Announcement of England Teams for European Team Championship

[Alex Holowczak]

Right or wrong, the phrase "fuss about nothing" springs to mind. He'd have beaten the new opponent he was given anyway.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Ian, may I in turn refer you to every single English chess magazine at the time all of which record that the derogation was properly announced in advance, that all the other participants knew of it and thought Short was in the wrong (the winner, Agdestein, alluded to it at the prize giving). You may find KinpPin to be especially helpful.

I understand that both Chessbase and the FIDE Committee took their facts at face value from Short and did not double check with anyone else.

But then, of course, Chessbase in particular is notorious for printing anything Short wants it to print - it is his own publicity vehicle which he uses when it suits him, e.g when his newspaper columns are discontinued, or when he is running for the Commonwealth presidency. He has also had a go at GW in connection with this FIDE Delegate election on those pages.

[Ian Thompson]

Ian, may I in turn refer you to every single English chess magazine at the time all of which record that the derogation was properly announced in advance, that all the other participants knew of it and thought Short was in the wrong (the winner, Agdestein, alluded to it at the prize giving). You may find KinpPin to be especially helpful.

It's strange then, that the sponsors should have issued a statement saying that they did not announce the pairing system to be used on the tournament entry form, if they actually did announce it in advance. Putting a statement on the noticeboard with the pairings is clearly too late to be an effective announcement. I know Short came in for a lot of criticism for his actions, but my recollection is that they were criticising him for over-reacting by refusing to play and withdrawing, not making a statement on what the rules were or were not.

I agree that the ChessBase report is biased, but that does not mean it is entirely wrong. I assume that where they quote from rules, or statements people have issued, that they will be accurate quotes. If English chess magazines were making claims about all other competitors knowledge and views, then they were wrong to do so. For example, no-one has ever asked me what I knew or thought, so no-one can possibly know.

[Jonathan Rogers]

I admit that I paraphrased the bit about "everyone" agreeing that the rule had been properly announced beforehand. Now I think more about it, I wonder whether you are right about the notice only being there at the venue, because I recall that so much emphasis was put on the fact that Short ought to have known this would be the rule because it is the way that English run swisses tend to work, which is not a strong argument. (A stronger argument is that he should have played under protest rather than withdrawing, complaining to the whole world, and receiving his entire fee for the event regardless.)

But since I was not there, I am rather unsatisfactorily having to remember the content of conflicting reports. Step forward John Saunders, perhaps?

Anyway, this all started when Roger and I suggested that he is not the most obvious person to represent the views of rank and file ECF members. Undoubtedly he is against repairings in the event of defaults, to take one example, and I am sure that he is in a minority there.

[John Saunders]

My 2003 end of tournament website report is still available to read online...

http://www.bcmchess.co.uk/monarch2003/prizegiving.html

I've been reading the various exchanges here and concur with what Jonathan Rogers, Roger de Coverly and others have written. The re-pairing notice appeared on the noticeboard. I don't think it appeared on the entry form - but, then, invited players would probably not see an entry form anyway. As Jonathan has already said, the re-pairing rule was a matter of 'common law' in British chess. Though it didn't always appear in print, it was a matter of common practice. I think its originator was Stewart Reuben and, with his great influence as the founder of the Lloyds Bank Masters, it had become the norm with his British colleagues. I remember mass re-pairings happening at the Lloyds Bank Masters and was re-paired there myself.

I've not too much to add to what I wrote at the time. One point which is often overlooked, however, is that other players in the same round of the same tournament had already been re-paired after their original opponents did not show up. This fact would have made it extremely difficult for the arbiters to have yielded to Nigel Short's insistence on a default win. Had they done so, any one of Nigel's main rivals might have objected to the fact that he was given free passage to the next round, yet others had to play a game. It would have been demonstrably unfair - blatant home-player favouritism. Having enforced the rule on other players, they could not have done otherwise with Nigel.

Richard Furness was chief arbiter in the Isle of Man that year, with Dave Welch being his assistant. This was a reversal of their roles within the BCF itself, where Dave was the federation's chief arbiter (as he still is of the ECF, I believe). When Nigel challenged Richard's ruling, Richard went to Dave and asked him whether he agreed with the decision he had made (namely, to insist on a re-pairing). Dave said 'yes' and Richard returned to Nigel to give him the final decision. So Richard's decision had the backing of the BCF's Chief Arbiter. A day or so after the incident my understanding is that Stewart Reuben was consulted and that he too backed up the decision.

