4NCL dispute
-
- Posts: 21350
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
4NCL dispute
The 4NCL website has details of a dispute which took place during the May weekend.
https://www.4ncl.co.uk/data/2122/reac_incident_2022.htm
It involved a game that went no further then 1. d4 f5
I'm not sure I see the point of disputiog the eligibilty of Barnet's board 1, not least when it was his third game of the weekend.
https://www.4ncl.co.uk/data/2122/reac_incident_2022.htm
It involved a game that went no further then 1. d4 f5
I'm not sure I see the point of disputiog the eligibilty of Barnet's board 1, not least when it was his third game of the weekend.
-
- Posts: 5249
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
- Location: Croydon
Re: 4NCL dispute
Emerson felt that he should not have been expected to play Cherniaev. You may or may not agree with him, but I don't think that you should expect him to change his position because Cherniaev's two previous opponents didn't take the same view.Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 8:24 pmI'm not sure I see the point of disputiog the eligibilty of Barnet's board 1, not least when it was his third game of the weekend.
-
- Posts: 5851
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm
Re: 4NCL dispute
A game involving Emerson and Cherniaev leading to a dispute is hardly surprising, surely?
-
- Posts: 21350
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: 4NCL dispute
David Sedgwick wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 11:06 pmEmerson felt that he should not have been expected to play Cherniaev.
Why was that? According to the 4NCL report, it was nit-picking over whether a player with a FID designation needed to be a Gold member of the ECF when a player with a RUS designation didn't.
He could object to playing Russians, but why isn't that equivalent to Iranians refusing to play Israelis? The 4NCL arbiters or managers had accepted Cherniaev's participation.
-
- Posts: 7283
- Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am
Re: 4NCL dispute
His objection was that Cherniaev had recently played two tournaments in Russia:Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 12:58 amDavid Sedgwick wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 11:06 pmEmerson felt that he should not have been expected to play Cherniaev.
Why was that? According to the 4NCL report, it was nit-picking over whether a player with a FID designation needed to be a Gold member of the ECF when a player with a RUS designation didn't.
He could object to playing Russians, but why isn't that equivalent to Iranians refusing to play Israelis? The 4NCL arbiters or managers had accepted Cherniaev's participation.
https://ratings.fide.com/calculations.p ... 1&rating=0
https://ratings.fide.com/calculations.p ... 1&rating=0
-
- Posts: 8479
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: 4NCL dispute
So the FID / Gold member business was just a smokescreen?LawrenceCooper wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 8:44 amHis objection was that Cherniaev had recently played two tournaments in Russia
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
- Posts: 7283
- Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am
Re: 4NCL dispute
It appears to have become the main focus of his defence but I'm fairly sure that the membership issue on its own wouldn't have been sufficient reason for white to leave his clock running after one move.NickFaulks wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 8:54 amSo the FID / Gold member business was just a smokescreen?LawrenceCooper wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 8:44 amHis objection was that Cherniaev had recently played two tournaments in Russia
-
- Posts: 2154
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Re: 4NCL dispute
This isn't stated in the decision text though.LawrenceCooper wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 8:44 amHis objection was that Cherniaev had recently played two tournaments in Russia:
https://ratings.fide.com/calculations.p ... 1&rating=0
https://ratings.fide.com/calculations.p ... 1&rating=0
I wonder: has anyone else found it difficult to read the decision text? Isn't it usual in dispute rulings to start off by describing what happened, having taken input from all the parties involved?
-
- Posts: 8479
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: 4NCL dispute
I can't find this on the 4NCL website. I don't seem to be very good at finding things on websites, can someone give directions?Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 8:24 pmhttps://www.4ncl.co.uk/data/2122/reac_incident_2022.htm
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
- Posts: 7283
- Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am
Re: 4NCL dispute
On the homepage it's currently the 7th item down.NickFaulks wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 10:23 amI can't find this on the 4NCL website. I don't seem to be very good at finding things on websites, can someone give directions?Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 8:24 pmhttps://www.4ncl.co.uk/data/2122/reac_incident_2022.htm
-
- Posts: 2154
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Re: 4NCL dispute
It's in the News section, currently some items down on the first page.NickFaulks wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 10:23 amI can't find this on the 4NCL website. I don't seem to be very good at finding things on websites, can someone give directions?Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 8:24 pmhttps://www.4ncl.co.uk/data/2122/reac_incident_2022.htm
-
- Posts: 348
- Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:23 pm
Re: 4NCL dispute
Puzzled - the link takes me straight to the relevant item
-
- Posts: 2154
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Re: 4NCL dispute
A reason for navigating to the page is to see if there's other relevant information.Andy Stoker wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 10:30 amPuzzled - the link takes me straight to the relevant item
-
- Posts: 8479
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: 4NCL dispute
Of course it does. I wanted to see where it actually was in case there was an earlier item in the same place.Andy Stoker wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 10:30 amPuzzled - the link takes me straight to the relevant item
Thanks to those who gave the answer. I did try News but gave up too quickly.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
- Posts: 8479
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: 4NCL dispute
I had it in my mind that there was an earlier statement covering the basic facts, but it seems I was mistaken.Angus French wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 10:09 amI wonder: has anyone else found it difficult to read the decision text? Isn't it usual in dispute rulings to start off by describing what happened, having taken input from all the parties involved?
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.