His Excellency
FIDE President Kirsan N. Ilyumzhinov
September 29, 2006
Re: Crisis in the Elista 2006 World Championship Match
Dear Kirsan,
I am writing an open letter to you regarding today’s events during the 2006 Unification World Championship Match between the Classical World Champion Vladimir Kramnik and the FIDE World Champion Veselin Topalov.
For far too long the chess world has been in a terrible schism, and a successful conclusion to the current match is of paramount importance to chess fans and to the future of our sport. With tempers currently running high, it is time for all parties to show their manifest goodwill so that the match can resume, so that the players can demonstrate their skill over the board and so that chess fans can enjoy a resumption of the exciting games we have seen so far.
I would therefore urge that all parties calm down and reflect upon the events that have led to today’s aborted game.
It is my understanding that Veselin Topalov lodged an official complaint that his opponent visited his bathroom an excessive number of times during play, casting a suspicion of unfair behavior. The Appeals Committee agreed that the complaint had some basis and decided that the solution was that the players would henceforth share a common bathroom. In so doing the Appeals Committee made a clearly erroneous decision, which it should now reverse with good grace.
Before the start of the match, a contract was signed by all parties. Furthermore, before the start of play all parties inspected the playing area, the separate restrooms and the separate bathrooms. These were the conditions agreed to by all the parties, and the match began. Thereafter, any changes to these arrangements would require the unanimous agreement of all parties. It was therefore wrong of the Appeals Committee unilaterally to withdraw from Vladimir Kramnik the conditions of play to which he had agreed, namely use of a separate restroom and bathroom.
Angered by the decision of the Appeals Committee, which violates the match contract, Vladimir Kramnik has stated that he considers the Appeals Committee biased against him and asks that the members of the Appeals Committee be changed.
This highly-charged situation calls for a compromise by all parties, and I therefore suggest the following solution:
* Firstly, since separate bathrooms were agreed to by all parties, they should be reinstated with immediate effect.
* Secondly, to assuage any suspicions of unfair behavior, the bathrooms should have an attendant at hand during play.
* Thirdly, Game Five should be rescheduled and played tomorrow, Saturday, September 30, 2006 at the usual time.
Finally, the Appeals Committee members should be allowed to remain in place as the Committee is currently constituted. However, the Committee made an error and its decision should be reversed. Veselin Topalov followed the proper channels of protocol to lodge a complaint, and his complaint was upheld. It was the Appeals Committee which over-reacted, exceeded its authority and failed to respect the contract signed by FIDE.
It is my sincerest hope that this solution will be regarded as measured and fair to all parties and that the unfortunate disagreement can now be resolved promptly. Then all of us in the chess world can resume our enjoyment of a fascinating over-the-board contest between two magnificent players.
Sincerely,
Yasser Seirawan
This is EXACTLY why there are no sponsors in chess.
Grandmasters are for the most part children who never grew up and never realized they are not as perfect as their parents and coaches have falsely made them to belive all their lives.
This is all about who can be the bigger baby.
Disagree with this? Why not look through chess life and see that many grandmasters agree with this. Look at the things Yermolinsky said about grandmasters. Look at Soltis column how he says grandmasters never lose, they always have some pathetic excuse.
An open comment to ALL grandmasters:
Stop complaining about conditions in chess. They are this poor because of you.
To those very few to whom this does not apply, I apologize. (excluding those whose egos are too large to believe they are actually in this group).
Mr Seirwan has written an excellent letter. I agree every single one of his points in total.
Therefore I doubt that Kirsan and Danilov will do the honorable thing for the sake of Chess. No one could possibly come up with a better solution.
Yes, like I said, there is hope. 🙂
“Secondly, to assuage any suspicions of unfair behavior, the bathrooms should have an attendant at hand during play.”
This would amount to giving in to the abuse of Team Topalov and the Appeals Committee. There should be no change in playing conditions, including the calmness of privacy in the restrooms.
Chess is on the front page of http://www.nytimes.com, at least on 4:45 PM EST!!!
Let grandmaster be babies, it’s chess that matters. Many athletes and artists don’t exactly strike me as the most mature and wise members of society. Maria Callas had more temper tantrums that Fisher and Kasparov combined, but she was a great singer. To a degree, one expects people who invested their whole life in one particular skill to be deficient in regular social skills. But, and there’s a great but – when the tantrums overshadow the skill for which these people are valued, then something needs to be done. Callas lost her career, because most theaters would not work with her. Fisher’s career also stopped, as is well known. I would just hope that Topalov can pull himself out of this disgrace and not be forever remembered as the man who was more interested in his rival’s bathroom habits than in playing chess.
