I am replying to http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/sh...ments-of-Chair here on chesstalk, because more people will read it here.
Here is the text of my appeal. Not sure how to make an attachment..not working for me.
Noritsyn vs. NAC
I, Nikolay Noritsyn, would like to appeal the NAC’s ruling to the CFC Board of Directors.
Recusal of Mark Dutton and Lyle Craver
I am appealing against the NAC. Mark Dutton and Lyle Craver are both members of the NAC. The principal of nemo judex in causa sua, literally, no one should be a judge in his own cause, would dictate that they cannot fairly participate in a vote for an appeal against them. I ask that they both be recused from this decision.
Recusal of Vlad Drkulec
Vlad Drkulec has displayed bias against me online, on ChessTalk. He has publicly called me a “hater” and stated that he has blocked my posts. He has also made disparaging comments about atheists and leftists, groups in which he includes me. On Chess.com, in the comments section of the article about this matter, he has had comments removed for being personal attacks, and has called people who support my stance “sheep” and a “lynch mob.” He has not displayed impartiality, or the detached perspective necessary to make a fair judgement. I ask that he be recused from this decision.
General Claim
In the game in question, I accidentally promoted to a rook when I placed an upside-down rook on the promotion square. However, I was only put in a position where I had to use an upside-down rook to represent a queen because of Sambuev’s illegal actions and the Arbiter’s missteps. Sambuev’s illegal actions and the Arbiter’s missteps came well before my incorrect promotion and, in fact, directly led to the scenario in which my incorrect promotion quite understandably took place. With four seconds on my clock, I was expected to do the job of the Arbiter and make sure that Sambuev was not breaking rules. That is an unreasonable expectation. Sambuev breaking rules and the Arbiter failing to enforce the rules led directly to my loss in that game and, as it stands now, I am the only one being punished for my opponent’s malfeasance and the Arbiter’s failure to correct such malfeasance. Had the Arbiter enforced the rules, or had Sambuev followed them without Arbiter intervention, the entire outcome of the game would have been different. Thus, the result as it currently stands cannot reasonably be considered a fair result.
Specific Claims Against Sambuev
The NAC ruled incorrectly when it ruled in Sambuev’s favor. The claims against Sambuev are derived from the FIDE Laws of Chess.
11.1: The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute.
Sambuev undoubtedly took an action that has brought the game of chess into disrepute. Looking at the response from both the international and Canadian chess communities online makes this clear.
https://www.chess.com/news/view/cont...-5047#comments
http://forum.chesstalk.com/showthrea...n-Championship
http://forum.chesstalk.com/showthrea...-chess-history
http://forum.chesstalk.com/showthrea...Closed-playoff
http://forum.chesstalk.com/showthrea...scussion-Board
There are two things that Sambuev has done that have brought the game into disrepute. First, he held my queen when I needed it to promote. Second, he chose not to speak up after the Arbiter intervened, instead placing my queen back on the table, leading the Arbiter to believe that it had always been there. Had he not done either of these things, public opinion about our game would not be so negative.
Disrepute is defined as “the state of being held in low esteem by the public.” That is exactly what has happened as a result of Sambuev’s actions. 11.1 is designed to make sure chess is taken seriously. When clutching one’s opponent’s pieces and then remaining silent about it becomes an avenue to victory, the game of chess is undoubtedly taken less seriously. The public’s reaction towards Sambuev and towards the result of the final game is evidence of that.
11.5: It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever.
The game of chess, especially at high levels, is an intense intellectual enterprise. As such, being focused is key to playing a successful chess game. When playing a chess game, a chess player is in a mental “zone” and pulling one’s opponent out of this zone can disadvantage him. It is for that reason that 11.5 exists. It is designed to stop players from disrupting their opponents by pulling them out of their zone, and thus hindering their ability to play at their best. However, this is precisely what Sambuev did to me.
I was distracted by Sambuev holding my queen. When I went to grab my queen I was acting out of instinct. I was completely in my chess “zone.” However, because my queen was not there, I was pulled out of this zone. Thus, it was during the course of Sambuev’s distraction, when said distraction put me in a mental state in which I should never have been, when I accidentally promoted my pawn to a rook.
The notion that my accident, though caused by my opponent’s distraction, should work to my opponent’s advantage is perverse to basic principles of fairness. If his distraction had been a loud noise, and I had accidentally dropped my piece on the wrong square as a response to his loud noise, there would be no way a tournament director would enforce that move. However, that is essentially what happened. If what Sambuev did works to his advantage, it essentially telegraphs to players that distracting behaviour is acceptable and that the successes such behaviour brings will not be questioned.
