Press Release by Carsten Hensel
The ChessBase
report of 27.10.2006 [Gert Ligterink’s interview with Veselin Topalov)
contains a number of quotes and statements by Grandmaster Veselin Topalov which
are not in accordance with the facts.
Topalov: "I underestimated the reaction
of my body. It's not so strange that it relaxed after the intense concentration
of the match in Elista. Should I not have come here to play? That did not occur
to me for one moment. I have never ever breached a signed contract. I am not
Kramnik. How often has he withdrawn with vague complaints of fatigue? This
spring he withdrew from the tournament in Monaco immediately after he had signed
the contract for the match against me."
Vladimir Kramnik has never, in the course of his career, broken a contract.
The reason for his not participating in the tournaments in Corus 2006 and Monaco
2006 were medical. Everything was done in close contact and agreement with
the organisers, who were presented with the relevant medical certificates at
early dates. The contracts were dissolved in amicable agreement by both parties.
It is furthermore wrong to claim that Kramnik cancelled his participation in
the Monaco tournament after signing the world championship contract. The world
championship contract was signed in April 2006, while the release from the
Monaco contract came in February 2006.
Topalov: “After the fourth game my manager
asked to see the surveillance tapes in order to find out exactly how my opponent
was spending his time in the restroom. He saw that Kramnik visited the toilet
very frequently, and so we became suspicious. Naturally this is suspicious
behaviour. The toilet was the only area that was not covered by the surveillance
cameras.”
Because of this remark we are now publishing a report by Mr Valery Bovaev,
Chairman of the Executive Committee in Elista. From this report it is possible
to tell exactly who played what role in the release and viewing of the video
recordings, which infringe on the personal rights of Vladimir Kramnik. It becomes
clear that the video recordings were not requested only after the fourth game,
but already some days before.
Topalov: "The Appeals Committee agreed
to lock up the toilets in the restrooms. Kramnik reacted like an injured innocent.
Contract this and contract that, how dare they insult me. It is always the
same with him. He breaks the rules continuously, but heaven forbid his own
rights should be touched. That Kramnik did not show up for the fifth game was
his own fault. He thought he could get away with anything. I would have preferred
to play the game and see our protest comprehensively addressed. Instead I got
one free point. But Kramnik got his way in all the other points. He could do
anything he wanted in his restroom, and the Appeals Committee was dismissed.
The consequence was that starting from the sixth game I no longer knew
whom I was playing against. Kramnik had been quite vulnerable in the past year,
but in this match he hardly made any tactical mistakes. I began to have doubts.
Was Kramnik my opponent or was it Kramnik assisted by a computer? In order
to keep him at the board as much as possible I started playing very quickly.
Too quickly sometimes. The blunder which caused me lose the ninth game was
the result of a decision I had taken too quickly.”
Mr Topalov still owes us an answer with regard to precisely which rules Vladimir
Kramnik is supposed to have broken. What occurred was quite the opposite. Incidentally,
because of the breach of contract by the Appeals Committee of FIDE, game five,
in a judicial sense, was never played. So the result of the classical chess
match is 6:5 in favour of Vladimir Kramnik.
The doubts expressed by Mr. Topalov are nothing but a pitiful excuse in connection
with a major sporting defeat. It is especially inconsistent when you consider
that all the measures taken to prevent possible manipulations (the glass wall
and light curtain, the prevention of any kind of electronic signals in the
playing zone, the resting rooms and the toilets, the physical search and examination
of the players and all the rooms before the start of each game) were initiated
by the Kramnik team. Before the start of game one Topalov’s team did
practically nothing to ensure this kind of security. It is a fact that the
organisation took all necessary measures to prevent any kind of manipulation
from the outset. The further intensification of the controls during the match
were welcomed by Kramnik and in some cases demanded by him. In Elista new standards
were set which can be regarded as an example for professional chess in the
future.
The fact that the Topalov team allowed themselves to be carried away and use
their very close connections to highly-placed FIDE officials to damage Vladimir
Kramnik is an act of unsporting behaviour the likes of which have never before
been seen in the world of chess. This is true in connection with
- the public release of the private video recordings, which represent an
infringement on his personal rights,
- the illegal forfeit of game five after FIDE had broken its contract, and
- the indirect accusations and allegations of cheating and the consequent
damage to the reputation of Vladimir Kramnik.
