@test: what interests me is that Danailov states that 'Anand doesn't agree'. How does he know this? It suggests to me it's not just a random provocation but was actually part of some kind of (failed) negotiations, which the Bulgarians then tried to use to their advantage by turning it into a media provocation. It would also explain the grin on Danailov's face, wouldn't it?

Danailov is right! Money for players means that no more short draws. Chess must be a sport! And people will pay money for battles not for handshakes and chats with oponent during games.

Is more respectfull oferring a draw in lost position? Relations between players during game must be defined like in every other sport! If players want to talk each other they can do it after game and they can show their respect between games. I cant see anything wrong and Danailov talk like man who knows how find money for chess and make money from chess.
Arne for different knows how to make bias against such people.

" But trying to pass this article as objective is unethical and unprofessional."
Amen.

In the 1972 world championship much more was at stake then whether Fischer or Spassky was the better player. Bobby threatened to pull out. Then he wanted a smaller chess set. Then he insisted that the game be played away from the audience. When Fischer began to win, the Soviet side, fearing some kind of radio waves, had the furniture taken apart. But, despite all the huffing, puffing and posturing on both sides, Fischer and Spassky shook hands before and after each game and treated each other with great respect. After Fischer scored a particularly fine win Spassky joined the audience in a standing ovation for the victor. In contrast, the Bulgarian team, led by Danilov, knowing that their man was being outplayed and would surely lose, resorted to unwarranted personal attacks and unfounded accusations in a scurrilous and infantile attempt upset Kramnik's equilibrium. Their antics set a new low in unsportsmanlike behaviour in chess. If they attempt these shenanigans against Anand, as Danilov appears to suggest they will, the Bulgarian vulgarians should be forfeited.

I believe that Danilov was emphatic enough, but he could be more emphatetic...

I expect Topalov to make draws in obvious drawn endings (like philidor position in rook endings or rook endgames with 3 vs 3 pawns on the same side and so on) and to resign in obviously lost positions. That he doesn't want to make early draws is good for the spectators, but I don't think he will behave unfair by always playing till there are only kings left. At least I hope so.

What Danilov said sounded provocative, but maybe it was not his intention.

An IM cannot give World Champion lessons in chess, or its future. Period.

Yes, let's bring in Kramnik's toilet visits and forget about what the actual topic is! Let's continue to accuse others of cheating in the most ridiculous manner possible! Let's do it as often as possible! Let us always keep in mind that the opponent is the enemy and not some human being deserving of respect! Let us toss aside all our unnecessary preconceptions of good social behaviour! Nobody benefits from being nice in a war game!

Remember when chess was the game of gentlemen? Seems we've come a long way...

@Arne, would you agree it is equally or more unprofessional for Anand to force the match to be conducted without the Sofia Rules, and in doing so fail to empathise with his opponent, the organisers / sponsors and the general chess public (assuming that they all prefer sofia rules).

Thank you Arne Moll for standing up for basic moral rights like honesty and fairness.
Topalov and manager Silvio Danailov seriously violated these necessary rights in the match with Kramink and for that I have absolutely NO respect for either of them as human beings. For this reason I am deeply disappointed that Topalov is once again in a match for the regal title of World Chess Champion.

Indeed, during Kasparov-Karpov, Karpov-Korchnoi and even Spassky-Fischer there were a lot of trash around the table and behind the players. These high-intensity matches aroused a lot a attention from the outside to the chess world: world was passionate by the outcome.

But never will give some dignity to chess this toilet-gate in Elista: that's indecent, even respectful to the title of Champion and to the chess world to use such 'dirty' tricks to earn some points.

Even Karpov could not agree with some moves from the Kremlin against Korchnoi (read the latter's 'Chess is my Life' for more), since it would damage the dignity of chess. Even Alekhine remembered that he loved chess and could not make it ridicule...

I fear that, compared to his ambitions, Danailov does not love chess enough to prevent himself from using some ways to succeed. Again, do you want it 'at all cost'?

Agree that there is problem of drawing public attention to chess so to me this behavior looks much more like instrument to achieve that goal then the way to really insult opponent and play some psychological games.

Let's just hope Anand reaches an overwhelming position in game one and then offers a draw... Will Topalov decline, just because his manager is constantly talking out of his a....?

Well Sherman, you should not be surprised that many of us have come to dislike Dainalov, since he well deserves that for the dirty tricks he pulled on Kramnik in the Elista match. We do not enjoy Dainalov seemingly preparing to behave badly again, since he apparently already fails to realize he is the host this time, and should behave like one. Topalov's chess skills should suffice versus Anand, and if that is not the case, than he won't deserve to win the match. No way Dainalov should again be allowed to earn Topalov any free points, like he did in Elista - let alone the title!

Once again great article Arne, maybe your best yet. Someone needs to call it like it is. I couldn't agree with you more.

Arne,this article is at least provocative. You explain your argues like a child. How Danailov smiles during interview???? LOL...Excuse me, i'ts just fans bias. Your viewpoint is for poor minds. And I'm surprised how many people share your viewpoint. Where is going the world...
What do you want Arne? What must do Danailov? Topalov? What?
Tell us please! What must do Topa to recognize Arne his strong? To admit defeat even before the match and to say that he respects Anand too much to beat him on the chessboard? Will you than respect Topa a bit more as chessplayer?

Custom article!...

patyolat:
Obama never started a war in Afghanistan or anywhere else! Meanwhile Reagan least you forget, was playing war under the table, so to speak, in Nicaragua.

I am truly saddened. I admired Topalov not only for his chess (which I still [must] do), but for his pleasant and modest personality. Up to Elista, that is. I was willing to let bygones be bygones, but what I read here is simply too much.
If Topalov continues to be Danailov's puppet, or if - worse - he shares Danailov's views, he will lose just about every fan he ever had.
Of which I am one. A sad one, as I said.

They are the Mike Tyson and Don King of chess. Frankly, who is interested in Danailov's oral kung-fu? For me such messages are so remote from the spirit of chess.
However it is obvious that some of us prefer the Danailov tpye emotional and overheated "professionalism" and "fighting spirit" rather than the game itself.

That said, Danailov have a point:
IF Topalov doesn't offer or accept draws, there will be no single draw by agreement. That's La Palisse talking. It takes two to tango!
That is different from having a rule imposing.

I agree with many people that Silvio D is sometimes somewhat resembling a headache, and also that ugly horse face of him doesn't helps. But on the other hand, damn, he seems to know how to make things done. I wonder if he could finally make chess join the rest of top sports, like tenis or even poker.

