ML3: Elista Triumphant
After days of unresolved tension, the World Chess Championship is to resume. The event, held in the Kalmykian city of Elista, in the former Soviet Union, has been marred by unbelievable toilet suspicions and other problems. Nevertheless, Kramnik (now a hero under protest) and Topalov the toilet-plaintiff will continue their titanomachy this morning (0700h, NYC EST).
How was the tiebreaking compromise reached? Essentially, the toilets were inspected and all the law that could be salvaged (after the undignified failure of jurisprudence at the hands of the less-than-capable Appeals Committee) was salvaged. Kramnik will continue playing at 3-2 up, which would have been 3-1 had he not forfeited a game to his opponent for failure to play a game after the clock had started.
The final lessons to be learnt:
1) Being right does not always win - Kramnik was in the right, but he ruined it in two ways. Firstly, he should have played Game 5 under protest; secondly, he should then have lodged a complaint. Instead, he did not play Game 5, forfeited it under the normal laws of chess, and failed to complain within the deadline.
2) Being wrong but loud can win points - Topalov was in the wrong and his complaint should not have been accepted. But his manager and he complained loudly and long, outlasted Kramnik in the psychological war, and Topalov gained a point without having to play for it.
That makes a total of eight mismanagement lessons from the sad story of the 2006 World Chess Championships at Elista. Let us hope the games continue until a single Champion emerges. Personally, I think Kramnik deserves to win. His colleagues endorse this, the chess world (well, about 95% of it) endorses it. All he has to do is prove himself.
How was the tiebreaking compromise reached? Essentially, the toilets were inspected and all the law that could be salvaged (after the undignified failure of jurisprudence at the hands of the less-than-capable Appeals Committee) was salvaged. Kramnik will continue playing at 3-2 up, which would have been 3-1 had he not forfeited a game to his opponent for failure to play a game after the clock had started.
The final lessons to be learnt:
1) Being right does not always win - Kramnik was in the right, but he ruined it in two ways. Firstly, he should have played Game 5 under protest; secondly, he should then have lodged a complaint. Instead, he did not play Game 5, forfeited it under the normal laws of chess, and failed to complain within the deadline.
2) Being wrong but loud can win points - Topalov was in the wrong and his complaint should not have been accepted. But his manager and he complained loudly and long, outlasted Kramnik in the psychological war, and Topalov gained a point without having to play for it.
That makes a total of eight mismanagement lessons from the sad story of the 2006 World Chess Championships at Elista. Let us hope the games continue until a single Champion emerges. Personally, I think Kramnik deserves to win. His colleagues endorse this, the chess world (well, about 95% of it) endorses it. All he has to do is prove himself.
etched with acid at 11:53:00 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home