Talk:Veselin Topalov

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Topalov's analysis

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: The Supposed Cheating Allegation

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  3rd Opinion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Linares 2006 

message: 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)
replies: text: Who are the "moderators"? ⟳ausa کui × 17:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine that was supposed to have been "mediator".  Joe 18:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

message: I have requested mediation. Please post your POV at []. Danny Pi 05:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Mediation

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)."  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)
replies: text: 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[], and Baburin's page []. 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)
replies: text: 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 , 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Cheating Allegations... One more time

message: Very well. You may write your POV here: []Danny Pi 00:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I have done so.  Dionyseus 00:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitration

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reunification Match Page 

message: It says tying for first with Garry Kasparov (though losing on countback)  What is countback? RJFJR 15:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never heard of that term before, that word should probably be replaced with "tiebreaks."  Dionyseus 20:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What's Countback? 

message: An anon IP has removed this paragraph:
Topalov had received similar anonymous accusations in his career after his decisive victory at San Luis.Topalov Accused of Cheating By an unnamed participant in the World Chess Championship in San Luis
I should welcome views, please, as to whether it should go back. BlueValour 22:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been widely reported, but we need a source before reporting something controversial like this. Carcharoth 21:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops. See above for far more extensive discussion of this! Carcharoth 21:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Anonymous accusations 

message: 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)
replies: text: Hm... maybe that's what made his oponent so pissed off. --Cameltrader 20:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Does Topalov have a chip in his brain? 

message: 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 , 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Arbiters agreed that my sources were good[]. 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)
replies: text: What do you think an arbitrator would say if they read what you wrote? Carcharoth 02:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Cheating Allegations as of 2007 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Korchnoi 

message: Reassess importance as top for this former World Chess Champion. ChessCreator (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Importance to Wiki chess project

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Monk Episode Appearence 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Chess Olympiads 

message: "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)
thread_title:  typo 

message: 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)
replies: text: Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in Sample Game #2 Diagram 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Veselin Topalov. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified