There have been THOUSANDS of posts about Kramnik, Topalov and accusations of cheating against both players. It seems that the fans of Kramnik firmly believe that Topalov cheated and the fans of Topalov firmly believe that Kramnik cheated. However, instead of arguing with emotions, why not show the hard facts?
Facts are not what their managers or some journalists say. Facts also cannot be what some players speculate. Are there some hard facts about these issues? Can you document it through links, videos or other conclusive proofs?
For the record, I DO NOT believe that either Kramnik or Topalov cheated. I believe that both are fantastic chess players.
My take on Kramnik: Chess looks so easy when Kramnik plays. I personally learn so much from his game and I like his style. He has an incredible knowledge and feel for the game. He is in chess as to Federer in tennis (making things look so easy). His weakness is his lack of fighting spirit from time to time. He only fights when he has to. That is why he is better in match format.
My take on Topalov: He has the heart of a lion. The man never backs down from any battle. What he lacks in some areas are made up by his incredible fighting spirit. He is in chess as to Mike Tyson (in earlier days) in the boxing ring. His weakness is the ability to maintain consistency and that can be exploited in match format. That is why he is more suitable for tournament format.
“It seems that the fans of Kramnik firmly believe that Topalov cheated and the fans of Topalov firmly believe that Kramnik cheated.”
utter rubbish, as usual. Very few on either side believe that anyone cheated, although on average the Topalov fans show much less decency and respect than the Kramnik fans – which is only what you would expect from people who are still supporting that crook after everything he has done in the last months.
Fact1: There was an internet cable in Kramnik’s toilet – pictured
Fact2: The internet cable was also documented and the document was signed by representatives from the organizational and arbiter committee of the Elista match
Fact3: the newly promoted arbiter committee after the original one was dismissed during game 5 by Ilymizinov, tried to quit. They had sent an official letter stating that they were not introduced to the fact that there was an internet cable in kramnik’s toilet and they don’t want to be part of this theater. this situation was concealed using political pressure over the members of the committee. Fortunately the resignation letter that they had sent was preserved.
All these is available and soon will be spread over internet. I’ve seen it in the new book “Toilet WAR”. All these documents scanned are applied there. It is a matter of time when they will be available in internet too.
Good point, Susan. From what I’ve seen there’s little conclusive evidence to support cheating by either player, just circumstantial things that seem important out of context. But maybe other know more than I do. Let them come forward. I’ll be listening.
Some amendment to my previous post with the facts:
I mean appeals committee not arbiter committee.
Sorry for the mistake.
First of all, I am not a Kramnik fan, I just think he behaved (and still does) in a more elevated way.
I think Topalov fans are forgetting one essential thing, even if you have an internet cable you need some device to connect to that cable. Where was Kramnik hiding that device? Kramnik was playing at a 2800 level even when computers were struggling to play at a 2500 level.
I am not saying that Topalov cheated, I don’t think he did, but it is a fact that his evolution in rating, with a age when players usually have already reached their full potential, happens at the same time as computers start to play better than the best human players. After saying this, I have to admit that I am 33, and I hope that my rating will still increase from the current 1950!
Do people honestly believe players at this level would cheat? Why would either of these players risk it? As a player at that level, how could you justify cheating to win against being caught and losing more than the match?
Then again MLB players take steroids, so I guess its possible.
It’s just hard for me to fathom these things, because I can only go by my own morals and I could never cheat.
Facts are in short supply, but that certainly didnt stop topalov and danialov in their sustained campaign of slander against kramnik. Now they reap their karma.
As to whether these new allegations hold any more water than the two stooges, only time will tell.
Its an odd question to ask Susan, if conclusive proof existed to show any player cheated, it would be acted upon.
As things stand we its abundantly clear that team Topalov begun the mudslinging and now it seems that some investigative journalism is pointing the finger in the opposite direction.
Irrespective of what has happened or may have happened, it is crystal clear that high level games need to be conducted in an environment where cheating is quite simply out of the question.
When you go to play to defend your world champion title, and you learn about internet cable in you rival’s toilet, what are you supposed to do….close your eyes and continue playing, just to look nice. I’ve also seen the photos and the signed document. Disgusting!
>>
Fact1: There was an internet cable in Kramnik’s toilet
>>
There is nothing strange about a modern building having an internet cable. What are you suggesting, that Kramnik and his team were able to string a network cable through an entire building un-noticed? Wouldn’t the original builders say “Hey, what’s that internet cable doing in our building, we didn’t put it there.”, much less notice the classical chess champion in a hard hat doing some construction work where he is about to play a match? Wouldn’t been easier to sneak a phone or some other wireless device into the toilet?
>>
Fact2: The internet cable was also documented and the document was signed by representatives from the organizational and arbiter committee of the Elista match
>>
This is essentially a repetition of “Fact1” .
>>
Fact3: the newly promoted arbiter committee after the original one was dismissed during game 5 by Ilymizinov .. they were not introduced to the fact that there was an internet cable… yada yada yada
>>
“Fact1” … again.
This proves nothing other than the fact that team Topalov are sore losers and that Danailov will do anything for a buck.
Unless kramnik is a cyborg with a built in laptop then the presence of a UTP cable behind a bathroom wall is completely irrelevant. This is chess, not Terminator 3.
I personally don’t believe either of the players cheated. I stand to be corrected, but it seems the post suggests that Kramnik’s team directly accused Topalov of cheating. Is this so? While ignoring other GMs direct accusations, for instance in San Luis, Topalov’s fans have tried hard to pin the German article on Kramnik. An article comes out, and since it was published in a country where Hansel comes from, it must be Kramnik’s voice! Let’s face it, it’s the world alleging against the Topalov/Danailov tag-team, the two against Kramnik, and Kramnik doing what he does best quietly, play solid chess!
“There is nothing strange about a modern building having an internet cable.”
How sure I am that you’ve never been to Elista!!! Your statement would have been true if applied to almost any other country but Kalmikia. For Kalmikia it should be worded like that “One of the 4 Internet cables in the country was discovered in the john ceiling”
Im not a fan of Kramnik, but I dont think he cheated. Computers tend to play more aggressively than he.
I dont understand why team Topalov kicked up such a stink in Elista, except in reaction to Topalovs dreadful early performance and a desire to put Kramnik off his game. It almost worked.
Whether Topalov cheated to obtain his rating is a moot point, and enough people outside Kramniks immediate circle seem to be suggesting this is so to give the possibility some merit. In any case it seems unlikely Topalov (or Kramnik) cheated in Elista, and now he has lost he FIDE title. He was never the classical world champion.
“…quietly, play solid chess!”
LOL! 🙂 As quiet that he may stop all together if you ask me. 10 draws of 13 games in Corus – even Leko envy such “quietness”
Internet cable can be found in any home…but NOT IN THE TOILET FOR GOD”S SAKE!!!
Obviously there has been some device attached to this cable which has been rapidly uninstalled before the toilet check had begun – and the cable was nicely hidden in the hanging ceiling.
Don’t say that by coincidence there is an internet cable into the only not monitored place – the toilet and it is only kramnik’s conscience that he didn’t use it 🙂
If this is normal building architecture – why then there was no cable found in topalov’s toilet? because this cable was intentioanally put there to assist a specificplayer – not everybody.
yeah, Kram needs to check his email while sh….!
A cable means nothing without a device, and both players were put through metal detectors.
