TOPALOV: <"What a pity that [Kasparov's] desire to gain full control of everything made the other grandmasters hate him! His actions did not always reflect the image of a democrat. For example in 1989, Ljubojevic and Kasparov shared first place at one of the World Cup tournaments in Barcelona. Tiebreak calculations clearly showed that Ljubojevic was the winner, but the mayor of Barcelona was photographed awarding the trophy to Kasparov. Ljubojevic was angry, but nothing changed.">

Topalov is not exactly the most objective guy in the world, especially in a book about his first failed world title match. He implies here that a) there were official tiebreak rules in this tournament, and b) they were disregarded. But he doesn't quite come out and say this, so he can claim he never did if he's challenged.

What tiebreak rules did Ljubojevic win under? He doesn't say. The whole thing is eerily reminiscent of Linares 2005, where Kasparov won the tournament under the tiebreak rules announced before the tournament (most Black wins), but Topalov and Danailov were going around saying that Topalov had really won because he beat Kasparov head to head (which was NOT the tiebreaker).

I'm looking at the entry for Linares 2005, and it says this:

<They shared the 175,000 euros, but Kasparov was declared the winner based on a new 2nd tie-break criterion: most Black wins (two versus one).>