in short: it's allowed to connect the dots. is there any particular reason why you think all of the above simply was very convenient for kramnik - "by chance"?>

polarmis, i suggest that you read my post a little better if we're going to debate this. show me where i claimed that it was a fact that uep would pick kramnik, or go back to square one and write your reply to me one more time. this time based on what i actually wrote.

Granted - though Frogbert quoted a factual statement by me and accused me of not being "truthful to some well-known facts" (throwing in a cheap jibe about being a journalist). Then he presented "facts", with "info" (i.e. speculation/assumptions/unwarranted generalisations) included within the numbered facts.

Only <fact 1> apparently contradicted what I said - except it didn't, as I already explained.

And it turns out that <fact 4> is totally wrong as well: i.e.

Frogbert: <4) fact: at the <exact same time> as the deal between uep and fide fell through (and fide started to look for other organizers), two noteworthy things were changed, by fide:

a) fact: it was no longer only one rating qualifier; one spot was "taken" from the wcc and made into a 2nd rating qualifier

b) fact: the organizer could no longer choose format for the candidates, it <had to> be cup format.>

Except if you look at FIDE's board from March 2009: http://www.fide.com/component/conte...

<The PB acknowledged and accepted the bid from UEP for the World Chess Championship Cycle 2010-2011. In 2011, there will be a Candidate Matches/Tournament consisting of GM Kamsky, the loser of the Anand-Topalov match, two players from the Grand Prix series and one player from the World Cup, two highest rated players not already qualified and a player nominated by the organizer. The winner will play the World Champion in 2011.>

i.e. they accepted UEP's bid while adding an extra rating qualifier and still leaving the question of a tournament or match open. The failure of the UEP deal was announced in May.

Frogbert's only other direct response to my statement was:

<whether anybody could "guarantee" or not that kramnik would go on a "good run" as you put it, is quite irrelevant: the changes made by fide left a realistic <opening> for kramnik, and he snatched it with quite a good margin. hence, he could've got it even with a less "good run", as things worked out. but he wasn't anyway near catching carlsen for the <original, single> rating qualification spot.>

But of course it's entirely relevant to the claim that the system was changed just for Kramnik if it didn't give Kramnik that good a chance. The January 2009 list, before the change was announced, had Kramnik in 8th with 2759:

1. Topalov 2796
2. Anand, 2791
3. Ivanchuk 2779
4. Carlsen 2776
5. Morozevich 2771
6. Radjabov 2761
7. Jakovenko 2760
8. Kramnik 2759 (11. Aronian 2750)

Kramnik wasn't playing before the July list (to be counted by FIDE), so he essentially had half a year to improve his rating and hope others fell back. Ivanchuk and Morozevich collapsed, which you might have predicted (though hardly a certainty), but if you're going to change a system just to help Kramnik I think you'd want to give him better odds than he had at the start of 2009.

Of course the following statement can also be disputed:

<he wasn't anyway near catching carlsen for the <original, single> rating qualification spot.>>

- he's not playing the world cup, so those 3 places are gone

- he's not the losing wc finalist

- he's currently only in 4th place in the rating rat race, trailing an ever improving karjakin

the chances for a russian organizer of the 2012 (realistically: 2013) candidates are getting hotter by the minute! :o)

polarmis, can you show me/us a published <press release> in some other media than fide's own web site, properly dated, about what the presidential board decided in march 2009?

fide has edited and re-edited "press releases" on their own web site on numerous occasions. it's a totally <un>-professional organization that's totally unaccountable.

what do you think will happen with the current edition of the "2011-2013 regulations" if/when it will be changed? will there be any numbered/revisioned archive anywhere, showing when and how it changed?

this specific press release seems to be unchanged from its first publication, though. while i'm willing to believe a lot of things about fide, i don't think they have too much power over internet web archives.

hence, i must admit being <wrong> on the exact timings here - the change from 1 to 2 rating qualifiers indeed happened before the uep deal fell through.

So, if a system which would take 12 candidates is still in play, they can't be "locked in" to the current rules, which only takes 8. At the very least they would have to create additional spots.

