English Chess Forum

More importantly, diplomacy works when the target of your diplomacy gives a damn about your approval. Taking a diplomatic stance towards uncompromising dictators is just cowardice, as Macron and May have discovered when trying to deal with Trump. Every outbreak of moral clarity in history has prompted someone to say "gosh, that's undiplomatic". It's how you know it's effective.

Diplomacy is born of recognising the validity of dispute without making a judgement about one side being right or wrong, in what are very complex, non-binary situations. You clearly have made a judgement, and call it "moral clarity". The problem is the other side think the same.

Nick Burrows wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 03, 2018 4:01 pm

Diplomacy is born of recognising the validity of dispute without making a judgement about one side being right or wrong, in what are very complex, non-binary situations.

I believe that sport is supposed to bring people together, not to create a wedge between them, and that it is wrong to use sport boycotts for broad political purposes. That is a simple, binary judgement which does not need to be blurred by "diplomacy".

IM Jack Rudd wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 03, 2018 3:11 pm

Chris Goodall wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 03, 2018 1:50 pm

IM Jack Rudd wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 03, 2018 10:13 am

Suppose I'm a 2300-rated Israeli FM. I enter a nine-round open; I have a TPR of 2450 after five rounds. In round 6, I get paired against some Iranian who refuses to play me. All of a sudden, through no fault of my own, my norm chances are gone.

You'd be in the same position as if your opponent failed to be seated at the board for the gong, wouldn't you? How do organisers deal with that one?

Typically by not using zero default times.

You know what I meant. Sometimes opponents of norm-seekers sleep through their alarm and miss whatever default time you set. You either treat it as a hazard of a 9-round tournament or you re-pair them. So, re-pair the Israeli!

Nick Burrows wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 03, 2018 4:01 pm

More importantly, diplomacy works when the target of your diplomacy gives a damn about your approval. Taking a diplomatic stance towards uncompromising dictators is just cowardice, as Macron and May have discovered when trying to deal with Trump. Every outbreak of moral clarity in history has prompted someone to say "gosh, that's undiplomatic". It's how you know it's effective.

Diplomacy is born of recognising the validity of dispute without making a judgement about one side being right or wrong, in what are very complex, non-binary situations. You clearly have made a judgement, and call it "moral clarity". The problem is the other side think the same.

That's not a problem. That's only a problem if you're the kind of person whose convictions melt away as soon as someone disagrees with them.

It's not a very complex situation. Iran doesn't like Israel. Iran bans its chess players from playing Israelis. Why they do that may be complex, but it's also irrelevant, except to the amateur historians of the chess world who want to sound knowledgeable.

Jack. You don't know this rule in The Title Regulations

1.41c
For a 9 round tournament, if a player has just 8 games because of a forfeit or Bye, but he has met the correct mix of opponents in those games, then if he has a title result in 8 games, it counts as an 8 game norm.

Stewart Reuben wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 04, 2018 12:58 am

Jack. You don't know this rule in The Title Regulations

1.41c
For a 9 round tournament, if a player has just 8 games because of a forfeit or Bye, but he has met the correct mix of opponents in those games, then if he has a title result in 8 games, it counts as an 8 game norm.

Stewart, what is your view on

1) whether a half-pt bye is covered by this regulation;
2) whether the “correct mix of opponents” only covers the 8 games in question (ie. only requires 4 title holders as opposed to the 5 needed for a 9 round norm); and
3) pushing the wording to the max - whether “8 games because of a forfeit” includes a forfeit instigated by the norm seeker!

I would say that the regulation, as drafted, implies all three, whereas I am certain that it isn’t supposed to imply 3), possibly not 1) and maybe even not 2) ...

viewtopic.php?f=31&t=9108

Alex Holowczak wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 02, 2018 10:21 pm

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 02, 2018 9:56 pm

Dresden 2008 is of course remembered as the Olympiad where every imaginable stupid thing that could have occurred did.

Do elaborate!

This isn't much to do with chess in Iran, but since you ask...

Dresden 2008 was the Olympiad where players travelled half way around the world to play chess and the authorities made every effort to prevent this from happening. It started badly because the Germans were able in 2004 to use their influence to beat off what looked to me like a very attractive bid from Tallinn. However, at least it was going to take place in September, so pleasant weather and direct flights. Having won, they quickly changed this to November, when the hotels cost them far less and the direct flights had all ended, because why would anyone want to go there? We trudged to the tournament hall through sleet and snow.

The Olympiad was reduced to 11 rounds. The official line was that hosts could no longer be found who were willing to put on the longer event - I do not know the real reason, but was assured by both Dresden and Tallinn that they had been intending to submit bids for a full length event but had been told by FIDE not to do so.

There were a huge numbers of games won by default - primarily but not solely brought about by the new zero default time. For me, the whole thing was summed up by the experience of the BVI team. Having paid from their own pockets for a long, difficult and expensive journey they were victimised by nine defaults. Bill Hook, the legendary winner of the gold medal on top board in 1980, was making his final appearance at the age of 83. Four times he arrived at the board to find that he had no game.

Then there were the pairings. An experimental system was used, causing GMs in our hotel to struggle to keep down their breakfasts as they spluttered over the latest absurdity when it was pinned to the notice board.

The General Assembly was also dysfunctional. The PB, on the advice of the ACP, rammed through a proposal to double the k factor, from 10 to 20, at every level. There were predictably howls of protest from the top players and this was reversed before before it could take effect. A badly thought out idea relating to time controls for norm events did happen and caused many problems before it was removed at the next review.

