I think Arne is right about the general tone of Danailov and co. Most chess fans can discern competitiveness or aggression or professionalism from the games themselves. The trash talk is not as essential for hyping it up.

@Arne & Peter

You should now ask Aruna to chime in :)

Okay, thanks for clarifying - at least I guess it means they'll be having press conferences together.

I still don't like Danailov's comments about 'conservative and old' people disagreeing with Sofia rules and his definition of 'professionalism', and anyway, talking has been prohibited during chess games for as long as anyone can remember, but I guess we'll see what happens when a completely drawn position actually arises.

I'm curious now about the reaction from Anand's team!

Clearly Arne Moll blunders again. Last time I wrote in this chat was because of a blunder of his, now he looks for provokations. Is Chessvibes turning into a yellow newspaper? Does this constant rumbling by Arne help chess or just distract from what is real problem? Does Chessvibes tolerate interpretations without logical basis or it pretends to be serious media?

And just a comment for the letter, I think 2 million is small prize fund, could have been much better as it is guaranteed by the government.

Cue hilarious misery for Topalov when in the final game, a point down, he has a lost position that Anand is willing to draw to win the match...

Thanks Peter, great job!
Arne? Better you seem Danailov, speaking in writing? Something wrong in this letter? Handwriting?

Sherman, the letter is fine in that it clarifies the matter about draw offers - but not the other points I made, and it even adds a new issue of controversy, which is Danailov's implication that to refuse the Sofia rules is a lack of 'respect to the organizers, the sponsors and the city of Sofia'.
Apparently, the organizers and sponsors are not neutral but support Danailov's point of view that those who disagree with the Sofia rules are 'old and conservative'. Who's showing a lack of respect to whom here?

thanks Peter, it is nice to see what the other side has to say. Maybe Danailov is not so black as described in the other column.
No offense Arne but your article was a bit one sided and I did not like the way you spoke about Bulgarians/Bulgaria in general. Maybe you did not mean it, but it sounded a bit rude

Arne, excuse me. "but in our personal opinion" . Did you read this?
How do you thing? Is it easy to find sponsors for chess events and matches? Sofia rules is one of ways to do this and to make chess more attractive sport. Organizers want to promote Sofia rules. This is nattural. They want to turn back invested money. If GMs reject offers like this, than how can they prettend for more money? But this is object of other talk... Im OK with your opinion for Danailov i Co.

You're right, Sherman, I should've been more clear. I didn't mean to imply that the organisers are actually in favour of the Sofia rules, just that Danailov seems to think so.

@pete: I didn't say anything about Bulgarians in general as far as I'm aware of, only about the Bulgarian team.

Can we please just focus on the chess-on-board? By paying any attention to people doing otherwise, you're only helping their cause by taking focus off the board which is apparently what you don't wish to do....

Silvio Danailov is a scumbag:

What he's effectively saying in the Europe-Echecs interview is that Anand is an old man who is content to plod along with draws and bag the money he gets for playing in matches and tournaments.

In his clarifying comment for Chessvibes he finally speaks his mind clearly: "they (i.e. Vishy and Aruna Anand) show no respect to the organizers, the sponsors and the city of Sofia." What more do you want? Add to this his body language and track record during the last three years, and I don't think there can be much doubt that he's going to do whatever it takes to make his petty protégé World Champion.

May God forbid that this man ever becomes president of anything!

I've given the matter some more thought so allow me to elaborate a bit more.

One of the things that's utterly confusing in all this (also mentioned by several people in the comments to my column) is the question on whose behalf Danailov is speaking.

When he's talking in first person plural of 'we fulfilled all the wishes of Anand’s team ' and 'we provided the largest prize fund in the last 15 years' in the current letter, he is clearly speaking as one of the organizers. However, when he says 'in our personal opinion they [the Anand team] show no respect to the organizers, the sponsors and the city of Sofia', is he speaking as an organizer or Topalov's manager? In fact, who precisely does he mean with 'the organizers' - does he include himself in it or not? If not, what does he have to do with providing money and fulfilling the wishes of the opponent's team?

I would say that mr. Danailov himself is to blame for the confusion by speaking on behalf of two different parties (perhaps even three, as he also seems to be speaking sometimes as the future president of the ECU?!). When he says 'what is the problem here' perhaps he should look at himself and see whether he thinks speaking on behalf of different parties is part of the problem.

Finally, one of the main points of my column is that there exist other 'norms' except strictly legal ones - that's why I don't find the argument 'Topalov has the legal right' very convincing. It's also one's legal right to not shake hands with anyone against one's will, or indeed to visit the toilet as many times as one likes.

So the question still remains why Danailov insists on Topalov's right to refuse to accept or offer draws, but complains about Anand refusing to play under Sofia rules. I would still call this a provocation - it's not common in chess to be so principled in this, and if one insists on being principled, at least be so principled as to grant these principles to the opponent as well.

