The playoff will take place tomorrow, Friday the 13th! Who will face the curse of the 13th?
Which one will be the favorite going into the rapid, blitz and sudden-death playoff tomorrow?
They are both efficient in rapid but not considered as strong as someone like Anand. Some think that Topalov is a better rapid player. However, Kramnik did beat Topalov 2-0 in a rapid playoff during a world championship knockout event before.
So will it be Topalov?
Or will it be Kramnik?
If Kramnik wins the playoff, we will have a unified World Champion. However, if Kramnik loses the playoff, will he have a case in court about game 5?
Karpov and Korchnoi stated that they think Kramnik should have walked out after game 5. Garry Kasparov criticized Kramnik for not playing game 5. He also said in one of his lectures in NY that “Out of the first five games, the fifth was the most exciting.” None of them talked about continuing the match and sue in court in case if he lost.
Mig Greengard from ChessNinja wrote this on his site:
“Blather update: The comments are full of people calling Kramnik “the winner at 6-5.” (I prefer Petrosianic’s idea in the message boards: “Kramnik 6, Topalov 5, FIDE 1”) But game 5 was played, and legally so. Kramnik was a few meters away watching his flag fall. The forfeit stemmed from provocations by Topalov’s camp and a poor decision by the appeals committee, but they both had the authority to do what they did. Kramnik should have played. Under protest, absolutely, but you have to play. Later, Topalov should have had an attack of conscience and agreed to play at 3:1. But he was under no obligation to do so. That includes no moral obligation since he obviously feels his protest was valid – and that he wasn’t responsible for the decision of the appeals committee.
A forfeit is part of a process. It doesn’t really matter HOW right or wrong the decision was the player was protesting when he decided not to show up. Too many cameras in the hall, for example. Had Fischer walked away at 0-2 since they wouldn’t give the forfeited point back, would he have been a big martyr hero like Kramnik is now? No, because most people felt his complaints were trivial (and typical).
Many here apparently feel Kramnik being locked out his bathroom was a far more serious affront than noise in the hall and the other playing conditions Fischer complained about and they say Kramnik was justified in not playing chess that day. I disagree. Not about the seriousness of the original complaint or the correctness of the decision, but about a player’s responsibility to accept these things and to show up at the board. The Topalov complaint was lame, the appeals committee’s decision incorrect (and overturned), but neither was an outrage to human dignity. Not playing cannot become an acceptable option.
Kramnik is a principled guy and it worked to his disadvantage here. He didn’t want to give Topalov a psychological advantage by playing under terms dictated by his complaint and it cost him a full point. And/or he was convinced Ilyumzhinov and Zhukov would come to his rescue and give the point back. Either way, game five is history. 0-1. Topalov could prove himself a chivalrous idiot and play it, assuming that’s even legal, but let’s be realistic. Topalov/Danailov provoked, FIDE twits abetted, Kramnik took the bait and got robbed. As in any con game you need the victim to participate willingly at some point, and Kramnik did. Play the blame game all you like, but it won’t bring game five back.
Blather update 2: Some are making arguments of the legality of the appeals committee’s decision. But this has little to do with the correctness of the forfeit or the permanence of that result. It is a de facto situation because under the conditions that were then in effect as applied by the match officials, the clock was started. That’s the point. The players have an obligation to play, not say, “There may or may not be legal issues we may eventually discover, so I’m going to sit out until a bunch of lawyers decide.” This is why we have match officials and appeals committees.
You have to play at some point, it’s a sports event. You can’t break for a few days to figure out technicalities any more than a football game would be halted for a few hours while the teams’ lawyers consulted with a judge about whether or not an on-the-field decision was legally correct. We do the best we can in action to find the best balance of expediency and accuracy and we live with those decisions. Some sports using instant replay are sacrificing expediency for more accuracy, for example.
So, you play. You protest and you play, and then the lawyers can get to work on it. But you always play because that point ain’t comin’ back. I’m not trying to convince anyone Topalov won game 5 in a fair and honest way. I don’t think he was evil for taking the point either, but obviously I feel he should have agreed to start at 3:1 or I wouldn’t have started a petition saying so. I’m just taking issue with this concept that Kramnik was correct not to show up that day, or that he is the winner now at 6:5. We all know he won more games over the board. We know the complaint and decision were to some degree malicious and erroneous. But that’s not the same as saying Kramnik should have sat out or that the forfeit (not the complaint, not the decision) was not correct. 6:6.
You can read more from Mig here.
This is awesome, exciting. Chess needs excitement, controversy etc. There are people I work with who do not even care about chess and are talking about the match. Same thing happens with NBA, MLB, NFL etc. controversy draws the attention of the masses as do close matches. The more eyes on it, the more attention, the more sponsors. People say it will lose sponsors. False assumption. MLB has steroid controversies and no shortage of sponsors. NFL has owens, and parties w/drugs and prostitutes and still no shortage of sponsors. The more eyes, the more sponsors.
Play on!
Good luck topalov.
IMHO Kramnik has not a leg to stand on. Whether he feels he was right or not, there is NOTHING in the rules that permits a player to take the liberty of refusing to play. He is doing now what he should’ve done in game 5, play under protest.
He has a case in court either way
I don’t think he will pursue it if he wins without it.
The Champion will be the winner of the playoff.
Good luck to both of them.
A world championship decided by rapid or (even worse) blitz games is worth nothing. FIDE is making the same mistakes all over again. By the way, they already have a reigning blitz champion, his name is Alexander Grischuk.
Kramnik has no case whatsoever in court. There is nothing in any rules whatsoever that gives the player the right to refuse to play without penalty of forfeit. Nothing.
