I just wonder... if you were Kramnik, a person of such a high calibre in chess and at the top of his game, playing for a unified world title, would he risk cheating? I'd say it's possible, but not probable. I have no answer for his frequent toilet visits. There could be so many reasons, no neccessarily to pee.
But let's just imagine for a moment if we're to assume cheating. Kramnik plays his move, then quickly to the toilet. There, he pulls out his micro-computer super chess program that he has so cleverly concealed in his pocket. He keeps doing that for most of the moves, including the blunders. Apparently, computers blunder too, you see, so much so that in spite of its powerful and depth of analysis, it could only managed a draw in some games against Topalov! I don't know much about chess programs, but I would imagine that a strong program should not blunder -- at least not a program that a person like Kramnik would rely on.
On the other hand, let's imagine if we are Topalov. Firstly, I am already obviously losing the championship. Even to squeeze a draw would be an uphill task, let alone to win the remaining games! If things remain as they are throughout the rest of the games, I'll end up being the second best in the world. What should I do? Obviously I don't want to be the second best? I've tried not to over the board, but so far it doesn't seem to be working. Well, maybe, just maybe, I can create something... some complaints that would eventually allow me a loophole to walk away. That way, even if Kramnik wins by forfeiture, I can still keep my head high and say that I didn't actually lose the championship?
To be quite honest, I am not a fan of Kramnik. I think his style of play is too positional and have the tendency to become boring. An aggressive player might find it frustrating playing against him, at least that's what I think. My romantic fancy is that a true champion is one that plays aggressively, and with lots of sacrifices etc. But of course that doesn't really happen in modern chess. Actually, I would love to see Topalov getting the better of Kramnik!.... but after the complaints on the toilet visits, I'm not sure anymore...
Originally posted by RahimKSure. It's "possible" super-intelligent aliens from the 14th Dimension are beaming down into the bathroom and giving Kramnik moves, too. One can come up with any number of absurd theories.
Going to the bathroom isn't an issue.
But after seeing what some people do in the bathroom in Otb tournaments, It has happened before to us, I am curious why someone would go into the bathroom that many times in 1 game.
From what I read, the bathrooms have a window and Topolav's bathroom window was left open. What if Kram. was open also and there were a ...[text shortened]... ence otherwise Fide will go down the tube. It's pretty bad already but it could be worse.
In the tournies I've played in, the players many times leave the board. No one says a thing about it. Maybe other people are just sorer losers.
I remember at one time I was playing in a local chess tournament many years ago. In the third game, I was up against someone who I happened to know quite well. And it happened that he knew very well also that I dreaded the queen's pawn opening. And true enough, since he had the white pieces then, he opened with d4. The game went something like this:
1. d4 d5
2. c4 e6
3. Nc3 Nf6
4. Bg5 (pinning my knight)
And after his 4th move, I replied with Nbd7.
He immediately saw that my knight has blocked my queen's defence of the d5 square, and so he continued:
5. cxd5 exd5
6. Nxd5
After this move, I shook my head. My knight on f6 couldn't move because it is pinned. Therefore I've just lost a pawn. My opponent was very pleased with himself. After a few minutes, I went to the toilet, apparently to cool off a bit after making a blunder. But the truth of the matter was that I have actually expected that he would play the queen's pawn opening, and did some research on it. I was excited that he had fallen into my trap, but I didn't react immediately. No. I took my time, went to the toilet.... and after several more minutes, came back and made the move:
6 ... Nxd5!
Gave my opponent quite a shock. He went on to take my queen, of course, and then in the end, I won the game. So you see, chess is not just about being good with moves... but one must also be good from the psychological point of view. The toilet visit was just a show of apparent regret.
Originally posted by ckoh1965If you shook your head at the board in feigned disgust, you were exhibiting poor sportsmanship. This is chess, not poker.
I remember at one time I was playing in a local chess tournament many years ago. In the third game, I was up against someone who I happened to know quite well. And it happened that he knew very well also that I dreaded the queen's pawn opening. And true enough, since he had the white pieces then, he opened with d4. The game went something like this:
1. d ...[text shortened]... from the psychological point of view. The toilet visit was just a show of apparent regret.
Crosspost
Here's my own analysis on the second game (which is claimed to have an 87% matchup).
