Mark Crowther of TWIC:
Obviously the cheating allegations are deeply damaging to chess, a point that I don’t think has quite sunk in with the players.
Much of that which has been published is little more than tittle-tattle and personal opinion however. If film exists it needs to be out there.
No-one has satisfactorily explained to me why, if its so obvious that Danailov is signalling to Topalov over at least two and a half years why no action has been taken.
On the one hand people say “he’s definitely cheating you know”, on the other hand they go a bit quiet when I ask “what did you do?” Did you send your second out there to follow him and complain when he did something or even just stand next to him and make it obvious you were monitoring? or maybe your girlfriend with a digital camera? or maybe you saw the signalling and immediately brought it to the attention of the arbiter.
None of these things happened as far as I’m aware and this is the most troubling part of the allegations…
Source: ChessNinja.com
>>Obviously the cheating allegations are deeply damaging to chess, a point that I don’t think has quite sunk in with the players.>>
Which players? Topalov, of course. Who else? Short? Kasim?
>>No-one has satisfactorily explained to me why, if its so obvious that Danailov is signalling to Topalov over at least two and a half years why no action has been taken.>>
Well, let’s put it this way. It IS perfectly clear that the potential is there. That we have almost no safeguards put in to prevent such a thing, and yet nothing has been done about it. In addition, as damaging to the game as we both admit the malicious gossip is, nothing has been done about that either. In fact, FIDE pointedly announced that they wouldn’t even consider sanctioning Topalov for breaking the rule against public accusations against players or sponsors.
With all this being the case, I wouldn’t be surprised if examples of outright cheating were ignored too, assuming that any exist. Clear and Decisive Action has not exactly been the order of the day.
NO Action has been taken for several reasons.
1) Cost $500 for an official request to fide. Rediculous.
2) Fide is not going to do anything anyway.
3) It hurts the reputation of the person who complains beyond the $500.
4) Everyone expects someone else to do something.
5) How about Mark Crowther paying the $500 and seeing what a waste of money it is.
6) Fide demands final total proof. NO ONE has the final total proof. Fide is the one who should be responsible for making the investigation. Fide should be doing the videos not the players.
7) The corruption goes on forever in Fide.
A better question is, how does one go about investigating the allegations without turning it into 1) a farce, 2) a witch hunt, and 3) a media circus? Not to mention the destroyed careers of famous players who are found innocent, or even guilty for that matter (there will always be doubt or mitigating or justificating circumstances).
Another question: is it less damaging to hold the status quo, letting the rumours and accusations circulate, or to hold an inquiry? An inquiry will produce winners and losers or worse, no decision.
With 450 million people who can play chess only a tiny fraction need be hardcore to provide large economic impact on chess tourism. It is only a matter of time before Scholastic Programs such as Chess4America payoff. I don’t doubt other countries are on their way of converting some of the 450 mill into hardcore players. It’s obvious the stakes are high for Bulgaria and Russia and even for Chessbase. It’s also obvious, at least to me, that the political forces of all sides do not want to gamble on an inquiry, for the loser may face negative economic impact.
Furthermore, given what weak evidence we have so far I doubt an inquiry would reach a decision, but the political forces of all sides would be hard at work to make the other sides look bad while minimizing their own losses.
I say the status quo is less damaging than the inquiry. I say it is best to sweep this under the rug and have all parties come to an agreement, regardless of the truth of the allegations. I say, finding truth now will open old wounds. We all know but never openly admit that cheating has been with us as far back as the ’40s.
That said, I can’t resist a parting shot. Those supporters of the San Luis Campaign of Whisperers who blame Danailov for Toiletgate should look in the mirror and ask who started it all.
Simple Solution:
Why don’t they get the phone records of Danilov to find out who he was calling back at the hotel during the matches. If it was over 30 that is abnormal and they have him dead to rights!!!
The new rules in the match should be 4 bathroom visits and one telephone call, maybe two.
Reply to post @ 11:13 am
Getting phone records = huge legal hassle
30+ phone calls = not evidence
Danailov could be senting back moves to friends in areas where internet connection is poor or non-existent. In some parts of the US and large parts of Canada internet connection is either non-existent, satellite, or dial-up only. I don’t expect other parts of the world to be totally wired.
I just want to add that
0 phone calls = not evidence too.
He could have easily used another phone to make those calls.
So revealing of phone call records will probably not give us any meaningful information, no matter if it reveals 30 or 0 phone calls.
Nobody in their right mind will ask for an investigation based on their suspicions just after they lost. It is guaranteed to be perceived as sour grapes. It’s not the job of players to start inquiries, the arbiters should show some ability to eliminate all trace of suspicious behavior.
True, Topalov did complain, but he has Danailov to do the dirty work and to fend the media. He also has the money to file a complaint. I suspect that Kasimjanov would not have the means to complain even if he wanted to.
Arbiters need to be better trained in managing events. Security needs to be enhanced. And players should be left to play, not to monitor each other and complain.
Like every Chess fan, Topalov or not, I also “want to know” for myself what is true, or likely to be true, or even could possibly be true…
I do not want to dismiss lightly such grave matter as a cheating allegation in top Chess, but everything suggested so far is utterly ignorable, if not even laughable.
Perhaps the time has come to question the sources of these allegations — all this looks like the haul of broken/twisted mirrors:
Chessbase: They stated that they are not source of the cheating allegation, just a relayer of second opinions. Their own little investigation uncovered nothing, which they finally had the dignity to admit after being pressed.
Nigel Short: His own presence in San Luis generated no comments to any suspicious behavior. Moreover, they were overwhelmingly positive at the time… 1.5 years later he has reversed, but yet again, no valuable insight worth anything…
Mig Greengard: He probably aroused his blog groupies, but produced nothing of value as far as evidence. Again, “I have heard from other people” and some general philosophy all over the map…
I am all for an enquiry to resolve that matter, but if all we’ve got is the evidence from those 3 entities above, then they wouldn’t stand a chance in Small Claims Court even. In fact, Judge Judy would toss them out like the three stooges…
D.
Please stop the atacs against Topalov. Just show me how it works to help anybody playing chess with the “body language”.
But I still wont to know, why in Elista weren’t any journalists from the Western Countries (only from Russia) and why Mr. Kramnik was visiting so many times the toalet. (very shor visits)
My suggestion, lets see videos from Elista and Danailovs “body lanquage” and after that we can diskus about it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
dimi said:
>>Chessbase: They stated that they are not source of the cheating allegation, just a relayer of second opinions. Their own little investigation uncovered nothing, which they finally had the dignity to admit after being pressed. >>
It is funny how you don’t mind them printing every bit of character assasination Topalov might spew, but if they print something against him, even something from the mainstream press, it somehow becomes wrong.
The internet has made people more comfortable with their own hypocrisy. Nobody would dare say anything like what dimi says face to face. It would be too embarrassing. But online, where you don’t have to look anyone in the eye, you can just say any old thing and not read the responses.
>>However, I believe that they were a little ‘unwise’ with their follow-up article quoting (indeed MIS-quoting) Nigel Short. Clearly that was a little bit like pouring parrafin on smouldering coals, and was serious enough for Nigel to contact Frederic Friedel about rectifying it.>>
Interesting. If it was unwise to pass on mainstream articles about chess, was it also wrong to have printed Topalov’s accusations, or should they have covered those up?
>>And on the subject of courts, I am a firm believer in someone being innocent until they are proved guilty.>>
That’s interesting, but as you say, that applies to courts, not gossip. Ordinary people, yourself included, have opinions that they could not prove in a court of law. Some, like your opinion that Chessbase acted unwisely in not covering up Short’s DNA interview, would be completely inadmissable.
>>Here is where the responsibility of journalism comes in to question, does one report the fact that Silvio Danailov ‘could’ have been signalling Veselin Topalov? If the answer to that is yes, if this is acceptable, then a huge can of worms is being opened the repercussions of which could be astronomical, and not only for chess. >>
You’re overlooking the fact that a complaint was made to the arbiter, who apparently acted on it.
>>I was incensed when it happened to Kramnik in Elista,>>
And yet you just said that the can of worms was being opened *now*.
>>Like many, I think that the time has come for FIDE to deal with these allegations once and for all, and to introduce measures to prevent future similarities.>>
Well, they have rules against this kind of behavior already, but their first duty under that rule would be to ban Topalov from rated play for anywhere up to 3 years. Possibly Short as well. Do you want to enforce the rule, or should it just be a suggestion?
Short is just a self center boner. He couldn’t get enough attention at home so he’s trying to be in the limelight any chance he gets.
This comment has been removed by the author.
(My apologies for re-posting this, I had used the wrong account by mistake and wish it to be under the identity I had intended.)
Hello everyone,
As a journalist, I believe that with so-called ‘freedom of the press’ comes responsibility to use it properly. Does one want to report news like a broadsheet, or be a run-of-the-mill tabloid, liable to let the lust for scandal and gossip, and scalp-hunting bias get in the way of our service to our readers? I think that is the choice that all media outlets and journalists make.
I do not believe that ChessBase did anything wrong in reporting the news that Martin Breutigam has raised questions about the behaviour of Topalov and Danailov. However, I believe that they were a little ‘unwise’ with their follow-up article quoting (indeed MIS-quoting) Nigel Short. Clearly that was a little bit like pouring parrafin on smouldering coals, and was serious enough for Nigel to contact Frederic Friedel about rectifying it. Furthermore, as has been commented already, if GM Short saw things at San Luis that he felt concerned about, it was his responsibility (and I use that word deliberately) to approach match officials. Instead, he apparently said nothing, and only now mentions it following the infamous German newspaper article. Also, GM Short in his World Championship Diary for ChessBase, spoke of how he had dinner with Topalov during the tournament. Whichever way you look at this, it leaves high doubts about credibility … in a court, it would be inadmissable.
