Talk:Veselin Topalov

replaced

I've replaced the game which Giftlite put in this article with a different one. The one before, from Leon 1998, was a blitz game in an Advanced Chess competition (ie, the players were getting help from computers), which probably isn't ideal. If we want to single out one of Topalov's wins over Kaspy, then I think the one I've put in the article now (from the 1994 Olympiad) is better, since it was at normal time controls, and no computers were involved (I also think the standard of play was quite a bit higher). I don't claim it's the best possible example we could have (Topalov has probably played better games against players other than Kasparov), but I do definitely think it's better than what we had before.

Here is the original passage that I've now replaced:

Although Topalov has a negative record against Kasparov, he beat Kasparov with black pieces in Leon in 1998 :

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.g3 d6 5.Bg2 O-O 6.O-O e5 7.d4 Nbd7 8.e4 a6 9.h3 exd4 10.Nxd4 Re8 11.Re1 Rb8 12.Bg5 h6 13.Be3 Ne5 14.b3 c5 15.Nf3 Nxf3+ 16.Qxf3 b5 17.Rad1 bxc4 18.Bf4 Re6 19.bxc4 Rb4 20.e5 Qe8 21.Nd5 Nxd5 22.cxd5 Rxe5 23.Bxe5 Bxe5 24.Qf6 Bd7 25.Qf3 h5 26.Qa3 Bb5 27.Kh1 Qd7 28.Rxe5 dxe5 29.Qe3 Qd6 30.Re1 Rb2 31.Qxe5 Qxe5 32.Rxe5 Rxa2 33.d6 Rd2 34.Rxc5 Rxd6 35.g4 hxg4 36.hxg4 Rd4 37.g5 Rc4 38.Re5 Rf4 39.Kg1 Kf8 40.Be4 Bd7 41.f3 Bf5 42.Bb7 Ra4 43.Kf2 Be6 44.Ke3 Ra1 45.Kf4 a5 46.Bc6 Ke7 47.Rb5 Kd6 48.Be8 a4 49.Ra5 a3 50.Ra6+ Ke7 0-1

To be honest, I'm not sure about including an example game in articles, since it's very hard to sum up a player's style in just one game, and even if we give two or three I can imagine it might be very hard for every editor to agree on which should be included. I think that on the whole I would prefer no games in the article and a link to a site like chessgames.com where readers can browse a large number of a player's games and reach their own conclusions. But that's just me, and if others think example games are useful, fair enough. --Camembert 23:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

It's funny that I just replaced your sample game, and then came here to talk about it. Really, I don't think that wins over Kasparov deserve any special emphasis, and each player's record against Kasparov is conspicuously in too many chess biographies on Wikipedia. Putting something about each player's relation to Kasparov emphasized Kasparov too much, in my opinion. These articles are about the players, not Kasparov - he gets his own article.

In general I think the idea of the "Sample game" is cool, if anything to show off the exciting and beautiful games that players of this level can produce. Of course, Wikipedia should not tout them as such, but I don't think that people coming to Wikipedia to look up chess players would be disappointed to find chess games. In other words, I suggest that we put the focus on making the best encyclopedia possible, not the one that is least likely to produce some minor disputes like which sample game we should use. Sample games add to the article, so they should be there, imo. ⟳ausa کui ^× 06:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you on virtually all of that (especially about players' records versus Kaspy being rather too prominent); I was probably just feeling a bit grumpy when I doubted the wisdom of including example games. The game you've put in the article now is, of course, a very nice one. Thanks. --Camembert 13:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The sample game

I am probably missing something, but in the line 15...Nd7 16.Bxh6 f5 17.Bf4 Qa5, doesn't Black just remain a pawn down after, say, 18.Qd2? If so, it seems to me that while this line might avoid immediate loss, it can't possibly give Black equality. --Camembert 15:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

To verify this, I gave Shredder 9 a good several minutes to think about this position at the end of that line (after Qa5). After ten minutes, at depth 20, it analyzed as follows:

18.Qd2 dxc4 19.bxc4 Rfd8 20.Rc1 = (0.24)

+.24 is borderline for equality but the ChessBase software still used the "=" sign to describe the evaluation. Evidentally, Shredder thinks black has some compensation for the pawn. I think I'll run the deep position analysis on the position after 15. Bb1; that will give it a few hours to chew on all this. ⟳ausa کui ^× 04:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I ran deep position analysis last night, and here's what I got, in PGN format. It should be compatible with any Chessbase PGN viewer.

[Event "M-Tel Masters"]
[Site "0:44:3O-O:27:42"]
[Date "2005.05.21"]
[Round "9"]
[White "Topalov"]
[Black "Ponomariov"]
[ECO "E15"]
[PlyCount "36"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. g3 Ba6 5. b3 Bb4+ 6. Bd2 Be7 7. Nc3 O-O 8. Rc1
c6 9. e4 d5 10. e5 Ne4 11. Bd3 Nxc3 12. Rxc3 c5 13. dxc5 bxc5 14. h4 h6 15. Bb1
Nd7 (15... f5 16. exf6 Bxf6 (16... Rxf6 17. Qc2 Nc6 18. Qh7+ Kf7 $18 {1.77/15})
17. Qc2 dxc4 (17... d4 18. Ng5 hxg5 19. hxg5 dxc3 20. Bf4 Kf7 21. Qg6+ Ke7 22.
gxf6+ Rxf6 23. Qxg7+ Rf7 24. Bg5+ Kd6 25. Qxf7 Qxg5 26. Rh7 Qe5+ 27. Kf1 Kc6
28. Qe8+ Kb6 29. Qd8+ Kc6 30. Be4+) 18. bxc4 Nc6 $18 {1.75/14}) (15... d4 16.
Rc1 (16. Qc2 g6 17. Rd3 h5 18. Bh6 Re8 $14 {0.26/19}) 16... Bb7 (16... Nd7 17.
Bxh6 f5 18. exf6 Nxf6 $16 {0.96/19}) 17. Bxh6 f5 18. Bf4 Re8 $14 {0.55/18}) 16.
Re3 (16. Bxh6 f5 (16... Re8 17. Qd3 Nf8 18. Bd2 f5 $14 {0.66/18}) 17. Bf4 Qa5
18. Bd2 (18. Qd2) 18... d4 $11 {0.06/19}) (16. Qc2 f5 17. exf6 Nxf6 18. Re3 Bb7
$11 {-0.10/17}) 16... d4 (16... Bb7 17. Qc2 f5 18. exf6 Nxf6 $11 {0.13/18}) 17.
Qc2 f5 18. exf6 Nxf6 $11 {0.07/18}

