This morning the Dutch newspaper “De Volkskrant” published a noteworthy interview with Topalov.
The interview in Dutch can be found online here.
Here is the translation by one of our Dutch bloggers (Thank you for the translation!):
Elista is still on my mind
Interview by our chess reporter Gert Ligterink.
HOOGEVEEN – The scenes from Elista where top player Veselin Topalov recently lost the World Championship match from Kramnik are still on the mind of the Bulgarian. In Hoogeveen he looks back on this stirring duel.
The neighbourhood of the location where we meet is deceptive. In the rural hotel at the edge of the city of Hoogeveen there is a quietness so serene that one doesn’t expect an outburst of restrained anger. But it does come. It gives Veselin Topalov red spots in his neck and his voice starts to squeak when the behavior of Vladimir Kramnik during the recent WCC match is discussed.
Before the sensitive subject surfaces we speak about current affairs. Topalov lost his first two games in the Essent tournament and is halfway the tournament sharing last place. He doesn’t complain and praises the play of his opponents.
But he acknowledges too that by participating in Hoogeveen he has been asking too much of himself: “I have underestimated the reaction of my body. It’s not so strange that it now relaxes after the intense concentration during the match in Elista.”
“Whether I shouldn’t have come here? It hasn’t occurred to me for one moment. Never did I breach a signed contract. I am not Kramnik. How often didn’t he withdraw with vague symptoms of fatigue? This spring he immediately withdrew from the tournament in Monaco after he signed the contract for the match against me.”
The name Kramnik has the same effect on Topalov as a red flag has on a bull. During the first days after the match he has restrained himself, but now he thinks the time has come to tell his side of the story: “From the articles I have read I understand that outsiders see Kramnik as a martyr who won against the oppression. For them I’m the culprit and my manager Silvio Danailov is the embodiment of The Evil.”
“This is a depiction of the affairs which is completely unjustified. Our protest against the behavior of Kramnik, which was so condemned by everyone, was not a provocation, but an expression of sincere concern. During the first two long games Kramnik spent two and a half hours in his restroom backstage. That’s not acceptable is it? When one plays a fair match then one doesn’t hide oneself, but instead one makes sure that the audience can see you on stage.”
“After the fourth game my manager asked to see the surveillance tapes in order to have a look at how my opponent spends his time in his restroom. When he saw that Kramnik visited the toilet an excessive number of times we started to have suspicions. Of course this is suspicious behavior. The toilet was the only room which wasn’t covered by surveillance cameras.”
“When the Appeals Committee agreed with us and gave orders to close the toilets in the restrooms Kramnik reacted as if completely innocent. ‘Contract obligations this and contract obligations that. How dare they so insult me.’ ”It’s always the same with him. He breaks the rules himself frequently, but heaven forbid when his rights are at stake.”
“When Kramnik didn’t show up for the fifth game this was his own fault. He thought he could get away with it all. I would have preferred to play that game and see our protest being fully agreed with. Instead I got one free point, but Kramnik got his way on all other points. He again could do whatever he wanted in his restroom and the Appeals Committee was fired.”
“The consequence of all this was that from the sixth game onwards I no longer knew against whom I was playing. Kramnik had been vulnerable the year before, but in this match he hardly made tactical mistakes. I began to have doubts. Was Kramnik my opponent or was it Kramnik assisted by a computer? To keep him playing at the board as much as possible I purposely started playing fast. Too fast sometimes. The blunder which made me lose the ninth game was the consequence of a decision taken too fast.”
“I accept that I have lost the match. But what happened in Elista is still on my mind. At night Kramnik is in my dreams. I dream that he has accepted my offer for a return match in Sofia. Or that I make a long stroll with him in Moscow, after which we visit an expensive nightclub. The strange thing is that the two of us are the only visitors there.”
Weird dreams… Why did he tell the journalist about those?
Looks like Topalov has learned absolutely nothing from his experience. He still thinks that because his concern was sincere that he was perfectly justified in bypassing the appeals committee and publicly accusing his opponent, during an event, with no real evidence except a suspicion that he later admitted was wrong.
As long as he sees nothing wrong with it, he’ll feel free to do it again any time he has a concern that he thinks is “sincere”. The efforts to get Topalov banned or blackballed from tournaments should continue. He obviously hasn’t learned his lesson.
