First of all let me state I think Team Topalov ought to appologize for the suggestion that Kramnik uses Fritz.
This is ridiculous. The correlations of 70%-80% mean nothing to me. Often its the other 20% that counts!

But that there has been no world champion who (or whose Team) behaved off board as bad as Topalov is a statement I find too strong. I would name Karpov as even more obnoxious. What was done to Korchnoi surounding the the matches 1974-1981 was infinitely worse.   
Also Karpov was a master manipulator in later Fide matches. 

Nevertheless I respect him as one of the strongest chess players ever and a legite world champion.
But as an off board manipulator  well !@%%##

IMJohnCox wrote on 10/06/06 at 21:35:22:


Would someone please tell me why we keep claiming any chess player needs to meet some ethical standard to "deserve" to be World Champion? Nobody claims we should strip several prior world champions of their place in history, despite "unethical behavior". (Granted, if Topalov were cheating, this would be different). If we're going to pretend that chess is a sport, I guess we should use the same standards. I'm only going to mention the insane racism that is rampant in football, but I'm far more offended by this than the Bulgarian team's statement. Yet we don't claim those teams are undeserving of being world or league champions. We celebrate performance for performance's sake.

SL

As Markovich does not want to discuss this anymore, let me takes his side (partially). It is also my impression that Americans are more susceptible for conspiracy theories than Brits or Dutch. At the other hand the only people I know, who were, are 100% Dutch. And even if my impression is right, this does not mean, that Markovich is. I never noticed it.
So the relevant point is, that this generalization does not contribute anything sensible to the subject. Markovich' nationality is not relevant for the point he makes: visiting the loo x times per game indicates cheating. So IM Cox should have omitted his generalization.
As explained before, I think Topalov and Dainalov have not done anything legally wrong. It is their ethics I think very low of. The law and ethics are very often not the same at all. T&D had another option: to request a search of both toilets just before the start of the games.
Those Kramnik/Fritz statistics also belong to the Ministry of Silly Walks.

IMJohnCox wrote on 10/05/06 at 21:27:47:


Yes, I'm very familiar with that line of argument.  "It's not a question of character deficiencies, it is a question of different cultures that makes Negoes so lazy."  But notwithstanding your expertise on American culture, you should refrain from making pejorative generalizations about us, or indeed about any nationality.

IMJohnCox wrote on 10/05/06 at 21:27:47:


Well then, since those low-life amateurs never have a shot at English prize money in the first place, I'm sure that cheating will never be a problem over there on Albion's bright shores.  But has it occurred to you that the stronger sort of player might gain something from consultation with a chess engine, or with a data base?

IMJohnCox wrote on 10/05/06 at 21:27:47:

I'm rated 2250 myself and it took me a long time to get here, Your Highness, so go easy on us weaklings. 

IMJohnCox wrote on 10/05/06 at 21:27:47:


The example was, if you read back, a player who typically goes to the bathroom 10 times or more during his games, not just the game he plays with you.   And the question was, do you think that there is no level of suspicion that warrants talking to the authorities?  Apparently you do -- but not if the player in question is a sufficiently strong one.  With that, I disagree.

IMJohnCox wrote on 10/05/06 at 21:27:47:


What offends me is your ill-founded and poorly informed generalizations about Americans.  That and your defense of them here.

IMJohnCox wrote on 10/05/06 at 21:27:47:


I already posted here that I don't think Danailov's recent remarks have any foundation.  But I do think, based on the limited facts of which I am aware, that the original complaint was sufficiently well-founded to warrant its being taken seriously.  But the question here again was, is there not some point at which the conduct, even of a strong player, warrants asking the authorities to take a look, and is one to be able to say so without having his position characterized as "laughable" and written off as typically American, or Zambian or whatever?   

The question of my intelligence may speak for itself, but I'm not aware of my having questioned here the intelligence of those who disagree with me, or tried to write off their views as typical of nationality X.

IMJohnCox wrote on 10/05/06 at 21:27:47:
 

Well then, that certainly warrants posting pejorative remarks about Americans.


