Chess row in Cork

[Colm Daly]

Amusing to see a reference to the Evening Herald news paper. It is well known that it is a good idea not to believe everything that you read in the newspapers!

In a statement, the ICU said an independent disciplinary board had imposed a four month tournament ban.

Eh no, it was a four month ban that was SUSPENDED! = there was no ban at all! A joke.

However, ICU executives described the length of the ban as overly lenient but were powerless to increase it.

Eh, no again! Most of the executives on the ICU were kept in the dark about this decision!
The report was withheld for months and then when the committee did get the report and findings they were presented with a done deal.

When the Chairman of the ICU, and the Secretary of the ICU at the time [who was one of the people on that "independent" sub committee of the ICU, which actually comprised of two members of the ICU executive, and one not on the ICU executive,] said at an executive meeting that they would resign if a motion proposed and seconded within the committee to reject the findings of the sub committee was passed. Well the motion was withdrawn and a choice was made to just let things stand, but issue a statement to the effect that the ICU did not agree with the findings of it's subcommittee.

http://www.irishchesscogitations.com/bl ... omment-453

Gives a bit more detail about what just happened most recently. It is amusing that the headline in the newspaper mentions the ban on the teen when that case was dealt with many months ago and it was only very recently that the case of Gabriel came to an end after an appeal. He actually got a more harsh sanction than if he had not appealed. The whole affair was badly dealt with by the ICU [of which I was a committee member of the time]

[Paul McKeown]

That reference gives one person's opinion on his personal blog on which countervailing opinions are not always treated with respect. Perhaps it would help if the reasoning of the sub-committee was also presented.

[Roger de Coverly]

Perhaps it would help if the reasoning of the sub-committee was also presented.

It was supposedly confidential to ICU members, but if you look in the right place, the Gabriel decision has already been leaked. The ICU constitution has some general anti-violence provisions and they got him on that for using force to extract the cheater from the cubicle. For reasons that aren't entirely clear, ECF Director Sean Hewitt was on the appeal committee.

As regards the original non-ban, isn't the general belief that the ICU or at least the subset dealing with the cheating allegation capitulated in the face of a rich family and their lawyer? I would have thought at the very least they should have held out for an admission that regardless of subsequent events, it is a serious form of cheating to retire to a cubicle with a chess engine whilst playing.

[Sean Hewitt]

For reasons that aren't entirely clear, ECF Director Sean Hewitt was on the appeal committee.

In this context, replace 'ECF Director' with 'International Arbiter, Irish Citizen and ICU member' and the question answers itself.

[Colm Daly]

For reasons that aren't entirely clear, ECF Director Sean Hewitt was on the appeal committee.

In this context, replace 'ECF Director' with 'International Arbiter, Irish Citizen and ICU member' and the question answers itself.

Not quite Sean!

To be fair you should consider that there is more to it than that. Anyone can be an ICU member. [Well except Gabriel now for a few months ] can buy a membership on pay pal over the net, in of itself it need not mean one is well suited to being on such an appeals committee. Citizenship? yeah fine, Kasparov is Croatian these days, if you see what I mean. I know you actually are Irish by background etc but culturally you would have to admit your more English than Irish. I mean living and working in England (all or most of your adult life?] would have to also put you at a certain remove from Ireland on some/many levels?

Many might say you are of course quite lucky to have both. I had many relations who emigrated to England and they have said that yes it is funny that having spent so many years living in England they had never not considered themselves as Irish but had also started to see themselves as English too.

Anyway there are legitimate reasons and , concerns from people other than just myself about you being invited to be on that appeals committee, which by the way is no negative reflection on you.

This was in fact said to me with a degree of incredulity by a few people. You see, while I and others who know you and would have no doubt that, yes you are indeed well qualified to be on such a committee in normal circumstances, and on paper tick all the right boxes. The fact is that perception matters and while I know for example that you are a good guy and I trust you and your judgment, others who do not have the benefit of knowing you can not be expected to be so sure of impartiality considering the altercation you had with Gabriel in 2012, and of which I can state for the record that you were totally in the right about.

The other concern is the appropriateness of having somebody from one federation executive serving on a sub committee of another federation. Not saying that there is a right or wrong on this point, as while I do not think that to be a good practice or a good reflection on the ICU [in this case] I may just have a gut feeling that tells me this is not right. I don't know for sure and others may disagree with me on this, I just don't feel very comfortable with this aspect. I actually went into all this in the link I gave.

