Arbiter-Proof Chess Sets?

[Peter McKillop]

In New in Chess magazine, issue 2017#5, there is an ad on page 56 for a 'Judit Polgar Chess Set' which contains a pair of extra queens. The manufacturer, DGT, and Paul Bonham, can think of adding extra queens as a standard feature but a Canadian IA, in a playoff game which could decide the national championship, couldn't think to make sure extra queens were available? Bullshit!!

There was a sequence of events in that Sambuev - Noritsyn game:

1. The arbiter fails to provide extra queens at the outset.

2. Bator, unwittingly or deliberately (only he knows), palms his opponent's queen and keeps it hidden from view until the arbiter's unfortunate intervention.

3. The arbiter fails to notice that Nikolay's queen is MIA. This is one I really have a tough time with. Several moves before Nikolay's attempt to promote his pawn, surely it was obvious that there was a high probability both players would promote a pawn. If I was a spectator in attendance it would have been a perfectly natural thing to do to glance at the captured pieces to see where the queens were. I'm astounded this didn't occur to the arbiter.

4. The arbiter failed to notice that Nikolay grabbed a rook, as a queen substitute, because he couldn't find his queen.

5. Nikolay uses an upside-down rook and announces that it is a queen.

6. As the arbiter reaches to stop the clock he wastes a second opportunity to notice that Nikolay's queen is MIA.

7. The arbiter and his minion(s) fail to notice Bator slipping Nikolay's queen back onto the table.

8. Bator fails to say, "Here it is. I have Nikolay's queen."

The NAC in effect says points 1 to 4 and 6 to 8 don't matter. Only point 5 matters. How the hell is that logical? And then the NAC makes no recommendations - no recommendation that the rule that felled Nikolay be reviewed for fairness to see if it should be amended; no recommendation that in future arbiters of important games must ensure there are extra queens provided at the outset; etc. What a load of crap. I think Canadian chess players deserve an explanation.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Arbiter-Proof Chess Sets?

In New in Chess magazine, issue 2017#5, there is an ad on page 56 for a 'Judit Polgar Chess Set' which contains a pair of extra queens. The manufacturer, DGT, and Paul Bonham, can think of adding extra queens as a standard feature but a Canadian IA, in a playoff game which could decide the national championship, couldn't think to make sure extra queens were available? Bullshit!!

There was a sequence of events in that Sambuev - Noritsyn game:

1. The arbiter fails to provide extra queens at the outset.

2. Bator, unwittingly or deliberately (only he knows), palms his opponent's queen and keeps it hidden from view until the arbiter's unfortunate intervention.

3. The arbiter fails to notice that Nikolay's queen is MIA. This is one I really have a tough time with. Several moves before Nikolay's attempt to promote his pawn, surely it was obvious that there was a high probability both players would promote a pawn. If I was a spectator in attendance it would have been a perfectly natural thing to do to glance at the captured pieces to see where the queens were. I'm astounded this didn't occur to the arbiter.

4. The arbiter failed to notice that Nikolay grabbed a rook, as a queen substitute, because he couldn't find his queen.

5. Nikolay uses an upside-down rook and announces that it is a queen.

6. As the arbiter reaches to stop the clock he wastes a second opportunity to notice that Nikolay's queen is MIA.

7. The arbiter and his minion(s) fail to notice Bator slipping Nikolay's queen back onto the table.

8. Bator fails to say, "Here it is. I have Nikolay's queen."

The NAC in effect says points 1 to 4 and 6 to 8 don't matter. Only point 5 matters. How the hell is that logical? And then the NAC makes no recommendations - no recommendation that the rule that felled Nikolay be reviewed for fairness to see if it should be amended; no recommendation that in future arbiters of important games must ensure there are extra queens provided at the outset; etc. What a load of crap. I think Canadian chess players deserve an explanation.

Hi Peter..... you forgot point #9: Vlad Drkulec, CFC President, explains the NAC decision as being partially due to the CFC having "burned a lot of goodwill with FIDE" over this event.