Arbiter’s Involvement
Even the NAC noted the Arbiter’s missteps. These include:
- not providing extra queens at the beginning of the game (in the video, one of the arbiters even exclaims in French that “it was our duty to provide the queens”)
- not noticing my opponent had the black queen
- not thinking about queens being available even as there were three pawns ready for promotion
- not giving me the chance to appeal to the tournament appeals committee (the proper appeal process)
It is clear that the game was not managed well by the Arbiter. The Arbiter’s missteps were so crucial to what transpired as to make the Arbiter’s mistakes real influences on the result of the game. That should never be the case. The result of the game should be the product of the play of the two opponents. When the Arbiter’s mistakes influence the result of the game, the game ceases to be a fair game of chess as we know it.
Response to NAC Report
Aris Marghetis, I.A., I.O.
Marghetis (and Craver) disapproves of the format of my appeal. However, the CFC has no laws on appeals, as the handbook is just a guide. I was also misinformed by the Board of Directors that I would get to communicate directly with the NAC, which did not happen.
It is also unclear why FIDE article 11.5 does not apply; it doesn't specify that the annoyance or distraction must be deliberate. A distraction, deliberate or not, definitely happened. The black queen was unavailable because of Bator Sambuev’s actions. The fact that he was committing this distraction when I had four seconds left only amplifies the effect it had. Bator Sambuev’s actions (making the black queen unavailable) directly distracted me.
Lyle Craver, I.A.
Craver claims that “barring any additional evidence that concealing the queen was deliberate (which I do not see in the video) I do not see how a 11.1 claim (‘bringing the game into disrepute’) is possible.” Once again, the FIDE rule does not state if the action performed that brings the game into disrepute must be deliberate. A large portion of the Canadian and international public that read about the story does think the game has been brought into disrepute (the state of being held in low esteem by the public). Many even call Bator Sambuev a cheater.
Also, Craver says that with regards to not having my queen available, I “should definitely not have been put in that position in the first place.” If that is the case, then why am I the only one of the parties involved (Arbiter, Sambuev, Noritsyn) that comes out as a victim?
Summary
Sambuev violated 11.1 and 11.5. Doing so led to his victory. It is unclear whether he knew he was breaking the rules when he broke them. What is clear, from video evidence, is that he broke them. It’s also clear that, when given the chance to speak up about his withholding my queen, he chose to remain silent. As it stands, he has benefited from his rule violations.
The Arbiter did not enforce the rules and did not make sure the game was being held under conditions which would lead to a fair result (by failing to provide queens, failing to notice that Sambuev was holding my queen, failing to check that queens were available with three pawns on the brink of promotion, etc.). Because of the Arbiter’s mistakes, the game ceased to be a fair game of chess. The unfairness was skewed entirely one way. Sambuev benefited, and I lost out.
Here is the text of my appeal. Not sure how to make an attachment..not working for me.
Noritsyn vs. NAC
I, Nikolay Noritsyn, would like to appeal the NAC’s ruling to the CFC Board of Directors.
Recusal of Mark Dutton and Lyle Craver
I am appealing against the NAC. Mark Dutton and Lyle Craver are both members of the NAC. The principal of nemo judex in causa sua, literally, no one should be a judge in his own cause, would dictate that they cannot fairly participate in a vote for an appeal against them. I ask that they both be recused from this decision.
Recusal of Vlad Drkulec
Vlad Drkulec has displayed bias against me online, on ChessTalk. He has publicly called me a “hater” and stated that he has blocked my posts. He has also made disparaging comments about atheists and leftists, groups in which he includes me. On Chess.com, in the comments section of the article about this matter, he has had comments removed for being personal attacks, and has called people who support my stance “sheep” and a “lynch mob.” He has not displayed impartiality, or the detached perspective necessary to make a fair judgement. I ask that he be recused from this decision.
General Claim
In the game in question, I accidentally promoted to a rook when I placed an upside-down rook on the promotion square. However, I was only put in a position where I had to use an upside-down rook to represent a queen because of Sambuev’s illegal actions and the Arbiter’s missteps. Sambuev’s illegal actions and the Arbiter’s missteps came well before my incorrect promotion and, in fact, directly led to the scenario in which my incorrect promotion quite understandably took place. With four seconds on my clock, I was expected to do the job of the Arbiter and make sure that Sambuev was not breaking rules. That is an unreasonable expectation. Sambuev breaking rules and the Arbiter failing to enforce the rules led directly to my loss in that game and, as it stands now, I am the only one being punished for my opponent’s malfeasance and the Arbiter’s failure to correct such malfeasance. Had the Arbiter enforced the rules, or had Sambuev followed them without Arbiter intervention, the entire outcome of the game would have been different. Thus, the result as it currently stands cannot reasonably be considered a fair result.
Specific Claims Against Sambuev
The NAC ruled incorrectly when it ruled in Sambuev’s favor. The claims against Sambuev are derived from the FIDE Laws of Chess.
11.1: The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute.