An Interesting interview. Obviously, the loss has upset Topalov a great deal.
Regardless of who did what and where…he lost the match. He needs to work on the future. He might get the opportunity to play for the title again. However, Elista is over.
We all live with loss. It’s part of life.
Let’s hope he doesn’t pull a Von Bardeleben over this and throw himself out a window.
Interestingly, Topalov claims to have lost the 9th game, which he won. Obviously he meant to say 10th. Or maybe he doesn’t really count Game 5 in his mind either.
It looks like Topalov has lied, to himself at least, on one big point. He said in all the press conferences that he was not disturbed by Kramnik’s wanderings. Obviously he was disturbed, and should have been big enough to admit it and complain on that basis rather than discrediting himself with baseless charges. Disturbing one’s opponent is forbidden by the Laws of Chess, perhaps something could have legally been done for him in that case.
I have to say that the interview was disappointing, at least from the POV of a chess fan. I am sure the interview was edited from its original form (by the author or translator), but the fact that Topalov immediately launches into “I am not Kramnik” is a distasteful implication that Kramnik breaches any and all contracts at his whim. I think he probably had a doctor’s note for the absence in Monaco!
To rehash the WC event, I agree that it was suspicious behavior, and the protest was warranted, BUT NOT THE FOLLOW-UP. And to have Topalov insinuate that hanging out in a restroom is not “fair play” is highly subjective. When I play, I spend most of my time walking around or going to the bathroom and I think the games were all fair. I only hope this is nerves speaking.
As a final note, if this is the “side of the story” that he wants to finally tell, it is pretty weak and unconvincing.
“I think he probably had a doctor’s note for the absence in Monaco!”
Kramnik’s arthritis is a documented medical condition. Making fun of that was in particularly bad taste. If he plays an opponent in a wheelchair, is he going to criticize him for not moving around enough?
Topalov doesn’t seem to know the difference between the rules and his own personal ideas about how a player should behave. But he needs to learn that battles like these get fought before the Appeals Committee, not in the public press. Anyone organizing a tournament would do well to reconsider inviting him. He’s more trouble than he’s worth.
This interview is a bit of a yawn. It only shows that Topalov is a bad loser. He is even rehashing these ridiculous cheating accusations against Kramnik. And all this lame lamenting about toilets. Wasn’t it him who got a free point on the toilet and still lost? Had he expected two free points?
Hopefully someday players will be required to spend at least 7% of the game at the board, not in unsupervised toilets or getting up and sitting down and moving around. Sit and play at the board – what the sponsors are paying for and attendees came to witness.
What a winger…this guy is an arse!
If Kramnik wants to sit in his restroom or go wash his hands then its his call.
This complaint about Kramnik not making tactical mistakes…we must all have been watching the wrong match!
Kramniks games were positional play with occasional tactical slips which is what we saw.
Topalov was 3-1 down and decided to disrupt the match. It failed. Its his own fault. He wants to blame Kramnik.
I hope he loses again today!
if there are 1400 players at the World Open and each player visits the bathroom a minimum of 50 times and flushes 1 gallon of water. how much water does the hotel use up.
1400 x 50 = 70,000 visits x 9 games = 630,000 times the toilets get flushed. at one gallon per flush is 630,000 gallons of water.
The real question is how long are the bathroom lines to get in their.
Damn, this guy is nuts…. -rolleyes-
You lost the match, Topalov! (even with a free point!!) Learn to live with the facts. Accept the truth: you lost, he won.
If your opponent wants to sit in his restroom for 2 hours per game, then fine! That’s what restrooms are for, no? To sit there in the couch and rest… Who cares?
Well…it seems you do.
Anyway, he is the World Champion of Chess. You are not.
He deservedly won the match on the board! Learn to live with that!
The dream about visiting an empty night club with Kramnik is clear evidence that Topalov has a subconscious longing for a change of father figure. Danailov out, Kramnik in.
The rest of the interview is just the desperate signs of being in a state of denial about it.
“How often didn’t he withdraw with vague symptoms of fatigue?”
That’s how he ridicules Kramnik’s illness.
“Kramnik had been vulnerable the year before, but in this match he hardly made tactical mistakes.”
2750-2800’s don’t make many tactical mistakes. He made even less of them in the rapid chess when he sat on the board the whole time.
Looks Topalov is going insane.