If the point were given back to Kramnik, any/every player that ever felt wronged could/would simply refuse to play.
No sponsor will accept that when they are footing the bills.
Fischer forfeit and took it like a man and played on. So should Kramnik.
Kramnik has probably no chance in court. The only thing that *might* break his contract is when the videao tapes were released to Topalov’s team.
Stating that he should have a bathroom *with* the restroom is not in his contract (according to G. Makropoulos). There is no way he can claim the Champion title with that!
Besides even in the improbable case where the court would agree with Kramnik, FIDE would be blamed and would probably be charged. But since the 5th game was not played, he could certainly not claim the title without playing the game. And who would imagine Topalov and Kramnik playing the 5th game, or playing a rematch months or years after the match?!!
i like that Real Madrid vs. ManU analogy given in the live commentary:
imagine – a dubious Appeals Commitee decided, that the goals of Real Madrid should no longer have the dimensions 2.44m x 7.32m, but 1.22m x 3.66m instead. however, the goal of any opponent should have the dimensions, given by the football (ok – soccer) rules!
imagine – the ManU team is sitting enraged in the booth and refuses to play under such obviously UNFAIR conditions…
imagine further, the arbiter – a little confused by the outraging fans on the stands, and a little confused by the announcement of the upcoming arrival of the FIFA president Sepp Blatter,too, decides to kick-off the game with only one team on the field…
further imagine, that Real Madrid scores the first goal after about an hour or so… DELIGHTFUL 🙂
is there anyone around, to believe, that Real Madrid would have won the entire match against ManU?
hopefully not!
Kramnik would have a case if he stopped the match after game 5. By playing on, he has no chance in court. In addition, he also signed a contract stating that all decisions by the Appeals Committee is final. That means final even if it is wrong or unfair. This is very clear.
Alan
I am a practicing attorney in PA
It’s really too bad Kramnik took the pouting route with Game 5. Now there’s no chance of everyone being happy unless he wins the playoff; let’s hope that happens.
I’m not much interested in those rapid games.
They better end the fight now as a draw.
Kramnik did not play game #5 because he waited for his personal bathroom to be opened! This is the crazy behavior of a spoiled child. Could he seriously claim the title based on his whim?!
The actions of Topalov’s team were not fair, but legal (if not, this is FIDE that made mistakes). Kramnik’s attitude was legal and capricious. I certainly would have played the 5th game if I were him. I would not have stopped because of such a stupid thing! Again, what an shameless spoiled child!!!
>Now there’s no chance of >everyone being happy unless he >wins the playoff; let’s hope >that happens.
I wouldn’t be happy at all if Kramnik wins, he is the weaker player. How you dare to speak in my name?
A world championship decided by rapid or (even worse) blitz games is worth nothing.
Both sides agreed to break the tie this way. What do you think they should have done in the case of a level match? All other options are equally undesirable.
They could keep playing until one player reaches a X wins. After Karpov-Kasparov, I doubt they’ll do that ever again.
Kramnik fans may think he should have had draw odds, but frankly I’m glad they abandoned that antiquated concept. Every other sport has some kind of tie-breaking method, except for boxing, which is hardly a good role-model for chess.
vohaul,
nobody changed the rules of the game. nobody gave topalov two queens vs one for kramnik. your analogy is dumb to say the least.
now imagine the match organizers decided that the game will be played with a PUMA ball instead of previously agreed ADIDAS. both teams will play with the same ball of course, and its still a soccer ball, but Real Madrid, being say, sponsored by PUMA, refuse to show up for the championship final because of the “breach in contract” and forfeit the match. Will anyone take their lawsuit more seriously than the cryout of a spoilt brat? Hell no. Now that’s a good analogy for you.
So are they playing ALL the rapid games tomorrow? That’s very tense. How much time between the games?
They’re all tomorrow. I think there’s 30 minutes between games.
I’m excited about the games tomorrow (provided that Kramnik doesn’t decide to post-factum cry about game 5 and not play). I predict victorious Topalov within the 4 games. Let the better player win!
Susan, just curious, why 6-6 “according to FIDE”. Ok, in this case Italy is the soccer World Champion according to FIFA.
I wouldn’t be happy at all if Kramnik wins, he is the weaker player.
He seemed to be a little weaker if one looks at the position strengths all over the match, not only at the end of each game. 🙂
I would not be happy if he wins, because he is going to avoid all matches (like he did for five years), especially after he sues FIDE! No reunification is possible with Kramnik who will use every trick not to defend his title — just like in the past.
I want someone ready to defend its title. Topalov is not perfect, but at least he satisfies this criterium, as far as I know.
And why not a rematch with Kramnik next year? This would be fair.
Kramnik should win since he is the better player as he proved in the 11 games actually played +3 -2 =5. Based on past games at rapid Kramnik also holds a big lead. Topalov plays exciting chess but Kramnik is just a better player. He beat Kasparov in match play and for all of Kasparov’s crying about it and statements he makes now about past and future champions, Kasparov has an agenda to be regarded as greatest chess champion of all time as you can easily grasp by reading his biased books Predecessors, which by the way are still a great read if you keep this in mind, objective he is not. Just take his views on probably the one player who people can make a valid intellectual factual argument for being the Greatest of all time, Bobby Fischer! Fischer dominated chess world just as Morphy did with results never seen before or since. Kasparov was first among equals as Botvinnik was.
IMHO Kramnik has not a leg to stand on. Whether he feels he was right or not, there is NOTHING in the rules that permits a player to take the liberty of refusing to play.
Ah, but there is also nothing in the rules that allows for a blatant breach of contract, like the FIDE pulled, so the 5th game should never have even started.
The problem is that if Kramnik doesn’t get the title, I don’t think anyone in the chess world can consider Topalov’s victory legitimiate.
