[lang_nl]Cheparinov maakt excuses[/lang_nl][lang_en]Cheparinov has apologized[/lang_en]
20 January 2008, 14.32 CET | Last modified: 14:23 | By Peter Doggers | Filed under: Reports | Tags: FIDE, Odd, Rules & regulations
[lang_nl]De perschef van Corus heeft zojuist bevestigd dat ze een geschreven excuus van Ivan Cheparinov hebben ontvangen. Op dit moment is het nog niet duidelijk of de partij Short-Cheparinov nog wordt gespeeld. We houden je op de hoogte.[/lang_nl][lang_en]The Corus press officer has just confirmed that the tournament committee have received Ivan Cheparinov’s written apologies. At the moment it’s not yet clear whether the game Short-Cheparinov will indeed be played. We’ll keep you posted.[/lang_en]
[lang_en][Also check our new video.]
An emotional and still shaking Nigel Short entered the press room at 13:40, declaring “I’ve won. 1.e4 c5 and I won.” He won his game by forfeit, after Cheparinov refused the to shake hands.[/lang_en][lang_nl][Check ook onze nieuwe video.]
Een licht emotionele en nog trillende Nigel Short kwam om 13.40 uur de perskamer binnen met de woorden “I’ve won. 1.e4 c5 and I won.” Hij had net zijn partij reglementair gewonnen nadat Cheparinov geweigerd had handen te schudden.[/lang_nl]
[lang_nl]We hebben te maken met een nieuwe regel.
Behavioural norms of players in chess events. PB decision. June 25, 2007
Having discussed several recent cases in different chess tournaments where the attitude of players toward their opponent or officials, journalists etc. was not acceptable under conventional social behaviour, the FIDE Presidential Board ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äúat the suggestion of President Ilyumzhinov- decided on setting up strict rules regarding such behaviour.
Any player who does not shake hands with the opponent (or greets the opponent in a normal social manner in accordance with the conventional rules of their society) before the game starts in a FIDE tournament or during a FIDE match (and does not do it after being asked to do so by the arbiter) or deliberately insults his/her opponent or the officials of the event, will immediately and finally lose the relevant game.
Regarding a more comprehensive set of behavioural and ethical norms to be followed, FIDE Ethics Commission and the Arbiter's Council are to elaborate guidelines for the players. The guidelines will be published on the FIDE website.
De beelden van het incident, dankzij Chessdom:
De statement van Short na de partij:
Het is de eerste keer dat deze regel is toegepast, maar aangezien het nog niet onderdeel is van de offici?ɬ´le regels (tenminste, het is niet als zodanig op de FIDE-website gepubliceerd, alleen in een persbericht) zal een eventueel protest niet geheel kansloos zijn. Echter, een van de leden van de Commissie van Beroep is… Vladimir Kramnik, zoals Short zelf al met een glimlach aangaf.
Iets serieuzer: relevant is dat de regels van het schaakspel alleen kunnen worden vastgesteld door het FIDE Congres (de algemene ledenvergadering), niet door de Raad van Bestuur, zoals Pieter de Groot op Utrechtschaak aangeeft.
Het is inmiddels duidelijk geworden dat Danailov & Cheparinov een protest gaan indienen. Ze zijn van mening dat de beslissing van de arbiter niet volgens de FIDE Regels van het Schaakspel was, en dat de arbiter Cheparinov eerst had moeten waarschuwen van de consequenties. Daar valt iets voor te zeggen, want moet een scheidsrechter niet proberen dergelijke excessen te voorkomen?
PROTESTBRIEF inmiddels binnen:
To the Appeal Committee January 20th,2008
Corus chess tournament 2008
Mr.Adams
Mr.Kramnik
Mrs.Polgar
APPEAL
Dear All,
Today during the start of the round the following accident happened.
Mr. Cheparinov refused to shake hands with Mr. Short before the game.
The reason was: some time ago in one of his interviews Mr. Short insulted him and our team gravelly.
After that, Mr.Short complained to the Chief Arbiter of the Tournament ,who without previous warning immediately decide to put defeat to Mr.Cheparinov.
According to the rules of FIDE, this decision is illegal.
There is a recommendation from the FIDE Presidential Board in Tallin June 2007about the Behavioural norms of players in chess events: http://fide.com/news.asp?id=1391
First of all, this is only recommendation ,not an official FIDE rule because this recommendation must be approved on FIDE congress during the chess Olympiad in Dresden, November 2008.
Even more, if the Arbiter would like to follow the recommendation of the FIDE PB in Tallin ,he made a big mistake ,because obviously he did not even check carefully the recommendation.
Before to defeat the player he must ask him officially on the stage, that if he does not shake hand again he will be defeated.
Instead of this ,the Chief Arbiter call Mr.Cheparinov to the private room and told him that he lost the game.
Mr.Cheparinov replay ,that according to the recommendation (!) of FIDE he should ask him to shake hands ,before to take any decision.
Even more, Mr.Cheparinov told him very clearly that if he oblige him to do this, he is ready to do it.
Unexpectedly, the Arbiter did not pay any attention to his explanations and took the decision to defeat him.
We protest this illegal decision ,and kindly ask to replay the game in one of the following rest days.
Best regards,
Silvio Danailov
Manager GM Ivan Cheparinov
Namens Cheparinov reageerde Silvio Danailov voor de camera:
Uitspraak Commissie van Beroep:
Decision of the Appeals Committee in the dispute between Grandmasters Ivan Cheparinov and Nigel Short (8th round Grandmastergroup B) on January 20th 2008.
The Appeals Committee (GMs Vladimir Kramnik, Michal Krasenkow, Judit Polgar) agrees that refusal to shake hands with one's opponent before the game is an obvious violation of the behavioural norms of players in chess events.
According to the decision of FIDE Presidential Board taken in June 2007, any player who doesn't shake hands with his/her opponent (and doesn't do it after being asked to do so by the arbiter) will immediately lose the game.
However, according to the information obtained by the Appeals Committee, in the relevant case GM Cheparinov, after his initial refusal to shake hands with GM Short, didn't clearly reject the arbiter's request to do so.
Therefore:
1. We declare that GM Cheparinov must make a public excuse to GM Short in a written form before 11.00 hours January 21st 2008 for his refusal to shake hands.
2. Then the game between Ivan Cheparinov and Nigel Short has to be replayed on Monday January 21st 2008 at 13.30 hours.
3. Both players must shake hands at the start of the game.
4. Any player failing to comply with the present decision forfeits the game.In order to avoid any conflicts in future we suggest the following procedure in similar cases: if one of the players deliberately refuses to shake his/her opponent's offered hand at the start of the game, the arbiter shall officially warn him/her and demand him/her to do so. Only if the player again refuses to shake hand, he/she automatically forfeits the game.
Vanavond verliet Nigel Short de speelzaal met deze laatste worden voor de journalisten: “No way I’m going to play tomorrow!” De soap gaat dus nog wel even verder…[/lang_nl][lang_en]We are dealing with a new rule.