Points I thought were interesting:

• It found and rejected a line that is very similar (identical?) to the actual game continuation.
• It thinks all moves besides 15. ... Nd7 and 15. ... d4 lead to significant advantages for white (in some cases +1.5 or more).
• In the line 15. ... Nd7 16. Bxh6 f5 17. Bf4 Qa5, it rejected 18. Qd2 in favor of 18. Bd2, but it doesn't say why. I'm about to go study for a constitutional law exam, which should mean Shredder will get another few hours to think about that position so it can explain itself. Right now, after 18. Qd2, it prefers black by -0.10 after 18...dxc4 19.bxc4 Rad8 20.Rc1 Qa4 21.Qe2 Nb6 22.Nd2, but that is bound to change somewhat.
• It also ended up rejecting 16. Bxh6 all together because of 16. ... f5 17. Bf4 Qa5 18. Bd2 d4 with equality, presumably after 19. Rc1 Qc7 with Bb7. If I had to guess, I would say that Shredder thinks black is getting too much compensation for the pawn because of the protected passer in the center, the cramped nature of white's position making it difficult for him to generate any activity or improve his position, and the huge black bishop on b7. This position reminds me of Tisdall's book "Improve Your Chess Now" where he talks about positions where one side has a general positional advantage, in this case material, but has no plan to improve on his advantage. That's probably not the kind of position Topalov would have wanted to be in: I'm sure he liked the move Ponomariov played a lot more.

Interesting stuff. ⟳ausa کui ^× 19:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

After two hours of looking at the position after 18. Qd2, Shredder settled on dead equality after an apparent repitition of position: 18...dxc4 19.bxc4 Rad8 20.0-0 Nxe5 21.Qe3 Nxf3+ 22.Qxf3 Rd4 23.Ra3 Qb6 24.Rb3 Qa5 25.Ra3 Qb6 26.Rb3 Qa5 27.Ra3 = (0.00) Depth: 23 ⟳ausa کui ^× 21:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Interesting indeed, and quite probably beyond my level of comprehension. I can add the following, however: I don't know if you've seen it, but GM Dimitri Tyomkin analyses this game in issue 107 of Chessbase Magazine. He says that according to Topalov 15...Nd7 was the only move, and that Topalov suggested the continuation 16.Qc2 f5 17.exf6 Nxf6 18.Re3 (if Black plays 18...d4 here, then we have exactly the same position as at the end of Shredder's line, incidentally). Tyomkin suggests that Topalov's line isn't clear, however, giving 18...Bb7 19.Rxe6 dxc4 20.Qxc4 Bxf3 21.Rd6+ Bd5 22.Rxd8 Raxd8-/+ "and suddenly Black is attacking here!".

Tyomkin gives 15...Nd7 16.Bxh6! (his exclamation mark) 16...gxh6 17.Qc2 f5 18.exf6 Rxf6 19.Qh7+ Kf8 20.Ng5!+-, a line which we already have in the article, but he doesn't mention 16...f5.

I haven't seen an issue of Informant with this game yet; but in any case, Topalov does not, as far as I know, write for them any more, so we might have to wait for a "Best Games" collection or similar to read his own detailed thoughts on this.

I'm not sure, frankly, where all this leaves the article; I don't know how much detailed analysis we want in player biographies; maybe the game needs an article of its own? Anyway, it is, as you say, interesting stuff. --Camembert 21:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, the main thing that we can get from this, I think, is that if both Topalov and Shredder think 15...Nd7 was the only move, it's enough of an authoritative consensus that we can say so in the article. I'm no GM, but I think Tyomkin simply missed the saving move 16...f5 after Bxh6. Taking the piece is clearly suicide.

As for the amount of detailed analysis to put in the article, I'm thinking what we have now is about as much as we need. I might change it some, in light of Shredder having changed its mind about Bxh6 when given more time, but I don't think this game is historically relevant enough to deserve its own article. ⟳ausa کui ^× 23:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Topalov's analysis

Topalov analyzed this game in New in Chess 2005/5. He called 15 ... f5 a "big mistake" and wrote:

... We thought that 15 ... Nd7 is the best, even though it gives White a huge advantage after 16.Qc2 (Pono was afraid I would take on h6: 16.Bxh6, but what I didn't like was 16 ... f5 17.Bf4 d4 18. Rd3 Bb7 and Black may not yet be fine, but is certainly much better than in the game) 16 ... f5 17.exf6 Nxf6 18. Re3. This last move I noticed during the game. Originally we had looked at 18. Qg6 Qe8 19.Ne5, with a pleasant advantage for White.

David Sneek 18:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Great, thanks for this. I'm going to have to run this through the computers, and I'll get back to it later.⟳ausa کui ^× 00:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The Supposed Cheating Allegation

This nasty little rumor originated from the recent San Luis 2005 tournament. What makes it really nasty is that no one came forward to admit they started the rumor. I agree with Nigel Short that such rumors shouldn't even be worth mentioning, and thus I believe it does not belong in this article. Dionyseus 03:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion this allegation doesn't even belong to the discussion. He was accused and proved innocent, and when you are innocent, you shouldn't be put to blame, not even in a discussion-page. Shame on Wikipedia who brings on such nasty rumors, like every sour looser in any sport could blame the winner for cheating and harm his reputation. Worse so it is anonymous. --Esalen 22:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

What the world would be like if Nigel Short ruled the world- scary. I don't really care what Short says- the allegations of cheating are a fact (that is to say, it is a fact that allegations have been made). Whether you consider the way in which they were raised ethical is immaterial. It was news, and plenty of news organizations felt it was sufficiently legitimate to report it. Sure it's unfair for the accuser not to come forward. However that does not mean the allegation was not made. And it is very relevant. Furthermore, on this issue of grammar:

"However, his title is disputed, some regard Vladimir Kramnik as the World Chess Champion because of his victory over Kasparov in 2000."

