Okay folks, I know it's hard to look at this reasonably when we're likely all rooting for one player or the other. Let's look at the most pertinent facts, and no more name calling, please

According to the rules and regulations of the match:

3.17) ...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.

...The written decision of the Appeals Committee arising from any dispute in respect of these regulations shall be final.

3.2) Mr. Topalov – together with Mr. Kramnik – shall inspect the playing hall in the presence of all three members of the Committee and representative of the Organiser two (2) days before the first game of the WCC at 3.00 p.m. The local organisation as well as the Committee shall use all reasonable endeavours to satisfy the reasonable requests of the players in relation to the playing hall. In the event of a dispute between the Players as to the condition and suitability of the playing hall the Committee’s majority shall decide about such dispute. Their decision shall be final and binding.

#1 Should the committee have ruled on the complaint? 
It certainly falls within rule 3.17 b and f. 

#2 Does the ruling extend logically from the available evidence and the complaint?
According to the appeals committee's own ruling "In the appeal there is an exaggeration of the number of times that Mr. Kramnik visited the toilet. Despite there being an unusual number of visits, this is insufficient on its own to come to a conclusion." I would assume that a ruling of no change would follow such a statement. However, both players' bathrooms were closed and consolidated into a single, new bathroom.

#3 Does the ruling contradict previous rules?
No. The players were allowed to examine the playing accomodations prior to the start of the match, which is when this issue ideally would have come to the front. However, these issues were not explicitly excluded from being revisited, so the appeals committee certainly had the right to rule on this.

To sum up, the appeals comittee was right to consider the appeal and to give a ruling, however the ruling, by their own admission, has no evidentiary foundation. I can only assume that their decision was based on the wording before the decisions were listed:  "In order that the World Championship can continue running smoothly, the Appeals Committee has decided..."

i.e. In order to prevent topalov from leaving, we are allowing one of his demands. (Demand #2) 

For better or worse, this is what we now have. I suspect that Kramnik will now leave the match and we'll be worse than where we began.

StuntLinguist

P.S. Markovich - if my opponent had a private bathroom in a weekend tournament that was regularly checked for electronic and other forms of cheating and he wandered in and out 50 times, I certainly wouldn't complain. Especially if I knew he had recently recovered from a disabling arthritic disease of his spine and likely couldn't stand to sit in one place for a long time.

I  actually don't think that the Topalov-team seriously believes Drawnik is cheating.
But that this is pure psychological warfare. And as such it is not an opening offensive but
a fierce counterattack.
Kramnik started a psychological attack at Topalov in the press conference after the fourth
game. He poked some fun at Topalov's expense. He told the press, in the presence of Topalov,
that he hardly needed to concentrate, had ample time to think about the Champion League, and had an easy draw all the time. Now there was no need to belittle his oponent in this way.
In my view another statement of Topalov's team confirms this connection:
Topalov will no longer appear together with Kramnik at press conferences.
Next Question: If the Toilet incident was so annoying in the third game, 
why wait till the fifth game to protest, and not protest before the fourth game?

For Kramnik it is of course unpleasant that he is implicitly accused of cheating.
But he can resolve the situation in two ways:
If it is indeed a match taktik he can give it up and agree to a  compromise.
If it is connected with a medical condition or with the medicines he takes, he can give medical evidence to the tournament physician.

As an afterthought: The WC  chess match has suddenly got a double meaning 

Of course, I see Markovich's final point. But "this bathroom thing" is a rather more complex thing than the phrase suggests. It's not just a question of whether each player has his own toilet or shares one -- the fact is, Topalov has effectively insinuated that Kramnik is a cheat, and here I absolutely do not agree with Willempie.

Another issue here is K.'s possible medical issues/realities. Have these been properly established, and if not, why not? Can any of us know enough here to be able to make a judgement?

Markovich: If i'm not mistaken, the law virtually everywhere is: a judge enforces agreements, not rewrites them for the parties. But i can understand your argument about the sporting point of view. Anyway i do think Kramnik slightly overreacted but this is a necessary psychological tactic, no ground should be conceded to the opponent in such a tense match.

btw Kirsan just responded (see official website). basically stating that he supports the Appeals Committee...

I dont' really know what's going to happen next...

lnn2 wrote on 09/29/06 at 16:17:19:


Well, this is a 'legal' question, since the match terms presumably specify, to some extent, the authority of the arbiters.  I would be surprised if the aribiters exceeded their authority.  Is Kramnik saying that they did?  From a sporting viewpoint, there is also a question of proportion here.  The arbiters didn't change the playing conditions, the round schedule, or the prize money.  The changes they made appear to address the complaint fairly narrowly.  I'm a little surprised everyone is so incensed by their decision.   

Ever been a TD?  It's very easy to issue a ruling that makes someone go ballistic, no matter how fair you try to be.  And it's very easy to mock a ruling when one is not fully aware of the facts upon which it's based.

hmm valid point there. But it seems Kramnik is also disputing the removal of conditions agreed on beforehand by the players.. ie. the toilet and live monitors (the managers personally went to Elista early to inspect the place and agree on the conditions). There is something of merit in that argument no? that one should not change these conditions already agreed upon by all parties? I'm not sure if the Appeals Committee can change such an agreement...?! I thought that a judge's job is to enforce agreements, not rewrite them for the parties.

lnn2 wrote on 09/29/06 at 15:44:00:



An exaggerated claim is not necessarily a false, improper or even unjust claim.  "Lie" is a strong term to apply to a statement that is merely exaggerated; and the possibility remains that Topalov, not having kept a record, actually believed that Kramnik's potty trips numbered 40+.  The arbiters granted an adjustment, which is not the same thing as rejecting the appeal.   

Further, even if one's opponent makes an unjust claim and this claim is unjustly upheld, this does not give one the right to refuse to play further in the match.  The conditions imposed by the ruling hardly impede Kramnik's ability to play good chess.  I have found, in any case, that I can play reasonably good chess and use the same bathroom that my opponent does.  It is not as if they took a point from Kramnik or required him to play in unfavorable conditions.

Well i think team Topa is unreasonably reckless with the facts (50 times to the loo is not a figure you should just make up), and the fact that the Appeals Committee refunded the 5000 dollars is extremely questionable. If it was found that the pee figure is exaggerated, it just means there is no grounds for Topa's claims, and the 5000 dollars should be retained. 

So to summarise,

Fact 1 : the claim of 50 times pee is a lie

Fact 2 : Topa lied. 

(maybe his team manager did but obviously everything said by Danailov can be imputed to Topalov himself, since Topa must have approved of it)

Conclusion from Above 2 Facts: Shouldn't Topalov suffer some consequence for his behaviour?

I also think perhaps Kramnik's threat is necessary for him to maintain psychological equality in the match. Any sign of weakness in this tension-filled match will only let the opponent gain in confidence.