Chessbase.com has a good summary of the current Kramnik-Topalov
situation at http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3385. Most
interesting to me is the fact that Kramnik's protest against the action
of appeals board regarding the restrooms, has been completely upheld,
and the appeals board has resigned en masse, a tacit admission that
their decision was out of order.
However, the sticking point now appears to be whether the 5th-game
forfeit stands or falls. Kramnik says he'll walk if it stands, Topalov
says he'll walk if it falls. Chessbase gives only a 40% chance that the
impasse will be resolved.

On 1 Oct 2006 08:03:13 -0700, "Taylor Kingston"
wrote:

However, the sticking point now appears to be whether the 5th-game
forfeit stands or falls. Kramnik says he'll walk if it stands, Topalov
says he'll walk if it falls. Chessbase gives only a 40% chance that the
impasse will be resolved.

Just an idea, but what about giving 1/2 point to Topalov for game 5,
which means that he can win by 6.0 - 5.5, which basically gives him
draw odds. Does that make sense (it might not).
---
Replace you know what by j to email

Jud McCranie wrote:
Just an idea, but what about giving 1/2 point to Topalov for game 5,
which means that he can win by 6.0 - 5.5, which basically gives him
draw odds. Does that make sense (it might not).

no sense whatsoever.
no draws odds to anybody. there was a contract/rules for this match,
stick with thm.
stupid topalov killed the chess world.

On 1 Oct 2006 09:21:41 -0700, wrote:

no sense whatsoever.
no draws odds to anybody. there was a contract/rules for this match,
stick with thm.
stupid topalov killed the chess world.

I'm trying to think of a compromise that would allow the match to
continue.
---
Replace you know what by j to email

Chessbase.com has a good summary of the current Kramnik-Topalov
situation at http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3385. Most
interesting to me is the fact that Kramnik's protest against the action
of appeals board regarding the restrooms, has been completely upheld,
and the appeals board has resigned en masse, a tacit admission that
their decision was out of order.
However, the sticking point now appears to be whether the 5th-game
forfeit stands or falls. Kramnik says he'll walk if it stands, Topalov
says he'll walk if it falls. Chessbase gives only a 40% chance that the
impasse will be resolved.

If FIDE makes a stand now Topalov better play as he rates to LOSE if he
doesn't. http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3387 . It just
doesn't look like FIDE is in a spirit of doing so (vs. their own WCC?). It's
about the false foundation that was not false when the game 5 was played.
What was done there was the law, but when the law changes so will the
judgment; the old won't be in effect now. It's also about the deal made
before the match that figures to give rights. The money may also count
though it hasn't been looking like it. This is somewhat an interesting
game/match too, though not chess, I think.

40% seems optimistic. Hard to see the match continuing with the
decision to have the match continue 3-2. No way Kramnik will agree to
that.

This all makes FIDE and Topalov look very bad. Given that it was
agreed that Kramnik was right in all his points, on what basis can they
default him? Very strange.

Given that Kramnik was very, very likely to win, will Kramnik be
considered the de facto WC? Seems likely. I don't see how anyone can
view Topalov as such.

So Einstein or someone can try to get another match going?

wrote:
This all makes FIDE and Topalov look very bad. Given that it was
agreed that Kramnik was right in all his points, on what basis can
they default him? Very strange.

They defaulted him because they believed that Kramnik was wrong to
refuse to play on Friday, even though they had made mistakes, too.

To take an extreme example, it would obviously have been wrong for
Kramnik to murder the whole Appeals Committee, even though they had
wronged him. On the other hand, it would not have been wrong for him
to play the game and make a statement at the press conference. There
is a line to be drawn and the organizers have drawn it.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Electronic Car (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ high-performance luxury car but it
uses electricity!

David Richerby wrote:


They defaulted him because they believed that Kramnik was wrong to
refuse to play on Friday, even though they had made mistakes, too.

If a law is wrong it is right to disobey it, people punished under
wrong laws are released from prison when the law under which they were
sentenced is later found and declared void ( mistaken ).

All the political prisoners of the Nazi, Germans "quilty" of opposing
the regime, were relased from prisons by the Allies when they
conquered the 3rd Reich.

Thus Kramink was right to disobey a rule which was in fact wrong.

However in the case of Kramnik FIDE concluded first that he was right
and then "awarded" him with 1 point fine for..... being so ! LOL!!

FIDE must go, they are completely incompetent.

wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
They defaulted him because they believed that Kramnik was wrong to
refuse to play on Friday, even though they had made mistakes, too.

If a law is wrong it is right to disobey it, people punished under
wrong laws are released from prison when the law under which they
were sentenced is later found and declared void ( mistaken ).

The question is not whether Kramnik should have opposed the wrong
decision but *how* he should have opposed it. For example, even
though the decision was wrong, it would have been wrong for Kramnik to
protest about it by murdering the appeals committee or dancing naked
on the stage.

If your government were to introduce an unjust tax, for example, it
would be right to refuse to pay the tax. When the government was
replaced and the tax cancelled, you would probably find yourself
released from prison. However, if you decided to oppose the tax by
assassinating the president, you would not be released from prison,
even if the tax was cancelled.

Now, my personal opinion is that Kramnik was right not to play game
five. But I'm not organizing the match.


All the political prisoners of the Nazi, Germans "quilty" of
opposing the regime, were relased from prisons by the Allies when
they conquered the 3rd Reich.

Let's not bring the Nazis into it. You know about Godwin's law,
right?


Dave.

--
David Richerby Gigantic Hi-Fi (TM): it's like a music
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ system but it's huge!

David Richerby wrote:
wrote:
This all makes FIDE and Topalov look very bad. Given that it was
agreed that Kramnik was right in all his points, on what basis can
they default him? Very strange.

They defaulted him because they believed that Kramnik was wrong to
refuse to play on Friday, even though they had made mistakes, too.

Kramnik could have played game 5 under protest.

To take an extreme example, it would obviously have been wrong for
Kramnik to murder the whole Appeals Committee, even though they had
wronged him. On the other hand, it would not have been wrong for him
to play the game and make a statement at the press conference.
There is a line to be drawn and the organizers have drawn it.

What precedent would be set if a player could, without incurring any
penalty, refuse to play whenever he or she disputes a decision by
the referee (or the appeals committee)?

I believe that a player has the ultimate right to refuse to play in
order to protest the biased and unfair decisions of the referee
(or the appeals committee). I also believe that the extreme
kind of protest of refusing to play at all should take place in
response only to extremely biased and unfair decisions.

--Nick