RSS Feed
Stunning story at World Youth
6 December 2007 12:01 PM | Last modified: 20:52
We were notified by the Belgian chess blog De Schaakfabriek about a stunning course of events during the World Youth that was held 17-29 November Kemer, Antalya (Turkey). A 14-year-old player from Belgium had drawn his game in the penultimate round after a threefold repetition. At 23.00 hours at night, he was suddenly lifted from his bed to see the officials Azmaiparashvili, Campomanes and Makropoulos. The result: around midnight he had to continue his game.
After he had gone to sleep, the 14-year-old Belgian player Nils Nijs heard somebody knocking on the door of his hotel room. He was told that he had wrongly claimed his draw that afternoon. There had been a threefold repetition (not consecutively) and then Nijs had made his move, stopped the clock and claimed a draw with the arbiter. According to regulations, this is a wrong claim because in case of a threefold repetition, a claim should be put forward before making the move. But the arbiter had made the blunder to accept the claim. Mai Lloyd, Nijs’ Canadian opponent, had not agreed with the draw because different moves had been played between the three identical positions (which of course is irrelevant). He had walked away without signing the score sheet. Later it appeared the Canadian delegation had filed a protest concerning the wrong claim, about which the Belgian delegation was never informed.
And so, to his astonishment, together with his coach, Nijs had to go back to the hotel/playing hall where Zurab Azmaiparashvili, Florencio Campomanes and Georgios Makropoulos of the protest commission were waiting for him. His opponent was already there too, and both teenagers were heard by the commission. Because Nijs honestly told them that indeed he had played the move before claiming the draw, it became clear that the arbiter had tried to cover-up his mistake.
After a ten-minute delibaration the commission summoned the players to continue the game, right then and there. And so around midnight, the two youngsters, instead of getting their night sleep before the last round, were finishing an official game. Nijs lost.
The head of the Belgian delegation decided to write a letter to the commission. Not because they didn’t agree with their decision, which stricktly speaking was correct, but because of its inhuman character:
Dear Sir, Madam
With respect to the incident that happened yesterday with the complaint and the appeal for the game in round 10 between Mai Lloyd and Nils Nijs, the Belgian Chess federation would like to react as follows:
1) We accept the verdict of the appeal committee as it was correct according to the laws of chess.
2) We would like to know which measures are to be taken against the arbiter who incorrectly accepted the draw claim and who made false statements to the appeal committee. We all agree that such behaviour must not happen in a world championship chess and we would like to know what you will do to avoid this in the future. Due to this behaviour of the arbiter, May Lloyd and his coach had the opportunity to analyze the position with the computer.
3) Although the organisation of the WYCC has been great until now, we feel extremely uncomfortable about the proceedings of the appeal:
- The timing of the appeal is not aligned with a youth championship. Appeal should be handled before the players are going to sleep. We don’t want to consider if this happened to the -8 category, where our participant goes to bed before 21h00.
- The 14 year old player was lifted out of his bed at 23h00. This is totally unacceptable. One cannot intrude in a player private room and definitely not at 23h00 when he is gone to bed. We don’t know the legal situation in Turkey, but in Belgium this is an illegal behaviour, risking prosecution. We demand from you a clear reaction about this fact.
- By this action the player was deprived of the necessary sleep and his chances for round 11 are severely jeopardized.
- The Belgian delegation was only informed about the appeal after Nils was lifted out of his bed. This is also unacceptable. As such we had no time whatsoever to inform Nils about the appeal and to prepare him for the appeal and the potential continuation of the game, which his opponent had. This is by all means unfair.
- Nils had to continue the game in dire conditions: he was emotionally completely devastated by the verdict of the appeal committee, it was already 23h30 and in his mind the game was drawn because he reached 3 times the same position. One cannot expect that Nils continued the game at his full capabilities.
We would appreciate a positive gesture from your side to Nils because, not having done anything wrong, he has become a victim of a bad arbiter.
Best Regards
Ruben Decrop
Head of Belgian delegation
That “positive gesture” did come: during the prize giving Nijs was asked on stage and from FIDE he received a “Fair Play Award” for his honest testimony to his own disadvantage. It’s unclear whether the award was accompanied with apologies.