Here’s another analogy to footbal:
At 6:6 Topalov wins because he’s the guest and “scored” his point on enemy’s teritory – how’s that?
I cannot agree that Kramnik is weaker. He had some problems but in the last games he played good and safe. Today he had a very strong position but threw the advantage away with Qf8. The queen was pretty useless on the 8th line.
Who told you? I recognize Topalov as WC if he wins tomorrow.
I would not be happy if he wins, because he is going to avoid all matches (like he did for five years), especially after he sues FIDE! No reunification is possible with Kramnik who will use every trick not to defend his title — just like in the past.
Kramnik has had two title defenses in six years, which is the traditional schedule. Exactly how is that “avoiding all matches”?
Here’s another analogy to footbal:
At 6:6 Topalov wins because he’s the guest and “scored” his point on enemy’s teritory – how’s that?
Uh, I’d regard playing on FIDE territory with biased FIDE judges against FIDE’s darling Toplaov being in enemy territory.
I can’t understand how someone could claim Topalov a worthy champion. He has played a dirty game after losing the two first games. Better player? Kramnik has beaten Topalov three times, Topalov has only won twice. I doubt Topalov would have won a single game if it wasn’t for his dirty tactics. Kramnik is the only worthy champion.
I’ll much rather have Topalov as champion and representative of chess than Kramnik…
His games are more interesting and full of fighting spirit, whereas Kramnik is lifeless and looking for draw.
Topalov is more active and is all about the fans, whereas Kramnik is very inactive and pompous in his demeanour with the public.
Here’s why I want Kramnik to win.
1) I think Topalov’s team was unethical.
2) Kramnik has the better over the board score.
3) Kramnik seems to support the tradition of match play against the current champion, which I think is quite exciting.
4) Topalov will do whatever Kirsan wants, and Kirsan seems to prefer various tournament formats for deciding the world championship. Lacks the grand drama of a match and cheapens the title by making it so much easier to win for the weaker contenders.
Kramnik is the dirty one. He’s also arrogant. I hope he’ll lose tomorrow. I was a fan of his until his stupid stance on the bathroom issue.
Kramnik was right not to play game 5, because FIDE had broken the contract, But he probably knew of the clear bias of FIDE towards Topalov (FIDE champion, although, a lot less champion than Kramnik, which won a title more important). They had already done the ABSURD of publishing to Topalov’s team all the rest rooms tapes. Just to find nothing. What now? they have found anything, but what about Vladimir now? They have been able to see how Kramnik reacts and how he suits to Topalov’s moves. Does Dainalov owns this match? In an absurd complaint he gets acess to everything he wants. Very supporting this FIDE. Just a piece of crap. Losers, like Topalov and his manager Dainalov. They’ve earned something from me after that: my disgust. Because they are really disgusting. And Dainalov prefers to lose like a loser (because he was probably going to lose the match, that was 2 : 0 to Kramnik). And absurdably is awarded with an ilegal point. And very ilegal, because the rules of the contract had been severely broken and FIDE had favoured one side too much.
I think Dainalov must have any judicial support to have the right, given by FIDE, to mess the contract, have full acess to the rest rooms (and find nothing) and even earn copies of the restrooms videotapes.
I repudiate Topalov and his manager. Crap people such as that should never get the results of competition. They behave like losers, are clearly favoured, and earn ilegal points. They are a shame to chess and to any sport anyone behaves shamefully like. They are pretty poor losers. I’m just sorry about that. And that such nasty people get support from well known decades-biased federation. That’s why FIDE has always been so ridiculous and people such as that earn they space they don’t deserve.
King Kasparov has spoken. The king is right.
what are the time formats they are about to play in the playoffs?
Topalov has played the better chess. Both of the games he won were very convincing while Kramnik could win only if Topalov blunders.
What did king Kasparov say?
Susan,
Do we know for sure the playoff is Friday? The original match schedule had a Rest Day between Game 12 and the Playoff.
@stupid analogy:
i’ve read your interesting answer with growing delightness, but imagine, please: the heroes need some room, more (Kramnik) or less (Topalov). that’s why i could not resist to take the “dimensional” analogy.
nevertheless – match rules are game rules – there is no doubt about this fact in chess and soccer (or, would there be any necessity to elaborate contracts? think good and think twice!)- and – to keep within MY analogy – rules were changed for the one entire match Real vs. ManU (in soccer single games contracts are not common, BUT they exist! i’m sure, you are not that familiar with soccer business affairs – but changing – e.g. the make of the ball by an organizer – e.g from PUMA to ADIDAS or vice versa could be a VERY expensive and COMPLETE ruinous act …)
– your delightful example would apply if – for example – Mr. Kramnik would have refused to play, because the pieces set would have been substituted (i’d accuse him of imbecility in such a case – nevertheless HE also WOULD HAVE BEEN RIGHT, not to play game 5 — pacta sunt servanda…).
sincerly, your Vohaul
Yes, tiebreaks is tomorrow. Go Topalov! Kramnik is the most arrogant player.
Kasparov thought that game 5 was more exciting than games 1-4? What about Topalov’s attack in game 2? What about Kramnik’s central pressure in game 3? What is he talking about??
Vohaul, risking to drift away from the topic, I’d say that changing the pieces set would have constituted MORE sensible reason for protest than refusing to share a restroom. As a matter of fact I (being an amateur) never felt comfortable playing with a chess set I see for a first time. Even when I switch from ICC board to Yahoo board after a prolonged period of play it takes me a few games to get used to the new shapes/colors/layout etc.
To those who say Topalov played better chess… Not blundering is part of playing good chess. If you end with a minus score in a match, you most certainly did NOT play better chess than your opponent.
