Hoogeveen 15-22 October 2016

The very latest International round up of English news.
David Sedgwick
Posts: 3779
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: Hoogeveen 15-22 October 2016

Post by David Sedgwick » Mon Oct 24, 2016 8:11 pm

Nigel Short wrote:
David Sedgwick wrote:Reverting to Hoogeven, it looks to me as though all six games have been submitted for FIDE rating.

https://ratings.fide.com/view_source.phtml?code=136623

Hmmm ...
And what would that suggest to you, David?
That the organisers and arbiters had either

1. Obtained a derogation from FIDE beforehand but failed to notify you accordingly; or

2. Ignored the Regulation.

Hence the "Hmmm ..." in my earlier post.

Am I missing something?

Nigel Short
Posts: 292
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 9:14 am

Re: Hoogeveen 15-22 October 2016

Post by Nigel Short » Mon Oct 24, 2016 8:19 pm

Try number 2...

Nigel Short
Posts: 292
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 9:14 am

Re: Hoogeveen 15-22 October 2016

Post by Nigel Short » Tue Oct 25, 2016 7:01 am

And indeed I have received confirmation from Loek van Wely that all 6 games were submitted quite deliberately, in full knowledge that this flouts FIDE Regulations.

Chris Rice
Posts: 2931
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:17 am

Re: Hoogeveen 15-22 October 2016

Post by Chris Rice » Tue Oct 25, 2016 8:24 am

In which case there would appear to be a clear violation of the FIDE Code of Ethics on the part of whoever submitted the results if someone wanted to lodge a complaint. https://www.fide.com/component/handbook ... w=category

In addition, there also needs to be an explanation as to why the responsible ratings people at FIDE having been aware of the problem did not correct or reject the rating results in this instance because by omission or negligence they also appear to be in violation of 3.1 of the FIDE Code of Ethics as 1.4 says the Code is applicable to them too.
Last edited by Chris Rice on Tue Oct 25, 2016 8:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

LawrenceCooper
Posts: 5201
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am

Re: Hoogeveen 15-22 October 2016

Post by LawrenceCooper » Tue Oct 25, 2016 8:30 am

Chris Rice wrote:In which case there would appear to be a clear violation of the FIDE Code of Ethics on the part of whoever submitted the results if someone wanted to lodge a complaint. https://www.fide.com/component/handbook ... w=category

In addition, there also needs to be an explanation as to why the responsible ratings people at FIDE having been aware of the problem did not correct or reject the rating results in this instance because by omission they also appear to be in violation of 3.1 of the FIDE Code of Ethics as 1.4 says the Code is applicable to them too.
From Facebook:

Loek van Wely "The Hoogeveen chess tournament would like to clarify a few things regarding the 6th match game between Nigel Short and Yifan Hou.
On the eve of game 6, it was brought to my attention the existence of rule 6.5 and Nigel insisted that this rule would be enforced.

“Rules are rules”is a common saying, however we don’t agree. Enforcing this rule would mean violating the spirit of the game, something which is much more important than blindly following the rules.

First of all , it had always been the idea to have 6 rated games, because rated these days means a guarantee to have a serious game
Secondly, it would be wrong to think the match is over when the winner is known. This match is an exhibition match, and like a training match, will last the full amount of games.
Thirdly, conditions in a match are supposed to be equal, or at least as close as it could be. Enforcing this rule would seriously harm Yifan’s interests.
And last but not least, I would like to point out that Nigel is very keen in using rules when they are favoring him, but when they are stupid, bad and especially working against him, he believes common sense should prevail. A while ago,when his first round opponent didn’t show up in the open of Isle of Man, he got re-paired. Obviously the organizers wanted to see him play for his money, but unfortunately this was against the rules, Nigel held his ground and left ( with his fee). On a more recent occasion, in the Baku chess olympiad, Nigel was subject of a search, was not too pleased with
It, did not consent, should have been forfeited if rules were rules, but instead made a scandal out of it ( and got away with it)

