The “Mig” (Mig Greengard) just posted some of his comments about the latest chess soap opera. Here is a paragraph of it:
There is now a follow-up at ChessBase with some clarifications on a mild misattribution and more from Short, as well some reader letters. I’m a little mystified at all the “ChessBase bias against Topalov” guff people are coughing up because they chose to reprint the Süddeutsche Zeitung article. I know fans will be fans, and jihadis don’t care why something negative about their hero is being said. But it would have been bizarre to ignore something like that appearing in a major paper. Another factor is that it wasn’t much of a shock for the CB guys, who, like me and most other people on the circuit, had been talking about and in some cases seeing similar behavior for quite a while. In sum, while there is no proof of Topalov receiving signals, not reprinting that story would have been inconceivable, if not irresponsible. Imagine the Miami Herald reporting allegations that Peyton Manning is taking steroids and American football websites ignoring it because they had no proof. Hell, it has never been proven that Barry Bonds ever took steroids but it’s been the biggest story in baseball for years. News about news is news. The fan bias test is simple: imagine the exact same story coming out but replace the name “Veselin Topalov” with “Vladimir Kramnik” or “Garry Kasparov” and be very honest with yourself about what your reaction would be.
Source: ChessNinja.com
Love him or hate him, Mig always tries to call things as he sees it. Do you agree with Mig on this issue?
Mig is spot on in his assessment. The allegations against Topalov are nothing new, the only news is that the people restating them have more and more status and credibility.
J.
There is/was bad blood between Chessbase and Team Topalov. That doesn’t require clairvoyance to see. Hey, we live in the real World too, we’re not children to be patronized by a journalist or two to tell us what is very obvious about a pretty standard situation in Life. I live amongst journalists myself — they’re perfectly normal people, biased as hell (sometimes) and not immune to emotions.
Simply, this time Chessbase jumped ahead of themselves and screamed Fire in a crowded theater with their leading line of something “sinister” being observed in San Luis. It was short on facts and extremely long on innuendo. And I don’t care where they reprinted that from because it’s their reputation that’s on the line. They pulled a stunt exactly like the ones they accuse Danailov of. Credit to them, they reacted. Mig’s reaction was delayed and dead wrong in this case.
That’s it, not the end of the World. As far as handling the matter constructively and finding ways to prevent cheating or baseless accusations, we all agree on. That’s the most important part.
D.
“There is/was bad blood between Chessbase and Team Topalov.”
Thats an interesting take on things. During the Elista match there was pretty near universal condemnation of the FIDE appeals commitee, the forfeit of match 5 and the subsequent behaviour of team Topalov. An open letter was sent by a huge number of GMs supporting Kramnik, and almost nothing…supporting Topalov.
Chessbase coverage reflected that reality. Thats not bad blood. Danailov behaved like a thug, and Topalov *at best* looked like an innocent to the atrocious conduct of his manager at the time.
So no – not bad blood. Just accurate reporting on dreadful behaviour.
Mig says “Another factor is that it wasn’t much of a shock for the CB guys, who, like me and most other people on the circuit, had been talking about and in some cases seeing similar behavior for quite a while.”
And that is the point in a nutshell for me about these current accusations. They have been going round for years. The reason they are coming out en masse is because of a domino effect. It only takes one or two people to speak out, and all those who have seen something in the past that just doesnt sit right – they will speak up too.
Im not saying he cheated, I dont honestly much care because it will NEVER be proven for sure now, unless Topalov comes out and admits it.
Theres no media conspiracy against Topalov, his teram behaved like thugs in Elista, his manager pulled some dodgy behaviour is San Luis and other tourneys, and so a lot of mud is getting thrown and some of it is sticking.
If Topalov wants an end to it – he should be demanding tighter playing conditions, and an investigation to clear his name. Instead of cashing in on book royalties slandering Kramnik.
If nothing else, the way he is being treated now is nothing less than the karma he deserves.
J.
Topalov is an innocent victim in all this. The Russians, Chessbase, Kramnik and all their evil ways are the problem.
We must overcome the forces of evil and see that Topalov and Danailov are good kind people fighting for what is right in this world.
Topalov and Danailov would never cheat. The Russians Chessbase and Kramnik are the evil ones who cheat. Chessbase attacks Topalov for no reason at all. They are completely unfair.
Everyone should be investigating Kramnik and proving that he cheats.
