Conclusion of Noritsyn vs NAC Appeal

[Nikolay Noritsyn]

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.

[Nikolay Noritsyn]

Re: Conclusion of Noritsyn vs NAC Appeal

continuation:

Remedy
This is an extraordinary situation and thus requires an extraordinary remedy. It is clear that Sambuev violated 11.1 and 11.5 and benefited from doing so. Equally as importantly, the Arbiter made several missteps which led to the game completely ceasing to be a fair game of chess. Had the Arbiter enforced 11.1 and 11.5 at the board, the game may have been able to be continued at the board under fair conditions. Alas, the Arbiter did not, and a fair game of chess was not played.
Most infractions can be resolved at the board. When the Arbiter fails to enforce the rules at the board, however, we cannot simply travel back in time and enforce the rules. Both players have had a chance to analyze the game. It was an unfair game, that cannot be fairly continued at any point. Thus, an extraordinary remedy is necessary.
I ask that the game be replayed. The specific details and the effect this has on the World Cup, Continental and Canadian Olympiad Team can be decided afterwards. After all, if Sambuev wins, there will be no issue. What I would like the CFC to decide today, however, is that the result of the final blitz game be thrown out, due to the whole game and its result being tainted, and that the title of 2017 Canadian Champion remain undecided between Sambuev and I until further plans for another playoff game are finalized. If the CFC should rule in my favor, I think an appropriate next step would be a mediation, between me, Sambuev, and a mutual party or mutual parties, to determine what to do in light of all the factors, including the short time period until the World Cup.
Denommee brought up in his Arbiter’s Report that the remedy for an 11.5 violation is more time, and more time wouldn’t help me. I believe that’s irrelevant to my argument for multiple reasons. First, I am alleging both an 11.1 violation and an 11.5 violation. Second, I’m also arguing that the Arbiter’s behaviour prevented the game from being carried out fairly. Third, his 11.5 violation took place for approximately three minutes, as that’s how long he was holding the queen. If the Arbiter had stepped in at any point and enforced 11.5, I undoubtedly would have promoted to a queen instead of accidentally promoting to a rook. The entire course of the game would have been different and we have no way of knowing what would have happened.
It should be noted that a seemingly finalized result, agreed on by both players and the arbiter, is not always final. In 2004, the NAC overturned the result of a game between Samuel Lipnowski and Dane Mattson. Lipnowski moved one of his opponent’s pieces while his opponent was away from the board. The NAC, because of his malfeasance, declared the game lost by him, despite the fact that Mattson had resigned at the board (not realizing that Lipnowski had cheated). The reason why is because Lipnowski’s piece adjustment changed the position from one in which he was clearly lost to one in which he was clearly won. I am not asking for such a severe remedy for two reasons. First, had Sambuev not violated 11.1 and 11.5, I would not have been clearly winning. We would have had an unclear position in a blitz game with a three second increment. Second, the validity of the result of this game is questionable not just because of Sambuev’s actions, but because of the Arbiter’s actions as well.
Remedies to chess complaints usually take place at the board. But this is an unusual circumstance, in that we have video of the game. The FIDE Laws of Chess make it clear that the game of chess should not be brought into disrepute. That is now up to you. The title of Canadian Champion can be decided by a game full of rule violations taking place in front of an unprepared arbiter, all captured on video, or it can be decided by a new game, played fairly, and properly organized. I ask not just that you rule in my favor, but that you rule in the favor of the image of chess, and Canadian chess in particular. Don’t let the manner in which that playoff game was held be the standard for the highest level of chess in our country. Let a fair game take place.

[Nikolay Noritsyn]

Re: Conclusion of Noritsyn vs NAC Appeal

I have no good words for the "majority report" ...but I will try.

