On cheating and what to do about it
Frederic Friedel: You have agreed to talk about cheating in chess. Did you cheat in Elista?
Vladimir Kramnik: No, I never cheated in my life. Not only in chess, but especially in chess I never played any pre-arranged tournaments or anything.
You have never agreed to a quick draw…?
It happened, but that is all. That is part of chess, a part of chess culture, and happens from time to time. But very rarely. Most of the quick draws which I made just happened. But it is not common. I can’t remember the last time I made a short draw without really playing. But I definitely did not participate in winning or losing games, buying games or selling games, and of course no cheating during a game. That is quite obvious.
But if you are talking about the cheating problem first of all I would like to start by saying we shouldn’t become too hysterical about it. I don’t like the trend. The situation is developing a bit strangely, because a lot of mass media people are talking about it now, but nobody is doing anything. This I find strange. I would prefer not to talk too much, because everything has been said, everything is clear. It is absolutely obvious that theoretically nowadays it is becoming easier and easier to do this, in all tournaments where you do not have anti-computer controls.
There is nothing else to add to it. So now we have to get to the practical point, to try to find a solution, what to do about it. How to make anti-computer controls. I am not a specialist, and don’t know much about the subject. I guess you should ask people from absolutely different areas – maybe an “informatician” [computer expert], maybe even someone from secret services. They may be useful to tell us what can be the possibilities. And then to just establish, like in other sports, where you have anti-doping, to do the same in chess, because it is necessary.
Unfortunately there are not just a lot of conversations about it, which are damaging chess, and the names of some players. But it is also objectively happening. You know the story at the Philadelphia Open, the story in India, when somebody was caught. The situation is becoming a bit frightening already. I don’t see what the problem is to start taking serious measures…
Here is the full interview on chessbase.
Of course Kramnik was wronged at Elista. But he should not whinge too much; he obviously does not like a taste of his own medicine. The dirt that Kramnik did to Kasparov after winning the Title in 2000 was rivalled only by that of Alekhine against Capablanca.
Thanks anonymous, for I did not know about the dirty sides of either Kramnik nor Alekhine.
My impression of the interview was that Kramnik got lots of points from this interview. It was more than interesting to hear him. Actually First time that I hear Kramnik expresses himself and so honestly and candidly too.
I heard the interview on an audio file that chessbase.com has handy. Kramnik speaks English with a russian kind of accent, not a real obstacle for the listener nor for Kramnik himself who comes out of the interview a man with at least more than the average integrity. This interview is obviously does good to Kramnik. For me pesonally its a turning point. His image for me personally had undergone a gradual change. I used to, if I may be honest, to dislike him. Recently he exposes to the public his humane side – that’s what is called being a spokesman- sharing in this interview his feelings and thoughts. To this interview preceded his loss to Aronian which was a very well covered match with pictures showing Kramnik obviously knows how to lose with dignity. Douze points to The Big K. Bravo.
Hi,
words are words…,only.
We have to stand on the actions.
VK is the first and only one who has spent so much time out of the playing place, in the hidden room. It is the fact.!
The tennis player could not do that. VK was for quicker time control except championship match which he will play, why ?
The match for WCC it the strange thing. The other kinds of fighting sport, olympic ones, found good solution – judo tournament,table tennis tournament etc. Tournaments of many players everywhere.
Regards
Pony.
>>The dirt that Kramnik did to Kasparov after winning the Title in 2000 was rivalled only by that of Alekhine against Capablanca. >>
Alekhine accused Capablanca of cheating, without evidence? Um, it’s true Capablanca was called The Chess Machine, but I think you’ve got your facts mixed up.
Yes, I think Kramnik is right when he says that we should not become to hysterical about the cheating aspect of chess.
I think that it is just a small problem, and if people are aware and tournament directors take the proper steps then things will be ok.
All of the accusations from the Kramnik-Topalov match were horrible for the game and sport of chess. It gave chess public media attention but not the kind we want.
words,words…
Kramnik comes across as pretty reasonable in the interview, IMHO.
<< Pony
VK is the first and only one who has spent so much time out of the playing place, in the hidden room. It is the fact.!>>
Actually, he’s hardly the first: Boris Spassky did it in the 1977 Candidates’ Final in an apparent effort to distract Viktor Korchnoi. It seemed to work: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1082389.
–gb
This interview was solid stuff.
Remember also the fact he forfeited a game, which is nonsense if you want to win under all circumstances.
Also remind you, VK won the match in decisive rapid games.
Accusing someone of dirty tricks I would rank under “words, words, words”, whereas winning a match including rapid games under “deeds, deeds, deeds”.
Not bad from Kramnik!
But if you really want to watch a GREAT CHESS VIDEO check out this biography of the greatest champion in history on YOUTUBE. You won’t be sorry:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlnXTmrPydA&mode=related&search=
I think it is pretty obvious that the Alekhine ‘dirt’ I was referring to was his deliberate and permanent refusal to give Capablanca a rematch after 1927.
