The 2004 Lipnowski-Mattson incident

[Vadim Tsypin]

Steve Douglas kindly mentioned it in another thread.

Since more than a decade has passed, it might be interesting for a new generation of chess players to review the facts.

From Geurt Gijssen's column:

I have also received some additional information in regards to the incident in the game Sam Lipnowski (2127) vs. Dane Mattson (1730), Round 10, 2004 Canadian Open (Kapuskasing, Ontario). After Black’s 59th move the position was as follows.

It appears that Ra8 mate is unstoppable, but Black played 60…Rxg6+ and White answered with 61 fxg6 – Black is suddenly winning because there is no mate after 61…h1=Q. Black then went to the arbiter to obtain new scoresheets with the position as follows (see next diagram):

When he returned to the board, he probably expected White to resign. Instead, Black resigned because he faced mate in the following position (see next diagram):

Of course, White cheated by moving the rook from a3 to b3. After the game two witnesses testified that they had seen Mr. Lipnowski’s actions, while Mr. Mattson was away from the board, and verified this in writing. The appeals committee (GM Kevin Spraggett, GM Harmen Jonkman, and the Canadian Chess Federation President) denied Mr. Mattson’s protest and upheld the win for Mr. Lipnowski, who later admitted (in front of several people, including a member of the appeals board) that he had intentionally cheated.

Mr. Mattson went to the arbiter with a protest (I assume), the arbiter refused the appeal (I assume), and then he went to the Appeals Committee who also refused the appeal. The arbiter and the Appeals Committee likely based their decision on Article 7.5 of the Laws of Chess:
If during a game it is found that pieces have been displaced from their squares, the position before the irregularity shall be re-instated.

It is very important that Article 7.5 states that the “displacing” must be found during the game, which means that the game result cannot be changed if the displacement was found after Black had resigned.

Previously I mentioned that the only penalty was to expel the white player from the tournament, but this event happened in the last round. Therefore, I do not see how the arbiter or the Appeals Committee can punish the white player since this is unforeseen in the Laws of Chess. The Organising Committee might have acted by reducing the prize money, or by barring the player from participating in future tournaments, and reporting the case to the national federation. In turn, the national federation could ban this player from officially sanctioned events.

[Vadim Tsypin]

Re: The 2004 Lipnowski-Mattson incident

From the CFC Governors' Letter Two, 2004-2005:

Lipnowski-Mattson

With consideration of the NAC's investigation into the facts surrounding the incident in the game Lipnowski-Mattson, 10th Round,
Canadian Open 2004, the CFC Executive has reached a decision regarding disciplinary action.

Mr. Lipnowski was given 30 days to appeal the findings and recommendations of the NAC and did not.

Mitigating factors that were considered were that Mr. Lipnowski paid Mr. Mattson $250 to cover lost prize money (bounced cheque notwithstanding) and that Mr. Lipnowski has publicly apologized and has shown some remorse for his actions.

The CFC Executive hereby imposes upon Mr. Lipnowski the penalty of a four month ban from CFC-Rated tournaments, effective October 20th through February 20th.

Christopher Mallon
CFC Vice President

[Steve Douglas]

Re: The 2004 Lipnowski-Mattson incident

Steve Douglas kindly mentioned it in another thread.

Since more than a decade has passed, it might be interesting for a new generation of chess players to review the facts.

From Geurt Gijssen's column:

I think somebody else (maybe Ian Findlay?) had made reference to it in another thread some time back. I don't recall another scandal of similar stature which went to the NAC until this year's Closed.

I remember the incident very well since I played in the tournament. I was paired against Marv Mattson (Dane's father) in the final round. I had foolishly not paid attention to the fact that the last round started an hour earlier than previous morning rounds. So I arrived at the site to find that the round had been ongoing for almost an hour. I quickly rushed to the board and over the next 30 minutes bashed out a bunch of moves and got a crushing grip on my opponent, and I made the time control. Naturally, once I had made the time control and now had lots of time on my hands to "think" (cough), I managed to slowly give up my superior position and eventually Marv won.

Marv and I were in the skittles room reviewing my hastily made 30 brilliant moves followed by my well-considered patzer moves when news came of a ruckus in the playing hall regarding Marv's son Dane.

