In an article
http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3649
GM Nigel Short is reported by chessbase as seeming to accuse Veselin Topalov
of cheating by quoting a third source, DNA-Sport, to which Nigel Short had
written a stiff letter to the principal of Chessbase saying that those were
not his words, but the paraphrase of another, and "the interpretation is
ridiculous".

Rather bravely, Chessbase has chosen to print its own readers' letters on
the subject - including those of Rowson in the UK who regrets - to
paraphrase him - so much speculation on so little evidence, and a variety of
other readers, at least one of whom have said they have detected a
consistent anti-Topalov bias.

Other readers seemingly take it all seriously, as if there has been cheating
in these instances, and generalise the issue to what should be done in all
chess.

For myself, I do not think that actions should be taken following the
hoo-hah surrounding Kramnik-Topalov, especially based on such lose reports
as read in the Russian Press, where Topalov's manager Danailov was quoted as
comparing FIDE with Satanism, eg, whereas he had mentioned Stalinism.

Chessbase carried an article earlier this week seeming to repeat N. Short in
stating he "observed something sinister in San Luis", and the GM
additionally stated "The quotation marks were removed in the chessbase
report after that phone call. I had earlier telephoned Chessbase to complain
about falsely attributing the "It is possible that Topalov cheated" remark
to me on the German webpage. That was the heading of the DNA piece, and they
were not my words"

Phil Innes

On 5 Feb, 08:53, "Chess One" wrote:
In an articlehttp://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3649
GM Nigel Short is reported by chessbase as seeming to accuse Veselin Topalov
of cheating by quoting a third source, DNA-Sport, to which Nigel Short had
written a stiff letter to the principal of Chessbase saying that those were
not his words, but the paraphrase of another, and "the interpretation is
ridiculous".

Rather bravely, Chessbase has chosen to print its own readers' letters on
the subject - including those of Rowson in the UK who regrets - to
paraphrase him - so much speculation on so little evidence, and a variety of
other readers, at least one of whom have said they have detected a
consistent anti-Topalov bias.

Other readers seemingly take it all seriously, as if there has been cheating
in these instances, and generalise the issue to what should be done in all
chess.

For myself, I do not think that actions should be taken following the
hoo-hah surrounding Kramnik-Topalov, especially based on such lose reports
as read in the Russian Press, where Topalov's manager Danailov was quoted as
comparing FIDE with Satanism, eg, whereas he had mentioned Stalinism.

Chessbase carried an article earlier this week seeming to repeat N. Short in
stating he "observed something sinister in San Luis", and the GM
additionally stated "The quotation marks were removed in the chessbase
report after that phone call. I had earlier telephoned Chessbase to complain
about falsely attributing the "It is possible that Topalov cheated" remark
to me on the German webpage. That was the heading of the DNA piece, and they
were not my words"

Phil Innes

Are you talking to me? Are you talking to me?

Sam Sloan

U¿ytkownik "Chess One" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
news:TFGxh.3484$xu4.2311@trndny04...

Rather bravely, Chessbase has chosen to print its own readers' letters on
the subject - including those of Rowson in the UK who regrets - to
paraphrase him - so much speculation on so little evidence, and a variety
of other readers, at least one of whom have said they have detected a
consistent anti-Topalov bias.

So it is only one intelligent letter.

Other readers seemingly take it all seriously, as if there has been
cheating in these instances, and generalise the issue to what should be
done in all chess.


Of course chessbase is anti-Topalov because it has its businesses with
Kramnik, however it is not obvious to the other readers.