All right, I think I have to write my opinion, once and for all, on things that happened 12 years ago in my match vs. Short. Needless to say, since memory is selective and facts can be skewed to support anyone's position, people will have to draw conclusions for themselves. What I am going to do is just to post the way I saw things develop at a time.

Ok, since all candidates matches were played at same time, there were two pairs on the stage. Adams vs. Anand and Kamsky vs. Short. If I remember correctly, I won first 3 games which happened without incident. I get sick, something that happened rare back then, the night before the 4th game. I play black and get worse position, in addition to having cough, headache and wooziness. Next thing I hear is Short telling to drink a glass of water to suppress my cough or to do something about it. I lose all concentration and am now more concerned about stiffling my cough than thinking about the game. Needless to say that game I lost. Now this is where it all starts. Look at this from this point of view. Nigel Short, former challenger for the title of world champion, played for many years, including numerous matches. Do you really think he didn't know that rules exist which prevent talking between players during the course of the game and that you have to ask the arbiter in order to communicate something to your opponent? It's laughable to suggest that he didn't know. 

Therefore, the only conclusion one can draw is that Nigel did that on purpose in order to inflict psychological attack on me, to disturb my concentration (which any top player will tell you is the most important thing to play well at high level) and he succeeded. I lost that game basically without putting up a fight. Also during the course of the game, Nigel was walking back and forth to the restroom area which was accessible by other candidates and was seen talking or at least exchanging some words with Anand. I don't care if it was a simple hello. Such attitude only shows total disrespect to your opponent and provocation as part of the psychological warfare off the chess board. Every little factor that makes an effect on your opponent's vital concentration during the game is crucial to the result of the game and possible rest of the games in the match. I never used such psychological tricks myself and never plan on doing so. 

The only thing I could do and what I did was to tell my father about the incident. I am sure I don't have to explain the kind of feeling you can get when you've lost as a result of someone's provocation or a violation of rules and when such result cannot be overturned regardless of how right you are. My father indeed had a quick temper and it caused him to speak with Nigel that same evening, and the words that were said was an over-reaction and I am sorry my father happened to over-react in such way. Nigel obviously wasn't such a helpless sheep, as the police was soon called and took my father for the questioning. My father later was ordered not to show up in the tournament hall for the duration of the match, and it was complied with. 

However, and I want to stress this point, this entire mess was started and caused by Nigel himself, when he realized that match could not be won by chess means and started resorting to psychological tricks. Obviously Mr. Short didn't expect the response he received, but "what you reap is what you saw" is, I believe, an old proverb and it perfectly applies in this case. 

All this other stuff about being responsible for your entire delegation is just a cover for what is obviously a severe blow to Nigel's personal ego of losing match. 

As for my short sentences during the chat, I felt that it was time to forget about things long in the past and wanted to avoid the confrontation with Nigel. I came to playchess to watch the game, because ICC server relayer went down and imagine my surprise when Nigel started throwing insults at me. It is very easy to hide behind the keyboard and throw accusations, however I don't intend to passively ignore such challenges to my honor, hence my proposal to settle the dispute in the time honored and traditional way. 
I rest my case. 

Posted by: Gata Kamsky at October 10, 2006 22:19

Katar: I don't see this section conferring almighty powers on the AC. The section says they can consider protests about a wide range of things, certainly, but it doesn't say what powers they have at all. These have to be implied.

I'm not sure what exactly 'dispositive' means, but if it means that if Kramnik doesn't win issue 1 he's lost then I agree.

I find it very difficult to follow your notion that because the protest doesn't mention the facilities (you surely agree that facilities includes toilets and comes within 'conditions', no?) it can be entertained, and that the AC can then do what they couldn't do on a direct protest.

In other words (as I understand you) you think the position is this: if the protest had said 'We don't think the toilet facilities are satisfactory because Mr Kramnik is entitled to go in there whenever he likes and they could be wired. Please change the facilities.' it would have been tossed straight out under 3.18.3. On the other hand, because the protest actually says, 'Mr Kramnik goes to his contractually agreed private loo a lot and we think he could be cheating in there', this entitles the committee to close the loo.