Hoogeveen 15-22 October 2016

[Roger de Coverly]

Susan Polgar, not that she's one of Nigel's fans, has unearthed another match, admittedly rapidplay, where game 6 was played and rated even though the match result was determined. The arguments in the article would be more convincing had they interpreted the FIDE rating site colours indicator correctly, as Nigel had been Black in that last game as well.

https://chessdailynews.com/ultimate-sha ... -in-chess/

[MartinCarpenter]

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.

It probably does. Of course also, if at some point rules get beyond silly then people get a moral right (obligation for some), to object to that sort of imposition

Have to say that not rating the final game in a dead match seems entirely sensible. Totally different mentally for the players involved.

[Roger de Coverly]

Have to say that not rating the final game in a dead match seems entirely sensible. Totally different mentally for the players involved.

Many matches these days take place alongside a regular tournament. If rating the games makes the players take the final game(s) as seriously as the earlier ones, that's of benefit to organisers and spectators. In a tournament,you don't not rate the winner's last round when the event is already won. There seems reason to believe that until Nigel objected, common practice was to rate every game regardless. As David Sedgwick explained above you are supposed to get special permission from FIDE to do this.

[Brian Towers]

Have to say that not rating the final game in a dead match seems entirely sensible. Totally different mentally for the players involved.

My advice to the organizers: next year invite a player whose mental attitude doesn't change one iota in those circumstances - Keith Arkell.

I'm working my way slowly through "Arkell's Odyssey" and came across this description of the last round of the 1987 Nottingham International:

I was paired against Mark Burgess from Scotland and played a solid opening which gave me a very slight edge. After about an hour Karolyi drew his game and Burgess offered me a draw, knowing that this was all I needed to guarantee first place. I declined, and squeezed out a win in 71 moves - finishing two and a half hours after everyone else.

"Dead rubber" is clearly an alien concept for Mr Arkell.

[Nigel Short]

Have to say that not rating the final game in a dead match seems entirely sensible. Totally different mentally for the players involved.

My advice to the organizers: next year invite a player whose mental attitude doesn't change one iota in those circumstances - Keith Arkell.

Obviously, when the organisers are indisputably in the wrong on an issue, the solution for avoiding future troubles is - according to Brian Towers - not for them to follow the FIDE Regulations (the easiest thing in the world), but to invite a different player! How silly of me not to think of that.

[Roger Lancaster]

Either I'm missing something or this entire matter can be summed up in a few short sentences and then buried.

Clearly the Hoogeveen organisers made a procedural error over the rating of the 'dead' game. No-one disputes it. That being so, Nigel was entirely within his rights to pick them up on this. It has been asserted (and I have neither time nor inclination to want to check) that, on other occasions, Nigel has acted in contrary fashion. If true, some might feel that his latest action is somewhat hypocritical. But, even if that is the case, and I'm not expressing a view, it doesn't alter the fact that Nigel had a legitimate grievance on this latest occasion.

[Nigel Short]

Thank you, Roger. And, indeed, there is no hypocrisy. I only became aware of this regulation last Friday, in casual conversation with an arbiter. Once I was aware of it, it was clear that the regulation had to be applied. I informed the Tournament Director and, well...the rest is a long and sad story. I bitterly resent those who have taken the opportunity to kick me in the teeth for no reason at all.

[Keith Arkell]

My advice to the organizers: next year invite a player whose mental attitude doesn't change one iota in those circumstances - Keith Arkell.

I'm working my way slowly through "Arkell's Odyssey" and came across this description of the last round of the 1987 Nottingham International:

I was paired against Mark Burgess from Scotland and played a solid opening which gave me a very slight edge. After about an hour Karolyi drew his game and Burgess offered me a draw, knowing that this was all I needed to guarantee first place. I declined, and squeezed out a win in 71 moves - finishing two and a half hours after everyone else.

"Dead rubber" is clearly an alien concept for Mr Arkell.

