It’s a three-way contract. FIDE is obliged to organise the match on certain conditions. If it fails to organise one game on those conditions – and to me it seems self-evident that it has – then both players have remedies against FIDE. FIDE’s default, and indeed its mistaken impression that it has properly organised game five, cannot give Topalov any rights against Kramnik. It might give him some claim in damages against FIDE – extra expenses and so on – but assuming that game five was not organised in accordance with the conditions of contest, that’s an end of the matter.

Funnily enough, I don’t think corruption has come into it for once. Judging by Macropoulos’ own comments, the guy was trying to do his best and is simply out of his depth. No surprise there.

Total draw now, but it will be interesting to see who offers and when. I imagine Kramnik's thoughts are already turning to the Champions League. Big game for him - very easy hold.

Hmm a bishop endgame. Looks rather drawish

IMJohnCox wrote on 10/02/06 at 13:20:23:


With respect, I don't think I'm missing the point. The physical match conditions were not the only things that were agreed to.  The parties also agreed to be bound by the decisions of the arbiters if certain kinds of complaints were made, among which were complaints regarding the conduct of the players.  I am not an attorney, but it seems to me quite reasonable that this envisions remedies that would indeed alter some of the contract provisions.  If you go up on the thread you will see that there is someone who is an attorney who thinkds that this is the case.

To me it seems particularly relevant that the adjustment to the playing conditions that was called for in the decision is one that is arguably appropriate as a remedy to the complaint.  Also, I believe that most reasonable people will say that it is a comparatively minor adjustment.  It is not as if the arbiters adjusted the prize money.   

I read your earlier remark that if the forfeited point becomes decisive, Kramnik should sue under contract law.  In spite of my lack of legal expertise, in light of the foregoing points, I very much doubt that he would prevail. 

Keano wrote on 10/02/06 at 13:30:51:

I think White still has a slight edge, but Kramnik should have no problem holding the position — and if Topalov presses too hard he might even "give back" his free point (I hope, but don't really expect).  I think a draw is likely, even if Kamnik might have to work for it.

24.Rad1!? could there be some life here...

TopNotch wrote on 10/02/06 at 13:14:17:

Is Topalov psychologically stable?  Methinks there may be eveidence which hints to the contrary.

I'm happy to see game 6 started and that Kraminik has near universal support and Topalov near univeral condemnation from virtually everyone with any status in the chess world (as well as from the vast majority of the rest of us).

I'd also be happy to see Topalov start losing invitations to major tournaments, but of course this will not happen.

For the moment I will be glad to see Topalov suffer a total meltdown in the match, which may well have a chance of happening.

In game 6, I think Topalov maybe had a bit of an edge early but this edge appears to have vanished.  After a draw (loss would be even nicer) in game 6, what's next for the Topalov/Dainilov chimera?

Mortal Games wrote on 10/01/06 at 22:01:17:


Why?  The time for the game was at hand, the clock was started, and Kramnik never touched a piece.  The clock ran out.  In my book, that's a forfeit.  My position would be the same if Topalov had been the one refusing to play.

I do not defend Topalov at all; certainly not "for dubious reasons."  I defend the principle that sporting matches must be goverened by rule, and that the decisions of duly appointed arbiters must be final.  If that is "junk" as my dear friend TopNotch alleges, then not only this match, but world chess itself is in the toilet.

For a great many here, the dominant consideration seems to be the alleged heinousness of Topalov's complaint.  Well, perhaps it is heinous; that is something upon which I do not comment, because the procedures for dealing with complaints can hardly take cognizance of speculations of motive.  The only valid questions for the arbiters (and for those who would put themselves in their place) are, does the complaint have a reasonable basis, and does it require a remedy.  Personally as I have said, I think there is indeed some reason to suspect that a chess player who makes an unusual number of trips to the bathroom during his games may be cheating.  I do not allege that Kramnik was cheating, only that Topalov's complaint -- however heinous and worthy of contempt it may or may not be -- had a reasonable basis.

Now as to the remedy.  Many here have emphasized that it was not within the power of the arbiters to alter the match terms.  Yet there are those, some with legal expertise, who have read the relevant documents and concluded otherwise.  Whatever one may think on this point, it is not as if reasonable people cannot disagree about it.  It is not as if the decision of the arbiters was, on its very face and beyond question, a gross offense either to common decency or the literal match terms.  I doubt there is anyone who will argue the contrary AND say honestly that he is not among those who condemns Topalov for making a heinous complaint.

I think indeed that there are many here who have conceived an utter contempt for Topalov for his supposedly foul complaint, and for whom this contempt precludes objective reasoning on these other, much more relevant, points.  It is quite amazing to me that my views are in such a minority here, but I attribute this mostly to hysterical resentment of Topalov's supposedly underhanded blow.  One of the things that reinforces my view in that regard is that there is so much hair-tearing over such a trivial question as bathroom privileges.

Finally I will avow that I never cared in the slightest which one of these players won this match; and further that if Topalov were the one who had refused to play rather than recognize the authority of the arbiters, I would be just as condemning of him as I am of Kramnik. 

I hope the match continues.  If it does, it should be with a score of 3-2 and with Topalov as White.