IMJohnCox wrote on 10/02/06 at 11:18:08:


No. Topalov absolutely lacks class. Only saving grace is his chess. Almost al the world champions could be faulted on this class issue. None like Topalov, though. For the past one year he has displaying his bloated and ugly ego. Now, he displayed, chicanery.

My word, there’s some nonsense on this thread.

Your opponent goes to the loo ten times a game and you call the cops?? Sheesh. I’m glad you weren’t playing me at the recent Isle of Man tournament – you’d have had the cops on me every game. I’d have had to fall back on demonstrating by my abysmal play that I couldn’t possibly have been cheating.

I’ve noticed that the Americans are far more paranoid about cheating like this than any other nation. Interesting.

As to the legalities (I’m a lawyer btw so excuse the interest), has anyone actually seen the contract? As I see it the position is simple: Kramnik has agreed to play the match on certain conditions. Those included a private restroom and lavatory. The appeals committee has powers granted to it by the contract, which presumably include mainly considering decisions of the arbiter, but it does not have the power to change those conditions as it has purported to do. Until game five is organised upon those conditions there can therefore be no question of defaulting or of Kramnik being in any kind of breach of the contract: the party in breach is the one charged with organising the game on those conditions.

Reading Macropoulos’ defence of himself, it seems that he recognises this. He defends himself by saying that he has not changed the conditions because the contract calls for each player to be provided with a restroom and a lavatory and a common lavatory is still a lavatory. This is a question of construction and all one can say is that given Macropoulos’ own translation his version seems unlikely to have been what the parties intended.

I think the Kramnik-should-have-played brigade are naïve. I’ve not heard a single genuinely strong OTB player say this. Chess requires objectivity. You can’t play if your head’s not right. And there’s no point bleating about proportion – losing a match like this is a huge personal blow, much more so than walking away. I’d certainly not have played in his position and I’ll be staggered if he plays now. He’ll still be the champion for me – he was well on course to beat Topalov and he’s been cheated; no other word for it. If he does play and goes on to win it will be an achievement on a par with Fischer’s.

The notion that anyone would appoint Azmaiparashvili to a judicial position of any kind simply beggars belief. How even Kirsan could have thought it was appropriate slightly puzzles me. No doubt he was on a spaceship at the time, but even so you would have thought some alien would have whispered in his ear.

Anyway, I seem to recall posting a fortnight ago that I hoped Topalov lost because he had no class. Anyone think I was wrong?

hello woofwoof, Fischer has no application here.
In 72, Fischer made a stupid petty complaint, and was forfeited.
In 06, Topalov made a stupid petty complaint, but his opponent was forfeited! where is the sense in that?

Hello Katar:
think you should read my post again. I don't know about your jurisdiction but, broad language in any contract should be interpreted in the context of the entire agreement as a whole to make sense of it. I would say if arbiters want to regulate Kramnik's behaviour, they should have asked Kramnik (and also Topalov) to report to the arbiter each time they want to go to the toilet, or ordered a compulsory loo escort. But if they shut the toilet, that means they are not regulating Kramnik's behaviour, but changing the playing conditions. Furthermore shutting the toilet insinuates Kramnik is cheating (here I agree with Bessel Kok), and they have no proof. Overall I can concede Katar makes a good arguable case as well, and if I were Kramnik's lawyer, I will advise him to say his chances of legal success in court is maybe 50-50.

Legally, perhaps the situation is tied objectively.
Morally, I think Kramnik wins.
So overall, Kramnik wins in this debate

lnn2 wrote on 10/01/06 at 01:31:50:


I will make it easy to follow:

1) Topa can protest Kramnik's "behaviour".
2) Visiting a private unmonitored bathroom 50x/game = behavior
3) Appeals committee can rule on "a protest against a player's behaviour" and/or on "all other matters considered important" very broad language, language agreed to by both parties in advance
4) The way to regulate the behavior of visiting an unmonitored location 50x per game is to restrict access to that location.
5) The contract says nothing about a private unmonitored bathroom, so there is no contractual "right" to such a bathroom.
6) Kramnik has no right to a hearing before action (ie, due process).  The contract says the appeals committee will rule, when possible, within 2 hours of the protest.  Therefore the contract is at odds with scheduling/organizing a hearing.

That being said, I believe Topalov should be a big man and give back the point for the good of chess.  He would recover a lot of goodwill (recently lost) for such an action.

hello markovich, i've tried to edit my post many times to make it look more sensible..maybe you can read it again =) The essential argument for Kramnik, contrary to what you say, is that the Committee did *not* act within their ambit, whether or not you agee... well that is subjective. 

Kirsan's press release upon return from Elista is rather impressive. And he's clearly right that the issue is no longer a legal, but a political one.

lnn2 wrote on 10/01/06 at 01:31:50:



Well, we can argue natural law and Latin legal principles until the next appearance of Haley's Comet, but the simple fact is, the arbiters issued a ruling on a matter that appears to have been within their ambit.   Now however much he disagreed with that, Kramnik was bound by rule and honor to sit down and play chess.  Not having done so, he legitimately stands forfeit.  It is a terrible and simultaneously ridiculous tragedy for chess, that Kramnik considered this point of bathroom priviledges worth tossing the match over, while cheating the chess world of the spectacle that it deserved, and probably denying himself great honor and fortune.

But I shall be very surprised if, in two years time, anyone remembers this as a terrible injustice to Kramnik.  It'll simply be remembered as the time when Kramnik, leading 3-1, tossed $500,000 and the world championship title over the ridiculous question of bathroom priviledges.  And I further anticipate that there will be speculation that Kramnik WAS cheating -- why else toss the match over the issue?  I don't say that; I merely say that many people will raise the question.

A terrible burden now hangs over Kramnik.  If he can't win some big tournaments now, he's a dead duck in chess history.

I think Katar makes some strong points.

Bottom line is certainly no match in the future will allow a player to spend as much time as Kramnik has in an unmonitored room.  It makes zero sense.
Every chess player at this level knows that survelience is a fact of life in these matches.

Personally, I now think that matches should be scrapped all together.  I know I am going to take a lot of flak for that, but I just don't think that they make any sense anymore considering the problems which are all to common in these matches and make chess and chess players look like Lunatics.

The solution, which everyone will hate, is to scrap these matches. Go with a tournament like San Luis every two years. That tournament was great. Have 8 people qualify including the previous winner. The other qualifying spots would be achieved by winning one of three big tournaments (probably Linaires, Wijk Aan Zee and Dortmund). That is six torunaments over the 2 years which may fill as many as six spots (but likely won't due to duplicate winners) and fill the remaining spots through a point system based on performance at those tournaments.

Matches were great especially during the Kasparov - Karpov days when the two of them were head and shoulders above the rest of the competition, now we have several players who are fairly even at the highest level. In other sports you have to defend your title every year (or all the time), not once every 3 or 4 years. You want the claim of being the best - then prove it every two years against the 7 other top players. If you can't do that, then your claim is BS anyways. 

Plus I don't think that they can be financed properly anymore - how much did they say Kirsan was plopping into this match? I heard 50 million which seems a bit steep? But regardless how much money it is, I don't him providing it again.

Markovich,

Quote:


Quote:


No clue how you reached that second conclusion, other than conjecture and leaping to conclusions, that is I'm trying to examine the evidence that the appeals committee has provided us, (specifically, the info given in their statement) thus my previous comments. I'm taking them at their word and examining whether their statements are logical and consistent or not. Let me know what your conclusions are based on and we'll have something to talk about.

StuntLinguist