Cheers for the book plug, Brian, and glad to see that you seem to be enjoying it. To be fair, I was after the Grand Prix points, so the Burgess game wasn't entirely a dead rubber A better example might be when I ground down Suba in 109 Moves in the last round of the '91 Watson,Farley and Williams GM tournament, holding up the prize-giving for ages, with the trivial motive of avoid finishing last!

There are, perhaps, a few things I could or even should have been invited to, but wasn't. An Olympiad or two, the World Cities team Championship and the English KO Champs last year spring to mind, but I'd draw the line at getting my a*** kicked by the best active woman player on the planet

Whimsy aside, I'm with Nigel on this one. When it comes to concrete matters such as the rating of games, you have to apply FIDE's written rules, unless there is agreement between all parties to do otherwise.
Regarding the unconnected matter of Nigel's refusal to acquiesce to the ludicrous OLympiad body search, while his clock was ticking down, well, he was aware that he was taking the risk of being defaulted. As far as I'm aware, he didn't say ' please don't default me because I deserve special treatment'.

Surely there is no hypocrisy in exercising one's right to fight to uphold rules we agree with or like, while protesting those which we find repugnant?

[JustinHorton]

Regarding the unconnected matter of Nigel's refusal to acquiesce to the ludicrous Olympiad body search

I don't think it can be regarded as unconnected when the party concerned subsequently remarks on the inviolability of regulations.

As far as I'm aware, he didn't say ' please don't default me because I deserve special treatment'.

Well he did in fact refer to himself as somebody who had played for a world championships, i.e. his personal status was an issue, albeit he cited this as a reason why he should not be searched rather than not defaulted per se. Either way, though, his insistence was that the rule should not be applied and his own personal importance was amonf the reasons.

A few other points. One is that I don't think "body search" is really the right term for the procedure concerned: it gives a misleading impression as to its nature and duration. (I don't agree with the searches, but it's as well to bear in mind what was actually due to occur.) Second is that as ever with Nigel, the way in which he went about his business was as much of an issue as the business itself: the personalused abuse, the bullying, the pursuit of feuds. Third is that Nigel wasn't acting on his own behalf, since he was representing English chess. This doesn't have to absolutely determine how somebody behaves, but it ought to affect it, and it ought to rule out both running the risk of a default and behaving like a raging bully.

[Michael Flatt]

Arbiters should know their place. Their's is a responsibility to prevent disruptions during a game not be the source of them.

The vast majority are aware of that and do a good job.

[E Michael White]

Regarding the unconnected matter of Nigel's refusal to acquiesce to the ludicrous Olympiad body search, while his clock was ticking down...

Why was a search requested with Nigel's clock running ?



Regarding the rating of game 6.

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. ..............
We ( the arbiters and I ) think the last game should be rated to do just"

Loek van Wely, tournament director Hoogeveen

According to the FIDE rating regulations 0.4 it is the Chief Arbiter who is responsible for the results submitted. There are only limited occasions within FIDE Rules and Laws where an organiser may override the decisions of the chief arbiter. The chief arbiter was Peeters, Frans (NED) IA according to http://ratings.fide.com/tournament_deta ... ent=136623 so his views should be obtained as to why the 6th game was initially incorrectly submitted for rating and whether he allowed himself to be influenced by others in the admin team.

[NickFaulks]

According to the FIDE rating regulations 0.4 it is the Chief Arbiter who is responsible for the results submitted.

Yes, 0.4 does say

"The Chief Arbiter is responsible for the results submitted."

I think this has always been taken to mean that it is his job to submit them in accordance with the other regulations, rather than that he may decide to submit them in any way he likes.

[Roger Lancaster]

If an analogy might perhaps assist, the police are responsible for criminal law enforcement but not for making the law.

[Tim Harding]

I'm glad to see some strong support for Nigel in this thread. IMHO the Hoogeveen organisers (and the people who have been critical of Nigel here) and the self-important Baku arbiter owe him an apology.

[Mick Norris]

If an analogy might perhaps assist, the police are responsible for criminal law enforcement but not for making the law.

That's not what they think in South Yorkshire