What it essentially boils down to is the following: You blame a lot of involved people except Kramnik for not taking the proper action. While you may be right and I seriously doubt the wisdom of the committee, there is only one person who made these bad decisions irreversible. By playing high stakes poker (ala Topalov just before) he tried to put the pressure on to get this decision reversed. However what he forgot is that with poker your bluff can get called.

Gijssen may or may not be a decent fellow; he's certainly well-regarded although I've never thought much of his views on chesscafe and he's been responsible (or so he claims) for at least one absolutely absrud rule change.

And of course none of us knows what transpires behind the scenes. But do you really not think a strong arbiter could have done more than seems to have been done to prevent the match being settled in a law court - which however entertaining must be the ultimate faillure for the match officials.

Amused by the picture on chessbase of the arbiters conferring. The assistant is..........................some Greek bloke you've never heard of. No doubt someone Macropolous owes a favour to.

Korchnoi: 'I would have walked out!'
07.10.2006 Actually, if we were sensationalist our headline would have been: Viktor Korchnoi: "I agree with Karpov!" For once the great chess veteran of three world championship matches joins his arch-opponent – in these matches and life in general – in supporting Kramnik in the World Championship crisis. Viktor is also worried about chess being dragged into the toilet. How will we find sponsors?


Korchnoi: “In Kramnik’s place, I would have walked out!”


Victor Lvovich, share with us your impressions about the Kramnik-Topalov match.

The match creates a strange impression. I have watched how Topalov generally plays. In every event, at the start he falls behind, almost as if he’s pretending to be playing badly, and then at the end, he wins every single game. For that reason, I am fearful about the end of this match.

What do you think about the off-board controversy?

The underlying cause of all this is the articles, which have appeared in the press, about how Topalov allegedly has been and is using computer assistance during games. And then, the moment Illumzhinov had left his fiefdom, Topalov’s team took the initiative and accused Kramnik of cheating.

It is no secret that you signed a letter in support of Kramnik. How do you think Kramnik should handle this difficult situation, what steps should he take?

It is a rare case when I am in total solidarity with Anatoly Karpov. In Kramnik’s place, I would just have walked out. 

Do you think Topalov has been involved in all these shenanigans, or is it just the people around him?

I do not believe the others can do anything without his approval.

What is going to happen to world title matches in the future?

All this talk of how someone or other is cheating leaves its mark on chess, on its integrity and honesty, and is very bad. But I hope that means will be found to prevent information being passed, and so to preserve chess as it is.

But is it so bad? After all, thanks to the scandals in Elista, chess has made the front pages of the newspapers. Perhaps the game can take advantage of this increase in popularity?

I find it hard to believe that all this talk about toilets is going to lead to an increase in sponsors – after all, it is pretty dirty publicity. 

What would you like to say to Vladimir Kramnik? 

That he should walk out!

The original interview, conducted by A Kentler appeared on the e3e5 web site.
Translation by Steve Giddins

Toppy

I agree that Topalov may not be in much control - he's never pulled any of this garbage before - but I don't think it makes much difference. Indeed his behaviour at the press conference strongly suggested that he wasn't in control. 

Keano - a complaint of cheating made without belief in its truth and with the intention to distract the opponent is clearly against the Laws in my view. I don't find that far-fetched at all. Whether that's what happened - well, I think it was. I can't see any other motive.

I've actually had a quick look at the laws of chess and they're a lot more sensible than you'd think. In particular, they open with a statement that they are not intended to cover all situations and that the arbiter has power to do whatever he thinks appropriate to ensure a level playing field (I paraphrase).

If Gijssen had been a man of integrity, intelligence and courage he would have called the managers together before game 5 and said,

"I understand that tapes of Mr Kramnik in his rest room have been supplied to Mr Topalov's team without my knowledge or that of Mr Kramnik, and that a protest has been made alleging Mr Kramnik made 50 visits to the lavatory during game 3 when in fact the Appeals Committee has said that the true figure was 18. In my opinion these actions on Mr Topalov's part constitute bringing the game into disrepute contrary to article 12.1 and are also calculated to distract the opponent contrary to article 12.6.

I see that game five is scheduled to commence shortly. In my opinion it is not desirable that it should do so and I declare a 30 minute postponement. When the game starts I will consider whether to declare it forfeit by Mr Topalov on the grounds of his breaches of the Laws. If this decision is successfully appealed I shall resign from the match and publicise these events and my view of them. The two teams may like to see whether they can discuss the matter and reach a resolution in the meantime. If necessary I will consider postponing the start of game five further until tomorrow."

Of course Gijssen would not have obtained further lucrative work from FIDE or from M-Tel (was he the arbiter in Sofia, I wonder?!), but we would then have had a proper contest, and he would have been doing his duty as an arbiter and for the good of the game much better than he did.

But as I say, this would have taken brains, bowels and vision. Nothing in his column at chesscafe has ever suggested to me that Gijssen possesses any of those characteristics; on the contrary he seems to me to be that most un-Dutch thing, a pompous, rulebound, ass.

Scholar wrote on 10/08/06 at 06:33:59:


You're right, scholar, the bulldog analogy is quite likely. The scenario I'm describing has little to do with a conspiracy. Basically, I'm saying that perhaps important, powerful or influential people (government, etc) have sponsored topalov. I really don't know much about the state of chess in Bulgaria, only the general status of chessplayers in the former USSR and that is what I am drawing the analogy to. He is essentially their employee. I'm saying these folks also hired Topalov's seconds, and other support staff, including danailov. In such a case Topalov is not Danailov's boss at all. It's also quite possible that Danailov is completely under Topalov's control and is only performing the unpleasant tasks assigned to him. I can't claim any of these scenarios are correct, however to assume one is correct based on the way things work in the western world might be a bit of a stretch.

SL

IMJohnCox wrote on 10/07/06 at 17:03:50:


Article 12: The conduct of the players

Topalov (himself) has done nothing. Danailov is not bound by this clause for obvious reasons. He could claim he invented the question mark for all we care and still nobody would be in violation.   

SL

StuntLinguist wrote on 10/07/06 at 23:32:16:


Would this make the conduct any more likely, or Topalov's behavior better?  I read the comment (maybe by Mark Crowther?) that all Topalov had to do was apologize for the conduct for his team.  He did not; silence gives consent.

Keano wrote on 10/07/06 at 20:32:34:

You have a valid point.  No doubt Kramnik's decision to continue the match was influenced by the match paycheck.