In other words, don't complain about Anand (and previously, Kramnik) when they, too, insist on their 'legal rights'. And especially don't call such behaviour 'respectless' - since all it does is making your own principles look equally respectless.

I apologize for ranting on about this to such great length. I just can't help it.

Do not play Topalov/Danailov in Sofia. Period. These nuvorishes have a million ways to affect the outcome. This nonsense of rule-bending is only the beginning. It's insulting to millions of chess lovers, but it's nothing compared to what's going to happen in Sofia during the match. And we won't even know about it. If the match is played in Sofia Anand has no chance.

Rule-bending is a good reason to cancel the match, take it. There must be a better way to earn $1M for the world champion of chess than submitting yourself to the will of your opponent with the title on the line.

sporty got it right , this was a huge blunder from chessvibes.

¨I would say that mr. Danailov himself is to blame for the confusion by speaking on behalf of two different parties (perhaps even three, as he also seems to be speaking sometimes as the future president of the ECU?!).¨

Only you should be blamed for this ¨confusion¨ , you should be apologizing for this yellow-press attack instead of blaming the person who had the cordial gest of explaining the obvious to you.

Even though I too had a suspicion that Danailov meant that Topalov will be silent only during the games, I think the Chessvibes team is not to be blamed here. The most natural meaning of Danailov's sentence "He will not talk to him" is in fact breaking verbal contact altogether. Danailov had a whole array of appropriate constructions: Topalov will not reply, wont respond, will be silent, will neither accept nor decline, will not speak during the games etc. His choice of words, especially the stress on "to him", gives good ground for Arne's interpretation. But when we consider Danailov's history of "forbidden handshakes" and other breaks in communication, then Chessvibes' interpretation becomes more than plausible.

Again, it is not Arne's or Peter's fault that Topalov's team has decided to have a person with only basic English skills as its spokesman. And again, the true message Danailov sent to Anand is perhaps even more insulting: that an IM can give lectures to World Champion about the future of chess.

Cheap trick!!!
Tricky poloticians should not exist in chess.

It sounds reasonable enough to not want to talk to your opponent during a match. To each his own.

When somebody fulfills all the requests of someone, you´d expect that someone to at least out of courtesy to fulfill yours. This is common behaviour in human relationships. Anand´s team refused to do this.

Anyhow, all that Danailov is saying is that they felt dissapointed because of it, but that anyway Topalov will not accept draws (which everybody can do Sofia rules or not). Also, I understand why they´d like to have the rule on paper: the tournament is in Sofia, playing under the Sofia rules. The government is backing the tournament, at least they´d want the city to be mentioned as many times as possible for various obvious reasons. Accepting the Sofia rules would be courteous.

Anyway, I don´t see the big problem here, beyond that Arne wants to demonized this people.

Even after stating what was already obvious in a letter to a blog that is so biased against him, Arne keeps on trashing this guy. I think this is the time when YOU issue a formal apology.

Well, kudos to Anand for going to Sofia and play Topalov. With that kind of confidence, my bet is Topalov won't stand a chance in the match.

"Of course they have a legal right to refuse, but in our personal opinion they show no respect to the organizers, the sponsors and the city of Sofia"

There's a provocation for you. I don't get these pro-Danailov comments. Who are you people?

All this only shows that Anand will most probably be under huge psychological pressure in Sofia. Just think of the pressure put on Kramnik with the toiletgate. I think Kramnik fell for it way to easy by defaulting a game. Instead, he should have played and crashed Topalov on the day. If, on the contrary, Anand manages to ignore any dirty tricks, then Danailov & Co will be dancing alone in the darkness...

Anyway, who is willing to put forward 2 millions to get back a bunch of silly short draws anyway? Draw offers should be forbidden altogether at the summit of chess, ie, the world championship match... For the greater good of chess!

Can't wait to see how tough is Anand and how "professional ;-)" is Topalov; it'll be a very, very interesting match indeed!

Anand lost this match before it started; psychologically. He pulled a "Spassky" by agreeing to play in Topalov's home country of Bulgaria (corollary to Spassky's agreeing to play in back room in Game 3 vs. Fischer in Rekyjavik, Iceland). In essence, Anand has already "resigned".

How on earth can this be a huge blunder from chessvibes? They went and published the other side pov! LOL, I've never respected this site more. What other chess site goes out of its way to seek the other pov?

Keep in mind Manu is a well known topalov camp bias.

Danailov is what he is, but many respectable people - e.g., the Grand Slam tournament organizers - will probably find one or two positive things to say about his influence on professional chess.

Topa mentions this in an interview at Chessdom, and though I don't like his wording, his point of Anand not doing much to attract sponsorship money in India is likely valid.