Even the retirement of Kasparov has not stopped Kramnik’s manipulations to try and keep the Title. When Kramnik signed up to play Topalov, part of the agreement was that he would play in Mexico if he won. Period. There were no conditions attached to this. However, having won the unified Title, Kramnik obviously turned round and threatened FIDE with not playing in Mexico, thus again splitting the Title, unless he was given special treatment. Thus he extorted a completely unjustified change to the agreement, ie that he gets a Title challenge next year if he doesn’t win Mexico.
Several posters here have said that Topalov should not play in Mexico because he signed an agreement excluding him if he lost, and that it would be wrong/illegal to change it. They have yet to explain why this does not also apply to changing what Kramnik agreed.
>>We have to stand on the actions.
VK is the first and only one who has spent so much time out of the playing place, in the hidden room. It is the fact.!>>
It’s also a fact that he couldn’t possibly have cheated, without a computer and a ladder. As you admitted yourself, “words are words…,only”
As for Kramnik’s innocence, we only need to look to Topalov’s own words: “I believe that [Kramnik’s] play is fair, and my decision to continue the match proves it. We are humans, and sometimes we make mistakes.” — Veselin Topalov, 10-4-2006
>>
The dirt that Kramnik did to Kasparov after winning the Title in 2000 was rivalled only by that of Alekhine against Capablanca.
>>
Hardly comparable. In fact, the situations are diametrically opposed.
Capablanca was contractually entitled to a rematch. When he didn’t get one, he was deprived of something he had a right to.
Kasparov, on the other hand, was contractually DENIED a rematch. The contract he signed required him to play in the Dortmund qualifiers if he lost. He immediately broke the deal, and tried to vault past all the Dortmund Candidates, not to mention FIDE Champion Anand, and deprive them of their chance to challenge.
If he’d wanted a direct rematch, he really should have asked for one before the match when he could have dictated terms. At the time he was more interested in setting up a candidates qualifier, to give the title more credibility.
Graeme, I don’t think you are right about Kasparov breaking the contract – there was a time limit:
“BGN had a limited period to set up its qualifier for the second cycle, the company delayed the announcement of its qualifier, and the period expired. Kasparov was no longer contractually obliged to participate in the BGN qualifier.” – Seirawan in ‘From a Fresh Start to a New Dawn, Part 1’. Kasparov announced in January 2001 that his contract with Brain Games had lapsed. And: “BGN had an opportunity to offer him [Kasparov] conditions in Nov. 2000 and did not bother to meet the deadline.” – Press Release from Owen Williams Kasparov’s Manager 6 September 2001.
Nevertheless until the announcement of the Dortmund qualifier (in July 2001), Kasparov had not specifically ruled out playing in a qualifier.
However, the announced format of the Dortmund qualifier was so unacceptable (nearly everyone said this), that Kasparov had every justification for refusing to play. Kramnik must have understood that the format was unacceptable, so was in effect denying Kasparov the chance to become his challenger.
Kramnik then later in effect broke the Prague agreement. He claimed he should be playing the winner of Kasparov-Ponomariov, not Kasparov-Kasimdzhanov, even though Ponomariov withdrew; that instead of a Kasparov-Kasimdzhanov match there should be a four-way tournament with the participation of Kasparov, Kasimdzhanov, Anand, and Ponomariov; and that the Prague agreement ‘did not oblige’ him to do anything. In Kramnikspeak, this meant he was going to refuse to play the winner of Kasparov-Kasimdzhanov. Kasparov then gave up. Given that the winner of Kasparov-Kasimdzhanov was virtually certain to be Kasparov, Kramnik in effect again unjustifably refused Kasparov a match.
You have also not explained what justification there is for Kramnik getting a match next year if he doesn’t win Mexico.
Regarding the toilet gate: http://chessbase.com/news/2007/kramnik-miskolc08.wmv
This guy is a wolf in sheep’s clothing…
Boris Spassky did it in the 1977 Candidates’ Final
They actually walked behind each other, in turns.
Going to your own relexation area seems perfectly OK to me.
You have also not explained what justification there is for Kramnik getting a match next year if he doesn’t win Mexico.
FIDE’s change back to face-to-face?
Of course, I would have prefered Mexico beeing a candidate’s tournament and Topalov playing there instead of Kramnik, but nobody asked me …
FIDE’s change back to face-to-face could involve Kramnik playing in a qualifier (like he insisted Kasparov do!) like everybody else. There is absolutely no justifiable reason for Kramnik to have a separate WC match first.
Hi,
“This guy is a wolf in sheep’s clothing…”
That… it is clue.
When you compare his words with his manouvers around WCC since match vs Kasparov.
It makes itself obvious.
Regards
Pony.