Both his devilish-looking and nonsensical words about draw offers in chess just make me LOL!
(The former because it is indeed hilarious, and the latter because I'm fed up with those ridiculous nonsenses).
My well-know and absolutely firm position:
Completely FREE draw offers now and ever! It IS chess. In a well organized chess event, unfought draws are irrelevant (if not bad for the exact interveners). Otherwise call that stupid new sport other name. ALL the reasons for it are NO good reasons AT ALL. (Yes, I think even some GMs are wrong)
Ugh! Castro spoke again :-)

Danailov is a joke. He should have been banned for life after Elista.
Everybody hopes that Anand wins. But offcause we know that Topalov and Danailov will use every dirty trick in the book to win the match.

Just one point: I can understand the attraction of Sofia rules in tournament play. But what is the point in a match?

I enjoyed this article a lot. Thank you.

I´m very surprised for the article. It is biased against Danailov and Topalov. I thingk that there is a lot of politics behind this. Some people don´t like Danailov as ECU president, so the campaign starts here.
Everybody has the right to have their side, but as a journalist it´s supposed to be more objective.
The interview is provocative, but it doesn´t harms anyone. I rather prefer a match between two guys who wants to win no matter what (Spassky-Fischer; Alekhine-Capablanca; Karpov-Kasparov) and I don´t want to see a match with nothing to offer like Leko-Kramnik. You can see how chess was going down with that kind of matches instead of the whole world wanting to see who is going to crush the opponent.
Arne, if chessvibes wants to take part in the fight for ECU, do it frontally and don´t use words that are just wanting to make more ppl look with interest at the world´s chess champioship match.

@VladimirOo: "...but I do not believe he respects Anand, such as he did with Kramnik"

I think it is vise versa, he respects Anand much more than Kramnik.
Also I do not see anything wrong with some media noise surrounding the event. I have to admit he last WC match between Anand and Kramnik was a bit too peaceful :) ... but lets see what will happen. With Topalov it is never boring.

Before any professional match, take soccer for example, team captains do shake hands: that's it, professional but respectful.
Before the match, Italy can claim as much that they will crush France in final, or Spain against Portugal, but on the ground there are 1) rules of play, 2) rules of fair-play that makes this sport respectable, worth admiring adding the thrill it conveys. But of course, the latter is unofficial, and so easy to forget.

Rivalry does not imply harshness. Danailov may use any tactical warfare to disturb his opponent, but I do not believe he respects Anand, such as he did with Kramnik. Then, no wonder i might recognize Topalov's strenght but dislike him: man and play are different (Alekhine, Fischer...).

Kramnik-Anand was a tough match before and during it. But once ended, we saw two gentlemen.

So, what do you want: win at all cost and blood for entertainment ? Or a decent (aggressive, but decent) World Champion?

for some reason this only post the end of my comment so just ignore it

lol need a brain transplant anyone? just in case you forgot it was your buddy bush that started that one, check and mate

So much bias in this article, but Im not surprised coming from Arne, who seems to think he is the ultimate source of ethical, moral, and intellectual advice.

What´s the big deal with the interview? His smile? Come on! Grow up, man! Better say you don´t like them, and then we understand you are speaking subjectively. But trying to pass this article as objective is unethical and unprofessional. And by now ChessVibes should be acting professionally, is no longer a blog site for friends to see. What you write here matters.

Honestly people, what did Danailov said that is unethical? Saying that Topalov will refuse short draws?! This is the world backwards. What should be exalted is actually being thrown to the ground and stepped on.

Some apes show empathy, some apes show a cocky attitude. It's all natural.

@Ron: the problem is that you seem not to be able to accept a different opinion. If Silvio and Topalov have insulted Kramnik, he should have sued them.
@Arne: is going to the toilet after each move less disrespectful and disturbing (maybe on purpose) as compared to anouncing in advance that Topa will not accept draw offers from the oponent?

"will you all acknowledge that he is the new undisputed world champ?"

We will have to. Unless of course there is proof of cheating.

If there is another scandal like the one in Elista it's less clear.
I wonder if people would have recognized him as undisputed WC if he had won that match.

c'mon Ron, it's a bit harsh ... like Korchnoi and Karpov should have received a lifelong ban for their circus match ;)

I wonder what will all those people who hate Topalov say if he beats Anand? will you all acknowledge that he is the new undisputed world champ? :D :D

Ladies and gentlemen, the problem is that we accept, or tolerate, people like Danailov and Topalov to continue playing in tournaments and even for the WC. They should have received a lifelong exemption from chess after the events in Elista. If we would all stand up and protest, like some GM-s did, this sort of thing would disappear.

The Sofia rules (draw offers forbidden) are not part of the official rules of chess and obviously an organizer can't enforce unofficial rules in a World Championship.

So one might speculate: maybe the Danailov camp proposed to use Sofia Rules and Anand refused this, which is his good right. Or maybe it was just an unfortunate way of saying that Topalov will not be offering or accepting draws. Maybe Danailov needs to work on his public relation skills.

"It would also explain the grin on Danailov’s face, wouldn’t it?"

He does strike me as having a psychopatic personality. (Past & present actions.) If that is the case you can't really blame him for not having empathy. ;)

Well, I think Mr. Topalov and Mr. Danailov can establish their own rules and their own league, which will be a one-man show, since nobody will show up. Enjoy your peace and quiet in Sophia, gentlemen! I hope Vishy will finish his opponent nice and clean; then we can just move on.

I agree that the statements by Danailov are provocative, but only in a sporting sense. It's like saying: Topalov will fight to the death, king vs king if need be, expect a tough battle, no easy games.

If you have trouble with an opponent saying before the game (any game) to expect a tough battle, maybe you shouldn't be playing any competitive sport/game in the first place.

Nobody is forced to comply to any rules here. Since when is it an obligation to accept draw offers?

The not speaking part is a bit unclear. One is not supposed to talk to the opponent anyway. So what does this mean anyway? Topalov will obey the official rules of chess? That's disrespectful?

(Apart from all that let me mention that I very strongly dislike Danailov for reasons mentioned in this thread already.)

Anand being already the moral winner of the yet to be played match should lobby very strongly against any involvement of this dirty trickster. What a sad affair, i hope Karpov will take notice of this article

Yeah at least Reagan supported Saddam and Bin Laden. Now the evil Obama is destroying all that!

... just let us see what happens if Anand has a completely winning position against Topalov and offers a draw ...

Let us all rejoice that the dark ages of Reagan-Thatcher-Hitler have been overcome by the Glory of Obama. A new age is dawning, let us sing His praise!

Although to be fair, Clinton was famous for saying "I feel your pain", which is about as empathetic as you can get. Of course he was a white devil, but you can't have everything. Until now.

Danailov says that Anand must go by Sofia rules de facto, 'cos 'Topalov won't speak to him'. And later on '...this is the future of chess.' Is this guy insane?? The future of chess is to behave like a stupid idiot and be proud of it?? Just 'cos it represents some sort of fighting spirit?? I hope Topalov loses anyway and after that he will fade away from chess scene. Topalov is after all responsible for his manager's lack of human manners.