This is incorrect. "However, his title is disputed." This is a complete sentence. "Many regard Vladimir Kramnik as the World Chess Champion because of his victory over Kasparov in 2000." This is also a complete sentence. You cannot join the two with a comma. That is called a Comma splice. I will now correct the grammar one final time, and I will include the RELEVANT FACTUAL information about the cheating allegations. In the event that my germane and grammatically correct edits are incorrectly modified, I will seek out adjudication with an admin. Danny Pi 04:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe your edits in this article are NPOV, and as for the comma discussion I believe you're wrong. I would welcome an admin because it appears that you do not understand why your edits are NPOV. Dionyseus 04:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my edits are NPOV, which is what Wiki is supposed to be. Neutral Point of View. The two clauses, "However, his title is disputed," and "Many regard Vladimir Kramnik..." are independent clauses, therefore they should be separated by a period not a comma- unless you want to add a conjunction, which you have not. On the topic of Topalov's cheating, I fail to see how you can possibly consider this irrelevant, since it relates quite directly to the subject of the article: Topalov. I don't think you can claim that my edit is biased, since I do point out that the allegation remains unproven. An article about Lance Armstrong would not be complete without mentioning the doping allegations (which I consider false). No less true is it that allegations of Topalov's cheating should be included in the interests of comprehensiveness and objectivity. Danny Pi 05:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

By NPOV I meant that your edits are negative point of view, which is what Wikipedia is not supposed to be about. As for the cheating allegation, like i've said before such negative and unfounded rumors do not belong in this article. Also, what is your reasoning for making it "Many" instead of "Some"? I believe "Some" is more appropiate, the word "Many" gives it the appearance that the majority believe Kramnik is the true champion. Dionyseus 05:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

If your reasoning is that it is negative and unfounded, I would argue that negativity does not justify disqualification. Should the article on Nixon omit the watergate scandal? And for that matter, it is not at all clear that the allegation is unfounded, since it is supposedly being reported to FIDE whereupon it will receive further investigation. If reputable news sources consider the allegation fit to print, so too should wiki. Your rv's are an effort to censor relevant factual information that you consider damaging to the reputation of a chessplayer of whom you are obviously a fan. This is not the right place for you to express your biases. Danny Pi 05:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Allow the admins to decide at this point. I have reported you.Danny Pi 05:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The media loves rumor, the question is do negative rumors belong in this article? I believe the answer to that is no. Let's let the admins decide. Dionyseus 05:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

All right. I'll leave it for the admins to fix. But it's simply ridiculous that I even provided a link on Wiki to the appropriate grammar rule, and you continue to insist that this blatently incorrect use of a comma splice is correct. That much, at least, should be cut and dry.Danny Pi 05:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me this is a comma splice, and I found the cheating information interesting. I vote to include. 70.23.236.205 04:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

it's most definitely a comma splice, but changing it to a period does not make it very fluent. it should either be "disputed, as some" or "disputed; some". as for the cheating information, if it is removed here it should also be removed from Vladimir Kramnik. we can't very well name every unsubstantiated rumor about every famous person. supine 02:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the comma splice issue, but with regard to the allegations of Topalov cheating - the edit as it was written did say that allegations had been raised. In otherwords the tidbit of information being conveyed here isn’t that Topalov was cheating, but that he has been accused of cheating. Clearly the accusation did follow the match (which is note-worthy and probably should not be glossed over) and the edition reflects that accurately. I think that the edit should be allowed to stand, with the addendum that the allegations have not been pursued by FIDE and remain just that – allegations. Also, before you get into an edit war you should read the 3 Revert Rule which says that you can have your account suspended if you revert an article 3 times in less than 24 hours. Disputes like this happen all the time, and Wikipedia does have a number of dispute resolution methods. Best to you all. LinuxDude 06:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Supinejsupine Thank you! It is a friggin' comma splice, for crying out loud. That shouldn't have been a controversy, but unfortunately it seems there exists a marginal segment of the population intelligent enough to use computers, but not quite intelligent enough to use proper English. Do note, I did attempt mediation. Dionyseus never responded to the mediator's postings on User:Dionyseus's discussion pageDanny Pi 05:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Come on, you all know that there was no cheating during the World Chess Championship. Actually, the only one person (that has rights to express opinion at this level) who didnot admit the Topalov's world leadership was Kramnik. After the Kasparov retirement, Topalov was the one to convey the real spirit of chess! Even, the immortal Kasparov admitted Vesko as his successor.

If I weren't aware of Modern Chess History, I would think Topalov does not really deserve the title which is not true. I think it (cheating part of the article) needs some redaction. Rasate 16:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Clearly there has also been support against the inclusion of the foolish cheating allegation. The two above me did not include their signatures, but nevertheless it suggests there's support against the inclusion. As for the mediator posting on my talk page back in January, I did post a response on the 3RR page, and they posted a response as well, you should read their response if you haven't. Dionyseus 00:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you indeed? [1] I don't see you having responded at all. Furthermore, the cheating allegations ARE widespread. I fail to see how User:Ryan_Delaney can declare it so without having participated at all in the discussion. I have tried reporting the incident for mediation. I have tried reasoning the issue out. Regardless of whether you are an admin or not, it does not make sense for you to arbitrarily declare the issue irrelevant by fiat. Look at Kramnik's page by contrast. Why don't you spend your time moderating THAT? The "people" that Dionyseus counts for his support seem to be one person trying to make paragraphs. Furthermore, being unsigned, I'm not convinced it wasn't Dionyseus himself. The people who have posted to this page supporting inclusion are: LinuxDude, 70.23.236.205, SWATJester ^Ready Aim, and since Kramnik's page is currently sporting all manner of unsubstantiated rumors, I will infer from User:Supinejsupine's post that he too supports inclusion. Danny Pi 13:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I said I responded to the 3RR page, remember when you tried to get me blocked back in January because I insisted you keep the "cheating allegation" out of the article, the moderators ended up threatening to block both of us if we didn't resolve it ourselves? I do not appreciate the nasty and personal email DanielPi sent me this morning, I would accept an apology from him though. I agree with administrator Ryan_Delaney, these "cheating allegations" are not widespread and no one even talks about it anymore. The "cheating allegation" is completely unfair to Topalov, and now that it has been over half a year since it happened and no one has talked about it ever since, there's truly no reason to keep it in the article. Dionyseus 19:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

