Hoogeveen 15-22 October 2016

[Paul Cooksey]

I wouldn't want to criticise either Nigel or Emil as strongly as Justin does. But while Emil's views are always worth hearing, he does have an open agenda as president of the ACP.

In a perfect world:

• NIgel: you do know the rules say game 6 should not be rated?
  Loek: really, that was not our intention - I'm terribly sorry for the mistake, would you mind awfully playing a rated game old man?
  Nigel: (possibly seething) - of course not dear chap, I really appreciate the invite to such a nice event
  Loek: thank you very much, we will amend the rules for next year and hope you will play again

But I realise I am writing fiction, given the characters involved.

From the point of view of a casual spectator, I'd suggest forgetting all about this nonsense and playing through the games of van Foreest - Sokolov which was a fantastic match:
https://chess24.com/en/watch/live-tourn ... 2016/1/2/2
(I do realise the irony in that link address!)

[Chris Rice]

I agree with Paul's post. Regarding Emil Sutovsky, he did wait some time until commenting on the situation, specifically he waited until Nigel had made his position known as to what he was going to do about it if the game remained rated, so I would argue it was a considered view, consistent with how the President of the ACP should act. Clearly his view is contrary to Justin's and I have no issue with that.

Regarding Nigel Short I think any player is entitled to complain about regulations or rules they don't like. Nigel clearly does stand up for himself whether people agree with him or not and because of his standing in the chess community his opinion carries considerable weight. The difference in this instance was that Nigel had the law on his side and therefore received support for that position. I can't see a basis for arguing that because he opposed certain rules in the past which he believed were unfair he is not entitled to insist that the rules that are laid down in the present should be followed.

I don't want to rehash the IoM thing as it's so old now but the random search done on him at Baku during a game even though it may have been within the rules specified at the tournament was outrageous. If it had been done on me I probably would have completely lost my temper and got thrown out of the tournament but because Nigel is, who he is, he achieved more than an average player ever could by resisting/complaining about it. I believe Nigel has written an article on this for the next New in Chess so that should be interesting.

[JustinHorton]

I can't see a basis for arguing that because he opposed certain rules in the past which he believed were unfair he is not entitled to insist that the rules that are laid down in the present should be followed.

That's not the argument. The argument is that if you've only just argued that following the rules is contingent on whether or not you like tem, you can't now argue that rules must be followed as a matter of principle.

because Nigel is, who he is, he achieved more than an average player ever could by resisting/complaining about it. I believe Nigel has written an article on this for the next New in Chess so that should be interesting.

Well let's hope it's free of the aggression and abuse that he's previously thrown about when "complaining about it", and indeed complaining about everything else, because it's that, rather than "resisting", which causes all the resentment and ill-feeling, isn't it? That's the bullying style that people have come to know and not love over the past three decades, and it really shouldn't be indulged.

[JustinHorton]

the random search done on him at Baku during a game even though it may have been within the rules specified at the tournament was outrageous. If it had been done on me I probably would have completely lost my temper and got thrown out of the tournament but because Nigel is, who he is, he achieved more than an average player ever could by resisting/complaining about it

Also, you know, this.

(Thinking about it, I am pretty sure I recall that Loek van Wely had something to say about that incident in New In Chess himself.)

[Chris Rice]

the random search done on him at Baku during a game even though it may have been within the rules specified at the tournament was outrageous. If it had been done on me I probably would have completely lost my temper and got thrown out of the tournament but because Nigel is, who he is, he achieved more than an average player ever could by resisting/complaining about it

Also, you know, this.

(Thinking about it, I am pretty sure I recall that Loek van Wely had something to say about that incident in New In Chess himself.)

Seems like there were grounds for suspicions there, unknown kid playing in a hat in a warm room, wasn't a search that was done but hat removed and they carried on. As I understand it In Baku it was a random search, no grounds for suspicion at all and that was the point that Nigel I think was making. On a general level searches during a game have to be done on some sort of sensible criteria and I think on a case by case basis for example respecting the fact that we are dealing with a very experienced GM. I believe more work is being done of this by the ACP who are conducting surveys where there members can comment so its an evolving area and I'm not going to disagree with you that up to now there have been many inconsistencies.

[JustinHorton]

Seems like there were grounds for suspicions there, unknown kid playing in a hat in a warm room

And this explains why he wasn't told to remove his hat before play started

wasn't a search that was done but hat removed

I'm afraid the essential difference eludes me here.