It might be rude but all fights are. The ideia is to make Anand unconfortable and it might work. Anand will most certainly try to rely on some games where a plus can be obtained to try to score, other games he will try to play calmly. What Danilov says is that every game will be a fight till the bare kings. This might have been a good tactic if not anounced in advance. Vanity spoke louder. Anyway it will be a good match.

Normally we try to cover the chess news as objective as possible, but every now and then we can't help but comment on some developments in a column. I didn't write this one, though I more or less agree with Arne.

I especially didn't like the part "Vishy does not agree with it, but he will be forced" [broad smile Danailov] and then "Topalov will not speak to him". In my opinion not speaking to someone, and announcing it in advance, shows a lack of dignity and respect, while Vishy should be treated as a guest in Bulgaria and as the World Champion of chess.

In fact before the article was published I asked Arne to mention that Danailov has done good things for chess, such as the MTel tournament and the attempts to stimulate fighting chess, because this is often forgotten. This is Danailov at his best. However, psychological warfare like this is unfortunately his other side.

sorry about that .. seems to me Arne that you are a bit allergic towards Danailov :) ... I don't think we will have such drama as with the Kramnik match.

Very good article. I cannot agree more.
Vishy should just refuse to play on the basis of this interview alone.

Vishy is on to a winner actually. He will have the moral high ground. Whatever the result he is likely to be the one that is most respected by all - so the only thing he is playing is chess. If Topalov is playing chess and some other sort of mind-game then I doubt he'll come out on top. From my own playing (or trying to) chess you play the best chess when you approach it as a game without the trappings of score-line or tournament position on your mind. Vishy will concentrate on playing chess. That said - I don't think Topalov's plan to wear out Vishy is a bad one.

Even though I don't like Danilov very much, I think there is nothing wrong with announcing that Topalov will make the match more interesting by not accepting or offering draws. The fact that he will not communicate with Anand during the games also doesn't strike me as that unusual--if anything, it would be unethical if he were to talk to him during the game, short of offering a draw. So, all things considered, this announcement makes me even more excited about the match.

" De Waal argues that the election of president Obama is a clear sign that the ‘nightmare’ days of Reagan and Thatcher are over and that perhaps it is time to transform society into a more empathic place."

All your points should be questioned if you start an article about chess with a statement like that. Reagan never started a major war during his 8 years in office as opposed to the "empathic" "antiwar" Obama who did just that in Afghanistan immediately after taking office.

The way I interpret Danailov's statement is that you can't offer or accept draws but have to force it like by repetition. I happen to agree with him on that. And if that's the case there really isn't any need for players to talk over the board. Topalov has the killer instinct which I like in a chess player no wonder he doesn't need the small talk before or after the games with his opponent in a world championship match. They certanly could be on friendly terms after the match but that rarely happens since the loser doesn't usually have the warmest feelings towards his conqueror.

@noyb, Pal G: at least read his book first if you're going to critique De Waal. Without having read it, your arguments sound extremely hollow.Of course he elaborates in great detail on all the points you mention. I was just quoting De Waal to illustrate my impressions about the interview, not to give an accurate summary or explanation of his 300-page, heavily footnoted book.

@pete: it was me who wrote the column - not Peter.

Arne, I don't fully agree with you.
Shaking hands before or after the game is a sign of respect for your oponent, it comes to say "I respect you and don't have any claims against you". If you don't respect your oponent, it is ridiculous to be forced to show respect of him by shaking his hand. It is not such a tragedy if GM A does not respect GM B.
Sofia rules are the future of chess for sure, especially in tournaments with >2 players. Have you seen football championships when on the last matchday the champion is alread known and that team loses the last game because it doesn't matter? The Sofia rules are a medicine against unfair draws which influence the other players' results.
Honestly, I don't understand why Danailov wants Topalov not to speak to Vishy. Maybe this is a perverse way to show Vishy that he must accept the Sofia rules. It this is the case, I don't like it. But Vishy is not put at disadvantage.

It is not unfair to hold the match in Sofia as Bulgarian government gave state guarantees for the prize fund. You should agree that in such a case it is not acceptable for the government to let the match move to another country. No other entitiy gave guarantees to the place of the match is a consequence of this. Chess is a beatiful game but you have serious organizational work as well. Why did not Vishy organize anything? Whatever the reason, VIshy had enought time and chances; now he must accept the terms and conditions.

Somehow, I think morality enters into this argument without a formal introduction. First Danailov is quoted to say "He [Toaplov] will not speak to him [Anand]", then the following paragraph:

"And why? Because of ‘professionalism’, that vacuous word all too often misused by people who refuse to acknowledge that most if not all work requires empathy and social skills – in other words, people who haven’t the slightest idea what ‘professionalism’ really means. (Here’s how one competency library actually defines ‘professionalism’: “Thinking carefully about the likely effects on others of one’s words, actions, appearance, and mode of behavior.”) To exclude all social elements from a profession is in fact the ultimate un-professional thing imaginable."

It seems to me meant to be an argument to deny Danailov (and Topalov) professionalism. However, they might have given considerable thought and care to this decision not to speak during the match. There is of course a big difference between a chess match, which is first and foremost a competition and a society, in which competition plays a role, maybe an important one, but it's not its essence.

So maybe it's morally questionable to abandon social etiquette during a chess match, but it just might be completely professional. Morality has entered the discussion, like I said, without a formal introduction (that's bad etiquette ;) )

European Chess Federation (that is voters): take heed!

Very well written, couldn't agree more!

Creemer, the point is that 'professionalism' should always include reckoning with others instead of 'forcing' them to comply with things they don't agree on. Nobody speaks during chess games - but the fact that Danailov feels the need to state this explicitly and that Anand doesn't agree with his point of view, is a sure sign for trouble.

Not sure why you believe that not speaking to your opponent during a game is rude but leaving the board 40 times per game is an acceptable behaviour .
Danailov is right , Sofia rules and Bilbao system are the future , Topalov is not telling Vishy what to do , he just found an aproach to the match that suits his style.
Danailov will be the next ECU president , and it will be great for chess.

Manu: if only it was just the draw offers...

@guitarspider:
Mmm , Elista was mentioned on the article , in fact it is even hinted in the very title of it... So it would be the author the one who bring it back.
Nobody is acusing anybody of cheating , and of course nobody is saying that the opponent is the enemy , or that good social behaviour is wrong... noone but you...
Like i said , they just found a nice way to enforce the rules that they have been promoting all this years , there is no disrespect implied on that , only the promise of a great fighting match.

Manu, just look at Danailov's grin when he says 'Anand will be forced' and how he laughs away anyone disagreeing with him. Are you sure no disrespect is implied here? I agree cheating is not an issue (yet), but to me these are clear signs of a fresh series of provocations - not the first time, I might add - reminding me immediately of what happened in Elista.