Behavioural norms of players in chess events. PB decision. June 25, 2007
Having discussed several recent cases in different chess tournaments where the attitude of players toward their opponent or officials, journalists etc. was not acceptable under conventional social behaviour, the FIDE Presidential Board ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äúat the suggestion of President Ilyumzhinov- decided on setting up strict rules regarding such behaviour.
Any player who does not shake hands with the opponent (or greets the opponent in a normal social manner in accordance with the conventional rules of their society) before the game starts in a FIDE tournament or during a FIDE match (and does not do it after being asked to do so by the arbiter) or deliberately insults his/her opponent or the officials of the event, will immediately and finally lose the relevant game.
Regarding a more comprehensive set of behavioural and ethical norms to be followed, FIDE Ethics Commission and the Arbiter's Council are to elaborate guidelines for the players. The guidelines will be published on the FIDE website.
A video of the incident, thanks to Chessdom:
Short’s statement after the game:
Cheparinov refused to comment before the camera.
It’s the first time this rule has been applied, but since it isn’t part of the offical chess rules yet (at least, it hasn’t been published in such way on the FIDE website, only as a press release) an appeal would make a decent chance. However, one of the members of the Appeals Committee is… Vladimir Kramnik, as Short pointed out himself with a smile.
On a more serious note: it’s also relevant that the rules of chess can only be changed by the FIDE Congres and not by the Presidential Board.
In the meantime Danailov & Cheparinov are prepairing an appeal. They are of the opinion that the arbiter’s decision was against current FIDE Laws of Chess and that the arbiter should have warned Cheparinov about the consequences. And the have a point, because shouldn’t an arbiter try to prevent such scandals wherever possible?
PROTEST LETTER received:
To the Appeal Committee January 20th,2008
Corus chess tournament 2008
Mr.Adams
Mr.Kramnik
Mrs.Polgar
APPEAL
Dear All,
Today during the start of the round the following accident happened.
Mr. Cheparinov refused to shake hands with Mr. Short before the game.
The reason was: some time ago in one of his interviews Mr. Short insulted him and our team gravelly.
After that, Mr.Short complained to the Chief Arbiter of the Tournament ,who without previous warning immediately decide to put defeat to Mr.Cheparinov.
According to the rules of FIDE, this decision is illegal.
There is a recommendation from the FIDE Presidential Board in Tallin June 2007about the Behavioural norms of players in chess events: http://fide.com/news.asp?id=1391
First of all, this is only recommendation ,not an official FIDE rule because this recommendation must be approved on FIDE congress during the chess Olympiad in Dresden, November 2008.
Even more, if the Arbiter would like to follow the recommendation of the FIDE PB in Tallin ,he made a big mistake ,because obviously he did not even check carefully the recommendation.
Before to defeat the player he must ask him officially on the stage, that if he does not shake hand again he will be defeated.
Instead of this ,the Chief Arbiter call Mr.Cheparinov to the private room and told him that he lost the game.
Mr.Cheparinov replay ,that according to the recommendation (!) of FIDE he should ask him to shake hands ,before to take any decision.
Even more, Mr.Cheparinov told him very clearly that if he oblige him to do this, he is ready to do it.
Unexpectedly, the Arbiter did not pay any attention to his explanations and took the decision to defeat him.
We protest this illegal decision ,and kindly ask to replay the game in one of the following rest days.
Best regards,
Silvio Danailov
Manager GM Ivan Cheparinov
In name of Cheparinov, Silvio Danailov commented for our camera:
The Appeals Committe have decided:
Decision of the Appeals Committee in the dispute between Grandmasters Ivan Cheparinov and Nigel Short (8th round Grandmastergroup B) on January 20th 2008.
The Appeals Committee (GMs Vladimir Kramnik, Michal Krasenkow, Judit Polgar) agrees that refusal to shake hands with one's opponent before the game is an obvious violation of the behavioural norms of players in chess events.
According to the decision of FIDE Presidential Board taken in June 2007, any player who doesn't shake hands with his/her opponent (and doesn't do it after being asked to do so by the arbiter) will immediately lose the game.
However, according to the information obtained by the Appeals Committee, in the relevant case GM Cheparinov, after his initial refusal to shake hands with GM Short, didn't clearly reject the arbiter's request to do so.
Therefore:
1. We declare that GM Cheparinov must make a public excuse to GM Short in a written form before 11.00 hours January 21st 2008 for his refusal to shake hands.
2. Then the game between Ivan Cheparinov and Nigel Short has to be replayed on Monday January 21st 2008 at 13.30 hours.
3. Both players must shake hands at the start of the game.
4. Any player failing to comply with the present decision forfeits the game.In order to avoid any conflicts in future we suggest the following procedure in similar cases: if one of the players deliberately refuses to shake his/her opponent's offered hand at the start of the game, the arbiter shall officially warn him/her and demand him/her to do so. Only if the player again refuses to shake hand, he/she automatically forfeits the game.
Tonight, Nigel Short left the venue with these last words for the journalists: “No way I’m going to play tomorrow!” So the soap continues…[/lang_en]
 Print
|
I wouldn’t want Cheparinov in my tournament.
Corus shouldn’t invite him again and could consider saying goodbey right now.
“forfeit”
God…is that Dainalov’s influence? That’s kindergarten…
What’s the background to this?
…more drama that top-level professional chess does not need, some pple never seem to learn, do they
Did Short have anything to do or commented in anyway (in a negative way for Topalov/Dainalov obviously) the “Toiletgate”? Just a guess…
Chessdom says:
“And here the scandal will start with full power. We remember the official letter from FIDE official to Chessdom.com that no player can be forfeited over a handshake.”
@ arkansaw
I agree. That’s no good advertisement for chess.
But then, also pro chess players are humans and have hight or low social intelligence on one hand and fears&hopes&egos on the other hand, through which they can be manipulated and influenced (that’s why I btw don’t think bad of Topalov, I kinda pity him).
This will certainly make the beginning of Topalov-Kramnik on Tuesday even more interesting!
Alright, Short DID comment the “strange behaviour” of Dainalov in San Luis and said he thinks he’s possible there was cheating.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3644
I’d say this is the reason.
If it is, it just enforces my comment that I have no bad feelings for Topalov and in this case for Cheparinov- Dainalov knows how to handle them and their emotions…
Well, am I going conspiracy theory now? Let’s wait for infos…
I think it is a ridiculous rule! If there is something personal going on between Short and Cherparinov, it is enough that they can’t express their feelings publicly. Don’t make them be all chummy just because some guys at FIDE put the good name of chess before the players’ feelings. God forbid that they would have to cancel an afternoon’s golf match because one of them has to attend a press conference about these kinds of incidents. “Let’s just kick out the ‘difficult’ players, and we can all play golf”
yeah, but surely they have to bear responsibility for such…outbursts, I can barely imagine what will unfold on Tuesday for the great Kramnik-Topalov matchup. I know, just to add a touch of creativity and at the same time evade this new ruling, Topalov will insist on a dose of disinfectant spray and put on gloves before surrendering his hand to Kramnik!
