Reports | September 30, 2006 19:10

Who what where?

[lang_nl]Een nieuwe dag, nieuwe hoop. Naast de brief van Seirawan (zie vorige post)?Ǭ†zijn er?Ǭ†nog (minstens) twee andere relevante documenten:

  • Een open?Ǭ†brief van Iljoemzjinov aan Kramnik
  • Een tweede open brief van Kramnik

[/lang_nl]

[lang_en]

A new day, a new hope. Apart from Seirawan's letter (see previous post) there are two more documents (at least) that are relevant:

  • An open?Ǭ†letter?Ǭ†by Ilyumzhinov to Kramnik
  • A second open letter by Kramnik

[/lang_en]

[lang_nl]Susan Polgar beschrijft op haar weblog?Ǭ†een aantal interessante punten van aandacht. Verder is het opvallend hoe weinig sympathie er in de wandelgangen voor Topalovs standpunt lijkt te zijn. Dit komt natuurlijk omdat hij achterstaat in de match, maar vooral ook omdat Kramnik tot nu toe?Ǭ†behoorlijk wat?Ǭ†'geluk' op het bord?Ǭ†gehad heeft: niet echt een overtuigend bewijs dat hij valsspeelt.

Maar rationele bewijzen tellen niet voor mensen die achterdochtig zijn. Immers, het feit dat Kramnik tot nu toe veel geluk gehad heeft, is zo geredeneerd waarschijnlijk?Ǭ†juist een bewijs voor zijn valsspelen -?Ǭ†die slechte zetten speelt?Ǭ†hij natuurlijk?Ǭ†om niet de verdenking op zich te laden...
Over pakweg een uur zou de zesde partij gepland zijn. In elk geval kunnen we vandaag weer de nodige ontwikkelingen verwachten. Let's wait and see![/lang_nl][lang_en]Susan Polgar describes on her weblog some interesting points of attention. Furthermore, it is striking how little sympathy there seems to be for Topalov's point of view. This is, of course, because he is behind in the match, but also because Kramnik has had a lot of 'luck' on the board: not exactly a convincing evidence of cheating...

But rational evidence does not count for suspicious minds. After all, the fact that Kramnik has had a lot of luck so far, is in their view?Ǭ†probably a particularly?Ǭ†strong sign that he cheated - of course he plays these bad moves not to seem suspicious...

In about an hour, the sixth game is due to start. In any case we can expect many more developments today. Let's wait and see!

[/lang_en]

Arne Moll's picture
Author: Arne Moll

Chess.com

Comments

Thijs's picture

Kirsan heeft bepaald dat er vandaag een rustdag is en niet gespeeld zal worden. (zie playchess.com)

doggy's picture

Time-out dus. Het was ook te kort dag om de gemoederen enigszins tot bedaren te brengen. De wereld wacht in spanning af!

doggy's picture

Een enerverende discussie vindt plaats bij MIG. Deze reactie vind ik steengoed:A fascinating discussion is taking place at MIG's site. This comment is a strong one:

The media have been portraying Kramnik as the villain in all this. As an odd nutball.

These quotes are from the Guardian:

"The Russian player Vladimir Kramnik forfeited the fifth game of his 12-game match with the Bulgarian Veselin Topalov and threw into chaos the much-anticipated contest that was due to end the 13-year schism"

"And the reason for his dramatic action, with its echoes of Bobby Fischer's forfeit in the second game of his match with Boris Spassky in Reykjavik in 1972? Kramnik had been banned from using his private toilet. Even the irascible and unpredictable Fischer, who saw KGB plotters everywhere, never thought of this one."

Words cannot describe how despicable the actions of the Topalov camp have been. Look at the grins and smirks on their faces. Danailov and Topalov.

Kramnik is absolutely in the right to protect his intregrity. He shouldn't accept a decision that violated the agreement (as quoted above by Chris Falter). He shouldn't accept a decision that added credence to the accusations that he would have been cheating.

The order of asking questions here should be:

1. How did the Topalov camp get their hands on these tapes? Who informed them of the content and who passed the tapes to them?

2. How could any of the two players be cheating even in theory? They are checked for electronic equipment. The lavatories are checked before the games. Noise is being generated to block all radio communication. Glass wall prevents all signals from people in the audience.

When you try to answer these two questions, you may want to ask further questions about the FIDE committee and e.g. their financial ties to the lucrative Topalov-Radjabov match.

*

Having answered these you may look at the way in which Danailov and Topalov went about their complaint. Wording it in a very personal way, directly attacking the character of Mr. Kramnik and grabbing the utmost publicity. No quiet complaints like how Kasparov handled it in 2000.

Looking at the chess Kramnik has played there is nothing to suggest cheating. Of course Topalov fully well knows this. So you need to ask about their real motives for this personal attack. And these toilet visits they quote are 1-2 minute visits. In that time you don't even set up the position on the imaginary pocket fritz, nevermind check complete variations. They purposefully tried to point out the 16.Bg5 in game 3. Nearly every master level player should considered this move.

And to quote Kramnik's second letter:

"Clause 3.17.1., Schedule 2 of the contract:
?¢‚Ǩ?ìAll protests must be submitted in writing to the Appeals Committee not more than 2 hours after the relevant playing session.?¢‚Ǩ?

The protest made by the Topalov Team were not made within this window after game 4 (27 September 2006) but only hit the FIDE Office and the Appeals Committee on the rest day (28 September 2006). Therefore the protests are not even relevant and should have been rejected by the Appeals Committee immediately."

It clearly gives further credence to his suspicion that the committee (with good friends of Danailov on board, with personal financial interests tied to the Radjabov match and perhaps other further activities) shouldn't be trusted to be impartial.

What annoys me most in all this is the approach by many respected chess personalities to lump the two together (Kramnik and Topalov) and go on about "why can't they behave" or some such. Like both would be to blame.

I think it is pretty straightforward stuff. Even the "50" was an exaggeration and the visits could have been anything trivial from washing his face to pacing to telling himself in the mirror "you can do it, you can do it!".

You ask ten questions about Mr. Danailov, FIDE and Topalov (who should get his equal share of blame. Danailov is his manager and is paid to do what Topalov wants him to.) and perhaps then if there is any reason for such, you can ask questions about the person who was attacked with distasteful personal accusations and then cast the villain in the media for protecting his integrity against the accusations.

People should see the principled nature of this conflict, and not be afraid to side with Kramnik.

Posted by: AZ79 at September 30, 2006 05:07

Latest articles