To the FIDE WCC Appeals Committee
Official Appeal on the decision made by FIDE
On 2 October 2006 I received the following decision from FIDE:
“Tomorrow, 2 October 2006, at 15.00, the 6th Game of the World Chess Championship Match a Topalov-Kramnik with the score 3:2 in favour of Kramnik, will take place.”
Thereafter I protested against this decision confirming that you can subtract the sum of USD 5,000 from my prize money under the assumption that the appeal would be rejected as unreasonable. Your decision on this protest/appeal was as follows:
“We hereby acknowledge receipt of your official statement and protest, dated 2 October 2006, addressed to the FIDE President Kirsan Iljumshinov and to this Committee and resolved that it is not an appeal. In this connection, the appeal fee will be not charged on you”.
Although the wordings of “protest” and “appeal” are of similar meaning (the word protest is by the way mentioned in 3.17.1) I once again and for the avoidance of any doubts make herewith an appeal addressed to the WCC Appeals Committee.
Reasons for my protest/appeal:
1. I inform that I am ready to proceed playing the match by reserving all my rights. My further participation will be subject to the condition to clarify my rights regarding game 5 at later stage.
2. I do not agree with the decision made by FIDE and I formally protest against it.
The decisions made on my requests, especially
– the resignation of the Appeals Committee
– open the toilets to the restrooms again
are chrystal clear admissions of FIDE of having taken a false decision. Logically FIDE admits herewith that it was a mistake to start game 5 by violating the rules and regulations of the competition and by changing the agreed playing rules and conditions during the match without my approval.
3. I once again stress that I will proceed playing the match under protest.
Although I protested immediately after game 5 in the presence of the then WCC Appeals Committee Chairman Mr. Makropoulos (protocol has been made by the FIDE Office) I would also like to inform you that immedialtely after game 5 a protest has not been made because the Appeals Committee’s decision was final. In addition the President confirmed this decision. I got the strong advise to wait if a new Appeal’s Committee would be installed which has indeed the possibility to decide differently. Also, as a matter of goodwill, I was giving every possibility to nullify the Appeal’s Committee’s and Arbiters decision in order to declare the result 3:1 and to play game 5 over the board.
I once again confirm that you can subtract the sum of USD 5,000 from my prize money under the assumption that this appeal would be rejected as unreasonable.
Elista, 2 October 2006
Vladimir Kramnik
Classical World Chess Champion 
There ‘s no effect of protesting mr. Kramnik.It is useless and doesn’t matter if you are right or wrong.Forget about that point,time canont be reversed.
Better concentrate on your games than to visits to your toilet.
Otherwise,Topalov will anyhilate you in next 6 games,without need of that point.
Will see.
http://www.sport-express.ru/art.shtml?128422
Inside this link is an article that contains a letter from Morten Sand to Kirsan Ilyumzhinov. The translation was provided by someone on the chessgames site:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=12295
“Dear Mr. President, I highly recommend the following with respect to the Kramnik/Topalov match:
1) If it is possible, you should stick to the agreement that was signed by both players and continue the match.
2) If you cannot stick to the agreement, we risk a lawsuit. It is imperative that we make a correct legal decision. My opinion: Kramnik did not arrive for game 5 and the main arbiter correctly (legally) declared the forfeit. Kramnik did not file an appeal in a timely fashion. Thus game six should start with 3-2. If we change the result of game 5, we risk serious legal action by Topalov. But if we adhere to the agreement and if Kramnik takes us to court, we do not face a serious legal risk. I had a long conversation with our Swiss attorney, Jean-Mark Reymond and he holds the same opinion.”
If this letter is valid, then Kramnik’s legal recourse concerning his protest is limited.
Hmmm…I see that Kramnik is saying he did make the protest in a timely fashion.
gil e,
I have no idea wether his protest was on time or not.
But the point is : Kramnik’s mistake was not to play under the protest.
He lost the point in this way.
Now legally,he can hardly do anything to recover the status of game #5.
It’s still unclear perhaps whether the game 5 was started under the match conditions agreed upen by all parties concerned.
I think that’s the point of view from the Kramnik camp anyway.
I’m not sure either way, but I think Topalov made a major PR mistake by taking the free point. I’d much rather see a Topalov comeback from 1-3 than with the ghost of that forfeit hanging over his head, and if Kramnik wind the match giving the odds of a free point then that will be an unpleasant mark against Mr Topalov as well.
But maybe it’s all too late now anyway to change all of this.
Billy Jack