Chess is not a soccer field. Players don’t have to like each other or talk to each other, but there’s a minimum of politeness during the game.
Besides here’s another, more important reason why I think the rule is good:
Otherwise there’d be a lot of psychological tricks starting to destabilize the opponent during the game (esp younger ones)…I’m talking about the Anna Rudol case of course:
http://www.chessdom.com/news/anna-rudolf
Of course these tricks do exist “outside” of the games, but well…
Hey, maybe Kramnik will propose Topalov to shake hands, Topalov refuses and loses…
Nigel Short openly accused Topalov of cheating after the notorious events in Elista Autumn 2006. But I am surprised that Cheparinov should take this course of action. Obviously he wasn’t expecting the militant ruling by the Arbiter Thomas Van Beekum. According to letter published at http://www.chessdom.com FIDE stated that one cannot lose a match by refusing to shake hands.
The strange thing is that I thought there were no longer ill feelings between Short and team Danailov:
Dear Silvio,
Thank you for your e-mail. The statements attributed to me in quotation marks in the original DNA article in India are entirely accurate. However I am not responsible for the commentary and interpretation of those statements in that newspaper, which were done by the journalist, Vijay Tagore. If you check the original article you will see that I did NOT say that I observed ?¢‚Ǩ?ìsomething sinister in San Luis?¢‚Ǩ?. This was Mr Tagore?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s interpretation of my comment that I was struck by how close you were sitting to Veselin. I did not say that you signalled to him or that I personally observed anything untoward. My comment merely was intended to demonstrate that , had you wanted to signal, it would have been remarkably easy ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú which is very far from saying that you did such a thing. I might add that I telephoned Frederic Freidel last night to complain about falsely attributing the ?¢‚Ǩ?ìsomething sinister in San Luis?¢‚Ǩ? quote to me. The quotation marks were removed in the chessbase report after that phone call. I had earlier telephoned Chessbase to complain about falsely attributing the ?¢‚Ǩ?ìIt is possible that Topalov cheated?¢‚Ǩ? remark to me on the German webpage. That was the heading of the DNA piece, and they were not my words.
Best regards,
Nigel
Source:
http://www.veselintopalov.net/article/nigel-short-and-false-publications
Topalov openly accused Kramnik of cheating, just like Short did with him…
But of course Topalov had the right to do that, as he was right, and Short is part of a nasty conspiracy against Dainalov and his players.
@ ~~~~
Now this letter is interesting. How bizarre…
Maybe Cheparinov didn’t know about the letter?
@ Michel
That would be really bad preparation by Cheparinov!
Chessdom reports that the match may still continue later today.
Why do we have rules about these kinds of things? Should each incident be judged separately? You cannot have a rule about shaking hands, and not about ostentatiously putting on one glove, shake hands, and take it of again, only to put it back on when taking a peace. If you don’t allow players to express their emotions by making all kinds of rules about it, they will find ways to do it that are allowed by rule, after which, of course, the rules will be amended, and so on and so forth.
Funny detail pointed out by Mig of chessninja: if Cheparinov issues a protest, the Wijk aan Zee appeals committee has, among others, Kramnik on it.
Im not sure what I feel about the handshake rule. when I think about other sports, it would be weird with such a rule, its common that worst enemies can play soccer against each other, and they wont be given the red card until they do something bad *in the game*. also why is it a handshake of all things, suppose you nod to the opponent and consider that to be enough. its a bit arbitrary I think.
that said I believe two things, though I dont know for certain
-cheparinov didnt think it would cost him the game not to shake hands. I dont think he would have done it if he knew a 100% certain that he would lose just like that.
-this will get messy. :p Im sure the bulgarians will raise hell. but they wont get anything from it, they are in a worse position. but chessdom is right to question why the other case with anna rudolf didnt result in the same thing.
@ ~~~~
I know, just guessing.
think Dainalov has a pretty “strong hand” over his players, so I can’t imagine Cheparinov doing this without Dainalov knowing.
What is more probable is that he didn’t know about the hand shaking rule. Although Chessdom states that following a letter of the FIDE this rule “doesn’t exist”.
Anyway, doesn’t explain the “why”.
@ Xtra
As far as I know Anna Rudolf didn’t know about the rule (if it exists) and so she didn’t do/say anything. Maybe Short knew and did call the referee.
looks like this is really a prelude to Tuesday (taken from chessdom)
15:00 CET We have just received a call from Silvio Danailov. He confirmed that the decision is against FIDE laws. The game might continue even today if the organizing commettee decides.
15:15 CET To understand better the situation be sure to check the story of Anna Rudolf on Chessdom. Yesterday, the Hungarian Chess Federation filed a letter to FIDE regarding a similar case.
15:25 CET Three days ago Silvio Danailov said infront of Bulgarian media that there will be no handshake in Topalov Kramnik game. Or FIDE has to act in a 24 hours period or this situation cannot be prevented.
*
Alright:
Anna Rudolf didn’t claim a win, Short says he did. That’s the difference.
http://www.chessdom.com/corus-chess-2008/short-cheparinov-live
The FIDE rule is NOT valid, FIDE letter to Chessdom.com says
I think this rule is stupid as it stands at the moment. It is much more disturbing and disrespectful for example if one stares at his opponent during the whole game,but the arbiter will not default him if there is a protest.If FIDE wants to impose handshakes then they should also publish a whole set of rules for one’s behaviour,specific dressing code, situations when one has to play handicapped people, etc.Such a rule on its own means nothing to me.I would appreciate an opponent who doesn’t bow over the board, doesn’t use dirty tricks like staring, coughing, and so on, because this shows a real respect for the game and the opponent.
…and as far as unsportsmanlike conduct goes, it’s unbelievable that Short claimed victory by appealing to the arbiter! Was he personally deeply insulted by the refusal? Could he in no way play chess anymore? Seems to me he thought he’d take the full point on a technicality that has nothing to do with chess. He didn’t even inform Cheparinov of his intention to do so. If an arbiter saw the event, and declared Short victor, things would be different.
Imagine a football match against Arsenal and Manchester United should be decided because Wegner didn’t want to shake hands with Fergusson. No one would like it, of course, and it is unthinkable in any other game, than chess. We want to see action on the board, and it is really, really sad FIDE doesnt fully understand this.
@ HetMes
From what I understand, the game was only declared a loss after the arbiter had given Cheparinov another chance to accept his opponent’s handshake.
yes that is true, that is a difference. actually quite big, to decide something in the match and to decide something after the match has been played.
I guess the question comes down to if it is a valid rule or not. but according to Shorts comments it does sound like a valid rule, it would be weird if it isnt vaild half a year after it has been accepted…
It’s clear that there has to be CERTAIN rules like against direct insult; the handshake rule is discussable (I agree with it, but I understand people being against it).
Anyway I think this is bad behaviour.