1) Actually the admins suggested we take the issue to the mediation cabal, which I did, to which you did not respond. 2) There is a majority here in FAVOR of including mention of cheating. 3) FIDE said that they would investigate the issue. Since they have not published any conclusions, I think it's safe to say the issue is still an issue. I expect it would take longer than six months to conduct such an investigation anyhow- and who knows if they've even started. 4) The allegations come from a participant in the tournament, so I don't think you can call it a mere rumor. 5) The allegations received a great deal of coverage relative to most chess news, and indeed chessbase, quite likely the most popular chess news source, had an article or two on the issue. 6) As you yourself know, Dionyseus, a good many people consider the allegation serious and substantive. You may personally disagree, but there is nothing near consensus at forums like chessgames.com. 7) While the allegations are admittedly negative to Topalov, it is a FACT that the allegations were made. 8) *I* am not the one stirring up trouble. After you abandoned the argument, I stopped checking wiki for awhile. It turns out that a couple weeks after the issue had resolved, YOU decided to take it upon yourself, outside of mediation, to delete the sentence in question. 9) In terms of attitude, I feel I'm being entirely objective here. The allegations WERE widely reported. I posted links to many respected chess news outlets that reported on it. Mentioning a fact that relates to the subject in question is precisely what wiki should be about. By contrast, you recalcitrantly insisted that your obviously poor grammar "opinion" was correct, in spite of the fact that there has been nearly unanimous opinion that the offending sentence was in fact a comma splice. It is clear that you are the one with the opinionated and stubborn point of view. 10) I don't know your email address, and I have no idea to what you may be refering. 11) Those web polls are the only objective evidence there is. Empirically, almost all of the chess players I've personally spoken with about the issue agree that Kramnik is the champion. I think it is more accurate to say that "most" people consider Kramnik champion. This, again, is a fact. You may question the validity of web polls (although several separate polls seem to agree. However, there is scant evidence that "some" (implying a minority) people consider Kramnik champion, when in fact "most" do.Danny Pi 21:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

FIDE did not start an investigation on the matter. Also, the allegations were not widely reported, in fact no one has even mentioned the unsubstantiated rumor since November of 2005. Apparently you are the only person in the world who still talks about it. Dionyseus 20:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

3rd Opinion

Hello. A request was made on WP:3O for a third opinion on this page. The opinion is regarding the issue: whether topalov's alleged cheating belongs in the article My 3rd opinion is that It deserves at least a passing notation. The article, as is appears fine. Pro-cheating advocates are welcome to submit external link to their citations too. Thank you for flying delta. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi from a mediation cabalist. I'm reviewing the case here regarding edits related to Topalov possibly cheating. Was this third opinion ever acted upon? I don't see any wording in the current version of the document that says cheating was alleged (with a reference). -- Joebeone (Talk) 23:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, back in February. Since then we got additional opinions, also keep in mind that this incident happened back in 2005, no one has admitted to starting the ridiculous rumor, and no websites have even talked about this incident ever since October of 2005, the month that the tournament ended. Dionyseus 23:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Linares 2006

Whilst the article doesn't generally discuss the sundry tourneys in which Topalov has played (enumerating victories but including info on MTel only because as a sample game appears infra to the discussion), I wonder whether anyone thinks a few sentences apropos of Linares are in order. Though of course Topalov did not win, he surely made a remarkable comeback, and one might perhaps note that, after the tournament moved to Spain, he scored 5.5/7, beating, notably, Aronian, the winner. Joe 23:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Cheating allegations

Dionyseus- clearly there's support for inclusion on the discussion page. Also, you didn't respond to the moderator, who requested your POV on your discussion page. Don't change this back before clearing it with the moderators. I did. Danny Pi 12:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Who are the "moderators"? ⟳ausa کui ^× 17:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I imagine that was supposed to have been "mediator". Joe 18:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Apologies. Yes, it's 'mediator' not 'moderator'. The mediator was Cyde. The link is: [2]. The admin at the 3RR page suggested mediation, which I pursued. Dionyseus has continued to assert his clearly POV deletions without responding to mediators requests for discussion. Blindly rv-ing without any discussion does not, it seems to me, befit the spirit of wiki. I take umbrage that Dionyseus would imply that *I* am the one being disorderly. As I am the one calling in admins, and I am the one who ends the rv wars, I fail to see how *I'm* the one being a nuisance. If the issue is controversial, I think given Dionyseus's disorderly conduct we should at least leave it tentatively with the sentence included. Danny Pi 21:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Administrator Ryan_Delaney told you in your user page back in January not to re-insert the "cheating allegation" into the article because it is highly controversial and inflames people. After months of peace you unfortunately decided to place it back into the article. I notified the administrator and he fixed the situation. I am content and at peace with the solution, you should be too. Dionyseus 22:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

FYI, my being an administrator doesn't confer on me any special editorial authority. ⟳ausa کui ^× 23:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but Ryan_Delaney has now deleted any reference to Kramnik's title whatsoever. To contrast, the bulk of the Kramnik article is about the "controversy" surrounding the championship. With all due respect, I don't consider Ryan Delaney impartial. And if his being an administrator doesn't confer any special editorial authority, perhaps he shouldn't dictate what is or is not acceptable. Furthermore, the mediator who was actually handling the case gave me the go-ahead for reinsertion. Clearly Dionyseus is happy with the current Topalov promo piece, since it totally eliminates any mention of the vast amount of controversy surrounding Topalov's claim to the title. Frankly, anyone who doesn't consider the allegations of cheating or controversy surrounding the championship worthy of mention is, in my opinion, rather biased. I suggest we try mediation once again- with an impartial mediator. Both Ryan_Delaney and Dionyseus are welcome to chime in. Shall I contact Cyde? Or another member of the cabal if you prefer? That would, I think, be the civilized way to handle this. Because I'm not prepared to get into another RV war with Dionyseus (who seems perfectly content reverting without discussion ad infinitum), and I'm fairly certain that Ryan_Delaney is biased (and a bit fearful that he may be a bit trigger happy with his admin powers). If you guys agree, let's try mediation, eh? Danny Pi 02:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually a quick check at the Kramnik talk page reveals that it was you who introduced the "controversy" section into the Kramnik article. Someone actually removed it, and you decided to place it back. Seeing as it was you who put the controversial matter into Kramnik's page, why not remove it yourself if you are offended by it? Dionyseus 03:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I put two small paragraphs in a "controversy" section, since defamatory POV stuff was littered throughout the article. In the interests of having an objective listing (unlike the Topalov listing), I decided that it would be unfair of me to delete it all. Rather, I collected it into one section so that it would be contained. For example, the first paragraph (before I edited it) included a list of Kramnik's match losses. Outrageous. I did attempt to simply delete that obviously negative stuff, but people (namely Dionyseus) insisted that it was relevant. If Dionyseus can insist that Kramnik's poorer tournament results be included in the Kramnik article, I can't see how a newsworthy event like *cheating* isn't worthy of inclusion on Topalov's page. Anyhow, I didn't create two separate sections on "controversy", nor did I inflate it to include nearly half the length of the entire entry. At any rate, I would suggest you read up on the finer points of NPOV and comma splices... So I take it you're not willing to ask a neutral mediator to arbitrate on this issue? I really think that would be the most expedient and peacable solution. Danny Pi 05:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh huh... so no one is interested in mediation? Why is it that the second I mention mediation, all the discussion dies away? If you're so sure that this is irrelevant, why not ask someone objective in the matter to agree with you? Danny Pi 21:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well, I'm going to request mediation from the cabal once again. If you care enough to argue your point, please participate. If not, then I suppose you can expect the cheating allegations to be included.Danny Pi 04:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