Martin:
Maybe, but the REAL violation was giving the video tapes to Topalov’s team in the first place. Totally unethical and i can’t imagine legal either.
Could you imagine if that happened in some other sport? If they gave locker room video tapes or american football teams to their oppenents? Absurdity.
Blunders, I think, are part of the game. Which player can withstand the pressure the most at such an astonishing level of play – this is probably the way chess is a sport.
daniel when the “published” the restroom tapes to Topalov’s team, something certainly was found: 30 or so trips to the small unmonitored area, with no adequate explanation from Kramnik’s side.
Kramnik’s rook moves today moves 22-25 looked computer-like to me and agreed with engines according to “thenewone” on another thread.
Topalov played outrageous speed chess in recent games of the match and I think he did it to keep Kramnik out of the unmonitored area.
What more clues does one need? What further clues could possibly be provided? I’m not sure what happened, but then not enough evidence is available that I could be sure.
It’s a terrible shame that the next games are speed chess. It’s the agreement and the show must go on. But it’s a shame.
Vohaul,
Even if Kramnik was morally right not to appear at game 5 (of which not everyone is convinced), it still doesnt change the simple fact that by refusing to play he forfeits the point. So far I have not witnessed a forfeit in any sport that doesnt result in a loss. Maybe there is a reason for this?
On a side note, as far as I know, the contract doesnt mention the area that each player should have available for walking. It also does’t state where the toilets should be located and whether they should be shared or not.
So I am still not convinced about “the blatent breach of contract” you and others are talking about.
>Could you imagine if that >happened in some other sport? If >they gave locker room video >tapes or american football teams >to their oppenents? Absurdity.
You cannot win in the toillet in american football, nor almost in any other sport. In chess you can.
The fact is that Botvinnik was from time to time cheating in the toillet. He didn’t like to remember all openings, so he had a notebook.
If you know russian, I could find that text about him on the net.
That are the words of his second, never denied by Botvonnik.
All top GM know that.
Why Topalov should think that Kramnik is better with his dozens of visits?
This is a very interesting situation.
1. Kramnik kind of cornered himself in an unusual way. Because….
a) He doesn’t show up for the rapid games, Topalov does, and yet another one or more points will be awarded to him by default. He would win the entire match, if he gets 3 points by default, altogether 4 points counting game 5. According to the rules of the tournament, Topalov would rightfully be declared the winner (I repeat, according to the rules of the tournament).
b) He shows up and plays, thus he acknowledges the validity of the current 6:6. Afterwards, even if he sues FIDE, there is no possible way to undo and redo the entire setup. No court can force Topalov to meet Kramnik somewhere, play ONE game (game 5) and then, if Topalov wins, also replay the rapids. Thus, if he shows up, he maybe able to sue for money, but not for the title.
2. Game 5 itself:
Anyone can read the rules of the tournament. It stands there crystal clear, that the decision of the arbitrators are final. There is no law which assures that any judge, referee, arbitrator will always make the right decision. Kramnik may have had a valid gripe about the bathroom issue, but it is between him and FIDE, not between him and Topalov. Topalov did not take away Kramnik’s bathroom privileges.Despite that it was taken away based on Topalov’s complaint. Topalov was in no position to actually do so. Thus, he showed up for game 5, the bathroom issue was what it was, but the rules of the tournament also clearly state that if a player doesn’t show up, the player loses the point. There is no ifs, buts and conditions attached to that. It is an unfortunate “double jeopardy” (sort of). Besides, Kramnik could have played game 5, the same way he played the rest of the tournament, under protest. Because of all of the above, Kramnik again can sue FIDE for money, but not for game 5.
3. Therefore, Kramnik has little other choice (realistic one), but to show up and try to win the tiebreaker. We have precedent in the chess world, that not showing up results in point losing. I see no way for Kramnik to turn that around in courts. Also, I see no way for Kramnik to walk and still claim being the World Champion.
I predict, that because he must have lawyers who will likely to advise him the same or similar, Kramnik will show up tomorrow. I would be very surprised, if he didn’t.
I’d like to get the link about Botvinnik and his notebook. In fact I’d like any other juicy tidbits you can direct me to. I have a little Russian, and it can even be translated to English by babelfish.altavista.com .
Of course Kramnik will show up to play tomorrow. His latest open letter even says he will.
Topalov in the first place doesn’t respect Kramnik at all, when that happens, bad things start to happen.
I was thinking that in soccer there is the advantadge rule. A foul may not be marked if the team which recieved the foul is still in posession of the ball, which make sense, just in case the team can have a better thing. Why it could be seen with bad eyes that Kramnik plays under protest and may only sue if he lose? I suposse that’s because he wait until the final result which is too much. So he must sue also if he wins, altough that’s a bit odd.
(am sorry about my english)
New york times has an article on chess in ny with girls on the front page:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/12/nyregion/12compete.html
– Vinay
“Chess, FIDE – ! needs to grow a pair and start sanctioning players that behave non-professionally. And this is what Topalov has done, without question.”
Mark, are you seriously suggesting that Topalov should be sanctioned for filing a complaint?
artichoke said…
Of course Kramnik will show up to play tomorrow. His latest open letter even says he will.
In that case, the outcome of the tiebreaker will decide the title and there is nothing Kramnik can do about it later. As I wrote, he may sue for money, but not for the title.
Gabor
in soccer – arbiters decisions are “based on decisive facts and finally”.
Nevertheless there have been some game repetitions in german football / soccer history, based on “technical” – that means – by breaking the given rules of the game – mistakes by arbiters.