Even if kramnik had a device, he was only able to make use of it through games 1-4, and game 5 with white was forfeited. Topalov still lost.
It seems unlikely either player cheated in Elista.
>>It seems that the fans of Kramnik firmly believe that Topalov cheated and the fans of Topalov firmly believe that Kramnik cheated. However, instead of arguing with emotions, why not show the hard facts?>>
This seems to be an oversimplification. People accuse Susan of being biased towards Topalov, which she definitely is not. Her bias, if she has one, is that both sides are always exactly equally right or equally wrong. If Topalov makes an accusation, and Kramnik remains silent, she’ll tell them both to cool it, and vice versa.
This story is a good example of this. On this blog, at least, the Topalov fans have been screaming bloody murder for months, tossing out one wild accusation after another, without evidence, or sometimes against the evidence. Nobody’s accused Topalov of using computer assistance at Elisat. Now, 4 months later, a story comes out accusing Topalov of monkey business in his game against Van Wely, and Susan jumps on it as evidence that both sides are equally intractable.
There’s no evidence that Kramnik is even involved, much less that his fans believe these charges as rabidly as Topalov’s fans have believed his. And yet we’re told that both sides have behaved the same way. People mistake this for a pro-Topalov bias on her part, when in fact it’s a “bias” against taking sides.
One wonders what “bias” would be taken if concrete proof were found that Topalov has cheated.
The cable complaint is hilarious.
I am positive my office building has internet cables in the bathroom ceiling. This is because the LAN room is on the other side.
What is does not have is a place to connect a device…note that neither did the cable in Elista.
To my knowledge, although in movies it is possible for a Terminator or Cylon or cyborg (Alien) to cut open a cable and patch in, human beings can’t do this.
And why would they? Wireless connections are much more likely, with a text message sent from someone in the audience to relay the signal.
The problem is…WHERE WAS THE DEVICE?
Since it did not exist we are left with the inescapable conclusion that Kramnik could not have cheated.
In the recent accounts we DO HAVE a transmission device, Topalov’s manager. So that makes this accusation possible but very unlikely.
However, if Topalov tried this in Elista then the best way to make sure no one’s attention was on possible signals would be to complain about bathroom and distract the media! That would explain the second half of the match and of course this could not work at Rapid time limits so Topalov was clearly outclassed in the tiebreakers! OK very unlikely but more likley than Kramnik using mental powers to receive signals from a sealed cable in a ceiling!!
If Topalov cheated now really doesnt much matter. He isnt world champion. He isnt FIDE champion.
With luck he will be denied a further chance to challenge for the championship on the basis of his accusations, and because other people deserve a first chance before he is given a second.
He should content himself with having held the highest ELO rating for a while. How he obtained it is between him and his consience.
I am a Topalov fan for a simple reason – CHESS. I firmly believe that neither he, nor Kramnik ever cheated. I also believe that there are a lot of looneys out there on both sides making fools of themselves. I should admit – more so on Topalov’s side. I equaly dislike Sylvio Danailov and Kramnik. I agree that Kramnik legitimately won the Elista match. I’m almost sure it was a tactial loss for Topalov since this was his first match. I’m sure Topalov is the better player (not sure he’s the better competitor in a match). I found Kramnik’s behavior during the Elista match as sportsman’s one. I am 100% sure that Kramnik’s chess is no good for promoting the game and bringing sponsors in. All above is to say that a lot of people like me don’t see the things in black and white only.
OKKKaayyyyyy!
There was no Internet cable in the ceiling just passing to the next room.
There was a PATCH UTP5 CABLE ending into the kramnik’s toilet.
Documented! Period!
Of course the device has been removed before the check – because the check has been announce the previous day.
I would sure like to know the following facts:
What was the average number of times per hour Kramnik went to the bathroom (or even simply the amount of time he was away from the board)
(1) At Elista
(2) During the Fritz match
(3) During Corus
Is this information available? Surely someone must have noted.
Surely having this information would make a significant contribution to the debate.
>>Fact1: There was an internet cable in Kramnik’s toilet – pictured>>
Not a fact. The fact is that there were cables in the wiring in the walls. Most buildings have them, even in Elsta.
>>When you go to play to defend your world champion title, and you learn about internet cable in you rival’s toilet, what are you supposed to do….close your eyes and continue playing,
>>
Topalov has never been World Champion, but ignoring that one error, he did exactly what you say he wouldn’t do. Kept playing and even apologized for over-reacting. To wit:
“I believe that [Kramnik’s] play is fair, and my decision to continue the match proves it. We are humans, and sometimes we make mistakes.” — Veselin Topalov, Game 6 Press Conference
You’re absolutely right. If he had really believed Kramnik was cheating at the time, he never would have said and done that. It was only after he got beat and desperately needed an excuse that he ignored his apology and started concocting bigger and bigger stories.
In fact, you guys on about the toilet are way behind the times. Haven’t you read Topalov’s ABC.es interview? The toilet was meaningless. The new claim is that Kramnik was receiving signals at the board through a device concealed on his person. Remember that after the match, Topalov needed an excuse not only for losing the main match, but for losing the Rapids also, and the Toilet excuse didn’t cover the Rapids. Get with the program, guys.
There was a PATCH UTP5 CABLE ending into the kramnik’s toilet.
Can’t you read, morons!
>>Of course the device has been removed before the check – because the check has been announce the previous day. >>
Unfortunately, you’ve shown no evidence that the device exists, other than “I need for it to exist in order to explain away my favorite player’s defeat.”
But I’ll give you some friendly advice. If you ever get called up for jury duty and want to get out of it, tell them about this case and tell them that this seems like good evidence to you. I promise you you won’t get picked.
“There was a PATCH UTP5 CABLE ending into the kramnik’s toilet.
Can’t you read, morons!”
OK genius lets you and me test this out I will thrust a UTP5 cable in your nether regions and you can let me know the moves..as they come to you….
I played my computer at chess tonight, and despite visiting the toilet several times and pacing up and down, I was still unable to beat it. Sniffing a UTP5 cable was thoroughly unhelpful.
Must remember to tell Vlad.
“
Kramnik’s fans will say – what is the strange here – this is just a routine when he plays matches. his routine in tournaments is different.”
Well, in 21st century it is disturbing if you don’t see your oponent 95% of the time and he appears only when he has to move a piece. I’m not saying Kramnik was cheating, just that it was a demeanor that is suspicious. Going down this logic why would they even meet at a place when they can play over Internet with a “sworn in God, their mother, or NY Giants” arbiters by their side.
Topalov did not cheat, Kramnik did not cheat. There, satisfied?
“..I equaly dislike Sylvio Danailov and Kramnik. I agree that Kramnik legitimately won the Elista match. I’m almost sure it was a tactial loss for Topalov since this was his first match. I’m sure Topalov is the better player (not sure he’s the better competitor in a match). I found Kramnik’s behavior during the Elista match as sportsman’s one.”
Martin you are saying you dislike Kramnik as you dislike Danailov, and one sentence later you are saying that Kramnik behaved as a sportsman and won the match legitimately. What a contradiction is this?
If you dislike Kramnik because of his game style this is simply injustice idea. What Kramnik did to be a disliked man by you? You may dislike his “game style” but that doesn’t conclude disliking Kramnik.
He is champion and it seems Topalov is not someone to crack his drawish (in true words strong style) style!
