Topalov’s rating variation, compare it to other GMs and then accuse. There is nothing outstanding with Topalov’s escalation on the Chess ELO ratings.
What can you tell for instance for Carlsen’s ot Karjakin’s rating’s then. Thtey are much more suspicious. Come on , you are ridiculous.”
I agreee. By the way why would a GM cheat when his opponent cannot take bathroom breaks, he just has to prolong the game. Topa plays dirty, so he should expect some dirt as well..
Why doesn’t he fire his manager or show his cell phone bill with call records. Very simple to counter the accusations here since they are very specific. No need to even argue. His silence is disturbing.
I agree. The best way to settle this issue is to check Danailov’s cell phone call record. Why doesn’t topalov team produce it on chessbase or such site and silence the critics? I think the German reporter, GM Short etc wouldn’t come up with such an accusation knowing that it would be countered easily with the phone bill.
With this in mind, I would be suspicious until the call recored is shown by Topalov.
Regardless of whether or not Topalov has been cheating, the fact that a player can see his/her manager or another person in the crowd mudt indicate that to some extent cheating is possible.
The logical solution is to not allow this at all. Two way screens are possible, so they should be installed around the playing arena with the spectators still able to watch without players being able to see out! This just smacks of common sense to me. Everything should be done to prevent ANY possibility of cheating.
I do not know if Topalov was cheating in San Luis or not.
Anyway,Short is not doing the right thing.
We can have three possible cases:
1)Topalov is guilty and there are proves.Then Short is damaging the image of chess publicly doing that and Topalov would be banned.
2)Topalov is guilty but there are not proves.Again we have a damage on our image.
3)Topalov is not guilty.Then we have again a lot of damage on our image and Short would be banned.
ANYWAY:GUILTY OR NOT,SHORT IS PLAYING WITH THE FUTURE OF CHESS DOING THAT PUBLICLY.
Sponsons hate bad publicity or scandals!.Read what works in Turkey(and in the world) and learn!
(I am an IM in chess from Europe.)
I know about cheating in chess on all levels because we speak about it during our chats on tournaments but nobody dares to go publicly.Once Judit Polgar said like this: (in magazine regarding the game Polgar-Kasparov when Kasparov moved back his knight move already executed and all taped on video):” It is not surprising that there is cheating in chess when the basic idea in chess is to ”cheat”’somehow your opponent.”
But let us talk about 100% documented cheating published in NEW IN CHESS magazine,and nobody talks about it.!!
2 years ago Topalov mentioned in NEW IN CHESS that during his games in Linares KASPAROV !! many time left to his room!!.
I AM AMAZED THAT NOBODY REACTED ON THAT STATEMENT.
Of course ,I firmly believe that Kasparov produced his beautifull games without cheating in MIDDLEGAME ,but i firmly believe that in opening phase he went to consult his 9GB opening database analyses in his room.
Spiritualy speaking profesional chess is a sport full of greed,hate of each other , ego trips, so it is not surprising that all DIRT is comming out even from players who are ”the best”.
WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND.
(just watch Korchnoi on videos or ask the stories of his behaviour after the loss and you will understand why he was caled ”THE EVIL ONE” (”ZLOY”) 40 years ago in Russia.)
Regarding Danailov publishing his mobile phone account:
The problem with that is that even if Danailov talked to somebody during the matches it still does not prove that they cheated.After all, he is free to talk to whomever he wishes and whenever he wishes.
And if he did not, the accusers can always say that he used another phone/SIM card…
So both ways it will not prove anything
How about this. Anand was operated in India when he was 12 with a wireless device planted in his head. His wife relayes moves to him which is why she travels everywhere with him. He charges the device everyday by induction. So Anand is basically a robot who hears voices in his head and has no idea about chess and his wife is the real brain behind his games.
Anand must counter this by providing MR scan of his head. Till he produces such a scan he is a suspect.
yes, checking call records is the way to go. They may not ‘prove’ anything but then again nothing will. let ppl draw their own conclusions by looking at the call records.
No need to accuse anybody. Practically, not much can be done about what happened at San Luis.
From now on in all the supertournaments, just take the precautions which were taken at Elista : suppress all wireless devices by transmmitting interfering signals, use metal detectors to screen the players, and use screens so that spectators can see player, but player can’t see spectators.
Then we will all see if Topalov’s rating goes back to what it was like 3 years ago.
A few comments.
In general I would say that accusations of any kind, until proven, should not be spread out informally eg. in miscellaneous media.
If Short had such concerns about San Louis, why didn’t he speak out much earlier ?!
To someone who is neither pro nor con Topalov, this simply looks strange.
It is well known that short during San Louis was pretty close with Topalov and Danailov.
Rumours also suggest that Short for most of the tournament, presumably he was a “reporter” or observer for some mag or organisation, was in a state that makes it hard to take his claims too seriously.
On another note, the wording of this topic again shows that this blog is biassed on Topalov issues.
This is absolutely fair, of course.
On *my* blog *I* can support *my* heroes. But insisting on the contrary is simply ridiculing the intelligence of the blogs readers.
I don’t see anything biased about the wording of this topic. In fact it applies equally well to the accusations against Kramnik and Topalov.
Of course, Susan’s opinion is biased towards Topalov if you compare it with what you can read on chessbase(for instance), but this might as well mean that chessbase is biased in favor of Kramnik. And sure enough they have reasons to be biased.