According to ALL rules game 5 should have not been started by the arbiter …
we’ll see a rapid championship tomorrow with the best rapid players worldwide excluded from the championship by contract …
may “chess” be ruled from Kalmykia for ever….
I will try to find this about Botvinnik. I have to filter 100-200 pages.
In the same place was something similar on a recent very top GM (the name was not disclosed).
Forget game 5, forget the current issue. Somebody, please explain to me how will this work in the near future.
According to the agreement, whoever wins this (Kramnik or Topalov) gets a spot in the next 8 player round robin tournament. The loser will not.
So, regardless whether Kramnik or Topalov wins, the person will be the world champ only until the next round robin tournament? But that’s not the only question. So……..
If either of them wins, they get a spot in the round robin, but would both get a spot ANYWAY? The selection is based on the rating list. Topalov is 1st, Kramnkik is 3rd. So, winning this provides the winner with something what he already have.
The loser’s situation is even worse. Since he will not get a spot on the tournament, which he would have gotten if he didn’t play here, while other players will get a spot, who’s rating is lower.
Somehow this doesn’t appear to be right. What am I overlooking?
Gabor
Kramnik deserve to lose for bringing the game into disrepute by refusing to play game 5.
My take is that the Appeals Committee’s decision was completely fair and reasonable. Kramnik’s pattern of behaviour in relation to toilet visits raised legitimate suspicions. The reason presented to the Committee (thru Hensel) for the toilet visits was suspicious to say the least.
The Committee’s decision was to close both Kramnik’s and Topalov’s toilets which to me can be said to be unfair to Topalov. A new toilet was opened which was to be shared by both players. Only a biased mind would say that such a decision was unfair.
My opinion is that the removal of Makro and Azmai was not because the decision was wrong but because it was too correct and fair. Makro has pointed out that it was Kirsan’s decision who we know needed to please Putin who we know wants to see a Russian World Chess Champion. After all the match was a precondition for Russian Chess Federation support for Kirsan’s FIDE Presidency. And we must not forget that reports indicated that Kirsan was moving around with Putin when the Elista crisis exploded.
However the correct and fair decision was not acceptable to Kramnik. Thus he sat out Game 5 expecting that Russian pressure would reverse the correct and fair decisions. But Kramnik did not take into account the need for Kirsan to follow the rules and Sand’s advice. (IOC is watching).
Makro was removed becos Kirsan needed a FIDE scapegoat to present to Putin. Azmai I think was removed becos he was Georgian and Putin had issued a decree that all Georgians should be kicked out of Russia arising from the Russia/Georgia political stand-off.
If the facts are properly considered, it is Topalov who has been wronged as he has not done anything that is against regulations or even morally wrong. Especially after all the unfounded accusations against him of computer help in San Luis. (It was strange that chessbase did not castigate the San Luis shameless accusers the way Topalov has been castigated by chessbase in recent days).
It was shameful the way the anti-FIDE ACP spoke out against Topalov for no other reason than that Topalov is the official (FIDE’s) World Champion, and for chessbase to support Kramnik just because Kramnik is Fritz spokesman even though Kramnik was clearly in the wrong in sitting out Game 5 and urging Kramnik to abandon the match. The reputation of chessbase has really been sullied.
Mig is fighting against his conscience. He knows Topalov is totally right but cannot bring himself to give full support to a FIDE World Champion. Hence the made-up “moral” angle. It would be definitely immoral and unfair for Topalov to agree to replay Game 5 or be forced to do so.
C’mon, people, let’s get real.
I think this is one of the best posts I’ve read on the controversy. Indeed, Kramnik should have played from game 5 under protest, rather than from game 6.
However, Kramnik DOES have a chance in court, but not to overturn the forfeit or the match if he ultimately loses. Rather, his case will be against FIDE for damages for breach of contract (which will be interesting, considering he makes $500k win or lose). The question then will be how much the title itself is worth, and THEN the problem will be proving that Kramnik would have drawn or won game 5 had it been played. So, a difficult claim to prove, but it’s there.
If we can assume for a moment that typical law in the United States or Great Britain would apply, Alan (attorney in PA) is mistaken due to doctrine known as “prior material breach” — and I’m reasonably sure the law actually applying to this case (Russian?) has a similar principle. In essence, that principle states that, if one party breaches a contract in a material fashion, it can’t defend itself (or sue) on the basis of a subsequent breach by the other party. Thus, if FIDE is found to have breached the contract by shutting down the bathrooms, then it will not be off the hook because Kramnik then refused to play (itself a breach of the contract).
Tim (practicing attorney in ME)
I really didn’t like Topalov acussations and went to Kramnik side, but frankly Kramnik has done nothing admirable anyway. Am getting bored of the issue so this is my last comment.
I even think Kramnik has better chances to win the rapids. He is not a slow thinker, he just thinks too much. In rapid chess he will also play fast and not try to filter the best out of three moves that are all equal.
Nevertheless, if Top wins the rapids I have some problems to see him as the champion, since he would be champ with -1.
There are two separate titles here. The Classical Title, and the FIDE title. Granted, FIDE has the right to do absolutely anything they want with their own title. They could have forfeited Kramnik before the match started, made the players wear funny hats, or change the playoff from Rapids to Trivial Pursuit, and we’d have to just accept it and say “It’s unfair, but that’s the ruling.”
The battle for the Classical Title is different, though. FIDE doesn’t own that title, and has no right to require someone to forfeit a point in order to keep their contractual rights.
The battle for the Classical Title is over. Topalov has voluntarily forfeited his right to tie the score. Kramnik wins 6-5 and defeats his challenger.