>the following poll by the US Chess League shows that the overwhelming number of Chess players go to the bathroom more than 50 times per game.
Then this clearly needs to be addressed as “disturbing to the opponent” which there are rules against.
50 trips isn’t normal. If you have to go potty that much, wear a diaper.
I supported Kramnik entirely in this mess, and I’m glad he won the unified world title, but now I really feel sorry for Topalov.
Topalov is the main victim of Danailov’s foul play. Even if Danailov didn’t instigate it, he should have protected Topalov against such ideas, instead of giving credit to them.
I hope Topalov can recover one day.
>>2750-2800’s don’t make many tactical mistakes. He made even less of them in the rapid chess when he sat on the board the whole time.
>>
Not only that, it’s not true. Kramnik made two big mistakes in winning Game 2. Bxf8 was a simple blunder that should have landed him in an immediately lost game. Then right at the end he played a Rook move Re3 or Re1, which, according to the tablebases, should have blown the win entirely if Topalov had played right.
Same with Game 1. Topalov had a bind and could have forced a draw at will, but instead he blundered and lost. If that’s enough to slander your opponent in the press, then this guy is a loose cannon who should definitely not be invited to major tournaments.
Hmmm…
Dream.
Is Topalov a gay?
>>He still thinks that because his concern was sincere that he was perfectly justified in bypassing the appeals committee and publicly accusing his opponent
Topalov did not bypass the Appeals Committee and launched an an official complaint to exactly this body. The fuss in the media was then started by Kramnik who launched a protest. Don’t turn black into white.
It happened to me once that my opponent was out of sight most of the time. I didn’t like that, so I sent a friend after him to look what he was doing. This story has some resemblance. Why is everybody so upset? At least the ones who feel to react here?
>Or did you have the tournament director deal investigate it and deal with it without embarrassing your club?
The match specified complaints go to the arbiter or the committee – which topalov did.
>If you don’t understand, why not try it Topalov’s way next time something like that happens, and see how it goes? Warning: You’ll probably be kicked out of your club if you do. But at least you’ll understand.
Why would someone get kicked out for following the rules and complaining to the appropriate people as laid out within the rules?
Kramnik is the one that ran to the media not topalov.
The fierce dogs under the cloak of anonymity picked up the trail now and the hunt began again. “Topalov is an arse, he is gay, he needs a doctor …”
No, jerks, scoundrels, nincompoops: Topalov is a talented chess player worn out by the dirty psychological attack launched at him by the likes of you. Unlike Kramnik, he has the courage to play against very strong opponents in Essent in such bad shape. I support Charlemagne completely in his advice: Topalov needs a few months of rest.
Jerktonov,
Not only Toiletlov, you need to see doctor too.
lantonov wrote:
>>Topalov did not bypass the Appeals Committee and launched an an official complaint to exactly this body. The fuss in the media was then started by Kramnik who launched a protest. Don’t turn black into white.
>>
I’m looking this very moment at a copy of Topalov’s protest of September 28, addressed not only to the Committee, but to “all mass media”. This was the first that the rest of the world heard of it.
If you can’t defend Topalov on the facts, maybe he’s not worth defending.
The right man lost the match and now it seems he is losing his marbles as well… Should feel bad for the guy I guess… but I don’t – not yet!
I wouldn’t might an appeal, but why involving journalists? Danailov started with the PR campaign at the same time he submitted the appeal. It’s inexcusable. Suspicion is not yet a confirmed reality. Prove your accusations or take the official road to prove them. Letting the journalists in, making wild accusations – all this would be dismissed as childish, if so much were not at stake.
Kramnik did make tactical mistakes! How about missing a mate in two?
@Anonymous,
I will gladly send the shrink to you if you give me your name and address.
I just don’t see how anyone can consider 2.5 hours in the bathroom for 2 games reasonable. If that’s not a mind game at best (and cheating at worst), I don’t know what it is. So what if Topalov let his nerves get to him and handled the protest less gracefully than the armchair kibitzer would have it? Let’s just forgive and forget, leave Topalov the best chance to get over it by not ganging up on him, give Kramnik the benefit of the doubt, and move on!
I think Topalov seems to know what happened but is determined to spin it his way. I think he is expecting everyone to fall into ‘grey fallacy’ where if one person says black and the other says white, everyone will believe the reality is grey. In this situation however the facts are quite clear.
