Mr. Geurt Gijssen, super arbiter and chief arbiter of the Topalov – Kramnik World Championship match in Elista, spoke out today. He explained about some of his difficult but correct decisions during the match as well as some of the behind the scene stuff.
Here is the full article.
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
Waiting for Super Seirawan’s response.
I am disturbed by the arbiter descritpion of Kramnik’s behaviour:
“He bobbed his head frequently and stared at moving objects. At one time during game 6 Topalov absentmindedly dropped some crumbs on the board (he was eating some goulash) and Kramnik started pecking frantically at the board with his beak, excuse me, mouth, and made a mess of the position (I had to rearrange the pieces). Kramnik;s yellow shirts did not help either. The worst part was when I found an egg in Kramnik’s seat after one game…”
Interesting letter by Gijssen. Of course he has to justify himself. Of course he mentions the paragraphs in the contract that favour him.
Poor him, had to suffer under the wrong decisions of the appeals comitee.
Since Kramnik won the match, we will never know who was right and who not, because now no court has the joy to rule on it 🙂
Alex
http://www.alexblog4u.blogspot.com
We know who is right. The arbiter was correct to forfeit Kramnik.
Isn’t anyone going to comment on the disturbing odd behavior of Kramnik? (see post above).
alexse wrote:
“Of course he mentions the paragraphs in the contract that favour him.”
Please cite any paragraphs that contradict those Gijssen mentioned!
kramnik is an extremely arrogant player. he will continue to hijack the wc. what a coward!
Regarding the disturbing behavior of Mr. Kramnik I think I can shed light on it under my capacity as a physician.
I think Mr. Kramnik suffers from PMS (poultry mimicking syndrome). This is a serious disease that must be treated inmediately (the sofia rule is one way to contain it). If the course of the disease is not halted the fusing of the yellow shirts with the patient’s skin and the development of a cartilage “proto beak” are to follow. Since we chess players cannot afford a “chicken little” WC urgent action is needed. In the meantime keeping Kramnik away from Foxes (like Dainalov) is of paramount importance.
Sincerely
Dr. Sanders
Gijssen is maybe the worst referree ever seen. This guy is a pain in the ass.
If it looks like a chicken, tastes like a chicken, plays like a chicken, runs from the board (and hides in the bathroom) like a chiken, then its a chicken!!!
This article shouldn’t have brought back the Kramnik or Topalov bashing opinions, it was strictly about the rules and regulations.
Geurt Gijssen is right, as I was stating from day one of the incident, as it was clear from the rules that the arbiter’s decision is final. Right or wrong, it is final. Later most probably Kramnik’s lawyers told him just that, and that’s why he knew he had to continue the match. As I wrote elsewhere in Susan’s blog, Kramnik could have sued FIDE for money perhaps, but never for the point he lost in game 5.
Gabor
I resent all the joking around about Kramnik’s serious disease. PMS (see post above) is nothing to laugh about. My son had it and last year he flew the coup. I am beggining to cross the road a lot myself (it is contagious). Kramnik crossed the road because of his disease, not because there was a draw at the other side. Us “poutry heads” (as the ignorante populace likes to call us) are very afraid of people with axes to grind.
It was about time someone established once and for all the “pecking order”.
Please stop it with the yellow biped jokes. Our feathered friends do not deserve to be compared to such cowardly contenders. Even if chicken little was inspired by Nigel Short (see the resenblance?) this does not mean that the furry fellows are to blame…
Gijssen is maybe the worst referree ever seen. This guy is a pain in the ass.
Which of his decisions was incorrect, and according to what rule do you say so?
He’s a pain because he made a decision that yellow kramny didn’t like.
A chicken, an egg and Kramnik: the new “axis of evil”.
Saddam Hussein:
Kramnik is the mother of all chickens.
Chicken? What’s all this talk about chicken? Why, Kramnik’s wife has a husband who thinks he is a chicken. She almost divorced him, but she needed the eggs.
