I hope this will be the scene tomorrow for the start of game 5 with the score 3-1 in favor of Kramnik. I also hope that the players will issue official statements to officially end this ugly episode and turn the page to a brighter future.
Win with grace, lose with dignity and may the best player win! Play chess!
One of the bloggers posted a very interesting question:
“How would you have reacted had it been Judith who had been accused of cheating by Mr. Topalov? Both players to blame? Your hypocricy is shining through. To blame both the aggressor and the victim and to penalise them both is not a compromise. And is not dignified. And is not graceful. You really should think this over as a moral question, placing Judith in Kramnik’s position. You are a great ambassador for chess, but your comments on this issue have been just infathomable.
Thank you for your post. I would suggest you to read what I wrote carefully. Please do not jump to false conclusions. I never said that Kramnik should not be upset or not fight for his rights. He has every right to be upset even though he should not because that would only hurt his own concentration. What I am saying is Kramnik could have handled it a little differently.
What would I have done if I was Kramnik? I would have handled it more delicately. I would have said you are welcome to inspect my restroom. I have nothing to hide. The world knows I have a medical condition and I need to handle it the best way for me. This would have made Danailov look foolish and at the same time clear any suspicion to his doubters. But to ignore the issue and insist that everything should go on like nothing happened does not solve the problem. Obviously it did not solve the problem.
I have been in a similar situation in my own world championship in 1996. The organizer did something completely illegal and against the signed contract. It was an unprecedented decision. I was 100% right. I protested and I considered of walking out. But I decided to show up and take my revenge on the board. I played the next game and went on to win decisively by the score of 8.5 – 4.5 after trailing 1.0 – 2.0 at that time. That was my best answer.
Judit also faced the famous bad ruling against Kasparov. We both handled it in dignified manners. That is what we were taught. Therefore, I would advise my sister the same. Do not let the tactics by the other side distract you. So to answer your question, I would say the same thing to my sister and I followed my own advice.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
www.SusanPolgar.com
Here is another response to two other bloggers:
Sunshine and Frank,
Thank you for making your points. What I am saying have been very consistent. You do not know all the details. Neither do I. Neither do the posters here. We only go by what have been published. Some information may be true and some may be false.
Was it wrong for the appeals committee to make that decision? Yes. It is also absolutely wrong if Danailov continues to insist that the score to be 3-2. This would only hurt the reputation of Topalov. I would not accept that forfeit win and I would advise Topalov to do the same if I was his manager.
But as I stated earlier, they are in negotiation right now. To have people pointing fingers and insulting Topalov will not bring him back to the chess board. In fact, it is counter productive and unprofessional. The players are still in negotiation now. That is a good sign so far. We do not know what goes on behind closed doors. Some people may want blood. I prefer diplomacy. I would like to see the match continue and I would like to salvage this ridiculous mess.
You are entitled to your own opinion. You are entitled to disagree with me. But as a former women’s world champion, I cannot recklessly and definitively point fingers without knowing all the facts. It takes two to tango but it seems to look bad for Topalov so far on a professional stand point. I prefer to see them play chess instead of publishing open letters.
If there is no resolution in the next few days and the sticking point is Danailov 3-2 demand then I will loudly make my voice heard. But until then, I will give all parties a chance to fix this mess.
Will they play game 5 tomorrow?
This will be THE better move to play!
;o)
Is there any hope, that Danaj accepts 3:1?
the toilet’s problem is easy but the score is a big problem now
the game 5 was played, Kramnik, prefered keep the Toilet that play, ( bad actitude )
who lost:
Topalov
Kramnik
Chess
No more sponsors for chess
Fide
Who win:
The Toilet
Today is the worst day of chess
Good bye unification,
Bye more WCC
this is my last comment because it is bored
Chess Base: “ITAR-TASS is reporting that the Tolapov team has issued a threat to abandon the World Champship match if the forfeit of Kramnik in game five is repealed. This is according to an announcement by Topalov’s manager, Silvio Danailov. According to Danailov the 3:2 result has already been fixed by judges and cannot be changed.”
…So it is quite clear. Topalov will not play.
~kt
I want to believe that Danailov’s latest comment is just posturing, and in the end the two sides will reach a just resolution.
But given Danailov’s mismanagement of Ruslan Ponomariov’s career, unfortunately I can well believe that he would advise Topalov to abandon the match. This would be not only to the detriment of his client, but also to the detriment of chess.