I am sure Kramnik will win a further match (if exists) against Topalov more easily. Simply because Kramnik is the strongest player to beat. Topalov can not do this you will see I am sure in time!
“My take on Kramnik: Chess looks so easy when Kramnik plays. I personally learn so much from his game and I like his style. He has an incredible knowledge and feel for the game. He is in chess as to Federer in tennis (making things look so easy). His weakness is his lack of fighting spirit from time to time. He only fights when he has to. That is why he is better in match format.” Judith Polgar
I completely agree
One doesn’t need a particular reason to dislike somebody (note that I didn’t use stronger words). After all there are 6 bil. people – I cannot like them all.
I’m willing to bet my fat US salary on yours on the next Kramnik Topalov match.
If I were at that level of play and accused of cheating, I would just let people watch me pee. I don’t care. Put it on the big jumbo-tron if they want. I’ll even whistle a tunr for them.
Folks, to evaluate allegations in an article like Breutigam’s it sure would be nice to have more quantitative data on the moves in question: 26–35 in round 2, 20–53 (minus 26 & 27?) in round 3. (The article doesn’t say when Danailov entered in round 2; it could have been earlier than move 26.) I have pretty reliable round-3 data for the current Rybka (2.2n2) and for Fritz 9 on my site:
Corus 2007 Allegations
Most needed would be similar runs for Deep Fritz 10, Fritz 10, Shredder 10, Hiarcs 11, and Junior 10 (others?). One point is to see how similar the engines are *to themselves* on the moves in question.
A shortcut to the data-gathering method on my site which I now think is OK is to run the engine in /single-line/ mode (quickest!) up through its giving a line for depth 17, then clicking the “+” sign to add lines up to (say) 10. You need the extra lines evaluated at some high depth in order to estimate how much better the top move is than others. If the top move has a high difference (called “delta” on my site), then you can figure it was pretty obvious, and so a match means less. The most significant matches are those where the engine is followed when there are many fairly-close alternatives. Then put #lines back down to 1 before stepping ahead to the next move. (Also, begin 1 move ahead of the range so that you fill up the hash table before beginning with the first move in question, which approximates how things would happen during cheating. I use 512MB hash.)
As I remarked in the ChessNinja thread linked from my site, my informal tests of quite a few engines for Round 2 vs. van Wely showed either that Topalov’s moves were “pretty obvious” or the engine liked other options (at moves 29 and 32). Tests of engines named above which I don’t have are needed to back up the assertion “Later it turned out that all the moves that Topalov had played in this decisive phase are also the first choices of the popular chess programs” in the article, which also doesn’t specify the search-depth or time needed to determine the “first choice”.
Another query: Why would Danailov need to make phone /calls/? Wouldn’t silent instant-messaging be sufficient? Maybe both were used? The article doesn’t give enough detail to tell. Proper skeptical questions need to be asked.
In general, we need more unbiased quantitative data! The data I have so far do not contradict Susan’s opinion…
of course, later games as Topalov surged to 1st (sans Danailov, but less-obvious means may be possible?) should also be looked at, for which I’d need help…
It seems to me that if either one cheated (which I don’t believe) than they certainly didn’t do it very well. There were a number of missteps throughout the tournament (in game 2, for instance) where judicious application of computer power would have produced markedly better results.
Why did Kramnik’s moves agree so often with Fritz’s choices then? ..for the same reason that Topolov’s did: They are both astoundingly accurate chessplayers and good moves are good moves whether found by human or computer.
There is something people are missing again:
The cable was found in the wall BEFORE the beginning of the match. It’s a pure fact.
BUT: Before the round 5,the toilets were available for both players :they changed their toilet for each game,so chance(?) made possible that the cable were found in kramnik’s but the contrary would have been possible too!
So, there were no cable left during the match. And cables are something normal to find in new buildings nowadays.It’s not “little house”!
Cable alone are useless, a device is necessary to have something to do with. The security wouldn’t have allowed such devices to pass them, so : it’s a total nonsense to speack about it.
Danailov as made all that mess to sold his loo book: it’s a pitty again…
With a trainer like Chepparinov and one player with the level of Topalov it would have be better to have a book about the match with full comments than a mere BS…
Danailov is searching 20 000 morons to buy his BS: if you don’t understand that i’m sorry for you all…
One thing people can’t deny : Topalov and Kramnik are two very gifted players for years!
The BS is initiated only with someone like the poor danailoo…
One more thing: i totally agree with those who think that topalov behaviour was not one of the champion he was supposed to be.
Win with grace, lose with dignity: Kramnik dislike to lose and do his best not to, Topalov can’t lose with dignity… so…
Sorry for my english…
Hello,
there were the champions line Botwinnik, Smyslow, Tal, Petrosjan, Spassky, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparow.
Everyone of them won pretenders eliminations. Kramnik did not. That time Shirov and Kamsky did not Kramnik. Hi is not from that line.
He is from money line which allows him to face Kasparov.
Now thera are money 2 mil but he refused to play. We have returned to the times from start of XX century.
Regards
P.
“It seems unlikely either player cheated in Elista. “
That’s true. Topalov was not able to cheat at Elista because there were screens which avoided him getting body language signals from Danailov.
Martin? you said one doesn’t need to dislike someone? yes i know this is the ability of human who create hates from their brains like topalov and topalov fans
those topa fans are really funny guys. still cable issue going on? funny, woww what a proof: a cable in the wall!! what was passing through that cable? moves?
o yeah kramnik was going to toilet destroying wall taking cable and looking inside oo yes it’S written 1.d4 nice then covering wall then
then for second move
ooo cable says
2.c4 nicee
… bla bla bla … childish thingssss that is so funny I liked your argument you all topalovs!!
I am a Kramnik fan. I do not believe either player cheated but I am disgusted at the way that Topalov and his manner conducted themselves during the WC match and ever since the day he lost.
The allegations of cheating will remain just that, as there is zero evidence that either player has cheated.
“twimjis said… “
you are funny 🙂
After so many detailed explanation you could not get the picture. Let me repeat slowly and clearly specially for you:
There was found a specific Patch UTP5 cable ready for use and hidden in the detachable ceiling. This cable was found in Kramnik’s toilet – not Topalov’s. This cable did not have any devices attached to it during the inspection and was hidden but ready for use whenever needed. How it was used – ask Kramnik and the other people that supported this plot. But I bet that Kramnik knew very well what to connect to the cable and how to use it!
Why is everybody talking about a cable in the WALL? The only cable I have seen on picture was in the SUSPENDED CEILING. Accessing something hidden in the suspended ceiling takes no more than 5 seconds + 5 seconds to put it back.
I understand that people believe that it was impossible to pass a computer through the Russian security. Well for sure it was impossible for Topalov. Kramnik did not have to. The computer was waiting for him in the toilet (inside the suspended ceiling).
Bulgarians found out about the cable after the 5th game. By that time there was only cable, computer was gone. Why? Well, there was a scandal about the toilets after the game 4. There was a decision of the new AC to allow Bulgarians to search the toilets before the games (starting game 6). The same schema has become very risky.
Do I really believe that Kramnik cheated. Well, to my own surprise – Yes. The reason is the computer analysis of the games 2 and 3. In game 2 Kramnik played the main line of Fritz until Topalov played Qc2. In the meantime all GMs commenting the game were scared “What is Kramnik doing? He will get mated”. But Fritz calmly was advising “Take the pawns. The white attack is just virtual.” And Kramnik was taking the pawns. But at the move Qc2 Fritz all of a sudden saw the queen sacrifice and the mate. It was too late. The next several moves were forced and played quickly. Kramnik could not go to the toilet and subsequentially he blundered. Well Topa did not capitalize on the blunder, but this is another question.