D.
Kramnik and all their evil ways are the problem.
No! Topalov is the Sith..but which!…the master or just the apprentice?
J
My personal opinion is that Bonds took steroids and Topalov cheated.
This world is full of cheats and crooks. Anything for the dollar. Topalov even says the same. It is all about money.
When it is all about money then you do what it takes to get the money. And cheating is just part of the game if you can get away with it. Cheating is ok, just do not get caught.
Bonds and Topalov have learned how to stonewall. Nixon stonewalled but the wall broke down for him.
dimi and the various anonymous are missing the point of what Mig was trying to make. The whole “cheating accusation” story is a story of importance regardless of whether one believes it is true or not. He uses an American baseball example, but a more global example would be if there was an accusation that a World Cup striker was being bribed. The very accusation would be news – regardless if it were true or false.
It is good to see that Kramnik and Topalov have such devoted supporters and I hope that they channel some of their energy into promoting and supporting chess locally. But all great chess players are human and inevitably they all will lose a game and a match; as both have shown in games in tournaments before and after their match in Elista. Both will also win and lose games in the future. If they wanted to be “ever victorious” they need to stop playing forever.
The most sad part is that I fear in the future, whenever anyone puts together a good performance, there will be someone who’ll whisper that cheating had to be involved, just as steroids have destroyed confidence in most track and field (athletics) records since the 1960s.
“The most sad part is that I fear in the future, whenever anyone puts together a good performance, there will be someone who’ll whisper that cheating had to be involved”
Exactly and thats why it doesnt matter much what happened in the past. What matters is play in secure environments.
By the way, you do not have to be a Kramnik admirer to feel Topalov has a case to answer. I for one resent being told I support kramnik when I merely dislike Topalov.
J.
Even Chessbase themselves admit now that they saw nothing wrong in Topalov’s behavior. From http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3649 (somewhere in the …middle of the page) :
———————————-
Chessbase 3 February 2007:
We would like to add one more note: during our stay in Wijk aan Zee we kept a sharp look-out for any signs of signaling by Silvio Danailov or Topalov’s second Ivan Cheparinov, during rounds six, seven and eight.
We can state with a fair degree of certainty that no signaling took place. Danailov and Cheparinov were mostly in the press center, and when they were not there we did not spot them in the playing hall.
We could have mentioned this as an editorial comment to our report on the article that appeared in the Süddeutsche Zeitung, but then we would also have had to mention that a number of people claimed to have seen signaling in earlier rounds (thus corroborating the story in the Süddeutsche). Neither observation is conclusive, one way or the other, and so we abstained from editorial comment.
Frederic Friedel
yes of course. Mig is exactly right. welcome to media hype! i actually believe some people love to be in the spotlight… does the initials T.O. tell you anything ?? 🙂
Susan,
Why “jihadis” and why not crusaders ?
To all anonymous folks who enjoy impersonating me — I do not mind it, in fact I am flattered, as long as you maintain certain level and avoid cheap shots.
In fact we should probably start a blog where topics regarding Topalov can be discussed in a respectful manner and the zombies will be pruned out. That’s the next step.
Thank you,
D.
This is ridiculous. Mig presents the same double standard that most of the others do. He seemed as outraged as others over Silvio’s accusations against Kramnik, but now feels that the “news” should be told.
If Silvio hadn’t made it news that Kramnik took so many trips to his bathroom how would we have known? There aren’t too many serious chess players that would not be suspicious of their opponent spending an excessive amount of time in the bathroom.
There is another aspect here, which is bothersome – at the moment Barry Bonds is under a federal grand jury investigation. Barry Bonds was caught with amphetamines two weeks ago.
Drawing a parallel between Topalov and Bonds is not my idea of best journalism even if the goal was benign, such as drawing attention to MLB’s long history of burying problems under the rug.
D.
J, the proof is in the pudding. Let’s see who comes to MTel Masters in Sofia this year. If players believe that they will be cheated they will simply not come. That’s the real referendum regarding all these charges. Everything else is just a complete and utter BS. Some people want to ruin the Grand Slam concept because they feel excluded. That’s just a negative marketing ploy, nothing more.
So far the roster for MTel Masters this year is very hot!
D.