Probably the Bulgarian officials (at the state and municipal level) would have liked to see the words "Sofia rules" in the foreign press. I would think that's about it from their side.

Btw, Sofia is better than Kalmykia or Siberia, no?!

Another issue that strikes me and is probably unsolvable: "Westerners" routinely take the moral high ground ("Anand should refuse to play", "2 MM Euros? So what", etc.) and cannot fathom the Eastern European point of view.
The Berlin Wall fell 20 years ago (thank God). Communism lasted for 45 years (or more, in some places) before that. But it is indeed very very difficult to truly understand another way of life.

Arne, this stuf is not funny yet. Hallo haters! All you sound like broken gramophone! Now I understand that what Danailov would say it will be sure bad for you. Are you all crazy? Can you think with own heads? Or like parrots you will repeat Danailov - bad, very bad, worst...

Very sorry for Danailov that make his uncomfortable to write letters for biased rummors. Idiots on the planet are majority...

@CAL|Daniel
¨Keep in mind Manu is a well known topalov camp bias.¨

I agree , attacking and profiling the person is a good resource when you are standing on the losing side of the argument , in case this paltry defamation attempt qualifies as such.

@CAL|Daniel
Can't agree more.
@Tom
"Cue hilarious misery for Topalov when in the final game, a point down, he has a lost position that Anand is willing to draw to win the match…"
I'm afraid that once Anand goes one point up, Topalov, restricted by his self-imposed legal right, will go on surrendering game after game ... It would prove to be a no contest. Go, Anand, go!

Kristian Pade Frederiksen , Arne excuse me but you are both sick and you need urgently help from psychologist. Very urgent!

This is the 2nd "article" I've read by Moll & the tone and personal nature again makes the person he's trying to attack look sympathetic. The way he's hiding behind "talking in chess has been outlawed for centuries" is pathetic- if that is so obvious then it is also obvious what Danilov meant. The "thanks for clarifying" is ridiculous. Danilov is a first class knob, but misrepresenting what he says only brings him sympathy.

In communication, including public relation, how to deliver the message is as important as the content of the message. In light of this, Mr. Danailov has not been very successful. He is a very enterprising person and his players have been very successful in terms of ratings, yet, public relation wise, he has created some very difficult situations for himself and his players. I think it is time for him to consider hiring a public relation specialist with a set of diplomatic skills.

"Of course they have a legal right to refuse, but in our personal opinion they show no respect to the organizers, the sponsors and the city of Sofia"

- This notion of "respect"
- The dictat that something (this or that bullshit) is "the future of chess"
- The "conservative and old people" anyone thinking different is
- The lazy, and not wanting to work idea
- and more...

Just shows vanity and show-off.
Sofia (and Bilbao) rules are NOT NEEDED WHATSOEVER. Other factors work against unfought draws. Not that rule.
Sofia rules are, also than ridiculously written, absolutely USELESS, if two GMs want to draw.
They are an insult to inteligence, moreover in a sport of the mind, and moreover in something with the tradition and the culture chess has.
The draw by mutual agreement IS a precious part of chess, and I hope the future will be mantaining it!
Organize tournaments properly (including atention to invitations, prizes, norms, fair playing systems, tie-breaks, etc.), and you will always find that unfought draws will be just an inocuous and minor exception. Grow up!

Castro, why dont you became poet? Such patethic words as Arne but you are more tallented! Why you loose time to trying thinking when you can write so patethic?

We were so nice to him and he was so rude to us.
Isn't that Danailov's letter in a nutshell?

"Anand had to do only one small thing". What is Danailov talking about? Anand agreed to play on the opponent's home ground, where every detail is under control by Danailov himself. And then Danailov tries to squeeze the last drop of publicity out of it: to get the press to mention the name Sofia even more often.

Well the man didn't get what he wanted in fair negotiations, and, therefore apparently, he now accuses the opponent for being disrespectful to all the people who did such wonderful things.

We make him do it our way anyway! What kind of kindergarden behavior is this? Grow up man!

I can perfectly understand Anand's rejection of the whole idea. Why complicate the games by involving a third party to decide whether the game can be drawn or not. What if the arbiter/expert says no? How will that affect his concentration? If Topalov wants to play to the last pawn, then let him do so. No one can have problems with that, not even Anand. So what is the use of Sofia rules in a match? They are perfectly superfluous. Well, they would have been good for someone's ego of course!

Paul. If mentioning Frans Dewaal is a personal attack, them what is calling someone a first class knob?

Danailov's statement sounds honest and explains why he feels annoyed by Aruna's tactics. I already like it. Two equally tough negotiators this time.

I have to say I'm firmly on Danailov's side in this discussion.