On another note, we were surprised to see a player with such a reputation, desperately trying to avoid playing a rated game with black against Yifan Hou, in a match which he was dominating, just trying to save a few elo points?
In the future I would like to suggest Nigel to try harder in his last round games, just in case, or only to play unrated events if this is too hard for him to handle.
We ( the arbiters and I ) think the last game should be rated to do just"

Loek van Wely, tournament director Hoogeveen

LawrenceCooper
Posts: 5201
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am

Re: Hoogeveen 15-22 October 2016

Post by LawrenceCooper » Tue Oct 25, 2016 10:50 am

The Giri-Shirov match in 2014 was submitted for rating in its entirety and subsequently rated: https://ratings.fide.com/individual_cal ... -11-01&t=0

LawrenceCooper
Posts: 5201
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am

Re: Hoogeveen 15-22 October 2016

Post by LawrenceCooper » Tue Oct 25, 2016 12:29 pm

David Sedgwick wrote:Reverting to Hoogeven, it looks to me as though all six games have been submitted for FIDE rating.

https://ratings.fide.com/view_source.phtml?code=136623

Hmmm ...
Game 6 has now been removed: https://ratings.fide.com/view_source.phtml?code=136623

Chris Rice
Posts: 2931
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:17 am

Re: Hoogeveen 15-22 October 2016

Post by Chris Rice » Tue Oct 25, 2016 12:42 pm

LawrenceCooper wrote:
David Sedgwick wrote:Reverting to Hoogeven, it looks to me as though all six games have been submitted for FIDE rating.

https://ratings.fide.com/view_source.phtml?code=136623

Hmmm ...
Game 6 has now been removed: https://ratings.fide.com/view_source.phtml?code=136623
A happy ending and clearly the right decision.

Jonathan Bryant
Posts: 3206
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Hoogeveen 15-22 October 2016

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Tue Oct 25, 2016 2:46 pm

LawrenceCooper wrote:
From Facebook:

Loek van Wely "The Hoogeveen chess tournament would like to clarify a few things regarding the 6th match game between Nigel Short and Yifan Hou.
On the eve of game 6, it was brought to my attention the existence of rule 6.5 ...

... last but not least, I would like to point out that Nigel is very keen in using rules when they are favoring him, but when they are stupid, bad and especially working against him, he believes common sense should prevail.

Not sure that statement is Loek’s finest hour.

While the latter point may well be true - the very least one could say is that there is some evidence for this assertion - that doesn’t really excuse an organiser making up the rules as they go along. Deciding and declaring in advance that you will seek to rate a redundant sixth game is one thing, deciding/declaring this on the eve of the game is quite another.

If your intention is to do one thing and the rules say you should be doing another it’s really your responsibility as an organiser to sort that out before kick off, isn’t it? Especially if you think one of your participants has a tendency to want rules interpreted in whichever way favours them the most.

NickFaulks
Posts: 5568
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Hoogeveen 15-22 October 2016

Post by NickFaulks » Tue Oct 25, 2016 3:28 pm

Chris Rice wrote: In addition, there also needs to be an explanation as to why the responsible ratings people at FIDE having been aware of the problem did not correct or reject the rating results in this instance because by omission or negligence they also appear to be in violation of 3.1 of the FIDE Code of Ethics as 1.4 says the Code is applicable to them too.
I think you'll find that's precisely what they did do. You seem to want them to ambush improper submissions on their way to the system, but that isn't how it works.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Hoogeveen 15-22 October 2016

Post by Alex Holowczak » Tue Oct 25, 2016 4:17 pm

Jonathan Bryant wrote:Not sure that statement is Loek’s finest hour.
Oh, it gets worse...

Chris Rice
Posts: 2931
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:17 am

Re: Hoogeveen 15-22 October 2016

Post by Chris Rice » Tue Oct 25, 2016 5:20 pm

NickFaulks wrote:
Chris Rice wrote: In addition, there also needs to be an explanation as to why the responsible ratings people at FIDE having been aware of the problem did not correct or reject the rating results in this instance because by omission or negligence they also appear to be in violation of 3.1 of the FIDE Code of Ethics as 1.4 says the Code is applicable to them too.
I think you'll find that's precisely what they did do. You seem to want them to ambush improper submissions on their way to the system, but that isn't how it works.
Well if we could all see the improper submission it rather suggests it was already in the system rather than on its way. However, I have no issue with the procedures as long as they work which they have done on this occasion.

