Spanish Super Grandmaster Miguel Illescas was Kramnik’s second in Elista while the other Spanish Super Grandmaster Francisco Vallejo Pons served as Topalov’ second. Here are their contrasting views of the match:
Illescas doesn’t have any doubts about the toilet controversy that made Kramnik lose a game by forfeit. “Vladimir has been faithful to his principles. He has performed honestly and ethically. The conditions of the game were changed from the night to the morning, which is clearly insulting. If he isn’t cheating, why did they shut down his bathroom? The correct decision would have been to postpone the game”.
Vallejo considers that “the complaint was serious”, but in any case “Kramnik should have played the fifth game. Saying that he had been insulted doesn’t work. How many times are other sports players insulted? If Danailov’s complaint was mistaken, then the ethics commission, the courts of justice or whoever must take action. But if the Committee was unfair he should have said that before, not when they decide against him.”
You can read the full article on chessbase.
Kramnik was a whiny baby. He deserved his forfeit. He has no principle whatsoever. He only cares about himself.
Kramnik will chicken out on Mexico City. 1 real match in 6 years doesn’t equal to being a true champion. Leko match was a total fix. They have the same manager.
I have no respect for either player.
As I stated already, I am glad that the match was finished, I am glad somebody won and now we have a unified world champion. Kramnik deserved it, he defeated Kasparov, he defeated Leko (well, tied), he defeated Topalov. Having said that……….
Cheating became a theoretical possibility in chess, far more so than ever in the past. Miniature communication devices exist, computers capable of high level chess analysis exist. As long as it is a theoretical possibility, nobody should get INSULTED by the suspicion of cheating. It is just as silly, if somebody would get insulted boarding an airplane and having his luggage x-rayed. ON top of it Kramnik did display an unusual pattern of behavior. So, whether he cheated or not, it was unreasonable to become insulted. He is an intelligent person, he knows very well that yes, it is possible. He is an intelligent person, he knows that it is not unreasonable to become suspicious him going to the bathroom 18 times during a single chess game.
If I was in his place,I would have offered to be searched for any electronic device, check the bathroom before the game, after the game and then leave me alone.
What would have been the big deal?
Gabor
Kramnik pretended to be insulted to hide the real truth inside the toilet. Shame on Kramnik!
Maybe not the best excerpt choice Susan. These excerpts are the only negative section of those interviews.
More interesting was the nicely detailed comments made by the seconds about opening preparation style and goals. There was a clear difference between the styles of the two players.
Paco Vallejo:
“Topalov tried a very simple tactic: he changed openings a bit at the beginning and only afterwards he decided where to cause damage”.
Miguel Illescas:
“Kramnik has his own ideas and his problem is the lack of time to verify if they are correct or not. He shows you the idea and asks you to make it work”.
Gene Milener
http://CastleLong.com/
Basically Vallejo said that Topalov team did a better job in the openings while Illeskas said that Kramnik was more solid and Topalov sometimes bluffed with opening novelties.
Kramnik lost his first game ever playing white in a title match so after all Topalov team did a good job in the opening preparation.
When will these children shut up?
Vallejo is right, Kramnik should have played under protest. He ended up playing under protest anyway, so what’s the difference?
But whether he did or he didn’t, Topalov still disgraced the game and needs to be suspended. FIDE rules provide for suspensions from rated play of up to 3 years for players who make unjustified public accusations against organizers or other players. Topalov deserves at least 6 months to a year on the sidelines for this.
It may be neither loyalty or beliefs – it’s doing their jobs. I am sure they are not free to diss their bosses.
People, leave Kramnik alone. He won, that’s that. Even with the forfeit, he still won. There is no point pouring dirt on him at any opportunity. He probably doesn’t care, and he still remains a champion recognized by the FIDE and by Topalov himself.
Kramnik has lost to Shirov and should not have played with Kasparov but Shirov should. Kramnik has had money Shirov had not. That way Kramnik got the title.
Here is a link to the recollections of Alex Onischuk as a Topalov second. Interesting and well written article
http://beta.uschess.org/frontend/news_7_168.php