Danailov is going to be the most unpopular person in the history of chess. Brave man…
Fortunately, the NFL and NASCAR are in full swing today, and divert my attention from this grim, pathetic, and laughable charade called the 2006 WCC. Have more adults ever behaved as badly over such a trifling set of facts with such importance to their sport as is occurring in this soap opera? Maybe, but it escapes me. Wake me up if they decide to play, I am close to not giving a dman anymore about the “unification” of the chess title if this is how the top two men “desiring” it go about their business.
— Mike D. (“D” for “Disgusted”)
I do not see why Topalov should agree to give up the forfeited point.
There is a precedent for this. Fischer was never given his forfeited point back. He played on.
Kramnik should just admit that he made a mistake and continue on.
I want the match to go on but there are consequences to actions.
Topalov should agree to give up the forfeited point for the following easy to understand reasons:
(1) If he does not give up the point and loses the tournament, then there will still be controversy about Kramnik being World Champion from their side.
(2) If he does not give up the point and wins the tournament, then many many people will never consider him to be the official World Champion because one game was left unplayed.
A decision about who is World Champion should ONLY be made based on all games being played in full. No meaningless points should be awarded for no game, regardless of “rules”. Sticking to rules when the situation calls for something else is called “anal” and absurd.
You know? This is just all absolutely absurd. Nobody, I’m sure including Topalov, really believes that Kramnik was cheating, and view has been expressed by many. It just goes to prove that the whole affair is due to Topalov’s poor advice and advisor. I am surprised that Topalov would go along with a “suspicion” that Kramnik is cheating. I wonder if Topalov realizes how poorly this reflects on him since he is behind in the tournament? Does he really want that forfeited point? Ok, well, I’m sure he does, but does he really want to win that way??
vvchess, Kramnik’s position makes a lot of sense. His position has been totally vindicated. The Appeals Committee’s decision has been reversed, and the Committee have resigned.
I also think that Kramnik has the moral high ground. Most of the GMs who’ve spoken publicly agree that Topalov should give the point back. If the match ends now, Topalov looks pretty foolish. And everyone will remember that, at the point it ended, Kramnik was up 3-1.
o-tone IM Mr. Danailov
“If the result of the fifth game is cancelled we are leaving the match. It is unacceptable Kramnik to play games with everyone and most of all with FIDE and the organizers”
(source: chessbase.com)
nothing more to be said…
dumbfounded, a former chess fan, Vohaul
I can understand how Topalov feels. He was at the board and ready to play. Kramnik feels his contract was violated and protested by not playing and refusing to sign the score sheet. I can understand that as well. Perhaps the best solution is to call game 5 a draw and add another game; or in the alternative call game 5 a win for Topalov and add another game. Maybe someone can purpose another reasonable solution. The parties need to come to grips with their egos and pride and do the right thing to make this Championship work. They also need to do it in a way that leaves no doubt who is World Champion. Sportsmanship gentlemen! Work out your differences and play on!!
“I also hope that the players will issue official statements to officially end this ugly episode and turn the page to a brighter future.”
Yes, the players. Both of them.
How would you have reacted had it been Judith who had been accused of cheating by Mr. Topalov?
Both players to blame?
Your hypocricy is shining through.
To blame both the aggressor and the victim and to penalise them both is not a compromise. And is not dignified. And is not graceful.
You really should think this over as a moral question, placing Judith in Kramnik’s position.
You are a great ambassador for chess, but your comments on this issue have been just infathomable.
anonymous,
Take your arguments to Fischer who gave up a game on forfeit.
Further, Topalov is not in a big mess here. He is the FIDE champion and FIDE will always back him.
Kramnik is the one who needs to find sponsors.
If Kramnik wants the forfeited point then he has to accept some kind of compromise like longer match etc.
I respect the opinion of all who disagree with me. All I am saying is that I don’t think Topalov is out of line if he insists on the forfeit.
My message to Topalov & Kramnik. Please continue the game whatever both of you have chosen. If not both of you will be remembered as “THE GREAT OBSTACLES IN PROMOTING CHESS FOREVER”. Our children, and our grand children will know you notorious. I will stop to teach chess to my student and children, because chess is notorious also.
Sorry, vvchess, I disagree about Kramnik accepting the forfeit.
