Danailov's solution for the chess world: Portosan!

Cut the crap, Danailov would make a great president! I dont care about his personal life, and neither should you. What´s important is to get the job done, and he does this alright!

Danailov would be terrible.

Chessbase reports that Danailov stated that the "Sofia rules" will be applied in the Anand-Topalov match: "Even if they are not official, if one player doesn't offer or accept draws they will apply. Vishy does not agree with it, but he will be forced, because Topalov will not offer him a draw and not speak to him. This is absolutely right, this is the future of chess."

It looks like they have already started to unilaterally bend the rules in their directions, and that it is already planned that Topalov will behave during the match like if he was deeply offended by another toilet-gate. I'm sure they will find something to motivate this attitude. Vishy, it's a trap! Don't go there.

We need a cartoon here....

Let`s see what kind of great cartoon will be?

Go ahead Karpov...a lot of support from Africa

why not to give a chance to the candidate from Turkey? he has no protege and Turkey too is regularly organizing chess events ; the turkish candidate is not loud-mouther and volatile ........ think of the statements reeled out by danialov regarding topalov-anand match ! to me , he is just like Rustum Kamsky! quite unbecoming for an ECU President!

sundararajan ganesan
india

Stupidity! Refusing a draw is a right! Playing on is the ethical choice! BIAS!

The two candidates are not really that different. Both are very able; they seem to have the power, or connections at least, to achieve their goals almost certainly. If I was a bit malicious, I'd say they're both cunning (the one thing Ilyumzhinov lacked). But if this trait can be only positive in Karpov's case, it is a big drawback when considering Danailov. Him being a manager of Topalov's, one of the Europe's greatest players and certainly the only one currently in a race for Champion title, is simply too biased for such a post. Karpov does not have a protegee, or at least not a public one. Danailov on the other hand is biased by default.

Caption competition:

Danailov: "So that's agreed, then. You have the carpets, and I'll have the curtains".

Yes, thats really a remarkable statement by a candidate for presidency of ECU: His protegé/puppet "...will not offer or accept draws".
Its simply against the rules of chess not to accept draws in certain positions.

@Vesco: alright, but some positions are logically drawn. *(such as King + Kinght vs. King.)

Jens/(Frank),
Check the rules before trying to quote them.
FIDE Laws of chess, art. 9.6: "The game is drawn when a position is reached from which a checkmate cannot occur by any possible series of legal moves. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing this position was legal." So there is no need for the draw to be 'accepted'. Of course the same applies to justified claims of threefold repetition and a of those concerning the 50 moves rule.
Please reconsider the use of the word 'puppet'.

Ok, Frits Fritschy: I (almost) give in. Then I suppose Danailov meant: “…will not offer or accept draw OFFERS".
But even if Topalov will (only) not do that, it may easily come to some rather comical and absurd situations - in a match for the WCh?

Jens,
I think you're still exaggerating a bit; there will still be implicit draw offers by repeating the moves, like anytime people play under the Sofia rules.
Under the usual rules a grandmaster repeats the moves once and gives his opponent a look, and a draw is agreed. Now they will play it out - how comical or absurd is that?
Anyone has the right to disagree with Topalov's ideas about draw offers, but he has a right to his ideas too. He expressed the wish to change the rules, but he didn't demand it.
Whenever Danailov's or Topalov's name is mentioned people, both pro and con, tend to get froth on their mouth and become abusive. I trust you won't join them.

It seems that the other Danailov threads are continued here ... . Of course Danailov has a right to his ideas and opinions (Sofia rules and other things, but IMO
- it is at least arrogant to categorically declare that "this is the future of chess". Put differently, he has no respect for other opinions, those who disagree with him?
- I am lacking English vocabulary for further statements such as "being against Sofia rules shows no respect to the city of Sofia", and "only old players who don't want to work play short draws" - BTW mixing up short (prearranged?) draws with any other type of draw, e.g. in mutual time trouble.

Who says he merely wishes, but doesn't demand to change rules? He may (try to) do so once he is in a suitable position, e.g. as ECU president. In his own events he can do whatever he wants: imposing Sofia rules, putting players in a glass cube, whatever .... as long as it doesn't become mandatory for ALL events.

Thomas,
Well, come on. Suppose you want to start a major change in how chess is played, what do you say: "IMHO, if nobody does mind, it seems a good idea to me to make draw offers a little less easy, but I don't mind if you have a different opinion", or simply: "This is the future of chess"?
Of course Danailov is a bit over the top when implying Anand shows no respect to the city of Sofia. I hope Anand won't be put in the block on the Sofia marketplace for this. And of course he is totally wrong to assume that all old players who don't want to work want to play short draws - take me, for example.
But aren't you getting a bit close to the edge too? An ECU president has something to say about a small number of events. He certainly can't change the rules - that's up to FIDE. If, stressing if, he gets elected (he won't get my vote) he might make some changes in European championships and the like, if he dares to - within the possibilities of FIDE rules. He has nothing to say about Wijk aan Zee, Linares, Dortmund or the Queens Day Open in Voorschoten (my club). When people don't like the experiment, he will be replaced in a matter of time. So, what about your fear his ideas might become mandatory for all events?
Let's not get overheated.

@Frits Fritschy: OK maybe I went a bit over the top, but ECU or FIDE control quite a few events, notably including official team competitions. Incidentally, in low-level amateur competitions Sofia rules could have the most ridiculous consequences. Those events have
- no increments in the final time control (some clubs still use analogue clocks)
- often no truly independent nd competent arbiter who could allow the players to make a draw.
Accordingly, games will have a decisive result: one player losing on time [if you can no longer write down your moves you cannot even make a claim based on the 50 move rule...]. Is this the future of chess?

Maybe I exaggerate, maybe the Sofia rules exaggerate - by considering a draw a bad result under any circumstances.

Thomas,
The future of draw by consent is that people will repeat moves. And this is already (under Sofia rules) common practice, as far as I have noticed. Of course this will create a psychological bareer: when your opponent is repeating moves, is he just testing you? Should I give my opponent information about my ambitions by also repeating moves? Well, it's a lot less exacting to just offer your opponent a beer and a draw (just beer, please - the standard answer) - but it's not that big a problem.

What I find more interesting than the practical implementation of these rules is their supposed effectiveness. Do these rules actually make tournaments more exciting, and how should we even decide this? A boring draw of 50 moves is still a boring draw, and the will to win is something inherent in all strong players, even if they sometimes like to take it easy. It would be interesting to make a quantitative comparison between tournaments played under the Sofia rules and 'normal' ones, but to my knowledge this hasn't been done yet. If anything, it's strange the Bulgarians themselves haven't done this. After all, if they really want to promote the Sofia rules, what could be a better supporting argument?

It won't be easy to get statistical evidence out of the number of boring draws - it depends how easily you get bored.
But here are some numbers on two comparable tournaments (each double rounded, 6 players):
- M-Tel 2009 (Sofia rules): 19 draws out of 30 games, of which 14 by repetition;
- Linares 2010 (usual rules): 21 draws out of 30 games, of which at most 8 by repetition (when you're not too strict at defining repetition).
It would not be very scientifical to draw conclusions out of comparing only two tournaments, but the figures suggest:
- there isn't much difference in the number of draws;
- draw by repetition in fact does replace draw by consent.
My conclusion: much ado about nothing, both pro and con.

Yes, indeed. But surely the burden of proof lies with the 'pros', not with the 'cons'.