I do not know is Topalov cheating or not but i know this. Every man managing with some kind of sport take stimulants in nowdays. Everybody knows that. Internet and all kind of media have enormous power to spread exact opinion to us, depending on who pay more to them. And which interest they represent, such as Chessbase and ZueeDuetchZiutung represent Kramniks interest/everyone know the nationality of Kramniks manager/ or Marka and some bulgarian newspaper/everyone know where is Topalov live now Salamanka-Spain i.e./ and what is the conclusion here? – we all are manipulate, and its up to us to decide who is cheating or not dending on facts. And my personal opinion of that scandal is: Topalov accused Kramnik cheadting in Elista and spread facts like pictures in Marca of Kramnik toilet with UTP 5 wire hanging from the attic and picture of the protokol signed by an russian a bulgarian and chief referee of the match. these all are facts, discount the accusation of 50 visitation toilet in one match which proof nothing. Now Kramniks media returned with their accusation. Cheating on San Luis and Corus, but where is the facts ?
excuse me for my bad english
My opinion of the Kramnik/Topalov/Elista/FIDE/cheating topic, as an average chess clubplayer is that: it´s all “spinning”, blogs, websites, press, elite players, etc
They are all speaking/writing/reading about this.(for me it´s the first and last thing I will write in this topic).
FIDE is business and Kirsan´s feud, elite chess players are professional (some ethical and some “less” ethical) they play for the money.
Accusations come and go, some sell books, some plays 6 games against an engine to earn 500.000 €…
So this is all spinning. Life goes on, nobody proves anything. They all get their money.
The average Joe chessplayer goes to his/her club and plays because he loves the game.
A.
I became exceedingly angry after reading Mig’s comments, especially the line naming Topalov fans “jihadist.” Few out here in the West would want to be labelled that way. Indeed, few would want to be labelled a Crusader if they knew the history. The very act of labelling someone as Mig did precludes objectivity, something every journalist should strive for.
I am a Topalov fan. I am not Kramnik fan. My reasons? Topalov’s fighting style vs Kramnik’s short draws. Topalov’s team managed to organize the Grand Prix, MTel, and secured 2 million. Kramnik’s team did nothing but take. Kramnik never agreed to a rematch with Kasparov or Topalov. Kasparov, for all he has done for chess, securing millions and providing for dozens of GMs their breadline, and gave Karpov a rematch and then some (5 matches), and pulled sheninigans to screw Shirov out of a match to give Kramnik a WC match, received only a slap in the face from Kramnik.
Until the day Kramnik provides for a breadline for GMs, secure millions as Topalov and Kasparov have, or agree to rematches, or just take risks in a game, he will never be ranked amongst the greats of Kasparov, Karpov, Fischer, Botvinnik, Capablanca…
And who the fvck would slap Kasparov in the face? What has Kramnik done to earn that privilege?
To all the GMs and IMs signing a piece of paper in support of Kramnik, you are backing a losing horse.
Sorry for the rant. I’m calm now after venting that over the “jihadist” remark. I’ll be more objective from here on. My rant has nothing to do with the cheating issue, nor anything to do with Mig’s justification of Chessbase publishing iffy “news,” so I will comment on that now.
The average joe on the street is concerned with only what he has control over, his job, his family, his bills, his life, etc. He is unlikely to have resources to check facts in a news item. He turns on the 6 O’Clock News with the implicit trust that the news provider is doing due diligence to provide facts, because, you see, joe doesn’t have the resources to check facts. It is still up to joe to decide for himself what is true, given the facts, but if the facts are false, what is joe to do?
Chessbase is a major chess news outlet, probably THE outlet. If Chessbase publishes a news item that is misleading or false, what can chessplayer joe do about it? Nothing. He has to trust Chessbase because he doesn’t have to resources to check anything.
Chessbase published a translation of an article in a German newspaper that is essentially about rumors of cheating in San Luis. Rumors! Chessbase could have saved themselves from being lopped in with Yellow Journalism had they prefaced the article with something like, “this is an article about rumors, nothing substantial,” but they didn’t. Despite this, I still consider Chessbase fair overall, a few bumps along the way is not reason to boycott, but we must not forget that Chessbase, because they are mainstream, have a responsibility to do due diligence on facts.
The Chessbase articles on Toilgate are different. Topalov Team’s allegations stand or fall on the evidence presented. They are open to judgement and ridicule because of the evidence. IMO, the evidence presented is inconclusive. On the other hand, Kramnik Team’s evidence is base on someone said and suppressed video evidence (susposedly exists). Suppressed and unexaminable evidence is not open to judgement or ridicule – joe has to trust it on the reputation of Chessbase. And this why it is wrong.
