The 12th world champion comments on the situation in the Kramnik-Topalov match
[The interview took place before it was known that Kramnik would play game six] 

Karpov: I would like to say that the problems Illumzhinov is wrestling with are of his own making. This is because in recent times, serving on an appeals committee has become a reward for past services rendered. But in reality, this is a job for specialists, who have proven themselves to be above reproach. In my day, the procedure for appointing members of an appeals committee was as follows: the international federation presented a list of five people, with suitable qualifications; and the participants each listed them in order of preference. Each was given points, and the ones who got the most, went onto the committee.

And there were no protests?

There were protests. But the Appeals Committee was comprised of people who could be trusted, and were of unimpeachable reputation. And specialists, naturally. There is no need to speak of Azmaiparashvili, and particularly of his reputation. Thanks to the fact that the players were given no say in the matter, you end up with “operators” like him on the committee. Work on this committee is paid, and paid very well, so of course, there are lots of people wanting the job. But only those who are reliable and deserving should get it. It seems clear that Illumzhinov realised that they had messed up, but he was unable to clear up all of the mess. And if Kramnik continues the match, it means that they have simply stolen a point from him.

Perhaps Kramnik’s team did not do things quite right? They could have protested before the game.

In general, frankly speaking, I do not understand all of these goings-on, but it is perfectly clear that the Bulgarian delegation wanted to disturb Kramnik’s equanimity, and thereby to try to improve their chances. They have succeeded. They got a point illegally. I don’t know how this has affected Kramnik’s morale, but it can hardly have helped. I would say that they used immoral methods. It would perhaps be difficult to sue anyone over this, although I think it could be possible to do so successfully, all the more so considering that Illumzhinov, as President, has the power to overrule the Appeals Committee. If he can overrule their first decision, and dismiss them, then that means he can overrule their subsequent decisions also. If their first decision is illegal, that means so was their second.

Illumzhinov said that legally, the score has to be 3:2...

He got himself into this mess, and getting out of it is not simple. Of course, whatever you do, one side or the other will be unhappy. If one speaks of the moral side of it, I don’t understand how Topalov can continue to play on with such a burden. I could not. But as far as Topalov is concerned, everything is great – he took a shot and seized his chance!

If you were in Kramnik’s place, would you play on?

I would not continue the match.

Interview by Oleg Pervakov in 64 Review 

I am getting a bit tired of this talk of Topalov as a low life and what have you. We dont know the full story - I agree his manager seems a bit of a snake.

Anyway they have shook hands at the beginning of this game, hopefully there can be no more nastiness in the match and we can concentrate on the chess.

TopNotch - it is all very well these GM´s think the score is wrong but as I said they are living in a cloud cuckoo land if they think they can turn back time now - the game has already happened. I know John Cox has come on here and said different, but I am a simple man and it just makes no sense - the game has transpired already. I´m not sure Kramnik fully thought through the consequences of his sit-in but we have to all remember to put things into proportion. Topalov is not an evil low-life, Kramnik is not a saint, we are in a match and by some miracle it is going to continue now!

I am getting a bit tired of this talk of Topalov as a low life and what have you. We dont know the full story - I agree his manager seems a bit of a snake.

Anyway they have shook hands at the beginning of this game, hopefully there can be no more nastiness in the match and we can concentrate on the chess.

TopNotch - it is all very well these GM´s think the score is wrong but as I said they are living in a cloud cuckoo land if they think they can turn back time now - the game has already happened. I know John Cox has come on here and said different, but I am a simple man and it just makes no sense - the game has transpired already. I´m not sure Kramnik fully thought through the consequences of his sit-in but we have to all remember to put things into proportion. Topalov is not an evil low-life, Kramnik is not a saint, we are in a match and by some miracle it is going to continue now!

Hello, i did post just now that i think Topalov played a little wimply today. 10. Bxd4 trying to preserve queens would be more combative, but maybe Topalov doesn't want to fight.
Kramnik's innovation 8... Bg6 is interesting. He isn't afraid to play with the "bad" bishop on g6.. this is slightly surprising and goes against conventional wisdom. Around move 20 Seirawan on playchess commented White's light squared bishop on c4 was just as bad as Black's Bg6. Quite perceptive.

Some blogger does say that on the link you posted, but I can’t follow him at all. The notion that the Appeals Committee can overrule a clear contractual provision which says that certain things cannot be altered just has no conceivable basis to me.

To be sure there is jurisdiction to entertain a complaint about Kramnik’s behaviour. But how one leaps from that to deciding that the AC could change the conditions of contest is quite beyond me, especially when the contract specifically says that they cannot. Are you not making the very mistake you decry – saying that you think, and you think most people would think, it was a fair, proportionate, etc, response. Maybe it was, and maybe it wasn’t, but that’s not the point. The point is that it was something the AC were not entitled, indeed explicitly forbidden, by the rules to do, and the result was game five was never organised under the agreed conditions.

The expression ‘remedies which indeed alter some of the contract provisions’ speaks for itself to an English lawyer. Nothing (except fraud, illegality, etc) can alter the contractual provisions; all the AC can do is carry them into effect.

To be fair, if Kramnik does sue heaven knows what law it will be under, so what I or any other English lawyer would think probably doesn’t matter very much.