As reported by ChessBase
Bessel Kok on the World Championship crisis
The Appeals Committee blundered in accepting a complaint which was nothing more than declaring a suspicion of possible fraud. This was simply wrong. The Committee should have rejected this complaint immediately, stating that no proof whatsoever had been supplied. Instead of this, they accepted the complaint of Topalov’s manager Silvio Danailov, they disclosed private video images from Kramnik’s rest room, and they changed the match conditions which had been agreed in advance by both Grandmasters and their delegations.
The arbiter subsequently started a game which should have never been played in the first place, because the playing conditions had been unilaterally modified. This was a second mistake, although Geurt Gijssen will probably defend his decision by stating that he based this on the verdict of the Appeals Committee.
So my conclusions are simple:
1. The Appeals Committee made a wrong judgment and its decision to modify the playing conditions must be declared null and void.
2. Game five was started under playing conditions that were not mutually agreed by both players (and in fact explicitly rejected by one of them), so the game should be considered null and void.
3. Game five should start tomorrow, Monday, October 2nd, and the match should continue under the same playing conditions as agreed before.
The Appeals Committee should be dismissed and replaced by a Committee agreed by both players.
4. In the absence of an agreed Committee, the FIDE President is responsible for the duties of the Committee.
6. Proceed as quickly as possible with the outsourcing of all top-level chess competitions to a separate company manage by professional organisers.
Get on with it! Enough damage has been done!!
Bessel Kok
————————
I am sorry but I have to disagree with Bessel on one of the issues. I agree that the match should take place ASAP for the best interest of chess. However, the match cannot continue as it was before and simply completely ignored what took place. A lot of wrong things took place, especially with the appeals committee. Many wrong decisions were made. However, Kramnik should not have signed a contract with this provision, especially if he does not trust FIDE:
3. 17. 1 “The written decision of the Appeals Committee arising from any dispute in respect of these regulations shall be final.”
3. 23. 1 “At any time in the course of the application of these regulations, any grounds that are not covered or any unforeseen event shall be referred to the Presidential Board or the President of FIDE, for final decision.”
I read no provision to appeal even if the appeals committee made a horrific blunder. Just as you go to a TV court show like Judge Judy or The People’s Court, it clearly stated that the judge’s decision is final. Final means final, no matter how unfair the decision is. If you are not willing to accept this then you should not go on the show.
That is why a satisfactory resolution to both sides has to be reached so the players can continue their match without any further excuses. A neutral person cannot simply say too bad, we will proceed with the old condition and ignore the two above points in the contract.
I do not agree with the idea of Topalov getting a free point. I also do not like the idea of telling Topalov to play or else. That is why discussions have to continue until a resolution is reached.
Topalov had the right to protest under the rules no matter how Danailov behaves. If the protest was unfounded, the appeals committee should have rejected it. If the protest was filed untimely, again the appeals committee should have rejected it. They did not. They made a huge mistake and they voluntarily resigned. That is appropriate.
Anyone can dislike Danailov and his tactics. I did not approve or support the tone and language of Danailov’s letter either. I made that clear. I would not have done it. However, it was the appeals committee that blundered the decision, not Topalov. There was no provision that states the players cannot file a protest. Taking sides will not help resolve this matter and it will only make things worse.
Bessel ran a very bitter battle against Kirsan Ilyumzhinov for the Presidency of FIDE just a few months ago and lost. Therefore, the suggestions by Bessel (right or wrong) can easily be construed as bias and politically motivated . I know Bessel for a long time and I have deep respect for him. But even my positive personaly feelings toward Bessel, I would still suggested to have a Chess Commissioner that is fair and balance and with no political history.
Please read what I write carefully before jumping into wild conclusions:
Bessel is my friend. He has known my family and I for a long time. I am not attacking Bessel. I merely pointed out a fact that he ran against Kirsan just a few months ago. Even if he is 100% right, people can still view it as politically motivated. I never said that this was my view.
I am also not advocating to award Topalov or Kramnik. All I am saying is both sides have to be happy with the final resolution so we can finish the match. What this could means is all previous conditions would be agreed to (again) with the exception that both teams can inspect the restroom before each round. It could also mean that there would be no change with the exception of the appeals committee. I do not care what they agree to as long as BOTH sides are happy and the match can continue without any more interruption or excuses.
What I do not want to see is more protests from Topalov after another loss or new protest from Kramnik after a win or two by Topalov. I want to see good fighting chess without additional excuses. I also do not want to see this match ends in lengthy legal battles.
I know everyone involved personally and for a long time. That is why I wanted all parties to agree to a sound and logical resolution without the charged emotion. Only cool heads will prevail. Emotional rhetoric will only increase the chance of this match ending right now.
SUSAN YOU ARE WRONG!!!
You continue to ignore the fact that Topalov’s complaint was not handled according to the rules.
