Chess row in Cork

[Stewart Reuben]

From time to time teenagers decide to cock a snoot at the organisers and play a game like Martin Watson in 1977 or Ali's in Edinburgh or Alex Tucker at the Lloyds Bank Masters, or Ken Rogoff in the World Universities'.
The miscreants are given a loss, similar to the way the late Harry Baines did in 1977. and youngsters don't do it for another decade. A friend of mine and I considered doing it in the British Boys in 1957. We would have been more discreet and set a world record for length of the game.

It isn't entirely veering off course from the original thread. It is a matter of proportionate reaction to inappropriate behaviour.

[Andy Stoker]

Then there was that odd game that Tony Miles played in Luton against whatisname? It's always seemed to me that the game was scored correctly.

[Stewart Reuben]

And Andy, it was a perfect game with no blemishes, correctly scored 0.5-0.5. Now you must play at least 1 e4 e5 or something similar. Is that more honest than 1 draw agreed? Or would you prefer 30 moves of purely invented moves?

[Andy Stoker]

Mr Reuben, I fully agree with you ... hence my comment.

(And - only a bit off topic - please may I thank you sincerely for your decades of service to chess ... your efforts have meant so much to so many - including a significant proportion who never stopped to think how these things came to pass)

[Colm Daly]

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

Indeed, hard to fault that logic but just perhaps Sean was not aware of the extent to which his altercation with Gabriel was known within Irish chess? I was even mildly surprised that one of the first reactions I got from a few different people , to the appeals committee, was to mention this altercation as being something that should have rendered Sean as not actually an appropriate choice to be on this committee. Like yourself, my first response to this was to also point out the positives. But at the same time I could not deny that there was a point in terms of the role of perception.

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.

Arbiter, Organizer, you were the person I observed stopping the game Stewart. I would recall you more in terms of being a major tournament organizer rather than an arbiter alright but for some reason or other I just recalled that little intervention after all those years because your intervention impressed me.

As for the game, which of course I only saw for a short time, I think it was a case of one player [White] playing his knight back and forth while Black did indeed build up advantage after advantage and there was a comical aspect to seeing Black, gain space and develop all his pieces and pawns while White just kept moving back and forth. But Lawrence has confirmed that I did not imagine this incident and my memory has not yet deserted me entirely.

[Sean Hewitt]

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

Indeed, hard to fault that logic but just perhaps Sean was not aware of the extent to which his altercation with Gabriel was known within Irish chess? I was even mildly surprised that one of the first reactions I got from a few different people , to the appeals committee, was to mention this altercation as being something that should have rendered Sean as not actually an appropriate choice to be on this committee. Like yourself, my first response to this was to also point out the positives. But at the same time I could not deny that there was a point in terms of the role of perception.

On the contrary, when I was asked to form part of the appeal committee I explained to the ICU that there had been an incident in Dublin where Gabriel twice tried to use a mobile phone in the playing hall, and that I had stopped him from doing so. On the second occasion, I had to ask him to leave to the vicinity of the playing area. As a result of this, I suggested the ICU might wish to appoint someone else in my place. They consulted, and reaffirmed that they still wanted me to be on the committee.

Chess players do sometimes have difficulty with the concept that you can have a disagreement with someone, but that this does not need to lead to 30 years plus of acrimony!

[Colm Daly]

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.

Except for the fact that some people might feel that his altercation with the person before the appeal may have rendered him not an appropriate choice for this particular committee.

It should be noted that Sean has also organised important tournaments in Ireland.

No it need not be noted because this is well known! Sean has done 3 events here. In fact I have played in these events myself, and as I am sure Sean would confirm, I was active in trying to encourage more such events. Sean was not always treated with the full respect and regard he was due from the ICU executive and I was one of those within the committee who had argued, for example, that he should have been asked to do the 2012 Irish Championships [after having done the 2011 event], but because of the internal machinations of the ICU committee, unfortunately this did not come to pass.

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.

The only pattern on show here is the nasty need you seem to have to confirm yourself as a bitter malcontent-ed person with some twisted agenda to distort, misrepresent and twist certain things.

Fear not, Paul, you can have the last word as I have been well informed about you and your form.