Loading ...
Absurd story indeed. What an admirably polite and restrained letter from the Belgian Chess Federation, showing that they don’t want to degrade themselves to the same low level as these FIDE-’officials’.
)
(By the way, it reminds me of a blitz tournament I once played. I was still young and had to play an eldery, respect chess player. I won on time, but some minutes later he came up to me and said, ‘The flag fell too early, look, I still have a minute left. We should continue the game!’ It seemed true indeed, but of course he had already resigned. Unfortunately, I was too young and polite to ignore his request and we played on. Needless to say, I was psychologically demolished by his request and lost without a chance, and then missed the final by half a point..
The standard of arbiting at this event seems to have been appalling. Eyewitnesses have told me of wholescale cheating, with players openly leaving the playing room between moves, walking up to computer terminals, setting up their position on an engine, analysing with it for several minutes, and then walking back into the hall to continue play. Eye-witnesses saw it happening, but the arbiters did not….
I’m not sure about the rules but after both player have sign the score sheet the results should stand no matter what happen before!?
I think the right person to ask about this is Mr Chief Arbiter -Geurt Gijssen but unfortunetly while he in Moscow for Memorial Tal, as the Chief Arbiter of the recently concluded Tal Memorial, Geurt Gijssen fell and broke his hip. He was hospitalized and then flown back to his native Holland where surgery was performed. Read my article http://hairulovchessmaniacs.blogspot.com/2007/11/geurt-gijssen-leg-broken.html
But giving your comment on the internet would not harm you recovery right? so…please Geurt…wanna heard your replied pleasssssseee!
Thx hairulov but we had already mentioned that.
Oooppss sorry…after reading back your article carefully, Nijs opponent -Mai Lloyd had not agree with the arbiter desicions to accept the claim and walked away without signing the score sheet.
So the questions should be whether the desicions should stand although we no that the arbiter have made a mistake?
Peter,
Excuse me for hijacking this thread, but the Chessvibes contact & colophon pages are not working.
I wanted to contact you to ask if you can fix the titles in the RSS-feed. Both languages are shown when I use http://www.chessvibes.com/?feed=rss2&langswitch_lang=en
What browser are you using? Because these pages seem to do fine in IE 7 and Firefox. About the RSS feed: that started when I upgraded the software a while ago. I’m working on it but it’s a nasty problem. You can respond to: my first name at chessvibes dot com.
This kind of behavior by the appeals committee is just what one expects of Mr.Azmaiparashvili.
Nils Nijs’ opponent and (especially) his entourage must be very pleased with themselves: gaining a full point by putting pressure on ‘the green table’. Hear hear, a great chess player has emerged among us. Let us all monitor his future progress closely… What a shame for the game!
I Cannot agree more Jan.
I cannot agree with the last two comments. I have played Lloyd Mai. He has never demonstrated any unsportsmanlike conduct in the past. Such a situation came up in a Johnathan Rowson game, (the British championship) and he was well within his rights to reject the claim of a draw.
If blame should be apportioned, the blame should go to the arbiters and the officials on the protest commission. The officials should have contacted the Belgian officials immediately when they received the protest from the Canadian delegation. I am sure that a suitable solution could have been negotiated giving some time to allow the Belgian player to be properly prepared to resume the game.
One thing that this incident demonstrates that it is important to know the rules of chess as John Emms points out in his new book on playing competitive chess.
Well listen if you do not agree: he (Mai) first protested that it was not 3 times the same position… He was wrong there. Then they (his coach) found this technical error: they can protest because of this technical error of Nils (who admitted this honestly before the commission) followed by the error of the arbiter.
But then: they (the Canadian delegation) allow a player to be pulled from his bed (or they consider 23h a normal hour?). And of course Mai Lloyd did not prepare for the replay, he just saw his coach showing him the claim was ok after all (but technically wrong executed) and of course he spend the next three hours in coma so he would not think on how to win afterwards… At least he knew there was a claim, the belgian delegation found out three hours later! The player was pulled out of his room before any accompanying adult was informed!
Then allowing the game to be resumed at midnight with an opponent dragged out of his bed! Bravo! Calling this sportsmanship is over the top. Even if they did not know what happened just before to his opponent this is a very questionable behaviour, and of course this is all due to the late treatment of the claim. But they did not complain about that, did they? And I hope he has never been unsportive before as you claim!
This half a point is a burden for the rest of his career and that is a pitty and this has nothing to do with chess rules but has to do with respect for your opponent!
The violation of basic human rights (by the organising committee) is pretty obvious here (that’s what lawyers tell me). In how far the Canadian delegation is responsible too has to be found out.
Why did the Belgian delegation allow their player to be woken up in the first place? What’s easier then to say: it’s too late to get our players out of bed unless the hotel’s on fire. Then, playing World of Warcraft I regularly meet, to my amazement, kids of 12 or 13 years old who are still playing after midnight…
The story of the draw claim that came to me was a bit different, but let’s not discuss that because in both cases the draw claim was invalid.
It was reported to me that after the arbiter ruled a draw, Lloyd Mai refused to sign the scoresheet and told the arbiter that he was going to bring the coach. It is difficult for a 14-year-old boy to argue the rules of chess with an arbiter. So he went and got an experienced IM. When he and the IM coach returned to the board, the arbiter, the opponent, and the scoresheets were all gone. So the only next step was to file an appeal.
I have met Lloyd Mai and he is a nice young man. Everybody I have spoken with says the same thing. I suppose that I should add a disclaimer: I am a Canadian.
What happened was unfortunate. The appeals committee was in a position where any decision they could make would be wrong, even if it was 100% in accordance with the Laws of Chess.
Let me make a new point: the procedure required by FIDE for claiming draws, in addition to some others, is “logical” only to somebody who asks questions such as “What is the procedure for claiming a draw in a game with no clocks?” or “What happens if the claim is a sealed move?” … The procedure makes little or no common sense. In some countries, all young players learn these rules by rote. They spend xx hours on this, so they know the rules. But from the point of view of the popularity of chess, such procedures have the potential to bring the reputation of chess into disrepute. As in the present case. In my opinion, this and several other procedures could be made more sensible, so that the game is decided by skill rather than chesshouse lawyery.
As a practical matter, I would advise any player in doubt of any rule to ask the arbiter before doing anything.
If every player, on the 5th move of the Morphy Defence, asked the arbiter “Do I have to touch my king first to castle?”, in a few years we might have more common-sense rules. I suppose that I should add a grin.
Jonathan Berry
IA (1975)
During the game the arbiter is NOT allowed to talk to the players. This includes a question of a player about the regulations. The player is required to know the rules the same way a citizen is required to know the law and no court accepts ignorance of the law as an excuse.
On the issue. The claim of draw was wrong. If the arbiter, wrongly approved the claim the other player has only way to react to file an appeal. Whenever the appeal cometee meets, will of course admit that the arbiters desicion was wrong and cancel it. Thus the appeal commision did not have too many options at that time (which was sadly 23h).
I am not sure whether the appeal comitee is obliged to inform the player for filing an appeal.
To sum up. Legally what happen was right. There was a series of unfotunate events (wrong desision of arbiter etc). The only thing that the appeal comitee should have done, was to inform the player of the exictence of the appeal, earlier.
And how many other chess rules do we have to teach our youths? Why not make arbiters of all chess players… The only thing the appeal comitee should have done in this case was to overtly admit that the arbiter was wrong and give him a blame, apologize to the players and coaches involved, and leave the result of the game as it is, viewing the late hour and the strict timing of the tournament. Clearly The International Children’s Rights were violated. Respecting these is still far more important than respecting chess regulations, not forgetting respecting the laws elementary sportmanship.
“During the game the arbiter is NOT allowed to talk to the players. This includes a question of a player about the regulations. ”
I do not believe that this is correct. I recall that Korchnoi asked the arbiter if castling were legal in the 1974 Candidates Final Match vs Karpov when Korchnoi’s rook was attacked.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1067831
“The only thing the appeal comitee should have done in this case was to overtly admit that the arbiter was wrong and give him a blame, apologize to the players and coaches involved, and leave the result of the game as it is, viewing the late hour and the strict timing of the tournament. ”
Jan, you are of course completely right, but the unresolved problem is that the likes of Azmai, due to their standard FIDE-incompetence, are simply unable to figure out how they could best (re)act (see Toiletgate).
I am confident that in current rules (may have changed since 1974 when I wasn’t even born), the player is not allowed to ask any rules from the arbiter.
Now to be really nittygritty here: the draw claim was absolutely legal! It was only technically executed wrong. Even Mai thought it was not legal, not because of the technical error but he claimed it was not 3 times the same position! That’s why he did not sign the score sheet.
That Mai is a nice guy, I do think that’s right. It would be realy stupid to suspect a young boy of 14 to want this madness happening to an opponent. Although we haven’t heard ANYTHING from the canadian delegation, nor from Mai. Maybe the half point was the most important thing after all?
The reason why the belgian delegation allowed this is simple: they did not know! Nobody was informed and Nils was pulled out of his bed by an arbiter (we are still trying to find out his name or the person who ordered this). THAT is the whole point here, all the rest realy does not matter, but apparently chess players are more interested in the chess rules than in their human opponent when I read all the discussions here. And even then they are wrong, because isn’t Mai supposed to know the rules as well? Apparently he did not and thought it was not 3 times the same position. Claiming afterwards that he did know at the moment makes him a little less nice…
Tom (14:03)
And there was a game Beliavsky - Timman in which Beliavsky asked the arbiter if he could castle queenside with a black knight on d2!
Lucas
I personally can’t believe that the Belgian delegation wasn’t able to get the name of the arbiter at that particular night. That’s the first thing I would have asked him.
I also think it’s quite clear the appeal committee ordered the wake up call.
I fully understand why our Belgian friends are so upset. (I am a Canadian.) If young Nijs is anything like my kids and grandkids, the idea of waking him from a sound sleep and expecting him to plunge into a tournament game is patently unfair and ridiculous.
That said, I am pleased that Mr Nijs has softened his comments about his son’s young opponent. I can testify that Lloyd Mai is not only a fine chessplayer but a fine young man. His actions were at all times honourable and well intentioned.
If blame is to be apportioned, it goes to the arbiter who first made the wrong decision then abandoned the field when young Lloyd went to get his coach to represent him and, of course, to the organizers who pulled young Mr Nijs out of his bed and forced him to resume the game.
Another side of the story (Canadian side):
Lloyd was in advance and winning position. After 3 repeated moves his opponent did not declare draw, both did not mention it , then Lloyd continuously moved and pressed his clock. Later, his opponent realized 3 repeated moves had occurred and called the arbiter to declare draw. Arbiter asked Lloyd to sign on move record sheet for draw, but he refused and went to look for Canadian Coach. When he came back, the table was cleaned and his move record disappeared.
It took from 9:00pm to 1:00am to make decision for both continuously finished the game.
Arbiter’s words was not as same as both kids’ telling in committee - This is not 100% for sure, because I did not hear directly this matter.
Canadian team made an appeal to the mistake made by the arbiter, as no one claimed the 3-fold. Game played on, and Lloyd won.
Andrei
why was it already 11.00 pm before the committee took care of the appeal? Do you know when the canadians filed the appeal (immediately or did they first analyze the position?)
Article 9.2 of the FIDE laws:
‘The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by the player having the move, when the same position, for at least the third time (not necessarily by a repetition of moves)
a. is about to appear, if he first writes his move on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move, or
b. has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move.’
There are two situations possible:
1. Lloyd does a move. The position appears for the third time. Lloyd presses the clock. Nijs claims according to article 9.2 under b.
2. Nijs does a move. The position appears for the third time. Nijs stops the clocks and claims. The claim is not according to article 9.2 under a.
To understand what happened it is necessary to know the full game.
To Andrei the other side of the story:
It was not at ALL about repeated moves, it was a position that appeared for the third time. So definitely if Lloyd was protesting this he was wrong too. And again: Nils admitted before the committee that he technically executed this wrong.
Anyway: I do not care AT ALL about these chess rules in this case and everybody who still does seems to miss the point (excuse me): the way this procedure was executed and apparently accepted by the canadians is appalling in many ways. Defending it and not talking about the human factor makes one guilty as well…
First rule: you do not pull out a child from his bed by a stranger at 23h. Period.