As for what happened next... suffice to say that I learnt a great deal about the way the world of chess works in the following two or three weeks. Highly educational!

[Simon Spivack]

Frankly I wouldn't particularly want either Gerry Walsh or Nigel Short to be FIDE Delegate.

One of them will be returned. Is it not better to choose the one considered the lesser evil? Of course, if one has no knowledge of either party, then an abstention has something to be said for it. However, how is it possible in the small world of UK chess organisation for a voter not to know something about the candidates?

Of course a lot of people have neither forgotten nor forgiven what Nigel wrote in the Sunday Telegraph after the death of Tony Miles. It was a long time ago. One has to put personal prejudice aside and make the best possible decision.

I believe that Short is against repairings in the event of no-shows, period, and in favour of disallowing derogation from that rule.

I claim the match. Resorting to the language of the Septics, by preferring "period" to "full stop", is a low blow, struck in brazen defiance of the rules of the Marquess of Queensbury.

There is the general point that a candidate may hold a position at variance with that of the majority, yet his other qualities and positions may trump this objection. Furthermore, as I understand it, most rule changes and the like will be voted upon by the General Assembly *, yet the motions are normally tabled by committees. Should Nigel attempt to table such a motion from the floor, he would have to give notice. This would give the ECF time to disavow the proposal.

There is also a little Englander element to the objection. If huge chunks of the rest of the planet can manage perfectly well without a derogation, why can't we? Ian Thompson has indicated how others manage.

As for Wales, in terms of Olympiads, I'm not sure there are any Welsh players who would be part of a British team. Therefore, I don't see any benefit of union, and I doubt the Welsh will, they'll just see it as stopping their players playing in Olympiads.

In the early seventies George Botterill would have been given serious consideration for inclusion in the BCF team. Furthermore, one could equally well argue that unrepresented English counties should try to enter their own teams!

A British team could be said to represent everyone in Great Britain. In recent years Scotland's Jonathan Rowson would almost certainly have been selected. It is likely that the teams chosen would have done better.

FIDE has a track record of making unfair and dubious decisions. It would not be beyond the bounds of possibility for it to decide to only recognise one federation for the United Kingdom. This might be Chess Scotland of course, particularly if the ECF was causing trouble to the FIDE establishment.

I fear that Roger may be attempting to dance on the refulgent beam of my over-polished wit by making this comment.

Certainly, FIDE, particularly under its current and previous presidents, has made many unjust decisions. Cracking down on supposed troublemakers. I'd like us to vote in a nuisance. I'm not convinced he can successfully pass laws that some don't like. Furthermore, if he is found to be intolerable, another can be voted in to replace him after one year.

One thing that may be germane is:

To 2.1:

A Federation can only be regarded as a National Federation if it has been legally constituted and recognized in a State which is an entity of International Law or which is at least fully autonomous in the administration of Culture and Sports.

Scotland, for instance, is autonomous when it comes to culture and sports. Thus from the perspective of FIDE there is no objection to Chess Scotland being distinct from the ECF. Whether this is a good thing is another matter. Should the Scottish Parliament fall into disrepute and be abolished, then, of course, this would work the opposite way.

Note, too, that Chess Scotland cannot administer for UK chess in its entirety, should Roger's concern that an expulsion of the ECF result. A concern I consider exaggerated, one which our players could easily overcome.

Right or wrong, the phrase "fuss about nothing" springs to mind. He'd have beaten the new opponent he was given anyway.

It is possible that a tired Nigel had prepared for his first opponent, but was not ready to make the mental adjustment for another. Strong players can lose to comparatively weak opponents.






* The FIDE website is a bit of a mess. One thing I've managed to locate is:

http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook?id=2&view=category
02. Standing Orders

To 1.4:

The General Assembly issues the rules of chess, decides on the regulations for all FIDE-competitions and fixes the conditions for the award of the international titles. ...

[Paul McKeown]

anyone is better than Gerry Walsh.

A suggestion : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KddkyZ1UG5g

John,

I'm disappointed in you. I thought that it had been decided in the thread before Christmas last year in which Nigel Short applied that particular epithet to Gerry Walsh, that name calling was unnecessary, unfair and damaging to all concerned. Gerry, for all his faults, was to be left in his dignity and fair tribute was to be paid to the good things he had achieved for English chess, even if these had all been long ago.

Yet now you have chosen twice in the space of a week to recall the insult and broadcast it to all and sundry. You may well be Nigel Short's unpaid election agent in English chess, but decorum is still demanded of you.

Drop it.

Regards,
Paul McKeown.

[Peter Rhodes]

that name calling was unnecessary, unfair and damaging to all concerned. Gerry, for all his faults, was to be left in his dignity and fair tribute was to be paid

I think Paul makes a good observation.

I just wanted to follow up with the simple point that I am certain much of this nasty business could have been avoided if Gerry had simply dropped his personal interest and "bowed out gracefully". I am sure that had he embarked upon this humble course of action, the malcontents would have far less ammunition and cause for continuing their sniping.

It does seem that in these modern times, that all areas of politics have been untouched by this unwillingness to resign or stand-down in circumstances that would have elicited just such a course of action only 15 or so years ago.

Had Gerry chosen the path I posed, perhaps we would now have a thread honouring his good works, and indeed it is still not to late for him to choose this path.

[Nigel Short]

Cost was the deciding factor. I declared my eligibility for the European Team Championship at least in June, if not earlier. Unfortunately there was not enough money for Michael Adams and myself. On the principle of "first come, first served" I was out. Now that I am England's sole 2700+ player, this omission is rather noticable.
The point, of course, is not that I should be playing instead of Michael Adams: that would be ridiculous. The point is that England should put its full strength team out. Since I first became an England player a quarter of century ago the B/ECF has also managed to find money for the chess olympiad. That is their great credit. Sometimes it has been a bit of a squeeze financially, but it has always been achieved. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of the European Team Championship: we have very often sent a lightweight team. It is a very important event and funding must be found. Let us hope that the new ECF President will be successful in securing sponsorship for this. When I briefly spoke to CJ at the Staunton Memorial I said that of course I could easily draw up a wish list for further spending for the ECF, but as a realist, alongside the olympiad, I would prioritise the European Team Championship and the World Championship cycle. I don't think it too much to ask.

[Nigel Short]

Apologies. I was a little bit behind on this thread and had not read all the postings.
On the subject of re-pairing. Stewart Reuben has already pointed out in another thread that, according to the FIDE rules, no player may be re-paired without his consent. This ought to end the discussion, though I doubt whether it will. You can do what you want in weekend tournaments and the like - I have no problem with that - but if you want to have FIDE-rated tournaments for FIDE title norms, you ought to abide by the FIDE rules.
Alex H - I am sorry but your comment reveals that you really don't have a clue what it takes to play chess on a high level. In a way it is very useful because it shows how dangerous it is to entrust rules and regulations to amateurs, such as Gerry Walsh, who simply don't understand the implications. Putting aside the illegality of re-pairing for the moment, can you explain why after two hours of intense preparation and one hour sitting at the board, I should have to go through the same process again for a different player on the same day? It is like having been told that you will be sitting an exam in maths and then someone comes along and say "sorry, it will be Latin today". Whether or not I would be likely to pass the Latin exam is neither here nor there - the process is fundamentally flawed. A further implication from your comment is that chess comes naturally to me and that it is never the product of hard work. Whether I am tired from preparing for two separate opponents (indeed why bother for the second one? Hey, I am naturally gifted! I can beat him with my eyes shut!) or thoroughly disconcerted by the suddenly altered circumstances and playing in a hall after everyone else has finished, it doesn't matter - seems to be your assumption. Well you are very wrong, indeed.

[Paul McKeown]

I think Paul makes a good observation.

I just wanted to follow up with the simple point that I am certain much of this nasty business could have been avoided if Gerry had simply dropped his personal interest and "bowed out gracefully". I am sure that had he embarked upon this humble course of action, the malcontents would have far less ammunition and cause for continuing their sniping.

It does seem that in these modern times, that all areas of politics have been untouched by this unwillingness to resign or stand-down in circumstances that would have elicited just such a course of action only 15 or so years ago.

Had Gerry chosen the path I posed, perhaps we would now have a thread honouring his good works, and indeed it is still not to late for him to choose this path.

I think that GW's faults as an administrator for chess are, by now, pretty well known to anyone in English chess who cares to find out. He's resistant to change, short of ideas, over-willing to bask in past glories and utterly blind to his own faults. He's only comfortable dealing with a dwindling band of like-minded individuals, a clique, if you prefer, and unwilling to deal openly with those who disagree.

This is all abundantly clear to me, as is the idea that it is time for a change. I just don't see how the cause is served by calling him "an inert tub of lard", or other such terms of endearment. Surely all that can do, apart from wound, is get people's backs up?

