ACP Statement on Topalov-Kramnik Unification Match crisis

The situation arisen in the Topalov-Kramnik Unification Match brings a
lot of damage to the image of chess. The Association of Chess
Professionals will thoroughly analyse all the facts and express our
opinion on the whole matter soon, but even right now we want to clearly
stand that we find the letter written by Silvio Danailov, Manager to
Veselin Topalov, on the 28th of September 2006 disgraceful. Especially
a sentence "If the match were to continue, the World Champion would
refrain from shaking hands with Mr. Kramnik before the games" is
unacceptable. It is abusive, contradictive with the FIDE motto "Gens
una sumus", moreover, Mr Danailov not only accussed Mr Kramnik of
cheating, without showing any serious evidence, but already found him
guilty, prior to any investigation.

As the purpose of the ACP, as described by the Article 2 of the ACP
Statutes, is "the protection of professional chess players' rights, the
practice and promotion of chess worldwide", we strongly protest against
behaviour of Mr Silvio Danailov, Manager to Veselin Topalov, and expect
him to officially apologise to Mr Kramnik. Otherwise, we believe that
the case should be carefully investigated by the FIDE Ethics Commission
and proper measures taken to avoid such situations in the future.

Best regards
ACP Board
1st of October 2006




Taylor Kingston wrote:
Open Letter of Support to Vladimir Kramnik from Grandmaster Colleagues.

October 2, 2006

Dear Vladimir,

We are writing as a small group of Grandmasters, but we believe that we
represent the views of the vast majority of our colleagues. We simply
wanted to let you know that we think you have suffered a gross
injustice, and that you have our support.

We appreciate that you are now under immense psychological pressure,
and that it must be difficult to continue to play well in the context
of such blatant bias, unfairness, and hostility.

Good luck in the days ahead. If you manage to win in these
circumstances you will be a worthy champion indeed.

Best wishes,

GM Jonathan Rowson (Scotland)
GM Peter Heine Nielsen (Denmark)
GM Magnus Carlsen (Norway)
GM Jan Gustafsson (Germany)
GM Tomi Nyback (Finland)
GM Luke McShane (England)
GM Loek Van Wely (Netherlands)

WORLD CHESS NETWORK PRO

"Vladimir Kramnik has already won the match, no matter what the result
in my opinion.
He showed true sportsmanship and an ability to rise to the occasion
when confronted by an injustice away from the chessboard. His decision
to continue the match, despite the forfeit, reminds me of Boris
Spassky's decision to continue the 1972 Reykjavik match despite intense
provocation. He put chess ahead of himself." -- GM Larry Christiansen

WORLD CHESS NETWORK PRO

"Vladimir Kramnik has already won the match, no matter what the result
in my opinion.
He showed true sportsmanship and an ability to rise to the occasion
when confronted by an injustice away from the chessboard. His decision
to continue the match, despite the forfeit, reminds me of Boris
Spassky's decision to continue the 1972 Reykjavik match despite intense
provocation. He put chess ahead of himself." -- GM Larry Christiansen

Even WITH the forfeit, Spassky got wiped.

Topalov is going to win this match.


--
Money is not "game."
Looks are not "game."
Social status or value is not "game."
Those are the things that game makes unnecessary.

A seduction guru who teaches you that looks, money or status is game is not
teaching you "game," but how to be an AFC. He uses his students' money to
get women and laughs that "loser AFCs pay my rent."

wrote:
WORLD CHESS NETWORK PRO

"Vladimir Kramnik has already won the match, no matter what the result
in my opinion.
He showed true sportsmanship and an ability to rise to the occasion
when confronted by an injustice away from the chessboard. His decision
to continue the match, despite the forfeit, reminds me of Boris
Spassky's decision to continue the 1972 Reykjavik match despite intense
provocation. He put chess ahead of himself." -- GM Larry Christiansen

I agree but some questions remain to be answered like
What was he doing in the toilet so many time during those games ?

wrote:
WORLD CHESS NETWORK PRO

"Vladimir Kramnik has already won the match, no matter what the result
in my opinion.
He showed true sportsmanship and an ability to rise to the occasion
when confronted by an injustice away from the chessboard. His decision
to continue the match, despite the forfeit, reminds me of Boris
Spassky's decision to continue the 1972 Reykjavik match despite intense
provocation. He put chess ahead of himself." -- GM Larry Christiansen

Yes, if after this decision Kramnik still wins this match he wins
everything.
He becomes the complete winner, both moral (as a man) and chesswise
(as a player).
For a characterially "no-combat", "drawish", man and player he has
shown that he is able to take quite a gamble.
Maybe he is indeed a true champ, after all he was the one who defeated
Kasparov.

but is not yet over so we will have to wait and see if he succeeds,
if he wins then that will be the end of all arguments on who is the WCC.

wrote:

[match] is not yet over so we will have
to wait and see if he [Kramnik] succeeds,
if he wins then that will be the end of all
arguments on who is the WCC.

There is a danger of further hostile
acts against Kramnik, by Ilyumzhinov.

Ilyumzhinov is focused on preventing
Kramnik from winning this match. Thus
Ilyumzhinov gave away everything in
negotiations except of that what really
counts. Topalov got to keep his point,
which was given to him ("won") by Ilyumzjinov.

Wlod

wrote in message
ups.com...
WORLD CHESS NETWORK PRO

"Vladimir Kramnik has already won the match, no matter what the result
in my opinion.
He showed true sportsmanship and an ability to rise to the occasion
when confronted by an injustice away from the chessboard.

