In year autumn’s world chess championship, reigning champ Vladimir Kramnik had his name dragged through the mud—Krapnik, he was dubbed—when Veselin Topalov’s team accused Kramnik of retreating to his bathroom a suspicious 50 times. (They exaggerated the number.) The implication was that he was somehow cheating in the lieu. Later. Topalov’s team said that it was suspicious that three-quarters of Kramnik’s moves matched what a computer would play in the same position. (That’s hardly surprising, though, because Kramnik and the best computers are of similar playing strength.) All the charges were ultimately dismissed by the tournament organizers as unfounded.
Tomorrow the world chess federation is holding a public hearing into whether Topalov and his manager acted unethically in making the cheating accusations.
thepHtest 
July 27, 2007 at 12:56 pm |
Cheating in the lieu? In lieu of cheating in the loo? That’s a lulu! (Sorry, but couldn’t help myself :).
August 10, 2007 at 1:58 am |
Has anyone reported on the content of that hearing? I’ve been saying thru my contacts for months that cheating allegations such as Danailov’s letter must be accompanied by logs, reports, and methodology of tests that were done, as with any other scientific experiment. Else they should not be entertained, full stop. But I’ve had no acknowledgment of this and other basic points of “public understanding of science”…
August 10, 2007 at 9:31 am |
Not that I’ve seen. I’ve been trying to find out what transpired in the hearing.
January 7, 2008 at 3:59 pm |
[…] pattern of these nebulous accusations is often the same, as in Toiletgate and Toddlergate: a successful player is accused of going to the bathroom too often and having […]