Recently you had an issue of your own when the US championship dates were changed.
Why can’t you support someone else who insists that RULES SHOULD BE UPHELD.
In my opinion Kok is simply correct and unbiased. He is concerned about the integrity of professional chess. THAT is why he made the sacrifice to run for FIDE president against entrenched politicians.
Not Really Anonymous
Frank McFadden
DC, USA
Agreed, Frank.
~kt
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
However unsavory the conduct of Topalov’s team has been, the only player who has violated the rules is Kramnik, who failed to appear for game 5–a game he should have played under protest. GM Susan Polgar is right, there is blame on each side, but only one side actually violated the rules!
Susan,
While I agree that a Chess Commissioner would be the best long-term solution (who would your suggestion be, btw? I can’t think of any obvious people who have not been involved with either FIDE or the rival set-up in the last decade), the fact is that we don’t have one now and solutions for *this* match need to be sought.
I think most chess fans agree that, at the very least, it would not be sporting of Topalov to accept the Game 5 forfeit. But given that he would not want to return the point just like that, what would the solution be?
Candidates:
1. Match picks up at Game 5 and 3-1 to Kramnik. Topalov is obviously not going to agree to this unless FIDE forces him to accept it. For instance, FIDE could offer him automatic entry into the Championship Tournament next year (carrot) and/or threaten to strip him of his title if he doesn’t comply (stick).
2. Match picks up at Game 6 and 3-2. I cannot see how Kramnik will simply not walk away at this point. In most chess fans’s eyes, he will continue to remain the legitimate world champion and the schism continues.
3. Match picks up at Game 6 and 3.5-1.5. This might be a decent compromise solution and Kramnik might accept it, but would Topalov?
Please post some proposed solutions of your own that can be implemented short term.
Kensy
The Appeal Commitee blundered urgelly for who?
All that what initiated by whom?
BY topalov’s manager and FOR topalov.
Hidding these facts doesn’t deserve topalov, nor his progessional carrier for the whole chess world!
All in all,it’s not 1972!
Crybaby fischer wanted to breach the rules then!The forfeit is legitimated!
Now, Kramnik only wants that the rules will be upheld by all.not less not more! and they are talking about what for two days?
All the rest is a nonsense, more games 14? 16?, more what after?24? 36 000 till topalov has more points than kramnik?
I’m don’t see anything neutral in that all.
Susan,
If anybody’s comments seem to now be politically motivated it is yours. All Kok is trying to say is that the appeals committee messed up so anything relating to their wrong decision should be null and void (bathrooms and forfeit), and that things should continue as they were in games 1-4. If Topalov still has a problem, he can now follow the guidelines that were set forth and refile the protest correctly, if Kramnik still exhibits suspicious behavior.
Kirsan is working with Bessel on an agreement that will allow Bessel to chair a professional chess company that will run top-class events. Bessel did not write an open letter, like others, he does not have a Blog where everyone can write their opinions. He just simply answered a question that was asked – short and sweet. Don’t attack him for that!
Charles
From an earlier post:
Susan
You often mention that chess should have a commissioner and bring up the point that other sports have one. These other sports also have rules that if you behave in a certain fashion you can be kicked out of the game, suspended and/or be assessed a fine. When this happens nobody goes around saying that baseball, football or whatever other sport has been given a black eye. We need to stop wearing kid gloves. We need to put a little discipline in professional chess and require that players behave in a professional matter; otherwise, things like the recent current events will continue to happen. We should not drop/change our standards just to see a championship match. My solution: cancel the match, remove the prize money and assess a fine to both players. One possible reason that professional chess has a hard time getting sponsorship is that the players have too much control!
Charles
Charles, Bessel is my friend. I have known him for a long time. I am not attacking him. I merely pointed out a fact that he ran against Kirsan. Even if he is 100% right, people can still view it as politically motivated. I never said that this was my feelings.
I am also not advocating to award Topalov or Kramnik. All I am saying is both sides have to be happy with the final resolution so we can finish the match.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.SusanPolgar.com
If you start a game outside the rules, you should not be surprised if the outcome (0-1 for Topalov) will be changed outside of the rules.
Why do you want to punish someone according to rules you beforehand declared null and void by acting contrary to them?
Kok is right:
If it was wrong to change the beforehand agreed on conditions (it obviously was wrong, since the decision was reversed), then it was wrong to start the game. And if it was wrong to start the game, then it was wrong to finish the game. And if it was wrong to finish the game, then it was wrong to score the game.
So just reverse what was wrong and make it right: no decision, no game, no score.
Susan, I agree with you completely that Topalov has behaved poorly and that Kramnik acted completely inappropriately by refusing to play the game.