>>>
Then we will all see if Topalov’s rating goes back to what it was like 3 years ago.
>>>
one more time waving the rating issue without first checking.
JAN ’07 2783
OCT ’06 2813
JUL ’06 2813
APR ’06 2804
JAN ’06 2801
OCT ’05 2782
JUL ’05 2788
APR ’05 2778
JAN ’05 2757
OCT ’04 2757
JUL ’04 2737
APR ’04 2737
JAN ’04 2735
OCT ’03 2735
JUL ’03 2735
APR ’03 2735
JAN ’03 2743
OCT ’02 2743
JUL ’02 2745
APR ’02 2745
JAN ’02 2739
OCT ’01 2733
JUL ’01 2711
APR ’01 2707
JAN ’01 2718
OCT ’00 2707
JUL ’00 2707
JAN ’00 2702
If 40-50 points is such a dramatic change, thenwhat to say about these:
magnus carlsen:
JAN ’07 2690
OCT ’06 2698
JUL ’06 2675
APR ’06 2646
JAN ’06 2625
OCT ’05 2570
JUL ’05 2528
APR ’05 2548
JAN ’05 2553
OCT ’04 2581
JUL ’04 2567
APR ’04 2552
JAN ’04 2484
OCT ’03 2450
JUL ’03 2385
APR ’03 2356
JAN ’03 2279
OCT ’02 2250
JUL ’02 2214
APR ’02 2163
JAN ’02 2127
OCT ’01 2072
JUL ’01 2084
APR ’01 2064
Sergey Karjakin:
JAN ’07 2678
OCT ’06 2672
JUL ’06 2679
APR ’06 2661
JAN ’06 2660
OCT ’05 2658
JUL ’05 2645
APR ’05 2635
JAN ’05 2599
OCT ’04 2576
JUL ’04 2591
APR ’04 2580
JAN ’04 2566
OCT ’03 2562
JUL ’03 2560
APR ’03 2556
JAN ’03 2547
OCT ’02 2527
JUL ’02 2523
APR ’02 2489
JAN ’02 2460
OCT ’01 2388
JUL ’01 2338
APR ’01 2262
JAN ’01 2269
OCT ’00 2250
JUL ’00 2250
JAN ’00 2206
V. Kramnik:
JAN ’02 2811
OCT ’01 2809
JUL ’01 2802
APR ’01 2797
JAN ’01 2799
OCT ’00 2772
JUL ’00 2770
JAN ’00 2758
etc. etc. etc.
Is it so unusual for a ches player to peak after the age of 30? What about Alekhine, whose best results came after he turned 30. Korchnoi nearly became world champion at the age of 47.
Gerard Killoran
Two toilet breaks maximum per game, and see Kramnik drop to 2650.
As ridiculous as the accusations against Topalov.
Oh, wait. Maybe Kortchnoi had something with that yogurt idea.
The answer is no. But Short makes no accusations so it has very little to do with the issue.
As I see that people tend to point out fake evidence like the rating rise which can be very easy checked and is matter of few minutes to see that such evidence does not exist… let alone evidences like call print outs, videos, pictures etc. which are only virtually available.
These questions are asked specifically with reference to Shorts comments.
There were no equivalent questions asked on this blog after Elista when Danailov *and* Topalov accused Kramnik of cheating.
The bias is obvious, but not a problem in itself. The annoying thing is the denial.
I am not comparing anything with the stuff at chessbase.
Short is not the bad guy here. Whatever is known about San Luis is known for a long time. Chessbase quoted an article about the San Luis allegations before Short went public with his call for an inquiry.
That said, one cannot hold an inquiry based on murmurs and whispers between GMs complaining of being cheated. If there is video evidence then produce it or stfu. All other inquiries in the world require physical evidence, material witnesses, and expert testimonies; exactly none were held based on mere whispers and murmurs.
The Topalov team produced video evidence of Kramnik’s bathroom excursions and of cables from the ceiling. These are not whispers and murmurs. We, the court of public opinion, can judge for our selves whether the Topalov team’s evidence is persuasive. I, for one, judge the evidence to be inconclusive. On the other hand, judging on mere whispers and murmurs is beyond irresponsible. If there is San Luis video evidence, produce it!
Notice that the Topalov team’s accusations stand or fall on the evidence produced (it fell, imo). Notice that the Kramnik team only produced someone said, someone saw (an IM who was once an associate of Hansen), plus some whispers and murmurs. No pics or videos. Until there is something more concrete noises from the Kramnik camp should be ignored.
Bottom line: Short’s call for an inquiry is premature.
On how to cheat: someone of Topalov’s or Kramnik’s calibre does not need full-blown type of cheating where specific moves and variations are relayed; only the assessment of the position is a large enough of an advantage. Relaying specific moves require extensive signals; relaying assessment requires just 5 signals. For example, touching the nose could mean even, touching the glasses (slightly higher than the nose) could mean slightly better for white, touching the head could mean white is very good; touching the lips could mean black is slightly better, touching the chin black is very good. With such simple signalling of very small code base it is almost impossible to detect. Kramnik, for example (and only an example to illustrate a point, not accusation), could go to the bathroom to just feel for vibrations on a certain part of a wall or countertop or wash basin to get an update on the assessment.
