Reply to Roger!

The very latest International round up of English news.
Colm Daly
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2014 7:34 pm

Reply to Roger!

Post by Colm Daly » Tue Mar 18, 2014 6:33 pm

I agree that the thread at http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... 75#p134637

had gone way off but I really cannot allow comments by Roger go unanswered.

I had gone through point by point many things which he simply ignored.

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... 75#p134634

Accordingly I offer a comprehensive rebuttal of his later incorrect assertions.

Firstly as regards the comment
John McKenna' wrote: Roger's reply to Colm is more substantial
Well I would venture to suggest that actually Roger has been reduced to soundbites, mainly in the face of a torrent of information and evidence that he could not have been expected to have knowledge of and insight about. Or as he might say. Ah that's all just a rant.

Rant or no rant, the facts are still the facts. I might retort this is a case of Roger the Dodger, evasion being the better part valor?
Roger de Coverly wrote: It's one of the few things known about Irish chess, namely one individual perpetually ranting on the Internet against the establishment and his fellow players and this has been going on for how long? Is it twenty years?
Yes indeed Roger, so why did YOU bring up this topic?

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... 75#p134615

And in doing so, only confirm that you actually know and understood very little about what went on and the issues involved. Which is only to be expected really. I would never claim to know the first thing about for example the Murray Chandler – Nigel Short issues of 1994 other than on a superficial level.

I mean, sure I read stuff about it at the time and since, I think I even had some light banter with Murray Chandler about it in a lift at the Hotel Cosmos in the Moscow Olympiad in 94, but as I could not know or be privy to details I keep an open mind and accept that really, I might as well know nothing. Much like what would really be the situation regarding your knowledge and insight about Irish recent chess history. Limited, and skewed.

When there is a divergence from your knowledge, understanding and point of view presented to you, then it becomes a rant? Well, when someone who actually knows what they are talking about- because they actually lived it- takes the trouble to address many of the incorrect notions someone such as yourself has, the best you can do is to, in effect, figuratively speaking, put your hands over your eyes and ears and say; I am not listening nah nah nah. You are better than this for sure. But are you capable of considering that you just might have things wrong and not be nearly as well informed as you think you are?

I would certainly not expect you or anyone else to just go along with what I alone write, which was why I gave you a link to an independent and well regarded person's report on just some of the absurd nonsense that went on. That sort of sample nonsense is offered to point out that the ways some things were done and show that it was indicative of a far greater malaise, which was sometimes quite sinister.

http://irishchesscogitations.com/pdf/se ... s_2000.pdf

I would be just as content to never waste time on such nonsense. And it would be only SOME fellow players who were, and still are, part of cliques that I, AND MANY OTHERS within Irish chess were at odds with, I fully admit to being the most vocal and persistent of players who were unhappy with the way things were being done then, and ever since. For the most part people have simply moved on. And for me this is merely a sort of academic exercise.

I certainly could plead insanity having observed some of the lunacy that went on, and still does! Even to this day there remain fundamental differences of opinions on many legacy issues between players – though these differences do not, for the most part, present any problems. As you rightly say, at this remove, who cares about what happened so long ago. It can often be like the Fawlty Towers thing of- don't mention the war.

It is also often the case that when some people gain from a particular status quo their silence and compliance is assured. That could have been a path for me to have chosen. It was certainly made clear to me that was what was desired by certain people, but that was just not my way. And I paid a huge price in terms of the usual sort of stuff that one expects to see happen with a whistle-blower. I have been vilified, misrepresented for years. I am no angel that is for sure, and, as is so apparent, I can, and do, give as good as I get. But I pride myself on trying to be fair and accurate. If someone points out flaws in either fact or views I am all eyes and ears.

But fact is that there are a great many who would back up and agree with my versions of events, and in any case, my rallying against many wrong things did yield many positive results in terms of reforms and this has allowed for better practice and more scrutiny of the way certain things get done.

While it is true that I have indeed been at odds with what you might call the establishment I also became very much part of that establishment, on and off, in part because most, if not all, of my views in relation to some of what had gone in Irish chess were vindicated. But these thing go in cycles and even now there are absurd things going on behind the scenes. Mr Baburin just recently being appointed back on an ICU selection sub committee, which is not of any great significance other than just being plain wrong!

That committee was fine with three people, but old habits die hard and now.... Well now we have situation in which a player on the team is also a selector and while that is bad practice in of itself, Baburin has an awful record of being a selector. I mean awful!
As in, should have resigned when decisions he was party to were overturned. But nope despite the whole farce the only person to resign from that shameful selection committee was the now deceased, and greatly missed, giant of Ulster Chess, Tom Clarke.