"Sofia rules" is a brand that they've built up with the Sofia tournaments; they could have called it "no draw offers allowed rule", but it has a positive image (fighting chess all the way!) and naming it after the sponsor was good marketing.

I think it's strange that Anand didn't agree to play by these rules, after all, as Danailov points out, if it's only two players you just need one player to want to play like this, and it's de facto Sofia rules already. It _is_ disrespectful to the organizers and the sponsor to not give back a extra bit of marketing that wouldn't cost Anand anything extra.

So perhaps he is indeed just oldfashioned, or lacks business sense, I don't know.

And Arne's article basically comes down to saying he doesn't like Danailov. That's not news.

Danailov's second communique only confirms the nastiness and pre-match gamesmanship that Arne inferred from the first one.

"Danailov’s statement sounds honest and explains why he feels annoyed by Aruna’s tactics. I already like it. Two equally tough negotiators this time."

So what gives you the idea this really happened? For all we know Danailov could make it up in a further attempt to provoke team Anand into reaction.

All this moralistic talk about "respect" is so phony and certainly has nothing to do with chess, but only with political relationships. Only minorities complain about not getting any respect: "I got no respect".
The EU never wanted to let Bulgaria in before it cleaned up its act, as the country is famous as being a hotbed of fraudsters, criminals and con artists, with the most acute case of corruption in government.
If they want "respect" now, it is to whitewash this very negative image.
No doubt, whatever the money aspect, Anand made a major strategic mistake by agreeing to play in Sofia. If so, it can be only because of the money angle. He must have computed that even if losing, he will cash in more than in another setup.
Nonetheless, by so doing, he has handed Topalov the upper hand in their psychological warfare.
We should probably expect a lot of dirty tricks used in this tournament, and a lot of disputes.
But the Topalov team is asserting aggressiveness and using bombast not unlike ring fighters to instill fear in an opponent who so far has shown too much meekness, and this lopsided bravado will be a huge psychological factor in this tournament.
As far as generating "sympathy" for Topalov as a result of ChessVibes' open discussion, this can work only with very naive and uneducated people who know little about the history and cultural habits of various Eastern European countries.
If this were an opera, there would be some side innocent, or a dejected chorus, lamenting: "Watch out, Anand, watch out, the Furies are out for you."

Hats off and respect to Peter for making Silvio responding to the(other) thread - and maybe mostly to Arne´s article. The same goes for you, Silvio.
But still...something is still bothering me in your attitude, Silvio. I am very much for the "Sofia-rules", but they are still very much in an experimential phase and not at at all - so far - implemented in the rules of FIDE. And the match for the WCh should of course be played accroding to these - what else?
So, how dare you put pressure on Aruna and after her refusal to obey then state:
"Of course they have a legal right to refuse, but in our personal opinion they show no respect to the organizers, the sponsors and the city of Sofia."
Because she (and her husband) will not give in to your rather drastic demands,, she ( and he) "show no respect"?????
It is still not good enough, Silvio.

guitarspider, at first Danailov writed this letter after Peter's please him to explain for Mr Arne Moll what did Danailov talk about in his interview for Europe-Echecs.
If you want to say that Danailov lie i cannot refute you. This is just your fantasy and i cannot forbid you dreaming. You of course cannot prove that Danailov is lieing. But for me fact that Sofia rules are not on contract's paper mean that Anand reject the offer of organizers. Else believe that this statement will be in contract. So... i think you agree with my orders of thougs if you not so biased like Arne and some Kristian Pade Frederiksen.

This "clarification" was WORSE - more provocative and hostile - than the original interview. Thanks for that, Silvio.

Jens Kristiansen, Do I and you read one and the same letter above? What pressure you mean,dear? Do you read carefully? Let me help a little
"...They refused, because like Aruna [Anand's wife and manager - PD] said, it was very difficult to choose arbiters, an Appeal Committee, a GM adviser, et cetera. Then we offered them to choose personally everything what they needed: arbiters, Appeal Committee, GM adviser, et cetera, only to accept the Sofia rules..."

Is this pressure? Posibility to choose what they want and who they want personality? My idea of pressure is not quite so

acirce, for person like you it doesnt matter what Silvio talks about.

Why on earth is this "Sherman" ranting in such unintelligible English? Does anybody care? Does this add anything to the conversation?

Roo,English is not my preffered language . Just for the protocol I ask you what didn't you understand from my posts?

@Roo Bookaru

Your hateful take on the Bulgarian people should be deleted by the moderators of this blog , unless they agree with you , which is very possible giving the tone of their articles.

I completely agree with arcice. This clarification by Danailov is even worse. He not only confirms that Topalov will behave like an offended prima donna from day one, but he is now also insulting Anand's wife.

It should be quite clear that Danailov will not stop here. He will find ways to force Anand to stop playing during the match. He has done it before with Kramnik. If he cannot offend Anand directly, he will simply insult his wife more explicitly.