IMJohnCox wrote on 10/05/06 at 21:27:47:


I do find it interesting, but I rather suspect it has more to do with the cultures of different forums, than of different nations.

IMJohnCox wrote on 10/05/06 at 21:27:47:


I didn't accuse you British arrogance nor do I defend the person who did (his posting also on this question, however, might cause you to consider that your criticised remarks may actually have been offensive.)  I didn't call you stupid; I called your anti-American remarks stupid, a point which I maintain. 

IMJohnCox wrote on 10/05/06 at 21:27:47:


Look, I'm against the Iraq war and I was from before it began, I detest Bush (and Blair), I support strong gun control, abortion rights and universal health care, and I'm an atheist.   But I don't like seeing American natinality held up as deficient on this or any forum, particularly by foreigners who draw hasty conclustions from limited information.   

IMJohnCox wrote on 10/05/06 at 21:27:47:


That last is an argumentum ad hominem, John.  But the conclusion you should draw from my mentioning the money I bring here is that I was really, seriously offended by what you perceive to be your "interesting" generalizations about Americans.  I did not raise that to try to keep you from making your case, just enough with the "interesting" claims about Americans, already!

IMJohnCox wrote on 10/05/06 at 21:27:47:


That would be the last thing that I would want.  I greatly value you contributions here and when it comes to the 64 squares, I am grateful for a strong player's presence here.  Indeed, having said my piece on this, I won't discuss it any more.

Wow.
I guess no one has analyzed any of those games with Fritz9, huh?
Let's try to get back to sanity and avoid getting 5000 miles off topic.

IMJohnCox wrote on 10/04/06 at 23:01:57:


IMJohnCox wrote on 10/04/06 at 21:07:35:




IMJohnCox wrote on 10/04/06 at 22:12:57:


First concerning this particular remark:

"Markovich's observation that if his opponent went to the loo ten times in a game he'd inform the arbiter. I've never heard any British player say such a thing and I think here such a reaction would be considered bordering on laughable."

I am sure you're aware of the recent problem of cheating at the world open.  Clearly in this age of microprocessors and wireless connections, cheating of this kind is eminently possible.  It seems to me that many tournament players, confronted with an oppenent who went very frequently to the bathroom, would have some suspicion of cheating.  And when such a suspicion arises, I think it is only appropriate to mention one's concern to the authorities, and I suspect most would agree.

I'm not saying that anyone should jump up and call his opponent a cheater, only that there is some level of suspicion that warrants asking the authorities to take a look.

I mean, what are you saying?  That there is no level of absence from the board and self-sequestration that could possibly give rise to the appearance of, or suspicion of, cheating?  That no mention of suspected cheating can ever be justified? 

Beyond that, your remarks here about the supposed willingness of Americans to call people cheaters are really quite obnoxious.  I pay good money for a "Gold" membership to ChessPub, and when I come to this forum I don't appreciate reading stereotyped, ignorant characterisations of my nationality by someone with "Management Team" under his name.  If you want this site to be for Europeans only, just put "Americans Unwelcome" on the flash into -- and send me a refund.  Otherwise, refrain from futher stupid remarks about what you perceive to be the character deficiencies of Americans -- including those of us whom you judge to be among the less intelligent.

Markovich wrote on 10/05/06 at 12:41:30:

I think Danailov's recent remarks are quite unjustifiable and unsporting (and I said some time ago that I thought that some of the remarks made by Topalov's people were similarly so).  Even if someone were using a chess engine to inform his moves, he would have no necessary tendency take the machine's top recommendation.  Certainly a world-class GM would not.

I also agree that Topalov must be responsible for Danailov's official actions on his behalf.

If Danailov thinks that he has a justifiable complaint, he should put it writing, attach his $5,000, and submit it to the arbiters -- without calling a simultaneous press conference.  Otherwise he should shut up.

Unlike many others here I would not condemn, a priori, any formal complaint on any subject pertinent to the match, including a complaint that alleged possible cheating.  Nor would I say that an allegedly unsporting reason for making such a complaint would be a valid reason for the arbiters' rejecting it.  But that is so much water over the dam.