In the game 3 there were two important moments. Why Kramnik did not play Ne4 instead of Bxe7 and why did not he take exd5, but took cxd5. Both moves were suggested by the other GMs as obviously superior. Suggested is not the right word. People were screaming for Kramnik to play Ne4 and late exd5. People were screaming, but Fritz did not. Fritz considered cxd5 equal to exd5 and Kramnik chose the less risky one. The same with Ne4. Fritz was not convinced that it was superior to Bxe7 and Kramnik logically chose the less risky move again.
After the toilet gate I did not notice any such strange moves, but Topa started playing very fast and blundered his chances away.
>Everyone of them won pretenders eliminations. Kramnik did not. >
That’s interesting, but what has it got to do with cheating? Aren’t you just trying to find a reason for an irrational hatred?
>>Now thera are money 2 mil but he refused to play. We have returned to the times from start of XX century. >>
If Topalov hadn’t done the same thing and ducked the match for a whole year, there’d have been time for a rematch. Kramnik had an offer on the table a week after San Luis for much more money than they eventually played for. Topalov was afraid to accept. Considering how badly he’d done against Kramnik in the past, it’s not surprising. If he hadn’t been afraid, he could have gotten more money and left plenty of time afterwards for a rematch.
Is there any defense of Topalov that isn’t based on some blatant double standard?
I Love Chopin said…
>>I understand that people believe that it was impossible to pass a computer through the Russian security. Well for sure it was impossible for Topalov. Kramnik did not have to. The computer was waiting for him in the toilet (inside the suspended ceiling).
>>
The problem is you’ve presented no evidence to that effect, and don’t seem to know enough about logical reasoning to even know that you’re supposed to.
>>Do I really believe that Kramnik cheated. Well, to my own surprise -Yes.>>
Again, the problem is the inability to distinguish between a belief, a wish, and a fact. I’m sure your error is an honest one, otherwise you’d be trying to cover it up.
>>The reason is the computer analysis of the games 2 and 3. In game 2 Kramnik played the main line of Fritz until Topalov played Qc2. In the meantime all GMs commenting the game were scared “What is Kramnik doing? He will get mated”. But Fritz calmly was advising “Take the pawns. The white attack is just virtual.” And Kramnik was taking the pawns. But at the move Qc2 Fritz all of a sudden saw the queen sacrifice and the mate. It was too late. The next several moves were forced and played quickly. Kramnik could not go to the toilet and subsequentially he blundered. >>
Through accident or design, you’ve told the story wrong. Kramnik’s big blunder came the move BEFORE Topalov’s, not after. You’ve also failed to cite any better alternative “human” moves, even though clearly taking the pawns and trying to weather the storm was the best course.
Your theory depends on claiming that something even Class players know, namely that computers overestimate material and underestimate attacks, should be completely unknown to a top GM who’s played computers before. Hardly likely.
You’re also overlooking Topalov’s hidden-device-that-allows-Kramnik-to-receive-moves-at-the-board claim, which renders the whole toilet business completely moot.
And finally, you’re overlooking Kramnik’s blunder at the end of the game that all the tablebases knew about.
You’ve got a few facts here, but you’re cherry-picking them something awful.
>>People were screaming for Kramnik to play Ne4 and late exd5. People were screaming, but Fritz did not.>>
You must have been watching another game. I was watching that game live, with Fritz going, and it saw the entire combination, and evaluated it as much better for White. How much RAM have you got?
The internet cable was in the building because the building was built to hold big chess tournaments like an olympiad and they needed to have a means of bringing all the games together. It is rediculous to think that anyone would be able to use the dumb cable to get moves. It was connected to nothing. It was used during the chess olympiad. Besides the cable was cut for the Match. They cut the cable.
It is all diversion of attention away from the real issues.
The theory about computer already planted in the ceiling may be just a theory, but if it was true and the computer was really planted there what would be the use of all these security measures. You believe in Kramnik’s innocence (besides the presumption of innocence) is mostly based on the believe that nothing could pass through the security. Go watch the movie “Godfather” to see when and how you pass a gun through the security.
I mentioned the move Qc2 to indicate when my Fritz saw for first time that something was wrong. Until this move the evaluation was -1.25 or something. It has nothing to do with when Kramnik blundered. I don’t know what other alternative Kramnik had. One of them was to not go for those pawns earlier, which would be the normal human reaction.
About the third game I saw another computer analysis, which differed significantly from mine. I have no explanation about this. I believe 1.5 GB of RAM should be enough for my Fritz to come close to the other analysis. I especially well remembered that cxd5 and exd5 were changing the places a s first choice all the time on my machine, while for every human exd5 was obviously superior.
The other interesting factoid no one seems to point out is that the bathroom was wired for ELECTRICTY of the same kind that can be used to power a LAPTOP. Ad the electrical sockets to the INTERNET CABLE dangling about and you have a pretty compelling case. And there was even a great place to sit down, the TOILET – how very convenient.
INTERNET + ELECTRICITY + SEAT = it all adds up to CHEATING
Some anon wrote:
INTERNET + ELECTRICITY + SEAT = it all adds up to CHEATING
Let us add AIR to this equation, which is needed to cool the processor.
The move Qc2 was only find in live by Rybka and Hiarcs 10 …
All other programms were crazy for the black side..
So is it a sign , an evidence that Topalov cheated with rybka during the match?The only move that did not lose in a straight line for white! and such a good one that is winning!
According to all Topalov’s fans, yes! even if there were security mesures taken against all that!
So, i would love to see any computer who can find the move Fxf8 in the second game for kramnik…
Damned! No computer would plauy such an ugly move! Fritz and so would take a lot of time to even put on the screen Qc2…
What is strange to the most: How can a player find the Wonderful Qc2 without even notice the “normal” mat in 3 starting with Qc7 a few moves later?
All the player in the world , after finding the big idea of Qc2 , hadn’t miss that easy win… All but Topalov…
Is it another sign that he didn’t find Qc2 by himself ? That someone gave him that move that he didn’t understand? What a stupid nonsense!
Topalov is gifted enough to find such a move: it’s the only one in his position not to lose !
The fact that he missed the easy mat a few moves later is still a thing that i can’t understand…
The players didn’t cheat at elista! It was simply not possible.
But, if the story about danailov sitting in front of Topalov during the games in San Luis with a computer analysing the games in live …that’s an enormous and big evidence about a possible cheat.And the story about giving informations by signals(?) is much more probable than cheating with a device under big security mesures.
Far more possible than the poor cable.
Are there some hard facts about these issues?
It depends. Everybody is talking about some internet cable in the infamous toilette. If that cable was cut to size, with an appropriate plug, that would be a hard fact indeed. If the cable just ran above the ceiling, it doesn’t mean anything, and it wouldn’t be a proof for anything.
Gabor
The cable simply ran across the room. there were no connections in the room or in the ceilings or walls.
It is all an attempt to keep people from focusing on Danailov and Topalov.