Kudos to Chessvibe for exposing these crook tactics. Vishy don't go there, it's a trap!

Manu, persons like Roo cant offend anybody. He is obviously very familiar with "history and cultural habits of various Eastern European countries".))
Poor guy, he is not guilty. When "very naive and uneducated people" miss arguments , it is easier to attack the opponent, even if indirectly.

I go to bed. It's too late here.

"...- Father Methodius why you look so tired?
- I argued with simple people..."

Danialov and earlier Topalov have made remarks that indirectly show Anand as a passive guy. They have been using terms like "old players, who don’t want to work" (Danialov), "Anand did not lift a finger" (Topalov http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2010/03/topalov-interview.html).

Anand is very active in popularizing chess in India. Whenever he is in India, he interacts with fans. Check out videos of his simul in India:
http://www.youtube.com/user/suneetsmausil

He represents a Non-profit non-governement organization in India:
http://www.tnq.in/vidyasagar.htm

Why did Anand not organize the match in India? His manager Aruna Anand does not have the reach of Danialov or Carsten Hensel (Kramnik's manager during Bonn). Also, he may not prefer playing in India, because the last time he lost in India.

Not accepting Sofia rules is disrespect for Sofia and organizers? That's a gem.

@Sherman

Indeed, you're not "simple people"! :-) Far from it. Little maybe, but not simple.

And try (or retry) to be given education elsewhere, I'm not one of those incompetents.

Sofia rules are simply and absolutely wrong, and the future can be other, that's where Danailov is wrong, on this issue.
But, besides of that, I think he's not doing anything THAT wrong.
He told his part of the story, mixed with that wrong ideas. Now, it would be important to hear Anand's side.
Only then one could see if someone is disrespecting someone else.
Of course chess is itself being disrespected, with those money-talk and pseudo-reasons and pseudo-urge to have stupid rules, but it is not a new kind of thing!

On the present-day age of darkness (well shown on this thread), Danailov's posture and sayings are (sadly) normal.
Maybe Anand shouldn't agree to play in Bulgaria (whatever money). Maybe no one should ever agree to play a tournament of "chess minus free draw mutual agreement". Ever.
But, after accepting years of "evidences" and "obvious future urges", to make a fuzz out of THOSE words from Danailov looks somewhat exagerated. Not to mention some people who also have rushed, wrong and anti-chess ideas, but simply don't like the man!

Silvio always reminds me of Raymond Keene from Korchnoi's team in his famous matches with Karpov.

@Arne

Yesterday I was critical of the mild darwinism in your article, but of course mostly agreed with your judgement of the Bulgarians. And now I must commend and defend your analysis regarding Dysfunctionalov's latest rebuttal. You vivisected his negligent words like Ben Matlock on Red Bull. Your words were intended, as well as Solomanesque.

Thank you for not lying down your King. It is apparent to me, for this Chessvibe thread, Sofia rules ARE in play.

Cheers.

Does anyone remember Tal's book on his match w/ Botvinnik? My favorite chess book personally. I mention it because of the tone of it. Compare it to Topalov's book on the Elista match. Where have we come to after all these years? Very sad to me...........

"The most difficult is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially when the cat is gone" - Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili

You did it Arne! Cheers!

Lets put all personal bias of the writers and translations aside
Accusing Anand of being disrespectful is absurd. The chess world, as far as I can tell, considers him one of the most respectful and professional players around.
For Danailov to make ANY accusations of unprofessional behavior considering his track record over the last few years is just astounding to me.

I

Anand should not accept these rules, He has already accepted to play in his challengers home why should he make further concessions. One of the things that Spassky commented on was he should have not allowed so many concessions to Fischer during their first match. It mentally put him on a lower footing and was difficult to play

I can already see the excuses now
Sofiagate- Topalov lost because Anand cheated by talking to the arbiter too many times.

As a note- Bulgaria is listed as Europes most politically corrupt country. Doubt me? do a google search and see for yourself.

If they really wanted Sofia rules, WHY WASN'T IT IN THE CONTRACT ?

They agreed to play by FIDE Rules, they signed the contract to play by FIDE Rules, so why do they now not want to play by those rules ?

I'm reading all the comments with a big smile on my face. We (yes, I use the word "we" here ;) all seem te be forgetting, that Arne wrote a column, not an article. Columns are allowed to be based on personal taste and opinion. They may even include speculation.
And looking at the number and types of reactions, Arne wrote his best column ever. Keep it up!

Just a little remark from my side (sorry I don't study the letters and interviews). It occurs to me that with this letter, Mr. Danailov is trying to move the attention off of a number of issues in the interview, seeing he's only addressing one issue in his letter namely the Sofia rule (and intended way of D/T to impose it on the Anand camp).