[Colm Daly]

On the contrary, when I was asked to form part of the appeal committee I explained to the ICU that there had been an incident in Dublin where Gabriel twice tried to use a mobile phone in the playing hall, and that I had stopped him from doing so. On the second occasion, I had to ask him to leave to the vicinity of the playing area. As a result of this, I suggested the ICU might wish to appoint someone else in my place. They consulted, and reaffirmed that they still wanted me to be on the committee.

Well Sean as you also know well, the fact that people on the ICU saw no problem or potential conflict of interests [in terms of perception] is no indication of there being no such conflict in terms of perception among many rank and file chess players and does not alter the fact that, as I have said, many people have indeed already made the same point as I have made. Though as I have also said, most Irish players would not have the benefit of knowing you and the fact that yes indeed it would be an error to doubt your objectivity and fairness in this matter. The issue is one of perception.

Chess players do sometimes have difficulty with the concept that you can have a disagreement with someone, but that this does not need to lead to 30 years plus of acrimony!

Could hardly agree more Sean, though I would have stressed SOME chess players.

Not being that way inclined myself and being a strong believer in people being able to have differences of views without it having to mean or result in any acrimony, let alone 30 years of it, I just assume that me pointing out a fairly obvious potential flaw with the composition of an appeals committee through no fault of the person themselves is not liable to be misunderstood or misrepresented.

[Martin Crichton]

Getting back to the original topic

I would like to publically state that Gabriel Mirza is a hero of mine for his actions in Cork. We need more action men like Gabriel and less pussy boys like the whimps on the ICU exec and the ICU disciplinery committee that were dealing with the little cheating b*srt*rds rich family and their solicitor.

What was Gabriel to do? He did call Graham and if he didn't force in the cubicle door to catch the cheat red handed what would have happened?

Likely scenario...
Gabriel calls Gerry Graham to alert him of his suspicions....

GG (Gerry Graham)
CB (Cheating B*st*rd)

They go into the toilet and knock on the cubilce door....tap tap tap

GG: excuse me are you so and so?
CB: yes....I'm busy
GG: Are you analysing your game on a computer tablet?
CB: I'm busy ...come back in 5 minutes
GG: Can you please answer the question
CB: (Silence...then a loud fart)
CB: (more silence...then plop ...sound of a turd hitting water)
GG: Sorry I will talk to you when you come out
CB: (noises of trousers being zipped up and then the toilet flushing and possibly? the sound of a computer being turned off?)

CB opens cubicle door and asks what is going on? GG explains the situation that his opponent GM is suspicious of him using a computer engine to assist him with the game ad asks if it is true? CB replies of course not. GG asks CB does he have a computer tablet in his possession and CB replies yes.. what of it? GG asks why he has said tablet and CB replies...do you know how much this costs? GG replies no...
CB replies it probably costs more than you earn in a month and I have no intention of leaving such a valuable item lying around. GG informs CB that he will look after said tablet for the remaining of the tournament and apologises for talking to him while he was cooking his books in the toilet.
CB goes back to resume game and wins because despite his appauling play the position is so superior that he cannot fail to win it. CB loses next game as he has no chess engine to help him but at least he escapes being exposed as a cheat.

Thank heaven for real action men like Gabriel Mirza.

[Roger de Coverly]

GG asks CB does he have a computer tablet in his possession and CB replies yes.. what of it?

Surely key points are whether it is switched on or in standby and for that matter whether the player had left the board when it was his move. Depending on the model, it might even remember what it was doing, even if totally switched off. The player could have refused to switch it on, but an inference could have been drawn from that.


One of the newspaper reports quotes Mizra as follows

"My opponent, after each move, he went out (to the toilet). He went in and out 20 times. We had made 24 moves.

"After the second or third move I knew he was checking (on the computer)."

So there's a question for arbiters. The opponent leaves the board after every move he plays. Are players within their rights to insist that he remains within eye shot for most or all of his absences from the board?

[Colm Daly]

One of the newspaper reports quotes Mizra as follows

"My opponent, after each move, he went out (to the toilet). He went in and out 20 times. We had made 24 moves.

"After the second or third move I knew he was checking (on the computer)."

So there's a question for arbiters. The opponent leaves the board after every move he plays. Are players within their rights to insist that he remains within eye shot for most or all of his absences from the board?

What was I saying before about Newspapers! Don't believe everything you read in them.

