Well, we’ve discussed that, haven’t we, but I think you are making a common mistake among sports people (as opposed to sports lawyers – which I’m not, by the way) in failing to grasp the significance of the contract in giving a sporting event meaning.

To take an obvious example, nothing in the laws of the game fixes the start time. That is determined by the conditions of contest, which are nothing more or less than a contract between the players and the organiser. If the organiser decrees that a game will start at midnight instead of the fixed time, you look at the contract. Has the player contracted to play under these circumstances or not? If the organiser has reserved the right to alter the start time, then the player has to turn up. If the organiser hasn’t, he can forfeit the player all he likes, but the player has contractual remedies.

The position here is analogous. The crucial thing is not what the laws of the game might say – you don’t turn up within an hour, that’s it – but whether the organiser was contractually entitled to demand that Kramnik play without a private bathroom. To all appearances the organiser was not so entitled. You say that in fact he was because it must have been intended that the Appeals Committee can alter the agreed conditions of contest. I find that notion far-fetched, but we’ve discussed it. Macropoulos used a different argument: he said that they had not changed the conditions of contest because the contract does not entitle the players to a private bathroom. This argument is very weak – it is clear that everyone thought that the words in question did mean that until it became convenient to Makropoulos to construe them differently.

But the point is that to say a loss by forfeit cannot be reversed is nonsense. The question is not one of the laws of the game but of whether FIDE is in breach of its contract to organise the match on certain terms. If they are, it is trite law that Kramnik is entitled to refuse to play.

IMJohnCox wrote on 10/03/06 at 10:17:51:


Since Kramnik voluntarily refused to sit down and play his opponent in the forfeited game, I think that his claim to the forfeited point will be an exceedingly difficult one to make.

Topalov’s better off than that, castlerock: he doesn’t just have draw odds; he has the bonus that even if he loses over the board by a single point, he still has the chance to win in rapids. Although I venture to predict that even if he does he’ll lose in a courtroom (absent the likely compromise of some kind). I certainly hope so.

As to the opening, I’d have thought Topalov has to try right-handed, doesn’t he? If he does go d4 though it will be interesting: will we see the Slav again, or will it be something else?

You wouldn't happen to have a reference link to that decision? The only mention I've seen is at TWIC: Quote:


Though it may not be bad for Kramnik at all, 3 blacks in a row may well be more than compensated by having white in both the first and especially the last game. Though I still don't see why FIDE made this change, they don't play every day anyway, so why would it matter if they had the same amount of whites after one rest day??

Yes. For a change. I had to give in, despite myself.  I thought 24.Rad1 was a very good move. But for this move, I thought, Black would have more than equalized and I would have guessed that Kramnik would have gone on to win the game! What with a thorough bind on white’s queenside pawns! But, no annotator seems to subscribe to my view. Perhaps, the advantage I thought of, was imaginary and 24.Rad1 is perhaps, normal at that level. 

BTW, call me anything you want, these are the types of games I love!

For game 7 either a novelty in e3 slav or 1.e4 would be my guess. So tomorrow we have Berlin or Petroff or Slav on cards with only one result. Draw.

BTW2, How much the world loves Kramnik’s draws now!

Could we have some chess talk please? 

Is 8...Bg6 really a good move? According to some on-line sources (http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3393 , http://e3e5.com/eng/petersburg/competitions/article.html?248 , http://chesspro.ru/match/ ) black seems to be fine throughout the game. Marin compares this line with the Berlin Ruy Lopez. Had the same thought myself.

What are your opening predictions for the next game?

a) Ne5 slav
b) e3 slav
c) 1.e4
d) other

I don't think three whites in a row now is such an asset for Topalov. 

First, he needs to regain objectivity and forget about the scandal, if he wants to calm down in such circumstances it's probably easier to take black and draw. Secondly, after testing both Slav 6. e3 and 6. Ne5, he has just only started to have a general idea of Kramnik's repertoire. Its probably too short period of time to find significant improvements which have not been predicted by Kramnik. I think spreading his Whites out over a few days will give his seconds more time.

I find it interesting that some argue (rightly or wrongly) that Kramnik should have played Game Five under protest rather than to forfeit the game.   

I am sure most would agree that had he chosen that path then his bathroom would probably have remained closed and the flawed appeals panel would have remained in place. 

I doubt Kramnik realistically expects Game Five to ever be played, anymore than the player who sacrifices material for positional gain expects to win back that  material by force in the short term. Nonethelss in the long term, the player expects a superior position on the board and eventual victory as a reward for his judgement.

Let's hope Kramnik has sufficient compensation for his positional sacrifice.