Seirawan’s proposals are sensible, moderate, and fair. Susan, please consider supporting Seirawan’s proposals publically. Also, please consider using your blog to gather support for these proposals from other top players. If influential chess opinion backs a specific proposal, there is still a chance of rescuing this situation from disaster.
If Kramnik does not accept attendants in the bathroom this is proof that he is cheating with the abovementioned portable chess set.
The clock started. Kramnik made no move within the time limit. No legitimate or reasonable reason for not doing so (closed bathroom??). Topalov the winner of game 5. Kramnik vs. Topalov 3 – 2. If Kramnik does not show up tomorrow, Topalov is the undisputed world champion of chess.
Kramnik should be unaffected by the accusations and behaviour of the Topalov crew. By no-show he simply looses, and that is plain stupid. A world championship match is no kindergarden game, Kramnik, and you know it. Be though.
Yasser Seirawan is one of a kind. He has a super-human ability to stay cool-headed and to think clearly under pressure.
Susan, maybe Yasser is the right man for the job you recommend: Chess Commisioner!
I think Yasser has proposed a fair solution, and his ideas are the best shot at saving this wrecked match.
In general I agree with Seirawan’s letter, but technically speaking where are you going to place the bathroom attendant? Is he to be present in the resting room at all time? Talk about discomforting for Kramnik who seems to like his privacy and solitude. The intention is good, but it’s undoable. How would Danailov’s team like an offer to have a guard stand right next to Topalov just to make sure he is not cheating. It’s just not feasible, though on paper it’s very convincing.
The clock did NOT start
There is no WC match to start a clock for if the conditions agreed to in advance are not being followed
AS Mr.Seirwann said, the committee was out of bounds with their actions
“This is all about who can be the bigger baby.”
Well at least Topolov can say he won that contest
I think the attendant solution is solid. He will be there just to prevent cheating by using a pen to write positions or using a portable chess set (it appears it is impossible to cheat with electronic means due to all the security).
Well done Seirawan!
You know what? Come to think of it, why should Kramnik get a chance to play game 5 again? Topalov was there. Kramnik should have played the game and then discuss the bathroom issue.
Where did Kramnik pee during the hour he was seating in front of the bathroom door? Where did he walk to stretch his legs?
Topalov dissagreed with the decision, but he sat to play. Kramnik disagrees with the decision, he locks himself in the resting room.
Nah, I think Topalov should keep his point for game 5. Maybe tomorrow Kramnik will show up for work, and I hope Kramnik outplays Topalov, for I think he is the better player.
But if Topalov was behaving like a baby, Kramnik is behaving like a baby girl. You are there to play chess. You are being paid to play chess. Play the darn game!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
After blunders in game One and Two, Topalov suggested that is opponent was a cheater because he has a bladder implanted in his body.
Completely in agreement with Mr. Seirawan’s letter.
Need say no more.
Dear Messrs. Kramnik and Topalov:
You’re getting paid half a million dollars each to play a board game, and you have no business whining like spoiled children. Just shut the hell up and play chess.
“Michael C.M. said…
The clock did NOT start”
At
“Veselin Topalov arrives for game five, and at 15:22h his opponent’s clock is started”
You know something we dont? Also, the clock starts at the scheduled time. This is a USCF rule and a FIDE law. WC or not.
I predict that:
A) Kramnik will never accept a person in the bathroom (because he will not stop cheating).
B) If he accepts his game will mysteriously be much weaker and Topalov will pummel him.
If Kramnik accepts and then wins the title then he did not cheat (but there must be a person in the bathroom any other solution will not work).
Kramnik is a cheater
“WC” had to show it’s face at one time or another.
The issue should not be about cheating, as it, of course, didn’t happen.
Both Kramnik and Toplaov seem to be rich enough to joke around with the Championship (although they would never agree that they are joking). Rich people are extravagant on occasion, aren’t they?
I will no tbe sad if the match doesn’t continue, I’m more interested in the Women’s World Chess Championship.
Hopefully year 2007 will come soon and this year will be behind us.