Consider Leko’s innuendo of Topalov cheating by pointing to Topalov occupying the same chair (position) throughout San Luis. Leko did not connect the dots on how one sitting on the same chair is cheating or why sitting on the same chair is necessary to cheat. Rubbish. You see, Leko pointed to something easily checkable, Topalov did sit in the same chair, and Leko’s allegation stands or falls on the evidence, and it fell.
The Kramnik Team should produce evidence so that it too can be open to judgement and ridicule.
Turning now to Mig’s justification of Chessbase publishing iffy news. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind Chessbase publishing iffy news if they preface it with a disclaimer so that Chessbase doesn’t advertantly or inadvertantly lend credence to an article because of Chessbase’s almost venerable reputation.
Mig mentioned Barry Bonds to help construct an argument that the media publishing Bonds cheating is news is similar to Chessbase publishing news of San Luis cheating. First of all, Bonds failed a drug test. Second, there was a guy, sorry the name eludes me, who actually said he handed Bonds the drugs. Nobody in San Luis said they handed Topalov the moves. Nobody in San Luis deciphered Danailov’s signalling (if they are indeed signals). Media publishing Bonds’ cheating is based on fact of a failed drug test and testimony of handing Bonds the drugs. This is not the same as Chessbase publishing rumors (without a disclaimer).
Mig goes on to mention there was no hint of Kramnik cheating in Elista while contrasting this with rumors of Topalov cheating in San Luis. There was a hint: Kramnik went to the bathroom 25 times. This is stronger evidence than Topalov sitting in the same chair in San Luis, though both are insufficient to prove guilt, imo. BTW, the lack of security in San Luis providing for opportunities of cheating was equally applicable to each and every player, not just Topalov. Plus, Topalov’s win in San Luis, while impressive, is not remarkable. That honour belongs to Karpov, who won the 1994 Linares and is easily the greatest tournament victory of all time, and he was 45 at the time! In 1994, chess computers were shiat.
Mig also mentioned there were stronger words of Topalov cheating in San Luis, off the record. Excuse me, off the record? Isn’t off the record supposed to be, well, off the record and not mentioned at all in any published text? That he mentioned it now is an attempt to lend weight to the allegations against Topalov. How is poor ol’ joe supposed to judge on those comments made off the record, rely on Mig’s reputation?
Finally, Mig quoted Short’s “money” quote. Short’s quote is about what the other players were whispering. Short’s quote is heresay. Mig is quoting Short who is quoting heresay. Dammit, we know what Leko said, produce what the others said and be done with it.
TF (for Topalov Fan)
Erm Topalov “fan”…Kramniks team hasnt made any accusations.
Kramnik hasnt actually said a damn thing.
If you read all of Migs article which you can find here:
http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/
he also says this: “My gut feeling is that one, Topalov is a great player who has raised the level of his game and should maintain a top-three position for the next five years.”
and more importantly this:
“Proof? No. Enough to start an investigation and to hassle Topalov? No. Does he get the benefit of the doubt with me? Yes. Worth taking precautions in the future? Absolutely.”
But Topalov “fans” dont want to read the whole article when they can quote things out of context. They dont want to deal with how their team has behaved..all they do is focus on how their man is wronged ar every turn.
Thats what fundamentalism breeds and that..Topalov fan….is why Mig refers to you as fans (rational supports) and Jihadis (do you see the difference?)
J.
J,
I read the entire article. If you read my post you will actually see I did not quote Mig at all (except for “jihadist”), only mentioned what he has wrote about, so I cannot possibly have quoted him out of context. Any reader who has compared my post and Mig’s will see I did not twist anything.
Ahh yes, I did read what you quoted of Mig. If you have read the entire article you would know that Mig was throwing a proverbial bone in Topalov’s direction. It’s well and good to say, “You are a good person, despite the rumors of you being a fat, ugly, stupid, lying biatch who sluts her way to the top, but there is no evidence so you are an exceptional CEO, even though your fellow CEOs are whispering behind your back that you paid off a bunch people,” but we really know what is truly happening. Disagree? Then why mention off the record issue? Why mention CB and himself who are in the circuit (special insider) “had been talking about and in some cases seeing similar behavior for quite a while.” Aren’t these like calling someone a fat, ugly, biatch all the while saying she is a good person?