O Please Larry! Are we now become so partisan that GMs can declare moral
victories regardless of what happens over the board?

This event is nutz@ as it is - only 12 games for the world title - lets at
least have some chess for any title. What the /managers/ do away from the
board is to get into it with the committees and the arbiter - and as you
quite correctly write elsewhere, this is disgusting! Especially when a
committee is replaced by others who will accord with Khan Kirsan's will.

But it is the same mis-principled idea that has beggered chess and prevented
any real unification for all these years - of moral victors on the one hand,
and committee favorites on the other.

Commentators, like committees should resist determining the fate of the game
by ex cathedra fiats, since that has always been the traditional role of
players themselves, and only attained by actual performance.

His decision
to continue the match, despite the forfeit, reminds me of Boris
Spassky's decision to continue the 1972 Reykjavik match despite intense
provocation.

While holding Spassky in great respect, even in some affection, I disagree
with Larry Christiansen that this is a parallel instance, since it was
Spassky who received the benefit of Fischer's forfeit.

I know it is almost /de riguer/ to despise Fischer these days, but no
sympathy for him for having his chair deconstructed by paranoid Russians in
mid-match? True, Spassky said there was this 'force' which seemed to weigh
on him - but I suggest that this was none other than the 'Fischer effect',
and a good explanation is offered by no other than Mark Taimanov, who
mention 3 others who had the 'force'.

He put chess ahead of himself." -- GM Larry Christiansen

We are all disappointed by the farcical nature of this event and massive
off-board distractions - but the world championship has now devolved to
merely money, and a dozen games with and all the trappings of a great event,
and the only factor missing is great world champion chess.

Phil Innes

"Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)" wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:

[match] is not yet over so we will have
to wait and see if he [Kramnik] succeeds,
if he wins then that will be the end of all
arguments on who is the WCC.

There is a danger of further hostile
acts against Kramnik, by Ilyumzhinov.

They should have held it in Paris - and also picked an arbiter who was no
pawn of Fide management. Eric Schiller said a very similar dispute arose
between Kramnik [again] and Kasparov, and he dealt with it himself.

This is annoying news for some, since all fault can't be heaped onto Topalov
if Kasparov had a similar problem - but it also pin-points who is providing
the context for succession of a world champion here - and regretably it is
neither of the players at the board.

Phil Innes

Ilyumzhinov is focused on preventing
Kramnik from winning this match. Thus
Ilyumzhinov gave away everything in
negotiations except of that what really
counts. Topalov got to keep his point,
which was given to him ("won") by Ilyumzjinov.

Wlod

"Vladimir Kramnik has already won the match, no matter what the result
in my opinion.
He showed true sportsmanship and an ability to rise to the occasion
when confronted by an injustice away from the chessboard. His decision
to continue the match, despite the forfeit, reminds me of Boris
Spassky's decision to continue the 1972 Reykjavik match despite intense
provocation. He put chess ahead of himself." -- GM Larry Christiansen

I agree but some questions remain to be answered like
What was he doing in the toilet so many time during those games ?

Therein lies the problem: the appearance of impropriety.

In this era, it's ridiculous to allow any unsupervised conduct during a
match.


--
Money is not "game."
Looks are not "game."
Social status or value is not "game."
Those are the things that game makes unnecessary.

A seduction guru who teaches you that looks, money or status is game is not
teaching you "game," but how to be an AFC. He uses his students' money to
get women and laughs that "loser AFCs pay my rent."

A STOMACH BUG

Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:

I agree but some questions remain to be answered like What was
he doing in the toilet so many time during those games?
Therein lies the problem: the appearance of impropriety.

By Jordan S.Berson

Scandal In Elista

A lot has happened since game two. In games three and four, Kramnik
held solid draws, all in the while visiting the washroom just a few
more times per game than Topalov's manager, Silvio Danailov, was
comfortable with. Worried that Kramnik's solid drawing style would
effectively end the match without any real winning chances for Topalov
to bounce back, Danailov launched an accusation against Kramnik of
using the washroom stalls for cheating.

There has been evidence of cheating at some large tournaments earlier
this year, which may or may not have had an impact on Danailov's
decision to write a letter to FIDE demanding that the match director
seal off Kramnik's access to the washroom stall. Earlier this year,
there were a few cases where people were wearing what looked like
hearing aids and large hats to cover up listening devices, which
allowed them to receive information from a remote computer.

There are two points that Danailov may not have considered before
making such a ridiculous request. First of all, with Kramnik playing
31...Bxf8?? (as published in my last article), I cannot imagine that
Kramnik could possibly have received this move from a computer that was
better than 1200 strength. Therefore, evidence of cheating is certainly
not apparent after this absolute blunder.


Secondly, Kramnik has had a bad stomach bug for a while, and this was
well known even before the players arrived in Elista. Even if he was
drinking a bottle of water every hour, he would not need to go to the
washroom as often as he had during the first few games, and it was
likely because he was still stomach sick.

With that all said, game five was a disaster. When Kramnik arrived, his
access to the washroom stall was sealed off, and he refused to play,
thereby forfeiting the game. The match was then halted for a couple of
days while FIDE, Kramnik's team and Topalov's team met to discuss
the future of the match. In the end, Kramnik agreed to continue playing
under protest, meaning that he reserves the right to appeal the
validity of the match should he happen to lose.

The two players reportedly shook hands before the start of game six.
Games six and seven ended in solid draws with very little fight, so the
score now stands at 4-3 for Kramnik. The first player to reach 6.5
points will win the match.