Contrary to what Paul says that site is not a personal blog. Rather it is a blog I personally set up and am the admin for. Anybody can register and add their voice, but Ireland unlike England has a much much smaller chess community so there is no great demand for a forum. As bad as these things can be, sometimes they do have some utility in sharing information and perspectives, even when misinformation is spread all the time, usually inadvertently.

There are two different case arising from the Cork incident. One relates to the person found to have cheated and admitted as much and the other relates to how the person against whom the cheating was perpetrated reacted.

In the case of the former, the facts are that two members of the ICU executive committee served on a sub committee along with the Chairman of the provincial body, the Leinster Chess Union. They simply made a complete mess of things and the report which they produced is one of the most damning I have ever seen. No doubt this was another case of the road to hell paved with presumably good intentions? But a 4 month suspended sanction which mean no sanction at all for a player who is caught using a Tablet PC during a game? Such was the incompetence form this report that he could not even get the position held by Jonathan O Connor right. Jonathan was the Chairman not the president of the ICU. Yeah mistakes get made all the time, but on top off all the other crazy stuff it just farcical ineptitude.

http://www.irishchesscogitations.com/report1.jpg

http://www.irishchesscogitations.com/reprtp2.jpg

The report did not even make reference to the original complaint and report by the tournament Arbiter Gerry Graham! Which in my book is game set and match. Forget all about it territory.


Gerry done quite a good and informative report I thought [save for one or two things which I did not think were great- just a little over the top ]

In essence, they [the sub committee dealing with the cheating case] met with the parents of the kid, the kid himself, with a solicitor present and even his sister present to at this meeting, they had a chat, allowed the parents and solicitor make a case for why the kid had already suffered enough blah blah blah, showed some photos of the kids bruising after the Cork incident, and in fact one of the people on this committee told me in no uncertain terms that it was this last thing which so influenced him to say that he stood by the choice to let the kid off with a 4 month suspended sanction which is no sanction at all.

Add to this the fact that the Chairman of the ICU at the time took it upon himself to obtain the phone number and then phone the parents of the kid who cheated, without any reference or consultation with the ICU committee, to have a long chat on the phone. Unwise and odd. Later this same Chairman put about the notion of possible legal action when there was no basis for such concern. There was and need never have been any role for any solicitor but once this was even mentioned some people got all excited and allowed themselves be unduly influenced by the parents and solicitor. See the report-

[Sean Hewitt]

To be fair you should consider that there is more to it than that.

You're right Colm - I forgot to mention that I support Ireland in the Rugby!

[Colm Daly]

To be fair you should consider that there is more to it than that.

You're right Colm - I forgot to mention that I support Ireland in the Rugby!

That is all well and grand Sean, but the really big question is; who are you supporting today in the big Rugby match between Leinster and Munster!

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/p ... -1.1741701

[Stewart Reuben]

I cannot think of anybody better suited than Sean Hewitt to serve on what is effectively an Appeal Committee in Ireland dealing with a difficult subject. That he is, to some extent, an outsider, is clearly an advantage. That he is more experienced than most is another plus.

[Sean Hewitt]

To be fair you should consider that there is more to it than that.

You're right Colm - I forgot to mention that I support Ireland in the Rugby!

That is all well and grand Sean, but the really big question is; who are you supporting today in the big Rugby match between Leinster and Munster!

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/p ... -1.1741701

Munster, by the Grace of God

[Colm Daly]

I cannot think of anybody better suited than Sean Hewitt to serve on what is effectively an Appeal Committee in Ireland dealing with a difficult subject. That he is, to some extent, an outsider, is clearly an advantage. That he is more experienced than most is another plus.

Yes and No Stewart. I can see the validity and strength of the point you make about being an outsider and thus more objective, not to mention his experience and knowledge. But what I am trying to say is that while you and I know Sean to be well suited, we have to remind ourselves that the vast majority of Irish players would not have the benefit you and I have of this knowledge of Sean.

Add this to the altercation which took place in 2012 between Gabriel and Sean - which again I stress Sean was 100 percent in the right.- there is the concern that perception can override reality. I have zero doubt about Sean doing a fair and fine job, but that is because I know him, whereas for those who don't they will [and already are] being fed a line about, ah sure it was a stitch up and sure wasn't there that thing at the Easter 2012 congress etc etc.

