Only Chess
12 Oct 06
12 Oct 06
2 edits
Originally posted by stevetoddThe games after game 5 were postponed because of Kramnik's refusal to play. During this period all of the commitee's decisions were reversed and the commitee itself was made to resign and was replaced.
I am no expert, but on what grounds can he sue? surely the laws of the game were simply applied when he didn't turn up. I wish he had just played, but maybe Topolov's plan worked and he was too aggitated and would have lost anyway? If it's a draw today and Topolov goes on to win I think it will be a hollow victory as many will not recognize him as the worl ut he has brought it on himself and IMO only an appology from him would even things out now.
Here is the question. Why allow the postponement of the other games as a result of protest and not game 5? And then why allow that game to count as a forfeit in either players' favor when it was not played because of conditions that were found to be so unfairly imposed that they were overturned and the commitee who made them was forced to disperse???
It's faulty logic.
12 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by ItalyBoyBlueAs in any sport when the referee makes a mistake, the decision still stands. When Kramnik placed toilet facilities above chess, even if he was in the right, he lost game 5.
The games after game 5 were postponed because of Kramnik's refusal to play. During this period all of the commitee's decisions were reversed and the commitee itself was made to resign and was replaced.
Here is the question. Why allow the postponement of the other games as a result of protest and not game 5? And then why allow that game to count as a re overturned and the commitee who made them was forced to disperse???
It's faulty logic.
The committee was replaced and some of its decisions reversed as a compromise in order to save the match and avoid Kramnik walking out completely. The result of game 5 was not reversed.
As for the grounds of an appeal on the outcome of game 5, it all rests on whether "restroom and a toilet" can be contrued to mean "restroom with a toilet". I doubt that even Kramnik would place too much hope in a positive outcome.
12 Oct 06
Originally posted by GatecrasherThe grounds of appeal would be more than that. Kramnik also cites provisions where match conditions (including restroom with/and a toilet) cannot be unilaterally changed once both sides have agreed to it and the match starts.
As for the grounds of an appeal on the outcome of game 5, it all rests on whether "restroom and a toilet" can be contrued to mean "restroom with a toilet". I doubt that even Kramnik would place too much hope in a positive outcome.
12 Oct 06
2 edits
It looks like Kramnik is trying to get all his pawns onto black squares whilst Topov attempts to get all of his onto white squares. Kramnik obviously has a huge advantage because Topov's g7 pawn in going to be very difficult to shift.
Actually, knowing Topov's complete disregard for normal rules about weak pawns, I bet he goes for a pawn on f5 supporting one on g4, even though the f-pawn will be backward.
12 Oct 06
Originally posted by Fat LadySusan Polgar seems to agree with you.
Seems weird for Kramnik to castle kingside even though Topov has a half open h-file. I think I prefer Topov's position here.
Taken from her live commentary:
14.O-O (I would have preferred to castle Queenside here as the h file is opened for Black. One of the possible moves now for Black is Nf6. It is a sensible move and Black can draw this game quite comfortably if he wants to. The Black Knight is better than the White Bishop in this position.)