I have requested mediation. Please post your POV at [[3]]. Danny Pi 05:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I am very dissapointed that you are still on with this irrelevant issue, you are apparently the only human in the world who still believes Topalov cheated, but I am willing to defend my position on this matter. I however do not understand where I am supposed to put my counter argument in that link, can you please explain? Dionyseus 07:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Clearly you do not consider it any more irrelevant than I do, or you would have let it drop. I don't see why you'd lay the onus of this on me, when neither of us seems to be ready to concede. As you will readily see on chessgames.com, there are plenty of people who believe the allegations are true. I myself in fact do not believe the allegations (as I've previously stated). I shall excuse your repeatedly misrepresenting my position, however, as I am happy that we shall finally get mediation on the issue. You should wait for a mediator to be assigned (or to volunteer for) the case. They will leave a message on your discussion board requestion your input, at which point I think there is an appropriate box to explain your side of the issue. If I'm not mistaken, further discussion will take place on the discussion page of that link. For now, I think the procedure is simply to wait for a mediator to take the case. Adding comments at this time may be counterproductive since it will only serve to move our debate from this discussion page to another. Let's wait for a mediator to request your POV at the appropriate time. Again, glad to hear you're willing to discuss this in a civilized manner. I think we can both agree an objective third party opinion is much needed. Danny Pi 07:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi all. I have taken this mediation case. I will post a response on that page [4] shortly. One thing I need to suggest to all of you is to respect each other as editors. There are a lot of personal attacks and such in this that are really unnecessary. -- Joebeone (Talk) 23:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Cheating Allegations... One more time

The fact is simple: Topalov was accused of cheating during San Luis. His subsequent performances will not change the FACT that he was accused of cheating. Actually, his amazing come-from-behind antics after miserable beginnings only give credibility to the thinking that this guy cheats when he's in trouble. Dionyseus, always slow to absorb new facts, is still trying to refute whether Topalov actually cheated. Now, it is at the moment impossible to prove this point one way or another. But, I cannot make this any more clear: I DON'T CARE IF HE CHEATED. HE WAS ACCUSED. That is the point. The ACCUSATION is news. Whether he actually cheated is IRRELEVANT, since it may never be known whether he did. The point is that he was ACCUSED by a noteworthy source. The mediation has taken place, and it was agreed by all parties that the solution was to mention the cheating. The agreement was not "mention it pending Topalov's result at MTel." ABIDE BY THE MEDIATION! And never ever "assume" that I consider this unworthy of mention. In fact, never assume anything on my behalf, thank you very much. I will let you know if I suddenly have a change of heart and decide that certain FACTS are omissable in an encyclopedia entry. You don't agree to a compromise in mediation and then decide that now is the time to return to an RV war. Try to understand the barest details of an argument if you're going to try to argue against it. And please try to conduct yourself like an adult. It's just exhausting trying to combat these petty infantile tactics.Danny Pi 08:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Calm yourself, the mediation compromise offer we agreed on is that mention of the allegation will be restricted to the external links section. Here's the mediation case for those who are interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-04-15_Veselin_Topalov

Dionyseus 11:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. I just RV-ed. Didn't know someone put the info in body of article before (I guess I can count SubSeven as another 3rd opinion in my favor). And don't break the compromise and then tell me to calm myself. You've engaged in practically every dirty tactic possible in this little dispute- conducting yourself like a nine year old. I've read your discussion page, and I've seen you get into yet further mediations and reported for more 3RR's. If you're bored with your computer games, don't go trying to restart THIS dispute. It is resolved.Danny Pi 19:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all please refrain from further name calling, that's certainly not needed. I thought that after Topalov's impressive win at MTel 2006 that you wouldn't continue in your crusade to make Topalov look bad, but clearly I was wrong and I placed it back as per the compromise agreement. I've only been in one other mediation and I won that one too, and the 3RR allegation I received from that user was to stop that user's 3RR which was deleting my contributions, and I'd like to point out that the user got the temporary ban, not me. Dionyseus 20:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't call you names. I was characterizing your behavior, and I stand by that characterization. My desire to "make Topalov look bad" has nothing to do with it. It's about reporting factual information in a balanced, uncensored manner. I'm not the one using wiki as a soapbox. You've included all sorts of trash on the Kramnik article, which I have heretofore refrained from censoring. Meanwhile, you have deleted anything negative from Topalov's article, no matter how factual it may be. I have since corrected this imbalance. Don't accuse me of being unfair here. And how you can infer that Topalov's half point victory at Mtel would somehow erase the very real allegations against him boggles my mind. That doesn't change any facts, does it? Furthermore, I don't think you should imply that you "won" this mediation. Mediation is about finding compromise. I would be happy to find our mediator and ask him if he thinks you "won" it. I certainly don't think so. After all, the cheating is still mentioned, and rightfully so.Danny Pi 21:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say calling me a child is name calling. Dionyseus 21:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you force me to repeat what I've plainly written already: I did not call you a child. I was saying that your behavior is childlike, and indeed it is. It is a characterization of your behavior. If you don't like it, then try to conduct yourself with more dignityDanny Pi 22:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

A big flaw in your argument is that you claim the allegation came from a "noteworthy source." Since when are allegations coming from anonymous sources considered "noteworthy"? Dionyseus 12:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

One of the participants at San Luis would be a noteworthy source, wouldn't it? Well that's who made the claim. One of the players from San Luis. More qualified claimant than either you or I. And that's perfectly valid. If that player wants to remain anonymous, so be it. It is sufficient that we know that it was a participant- a highly rated top GM- at the San Luis tournament. And it seems like everyone except you and your buddy Ryan Delaney agrees with me. But you've got your wish, it's in the footnotes. Leave it there, don't ever "assume" that I consider that information irrelevant. Not after Mtel- not after Dortmund- not after Kramnik v. Topalov.Danny Pi 19:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Soltis did not say it was one of the participants, he said it was a "world class" grandmaster, I'd say anyone in the top 100 qualifies as a "world class" grandmaster. Besides, who knows how trustworthy this Soltis is, he's merely a chess player/editor, how come he's the only one with the source? Dionyseus 20:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Soltis is one of the most respected chess writers out there. His "Art of Defense in Chess" and "Pawn Structure Chess" are universally regarded as classics. He has been praised by innumerable GM's including Mark Dvoretsky (quite possibly the best chess writer of all time). I'm not surprised you haven't read his books, but I am surprised that you haven't even heard of him. The reason he's the only source is because you rejected every other citation, including Mig Greengard (writer for chessbase) and Alexander Baburin (editor of Chess Today), both of whom are highly respected chess journalists (Kasparov and Topalov have both contributed to their publications). I'd be happy to re-include links to those if you'd like. I agree that the cheating allegations deserve proper and multi-sourced citation. Those other sources do specifically mention that it was a participant from San Luis. Don't you remember?Danny Pi 21:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Please point out those sources that mention that it was a participant from San Luis that accused Topalov of cheating, I don't remember that at all, what I remember is that they said the source was a spectator. Andrew Soltis is the only one who says it was a "world class" grandmaster, but he doesn't say it was one of the participants. I'd also like to point out that I wasn't the only one who agreed that your other "sources" don't meet the requirements for Wikipedia, even the mediator agreed that they cannot be considered reliable. As for Soltis, here's a comment about him from International Master John Watson: "This is the style of many of Soltis' Chess Life columns: a bit of drama and a good story, which you don't quite trust, but you don't really care, because it's fun. That may not work so well in a serious historical work. Very often, Soltis' take on a controversial issue is to quote various famous players' witty comments. But he doesn't tell us his own opinion, nor take much regard for the reliability of the person he's quoting (especially when some of them are notoriously unreliable)." [5] Apparently Soltis has a tendency to exaggerate and quote unreliable sources and he makes it seem as if its coming from a reliable source. Dionyseus 21:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, well from that same book review, Watson says: "I should also praise Andy for his longstanding Chess Life column Chess to Enjoy. When Soltis' column was attacked some years back by a Chess Life reader as having a dull and "journalistic" style, I wrote that it was not only the most consistently entertaining piece in the magazine, but that it required a remarkable amount of historical research and love for the lore of the game." Selective quotation won't get you anywhere. As for the mediator, he was deferring to you and Ryan Delaney because I had not yet commented, and he was not a chess fan. In fact, he specifically said that he is not qualified to judge the reliability of these sources. But there you go again, distorting the truth, claiming you have support where you have none, and blatantly lying. All you ever seem to do is tell half truths and (deliberately?) misinterpreted quotes. Either you are incapable of fully comprehending the text you read, or you are underhandedly pretending to "misinterpret" it to use as ammunition in fallacious arguments. In either case, arguing against it is simply exhausting. To refresh your memory: Mig Greengard's page[[6]], and Baburin's page [[7]]. If you'd like to add these (I hasten to mention RELIABLE) sources, I have no objection. Otherwise, let's just end this pointless dialogue. Clearly, you get something out of this petty fighting, but I just feel disgusted. Go on your merry way and pick fights with people over Playstation 2 or cats or whatever you like. And if possible, let's just avoid each other, eh? No good comes from this, and you've wasted enough of my time.Danny Pi 22:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Notice the key words "consistently entertaining piece." What worth is "remarkable amount of historical research" when Soltis combines it with drama and unreliable sources to make his piece entertaining and controversial? As for Mig Greengard's page, he believes the allegation is outrageous and he specifically states that wacky allegations are hardly rare in the chess world. As you can see from his page, he notes that the wacky allegation came from [8], that site is clearly unreliable. The Baburin page also points to the same source, and Baburin doesn't even comment about the allegation, his page is merely a tiny paragraph of two sentences, is this what you call reliable sources? This is ridiculous. Now that I have evidence that Soltis cannot be considered reliable, I am removing any mention of the allegation from the article. Dionyseus 23:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

So, are you implying that Soltis did extensive research and then decided to fabricate the whole thing to make it more entertaining? If you are challenging Soltis's authority, I would be more than happy to provide links to commentary on his journalistic reliability. You cannot take one book review and then extrapolate that Soltis is unreliable. Watson is a very good writer, and he is certainly entitled to his opinion. However, the fact that IM Watson considers GM Soltis's historical anecdotes dubious does nothing to undermine Soltis's reporting of a current event. If you RV once more, I will attempt arbitration, since mediation seems to have failed. Are you really so bored? Why don't you just drop this. It's been settled. As for the other links, I would point out that Greengard considers the allegation outrageous. He does not dispute that the allegation was made. For the hundredth time, you fail to comprehend (or pretend to misunderstand) that the issue is not whether Topa cheated, but that the allegation was made. In fact, *I* myself don't believe that Topalov cheated (as I have stated a million times, and which you also seem happy to ignore). However, I think that the accusation is significant enough to merit inclusion. Can you not see how such an ALLEGATION (whether true or false) would be important news? How can you possibly confuse the issue THIS often? It is unbelievable that you STILL cannot understand the point of this dispute. Danny Pi 23:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

As IM Watson said Soltis' articles are for pure entertainment and cannot be trusted. As for Greengard, he says these types of wacky allegations are hardly rare in the chess world. I believe these wacky allegations have no place in Wikipedia. I will be glad to defend my case in arbitration. Dionyseus 23:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

Very well. You may write your POV here: [[9]]Danny Pi 00:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I have done so. Dionyseus 00:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Cheating Allegation? Anyone cite Businessworld?

Has anyone else seen the column by Bobby Ang in BusinessWorld (Philippines) for October 7, 2005? It starts by analyzing a 1998 game by Clemens Allwermann in which Allwermann missed an obvious endgame because the computer he was secretly using missed it too. Ang then analyzes a Topolav-Leko game and recongizes a similar pattern of moves to the Allwermann game. He seems to be suggesting that one of the players could have been cheating, but I'm not a chess player and I can't follow the article. I found it on Lexis/Nexis but I probably can't post it due to copyright. However, it may be a source for the later Post article. Thatcher131 18:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you post the link? I haven't seen the article, but this claim sounds ridiculous. First of all Clemens Allwermann was unrated and from what I've read it was obvious he was using computer assistance, in this article I found Allwermann reportedly announced mate in 8 in a game against a grandmaster [10]. Second, comparing a chess engine from 1998 with one from 2005 is even more ridiculous, chess engines of today are so many times stronger and much more accurate in the endgame. Dionyseus 01:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I found the link [11]. In the article it says Allwermann used Fritz 5.32. He goes on to say that Leko missed a forced mate (he calls it the "Allwermann combination") in his first round game against Topalov, and Topalov went on to win the game. This is all Ang says, he makes no such cheating allegation of either Leko or Topalov. Leko was just lousy at the San Luis World Chess Championship, here's another article that talks about Leko's poor form there [12]. Dionyseus 02:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, not being a chess player I knew I probably missed the point of the column. Anyway, I did as full a search of lexis/nexis as I could find and the only two articles that mentioned Topalov and cheating in the same article were this and the Post column mentioned an unnamed master. It seems to me, as an outsider who read the RFAR and decided to have a look for himself, that that's a pretty shaky foundation to include such a claim in the article. Unless it is reported in reputable published chess magazines, if it is "widely suspected" in the chess community but not reported anywhere else, I would think one anonymous rumor is not enough to tar someone's reputation. Thatcher131 05:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see arbitration page [Here] to find discussion about reputability of sources I cited. Virtually every serious chess player has heard the cheating allegations. If you doubt how widespread the news is, drop by the Marshall Chess Club and ask anyone there if they've heard the rumor. I can practically guarentee an affirmative response. Not that this would constitute proof vis-a-vis Wiki, but for your own personal verification, if interested...Danny Pi 00:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm hardly surprised by anything these days. Of course, proof vis-a-vis wikipedia is the heart of the Arb case. Thatcher131 01:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I didn't offer that as evidence there. But I mention it here for your edification, if you choose to inquire... :) Danny Pi 01:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hearing a rumor is not the same as "widely reported." There's a big difference from hearing something, and reporting on it. Also, about your Marshall Chess Club claim, I guess that would depend on how internet savvy the club members are. Dionyseus 01:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