My point is that Sean does not deserve to have been put in a position in which such a thing could be said at all. I also don't think it was a difficult case at all. It was made complex and difficult through a combination of chess and personal politics running amok and simple incompetence and honest to goodness stupidity. I have even explained to Gabriel face to face several times why it was so simple and why he had to be sanctioned. The great problem all along was the non sanction given to the person who was the first cause, which was the person who cheated. Common sense was parked for this whole affair.

I recall a curious case in 1985 I think in Scotland British Major Open maybe, where an arbiter stopped a game in progress between Ali Mortizavi and some other player who I don't recall knowing. All because Ali had done something like move his Knight or Knights back and forth from g1to f3 and b1 to c3, or some such activity in a crazy looking display. It was amusing to watch, but you being the aforementioned arbiter, at some point stepped in and stopped the game.

I don't recall exactly what you did in terms of a result. I think you awarded the game to the opponent of Ali? Correct me if I am wrong. But although I thought then, even though I was very young, that as awkward as it felt that you had acted so strongly, I reasoned that you were using common sense and just averting or bringing to an end a bad situation? He was arguably sort of making a mockery of chess in his youthful and exuberant own way.

Likewise in the case of a player who discovers his opponent cheating he still must conduct himself in such a way as not to further exacerbate the problem or and bring the game into disrepute, which is exactly what Gabriel was doing when he started to make noise and disturb the other players playing. So just for that alone there was more than enough to sanction bad behavior.

[Stewart Reuben]

I am sure Sean had the option not to serve on that committee.

I have no memory of the Ali non-incident in 1985. Surely both players must have been doing it? If Ali's opponent had played positively, he would have secured a winning position. Moreover I was not an arbiter. I was the organiser.

[LawrenceCooper]

I recall a curious case in 1985 I think in Scotland British Major Open maybe, where an arbiter stopped a game in progress between Ali Mortizavi and some other player who I don't recall knowing. All because Ali had done something like move his Knight or Knights back and forth from g1to f3 and b1 to c3, or some such activity in a crazy looking display. It was amusing to watch, but you being the aforementioned arbiter, at some point stepped in and stopped the game.

I don't recall exactly what you did in terms of a result. I think you awarded the game to the opponent of Ali? Correct me if I am wrong. But although I thought then, even though I was very young, that as awkward as it felt that you had acted so strongly, I reasoned that you were using common sense and just averting or bringing to an end a bad situation? He was arguably sort of making a mockery of chess in his youthful and exuberant own way.

It was in a junior event against (I think) Chris Duncan. They played a bizarre sequence of moves but the arbiter stepped in and instructed them to play again. They then played ten moves or so of a Grand Prix Attack and agreed a draw.

[Colin S Crouch]

In the mid 70s. the late Harry Baines, with a strong Brummy accent, noted that "Mister Martin, this is not a game!".
There were 14 PxP possibilities to be considered, and an the previous position, there were 14 PxP captures by the opponent ...

Obviously this all goes back a very long way.

[Paul McKeown]

Anyone can be an ICU member. [Well except Gabriel now for a few months ] can buy a membership on pay pal over the net, in of itself it need not mean one is well suited to being on such an appeals committee. Citizenship? yeah fine, Kasparov is Croatian these days, if you see what I mean. I know you actually are Irish by background etc but culturally you would have to admit your more English than Irish. I mean living and working in England (all or most of your adult life?] would have to also put you at a certain remove from Ireland on some/many levels?

Sean Hewitt was no doubt chosen as he says as he was (and is) an 'International Arbiter, Irish Citizen and ICU member', and also that, living in England, he had (and has) a certain distance likely to make him independent of all concerns likely to be expressed. It should be noted that Sean has also organised important tournaments in Ireland.

There is a certain pattern here, isn't there, with Colm Daly seeking to defend the Irish Chess Union's chastity against assaults from outsiders. Notoriously, Alexander Baburin, of course. And now, apparently, the faint damning of Sean as a plastic paddy.

In any case, he certainly wasn't chosen to treat Colm's patented piffwible as divinely inspired and to be carved in tablets of stone.

it is a blog I personally set up and am the admin for

quod erat demonstrandum

[Andrew Martin]

I completely agree with Colin Crouch, that referring to the game Ratman v Ratson British U21 Championship, Brighton 1977, a game which cost both players a share of the title , is not out of place in a discussion about Irish chess.