If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
I am sure FIDE is getting to the bottom of it at the moment.
I am not so sure.
Although it is interesting that they have relieved Mr. Tsypin of his duties on the Management Committee. This must cause you some concern! We may suppose that FIDE deem or know him to be the deliverer of the doctored email. How will Mr. Tsypin explain to FIDE how he got the email, which of course he will claim was NOT doctored by himself? This may cause you problems! He may in fact claim that because he was sent a doctored email and mislead by it, he too is a victim in all of this. That would hurt! If he is quiet on the subject then likely FIDE will not give him his job back, but if he divulges the identity of the culprit then maybe FIDE will let him continue? Let us hope not! Will Tsypin tell lies to try to save his own skin, or tell the truth because this he believes is more likely to help him to save his skin? One thing is for sure, he will save his own ass first. He will not be worried over yours! He may well toss his cohort in cahoots under the bus in order to attempt to save himself. Oh dear!
Did you ever think about all of this, dude? How does it feel to sweat like a caged rat?
I too find the premise that Hal's computer was hacked or his email intercepted at the airport to be far too convenient an "explanation". Let me be clear that I have worked for many years in IT security and I *do* realize that these things are possible - especially intercepting email - but, seriously? I agree with Brad's post unless some proper evidence is shown regarding hacking or interception.
A more reasonable "explanation" is that Hal's original email was (perhaps inadvertently?) bandied about outside the CFC Executive and it was forwarded to someone who could reframe it and send it to FIDE.
Peter's suggestion that FIDE should know WHO sent them the email is the first place to start - if they are unwilling to divulge THAT piece of info then I think we can assume it is indeed an inside job. The only question remains: inside FIDE or inside the CFC or could it be a bit of both?
The entire mess around Hal's departure (and the couple of YEARS of nonsense leading up to it) is enough for some heads to roll.
By the way Brad, I believe that 2+2=5 for sufficient large values of 2.
The original email was pretty innocuous. The forgery was obviously done by a European. The only board member that I didn't know well at the time was Egis. Along with everyone else, he denied sharing it. I am sure FIDE is getting to the bottom of it at the moment. The last time I heard the term Zionist in conversation was in Rabbi Plaut's world religion class in 1973 or so.
Some questions. Were Hal's reports to the CFC executive considered confidential? That is, was someone on the executive in 2018 indiscreet with Hal's report, thus leading to the subsequent alteration of his email? Or are we to wonder if someone on the executive was directly responsible for altering Hal's report?
Regarding FIDE's email above, are we to understand that the alteration of Hal's report is only now coming to FIDE's attention??? Why wasn't the CFC fully supporting Hal when the alteration first came to light?
Everyone on the executive denies that they shared the file. There are ways to get an email with certain software that can be installed on a phone or computer but the email was sent from an airport hence making it unlikely that one person was behind it.
We supported Hal. We did not proceed with any application for the FIDE program and indeed getting rid of Hal would not have helped our application according to Berik.
The problem is that Hal wanted to solve a problem at the CFC level that needed to be solved at the FIDE level but he seemed incurious about the origin of the email forgery seizing on the first suspect and never letting go.
Anyway, now that FIDE is investigating there should be some resolution at the level where it should have been investigated from the beginning.
Last edited by Vlad Drkulec; Friday, 26th February, 2021, 10:09 PM.
I met Hal at one of his tournaments in the 1980s and have observed and talked with him on many occasions since.
The incriminating email "forwarded" to FIDE is such a bad forgery that I actually laughed the first time I read it. It is not only wildly out of character with the controlled and cautious and rule-enforcing Hal that I have known, but also the language of the offending bits is a ridiculous hash of Stalinist propaganda written by someone whose first language is very clearly not English:
"a towering figure over new dwarfs."
"the joint forces of Putin, Zionism, Kasparov, USA etc."
"Macro's enlightened leadership."
How could anybody read that and not see it as bullshit? Even if we ignore the bit about "Zionism", no one with any familiarity with chess and/or politics could possibly lump Putin with Kasparov. Hal would have to be an utter imbecile to write that; and Hal is not an imbecile.
Sadly, it seems there are people in FIDE who can be duped by such a ham-handed forgery, and Hal has suffered because of it. This includes being removed as an official from a major FIDE event while FIDE was (supposedly) reviewing the case against him [I think this was the London WC match, but I may be misremembering].
I look forward to attending Hal's future tournaments -- if this hasn't soured him so much as to quit chess entirely -- and hope to see him as FIDE rep some time in the future.
This thread, despite its relative shortness, contains a lot of information. So, Fred, if I've overlooked something please feel free to point it out. The altered email was a fall 2018 occurrence. Your last sentence above suggests to me that the CFC broached the matter with FIDE in 2018/2019? But the FIDE email posted by Vlad (see below) suggests that FIDE has only just become aware of the matter. Are you able to shed some light on these seeming inconsistencies?
I would also like to ask Fred what exactly was meant by the opening sentence ("After the 2018 FIDE election it became increasingly obvious that FIDE considered Hal to be a liability.")
This to me is an extraordinary statement - why would Hal be considered a liability? By whom exactly?
After the 2018 FIDE election it became increasingly obvious that FIDE considered Hal to be a liability. After some investigation by Hal, he found that a letter he had written to the CFC Executive had somehow been leaked to the FIDE Management board, but only after it had been altered to be critical of the new FIDE President. ....
This whole matter was brought to the highest level of FIDE once we found out.