Just as you wrote, in any sensible situation (Judge Judy, a baseball game), you have to respect the ruling made. If you disagree, you file the proper appeal or you ask the referees to reconsider, but you do not unilaterally refuse to play.
Therefore, even if the appeal group mishandled Topalov’s appeal and even if the appeal gropu should not have shut the bathroom, Kramnik was completely in the wrong for refusing to play.
This opens the door for Topalov or any other player in the future refusing to play because in their own mind, they feel the tournament director made a wrong decision.
From a business standpoint, allowing a player to halt the match based on his own reading of what should be happening is disasterous for corporate sponsorship. Thank goodness the networks are not showing the match live, because they would kill Kramnik at this point for all the dead time they’d have to cover, and all the angry advertisers.
In fact, if this were televised, they’d probably have gotten replacement players (as in the baseball strike) just to fill the airtime. So much for the future of chess.
No more need to argue with Susan Polgar anymore. She isn’t obviously listening and has totally lost her moral compass. Her posts have become self-serving and disgraceful. She is being a total idiot now and should be ignored.
She hasn’t been doing anything but harm with her biased and lunatic commentary.
THE RUSSIANS ARE THE PROBLEM WITH THIS MESS……SINCE THE DAYZ OF BOTVINIK THE KINGDOM OF CHESS HAS SUFFERETH VOILENCE , AND ONLY THE VOILENT TAKE IT BY FORCE
“…the representatives of Topalov’s team made a thorough inspection of the room allocated to Mr. Kramnik… remained satisfied with the inspection”. Clowns apprentices!
So what are you suggesting we do Susan? Dither some more?
Susan,
thanks for the opportunity to share our views!
As the TV court show has been mentioned in the blog, I would like to point out that the judge has to apply what is written in the abstract law codes to the concrete issues advanced in front of the court: the point is that the FIDE Committee did not take in consideration the law (the “contract”) when deciding about the Kramnik issue. It’s like a judge
says there’s a conviction for a crime that never was proved in front of the court: when the error is so evident in the real life there is not only the resignation (or punishement) of the judge, but also a political act that relieves the unfairly convicted person, and that is what the head of FIDE is trying to do, even if he probably agreed with the Committee decisions (whose members are friends of him). I am not sure if Danailov will accept to start from 3:1, but for sure the psychological unsettlement caused to Topalov’s opponent by the combined action of Danailov and FIDE should be an adeguate compensation for his purposes.
Let the players work things out among themselves and hopefully game 5 will start tomorrow.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.SusanPolgar.com
3. 17. 1 “The written decision of the Appeals Committee arising from any dispute in respect of these regulations shall be final.
Since the appeals commitee has since resigned, their illegal action speaks for itself, not having been taken in respect to the regulations. Since clearly FIDE is corrupt, Kramnik was correct in not playing game five, under conditions not previously agreed to.
Also, it is clear that Topalov has lost this match in the first two games. If the match should not continue, Kramnik has still achieved what he set out to do- prove he is the Champion!
Doug from Seattle, WA
Kensy, relating your compromise suggestion
——————-
3. Match picks up at Game 6 and 3.5-1.5. This might be a decent compromise solution and Kramnik might accept it, but would Topalov?
——————-
what might possibly work it for Topalov would be to give the option that if Topalov is down by a point at the end, he can call for Game 5 to be replayed. As I proposed in the comments to yesterday’s Ilyumzhinov thread.
The downside is that such an arrangement would be “artificial” and unprecedented in chess organizational practice. It would be a “TN”—but maybe that’s better than TNT?
The issue on which “reasonable people can disagree” is whether Kramnik’s actions were totally proper. Ironically the “appeals committee decision final” clause in the signed contract both opposes his decision to forfeit *and* appears to preclude the only reasonable alternative, which is “playing under protest”.
The lack this actually exposes is that chess does not have a fallback authority, as even the Olympics do (besides standing international committees apart from the match judges, even the Court of Arbitration for Sport!). Susan’s call for a Commissioner of Chess speaks to this lack. That roils the question of whether “playing under protest” was even morally available—but I say morally yes and hence agree with Susan’s criticism of the decision to forfeit. Kok and Nunn and Yasser with more actual experience (certainly than me—all I did was sit 5 straight hrs. against Shamkovich and not even hear the acrimony of Browne’s forfeit from the 1978 US Championship:-!) uphold Kramnik’s action in-toto. It’s the point on which people can disagree—and may both govern any possible compromise and guide the evolution of (re-)unified chess authority…
From what I have read the bathroom issue has been resolved to both sides satisfaction. Both sides, Kramnik and Topalov want the match to continue. The only thing left to resolve since the committee which made a wrong decision to Topalov’s complaint issued illeglly has resigned is to resolve the match score 3-1 or 3-2 and which game is next, 5 or 6. I agree with GM Yasser Seirawan, GM Nunn and Bessol Kok, it should be game 5 and let the games begin again. I hope Bessel accepts Kirsan’s offer to run the proffesional chess major events to avoid these kind of problems in the future. To me it is not about is Susan right or wrong but what is best for chess now and in the future. We need a unified Champion to undue the damage began by Kasparov in 1993. We need to have at a mininum a tournament to decide challenger to World Champion every two years. This should be a match as we all see when the two best players in the world meet this is the most exciting chess event possible. I prefer the match system instituted due to Fischer’s pointing out the collusion and cheating possible under the tournament only choosing a challenger system but I’ll live with a tournament system for now as long as we do not have the possiblity of players from one country playing as a group to ensure their player wins tournament as occured from 1948 until match system took over. Let chess be honourable and have integrity so we can attract corporate sponsorship to matches adn tournaments again or else we will all lose in the endgame.