He knows he got a free point and decided to keep the point during the match, but now says he would rather have gotten uncontractual restrictions on Kramnik’s movements during the match. I think Topalov seems to change his story far too often.
Although most of what he said in the interview didn’t improve my assessment of him I found the last thing he said, when he talked about his dreams really made me see him as a person and seems to show that he does not bear hostility to Kramnik.
Добре казано, Ники.
Well said …
And now Vesko swept the chessboard with Mamedyarov.
Do not twist facts. There is nothing about toilets here and never was.
The cameras were agreed so that the players are observed at all times.
If one of them tries to hide most of the time from the cameras this is a DUBIOUS behavior. This is what the complaint was about. And despite the big noise Kramnik still got his way.
This is what Topalov is upset about.
I do not see any logical or ethical reason to blame him here.
Stop with the biased and bashing posts.
Greg
@Anonymous
>>I’m looking this very moment at a copy of Topalov’s protest of September 28, addressed not only to the Committee, but to “all mass media”.
In your earlier post you said that Topalov bypassed the Appeals Committee. Which of the two is the truth?
Topalov has lost it…dreaming of going to a nightclub with Kramnik… bloody weird. He needs a break.
I disagree with Bob Hu on the main point of the argument but I agree with him completely on his last post. Stop abusing the strong players. By this you don’t become greater than what you are. That’s why I don’t use the name Cheatnik.
A complete lunatic, this Topalov guy. I particularly like his queer dreams. Are there any psychoanalysts here? If yes, please someone post an elaborate analysis of this guy’s mind. I’m sure Reuben Fine was right when he wrote “The Psychology of the Chess Player”, http://chess.eusa.ed.ac.uk/Chess/Trivia/psychology.html
Paranoiac… Topalov, the real son of Bobby !
From the moves that were made during the games themselves, it is pretty clear that neither player were making use of computer assistance.
Now as to the various arguments about Kramnik going fifty (50) times. HE DID NOT GO FIFTY TIMES. Check the footnotes to the chessbase article. I’m pretty sure it’s been said elsewhere as well, including the WldCh site that fifty times was an exageration and the true number was much less.
As for Topalov commenting on a percieved lack of tactical mistakes, it seems that he expected more mistakes than a player of Kramnik’s calibre would make. Now I can see some possible reasons for this sort of expectation. Perhaps over the course of the past year his opponents were making more blunders due to intimidation (after his win at San Luis he would have been intimidating indeed). Kramnik of course, is well known for not being intimidated, in fact, it is to this factor that he attributes his performance against Kasparov.
Since use of computer assistance has been eliminated as a possibility all that remains is Topalov’s current point that Kramnik may have been using his visits to his restroom (remember Topalov and his team were not supposed to be able to know what happens in the restroom, the videos should never have been given to them) were some sort of tactic to throw him off balance. If this was truly the case then it most obviously backfired with Kramnik not only losing a point but being thrown off balance himself, losing horribly in games 8 and 9.
At this point we ought to consider Kramnik’s track record. He has previously played two wld.ch. matches against Kasparov and Leko. Now Kasparov is stronger than Topalov and Kramnik was losing for most of the match with Leko yet neither opponent had any complaints about his conduct, nor were they in any way disatisfied with Kramnik’s behaviour. It seems strange that Kramnik would suddenly decide resort to underhanded methods to win the match now.
Hello,
That is the fact that Kramnik often visits in toilette during a game were unfair fouls, it is obvious. It understand everybody who plays in tournaments. The player who will visit toilette so often in the professional tournament would be disqulified. The fact that somebody is playing chess better then other is not making him an superman who is standing over the rules which obey usual people.
He is still being usual human with all people weaknessess.
I was Kramnik fan up to the time when I knew what has happened in the match – toilettes play.
It is normal that were the protest from the Topalov team.
It is ridiculos that victim – Topalov is being now the guilty. It must be KGB work :-).
I wish all Kramnik supporters to be in the same situation in htheir tournament as Topalov in the match.
May be they will understand sth.
Regards
Past Kramnik fan.
lantonov wrote:
>>In your earlier post you said that Topalov bypassed the Appeals Committee. Which of the two is the truth?