The only thing i liked about all of this is Susan’s motto. If all would follow it, none of this would ever happen.
Kasparov acted like that in their 2000 match, but Leko was not that parano!
The referee in charge of putting an eye on kramnik when he goes to the bathroom simply witnessed nothing relevant.
It’s a strange fact to see how an insane maniac like danailov who has a bad fame, and who knows well how a jail is for having visiting some in his life,can put a doubt about a player known for his good behaviour and fair play amongst all his pair for decade!
If the match is going wrong, all the blame is to put on him and his friends of the fide committee…
No more no less.
Dcax,there is a manager to fire… topalov doesn’t need such one…
A grandmaster of chess gives his comment here; http://www.gmgrowl.com/
The “portable chess board” theory actually sounds reasonable to me, is there any logical refutation to it? If not, then it _needs_ to be taken care of. It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not, if it’s even possible then this is bad and distracting enough. Especially if Krammnik selfishly displays suspicious bathroom habits merely because he wants to “stretch his legs” in an extended area…
Yasser always has been a gentleman (unfortunately even when he beat me like a drum) and he is absolutely right regarding the solution. Unfortunately I think this fiasco has gone too far for either side to do the retreating necessary to resolve this.
Hey anonymous(coward)
I just started the chess clock in my rec room
It has more validity than the one the clueless committee started this morning
I’m not sure I but the theory that a superGM can increase his elo rating by moving a portable chess board. Didn’t Shirov analyze, while at the board, by not even looking at the board?
I am a total buffoon
A simple way to understand this (it has been investigated extensively) is to see how by moving the pieces on a board you can expand your “horizon limit” (horizon effect in chess computer terms), for example if Kasparov is calculating a combination, he will eventually reach a limit in his capacity to follow it (if it is long or branches enough) but if he moves the pieces on the board to the position that is his limit (his horizon limit) then he will inmediately expand this limit and so on. The strenght of the player is irrelevant, we all have limits.
I have read Yasser Seirawan letter a few times now..and the more I read it the worse it looks..If you have a player in a major game like the World Tidle getting up and sitting down like (50) times(if that is true) you have a major problem on your hands..that is not a fair chess game..in any other World Tidle events you would most likely be disqualifed…would the chess olypics allow that??
What’s wrong with getting up and walking 50 times? These games can last over 7 hours. Personally I get restless and start pacing if I have to spend so much time in a small space. This isn’t a stamina test, but a chess match. If Kramnik wants to pace, let him; if Topalov thinks better while sitting, that’s fine too. They don’t have to act identically, and they don’t have to please the spectators, only to play chess.
It’s ridiculous to suggest that elite players need a pocket chess set to win. They must be past that stage, and their participation in blindfold chess tournaments proves that.
I am now officially furious at Veselin Topalov
He has had the whole day to apologize for his childish behavior and his unsubstantiated slander.
When I woke up this morning I was actually looking forward to him winning the game.
I haven’t cared about chess like this since Fischer /Spassky
Hoddy, I don’t care if Kramnik need to get up 1000 times
Again: the advantages of using visual means for calculation (chess set) have nothing to do with blinfold ability or the strenght of the player. ANY player will benefit from defeating the “horizon limit”.
Thanks to GM Yaseer Sierawan for a nice proposal of reconciliation to the current deadlock situation. I think he has pointed out the thaughts of chess lovers in a very neutral way. I hope FIDE and both the players will be wise enough to accept it.
Yaz has offered a sensible solution — probably the most sensible one we’re going to get at this point. The only drawback (and there’s no avoiding this) is that it requires both teams to make compromises on something and the Appeals Committee to reverse itself. I’m not sure which of these three things I think is the least likely, but human nature being what it is, none of them is terribly probable.
If we have reached the point at which metal detectors at the door of the restroom are an insufficient guarantee against cheating, then the future of chess is grim indeed.
Side note: According to the ChessBase website, the “50 times” claim was an exaggeration and the Appeals Committee even noted this. Let’s stop talking as though it’s a fact.
IMO, Kramink should be fined to bringing the game of chess to disrepute over such a trivial matter. This would be in tandem with the situation with cricket; the complaint maybe valid but this is no excuse for disappointing all fans of chess with such childish meladroma.
You want to talk about “childish melodrama”, how about Topalov’s team accusing Kramnik of cheating because he visited the toilet more than they thought necessary.