Not shaking your opponent's hand.
Not talking to your opponent at all.

Great ways to enforce fighting chess! Literally! WOW, thank you for opening my eyes manu!

Excellent article. So now what? Vishy knows that Topolov won't speak to him. He probably will feel relieved. Vishy is quite capable of playing a dead position, and draw by repitition will only require that the champion talk to the arbiter, not the opponent.

Vishy is a veteran and knows how people like Danailov like to play psychout games. He will let it run down his back. The only way Vishy will lose is if he really no longer wants the title of World Champion which requires him to prove over and over that he is the best.

The rest of the noise just makes for great publicity and generates interest in the match. A classic good guy verses bad guy ploy.

¨and how he laughs away anyone disagreeing with him.¨

Not at all , please explain that concept a little more , in fact i don´t see (or hear ) anyone disagreeing with him trough the interview ,Danailov´s smiles seems to match his enthusiastic state of mind , judging for his body language.
The way i see it you are being a little biased gainst him , which i completely understand if you considered Kramnik´s behaviour in Elista acceptable (im not trying to bring that up), but i cant help but noticing that you are also accusing him without evidence , so...
If you really had some training on reading body language you would have noticed the only (apparent) lie in the whole interview , which occurs when he is asked about wheter he believes that Topa is in good shape.
But it is also true that giving his position as a manager of Topa , the concealing gest that he makes can mean many many different things.
It is going to be a great and clean match , in any case Topa´s locality favours Vishy , like you already admitted he will be a hero no matter the outcome of the match.

@guitarspider
Who said anything about not shaking hands...?
Why is that you need to come up with things that are not related to the topic...?

¨thank you for opening my eyes manu!¨

You are welcome , although im not totally satisfied with the results.

Not shaking hands with Short and Kramnik. Not talking to Anand. See a pattern yet? What reason could he possibly have to attack Anand, one of the nicest players on the circuit like this?

Danailov and Topalov have long been on a confrontation course. This interview just confirms they don't intend to change anything. It's hardly the first time we heard Danailov talk like this. So I have no reason to assume he's not intending to make a splash with his bevaiour at the WCC. And I don't doubt he's going to derail the WCC the moment it goes wrong for Topalov. I consider this to be an attempt at setting up conflict as early as possible, to be used later. He's done it once, why would he not try it again?

But we'll see. Topalov already lost many of his fans in Elista and there's no doubt he's going to lose more if he tries intrigues against Anand. At some point he has to see that he's on the wrong path. This guy used to be one of the most popular chess players and look what he's now. Elista is going to tarnish his name for the rest of his chess life, and it's his own fault. He's making a fool of himself, which is a shame, because he is a great player. But sadly, great players don't always have great personalities.

Arne is perfectly entitled to dislike Danailov. He should keep in mind though that English is Danailov´s third language and his use of it is less than subtle. Making public statements on behalf of Topalov and their timing is not Danailov´s strength, and the damage he made in 2006 is still very much with them. It would have been a fantastic investment to have a real communication professional (rather than anti-communication professionals) on their team back then and probably since in order to come clean in the eye of the public.
It´s remarkable how unforgiving Arne and some other commentators are about Topalov who has been for a long time and still is a model player in several respects: fighting spirit, attractive style, availability to the press even after setbacks. Still, some are seeing Anand, a great player and great sportsman without doubt, already on the moral high ground and the moral winner. Shouldn´t it all be decided on the board?

All that is tricks, tactics to add pressure on Vishy: quite typical at this level. On the contrary, Indian team's strategy is to keep on going silent.

Topalov fights hard to win Linares whereas Vishy steadily goes through Corus. Vishy knows he has public opinion and the majority of fans behind him, he has rightly gained his title against Kramnik (twice) whereas Topalov has not really earned the right to challenge Anand (he should not have played against Kamsky if Elista's conditions had been respected).

To summarize, contrary to what it seems, I believe that the Bulgarians are under pressure and not the Indians : they are much more nervous, they play a double edged game with their WCC clashes and tricks, they play at home: this is a matter of life and death, they must win at all cost when loss would mean their end (of respectability at least) in the chess world.

@Schachblogger: I have thought about the language-aspect, but it has been several days since the video was released and a transcript appeared on various websites. If Danailov felt he was misinterpreted he could have rectified it in his own language, but he hasn't, so we must assume he still stands behind his words.
As for forgiving Topalov, I can only say that he is, of course, truly a fantastic player - but after reading his book on the 2006 match (of which he has, to my knowledge, withdrawn not a word) and witnessing him refuse to shake hands with his opponents on several occasions even after the Elista match, as well as keeping Danailov as his manager despite the many unfounded accusations the latter has made in the past, it isn't particularly easy to be in a forgiving state of mind. In fact, I'm amazed some people prefer to forget these shameful events so easily, and I don't think we should feel sorry for the Bulgarians, let alone grant them the 'benefit of the doubt' until they've apologized or withdrawn their baseless accusations.

¨Not shaking hands with Short and Kramnik. ¨
You are mixing things a little there , it was Cheparinov the one who didnt shake hands with Short , and you are also missing the fact that Moro did the same to Topa before that , you probably missed it because Veselin took it like a man and didn´t make an scene like Short did... nevermind , i dont want to argue.
But i see you have very strong feelings about Topalov and Co , and judging for the tone of this article you came to the right place to share them.
I just wanted to point out that not everybody agrees with the profiling tendencies of this article.
It´s been a pleasure.

@Arne :
I´d love to hear the reasons or thought process behind your phrase:
¨and how he laughs away anyone disagreeing with him.¨
It seems a little too biased IMHO.

Anand will crush Topalov. There is no problem here, just a slow-motion traffic accident waiting to happen. And we'll all be watching this gigantic pile-up.

Topalov is in lousy form, and has been for a long time.

Danailov is right we do not wanna see no short draws. And people this is the world champion match. Like Botvinnik who said he would start hating his opponent to be able to win. He could not hate Tal...

@Manu: Cheparinov is associated with Danailov and Topalov and his refusal to shake hands was nothing more than a test-run for the upcoming Topalov-Kramnik game. This is absolutely related to the topic. Moro refusing to shake Topa's hand, well, guess what, after Elista I can understand it.

Arne do you find your article to be "professional"? It is a column and you are entitled to speak your mind, but in all honesty I find that you are withholding some important facts. For instance yes, the Topalov team showed unacceptable behaviour in Elista, but Kramnik leaving for a toilet visit after every single move should be mentioned as well. It cannot be missed if you bring up Elista.