Even if all electronic devices are forbidden from the tournament hall, cheating can still take place if only assessment information is relayed.
In fact, just relaying one signal to alert the player to pay special attention to the current position is a large advantage. An assistant could just walk in with yogurt and signal, “now is the time to pay attention.”
To prevent cheating what should be done is what has been done a long time ago, in the 1972 match, the Fischer Solution: seal off the contestants to a private room.
Assessment information would not help a player.
How could you *use* the information ‘White is slightly better’ in a chess game? You CAN’T.
You could, however, use signals to indicate which piece the computer likes to move. This simple kind of information, along with the innate talents these GM’s possess, could easily guide then to ‘discover’ the correct move knowing it is a ‘Bishop’ move or a ‘Rook’ move.
I think that is far more likely than conveying assessment knowledge of a position, which seems utterly worthless to me. Who sits there during a game and objectively thinks ‘I am slightly better’ and thinks that that assessment could actually change his thought process and allow him to choose ‘better’ moves?
Ludicrous.
It was all Shorts fault in the first place!!!
He wanted more money, so he broke away from FIDE in the WC match!!!
What was left was for the rest of the chess community to try to unify the title… something they tried very hard for years.
Finally, it happened with the Kramnik-Topalov match which as you know resulted in cheating accusations….
So what does Short do???
Well, some months later, he comes up with a CHEATING ACCUSATION and further damages Chess…
Short should STFU because no one cares about him and what he thinks… He should go live in IRAN.. Im sure coaching the national IRAN team pays very well!!
this should always be done through proper methods. of course those cheating investigators should always keep the source confidential. most cheating leads given to the commitee will obviously be discarded quickly similary to frivilous law suits. but the ones that are substantiated with concrete evidence and facts will be investigated further. the commitee should always keep any players name private if the player is submitting someones name for possible cheating. the commitee should also act on its own similar to the olympic drug testing committee thats only purpose is to catch cheaters. this commitee should have complete anonomity seperate from fide or any other chess organization so as to not have bias for any players. it should act autonomously and free of
influences. the commitee members will be chosen outside of the chess community. it will use rigorous testing methods to catch cheats. with surveliance videos people on on the floor constantly monitoring for cheating.
wolverine
“These questions are asked specifically with reference to Shorts comments.
There were no equivalent questions asked on this blog after Elista when Danailov *and* Topalov accused Kramnik of cheating.
The bias is obvious, but not a problem in itself. The annoying thing is the denial.
I am not comparing anything with the stuff at chessbase.”
You said that the wording was biased. Now you claim that the problem is in the timing?
Let me remind you that we have seen Susan express her opinion on these matters multiple times. She criticized Topalov for his open accusations too. Now she criticizes Short (indirectly). I don’t see bias in that fact. Like I said the same reasoning applies to both cases.
BTW, I don’t believe an “unbiased” opinion exists. We are all human. The trick is to stick to the facts as much as possible so we are as unbiased as possible. But being unbiased is incompatible with human nature.
Short is simply self indulged… he really does not care about Chess but himself. I wonder how much the Russian Mob paid Short?
There was an apology by Nigel to Danailov freshly quoted in the Bulgarian sports paper just now. It seems that Short was “used” in this case. Supposedly he protested with Chessbase about that.
I will translate when have a little bit of time.
What has become of Chessbase — so sad. The use of the word “sinister” directly implies some new material evidence of great gravity!!
D.
Short should call for an investigation quietly. If the complaint is reasonable, but gets whitewashed, only then should he even think about a public call.
Although Danailov’s behavior was suspicious, it’s unlikely that any solid proof will be found unless they actually find a code sheet in his handwriting, explaining that one finger up the nose means move the King, two means move the Queen, et cetera. There’s no point running Topalov through the mud over a charge that almost certainly will be dismissed for lack of conclusive proof.
All we can do is tighten up security for future events. Players should not be allowed to see their managers or audience during the game in the first place. While we’re on the subject, unattended restrooms are also going to have to go bye-bye. We’re talking about Topalov, but it’s hardly limited to him. Absolutely anyone could receive signals from a manager or outsider.
The Baguio Match was 20 years ahead of its time. Remember the Great Yogurt Controversy? “Violet yogurt could mean ‘We instruct you to refuse a draw’. A dish of marinated quail’s eggs could mean ‘Play Ng5 at once’.” It was originally intended as a joke protest, but they took it seriously. Now, in the days of laptops and Pocket Fritz, when absolutely anyone could have information that a super-GM would find useful, it’s no joke. This is no longer the 20th century; players cannot be allowed contact with outsiders.
Now, all this being said, Topalov has no right to complain that Short is playing the game according to Topalov’s own rules. There’s a funny article on Topalov’s site, how unfair it is that people are accusing him, while re-affirming that all his own accusations are documented fact, but you have to buy his book to find out how right they are.
Short is playing Topalov’s game, namely, if one has even so much as a suspicion, just sing it out loud and clear for the whole world to hear. Short’s actually done a bit better by not phrasing it in the form of a direct accusation, but that doesn’t help much. The point is that Topalov’s game is not a good one. Not good for Topalov, and not good for Short either. All that that game does is make potential sponsors want to take their money somewhere other than chess.