There was quite a controversy about the tournament appeals committee ruling, but I think it was correct. I also think the NAC made the right decision in the end given that by that point there was no question of the cheating.

Steve

P.S. this was also the tournament where one of the players collapsed at the board and then died during the event (Donald Hervieux, RIP).

[Ian Findlay]

Re: The 2004 Lipnowski-Mattson incident

[QUOTE=Steve Douglas;116687]I think somebody else (maybe Ian Findlay?) had made reference to it in another thread some time back. I don't recall another scandal of similar stature which went to the NAC until this year's Closed.

It was not me. I vaguely recall reading about it. There have been some great scandals in Canadian chess history. 1) The 1972 Canadian Championship - sealed move incident (I believe someone tried to change their sealed move, but I don't recall exact details). 2) The Jon Pajak Canadian Junior fixed game, where Pajak received a 2 year ban from playing in Canada, or until he paid back the money given to him from CFC to go to the World Junior. Jon was a good friend of mine and died much too young. This was completely out of character for him, but kudos to Les Bunning for bringing this incident to justice.

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: The 2004 Lipnowski-Mattson incident

Another "scandal" was the Hébert-Korchnoi "Is this a valid pairing or not?" incident from the last round of the Toronto International of 1985.It seemed logical to pair the 8th round leader (Igor Ivanov: 6.5) with the highest-rated 6 (Korchnoi). Hébert and Dlugy were the only other 6's - they had played each other in round 7. In any case - Ivanov got paired with Dlugy and Hébert with Korchnoi. I don't think there were any big colour imbalances. Hébert appealed the pairing, and the on-site appeals committee upheld the pairing, after contacting Bill Goichberg by phone and asking his opinion. Of course - the top boards couldn't start until the appeal was settled. It would be interesting to feed the data into modern-day software like Swiss-Sys and see what it would produce. There is a complete crosstable in EP #76 (Dec. 1985) but no colours are shown. The tournament report doesn't mention the incident, so this post is all from memory.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: The 2004 Lipnowski-Mattson incident

Another "scandal" was the Hébert-Korchnoi "Is this a valid pairing or not?" incident from the last round of the Toronto International of 1985.It seemed logical to pair the 8th round leader (Igor Ivanov: 6.5) with the highest-rated 6 (Korchnoi). Hébert and Dlugy were the only other 6's - they had played each other in round 7. In any case - Ivanov got paired with Dlugy and Hébert with Korchnoi. I don't think there were any big colour imbalances. Hébert appealed the pairing, and the on-site appeals committee upheld the pairing, after contacting Bill Goichberg by phone and asking his opinion. Of course - the top boards couldn't start until the appeal was settled. It would be interesting to feed the data into modern-day software like Swiss-Sys and see what it would produce. There is a complete crosstable in EP #76 (Dec. 1985) but no colours are shown. The tournament report doesn't mention the incident, so this post is all from memory.

This might be enough to satisfy pairings:

Quality Criteria
...
To obtain the best possible pairing for a bracket, comply as much as possible with the following criteria, given in descending priority:
C.5 maximize the number of pairs (equivalent to: minimize the number of downfloaters)."

[Ian Findlay]

Re: The 2004 Lipnowski-Mattson incident

Another "scandal" was the Hébert-Korchnoi "Is this a valid pairing or not?" incident from the last round of the Toronto International of 1985.It seemed logical to pair the 8th round leader (Igor Ivanov: 6.5) with the highest-rated 6 (Korchnoi). Hébert and Dlugy were the only other 6's - they had played each other in round 7. In any case - Ivanov got paired with Dlugy and Hébert with Korchnoi. I don't think there were any big colour imbalances. Hébert appealed the pairing, and the on-site appeals committee upheld the pairing, after contacting Bill Goichberg by phone and asking his opinion. Of course - the top boards couldn't start until the appeal was settled. It would be interesting to feed the data into modern-day software like Swiss-Sys and see what it would produce. There is a complete crosstable in EP #76 (Dec. 1985) but no colours are shown. The tournament report doesn't mention the incident, so this post is all from memory.