[Chris Rice]

Seems like there were grounds for suspicions there, unknown kid playing in a hat in a warm room

And this explains why he wasn't told to remove his hat before play started

You're right, it doesn't. It explains why he was asked to remove his hat during the game. Before the game he might have just come in from outside which might have been freezing for all we know.

wasn't a search that was done but hat removed

I'm afraid the essential difference eludes me here.

I may be splitting hairs here but I would consider asking a player to remove a hat as not particularly invasive. Players have cheated before wearing hats, we know that. Guess its not that dissimilar for airport security to ask you to take off your glasses for the bio scanners, I wouldn't call that a search either. At Baku, Nigel as I understand it, had already been subjected to the scanners before he went into the playing area, he wasn't doing anything or wearing anything suspicious, such as a hat, during the game but was still subject to what I assume was an invasive search and its that I would have been upset by.

[NickFaulks]

but was still subject to what I assume was an invasive search and its that I would have been upset by.

Is having a wand waved over you invasive? I did not like the anti-cheating regulations at Baku - I was one of the few who actually bothered to read them when they were published ahead of the event. I wrote to complain, and was told they were being introduced on a trial and error basis. Nonetheless, by the time of the China match all of the players knew them perfectly well, and that they were being enforced.

As Nigel himself said in his interview after the Hoogeveen match, "But you can't just ignore regulations just for the hell of it. There's a reason why they are there."

[JustinHorton]

Seems like there were grounds for suspicions there, unknown kid playing in a hat in a warm room

And this explains why he wasn't told to remove his hat before play started

You're right, it doesn't. It explains why he was asked to remove his hat during the game. Before the game he might have just come in from outside which might have been freezing for all we know.

It was in Nagpur in early October.

[Chris Rice]

And this explains why he wasn't told to remove his hat before play started

You're right, it doesn't. It explains why he was asked to remove his hat during the game. Before the game he might have just come in from outside which might have been freezing for all we know.

It was in Nagpur in early October.

OK he should have been asked to remove the hat before the game. He wasn't for whatever reason so it looks very suspicious to be wearing a hat in those kind of temperatures and asking him to remove it wasn't that unreasonable.

[JustinHorton]

No, the unreasonable bit is not doing so before the game starts and then doing it some time into the game because it's not going precisely as you'd hoped. That's bullying, and it's pathetic.

[Chris Rice]

but was still subject to what I assume was an invasive search and its that I would have been upset by.

Is having a wand waved over you invasive? I did not like the anti-cheating regulations at Baku - I was one of the few who actually bothered to read them when they were published ahead of the event. I wrote to complain, and was told they were being introduced on a trial and error basis. Nonetheless, by the time of the China match all of the players knew them perfectly well, and that they were being enforced.

As Nigel himself said in his interview after the Hoogeveen match, "But you can't just ignore regulations just for the hell of it. There's a reason why they are there."

The difference is that the regulations relating to the Hoogeveen incident I assume went through a proper FIDE process with consultation etc. Not sure that applies to what they came up with for anti-cheating at Baku and from what I gather the measures were inconsistently applied during the event. Anyway I'm sure Nigel can answer for himself regarding his principles.

[NickFaulks]

The difference is that the regulations relating to the Hoogeveen incident I assume went through a proper FIDE process with consultation etc. Not sure that applies to what they came up with for anti-cheating

Sorry, but that argument is entirely fatuous. FIDE has the perfect right to impose tournament regulations, announced in advance, on its Olympiads. The fact that many people thought they were poorly constructed is irrelevant, and certainly does not give individual players the right to opt out of them - even when applied by arbiters whom they consider unfit to lick their boots!

[Roger de Coverly]

FIDE has the perfect right to impose tournament regulations, announced in advance, on its Olympiads.

There should be constraints on arbiters inflicting their personal prejudices on the world. The Dresden Olympiad in 2008 was one of the worse, with arbiters seemingly taking a delight in defaulting players who happened not to be sitting at the board at the precise starting time.

So for an International team tournament, I don't think it should have a "perfect" right to introduce new regulations without a broad measure of approval from the participating Federations.

Regarding rating the last game or two of an already decided match, wasn't the FIDE Regulation on this inserted at the behest of a player or two? I'd suspect it dates from the tail end of the Campomanes era so it might have involved Kasparov or the GMA.

Organisers of six game matches that are played to the end would probably like to see all games rated. It appears this can only be done by sending the small print to FIDE as done for the British knockout. By analogy with cricket, the final matches of an already decided Test series are always played and count towards both team rankings and player averages.

[NickFaulks]

So for an International team tournament, I don't think it should have a "perfect" right to introduce new regulations without a broad measure of approval from the participating Federations.

You're entitled to that opinion, and I'm not saying that I disagree, but the fact is that it does.