Colm Daly wrote:
None of these three arbiters have ever run or been even an assistant at an event outside Ireland!
Well David [or should I write Mr Sedgwick?] I will stick with David until otherwise advised, as I consider myself a friendly sort of person and this is supposed to be an informal setting, and I think we have actually met before?David Sedgwick wrote:
In the terminology of the moment, that statement is utter bo**ocks.
Gerry Graham was an arbiter at the London Chess Classic Festival 2013. He did an excellent job, as I had anticipated.
I think you were at the 1997 ETC in Pula, and a group of us shared a bus ride to the Airport, whereupon we engaged in some discussion about the practice of some countries being indulged with re-arranging matches based on “religious customs” and I was explaining some concepts to you which you had some difficulty grasping or accepting. [Reminded me of “Separation of Powers” and “Separation of Church and State” topics]
Namely the absurdness of such a practice and what a shameful practice and indulgence it was for any team or players to be given any such special treatment or consideration. By funny coincidence I notice that Nigel Short in the most recent New In Chess has a piece entitled “I'm a believer” and he articulated quite well some of the same sort of points I had been making to you in 1997. But I digress!
As you say, in the terminology of the moment, it is utter bo**ocks that you point out a single oversight by me and then give it disproportionate weight, You ignore the central point contained within, which stems from a context in which despite me knowing GG for the best part of 25 years, I had never known him to “have ever run or been even an assistant at an event outside Ireland”.
I would personally not say GG is a good arbiter, nor a bad arbiter. I would think sometimes he has been good and sometimes not so good and then the odd time bad. A far better tournament organizer than arbiter. The less he has to do with chess itself the more competent he seems to be. But that is just a personal perspective. I am however in no doubt that it would be a view shared by many chess players in Ireland.
It had slipped my mind that yes indeed regardless of the previous 25 years, GG had in December of last year, as you rightly say, been an arbiter at the London Classic. So yes 25 years acting as an arbiter at the odd event here and there in Ireland, and just recently GG was an arbiter in an event in 2013. I stand corrected! I deserve a rebuking for my carelessness, that is fair enough.
However, if you can forgive me for saying so David, it is something of a cheap shot for you to then suggest that this one oversight in anyway invalidates the point being made, which to remind you, was; that none of the Irish arbiters have the sort of experience and even expertise that no doubt would be in abundance within English chess. [Ten times the population and a chess culture and history that dwarfs that of Ireland] Yet there it is, Ireland 3 arbiters England 1. No amount of mental contortions can explain this glaring anomaly.
I offered what I feel is a compelling, at least partial, explanation, and with the sole exception of my factual error about that arbiter gig in London 2013, I stand by every word I wrote above. If I am in error about anything else I will be happy to acknowledge such and if need be, even apologize when applicable. Might be worth asking is Silvio D gave one of the arbiter spots he had to "Ireland" too. Point being that if certain people were not on the ICU then certain doors and opportunities may not have arisen.
When I causally asked GG specifically recently at a weekend tournament in Ireland how come England only got one compared to our unprecedented 3, he did indeed tell me that it was a political thing and England had some such political problems with Fide.
David Sedgwick wrote:
In any case, one of the objectives in the selection of Olympiad arbiters is to give opportunities for people to officiate outside their own Federations.
Yes indeed I am sure it is and that has to be seen as a positive thing. The problem is that such arbiter gigs are highly sought after gigs and the amount of coincidences associated with the scenario that has unfolded here suggests that the goal and objective stated above are actually not the top priority and there are some pretty weird things that have gone on behind the scenes which render some outcomes well, suspect, or perhaps we can just say unusual.
David Sedgwick wrote:
I have more reason than most to be unhappy at the disparity between the number of Olympiad arbiters appointed from England and from Ireland.
Really? Perhaps you could expand on this point? Just out of curiosity, I am wondering if you will you be attending the Tromso Olympiad yourself, and if so, in what capacity?
David Sedgwick wrote:
However, I'm not prepared to allow Mr Daly's attack on the competence of the three Irish arbiters to go unchallenged.
My oh my, such strident tones David, and who pray tell, may I ask, appointed you to a role in which you will, not merely express a view, but rather, make what amounts to a declaration that you are “not prepared to allow... go unchallenged”
Well while I rejoice in having my views challenged and often learn from that experience I am not so keen in seeing my views misrepresented, distorted or selectively presented in a way that betrays their meaning, or merit and discards context.
You accuse me of attacking the competence of three Irish arbiters. [I done no such thing- but people can often see what they want, and in the modern age more than ever, delight in being “offended” by all manner of things]
This is at odds with what I actually wrote, so to remind you, in case you overlooked this. I wrote the following in relation to these three arbiters:
“are part of the team that do the excellent Bunratty weekend tournament” and then there was “Which is not to suggest they are bad, no, just sometimes a bit competent at best and very limited”.