>>
He did. I didn’t say they didn’t know about it. He didn’t do it behind their back, but he still tried to bypass their right to judge the case and tried to have the public decide it for him. That is what you cannot do, and that is why the world dislikes him now. It’s very simple, and you’ve done quite a poor job of talking around it.
To avoid any semantic evasions on your part, the facts are, that Topalov launched a protest quietly, was given the private tapes, and after viewing them, issued a press release to the Committee and all mass media accusing his opponent rather than letting the Committee render their own judgment. He bypassed them and went to the public.
Your statement was that he didn’t. That Kramnik went public. But you have so far failed to find any such statement by him before September 28.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn’t deliberately bend the facts here, but if you just took somebody’s word for it that such a statement existed (I bet I know whose word that was), you’d better try to find it before going any further.
“Or that I make a long stroll with him in Moscow, after which we visit an expensive nightclub. The strange thing is that the two of us are the only visitors there.”
Wow, how romantic!
But Topa forgot to mention that they were strolling hand in hand.
Сега Топа трябва да почине и да се фокусира върху големите турнири 2007. Надявам се там да ги мачка здраво.
It’s kind of sad, we should have more compassion for these guys.
I remember Kasparov going mental with Deep Blue thinking there was cheating going on… obviously, there wasn’t, but it obviously affected his play.
I thought it was very interesting how Topalov explained why he was blitzing out moves to keep Kramnik at the board.
For him, this issue obviously affected his play, and I would bet he would have gladly given back the forfeit point if Kramnik had agreed to stay at the board 95% of the time.
I am not saying he is right or that Kramnik was cheating, I don’t believe any such thing, but when you see how it affected him it’s easier to understand his behaviour.
Chessplayers sometimes tend to paranoia, and cheating is possible, though I have no doubt Kramnik is an honest player. But when something gets inside your head, it is hard to concentrate on your chess.
Anyway, he lost fair and square, but reading the interview humanized him a lot for me.
I hope to be done at least the following change to the common procedure in arranging World Championship games in chess:
The organizing routine is to prevent all potential opportunities to doping, e.g. any outside aid to the players during the game.
A 100 % video surveillance scenery to the official referee team.
And referees also to make instant interference if the referee sees something disturbing to happen.
Like in other sports, hockey, athletics, cycling, in all sports.
sharing bathroom and going to nightclub with Kramnik???
what s talking about??
I have a feeling this is gonna be one of those Ace Ventura moments (“Laces OUT, Dan!”), where Topalov locks himself up in an attic for the rest of his life, constantly reliving the blunder he made in the final game, and obsessing over what could have been…
I wonder which special kind of sportsmanship there prevails in the chess world:
Going with an extreme attack to person!
This includes the fans, too!
Is this all related somehow to boxing? I remember Cassius Clay´s behaviour.
And the fans´ comments exceed the comments of any devoted football fan.
Why is this? Why just calm down? This includes the reactions of Kramnik to the cheating hints, too. And the above language of Topalov so long after the match. Not to speak about the writings above in this blog!
There are some people in this world, not just in chess, but in all walks of life, who just can not accept that they are in the wrong. I have read of people who burned down their partner’s house killing everyone inside, being completely stunned that anyone would think they have done anything wrong.
This is not to confuse Topalov with an arsonist, of course; nor to confuse Kramnik with a saint. This was a world title match and psychology has always been a part of it.
For Topalov to call Kramnik a cheat because he blundered so often is crazy. Kramnik wasn’t playing Fritz-perfect chess; any unbiased analysis of the games shows this. But, like the arsonist, Topalov has to cling to some justification of his actions, even though (most of) the rest of the world roll their eyes in disbelief.
I’ve always been a fan of Topalov’s play. I’ve never been a fan of Kramnik dodging a replay with Kasparov. But like most chess fans, I’ve been turned off Topalov. I would have more respect if he just said ‘OK, it was a ploy I just didn’t expect it to go that far’. But nooooo, still hinting the old Frtiznik just is so old news.
One issue that many people seem to be confused about:
Kramnik did not spend 2.5 hours in the bathroom during a game. He spent this time in his rest room (personal room for rest). Basically, he was there while it was not his turn to move.
The last paragraph of Topalov’s interview is indeed very weird and sounds gay to me.
I was gonna post point by point refutations of Topalov’s “arguments”, but it is too easy.
Topalov is clearly losing it mentally and emotionally and needs to see a shrink asap.