"Why did Anand not organize the match in India?"

Let me play advocate of the devil here.

Even in these difficult financial times I find it hard to believe that a player with the standing of Anand is unable to finds sponsors for a world championship match, though I suppose it is possible.

Anand has nothing to gain from this match, only something to lose.
If the Topalov camp would have been unable to find sponsorship Anand could have remained sitting champion without having to defend his title.

The Topalov camp later complained about having to play on the opponents territory in Elista (not even Kramnik's country, but closely affiliated with Russia), so my guess is they would have objected to playing in India. As a matter of principle it makes perfect sense for both sides not to want to play on the home turf of the opponent. That's why many times in the past these matches have occurred on neutral territory. The Topalov camp now pretends they would have had no problem playing in India, but that is easy to say when there is no possibility anymore of that happening and the match is in fact taking place in Topalov's home country. In other words: it would probably have been pointless to try to organize the match in India so the Anand camp didn't bother.

To be fair Anand doesn't strike me as that machiavellian so maybe he did try and didn't succeed, or maybe the bid from the Topalov camp was better and he went with that.

In my mind there will still be a practical problem for Topalov in the games. If he will be adamant in never offering a draw or accepting an offer, the only chance to finish the drawn positions is by threefold repetitions or playing till bare kings. What a waste of time and energy this will be, though on the other hand, we will probably get to see a lot of "See Snakes" so it's not all just bad :-)

It seems to me, that after the initial surprise with Danailov's reply, the mudslinging and the provocations began again. Now you are trying to make Anand feel insulted, bring his wife's honor into question or interpret "not accepting draws" as a provocation. The purpose of the game is to mate the opponent's king - not draw in the least number of moves without getting the arbiter to void the game. Danailov is not the only one thinking this. Many, considerably more respected people, think draws are bad for chess. Just google what Mark Dvoretsky thinks about agreed draws.

"Guillaume: I completely agree with arcice. This clarification by Danailov is even worse. He not only confirms that Topalov will behave like an offended prima donna from day one, but he is now also insulting Anand’s wife."

About you and acirce finding the clarification worse - that is normal. There was nothing concrete left from the original article. What is more disturbing is that with both articles people try to reinterpret and twist the words to suite their agenda. As in this example with bringing Anand's wife as a victim. Aruna is, by choice, Anand's manager, first and foremost and then his wife. She was the one traveling to Bulgaria to inspect the venue and she was conducting the negotiations. How is Danailov insulting her?

Danailov has serious problems communicating, speaks what he thinks and severely lacks tact. I'll give you that. But a great number of people are reading between the lines and coming up with theories that are far from the truth.

I agree with you all, this guy is a headache!.

I think as already mentioned, the sofia rule has only sense in a tournament. We want to see interesting and fighting chess.

But in this match Anand and Topalov want to win. And I think, when you are ahed in the score - the draw is a weapon in your arsenal. And so, if Topalov don't want to use this weapon ok, but it is also professional to take advantage of that. I can understand Anand.

Aruna 1 - Danailov in the crapper. IM can't match the Grand Mistress

We could settle this match problem easily with a nice game of ChessBoxing...put on the gloves Toppy, Kramnik's the arbiter

@jhoro: So, Danailov "has serious problems communicating", he "severely lacks tact", and yet he is not insulting anyone? I guess he is just being candid and a victim of his poor command of English, is that it? I guess that would also explain the toilet gate and the handshake gate.

@Guillaume: First off I never said who he's insulting. That was you. You said "he is insulting Anand's wife", which I can't really see, so please explain it to me. Then you went on to say "It should be quite clear that Danailov will not stop here. He will find ways to force Anand to stop playing during the match. He has done it before with Kramnik. If he cannot offend Anand directly, he will simply insult his wife more explicitly.". Based on what? Your psychic abilities?

The only part that might sound offensive to some overly sensitive people is the "they show no respect" stupidity, but I think I know where Danailov is coming from. He feels personally offended over the "Sofia rules". They are his idea and he wanted to use it in this match and perhaps it would have been of some value to the organizers too, as branding. He and Anand know that the "Sofia Rules" do not make much sense for a match, when one of the players can kill it, so he was hoping that Anand will go along as it costs him pretty much nothing. Anand's team turned him down. He does not get it why, when Danailov to a great degree is responsible for the one million Euro Anand is going to collect in May (provided the organizers come up with the money).

@jhoro Thank you, man! You just told what I think on right English. I cant explain so well the right position! Accept my greetings!

I know very well what I said. Repeating it is pretty pointless if you don't try to understand it yourself. Based on what? Read again: "He has already done it before". He is in fact doing it again just now. As to the offensive statement, spot on, you found it: "they show no respect to the organizers, the sponsors and the city of Sofia."