Further in general I agree with your statement. Danailov has a questionable view of professionalism. You can always analyze details and come to a different opinion. One thing is for sure: he's a smart man. He does it for a reason. There is a purpose behind this interview. And only he and Topa know the true meaning. If you ask me, he's trying to shake things up, provoke the Vishy team, shake them out of their balance. It's all part of a greater strategy.

So what you are saying is that one refusal is justified and the other don´t , nice to have you here to show us who are the good guys in this story.

@Arne :
Well?... , What happened? Did the cat get your tongue/keyboard?

@Manu, just look at the video and pay attention to what he says about 'old players' and 'absolutely conservative' people. Is this how he is planning to treat critics of his ideas if he were to become president of the ECU?

@Arne
I will , but i´d like you to justify your phrasing first :
¨and how he laughs away anyone disagreeing with him.¨
IMHO That belongs to the realm of bias and speculation Arne , if that is not the case, please let me know your reasoning behing those words.

Why? I'm just describing what happens in the interview. Isn't that enough justification?

That answers my question , thx for your time.

In the late 2009, just after the Sofia-match was scheduled, Danailov said in an interview:
"I suppose that in the next six months from Anand's team will make everything possible to require unfulfillable conditions during the negotiations for the contract for the match, in order to make us nervous."
Now, after some four months, you should ask him what came through of his expectations.
I do not like Danailovs attitude, which maybe would be more suitable for heavy-weight-boxing. He is plain disrespectfull to his opponent.
But the real one to pity is Topalov, who has to get by with such a manager. It may very well backfire on him.

I cannot agree entirely to the article. Most of us are afraid (if you can say so) that things might turn ugly in Sofia - and if that happens it's pretty likely that the Danailov side will be responsible. But I find the article rather exaggerating.
I don't think it's condemnable not to offer draws; and as for the 'not speaking'-part Danailov might have meant (at least that's how I understood) that Topalov isn't going to speak to Vishy *during the game*. Apart from that they won't talk too much, but that's just natural in a match, I guess. And even they don't talk at all it might be an unpleasant atmosphere but I think it's within the boundaries of sporting rivalry.

I would strongly suggest Topalov to fire his manager.
Topalov is an excellent player and his games are remarkable.

Veselin,
Mr. Danailov makes you look like a very greedy political figure. Many people hate Silvio and incidentally hate you as well.
Get rid of him Veselin!

Vishy,
You are the one of nicest most beloved chess players and Danailov is keen to exploit that into his own advantage. I wish you win the match for the sake of RIGHGEOUS CHESS.
Don´t let Silvio push you around!

Silvio,
Who the heck is going to vote for you?
The Devil?

@Manu: I didn't say Moro refusing the handshake was justified. I choose my words with care and what I said was "understand". That's something completely different. I don't believe people should refuse to shake Topalov's hand because he thinks he can do that. Show him how it's done with style, maybe he'll learn. But I can understand if people choose not to do it.

@Arne. I like your moral appeal and your thoughts on being respectful towards others. That said, I think your definition of "professionalism" is somewhat problematic. Professional sports without conflict or antisentiment is, to me, unthinkable. Whether it makes you popular with the audience is something completely different, but I very much doubt Danilov shares your view on the definition of "professional".

Don't the Sophia rules include the soccer scoring thing? Which wouldn't make any difference in a heads up match. The only thing left would be the draw rule (is it 30 moves?). But NO offers or acceptances.... does that mean playing on in drawn stagnant endgames until the 50 move rule is reached? One could always decline a draw offer couldn't they? The whole thing seems unnecessary, in poor taste, and "unprofessional" (in my interpretation of the word).

Anand knew about Danailov's attitude and mind in advance. He agreed to the terms of the match contract. Does he deserve any compassion?

In that picture danailov looks like a devil!

Thank you for the article and the insight regarding the Bulgarians. However, I hardly ever agree with your ideas regarding socialism, liberalism, and darwinism.

So, I believe you are missing the mark on your call for professionalism and empathy. The Bulgarians are lacking neither. Professionalism is defined as having skill in an area. The def. from a university human resources website is not a practical resource. They are clearly skilled, off the board and on. And empathy, which I doubt can be attributed to primates, is simply defined as the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. I believe the Bulgarians fully understand Anand's current position, and are playing moves off the board. They are empathetic towards Anand; hardly sympathetic.

I believe what the Bulgarians are sorely lacking is Sportsmanship.

Cheers.

what's the big deal? he won't take any draws, good luck to him. As for not responding to draw offers, yeah it's not polite or friendly, and in amateur competition when you know the player personally it's a little bit confrontational senselessly- but this is the world championship game, them being buddies doesn't really matter to anand or topalov.

Frans de Waal's arguement lacks only the merit of being true. He needs to stick to monkeys because it's clear he knows NOTHING about people. His ascertion that "the election of president Obama is a clear sign that the ‘nightmare’ days of Reagan and Thatcher are over and that perhaps it is time to transform society into a more empathic place." is HILARIOUS! Everyone in the US would gladly bring back Reagan and his less contentious approach to politics compared to Obama's contemptuous treatment of his political opponents and the citizens of the U.S. Obama is even trying to break the laws of the U.S. to impose his will on the people. How is that compationate in any way?! Obama can't hold a candle to Reagan's level of compassion! Speaking of monkeys...

I am a bit surprised by that article, not your usual stile Peter. Seems to me you are taking sides here mate.
Personally I don't see what the big deal with that interview is. Topalov will not accept draws and will more or less play on the Sofia rules ... I think Danailov said that so Anand will not try to offer draws therefore avoiding any uncomfortable situations when Topalov will not speak.
In all that there should be some nerve game, but isn't that normal in WC match?
Lets see what the players will show on the board and not get too carried away with talks.

There is something even worse not yet mentioned: WHEN THE SAME PERSON IS THE MANAGER OF A TOP PLAYER AND A SUPPOSEDLY-NEUTRAL ORGANIZER OF TOP LEVEL EVENTS, A SERIOUS CONFLICT OF INTEREST ARISES. Consider the following: Danailov introduced shorter time controls and the bilbao scoring system, both of which arguably favor Topalov's risky style of playing. Think of how many games he won in the opponent's time trouble in dubious positions (last game of Kamsky match comes to mind). Also, Danaiov can choose whom to invite to his tournaments, arguably favoring players that are not known to be dangerous to Topalov. For example, Kramnik is never invited. How convenient.

Do you remember the Grand Slam press conference during Corus 2009? It was announced that Nanjing 2008 RETROACTIVELY functions as qualifier for the Grand Slam Final 2009, and thus its winner, Topalov, is the first player seeded into the final. And all that in the middle of Corus, when all the players are working hard to win the tournament, attempting to qualify for the same final. Needless to say, there were no such announcements during Corus 2010, and the selection process of the players (and the number of players) is still in the air.
Talking about fair qualification and changing rules in the middle of a cycle...