The PR disaster that followed for the Topalov team was the result of unprofessional
behaviour and an underestimation of the intelligence of the public, as well
as the clear sporting defeat. This can only be seen as a victory of justice.
The acceptance of defeat in by Mr. Topalov is, from my point of view, the only
reasonable sentence in his interview.
Dortmund, Germany, 28.10.2006
Carsten Hensel
Manager to Vladimir Kramnik, World Chess Champion
Statement
In my capacity as the Chairman of the Executive Committee of the World Chess
Championship Match Topalov-Kramnik that is taking place in Elista from 21 September
to 13 October 2006, and in connection with the events around the Game 5 of
the match and before it, I would like to state herewith the following.
As per the oral demand of the then Appeals Committee of the Match (in person
Messrs. Makropoulos, Azmaiparashvili), the examination of the video recordings
of the rest rooms during the first two games in the cottage of Veselin Topalov
was carried out on 25 September 2006. In the examination of the video recordings
the following persons took part: the representatives of the Executive Committee:
Gennady Namsinov (Head of the Informational Resources Department), Mingian
Bazyrov (Vice of the Informational Resources Department); experts of the Bulgarian
delegations headed by the manager of Topalov Mr. Silvio Danailov. The Appeals
Committee members did not participate in the video recordings examination.
Messrs. Makropoulos, Azmaiparashvili and Vega initiated a second examination
as well and it took place on 27 September 2006. The three members of the Appeals
Committee together with the Chief Arbiter of the Match Mr. Gijssen and the
Deputy Arbiter Mr. Nikolopoulos, who were also invited, watched the recordings.
On behalf of the Executive Committee there were Messrs Namsinov and Bazyrov.
The third examination of the video recordings, which took place on 28 September
2006, with the Chief Arbiter Mr. Gijssen and his Deputy Mr. Nikolopoulos and
also with the participation of the Bulgarian experts and the representatives
from the Executive Committee Messrs. Namsinov and Bazyrov was carried out.
The Appeals Committee did not take part in the examination of the video recordings.
Two last (second and third) examinations of the video recordings took place
in the Office of the Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Match.
After the resignation of the Appeals Committee I took the decision to stop
providing the Bulgarian Team representatives with any further video.
Elista, 9 October 2006
[Signature]
Bovaev Valery
Executive Committee
World Chess Championship Match Topalov-Kramnik
Chairman
Press release by Carsten Hensel in the original German:
Der Chessbase Bericht vom 27.10.2006 enthält Zitate und Behauptungen
von Großmeister Veselin Topalov, die nicht den Tatsachen entsprechen.
Topalov: "I underestimated the reaction
of my body. It's not so strange that it relaxed after the intense concentration
of the match in Elista. Should I not have come here to play? That did not occur
to me for one moment. I have never ever breached a signed contract. I am not
Kramnik. How often has he withdrawn with vague complaints of fatigue? This
spring he withdrew from the tournament in Monaco immediately after he had signed
the contract for the match against me."
Vladimir Kramnik hat niemals in seiner Karriere einen Vertrag gebrochen. Die
Nichtteilnahme an den Turnieren in Corus 2006 und Monaco 2006 erfolgte aus
Krankheitsgründen. Dies geschah im engen Kontakt und Einverständnis
der Organisatoren, deren frühzeitig medizinische Zertifikate vorgelegt
wurden. Die Verträge wurden im gegenseitigem Einvernehmen aufgelöst.
Falsch ist demnach auch die Behauptung Kramnik habe sich vom Turnier in Monaco
nach der Unterzeichnung des WM-Vertrages zurückgezogen. Richtig ist, dass
der WM-Vertrag im April 2006 unterzeichnet wurde und die Auflösung des
Monaco-Vertrages aus Krankheitsgründen bereits im Februar 2006 erfolgte.
Topalov: “After the fourth game my manager
asked to see the surveillance tapes in order to find out exactly how my opponent
was spending his time in the restroom. He he saw that Kramnik visited the toilet
very frequently, and so we became suspicious. Naturally this is suspicious
behavior. The toilet was the only area that was not covered by the surveillance
cameras.”