And as for the sewage that gets ventilated from time to time about GW improperly using ECF funds to ferry his mother around the world, well that's simply untrue and has been denied sufficiently strongly and sufficiently often that any further ventilation would, frankly, be a libel.

This is perhaps the wrong thread for this, but the candidacy of Nigel Short for the ECF's ECU and FIDE delegate has been discussed in so many different threads that it now seems near to impossible to consolidate them in one sensible spot. So, apologies in advance if what I shall say on the subject is in the wrong thread.

There seems to be universal acceptance on this forum that Gerry Walsh no longer holds the confidence of chess players in England. There is, however, a debate as to whether Nigel Short's demerits are sufficiently odious that neither candidate should be seen to be fit to represent English chess interests internationally.

I think that it should all be seen in context. It has been well established by responsible journalists, both domestic Russian and foreign, over a long period, that Ilyumzhinov's hands have not found embezzlement, extortion, arson, assault and murder foul. Yet the paradox is that the world of chess admires the man to such a degree that he has been elected president of FIDE since 1995. The truth is, though, that FIDE is not a gentle club of high-minded servants to chess, but a thoroughly corrupted nest of vipers in which slander and patronage generally see the day.

It is well known to the British chess public that Nigel Short has a fat mouth and a thick skin. That may, in general, be seen as negative. I think, though, that such characteristics can only be seen as essential to function effectively in an environment such as FIDE.

Nigel Short is the only figure in British chess known in any way to the general public. He has, after all, played a match against Kasparov for the world championship. His direct involvement in the administration of chess in England can only raise the game's profile here and abroad.

Finally, NS has provided us with a manifesto and has taken the trouble to explain the manifesto. He has stated clearly that he will not waste his time trying to get FIDE to forcibly merge the various British chess federations. It is clear that some of his manifesto pledges may not be to everyone's taste, but he has at least had the decency to let us know what he want's to achieve, and unless one is going to stand oneself, one is never going to have a manifesto with which one can completely agree.

For what it's worth, I support Nigel Short's candidacy for the reasons given, despite understanding the reservations of respected organisers such as Paul Buswell and Lara Barnes.

Best Regards,
Paul McKeown.

[Paul McKeown]

Should the Scottish Parliament fall into disrepute and be abolished, then, of course, this would work the opposite way.

Think forward to 2011 when Alex Salmond will hold a referendum on repealing the Act of Union. Lord Snooty and his Bullingdon chums have had a large majority at Westminster for the previous year, despite returning a mere handful of MPs north of the border, and have done everything they possibly can to slash government spending, hitting the Scots particularly hard as the ungrateful whelps never vote the right way anyway. Yes, the Scottish Parliament as currently constituted might well be abolished, instead to be replaced with one representing an independent state.

[LozCooper]

The ECF has announced the following players to represent England:

Open:

Michael Adams
Luke McShane
Stuart Conquest
Simon Williams
Stephen Gordon.

Captain: Lawrence Cooper

Women:

Jovanka Houska
Ingrid Lauterbach
Natasha Regan
Meri Grigoryan
Sabrina Chevannes.

Captain: Andrew Greet.

Having seen the Sept/Oct edition of Chess Moves it appears that two of the above players don't have the correct photos!

[Alex Holowczak]

can you explain why after two hours of intense preparation and one hour sitting at the board, I should have to go through the same process again for a different player on the same day?

I suppose this is something the average club player wouldn't understand. I was under the impression that the game would start straight away after the first hour, not that you'd go away and come back. Since both players had no preparation, the disadvantage would be mutual.

A further implication from your comment is that chess comes naturally to me and that it is never the product of hard work.

I would have thought a 2700+ player could beat a 2200 standard player regardless of preparation (on both sides). I would have backed my ability to win in such a situation. Subtract 1000 points from the ratings, so 1700 is my standard, I wouldn't mind being repaired against a 1200.

You're right that I have no idea what it's like to play in a top-level tournament, and I therefore have a different mentality towards the situation. I suppose it's what separates Super-GMs from club players.

[Alex Holowczak]

Indeed, why should any chess player (professional or not) have his points put on the line in such a way?

Personally, it wouldn't bother me. I play for the enjoyment of playing the game, not to get my rating as high as possible. Of course a high rating is nice, but for me, it's not the be-all and end-all.

Nigel was going by the laws, which is obviously fair enough. My point that was that, if I were in his situation, I'd have just played whoever I was given in the repairing, even if I were professional. I don't see why that opinion is wrong.