Both teams should grow up and play chess. I’m not sure I understand all of the politics, but if Topalov is in any way associated with FIDE, then of course they want him to win.
Not fair to force Kramnik to use a woman’s rest room. this is rediculous and insulting.
Not a woman’s bathroom. They both would use the same bathroom.
If Kramnik were using a small chess set, why did he enter and leave the bathroom multiple times, such as between moves 15 & 16 as the detailed protest? He is on video every time he leaves.
I agree with Yasser’s assessment, indeed it == my snap reaction on the Playchess server. The appeals committee overreached—impeaching FIDE’s own match preparation as well as Kramnik—and this has created a real problem for FIDE. Kramnik is a guest of FIDE more than Topalov is a guest of Russia here.
In the bathroom photo, it should be clarified that the CRT is not a computer, but a monitor to look at the board for when a move is made.
J.K. Rowling is often accused of being “derivative”, but she presaged one here. The character “Moaning Myrtle” lives in a toilet and gives Harry Potter surreptitious advice on challenges.
My headline would be, “WC Match Bogged Down”. It’s a /head/line, geddit? Choose Loos and Lose. The Lav-ian Gambit. The snicker-lines are endless, alas—and this will be a real test of the principle that no publicity is bad publicity…
Doping in chess can be a chip behind your ear to hear what Fritz says about your next move.
Note that the game is on the Russian territory, where it can be simply patriotic to participate in the plot.
On the other hand Russian mentality is to get lamed in front of unjustified claims of cheating.
At the moment the cheating hypothesis leads in my mind by 55 against 45.
I’m not a “fan” of either of these players; I just like to see good chess, and think it’s a shame we may not see any more of it between these two.
The refutation of the claim that Kramnik is cheating is simple: He wouldn’t have made a blunder (31…Bxf8) that should have cost him game 2 if he were cheating. Unless he is a world-class chessplayer who somehow isn’t smart enough to be a good cheater, which seems unlikely.
The reason Kramnik is ahead is that Topalov blundered a pawn in a dead-drawn position in game 1 (resulting in an ending that a 1600 player probably could have won, let alone Kramnik), and missed an easy win in game 2 followed by a series of smaller errors that gave Kramnik a winning edge. I admire the chess Topalov has played in recent years and his fighting spirit, but he is currently acting like a big baby. He’s built up this reputation as a clutch player with his recent success, and he seems to have trouble facing the real reason he is behind in this match: he choked!
Kramnik does have a point that Topalov is unilaterally demanding a change in the contract both players signed for the match. But I think he could have made his point without acting in a way that has possibly sabotaged the match.
I am just one of those chess fans who’d been looking forward to this match’s dvelopment and have to say that it is very dissapointing that the mere “bathroom” issue is threatening to nullify the entire championship to decide who is at the very top among millions of world ches players.
The fortification of the game 5, based on the accusative letter submitted by the Topalov’s team is quite farceful. Would the same thing be happening in a world Tennis Open, for instance,with one player paranoid about his or her opponent hypothetically taking doses of steroid in the locker room and actually lodging a complaint to suspend the ongoing game? Apparently not!
I cannot believe how inefficient and incompetent the organiser of this championship has been in dealing with this matter. As Mr. Seirawan rightly suggests, the two players had agreedd on the playing conditions and proceeded with the games up to the point, where it became incredibly difficult for Topalov’s team to win, the score being 1-3. But had the score been 3-1 and Topalov dominating Krammnik, would Topalov’s team have even considered about forwarding a cheating allegation? Probably not.
Maybe the Commitee should have acted behind the closed doors to not disturb the player’s psychology and disgrace the image of profesional chess.
As a general chess fan with a rating of mere 1600s, I cannot say much about the analyses of the games, but still can point out that what is going on regarding the development of the championship match seems extremely childish, irritating and plain boring on the part of me as a chess spectator.
Pesonally, I feel that Topalov’s team should not have resortd to these unfounded accusations, nor should the Commitee taken them so seriously.
I would not mind if Krammnik takes scores of bathroom breaks or even handreads- as long as he does it within the framework of the match regulations. If anyone thinks there is anything wrong with the bathroom break, it should have been stipulated in the procedural agreement well and before the beginning of the match. It wasn’t and Krammnik did not do anything wrong as far as the official rugulations were concerned.