Kramnik has explicitly said as much in his last letter: “Should the decision of FIDE regarding the fifth game have any influence on the awarding of the World Championship title, with Mr Topalov receiving the title after being granted a free point for the unplayed game, Mr Kramnik declares unequivocally: “I will not recognize Mr Topalov as World Champion under these conditions, and I will take legal action against FIDE at the end of the World Championship.””
The battle for the Classical Title is over. Kramnik wins. Tomorrow’s tiebreaks are to decide the FIDE title ONLY. If Kramnik wins, then we have a unified champion. If not, the schism continues as before.
It’s annoying, granted, but for those of you saying that we must accept the official ruling no matter what, then ask yourself one question. If you feel that way, then why didn’t you accept Karpov as champion in 1993? Legally, he had a much stronger claim. FIDE didn’t break any contracts then, Kasparov simply walked out and was forfeited.
Wow. the blather and blather 2 arguments are (in my opinion), right on. There is no one involved that hasn’t made mistakes or totally sparkling decisions. But the biggest mistake was for Kramnik to sit out. Thanks for posting it because it seems that the websites I read for news seem to be showing only one side… and it isn’t this one.
Ah, but there was a unification agreement. Kramnik’s rhetoric notwithstanding, he may find the classical crown isn’t his to continue to claim if he doesn’t win the tie break.
Only a court can answer the question, if Kramnik had to play or not.
The CAS normally follows the following rule: You have to play, but you can afterwoods make a claim that the result doesnt count. Then there maybe a regame (that occured already sometimes) or the result is fixed by CAS (also already occured).
If you dont play you normally forfeit.
One exception only to that: If the breach of the conditions is such severe, that an instant play is not possible under what circumstances whatsoever and instant action is needed at all needs, then you can decline playing without being forfeited.
So the rule of the court will depend, if it thinks that the breach was such severe.
My opinion is, that the breach was not such severe.
Two thumbs up for anonimous 1:45:34 PM!!!
Topalov has every right to request for the video of Krmanik’s rest area and the Committee has every right to accede to the request.
The rest area in chess cannot be equated to the locker rooms in other sports. You go to the locker when the game is not in session or when you ask the referee special permisssion as in a toilet break.
Kramnik was in the rest area while the game was in sesssion. It is a privilege provided to the player given the length of a typical game. The question of privacy in the rest area should not arise. In fact, the video should be broadcast live to the viewing public.
I think the biggest mistake was to have a demo display in the rest area which Kramnik has admitted he used to analyse while in the rest area. This is clearly against the laws of chess that forbid the use of external aids during a game. He should be made to analyse at the board or just inside his head.
Instead of a display of the live board, only clocks (or some indicator lights) showing whose turn it is to move should be in the rest area so that the resting player can know that the opponent has moved.
Everything else aside, the bottom line is this: Kramnik won three games, Topalov only two. Whatever people say, I have the strong feeling something is wrong.
Actually whoever wins this match by any means, it doesn’t matter to me now…I have lost the interest
ever since game 5..
whoever wins it will be never a clean win!!!!
Topalov *did* play game 5. The clock was started. He sat there. Kramnik was there, too. But Kramnik ran out of time on his first move. Of course, only a cynic would suggest that was because he couldn’t get to the toilet to figure out his move. 😉
First reasonable comment ever I have seen so far in this blog site.
Kramnik was wrong in not playing game 5. He should have played it under game 5. I think topalov’s protest was also reasonable and he just protested. Kramnik was rather unreasonable in creating a situation where his opponent could doubt ie., going to toilet so many times. And sticking with that toilet for the entire game 5 was just stupid idiotic and he put his own personal ego in front ahead of the game and sportsmanship.
Whoever wins tomorrow’s tiebreaks is the champion.
–
Leto
Wasn’t he justusing as an extra bit of space to walk in and out of? It seems to be commonplace for chessplayers to go stomping about during a game. Kasparov did it. I have to say it wouldn’t bother me in the slightest if an opponent did this – just concentrate in the game?
I believe Kramnik had to forfeit game 5 in order not to lose control of the match – to the arbitrators. Topalov had a right to file a complaint, but the wording was very unprofessional and aimed to be a psychological blow and not so much a complaint. Being nasty and personal is becoming way too prominent in sports and politics and should not be accepted. The arbitrators made a mistake in handling the complaint and were (purposely or not) falling into the Topalov – Danilov psychological tactics, thus siding with one team instead of being neutral. This may have continued had they remained in place. Only by forfeiting did this get changed and a more neutral setting achieved. So the forfeit was a necessary tactic and should remain binding. Had Kamnik played, under protest or not, and lost (probable, being under stress) he would still have been 3-2 and the arbitrator team would still be the same. Even drawing or winning he would probably have been hit with even more severe psychological tactics. Topalov – Danilov, having been successful once would have probably continued and the results would be even more tempered by off the board tactics rather than on the board play. So, in this case you take the forfeit has a necessary tactic and play to win the match with the rest of the games. Whoever wins the tie break should be the World Champ, although I personally will always question the sportsmanship of one of the teams.
JD in Chicago
dan said…
Wasn’t he justusing as an extra bit of space to walk in and out of? It seems to be commonplace for chessplayers to go stomping about during a game. Kasparov did it. I have to say it wouldn’t bother me in the slightest if an opponent did this – just concentrate in the game?
Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:41:22 PM
dan, the Committee rejected this theory on good grounds:
1. the bathroom is very small so not much pacing space is added. And it’s a bit of trouble to open the door in the middle of pacing, both in and out, one of which is opening toward you which is really disruptive to pacing. When pacing and thinking about the position, you want a no-brainer and not have to worry about handling a door.
2. he remained inside the bathroom a minute or two at a time, too much for any kind of walking speed in such a small space.
