By GM ANDY SOLTIS
New York Post
October 15, 2006 — ‘WHAT’S this toilet scandal you have there?” Vladimir Putin asked Kirsan Ilyumzhinov.
The Russian president wondered why both players in the world championship match were threatening to walk out and sue the Ilyumzhinov’s world chess federation (FIDE) if their demands weren’t met.
Ilyumzhinov rushed home from Putin and to meet Vladimir Kramnik and Veselin Topalov late on Sept. 29, the day Kramnik forfeited the fifth game because he had to share a bathroom with Topalov.
He was getting advice from around the world, including from Bessel Kok, who tried to unseat him as FIDE president in May. The advice: Give Kramnik everything he wants.
But this would have prompted Topalov to walk out on the match.
Instead, Ilyumzhinov said, he checked with FIDE’s legal experts who said the law was on Topalov’s side. If the forfeit were overturned, Topalov could sue and win.
Iluymzhinov worked on a compromise, tossing out ideas such as lengthening the match. Eventually, he got both men to continue.
The rest of the article can be read here. 
I am a huge fan of analogies. But Andrew Soltis’ article lost me once he started talking about bridge and preemption.
TOBALOV GOT SUCH A BAD DEAL
FROM KIRSAM HE HAD NO CHANCE
WHILE THESE GUYS ARE IN CHARGE OF CHESS……. CHESS WILL AWAYS SUFFER
WHAT HAS PUTIN GOT TO DO WITH THE FIDE AND THE WORLD TITLE??…
KRAMNIK WILL NEVER BE RECONISED AS A TRUE CHAMP
HAVING ALL THAT POWER AND
ASSISTANCE BEHIND HIM..
THIS CAN BE BEAT BY PLAYING GRAND SLAMS TOURNYS
THE ARTICLE SHOULD BE CALLED
HOW KIRSAM AND PUTIN MATCH FIXED A WORLD CHESS TITLE
Andy lost me once he wandered into Bridge.
Iljumshinov saved the match, ok, but only after he has putted it at risk himself as well, due to his false toilet decision.
So the correct title would be: How Iljumshinov endagered the match and then saved it.
Okay, if Kirsan endangered the match and then saved it, then that means the match did not go down the toilet. Someone call a plumber!
“Kramnik will never be recognized as a true champ.”
I disagree, hobby. Regardless of whether someone likes or dislikes either player, their remains a most stubborn fact:
Kramnik defeated Topalov, OTB, even when one factors in the forfeit point Topalov gained!
Pres. John Adams once said that “Facts can be the most stubborn things…” They can be and, in this case, the fact is that Kramnik won, Topalov lost, and the world title is now unified.
Both sides agreed to the contract. No one was “cheated.” It was an exciting match and, quite frankly, I think many of us miss that excitement.
“Good deal,” “bad deal,”…who cares. It’s over. Move on. Look toward the future and the big tournament in Mexico next year.
Politics has been a part of world championship matches in almost every single after WWII. During the height of the Cold War, Fisher and Spassky duked it out and it got the mutual attention of Washington and Moscow.
It happens. Yet, the better player won.
As is the case now. Kramnik just outplayed Topalov. Maybe they’ll meet again and things will be different.
Personally, I would like to see a Kramnik-Kamsky match. You know, “Russia vs the U.S.A.” That would be exciting.
Topalov has a bright future. He’s still one of the very best players on Earth. That’s something to be proud of.
One thing Topalov could do is, as GM Polgar states, “Lose with dignity.” His public image would be vastly improved if he would openly congradulate Kramnik, wish him the best (even if he doesn’t really mean it), and just play chess!
Just my opinion. Not that it matters.
Respectfully,
Tim Harris
lol @ hoddy
Re, the article.
I don’t think “chess’ most unpopular figure” is Kirsan anymore, but Topalov, or at least Danailov. What an unexpected a coup for the President.
I don’t understand the Bridge analogy at all. But whilst I agree Kirsan came out very well in all this eventually, I don’t think he single-handedly saved the match through his negotiation. I think it ended up that he had to pick a side in the debate over the forfeited point – Kramnik or Topalov? – and took a gamble and picked Topalov’s. It turned out the right choice from the perspective of match continuation, if not from that of principle and justice.
It is not hard to see, btw, who really saved the match. The 14th World Chess Champion, Kramnik, and no-one else.
Kramnik saved the match
Kirsan owes him his life
Maybe they got at Topolov Lose or else..and the whole match was a set up…I just don’t like what happened in that match…it has a bad smell about it …it sort of feels like two and two makes five..very political
look what happened to Spasky after he lost to the title..the USSR spent Millions on chess with chess schools..etc to hang on to that title and no Topalov was taking it way at any cost not while they had their guys in running it and the FIDE is their guys
If he was playing to lose he hid it extraordinarily well.