< I understand that there were four systems proposed…

<Yes. One is the system that was played in Kazan, the second is the 6-6-8 matches, third is the double round robin tournament, and then another one popped up, suggesting twelve players subdivided into two tournament groups of six, each playing ten games, and then the two winners playing a match. I think that all four systems are decent.>

Which system did you vote for?

<I voted for the 6-6-8, although I didn’t have time to give any thought to the last proposal, which was introduced very late, just after my matches were over. As I mentioned, the 6-6-8 has organizational problems, so I’m not sure it will be adopted. Fortunately, we now have four systems – for a long time there were none. So whatever system will be employed, it will still provide very good chances that the stronger players will win and qualify.>>

Gelfand's remarks are in the double brackets, and the interviewer's in single. Here's the article: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail....

Thought you might mention that. Though I note you changed your fact about the <exact same time> to <more or less at the same time>.

The collapse of the UEP deal was announced on 12 May while the FIDE Presidential Board decided on the format on about 17 June (with details published on the 22nd, as far as I can see).

except that topalov and anand were irrelevant (as both were already qualified or champion), and jakovenko and radjabov had 1 and 2 points leads over kramnik, making his position more like a "shared" 4th than an 8th.

<much more important though> is the fact that at this point it was <not published or generally known which lists would count> for the rating qualifier - and what do you know - <when> this was made known (or decided - pick your choice) around june 1st 2009 (i don't remember the exact date), the first of the two lists chosen (july 2009) looked like this:

1. topalov 2813 (irrelevant)
2. anand 2788 (irrelevant)
3. carlsen 2772
4. aronian 2768 (gp qualification favourite)
5. jakovenko 2760
6. kramnik 2759

effectively a "shared 2nd place", trailing jakovenko by a single point.

no, it wasn't certain that aronian would qualify from the fide gp, but he was the favourite to do so.

which he said <after> having been knocked out of the cup by grischuk. surprise, surprise. if anything is quite trademark kramnik, then such a statement in retrospect is.

<I note you changed your fact about the <exact same time>>

which is quite natural when i already have admitted being wrong about the "exact timings". can i be any clearer about having been wrong in this regard, or do you need to score double or triple points on that?

again, at no point have i claimed that fide has ever made decisions or regulations that <guaranteed> kramnik a spot, whether in this or the previous cycle. i'm saying and keep saying that fide's decisions and regulations have turned out to be <very convenient> for kramnik on several turns along the road. including the choice of the july 2009 and july 2011 rating lists - in both cases seemingly decided (there's <no> evidence to the contrary) at times when it was known that kramnik's chances would be good after such a decision.

No, if anything's "trademark" it's your attack on Kramnik. My grammar was deliberate (even if I should perhaps have made it even clearer) - in the recent interview Kramnik mentioned an earlier questionnaire (long before the matches):

<I personally have always preferred the tournament format, which became clear two or three years ago in a questionnaire [http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail... which was made by ChessBase. It was originally planned to have a round robin tournament, but then somehow FIDE for some reason, which I do not know, changed it into a match format.>

It's up to you if you want to call a Kramnik a liar and claim he didn't answer the questionnaire as he says - but you should probably be sure of your facts first.

<Frogbert: Which is quite natural when i already have admitted being wrong about the "exact timings". can i be any clearer about having been wrong in this regard, or do you need to score double or triple points on that?>

Actually I was quite generous in letting your "exact timings" go - when you were actually exposed using false information to make a serious accusation against Kramnik, UEP and FIDE. (I consider my "granted" was a sufficient admission that I'd misread your loophole of including non-facts among the facts :) The argument was left unchanged.)

<Frogbert: can there be a candidates event without kramnik?!?>

Your bitterness is absurd. Kramnik has nothing left to prove in chess, and hasn't shown any evidence of being unable to handle defeat.

Actually, to show that's not just me and get back to the topic of Karjakin joining Carlsen in the lead in Bazna... Here's Aronian from his recent Crestbook conference: http://www.crestbook.com/en/node/1514 (I know I keep plugging it, but I doubt anyone will regret clicking on the link and reading it - and it did take a long time for all concerned to produce & for me to translate!)

after kramnik qualified, he has rearranged self-proclaimed "facts" to discredit volodya, and imply that fide made sure "their man" made it into the candidate matches.