Nothing is proved and nothing could be proved unless that space were monitored. But the circumstances surely raise eyebrows.
And to Kramnik, access to this particular miserable little bathroom was the only non-negotiable condition of playing. It’s unreasonably important to him. When it was unavailable in game 5, he didn’t even try to play.
In the court of public opinion, this match has been won by Kramnik.
If you have any doubt, look at the thousands of people who may have originally supported Topalov, but are behind Kramnik now. That includes this author. It’s purely based on what is considered fair play, and the 3-2 OTB score.
I’m not a lawyer don’t know what the letter of the law is, but it doesn’t really matter. We will never think of Topalov as WC or even WC-material at this point.
>>
“Classical Champion” What organization oversees this title or can anyone on earth claim it just by stating it?
>>
Read your history. Specifically 1886-1946. You get it by beating the last champion. It’s King of the Hill.
It’s a little too late to pretend that the title doesn’t exist. If it didn’t exist, then what were we trying to unify?
>>
Last I knew the PCA, braingames etc. are all long gone and only the FIDE has a structured tournament cycle now.
>>
LOL, no. Read your recent history for that. They just cancelled their Candidates Matches again. As I say, it’s too late to take the tack that this wasn’t a unification match at all. FIDE has already admitted in writing that it was.
Topalov holds the FIDE title only. He’s lost his battle for the Classical title. He has one chance to tie, but he doesn’t want it. He loses.
And still nobody can give a logical answer to this question: If you acknowledge Kramnik’s forfeit in 2006, how come you didn’t acknowledge Kasparov’s forfeit in 1993? At least his wasn’t illegal.
>>
Former Kramnik Fan said…
Kramnik is the dirty one. He’s also arrogant. I hope he’ll lose tomorrow. I was a fan of his until his stupid stance on the bathroom issue.
>>
Now, don’t lie. You’re not a former Kramnik fan, and if you were you’d never have abandoned him for sticking up for his contractual rights.
The Classical Chess Champion title exists only as does santa claus, for people that believe in it. There is no structure nor organization behind it. Kramnik can claim it for beating Kasparov of course.
Now, let us suppose as one anonymous poster said, that Kramnik retains this non existing title, and Topalov keeps the FIDE title.
Topalov has a path laid out in the FIDE to follow.
What path does kramnik take? Who is the next challenger, what tournaments are sponsored by this organization that does not exist in order to qualify to win the title that does not exist?
If you can’t answer these then you will see unification was more about reeling in the mess kasparov created, than any Classical Title that exists only where the Easter bunny and Santa exist – in our minds.
Oh yeah, to claim the “classical” title goes back to steinitz is absolutely absurd. It goes back to precisely the moment kasparov left fide and perhaps before the formation of fide. All champions in between (during FIDE years) were not “classical” champs, they were FIDE world champs.
>In the court of public opinion, >this match has been won by >Kramnik.
Public opinion is just crap, it consists mostly of people like you (ok, like me too), but like you.
Public opinion would love to have stuff for free from supermarkets, but there are policemen guarding this not to happen.
I didn’t write the post saying I was a Kramnik fan … but I was. Well I was a Topalov fan too. Actually I have no axe to grind and am a great admirer of the way both of them play. Topalov is magical in finding an intitiative (somewhat less so in making it stick, in this match). Kramnik is wonderful in knowing so easily the boundaries of win/draw/loss and playing easily to try to push his position from loss to draw or draw to win; then he never lets you escape.
Kramnik’s trips to the unmonitored area, its apparent importance to him and the stories that he did the same thing vs. Kasparov (and Leko too? nobody has commented on this) have turned me toward the guy I am more convinced is playing under his own power.
Let’s face it. Kramnik not only won the match. Not only that, but he won a handicap match.
A match played on FIDE’s home turf, where he had one fewer White, and had to play an unprecedented three straight Blacks.
And despite all these handicaps, he still beat Topalov 6 out of 11.
Topalov may be a better tournament player, but Kramnik has just proven himself the better match player. Doesn’t matter who you like or don’t like, the fact is Kramnik won. Deal with it.
Have just noticed Real Madrid ManU from Vohaul.
In a soccer qualifying match for World Cup or Euro a few years ago, Scotland’s opponents failed to turn up (I think it was Estonia in Tallinn) at their home ground. Scotland kicked off alone and were awarded the game. There were one or two jokingly clenched-fist-salutes of victory on the park.
Of course, when the Estonians complained, the Scots had to forgo their “win” and the game was replayed (I think it was a draw…)
Of course Kramnik has no case…but this will only be of import if real courts decide – not sporting bodies.
Banjanx, Scotland (but you’d guessed that)
Found the toillet cheating Botvinnik link (100% credible, this is serious paper not intending of defaming Botvinnik. The name of his second which confesses is given).
http://www.sovsport.ru/gazeta/default.asp?id=237481
The important passage is
Когда-то мастер Илья Кан (не путать с тем Канном, который участвовал в разработке защиты Каро-Канн), человек милейший и очень доброжелательный, рассказывал о том, как первый советский чемпион мира, особой памятью на дебютные варианты не блиставший, порой выходил в тот самый туалет, доставал из кармана записную книжку и быстренько ее раскрывал.
В суде такой рассказ доказательством признан не был бы, разве что в случае оглашения под присягой, но, во-первых, Кан несколько раз выступал секундантом Ботвинника, а во-вторых Кан, повторяю – человек достойный, повествовал об этом отнюдь не за спиной шахматного патриарха.
Here is another link, to a thread, were an IM is confessing of cheating (the first message of IM Leontiev) and saying (in the second message) that he knows from an insider that a present day top GM is cheating in the same way (not related to Kramnik-Topalov affair, probably another one). All the thread is interesting.
http://www.chesspro.ru/guestnew/looknullmessage/?themeid=8&id=50&page=999#bp
Kramnik has a good case. Match contract was changed so forfeit doesn’t count.