I am looking forward (alongside with all chess fans around the world) to getting ‘excited’ by the virtuosity of the 2 players trying to reach the 50 moves at an eventual endgame: bishops of opposite colors and one pawn each, since -according to Mr. Danailov- his protégé will not accept the draw before !!! (Hurrah!!). What decadence for our beloved game gentlemen.

Well; i guess we are now over and out on this discussion, so far. But...after re-reading Danailovs statement at Chess-Today there was one passage that puzzled me:
"FIIDE asked Anand to do only one small thing for the organizers: to play under the Sofia rules in Sofia."
WHO representing FIDE asked this to Anand? Saying: WHO from FIDE has the authority to ask for other rules than the official ones?
Please clarify, Silvio.

Note that, under the present FIDE rules, the Sofia nonsense became posible (and so, accepted as "official").
That doesn't explain why FIDE (and yes, exactely who in FIDE??) would ask such a strange thing).

To please the Sofia obtuse organizers?
And does a beautiful city like Sofia need THAT kind of stutborness to be recognized in chess? Of course not!
How about organizing a Muay Thay tournament and call it chess? They could start that "absolutely needed" change, by saying the future of chess is that!

?Jens Kristiansen . For your very sorry i realy doubt that Danailov will clarify anything more for Chessvibes. He did it once without being required to do so, clearly a sign of good intentions. In gratitude, the kind hosts of the blog and some of its readers, in particular you, decided to spit him. If I was Danailov I would never clarify for you anything more. But maybe your expectations are not in vain. However, Danailov is a very favorable towards enthusiasts of chess person.

Dear Castro, the only obtuse organizer around is you.

Maybe An international master can't lecture Anand or Kramnik about the Petrov, the deep 8-moves draws, and the Berlin Wall, but maybe as an amateur, in the pure sense of the word, a manager, an organizer, a chess-politician, and a simple fan, he can express what some people like me thinks. That's democracy, to put in clear words the wishes of the people and then be elected or chosen if you have the majority. But some people here are nostalgic of the good "Soviet chess way" !!
Who is buying chess books, who is paying fees, who is watching games live, who comes to tournament areas ?? US! We make the chessplayers live, otherwise Chess would simply be a great art. So Danailov is perfectly right !

And it has to be clear that Anand didn't lift his finger. The chessplayers have to promote themselves and the games; They have to look for sponsors, that's the professional way ! So if Anand wants to play somewhere else, he can, but he will have to find the prize fund, and in that case, FIDE who changes the rules three times a year, would have the time to change them three hundred times ^^

"That’s democracy, to put in clear words the wishes of the people and then be elected or chosen if you have the majority. But some people here are nostalgic of the good “Soviet chess way” !!"

Yes, people opposing Danailov are clearly stalinist: they are obviously in favour of some obscure partisan figure who try to impose his worldview without broader consent. Danailov's opponents would like to see a chess world where one would be forced to act according to rules he did not agree to, a grim regime where acquaintance with a powerful Balkan politician has the last say.
Good thing we have Danailov to keep us from this track!

LOL Alexander ;-)

On a more serious note, read a good match book, Timothee. You'll see that short draws are a necessary component of match play. They have multiple functions: you use it when you want to, as White, probe your opponent's preparation without jumping into his lines unprepared, when you are in lead and don't want to take too many risks, or, on the other hand, when you want to recover from a series of losses. WC match is not just a bunch of random great games drawn together, it is an organic whole: it has its exciting moments and its rests, its fights and its withdrawals. To take away the possibility of draw by agreement is to destroy the specific dynamics of match play.

Anand is not the challenger. The idea that he should be forever grateful to the sponsors, to Danailov, and to the city of Sofia for letting him play a World Championship against Topalov is just ridiculous. Danailov and Topalov are living in a fancy world in which Topalov was declared winner of his match against Kramnik. Unfortunately for them, in the real world it never happened. Anand is the World Champion, and as such he is honoring the sponsors, the organizers and the city of Sofia by letting them host the World Championship. Claiming the opposite over a rule that has never been implemented in a World Championship (and for good reasons, as was explained by Alexander) is particularly rude and uncalled for. It would be regrettable that the people and the mayor of Sofia let Danailov tarnish the name of their city like this.

I was away from the Internet for a few days, now still struggling to find out what is really new and newsworthy:
- In Topalov's matches against Kramnik and Kamsky, all draws were consistent with Sofia rules (threefold repetition or dead-drawn ending). Is it known whether there were earlier draw offers, and if Topalov politely declined them, or silently ignored them?
- The Bulgarlovs (Topa- and Danai-) are proactively making some noise and insult the other side - not new either ... .