[Event "WCh"]
[Site "Elista RUS"]
[Date "2006.09.24"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Topalov,V"]
[Black "Kramnik,V"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "2813"]
[BlackElo "2743"]
[EventDate "2006.09.23"]
[ECO "D19"]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 dxc4 5. a4 Bf5 6. e3 e6 7. Bxc4 Bb4 8. O-O Nbd7 9. Qe2 Bg6 10. e4 O-O 11. Bd3 Bh5 12. e5 Nd5 13. Nxd5 cxd5 14. Qe3 Bg6 15. Ng5 Re8 16. f4 Bxd3N This is the novelty according to my database. Fritz would play Rc8 here (+0.22) and gives the played move a score of 0.41 (third choice) at a depth of 15 ply.
17. Qxd3 f5 This doesn't even need much analysis. There are only three moves that doesn't lose a piece and of those this is the best by 0.25 of a pawn over g6 (other non-losing move is Nf8).
18. Be3 Nf8 Fritz says Qa5 (0.16), h6/Qb6/Rb8 (0.25). The text move gets +0.47 and is 10th equal in Fritz's choices.
19. Kh1 Rc8 Fritz agrees with this as the first choice at a depth of 16 ply and offers Re7 as equal to it and a6 as 0.03 pawns worse.
20. g4 Qd7 h6 is reckoned to be -0.50 by Fritz, almost half a pawn ahead of fxg4 and Qd7 (-0.06) at a depth of 16 ply.
21. Rg1 Be7 Early on Be7 doesn't appear at all and fxg4 is greatly favoured. By 15 ply Be7 is the second choice (-0.06) and fxg4 is still the top choice (-0.25).
22. Nf3 Rc4 Again fxg4 is favoured early but later loses out to Rc6 (-0.16). The played move scores -0.06 at a depth of 16 ply.
23. Rg2 fxg4 fxg4 is the strongest move by far here early on, 0.6 pawns ahead of every other move. This changes later and at 16 ply fxg4 scores -0.25 over Ng6 at -0.09.
24. Rxg4 Rxa4 7th Fritz choice. 0.19 behind the first choice.
25. Rag1 g6 First choice. Everthing else is 0.91 or more worse.
26. h4 Rb4 Bd8 and Rb4 score equally at 0.00. Ra5 scores 0.06 and a6 0.56.
27. h5 Qb5 First choice (0.00). Second choice is Rxb2 (0.19) at 16 ply.
28. Qc2 Rxb2 Equal with Rb3 at 0.00. Bd8 scores 0.44 and everything else is even further back.
29. hxg6 h5 Fritz feels comfortable of even play after Rxc2 although only a very confident human would even consider it. Text is 0.66 worse and second choice.
30. g7 hxg4 Only move.
31. gxf8=Q+ Bxf8 Only move.
32. Qg6+ Bg7 Only move.
33. f5 Re7 Scores worse than exf5 (0.12 vs. 0.00). Second choice of three candiate moves.
34. f6 Qe2 Only move.
35. Qxg4 Rf7 Only move.
36. Rc1 Rc2 Only move.
37. Rxc2 Qd1+ Second choice 0.5 behind Qxc2.
38. Kg2 Qxc2+ Only move.
39. Kg3 Qe4 Much worse than Qf5 (0.56) and way down the list of moves.
40. Bf4 Qf5 4th choice behind a5, b5 (scoring 0.00) and b6 (0.03). Text scores 0.06.
41. Qxf5 exf5 A true only move. Everything else scores over 13 in white's favour.
42. Bg5 a5 Only move that has a chance.
43. Kf4 a4 Only move that has a chance.
44. Kxf5 a3 Scores the same as Rc7. Both of those moves are 0.75 ahead of everything else.
45. Bc1 Bf8 Fritz would play a2 here which looks horrible but it seems it can find a way to an advantage like only an engine can (-1.09). The played move is 4th choice at 0.00
46. e6 Rc7 It's either this or Rh7 here and Rh7 is bad.
47. Bxa3 Bxa3 Obviously the only logical move.
48. Ke5 Rc1 Rc3 is much better (0.47 better). Text is third choice.
49. Ng5 Rf1 Fritz likes Rg1 over Rf1 by 0.28.
50. e7 Re1+ Obviously the only logical move.
51. Kxd5 Bxe7 Obviously the only logical move.
52. fxe7 Rxe7 Obviously the only logical move.
