New open letters Dresden
26 April 2007 7:52 AM | Last modified: 7:58
On Tuesday last week GM Erik van den Doel sent an open letter to us and others in which he complained about the quality of the food in his hotel and the price that had to be paid for it, during the European Championships. He wondered where the chess players’ money exactly went. Today we publish the reaction of ECU president Boris Kutin and Van den Doel’s reply.
Boris Kutin’s reaction:
Monday, 23 April 2007
This is a response to the Open Letter from GM Erik van den Doel concerning the European Individual Championships 2007 in Dresden published on the TWIC Site and elsewhere.
His complaint is about the cost and quality of food in the IBIS Hotel. He does not mention the fact that this was the most successful ever European Championship with the highest ever prize fund of 250,000 Euros which was played in excellent conditions but chess organisers are, of course, used to hearing only negative comments from some quarters.
He alleges that the ECU received the money for the hotel accommodation, infers that ECU received a commission from these payments and negotiated with the hotels a low standard of meals. None of this is true nor were these allegations raised with me whilst in Dresden which I would have thought would be an elementary courtesy before publishing an Open Letter attacking the ECU.
The facts are:
There was no stipulation that players had to stay in any designated hotel. They were free to choose and to make their own arrangements direct with any hotel of which there are many in Dresden with a wide range of prices.
The Organising Committee (of which the ECU is not part - we only sanction the event) negotiated deals with hotels which players could either take up or not as they wished.
No payments for hotel accommodation were made through the ECU nor did the ECU receive any commission.
A retraction by Erik would be appreciated.
Boris Kutin
President ECU
Erik van den Doel’s reply to Boris Kutin:
Wednesday, 25 April 2007
This is a response to Mr Kutin’s response to my open letter.
I have to admit that it was too early to put the blame on ECU and for this I appologize.
Having said that, the case is by no means closed. The fact that we were not forced to stay in the IBIS hotel doesn’t make any difference.
Erik van den Doel
The Netherlands
A relief that ECU itself is, in its acting, not similar to FIDE after all…
The question still remains. Why are they sending open letters instead of trying to settle it either (a) like gentlement between one another or (b) in a court of law.
This practice seems to have become common, and even encouraged by such sites as Chessbase (a site I otherwise enjoy). It created the black eye chess received as a result of the Elista match, as well as the subsequent allegations against Topalov (equally unfounded).
One problem with open letters is that it’s one sided. Additionally, certain “facts” are presented that defend that side, and, typically, the first to fire the volley has an advantage in a court of public opinion.
From the first letter of Erik I understand that he tried to settle it, to talk to the organizers:
“By now we had grown very curious about how much ECU had actually paid IBIS. The manager of IBIS refused to tell us, saying this was something between the players and the organisers. Then I spoke with the organiser in charge of these matters, Mr Verleger. He also refused to tell me. One gets the impression there was something to hide.”
But what to do if they won’t answer your questions? You have to do something… Furthermore, it can function as a warning sign for other players. They will be more careful when it comes to choosing lodging in the future. I think it is good Erik went public with his complaints.
There are two conflicting stories here. Erik posted his version first, so his is typically more “credible” for this reason alone.
I wasn’t there. I cannot now get to the ACP site (where I also saw the open letter) as it is down. So my access to more information is limited. As a non-professional, I also have very little interest in the details except that incidents that are so eagerly publicized (especially from one point of view) hurt the public perception of chess.
The problem is that in the past there has been various skulduggerry involved in the running of the European ch, thankfully competitors are no longer forced to stay in designated hotels at exorbitant prices which has happened in the past. But competitors are not stupid and have not got short memories - it is only naturaly that suspicions should be raised over these money matters, the track record of this tournament ensures that.
I remember reading about that incident - I do not wish to name details for the reason I write these notes.
It is simply the mad rush to go right to the press, as well as sites like ChessBase and ACP showing willingness to publish an allegation before a response is received or without requesting a response so as, if they must publish, they will publish both the allegation and the response simultaneously rather than giving the complaintant the advantage of the “white pieces”.
I simply think matters should be settled in private, if possible. Reasonable effort should be expended toward this end before going public. If it is not possible or practical to keep the matter private, then the case, as presented by both sides, should be published on the same page.
As far as I can see, what happened is the players were shortchanged by >>The Organisers
hey, what happened to the rest of my post??
in summary, the rest of my post said:
the organisers and not the ECU.
The ECU got blamed and didn’t like it so they made a defense.
It seems likely that the organisers are the ones to blame for this. The ECU are not the organisers.
Possibly the ECU doesn’t comment on the organisers themselves because they don’t want to anger them. Although it would be ‘correct’ to side with the players.
I think once questions are asked of the organisers the truth will come out.