Англичанинът отрече да е обвинявал българския щаб в измама
Британският гросмайстор Найджъл Шорт изпрати извинително писмо до мениджъра на Веселин Топалов Силвио Данаилов, в което категорично се разграничава от обвиненията към българския щаб, съобщи за Топспорт.бг говорителят на бившия световен шампион Живко Гинчев.
Както е известно, вчера лондонският “Гардиън” разпространи информацията, че Шорт е призовал Международната федерация по шахмат ФИДЕ да проведе собствено разследване по обвиненията в измама, отправени от срещу водача в световната ранглиста Веселин Топалов.
Ето и пълния текст на писмото на британския гросмайстор до Силвио Данаилов:
Скъпи Силвио, благодаря Ви за и-мейла. Цитатите, които ми пратихте от оригиналния текст на „ДНА”, са абсолютно точни. Аз не се чувствам отговорен за коментара и интерпретацията на тези изявления във вестника, които са били направени от журналиста Виджай Тагор.
Ако проверите оригиналния текст, ще видите, че НЕ СЪМ казвал, че „съм наблюдавал нещо съмнително в Сан Луис”. Това е интерпретация на г-н Тагор на моите коментари, че съм бил озадачен колко близо седите до Веселин Топалов.
Не съм казвал, че Вие си му сигнализирал или че лично съм наблюдавал нещо нередно. Моите коментари съвсем не бяха предназначени да отбележат такова нещо. Ако Вие сте искал да сигнализирате, това би било забележително лесно, което съвсем не е като да кажеш, че си направил такова нещо.
Бих искал да добавя, че се обадих по телефона на Фредерик Фридел снощи, за да изразя несъгласието си за неправилната интерпретация на ситуацията „прекалено близо в Сан Луис”. Кавичките на моето „изказване” бяха премахнати от репортажа веднага след телефоното ми обаждане.
Преди това се обадих на Chessbase, за да изразя несъгласието си с неправилното приписване на думите , „Възможно е Топалов да е мамил” на мен. Това беше челото на материала на “ДНА” и това не бяха мои думи.
С най-добри пожелания,
Найджъл
Susan’s Post: “Should a fellow GM OPENLY call out for a cheating investigation against another GM without any personal proof or direct knowledge of the situation or should this be done through proper and official channels?”
Great question which most of the bloggers didn’t read very carefully or didn’t care to think about. Alternative to damaging public accusations and dirt throwing would be a PRIVATE request lodged with FIDE, which could be evaluated and then perhaps an investigation launched. If there is no probable cause found for an investigation after a preliminary review of evidence then the accuser would hopefully carefully consider whether to go public. Do people really believe media wars help the investigative or adjudication process?
BTW, I favor vigorous investigations if there are reasonable grounds for suspicion based on evidence presented.
How to make use of computer assessments:
1) If the position is unclear but the machine says you are much better, you will study the position longer.
2) If the position is unclear but the machine says you are much worse, you will look for safety.
3) Your opponent thinks the position is unclear but you know he is losing, you have the advantage of having your opponent play some flexible move when he should be looking for safety.
4) If you think the position is winning but the machine says you are losing, you are alerted and might still have time to reverse fortunes before your opponent realizes you are losing.
And so on.
It is not ludicrous. Assessment info is valuable.
wolverine,
That is just the problem: a cheating allegation against a famous player can never be kept secret.
Consider the arbiters, the organizers, and the Appeals Committee. How can an allegation proceed quietly when the persons involved may have affliations with either Kramnik or Topalov?
Nigel Short is to chess what “John McEnroe” was to tennis. He shoots his mouth just whenever he wants to.
>>No comment needed on such a biased statement. The article was published after the game with svidler and just before/during the game with kramnik >>
The article may have been published after the game, but it made it clear that the suspicious behavior stopped after Round 3, after it had been reported. Read the details, don’t just guess at them.
During McEnroe’s time tennis ratings were through the roof!
>>Nigel Short is to chess what “John McEnroe” was to tennis. He shoots his mouth just whenever he wants to. >>
At least McEnroe was once the world’s best player.
“The article may have been published after the game, but it made it clear that the suspicious behavior stopped after Round 3, after it had been reported. Read the details, don’t just guess at them.”
I don’t understand. Wasn’t the Svidler game against Topalov happened in round 11? Is your round 3 statement a typo?
Never mind. I know what you mean by round 3 now, my bad.
It may be unfortunate, but the question as asked by Susan is no longer relevant. What started as hints and rumors in San Luis developed into a war in Elista. Topalov’s team is the most extreme in its accusations and the stance they take. It’s too late to ask if this should go on – it already does. Fans will take the sides of the player they prefer, proof will be hard to come by, so for a while we can expect a barrage of unpleasant press releases.
Question is – what do we do next, how do we restore dignity to chess tournaments? FIDE needs to create procedures to guarantee cheating-free tournaments; it should also establish channels for complaints, so players do not wage their war through the media.
Chess players may be geniuses, but nobody ever claimed they were angels or even gentlemen. Karpov, Korchnoi, Fisher, Kasparov, many others – all these are flawed people (like everybody else), but chess greats. If one wants them to play, their tempers need to be tolerated. Image of chess will suffer much more if there are no such giants, than if these giants occasionally have fits of bad behavior.