Sambuev undoubtedly took an action that has brought the game of chess into disrepute. Looking at the response from both the international and Canadian chess communities online makes this clear.
https://www.chess.com/news/view/cont...-5047#comments
http://forum.chesstalk.com/showthrea...n-Championship
http://forum.chesstalk.com/showthrea...-chess-history
http://forum.chesstalk.com/showthrea...Closed-playoff
http://forum.chesstalk.com/showthrea...scussion-Board
There are two things that Sambuev has done that have brought the game into disrepute. First, he held my queen when I needed it to promote. Second, he chose not to speak up after the Arbiter intervened, instead placing my queen back on the table, leading the Arbiter to believe that it had always been there. Had he not done either of these things, public opinion about our game would not be so negative.
Disrepute is defined as “the state of being held in low esteem by the public.” That is exactly what has happened as a result of Sambuev’s actions. 11.1 is designed to make sure chess is taken seriously. When clutching one’s opponent’s pieces and then remaining silent about it becomes an avenue to victory, the game of chess is undoubtedly taken less seriously. The public’s reaction towards Sambuev and towards the result of the final game is evidence of that.
11.5: It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever.
The game of chess, especially at high levels, is an intense intellectual enterprise. As such, being focused is key to playing a successful chess game. When playing a chess game, a chess player is in a mental “zone” and pulling one’s opponent out of this zone can disadvantage him. It is for that reason that 11.5 exists. It is designed to stop players from disrupting their opponents by pulling them out of their zone, and thus hindering their ability to play at their best. However, this is precisely what Sambuev did to me.
I was distracted by Sambuev holding my queen. When I went to grab my queen I was acting out of instinct. I was completely in my chess “zone.” However, because my queen was not there, I was pulled out of this zone. Thus, it was during the course of Sambuev’s distraction, when said distraction put me in a mental state in which I should never have been, when I accidentally promoted my pawn to a rook.
The notion that my accident, though caused by my opponent’s distraction, should work to my opponent’s advantage is perverse to basic principles of fairness. If his distraction had been a loud noise, and I had accidentally dropped my piece on the wrong square as a response to his loud noise, there would be no way a tournament director would enforce that move. However, that is essentially what happened. If what Sambuev did works to his advantage, it essentially telegraphs to players that distracting behaviour is acceptable and that the successes such behaviour brings will not be questioned.
Arbiter’s Involvement
Even the NAC noted the Arbiter’s missteps. These include:
- not providing extra queens at the beginning of the game (in the video, one of the arbiters even exclaims in French that “it was our duty to provide the queens”)
- not noticing my opponent had the black queen
- not thinking about queens being available even as there were three pawns ready for promotion
- not giving me the chance to appeal to the tournament appeals committee (the proper appeal process)
It is clear that the game was not managed well by the Arbiter. The Arbiter’s missteps were so crucial to what transpired as to make the Arbiter’s mistakes real influences on the result of the game. That should never be the case. The result of the game should be the product of the play of the two opponents. When the Arbiter’s mistakes influence the result of the game, the game ceases to be a fair game of chess as we know it.
Response to NAC Report
Aris Marghetis, I.A., I.O.
Marghetis (and Craver) disapproves of the format of my appeal. However, the CFC has no laws on appeals, as the handbook is just a guide. I was also misinformed by the Board of Directors that I would get to communicate directly with the NAC, which did not happen.
It is also unclear why FIDE article 11.5 does not apply; it doesn't specify that the annoyance or distraction must be deliberate. A distraction, deliberate or not, definitely happened. The black queen was unavailable because of Bator Sambuev’s actions. The fact that he was committing this distraction when I had four seconds left only amplifies the effect it had. Bator Sambuev’s actions (making the black queen unavailable) directly distracted me.
Lyle Craver, I.A.
Craver claims that “barring any additional evidence that concealing the queen was deliberate (which I do not see in the video) I do not see how a 11.1 claim (‘bringing the game into disrepute’) is possible.” Once again, the FIDE rule does not state if the action performed that brings the game into disrepute must be deliberate. A large portion of the Canadian and international public that read about the story does think the game has been brought into disrepute (the state of being held in low esteem by the public). Many even call Bator Sambuev a cheater.
Also, Craver says that with regards to not having my queen available, I “should definitely not have been put in that position in the first place.” If that is the case, then why am I the only one of the parties involved (Arbiter, Sambuev, Noritsyn) that comes out as a victim?
Summary
Sambuev violated 11.1 and 11.5. Doing so led to his victory. It is unclear whether he knew he was breaking the rules when he broke them. What is clear, from video evidence, is that he broke them. It’s also clear that, when given the chance to speak up about his withholding my queen, he chose to remain silent. As it stands, he has benefited from his rule violations.
The Arbiter did not enforce the rules and did not make sure the game was being held under conditions which would lead to a fair result (by failing to provide queens, failing to notice that Sambuev was holding my queen, failing to check that queens were available with three pawns on the brink of promotion, etc.). Because of the Arbiter’s mistakes, the game ceased to be a fair game of chess. The unfairness was skewed entirely one way. Sambuev benefited, and I lost out.
Comment