If Krammnik is accused of cheating merely for going to the bathroom, so should be a number of other players both in chess and other sports! The whole things sounds like a bit of a joke.
Unfortunately, my rather pessimistic current feeling is that the championship match might have been already ruined since we might not expect either player could play on with a presence of mind once this kind of sensational allegation is made. The Topalov’s team should have been aware of what would be the ramifications of making such open allegations of Krammnik cheating to the rest of the match games and atmosphere of all parties concerned. Unless their motive all along was to distract attention from chess itself and make everyone oblivious about Topalov having been completely outplayed by Krammnik all along, they should have just refrained from such premature action.
H
Issues have to be resolved in their own scope and according to their own priority.
The main issue to resolve at this point is how to continue the match, with what scoe and under what conditions.
When this is resolved (if ever), then priority would be redirected to try to solve whether or not Kramnik was receivinf ilegal help – either by cheating with a computer or using a portable chess board.
I agree with the statement that sound skills in blindfold chess do not have anything to do with not needing a chessboard to expand your own horizon limit. Using such board would ALWAYS help at least by giving you additional calculating advantage.
The statement made by an anonymous poster – “The refutation of the claim that Kramnik is cheating is simple: He wouldn’t have made a blunder (31…Bxf8) that should have cost him game 2 if he were cheating. Unless he is a world-class chessplayer who somehow isn’t smart enough to be a good cheater, which seems unlikely” is not consistent to me – though he states some other reasonable points afterwards. Even if you were consulting a computer, you can receive help only for a certain variation that you are interested in and then continue by yourself “because I can handle this from this point forward” and thus blunder. Cheating does not mean cheating in each and every move. Now, if instead of consulting a program the cheating is by using a portable chessboard, the probability of blundering is even higher – will be your own mistake anyway.
However, these are only points to help think about the second issue in hand. I am not saying that Kramnik was cheating but at the same time, there isn’t either any evidence that he was not and his constant visits to the bathroom are indeed “strange if not suspicious”. As I said many times before, Topalov’s team NEVER said Kramnik was cheating but simply pointed out facts that could lead to suspicious behaviour. Insinuating is not accusing (you can’t accuse without evidence) and both incompetent handling of the situation by the Committee and touchy reaction by the Kramnik side ended up creating the second-higher priority issue to be resolve first now.
What a pity for chess! I used to favour Topalov as I admire his way of playing. For Kramnik, I have always felt respect because he is a great defender. There was reason to expect a match of the century. After Danailov’s letter, I changed my mind. Shame on the Topalov team for being so unfair losers! It has been suggested several times (or been written explicitly) that Kramnik was cheating. Where’s the evidence? Just look at game 2, which just doesn’t look like either of them was using unfair methods. Game 3, too, was by no means played perfectly, neither by Topalov nor by Kramnik (still, I thought it was a great, though nervous, fight). I think there’s only one way to save this match: Topalov should apologise without any further conditions and accept a replay of game 5. This is the only thing Kramnik could possibly accept. As this is not going to happen, I’m afraid the match is over and a great chance missed. I’m now just a bit more inclined to accept Kramnik as the World Chess Champion. With ambiguous feelings, of course: I still think that a player like Topalov should hold the crown. His behaviour is a disappointment to all chess fans.
“The refutation of the claim that Kramnik is cheating is simple: He wouldn’t have made a blunder (31…Bxf8)”
That’s simply not true. This blunder was a plain oversight, it could have just as well happened during analysis on a chess board.
Even engine support can’t be completely ruled out because of a blunder, that would be too simple. The more convincing argument is that players are screened for electronic devices and interference is in place to avoid outside contact. That does not rule out a portable chess board however.
If Kramnik isn’t willing to make the slightest concession to ease these doubts, then he is acting extremely irresponsible. So hopefully he will agree with bathroom attendends and hopefully Topalov will agree to replay game five. It seems unlikely at this point that everything will work out, but I can’t believe that anyone would seriously be happy about canceling the event…
In the 1972 Fischer Spassky WC Match Bobby forfeited game 2. But unlike Kramnik, Fischer was man enough to go forward to game 3 and not childishly demanding to play game 2 over again! Game 5 is in the books!
I would propose to send German GM Lothar Schmid to Elista. He could even convince Bobby Fischer to sit down and play, back in 1972.
Dear Susan,
Thank you for this great website and I appreciate your constant, inspirational effort to disseminate the great game of chess throughout the world.
I would like to make a brief comment on Mr Renzo’s take on the development of the matter so far.
I presume that Mr Renzo is a seasoned chessplayer and that his explanation of how highest-level chess players would only need some specific, extra tips to improve their game performance is most likely true.
Having said this, however, as there is certainly no evidence of Krammnik not cheating, so is there no evidence of Topalov not cheating (the games) or any other chess player not cheating, either. While Mr Renzo posits that the Topalov side never used the word, “cheating”, lodging an official complaint with provocative undertones which did reslut in the forfiture of the game 5 (as of 29/9) cannot be taken as “just pointing out facts” about “strange if not suspicious” behaviour by Krammnik.
This kind of allegation should never be made lightly, and I personally believe that what the Topalov team did come to communicate was a full-fledged, open accusasion of Krammink cheating his chess games in the World Championship on the basis of his going to the bathroom a lot more times than what could be deemed as usual.
I think that because of the meadia-frenzed sensational nature of Toplaov’s letter, Krammink side has the right to find the matter to be unfair and insulting.
H
Even though I agree to basically all of his points, I guess that Mr. Seirawan is simplifying the situation as of course he is a lot more motivated than those members of any committee… to see that, just multiply the expected number of visitors by the number of remaining games by the price of following the match on the Playchess servers.
There are now two issues here – the “bathroom issue” (or “facilities issue”) and the “game 5 forfeit issue”. I don’t know how to resolve the game 5 forfeit issue, since so far as I know nobody has ever refused to play a scheduled game in a FIDE WC event, been forfeited, and then gotten the point back, and so what Team Kramnik is asking for here is rather unprecedented.
But on the “bathroom issue”, I think the key to this all is to realize that there are three elements here: cameras, bathrooms, and walking room. According to Team Kramnik, this is not really about VK wanting to visit the toilet 50 times a game, and it is not about VK wanting to be out of view of the cameras 50 times a game either. It is about the fact that he likes to walk around, the relaxation room is too small, and therefore he walks into the bathroom for extra walking space. The presence of the toilet and the absence of the camera are accidental features of the physical arrangement that happens to exist at the playing site.
Therefore, it seems to me that the facilities issue could be resolved by expanding the relaxation areas of both players so that Kramnik can pace around all he likes without actually visiting the toilet and leaving the view of the surveillance camera. Maybe this would require someone to rearrange assigned space or install temporary partitions or curtains, but I’m sure that it’s possible if people really want to solve the problem.
Dear Mr. Renzo,
Thank you for your feedback on my comment.
I understand your claim that the Topalov side did everything within the ‘leagal’ framework and it was Krammnik that did not sit on the game 5.
I also respect your opinion about the state of gentlemanhood as being “optional” to attain one’s goals. As much as we might want to strive to be a gentleman when the conditions are met, my real-life experience suggests that sometimes one has no option but have to come across as “nasty” in order to preserve their basic well-beings as well. I have no illusion about the “nasty” side of the human nature, either.
Yet, to make my point clear, finally, maybe I might have wanted there had been a sort of tacid agreement or unwritten codes of chivalry of a kind between the two players (teams) that would have ensured they respected and dignified each other’s company throughout the whole match. Susan’s motto comes very nicely in here: “win with grace, lose with dignity.”
Yes, there will be a winner and a loser at the end of any game, war or conflict. But I might have wanted as a chess fan that respecting one’s opponent comes before winnig or losing in the game of chess, the idea being applicable in other contexts of life.
Perhaps, I was a bit disillusioned (or bored) by the seemingly trivial dispute that has had to jeopardised the otherwise really exciting and entertaing Championship match.
I only hope that both parties will garner the best of their goodwill in the discussion during the postponement of the game 5 (6). If Kasparov claims that the technique learned in chess is applicable to the real-life, why don’t Topalov and Krammnik teams (and I am painfully aware that I am somewhat partial to Krammnick in this specific case!)learn from the off-the-board blunders they just made quickly, carelessly and fights on even in a somewhat deteriorated position?
We humans, unlike a machine, do err and keep erring, yet ‘are’ the one that can also invent a solution that is original and only by humans!That is my somewhat self-important, grandiose pearl of wisdom from this event, I suppose.
H
No, with a small chess set in a bathroom what you say makes no sense. The supposed advantage of having a small chess set is moving pieces around on it. Most to the point, if you’re doing something covert, that’s a reason you would *not* walk in and out of the open.
