StuntLinguist wrote on 09/29/06 at 18:04:16:
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.
I would not assume that, nor do I think it is useful to criticize the decision of the arbiters on the alleged ground that it is not worded consistently. The decision is the decision; it is clear; most pertinently, as you point out, both match participants have agreed in advance that it is binding and final.
StuntLinguist wrote on 09/29/06 at 18:04:16:
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.
It is illegitimate to attempt to read into the arbiters' decision any supposed reasons for it, other than those made clearly explicit. "In order that the WC can continue running smoothly..." looks like pro forma phraseology to me. It is pure conjecture whether the arbiter's thought that Topalov would depart if they did not throw him a bone. If that indeed is what they thought, it still would not have been a legitimate basis for making a decision. It would be highly unusual if a committee of International Arbiters put into the text of a decision that it was decided on such a basis.
By the way, dear friends, have never particularly cared who wins this match.
Pages: 
Tales from the Toilet... (Read 58687 times)