How would they hear about it if it wasn't widely reported? A giant game of telephone? Anyway, don't worry, I won't offer that as "evidence" in the arbitration. I'm happy to stick to facts and verifiable sources. And since one of the directors at Marshall is Riley Kellogg (who read a lot of the audio material for Chess FM), I'm guessing those guys are pretty computer literate. And although I haven't visited too many chess clubs in smaller towns, I would suspect that most tournament players just about anywhere have heard the allegations.Danny Pi 01:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Simply word of mouth, otherwise known as gossip. Gossip does not belong in Wikipedia. Dionyseus 01:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually gossip does belong in Wikipedia if it's widely reported and relevant. For instance, Mary Kate Olsen's drug problem is mentioned. Tom Cruise's article mentions rumors about him being a homosexual. Lance Armstrong's article mentions rumors about his doping. "9/11 conspiracy theories" has its very own seperate article (as well as mention in the main September 11 article), the "Star Trek" article mentions rumors of future television series's (egad!), and even "Bigfoot" gets his very own article. All of these are unsubstantiated rumors. Clearly the reporting of news- even false news- is very much Wiki material, as long as we don't report it as true (which I didn't). In fact, I would say that most chess players have an attitude of "I don't know, but I think he did," or "I don't know, but I think he didn't," attitude about the Topalov fiasco. I tend to side with the latter, but the general consensus seems to be, "We don't know." I must wonder how it is that *you* seem to know so well... Danny Pi 02:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Except that the cheating allegation was not widely reported. Dionyseus 02:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It's like ridiculous how long this has been going on. Even I heard about cheating allegations. Just include it. Smallguy314 04:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Where and when did you hear the cheating allegation? Dionyseus 04:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• This is beyond silly at this point. Now there is an anonymous IP editor commenting on the RFAR and a brand new editor's first edit (Smallguy) is to this talk page. I have no horse in this race except that I saw the RFAR and decided to look through Lexis/Nexis, since not many wikipedians have access to it. It looks likely that Arbcom will not take the case to decide a content issue unless one of you starts behaving very badly indeed toward the other, so you may have to work this out on your own after all. Before I go I offer the following suggestion:

Include the cheating allegations if you can cite two sources that an average wikipedian could find by walking into a big-city library. The NY Post is #1. What is #2. Visiting a chess club, talking to chess players, or reading chess players' blogs do not count. An article in an obscure chess magazine would count, assuming the magazine is considered significant in the chess world, because my hypothetical library visitor could request a copy through interlibrary loan if his own library didn't have it. Good luck. Thatcher131 16:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well as I already explained above in the earlier discussion with DanielPi I no longer consider Soltis a reliable source because according to chess writer IM John Watson, Andy Soltis's columns contain a bit of drama and a good story that you don't necessarily trust but that it doesn't matter because it's fun to read. John Watson says Soltis has a tendency to exagerrate and quote unreliable sources and makes it seem as if they are reliable to make his articles more interesting and entertaining.

Soltis wrote a ridiculous novel a few years ago in which a serial killer targets players who are 2700+ elo. [13]

Chess journalist James Schroeder had this to say about Andy Soltis: "MORON OF THE YEAR. An early Candidate is Andy Soltis who wasted almost 1½ pages in Chess Life to advocate that a stalemate should not be the same as a draw. Such stupidity is not even worth commenting upon, except to state that his ‘reasons’ for it are ASININE." [14]. Also, I don't see how two reports would qualify as "widely reported." If Topalov ever gets accused of cheating again, and it is widely reported, I would support the inclusion. Dionyseus 20:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Reunification Match Page

I've created FIDE World Chess Championship 2006, so details on that match can go there, rather than being duplicated on the Kramnik and Topalov page. The page title was chosen because of similar names for 2004 and 2005 FIDE championships. Rocksong 01:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Good. The recently added Kramnik-Topalov match controversy section should be moved there, if the controversy is considered worthy of mention. These sorts of disputes have been common in World Championship matches, at least since Fischer v. Spassky and the Korchnoi v. Karpov battles. 165.189.91.148 20:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

What's Countback?

It says tying for first with Garry Kasparov (though losing on countback) What is countback? RJFJR 15:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of that term before, that word should probably be replaced with "tiebreaks." Dionyseus 20:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That was me. It never occured to me that it was unusual. I assume it's an Australian expression for tiebreaks. Thanks for changing it. Rocksong 23:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous accusations

An anon IP has removed this paragraph:

Topalov had received similar anonymous accusations in his career after his decisive victory at [[FIDE World Chess Championship 2005|San Luis]].<ref>[http://www.chessolympiad-torino2006.org/eng/index.php?cav=1&dettaglio=259 Topalov Accused of Cheating By an unnamed participant in the World Chess Championship in San Luis]</ref>

I should welcome views, please, as to whether it should go back. BlueValour 22:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This has been widely reported, but we need a source before reporting something controversial like this. Carcharoth 21:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops. See above for far more extensive discussion of this! Carcharoth 21:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It now appears to be well sourced and the accusations are no longer anonymous. See the referenced Chessbase article about Short's allegations. 24.177.112.146 00:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Does Topalov have a chip in his brain?

