Tournament dispute from several years ago

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I recall someone being banned from an Irish tournament for something possibly involving fists.

I wonder who that was?

I couldn't possibly say. But this has lots of examples:

http://www.chessville.com/BillWall/Ches ... dCrime.htm

Great picture of Zurab Azmaiparashvili.

[John Clarke]

Maybe a more general thread about fisticuffs in chess tournaments. There was some dispute over a woman at some Olympiad, wasn't there? And I recall someone being banned from an Irish tournament for something possibly involving fists. Clearly, chess players don't just do battle on the chess board.

I was told, about 30 years ago, of a match captain who decked one of his own players for not trying hard enough. Didn't stop him from becoming, after a deserved spell in the wilderness, a fairly senior official with his county organisation.

[Louise Sinclair]

I dub this the "two old disputes intertwined" thread. If a third is added, we may have a braid.

can you provide a third strand lol
Louise

Well, I just resigned a game where the clocks behaved in a funny way (though that is no excuse for the moves I played on the board), but that's not a dispute. Um. Maybe a more general thread about fisticuffs in chess tournaments. There was some dispute over a woman at some Olympiad, wasn't there? And I recall someone being banned from an Irish tournament for something possibly involving fists. Clearly, chess players don't just do battle on the chess board.

BTW, I'm sorry if my post belittled your old dispute in any way. Being knocked out is a serious business. Really it shouldn't be a matter for chess authorities but dealt with externally. But most people, when reading something like that, will think "shouldn't it have been resolved by now?"

I didn't feel belittled by your post. I did offer to provide medical evidence to support my account however the chess authorities declined it and when I was hit f
Fred Manning suggested calling for a doctor but this was also refused apparently - difficult to resolve cover ups.

[Louise Sinclair]

Being knocked out is a serious business. Really it shouldn't be a matter for chess authorities but dealt with externally. But most people, when reading something like that, will think "shouldn't it have been resolved by now?"

I'd have called the police.

My family don't "do police"

[Carl Hibbard]

The dispute referred to by Kevin made be an old one but I still recall being knocked unconscious to the floor - however I suppose that the "gallantry" displayed by many British chess players is conducive with modern politically correct censored society where nobody speaks ill or mentions unpleasant occurences provided all is neatly covered up and the pretence is that it was merely the fanciful story of a disgruntled official and a female player.

Do you feel the incident is being covered up Louise as I really don't feel any moderation was applied in this case?

[Louise Sinclair]

Carl
I'm not saying you are involved in a cover up. However I often see mesages saying in essence that as it was a few years ago it is no longer relevant. However if we apply this logic to all incidents which are now history no crimes longer then about a year ago would be punished if the offender was caught.Does this apply to those who evaded Nuremburg? If an unpleasant occurrence is repeatedly played down, distorted or lied about then a cover up has occurred.
When Sutton 94 happened my reputation was traduced. It was reported that despite the chilly weather I was wearing a mini skirt and batting my eyelashes (implication if anything happened to me I had only gotten my just desserts) the clothing of my opponent and the arbiter were not mentioned but the arbiter was male and mens clothes are never commented on.
For the record I wasn't wearing a skirt or batting my eyelashes but was presented as a cheap tart who wanted to ruin the reputation of a decent arbiter and my opponent - quite what my motivations were I never did discover.
Some of the people involved hold high positions in British chess including a couple who post on this board and I have papers in my possesion to support the official involvement. A number of players saw exactly what happened including an official who regularly posts on this board.
If someone else falls foul of a cover up involving one of these characters I assume that again the person making the claims will be told after a few weeks that it is time to move on - so that others can continue to be hypocrites.
I have never pretended to be a sweet demure female and I spoke openly of the part I played in the finale of the incident.
I find it interesting that the Welch enquiry did not want the medical report offered to them by my GP regarding the noted injuries and treatment required for shock, bruises, sprain and cuts.
This would raise suspicion of a "biased enquiry" and the possible clash of interests due to Smith and Williamson sponsoring The British Chess Championships.
Louise

[Mick Norris]

...the possible clash of interests due to Smith and Williamson sponsoring The British Chess Championships.
Louise

Sorry, don't understand this bit

[Roger de Coverly]

This would raise suspicion of a "biased enquiry" and the possible clash of interests due to Smith and Williamson sponsoring The British Chess Championships.