I agree with Tim Harris here. One should move on, there is a champion now, it is a matter of standard politeness from Topalov to say “I tried hard but missed my chances, Kramnik was the better player this time, I hope we will play again etc”
Just wanted to add that Kramnik did help to save the match but he did it not only for 100% purely idealistic reasons – he just felt he could win even with the forfeit. Of course it does not diminish what he did, but I dont think he would continue to play if he felt that he could not win.
Well I always said the law was on Topalov’s side.
I don’t get it. Appeals Committee member Makropoulos claimed the (dumb) idea to lock Kramnik’s bathroom came from Kirsan. So how does Soltis not mention that?
Not a well written article by Andy.
Even if I agree that Kirsan is the closest thing to a dictator in chess, people forget that in a sport with so little money as chess he is the ONLY one (Rentero was the other one but his contributions are dwarfed by the first) who has injected tens of millions (dare I say more than a hundred million?) of dollars of his OWN pocket into chess (and certainly much more of his government pocket, just look at the 50 million chess complex he just built). How YOU would feel if after giving so much to chess (remember, of your OWN money) chess players and fans insulted you?. Wouldn’t you be really offended and abandon those ungrateful Sob’s immediately?. Well, he has sticked to chess for decades instead. Do you think he is making money this way? He is losing it by the truckload (just notice how every big sponsor ends up running away from chess and MANY actually go broke! –Braingames, 3DX technologies, etc–). Many people think that without Kirsan chess would be a money paradise full of sponsors, chances are that without him chess would be a pauper (how about tens of thousands of dollars for a World championship match?). GM’s in particular are a nasty bunch of primadonas who first love you and a second later hate you and spit on you. As a group, the elite super GM’s are the worst of all. They are backstabbers, fickle, crybabies, hate each other with a passion, etc. VERY few of them are faithful to the people who help them (just look how easily they change their support, Kasparov himself first loved Kirsan, then hated him, then loved him, etc.). Even apparently lovable GM’s like Korchnoi are incredibly nasty sometimes (even to their fans!). Susan and Tal are 2 of the few really nice GM’s that I can think of right now (Nigel Short is one of the nastiest by the way). The problem here is that intellectuals for all their intelligence are notoriously bad human beings (in almost all areas); less intelligent people tend to get along and do things together much more easily than intellectuals (in general). I much rather have a nice, honest friend than a clever dishonest one (and I consider myself an intellectual!). I have seen this kind of schism over and over again in many intellectual fields (and artistic ones too). Kirsan was elected (at least in this last election) democratically, why didn’t all these GM’s speak during the election and joined forces with the opposition?. Because they were just waiting to see were the winds would go, this is why. Cowardice never goes unpunished. Every sport has the government it deserves.
“THE ARTICLE SHOULD BE CALLED
HOW KIRSAM AND PUTIN MATCH FIXED A WORLD CHESS TITLE “
LOL. Topalov gets a free point, but it’s still unfair to him. FIDE was unfair to their own champion. Some people just don’t think before posting.
I don’t beleive what Soltis said for a minute. Kirsan was delighted to stick ti to Kramnik. He even said he fully supports the appeals committee right after they forfeited him and restricted access to the bathroom. Obviously someone then put pressure on Kirsan to be more reasonable. It was only that pressure that forced Kirsan to yield and at the very least keep the future games going accordign to the contract. He still gave Topalov the point though. Kirsan was not interested in this match going. He ahd to do it ot get support form Russia. He woudl have been delighted to see it either go away or have Topalov win.
Hello All,
One interesting method that Topalov could do to say that he’s really “better” than Kramnik (other than waiting to play him again and, possibly, regaining the title) is to play against a stronger chess program (such as Rybka or Shredder) than Kramnik (i.e. Kramnik is playing Fritz).
Of course, I don’t think any human could beat Rybka or Shredder in a match. Yet, I guess it’s theoretically possible.
Now that would be exciting!
Topalov, I don’t think, would do such a thing.
A rather poorly written article I must say.
Besides “…Iluymzhinov worked on a compromise, tossing out ideas such as lengthening the match. Eventually, he got both men to continue.” there is little in the article that says what Kirsan actually did. How did he get both men to continue? For All I know they reached an agreement DESPITE Kirsan’s involvement. I am not trying to bash Kirsan here. But if Soltis wants to claim that Kirsan was some kind of hero that single-handedly saved the unified WCC he has to have some meat in the article to support this.
The second half of the article makes no sense to anyone unless you are a contract bridge player. I had no idea what relevance this had to anything. It was kinda like trying to explain the intracacies of the Alekhine’s defense to your non-chess playing friend.
“Iluymzhinov worked on a compromise, tossing out ideas such as lengthening the match.”
My understanding of this mess is that Kirsan took the offer of the Topalov camp and told it to Kramnik, who then rejected it.
I have to admit that Kirsan has spent quite a lot of money on FIDE (even though I disagree with a lot of things(e.g. FIDE KO tournaments)).
He should have flushed both players down the toilet instead. Why is it a must to have a World Championship organized?