Maybe this has already been asked and answered, but the Rules and Regulations are different from the contract signed by each player, right? If so, soes anyone have a copy of the contract that we can read? 

SL

Sorry, I think I misunderstood you. On the contrary, I don't see that a judge can order a replay of the match. The innocent party is entitled to be put in the position he would have been in if the contract had been properly performed. It gets a bit murky at this point owing to Kramnik's decision to play on under protest and everyone else's decision to accept that position. An obvious order to make is that the match continue from the start of game five with the score 3-1 Kramnik, but some would say that wasn't fair if Topalov has got it back to say 6-5 Kramnik on the board. Or indeed even if Topalov's won 6-5 on the board Kramnik's still been robbed of a White game.

I wouldn't rule out a court simply declaring Kramnik the champion (assuming he establishes his case) if he's won 6-5 on the board and lost in the rapids. But you'd think they'd order the missing game replayed, I suppose. Now that could be a tense one.

I know this is not new.  I've also seen the rejected compromise (quote below from teh Daily Dirt Chess Blog) mentioned earlier in this or the Kramnik-Topalov match thread.  

from http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/2006/10/no_game_sunday.htm

Quote:


While I agree that Kramnik's best (safest) course would have been to play game 5 under protest, it seems to me that if the 3-1 and 14 games compromise was actually offered to Kramnik it weakens the case that the forfeit point must stand.  IMO the legal issue regarding the forfeit is nowhere near as clear cut as has been suggested by some people here unless, of course, the abovementioned compromise was never officially offered to Kramnik.

Katar - you might be interested in 

http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/2006/10/kramniktopalov_g8.htm

(you may already have seen this). I have been sounding off just lately as rdh (right towards the bottom of the thread). I don't suppose what I have to say takes the discussion much beyond the one we had on this thread, but you might be interested.

It's amazing the amount of drivel lay people can find to post about this, but in the end I think there are two quite simple questions only:

1. Was the Appeals Committee empowered by the regulations to change the playing conditions in the light of 3.18.3 and the contractual provision that each player should have a toilet?

2. If not, was Kramnik contractually entitled to refuse to play game five until the matter was rectified, or alternatively did the evident procedural improprieties of the AC justify him in demanding a postponement (I don't know if he did or not)?

We both know what we each think about these, but are there any other points? Do you agree with me that the whole protest question is a red herring?

3.23.1 does interest me though. It could surely be said that the AC exceeding its powers was an unforeseen event? And if so Ilyumzhinov could intervene and order game five replayed, do you not think? I imagine that was what Sand had in mind when he said FIDE would then be sued by Topalov, but I don't quite see how. It would mean admitting formally the AC had blundered, but so what? If they hadn't blundered Topalov would never have got the free point anyway, so I don't see he could say on causation grounds that he'd been damaged by losing it.

It is evident that the regulations are abysmally drafted, but it also seems to me that, at any rate on record, Kramnik has not been brilliantly served by his lawyer. But of course the very notion of people sitting down instructing lawyers - I am sure we both know how stressful that is - when they should be preparing for the games of their lives illustrates forcefully how abominably Topalov has behaved and how disgraceful it was that FIDE didn't throw this protest straight in the bin and fine Topalov.

Katar, you'll have seen this?

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3406

Macieja talks with a little more sense than Seirawan, but still we don't get anywhere near the heart of the matter.

Any reactions to Yasser's latest "important document"???
http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3398

Personally i think he is quite clearly off the mark. (again)

Yaz says:
{QUOTE}The Appeals Committee is there to consider protests regarding decisions by the Chief Arbiter.
....
The Chairman of the Appeals Committee, Georgios Makropoulos, agreed to receive the complaint. Given that Danailov’s complaint did not concern a decision by the Chief Arbiter, Makropoulos should have had nothing to do with it and should simply have referred the matter to the Match Director.{/QUOTE}

But see the contract itself at 3.17.1:

"The Committee may decide on the following matters:

a) an appeal against a decision by an arbiter,
b) a protest against a player's behaviour,
c) a complaint alleging false interpretation of the regulations,
d) a request for the interpretation of specific regulations,
e) a protest or complaint against any participant, or
f) all other matters which the Committee considers important."

Clearly, the Appeals Committee is not limited to hearing "a) an appeal against a decision by an arbiter", because subpoint A is disjoined from subpoints B, E, and F. (Note the word, "OR".)

Subpoint (b) specifically authorizes the Appeals COmmittee to hear and act on ("within 2 hours"!) a "protest against a player's behaviour"-- to say nothing of subpoint F!  Seems pretty clear-cut to me.

GMs support Vladimir Kramnik 

03.10.2006 During the turmoil surrounding the World Championship in Elista we have been receiving record numbers of letters – over 300 from our readers yesterday alone. These are being edited and formatted, but in the meantime we bring you a few expressing support for their colleague, written by well-known grandmasters. 


Open letter of support to Vladimir Kramnik 
Monday 2nd of October 2006 

Dear Vladimir, 

Through absolutely no fault of your own, you have suffered the consequences of an unprecedented combination of unethical behaviour from your opponent and glaring incompetence, for lack of a stronger word, on the part of the Appeals Committee. 

In spite of evidently unfair treatment, which has not only resulted in your being forfeited one game, but also being subjected to petty attacks and ridiculous accusations from the opposing camp, you have agreed to continue the match for the sake of reunifying the chess world. This is a very impressive decision. It testifies to your remarkable sense of honour and is worthy of your true status of World Champion. 

Regardless of the final result of this match you have earned the deepest respect of your fellow Grandmasters and colleagues as well as countless chess fans around the world. Thank you for being a model sportsman in a time and place where so many circumstances turned against you. You deserve to win. 

With unfailing support, 

GM Joel Lautier (France) 
IM Almira Skripchenko (France) 
GM Viktor Korchnoi 
GM Laurent Fressinet 
GM Nigel Short 
GM Alexandra Kosteniuk 
GM Pavel Tregubov 
GM Pentala Harikrishna 
GM Yannick Pelletier 
WGM Sophie Milliet 
GM Lev Alburt 
WIM Anna Hahn 
GM Rustam Dautov 
GM Yasser Seirawan 
GM Emanuel Berg 
GM Helmut Pfleger 
WIM Olena Boytsun 
GM Vladimir Barksij 
GM Bartlomiej Macieja 
IM Maxim Notkin 
GM Alexander Baburin 
GM Tony Kosten 
GM Alexander Khalifman (Russia) 



And the following two by email: 


 

Dear ChessBase, 

I fully support Kramnik's position in this conflict and happy that he decided to continue the match even under such circumstances. At the same time I'm surprised that Topalov took this point. I believe it even decreased his chances to catch up with Vladimir who now has a clear psychological advantage and support of all world. 

Best regards, 
GM Victor Mikhalevski, 
Israel, 3.10.2006 


 

Dear Mr. Kramnik, 

I am very impressed by your fight for a right cause and by your great sportsmanship in agreeing to continue the match from 3:2. 

The title of World Champion should be earned on the chessboard. Having accepted that point, which he has not won on merit, V. Topalov has lost the moral right to call himself World Chess Champion. All that remains is for you to prove your superiority and win the match despite the point which was stolen from you. The world of chess desreves an honest champion. Numerous grandmasters, chessplayers and chessfriends around the world are now rooting for you to win and become the Absolute World Champion. 

I am sure that you will manage to play your best and will not let them down. 

Best of Luck, 
GM Ram Soffer, 
Israel, 03.10.2006