I like Topalov, by I think his team is taking a wrong approach. They should not talk about suing and establishing their own version of FIDE, piling dirt on Ilumzhinov whom they liked until he ruled against them. They should join the effort to prevent cheating. A show of genuine concern for chess integrity would do much more for Topalov’s reputation.
Can one Anonymous poster explain to me if it is difficult to get a screen name?
It is just annoying when you cannot tell if these anonymous posters are unique or the same person.
byclops,
read again
“Should a fellow GM OPENLY call out for a cheating investigation against another GM without any personal proof or direct knowledge of the situation or should this be done through proper and official channels?
“,
and
look up the meaning of proper.
“You said…”
No I *say*.
There were no statements clearly expressing critique of Topalov and Danailovs repeated accusations on this blog.
Are you associated with this blog in some way ?
Susan,
obviously it would be better to go through “proper and official channels.” I am sure that everybody here will agree on that. The question that was asked a few times is – are there such channels? Can a player trust the FIDE to do the right thing? I don’t know the answer, I would be very grateful if you let us know what these channels are.
This comment has been removed by the author.
An article in Internet(www.netinfo.bg) quoted parts of a Nigel Shorts’ letter to S. Danailov,in which he apologizes himself to ihm and stated that his words are totaly false interpretated.
NO COMMENTS.
…then from 2700 to 2800 over the same period…
2700 wasnt the typical topalov rating thoughout his early career. It was probably the lowest point in his career. Mid 2700 was closer to typical.
Here is an example of Kramnik’s ratings:
JAN ’00 2758
JAN ’02 2811
He was not a junior at that time too.
byclops…
fully agree with you.
It is strange how people talk storie by heart even when you post the real evidences in numbers they continue to to make out wrong conclusions based on wrong data.
like the one below:
“Increasing from 2500 to 2650 or 2700 over 2 years is more realistic then from 2700 to 2800 over the same period.”
Topalov was 2700 in 2000 year and raised to 2800 in 2006. So figuratively – these are 6 years. Not to mention that 2700 is somewhat a rating fall which has not ben the typical average rating of topalov in the last 10 something years. Topalov circulated around 2750 and when Kasparov quit and topa became the FIDE champion his rating of course upgraded a bit. Not more dramatic and meteoric than Kramniks in the period 2000-2002 when his best period was.
>>Two toilet breaks maximum per game, and see Kramnik drop to 2650.
As ridiculous as the accusations against Topalov.>>
Hardly. Kramnik topped 2800 in the days before this was possible.
Besides, you’re way behind the game. Topalov admitted that the toilet was irrelevant. That doesn’t explain away his second defeat in the Rapids, so he made up this story about hidden devices at the board.
“Can a player trust the FIDE to do the right thing? I don’t know the answer, I would be very grateful if you let us know what these channels are. “
She won’t answer your question because she is a hypocrite.
Chess base is a brilliant example of what indeed is sinister in chess.
This was just published on their site.
“A few days ago Chessbase published a doubtful material from the DNA online edition, where presumably Mr. Nigel Short intensifies the cheating accusations against Veselin Topalov. However, today a letter from Nigel Short arrived, completely changing the picture.
It turned out that the material published in DNA and republished by Chessbase has multiple mistakes. Even Silvio Danailov himself was surprised by the way the article was written and directly contacted Mr. Nigel Short to clarify the situation. Mr. Short replied this morning and explained that even though many of the quotations are correct, the interpretation is ridiculous. He also contacted directly Chessbase to “complain about falsely attributing” information to him.
Here is the full text of the letter to Silvio Danailov kindly resent to the veselintopalov.net editing team by Zhivko Ginchev.
Dear Silvio,
Thank you for your e-mail. The statements attributed to me in quotation marks in the original DNA article in India are entirely accurate. However I am not responsible for the commentary and interpretation of those statements in that newspaper, which were done by the journalist, Vijay Tagore. If you check the original article you will see that I did NOT say that I observed “something sinister in San Luis”. This was Mr Tagore’s interpretation of my comment that I was struck by how close you were sitting to Veselin. I did not say that you signalled to him or that I personally observed anything untoward. My comment merely was intended to demonstrate that , had you wanted to signal, it would have been remarkably easy – which is very far from saying that you did such a thing. I might add that I telephoned Frederic Freidel last night to complain about falsely attributing the “something sinister in San Luis” quote to me. The quotation marks were removed in the chessbase report after that phone call. I had earlier telephoned Chessbase to complain about falsely attributing the “It is possible that Topalov cheated” remark to me on the German webpage. That was the heading of the DNA piece, and they were not my words.
Best regards,
Nigel
“and
look up the meaning of proper.”
Huh?? So probably the the word “proper” in that sentece gives away the fact that “These questions are asked specifically with reference to Shorts comments”, and because of that “The bias is obvious”?
I beg to differ.
I will repeat once again that this question is equally relevant to both cases of public alegations. But probably it is my poor English.
“There were no statements clearly expressing critique of Topalov and Danailovs repeated accusations on this blog.”
I would have to disagree on that one too. here’s a random quote I found by browsing in the archives for a few minutes:
“I agree that Vladimir was unfairly treated. I also believe that Mr. Danailov went too far with his tone and language. I understand that it is his job to protect and defend his client Topalov. But it could have been done in a more dignified manner. Too bad that such ugliness took place but what’s done is done and we cannot turn back time.
posted by SusanPolgar at 10/02/2006 10:54:00 AM
“
“Are you associated with this blog in some way ?”