Dr. Seuss:
Did Kramnik cross the road?
Did he cross it with a toad?
Yes the chicken crossed the road,
but why he crossed, I’ve not been told!
Damn you Dainalov!
Q. What Do You Get When You Cross A Ghost With Kramnik?
A. A Poultry-Geist.
“Which of his decisions was incorrect, and according to what rule do you say so?”
The presence of this casper was already abuse. He has never been impartial in the game. What a mess!
This proves that Kramnik pulled a “coup” on the power structure of the chess world. This begs the question: Why some people think Kramnik is good looking? (I ask because it’s Pretty Fowl). Dainalov says one time Kramnik asked his mom if it was okay to eat fried chicken with his fingers, his mom answered “no, the fingers should be eaten separetely” (damn cannibals). Aspersions on his character? I do not think so…
The real question is if Kramnik is preparing a secret recepy for his match (to turn on the oven) or if he is a crunchy chicken…
Why does Kramnik sleep with the air conditioner at top speed?
Because he doesnt want to get Salmonella.
“Why some people think Kramnik is good looking?”
Ask S. Polgar. I think he is attractive for women.
Each of Kramnik’s games are as valuable as a golden egg…
I don’t think Kramnik is good looking.
He looks like a polar bear on amphetamines
I think Kramnik is good looking but what do I know I am only a tapir! (see my pic in this blog).
Topalov is happy to receive the full point for game 5.
image here
Talk about chessbase being bias
This thread is a new all time low for Susan’s blog. It has become just more space for the Topalov children efforts in trying to slur Kramnik, even though Kramnik clearly defeated their boy, in spite of the forfeit gift and Kramnik then playing more games with the black pieces (how do you imbalnced parots justify this?).
Face it Topalov, you crybaby, you got whipped. A man (or woman) would analyze his (or her) over the board mistakes (yours were true 1500-level whoppers) and either work on improving his (or her) chess, or hide his (or her) head in shame and quit playing forever (and pray that the match chess-book authors will not call Topalov’s elementary blunders what they really are.
As Susan pointed out during the match, Gijssen was cherry-picking from the rules at the time.
Now Gijssen pepeats his mistake, hoping that as his senility prevents him from remembering all of the match rules, so it might you, the reader.
For Gijssen to make personal comments regarding his preference of one player over the other clearly proves his bias and latent unfairness. In organized chess, it’s high time that we began requiring that FIDE officials possess at the minimum high-school skills.
Incredible!!! Even when confronted with clear facts so many people are refusing to accept them and continue living in some fairy tale world!
Geurt Gijssen explained his actions very well and supported his claims with citations from FIDE and WC rules. If anyone wishes to blame him he will need to cite the rules that he has broken.
Saying “Of course he mentions the paragraphs in the contract that favour him” or “Gijssen was cherry-picking from the rules at the time” is worth NOTHING as long as it is not supported by facts.
Let’s be reasonable
As a sidenote, the jokes about Kramnik’s desisese are EXTREMELY stupid
> Let me quote Article 3.3 of the
> Match Regulations:
> No postponement of any game shall > be allowed except with permission > of the FIDE President.
I am sorry, Mr. Gijssen,
did I miss that piece of information,
or didn’t you even ask FIDE president for postponing the game?
That’s the stumbling block!
As far as a lot of people understood, you don’t accept the responsibility you have for that chaos.
Real men base on their authority (and not hiding behind others e.g. A.C. – comparable to Topalov-Danailov).
And once again, please prove that FIDE president himself has disagree with your suggestion to postpone game 5 for an appropriate time frame before claiming cancellation of
opinions/posts
thx.
“”Why some people think Kramnik is good looking?”
I am attracted to charismatic people. Kasparov definitely takes the lead here. He is a very charismatic man, and his energy has a great effect on everybody who is near him. There is something attractive about Karpov too. But maybe I am a bit perverted? As for Kramnik, he doesn’t interest me. He is neither bad nor good. When he won the title of world champion he should have offered Kasparov a rematch. He didn’t – he was simply scared. Such men don’t interest me.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1826
I just want to say that all the jokes posted here made me laugh so hard that chicken juice poured out of my nose!
Anonymous, read the article carefully. Mr. Gijssen dealyed the start of the game 5 by 22 minutes exactly, because they were expecting a letter from Kirsan to be delivered around 3:15, after that they read that letter and at 3:22 Mr. Gijssen started the clock.
The reason he waited for that letter was that it most likely was going to affect his or Kramnik’s decision on the game.
I like Gijssen’s letter and I think he made the right decision during the match. Kramnik had no right to refuse to play the game and paid the penalty of a forfeit.
Rehashing this stuff again and again is boring. Of course every half-way intelligent person can publish an elaborate pamphlet in which he shows that he completely acted right and that the faults are all committed by the others — including carefully selected citations from contracts and general rules. This statement and its content was as completely forseeable as it is pointless.
“Rehashing this stuff again and again is boring. Of course every half-way intelligent person can publish an elaborate pamphlet in which he shows that he completely acted right and that the faults are all committed by the others — including carefully selected citations from contracts and general rules. This statement and its content was as completely forseeable as it is pointless.”
Could you prove you are a half-way intelligent person by providing carefully selected citations from contracts and general rules to support your claim?
I doubt it!
“Rehashing this stuff again and again is boring.”
Then why are you doing it?
“…including carefully selected citations from contracts and general rules. This statement and its content was as completely forseeable as it is pointless.”
Like the earlier posts stating that “he mentions the paragraphs in the contract that favour him” and “Gijssen was cherry-picking from the rules,” the above statement provides no specific reason for rejecting Gijssen’s explanation of the forfeit, so it is itself “pointless.”
Can we revisit the chicken jokes please?
Geurt could have ruled that Topalov was distrubing Kramnik by his actions. His appeal was done at the wrong time and just before the start of the game. He could therefore have granted time for everything to calm down with no loss of game to anyone.
He became a puppet in the hands of Kirsan. Kirsan wanted kramnik to lose and Topalov his man to win. and Gijssen wanted the job and high salary. so he went along with what the boss wanted.
Geurt was totally spineless. He waited to see what Kirsan wanted and he gave it to kirsan. a mindless follower of whoever pays the money.
He was hired to do a job. that job was to do the right thing. He did not do the right thing. he followed his own personal selfish goals. he should have put the goals of the match ahead of his own goals.
Geurt sold out his soul for a few dollars. I have liked reading his column on chesscafe. but now I am ashamed of him. He does not make proper decisions.
If topalov was dropping crumbs on the chess board why did he not impose a fine on him. that was unacceptable behavior. he was disturbing his opponent kramnik. kramnik was trying to right the wrong and geurt criticizes him. the gall. the nerve. the shame on geurt.
Read it carefully Geurt. Obviously you have not read the words. You ignore the issue. here it is again. I suppose Geurt has some prejudice against Yaz and will not listen to his words.
but it is crystal clear to me. Yaz is 100% correct.
Now, the Chief Arbiter, Geurt Gijssen, compounded the first two mistakes by making a mistake on his own: 22 minutes after game five had been due to start, he pressed the clock and the game officially began. With hindsight it can be readily be seen that Gijssen should have realized that the playing conditions had been changed without the approval of both players. Indeed, it was quite obvious to everyone that one player, Kramnik, was in his rest area, clearly protesting that his bathroom door was locked. In writing this passage, I have been stuck by a particular photo from Elista. It shows an earlier game in the match about to begin. Gijssen stands between the seated players with his palms open and appears ready to address both players with the familiar, “Gentlemen, are we ready to begin?” Clearly when he started the clock for game five something was wrong. Kramnik was missing and was certainly not ready to begin.
