chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

🏆
MATCH STANDINGS
Kramnik - Topalov World Championship Match

Vladimir Kramnik8.5/16(+5 -4 =7)[games]
Veselin Aleksandrov Topalov7.5/16(+4 -5 =7)[games]

  WCC Overview
 
  << previous HISTORY OF THE WORLD CHESS CHAMPIONSHIP next >>  
Kramnik vs Topalov, 2006
Toiletgate in Elista

In 2006, the schism which began with the Kasparov-Short World Championship was to finally end, unifying the World Championship title after 13 long years. Bulgarian grandmaster Veselin Topalov, the winner of the 2005 FIDE World Championship in San Luis was due to play Vladimir Kramnik, the Classical World Champion, and the winner was to emerge as the single, unified, World Chess Champion.

 Kramnik-Topalov 2006
 Kramnik and Topalov, Elista 2006
The contest began with Kramnik winning both of the first two games, and due to the extreme brevity of the match (a mere 12 games) this established an early commanding lead. After two more drawn games, on a rest day, Topalov's manager Silvio Danailov, issued a press release which threatened to abort the match. The press release read, in part:

The careful study of the video recordings from the rest rooms done by the technical experts of the Bulgarian team revealed the following facts which we would herewith like to bring to your attention:

  1. After each move Mr. Kramnik immediately heads to the rest room and from it directly to the bathroom. During every game he visited the relaxation room 25 times at the average and the bathroom more than 50 times - the bathroom is the only place without video surveillance.
  2. Unlike Mr. Kramnik, the World Champion Veselin Topalov spends his time mainly at the playing table. The average number of times he visited the rest room and the bathroom is 8 and 4 respectively.
In our opinion these facts are quite strange, if not suspicious. ... Should this extremely serious problem remain unsolved by 10.00 o'clock tomorrow (September 29th, 2006), we would seriously reconsider the participation of the World Champion Veselin Topalov in this match. [1]

The FIDE Appeals Committee, after viewing the video tapes, found that the frequency of Kramnik's visits to the toilet had been exaggerated, but nevertheless took these allegations seriously, and decreed that the private toilets would be closed and a common toilet opened for both players.

Kramnik Forfeits Kramnik's team rejected this decision, declaring: "The protests of the Topalov team and the suspicions in the press release of Mr. Topalov are utterly disgraceful and are touching Mr. Kramnik's privacy."[2] Kramnik refused to play under the altered conditions, and as a result, Kramnik forfeited game 5.

In a state of chaos, the match was placed on hold while FIDE President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov flew to Elista in the hope for bringing a solution to this crisis, which by this time had been given the pejorative name, "Toiletgate." After several days of strife and intense negotiations, Ilyumzhinov declared that the match would continue. The members of the Appeals Committee had been replaced, the access to the toilets was restored, and the forfeited game 5 would remain a loss for Kramnik.

As the match continued, Topalov won both game 8 and game 9, giving him a one point lead with only three games left to play. His lead was not to last long, as Kramnik scored a brilliant victory in game 10, thereby tying the score, and after two more draws the match was sent into overtime.

The first phase of the tiebreaks was a four game mini-match played with 25 minutes per side, and a 10 second increment. Kramnik's victory in game 16 allowed him to win the mini-match. Vladimir Kramnik, after 13 years of chaos in the chess world, had thus become the the solitary undisputed World Chess Champion.

click on a game number to replay game 12345678910111213141516
Topalov00½½1½½110½½½010
Kramnik11½½0½½001½½½101

FINAL SCORE:  Kramnik 8½;  Topalov 7½
Reference: game collection WCC Kramnik-Topalov Elista 2006

NOTABLE GAMES   [what is this?]
    · Game #2     Topalov vs Kramnik, 2006     0-1
    · Game #8     Kramnik vs Topalov, 2006     0-1
    · Game #10     Kramnik vs Topalov, 2006     1-0

FOOTNOTES

  1. Topalov threatens to abandon the World Championship Match, Chessbase, Sep. 9 2006.
    2 Kramnik may stop playing the match, Chessbase, Sep. 9, 2006.