Chopin, anonymous, and dcax, here is some hard data about Elista game 2, from runs of Fritz 9 on my anti-cheating site, starting from where Danailov’s letter said theory was left:
KRAMNIK 0000 NON-MATCH (18…Nf8), delta2 = -0.31
KRAMNIK 0000 NON-MATCH (19…Rc8), delta2 = -0.10
KRAMNIK 0000 NON-MATCH (20…Qd7), delta2 = -0.14
KRAMNIK 1010 PART MATCH (21…Be7), delta2 = -0.05
KRAMNIK 1000 PART MATCH (22…Rc4), delta2 = -0.05
KRAMNIK 0011 MATCH (23…fxg4), delta = 0.04
KRAMNIK 1111 FULL MATCH (24…Rxa4), delta = 0.06
KRAMNIK 1111 FULL MATCH (25…g6, basically forced), delta = 1.33
KRAMNIK 1111 FULL MATCH (26…Rb4, only keep advtg.), delta = 1.28
KRAMNIK 1111 FULL MATCH (27…Qb5, only keep adv.), delta = 2.07
KRAMNIK 1110 PART MATCH (28…Rxb2?!), delta2 = -1.48
KRAMNIK 1111 FULL MATCH (29…h5, forced!), delta = 1.85
KRAMNIK 1111 FULL MATCH (30…hxg4, forced!), delta = 7.43
KRAMNIK 0000 NON-MATCH (31…Bxf8??), delta2 = -8.41
The four 0/1 numbers after “KRAMNIK” are whether he matched at the end of the 11,12,13, or 14-ply round—the first two could be done on a “Pocket Fritz”, the latter two need a cable to a fast machine (best with people looking ahead a move). Now let’s take the statement by “anonymous”:
>>The reason is the computer analysis of the games 2 and 3. In game 2 Kramnik played the main line of Fritz until Topalov played Qc2. In the meantime all GMs commenting the game were scared “What is Kramnik doing? He will get mated”. But Fritz calmly was advising “Take the pawns. The white attack is just virtual.” And Kramnik was taking the pawns. But at the move Qc2 Fritz all of a sudden saw the queen sacrifice and the mate. It was too late. The next several moves were forced and played quickly. Kramnik could not go to the toilet and subsequentially he blundered. >>
By my published runs, Kramnik didn’t distinctively play “main line of Fritz” until moves 23 & 24. The latter move 24 does agree with “Take the pawns”. However, the high values of “delta” in moves 25-27 mean that they were basically forced. For basically-forced moves, there is no surprise in a match! NOW we come to 28.Qc2! and Black’s key choice at Move 28. Here is analysis by Fritz 9 in single-line mode on my 2Ghz Pentium-M single-core laptop, which at 1.5M N/s still competes fairly well:
———————————
28…Rxb2!
-+ (-1.76) Depth: 12/31 00:00:03 4753kN
28…Rxb2 29.Qc1 Re2 30.hxg6 Nxg6 31.Qf1 Qd3 32.Bc1 Rc8 33.R4g3 Rcc2 34.R1g2 Qe4 35.Rxe2 Rxe2 36.Qh3 Re1+
-+ (-1.74) Depth: 13/35 00:00:08 10848kN
28…Rxb2–
-+ (-1.46) Depth: 14/40 00:00:21 28842kN
28…Rxb2 29.hxg6 Rxc2 30.gxh7+ Kxh7 31.f5 Qb1 32.Rg7+ Kh8
= (0.00) Depth: 14/52 00:00:24 34543kN
28…Rxb2–
² (0.28) Depth: 15/36 00:00:41 58740kN
28…Rxb2 29.hxg6 h5 30.g7 hxg4 31.gxf8Q+ Kxf8 32.Qg6 Qe2 33.Qxg4 Bg5 34.Re1 Qc2 35.fxg5 Qh7+ 36.Kg1 Ke7 37.Qf4
+- (1.41) Depth: 15/54 00:00:50 72858kN
28…Rb3!
+- (1.41) Depth: 15/54 00:01:07 100113kN
28…Rb3!
± (1.25) Depth: 15/54 00:01:11 105761kN
28…Rb3!
± (0.94) Depth: 15/54 00:01:16 114652kN
28…Rb3!
² (0.32) Depth: 15/54 00:01:36 144868kN
28…Rb3 29.hxg6 h5 30.R4g2 Qd3 31.Qxd3 Rxd3 32.g7 Nd7 33.Re2 Nb6 34.Ne1 Rd1 35.Rd2 Rb1 36.Rc2 Nc4
= (0.10) Depth: 15/54 00:01:43 155787kN
———————————
If my 2-year-old laptop can see 28…Rxb2 has problems in 50 seconds, and sees 28…Rb3! as keeping equality in 1 minute 43 seconds, then surely a team connected by cable to a serious machine would have seen this quicker! Indeed, 28…Rb3 is still doing fine (0.33, slight edge to White) as a defense at 17 ply, because Black has …Qd3 forcing the Queens off!, a clear way to reassure a nervous player about its safety! [Amazingly, after 19 min. 57 sec. at 18 ply, my Fritz 9 comes up with 28…Rb3 29.f5! claiming a +0.61 advantage, but who’d ever expect that now?]
Thus my hard data, and my chess knowledge as an IM, effectively demolish the narrative of cheating here. If you refer, as above, to “the computer analysis”, where is it? SHOW THE DATA. Anything less, when you make or report an accusation, and what you are doing is pseudo-science, trading on unfounded belief or gullibility. Chess is the Western “Game of Science”—it deserves better.
I should add, by the way, that your run of Fritz 9 will vary from mine—e.g. by having a different hash setting from the 700MB I used. Fritz seems to have more built-in variation than Crafty or Fruit 2.1 or Glaurung 1.2.1, for instance. And if you calculate move 27 before stepping ahead to 28, the preservation of search results in hash may help your Fritz 9 see the trouble with 28…Rxb2 a ply earlier, as in my multi-line-mode run.
But your results will almost certainly not be too far different from mine. That is, I estimated the “standard deviation of Fritz 9” pretty thoroughly, and in middlegame positions at 11-14 ply depth it’s well less than 0.10. I haven’t made a formal version of this calculation, but enough data from different runs are in my logfiles to bound it that way.
>>>
The cable simply ran across the room. there were no connections in the room or in the ceilings or walls.
It is all an attempt to keep people from focusing on Danailov and Topalov.
>>>
How funny are some people in the way they try to close their eyes and ears and neither listen nor read what has been written already.
There was a PATCh UTP5 cable ending in Kramnik’s toilet and ready for use. Period.
Колкото до комика Бени,то той страда от хронична анална незадоволеност.Вярвайте ми,опитах се да му помогна-дори семенната ми течност,която му прелях орално не можа да вдъхне дори наченки на интелект у това безмозъчно,жалко и противно създание.Бени,слушай жалко недоразумение на природата-пред теб има два варианта.Първият е да последваш примера на интимната си дружка Бегемота и да се самоубиеш ритуално,като си прережеш гръкляна с нокторезачка.Вторият вариант го знаеш също-оная любимата ти матрьошка с лика на Крамник си я набиваш у неизследваните дълбини на Дивия(пардон нито е див,нито дълбините са му неизследвани при положение,че с Бегемота и доцент Карпов толкова време вече си бъркате по дупките и преоткривате насладата на аналния секс) ,после си биеш 5-6 злобарки на любимата си прежълтяла вече снимка на Алла Пугачова от 1979г. и за да си успокоиш съвсем нервите отново се заемаш да работиш по любимия си гоблен по твой модел-“Азис и Софито Маринова” .После може и насън да преживееш любимата си фантазия,че другаря Путин те обладава. смешник смешник смешник смешник смешник Руска подлого-срамувам се,че дишаш все още.И ПОМНИ,ЧЕ ВЕСКО ТОПАЛОВ Е НАЙ-ДОСТОЙНИЯТ БЪЛГАРСКИ СПОРТИСТ И НАЙ-ДОБРИЯТ ШАХМАТИСТ В СВЕТА!!!ВЕСКО Е ИКОНА И ЛИЦЕ НА БЪЛГАРИЯ България! поклон
>>
There was a PATCh UTP5 cable ending in Kramnik’s toilet and ready for use. Period.