No, I was simply provoked by your statement about the “obvious bias” of this particular blog entry, and tried to show that what you said was not based on the text itself.
I give up!
byclops said…
…then from 2700 to 2800 over the same period…
2700 wasnt the typical topalov rating thoughout his early career. It was probably the lowest point in his career. Mid 2700 was closer to typical.
Here is an example of Kramnik’s ratings:
JAN ’00 2758
JAN ’02 2811
He was not a junior at that time too.
byclops…
fully agree with you.
It is strange how people talk storie by heart even when you post the real evidences in numbers they continue to to make out wrong conclusions based on wrong data.
like the one below:
“Increasing from 2500 to 2650 or 2700 over 2 years is more realistic then from 2700 to 2800 over the same period.”
Topalov was 2700 in 2000 year and raised to 2800 in 2006. So figuratively – these are 6 years. Not to mention that 2700 is somewhat a rating fall which has not ben the typical average rating of topalov in the last 10 something years. Topalov circulated around 2750 and when Kasparov quit and topa became the FIDE champion his rating of course upgraded a bit. Not more dramatic and meteoric than Kramniks in the period 2000-2002 when his best period was.
Are you implying that this is evidence that Kramnik cheated during the 2000-2002 period? I guess he was going to the bathroom a lot then too, even before his diagnosis, if you believe all the other rhetoric. Anyway,
You apply what I said to Kramnik, which is some quality hypocrisy about misinterpreting/applying the data, considering Kramnik wasn’t part of what I was talking about. Nor was there a steady increase in Topalov’s rating over the period of 2000-2006.
Make sure read everything, you have your context straight and ask clarifying questions if needed before interjecting.
My point was that using Karjakin and Carsen as candidates for “suspicious rating increases” makes little sense.
The reality is this: If you can’t understand the difference in strength needed to move from 2500 to 2700 and from 2750 to 2813, especially when the key is to consider the opposition during such an increase, I don’t believe any argument presented here will help you.
Topalov ranged from 2730-2750 from 10/2001 till 7/2004 and then achived a near monotonic increase in rating while playing a fairly substantial number of games – almost exclusively versus the top 25 players in the world. That is a point of suspicion, for some. The data is the data, and I’d be careful about throwing stones regarding interpretation of it, because you might be living in a glass house.
There are many strong grandmasters who have pushed their rating up to the 2700ish level doing small invitational and big swisses worldwide. Once they start playing players in the top 10 regularly, their lack of results show the disparity in strength not captured in the ELO formula. Krasenkow, Tiviakov, Akopian, K. Georgiev, Bologan are some examples. You can even listen to the commentary about players like Ivanchuk from his peers who many feel has rarely exhibited his true capability and strength.
Basing any conclusions purely on that rating number is highly suspect and I wouldn’t recommend it. There are contextual data which can not be ignored when doing such an analysis.
In closing, I’m of the personal belief that it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that any player in the top 10, or even top 100, would ever consider using outside assistance. The ramifications of such an action would appear to far outweigh the benefits. Again, the circumstantial evidence is interesting, but hardly compelling. Without further evidence it is nothing more then that.
“I just read some of the comments. Please carefully read what I said before you start to attack me or other posters. I have never said that an investigation should not take place or we should let any player get a free pass. I asked should any player be allowed to make accusations openly or publicly or should this be done through proper and official channels.”
Does the same hold true for the Topalov camp?
Does “proper and official channels” include the same FIDE that is being slagged off so much here and elsewhere? (Indeed, is there any body / chess federation that meets your high standards?)
“I asked should any player be allowed to make accusations openly or publicly or should this be done through proper and official channels.”
Talk about a hypothetical question. The horse has already bolted and its too late to close the stable door now.
As for official channels, this combined with other posts susan has made about “zipping it up” seem more about trying to brush chess’ persistent problems under the carpet than trying to solve anything.
Its been pointed out here many times that the first step to address cheating is to provide playing environments which we can be confident of with screens, metal detectors and so forth. Do this and you deal with many of the accusations at source by denying them fertile ground.
The fact the Topalov had ample opportunity to cheat back in San Luis combined with the much more recent unethical behaviour of his manager in Elista is what has prompted people to start coming forward with long-harboured but unmentioned suspicions.
When you suspect a person and they continue to behave in a manner that makes you doubt them eventually you will come forward to say something. The fact that FIDE did nothing to improve playing conditions or investigate the rumours which have been going around for years is mainly why there is a such a problem now.
Are you advocating silence Susan, or merely inactivity, because the silence FIDE enjoyed up until now has just encouraged it to be lazy. And how many complaints were silently lodged and summarily ignored?
These problems belong out in the open now because those entrusted with their oversight have failed in their duties persisently. Now is the time to take action to improve the playing conditions of chess and clean up FIDEs act.
It is certainly not the time for trying to shut people up as if that will magically make the problems disappear.
I disagree that Susan is unbalanced.
The very nature of the question is unbalanced given the context.
“Should a fellow GM OPENLY call out for a cheating investigation against another GM without any personal proof or direct knowledge of the situation or should this be done through proper and official channels?”
Allow me to rephrase it in a less biased way.