As a statement of fact, the British Championships were not sponsored by Smith & Williamson until Hove in 1997. That's not to deny a possible connection through other events.

[E Michael White]

http://ncjs.web.officelive.com/History.aspx

mentions 13 yrs of sponsorship by S&W of the SWYM and Alec enabling that sponsorship.

[Kevin Thurlow]

To clarify -

I do not plan to discuss "Sutton 94", or the Oxbow incident whatever you want to call it, in detail on this forum - it would take too long and serve no useful purpose. The moderators would go completely berserk if I published some of the information I discovered about this and other incidents!

I only raised it tangentially, as I have already explained, as Alec McF was grumbling at the alleged lack of response from ECF and about alleged lies told about him. I felt this was ironic as he was part of the team that I felt had done the same all those years ago, although I accept that the report was mainly written by the person that we are not allowed to name. (It is unclear to me if there is a total ban on naming deceased people.) Alec McF and I are politely discussing the report by PM. And Carl and I are discussing the other matter similarly.

But I realise that some readers may not have understood the irony.

I told the police about the reported punch-up, but they said they weren't interested. I badgered the police into doing something about the nuisance phone calls I got afterwards, and in fairness the calls stopped immediately, which suggests that one of the three suspects I named was either involved or knew who was. (In fact I know that one of the callers was known to one of the three suspects, but that is not to say that he knew about it before the police spoke to him.)

Smith and Williamson - the sponsorship of the British Championship was announced about a week after publication of the report, which had taken almost a year to write. Amusingly, I qualified for the 1997 British Championship, the only time I have ever done so, and decided to play, although I wondered what would happen if there were a dispute. Incidentally, I believe the 1997 British Championship was stronger than this year's.

Sutton 94 is of course a long time ago, but I am still experiencing the fall-out as there are those within Surrey who continue to try to punish my club, because I did the right thing.

It is not all gloom and doom - one of the organisers at Sutton 94 was going around saying that one competitor must be a drug dealer as he had paid his entry fee in cash! I pointed out said individual ran a shop, so might actually carry cash. Oh no, he was definitely a drug dealer. In an effort to be helpful, I asked the player (carefully telling him first who made the accusation), and he laughed uproariously.

[Sean Hewitt]

It is not all gloom and doom - one of the organisers at Sutton 94 was going around saying that one competitor must be a drug dealer as he had paid his entry fee in cash! I pointed out said individual ran a shop, so might actually carry cash. Oh no, he was definitely a drug dealer. In an effort to be helpful, I asked the player (carefully telling him first who made the accusation), and he laughed uproariously.

In an attempt to lighten the tone, this reminds me of the time when a neighbour mine commented that I seemed to have a brand new car every 3 months and wondered how come. I explained that I was a director of a car rental company, and we got them direct from the manufacturers. He laughed and admitted that he had wondered if I was a drug dealer! He hasn't been since since

[Alex Holowczak]

Sutton 94 is of course a long time ago, but I am still experiencing the fall-out as there are those within Surrey who continue to try to punish my club, because I did the right thing.

What, people falling out with one-another in Surrey?!

[David Sedgwick]

Smith and Williamson - the sponsorship of the British Championship was announced about a week after publication of the report, which had taken almost a year to write. Amusingly, I qualified for the 1997 British Championship, the only time I have ever done so, and decided to play, although I wondered what would happen if there were a dispute.

The first sentence above is not correct.

The Report was published in early December 1994. See http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/Bulletin1994-5.docx, as already published by Roger de Coverly up thread.

The Smith and Williamson sponsorship of the British Championship was announced at, or shortly before, the BCF Management Board Meeting held on 1st March 1997. See http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/Bulletin1996-7.docx.

[E Michael White]

The Smith and Williamson sponsorship of the British Championship was announced at, or shortly before, the BCF Management Board Meeting held on 1st March 2007.

You may have your dates wrong here.

[Louise Sinclair]

David Sedgewick usualy arrives at a thread when Sutton 94 is mentioned - does he dispute witnessing the incident?