The rest of them never resigned [as would be standard practice] and two of them were on the same selection committee 9 years later in 2009 when they tried and failed to deny me my rightful place on the 2010 Olympiad team. The great irony being that I had no intention of accepting my Olympiad place that year, but when they tried, yet again, to screw me over I then not only made sure to take my place, but I went on to the ICU executive and served for three years.

Those same two selectors were both also signed up to go to the 2010 Olympiad – Baburin as board one, and Gerry Graham as team captain, but wouldn't you know, that as soon as I got my rightful place back on the 2010 team they both coincidently withdrew from the team, for whatever fantasy reason they gave, when anybody clued in to Irish chess knew the real reason was because I had yet again thwarted their plans. The team might as well of had a party, such was the positive effect for the whole Irish delegation and experience.

Likewise when I was the team Captain in 2012 Baburin not only did not take the place offered to him, but in a nasty and stupid email sent by him declared that

“I will not be playing in the next Olympiad. I was going to take part, but I am not impressed with the new captain."

and he went on to make some other spurious, insincere and irrelevant noises about not wanting to open old wounds- which is exactly what he just did, by sending such a nasty email, instead of just declining his place.

Only his die hard supporters believe he ever had any intention to go to the 2012 Olympiad, for one thing his close friend Mark Heidenfeld was not available for the 2012 Olympiad.

So it is just dandy that he [Mark] this year is not only available for this Olympiad but has accepted an offer to play this year. Which brings me back to more reasons why it is crazy for Baburin to be a selector yet again.

He is wide open to suggestions of conflict of interest, and already there are alarm bells ringing because his close friend Mark Heidenfeld has been offered a place on the team ahead of Stephen Brady, the 2011 Irish Champion - who actually is entitled to an automatic place, save for the fact that the ICU have decided to ignore their own rules and a motion passed at the 2010 AGM - David Fitzsimons and Ryan Griffiths, two of our most promising younger players, who I would really have liked to see on the team. And the key point here is that unless I am mistaken, it is the case that if there is a less than 50 point difference in rating then the selection committee could opt to pick say for example a player rated 2301 as opposed to a player rated 2350. They have such discretion.

In the scenario here we have Ryan, David and Stephen all within that 50 rating points but of course Mark, who has been living in Germany since around 2007 or 2008 I think, but did make a point of playing enough games here in Ireland to remain eligible for selection, getting the nod owing to having the highest rating. But while I have to say that Mark is a fine team mate and a great asset to any Irish team, I am sort of sad to think he would be selected ahead of David or Ryan. My point would be that Mark has done nothing of note in Irish chess [or anywhere] within the last few years- he had a good 2010 Olympiad I think, [certainly performed better than me]

For one thing David and Ryan are the future, and players like me, Baburin, Heidenfeld arguably would better serve Irish chess by not accepting places on the team- It is arguable at least. Not saying that it is right, just a worthwhile consideration. I understand the Chinese have a policy to rotate in favour of new younger players coming in as soon as they are strong enough. In other words, people of my age should not, as you suggest, be able to simply bank on a holiday to an Olympiad every two years. I agree strongly with that suggestion, and it is a pity that you mistakenly have things upside down and back the front as regards my stance on Olympiads.

The only defence I offer of myself is that I feel I have earned my place on the team by participating in, and managing to win the Irish ch, even if I was lucky or perhaps not so impressive as in previous years, I think my very participating helped the event and thus Irish chess, plus in all reality, the likelihood of my performing much different from anyone else who would have been on the team is not great. I may perform as well, better than or worse than Ryan or David, Stephen, Mark but in the case of having two young and hungry players on the team then arguably that is better for the team and Irish chess. On the other hand one might say too bad for David that he lost a game he should have against me at the 2013 Irish ch and too bad for Ryan that he was not able to play.


As a curious but related aside- When I turned up at the 2000 Olympiad in Istanbul after I was rightly restored to a correct place on the team, one of Baburins friends and our fellow team mate [there were three Marks on the team that year all good friends with Baburin, but no need or point to say which one actually said this to me] ,actually explained to me that I was unreasonable to expect that he would not try screw me over as best he could as a selector and do his best to keep me off the team!

Yep you got that right, it was only natural that Baburin have every right to screw over a player because that player had previously made a principled objection to him being on the team 4 years previously [Baburin did not take his place on the 1998 team- might of had something to do with me being on the team that year too!- Or because being held in the Russian federation it was a bit risky or something?] I think I was on the team because I was Irish champion that year too, but then considering I ended up board two to Brian Kelly, no I think my rating was about 3rd 4th or 5th in the country at the time?