In other words David, I was drawing the distinction between them being OK and being technically qualified, as per me saying
“I mean no doubt they have done their course work themselves and passed an exam that gives them their little badge, and title too, but frankly speaking they are very modest people with even more modest experience and ability in almost anything to do with chess. I mean they just about know how the pieces work and how to play the game. And I do not mean to say that in any mean spirited way, but just clinically accurate. ”
That is indeed harsh and not a glowing tribute by any means, but does not mean I am attacking them as competent arbiters. But as for them setting up themselves as now people offering their services for 80 Euros a course? Yes I was very skeptical and critical- even insulting or rude one might even say, fair enough. But the issue is as much because of both the manner and timing involved, and it is that which makes it relevant to the thing going on on the bigger canvass.
David Sedgwick wrote: I have every confidence that all of them will perform their duties admirably in Tromso.
Well one could be tempted to say that well, you would say that now wouldn't you, after all, as you say, all of them passed the FIDE Arbiter Examination at the end of a seminar which you conducted. But my point is that passing exams is all well and good, but that does not make someone a good or even competent arbiter. You say you have every confidence in them? Good for you. Can we not agree to disagree. They may do fine, chances of anything major going wrong seem remote anyway. Hardly important one way or the other.
But let us defer to you on this one and say that yes, because they passed your exams and you know them so well now that your more likely to be better placed to appreciate their true arbiter skills and qualities.
Originally when it was revealed here in Ireland that it was not just GG going to Norway I heard many people express incredulity and amazement, and openly ask if they would be up to the task, with comments like "can you imagine him...." I was even a bit surprised at such a reaction and questioned myself about my own impulses. I did not want to be either unfair or unkind but neither did I want to pretend all was fine and everything was being done properly.
On the one hand, as I have said, usually one would, in part, be happy that these guys getting this once in a lifetime opportunity and hope they enjoy this. Just the whole circumstances and what went on behind the scenes leaves a sour taste in the mouth. I would be surprised if they had any problems and imagine they will be fine regardless. How hard can it be doing such a tedious task that is often so thankless. What could really go wrong for these guys? They will be OK.
David Sedgwick wrote:
I should state for the record that all of them passed the FIDE Arbiter Examination at the end of a seminar which I conducted.
Which I alluded to when I wrote
“I mean no doubt they have done their course work themselves and passed an exam that gives them their little badge, and title too ”
So there was never any question of my calling into question the technical “qualifications and credentials” of these arbiters, just expressing a view which is by no mean an isolated one here, that we are talking about people with very modest and limited experience.
David Sedgwick wrote:
Carl, I leave you to decide whether or not this Forum is the appropriate place for Mr Daly's rants about Irish chess.
And now we have this classic smear tactic of describing a contribution that YOU (and doubtless you are not alone] do not like, or does not fit with your vision, as a rant. I often find that as soon as I see the word rant appear then the people who make the suggestion of a rant have already lost their way and have no good arguments to back up their own views or criticisms . It is often amusing to see people engage in the very activity which they claim to decry when some write and suggest things not to their liking.
This also comes with the pernicious suggestion/plea that what is needed is a gag order and a move to silence somebody who has taken the time to write in length and detail about a topic, and offer insights and information which just might be of broader interest, and which would not have been easily available otherwise.
It may perhaps be the arbiter within you David that is itching to burst out and assert himself and control things or have someone else control things for you? But you see David, we are are just exchanging views and perspectives here. There need not be any tone of personal hostility and while I might not like or agree with some of your views or perspectives I sure as heck won't be asking for you to be silenced. Far from it, let's shine a light on contentious topics and explore differences together. That way is the path of better understanding and more informed discourse surely?
Indeed already we have cleared up a factual error on my part, and we all gain from having hard facts come in and remind us of our human failings and frailties.
Come on then now David, be a democrat, let's not feel so insecure or agitated that we can't exchange perspectives with candour and sincerity, even when harsh and critical observations are inevitable.
I am sure those three arbiters will appreciate you sending on an email to alert them to the peril that is/was my comments on this post. GG kindly sent on his own thoughts in response to your email, which I can only describe as comical and exactly the sort of stuff I would expect.
Then again, GG is probably feeling pretty down after his recent attempt to try scupper my participation in the Olympiad team failed so spectacularly and backfired on a monumental scale. But the details about this scandal are best revealed after the Olympiad. People can and will draw there own conclusions in due course.
For now I would just say the contrast between how top English players get treated from officials there seems to be a world away from the provincial, parochial country bumpkin ways that sometimes prevail in Irish chess.
In Ireland it is often described as cute hoorsim http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... ute%20hoor
"Someone who seems upstanding or innocent and mild but who never misses an opportunity to screw you over, scam you, rip you off or hide their farcical f**k ups, blame everyone else for the s**t they cause and generally lure you into their Machiavellian trap.."
Now if you asked chess players in Ireland who this was a reference to, I can assure you that there would be plenty of agreement about who that person was, and of course we have also sadly got used to what are also called "fixers" and "chancers".
The point of all this being that this is what one has to contend with and consider when trying to guess which way the ICU will vote at the Fide congress in Norway just weeks away now. Then again may we should just be content to accept an believe good fortune for some and great coincidences too.