Now, the logical consequences of Toiletgate SHOULD have been: Topalov not allowed to participate in rated events for one or two years, and Danailov not allowed to organize rated events for the same period. Or - that might have happened if chess had been an olympic sport. Instead, FIDE gave them a "warning" and congratulated them for their willingness to cooperate with the investigation committee. The real results are well-known: Topalov, who never won a World Championship Match, but only lost one, was seeded directly into a very convenient semi-final match with a player outside the top 20, and now playing a direct match with the current champion, while the rest of the elite players are still waiting to know if and when there will be a sixth Grand Prix tournament or an eventual Candidates Tournament.

Now, with regard to investigations, some things will always remain a mystery. In San-Luis 2005, Toplaov's claim to fame, he sat in the same chair throughout the first half of the tournament, in which he made his +6 score that earned him the title. Several players (notably Morozevich) complained about secret eye-contact with the audience and alleged computer-assistance, but no one investigated. Later, when the video from Corus 2007 and the article on Danailov's sign language came out - things got public and even Kasparov said that it should be investigated. But apparently the political situation in the chess world is such that some individuals are not allowed to be investigated.

As for the fact that a World Championship Match is being organized by the same person who is the manager of the Challenger - I don't think such overt conflict of interest occurs in any other international sport at the top level. So even before giving such interviews that are disrespectful for the opponent there are serious problems in the nature of the situation.

Does anyone remember Henrik Carlsen's words when FIDE changed the rules of the Grand Prix? He wished for Fairness, Predictability, Transparency. I'm afraid we're still very far from this in the chess world.

Not responding verbally to the opponent's offer is by no means rude. A standard way of declining the offer is to simply make another move. I'm sure you're well aware of this, Arne. Whether or not Topalov will take this to the next level (not shaking hands, or something like that) we will see.
Also, I recall Anand also saying a couple of not-so-gentlemanly things in a recent interview, but I don't remember what or where.

Who is Danailov indirectly referring old and conservative people who dont want to work? Forget all others, that phrase "not wanting to work" definitely sounds disrespectful to whoever he may be referring.

@Coco Loco (and others): of course not responding verbally to a draw offer is nothing special - I don't usually do that either during a game. I don't have particular problems with the whole draw-offering thing, and I never said so.
But Danailov said much more than that, didn't he? Not speaking to Anand at all and saying all these other things about people disagreeing with him is quite another matter. And then there's that smug grin, which, I admit, really irritated me, especially in the light of Danailov's previous provocations and allegations.
By the way, if you think my words were harsh, check out what The Closet Grandmaster writes about Topalov's coach! :-)

@bird, Manu: the article is not intended as an objective piece of journalism, that's why it's called a column.

@?Bert de Bruut
Are you read my previous post or you just want to tell me how much you dislike Danailov i Topalov ?

You may hate what you want but argues like how Danailov smile during interview is funny. I for example dont probably like how you grandmother looks but never say that she cant cook with face like this.
Chour of biased fans is in action...

Arne, when you find 3 milion euro for match then you can teach us what is gentlemen and what is not so. Kamski has no any problems in Sofia but here appriory haters/including you/ teach us that in Sofia will be very sad to play.
So Arne, Sofia is for your information capital of one of oldest european countries. And for your information bulgarians are more hospitable than dutchs... This is just for your information. Bulgaria is not Russia.Sofia is not Elista.
I expect great match with enough respect from players to oponent. Anything other is just jabber.

Anand Please crush Topalov without any mercy and it would be the right answer.

Sherman, exaggerating the prize fund of the match by 1 million euros isn't exacty helping your credibility, and I'm sure Bulgaria's ranking on the World's Corruption Index (as compared to, say, The Netherlands) isn't either. Anyway, all this is completely beside the point. As Kasparov once argued, there could be a prize fund of 10 or 15 million euros and the match could be held in Medellin or Pyongyang. Would this make the organizers any more 'gentlemanly'? Money doesn't buy good manners, you know.

@Arne

1) I see a bit of discrepancy between these two statements you made:

column: "It’s a remarkable statement: Anand – forced against his will to comply to rules that are not official"
comment: "I don’t have particular problems with the whole draw-offering thing"

Sofia rules are designed to prevent from ending the game early by agreement between both players. If one of them wants to continue playing this is not a new "not official rule" and "Sofia rules" are not needed. Not making/accepting draw offers is already part of the game and Topalov is within his rights to play for as long as he wants. Don't see how is Anand forced to play to rules that are not official.

2) Then farther down you wrote:
"But the most remarkable is that Danailov says that Topalov will not only refuse to offer any draws but also will ignore his opponent altogether: “He will not speak to him.” In other words, he will drop all courtesy and normal etiquette and create a ‘non-speaking terms’ atmosphere in a match in his home country"

You are really twisting Danailov's words. At no point did he say that Topalov " will ignore his opponent altogether". If you listen again to the entire video, I'm sure Danailov was trying to say that (a) Topalov will not make draw offers, (b) if Anand makes a draw offer Topalov will not "reply" to it. He did not mean Topalov will not speak at all to Anand and totally ignore him. On the other hand, are they even allowed to talk to each other during a game? Also did Anand and Kramnik follow "proper etiquette" and talk to each other during their games in Bonn (excluding draw offers)?

3) "It’s a fallacy Frans de Waal convincingly demolishes in his book, showing how cooperation and social interaction are absolutely crucial to succeed in any job and society, and are in fact measures by which we judge people and choose them as colleagues, friends or mates."

This is totally not applicable to opponents in any competitive event. I don't see how cooperation and social interaction fit in this case. Making & accepting draw offers seems the only way to please de Wall and yourself in the context of the interview you are dissecting. if you are talking about Danailov's ECU candidacy, there is no need to beat around the bush.

4) I actually thought it was nice of Danailov to let Anand know in advance there will be no draw offers from Topalov instead of doing it at the board during the match regardless of the fact that Anand or you may find it disrespectful.

5) Danailov did not come on charging at Anand. He was answering a question about Sofia rules & the WCC match (unless he told the interviewer to ask him about this before the interview). BTW I also have problems with the way Danailov acts in general (not so much in this interview) and wish Topalov had better spoken and more tactful manager, but this is not going to happen.

Arne, Bulgaria is probably the most corrupt country because of Danailov's smile is very irritating. Do not you think that the thread of logic you short again? What is common between corruption in public and chess as sport, even if everyone borned in Bulgaria corrupt at his first steps?
What is your problem, man? Tell us. Is Danailov your problem? Bulgarians? Are they offended you?

