Originally posted by mtthwKramnik is acting on principle. How much more of his contract should he have allowed FIDE to disregard at Topalov's demand? His share of the prize money, for instance?
Except Kramnik is the one that refused to play (Topalov threatened to, but didn't carry it out). All Topalov has done is make a protest (a ridiculous one, it has to be admitted, but he's allowed to do that).
They've all been stupid, and it's a mess,
- Joined
- 03 Sep 03
- Moves
- 89308
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1,
What a fiasco! Topalov is an idiot for filing such a complaint, the match organizers are idiots for changing the rules in the middle of the match and Kramnik is an idiot for not blowing this petty BS off! Unbelievable!
EDIT: Then again, Topalov wins the "WTF??" award for this line from his team's letter:
When the two players need to go to the bathroom, they should be accompanied by an assistant arbiter.
If you were the lawyer for Kramnik. Would you allow his opponent to change the conditions of that contract (that they both agreed to) during the match? ie: Add additional stipulations! Or would you tell him to stand up for his rights and play hardball?
This question does ASSume that their contract does NOT allow the organizers to change the conditions as they see fit.
Originally posted by zebanoI feel angry, which is the prelude to feeling sad.
Is anyone else just really sad about all this? It's so pathetic I can't even muster an appropriate level of outrage. The serious chess community may be losing one of their bigger fans over the past 10 years.
I am asking myself the same question. Why do I bother to follow this farce? Especially as I do not find this in the slightest bit funny.
Originally posted by TommyCof course there isn't a clause on the number of toilet visits. but there are several concerning cheating, and the pursuit to make sure there will be no chance to cheat sounds pretty much in accordance with that to me.
Where does it say in Topalov's contract that he may decide how often Kramnik can use his toilet? For that matter, where does it say Topalov may veto Kramnik's use of a contractually-allowed toilet?
The violation is all on one side.
do you think it should be left to kramniks personal integrity wether he cheats or not? - remember, topalov didn't actually accuse kramnik of cheating, he/they just voiced their concern of insufficient measures against it, and proposed the removal of those possibilities with simple practical means that would've meant no real problem for kramnik. except that he happened to have an actual clause about private toilet in his contract.
to me, it seems like both have valid reasons to do as they've done. but which is more important, insisting on private toilet, or minimizing the chance of foul play?
Originally posted by TommyCI'm sure he is. It is remarkable how much idiocy gets carried out by people "acting on principle".
Kramnik is acting on principle. How much more of his contract should he have allowed FIDE to disregard at Topalov's demand? His share of the prize money, for instance?
Originally posted by tmetzlerIf I was the lawyer for Kramnik and the contract states what Kramnik's people are saying, I'd tell him he might be on good legal grounds but I'd advise him to play. It's not always worth it to stand on "principle" when what is at issue is trivial.
No1,
If you were the lawyer for Kramnik. Would you allow his opponent to change the conditions of that contract (that they both agreed to) during the match? ie: Add additional stipulations! Or would you tell him to stand up for his rights and play hardball?
This question does ASSume that their contract does NOT allow the organizers to change the conditions as they see fit.
Originally posted by wormwoodAre you serious? Topalov is saying he won't even shake hands with Kramnik and saying grown men must have a chaperone to go to the bathroom. He's being a first class A**hole because he's losing.
of course there isn't a clause on the number of toilet visits. but there are several concerning cheating, and the pursuit to make sure there will be no chance to cheat sounds pretty much in accordance with that to me.
do you think it should be left to kramniks personal integrity wether he cheats or not? - remember, topalov didn't actually accuse kramnik ...[text shortened]... which is more important, insisting on private toilet, or minimizing the chance of foul play?
Originally posted by no1marauderwhat does shaking hands got to do with anything?
Are you serious? Topalov is saying he won't even shake hands with Kramnik and saying grown men must have a chaperone to go to the bathroom. He's being a first class A**hole because he's losing.
although I do agree that he seems to be losing his nerve, and that looks pretty bad for the rest of the games. 1-0 on psychological battle for kramnik.
1 edit
Originally posted by wormwoodIt has to do with whether Topalov has "valid reasons" or is just being a petty jerk.
what does shaking hands got to do with anything?
although I do agree that he seems to be losing his nerve, and that looks pretty bad for the rest of the games. 1-0 on psychological battle for kramnik.
EDIT: My guess is there won't be any rest of the games.