Kramnik’s objection was based on lots of other things besides 3.18.3, all of which Gijssen doesn’t discuss. Indeed it’s not clear he’s even seen the contract itself (and why should he have?).

Interesting he says he was waiting for a letter from Ilyumzhinov before game five. That’s exactly what I thought he should have done. I don’t think that letter’s been made public, nor indeed the fact of its existence.

He doesn’t say anything about when the tapes were released, when he found out about it, and when it stopped.

I guess arbiters are like judges. You get law men and merits men, as we call them. Gijssen clearly is a law man, and as usual with law men clearly cannot formally be criticised, especially since it’s apparent that Ilyumzhinov was given the option of exercising his power under 3.23 and decided not to. (at least I assume that's what he was doing; one hopes this power was called to his attention) In some situations however a merits man can achieve better results. If Lord Denning had been the arbiter I don’t think this would have happened.

As katar will know, most rules allow for following to the letter in anumber of different directions. That's why he and I are able to eke out a living.

One thing I do agree with GG about strongly: Seirawan owes him an apology.

Yes the same article is in Chess Cafe as well - http://www.chesscafe.com/geurt/geurt.htm

Of course he is quite correct in that he followed the rules and there was in fact some behind the scenes activity I didnt know about also. I thought earlier he could have showed a bit more common sense rather than following the rulebook completely, but I suppose from his point of view it is unfair to criticise him - the real problems were not of his making but led from the appeals committee decision.

'Let us not talk about sad things'.

In the interests of "playing nice" and unification, I hope he drops it.  He gained more than he could have expected from this match-- he won outright under difficult (hostile?) circumstances and gained a ton of goodwill and respect.  Even hero-worship at times, too.  VK may even find new avenues for product endorsements...   

That being said, VK is entitled to his day in court if he wishes.  While his suit is legally available, it may not be good for chess.  (The same is my opinion of the original bathroom protest.)  If there is a suit, at least it will be between FIDE and Kramnik, not Topalov*.  That means no more Danailov and his open letters, yay.

*I think Kramnik would need a theoretical novelty to sue Topa here....

OstapBender wrote on 10/11/06 at 12:40:43:


ChessPub, hehe 
thanks, cheers, i live in australia, and well you know, aussies do love their beer, probably a bit too much for many 

cherry wrote on 10/11/06 at 10:07:18:

Welcome to the ChessPub cherry!  

And then there were his annotations in New in Chess, when referring to Timman, he wrote : "[...] ageing, embittered, alcohol-sodden co-editor-in chief".
Doesn't come across as a very pleasant fellow... 
But of course, Kamsky senior is a notoriously insufferable thug, along the same lines as the Williams sisters' father.

well what can you expect from short, he is a idiot, and a ugly one to boot ..