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

  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; 7 games  PGN Download 
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. Kramnik vs Topalov ½-½382006Kramnik - Topalov World Championship MatchE04 Catalan, Open, 5.Nf3
2. Topalov vs Kramnik ½-½542006Kramnik - Topalov World Championship MatchD47 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav
3. Topalov vs Kramnik ½-½312006Kramnik - Topalov World Championship MatchD17 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
4. Topalov vs Kramnik ½-½602006Kramnik - Topalov World Championship MatchD27 Queen's Gambit Accepted, Classical
5. Topalov vs Kramnik ½-½662006Kramnik - Topalov World Championship MatchD12 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
6. Kramnik vs Topalov ½-½472006Kramnik - Topalov World Championship MatchD12 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
7. Topalov vs Kramnik ½-½472006Kramnik - Topalov World Championship MatchD18 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav, Dutch
  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 6 OF 6 ·  Later Kibitzing>
May-26-17  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  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
Premium Chessgames Member
  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
Premium Chessgames Member
  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  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).

Jan-25-18  Caissanist: This was only eleven years ago, but already it seems like this match was played in a totally different world. I don't know what anti-cheating rules are in place nowadays, but it's unimaginable that anybody would be allowed to do anything like what Kramnik did.
Jan-25-18  Petrosianic: Kramnik was never found to have done anything wrong or even out of the ordinary. You saw how upset ChessHigherCat got when called on that a few months back.

In fact, they had strict measures in that match. Metal detectors, screenings, and all the detection mechanisms you'd find now. They'd have problems if a player left the playing area, but a clean player entering a clean area wouldn't be wrong even now. It might attract attention if it were overdone, and draw a little scrutiny, but wouldn't be forbidden.

Jan-25-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  ChessHigherCat: <Petrosianic: You saw how upset ChessHigherCat got when called on that a few months back.>

I wasn't upset, I was having the time of my life pointing out how totally unsubstantiated all the three stooges' "arguments" were, but I'm not going to waste anymore time on that so go ahead and spread your propaganda. Any readers interested in the subject should look up my earlier posts rather than relying on the "objective summaries" that will no doubt follow.

Jan-25-18  Petrosianic: All right, maybe you weren't upset. But you were obviously low on substance and had to argument it with kindergarten stuff, which is why I dropped out. I didn't think I had any more to learn from you.
Jan-25-18  Petrosianic: One match that really does feel like a lifetime ago is Korchnoi-Spassky 1977. In that one, Spassky was spending all of his time on every move hiding in his relaxation box, studying the game from the demonstration board, and only coming out to make his move. Even if there had been GM level computers back then, it probably wouldn't have been a cheating risk (the area was visible to the referees). But you can't imagine anyone doing it now. Actually, nobody could imagine it back then, either. Korchnoi went off his rocker for a few games over it.
Jan-25-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  ChessHigherCat: You have all the integrity of Joseph Göbbels, and I'm starting to believe in the merits of physiognomy because you even look like him! As you very well know (and as anybody can see who takes the trouble to read the posts rather than swallowing your latest version of Pravda), I was arguing for AN OBJECTIVE METHOD OF VERIFICATION to determine whether or not he was cheating and you kept deliberately ignoring that and acting like I was accusing Kramnik. I was not so much interested in persecuting Kramnik as I was in defending Topalov, whom you accused of "making unsubstantiated accusations". I'm sure you do the same for concentration camp victims who can't supply witnesses and documentary evidence of their internment.
Jan-25-18  Petrosianic: <You have all the integrity of Joseph Göbbels, and I'm starting to believe in the merits of physiognomy because you even look like him!>

As I say, the kindergarten stuff is why I dropped out. Thanks for backing me up on that. I was afraid you were going to deny it.

Jan-25-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  ChessHigherCat: No problem, my pleasure.
Jan-25-18  nok: These were the times when mobile devices definitely overtook men, and everybody was a bit psyched out. You'd beat two guys above your rating and they'd look at you strangely.
Jan-25-18  Petrosianic: Well, for one of the best cases of people who were actually guilty, look at the Eugene Varshavsky case. He was the best, not only because he got busted, but because he kept playing after he got busted. And the two games he played without his computer, showed that his own actual playing strength was about 1500 level. But he was stuck in the Open section of the World Open with only his own resources. Those last two massacres he lost were a joy to behold.
Jan-25-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: Vastly amusing, and just deserts.
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 6)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·  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 2001-2018, Chessgames Services LLC