>>
Connected to what? Both players were electronically searched prior to entry of the playing area. Was there a conspiracy to place something in the bathroom? Who was in on it? The president? The KGB?
What was placed in the bathroom? A computer? Wouldn’t a computer already have fritz on it? Then you wouldn’t need a cable would you? What else, a phone would do, but then you would not need a cable. The presence of a cable makes no sense to any thinking person. This is a fool’s argument.
“kwregan” In my post I was referring exactly to your analysis when I mentioned “some analysis”. I visited your site and examined your data. Just my approach was not mathematical as yours, but more psychological. You are looking at the deltas, depths, etc. to decid3e if some move was forced or can be considered as first line or cannot be considered as first line, etc.
I am looking at the situation from the human prospective. A GM is told by a computer that he has two best moves cxd5 and exd5 for example. During the game my fritz (ad hoc kibitz engine at playchess.com) was picking the first or the second one as virtually equal alternatives. The score for both was around 1.35. So let us put Kramnik and Topalov in this situation and ask them to pick a move knowing they are virtually equal. Kramnik would pick cxd5, because it has the same score, but looks less risky. Topa will pick the second one, exactly because it leads to sharper position. If the engine had told them that cxd5 is inferior by 0.5 points to exd5 I believe they both would have picked exd5.
In your data you evaluate exd5 to be much stronger than cxd5 and arrive to the conclusion that Kramnik did not play the first line of Fritz. Yes, but your data is calculated on a much more powerful system than mine. Do you think that Kramnik had your system planted in the ceiling (if my conspiracy theory is right) or he had in his disposal something closer to my system. Most likely he had some very light weight system, easier to hide there.
So when we compare his moves to some machine analysis, we should try to compare it to some reasonable hardware/software configuration. There is no use of running some deep analysis for 2 hours when the player spent 10 minutes on that move and the last visit to the toilet to check the current “best” move was on the minute 7 hypothetically speaking.
Also take into account that I don’t try to calculate statistics of how many moves matched Fritz for a very simple reason. Kramnik did not go to the toilet after every move. We don’t know exactly which move was played completely OTB. So any statistics will be highly inaccurate.
There is another moment. Kramnik would have the chance to look at the computer only before Topalov has played his move. He could not go there if Topalov had just played and Kramnik instead of thinking OTB stands up and goes to the toilet. So Kramnik could only look ahead what happens, if Topa played this or that. Any surprise move from Topa would have left him with useless Fritz evaluation.
What I said above won’t be true, if Kramnik had his computer connected to the Internet. In this case he would know what Topa played from the Internet broadcast. This explains the strange behavior of Kramnik playing almost instantly after returning from the toilet. Theoretically he should be able to see Topa’s move for first time at this moment. Not before that unless he has some kind of communication informing him what Topa played while he was in the toilet.
Wouldn’t make more sense just to hide a phone in the toilet?
Is Kramnik such a weak player that he couldn’t analyse a game unless he knew the very latest move? So they strung a cable for him throughout the building? Un-noticed? And what conspiracy was put together to do this? How did they manage to sneak a cable into the building? Sorry but this sounds silly to me.
Answering to both guys above.
Kramnik could not have used a phone, because the building had electronic shield. When I read about this shield against wireless devices my first thought was “What about wired or even acoustic communication?”
The cable was not sneaked there. The whole building was built from ground zero for the match. Was anyone searching the builders for hidden devices before they go to the job site? And according to the building engineer he got a special order from a very high place to put the cable. We don’t know what that place was, but we know that the cable was connected with the president’s building.
Well, we all know that Kirsan made a deal with the Russian federation to get their support for the coming election. We speculate that in return he promised them to organize the unification match. Anyone wondering why Kramnik’s offer (on his expenses) for match was rejected and soon after that Kirsan decided to organise the very same match on his expenses. What happened between these two events. What kind of idiot would do that if there is no important reason.
If we speculate a bit more we can easily ask ourselves “What else did Kirsan promise to the Russian federation?” “Was it just about FIDE presidency or some other presidency was at stake too?”
So this was a consipracy involving Kirsan, Putin and whomever, all for the purpose of Russian chess?
If it was a conspiracy, since Kramnik never played in this facility before then has he ever cheated before? Why now if not before? And if he did cheat before then how since no special “cheating” centers with internet cables have been created for him? Who else is in on this? Just Kramnik or all the other russian players? When Kramink retires are they going to let the next best russian in on the scheme? How do they know he won’t talk, or for that matter anyone else?
Is all this sounding paranoid and crazy to you? It does to me.
Hey, I.L.Chopin—many thanks for visiting my site and giving a detailed reply with more specifics! This enables me to answer your points more specifically:
——–
:: “kwregan” In my post I was referring exactly to your analysis when I mentioned “some analysis”. I visited your site and examined your data. Just my approach was not mathematical as yours, but more psychological. You are looking at the deltas, depths, etc. to decide if some move was forced or can be considered as first line or cannot be considered as first line, etc.
——–
Again, thanks for looking—it would have been clearer if you’d referenced that “some analysis” came from my site to begin with. The relevant point is that the math influences the psychology…and I’ll make the specific example of White’s move 32 in Game 3 as you bring up next:
——–
:: I am looking at the situation from the human prospective. A GM is told by a computer that he has two best moves cxd5 and exd5 for example. During the game my fritz (ad hoc kibitz engine at playchess.com) was picking the first or the second one as virtually equal alternatives. The score for both was around 1.35.
———-
My run gets +1.34 for 32.exd5(!), +0.84 for 32.cxd5, already at 11 ply, i.e. at “12/12”, which takes much less than 30 seconds on my 2-year-old laptop—especially in single-line mode! Even weaker hardware than mine, a “Pocket Fritz”, could see that difference. Anything lower is much weaker than Kramnik, hence useless (except for blunders).
If you can do a run that gets them both around +1.35 near “12/12”, then that would be a significant exception to my “standard deviation”—well worth clipping and posting!
——————————
:: So let us put Kramnik and Topalov in this situation and ask them to pick a move knowing they are virtually equal. Kramnik would pick cxd5, because it has the same score, but looks less risky. Topa will pick the second one, exactly because it leads to sharper position. If the engine had told them that cxd5 is inferior by 0.5 points to exd5 I believe they both would have picked exd5.
::In your data you evaluate exd5 to be much stronger than cxd5 and arrive to the conclusion that Kramnik did not play the first line of Fritz. Yes, but your data is calculated on a much more powerful system than mine.