At least the Bermuda Party was less "eventful" than in 2006.

Richard 1.41c
For a 9 round tournament, if a player has just 8 games because of a forfeit or Bye, but he has met the correct mix of opponents in those games, then if he has a title result in 8 games, it counts as an 8 game norm.
Stewart, what is your view on
'
1) whether a half-pt bye is covered by this regulation;
2) whether the “correct mix of opponents” only covers the 8 games in question (ie. only requires 4 title holders as opposed to the 5 needed for a 9 round norm); and
3) pushing the wording to the max - whether “8 games because of a forfeit” includes a forfeit instigated by the norm seeker!

I would say that the regulation, as drafted, implies all three, whereas I am certain that it isn’t supposed to imply 3), possibly not 1) and maybe even not 2) … '

Surely Nick, secretary of the QC can answer these queries more authoritatively? But here goes:
If a player, seeking the norm, has claimed a half point bye in advance, surely he cannot receive this concession. His opponent, having claimed a hpb in advance is not in the pairings.
In 9 games you must have met, for the GM norm 3 GMs, 5 title holders, 5 opponents not from your own federation. I presume those numbers apply though you have played only 8 games.

I am sure that, if a player has only played 8 games, and did not play the 9th even because he had a stroke, or his wife died, etc., then he cannot claim the 8 game norm.

Further evidence that Iran is becoming a strong chess country.

Then there is the other side of the coin....

Soumya Swaminathan (on FB)

"I am very sorry to state that I have asked to be excused from the Indian Women's team for the forthcoming Asian Nations Cup (Asian Team) Chess Championship 2018, to be held at Iran from 26 July - 4 Aug 2018, as I do not wish to be forced to wear a Headscarf or Burkha. I find the Iranian law of compulsory Headscarf to be in direct violation of my basic Human Rights including my right to freedom of expression, and right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. It seems that under the present circumstances, the only way for me to protect my rights is not to go to Iran.
I am very disappointed to see that player's rights and welfare are given such less importance while allotting and/or organising official championships. I understand the organisers expecting us to wear our National Team Dress or Formals or Sporting attire for our games during official championships, but surely there is no place for an enforceable religious dress code in Sports.
It is a huge honour for me to represent India every time I am selected in the National Team and I deeply regret that I will be unable to participate in such an important championship. While we sports persons are willing to make several adjustments for the sake of our sport, always giving it top priority in our life, some things simply cannot be compromised."

Chris Rice wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 10, 2018 12:08 am

as I do not wish to be forced to wear a Headscarf or Burkha

Will this be a requirement? When I saw that the Asian Teams was to be held in Iran I checked the Regulations and this was not there.

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 10, 2018 12:28 am

Chris Rice wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 10, 2018 12:08 am

as I do not wish to be forced to wear a Headscarf or Burkha

Will this be a requirement? When I saw that the Asian Teams was to be held in Iran I checked the Regulations and this was not there.

The regulations don't formally require this. However, does this mean she wouldn't have to cover her head? The foreign travel advice on the UK Government website for example is very clear:

"Islamic codes of behaviour and dress are strictly enforced. In any public place women must cover their heads with a headscarf, wear trousers (or a floor length skirt), and a long-sleeved tunic or coat that reaches to mid-thigh or knee. Men should wear long trousers and long-sleeve shirts.
There are additional dress requirements at certain religious sites. Women may be asked to put on a chador (a garment that covers the whole body except the face) before entering."

Perhaps at the venue, for the optics, there will be no formal requirement for women to cover their heads, which I guess is a small step, but as soon as they go outside it clearly, from the advice given, would be very dangerous for her to ignore the local laws and customs.

Chris Rice wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 10, 2018 9:36 am

Perhaps at the venue, for the optics, there will be no formal requirement for women to cover their heads, which I guess is a small step, but as soon as they go outside it clearly, from the advice given, would be very dangerous for her to ignore the local laws and customs.

When you travel to a foreign country you should expect to follow local customs, which do exist everywhere. Iran's are at the stringent end and many people will find them unacceptable, which will curtail their sightseeing opportunities.

If the Indian lady is saying that she will not travel to Iran because it is a rotten place for a woman to go on holiday, then she has my sympathy. However, I do not consider that this represents a fundamental breach of her Human Rights, as claimed.

If it turns out that they really will insist on some form of head covering in the hotel, even though this is not specified in the invitation, that will be a different matter.

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 10, 2018 11:32 am

Chris Rice wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 10, 2018 9:36 am

Perhaps at the venue, for the optics, there will be no formal requirement for women to cover their heads, which I guess is a small step, but as soon as they go outside it clearly, from the advice given, would be very dangerous for her to ignore the local laws and customs.

When you travel to a foreign country you should expect to follow local customs, which do exist everywhere. Iran's are at the stringent end and many people will find them unacceptable, which will curtail their sightseeing opportunities.

If the Indian lady is saying that she will not travel to Iran because it is a rotten place for a woman to go on holiday, then she has my sympathy. However, I do not consider that this represents a fundamental breach of her Human Rights, as claimed.

If it turns out that they really will insist on some form of head covering in the hotel, even though this is not specified in the invitation, that will be a different matter.

Isn't Iran one of those countries which has a religious police force tasked with physically assaulting those it finds breaking their strict dress code?

India chess player quits Iran tournament over headscarf rule (BBC News)

"Indian chess champion Soumya Swaminathan has pulled out of an Asian tournament in Iran over the country's compulsory headscarf rule."