 page 1 of 1; 16 games  PGN Download 
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. Kramnik vs Topalov 1-0752006Kramnik - Topalov World Championship MatchE04 Catalan, Open, 5.Nf3
2. Topalov vs Kramnik 0-1632006Kramnik - Topalov World Championship MatchD19 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav, Dutch
3. Kramnik vs Topalov ½-½382006Kramnik - Topalov World Championship MatchE04 Catalan, Open, 5.Nf3
4. Topalov vs Kramnik ½-½542006Kramnik - Topalov World Championship MatchD47 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav
5. Kramnik vs Topalov 0-102006Kramnik - Topalov World Championship MatchA00 Uncommon Opening
6. Topalov vs Kramnik ½-½312006Kramnik - Topalov World Championship MatchD17 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
7. Topalov vs Kramnik ½-½602006Kramnik - Topalov World Championship MatchD27 Queen's Gambit Accepted, Classical
8. Kramnik vs Topalov 0-1522006Kramnik - Topalov World Championship MatchD47 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav
9. Topalov vs Kramnik 1-0392006Kramnik - Topalov World Championship MatchD12 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
10. Kramnik vs Topalov 1-0432006Kramnik - Topalov World Championship MatchE00 Queen's Pawn Game
11. Topalov vs Kramnik ½-½662006Kramnik - Topalov World Championship MatchD12 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
12. Kramnik vs Topalov ½-½472006Kramnik - Topalov World Championship MatchD12 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
13. Topalov vs Kramnik ½-½472006Kramnik - Topalov World Championship MatchD19 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav, Dutch
14. Kramnik vs Topalov 1-0452006Kramnik - Topalov World Championship MatchD45 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav
15. Topalov vs Kramnik 1-0502006Kramnik - Topalov World Championship MatchD12 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
16. Kramnik vs Topalov 1-0452006Kramnik - Topalov World Championship MatchD47 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav
 page 1 of 1; 16 games  PGN Download 
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)  

TIP: You can make the above ads go away by registering a free account!

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 1167 OF 1167 ·  Later Kibitzing>
May-26-17  beatgiant: <ChessHigherCat> <accusation without evidence> <groundless accusation>

The main part that was not in evidence was the claimed superhuman play by Kramnik. Kramnik was tactically lost at several points in game 2, for example, so if cheating, he was doing a very clever job of it

May-26-17  Sally Simpson: Kramnik latched onto the fact Topalov (or rather Topalov's team) were getting edgy about the toilet trips so kept it going.

Topalov's book on the match is not as one sided as one might think.

Team Topalov did a marvellous job of convincing their man something was up "page 25 'On the Edge in Elista' by Topalov and Ginchev:

"...my delegation noticed the high number of toilet visits by my opponent." Their mistake was pointing it out to toplaov and making an issue of it.

In Game 7 he admits because he could not see Kramnik who was away from the board on the camera he panicked and admits to possibly feeling paranoid and played moves 12 to 24 at almost blitz speed to keep Kramnik at the board.

"...every time my opponent left the board I was getting nervous."

The doo dah hit the fan...and team Kramnik went along. All is fair in love and chess matches.

May-26-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  MissScarlett: <Kramnik latched onto the fact Topalov (or rather Topalov's team) were getting edgy about the toilet trips so kept it going.>

He was pulling their chain, one might say.

May-26-17  Sally Simpson: :)

I should of thought of it...please delete you post so I can nick it.

May-26-17  sac 4 mate: <"...my delegation noticed the high number of toilet visits by my opponent." Their mistake was pointing it out to toplaov and making an issue of it.>

That's one element of the Toiletgate saga that's frequently overlooked - that Topalov's team only became aware of the frequency of Kramnik's toilet visits after they spied on Kramnik by obtaining the recordings of him backstage. As Yasser Seirawan and many others later pointed out, the match officials should never have allowed Danailov and co. to access that footage. I'm not sure whether they were biased as Kramnik complained, or simply incompetent, but it's clear that they weren't fit for the heavy responsibility of presiding over a world championship match.

May-26-17  beatgiant: <MissScarlett> <He was pulling their chain, one might say.> But alas, their accusations did not hold water.

