Emergency Board Meeting - Draft Minutes

[Roger de Coverly]

Nice summary article today by Peter Doggers on the Chess Vibes site for anyone coming into it new.

A quite extraordinary defence of Zurab by AP

http://www.chessvibes.com/sites/default ... 0Zurab.pdf

in which

When he realised that his move didn’t correspond to the notation, Malakhov gave him permission to take back his move, which permission was freely and spontaneously given. Malakhov signed the scorecards, there were no appeals, and according to the rules of chess, THAT IS THAT!

I looked up Malakhov. Although little known outside of Russia, he is now the positive side of 2700. He has referred to the incident in interviews, in which he says he was too shocked to think straight and make a protest. He was also a young player against an established player who was also politically powerful, being a FIDE Vice President at the time. Much the same reaction was given by Judit Polgar although Kasparov's Linares take back needed video replay to establish whether he let go of the piece for a micro second.

But if you fail to play the move you intend, even if written down first as was legal at the time, you might be allowed to take it back in a "friendly" game, but not in any sort of competition, even a club championship. You just shouldn't even ask.

[Nigel Short]

Indeed, Roger de Coverly. If one were being charitable about AP's defence of Azmai's move retraction, one would say that it demonstrates that he knows nothing at all about chess. It was also hardly likely to impress a Board with various arbiters among its number.

[JustinHorton]

although Kasparov's Linares take back needed video replay to establish whether he let go of the piece for a micro second

Although such video evidence did exist and was clear, wasn't it?

By the way, was Azmai's character deemed beyond redemption before or after the Georgians were involved in the vice-presidents business? It's so confusing.

[Nigel Short]

Yes, JH: The evidence of Kasparov taking his hand off the piece for a micro-second was clear.

I had already written and spoken publicly about Azmai's character on several occasions before the court case - as you well know.

Incidentally, have I ever said or done anything in my life that you actually approve of? Or are you totally obsessed? Oh, and please don't tell me you admire my chess, but... That is invariably the introduction of someone who is about to engage in character assassination.

[Andrew Martin]

I liked the way you played 6 hearts redoubled against Speelman and Mestel in the bar of the Yelton Hotel a while back. It was a brilliant performance to limit it to five off.

My redouble was a bit frisky, it has to be admitted.

[John McKenna]

Am I just "about to engage in character assassination"?
Let's see... while playing away Nigel is the Black Prince and his prowess is both feared and admired.
At home it is a different story - he acts like a certain/uncertain obsessed Prince of Denmark.
You all know the one in question - Hamlet.
In this instance it's the one whose mother, Caissa, has married the wicked steppe-uncle, Kirsan.
A classic case of a split personality?
(Which, by the way, may go some way to explaining why he is a bit of a splitter, perhaps.)

[Andrew Martin]

Still, this is what happens when you play the execrable 'Biafran Spade' bidding system. Occasionally, you get to the wrong contract.

[JustinHorton]

What's this fantastic story about Danailov supposedly having done six months in the big house?

[JustinHorton]

Also, this:

as President of the ECU he tried to extract a EUR50,000 payoff from me in return for having introduced me to the Mayor of Madrid

I'd like to know:

a. Can I assume we are referring to the Mayor of Madrid city and not Madrid province? (The latter doesn't have a mayor, but I'd like to be sure.)

b. Which particular individual are we talking about? (It has changed relatively recently.) Was it Ana Botella?

c. Is there any suggestion that the mayor was aware of what was happening? (In Spanish law this is called "influence-trafficking" and is a serious offence.)

d. Is there any hard evidence to back up the allegation?

[Nigel Short]

He IS totally obsessed apparently. What a surprise! I would never have guessed...

[Angus French]

A quite extraordinary defence of Zurab by AP

http://www.chessvibes.com/sites/default ... 0Zurab.pdf

in which

When he realised that his move didn’t correspond to the notation, Malakhov gave him permission to take back his move, which permission was freely and spontaneously given. Malakhov signed the scorecards, there were no appeals, and according to the rules of chess, THAT IS THAT!

Here's the complete text of the section on the take back:

1. Short claims that Zurab took back a move against Vladimir Malakhov in 2003

This is true, and Zurab freely acknowledged it; but a little more context is useful before judging this "heinous crime". Zurab noted a correct move on his scorecard, then made a different, illogical move on the board. When he realised that his move didn’t correspond to the notation, Malakhov gave him permission to take back his move, which permission was freely and spontaneously given. Malakhov signed the scorecards, there were no appeals, and according to the rules of chess, THAT IS THAT!

From the Sun Sentinel (6/3/2005): "In a sporting gesture, Vladimir Malakhov let FIDE Vice President Zurab Azmaiparashvili off the hook. Zurab changed his move to 25...Rxd1 and later won. But then, ashamed of himself, [Zurab] proposed a draw. Malakhov refused! He said he had no regrets about refusing to exploit a slip of the hand."

Zurab took back a move and acknowledged it; whereas in a sign of bad faith Nigel Short neglects to mention (for context) that Garry Kasparov once took back a move and has to date refused to acknowledge it, despite video proof.

From Wikipedia: "The 1994 [Linares] tournament was also noted for an incident in which Garry Kasparov "took a move back" against Judit Polgár. Kasparov's fingers briefly released a knight before he realized the move was a blunder; he then moved the knight to a different square. Polgar (17 years old at the time) did not protest and the arbiter did not intervene. Kasparov went on to win the game."

It is an extraordinary document and, I suggest, worth reading in full.

[JustinHorton]

Nigel - the expression "not everything is about you" is no doubt over-used, but perhaps on this occasion it might be rolled out harmlessly enough.

[Paul McKeown]

Two-arsed toilet: priority!
Putin will teach you to love the Motherland

[Ihor Lewyk]

I wonder if Jeremy kyle can follow any of this because I surely can't.

It seems to have descended into a script for one of his shows!

[John Upham]

Apart from myself, would anyone like to see JH on the Jerry Springer show with GMRDKOBE

or maybe JH and AP

or possibly JH and KI

or even JH and Sam Sloan?