Vassily, I think though that coughing is “disturbing”, refusing to shake hands is a “direct insult” in the face of the player; might be a difference.
Anyway, no matter if pro or against this rule, and no matter if Cheparinov knew about it, it doesn’t explain why he refused to shake hands. Short raises himself the question if it’s because his remarcs on San Luis, but as ~~~~ points out here in his post, Short apparently wrote a letter to Dainalov regarding this.
Well, even if the rules are still not entirely clear, one thing is crystal clear: the Bulgarians had it coming. Finally someone took a stand. Bravo, Nigel!
…and just a side note, the title of the livecast on chessdom is now renamed from “Short – Cheparinov LIVE!” to “The new Elista, Short – Cheparinov scandal LIVE!”. As the saying goes, if you want drama, you’ll get drama… and more
Imho, Short is merely exercising his rights, and Cheparinov should be glad that he did not end up getting manhandled, but then again an Englishman would not be capable of such uncivilized behaviour
I understand why people might think the rule is exagerated, but I find the Football match argument no valid, because chess is not football, chess requires a different form of concentration.
Besides, in football players also insult each other and there are loud spectators; now if you compare chess with soccer then you also have to agree having a loud screaming audience (you want that during your game?) and on one player suddenly standing up and screaming insults.
As said, the form of concentration is different (although there is the question if not shaking hands is that bad for concentration).
That’s comparing apples and oranges.
I do agree though that Short’s behaviour wasn’t very sportsman’s like either; I wonder if I would have claimed win (a question, to be fair, that everybody should ask to him/herself).
But as somebody said, Cheparinov was apparently given another chance to shake hands.
@~~~~
I see, did the arbiter also inform Cheparinov that he would lose the game if he didn’t shake hands, or was he just asked to shake hands, period?
Perhaps Cheparinov had to risk taking a fall, because Danailov (or is it Dainalov?) wanted to now where FIDE exactly stands on this, and not risk the coming match against Kramnik. Just like in Karate Kid
You gotta love a nice scandal…
..and I can’t resist a further quib:
There’s a coverstory to be found in every controversy!
@ Hetmes
“Cheparinov the crash test dummie”
Although if both Kramnik and Topalov refuse to shake hands I guess nothing will happen. But Kramnik would show humour if he’d offer to shake hands to Topalov.
yes the chessdom people are really going through the roofs hehe. I am going to just say somthing that is prejustice from my part, and I appologize already to anyone who doesnt fit into this comment, but their behaviour is very typical east european countries. very nationalistic and loyal to the point of not being able to look even a little bit at the issue from both sides. if they did, they would have said something about cheparinov not shaking hands, at least they can try to defend it, but they arent even on that level, because their side has no part in this scandal, it is the world against bulgaria. it is just very tiresome and they will just corner themselves and in the end other people from bulgaria will suffer from it because maybe they arent like that at all but here I go saying that they are.
“the Bulgarians had it coming” and “an Englishman would not be capable of such uncivilized behaviour”
) Right in sync with Danailov et al’s comments on “the Russians”!
The regulation mentioned by Short is actually for he 2008 – 2009 FIDE Grand-Prix. Is Corus 2008 part of the 2008 – 2009 FIDE Grand-Prix?
Regulations for the 2008 – 2009 FIDE Grand-Prix
1. Introduction
1.1. Following the approval of the Presidential Board in Tallinn 2007, Global Chess BV and FIDE have worked on the Regulations for the World Championship Cycle for 2008/2009. A principle of stability and consolidation has been maintained throughout the various meetings and discussions held to draw up these Regulations.
…..
13.4 The players shall shake hands (or shall greet each other in a normal social manner in accordance with the conventional rules of their society) before the start and after the end of each game. If a player fails to meet these requirements and after being asked to do so by the Chief Arbiter, then he will lose the game immediately.
Read the regulation at http://fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=DD10
I would like to hear Cheparinov
it is not part of the grand prix, the grand prix is the world championship cycle…it is part of the grand slam however but that is not the same thing.
FIDE might just be the silliest organization in any sport, slow and annoying in anything they do. you?Ǭ¥d think they would be clear about their rules at least but that is apparently a hard thing. Im sure it makes it all better that their president is a hypocrat…pfft.
Maybe shrugging is a conventional rule of greeting for Cheparinov.
In any way either Cheparinov apparently didn’t know about the letter Short wrote to Danailov- bad preparation then.
Or he was really the crash test dummie for Topalov-Kramnik. Poor boy then.
I would nevertheless keep comments about “the Bulgarians” down; because then you do the same way of arguing as Danailov. Besides I’d rather say “the Danailov” team than “the Bulgarians”, that’s a difference.
@hairulov: no, the rule you mention is quite similar, but not the same.
Who cares about the rules anyway? What matters is that Cheparinov is an idiot, and Short exposed him. Way to go!
Is there anything going on between Cheparinov and Anna that may motivate him to undertake such a course of action? (more scandal, heh heh)
Joram, i don’t understand what do you mean with “he rule you mention is quite similar, but not the same”
“a match with short will be short”
g.k.
@hairulov: there is indeed a simalar rule (the one you mention) that applies only for grand prix tournaments. But Short claimed a win based on a different rule, although it is almost the same as the one you quote. As you can see in the text of the behavioural norms that has currently been posted up on this page, it applies to all FIDE tournaments and FIDE matches.
The question is, though, are these norms official or officious? The FIDE Presidential Board hasn’t got the power to change the FIDE rules of chess. Therefor, the decision taken by the arbiter is not undisputed.
If I were a cheating grandmaster, I’d make sure the only time I am cheating is in making sure I take advantage of my opponent’s weaker moves; capitalize on chances given. I’d rely on my own strength for the rest of the game. It won’t be noticed in the statistics, and the only time I need to be alerted, is when my opponent plays a weak move. That’s just two or three alerts per match to give me a decisive edge. Seems to me, smart people, e.g. 2700+ rated players, would know that.
@ Hetmes
Are 2700+ smart people? Maybe a high IQ, but…quite a few of them are “Fachidioten” I think, as said in german….it kinda means “profession idiots” (people only smart in their field).
@ all
Just once more:
Anna didn’t claim the win, Short did. It does make a difference. The question raised by Chessdom is if Anna can still claim now that she knows about the rule but the game and tournament is finished.
The OFFCIAL appeal of Cheparinov is published in the live of http://www.chessdom.com
The folks at chessdom have now officially lost their mind. They suggest that Cheparinov’s action was “a direct defense of Anna Rudolf”… “Could this be a gentleman act supporting Anna”? Yeah, I’m sure that must have been it, gallant young Cheparinov sacrificing a point for a lady.
Except… what does she have to do with any of this?!?
http://www.chessdom.com/corus-chess-2008/short-cheparinov-live
Wow…chessdom going yellow press. Fun fun fun!
Besides the letter of Danailov is up saying it was because of the Interview by Short (I suppose that his letter to Danailov is fake or wasn’t accepted), so unfortunately chessdom has to take their conspiracy theory back.