Topalov tantrumed, the appeal board acceeded to his demands,changing the terms of the contract under which they were playing after it was signed, to palliate Topalov. It seems the screeching joint gets oil immediately.
Kramnik was correct in refusing to play. He should not have to accept the forfeit. It would have indicated that FIDE and Topalov can do anything they liked, without taking the consequences.
Topalov’s complaint was legal in the sense that he was entitled to make it – it should have been thrown out because it did not have any substance. Suspicion is not enough. Proof is required.
(Anonymous said…
“I also hope that the players will issue official statements to officially end this ugly episode and turn the page to a brighter future.”
Yes, the players. Both of them.
How would you have reacted had it been Judith who had been accused of cheating by Mr. Topalov?
Both players to blame?
Your hypocricy is shining through.
To blame both the aggressor and the victim and to penalise them both is not a compromise. And is not dignified. And is not graceful.
You really should think this over as a moral question, placing Judith in Kramnik’s position.
You are a great ambassador for chess, but your comments on this issue have been just infathomable.)
Thank you for your insult. I have been in similar situation in my own world championship in 1996. The organizer did something completely illegal and against the signed contract. I protested but I played the next game and went on to win decisively after trailing .5 – 1.5. Judit also faced the famous bad ruling against Kasparov. We both behave in dignified manners.
I would advise my sister the same. Do not let the tactics by the other side distract you.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.SusanPolgar.com
Kramnik was absolutely wrong not to play game 5. I do not know how the impasse should be resolved, but Kramnik made a major mistake by refusing to play.
Interrupting a planned match by refusing to play is a major disruption.
I really wonder what those who feel Kramnik did not do a single thing wrong are thinking about two very thorny questions: (1) when is it acceptable for a player to refuse to play a game and (2) what actions may a player take if he feels a decision against him was incorrect?
1. Can a player refuse to play just because he honestly believes he is right? Can he refuse to play if he honestly believes the tournament organizers are biased? Would it be ok for Topalov to refuse to play if at some point he feels he is right and the new arbiter is wrong?
2. What actions can a player take if he thinks he is right? Of course, he can file a protest and can ask the arbiter to reconsider his decision. But what else is he allowed to do? Refuse to play? Leave town? Destroy the bathrooms? Insult the tournament organizers? Put crazy glue on the chessboard? Deliver a self-mate to show he thinks the match is a joke?
“All I am saying is that I don’t think Topalov is out of line if he insists on the forfeit.”
Oh, I agree–he is definitely not out of line. I am just saying that if the match ends right now, Topalov will be the loser in the Court of Public Opinion. If this “game” figures in the final outcome, the result would be forever tarnished.
The Fischer situation is totally different. He made ridiculously petty complaints, and was appropriately penalized. Here, Topalov made ridiculously petty complaints, and his opponent was penalized. Surely you can see the difference.
“Perhaps the best solution is to call game 5 a draw and add another game; or in the alternative call game 5 a win for Topalov and add another game.”
Ilyumzhinov already proposed replaying Game 5 and lengthening the match by either two or four games, and Kramnik refused. (A longer match obviously benefits Topalov.)
SO you would have told Judith “You are also to blame!”
You would have told her to accept to share a bathroom with Topalov etc.?
You would have advised her to accept a ruling that cast her as a potential cheater?
Where’s your moral compass?
You haven’t even given any coherent arguments for your stance.
Without any knowledge of the actual number of Kramnik’s toilet visits or his motives to do so, you earlier campaigned the “theory” that Kramnik had started this all by deliberately provoking Topalov with his toilet visits.
You are anything but impartial here. People are not insulting you. You have asked us to come here. You advertise your blog everywhere. Feelings are strong about this situation for those who feel passionate about chess.
We can appreciate you and your work but on this one issue, you haven’t shown grace nor dignity. Just an opinion.
I repeat once more that I respect the opinion of all who diagree with me.
Regarding Kramnik being the victim.
A question that still begs an answer.
1. What in the world is Kramnik doing in his Toilet?
Additionally,
Why in the world did he feel so demoralized psychologically because of his personal toilet being taken away that he refused to play.
The majority of us would not feel demoralized if our favorite toilet were taken away from us. It would be annoying but hardly grounds for a boycott.
This makes me wonder what he was doing in the first place.
So I do not buy into the argument that his toilet taken away was grounds for him to be so demoralized as to give up a game.