Drkulec writes:

"Since Vlad Drkulec did not read Nikolay's postings on Chesstalk he was not aware of the claimed characteristics which would lead to alleged bias. Though Lyle Craver and Mark Dutton did abstain from voting these requests were denied. If Vlad Drkulec had any bias against Nikolay Noritsyn it would have been exhibited in 2014 when Nikolay was allowed to join the coach staff of the team to the WYCC in South Africa very late in the process. Frank Lee the youth coordinator and Vlad Drkulec made the decision to allow Nikolay to join the team which allowed his brother Sergey to go as the official player. The player who would have benefited from Sergey not going was the son of friends of Vladimir Drkulec who had tied with Sergey for first place but lost on tie break. Vladimir not voting on the NAC appeal would have opened the vote up to the possibility of a tie which would not be desirable."

Drkulec has read my posts and replied to them..and publicly called me a hater and put me in his ignore list. According to him, he has no bias against me - he "allowed" me to be a coach at World Youth in 2014. The way coaching at WYCC goes..its mostly a volunteer experience, and very hard work. I enjoyed it very much the two times I went as coach, but it is what it is. The way things are, CFC should be begging coaches to come aboard, but it seems I was "allowed". I feel very motivated now about considering going to WYCC in September. :(
So Drkulec has the indecency to vote, while McKim abstains. Who would have thought.

Drkulec writes:

"In the case of the three votes against the new appeal, the sentiment was that there was no new information in Nikolay's appeal to the executive that was not available to the National Appeals Committee."

None of the points made in the appeal have been addressed by the "majority report".

Drkulec writes:

"The disturbance seems to have occurred after the game was over upon Nikolay observing the video of the game. Nikolay made several assertions that Bator's actions were illegal and should be penalized but the majority did not accept this argument."

The majority did not provide any rationale not to accept this argument.

"Bator did stop the clock when the arbiter had difficulty doing so and prevented Nikolay from losing on time."

I strongly doubt you even watched the video.

To conclude. I am done with this. I have a very negative opinion about how this was handled, from start to end. Thank you everybody who supported me. Life lessons learned. I am better at playing and teaching chess.. I will stick to that and try to avoid certain people and appeals committees as much as possible.

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Conclusion of Noritsyn vs NAC Appeal

I'm sorry it ended this way for you, Nikolay. I think you were treated really unfairly from start to finish. I hope there's some justice in the universe and that the scales tip back your way soon.

[Sid Belzberg]

Re: Conclusion of Noritsyn vs NAC Appeal

So Drkulec has the indecency to vote, while McKim abstains. Who would have thought.

Fred Mckim is a spineless coward who also did not participate in the CFC decision to endorse Putin's bum boy, the murderous ex dictator who thinks he was abducted by aliens as the president of FIDE. A decision that made the CFC look like a horse's ass in front of the entire country. Fred, lead follow or get of the way!

[Jason Manley]

Re: Conclusion of Noritsyn vs NAC Appeal

Fred Mckim is a spineless coward who also did not participate in the CFC decision to endorse Putin's bum boy, the murderous ex dictator who thinks he was abducted by aliens as the president of FIDE. A decision that made the CFC look like a horse's ass in front of the entire country. Fred, lead follow or get of the way!

Or we could appreciate that a man who already gives a significant amount of time to chess as an integral part of the tournament scene, not just in his province, but throughout the Maritimes, is willing to give even more time to serve in the less-than-glorious position of Treasurer on the CFC Executive, while also being one of the most visible and readily accessible presences from the CFC on national message boards such as this, rather than attacking him for abstaining on an issue from years ago.

[Sam Sharpe]

Re: Conclusion of Noritsyn vs NAC Appeal

Or we could appreciate that a man who already gives a significant amount of time to chess as an integral part of the tournament scene, not just in his province, but throughout the Maritimes, is willing to give even more time to serve in the less-than-glorious position of Treasurer on the CFC Executive, while also being one of the most visible and readily accessible presences from the CFC on national message boards such as this, rather than attacking him for abstaining on an issue from years ago.