Topalov is gay and attracted to Kramnik 😉 if you can’t beat him; join him.
>>Topalov is a talented chess player worn out by the dirty psychological attack launched at him by the likes of you.>>
You really don’t seem to care too much about the truth, lantonov. Somebody catches you in one untruth, you just say “who cares?”, and change the subject to something else. It may be a game to you, but understand that nobody has to change your mind. Pretending not to understand the charges against Topalov won’t make the ACP retract their denunciation of him and it won’t make organizers who think he’s too big a risk to have at their tournament reconsider. Really, if you want to live in a dream world where Topalov is always right, you might be better off avoiding people who will point the truth out to you. You’re only making Bulgaria and Topalov look worse by your activities here.
>>
Whenever a talented sportsman disgraces themselves there is always a sad minority prepared to look the other way.
>>
Or even worse, people like lantonov, who are not only willing, but actually eager to sacrifice their own character for “the cause”.
@Anonymous faceless lier,
I stand with my name behind the truth, you hide under the cloak of anonimity abusing with personal attacks and telling lies and half lies.
I am proud to defend honest and fair play and hate cheaters like Kramnik and like you, who defend him. In one of the above posts you saw how one of the liers tried to weasel around the words he told himself changing “bypass” with “address” and then telling me they are the same thing. If you don’t stand behind your name, I am in my right to think that there is only one lier here and he is called “Anonymous”.
What untruth have I told, Anonymous, that Topalov is a talented player? Prove that to be untrue.
I ask again, what is the truth: did Topalov bypass the Appeals Committee or, on the contrary, address it?
And tell me one more thing, what are the charges agaist Topalov? Did he cheat? Did he distract his opponent? Did he break in any way the rules of the game? What charges do you level against him, Anonymous?
@Anonymous
What ACP denunciation are you talking about? That faked letter in the ChessBase under which names were added at will?
This will make the organisers of tournaments reconsider? You are making me laugh. Just at this moment Topalov is playing in an important tournament in Holland while Kramnik is hiding under his crown (which just returned to its homeland – words of Kirsan) and aborted a contract he had signed for a tournament in Monaco. Talking about tournaments, Kramnik is the player, avoided by organisers, because of his whims.
@Anonymous,
I understand that “my activities here” are a thorn in your eye because someone maybe pays you for these posts and they are not striking home as they should but you are not the one to judge me and the values (fair play) I stand for. Because you have no name, that’s why.
I suppose it’s not uncommon for a chess player to lose, and then to lose his marbles aswell.
@Iantonov
Registering a blogspot username without even a blog to go with it does not make your comments automatically Gospel. Susan allows anonymous comments (she doesn’t have to) and an opinion is either right or wrong, irrespective of who wrote it under what name or non-name. If anonymous posted “0+0=0” but Fermat signed in to argue that in fact adding nought to nought equaled shampoo, who would you believe?
The same advice everyone wants to give to Topalov applies to you too. That is, grow up.
@Tom Chivers,
>>The same advice everyone wants to give to Topalov applies to you too. That is, grow up.
I don’t remember to have asked for your advice. If you have an opinion on the matter in the blog, tell it here without judging people whom you do not know.
the last part of the story sounds a little gayish to me O_o
“tell it here without judging people whom you do not know.”
You mean like the way you don’t judge anonymous?
Highly hypocritical, LA.
Anyhow. There is no point rehashing Toiletgate arguments, since 95% of chess fans are evidently on Kramnik’s side anyhow, and this interview will only nudge that number higher.
@Tom Chivers
Where did you see that statistic for 95% on the side of Kramnik, Tom? Can you prove that this is true?
Prof Dr Lyudmil Antonov, PhD Nuclear Physics
Sofia, Bulgaria
One can judge only a named person. Judging an anonymous person is like a slap in the water because it is like judging nobody. This is why the statement that I judge Anonymous is ridiculous. I disapprove of a behaviour of some person who hides his name.
The fact that I have not filled a blog in this site (I have a filled blog elsewhere) does not mean that I don’t stand behind my true name. I often write my full name in my posts and registered a blog here only for the people who argue with me to indentify the origin of my posts.
Lyudmil Antonov
I like your non-judgemental logic that includes disapproval and name-calling.
Are you as good at your job as you are at arguing?