Aufgrund dieser Äußerung veröffentlichen wir einen Bericht
des Herrn Valery Bovaev, Vorsitzender des Executive Committees in Elista. Aus
dieser Erklärung geht eindeutig hervor, wer bei der Ansicht der video
recordings – unter Verletzung der Persönlichkeitsrechte von Vladimir
Kramnik – welche Rolle gespielt hat. Es wird deutlich, dass die video
recordings nicht erst nach der 4. Partie angefragt wurden, sondern schon Tage
zuvor.
Topalov: "The Appeals Committee agreed
to lock up the toilets in the restrooms. Kramnik reacted like an injured innocent.
Contract this and contract that, how dare they insult me. It is always the
same with him. He breaks the rules continuously, but heaven forbid his own
rights should be touched. That Kramnik did not show up for the fifth game was
his own fault. He thought he could get away with anything. I would have preferred
to play the game and see our protest comprehensively addressed. Instead I got
one free point. But Kramnik got his way in all the other points. He could do
anything he wanted in his restroom, and the Appeals Committee was dismissed.
The consequence was that starting from the sixth game I no longer knew
whom I was playing against. Kramnik had been quite vulnerable in the past year,
but in this match he hardly made any tactical mistakes. I began to have doubts.
Was Kramnik my opponent or was it Kramnik assisted by a computer? In order
to keep him at the board as much as possible I started playing very quickly.
Too quickly sometimes. The blunder which caused me lose the ninth game was
the result of a decision I had taken too quickly.”
Herr Topalov bleibt die Antwort schuldig, welche Regeln Vladimir Kramnik gebrochen
haben soll. Das Gegenteil war der Fall. Durch den Vertragsbruch des Appeals
Committee’s der FIDE hat übrigens Partie 5 im juristischen Sinne
niemals stattgefunden. Das Ergebnis des Wettkampfes im klassischen Schach lautet
demnach 6:5 zu Gunsten von Vladimir Kramnik.
Die im folgenden von Herrn Topalov geäußerten Zweifel sind nichts
anderes als eine peinliche Entschuldigung im Zusammenhang mit einer schweren
sportlichen Niederlage. Widersprüchlich ist auch die Tatsache, dass alle
Maßnahmen zur Verhinderung etwaiger Manipulationen (Glaswand mit integriertem
Lichtvorhang, Bann aller elektronischer Signale im Spielbereich, den Ruheräumen
und den Toiletten, physische Untersuchung der Spieler sowie aller Räumlichkeiten
vor Beginn jeder Partie) vom Team Kramnik eingebracht wurden. Das Team Topalov
hat sich vor Beginn der 1. Partie so gut wie überhaupt nicht um diese
Sicherheitsaspekte gekümmert. Fest steht, dass seitens der Organisation
alle Anstrengungen unternommen wurden, jegliche Art von Manipulationen von
vornherein auszuschließen. Weitere Verschärfungen der Kontrollen
während des Wettkampfes wurden von Vladimir Kramnik begrüßt
und teilweise selbst gefordert. Es wurde in Elista ein Standard entwickelt,
der für die Zukunft des Profischach beispielgebend sein kann.
Dass sich Team Topalov dennoch dazu hat hinreißen lassen, enge Bindungen
zu hochgestellten FIDE-Funktionären zu nutzen, um Vladimir Kramnik zu
beschädigen ist ein beispielloser Akt von Unsportlichkeit, der nicht nur
in der Schachwelt seinesgleichen sucht. Dies gilt im Zusammenhang mit
- der Herausgabe der privaten video recordings unter Verletzung von Persönlichkeitsrechten
- der widerrechtlichen Aberkennung von Partie 5 nach Vertragsbruch durch
die FIDE und auch
- den indirekten Anschuldigungen und Betrugsvorwürfen unter Rufschädigung
der Person Kramnik.
Das folgende PR-Desaster des Team’s Topalov resultierend aus Unprofessionalität
und der Unterschätzung der Intelligenz der Öffentlichkeit sowie die
klare sportliche Niederlage ist nichts anderes als ein Sieg der Gerechtigkeit.
Die Akzeptanz dieser Niederlage durch Herrn Topalov ist aus meiner Sicht der
einzig vernünftige Satz in diesem Interview.
Dortmund/Germany, 28.10.2006
Carsten Hensel
(Manager to Vladimir Kramnik, World Chess Champion)
