StuntLinguist wrote on 09/30/06 at 21:17:34:


Well, I am rather sure that there are rules and official bodies that DO govern locker rooms, benches, and the like in almost any professional sport you care to mention.  Chess has scant need of field referees, it being usually self-evident the square upon which a piece resides.

What do you think match arbiters are for, to make sure the en passant capture rule is properly observed?  Not to deal with possible cheating?   

My analogy has less to do with the particular role of referees than the necessity of governance BY RULE in any sort of sporting competition.  In this regard, there is a perfect analogy between chess and other sports.   

StuntLinguist wrote on 09/30/06 at 21:17:34:


Which showed that some people don't like FIDE, big deal.  Some of these people then agreed in writing to definite terms for this match, which included that FIDE would sponsor it and arbitrate it.  Those were the match terms; it's not my name that was on the dotted line, but Kramnik's.    

StuntLinguist wrote on 09/30/06 at 21:17:34:


Yes, the Evil Topalov was the "instigator" of the FRIGHTFUL outcome that Kramnik -- and Topalov himself -- were going to have to use a different bathroom!  How DARE he exercise his right to lodge complaints under the match terms, knowing that it might result in such a gross injustice?!!  Not to use the pre-arranged bathroom??!!  Oh unspeakable horror!  Oh degradation!  Oh perversion of justice!  Oh THANK GOD the match was called off before one drop of urine was spilled under those damnable conditions!!

And I will add that IF Topalov had been unsatisfied with the ruling to the point of refusing to play further, then I would today condemn him in the very same terms that I'm condemning Kramnik.  But we'll never know, will we, whether that would have happened? 

Scholar wrote on 09/30/06 at 19:39:49:


Yes the video does clearly show the rest room.  There wouldn't be an issue if Kramnik was spending his time there.  The issue is the very unusual amount of time he has been spending in the BATHroom.

Trevormkidd wrote on 09/30/06 at 18:27:44:


He was on camera, even in the rest room, as far as I can tell from still images of the video available to the arbiter.



The point is simple: months are spent arranging every last detail of the match conditions, and they should not be changed in the middle of the match, no matter how inconsequential it may appear.  There have been plenty of games where neither player spends much time at the board (hypnotic stares and such).

I imagine that the rest rooms will be unlocked before the next game.  The real obstacle will be the match score.

Well, this is all absurd, and I had hoped to be discussing a chess game today, and not more letters to FIDE.  I follow the championship for the chess -- not to discuss contract law and the propriety of using the toilet X number of times per hour.

Myself, I will dine on blueberry yogurt and hope for the best -- either the match shall be cancelled or it shall resume and my interest in it has died until then.

I see your points and would love to agree with you Markovich, because that is the way it ideally should be. The problem lies however with the incompetence of FIDE and with the way the World Champion is decided. FIDE and it's appointed men have numerous times shown that they can't be trusted (I think recent happenings is a case in point), so people are rightfully suspicious. Why would they suddenly change the pre-arranged, contracted terms in a way that clearly favours one of the players when no wrongdoing has been found? 

I don't think it is fair to compare chess with other sports, except to point out the lack of autorithy of the sporting body. This is not the case in other sports. Combined with the fact that in chess the title hasn't really been owned by the sporting body but by the title-holders, it only causes problems.

In my mind Geurt Gijssen is the referee, not the Committee.

We are not going to agree on this, so let's respectfully agree to disagree. 

Klick wrote on 09/30/06 at 14:41:07:


Well then, what judgement rendered by duly appointed arbiters, no matter how trivial its effect and no matter how objectively rendered, is NOT subject to second-guessing and hysterical hair-tearing over the effect it may have on someone's ability to play the rest of his games?  And is chess unique in this regard?  It isn't the only sport that involves the Test of Wills and which demands deep concentration, and yet participannts in these other sports manage to make progress without questioning the right of their respective referees actually to make rulings.   

It is one thing to argue with a referee's decision and say that it was unfair; it's really quite another to refuse to play until he changes it.

And assuming it is an on going conduct as the web page says, it can be on going during the game and 2 hrs limitatin still applies.

Klick wrote on 09/30/06 at 14:10:41:


Dear me, I must lack some moral faculty possessed by John Nunn, since I fail to see that this is a moral issue at all, still less one that clearly favors one side or the other.  I see only the necessity that chess matches, like other sporting competitions, be rule-governed; and that the decision of the referees, whatever the sport, must be final.  I see only that if a contestant refuses to play when the time for competition is at hand, he must stand forfeit.

The question of which one of these players is more beloved by FIDE is both a non sequitur and an implicit attack on FIDE.  Well fine, Nunn is entitled to his opinion that FIDE is evil and conspires against Kramnik, but such a belief is totally inconsistent with anyone's agreement that FIDE should govern this match in the first place.  Indeed if that is the case, FIDE should govern no chess competitions.  So wonderful, let's just flush FIDE down Kramnik's toilet and let Nunn, Kramnik and whoever else has a third eye that perceives Right and Wrong, govern world chess.  But if Nunn, Kramnik and others who possess this peculiar organ could see so clearly that FIDE was evil, why didn't they let the rest of us know about it before the start of this match?

And let us, dear friends, once again return to the question of proportionality.  There may be ethical principles at stake in anyone's bathroom privileges, but are they really so weighty as to warrant torpedoing a WC match in progress, with all the attendant damage to world chess that that entails?