The kibitzing to game 5 must be full of this stuff.

May-26-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  tamar: <The kibitzing to game 5 must be full of this stuff.>

The official song of the match was "Skip to my Loo" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSY...

May-26-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Petrosianic: <ChessHigherCat> <The same arguments apply to Petrosianic who is spouting off some nonsense about the offense being matter of public record" just as the totally absurd and imaginary offenses of 99% of the victims of the Stalinist kangaroo courts are now "matters of public records", if you're stupid enough to believe the public records.>

I'm fascinated (not offended, just fascinated) by your ability to reach your pre-determined conclusion, regardless of the facts. Topalov broke the rules of chess? "So what?" The Ethics Committee concurred with that conclusion? "Big deal! Now let's talk hypotheticals!" None of it because Stalin was bad too, and other lame rationalizations. I'm actually offending you by sticking to facts you wish to ignore.

I appreciate the conversation because we're all tempted to be irrational at times, even those of us who don't give into it, and we need a reality check now and then to remind us of how ridiculous it looks to others lest we be tempted.

May-26-17  Absentee: <ChessHigherCat: As usual with your endlessly specious arguments, you just made up what I said: I never said "Topalov said", I said "Topalov believed" as evidenced by the "bloody obvious" fact that he circumvented the FIDE Committee.>

Of course that evidences nothing, except inside your head. You could with equal merit claim that he circumvented it because he knew he didn't have a leg to stand on. But since you read minds, I'm curious: why did Topalov choose to play under FIDE for all those years? Why didn't he ever complain about how conspiratorial FIDE was?

<BTW, did Topalov have any past record of making such accusations in the thousands of games he had played? Isn't a bit odd that he wouldn't suddenly start then?>

Yes, how odd that he would do that in a World Championship match he was losing rather than in a weekend backyard Swiss.

<You don't have to explain that it was a quote from Kramnik's team, who else could possibly assert such a desperately lame argument (present company excluded)?>

By golly, it is preposterous indeed that a gentleman should think someone with a medical condition might actually have some use for a private restroom!

But then you're trying to support the totally not desperately lame argument that Topalov was the victim of a conspiracy by the federation he chose to play for, the appeals committee, the tournament organizers and everybody else except you and team Topalov (beatgiant, Petrosianic and I are in it too, the rascals!), so...

<In any case, I can see that the "3 little [Russian] bears" will persist in ignoring/distorting and generally burying my contributions on the general principle that most readers won't bother to even read what I really said, which simply proves the power of dogged propaganda over claims for objective verification in this intellectual iron age of the mass media.>

You haven't made any contribution. You made a bunch of claims you couldn't back up, they were picked full of holes you couldn't patch, and now you're crying and stomping your feet on the ground.

You're a waste of time.

May-26-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: <Petro: I appreciate the conversation because we're all tempted to be irrational at times, even those of us who don't give into it, and we need a reality check now and then to remind us of how ridiculous it looks to others lest we be tempted.>

I wish I'd said that.

May-26-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Petrosianic: I will add that two of my favorite memories of this match come from Topalov.

One is from that Toilet War book he had written to cash in on the whole thing. The blurb on the back of the book had this line about "Throughout Europe, the world is hearing the volleys of a Toilet War!", which struck me as unintentionally hilarious. Partly because it's phrased in such a way as to assume that everyone already knows what a Toilet War is. Since then, I've added the phrase "the volleys of a Toilet War" to my repertoire of stock phrases. Some day I really need to buy the book itself.

The other is a line Topalov used when he was trying to claim everyone was after him. He was saying he was afraid that if he made any waves, they'd close the airports and leave him trapped in Elista (mind you he WASN'T afraid to break the rules openly).

But then he made this comment that how do you get out of Russia if they close the airports? You certainly can't WALK out. This was funny too, but I think it was intentionally funny this time. He's conjuring up images of Napoleon's Retreat from Moscow, and other incidents where people marched into Russia, got stuck in its vast wastelands, and were wiped out. Very funny comment.

May-26-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Petrosianic: Oh, my!! I found the whole quote and found something I'd forgotten about it! This is great!