“Jihadist” implies worship of god and war in the name of god. I do not worship Topalov and am not warring in the name of Topalov, though I am critical of Kramnik. A chess war would be conducting a campaign against Kramnik. I am not conducting a campaign against Kramnik. All of my comments directed at him are all published elsewhere except for the opinion that he will never be listed amongst the Greats. I spread no lies.
And I’m not so sure of your statement that the Kramnik Team hasn’t made any accusations. Is not Curt Hasen a member of the team? I don’t immediately recall exactly what he (Curt) has said (there was so much said by all parties) so for now I’ll give you the point that Kramnik’s Team hasn’t made any accusations, just to be honest.
Topalov fan…
Migs quote is “I know fans will be fans, and jihadis don’t care why something negative about their hero is being said. “
Which sums it up nicely. You do not seem to know why negative things are being said about Topalov. If you dont know by now, then no amount of explanation will help you, because you have slipped beyond reason into fundamentalism. Which was the point.
As for Kramnik…I too find him boring, passive, tedious to watch, but none of that stops him from being World Champion, a title he won from Kasparov and defended against both Leko and Topalov. Did all you Topalov fans see a different Elista to me? Because in the one I watched, Kramnik was forfeited a game where he would have played with the white pieces and despite that, still managed to hold the classical games, before desrtroying Topalov in blitz.
He might be boring and tedious but he sure came out looking a better man than Topalov.
J
Was it wrong for Chessbase to publish the articles? No
But what’s most interesting in all this, to me, is the READERS’ reactions. We have at least somewhat symmetrical situations. Danailov implies/accuses that Kramnik was cheating. Short/Breutigam (sp?)/participants in San Luis imply/accuse that Topalov was cheating. In both cases, no conclusive proof, but circumstantial evidence. And neither unprecedented, if one looks back to the Spassky-Fischer, Spassky-Korchnoi, Karpov-Kasparov matches (among others).
And just about every fan who responds, on both sides, thinks the other player is a despicable blackguard while supporting his player as an honorable person. Most without any more evidence than the fragmentary and incomplete press reports.
Rather similar to American politics. Growing increasingly polarized and shrill, and losing the objective observer who sees both sides. Susan’s is one of the few calm, restrained voices I’ve heard on this topic.
Bob
J,
That forfeit was Kramnik’s choice. He could have showed up if he wanted to. Just like how Fischer forfeited in 1972, and how Fischer could have played the game had he wanted to. Nobody forced either to forfeit. Both forfeits stood.
“Which sums it up nicely. You do not seem to know why negative things are being said about Topalov. If you dont know by now, then no amount of explanation will help you, because you have slipped beyond reason into fundamentalism. Which was the point.”
Is this the best you can come up with? Instead of point by point refutation of what I posted, you decided to question whether I understood what was said against Topalov. Good job! Now go join a debating team and see if you score points with this line of attack!
TF
nigel short is a smuck just trying to divert attention from krammniks cheating.
I think that it was alright that ChessBase translated the Breutigam article. But it is clear that they could be a bit more careful with the DNA article (which quoted Nigel Short). I did not follow the whole ChessBase – Danailov dispute too closely, but ChessBase seems to be a part of the story now. May be they should not have pretended for neutraliy after the first signs of the growing tension emerged. It would be normal if they would express their view clearly, especially because chessbase (an undisputable No 1 chess site in the world) at the same time is not a news company. So why one should expect that they will ignore their basic business interests?
…It is pity but everyone in the chess world could be involved in conflict sooner or later. During the Elista match I tried to provide a balanced kind of comments at chesspro.ru. From supporters from one of the camps I heard then that one “wants to vomit” after reading my stuff. While from another camp I heard that what I write is “simply a shame”. Alas, I still do not see enough reasons for myself to be an absolute fan of either side. Otherwise the life could be a bit easier.
After Kasparov gone I hoped that other top players would manage to avoid serious conflicts. But it did not happen. As usually, FIDE has most of the responsibility for the whole situation, but it is boring to be critical to FIDE… what, really, can be said about them what was not already said before?!
If the mess will continue, some really strong moves may be needed however. Kramnik returned to FIDE, and now FIDE is just obliged to show that it is able to control the world championship and the professional decently, whichever the circumstances are.