Regarding the Appeals committee. It was their decision to step aside so the match would continue. I don’t think they made a wrong decision. Their decision to have one restroom may been impractical but I believe they did it in good faith.
Having said that I rest my case so others can have their say.
“Compromise is NOT the solution in manifestly unfair situations.” — GM Rowson
The fact that you did compromise just says that you give in to bullying and do not stand up for yourself. I dont understand why you are advising others to do the same as if this is a virtue.
There are big differences between Fischer’s forfeit of a game and the situation with Kramnik.
In 1972, it was Fischer, the person who forfeited the point, who was making the demands to change the playing conditions that would not have been upheld by those running the tournament. The only reason the playing conditions were changed was because Spassky was magnanimous and didn’t want to win on forfeit. But that doesn’t change the fact that Fischer was wrong to make his demands, and because he was wrong, being charged a point for forfeiting the game is justified.
In the current world championship, the person who forfeited the point was not in the wrong but rather in the right. Kramnik was not trying to change the playing conditions but just insisted on the status quo previously explicitly agreed to. That Kramnik’s position was right has been vindicated by the decisions on the bathroom situation and on the appeals committee. If one is in the right, one should not be charged with the forfeited game.
It’s similar to the instant replay challenge rule that is being used in some sports. One can challenge a decision and not be charged with anything (a timeout, a challenge, etc.) if one was right in making the challenge. But one is charged if one was wrong in making the challenge. The same principle applies here, for the same reasons.
Thus, the 1972 game forfeit by Fischer is not a precedent for this match. Game 5 should be replayed.
Susan : more details about your 1996 issue would be interesting.
In Judit’s case I believe you are referring to Garry K’s violation of the touch move rule, as captured on videotape. She was astonished and did not make a protest when the rules permitted it. She did nevertheless complain publicly. This seems reasonable and human. It does not compare with the current situation, since no remedy was possible after the game was over. Instant replay rules apply to football but not to chess.
Kramnik’s refusal to accept the Appeals Committee’s multiple violations of the rules of the competition is completely distinct. He could not accept unfairness and stopped it immediately.
Kramnik could make an unnecessary but minor concession and agree to Kirsan’s proposal to extent the match to 14 games. This would be the more “macho” acceptance, vs. your acceptance of some kind of unfair decision in 1996.
You accepted an even worse unfairness when other women were given 100 rating points. Such things are disturbing as well as unfair.
Kramnik’s protest is more active, and I sympathize. Except for you, all GMs have supported his insistence on fair treatment. David Levy also wrote a logical letter to Chessbase.
Passive acceptance of injustice is easier, but activism may lead to change for the better.
Not Really Anonymous
Frank McFadden of DC
I have been in a similar situation in my own world championship in 1996. The organizer did something completely illegal and against the signed contract. I was 100% right. I protested but I showed up and played the next game and went on to win decisively by the score of 8.5 – 4.5 after trailing 0.5 – 1.5. I let my chess showed on the board.
Susan, all people are different and I admire your mental strength to go on, no matter what was going on around. However, just imagine, what if you made a mistake at a critical point of your match because of that (could be?) and lost the match? Would you feel you deserved a loss?
And now even more is at stake. If one of the contendants presses the other the match MAY be meaningless, as another player MAY be affected by that. And when this happens, it’s not about chess anymore.
I think that Susan is taking very reasonable and balanced approach here. Can’t satisfy funs of both teams. However I do think that chess is a game for gentleman, and any attempt of annoying opponent is not acceptable. We all know for example that by gentleman’s agreement no player having any respect for the opponent will continue a game in entirely lost position being lets say queen down even if it is “legal” to play to the end. So I do not agree with GM Nunn that chesspalyers want to impose a will on each other. This behavoiur is a pure lack of respect , showing it off and the purpose is to annoy and distract the opponent. That how I see Kramnik’s “legal” conduct in the bathroom. Is not about cheating at this level of the game. Is about relating as the human to the other side. When Danilov/Topalov reacted to it in very unfriendly manner and then we had corrupted “legal”decision of FIDE authorities chess started to suffer big time. In my view era of gentlemans’ chess ended with Spassky and now we see very few players fiting gentleman description such as Anand or Susan ( gentlewoman). The most corrupting and demoralizing factor is money. That is now the main goal for top chesspalyers as only few can make a living otherwise. So lets not expect proper behavour from the guys who basically show that they hate each other and the only reason they want to be” together” at the chess board is to get big bucks and get away as soon as possible.Rick. California.
