IsaVulpes wrote on 01/05/18 at 13:35:14:


Why am I not surprised. Wearing Bermuda shorts and beating ex World champions gets you a heap of abuse, but cheating is just fine. Carry on chaps regardless!!

Has FIDE taken any action on this does anybody know?

Keano wrote on 11/13/15 at 17:55:21:


Yes, of course it is another form of cheating, but it is surprisingly common. There are several GMs who often started discussing their games with me while they were playing, and I always found it very awkward and never answered. I suppose they were feeling uncertain about their position and were just looking for something to make them feel more confident.
There is also one GM who sometimes used to come up and say "you've just lost a piece" or something similar as a 'joke'.
Neither of these are particularly serious, in my view, compared to situations during tournaments where groups of GMs overtly give advice to another player.
I was once congratulated after drawing with a 2400 Russian player, and when I asked why, I was told that I had just drawn with 5 Soviet GMs! They had been advising my opponent during the game in Russian so that one of them would come above me in the tournament.

Hello.

I just read the thread and felt like commenting on some posts.

TonyRo wrote on 11/11/15 at 16:29:36:

dfan wrote on 11/11/15 at 17:30:06:

I made a transcript of what could be heard from Topalov and MVL's conversation in the video found in the post above: 

Topalov: "Computer didn't show"
MVL: "no"
Topalov: "oh sh..."
Topalov: "I thought it was your...
MVL: "only talent"
Topalov: ...super, super-computer"
MVL: *Smiles and shakes head right to left*
Topalov: "no ok. You are lying"

*Both players leave the confessional box*


Judging from the above conversation.

Keano wrote on 11/12/15 at 07:36:07:

Is a statement that would not appear to be proven in the video.

tipau wrote on 11/12/15 at 09:55:06:

Would be accurate as there are considerably less lawful ways that conversation could have gone.

hicetnunc wrote on 11/12/15 at 10:51:49:

Is perhaps true and perhaps not. In any case. Jokingly trying to find out information is still a way of trying to find out information.

hicetnunc wrote on 11/12/15 at 10:51:49:

Is hard to determine. The relevant section of the Fide laws of chess (11.3a)
During play the players are forbidden to use any notes, sources of information or advice, or analyse any game on another chessboard.

From the transcript of the incomplete conversation above it can be determined that Topalov got some information from MVL. This was that something was not found by MVL's super(super)-computer (it was found by talent ). Now this something could have been basically anything (e.g. the solution to a math problem), although it is very reasonable to believe that it was something to do with chess.

If it was this 15.Qd1 move that at the very moment of the Topalov-MVL conversation was on the board against Caruana then Topalov could potentially benefit from the information gained through MVL. 

For example MVL says (or strongly implies as in the case at hand) that this move has been found by his computer. Topalov now knows that he has played theory approved by MVL plus computer and that there is little to worry about; plausibly making him spend less time on second guesses. Other example. MVL says (or strongly implies) Topalov, you have got it wrong this move is not something I have looked at with my computer. Topalov then gets the chance to run back to the board and start to think, likely benefiting his future chances and not something he would have done if the conversation with MVL never happened.

So if Topalov asked something about 15.Qd1 and MVL replied. As an arbiter one should see that MVL acted as a source of information and that this makes this part of the conversation unlawful per the laws of chess. Still the seriousness of both players offence can be debated and would I have been the arbiter I would have settled for a warning.

There is also the following from the Fide competition rules (9.4) that can be mentioned.
A player shall not speak about any game while it is in progress, except as allowed in the Laws of Chess.

Granted the players would in this case just have discussed previous experience with a move played in a game in progress and the rule would have to be applied in a broad sense for this to be considered unlawful.

Have a nice day.

TonyRo wrote on 11/12/15 at 21:16:31:


You say there was no information exchange or even any attempt????. Really? All the evidence points to the reverse - key MVL novelty played by Topalov and all of a sudden he appears in the confessional box (supposed to be for one person) asking MVL about the position... what exactly is it that you dont see?   

Have to admit I am more and more confused how you can stand by your position on this. It is simply untenable to say there was no attempt at information exchange, even with the current youtube vid you can see this much.

To be honest I am bemused at some of the comments on here, it seems like people are trying to sweep this under the carpet. Well it happened, I love Topalov's chess, but it happened. Now we have to deal with it.

TonyRo wrote on 11/12/15 at 20:06:00:


correct, but thats when your correctness ends. If you were to say to me "You had this Leningrad position last week, in fact you introduced a key novelty I have just played, you are MVL and must know something really important. Now I have your position you created, tell me...whats the story" 

Are you getting the picture now?

tipau wrote on 11/12/15 at 09:55:06:


Agree with some of what you say there, at least it is a good attempt at a sensible post unlike some of the others, but...

1) you can lose a game now for your mobile going off - is that cheating (No for me). But consulting a fellow player about a key position in which he introduced the novelty while waiting for your poor hapless opponent to reply merits nothing? The comparison is absurd, and there are many more to make.

2) Having looked at the video it does not show the complete conversation that happened in real-time. So your description of it there is not correct.

3) As people on this forum know me for many many years I have been a great fan of Topalov, and defended him true thick and thin when he was getting some really vile abuse on here. So to say this is due to dislike of Topalov is simply incorrect. I was very sad to see this incident as Topalov has always been one of my heroes.

hicetnunc wrote on 11/12/15 at 10:51:49:


This was the impression I got as well. It seems like we missed half a sentence on both ends of the few they exchanged, but to me the conversation looked like it went like this:

Topalov: "I got that Qd1 line you played a while back - I hope it's good and that your supercomputer found it."

MVL: "No, it sucks. Sorry about it."

Topalov: "Shit!"

To me, that's nothing worth flipping out about. It might be against the rules to talk about games in progress (I'm ignorant about specific rules in this case), but what was said is certainly NOT cheating to me. Again, maybe I missed a more detailed portion of the conversation - if it was just that 15 seconds or so, I really, really don't know what the big deal is. And I can certainly see why FIDE hasn't responded to you.