There are rumors that Topalov has a microchip in his brain, are these rumors true or not? --Must WIN 00:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hm... maybe that's what made his oponent so pissed off. --Cameltrader 20:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

considering the large amounts of blunders in the Topalov-Kramnik games, I'd say either the rumor is completely false or the chip has bugs. Dionyseus 20:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Cheating Allegations as of 2007

Perhaps in April 2006 we could pass off these accusations when there was only one real instance, but as of 2007, Topalov has been accused of cheating on multiple occasions. (Wijk aan Zee [15], AND San Luis) With multiple accusations at different highly ranked tournaments, it is downright ignorant not to at least mention these accusations, true or not. Sloverlord 13:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I amended the article after the chessbase article came out. I think it's only fair to report it, without endorsing or refuting the possibility that Topalov did, in fact, cheat. Dionyseus has never understood the difference between saying, "Topalov was accused of cheating" and "Topalov cheated", so it is possible that he will now delete my edit, arguing that Topalov didn't cheat. It's frustrating and time consuming, arguing with characters like that. And while I had plenty of passive support last year, I'd appreciate some more active support for inclusion this time around, should Dionyseus choose to make another big stink. Apparently, Dionyseus interprets neutrality as the censorship of negative information, no matter how factual. Of course, this is the same guy who, last year, edited Kramnik's article so that it started with a list of his match losses. Of course, I wouldn't want to infringe upon wiki's tradition of love, charity, and respect; so, I feel I should clarify my position insofar as I absolutely DO NOT regard Dionyseus to be 1) a blight on wikipedia, 2) a mental degenerate, 3) incapable of lucid reasoning, or 4) incapable of language use. He is certainly none of those things. And admins may take that as an official statement. Danny Pi 22:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

There was absolutely no need to mention me, much less once again attack my mental state and intelligence capacity, you were once blocked by the arbitrators for doing that to me so I am dissapointed to see you continue your attacks. In case you weren't aware of it, the Topalov article has had the cheating allegation ever since the allegations became more widespread. Furthermore, the only reason I was against the San Luis allegations was because no reputable source carried it, blogs aren't allowed as sources in Wikipedia, and sources must not be trivial work, all of the arbitrators agreed with me on that. Dionyseus 23:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbiters agreed that my sources were good[[16]]. They included the New York Post, a FIDE site, Chess Today, and Chessbase. And plenty of people now are talking about how widespread the rumors were in the first place. The arbiters also cautioned you about making edits on topics you know nothing about (i.e. grammar), and they only penalized me for insulting you. In fact, this was the only point where they agreed with you. They said that I treated you with open contempt. So I won't do that anymore. If you read closely, I said that I DON'T regard you to be a blight on wikipedia, a mental degenerate, incapable of lucid reasoning, or incapable of language use. I'm sure you read that just fine, since I know that you are a good reader. No sarcasm intended. I really do believe that you're a good reader. And I don't not think that you're not an imbecilic, drivelling, small-minded moron incapable of distinguishing between opinion and fact. That's exactly what I don't not think that you're not. Danny Pi 01:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you think an arbitrator would say if they read what you wrote? Carcharoth 02:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I don't really care. I've made some good contributions to wiki. I fixed the unfixable "unsolved problems in philosophy" article, the bio for the poet Howard Nemerov, and little fixes to philosophy and math articles. Meanwhile, this clown goes around censoring any negative information about Topalov, regardless of how factually accurate, and I get banned for calling him an idiot? If they want to ban me, then so be it. Let them ban me for life for all I care. I'm happy to mock their "decision" and the inarticulate schlepp that is Dionyseus. This is the author of the "pseudo-penis" article, who's constantly embroiled in arbitration on some topic or another. The guy whose chief contribution to Wikipedia has been individual entries for every character in "Dune". If they'd rather have Dionyseus's intellectual contributions than mine, then I'd welcome the ban. I have to say, their "civility" rules show that they're more interested in having a hippy love-fest than actually getting facts straight. The chief ingredient to intellectual honesty, in my humble opinion, is a willingness to spot phonies and imbeciles for what they are. The guy can't even spell [Dionysus] properly, and he's going around editing encyclopedia articles. Pish. Danny Pi 03:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to start another fight here (although after reading earlier parts of this talk page I probably should've realized that was impossible), I am merely saying that, given the multiple accusations of cheating leveled against Topalov, they should be given a slightly more thorough mention, complete with names of tournaments and people involved. Whether the allegations are true or not cannot be proven. I really don't think there is any need for name calling... to be honest, I've never seen people get so worked up about a chess player. For god's sake, it's not like we're debating the existence of the Holocaust here. Sloverlord 16:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think there should be 3 subsections: San Luis (allegations against Topalov), Elista (allegations by Topalov), and now Corus 2007 (allegations against Topalov). The fact is he is at the centre of the allegations, and we should report all 3. Rocksong 01:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Korchnoi

There is a line in this article which goes: "...including former World Champions Anatoly Karpov, Boris Spassky, Viktor Korchnoi, and Viswanathan Anand, ...". This is misleading, because Korchnoi has never been a world champion, while the other three were (Anand being a former FIDE Knock-Out World Champion). 193.164.229.102 11:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Importance to Wiki chess project

Reassess importance as top for this former World Chess Champion. ChessCreator (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Monk Episode Appearence

Wasn't he in an Monk episode where he killed his wife and should it be mentioned in his "career" section even though it wasnt neccesarily anything to do with his Main occupation? --FailureAtDeath (talk) 04:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. The actor was certainly not Topalov, and the character portrayed was much older and resembled Bobby Fischer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.87.236.33 (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Chess Olympiads

Could someone please add some information pertaining to his performances for Bulgaria at Chess Olympiads? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.32.32 (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

typo

"Topalov lost his chance to compete in the 2007 world championship tournament when he the 2006 reunification match." ??? Kingturtle = (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Still no fix on this. Anyone know the right way to write this sentence? Kingturtle = (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Error in Sample Game #2 Diagram

The white queen is in the wrong place in the diagram. Topalov had not moved his queen by move 12, and the white queen starts out on d1 (not e1). Also, move 17 claims he moved Qc2...but it can't do that from e1.

The citation given (29, http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1482320) agrees with me.

Someone who knows how should update the diagram with the correct position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.177.163 (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Veselin Topalov. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130719235539/http://www.chessvibes.com:80/mamedyarov-first-in-beijing-topalov-wins-grand-prix-overall to http://www.chessvibes.com/mamedyarov-first-in-beijing-topalov-wins-grand-prix-overall

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Veselin Topalov. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110604101457/http://www.chessbase.com/newsprint.asp?newsid=2862 to http://www.chessbase.com/newsprint.asp?newsid=2862

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)