John - Gordon McQueen scored a "hand of god" goal for Man Utd in the FA cup final many years ago - he went off celebrating with the team as if it was a great goal....but...the referee had spotted it and it was disallowed. I think you are giving the Brits a bit too much credit for fair-play.

On Maradona, for me the man is a legend - the drugs cocktail episode is a black mark but he was already over-the-hill by then really and unfortunately his life seems to be riddled with drugs. Nevertheless I have never witnessed a player like him in my lifetime (I am too young to have seen or compared him with Pele)

Willempie, you're missing my point about British football tactics; they're not saintly at all but they're different. Like any game football has its rules and its unwritten rules, the latter are much the more important and vary significantly from place to place. Vinnie Jones and many other people are dirty as hell, quite prepared to squeeze opponent's testicles, and all the rest, but they would never fake injury: this is one thing British footballers and crowds will not stand for. It's not a question of morality; they would simply consider it soft and demeaning.

And the hairpull too is different; this is a means of fighting for the ball, and Crouch like any professional has his dirty ways of doing that. I still maintain that you won't see British players attempting the full-on Hand of God routine. I've never seen it and I've been watching British football religiously for thirty years.

IMJohnCox wrote on 10/06/06 at 11:20:36:

Kramnik himself did it at the press conference of one of the 1st few games, saying something like I am not answering about the first 20 moves. I think they are only obliged to hold a press conference, not obliged to answer any sort of question.

IMJohnCox wrote on 10/06/06 at 10:40:59:

He is mainly (or rather only) reviled by the English. My point was that with "the hand of god" he cheated. Yet by almost all he is considered one of the very best players ever and still very much admired even with the occassional punter about his drugs use. The goalie of England in that game is all but forgotten by all except some English football experts.
Quote:

Firstly I disagree on the subject of South Americans football mentality. Brits are just as prone to these kind of things. Just watch a Vince Jones video or Crouch' hairhandling against Trinidad
Quote:

On every occasion when asked about the match or about the game he downplays the effort he would need. That is what I mean with the "psychological warfare".

Scholar, I agree that Kramnik has been on balance slightly outprepared in this match, yes. It is interesting that should be so, too. Perhaps only slightly, certainly in the last two games a bit. Before that I suppose you would say that six was a success for Kramnik, in four he at least defused Topalov's novelty. The two Catalans were about equal, and in two no-one really triumphed theoretically; you could say that Topalov did pretty well against Kramnik's new move. But then theory is always Topalov's strength, and in the past reacting well and critically to novelties has been one of Kramnik's. Perhaps with computers so strong these days that particular policy is simply no longer possible?

Keano - I know what you mean that Kramnik is making a mistake by getting into this. I don't know what the contractual position is about press conferences - I didn't know they were allowed to confine questions. If I were the sponsor I wouldn't have that, but of course Kirsan does what he likes. Certainly though it's good tactics for Topalov to be shielded from it.

But you do have to consider the character of the two. Kramnik is an intelligent, articulate individual who is accustomed to speak for himself, to have opinions and control his own destiny. Topalov by his own account is a kind of idiot savant who leaves everything to his manager, leaves preparation largely to Cheparinov, and directs everything towards playing. Moreover, Kramnik's integrity and his life's work are being impugned whereas Topalov's aren't. It's very, very hard for Kramnik not to react, and he may be doing the right thing. He knows the journalists will be sympathetic, and he may find it better talking about it than not talking about it.

But to be sure it must be terribly distracting. I really don’t see how he can play at all: he must be sick of the game, angry at his opponent, furious at the officials and in no state to play properly. As I’ve said, if he wins it will be the biggest feat in the history of these matches. That’s why these accusations are so unfair and why any decent administration would have stamped on it immediately, offered Kramnik a timeout if he wanted it and fined Topalov the maximum possible percentage of his match fee for unsportsmanlike behaviour, but we’ve kinda been there, I guess.

It’s much worse than Baguio: there at least it was possible to suppose that Karpov was drawing support from Zoukhar rather than trying to attack Korchnoi, and the yogurt protest was really by way of a joke.

Keano, yes of course he was outplayed. Overpressing is being outplayed. I'm not sure what distinction you're making.

But as Rowson would say, a blunder is never just a blunder. I think it's fairly clear where the psychological roots of this particular defeat lay.

Markovich, I'm afraid I do discount the idea of a complaint in good faith, yes. 

First, while one might initially be prepared to believe it was in good faith, the no handshaking press release, and the subsequent Fritz press release, make this impossible. No serious person could take the 78% stuff remotely seriously.

Second, there are a million innocent reasons why a person might want to retreat from the TV cameras at such a stressful time. Repeated access to the loo is not in my opinion in the slightest bit suspicious.

Third, it is abundantly apparent from the moves that Kramnik is not receiving computer help. Computers play six-man positions perfectly and instantly. In game two Kramnik let the win slip in a (very difficult) six-man position. In game 3, 17 Ne4 is suggested more or less instantly by the computer and is clearly best. This was one move after Kramnik was supposed to have spent a lot of time in the loo, according to the protest itself.

Fourth, the security arrangements were agreed before the match. The metal detectors, the anti-radio measures, the prevention of outside access to the toilet windows, and so on. If there was to be any kind of limit on the bathroom visits, this was the time to mention it.

Fifth, the Bulgarian team could have had no conceivable reason for suspicion if they had not obtained the tapes which they should not have had. There was clearly culpable procedural impropriety even before the complaint was made.

Sixth, the complaint contained an outright lie which has now flown round the world in the traditional manner before the truth can get its boots on (the 50-visits lie, which still appears in any discussion with non-players).

Seventh, Topalov himself has said that he does not think Kramnik is cheating. Then his team release this Fritz nonsense.

Eighth, the complaint could clearly have been couched in different terms if there was genuine concern and the object was truly prevention rather than destabilisation - eliminating the possibility, appearances paramount in the light of the interest and significance of the match, that sort of thing. Instead it was clearly written in such a way as to incense Kramnik to the maximum extent, and incidentally drag the game through the mud in the public eye.

I could go on, but that will do. I cannot accept that Topalov's team protested in good faith, no.