Judit also faced the famous bad ruling against Kasparov.
Apparently I missed that one. What incident was this?
it seems match will continue tomorrow!!!
resuming at 3:2
info from chesspro.ru
I’m trying to imagine what would happen if a policeman stopped me for running a stop sign that was totally obscured by a tree and thus not visible. I refuse to cooperate with this unfairness and resist the officer. The court throws out my ticket as being totally unfair, but the charge of resisting arrest remains. Do I get off because I was right, or do I face punishment because my action was illegal. I suspect I’d get convicted but the judge would probably suspend my sentence because my indignation was just. He might toss the case altogether, but I’m not betting on it.
I’m not sure how much clarity this analogy adds. But it does serve to illustrate that the fact that one was wronged does not relieve one from the consequences of their actions. So while I’d like to see Kramnik keep his 3-1 lead I can also see the logic of refusing to allow that.
I think Kramnik was wrong not to play that game. Someone suggested Kramnik was just doing something like the instant replay rule in football. But I’m not sure that’s the rigth comparison. It is more like a situation in baseball, which has no instant replay rule. The umpire makes a ruling in the pre-game warmup and one team claims the ruling is completely incorrect.
That team has no right to storm off the field, refuse to play the game, refuse to play the next day, and refuse to play the following day. Baseball would not accept the unexpected delays and making a mockery of the whole process.
I can see it already — everyone sits back down at the chess board and one player makes a request, the organizers reject the request, and that player immediately refuses to play. I ask the chess public, what can we do now to make sure players can’t sit by, refuse to play, then as part of negotiations demand that the forfeit be revoked.
If we get more and more refusals to play later in the match, this championship is going to take longer to finish than the infamous K-K match!
The public needs to demand that players only file complaints if they have good merit, organizers rule on complaints correctly, and just as importantly that players can’t refuse to play and cause complete chaos. If we don’t call out Kramnik for his mistakes, we’re just encouraging more chaotic boycotts in the future by others.
Susan, like many others I’m surprised by your attitude on this. Of the major sites that I regularly visit (chessbase, TWIC, chessninja, etc.) yours is the only one that consistently defends Topalov. I am surprise because your own WC match was cancelled and your title stripped when you didn’t like the match conditions. I see a parallel between FIDE changing established tradition without your consent by proposing a match held entirely in your opponent’s home country and FIDE changing the playing venue in Kramnik’s case by denying him private area.
For me, the proper resolution hinges upon whether or not the appeals committee violated Kramnik’s contract by their decision. Yes, everyone knows Topalov’s was a stupid protest. Kramnik claims it was done improperly (submitted after the 2 hour window), but even if it wasn’t invalid, was their decision invalid because it violated the contract? The consensus in the chess world is yes, which probably means nothing if not for the fact that the appeals committee resigned. This is clear evidence that they felt something in their behavior was not right. It appears that Kramnik’s rights were violated, which would make the forfeit invalid.
My conclusion is that the match should continue 3-1 Kramnik and everything else can be left up to negotiations. It is interesting that everything else was negotiated first and that this is the bone stuck in our collective throats. We’ll see what happens but whichever way it goes I doubt Topalov will be winning any chess oscars for 2006.
Susan you are doing a great job with this blog and don’t listen to the idiots trying to insult you.
By the way Mig is reporting that on Chesspro.ru game six is on for tomorrow with the score of 3-2
susan,
I agree 100% that Kramnik should have handled the situation differently.
He had a won match.
The FIDE site gives tomorrows game as the 6th so I am assuming the score is 3:2. But I don’t have enough information.
James,
Thank you for your opinion. But for some reason, there seems to be a misconception that I am pro-Topalov. I am not.
I just do not like the fact that people are jumping out to make judgment without knowing the full facts. I also do not like to see people being rude to either player.
I also said that if the information we have so far is completely true then Danailov blundered big time.
As you can see, even with what FIDE did to me, I am willing to be patient and learn all the facts before making a definitive judgment. That is my nature. I am not an impulsive person.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.SusanPolgar.com
“I just do not like the fact that people are jumping out to make judgment without knowing the full facts.”