Anyway while I cannot say for sure that Baburin would use his position as a selector in an improper or less than ideal manner, and one has to assume that the selectors done their best without fear or favour. I think common sense and good form would indicate that the perception of conflict of interests was very real and thus he should not have been offered this position, and he would have been better advised not to accept the position. If he was a retired Olympiad team player then at least then he could not be open to any suggestion of bias so easily.

As if to underscore the point, about potential cliques and holidays every two [few] years. It is amusing to note that the same person who originally brought Baburin to Ireland [For unlike your earlier reference, he was not just a Russian GM who happened to emigrate here,no it was arranged and planned ] and helped to set him up here, is the same person who was up until Mark left Ireland, the employer of Mark Heidenfeld and the current ICU Fide delegate, by now you might have just started to see certain patterns. Mark, Eamon and Alex are sort of a trinity really. They would very much like and enjoy an Olympiad Holiday, if not every two years then just every few years!

Though it is also worth saying that 30 or 31 people have signed a request for an EGM to actually change the ICU Fide delegate just for the duration of the Fide congress in Norway.

To me anyway, he has always come across as someone who used to think he had an automatic right to an Olympiad holiday every two years and resents anyone like Baburin who might challenge it.


This is just comical. You just ignore the whole point and reality of it all and my previous post specifically mentioning and explaining that far from resenting anybody knocking me of a team fair and square, I pointed out that this was not the case at all. I am not someone who used think I had an automatic right to anything. I would been on any team only having earned my place. But yes I sure as hell resent the fact that in my mind [and many others] I have no doubt that Baburin did indeed try keep me off the team as a selector and wronged me on many occasions and in many ways.

Nowadays we have a perfectly civil mutual disregard for one another and there really are no reasons for alarm in any way shape or form. We are never going to agree about much of anything and certainly not the absurd shenanigans that went on over the last 20 years.

As sort of détente approach is my philosophy and we are both at an age in which we have to accept that life is too short for this nonsense and somehow work around differences. We all have good and bad qualities and attributes.

Lastly, when someone is accused of ranting I usually find that can be the first sign of someone out of their depth on a topic. There are a great many things I would gladly defer to you on, but recent Irish chess history that I have lived through, and continue to live through is not going to be one of them.

I hope you enjoyed this rant.

User avatar
Christopher Kreuzer
Posts: 8806
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
Location: London

Re: Reply to Roger!

Post by Christopher Kreuzer » Tue Mar 18, 2014 6:41 pm

Colm Daly wrote:I would be just as content to never waste time on such nonsense.

<much snippage>

I hope you enjoyed this rant.
Hmm. It appears to be in the wrong section (even the wrong forum). This is the 'ECF Matters' forum. I'm not sure there is (or should be) a 'discuss other chess federations' section.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Reply to Roger!

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Mar 18, 2014 6:42 pm

Colm Daly wrote: I hope you enjoyed this rant.
Couldn't be bothered to read it. I formed my opinion getting on for twenty years ago, when all this Baburin stuff first surfaced.

But let me ask this? Why is it that Ireland has only one GM and he's imported. Is it perhaps down to an attitude that is reluctant to open up one of the handful of international rated events in Ireland to outsiders. After all to get a GM Norm in a tournament, it is necessary to play at least three GMs. So Irish players seeking GM norms would have to play in England or further afield. If they were doing that and only had limited time to play long tournaments, they might have to give the Irish championship a miss. With the selection policy that could disqualify them from playing in the Olympiad thereby perpetuating the shortage of potential GM Norms.

Colm Daly
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2014 7:34 pm

Re: Reply to Roger!

Post by Colm Daly » Tue Mar 18, 2014 6:51 pm

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
Colm Daly wrote:I would be just as content to never waste time on such nonsense.

<much snippage>

I hope you enjoyed this rant.
Hmm. It appears to be in the wrong section (even the wrong forum). This is the 'ECF Matters' forum. I'm not sure there is (or should be) a 'discuss other chess federations' section.
That would be my fault. I just hit the new topic button while in the previous thread.

JustinHadi

Re: Reply to Roger!

Post by JustinHadi » Tue Mar 18, 2014 7:38 pm

Wikipedia wrote:In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally[3][4] or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[5] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
http://crosswordtracker.com/clue/psycho ... pper-hand/

Colm Daly
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2014 7:34 pm

Re: Reply to Roger!

Post by Colm Daly » Tue Mar 18, 2014 8:49 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Colm Daly wrote: I hope you enjoyed this rant.
Couldn't be bothered to read it. I formed my opinion getting on for twenty years ago, when all this Baburin stuff first surfaced.

But let me ask this? Why is it that Ireland has only one GM and he's imported.

Is it perhaps down to an attitude that is reluctant to open up one of the handful of international rated events in Ireland to outsiders. After all to get a GM Norm in a tournament, it is necessary to play at least three GMs. So Irish players seeking GM norms would have to play in England or further afield. If they were doing that and only had limited time to play long tournaments, they might have to give the Irish championship a miss. With the selection policy that could disqualify them from playing in the Olympiad thereby perpetuating the shortage of potential GM Norms.

Of course not Roger, because you have no answer and are well out of your depth. Just as I would be if I started to get into that Murray Chandler- Nigel Short spat from 1994. I am sure your insights and knowledge would be far more useful than mine.

It would be unfair to you to think you could actually grasp and engage with the topic and messy details surrounding matters within Irish chess which you had nothing to do with and would not have any actual personal experience of.

Instead you go off on a tangent about Ireland having only one GM. So what? What's the problem? As you rightly say, even the one we have is imported. He is now Irish, one of us now for many years. He has every right and entitlement of any Irish Citizen, as is only correct.

As to why we have no GM of our own? Circumstances mainly, small country in which chess is neither well developed, well regarded, well supported or well run. We have the best Hurlers and Gaelic football players in the world though- I trust you can see where I am going with that!

Chess is not big here, simple as. But despite that we have produced plenty of decent players, who with nothing else to distract them could doubtless could become GM's. In the real world however people have lives to lead and becoming a GM takes a lot of time and effort, plus money.

The two players who have gone down the path of becoming a GM are Brian Kelly [essentially retired] and Sam Collins, who may yet get the GM title. Alex Lopez could be a GM too I guess, but my sense of things is that the sacrifices needed to chase this goal, and rewards on offer, mean that it is not really worthwhile.

As for GM norm events, yeah, we have some, we had one at the Bunratty Classic in 2013 but the 2014 event was cancelled, Before that there was a GM event in 2010. Be great to see more, but the simple fact is that we do not have any players so strong that their chances would be very high of making GM norms. Still, be good to have more GM norm events.

As for you odd reference to what seems to be a suggestion to basically destroy our national championships [as they have done in Scotland for example] as some sort of, either or choice, in relation to GM norm opportunities, that is something which was already done, and it worked out badly. There is no benefit to not ring fencing just this one event: national championships. The rest of the year we can do whatever we like and have as many "outsiders" play in anything and everything.

One thing [Irish Championships] need not have anything to do with norm events of any kind, except to point out that an Irish Championships is the one event in which, if we had our IM's and or GM play, then there is no need for any players from other federations to make norms valid.

Far from having an attitude that is reluctant to being open, the opposite is the case. Oh and the Irish ch is held every year and the Olympiad every two years. It has been suggested by some that to be eligible to be selected to play for Ireland, players should play in the Irish ch ever year! [I don't agree with that] Or play once every two years [Maybe an idea worth a look at, but I have doubts]

As things stand now there is no compulsion to play, just a strong incentive to play if you want to secure a place on the Irish team. Which is very reasonable to me.

Colm Daly
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2014 7:34 pm

Re: Reply to Roger!

Post by Colm Daly » Tue Mar 18, 2014 8:55 pm

JustinHadi wrote:
Wikipedia wrote:In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally[3][4] or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[5] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
http://crosswordtracker.com/clue/psycho ... pper-hand/
Just curious, was that directed at anybody in particular? I tend to find that when people complain about long posts and or then accuse the poster of ranting? They simply overlook a very simple and irrefutable fact, which is? You,We,They Do not have to read, respond to any such posts!

User avatar
Carl Hibbard
Posts: 6028
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:05 pm
Location: Evesham

Re: Reply to Roger!

Post by Carl Hibbard » Tue Mar 18, 2014 9:07 pm

You do appear to be on a one sided rant Colm and that does worry me a little :roll:
Cheers
Carl Hibbard

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Reply to Roger!

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Mar 18, 2014 9:18 pm

Colm Daly wrote:SAs to why we have no GM of our own? Circumstances mainly, small country in which chess is neither well developed, well regarded, well supported or well run.
Why is it not an objective of the ICU to develop some GMs? It's what England did successfully in the 1970s. I think I was vaguely aware that Baburin had been invited to move to Dublin as, I suppose, a chess professional and possibly Ireland's first. Why should that be considered an evil thing done by a group of conspirators?