I do think the behaviour was chlidish, but nevertheless (I hate to say that) Danailov has a point if saying the referee should have first informed Cheparinov. If it is true.
So the reason Cheparinov refused to shake hands was indeed that Short “insulted him and our team gravelly”. Which means that he hadn’t read Short’s email to Danailov, posted above. What an idiot.
i think that danailov is very bad in quick pr decisions – the explanaition of cheparinov’s motives is absolutely not good diplomacy. It sounds bad. However in general he is brave in more pleasent way than “the shivering Short” who is a disgrace for a long time.
ok – i am a bulgarian, so i am biased- but i think that the both sides show themselves as idiots. However if we forget the silly explanaition the deed of cheparinov is very good and short’s behavior is again a disgrace
he most likely read it but still thinks it is an insult. and it is, basicly, but only if you are a very gentle person (read:person with big ego). :p
I guess the most basic problem is an arbiter who hasnt read the rules. in the greatest event this year (or I think so, itis top 3 no matter how you look at it). it is seriously weird.
Re. chessdom.com :
In the Rudolf case, they were overtly and ferociously defending this hungarian girl against the unethical behaviour of her attackers.
Now, although the situation is less grave (only refusal of handshake), one gets the impression they’re secretly siding with the bulgarian boy Cheparinov.
They question the validity of the arbiter’s decision, but not a single word on the unethical behaviour of Cheparinov.
Look what they’re posting right now : ” A new Elista is on the way. And it could all
have been avoided if Mr. Short was reading chessdom.com and following the Anna Rudolf case, as thousands of people did these days. He would simply know the rules, as every chess player should. Follow the scandal LIVE now”.
They’re actually blaming Short for all this !!!
The stench of hypocrisy becomes unbearable when reading this.
Chessdom is narrow-minded, biased, in fact they’re eating out of Danailov’s hand.
Slightly off-topic : their coverage of chess tournaments is , to say the least, quite strange. Large reports on (with all respect) lesser tournaments and championships in Central Europe, Israel, Scandinavia,… but not a single word on the (very exciting with many decisive games) Russian championship (with four 2700+ players).
Not one report on the last four rounds of the Tal memorial, only two days after the
tournament ended they came with a short report, saying there were too many draws and making propaganda for the Sofia rules (although many people found it an exciting tournament). If Topalov would have won and played the way Kramnik did (+4), we would have been flooded with enthusiastic reports.
The chessdom website STINKS!
gary, comon…shorts behaviour is not a disgrace, and yes, you are obviously biased. :p
you could however say that short could have shown a big heart and played on anyway, especially since he had white, and shown his skills over the board instead. it would have been the best way to beat him, then cheparinov would have looked like a silly child with a too big ego after the game. that would have been the best.
Michel: “Danailov has a point if saying the referee should have first informed Cheparinov. If it is true.”
That’s a big if. The regulations quoted on the Corus site explicitly mention that a game will be declared a loss if a player “does not shake hands with the opponent (…) before the game starts (…) (and does not do it after being asked to do so by the arbiter)”. I doubt they would invoke that rule in their press release if the arbiter hadn’t done exactly that, and for some reason I trust the Corus people more than I trust team Danailov.
I think the game will be repeated because the referee (following Danailov) didn’t inform Cheparinov about the fact he’d be losing.
By this way the FIDE will avoid the shame of admitting that 1.) It wasn’t clear if the rule is valid of not and 2.) The referees had no clue at all.
Nevertheless all this will throw an even worse light on Danailov and any of his players. Wouldn’t surprise me if Cheparinov didn’t inform Danailov beforehand of his planned behaviour.
@ Gary
“Brave” would have been to beat Short on the battlefield. Then again you could say the same about Short, who I think also behaved childish.
Nevertheless he claimed his win following a rule (at least following one he thought it exists), so the “fault” of the scandal is still one the side of Cheparinov/Danailov.
“… it could all have been avoided if Mr. Short was reading chessdom.com”
How dare he ignore our website!
Xtra yhea, i agree but i dont like these narcistic and impulsive but then over-explaining and shivering type of persons. I would respect him if he had stayed and played the game. Just like i didnt like topalov’s demandings on the often tolet thing of kramnik. Maybe just to mention ur disapproval but not more.
But also I have to agree that shaking hand rule is not good for the game.
The protest letter comes out funny, probably unintentionally.
Quote:’Even more, Mr.Cheparinov told him very clearly that if he oblige him to do this, he is ready to do it.’
What I see here is Mr. Cheparinov acting unsportsmanlike only because he thought it wouldn’t cost him anything. As the protest letter says – very clearly are the words used – he is quite willing to act against his principles if asked to do so.
Well, as they say:’If you don’t have a backbone, you’d better stay inside of your own skin.’
@ ~~~~
Gotta point there.
I’m just playing with the different possibilities.
If the referee did inform Cheparinov then it gets more interesting, because if gets down to the question wether the rule is valid or not. Following the Danailov letter is is though (at it is a reccomendation of the FIDE that CAN be followed), so in this case Short keep the point.
Oops, sorry for the typing errors…I think I’m going offline now, got better things to do than waiting for the decision of the board…have fun guys
The general feeling here — if I may take the liberty of summarising — is that we want to see chess decide who wins or loses and not decisions by officials. Let them play this tomorrow or tonight!
Remember the way a faulty claim of draw between little kids was handled at the Youth World Championships last year? Wouldn’t it be nice if these GM players are dragged from their beds after midnight and told to play the game then and there.
@ Timo
Oh yes.
And no dinner for them and no more sweets.
Let’s treat them like kids, fitting to their behaviour!
I’m off now. But thanks for that amusing thought.
And on top of all that, Topalov loses!
Did not see that coming! http://www.chessdom.com/corus-chess-2008/short-cheparinov-live
the update from 17:15 says they should penalize Short and give the victory at Anna’s tournament over baseless accusations some time ago
They’re clearly nuts. Why don’t they have Cheparinov play Anna Rudolf on the next rest day?
@ ~~~~
Can you tell me why Topalov resigned after 40. ….Qc5 ?
I think I’ve gotta serious blind spot (how annyoing) there and I wanna know before shutting my Computer down.
@michel The queenside pawns become unstoppable
@ Hetmes
Hmm, alright. Thanks!
@ Michel
I was wondering too. My conclusion was that after 40. … bxc5 41. Rce3 the ending is lost; if black exchanges all rooks there will come Nxd6, if he lets white take on e5 and takes back with the pawn, Ne4 and Nxc5 is one threat. In both cases ends up two pawns down.
@ ~~~~
True, black ends up two pawns down either way.
I did the mistake to search for a more “obvious” blunder and didn’t calculate the few moves to the ending.
Apparently for Cheparinov (e.a.?) Short has betrayed Topalov’s cause anyway, no matter how misinterpreted his words may have been by journalists or how elaborate Short’s clarifications have been afterwards.