NickFaulks
Posts: 5568
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Hoogeveen 15-22 October 2016

Post by NickFaulks » Tue Oct 25, 2016 5:51 pm

Chris Rice wrote: Well if we could all see the improper submission it rather suggests it was already in the system rather than on its way.
Precisely, these inconsistencies are not caught "on the way". I think it is a good thing that you could all see it as soon as the rating officer pressed the button. This gave you the maximum opportunity to point out the problem, and all such input is welcomed - whether the error is accidental or deliberate.

Chris Rice
Posts: 2931
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:17 am

Re: Hoogeveen 15-22 October 2016

Post by Chris Rice » Tue Oct 25, 2016 8:42 pm

Emil Sutovsky's very considered view:

I was rather surprised to see Nigel Short being fiercely attacked by several chess people including the director of Hoogeveen chess festival Loek Van Wely. I am absolutely convinced that no player should be blamed for insisting on the rules to be respected. One may like Nigel or not, some could find his attitude improper and not in the spirit of the event - but the rules are clearly on his side. And it is not correct to compare it with Nigel's refusal to undergo the anti-cheating check-up during the game in Baku. First of all, these anti-cheating provisions are no rules - they were put in haste into the tournament regulations, and even not approved by the FIDE own anti-cheating commission. Another important point - Nigel does not claim he is a noble knight, does he? So, you may question his behaviour if he violates some provisions, but not when he is within his rights - and by the way, I support his stand in the IOM event, mentioned by Loek in his comments.
Honestly, I don't quite get why did Nigel need it all - his play was so much superior to his opponent's in this match, that he should not have been worried much. And even a potential Elo loss...Organizers keep inviting Nigel for being a brand-name, and not for having 2687 or 2681 attached to his name. But this is Nigel's choice. If he insists on the rule to be implemented, he is totally in his right, and he should not be publicly attacked by the tournament director, and if one of the arbiters indeed said: "I could consider you a chicken" - he should be fined, and possibly even suspended from the FIDE events.

Guys, please realize: the professional chess player is already under constant stress. Now, if he is attacked merely for following the rules, it can seriously damage the whole chess environment. And if you think the rule is stupid - address FIDE or ACP, but don't blame a player for insisting on it!

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 7385
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Hoogeveen 15-22 October 2016

Post by JustinHorton » Wed Oct 26, 2016 7:43 am

Chris Rice wrote:Emil Sutovsky's very considered view:
Not especially.
Emil Sutovsky wrote:And it is not correct to compare it with Nigel's refusal to undergo the anti-cheating check-up during the game in Baku. First of all, these anti-cheating provisions are no rules - they were put in haste into the tournament regulations, and even not approved by the FIDE own anti-cheating commission.
This is a difference, but it's a difference of degree, not of kind.

Emil Sutovsky wrote: Another important point - Nigel does not claim he is a noble knight, does he?
Well actually he does have a tendency to claim he's acting in the public interest rather than his own.
Emil Sutovsky wrote: by the way, I support his stand in the IOM event
Without wanting to do this yet again, his is a common view among people who were not present at the tournament and have basically heard Nigel's account. It was a good deal less common among those who (like myself) were present at the time, knew what rules were being applied and saw how Nigel behaved.
.
Emil Sutovsky wrote: Guys, please realize: the professional chess player is already under constant stress.
So are arbiters and organisers, especially if they risk crossing swords wirh Nigel Short.

Emil Sutovsky wrote: Now, if he is attacked merely for following the rules
He's not, and Sutovsky's "merely" is disingenuous. He's attacked for loudly insisting rules aren't rules one month and that they are the next. And - among other things - for the aggressive, bullying and blustering approach he takes to everybody who gets in his way, a monumental liking for dishing it out which is accmpanied by an even more prodigious incapacity for taking it.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Post Reply