That's so very un-Chesstalky! :p

[Sid Belzberg]

Re: Conclusion of Noritsyn vs NAC Appeal

Or we could appreciate that a man who already gives a significant amount of time to chess as an integral part of the tournament scene, not just in his province, but throughout the Maritimes, is willing to give even more time to serve in the less-than-glorious position of Treasurer on the CFC Executive, while also being one of the most visible and readily accessible presences from the CFC on national message boards such as this, rather than attacking him for abstaining on an issue from years ago.

No he also abstained from the above current issue.and I also don't give a damn what you appreciate. I did not receive much appreciation for the hundreds of thousands of dollars of sponsorship given to the CFC over the years either.

[Mavros Whissell]

Re: Conclusion of Noritsyn vs NAC Appeal

To conclude. I am done with this. I have a very negative opinion about how this was handled, from start to end. Thank you everybody who supported me. Life lessons learned. I am better at playing and teaching chess.. I will stick to that and try to avoid certain people and appeals committees as much as possible.

This is an unfortunate turn of events. In my mind the responsibility is clear, and starts with the opposing player, then the arbiter, and only then the appeals committee.

Of course the appeals committee has a greater worry that most likely made the decision for them. Bator has already been awarded the prize and standing, and there was no crystal-clear FIDE law that he could be hit with to overturn that verdict. I will briefly mention Sid's pointing to distraction, which is valid and Nikolay even used, but the CFC did not accept. Vlad was correct in believing the CFC could have been sued, I believe, if they overturned the decision, because removing Bator's prize could be viewed as "damaging/damages", whereas Nikolay never actually received his due, and so proving "damages" for Nikolay would be much more difficult. Its harder to prove you lost something that was never there and there was no clear rule to help you with either. Thus the CFC protected itself, and to some extent they have to do this. I really think that was more of a motivating factor than the opinion against Nikolay.

I certainly don't agree with Nikolay's views if they are indeed atheist or communist, but that means absolutely nothing towards what I believe about this situation. Its just too clear from the video that the result of this game should be different. To that end, I'm sorry to Nikolay since the outcome was quite important financially and chess career-wise, in addition to on basic principle. I urge my fellow chess players to make their decisions just based on facts as opposed to personal opinions when it comes to such matters.

I think the real mistakes and problems are at the root of this occurrence. Hiding the piece, deliberate or not, should not be allowed. The arbiter's error also exists to some extent, since simple preparation could have avoided this whole circumstance.

Nikolay I wish to suggest that whatever life-lesson you have learned about the CFC, it would be a mistake to place the majority of your blame there. There were two shots to make it right before it even got to the CFC, and neither the player or the arbiter did as they should have.

[John Brown]

Re: Conclusion of Noritsyn vs NAC Appeal

They wanted a GM to represent Canada plain and simple. Playing a speed match to decide a champion is Stupid,

[Mavros Whissell]

Re: Conclusion of Noritsyn vs NAC Appeal

Sid,

That sounds like a pretty big error on the part of the CFC. I am not sure what time period that was during. Any organization dependant on sponsorship (non-religious) should bring their patrons to the fore and acknowledge their contributions. Especially chess in North America, good luck getting someone behind that with any significant amount of money. The US has recently got Sinquefield - and look at the impact he has made.

I was watching a baseball game with the St. Louis cardinals - and get this.... the trainer has the players play CHESS!! Incredible!! What kind of exposure and connections are occurring to make this happen! This is what sponsorship can lead to. It was incredible to listen to the announcer for the cardinals talking about how chess playing was helping out a baseball team... for several years no less.

[Fred McKim]

Re: Conclusion of Noritsyn vs NAC Appeal

No he also abstained from the above current issue.and I also don't give a damn what you appreciate. I did not receive much appreciation for the hundreds of thousands of dollars of sponsorship given to the CFC over the years either.

