Resolution of appeal to NAC on the matter of Canadian Closed playoff

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • John Torrie
    replied
    Re: Resolution of appeal to NAC on the matter of Canadian Closed playoff

    To do “the right thing” conscience sacrifices itself and duty sacrifices others. A little forethought saves everyone, but forethought is a rarity.
    Despite the decision against Mr. Noritsyn, which was expected, there is much in the rulings that is favorable to his case.
    If FIDE sets the rules is it responsible for the conditions of the contest? If FIDE claims no responsibility why do their rules apply? It appears they influenced the Appeals Committee.
    In the meanwhile if a new FIDE rule states that ‘players are not to hold onto pieces’ that would add strength to Mr. Noritsyn’s cause if he wanted to pursue the matter civilly. Why pick on a little organization like the CFC when FIDE is the bigger fish?

    Leave a comment:


  • Kevin Pacey
    replied
    Re: Resolution of appeal to NAC on the matter of Canadian Closed playoff

    Google's definition:

    "Political capital refers to the trust, goodwill, and influence a politician has with the public and other political figures. This goodwill is a type of invisible currency that politicians can use to mobilize the voting public or spend on policy reform."

    Leave a comment:


  • Jean Hébert
    replied
    Re: Resolution of appeal to NAC on the matter of Canadian Closed playoff

    Originally posted by Nikolay Noritsyn View Post

    I am also not sure what "political capital" means.
    «Political capital» means «favors» if my half decent english is correct.
    It reminds one of Trump's candid statements...

    Leave a comment:


  • John Brown
    replied
    Re: Resolution of appeal to NAC on the matter of Canadian Closed playoff

    Sounds to me like CFC wanted a GM to represent Canada. Looks like its a case closed result the jury has voted guilty. Have none of you watched 12 Angry Men. I think the Appeals Committee should. Not a cold case no one died unsolved, but a (Better for them to look good rather than doing a Canadian play fair decision they chose to do a dishonest thing and send a guy that looks good on paper. No wonder the CFC has no members. Scam produces Scum and who wants to be associated with scum you have to remove it with scum remover bought at grocery stores. I have little respect for our CFC appeals committee after this decision. If this is all they have to offer then go to the pot and sh..t. Then at least we can not say they made a shitty decision.
    This match should have been null and void and a new match should have been re done properly. Are we proud Canadians or Scum. I'm a proud Canadian but is the CFC appeal committee?

    Leave a comment:


  • Egidijus Zeromskis
    replied
    Re: Resolution of appeal to NAC on the matter of Canadian Closed playoff

    Originally posted by Vlad Drkulec View Post
    The pressure is to follow the rules of chess and not the whims of the chesstalk lynch mob.
    Interesting that you mentioned similar thing on chess.com. Somehow we used to your name callings. I think this person summarize quite well the international opinion:

    Westbranch83
    "I have to say, however much Sambuev and the original arbiter brought the game into disrepute, Mr. Drkulec seems to have outdone them both.

    I would have thought a national chess president would be above petty name calling like referring to the carefully considered postings on this thread as the "bleatings" of "sheep."

    I also would have expected that a national chess president would refrain from passive-aggressive innuendo like "I don't believe that the member that dissented is an International Arbiter as the other three gentlemen are... From what I've seen his response was emotional and the others went by a logical process."

    These sorts of comments from a national chess president are disgusting. If there was ever any doubt that this fiasco has brought all of Canadian chess into disrepute, it has been laid to rest now. The CFC doesn't know when to quit digging."

    Leave a comment:


  • Egidijus Zeromskis
    replied
    Re: Resolution of appeal to NAC on the matter of Canadian Closed playoff

    The text of the NAC was released at
    http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/sh...7764#post27764

    Leave a comment:


  • Frank Dixon
    replied
    Re: Resolution of appeal to NAC on the matter of Canadian Closed playoff

    For any potential appeal to higher chess governance bodies (CFC Executive and / or FIDE), IM Noritsyn has overwhelming 'improper process related' grounds in his favour, based on the CFC's failure to follow its announced plans for dealing with his potential appeal of the case from the Canadian Championship playoff vs. GM Sambuev, as has been outlined on threads from this site.

    He also has very strong 'chess rules related' grounds in his favour, from the original incident and information around it, some of which was learned only in the days following it.

    Ideally, IM Noritsyn would be able to find a chess-playing professional lawyer to assist him, on a pro bono basis, for such an important case. I am working towards finding a potential person with those qualifications. IM Noritsyn, please email me at: frzephyr@hotmail.com, as soon as possible.