What is your reaction to Nigel Shorts recent comments as published on chessbase regarding the possibility that Topalov may have cheated in San Luis.
One wonders if official protests were lodged at the time, or acted upon. I am seeking comment from FIDE on this matter.
I feel it is inappropriate and damaging for GMs to accuse each other outside the official channels, especially without concrete proof (she clearly does). What do you readers think.
__
The question as originally phrased might as well have been stated Nigel Short is a BAD MAN for mudslinging poor Topalov ALL OVER chessbase and BRINGING CHESS INTO DISREPUTE.
Do you see the subtle differences?
Anonymous X (the last one) — can’t you use some kind of a nic, this is getting so childish not to put some kind of a name, how can one address people…
Anyway, as far as the way it was phrased — I think you’re splitting hairs. Yes, it could have been phrased in 10 different ways, but I think you’re showing too much sensitivity. She probably had 30 seconds to write it down and didn’t have the time to smooth it off in order to please all vulnerable, anonymous whiners…
In reality, Nigel’s remarks in the sense they were reported by Chessbase were retracted. So, your last paragraph turns to be prophetically true.
Now, let me ask you in turn – what do you think of Chessbase’s integrity in this case?
You’ll disappear of course, that’s what anonymous whiners typically do…
D.
“he probably had 30 seconds to write it down and didn’t have the time to smooth it off in order to please all vulnerable, anonymous whiners…”
It would have taken 30 seconds to write the same question in an unbiased form too, and if someone is standing for a political position then they should be well aware of the naunces in statements they make, and the manner in which they can be interpretted.
Do you accuse anyone who disagree with you of being a whiner? Do you think my adding a name to my posts would make me any less anonymous? I dont know you any better because you sign on and off as dimi. I might well be gone in a week. Who can say.
“Now, let me ask you in turn – what do you think of Chessbase’s integrity in this case? “
It seems pretty clear that chessbase misrepresented Nigel Short a little. I took his statement to mean that some people suspected Topalov of cheating. No more or less.
My central views on this whole issue would probably surprise you.
I dont think it matters all that much whether Topalov OR Kramnik cheated. It will never be proven to anybodys complete satisfaction one way or the other. I priovately *believe* that kramnik didnt cheat, and that Topalov received non verbal cues in a couple of tourneys which perhaps boosted his results a little, but *I dont know or much care*.
Whats important going forward is providing secure environments for chessplayers to compete without outside interference. By the time allegations start to fly the damage is already done, and there is little sense in trying to censor opinions. It doesnt work. The most popular topics on this blog are on the kramnik/topalov saga.
But then those views are probably to neutral and sensible for the rabid Topalov cultists, or the Kramnik posse – because they deal with the core of the problem instead of trying to decide which of the two has the moral highground.
J (just to distinguish me from the other anonymous posters so you can hook my comments into context dimi 😀 )
J, I agree that some very simple steps can be taken to prevent these problems. Apart from the electronic device countermeasures, it is totally sensible to implement a simple policy that nobody from the player’s entourage should be anywhere near the playing area or in a plain view during the duration of the game. The same way as other sensible things like no private restrooms and 80 trips, etc. It’s not too much to ask.
What I see as an even bigger problem actually is the abuse of the cheating allegations. Clearly Topalov and Danailov went over board “after” Elista (not “during”, they had a strong point there, IMO). This latest episode from Chessbase is an abuse, plain and simple. When they speak of “sinister” evidence, that’s like screaming “Fire” in a crowded theater. That’s bad and it should be met by universal condemnation.
Best wishes,
D.
D, what you touch on in your attitude to chessbase also points to a fundamental problem which is that any fundamentalist viewpoint attracts its opposite.
I watched Elista, and I must say that when Topalov first filed his toilet complaint I completely saw his point. Why was kramnik away from the board so much? Cheating aside, sponsors and the audience want to see people play – even if all they do is stare at space. And perpetually leaving the arena whether its 50 times or 25, that invites suspicion. Rightly so.
The filing of the complaint was a valid response, but the way the complaint was acted on was a fiasco, from showing team Topalov videos to the forfeited match. And here is where I take issue with Susan. What faith should any of us have in these proper channels. They dont seem very proper or professional to me. They seem like a bunch of self interested idiots who could organise a piss up in a brewery.
If the official channels dont work, what remains but public ones?
My swings of opinion went from
1) Topalov had reason to complain
2) The appeals commitee acted like a bunch of idiots
3) The forfeit of kramniks game was a total disgrace
4) Topalovs subsequent behaviour such as the launching of a book compounds that disgrace.
Lets bear in mind that whatever friendships exist between Hensel and Chessbase, or even Nigel Short, the accusations levelled at Topalov are coming from several places and not just from Kramnik. They have arisen, I believe because there is no trust in the official and proper channels to properly deal with them, and precious little will to deal with them.
In any case its perfectly consistent to disapprove of Kramniks unsportsman like behaviour, and the manner in which the appeals commitee handled Topalovs complaint. I would choose to hold Topalov to account for what was done after Elista if I was on the FIDE ethics commitee. What happened during is more the fault of FIDE.
J.
Many Anonymous posters keep talking of providing secure environment that would prevent outside interference but they ignore other posts that remind them that Topalov and Kramnik were screened from the audience during the World Championship Match to prevent any external contact. Topalov still played the same enterprising style of chess and performed according to his rating expectation.