Fred
CFC Executive Member
This thread, despite its relative shortness, contains a lot of information. So, Fred, if I've overlooked something please feel free to point it out. The altered email was a fall 2018 occurrence. Your last sentence above suggests to me that the CFC broached the matter with FIDE in 2018/2019? But the FIDE email posted by Vlad (see below) suggests that FIDE has only just become aware of the matter. Are you able to shed some light on these seeming inconsistencies?
As a FIDE lawyer, I would like to state that it was with a great concern that we learned the information published today at the Chesstalk Canada. I would like to assure you with all responsibility that the current FIDE management has always adhered to the highest ethical standards in its work. In this regard, today it was decided to suspend the powers of Mr. Tsypin as a member of the FIDE Management Board and to conduct an urgent investigation into the available facts. In the very near future, I will also send each of you, as well as other persons, an official request regarding detailed explanations about the situation, starting with allegations expressed by Mr.Bond on chesstalk, and up to the most recent developments. I would appreciate it if one of you could post my letter on the Chesstalk Canada, so that the Canadian public will be informed of FIDE's strict commitment to high ethical standards.
Please, confirm receipt of this letter
Sincerely yours, Aleksandr Martynov
FIDE Legal Advisor
After the 2018 FIDE election it became increasingly obvious that FIDE considered Hal to be a liability. After some investigation by Hal, he found that a letter he had written to the CFC Executive had somehow been leaked to the FIDE Management board, but only after it had been altered to be critical of the new FIDE President. Nobody on the CFC Executive had any motive to share the original letter outside the board or to alter the letter themselves -- everyone was questioned.
Do we have enough confidence in the RCMP to entrust such a delicate matter to them?
lol - that is EXACTLY my first reaction too...
The RCMP have a lot of baggage and are having trouble keeping their own house clean.
Besides, this is likely of no interest to them - it hardly qualifies as much more than an internal squabble - certainly I cannot see any implications for police.
I believe, that in view of the additional, highly troubling information about this matter having now been provided for patrons of this site, in a public manner, that the file should be reported as a formal complaint to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, as soon as possible, for further investigation. This channel would both complement and supplement the investigation already being undertaken by FIDE.
Do we have enough confidence in the RCMP to entrust such a delicate matter to them?
Both of what Peter and Kerry say are very much on-point. The notion of "hacking in an airport" seems a bit far-fetched. Clearly whoever sent the altered email to FIDE had an agenda. It's possible it was a prankster who happened to intercept it at the airport. It's possible that a prankster got hold of it through some other means. Or perhaps it was an opportunist or somebody with an axe to grind who desired a specific outcome, whether they obtained the email inadvertently or deliberately. But whoever got it and doctored it knew where to send it, and they knew whom it would impact.
I believe, that in view of the additional, highly troubling information about this matter having now been provided for patrons of this site, in a public manner, that the file should be reported as a formal complaint to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, as soon as possible, for further investigation. This channel would both complement and supplement the investigation already being undertaken by FIDE.
I too find the premise that Hal's computer was hacked or his email intercepted at the airport to be far too convenient an "explanation". Let me be clear that I have worked for many years in IT security and I *do* realize that these things are possible - especially intercepting email - but, seriously? I agree with Brad's post unless some proper evidence is shown regarding hacking or interception.
A more reasonable "explanation" is that Hal's original email was (perhaps inadvertently?) bandied about outside the CFC Executive and it was forwarded to someone who could reframe it and send it to FIDE.
Peter's suggestion that FIDE should know WHO sent them the email is the first place to start - if they are unwilling to divulge THAT piece of info then I think we can assume it is indeed an inside job. The only question remains: inside FIDE or inside the CFC or could it be a bit of both?
The entire mess around Hal's departure (and the couple of YEARS of nonsense leading up to it) is enough for some heads to roll.
By the way Brad, I believe that 2+2=5 for sufficient large values of 2.
After the 2018 FIDE election it became increasingly obvious that FIDE considered Hal to be a liability. After some investigation by Hal, he found that a letter he had written to the CFC Executive had somehow been leaked to the FIDE Management board, but only after it had been altered to be critical of the new FIDE President. Nobody on the CFC Executive had any motive to share the original letter outside the board or to alter the letter themselves -- everyone was questioned. The conclusion we came to, as implausible as it seems, is that Hal's computer was hacked or his transmission somehow intercepted - he was e-mailing us from the airport, on his way home.
This whole matter was brought to the highest level of FIDE once we found out.
Fred
CFC Executive Member
Thank you for those clarifications, Fred. No decent person (and that has always been my opinion of Hal) should have to be victimized by a character assassin. If the CFC couldn't identify the perpetrator from the Canadian end then couldn't the CFC have pressured FIDE to investigate the matter from its end? Who at the FIDE management board received the altered email and who did s/he receive it from, etc.? Surely Hal deserved that much from the organization he has supported so ably for so long.
Nobody on the CFC Executive had any motive to share the original letter outside the board or to alter the letter themselves -- everyone was questioned. The conclusion we came to, as implausible as it seems, is that Hal's computer was hacked or his transmission somehow intercepted...
Let us suppose for the sake of discussion that no sophisticated hack of Hal's computer took place. This would mean that someone on the CFC Executive at least leaked the letter, whether or not it was they themselves who doctored it. Who stood to gain by Hal's removal? Hal has suggested that we can guess. Who on the CFC Executive may have been in cahoots with this person? This too has been made clear. (No doubt it would have been someone who supported, and possibly the person who first advanced, the highly unlikely and borderline ridiculous "Hal's computer must have been hacked" theory.) The simplest explanation is that we have an inside job. And two plus two generally equals four. Chess never changes.
Leave a comment: