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

[Kerry Liles]

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

I am the member of the NAC that voted against the denial of the appeal. I consider the denial of the appeal as a failure of NAC to ensure a fair play.
The unfortunate situation stemmed from incorrect actions (to put it mildly) of all parties involved: Mr. Sambuev, Mr. Denommee (arbiter) and Mr. Noritsyn, in this order of incorrect actions. It is unfair to make one party (that erred the last) be responsible for the whole complicated situation.

Ilia Bluvshtein.

Thank you for sharing that Ilia.

I have been struggling for a way to deal with the complications of this whole situation (without regard to any perceived intent on anyone's part) and I find your statement of why you voted against the denial of the appeal to be very compelling... We (all) can only wonder what the ramifications would be if the appeal had been granted: with respect to the qualification for the upcoming FIDE event(s) etc.

It does seem that the ruling makes Nikolay the only person who is penalized in any way (and in a rather large way too).

It is a complicated issue all around. Clearly it isn't quite as simple as playing a quick rematch or any sort of silly Armageddon playoff because time is apparently of the essence too.

[Ilia Bluvshtein]

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

The following was posted on the CFC forum and a link to it (without any commentary) was found in another thread here on ChessTalk. I thought this decision deserved it's own thread to highlight it more clearly...

at:

http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/sh...Closed-playoff

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

It is my duty to inform the chess public that the national appeals committee has rendered a decision to deny Nikolay Noritsyn's appeal of the result of the playoff at the Canadian Championship and Zonal blitz playoff. The decision was 3 to 1. I believe the full decision and details of the reasoning will be released publicly very shortly but it was deemed in the best interest of chess in Canada that we end the uncertainty.

The committee worked quickly to comply with the FIDE demand that we inform them of our representative for the World Cup by the extended deadline of July 10th negotiated by Hal Bond.

I would like to thank the members of the committee for their work in reaching a prompt decision. Nikolay has indicated that he has more to say on this matter and I have offered him the opportunity to address the executive (board of directors) by email.


Vladimir Drkulec
President, Chess Federation of Canada

I am the member of the NAC that voted against the denial of the appeal. I consider the denial of the appeal as a failure of NAC to ensure a fair play.
The unfortunate situation stemmed from incorrect actions (to put it mildly) of all parties involved: Mr. Sambuev, Mr. Denommee (arbiter) and Mr. Noritsyn, in this order of incorrect actions. It is unfair to make one party (that erred the last) be responsible for the whole complicated situation.

Ilia Bluvshtein.

[Sam Sharpe]

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

In the other thread, I predicted the result would stand even though all parties made mistakes. Canadian chess is in shambles and has been for decades. This is just another example of the mess that has existed for decades.

[Peter McKillop]

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

Expediency (need to name World Cup nominee) and nothing that was done could be deemed 100% incorrect = uphold TD decision, and highly unlikely to be overturned by anyone/anything higher

There are higher gods than Expediency. At whose feet does the NAC worship? :)

[Sam Sharpe]

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

I can hardly wait to see the NAC's full decision. Will it be considered an example of justice rendered, or will it be an example of legalism at its worst?

Expediency (need to name World Cup nominee) and nothing that was done could be deemed 100% incorrect = uphold TD decision, and highly unlikely to be overturned by anyone/anything higher

[Peter McKillop]

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

I can hardly wait to see the NAC's full decision. Will it be considered an example of justice rendered, or will it be an example of legalism at its worst?

[Peter McKillop]

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

I haven't read all the posts so perhaps someone has already answered this question: if this was a zonal championship, can Nikolay appeal the NAC's decision to FIDE? Just curious about where the buck stops.

[Sid Belzberg]

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

Last Wednesday after Bob received the $35 fee from Nikolay, we decided he he would make contact with both players, the 4 NAC Members (Mark Dutton, Lyle Craver, Aris Marghetis, and Ilia Bluvshtein) who could serve, and the Arbiter (Pierre), Chief Arbiter (Bernard) and Organizer (Richard). The NAC were given these e-mail addresses (players and officials) so that they could contact them. I think reports were made available by Pierre and Richard. Along with Nikolay's appeal and the video, I would say no other contact was made with the e-mails we supplied. Presumably the NAC felt they didn't need any further information.

Neither Bob or I intended to mislead Nikolay.

I suppose different people will have different opinions if this constituted misconduct on anyone's part.

Under the current NFP, it is quite possible that the Directors could overrule the NAC, but I don't have the expertise to know for sure.

Presumably the NAC felt they didn't need any further information.

Nickolay was given additional advice from a FIDE Arbiter as he pointed out here. He was not afforded the opportunity to communicate this additional info given to him by the FIDE Arbiter to the committee on the basis that the committee would be contacting him as per Bob's communication with him.

Neither Bob or I intended to mislead Nikolay.

Unfortunately it appears that perhaps, unwittingly, Nikolay was misled.

[Fred McKim]

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

I have a lot of respect for Fred - he does a LOT of work (mostly behind the curtains) to keep the CFC Executive process on track and he often has been able to mobilize some efforts. I am sure he did whatever he could to expedite the process without (in any way) compromising it. Sometime 'the process' is very poorly defined and I suspect this situation highlights some serious problems with the appeal process in general. Tying the appeal process to some external forces (especially FIDE - I have omitted many adjectives I had included here for brevity) is a truly bad move. The CFC needs to always govern itself properly and it always seems to cave in to other pressure.

This situation also reveals another problem with the appeal process: when one of the NAC is the arbiter involved, obviously he/she will recuse themself from the decision but that leaves an even number of people on the NAC - I don't suppose there is a 'reserve' member or members of the NAC that could be called in to serve in this case? In retrospect, probably a good idea that likely would be used very seldom...

I honestly do not know what sort of decision or resolution could be made in this case to right the wrong; maybe it cannot be corrected. I hope the reasoning behind the decision becomes public too but I am worried that it will be considered too politically sensitive for that to happen.

The only reason the NAC findings have not been released yet, is that some of the Directors (myself for one) felt it was in too "raw" of a format. One way or the other it will be released to the public, soon.

[Fred McKim]

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

Here is an overview of the recent events.

Before my appeal was accepted by the CFC executive, I was told by Fred McKim that:

"the NAC would contact you and you would have the chance to give them all of the facts and evidence you have at that time. You would presumably tell them that the video should exist for earlier games in the play-off and they would decide if that was relevant and if so get hold of it.
You should not expect or rely on anything you have said to us will be forwarded to them.
Fred"

On July 5, Bob Gillanders informed me: "This is to notify you that the matter of the final blitz tiebreak game at the Canadian Closed (Montreal, July 1), (Sambuev vs. Noritsyn) has been sent to the National Appeals Committee (NAC). They will be contacting you in the next day or two."

I took a break from posting on this matter online, and thinking about it while waiting for an email from the NAC.
Yesterday, July 10 (5 days later) I asked Bob Gillanders in an email why I was not contacted by the NAC. He was "surprised Mark Dutton has not contacted you yet."

I received an email from the CFC President this morning informing me of the decision. I asked why I was never contacted by the NAC, and he suggested that "if you want to put forward additional considerations that you do it now and in email. You can even release it to the public at the same time. I don't believe that you can hope for a reversal of the decision based on the reasoning provided. If you could it would simply mean that neither you nor Bator could play in the world cup. The place in the world cup would have been lost if we had not submitted a decision by Monday. We have already burned up a great deal of political capital with FIDE as a result of these delays.

My reply:

I was operating under the assumption that I would be communicating with the NAC, "I would be given the chance to give them all of the facts and evidence I have at that time" - and anything I mentioned to the CFC Executive would not be relevant. So I consider this a major misconduct.

You can't turn time backwards, I can't give you my additional considerations now (I will post them in public though). Also, there is nothing in the "Old Handbook" about the Executive being able to reverse a decision of the NAC. There is this though.
"1248. The CFC Business Office will write to the players involved, the TD, and the members of the AC, providing them with the information provided by the appellant, and requesting them to confirm the facts and provide any additional facts or other relevant information."

Last Wednesday after Bob received the $35 fee from Nikolay, we decided he he would make contact with both players, the 4 NAC Members (Mark Dutton, Lyle Craver, Aris Marghetis, and Ilia Bluvshtein) who could serve, and the Arbiter (Pierre), Chief Arbiter (Bernard) and Organizer (Richard). The NAC were given these e-mail addresses (players and officials) so that they could contact them. I think reports were made available by Pierre and Richard. Along with Nikolay's appeal and the video, I would say no other contact was made with the e-mails we supplied. Presumably the NAC felt they didn't need any further information.

Neither Bob or I intended to mislead Nikolay.

I suppose different people will have different opinions if this constituted misconduct on anyone's part.

Under the current NFP, it is quite possible that the Directors could overrule the NAC, but I don't have the expertise to know for sure.

[Kerry Liles]

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

The pressure is to follow the rules of chess and not the whims of the chesstalk lynch mob. I did not know who was on the NAC until this situation came up. When I saw who was on the committee I was sure that the rule of chess law would prevail. If the NAC had ruled differently we would have been the laughingstock of the world and the competency of the arbiters on the NAC would have been called into question. The last time the NAC convened was in 2013 which in that case reversed a decision at CYCC in Ottawa. I don't even remember the exact facts of the case. Everyone sympathizes with Nikolay's situation but the fact is that knowing the proper rule would have potentially saved a great deal of grief.

Claiming annoyance after the game has ended because of a video replay is the same as claiming touch move based on a video replay as per the Polgar vs Kasparov touch move situation. You have to complain at the time of the infraction. I drill this into the kids before their first and often subsequent tournaments. Complaining after the game is over is almost never a successful strategy.





I believe it will all be revealed but I have lessons to teach over Skype and a tournament to play in so any further input from me will come late in the evening or perhaps the morning.

Thanks for the further clarification(s). I am not sure about this comment:
"If the NAC had ruled differently we would have been the laughingstock of the world and the competency of the arbiters on the NAC would have been called into question."
but for now I will leave it alone... this is not the Trump thread by the way...

In my mind, there are a few other "proper rules" that were not followed: specifically (as mentioned elsewhere by Sid and others) the inadvertent or otherwise kidnapping of the opponent's Queen resulting in maximum chaos at the right moment. I look forward to reading the NAC reasoning - assuming that is published.

[Vlad Drkulec]

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

I have a lot of respect for Fred - he does a LOT of work (mostly behind the curtains) to keep the CFC Executive process on track and he often has been able to mobilize some efforts. I am sure he did whatever he could to expedite the process without (in any way) compromising it. Sometime 'the process' is very poorly defined and I suspect this situation highlights some serious problems with the appeal process in general. Tying the appeal process to some external forces (especially FIDE - I have omitted many adjectives I had included here for brevity) is a truly bad move. The CFC needs to always govern itself properly and it always seems to cave in to other pressure.

The pressure is to follow the rules of chess and not the whims of the chesstalk lynch mob. I did not know who was on the NAC until this situation came up. When I saw who was on the committee I was sure that the rule of chess law would prevail. If the NAC had ruled differently we would have been the laughingstock of the world and the competency of the arbiters on the NAC would have been called into question. The last time the NAC convened was in 2013 which in that case reversed a decision at CYCC in Ottawa. I don't even remember the exact facts of the case. Everyone sympathizes with Nikolay's situation but the fact is that knowing the proper rule would have potentially saved a great deal of grief.

Claiming annoyance after the game has ended because of a video replay is the same as claiming touch move based on a video replay as per the Polgar vs Kasparov touch move situation. You have to complain at the time of the infraction. I drill this into the kids before their first and often subsequent tournaments. Complaining after the game is over is almost never a successful strategy.

This situation also reveals another problem with the appeal process: when one of the NAC is the arbiter involved, obviously he/she will recuse themself from the decision but that leaves an even number of people on the NAC - I don't suppose there is a 'reserve' member or members of the NAC that could be called in to serve in this case? In retrospect, probably a good idea that likely would be used very seldom...

I honestly do not know what sort of decision or resolution could be made in this case to right the wrong; maybe it cannot be corrected. I hope the reasoning behind the decision becomes public too but I am worried that it will be considered too politically sensitive for that to happen.