The central question is whether the arbiter had informed Cheparinov of the consequences of his refusal before administering the penalty, for a forfeit seems like a harsh punishment for possible ignorance on Cheparinov’s side. In any case, Topalov and Kramnik are warned now, and they surely perform a heart warming hand shake at the beginning of theri game…
as people have said it is different when both refuse, because there is no one to claim the win. so nothing will happen. and I dont think the organizers are interested in forcing kramnik and topalov to shake hands.
but im growing tired of this already.
does carlsen have any winning chances? it looks drawn but maybe he can push gelfand over the cliff like kramnik did with aronian.
It appears to me that Short not only knew of the new rule, but also that he is the type of person that needs to know these rules. Even though Cheparinov’s behaviour is rather gentleman-unlike, I also feel that running to the referee as Short seemingly did, is not the most diplomatic way to react.
Now, are there any rules in the CorusTournament rules on social behaviour by players?
slibbe
Come on…
Chess GrandMasters are supposed to be highly “intelligent” people! And not Kindergarten students…
Why not just shake hands, play the game and move on?
Cheparinov is guilty. He didn’t want to shake hands = he forfeits the game. That result should not be changed, so this is a clear signal to all the chessplayers that they should behave as grownups and not as children.
Sorry to say it, but objectively speaking this is another “calculated insult” (as Short called it) psychological trick by the Danailov camp.
Those guys should stop these dirty tricks and just play the game as professionals.
They made the chessworld ridiculous for way too many times before!
Big respect to players like Anand and Kramnik and so many others who are decent representatives for our sport. I hate to say this but the Bulgarians are NOT good representatives for chess!
Theo
There’s some irony here. Short, who has been sharply critical of the FIDE and it’s president, is now forced to hide behind the same president’s coat tails when his opponent refuses to shake his hand. Forcing Mr. Cheparinov to shake Mr. Short’s hand would not dispel any animus the former has for the latter, or in any way change the perceptions of the Bulgarian bloc (assuming, as Mr. Short does, that his opponent’s actions were motivated by a team decision). Instead of immediately seeking succor, Mr. Short should have finished the game then informed the tournament organizers of his intention to claim any subsequent game involving similar behaviour. This would have underscored the boorish actions of his Bulgarian opponent and given Mr. Short the high ground. It would also have saved us all the tedious brouhaha that will now unfold.
wow, now vlad and vessi will HAVE TO shake hands?
chessdom: “Appeal’s committee decision: game to be replayed tomorrow at 13:30 CET! Cheparinov is also asked to make a public excuse and the players will be obliged to shake hands. If someone does not follow these norms, he will be forfeited. ”
it is probably fair…of course it is more annoying for Short than for Cheparinov, but Short shouldnt have made such a big issue out of it, at least not until after the game. and cheparinov does have to make an excuse.
I wonder if Short can put his crybaby instincts away and actually benefit from this, e.g. by forcing a handshake tomorrow. that could get him a psychological advantage. not very nice though. but I think it is more likely that he will forfeit the game in protest.
what a great mess this became. wee.
question: I thought kramnik and adams resigned. so why are they stated to be in the committee?
Tuesday’s game between Kramnik and Topalov will have a really interesting start!
There will be like 200 camera’s around that board! WOW
Haha, wise decision!
“And don’t act like little children, both of you!”
We will never know why Cheparinov started this thing anyway though.
It’s a pity that Cheparinov’s inexcusible behaviour is being rewarded with a replay of the game. They should have issued him with a warning that any misbehaviour of even the slightest kind (clock, writing in timepressure etc) will result in him being banned from the tournament and forfeit of any price- or other money.
Just like with the Anna Rudolf-case it is necessary that these kind of players are at risk of losing their income.
As long as the sinister danailov is around we will always have these childish scandals looming and damaging the world of chess. It is unfortunate that Topalov and Cheparinov are not smart enough to realize that danailov is damaging their reputation greatly.
It is ironic that danailov (who by the way needs to improve his English) stated that Short should not have asked to get the point by forfeit like a child. He is obviously disillusioned since that’s exactly what topalov and him did in the match against Kramnik. I hope that Short plays and crushs cheparinov tomorrow. Also the FIDE should demand that danailov, topalov and cheparinov take lessons in good manners and gentleman behavior, and may be even follow therapy to control their behaviors.
whatever happens tomorrow, and whatever the intended meaning of the bizarrely poorly drafted rule upon which Short relied, cheparinov will pay an awful price for this piece of petulant nonsense. put yourself in the position of the Dutch organizers. do you think they will ever invite cheparinov back?
Joe, perhaps Silvio should have given his interview in Bulgarian?
Again, and I will probably again be censured for this statement, but I get sick of Danailov, Topalov and Cheparinov. Let them be banned forever and stop spoiling our wonderful tournament.
It is indeed ironic:
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2681
How dare Danailov say Mr. Short acted like a child when it was his boy who acted like a total jerk!
The sooner Danailov is banned from chess, the better! He is nothing but poison for the game. As for that jerk Cheparinov, I hope the organizers do not invite him to Corus next year.
Cheparinov and Danailov are both jerks.
Cheparinov, So easy to remember and so hard to forget.
Short, Are you sure that you try to rule yourself by principles? If that is true, it is not much better to just play the game and be quiet.
More than saying
“I hope Cheparinov is not being invited anymore.”
I’d say
“I hope Topalov and Cheparinov will realize they’re being manipulated by Danailov and send him away.”
Because I think these boys follow anything their manager says and he highly damages their reputation. I’m sure Topalov really thinks Kramnik cheated at their match, because Danailov convinced him of it.
In any way I agree Short should have just played the game and complained later, like this he agreed in creating a scandal. Besides Short is not big on gentleman-behaviour (I think it’s more his ego being hurted), remember the things he said about Tony Miles after his death.
Nevertheless the initial blame of course goes to Cheparinov.
Hope at least that Short will put his ego aside and play tomorrow, and win.
Btw guys, really, please don’t write “the Bulgarians”, it’s not like every bulgarian chessplayer behaves like that. Write “the Bulgarians of the Danailov team” if you want. But don’t generalize.
Good night!
I have closely followed the events in Wijk aan Zee today. My feeling, based on available data, is that the decision by Mr. Thomas Van Beekum, the arbiter involved, was at least controversial.
I will start from the wording of the Presidential decision:
“Any player who does not shake hands with the opponent (or greets the opponent in a normal social manner in accordance with the conventional rules of their society) before the game starts in a FIDE tournament or during a FIDE match (and does not do it after being asked to do so by the arbiter) or deliberately insults his/her opponent or the officials of the event, will immediately and finally lose the relevant game. “
The whole point here lies in the “and” starting the sentence in the second bracket. To “immediately and finally lose the relevant game” a player must not only “not shake hands with the opponent” but also (”and”) “not do it after being asked to do so by the arbiter”. In Short’s account of the incident (the only one available so far), the arbiter appears to be a witness of Cheparinov’s refusal, but apparently took no active part in the scene, i.e. he did not request Cheparinov to shake hands. Under the Presidential decision, a refusal in itself is not enough to lose a game: the player must also refuse to do so upon an official request by an arbiter.