    Best regards,
    Frank Dixon
    NTD, Kingston

    Leave a comment:


  • Ian Findlay
    replied
    Re: Resolution of appeal to NAC on the matter of Canadian Closed playoff

    Nikolay,
    Sorry, I was not sure if you wanted me to comment on cheating. To call someone a cheater is a very serious accusation. Certainly just holding a queen in one's hand would not on its own be cheating. As pointed out earlier in the posts, it is a nervous habit of many players. One would have to prove intent of hiding the queen, so you could not find it when you promoted. This is far different than computer cheating cases which 100% violates the rules. Like I said, I am not an arbiter, and I am not familiar with the exact rule that it would break. I assume it had to be done deliberately to break a rule. Also, this is an extenuating circumstance, which as I said, makes your ruling far from obvious, but would need investigation and judgement. There is also the question this an isolated incident or has this happened before. I have met Bator and played in the Edmonton International with him. His behaviour there was exemplary. Of course that was just one tournament.

    It is certainly a horrible way to lose the Canadian Championship. It is a shame there is no longer a selection committee for the Olympic Team, since I am sure you would be a great choice. Personally, my advice to you would be to let it go at this point.
    If not, then maybe you have a friend who is a lawyer who can advise you. If you did take it further, it would probably be best not to discuss the matter in an open forum such as this. In any event, good luck.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nikolay Noritsyn
    replied
    Re: Resolution of appeal to NAC on the matter of Canadian Closed playoff

    Egis,
    Perhaps you are right, perhaps not. I can not explain why I was using two hands to promote - the above is Serge's opinion. Since it was never in question (just like Bator trying to grab a queen before I complete my move) I find it quite irrelevant. Yes, I had some "memory revelations" about seeing a black queen - but I can not be sure, and during the arbiter's confrontation I said that I did not see the queen - I didn't know what to say when he pointed at the queen on the table, I was shocked at the whole incident. I might have lost on time if they did restart the clock correctly. This is all quite irrelevant though, I think.

    Ian,
    Thanks for the best wishes. You did not answer my question about cheating though, and about the quote from my playoff opponent. Just like in chess, a two bishop advantage can be more important than an extra pawn. In FIDE, there are rules..and there are other rules. It would be silly of me to dispute that the current rule about promotion was followed correctly by me - It wasn't. Arbiters have made different rulings on these cases though (so even here, there are rules..and other rules about common sense for arbiters in the FIDE laws), like the before-mentioned Sambuev-Sturt game. But that is also irrelevant. My playoff opponent having the queen in his hands and not mentioning the fact to the arbiter's during the confrontation - and now denying his knowledge of the queen's whereabouts - that is relevant, and there are FIDE laws for such cases ("does not bring the game of chess into disrepute").

    Sid,
    I see Roger Patterson just mentioned a Canadian case I was thinking of. I also know that in recent computer cheating cases, ratings were adjusted, medals were returned, results overturned (Borislav Ivanov, French Olympiad case, etc).

    Leave a comment:


  • Roger Patterson
    replied
    Re: Resolution of appeal to NAC on the matter of Canadian Closed playoff

    Originally posted by Sid Belzberg View Post
    I have a question. If an opponent was caught using a computer to feed him moves only after the game was over under the current FIDE rules is the result of that game immutable?
    if you remember, there was a cheating case at the Canadian Open a number of years ago that involved the perpetrator taking back his move illegally which was discovered only after the victim resigned (a few hours or perhaps even a day later - my memory is fuzzy on the details).

    The initial ruling by the arbiter was that the game is over and the result stood. This was upheld by a tournament appeals committee. The national appeals committee overturned the ruling relying on the "does not bring the game of chess into disrepute" clause.

    I don't think the matter went up to FIDE but judging by that ruling - ex post discoveries of cheating can be used to overturn the game result.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sid Belzberg
    replied
    Re: Resolution of appeal to NAC on the matter of Canadian Closed playoff

    I have a question. If an opponent was caught using a computer to feed him moves only after the game was over under the current FIDE rules is the result of that game immutable?

    Leave a comment:


  • Ian Findlay
    replied
    Re: Resolution of appeal to NAC on the matter of Canadian Closed playoff

    Nikolay, the whole situation makes me sick to my stomach. I think the idea of blitz games deciding our National Championship is sad to begin with. I am not an arbiter, only a fan. These situations are very difficult to rule on and unfortunately, it does not sound like you got a fair chance to express yourself. 1) Since the tournament started before July 1, not sure if the new rule would have been in effect for that tournament. 2) Promoting to an upside down rook was a violation but there was no queen available and to make matters worse, the opponent had it in his hands. The other part of the rule which I don't like, is that if you stop the clock and the arbiter does not think it was justified you would also could lose. You only had 7 seconds left and it might have taken 2 or 3 seconds to find the button to stop the clock, since it is never used during the game. Yes, definitely, not a clear cut decision and I feel bad for you Nikolay, although sadly, the rules are the rules imho -- but I am just a fan stating my opinion. Anand clearly used 2 hands to promote to a knight against Kramnik, and no one said a word, so the rules are not always the rules.