On another matter, IMHO the major moral issue connecting to the score at which the match should be resumed is, Should/could Kramnik have played Game 5 yesterday *under protest*? Compared to athletic sports, which have better-established rules and cultures for doing this, it is harder to conduct a chess game while under mental duress. In cricket (England vs. Pakistan), a cheating accusation did lead to a forfeit, not playing under protest.
In my opinion (and evidently Susan’s), Kramnik does bear some portion of responsibility for not starting the game. A compromise that could reflect this—and also help convince sponsors that chess can hold to a schedule—is: For the time being declare Game 5 drawn, and restart tomorrow with Game 6, Topalov having White. But if Game 12 ends with Kramnik ahead by 1 point, then Game 5 would be replayed (Topalov Black) on Oct. 11. If a tie after Game 12, Topalov would have the option of replaying Game 5 or going straight to the Oct. 12 tiebreaks.
This way, Topalov gets the benefit of “an easy draw with Black”, and does not lose the option of a game where he could have caught up. This at least reflects some compensation from Kramnik’s side for not playing the game. I do, however, completely agree with John Nunn as well as Yasser that the forfeit must not stand.
Once again, Kramnik did not walk in and out of the bathroom continually, he walked in, stayed for a minute then walked out, then walked in, stayed for 2 minutes then walked out. This is perfectly consistent with him playing with the position inside the bathroom (with the chess set) then going out to meditate on it, then going in to set up another position (the one he is calculating) and so on. In the match with Kasparov (in which he did not have his famous disease, by the way) he had to hide inside the toilet booth to do the cheating after Kasparov complained about his multiple visits to the bathroom and someone had to accompany him to monitor his activity at said location. Unfortunately, no one thought at the time (not even Kasparov) that Kramnik was cheating in such a way, thus the inspection did nothing to prevent his cheating.
What’s with this bathroom chess set thing? Does anyone have PROOF of this? Or is it as much of a supposition as the chip in the brain fantasy.
Guys of this calibre don’t need that.
Even bog-standard club players don’t need that. The wireless-device setup, as in that State-side tourney, is more understandable…unless, people visualise differently on that side of the pond, this idee fixe about bathroom chess sets doesn’t make sense.
Topalov blundered in two games; now his team cries foul…there’s no evidence of cheating…GM Nunn’s comments highlight the problem…there’s also the possibility of missing the Radjabov match, also, by losing, of having to go through the qualifying cycle
Have there been any reports of Kramnik excessively visiting the bathroom other than in the Kasparov match and this one? If not, then I don’t see any reason whatsoever (at least in terms of evidence, which is the only reason that ought to count) to think he is cheating now. His level of play in this match is certainly no better than it typically is. There was the big blunder in game 2 and otherwise (judging from my analysis of the games with Fritz and the variouis GM post-mortems I’ve seen) there seem to have been about the same number of minor mistakes by Kramnik as is usual for top-level grandmasters. Although this doesn’t rule out the possibility of Kramnik having cheated, it doesn’t appear that his level of play has been any higher than is typical in top-flight chess — indeed, although his play has been relatively solid, none of the four games would win any brilliancy prizes. So either Kramnik cheated but it didn’t help, or there has been no cheating.
Topalov drew games 3 and 4, and has only himself to blame for losing games 1 and 2. He is behind because he blundered away a half point in game 1 and a whole point in game 2, not because of any cheating by his opponent. (Note that I’m not saying either that Kramnik didn’t or that he did cheat; only that the reason Topalov is trailing is because he’s played some lousy moves rather than because of cheating by his opponent.)
As for the legality of what the Topalov team did, sure it was legal for them to lodge a protest, but in their protest they asked (and got) the match organizers to abrogate some of the terms of the contract that both players had signed before the match. In other words, they asked the match organizers to do something that was not legal in the absence of the Kramnik team’s consent.
My question left unanswered:
Are the safety, lets us say anti-doping arrangements badly behind the modern technology in these World Championship events?
Stressing that this would not necessarily have happened, but:
Kramnik takes a chip from his pocket while locking the bathroom doom behind himself, puts it into his ear, listens to it for some seconds, then chooses his next move.
At least in the coming tournaments this must be prevented without any player to be felt himself insulted reacting like he likes to continue this kind of doped chess.