Just to clarify, I would like to draw attentions to the nature of Arne's work; he writes opinion pieces, which is an important part of journalism. All newspapers feature some opinion pieces by regular or guest writers, and, by nature, these pieces must be distinguished from reports. So one can contest writers' views, yet one cannot expect the same degree (or kind) of objectivity and neutrality one finds in reports from opinion pieces. They are opinion pieces, after all. Therefore, one expects Arne to take a stand on whatever the issue he chooses to write. I generally appreciate and enjoy his pieces, even when I do not agree with him.

In this case, I cannot comment on the book Arne discussed, yet I share his distaste towards what is indicated as a do-anything say-anything policy seemingly expressed by Mr. Danailov. True, impressions we get from the interview would not be homogeneous, and we cannot argue for what is the right way to read his facial expression, save intention, with scientific objectivity. What we can argue, as Arne does, is that we have a right ground to be concerned.

What Mr. Danailov did at Elista was extremely damaging to chess. I am not arguing that he and Topalov weren't right to be suspicious. Suspicion is, ultimately, a subjective experience, and we either have it or not have it. It can be validated, of course, but if someone is having a suspicion, objective verifications cannot always remove it. So, one must be extremely cautious in expressing it, save acting on i. In Elista, they were suspicious, and it is a simple matter of fact. What they did wrong was that they acted on speculations and accused his opponent as a cheat. True, it is always very difficult to get someone red-handed. But that does not justify to accuse someone of such a grave misconduct in a hope to verify one's suspicion. That incident has, in certain extent, changed the culture of chess. And, Arne has voiced his concern that another incident like this can be extremely damaging to chess. For that, I agree.

"Anand, one of the most relaxed and friendly chess players in the professional chess scene." On which ground do you make this assumption Arne? Opponents have complained about irritating pen- clicking and caughing. Of course Anand is very populair, but you have to be critical of him too.

@?T. Goto Thank you! Your post is mutch more understandable for me than words about coruption and chess.

@jhoro: I hope you're right about point 2!

@Sherman: I only mentioned Bulgaria's corruption because you made a rather chauvinistic comparison with The Netherlands. I didn't mean to imply Danailov has anything to do with it, but it's certainly also not true that Bulgaria is like heaven on earth. There are huge problems in Bulgaria (like in Russia), so why not simply admit this?

@Casablanca: I've heard such things before, and it's possible: I've never played against Anand so I don't know. However, unlike the Bulgarians, I've personally never heard him say anything controversial or unfriendly off the board. Have you?

Arne, there are problems in every country in the world but you get too far. I just wanted to say that there are no problems with the household of Sofia for this match. And you can not indicate anything meaningful to me, to refute me. Therefore I intervened Netherlands in order to understand what your argument is based.

"There are huge problems in Bulgaria (like in Russia), so why not simply admit this?"
I admit this! )) Do you admit that Nederland is full with drugs?

Sherman, you started the comparison of countries, I'll let you to it.

To all those who think that Danailov's conduct at Elista was unacceptable:
imagine that you are playing in the spotlight vs another player. In the middle of the game that player farts in order to disturb you. Of course, the audience cannot hear or smell it, because it is far away from the table. Several seconds pass and you already can feel the obnoxious smell. You raise your head in surprise but your opponent gives you an innocent smile, which you know is only meant to exasperate you further. What are you going to do? Sit there and keep on breathing in his rectal gases? Or raise your voice? Remember - you don't have any proof, after all everybody saw that your opponent was a good-natured guy who was even smiling at you kindly. You will be deemed paranoid! Everyone will laugh at you and will say that you are shame to chess world! So what are you going to do? Humiliate yourself or try to tell the world? And you have to take the decision instantly.
So please, everyone, stop this hysteria. Noone was there and noone knows the FACTS. There are so many things which we are mislead to believe and at the end the facts turn out to be totally different. There is no point in this argument.
@Arne: it is ridiculous to point a finger at Silvio and to expect only wrongdoings from him. You should comment on things he HAS done, not on your fears of what he MIGHT do.
P.S. I am sorry for this dirty example, but just wanted to make it more picturesque :-).

Gases cant be traced, cables and other devices can. Quite a diff, no?

I think mr. Moll could have avoided all these critical posts by just being frank about his irritation with mr. Danilov, his personal views on this behavior, and not try to mix his personal sentiment by referring to adjusted definitions of "professionalism" and a more broad appeal for empathy. Whether Anand has said controversial things off the board or not seems to be a point Moll makes, but in an earlier discussion where he called Carlsen "boring", he praised controversy and claimed it gave entertainment value.

These are opinions, and trying to convince people to agree based on "rational" argument is obviously failing horribly. Agree to disagree ffs.

I for one, think Danilov is a prick and agree that he has a smirk on his face, but I would never cry if anyone wants to disagree... And I do not think this is the right time to call out for "empathic behavior": Chess professionals, go to war!!!

Cables cannot be traced, because the entire operation would have been supported by a powerful organization, you can guess which one... Putin made an inspection at Elista shortly before the game.

If Topalov feels the need to resort to such nonsense, I guess Anand must be favourite to win the match.

So now Putin himself placed the untraceale cables? Oh and how can we be sure mr. Borissov does not place some of these invisible devices in Sofia too? What a joke.

This morning I asked Silvio Danailov whether he would like to comment on our column, and perhaps clarify matters, and that we would be happy to publish it. We indeed received a reply and published it here.

Topalov is a strong player and one of the strongest, I personally felt bad why he follows his managers " new rules" in chess. If you are a stronger player, logically you will win in chess.

@Nonationalism: ha-ha, the cables are not invisible. Do you know who Putin worked for, prior to becoming president? This organization is capable of everything. If Vishy's team is left to freely inspect whatever they want in Bulgaria, you can be sure that there will be no dirty tricks.

How about being more empathetic towards Danailov and Topalov? This match is all they have left and it's taking place on their home soil. They have to win at all costs. It is understandable that adrenaline is running high.

Danailov is exquisitely insulting in his approach to psychological warfare at WC level yet they can at least be fond of co-starring in two matches of the reunification era. That's all that matters to him right now. They won't have such an opportunity again.

Topalov is certainly capable of wining this match and upgrade his FIDE Champion status to that of the more distinguished Classical Chess Champion, but I think his chances against Anand are slimmer now than they were against Kramnik a couple of years ago--for one thing: there is nothing he can do on/off-the-board to upset Anand.

@chickypanda: I agree with you analysis.

Wait ... Danailov brought up a chess player?