<The back cover of the book states: "Chess has the reputation of being a quiet game, in which there are no ankle injuries or bruised elbows. But in the godforsaken town of Elista we hear the artillary volleys of a toilet war." Kramnik's repeated visits to the toilet are characterised by the author as "biotechnological poison" that Kramnik used against Topalov.>

The content is totally stupid, but I absolutely love this writing style. It's like the back cover of a pulp novel.

But the part I'd forgotten was the phrase "Godforsaken Elista". For at least a year after the match, I never referred to Elista at all in a post without putting that adjective in front of it. If Kramnik wants to slam Fide HQ, as well as Kirsan's home town this way, I'll go along with that.

Come to think of it, it was this phrase, "Godforsaken Elista", that made Topalov's comment about how you can't walk out of Russia even funnier. I can't imagine how I forgot this.

http://en.chessbase.com/post/toilet...

May-26-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  ChessHigherCat: Petrosianic: <ChessHigherCat> <The same arguments apply to Petrosianic who is spouting off some nonsense about the offense being matter of public record" just as the totally absurd and imaginary offenses of 99% of the victims of the Stalinist kangaroo courts are now "matters of public records", if you're stupid enough to believe the public records.>

<I'm fascinated (not offended, just fascinated) by your ability to reach your pre-determined conclusion, regardless of the facts.>

I'm fascinated at the unfathomable depths of your obtuseness. My "pre-determined conclusion" is that the matter should be objectively investigated. What kind of biased conclusion is that?

<Topalov broke the rules of chess? "So what?" >

Topalov bypassed the FIDE Committee which according to Anand (and <Tamar> above) was corrupt at that time and therefore forfeited its status as the Supreme Authority, like any other corrupt power. In fact all the rumors of the FIDE Committee "favoring" Topalov are really just based on bribery:

Anand: "Topalov, who was left out of the Mexico competition after losing the unification match to Kramnik, was included at the last minute. He gets to play a super match against the winner of the World Cup and take on the winner of the match between Kramnik and the world champion.

****It looks like anyone can buy into a rematch*** and keep the title race going forever. This time, FIDE has managed to start with a solution and finish with problems. It is difficult to evaluate who got a better deal, Kramnik or Topalov both get a match. Both matches are unnecessary in my view .If we have a format it amounts to something. (http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt...)

<The Ethics Committee concurred with that conclusion? "Big deal!>

Exactly, if they're corrupt, big deal.

<Now let's talk hypotheticals!">

No, let's just mindlessly accept the verdict of a corrupt authority, that's much more convenient all the way round.

<None of it because Stalin was bad too, and other lame rationalizations.>

Your powers of grasping analogies underwhelms me.

<"I'm actually offending you by sticking to facts you wish to ignore.">

First you say I accept your "facts" and don't care, then you say I ignore them. Make up in your mind.

May-26-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  ChessHigherCat: Absentee: <ChessHigherCat: As usual with your endlessly specious arguments, you just made up what I said: I never said "Topalov said", I said "Topalov believed" as evidenced by the "bloody obvious" fact that he circumvented the FIDE Committee.>

<Of course that evidences nothing, except inside your head. You could with equal merit claim that he circumvented it because he knew he didn't have a leg to stand on.>

It evidences distrust in anyone's head whose brain hasn't gone absentee. The reasons for bypassing a mistrusted corrupt immediate superior are obvious. On the other hand, if "he knew he didn't have a leg to stand on" then he would simply not have asserted the claim at all.

<But since you read minds, I'm curious: why did Topalov choose to play under FIDE for all those years? Why didn't he ever complain about how conspiratorial FIDE was?>

Maybe it was because he benefited from the corruption as Anand claims or maybe it wasn't always corrupt. What the hell do I care, all I'm saying is that the matter should be examined using a pre-/-post toilet move analysis to determine the varying degrees of correlation with Fritz's recommendations. I don't care who is more saintly in the affair.