—————-
Answered as above. The interesting experiment is: if you give the position to (a) 20 strong-GM players with style “like Kramnik”, and (b) 20 strong-GM players with style “like Topalov”, how many times would you see preference for 32…exd5! The prediction might be 70% for group (a), 80% for group (b), but either way my prediction is that the mathematical difference (since the engine keeps the same evaluations at high ply too) would set the psychology for the majority in either case, with the effect of style being secondary. In any event, I certainly agree that if Kramnik had been cheating on this move and been advised of 32.exd5! being over 0.50 better, he would have played it! Hence by the logical law of contrapositive, 32.cxd5?! meant no cheating (on that move)!
————————
:: Do you think that Kramnik had your system planted in the ceiling (if my conspiracy theory is right) or he had in his disposal something closer to my system. Most likely he had some very light weight system, easier to hide there.
——————
Hiding there wouldn’t need the cable. Lightweight or heavyweight, they’re both covered by my range and methods…
——————
:: So when we compare his moves to some machine analysis, we should try to compare it to some reasonable hardware/software configuration. There is no use of running some deep analysis for 2 hours when the player spent 10 minutes on that move and the last visit to the toilet to check the current “best” move was on the minute 7 hypothetically speaking.
—————–
Answered as above.
————————-
:: Also take into account that I don’t try to calculate statistics of how many moves matched Fritz for a very simple reason. Kramnik did not go to the toilet after every move. We don’t know exactly which move was played completely OTB. So any statistics will be highly inaccurate.
——————–
This is a very good point, because it creates an opportunity. Team Topalov had both timing information for the game and tapes of the bathroom visits. It should be possible to correlate that to specific moves when Kramnik might have cheated. If you can show that this creates a higher correlation to my (public!) data, then that would be significant!. Thus my public data create the opportunity for more-substantial allegations—and thus it becomes the responsibility for any accuser to check this. Absent any such effort, it is “hot air”.
———————-
:: There is another moment. Kramnik would have the chance to look at the computer only before Topalov has played his move. He could not go there if Topalov had just played and Kramnik instead of thinking OTB stands up and goes to the toilet. So Kramnik could only look ahead what happens, if Topa played this or that. Any surprise move from Topa would have left him with useless Fritz evaluation.
What I said above won’t be true, if Kramnik had his computer connected to the Internet. In this case he would know what Topa played from the Internet broadcast. This explains the strange behavior of Kramnik playing almost instantly after returning from the toilet. Theoretically he should be able to see Topa’s move for first time at this moment. Not before that unless he has some kind of communication informing him what Topa played while he was in the toilet.
—————–
Wouldn’t the move played be visible from elsewhere in the rest room, since Kramnik went into and out-of the bathroom? This kind of question needs more information. (Same with my point higher up the page in Mig’s Jan 27 cheating thread indexed off my site—if the rest area outside the bathroom was no larger than the bathroom itself, then “of course” a pacing Kramnik would pace into the bathroom, having little room else to go!)
——————–[later post]—-
:: About the third game I saw another computer analysis, which differed significantly from mine. I have no explanation about this.
———————-
Again, if you have other computer runs (with Fritz 9 or etc.), please do post them! The more hard data to compare, the better for everyone…!
eChopin”kwregan” It is hard to argue with you about the computer analysis. I don’t have any collected data and the only thing I remember was that exd5 and cxd5 for some reason were getting equal evaluations on my computer. If I am able to repeat the result I will post it for sure. It seems to be important.
But we accidentally jumped into another interesting question. How the players knew that the other player has made a move? The only information I found was in one letter of Hensel where he mentioned that the TV monitors have been removed from the relaxation rooms. They still must have had some kind of feedback though … a light or a buzzer. And here we get to the interesting questions. Did they know what move was played or only knew that some move was played? Did Kramnik go to the toilet after the move was played or he headed to the scene as soon as he knew something was played.
It looks to me that these tapes carry a lot of information after all. And most likely the situation does not look good for Kramnik considering how many times Danailov insisted the tapes to be shown publicly.
I ‘ll let paranoid ones talking about their engines and so and so, another danailies… (don’t forget to buy his book, i’m sure he can add a signature for your good job)
Fritz was used by danailov mindly: it’s the most famous programm with chessmaster all around the world.
I’ve just learn a news: Rybka is the commercial name for “Fruit” one of the best freeware of the chess programms:So: it was possible to use fruit in san luis, even if it was not the “rybka” we actually known.
There are no Top GM using fritz to analyse games: Two reasons:
Hiarcs10 and Fruit/Rybka are far better to positional evaluation. Using Fritz would be a total nonsense.
Those who are analysing danailov lies would be better to match topalov moves with hiarcs10/Rybka-Fruit: the % of moves are much more important.
There is a “limit” given to approximatly 78% that is known like a sort of “the GM wall”, that’s mean that in all game, there must be around 78% of GM moves that can be found by chess engines.
Topalov have a far better %ratio of moves that match Rybka. One reason is that Chepparinov made all his work with that programm.
In the second game, instead of analysing normal moves: kramnik was triying to find some play in a field where topalov has not all his power :the queenside.
Any player with a sens of danger would have play there: it would have been too dangerous to open lines in the kingside for kramnik!
I was followed the games in Elista in live with my computer, after the two games i used only Hiarcs10 and Rybka to follow the games.
Why? Fritz, Shredder , and so were of no use: they simply can’t give a correct evalutation in all the games.They were useless!
Rybka and Hiarcs gave me the better evaluations of the positions all the match long.
So: Danailov talked about fritz because :
1; it’s a chessbase programm, and now he can add a claim that chessbase are against a poor bulgarian( a touch of nationalism in his lie to have something more to say)and biased against him: all that we can see is only a chesssite that gave all the news he received during the match pro or contra the players. Damned! The KGB infiltrated all the strate of the whole chessplayers world to make everybody against a poor bulgarian… amazing no?
2. and it the main reason: it’s the most famous programm in the rest of the world with chessmaster.
I’m more than certain that he made his gesture in corus during Two games only to put the affair on course again. And to promote his loo books. A free advertisement …very wise and calculator man! a dangerous one!
Topalov ‘s team accused freely kramnik to cheat, without any evidence except the air in their hands, gave interviews in magasines about that cheat, and published a whole senseless book about that:
1.They are poor losers.
2.They must be ban for a long period of time for that if they would give an excuse to kramnik or for life if they continue in that total nonsense.
The only one who can be affraid about a test of his move compare to those of rybka and so and so is only Topalov…
Look at his games since san luis … all his claims can only backfired in his face…That’ll happen because he worked too hard with rybka and chepparinov! In corus Anand and Carlsen were simply smashed by homecooking… he played no move by himself!
I’m certain of one thing: they didn’t cheat in Elista! They made too many blunders that no computer would ever made!
I’m sure about one mor thing: a book about the match in elista could have been better with comments of chepparinov and topalov and no words by danailov…
It’s not the case so…
Danailov and his lovers: Shut up…
I’m home again, so I can do a run of Elista Game 3, White’s choice 32.cxd5 or exd5 at Move 32. From a “Cold Start” in single-line mode, here’s what I get:
————————————-
1: Kramnik,V – Topalov,V, WCC Match 2006 2006
3r2k1/1R3p2/p5p1/3rp2p/p1P1P3/q5P1/P4PKP/3Q4 w – – 0 1
Analysis by Fritz 9: [evals before 11ply snipped]
32.cxd5–
± (1.19) Depth: 11/28 00:00:01 1743kN One Second!