If so, then I think that if I google your CV, I’ll find ‘Safety Inspector, Chernobyl (1986)’ on it.
I have to say though, that as I look around opinions on chess sites, I agree with you that there is room for reasonable doubt over the 95% figure. Maybe it’s even higher.
After reading this interview i start having doubts its a good idea to promote chess to children…I mean is Topalov going the Fischer way, i mean ,crazy…?
What sport is this where the best go nuts…not healthy…sad.
Common folks, calm down and do not be to hard on lantonov. Don’t you see that he does more to discredit himself that anybody else could do with comments such as:
“I am proud to defend honest and fair play and hate cheaters like Kramnik and like you, who defend him. In one of the above posts you saw how one of the liers tried to weasel around the words he told himself changing “bypass” with “address” and then telling me they are the same thing. If you don’t stand behind your name, I am in my right to think that there is only one lier here and he is called “Anonymous”.”
signed
Julias
@Tom Chivers,
You are free to google my name all you want, Tom. I will be glad to know the results of your search, and also whether your hypotheses (insinuations) about Chernobyl inspectors are true.
The way you support your argument about the 95% figure increases my doubt about it so highly, that now I think you are the only one that supports Kramnik under his real name. Because I have looked at chess sites, too, and I find opinions divided almost in half, with those supporting Kramnik over 99% anonymous or pseudonyms. Or maybe you have looked only in Russian sites and ChessBase, in which case you are just misinformed instead of deliberately distorting the truth.
But on second thought, maybe not. “Maybe it’s even higher.” expresses your tentative way of dealing with numbers, unsupported by facts and your desire for facts to show your way.
I answered your post only because you are not anonymous. I am not going to lose my time answering any further posts by you because I see that there is no point. You are obstinate enough to diregard the facts no matter what anyone says.
Lyudmil Antonov
@Julias
I don’t see how I discredit myself when I expose liers. Maybe you can explain your strange way of thinking.
Lyudmil Antonov
@ lantonov
The reason you won’t answer me further is because you are just remembering how badly you got burnt posting on the RedHotPawn site as Los Angeles. Which is neither Russian or Chessbase, as you evidently haven’t worked out for yourself.
Run away again now little boy. Shoo.
Julias – apparently ‘hatred’ is not a judgement. Re: “the statement that I judge Anonymous is ridiculous” – LA.
With friends like LA, Topalov doesn’t need enemies (although he has those at least in superabundance.)
I visit my own toilet 10-20 times durin a 3+0 game on playchess… who is then cheatin? ofcourse i cheating myself! or? :)lol
First and foremost Robert Fischer is not crazy!
He is quite normal but is deem too dangerous by the USA secret goverment and was nearly kill via Japan a few years ago. His view are contoversianal but there is some truth to it.(not all)
Pointing Topolov as gay is really pointless. Topolov had some fault, Kramnik had some fault probably the biggest fault were the former FIDe committee that was too Fideish and unproffesional. Topolov should probably be fine and warned for his behaviour, but thats was all his fault.
Kramnik behavior is also unacceptable! What he was doing in the toilet cannot be repeated! If he have a medical requirement to go the toilet frequently.. it must be with Fide doctor approve. The issue with the toilet is not the toilet itself, but the very fact that the toilet is the only place where one can cheat(no anti-dopping) Was Kramnik cheating?? It cannot be prove..only hinted, but for whatever reason what Kramnik done cannot be repeated.(and offcourse Topolov team outburst during games also cannot be tolerated anymore too.)
while lot of people claim that Kramnik winning was good for chess, it really wasn’t that good. Kramnik was clearly playing the inferior chess. in 2000 he was pressing and winning with white and equalizing as black againgst Kasparov. Kasparov best game was actualy in his 15 game when kasparov choose d4! against Leko Kramnik was pressing anpressing when he was trying to achieve a draw. This WC Kramnik only won because Topolov blunder. Only in game 3 did Kramnik was winning.
Kramnik has not playing so well in the past 2 years particular and in the past 4 years genarally. While Anand plays was up and down sometime 2800 level sometime 2700 level. Kramniks one, was generally around 2650-2750. In fact before that was his rating for a long time, while Anand jump back and forth. Some say he has medical problem, I opinion that he tried to play e4. But one thing i notice since 2000, while right now the trend is to be agrresive and sharp(Anand and Topolov) there were an increse level in both the defensive and positional play of the majority player. Even Topolov/Judith can be more posiotanal. When Kramnik became the Classical match World Champ, the level of defense and postional has increase.