<By golly, it is preposterous indeed that a gentleman should think someone with a medical condition might actually have some use for a private restroom!>

Yes, a private toilet that is indistinguishable from the public toilet except in one particular: The private toilet was the only room without videosurveillance! Note that grounds adduced by Kramnik's team for the private was not medical but merely that it lengthened Kramnik's pacing area (see Beat Giant's quote above)

<In any case, I can see that the "3 little [Russian] bears" will persist in ignoring/distorting and generally burying my contributions on the general principle that most readers won't bother to even read what I really said, which simply proves the power of dogged propaganda over claims for objective verification in this intellectual iron age of the mass media.>

<You haven't made any contribution. You made a bunch of claims you couldn't back up, they were picked full of holes you couldn't patch, and now you're crying and stomping your feet on the ground.

You're a waste of time.>

You're just plain a waste. My contribution is my proposed method of verification.

You couldn't pick holes in my arguments because you're obviously incapable of grasping any logical connections. Your "arguments" are a lot of mindless tripe based on ignoring everything I say and blithely contaminating the media with your Goebbels-style invective.

May-26-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  ChessHigherCat: <beatgiant: <ChessHigherCat> <accusation without evidence> <groundless accusation>

<The main part that was not in evidence was the claimed superhuman play by Kramnik. Kramnik was tactically lost at several points in game 2, for example, so if cheating, he was doing a very clever job of it>

1) It is only an analysis of the tapes that might help clarify whether the points at which he was tactically lost corresponded to time away from the restroom or not.

2) In any case, any cheater at poker who has an accomplice with a camera will quite often fold with a winning hand to avert suspicion, and the KGB is a hell of a lot trickier than the average poker cheat, so you could expect Kramnik to deliberately lose some games.

3) At that point in time, Topalov could probably have beaten Fritz a certain percentage of games so even if K followed Fritz's every suggestion T might still win a small number of games.

May-26-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Petrosianic: <ChessHigherCat> We get it, we get it. You're a rabid partisan, you've conceded the argument on the facts, and now hope to obscure the concession in the artillery volleys of a Toilet War.

(Thanks for at least giving me an opportunity to use the phrase!)

May-26-17  beatgiant: <ChessHigherCat> <you could expect Kramnik to deliberately lose some games> Hmm, maybe after winning game 1, Kramnik tried to throw game 2 to allay suspicion, but unfortunately Topalov failed to find all those wins so Kramnik accidentally won game 2 also?

And maybe the FIDE organizers pretended to cooperate with Topalov's team, sharing the secret tapes and even ruling in Topalov's favor so he won game 5, all to conceal the fact that they secretly favored Kramnik?

Yes, it's possible. But then nothing could ever be settled by evidence. If we find Kramnik's critical moves did not match Fritz, what then? Under what conditions can we stop suspecting this conspiracy?

<grounds adduced by Kramnik's team for the private was not medical but merely that it lengthened Kramnik's pacing area> On the contrary, the symptom of his condition is muscle pain, so light exercise could be therapeutic.

May-27-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  ChessHigherCat: <Petrosianic: <ChessHigherCat> We get it, we get it. You're a rabid partisan, you've conceded the argument on the facts, and now hope to obscure the concession in the artillery volleys of a Toilet War.<

The only thing you got was a bad lobotomy. You're such a pathetic moron you can't even grasp that I'm advocating a method of verification rather than a specific party.

May-27-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  ChessHigherCat: <beatgiant> <nothing is ever settled by evidence> How interesting, then you're afraid of verification! Anyway, that's total nonsense, then there could be no court system at all. And all that speculation to argue against an attempt at verification?

<grounds adduced by Kramnik's team for the private was not medical but merely that it lengthened Kramnik's pacing area> <On the contrary, the symptom of his condition is muscle pain, so light exercise could be therapeutic.>

Lengthening the total pacing room available in the "rest room" (retarded misnomer for the private lounge that was still available) by leaving the private toilet door open is the lamest possible argument for the need for a private toilet that just happens to be the only place without a video camera.

All 3 of you are obviously paid (if thoroughly mediocre) pro-Kramnik partisan propagandists and I'll waste no more time on you.

May-27-17  beatgiant: <ChessHigherCat> <<nothing is ever settled by evidence> How interesting, then you're afraid of verification!> How interesting, you misquote me and interpret it the opposite of its meaning in context!