He did not go to the toilet anything like that numbers of times. But while I disagree with Martin [Warning 30 year feud coming up!] yet accept the whole point he is making about Gabriel's actions actually leading to a water tight case of the guy being caught cheating red handed. He still done other things which were against the ICU code of conduct and he had to be sanctioned.

One of the most annoying aspects to this whole affair was the fact that there was next to no coverage of what was an excellent performance by Simon Williams who won with a splendid result. some great chess was played and it was an awful pity to see that all overshadowed.

[Sean Hewitt]

I have personally caught two players cheating. On both occasions it was a junior using an iPhone in the toilet. On neither occasion did I kick the toilet door in.

[Colm Daly]

I have personally caught two players cheating. On both occasions it was a junior using an iPhone in the toilet. On neither occasion did I kick the toilet door in.

Ah HA! Now you can see the error of your ways!

[Andrew Zigmond]

Getting back to the original topic

I would like to publically state that Gabriel Mirza is a hero of mine for his actions in Cork. We need more action men like Gabriel and less pussy boys like the whimps on the ICU exec and the ICU disciplinery committee that were dealing with the little cheating b*srt*rds rich family and their solicitor.

So are you condoning the physical assault that is generally accepted to have followed? If not for that - as you say - Mirza would very much have the moral high ground. Up to the point where the punches were thrown I have no sympathy with the cheating b*stard. If he happened to be playing in a team I organised and was caught doing something like this I would not be selecting him again, end of story.

However I'm sure there are chess players out there that are six foot four and built like bouncers. A few of them may well have smartphones and cheats come in all shapes and sizes. Had it been such a player in the cubicle rather than a junior would Mirza have so happily thrown a punch I wonder?

During my involvement in chess organisation I've come across far more examples of poor sportsmanship committed by adults against juniors rather than vice versa. In a few (admittedly rare) cases adults have done things against juniors they wouldn't dare do to another adult and defied them to do something about it. Condoning physical assault on juniors - as Martin Crichton (edited as slightly unfair) appears to be doing - sets a dangerous precedent. I'm sorry but this concerns me more than the incident itself.

[Colm Daly]

Getting back to the original topic

I would like to publically state that Gabriel Mirza is a hero of mine for his actions in Cork. We need more action men like Gabriel and less pussy boys like the whimps on the ICU exec and the ICU disciplinery committee that were dealing with the little cheating b*srt*rds rich family and their solicitor.

So are you condoning the physical assault that is generally accepted to have followed? If not for that - as you say - Mirza would very much have the moral high ground. Up to the point where the punches were thrown I have no sympathy with the cheating b*stard. If he happened to be playing in a team I organised and was caught doing something like this I would not be selecting him again, end of story.

However I'm sure there are chess players out there that are six foot four and built like bouncers. A few of them may well have smartphones and cheats come in all shapes and sizes. Had it been such a player in the cubicle rather than a junior would Mirza have so happily thrown a punch I wonder?

During my involvement in chess organisation I've come across far more examples of poor sportsmanship committed by adults against juniors rather than vice versa. In a few (admittedly rare) cases adults have done things against juniors they wouldn't dare do to another adult and defied them to do something about it. Condoning physical assault on juniors - as Martin Crichton (who has made anti junior comments elsewhere on this forum) appears to be doing - sets a dangerous precedent. I'm sorry but this concerns me more than the incident itself.

I would have to agree with the points you make here, but I wonder are you not being just a little harsh or judgmental towards Martin. I mean, describing Martin as having made anti junior comments? Is that perhaps not a case of how one might have taken some of his comments? Like he may have come across a particular way but not actually be anti Junior player.

I found his description above as a bit crazy but funny and I would not subscribe to the whole view he offered. But on a human level I can understand the frustration and even anger at the notion of somebody cheating in such a terrible manner. But yeah, taking matters into one's own hands and especially against a minor should not be condoned. I like to think that Martin is not really being literal and would not really be saying that he would actually condone physical action of any sort.

Might be interesting if we all asked of ourselves how we might have reacted in a similar situation. As Sean says I can't see myself kicking open the toilet door or anything like some of the stuff which was done. I would love to think you could approach the player and tell him this was really bad form and just not on. Then explain why it was so bad to be doing that and hopefully bring it home to the kid that what he was doing was so bad for himself too. The sheer embarrassment for the player might also be a huge life lesson too?