Decision of appeals committee being final means zilch here. Decision of the committee must be within the ambit of the contract. If Danailov (evil bastard) murders Kramnik during the match and if the appeals committe are to uphold such an act, will it hold water in the court of law? Certainly not.
>Kramnik has a good case. Match >contract was changed
Have you seen the match contract? Everybody is talking about it here. Frankly I think FIDE knows better than you.
As said “anonymous”:
“Kramnik did not play game #5 because he waited for his personal bathroom to be opened! This is the crazy behavior of a spoiled child.”
And, as said “laviola”:
“I wouldn’t be happy at all if Kramnik wins, he is the weaker player.”
Chris Els said:
“Chess world championships should be decided by playing chess, not by playing mindgames or legal games.”
It’s a nice thought but professional chess is not that nice. The standard seems to be that a player must have a delegation. One major job of the delegation is to play heavy and maneuver behind the scenes while the player keeps a nicer image and concentrates on chess.
Every serious professional seems to do it. Topalov has only Danailov plus a couple GM helpers, but I guess the advantage of that relationship is that the trust is absolute. Danailov isn’t going to work for someone else next month, so Topalov can be open with him. Kramnik, despite substantial Russian support, may not have a true friend like that.
Even the Bulgarian President isn’t clearly on his side. Note that Topalov didn’t play for the Bulgarian olympic team; there must be some lack of closeness with authorities. Topalov must feel as Fischer did, fighting all the Russians.
Have you seen the contract? Or has Yasser seen it? Yasser is a Chessbase and ACP affiliate, both entities supporting Kramnik, for mostly commercial reasons.
Can someone show me the contract?
The Committee’s decision was to close both Kramnik’s and Topalov’s toilets which to me can be said to be unfair to Topalov. A new toilet was opened which was to be shared by both players. Only a biased mind would say that such a decision was unfair.
My opinion is that the removal of Makro and Azmai was not because the decision was wrong but because it was too correct and fair.
You do realize that literally everyone in the chess world, from all countries, who have made statements have been in support of Kramnik and said the appeals committee was unfair.
Do you honestly think the entire world is biased against Topalov? That their is some massive conspiracy against him?
You post misses a few things:
a) There is no legitimate reason for FIDE to hand over video tapes of Kramnik to Topalov. THIS was the key violation, much worse than the bathroom rule.
b) Chess is phsycological warfare on several levels and giving into your oppoents silly demands sets the stage for OTB loss.
c) Allowign the change is pretty close to ADMITTING you were cheating, or at least justifying the claim of cheating. There is no way Kramnik should do such a thing.
If the facts are properly considered, it is Topalov who has been wronged as he has not done anything that is against regulations or even morally wrong.
I disagree totally.
a) His allegation based on pretty much nothing was pretty shady
b) His asking for and accepting Kramnik’s private video survelliance was COMPLETLY unethical and unsportsmanlike
c) His refusal to actually play game 5 shows him to be at best totally unsportsmanlike and at worst unethical.
Especially after all the unfounded accusations against him of computer help in San Luis.
Ha! Those allegations were “unfounded” but Topalov’s against Kramnik were justified? Please. There is a much better case that Topalov cheats with computers (mainly his unprecented ratings jump of about 100 points at a point in his life that that should never happen)
It would be definitely immoral and unfair for Topalov to agree to replay Game 5 or be forced to do so.
Why on earth would it be immoral for Topalov to agree to replay game 5? Was it immoral for Kornochoi to agree to replay his match against Kasparov? Was it immoral for Spassky to agree to play Fisher away from cameras and the public?
Quite the contrary, it showed those 2 players to be champions AND sportsman. To be decent and ethical people.
As it stands, Topalov looks like a whiny baby who has to play as dirty as possible to win.
for chessbase to support Kramnik just because Kramnik is Fritz spokesman even though Kramnik was clearly in the wrong in sitting out Game 5 and urging Kramnik to abandon the match. The reputation of chessbase has really been sullied.
Again, the VAST MAJORITY of the chess world, form all areas of the globe, disagree with you.
You can have whatever opinions you want, but to pretend that chessbase has been “sullied” for siding with everyone else is just stupid.
As a lawyer, I think when it comes to the leal issues “the position is unclear but I would rather play kramniks side.”
When it comes to who is world champion that answer is *much* easier. After 11 classical chess games Kramnik has 6 points Topalov has 5. If Topalov wants to claim he is better at this game he needs to play game 5 and win it to tie it up. If he doesn’t then the rapid/blitz tie breaks are completely irrelevant.
I think the comments about Kramnik winning 6-5 or replaying the 5th game are rubbish for the simple reason that Topalov played game 6 under the assumption that he had that extra point. You cant suddenly retrospectively change that because Topalov’s entire match strategy has been based on it, that is why I think any Court would be very reluctant to overrule the forfeit. If you do overrule the forfeit you also have to play all the games again so that Topalov can have a match strategy which accounts for the actual score.
The whole strategy of Kramnik in this match is to win by contract. His managers hired very good lawyers who made a contract with super favourable conditions for him. The match played in Russia, with timing to Kramnik’s liking, private unmonitored bathroom … No wonder that Kramnik wants the match to be decided in court. The basic standpoint for him and the organisation that supports him (ACP) is to make chess a business, complete with contracts and law suits. Kramnik is an outstanding proponent of business chess, a philosophy that Kasparov follows for over 15 years. However, Kramnik proved better than Gary in this off-the-board contractual business battle.