32.cxd5 Qxa2 33.Qf3
± (1.19) Depth: 11/38 00:00:01 2131kN
32.exd5!
± (1.19) Depth: 11/38 00:00:02 2504kN
32.exd5!
± (1.35) Depth: 11/38 00:00:02 2683kN
32.exd5 Qxa2 33.Qf3 f5 34.Qd3 Rd6 35.Qc3 Qe2
+- (1.46) Depth: 11/38 00:00:02 2983kN
32.exd5–
± (1.18) Depth: 12/33 00:00:04 5639kN
32.exd5 e4 33.Qd4
± (1.18) Depth: 12/48 00:00:05 6629kN
32.cxd5!
± (1.19) Depth: 12/48 00:00:06 7659kN
32.cxd5 Qxa2 33.Qf3 Rf8 34.Qc3 Qe2
± (1.20) Depth: 12/48 00:00:06 8206kN
32.cxd5–
± (0.92) Depth: 13/33 00:00:09 12414kN
32.cxd5 Qxa2 33.Qf3
± (0.92) Depth: 13/33 00:00:10 13342kN
32.exd5!
± (0.92) Depth: 13/33 00:00:11 15428kN
32.exd5!
± (1.08) Depth: 13/33 00:00:12 16157kN
32.exd5!
± (1.39) Depth: 13/33 00:00:13 18690kN Thirteen seconds!
32.exd5 e4 33.Qe2 Qd3 34.Qxd3 exd3 35.Kf3 Re8 36.Rb2 g5 37.Rd2 g4+ 38.Kg2 Rc8 39.Rxd3 Rxc4 40.d6 Rc8
± (1.39) Depth: 14/36 00:00:22 31491kN
32.exd5 Qxa2 33.Qd3 Qa1 34.c5 h4 35.Rb4 hxg3 36.hxg3 a3 37.d6 a5 38.Rc4 Qb2
± (1.29) Depth: 15/41 00:00:48 68254kN
(Regan, State Univ. of NY at Buffalo 30.01.2007)
—————————
Now I repeat the experiment more realistically for in-game conditions in which the engine would have been running from the previous move(s)—maybe even for a long helpful time if Black hesitated on 31…Rxd5. So I exit ChessBase/Fritz9 and first let it go for 3 minutes on the position after White played 31.Rd5:
——————————
1: Kramnik,V – Topalov,V, WCC Match 2006 2006
3r2k1/1R3p2/p5p1/3rp2p/p1P1P3/q5P1/P4PKP/3Q4 w – – 0 1
Analysis by Fritz 9:
…
32.cxd5 Qxa2 33.Qf3 Rf8 34.Qc3 a3 35.Qxe5 Qe2 36.h3 h4 37.gxh4 Kh7 38.h5 Qxh5
± (1.11) Depth: 8/26 00:00:00 196kN
32.exd5!
± (1.11) Depth: 8/26 00:00:00 251kN Zero Seconds!, and 32.cxd5 never appears again! (snipping to 11 ply, ONE second later!)
…
32.exd5 Qxa2 33.Qf3 f5 34.Rb6 Kh7 35.Qc3 Qe2 36.Qb4 Rd7 37.Qxa4 Qe4+ 38.Kg1 Qe1+
± (1.14) Depth: 11/34 00:00:01 1710kN
32.exd5 e4 33.Qe2 Qd3 34.Qxd3 exd3 35.Kf3 Re8 36.Rb1 g5 37.Rd1 g4+ 38.Kf4 Rc8 39.Rxd3 Rxc4+
± (1.35) Depth: 12/37 00:00:03 4673kN Three Seconds! to reach the stable evaluation of 32.exd5!
32.exd5 e4 33.Qe2 Qd3 34.Qxd3 exd3 35.Kf3 Re8 36.Rb2 g5 37.Rd2 g4+ 38.Kf4 Rc8 39.Rxd3 Rxc4+ 40.Kg5 Rc2
± (1.38) Depth: 13/35 00:00:06 9303kN
32.exd5 e4 33.Qe2 Qd3 34.Qxd3 exd3 35.Kf3 Re8 36.Rb2 g5 37.Rd2 g4+ 38.Kg2 Re4 39.Rxd3
± (1.39) Depth: 14/39 00:00:13 19085kN
32.exd5 Qxa2 33.Qd3 h4 34.gxh4 Qa1 35.Qf3 Rf8 36.h5 Qd4 37.Rc7 gxh5 38.h3 e4 39.Qxh5 Qg7+
± (1.36) Depth: 15/37 00:00:33 47532kN
(Regan, State Univ. of NY at Buffalo 30.01.2007)
——————————
If my laptop running under the second realistic condition can see the superiority of 32.exd5! in Three Seconds, then even more-primitive hardware would see the move in the time it took to walk to the bathroom. One more experiment—since White’s choice is binary and this could be foreseen from 31.Rd5 played, let’s try 2-line mode:
————————-
1: Kramnik,V – Topalov,V, WCC Match 2006 2006
3r2k1/1R3p2/p5p1/3rp2p/p1P1P3/q5P1/P4PKP/3Q4 w – – 0 1
Analysis by Fritz 9:
13/13—reached within 10 seconds:
1. ± (1.20): 32.exd5 Qxa2 33.Qf3 f5 34.Qd3 Rc8 35.Rb6 Kh7 36.Qe3 Qxc4 37.Qxe5 Rc7 38.Rxa6 Rd7
2. ± (1.08): 32.cxd5 Qxa2 33.Qf3 Rf8 34.Qc3 a3 35.Qxe5 Qe2 36.Re7 Qe1 37.Ra7 a5 38.d6
14/14—I didn’t clip this, but it showed before 20 seconds with 32.exd5! at about 1.35
15/15—showed at 33 seconds.
1. ± (1.35): 32.exd5 e4 33.Qe2 Qd3 34.Qxd3 exd3 35.Kf3 Re8 36.Rb2 Kf8 37.d6 Rd8 38.c5 Ke8 39.Ke4 Rc8
2. ± (0.83): 32.cxd5 Qxa2 33.Qd3 Qa1 34.Qf3 Rf8 35.Ra7 a5 36.Rxa5 Qd4 37.Ra6 Rd8 38.h3 h4 39.gxh4 Qa1
(Regan, State Univ. of NY at Buffalo 30.01.2007)
————————
Thus lends some credence to your observation of cxd5 and exd5 being equal during the game, if you had slower hardware (1,422,000 nodes-per-sec now on mine), and especially if you were examining more than 2 lines at once. But for hypothetical by-cable cheating, under 20 seconds for my lappie = no way the two moves would have been thought equal!
You still say “it doesn’t look good for Kramnik.” What I say is, it doesn’t look good for Topadanailov. .. Per discussion already by others in Susan’s newer “Big Cheating Debate” thread, the onus must be on them to provide more concrete detail, OR face general scorn and sanction.
P.S.: I meant to say the other reason I thought your reference to “the computer analysis” wasn’t referring to mine—:
>>The reason is the computer analysis of the games 2 and 3. In game 2 Kramnik played the main line of Fritz until Topalov played Qc2.
…
—is that my posted data (copied above) flatly contradicts the words, “played the main line of Fritz until Topalov played (28.)Qc2”! My overall point is that the general level of awareness and expectation evidenced to me in chess (even from Q&A at Corus) is enabling this circus to continue, in the same sense as dependency-enabling…
Kramnik may well have been smoking.