Instead of starting the clock, Gijssen should have called for a further delay to settle the issue of the bathroom. Indeed he should have insisted that the playing conditions of the previous games be reinstated until both players were in agreement. If the issue could not be settled in a timely manner, Gijssen should have called the game an official time-out.
…………
so as we see. Geurt was not upholding the contract for the match. he allowed the contract to be broken and upheld the broken dictates. this can never be his duty. this can never be the right thing to do.
Let us assume that Geurt had decided that the playing conditions were not as agreed and he postponed the game. then topalov could have written a protest to the appeal committee about his decision.
But this never happened. Geurt never made the correct decision that could have caused the appeal committee to see their decision did not consider the contract.
Geurt just assumes that the written decision goes much farther than what was written up. the write up was over so called 50 visits to the toilet.
Geurt could now get a ruling on the playing conditions being different. He never did that. Geurt was wrong wrong wrong.
Let me link to my
previous post, which is still very relevant.
Here is one more confirmation that Kramnik is very close to WC.
Topalov vs Kramnik
Geurt Gijssen?
super arbiter?
—- OR —-
SUPER AGITATOR?
To various anonymous: please don’t ingnore the facts which contradict your so firmly established opinion(s)!
Geurt Gijsen had NO AUTHORITY to postpone the match!
“Any player who arrives at the chessboard more than one hour after the scheduled start of the session shall lose the game unless the rules of the competition specify or the arbiter decides otherwise.”
“No postponement of any game shall be allowed except with permission of the FIDE President.”
BTW, the FIDE president was aware of the situation and he sent a letter to confirm his opinion on the matter.
Two more points:
1) It is not so obvious that the contract was breached by giving Kramnik a different toilet. Thank god we will never know because the matter won’t end up in court!
2) It is NOT the arbiter’s duty to observe that the contract conditions are kept. He is in no position to judge the desisions of FIDE.
It is NOT the arbiter’s duty to observe that the contract conditions are kept.
At least Gijssen was the last one who could have mitigated the situation, though that might have given him trouble with FIDE. He opted for the easy trouble-free solution. Understandable and most probably formally correct, but rather gutless. Definitely no reason for praise.
I praise Gijssen for his decision. You won’t believe this, but people were actually second-guessing others as being obviously biased for Topalov or obviously biased for Kramnik depending on what they said.
If an arbiter is going to be criticized as being biased no matter what he does, it probably makes sense he would follow the rules and act within his powers. Which is what he did.
Saying he could have done what one person feels would have been “the right thing” even though it was not permitted under the rules is too vague.
Anyone would then ask for anything from the arbiter and say hey, of course it’s not allowed under the rules, but I want you to do the “right thing” so throw the rules in the trash.
ADDENDUM to Anonymous
Thursday, October 19, 2006 5:03:34 AM
————————————-
currently available:
http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3441
but GM Seirawan quote:
Mr. Gijssen wrote, “No member of the Appeals Committee can be from the federation of either player.”
Yet it was the “proposal” of the FIDE President that prompted the Appeals Committee to lock Kramnik’s bathroom door.
…
It is no wonder that the members of the Appeals Committee had the full trust of the FIDE President. After all, they did his bidding.
stop quote.
Well, Mr. Seirawan might be wrong here – and that is really surprising after all our experiences with FIDE during the last 13 years:
Mr. Seirawan thinks – which should be normal and the appropriate approach while dealing with trustable gentlemen/people – that all what Mr. Makropoulos had said during his cranky press conference “during” game 05 has been the TRUTH!
I doubt that, and even put it like this:
if someone would – as a leader of less than 500.000 people – deal with the president of Russia, would there be time and effort enough to think seriously about pottys?!
So anyway, trying to get rid of responsibilities of decisions made or even NOT made by himself, it seems to not only be a characteristic of Mr. Gijssen but as well of Mr. Makropoulos too.
The major mistake, chess players had, hav done and might carry on to make is:
trusting untrustable people
and(or even) when their statements are not written on paper.