Martin Bennedik has interesting Chess Blog with coverage of the Kramnik-Topalov match, including some opening theory where he previews likely lines for upcoming games:

http://www.bennedik.de/

I agree with Klick that further toiletgate discussion belongs in the Tales from the Toilet... thread, if anywhere, but certainly not here.

Frankly I am growing quite tired of the discussion in this thread! People keep reiterating their views, something which they have done x times before.

We all know what your views are so please stop spamming the thread.

If you insist on continuing please move on to the 'tales from the toilet'-thread where it really belongs and let us keep this thread for discussing the games and other aspects of the match. I've given you a push by posting a translation of Sand's letter.

IMJohnCox wrote on 10/03/06 at 12:10:10:


Whether one should be put back in the position from the start is an issue i think. I don't think all legal systems agree on the extent of this.

Interestingly, chesspro.ru apparently have a letter from Morten Sand, FIDE's lawyer, to Ilyumzhinov, advising him that he and FIDE's Swiss lawyer agree that if the forfeit is reversed Topalov would be able to sue and that they run no risk from Kramnik. This suggests that the venue would be that sport court in Lausanne and the law Swiss law, which may make a difference or it may not.

I suppose I have three observations, speaking from my professional experience:

1. Never take a lawyer's published advice at face value. He will have given private advice also.

2. If this Sand was also the fellow who drew up the rules and regulations, one thing about which there can be no dispute is that he made a complete mess of that.

3.  Never trust someone who produces a lawyer's opinion instead of the contractual documents themselves. They may of course be subject to a confidentiality clause, but if so they shouldn't have been.

Either the letter or the report is incomplete, of course. He will also have had to advise whether the Appeals Committee had the power to do what it did, whether it acted in breach of the regulations governing the match (self-evidently it did) and what flows from that, and so on. Still, it looks as though Mr Sand agrees with Markovich and keano.

I'm coming into this late.... "as usual....."

Someone correct me if I'm wrong...   

Kramnik shows up to play and finds the private bathrooms off limit.  Then he refuses to continue the match.  The organizers/match official’s award a point to Topalov for Kramnik's forfeit of the day’s game.   

Match goes up in flames....negotiations ensue...  Match back on track.

I had a brief look at 10.Bxd4 before my last post Inn2. After for instance 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.a4 Bf5 6.Ne5 e6 7.f3 c5 8.e4 Bg6 9.Be3 cxd4 10.Bxd4 Nfd7 11.Nxc4 Nc6 12.Be3 Bb4 13.Nd6+ Kf8 



I very much doubt that the slight misplacement of Black's king is significant for the evaluation of the position. Black's development is better than white's and after a move by Nd7 something must be done about the white knight. ..Qh4+ is also an idea.

Alternatively 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.a4 Bf5 6.Ne5 e6 7.f3 c5 8.e4 Bg6 9.Be3 cxd4 10.Bxd4 Nfd7 11.Nxd7 Qxd7 12.Bxc4 Nc6 must also be nothing.



So I don't think 10.Bxd4 is any improvement.

Lets recap

1) Topalov team wants the video recordings of Kramnik’s rest room. Appeals Committee simply hands over the tape without consulting or informing Kramnik. Violation of Principle of Natural Justice.

2) Topalov team makes a complaint that Kramnik’s conduct is not above board, on the day after the 4th game. It was an official protest and the appeal fee of $5000 was paid by Topalov & Co. Even Markovich will not deny it. The protest is bad in law and hence null and void, since it was not made within two hours as stipulated by the tournament rules. (Surely, Kramnik’s pissing habits in his cottage cannot be considered “On going conduct”, can it?) AC has clearly acted ultra vires. It doesn’t take rocket science to understand this. Because of this simple fact, a court action will favour Kramnik.

3) Kramnik was asked to explain his conduct, but the judgment upholding the appeal was unilateral without discussion with Kramnik. Again violation of natural justice and ultra vires.

4) Any unilateral change in the playing conditions or staying conditions contrary to what is provided in the contract makes it voidable in the hands of the aggrieved party or makes it redressable in the hands of the aggrieved party. What Macro guy said about toilet implying common toilet is pure BS. With the same analogy we can say coffee in rest room can imply coffee bean and not necessarily drinkable coffee. FIDE acting thro its AC has clearly committed a breach of contract.

5) There upon Kramnik gave a written complaint regarding breach of contract which was pending disposal when the clock was started. Usual concept of bowing to authority does not work here. Mark Crowther also has Marcovich’s opinion that sitting out is wrong which is flawed. Inzaman-Ball tampering is sited as an analogy. This is flawed since match condition was not altered at the beginning of a game. The point is, if in a new game Inzamam was given a 10 ounce ball and was asked start the game and if he chose to sit out, I think game score would have been cancelled in International Arbitration. This may well be Kramnik’s case should he choose to contest.

6) Finally saying that he has not protested in writing within two hrs, is sheer madness, imnsho. It is the very contract Kramnik was contesting at that point. Where is the question of following one sub clause?

John - this may change your legal opinion, according to Malcolm Pein :

Quote:


To a non-legal man like myself this would seem to give him no case whatsoever in regards to the the forfeit (forget the moral issues here, I am just trying to get the whole thing straight). What do you think? It would seem that Kramnik must have taken some legal advice before deciding to continue....