Though Topalov’s protest was wrong, Kramnik mishandled the situation, also. The contract is very clear that the Committee’s decision is final and binding, it doesn’t give clauses about whether or not Kramnik likes the decision.
Everyone is making a big deal about the decision, and i agree it was not the best decision, maybe even a poor decision, but i doubt it was made to benefit Topalov but to simply get things going peacefully and without incident. Maybe they thought the toilet wasn’t a big deal to Kramnik and so forth and couldn’t imagine Kramnik sticking to his toilet.
Well, i’m sure Kramnik could’ve done something more official than refuse to play and sit in front of his toilet.
But he didn’t, and was forfeited.
Since Toppy is not going to give in, not as long as Danailov is deciding things for him, the fact is that he has the point officially and according to rules. Kramnik could accept this, show that he is not demoralized by the events and continue to play.
This is why i urged a compromise earlier in another thread, and somenoe said a compromise could not be accepted.
The Committee has noresigned, not in my view because they made an illegal decision, but to ensure that things could go smoothly and to show that they made a mistake and understand that.
So, i think there are merits to both points of view, keeping the score 3-2 or going back to 3-1. i think a good compromise would be to add games to the match and Toppy keeping the point.
If this match falls on that one point, neither player is worth his salt. i’m not a fan of either one, but i like Kramnik’s playing style over Toppy’s, so have been hoping for his victory.
I like the discussion about when someone can break the rules in response to what he feels is an improper ruling by the judge (or referee or president).
If a judge makes a wrong decision, the decision should be overturned and that situation reversed. But nothing excuses outrageous actions by the wronged side in response to the wrong decision. Kramnik should be punished for his inexcusable refusal to play game 5.
The analogy is let’s say a judge wrongly finds someone guilty and that person vandalizes the courtroom in anger. On appeal, the conviction should be overturned but the guy is still punished for vandalism. Same deal here — if the TD was wrong, open the bathrooms, but there is no excuse for not showing up to play game 5.
If you think Kramnik’s refusal to play game 5 must be excused (even though it wouldn’t be in court), then what else would be justified? Kramnik could’ve vandalized the playing hall? Burned down the set? Punched the TD?
And if Kramnik is allowed to refuse to play, when is Topalov allowed to refuse to play — every single time he thinks the TD made a mistake?
I think if we present this to a kindergarden teacher, the teacher would say it’s understandable that Kramnik was upset, but refusing to play was just inexcusable.
You wrote “If the protest was unfounded, the appeals committee should have rejected it.”. Occam’s razor, no need to complicate this–they should have rejected it PERIOD.
Yes, Topalov had a right to complain, but he agreed to the rules pre-match, and his team is bound to those rules — the complaint must be made within the two hour window. It was not thus it should have been rejected out-of-hand. Everything that occured after this is moot.
Let the match continue now as it should have had the appeals committe acted within the agreed parameters, the score is 3-1 Kramnik, game 5 is next. Let the players play chess, PERIOD. No more speculation, no more excuses. Topalov is a great player, if he is going to come back and win this match he has work to do –let’s hope both sides concentrate on the chess games rather than the head games and excuses.
By the way, the entire world LOVES Susan 🙂
Billy-Jack
1. There is no reason to be disrespectful of Susan, calling her an idiot, etc. She is providing this forum. I disagree with her, but I respect her deeply and respect her opinion. She has dealt with FIDE herself and is a champion herself, and she has been classy throughout her career. She deserves more respect than she is getting.
2. That being said, I do disagree with her. Topolov was NOT going by the rules when he filed his protest, as Kramnik correctly pointed out. He was supposed to file a complaint within two hours of a game, and filed it illegally on the off day. To say that Kramnik agreed to abide by the appeals decision is not quite accurate because the appeals committee broke their own rules in making their appeal. I’m sorry, outside of the apology which should be thrown out, I just cannot disagree with Kramnik in this case. One thing we can agree on is that they can work this out and continue the match, and it looks like they are part way there.