Sid

I found the whole KI vs GK election incentives to the CFC distasteful and because of that chose to abstain. I'm sorry your 30-45 minute phone call to me over that didn't go the way you wanted.

I appreciate all of your financial contributions to the CFC over the years, but the only ones I am personally aware of was your sponsorship of the Olympic team(s) on one or two occasions 20 or 25 years ago.

I will speak about the NN matter in due course.

Sometimes volunteer hours are worth as much or more than $ given, especially with strings attached.

In my opinion, you only diminish yourself in the eyes of the readers with your choice of words and I will NEVER stoop to your level.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Conclusion of Noritsyn vs NAC Appeal

Drkulec has read my posts and replied to them..and publicly called me a hater and put me in his ignore list. According to him, he has no bias against me - he "allowed" me to be a coach at World Youth in 2014.

We wound up with four or five coaches and only fifteen or so kids going to that tournament so yes, the characterization of "allowed" is correct. It was a favour to your mother and your brother. You are the one who seems to have a bug up your butt about my online postings. My post about your hater status was after about a dozen or more that I ignored. If you want to appeal to the executive then you get to appeal to the executive and not a subset of the executive that you think might support your cause.

People move in and out of my ignore list especially these days when you don't have to remove them from the list to read a post.

[Sid Belzberg]

Re: Conclusion of Noritsyn vs NAC Appeal

Sid

I found the whole KI vs GK election incentives to the CFC distasteful and because of that chose to abstain. I'm sorry your 30-45 minute phone call to me over that didn't go the way you wanted.

I appreciate all of your financial contributions to the CFC over the years, but the only ones I am personally aware of was your sponsorship of the Olympic team(s) on one or two occasions 20 or 25 years ago.

I will speak about the NN matter in due course.

Sometimes volunteer hours are worth as much or more than $ given, especially with strings attached.

In my opinion, you only diminish yourself in the eyes of the readers with your choice of words and I will NEVER stoop to your level.

but the only ones I am personally aware of was your sponsorship of the Olympic team(s) on one or two occasions 20 or 25 years ago.

It was a lot more then that and a lot more recent then that, so what you are "personally aware of" is irrelevant. Do not try to diminish what I have contributed by leaving yourself plausible deniability with weasel words like "personally aware of". You may think the audience here are idiots but they are not.

Sometimes volunteer hours are worth as much or more than $ given, especially with strings attached.

Tell me once where there were ever any strings attached to any $ I donated to the CFC? Stop making up lies. You want to libel me you had better have facts to back up what you say.

I will speak about the NN matter in due course.

Too little too late, your lack of action fucked him over nicely already, what are you going to say in "due course" "I'm sorry" ??

I found the whole KI vs GK election incentives to the CFC distasteful and because of that chose to abstain

Such a big hero, you watched the CFC endorse Putin's boy and sat by and did nothing. At least you could have voted against endorsing him even if you were ok with the FIDE rep casting a vote in Kirsan's favor. This way Putin got a huge propaganda victory.

In my opinion, you only diminish yourself in the eyes of the readers with your choice of words and I will NEVER stoop to your level.

Your opinion holds no currency with me. I agree with the second statement, you stooped far lower then that, you allowed acts to occur that actually caused significant damage to the CFC reputation and in NN's case damaged his career.

If you don't ever want to take responsibility for anything then you should not be on the executive of the CFC. Abstaining from decisions that affect other people's life in a serious way just does not cut it.

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: Conclusion of Noritsyn vs NAC Appeal

Fred Mckim is a spineless coward who also did not participate in the CFC decision to endorse Putin's bum boy, the murderous ex dictator who thinks he was abducted by aliens as the president of FIDE. A decision that made the CFC look like a horse's ass in front of the entire country. Fred, lead follow or get of the way!

Sid, I find your post offensive. Fred is a valued member of the chess community, his contribution is immense.
Fred is our best diplomat, he treats everyone with courtesy and respect. You owe him an apology.