Time will tell if Kramnik can be a relative 2800 player like before or will he remain a relatively 2750 player. Things are really not in his favour. Both Anand and Topolov really desrve thy 2780-2800 rating though.
>>I hate cheaters, period.
Lyudmil Antonov
>>
You also said you hated people who changed their minds based on new facts. So if Topalov, hypothetically, were found to be cheating, would you change your mind, or would you try not to think about it, and stay loyal to him?
@kuku man,
Yours is very good and balanced opinion. If you are the one who plays in yahoo under the id kukuchess, you are a very strong player, too.
If you allow me to add to your opinion, it is characteristic for young players to have a more aggressive style in the beginning of their careers and when they gather experience, they become more defensive in some games, and attacking when the position allows.
A case in point is Paul Keres, who played only 1.e4 when young and gradually switched to semi-closed and closed openings.
What I don’t like in Kramnik is not the style of his play because positional play has its beauties in some beholders eyes (including mine). I don’t like his behaviour in the recent match and didn’t like his whims and commercial attitude towards chess (shunning tournaments, fight for points and position by all means, etc). Here I stop because I don’t want to hear the barking of the anonymous huskies.
Yes R.J. Fischer is normal and genious
personality. He is controversial but has right in many matters. The unluck of him is his lack of diplomacy and lack of tolerance on the earth . His opinions are as from Bible ‘Yes or Not’.
Returning to discussion. I think that Kramnik has done the toilettes fouls and media attack to Topalov because was afraid of his power of play and ‘equalised’ his chances on the other field. Might be he was using the plan prepared for Karpov to match against R.J. Fischer. The idea was to force Fischer to break the match by provoking his illness attack or put him out of equlibrium. You can read about in the book ‘Russian against Fischer’ written by Russian author.
Regards
Past Kramnik fan
>>First and foremost Robert Fischer is not crazy!
He is quite normal
>>
You think a guy who has his fillings removed to keep the CIA from using them to control his mind is normal? I’ll have to remember to stay away from you too.
lantonov wrote:
>>What untruth have I told, Anonymous, that Topalov is a talented player? Prove that to be untrue.
>>
Would you like a list? I can give you a partial one, but it would take too long to find them all.
1) Right here in the question is one. You imply that people have accused of lying for saying Topalov is a great player. Not true. Nobody has said that.
2) You accused Kramnik of going public with the story, and stuck to it even after someone referred you to the initial September 28 Topalov press release. You haven’t found anything earlier by Kramnik to show he went public, but still insist that he did.
3) You’ve stated as a fact many times, that Kramnik used computer assistance, without providing proof. That constitutes a lie. You’re claiming to know something that you at the most only suspect.
4) Down below in your post, you ask again what the charge is against Topalov, despite having been told it many times. That’s not a lie, but it’s at the least dishonest, pretending not to know something you do know.
5) You’ve claimed to support Topalov’s behavior, yet also claimed not to support it when referring to cases where he was on the receiving end of similar treatment. So, one or the other was a lie. You either support it or you don’t. If your position is “I support it but only when someone I like does it”, then that would be a dishonest position in itself.
>>
And tell me one more thing, what are the charges agaist Topalov? Did he cheat? Did he distract his opponent? Did he break in any way the rules of the game? What charges do you level against him, Anonymous?
>>
The charges are the same ones that you heard and conceded without argument before.
I’ll gladly tell them to you again, but only if you make an explicit promise here and now to either respond and respond honestly, or to concede the point explicitly (rather than implicitly as you did before).
If you can’t bring yourself to do something as simple as that, promising to deal in good faith, then read the letter from the Association of Chess Professionals denouncing Topalov again. It lays out quite nicely.
@ “Past Kramnik fan”
Try not to use on-line translation tools. Your post was nonsense!
(Or should I say, ‘In order to examine, in sequence not to use the tools for the translation for the line. Its post was absurd!’)
to T. Ch.
Try to use translating tools to understand ;-).
I hope that most of the Readers have understood what was written.
If you have any doubts ask, please it will be polite. I will try to clear that for you. In German, Russian and English etc.
Regards
Past…
@ PK.
Oh dear. Still using them, then.