You've said you'd expect Kramnik to deliberately play bad moves and even throw games to conceal his cheating. That means you would take absence of evidence as evidence of a coverup. <BUT THEN nothing ever COULD be settled by evidence.>

May-27-17  Absentee: <beatgiant: <ChessHigherCat> <<nothing is ever settled by evidence> How interesting, then you're afraid of verification!> How interesting, you misquote me and interpret it the opposite of its meaning in context!

You've said you'd expect Kramnik to deliberately play bad moves and even throw games to conceal his cheating. That means you would take absence of evidence as evidence of a coverup. <BUT THEN nothing ever COULD be settled by evidence.>>

This is just marvelous.

May-27-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  plang: Apparently, the suggestion to let bygones be bygones and move on has fallen on deaf ears.

What is this - the Hatfields and the McCoys?

May-27-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  ChessHigherCat: <plang: Apparently, the suggestion to let bygones be bygones and move on has fallen on deaf ears.

What is this - the Hatfields and the McCoys?>

More like Sherlock Holmes meets the Three Stooges. Anyway, I give up. You can see how the slightest element of complexity leads to further simplistic drivel (or in some cases, even dribble):. If there's a complication then all proof is impossible Q.E.D., this is marvelous, oh, oh, AHHH......

Jun-03-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Petrosianic: <ChessHigherCat> I understand why you're upset about this. All the facts are against you. All attempts to beg, plead, cajole or bully people into forgetting them keep getting rebuffed. And nothing, absolutely nothing, can ever change the fact that Topalov not only lost the match but was censured for illegal behavior. All you can ever have is a blind personal faith that Kramnik did something much worse than what you know Topalov did.

Really, Kramnik owes Topalov some thanks over this match. It's not well remembered, but Kramnik's reputation was somewhat in the dumps before it. People were mad at him for not playing Kasparov again, he'd only managed to draw with Leko, his rating was a bit down, while Topalov was playing exciting chess and turning in great results. It was Topalov who reversed all that, and unwittingly turned Kramnik into a hero again by making him the Good Guy in a Good vs. Evil match. Kramnik could never have managed that on his own.

Jun-03-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  ChessHigherCat: <Petrosianic: <ChessHigherCat> I understand why you're upset about this.>

Upset! I think you're absolutely hilarious, please keep it up!

<All the facts are against you. All attempts to beg, plead, cajole or bully people into forgetting them keep getting rebuffed.> I understand that you have serious problems with reading comprehension but try to find somebody who can translate this into chess notation so you can understand: Unlike the 3 stooges, I am not unconditionally defending one party, on the contrary, I am advocating a method of verification based on videotapes to see if somebody is cheating like in Las Vegas (ask your mommy to explain the big word "ve-ri-fi-ca-tion" to you). It should also be noted that the experts who determine cheating in casinos are familiar with rudimentary cheating tactics such as occasionally losing on purpose, etc.

< And nothing, absolutely nothing, can ever change the fact that Topalov not only lost the match but was censured for illegal behavior.> And precisely which article of the Retard's Criminal Code did he violate? (mommy can probably explain the term "illegal" to you, too). As to Topalov being censured, so what, the prevailing opinion is that the FIDE Committee was corrupt at the time (you're not going to goad me into repeating myself but anybody can see my previous messages). Finally, a word of clarification about the "charges" made by the 3 Stooges that "Topalov made accusations without evidence" as though that were some kind of crime. That's exceptionally stupid even for you guys. Imagine a woman is raped and comes to the police station (I can imagine your 3 remaining brain cells planning your dim-witted refutation already: Topalov was not a woman and he was not raped!!!). The police ask her for evidence and of course she doesn't have any. Is that some kind of crime or even an unethical action? Of course not, the victim is not responsible for gathering evidence, that's the responsibility of the courts and law enforcement authorities. What is immoral/illegal is knowingly making a FALSE accusation, which can only be decided through judicial process (another big word but find a grown-up to help you).

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 1167)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 1167 OF 1167 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No posting personal information of members.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.


NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific tournament and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2017, Chessgames Services LLC