I'd like to know, Peter, and anyone else: what do you think of the arbiter's explanation that in the heat of the time scramble, he could not pay attention to anything else but what was happening on the board? In other words, his entire attention had to be on touch-move rules and nothing else. What this means is that the requirement of an arbiter to notice whether a captured Queen is indeed available to a player who is about to promote is too much when a time scramble is involved.

Is that a fair point? Has it ever come up in arbiter training?

Of course, the arbiter could as you said Peter have noticed it before the time scramble -- that is a separate point and the arbiter is indeed guilty of negligence on that. But what if Bator had grabbed Nikolay's Queen during the time scramble.... would it be too much at that point to ask for the arbiter to notice this and do anything?

And yes, it should be realized that all these questions are moot IF the rules clearly state that the arbiter shall ensure extra Queens (and underpromotion pieces) of each color are at every board before any game commences. FIDE is to blame for that not being the case.

I wouldn't hold my breath, Peter, waiting for Canadian chess players to get that explanation. But if it is any consolation, I have plans that within a few years, there will be in North America an alternative to FIDE with an alternative to standard chess, and that is why I've paid special attention to this situation. In one version of the games my federation will be governing, promotion is much more common than in standard chess, and having all the promotion pieces (several of them in fact) in place will be necessary before the beginning of any game. You can PM me if you're interested in hearing more about that.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Arbiter-Proof Chess Sets?

...

I've not seen this been posted here: http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/sh...anadian-Closed

Results Nikolay Noritsyn Appeal to Executive of NAC decision on Canadian Closed

It is my duty to inform you that the board of directors of the Chess Federation of Canada considered the Nikolay Noritsyn appeal of the National Appeal Committee (NAC) decision with respect to the result of the final blitz playoff game for the 2017 Canadian Closed title and have decided by a margin of three votes to one with three abstentions to uphold the NAC decision and deny the appeal.

A more detailed majority report and possibly a minority report should be available by the time of the Annual General Meeting.

[Steve Douglas]

Re: Arbiter-Proof Chess Sets?

I've not seen this been posted here: http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/sh...anadian-Closed

Results Nikolay Noritsyn Appeal to Executive of NAC decision on Canadian Closed

It is my duty to inform you that the board of directors of the Chess Federation of Canada considered the Nikolay Noritsyn appeal of the National Appeal Committee (NAC) decision with respect to the result of the final blitz playoff game for the 2017 Canadian Closed title and have decided by a margin of three votes to one with three abstentions to uphold the NAC decision and deny the appeal.

A more detailed majority report and possibly a minority report should be available by the time of the Annual General Meeting.

I mentioned it a couple of days ago, but without the link.

Steve

[Halldor P. Palsson]

Re: Arbiter-Proof Chess Sets?

Leave it to GM Spraggett:

"Of course it was no surprise that the appeals committee rejected Noritsyn’s appeal. While I disagree with a number of the NAC’s formal arguments that were recently made public, I would have also voted to reject his appeal, having served on numerous appeals committees at international (and Canadian) events:

The game was already over
No protest occurred during the game, nor immediately following its conclusion
Neither the arbiter(s) nor the players observed any infraction.
No clear infraction of any specific rule was later observed, even with the video as witness.

So, naturally, any competent arbiter would rule against the appeal of Noritsyn. Arbiters are trained to make rule-based decisions. Whether Sambuev’s actions were deliberate or accidental never entered the equation…"

The CFC Executive simply had no reason to get involved.

Move on Peter. GM Bator Sambuev is our champion!!

[Steve Douglas]

Re: Arbiter-Proof Chess Sets?

In New in Chess magazine, issue 2017#5, there is an ad on page 56 for a 'Judit Polgar Chess Set' which contains a pair of extra queens. The manufacturer, DGT, and Paul Bonham, can think of adding extra queens as a standard feature but a Canadian IA, in a playoff game which could decide the national championship, couldn't think to make sure extra queens were available? Bullshit!!

There was a sequence of events in that Sambuev - Noritsyn game:

1. The arbiter fails to provide extra queens at the outset.

2. Bator, unwittingly or deliberately (only he knows), palms his opponent's queen and keeps it hidden from view until the arbiter's unfortunate intervention.

3. The arbiter fails to notice that Nikolay's queen is MIA. This is one I really have a tough time with. Several moves before Nikolay's attempt to promote his pawn, surely it was obvious that there was a high probability both players would promote a pawn. If I was a spectator in attendance it would have been a perfectly natural thing to do to glance at the captured pieces to see where the queens were. I'm astounded this didn't occur to the arbiter.

4. The arbiter failed to notice that Nikolay grabbed a rook, as a queen substitute, because he couldn't find his queen.

5. Nikolay uses an upside-down rook and announces that it is a queen.

6. As the arbiter reaches to stop the clock he wastes a second opportunity to notice that Nikolay's queen is MIA.

7. The arbiter and his minion(s) fail to notice Bator slipping Nikolay's queen back onto the table.

8. Bator fails to say, "Here it is. I have Nikolay's queen."

The NAC in effect says points 1 to 4 and 6 to 8 don't matter. Only point 5 matters. How the hell is that logical? And then the NAC makes no recommendations - no recommendation that the rule that felled Nikolay be reviewed for fairness to see if it should be amended; no recommendation that in future arbiters of important games must ensure there are extra queens provided at the outset; etc. What a load of crap. I think Canadian chess players deserve an explanation.

Hi Peter:

I don't understand why people want to keep beating this dead horse, particularly when there is a large contingent who can't understand that B. Sambuev didn't violate the laws of chess. I don't like the result of things anymore than anybody else but a lot of people have been impugning the reputation of a respected GM for doing nothing more than fiddling with the captured pieces which LOTS of players do and which is not illegal.

(I would also point out that many of this outraged group are among those who were outraged when B. Sambuev was passed over for selection for the last Olympiad.)

Vlad Drkulec is quite right in saying that the problem started with the decision to have blitz tie-breakers. Once that was decided the stage was set for the kind of monumental mess that ensued.

N. Noritsyn's appeal to the NAC was rightly and properly denied (assuming he wanted a do-over or something similar) because B. Sambuev did not violate the laws of chess. The on-site arbiter made a ruling consistent with the laws of chess, however egregious it appears to the rest of us (and anybody else who is sane). The NAC was however very critical of the arbitration but they cannot overturn the result when there was no clear violation of the laws by a player or a clear misapplication of the rules by the arbiter. They are aware of common sense which is why they were critical in their comments of the arbitration.

I will be curious to see exactly what N. Noritsyn's appeal to the executive was, and who voted how. I would hope that N. Noritsyn didn't present his appeal as an all or nothing proposition, because those rarely succeed.

I would hope that at the upcoming AGM that somebody would want to address this issue. It would probably be difficult to get something onto the agenda at the last minute, but arms can be twisted. I would certainly hope that some brave VM would make separate motions about the following:

a. that the result of the playoff between N. Noritsyn and B. Sambuev be determined to be inconclusive due to the extenuating circumstances we all know about.

b. that, due to the impracticality of a re-match, that both N. Noritsyn and B. Sambuev are co-champions.

c. that both N. Noritsyn and B. Sambuev will be selected/invited to represent Canada in any even that the Canadian Champion would normally represent Canada, including the Olympic team; for events other than the Olympiad, if only one player can represent Canada at a given event, it will be B. Sambuev who is selected first

d. new and clear guidelines for blitz playoffs (or even the acceptability of blitz playoffs) for any major tournament shall be created and published

e. new and clear guidelines for arbiters regarding promotion, including that the arbiters explain the promotion rules before any playoff game, and that they diligently ensure that promotion pieces are available at the time of promotion

f. that the arbiters of the recent Canadian Closed be sanctioned for failing to provide due care and attention, and arbitration below the expected calibre, with respect to the playoffs of the tournament (sanction to be at the discretion of the NAC or Executive)

Steve

[Steve Douglas]

Re: Arbiter-Proof Chess Sets?