I believe it will all be revealed but I have lessons to teach over Skype and a tournament to play in so any further input from me will come late in the evening or perhaps the morning.

[Neil Frarey]

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

"I believe the full decision and details of the reasoning will be released publicly very shortly but thought you should be informed before that happens. " - Vlad Drkulec
The reasoning and details have not been released - so I do not yet have an opinion on that matter.

Since I did not get a chance at a dialogue with the NAC, I don't know what it is that they considered. Earlier, I suggested to the Executive to ask the Canadian Zonal organizers to provide the video's for the rest of the tiebreak games. It would not be evidence/proof of anything, but it could provide additional food for thought on black/white queens disappearing.

Here is an opinion of International Arbiter Serge Archambault, whom I have been in contact with:

"Hello Nikolay. A lot of things have been said about the incident, but one of the things I've not seen mentionned yet, and that could be brought to the NAC/Executive is the fact that I believe it could be argued that when you "promoted", while you were doing your move, Bator was already reaching for his queen, which could have been penalized by the arbiter. This part of what happen alone, could "explain" everything else that happened, in my views.

Let me explain in my details, what I mean. 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 (which was one of the big reasons I had a problem, from the get go, with what happened). Also, even though you had access to press the clock, his harm movement didn't give you full access to stop the clock (to ask for a queen). In fact, he only stopped waving his right arm, only when the arbiter jumps in. If I were you, I'd put lots of thoughts into this argument at the NAC level. I believe this, coupled with a few more "more obvious" arguments, could be helpful to you."


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.



Apart from the already mentioned (by Sid Belzberg, and others)

11.5
It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims, unreasonable offers of a draw or the introduction of a source of noise into the playing area.

12.1
The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute.
I think that below FIDE Handbook items seems also applicable:
09. FIDE Code of Ethics

There is also:

2.2.3
Organizers, tournament directors, arbiters or other officials who fail to perform
their functions in an impartial and responsible manner.
(Lack of second Queen, poor game and player observation during game, poor decision taking for incident. Even if all done unintentionally, it was all relevant to how the game ended)

2.2.5
Cheating or attempts at cheating during games and tournaments. Violent, threatening
or other unseemly behavior during or in connection with a chess event.

Nikolay, sorry you got hustled. Sorry you got hustled by Sambuev and sorry you got hustled by the Chess Federation of Canada's national appeals committee.

Get a lawyer.

[Kerry Liles]

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

Kerry,

I am also not sure what "political capital" means. Regarding time pressure, here is what Fred McKim had to say: "The timing of the appeal was horrible as both Vlad and Hal have been pre-occupied with CYCC / CO stuff, and it seemed that if I didn't move the process along it wouldn't get done."

I have a lot of respect for Fred - he does a LOT of work (mostly behind the curtains) to keep the CFC Executive process on track and he often has been able to mobilize some efforts. I am sure he did whatever he could to expedite the process without (in any way) compromising it. Sometime 'the process' is very poorly defined and I suspect this situation highlights some serious problems with the appeal process in general. Tying the appeal process to some external forces (especially FIDE - I have omitted many adjectives I had included here for brevity) is a truly bad move. The CFC needs to always govern itself properly and it always seems to cave in to other pressure.

This situation also reveals another problem with the appeal process: when one of the NAC is the arbiter involved, obviously he/she will recuse themself from the decision but that leaves an even number of people on the NAC - I don't suppose there is a 'reserve' member or members of the NAC that could be called in to serve in this case? In retrospect, probably a good idea that likely would be used very seldom...

I honestly do not know what sort of decision or resolution could be made in this case to right the wrong; maybe it cannot be corrected. I hope the reasoning behind the decision becomes public too but I am worried that it will be considered too politically sensitive for that to happen.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

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

and I would hope that includes who the members of the NAC were that voted and what the vote split was.

Most likely these persons from http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/sh...eals-Committee

Pierre Denomme ("withdraw as an NAC member from hearing an Appeal of my own decision " http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/sh...ed-Tie-Breaker )
Mark Dutton
Aris Marghetis
Ilia Bluvshtein
Lyle Craver