Chessbase alo reported that they kept and eye on Danailov and Cheparinov in round 6, 7, and 8 after the signing accusation was published but they were in the press room and were not spotted in the playing hall.
The anonymous posters should stop ignoring the evidence and pretend they really believe Topalov became an overnight sensation in San Luis.
J: If the official channels dont work, what remains but public ones?
Well, but then that’s becoming like an episode of American Idol. Or a new reality show: “Who is the cheater…” — everybody brings their favorite act — one makes monkey faces across the hall, the other ducks in and out of the restroom… The answer is by voting… This is not much different than the popular way they tried the witches… Not good, sorry.
Notice that this stuff came all in relationship to the World Chess Title. This so called title has created not one or two ugly episodes throughout history…
Hey, I am sure that they have watched those San Luis tapes already – please, don’t be naïve… They’ve watched them an year or more ago, I’m sure.
The actions of the Appeals Committee were totally logical – they locked the private restroom. What’s so bad about that?
What I see as the only way to go — every Tournament can set its own standards. It is up to the organizers to invite/uninvite people who they like and believe to bring value to the Tournament. If I was running a tournament and feel that someone is more trouble than value, I’d avoid them.
Otherwise J, it would be left to people like you or me to judge. And that may ruin someone’s career. It is so unfair to a player like Topalov, as well as Kramnik to be dragged through the mud. God forbid Fischer played today — if they inspected his chair in 72, now they’d tear him apart when the interests clash.
Chessbase screamed “Fire” in the theater – that’s abominable.
Need to rush, have a nice evening.
D.
Ah, YOU are behind the game. The idea was Kramnik went to the bog and took a spin through the position on a little fold-up pocket set.
If Danailov scratching his self can convey useful information, a look at variations can be a lot more useful.
“>>Two toilet breaks maximum per game, and see Kramnik drop to 2650.
As ridiculous as the accusations against Topalov.>>
Hardly. Kramnik topped 2800 in the days before this was possible.
Besides, you’re way behind the game. Topalov admitted that the toilet was irrelevant. That doesn’t explain away his second defeat in the Rapids, so he made up this story about hidden devices at the board. “
WHY NOBODY COMMENTS ON 100% proved KASPAROV cheating??
———————————–
Yesterday i quoted Topalov saying that during Linares tournament KASPAROV was going in his hotel room during the opening phase of the game !
(See my post here on Friday, February 02, 2007 5:42:00 AM )
Here are some questions for you .Can somebody answer please?
1) Why here there is no comments on KASPAROV’s CHEATING
And there is no comment in NEW IN CHESS magazine where Topalov accussed Kasparov 2 years ago?
Is Kasparov’s cheating forbidden to comment ?
2) For me it is psychologically fascinating that nobody COMMENTS on 100% proved cheating by KASPAROV and in the same time there are hundreds of comments on unproved Topalov’s or Kramnik’s cheating.
Obviously Short has something against Topalov.I don’t know what.
Topalov’s behaviour during the games is nothing more suspicious than Kramnik’s behaviour during recent Elista match.
What do you think would happen if Topalov had won the match (instead of Kramnik)?
Short would be probably throwing accusations towards Kramnik’s direction /camp.
Nigel ,be man and say in public what you really think:That both of these players cheat in one way or another!
I only support Topalov. I will never support Kramnik.
All attacks on Kramnik are good and justified.
No attacks on Topalov are fair.
Topalov is the Greatest.
Kramnik is a toilet man.
By the way, this is war. All is fair in love and war. If someone can cheat and get away with it then well and good. Just dont get caught. It is all part of the game. More power to Topalov.
D
Well, I do like Topalov indeed, because he stands for courage and also delivers a good product via his work ethic. Doesn’t run away from a challenge, win or lose. Doesn’t play anti-chess. I like that.
I decisively dislike anonymous scum impersonating me and I believe that also reflects on the character of the man they root for. Hide your name, hide in the toilet, wiggle out of rematches — it’s all the same pattern of behavior. Isn’t it?
D.
Anonymous,
Kasparov going to his hotel room during the opening is not 100% proof of cheating.
Kasparov was legendary for his opening preparation that I am inclined to dismiss that he needed to go to his room to check on his opening database.
The game had just started he problably went to his room for some other reasons. When you are at the top people try to get to you by any means as Topalov is now experiencing.
(from an IM , to polo mateo who said that Kasparov going to room during game is not 100% proof of cheating)
——————-
1) In the court of law it is not necessary to prove something beyond ANY doubt.
You need to prove it ”beyond REASONABLE doubt”.
2) Please understand the difference between ”beyond any doubt” ,and ”beyond reasonable doubt.
3)So, In Kasparov’s case if I would be a member of the jury i would conclude that his going in the hotel room during the game is enough evidence for cheating.So my verdict would be- GUILTY.
4) Btw. it is against the rules to go to your room during the tournament game.
Fide officials who admit to cheating are hardly credible as arbiters of cheating- like a(C) on ICC. Short has no problem with publicity but ” false accusations” are painful. Need a confidential mechanism for reporting concerns. But FIDE dont have that- so Short cuts loose. Meanwhile Susan’s treatment of accusations against Kram and Topa are non-symmetric.Lat1