You assume much too much. I’m not his fan. Never has been.

http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2007/05/karpov-and-madmedyarov-speak-out.html

“Here are the comments from Karpov about this matter:

Topalov¬¥s absence in the next World Championship cycle is scandalously absurd. But we have to remind ourselves of how these strange rules came up. They decided after San Luis by those same people of FIDE that went according to the decisions of Danailov and Topalov. They thought that after the magnificent results of Topalov in 2005, Kramnik simply would not have any chance to win. This was designed to get rid of him definitively. They invented these rules, according to which one of the participants of the match in Elista would not be allowed to play in the following cycle. There is a wonderful Russian proverb: “Do not dig a hole for somebody else, you yourself will fall into it”. This exact situation was what happened with Topalov and Danailov. They dug a hole to for Kramnik, but they were those who fell in it.”

Danailov has tried to get an anti-Fide image after the match, like he and Topalov were cheated by Fide. The truth is Topalov was the Fide champion and Fide would’ve done everything to have him win. Remember the toilet tapes they just handed out like nothing? Danailov and Topalov have a lot of friends within Fide, look at how easily they could circumvent their own clause.

You still didn’t answer my question, how does agreeing with ‚ÄúNo player should get any favor‚Äù but disagreeing with ‚ÄúNo player should be seeded into the cycle whatever his rating‚Äù go together? Simple Topalov fanboyism?

“It was TOPALOV who wanted a clause in the match contract with Kramnik that excluded the loser from the next cycle.”

Where did you get this from? It doesn’t make any sense.

Let’s see some facts:

1) Before the match, Topalov was directly seeded into the 2007 WCC, while Kramnik refused to participate in the candidates and was thus out of the cycle.

2) If Topalov would have won, his and Kramnik’s status in the cycle would remain unchanged.

3) Kramnik won, so he switched places with Topalov – he got Topalov spot in 2007 WCC and Topalov was out of the cycle.

So why on earth would Topalov demand such a clause??? It makes no sence whatsoever. It is far more logical that it was Kramnik (or someone within FIDE who had something against Topalov) who came up with this clause.

Topalov was certainly not the one who came up with it, because he had nothing to gain from it. He could (and did) only lose something. Topalov and Danailov are not that stupid and arrogant.

@ me: How is it possible to agree with “No player should get any favor” but disagree with “No player should be seeded into the cycle whatever his rating”? Doesn’t seem logical to me.