Let's face it, Colm is someone who as David Robertson put it, could start an argument with an empty room.

Colm Daly
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2014 7:34 pm

Re: Reply to Roger!

Post by Colm Daly » Tue Mar 18, 2014 10:43 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Colm Daly wrote:SAs to why we have no GM of our own? Circumstances mainly, small country in which chess is neither well developed, well regarded, well supported or well run.
Why is it not an objective of the ICU to develop some GMs? It's what England did successfully in the 1970s. I think I was vaguely aware that Baburin had been invited to move to Dublin as, I suppose, a chess professional and possibly Ireland's first. Why should that be considered an evil thing done by a group of conspirators?

Let's face it, Colm is someone who as David Robertson put it, could start an argument with an empty room.
Yes I am very argumentative Roger, a fair but not amazing observation, have I insulted you or shown any hostile intent? But it is ok for you to take pot shots at me? Cest La Vie!

Where has anyone said the guy was evil?

And who are this group of conspirators?

He was not merely "invited" he was set up and paid to be in the service of Eamon Keogh, the details of which are none of my business and anyway at the time I would simply say more power to him. I would have been happy for him to have a better life here in Ireland than stuck in Russia.

Now here is the funny thing. How do you suppose he even met Eamon Keogh? Well actually I introduced Baburin to Eamon at the Capelle La Grande tournament in 1993. Eamon had told me that he had a pet project, dream to bring a "Russian Grandmaster" to Ireland to live, for a year at least. I never thought much of it and even suggested it would be better to spend such money on having IM norm tournaments, but it is his money and he can do as he pleases, he did! But I did not see it as a big deal one way or another.

When I happened to be chatting with Baburin and Valery Atlas (who I found to be very friendly and sound) at breakfast I told him about Eamon's plans and suggested he speak with Eamon, as it might be of interest etc etc. He did! The rest as they say is history.

But of course, you knew that Roger! Yeah and every other expert who got it off the internet! Except that there are tonnes of things that people never get to know.

The point is that he was not just some guy who emigrated. I have no issue with him living here one way or the other. Never did. Just the way he was used and I contend allowed himself to be used by some people to further personal projects and impose their vision and notions of how Irish chess could be run. But yeah what the hell do I know.

Colm Daly
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2014 7:34 pm

Re: Reply to Roger!

Post by Colm Daly » Tue Mar 18, 2014 10:45 pm

Carl Hibbard wrote:You do appear to be on a one sided rant Colm and that does worry me a little :roll:
Rants

Ants

Nothing to worry about Carl

Mike Truran
Posts: 2393
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:44 pm

Re: Reply to Roger!

Post by Mike Truran » Tue Mar 18, 2014 11:08 pm

Let's face it, Colm is someone who as David Robertson put it, could start an argument with an empty room.
Pots and kettles?

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Reply to Roger!

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Mar 18, 2014 11:24 pm

Colm Daly wrote: And who are this group of conspirators?

He was not merely "invited" he was set up and paid to be in the service of Eamon Keogh,
I think you have answered your own question, either here or in one of the earlier rants. It was a conspiracy by Keogh, Heidenfeld and Baburin to deprive you of your rightful place on the Irish team.

Whilst I believe Paul McKeown was originally from Belfast or that area, he is now a respected member of London based chess circles and I thought the attack on him unjustified. Similarly the attack on that club report of their trip to Bunratty, one of whose incidents was a case of mistaken identity.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Reply to Roger!

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Mar 18, 2014 11:28 pm

Mike Truran wrote: Pots and kettles?
Speak for yourself. What about the attack on the organisers of one of the UK Chess Challenge events, or for that matter the attack on those who played at Blackpool?

You don't particularly like those who along with Nick Ivell and the Manchester players object to playing chess whilst sitting on school canteen benches.

Andrew Zigmond
Posts: 2073
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Harrogate

Re: Reply to Roger!

Post by Andrew Zigmond » Tue Mar 18, 2014 11:42 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Mike Truran wrote: Pots and kettles?
Speak for yourself. What about the attack on the organisers of one of the UK Chess Challenge events, or for that matter the attack on those who played at Blackpool?

You don't particularly like those who along with Nick Ivell and the Manchester players object to playing chess whilst sitting on school canteen benches.
First sentence - as somebody who contributed to the Blackpool thread I didn't see Mike's post as an `attack`. He was merely pointing out the failure of Blackpool entrants to stay in the hotel and/ or bringing their own food into the venue (it was never specified which was the greater cause) had done the Congress out of a venue.

Second sentence - I recall another thread where Mike was very critical of conditions at a past County match.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own