    Thanks for the kind words btw Nikolay. Good luck in the future. I am sure you will be a GM soon.

    Leave a comment:


  • Egidijus Zeromskis
    replied
    Re: Resolution of appeal to NAC on the matter of Canadian Closed playoff

    Originally posted by Nikolay Noritsyn View Post
    Regarding castling with two hands - this has been written about by others earlier. I will quote Serge Archambault:

    "Rewatching the video, it could be argued that because he reached his right arm over the board (to grab the white queen), first of all he didn't give you full access to all the pieces (the video shows that while bending over, you don't have access to all the pieces, moreso to the queen because his left hand is covering it (and other pieces) on the table. Secondly, because his harm is there, it almost forces you to play with 2 hands to be able to complete your move"
    I see a different picture (video)

    Simple make in a slow motion 0.25 on youtube.
    You try to get a queen but it's not there, thus you grab a rook and with LEFT hand remove a pawn and place with the right hand an upside-down rook. You moved your left hand almost at the same moment as Bator started to reach a queen too. I would say you had same view as the Bator's hand was quite high.

    You had some troubles with a rook in the first place - were pieces weighted? It is possible to see that you banged other captured pieces while grabbing a rook.

    The second more interesting moment - after you clicked a clock your hand tries to reach something - have you noticed your queen in the Bator's hand? But the arbiter jumps with stops... Your memory maybe failed to retrieve that later and shout loudly that the queen was not on the table but in the hand...

    The first video you posted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cljjF7hCWo
    second - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBNEcRgHkvE

    Leave a comment:


  • Nikolay Noritsyn
    replied
    Re: Resolution of appeal to NAC on the matter of Canadian Closed playoff

    Regarding castling with two hands - this has been written about by others earlier. I will quote Serge Archambault:

    "Rewatching the video, it could be argued that because he reached his right arm over the board (to grab the white queen), first of all he didn't give you full access to all the pieces (the video shows that while bending over, you don't have access to all the pieces, moreso to the queen because his left hand is covering it (and other pieces) on the table. Secondly, because his harm is there, it almost forces you to play with 2 hands to be able to complete your move"

    Leave a comment:


  • Nikolay Noritsyn
    replied
    Re: Resolution of appeal to NAC on the matter of Canadian Closed playoff

    Originally posted by Kerry Liles View Post
    More commentary from the CFC president here:

    https://www.chess.com/news/view/cont...mpionship-5047

    Interesting that Vlad Drkulec considers your reasoning to be 'emotional' rather than 'logical' ... and also that Vlad was worried that Bator's lawyers would have a field day. Maybe Bator can hire Ben Daswani as his lawyer? That would make for some interesting times... :)
    If I was in Ilia's position, I would feel insulted if my reasoning was being called emotional. I would like to second Sid Belzberg's opinion. Thank you Ilia.

    Brian Hartman,
    I would of course rather be playing chess. I don't think this match is likely to happen though. Under current circumstances, I have nothing to lose - you can't say the same about my opponent.

    Ian Findlay,
    I have learned a lot from our games in 2002-2003, and losing motivated me to do better. This controversy is absolutely not motivating though, quite the opposite.
    If cheating has occured, but evidence was only found out the next day (lets say, an a7 pawn was promoted on b8, or plain old phone in the washroom) - should the result of a game be reversed?
    In my case, there is no proof of deliberate cheating. Like I said on chess.com, I am quite "agnostic" as to whether I think queen was hidden deliberately. What do you think about:

    This is Bator Sambuev's statement to chess.com.

    "I didn't know that I was holding a queen in my hand," Sambuev said. "There were some pieces but I was focused on the game and had no idea what exactly was there. I learned there was a queen only from the video."

    After reading a message from a very observant chess.com member:

    "Eseles
    At 14:20, when the clock is stopped, Sambuev has the white Queen in his right hand. and he is leaving the black Queen on the table with his left one.
    Then the hand gets in front of the camera lens, and when we can look again, the white Queen is standing next to the Black one."

    I consider Bator Sambuev's statement to be absolutely incorrect. Its very hard to imagine a person holding a queen for three minutes, putting it on the table right before the arbiter intervened, later also putting the white queen right beside the black one - and never acknowledging the fact that there was indeed a black queen, and he was the one holding it.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X