If – and only if – the arbiter Mr. Thomas Van Beekum did not ask Cheparinov to comply with the Presidential decision, then his ruling seems to be ill-informed. On the other hand, if he did positively ask Cheparinov to shake hands with his opponents, obtaining a no for an answer, then he was completely right and should be praised for his cold-bloodedness.
Of course, Short’s behavious was irreproachable. He was disturbed by his opponent’s behaviour and, according to current regulation, had a right to complain about it. But, in my view, all he could achieve at that time was to obtain that the arbiter ask Cheparinov to shake hands and his claim for a win should only have been upheld after the latter’s refusal to shake hand after the said official request.
Let me add a final remark. Short says that probably only 25% of the arbiters know their job. My answer is that regulations are difficult and that players and top managers themselves have troubles in understanding them. Elista was a clear case in which Players, Managers and Arbiters were not up to their task. Unfortunately, Corus 2008 seems to be following in the same footpath.
Forfeit a game over this, no. It is rude behavior to not acknowledge your opponent, but you have hours in which you can do the same. Short’s opponent was clearly being cold, but that is his right. Chess is not a social event. If you are going to enforce social skills for chess players, FIDE should come up with CEUs (continuing education credits) for chess masters. God knows most of them need them.
this is unfair decision. Like in school – so what now Cheparinov will stand in front of the class and say “sorry short that i do not respect you”, very stupid decision.
And this rule is very silly for the chess in general… because it has nothing to do with chess itself. not mentioning that obviously this is not a rule.
p.s. it is what a gentleman is obliged not to do when he doesnt respect some desgrace like short, and this is a polite way to show it. an aristocrat would accept this silently and not pushing his hand forwards and crying after like a pussy dall
pssst….so now they turn the tables and claim it is Short who is at fault? Danailov would do well to enter politics.
Anyway, don’t be surprised when Topalov enters the playing hall on Tuesday, ready with disinfectant spray and wearing white gloves.
I’m not going to say anything about ethics and FIDE rules that’s one issue, but it’s clear that in this case it was the arbiter’s mistake. I know Mr. Beekum a bit, he really likes to overreact things like in this case…
Such a embarasing moment for both players.
The Corus event is a classy tournament.
People who are honored to participate in it should be gratefull and behave as adults.
We cannot allow an incident like this to srmudge the very fine name of the Corus Tournament and the game of chess.
For me the question is;
Is the handshake part of the game? In other sports you have similar “rituals”wich are part of the game. For example like in judo you have to greet (bow) before and after the fight.
Its possible in the new rules the handshake is considered as part of the game and so I think short is right here. Although a warning first is a must.
If the handshake is just a polite way of manner and not part of the game I think Cheparinov did as he wanted. I think to only one who he served a bad favour is himself with this. But in that case he should not lost the point.
If Short feels insulted, the place to find satisfaction is on the chess board! Short acted like a wimp.
Remember how he acted when he was kicked out from the World cup?
His time is over. His brain is not as sharp as it used to be and feeling pity about himslef he looks for excuses.
The official apologies of mr. Cheparinov:
Dear All,
I accept the decision of the Appeal Committee and on the name of chess ,the
chess fans and showing respect to the opinion of my colleagues would like to state the following:
I apologize officially to Mr. Short, to the Organizing Committee and the sponsors of Corus chess tournament.
I am ready to play the game today at 13?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢30 and will shake hands with Mr.Short according to the decision of the Appeal Committee.
Best regards,
Ivan Cheparinov
Poor Nigel !!! To go to the arbiter and to claim victory !!! And on top of than he insist that after e4 c5 he won. Probably he wants elo points too. What a pitiful person.
What he expects after he clearly offended the bulgarian recently.
I think we are witnessing a “Cheparinov Gambit”. Firstly, sacrifies a pwan and then gain initiative… I wonder what Short would reply now????
.. or should I say Danailov Gambit, Cheparinov variation with short attack!
and you even managed to get it on tape!,peter you are just excellent!
Why Nigel short said “I won, e4 c5, and I won”? What he won?
There have been many posts about how the shaking hands is hypocritical, you can’t expect chessplayers to be friends, not the same in sports such as football etc. but they miss the purpose of the handshake. The purpose of the handshake is not a token of friendship, or some abstract formality but the recognition of the validity of ones oponent to play you, essentially declaring them someone who is fit to play against. To deny this is in effect to claim they are ’sub human’ (imagine a player refusing to shake hands because their opponent was black) which is why its offensive, not because its a denial of friendship. Between football managers its significance is lessened to some extent by the idea of a team sport so whilst its an insult the effect is far less than where the insult is aimed directly at a person.
So whilst its true that Short overreacted a bit (he is British though and we have a proud history of sportsmanship and manners), it is understandable why he did not just continue on and play. If Cheparinov has a problem with Short then let him settle it in the media, or personnally outside of the tournament rather than throwing insults in the tournament.
Technically the committee have overstepped their authority by effectively making handshaking a rule (with the arbitrators intervention as a mitigating factor) but it was essential to ensure a widespread avoidance of handshaking, which should either be ‘compulsory’ if one player has offered a handshake or purely a voluntary action rather than a guideline.
It will be interesting though to see what happens in the Topalov-Kramnik game tomorrow, I would assume there will be no handshake or complaint as Danaliov suggested as both players are mutually opposed (and don’t have an overactive British sense of sportsmanship) and be allowed to as they will not ask the arbitrator to intervene (althougth it would be fantastic to see what Topalov would do should Kramnik actually offer to shake his hand). Best of all would be to see two great players actually put their personal/political differences behind them and respect each other as human beings and great chess players.
(Lol at Danaliov’s ‘It’s all Short’s fault for behaving like a child’, he does clearly have a career in politics, oh to see the reporter then ask, ‘But surely Cheparinov could have avoided all this trouble by not acting like a child and petulantly refusing to shake a persons hand in the first place?’ )
damn the game is going on!!! omg!!!
do you see the way short ran to the arbiter after he was ignored…. its like a little kid going to complain to his mom… see the glee on his face when the tells the journalist about his “win”….
short is a joke and disgrace to the GM title
It was Danailov ,testing the ground before tommorows clash. Its a pity ,but we are not living in a perfect world
No doubt Cheparinov was being deliberately offensive to Short, and let us hope he loses the rematch.
BUT there is more going on here than meets the eye.
Why was a video camera rolling to capture the scene?
Who was working it??
I think we we should be told
Well, Bulgarians shake their head for “yes” and nod for “no,” so who knows what’s in the background of not shaking hands? Perhaps shaking hands is an insult with them and shrugging (as someone mentioned earlier on) is a gesture of courtesy.
On a more relevant note: Short is winning the replay. As far as I can judge, that is.
Vincit veritas!
http://hvala.blog.is/blog/hvala/entry/420392/
Nice video of Short playing! Rather funny.