I remember it well, since Hébert would have played me instead of Korchnoi. I had a memorable game again Fedorowicz, where I played an unsound novelty in the Benoni, but then accepted in draw where I was probably about +2.00. I had 2 bishops (but down exchange) which were about to rip his position apart. Korchnoi played a Nimzo and won a nice endgame against Hébert. Sadly Jean would stop coming to Toronto until the Croatia International about 5 or 6 years later. Back then, I always thought the pairings should be done from the top down, which would have made Mr. Hébert correct, but I don't think Swiss-Sys works this way. Also, I seem to recall that David Lavin called Bill Goichberg before the pairings were posted.

There was also a Toronto Open, where Roman Pelts appealed the pairings of Martin Jaegar. The appeals committee upheld the pairings and then Mr. Pelts withdrew and the pairings had to be done all over again! Thanks goodness for pairing programs..

[Roger Patterson]

Re: The 2004 Lipnowski-Mattson incident

There was also a Toronto Open, where Roman Pelts appealed the pairings of Martin Jaegar. The appeals committee upheld the pairings and then Mr. Pelts withdrew and the pairings had to be done all over again! Thanks goodness for pairing programs..

As I recall it, you are missing a few appeals in that story. My memory is that Roman Pelts did not make the original appeal but someone else did. That appeal was successful resulting in the pairings being changed. That was at the point Roman Pelts appealed. Pelts' appeal was not based on caring who he was paired against but that the pairing rules should be applied properly - He withdrew to protest the (alleged) improper pairing rules used in the final pairings. I don't remember what the disputed point was.

The whole thing held back the round start for over an hour. In all of the versions of the pairings, I had the same opponent (Hergott)

[Ian Findlay]

Re: The 2004 Lipnowski-Mattson incident

As I recall it, you are missing a few appeals in that story. My memory is that Roman Pelts did not make the original appeal but someone else did. That appeal was successful resulting in the pairings being changed. That was at the point Roman Pelts appealed. Pelts' appeal was not based on caring who he was paired against but that the pairing rules should be applied properly - He withdrew to protest the (alleged) improper pairing rules used in the final pairings. I don't remember what the disputed point was.

The whole thing held back the round start for over an hour. In all of the versions of the pairings, I had the same opponent (Hergott)

Thanks Roger. I had forgotten that detail, but I do remember the long delay! Also, Pelts not playing in any more Jaegar tournaments.

[Erik Malmsten]

Re: The 2004 Lipnowski-Mattson incident

Another "scandal" was the Hébert-Korchnoi "Is this a valid pairing or not?" incident from the last round of the Toronto International of 1985.It seemed logical to pair the 8th round leader (Igor Ivanov: 6.5) with the highest-rated 6 (Korchnoi). Hébert and Dlugy were the only other 6's - they had played each other in round 7. In any case - Ivanov got paired with Dlugy and Hébert with Korchnoi. I don't think there were any big colour imbalances. Hébert appealed the pairing, and the on-site appeals committee upheld the pairing, after contacting Bill Goichberg by phone and asking his opinion. Of course - the top boards couldn't start until the appeal was settled. It would be interesting to feed the data into modern-day software like Swiss-Sys and see what it would produce. There is a complete crosstable in EP #76 (Dec. 1985) but no colours are shown. The tournament report doesn't mention the incident, so this post is all from memory.

I thought this was mentioned before but the organizer lost thousands of dollars in this event. Bringing in Korchnoi didn't increase the number of entries. The GMs got their appearance fee but he had no cash in his bank account to pay Hébert so he fudged the pairings. And then he quit chess organizing.

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: The 2004 Lipnowski-Mattson incident

The organizer was the respected David Lavin, and (as far as I know) he paid out all the prizes. I think it was the last tournament he organized for about 20 years.

There was another Toronto tournament around the same time period in which the organizer (not Lavin) paid out all the prizes, but late cheque-cashers had their cheques bounce (I was one of them). The prizes were paid (with interest) a year or two later.

[Ian Findlay]

Re: The 2004 Lipnowski-Mattson incident

The organizer was the respected David Lavin, and (as far as I know) he paid out all the prizes. I think it was the last tournament he organized for about 20 years.

There was another Toronto tournament around the same time period in which the organizer (not Lavin) paid out all the prizes, but late cheque-cashers had their cheques bounce (I was one of them). The prizes were paid (with interest) a year or two later.

Yes, I got paid for the Lavin tournament, but as Hugh mentions in another tournament, which I believe was a Canadian Open, I took chess equipment in lieu of cash. It was not organized by Lavin. It was a big treat for everyone to watch Korchnoi play in person. He had so much energy at the board and rarely got up from the board. The downside was he insisted on being allowed to smoke at the board. Korchnoi also expressed a desire to come to Toronto, so his appearance fee probably was not as high as many people thought.

[Frank Dixon]

Re: The 2004 Lipnowski-Mattson incident

The Lipnowski -- Mattson incident, appeal sequence, and final outcome were all described in detail in the October 2004 magazine issue covering the 2004 Canadian Open.

[Christopher Mallon]

Re: The 2004 Lipnowski-Mattson incident

I'm pretty sure intentional acknowledged cheating shouldn't fall under the same rule as a piece accidentally getting displaced (which in my experience is more often the fault of the next game over)... But interesting to bring up the last time a NAC appeal went to the Executive... (I'm not aware of any in the meantime?)

[Steve Douglas]

Re: The 2004 Lipnowski-Mattson incident

I'm pretty sure intentional acknowledged cheating shouldn't fall under the same rule as a piece accidentally getting displaced (which in my experience is more often the fault of the next game over)... But interesting to bring up the last time a NAC appeal went to the Executive... (I'm not aware of any in the meantime?)

There seems to be the lingering impression that in 2004 the CFC Executive overruled the NAC. That is not the case. In 2004 the matter was appealed to the NAC which overturned the tournament appeals committee ruling. The matter was never appealed to the Executive. The NAC referred the matter to the CFC Business Office and Executive to ensure that the crosstable was corrected, the game re-rated, etc. The NAC made recommendations about discipline but deferred to the Executive for a final determination. The Executive did not overturn an NAC ruling, it merely followed up and implemented the recommendations of the NAC.

Here is an excerpt of the NAC decision at the time:

The decision of the NAC is that the result of the game must be reversed, and declared a
win for Mr Mattson. The NAC agrees with the Appeals Committee that Mr Mattson’s
resignation did end the game. But there is ample latitude in the Laws to overturn a result
where fraud or coercion has been employed to secure resignation. For example, Articles
13.4 e) and 13.4 f) clearly give the Arbiter (and by extension the Appeals Committee and
the NAC) the power to reverse a score. The action of Mr Lipnowski was cheating, pure
and simple, and cannot be tolerated.

The NAC instructs the CFC Business Office to do the following:

• Change the official crosstable of the event to show that in the 10th round Mr
Mattson won his encounter with Mr Lipnowski. Because this game was played in
the last round, Handbook section 1952 is not applicable, so this can be done.

• That the necessary steps be taken to re-rate this game both CFC and Fide to
reflect Mr Mattson’s victory – reference Handbook section 1951.

• That the $35 dollar appeal fee be returned to the appellant – Handbook section
1906.

• That an effort be made to secure the scoresheets and return them to the players.

The NAC understands that Mr Mattson would have secured a prize had he scored 5.5
points at the Open. With our ruling above this has now happened. The NAC recommends
that the CFC pay to Mr Mattson an amount equal to what he would have won had his 10th
round game been recorded as a victory on July 18. The determination of said amount
owing to Mr Mattson shall be made by the Business Office through consultation with the
organizers. This expense may be defrayed in whole or in part through a fine levied
against Mr Lipnowski. The NAC has no mandate to rule in this matter – indeed
Handbook section 1953 suggests we stay away – so we refer this recommendation to the
CFC Executive for their consideration.

The remaining question is what further sanctions should or ought to be applied. It is clear
that Mr Lipnowski’s actions have brought the game into disrepute [Fide Article 12.1],
and we never want to see this repeated. The NAC considered the question of additional
sanctions but could reach no consensus. Again, the NAC must emphasize that it has no
mandate to impose or enforce such sanctions, so we refer this matter as well to the CFC
Executive for their consideration.

The whole sordid matter can be read here: http://www.chess.ca/sites/default/files/04-05gl1.pdf

Steve