This is too much. Your initial stance was that Kramnik started all this by deliberately provoking Topalov with his toilet visits and thus both players were to blame.
You did this, and repeated it multiple times, without knowing the full facts. In fact you didn’t even know half facts, other than lies put forward by Mr. Danailov, yet you seemed entitled to attack the person of Mr. Kramnik and accuse him of such thing.
This is the history against which we judge your current comments.
It’s hypocricy.
And now you have your “compromise”.
Kramnik got his toilet. Topalov got a free point. The chess world got chaos (for Kramnik will not continue the match).
I also hope this is resolved and game 5 is next game. Let’s play chess not politics or mindgames to upset opponent.
To all that like Posting comments:
After spending several hours reading the hundreds of postings during the past several days, I cannot believe the mudslinging and insults directed at GM Polgar!
If anyone wishes to disagree with her, then do so in a rational and polite manner. People can disagree without insulting.
I mentioned in another post that GM Polgar has done more to promote chess than virtually any person that represents our sport.
Her opinion matters and it matters more than most others. She will be (and already is) in the history books. Are you? So, before the next insulting post is marked “anonymous” ask yourself what you’ve done to promote anything noble.
Tim Harris
too late they have agreed to game 6 tomorrow. 3-2 score.
Too bad Susan. You fought for the wrong side. it will now always be too late for you to change your mind and redeem yourself. Better work on waking up to the truth.
I just read a FIDE release where Kirsan is stating game 6 with forfeit staying is scheduled to go on tomorrow. SHAME ON TOPALOV and his manager. THEY ARE THE CHEATS! I hope Kramnik will play on and crush him as Fischer did to Spassky in 1972 after the forfeit loss.
After this match I wish all of the world would ban Topalov and his manager from all chess events for one year!
It appears (since like everyone else, I don’t have complete information) that the Appeals Committee screwed up. Letting their decision regarding the toilets stand would have been wrong. A different decision such as mandating attendants, or restricted access + pre-game inspections, however, would have been reasonable. (Notice that the Topalov team complained that two unknown people had access to his rest area; open access raises the possibility that unknown people might have had access to Kramnik’s rest area as well. I would have wanted better arrangements as well.)
But allowing Kramnik to “appeal” the decision of the Appeals Committee without accepting any consequences — not to mention allowing him to do so by refusing to play the scheduled 5th game — also makes a complete mockery of the contract provision that the Appeals Committee decisions are final.
Ideally, both players should have given careful consideration to the makeup of the Appeals Committee ahead of time, and demanded changes if necessary before the start of the match. Once they did that, they would be honor-bound to accept the decisions of the Committee under the terms of the contract. If they didn’t feel comfortable with that, they should have negotiated a change to the contract that provided for a further appeal process.
Since they did not do that, I think they would only be justified in not complying with the Appeals Committee decisions, if at all, in extraordinary circumstances. I ordinarily would not consider the changes mandated by the Committee to have been so outrageous as to constitute extraordinary circumstances, but perhaps they were from the psychological standpoint if not objective.
Even in situations like that, every effort should be made to “appeal” the Committee’s decision before the next game started, rather than refusing to play. The Arbitrer should have postponed the game. Or Kramnik should have contacted the FIDE President on an emergency basis to postpone the game. I don’t know if Kramnik did as much as he should have to resolve the issue before the scheduled start time . . . and regardless of the merits, as the player seeking to change the “final” decision of the Appeals Committee, he has some obligation. *shrug* Perhaps he tried, and was unsuccessful, and felt his only recourse was to refuse to play.
—-
I wouldn’t have a huge problem with resuming the match at 3 – 1, and that might be for the best. But if that were to happen, I would also tell the NEW Appeals Committee to resign immediately. They will have no real authority; if there is any dispute, the player they ruled against could simply refuse to accept that ruling and force another crisis.
And if the players, rather than the organization, are in control of the World Championship . . . weren’t we trying to avoid those problems?????
I can apologise for couple of personal remarks no problem.
But may I remind you of the background of this discussion. A very emotional one for passionated chess-players.
When this mess started Susan Polgar was on ICC spam-advertising her blog and her views on the matter.
The first thing she seemed to do was to divert the blame on both players.
She started with a baseless accusation that was directed at Vladimir Kramnik. Without knowing any facts she decided that Kramnik had started all this by deliberately visiting the toilet to provoke Topalov. That a ploy by Kramnik had kicked it off. That was in such a poor taste, that apologies, but strong reactions followed when she was attracting people here, spamming the blog address on ICC.