IIRC GM Spraggett was on the tournament appeals committee in the 2004 Canadian Open and had to deal with the Lipnowski-Mattson affair. The committee ruled in Lipnowski's favor because the game was over (due to resignation) and the thus couldn't be appealed. The matter subsequently went before the NAC which later reversed the game result. The NAC acknowledged that the tournament committee was correct in its decision but reversed the game result because the resignation was induced by cheating. The NAC had more information at its disposal and more time to reflect on things.

IIRC one of the players was suspended for a period of time.

Steve

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Arbiter-Proof Chess Sets?

I will be curious to see exactly what N. Noritsyn's appeal to the executive was, and who voted how.

All will be revealed at the AGM. Stay tuned.

I would hope that N. Noritsyn didn't present his appeal as an all or nothing proposition, because those rarely succeed.

I would hope that at the upcoming AGM that somebody would want to address this issue. It would probably be difficult to get something onto the agenda at the last minute, but arms can be twisted. I would certainly hope that some brave VM would make separate motions about the following:

All motions to be voted on have to be sent out by the executive by three weeks before the AGM (or any other meeting) and by no more than seven weeks. This is part of the NFP act and any attempt to circumvent it could lead to successful court action. Member resolutions basically have an impossible lead time which would have required notice before the Canadian Closed took place. This is why every resolution to be voted on comes from the directors.

[Ken Craft]

Re: Arbiter-Proof Chess Sets?

I am happy to report that I voted in favour of granting Mr. Noritsyn's appeal.

[Kerry Liles]

Re: Arbiter-Proof Chess Sets?

I am happy to report that I voted in favour of granting Mr. Noritsyn's appeal.

I am wondering what Mr. Noritsyn was suggesting (if anything)?

also, "Granting the appeal" would have meant what, exactly?

Would it be:
- nullification of the game/result,
- sanction against Sambuev,
- require a "do-over",
- both qualify for World Cup

or some other things?

I suppose granting the appeal could have simply meant "mea culpa" with no change of the outcome - a hollow victory at best.

[Steve Douglas]

Re: Arbiter-Proof Chess Sets?

Hi Vlad:

All will be revealed at the AGM. Stay tuned.

I will look forward to it along with everybody else. I never assumed that the information would not be forthcoming.

All motions to be voted on have to be sent out by the executive by three weeks before the AGM (or any other meeting) and by no more than seven weeks. This is part of the NFP act and any attempt to circumvent it could lead to successful court action. Member resolutions basically have an impossible lead time which would have required notice before the Canadian Closed took place. This is why every resolution to be voted on comes from the directors.

I was not trying to suggest that anybody should be trying to do anything to circumvent the NFP act, or anything else. Nonetheless I would hope that *sometime* "real soon now", when it is first practical, that somebody within the VM/Director/Executive of the CFC will bring forward motions similar to the ones I proposed. These are issues that need to be formally discussed and addressed by the CFC.

I would hope there would be some discussion about this incident at the upcoming AGM, even if there is no formal motion on the table.

For the record, I don't know whether I would ultimately vote yea or nay on any of the potential motions I mentioned. There are arguments on both sides for all of them, and some, after discussion, may be shown to be completely impractical.

Steve

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Arbiter-Proof Chess Sets?

Hi Vlad:



I will look forward to it along with everybody else. I never assumed that the information would not be forthcoming.



I was not trying to suggest that anybody should be trying to do anything to circumvent the NFP act, or anything else. Nonetheless I would hope that *sometime* "real soon now", when it is first practical, that somebody within the VM/Director/Executive of the CFC will bring forward motions similar to the ones I proposed. These are issues that need to be formally discussed and addressed by the CFC.

I would hope there would be some discussion about this incident at the upcoming AGM, even if there is no formal motion on the table.

For the record, I don't know whether I would ultimately vote yea or nay on any of the potential motions I mentioned. There are arguments on both sides for all of them, and some, after discussion, may be shown to be completely impractical.

Steve

I don't think anyone will bring forth those motions. We have a hard enough time getting people to volunteer for things like the NAC and the executive and I have never had more people offer/threaten to resign than over this issue. I have never seen feelings rubbed raw as this issue. Some of the people on chesstalk and elsewhere went way over the line.

If there is a bright side to all this it is that everyone knows the proper way to handle such a situation in the future.