Then it comes down to what Jens Kristiansen pointed out and asked: What is FIDE's role in all of this, and who is representing FIDE? IMO they should be neutral, but apparently they are supporting, or at least leaning towards the Bulgarian side!? Another possibility (which I wouldn't rule out) is that Danailov was lying, or making this up ... .

@Sherman: "For your very sorry i realy doubt that Danailov will clarify anything more for Chessvibes."
You may be right. In the past he mostly spread information and/or propaganda via Chessdom, which has neither critical editors nor a discussion forum open to everyone ... . Maybe he cannot handle critical discussions - "if you cannot stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen".

anand should reconsider his decision to play topalov in sophia. he should settle only for a neutral venue. ( this is the opinion of vladi kramnik too!) otherwise, it will be an inequal battle, which will be mostly played outside the chess board, by danialov! since anand doesn't believe in dirty politics.

@Peter Doggers

Not expecting you to do something in particular, and I think there's no need for it, but I'll tell something just for you to be aware.
There's a bug here in this thread, called "Sherman", with (other than ridiculous conversation) unacceptable behaviour when adressing me.
I'm not a baby sitter, nor able to mantain down-level conversations, even when someone else tries to drag me.
So I adressed it , but it also seems not capable to read. As when confronted with any other pathetic thing, one is just forced to laugh, but anyway I'd say beware the bug!

@Guillaume:"I know very well what I said..."

Then you are lacking reading comprehension. Nowhere did Danailov said Anand's WIFE, besides "they" is plural. With your logic we can easily prove that he was racist as well. Anyway, I do not feel like defending Danailov as I do not like him either, only looking for objectivity in your arguments.

@Peter Doggers
Dear Peter,

Please you don't treat me like a bug. I also please you give my special excuses to Mr Castro whom i offended very consciously calling him "obtuse organizer", because i cannot prove this. Also I hope I'm not banned, so I can enjoy highly intelligent and competent Mr. Castro and raise my education and competence to his level.
Thanks in advance! Your Sherman

P.S.This morning I called to Mr. Danailov and he said he was very worried and probably will not sleep tonight because Mr. Castro has called the organizers of the match "obtuse". Such an assessment of such competence certainly is based on irrefutable evidence.

Don't worry guys, apart from the two of you probably nobody reads this thread anymore anyway.

leo el ingles pero la no practica me saco de escribir e incluso hablarlo...asi que usare este idioma, Me divierte lo que leo y me gusta lo que hace Danailov, es genialisimo, el ajedrez traspone a lo que quiere la gran mayoria de gente del mundo, me alegra mucho. Genial, ya quiero ver la respuesta de Anand, de su equipo. Que lo hagan de modo elegante como lo es hasta ahora. Esto no tiene nada que ver con lo que se vera en el tablero y se hara en el tablero. Ellos deben sentarse y jugar y nosotros cuidar que tengan las condiciones para ello, lo demas es puro cuento y divierte. Por ultimo pense hacer en kechua esta nota, el idioma de mis tatarabuelos, pero no pue. Aunque alguito de Kechua vendra bien: Sumactaya pukllamuychis Anand itaq Toaplov, noka munani chayman, Sofiaman hamuyta, icha quispinka kay, chayka chaypiya kasac icha internetmantaya llapantaya kawasac. Allin kausay llapanchispac. See You.

:-) A bug (someone pls correct my poor english if it isn't used that way) in the sense of someone who adresses you directely to anoy you.
It didn't start with the "obtuse" thing, it's realy pathetic trying to make fools out of others.
And sure, one thing is using some language to express a point of view, other much different thing is using it out of pure agression and bad manners.
It would be so nice if people behave in conversations... ;-)

Ah! And the Sofia organization is obtuse, because the onus of proving something is their's, but they vainly insist. They are the ones trying to force something wrong down our throats, and presume of prophetic and absolute know-everything.
I (and others) must be able to say that the so-called Sofia rules are nonsense, and not being insulted.
I think I'm right in this issue (as presumedly anyone else), and I think I can support my idea, at least against all the (poor) arguments I know until now.

Danailov is essentially saying that Anand is the clear favorite and it could be good of him to show the organizers gratitude by losing his crown on purpose.
Chess needs this match to finally take place in order to put an end to an inelegant era of World Championship politics. Provided, of course, that there's no other clause granting Topalov yet another chance to compete for the title if he loses.

"Don’t worry guys, apart from the two of you probably nobody reads this thread anymore anyway."

I was about to read this thread, but won't bother now.

@Tom

Lol

You were about to read the thread, but, as an optimized-to-perfection reader, you started precisely by the most important post, the "warning" that the thread could "probably" lack interest. :-)
And, as perfection demands, your optimization process imediatly logged you off (after an own wise new warning, of course).
Most clever humor, I myself just think I understand! Heheheh

If Topalov wins, will you consider him the equal of Anand or Kramnik? Why or why not?