On this particular issue: I do not like how the Bulgarians conduct themselves. On the other hand, that same applies to Short.
Concerning this new “rule”: It is ridiculous! It is silly to force someone to shake the hand of a sworn enemy. Case closed.
Please read the rule again:
?¢‚Ǩ?ìAny player who does not shake hands with the opponent (or greets the opponent in a normal social manner in accordance with the conventional rules of their society) before the game starts in a FIDE tournament or during a FIDE match (and does not do it after being asked to do so by the arbiter) or deliberately insults his/her opponent or the officials of the event, will immediately and finally lose the relevant game. ?¢‚Ǩ?ì
Clearly, by refusing to shake Short’s hand Cheparinov intended an insult. Short gave Cheparinov, not one, but two chances to do the right thing. Since Cheparinov could not find the sportsmanship or common decency within himself to be a gentleman do the right thing he ought to have been forfeited immediately according to the way the rule is written. I believe the “after being asked to do so” part of the rule is there only in case one of the opponents forgets. Clearly Cheparinov did not forget, but intended an insult.
Short did not act childishly. He acted on principle. How can so many posters here not see that? If I were Short, I would reject the Appeals Committee’s descision and refuse to play. The only thing that might change my mind is a truly sincere apology from Cheparinov, rather than a compelled one. The Appeals Committee should be held responsible for upholding FIDE rules, and Short’s refusing to play might be the way to hold them to it.
Please think again, djq. What if Short only wanted the handshake to get the point? He himself have sometimes avoided the handshake, as have many others, and some with good reasons. This is really a silly rule, which has only provocated more bad behaviour and scandals in the chess world. Let the game be decided by the board, as it fortunally was today. And today, at last, Short deserved the win.
You can watch Short against Kamsky on youtube. Should be very hard for him to explain, why it suddenly is so important to him to handshake now.
Well, well, let’s all get over this ridicule.
@Esalen:
Did you mean http://youtube.com/watch?v=cok4o2fy6Vg ? I didn’t Short there…
I got two things to say about this.
First, it’s funny how the Bulgarians are always going on about everybody being against them, of course especially Kramnik. Now there is a ruling by the appeals committee, which includes said Kramnik but also Polgar who isn’t best of friends with Topalov c.s. as far as I know (her being absent from the World Cup, too), actually annulling the forfeit of Cheparinov. Wonder if the Bulgarians have any words of thanks or s/t to say about the appeals committee… IMHO Kramnik & Polgar show wonderful neutrality. They should of course, but I have seen appeals committees do worse *cough*Elista*cough*.
Second, it is of course striking to see who are involved in major scandals over the last few years. The aftermath of San Luis 2005: Topalov, Danailov, Morozevich and some other Russians. Elista 2006: Topalov, Danailov, Kramnik. Corus 2008: Cheparinov, Danailov, Short.
There is one common factor there and I find it hard to believe that in each of these scandals the blame lies, by some kind of freaky coincidence, with the party opposite ‘the Bulgarians’.
@Esalen: my latest post (where a missing word had been added) suddenly dissapeared… Did you mean http://youtube.com/watch?v=cok4o2fy6Vg ? I didn?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t see Short there.
I’m wondering why everyone is so much interested in the scandal, but not in the Short-Cheparinov game itself. So, what about 41.Bd6? I have no Rybka or whatever, but it seems it is an interesting move, isn’t it?
Xtra: Thank you to generalize. Now all eastern Europeans are like Danailov, Topalov and Cheparinov. I’m feeling great to be compared to these people. I think it’s not relevant where they come from, but what they are like. They have made many scandals without a reason (at least i didn’t see a reason), they were unfair with their opponents. Thank you for your “typical eastern european” comment. I’m not even bulgarian, but i’m like them.
Boldizs?ɬ°r: I think he deserved it after the incident.
Someone said earlier we shouldn’t call them “the bulgarians”, because we hope they are not like Danailov in general.
Gary: You can’t be objective now, because you are biased. They are of the same nation as you. Of course you are proud because of Topalov, one of the best players nowdays, Cheparinov, a very talented chess player. Unfortunately their personality is not at the same level as their talent.
Many blamed Short after the incident. What did he do? He was insulted and wanted to win. In that moment he probably thought he deserves the win after Cheparinov’s disgracing gesture. If you ask me, he didn’t do anything wrong. He just called the arbiter and told him what happened. The arbiter decided to give him the point. He was happy. Don’t forget the moment in Elista when Topalov got a point for free. He was very happy. He probably new Kramnik didn’t play because he was insulted, and, as a consequence, Topalov didn’t deserve the win. He nevertless was happy, because he was in a very difficult match situation up to that point. Short, in contrast was right that Cheparinov acted immaturely, so why don’t complain? Chess is not about insults. Chess is about the board. If you don’t like your opponent, insult him outside the tournament hall.
Danailov can’t control Topalov and Cheparinov. Don’t forget they are genious. They can’t be so naive to be controlled for years by a person.
I didn?Ǭ¥t like the ruling of the Appeals Committe… The “new rule” made by FIDE Presidential Board is not valid, since only the FIDE Congress can change the “Laws of Chess”. This is very important… if not, maybe tomorrow we will have more problems…
There is another issue: pretending that “all chessplayers” are “perfect and friends” is a non-sense… They are common people, and like in another professional sports, there are problems… I can?Ǭ¥t see why you are obliged to “shake hands” with a person who is clearly “not your friend”…. In another professional sports, for example, tennis, if a player commits a “bad bahaviour”, then, he suppers a monetary penalty… but not the “loss of the game”….
Lets the people to play chess, no matter if the shakes hands or not…. forcing a person to shake hands with another does not makes them friends…. Nothing changes… it is only hypocrisy…
The rule applies to shaking hands BEFORE the game. The game had already started 1. e4, c5 when Nigel Short offered his hand.
“Handshake” needs to enter the lexicon of the chess arbiter.
There is no corresponding entry in Yuri Averbakh’s “Small
Chess Dictionary”, 1980, published by Chess Informant.
Russian is (sorry, no Cyrillic) rukopozhatiya.
French is serrer la main
Spanish is estrecharle la mano a …
I’m sure that readers know other languages.
So (excuse my lack of Academy), I’d say:
“You must shake hands.”
“On doit serrer le main.”
“Hay que estrecharle la mano.”
“Rukopozhatiya nuzhna.”
Of course, the inventive arbiter can always resort to
gestures. First, shake your hand in thin air. Then
move the right index finger from left to right over the
throat.
Grin.
This smells like Cold War stuff. When one considers the background all the way back from the Kramnik-Topalov match, one word sums it. Danailov. One need not explain further. Let Cheparinov learn his lesson; he is young and might still learn proper manners. As for Danailov, at very least I hope that his players fire him. But then again FIDE itself reeks of the likes of him, so he’s not going away…. Let GM Short continue his comeback. Deny Cheparinov the point.
This is old news , and your perspective on the incident is very wrong.