I can apologise on behalf of all of us anonymous assholes here. But I expect her to apologise to Vladimir Kramnik and withdraw her tasteless and undignified accusation, which she hasn’t done so far.
(I can apologise for couple of personal remarks no problem.
But may I remind you of the background of this discussion. A very emotional one for passionated chess-players.
When this mess started Susan Polgar was on ICC spam-advertising her blog and her views on the matter.
The first thing she seemed to do was to divert the blame on both players.
She started with a baseless accusation that was directed at Vladimir Kramnik. Without knowing any facts she decided that Kramnik had started all this by deliberately visiting the toilet to provoke Topalov. That a ploy by Kramnik had kicked it off. That was in such a poor taste, that apologies, but strong reactions followed when she was attracting people here, spamming the blog address on ICC.
I can apologise on behalf of all of us anonymous assholes here. But I expect her to apologise to Vladimir Kramnik and withdraw her tasteless and undignified accusation, which she hasn’t done so far.)
Thanks for posting. For your information, I do the live commentary and analysis on this blog for the benefits of the chess fans. ICC and PlayChess are not the only 2 servers that utilize this service for their members.
This service reaches other servers including the Russian server, the French website and others. They put the link to this blog for their members.
I do not get paid a penny by any of these servers. I am probably the only person that do not get paid for spending 5-6-7 hours a day to prepare and do the LIVE commentary and analysis.
The owners of ICC (Marty Grund and Joel Berez) are aware of my service. We have discussed this issue. So does the founder of ChessBase (Frederic Friedel). In fact, Frederic has posted the link to my blog a number of times before.
They all know that it is my mission to promote chess and make things exciting for the chess fans.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.SusanPolgar.com
Game 5 may now show a 1 against Topalov and a 0 against Kramnik but we all know which figure looks the more hollow. 🙂
I do believe this game forfeiture situation closely matches the instant replay rules used for the first time in the U.S. Open tennis tournament.
If a player thinks a ball was out but was not called out by the line judge, he _cannot_ continue playing the point but must _suspend_ play immediately and make the claim to the chair umpire.
Why? This is to prevent a player from waiting until the result of the point is known before making a claim a line call. If, after review, the person making the claim of an out ball is wrong, he loses the point because he suspended play. Most people would feel these rules are fair.
This has an analog with Kramnik’s situation, with the appeals committee playing the role of the line judge whose ruling was disputed, and with the FIDE president playing the role of the chair umpire.
Here, Kramnik thought that the appeals committee made an incorrect call. If he had played on because he couldn’t get his challenge reviewed in time, and if the change in playing conditions had materially affected the game result, would Kramnik have any right to replay the game, even if his claims about the appeals committee were later proved right? No, Kramnilk wouldn’t — and that would be fair.
(As an aside, since I am someone who needs to use the bathroom ten or more times during a long chess game due to the nervousness I go through during a game, I sympathize with Kramnik’s position that changing the bathroom situation could affect the result of a chess game.)
So, the only alternative Kramnik had was to perform the equivalent of “suspending play” until the FIDE president or a similar authority could review the decision. True, chess had no equivalent to appealing to the chair umpire, but he still did what was possible under the circumstances.
If Kramnik’s claims the call the appeals committee made were rejected, then yes, the game forfeiture should stand, just as the tennis player would lose the point.
But since Kramnik’s claims about the illegality of what the appeals were upheld, then the game should not be forfeited, just as the tennis player who was correct in challenging the call would not lose the suspended point.
Now, it looks as if this argument is moot, since it looks like game 6 is scheduled to be played with a 3-2 edge to Kramnik. But this certainly seems unjust.
Hi.
I don’t have much to say on this topic. I would just like to precise something pretty false Susan said.
I am unfortunately suffering the same health problems as kramnik. It s called Spondylhartrite ankylosante in France. It has been of great damage to me.
But it must be pointed that this disease has no relation with going to the toilet. And absolutely no need to walk. The best position is basically sitting down, or standing up without moving.
No relations here with the toilet and surely no need to go there often.
I d like to add furthermore that I don’t see why Susan should think with Judith on the spot of Kramnik.
We want objectivity here. Putting someone you know in the sit is the worst possible things to do.