I really don’t know if Dainalov’s alleged provocations are worse than the ones contained in this column..
If you wanted the match to start in a relaxed, peaceful state of mind, Arne, you don’t seem to having contributed to build that kind of atmosphere with your text., did you? :)
I found it a bit weird that you didn’t even mention the Topalov-Kamsky match that is more recent than the Kramnik-Topalov match, was held in Sofia, went smoothly without any problem being reported and that Topalov won. (Please correct me if I’m mistaken, I wasn’t there).
When I edit my interviews, I always consider that most of the time English is not my interviewee’s first language and I am very careful in trying and understand what the speaker was saying, beyond the words he/she actually used. Different cultures and characters should also be considered when judging what someone says.
In this case, it seems to me that Dainalov was simply saying “it takes two to tango”, meaning that, even if the anti-short draws rules won’t officially apply to this match, it is sufficient that one player behaves according to those rules and they are automatically in force.
If, as I believe, this is what he meant, the fact that Topalov won’t speak to Anand is not related to any social context, but to the fact that Sofia rules imply that the players don’t talk to each other during the game.
Now, we all know that players, at least during world top events do not talk to each other during the game except for draw offers. And we all also know that a draw offer is declined by simply making a move, not with a “oh thank you honey, that’s very nice of you, but...you know, I came here to play and I’d really like to go on with this game. I’m sorry if you are a bit tired, I feel so much empathy for you, sweetheart, and to make you forgive me, I’ll offer you a beer after the game”. Right?
I’d like to remind everyone that if there are motivations for a short draw, they apply to Topalov as well, he can happen to be tired, or to need a half point like any other player.
After all, it seems to me that all Dainalov wanted to say is: we will apply Sofia rules, not because they give us any personal advantage, but because we strongly believe in the principles these rules are based on. What’s wrong or provocative with that? There are probably millions chess enthusiasts who agree with him.

@Janis, it seemed this thread was finished and perhaps we shouldn't regret this, but let me still comment to your post because it surprised me and I think you somehow misunderstood what I wanted to say.

To be honest, I had already almost forgotten about Danailov and what happened in Elista! If you read again the first paragraph of my piece, you see that I say that I'm not precisely sure myself why I was so shocked to see the interview. I speculate it was just because I'm currently reading a book on empathy which made a great impression on me, implicating that I may be wrong in making such a big deal about it. I think I was being pretty careful in describing my thoughts and making sure I didn't sound too offensive or biased.

Anyway, it seemed to me Danailov's attititude in the interview - not only what he said but also his body language (which plays an important role in both animal and human communication, as Frans de Waal explains in his book) - was rather unpleasant.
Words like 'he will be forced', 'this is finished', 'old and conservative' combined with a smug grin (at least so it seemed to me, but if it looked genuine and innocent to you, I'll accept it) made an unpleasant impression on me. And again this reminded me of much of what Frans de Waal says in his book. On top of that, Danailov uses a rather silly meaning of the word 'professional' which, in the light of his recent candidacy for ECU president, didn't make me very happy either.

So now I really was fully reminded of Elista, and I decided to look up some things from Topalov's book I reviewed back then. I admit reading this book brought back some of the unpleasant feelings I had back then, and it did make me wonder why all these provocations (at least that's how they appear to me) are necessary all the time. Yes, I know Topalov-Kamsky went very smoothly, and I haven't forgotten about it, but what about the other incidents? If I'm not mistaken you were also a witness to at least one of the 'non-handshake'games between Kramnik and Topalov in Wijk aan Zee as well as the Cheparinov-Short incident. Did that strike you as a pleasant atmosphere? And who was the prime figure involved in these incidents? Yes, Silvio Danailov. Coincidence? Perhaps, but to blame this kind of behaviour on 'language problems' all the time doesn't really seem probable.

Actually, I think reputations do matter when interpreting current statements from individuals. As I said before, I don't think Danailov really deserves the 'benefit of the doubt' anymore in this respect, and this is why I felt (and feel) my column was more than justified. Now one point is clarified (the draw offers), but not the others. In fact, as noted in the other thread, now also Aruna Anand is discredited by not being 'respectful' to Danailov and the organizers. Now tell me Janis, is it really only my bias to spot a pattern here? And that is why I called my column 'Not again!?' - note the question mark. It's not only an exclamation, but also a question. I didn't mindlessly shout that Elista will happen again. I wondered about it. I hope you see the difference. And I hope I will be proven wrong!

Cheers, Arne

Hey Chessvibes, You should just try to provide a 2 million dollars prize fund in crisis time ! The provocative fact is that you give lessons even if you're nobody in the world of chess. You have never brought up a chess player, you have never organized a tournament or a match, you have never been a manager, and you just had to criticize everything. Yeah it's the future of chess. You have to fight till the end, like in tennis when there has to be a winner, in golf when there's always a playoff, in football when you have to run all the 90 minuts. What Danailov said was that Topalov will not offer draws, that's his right, and he will not accept draw offers, which is also his right, so the consequences are exactly the same than if the Sofia rules applied. Did I make it simple enough ???

Small advice for Arne Moll,
Your article is nice, you have a subtle touch to introduce and enlighten contrast of several elements (Here the Frans de Waal book and the interview with D. In the Moskalenko review the diferent value of practical- and philosophical approach) but the idea of being right or objective really destroys a lot of the fun, the many enthousiast comments you get shows you did well, just gather new information and prepare your next article, don´t try to defend a personal point of view but instead continue the excellent work of presenting (in your pitoresc way) contrasts in the (chess) world.
Regards.

@arne,
your comments are extremely logical .
no matter what , saying that not agreeing to sofia rules, amounts to disrespecting
organizeres... etc etc is rank stupidity.

such dirty tricks have not worked in past for topalov. he could not win even after
kramnik forfeited a game.(danailov and topalov gleefully accepted the point)

He managed to get Topalov to the top, directly or indirectly !

Leer que Anand no juegue luego de la entrevista a Danailov, es lo mas cobarde e infantil que se puede escribir. Apoyo a Anand, a que juegue, no ha dicho nada ofensivo Danailov a nadie y menos a Anand y me imagino que se puso no solo en los zapatos de Anand sino de todo el mundo del ajedrez que quiere que se juegue hasta el final, que tablitas ni que tablitas, que horrible, que horrible que acuerden tablas en 11 jugadas digamos, eso seria fatal, que jueguen hasta el final y felicito a Danailov, Topalov y Anand porque haran de la regla Sofia sin estar escrito como lo dice Frans De Waal. Jiji. El que metio escarnio es nuestro amigo de Chessvibes. Pero al final resulta divertido. Porque asi muchos han escrito y eso es el mundial 2010, el mejor. Anand-Topalov. Creo que ganara Topalov, es mas quiero que gane Topalov pero eso no significa que no apoyare a Anand si muestra mejor juego y superioridad. Como quien dice soy hincha del cienciano si esta en primer lugar.

i guess i'm a bit late.... but, Peter/Arne - if you're reading this; I think our focus should by only on chess (like Anand) and that by giving so much attention to guys who think otherwise, you're actually doing what you don't want - moving focus away from the board. And you're only encouraging "them" by giving them what they want.

(I'm referring only to columns here, not news reports which of course shouldn't take sides).

oh, and i must commend the choice of Danailov's still.... :) great choice