53. Kd6 Re1 Re1 and Re3 both score the same (-1.13) and Re2 scores -0.69, everything else is 0.00.
54. d5 Kf8 Only possible winning move. Scores -1.13 at a depth of 20 ply.
55. Ne6+ Ke8 Only possible winning move. Scores -1.13 compared to 0.00 for all other options.
56. Nc7+ Kd8 Only possible winning move. Scores -1.34 compared to 0.00 for all other options.
57. Ne6+ Kc8 Only possible winning move. Scores -1.34 compared to 0.00 for all other options.
58. Ke7 Rh1 Only possible winning move. Scores -1.34 compared to 0.00 for all other options.
59. Ng5 b5 Scores -4.53, second choice is Rd1 at -3.72
60. d6 Rd1 Only winning move. I did the following moves in reverse order (63. Re3 first) which gave greater depth faster on these moves (hashtables). It also may have reduced moves appearing as Fritz got to the depth it was analysing at.
61. Ne6 b4 Only winning move
62. Nc5 Re1+ Only winning move (by like 16 pawns).
63. Kf6 Re3 At a depth of 19 ply this scores -16.75 compared to Kd8 (-16.47) and Re2 (-15.94). All other moves give away the advantage.
0-1
So even with the only moves I get 72.9% and that's including many moves that not even a Class A player would miss.
Originally posted by 7ate9Did you get an analysis of Topalov's match-up with fritz?
Did you get an analysis of Topalov's match-up with fritz?
I think he's more in control of the games(such as building structures etc) so it'd be interesting. I think if one players match-ups are low, then it may make the other naturally high. Maybe an average of both players during a game would be an important statistic to look at?
72.9% is still high, but what accounts for the variance of 14.1% ?
I think he's more in control of the games(such as building structures etc) so it'd be interesting. I think if one players match-ups are low, then it may make the other naturally high. Maybe an average of both players during a game would be an important statistic to look at?
No I didn't. Doing the analysis I posted took nearly two hours (by hand not generated) and I'm not eager to do it again. I think Topalov would score lower as in large portions of play Topalov is doing the forcing and Kramnik the responding. While there may only be one response there could easily be 4 or 5 valid forcing moves. I don't think it would be "low" but it almost certainly wouldn't be as high as Kramnik's.
72.9% is still high, but what accounts for the variance of 14.1% ?
As others have stated. Topalov's manager has a vested interest in having the results come out showing Kramnik is a cheat. If one manipulates search depth it's possible to vary the match percentage by a decent amount. I tried to comment on the effects different search depths could have in my comments.
And as for 73% being high, I'd argue that the forced moves account for that. Over half of Kramnik's last 20 moves were only moves.
Coming days can maybe crucial for Topalov Manager Danailov. Due to his actions, Topalov has now a damaged reputation. And also the chessworld is damaged (I hope this temporarly) by Danailov childish actions. I hope Topalov "has grown up" due to these affairs and fire his friend. Look at other sports like tennis, football. They als quit the ties with there coaches. As I said before, just an advice!
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm not so sure what constitutes a poor sportsmanship in chess, really. In the history of chess we read many stories on the numerous behaviors of players. And we're talking about famous players here. For example, we hear of a player walking out of a game and didn't return because he saw that he was losing (in 10 moves). He didn't bother to announce that he has resigned. I think Josh Waitzkin once said that when he was young (and he was already a very good player then!), he used to slap his forehead as if he'd made a mistake. It's very interesting and perhaps one can say these are questionable conducts of a professional chess player. But I think chess is not about strategies and brilliancies only. There is a lot on the psychology as well. After all, we are just humans. The weaker players get intimidated by an aggressive move by a stronger opponent. When you make a blunder, you start to sweat and your whole game can collapse because of one silly move. I think if I can win a game by means of psychological tactics, I will do it. I don't know any rules against it?
If you shook your head at the board in feigned disgust, you were exhibiting poor sportsmanship. This is chess, not poker.
Originally posted by ckoh1965Then you're a jerk.
I'm not so sure what constitutes a poor sportsmanship in chess, really. In the history of chess we read many stories on the numerous behaviors of players. And we're talking about famous players here. For example, we hear of a player walking out of a game and didn't return because he saw that he was losing (in 10 moves). He didn't bother to announce that he ...[text shortened]... game by means of psychological tactics, I will do it. I don't know any rules against it?