And on the subject of courts, I am a firm believer in someone being innocent until they are proved guilty. When there are charges made against someone, it is up to the people bringing those charges to prove and substantiate them, not on the accused to prove innocence (unless an appeal against a conviction of course). As Susan Polgar wisely said, proof is not speculation, not what managers say, not what players say, and certainly not what journalists say, proof is something entirely different. So, while we all have our opinions, the question at the end of the day is can anyone prove what is being said about Danailov and Topalov? I suspect not, or the evidence would more than likely have already been produced. Thus, this latest debacle boils down to speculation by a journalist/IM during a round or two of the Corus tournament.
Here is where the responsibility of journalism comes in to question, does one report the fact that Silvio Danailov ‘could’ have been signalling Veselin Topalov? If the answer to that is yes, if this is acceptable, then a huge can of worms is being opened the repercussions of which could be astronomical, and not only for chess. For this reason, I believe that this is a classic example of why one should hang fire on some things, especially when a person’s reputation is concerned. I was incensed when it happened to Kramnik in Elista, and I am equally as incensed with the allegations against Topalov and Danailov. Two wrongs do not make a right and at the end of the day it only hurts chess.
Furthermore, having attended the Corus tournament for all but 3 rounds, and having spent time in the pressroom, and in the playing hall, I very much echo Mark Crowther’s take on this matter in that Danailov and Cheparinov were often in the pressroom. I did also observe them in the playing hall and I saw nothing that could remotely be described as signalling. Mostly they were stood at the back of the crowd whispering amongst themselves and then leaving again. Silvio Danailov is very often on his mobile phone, wherever he is, be it walking up and down in the corridors, sat amongst journalists, or out and about in the crowds or in the cafe/bar. He is a manager, and ultimately a businessman. This, in addition to ear scratching and teeth picking is ‘proof’ of cheating or reasonable ground for suspicion? That damns more people than just Danailov.
Like many, I think that the time has come for FIDE to deal with these allegations once and for all, and to introduce measures to prevent future similarities. It is not their choice to do this, it is their duty, both to the players concerned and for chess and its fans, who I am sure are getting a bit tired of all the mud-slinging going on with chess being caught in the crossfire. How is our beautiful game to grow and/or attract sponsors if events blow up over toilets and its top players are involved in scandal? Every chess fan, whether in the Kramnik corner, Topalov corner, or otherwise, needs to wake up here — let’s stop bickering and remember what this is all about eh? If we stop fighting amongst ourselves, and instead focus our efforts on demanding that FIDE do something about this matter, (chess is it’s President’s life, apparently), then maybe we can bring something good from something bad. Failure will be to start (‘continue’ is probably more the word) a downward spiral with regard to the image of chess on the worldwide stage, just when it seemed to be getting back on its feet again following the events of 1993. Recently, Garry Kasparov wrote (in New in Chess) that he hoped his mistakes, which hurt chess, would not be repeated by others. Currently, they are being, but it is not too late to recover this situation — please let it not be something else that drags on for 13 years! Perhaps Mig, Mark, or Susan, or other high profile sites such as ChessBase, can start a petition to be sent to FIDE demanding action. Something constructive, rather than just opinion and speculation, which only prolongs and increases the damage.
Can’t we at least try?
What good are we doing so far?
As for the people making the allegations, (whether against Kramnik, Topalov, Danailov, or others), i say that they have had their time, and that they should now put up or shut up. Enough is enough, and chess deserves more.
anonymous wrote: The internet has made people more comfortable with their own hypocrisy. Nobody would dare say anything like what dimi says face to face…
——————————
Look who’s talking. Hey, I am not comfortable to be an anonymous skunk like you. I use my name when I post. If you want more info about me I can give it to you. I have nothing to hide. You do, obviously. I will say what I mean to anyone face to face. That’s why I use my name and try to be polite like in the real World.
When Danailov made an interpretation of evidence, he produced that evidence. Like it or not. There was an Appeals Committee once who agreed that it was disturbing.
What have you got? Heresay and more heresay. The evidence that this German IM produced is so bad that you can’t even take him to Court for libel. It’s a perfect defence, no evidence, nothing being said.
D.
anonymous wrote: The internet has made people more comfortable with their own hypocrisy. Nobody would dare say anything like what dimi says face to face…
——————————
One more take on that. I say to people what I think:
CHESSBASE: I have written to them in the past to express disagreement. I love their products, but I feel that Frederick or whoever does the news there risks ruining their reputation as a decent news source through his “activism”.
SHORT: He is not buddy of mine, nor would it be appropriate to talk to him directly.
MIG: He’s a great guy, but I feel that it is a bad taste going over to someone else’s blog and ruining the party. Otherwise, I can slash with a thin razor through his entire take on the latest events – he got it wrong on multiple counts.
Have a nice day,
D.