At Gordon Ritchie:
I do not soften my comments to the canadian delegation, they obviously saw no harm to have the game resumed at midnight. That is like saying to Lloyd: you see this is a right way of winning, nothing wrong here, you do not have to consider the human factor, your opponent is just something you need to apply the rules. A lot of people on this (and other) forums seem to think this way.
These two kids are victim to a lot of incompetent adults. From Nils I know he came out of this as the most mature (sic) of ALL people involved. For Lloyd I hope he will realise how he was lured into this by his entourage (I suppose). If not, and only he knows that, I will repeat Nils’ words to him after the midnight game: “Now you can go and buy some cookies with that half a point”. It summarizes very well what it is worth…
It seems perfectly obvious to me:
1) The claim was correct but executed wrongly. Any discussion about this misses the point, I agree with Lucas Nijs.
2) The referee made a few appaling mistakes. I dont understand what he did, but it was for sure wrong and I wonder how such a referee is present at a WYCC.
3) The idiot committe (I can’t find any other words for GM Azmai c.s.) handled the appeal very late and very unethical. I do not understand why these men are still accepted as such. It’s quite obvious that in case of appeal all parties should be informed. And in the case of a 14 year old, it should be his coach. Also, entering the hotel room of a 14yo and waking him at 23:00 is beyond everything I can imagine. I could see this as trespass - and therefor strictly forbidden by law. And civil laws are obviously way above the FIDE rules, same goes for ethical “rules”.
4) Andrei, even if what you write is true (move record disappearing), then this is not the fault of Nils Nijs. Check your common sense.
BTW: Greetings from SV Leiderdorp to our flemish friends!
What we need now is the score of the game. The following, which throws a whole different light on what happened, is from the Canadian coach and captain, IM Yan Teplitsky, and was posted on ChessTalk.
“Dear Hal/Patrick, [Hal Bond, CFC President, Patrick MacDonald, CFC Youth Coordinator]
There is a lot of nonsense written on the net (chessvibes.com, chesstalk and even twic) about an appeal we won at the WYCC. Most of those writing have no idea about what really happened yet somehow find it fit to critisize Lloyd ang go as far as call him not sportsmanlike so I feel it is important to clarify the story. This is the real account of what happened:
1) To start with, let me say that I am absolutely behind Lloyd in this case and I think he behaved very properly and respectfully and I have a lot of respect for the way he fought for his right and against injustice even when confronted by high officials and called a liar. I think he did the exact right thing and should be proud of it. Also, I am sorry for the size of this email but there is no other way to explain it.
2) In round 10 Lloyd was white against a player from Belgium named Nils Nijs. Lloyd had an advantantage for most of the game but drifted a bit in the middlegame and at some point approaching time trouble allowed a three-fold repetition still in a much better, probably close to winning position. According to the rules of chess Lloyd’s opponent could write his move down then call the arbiter and claim the draw by three-fold repetition. His opponent had a lot of time, much more than Lloyd. Instead, the player from Belgium makes his move on the board, thus already invalidating any possible draw claims. Moreover, after this move Lloyd made another (good) move away from the repetition and pressed the clock.
3) At this moment Lloyd’s opponent stops the clock, calls the abiter and demands the draw retroactively as if he did not make his last move and Lloyd did not make his reply - clearly an invalid claim. The arbiter from Spain comes, appears not to speak any English or French, calls another arbiter and clearly wrongly declares the game a draw. Lloyd protests but noone listens to him, He does the exact right thing- refuses to sign the scoresheet and demands to see his captain (me). During the last two games noone was allowed into the playing hall after two hours.
4) Lloyd finds me in the lobby, I confirm he is right and we go back together. We have to fight the security who do not want to let us back in and when 5 minutes later we come to the playing hall, the game had been cleared, the clock disappeared, Lloyd’s opponent had left and the arbiters do not want to talk to us. Eventually with the help of Ellen Nadeau and Gerry Walsh from England, whom I know from my team in England, we find the chief arbiter who speaks English but seems not very interested in listening to us. We explain our story and ask him to question the arbiter. He calls the game arbiter (who declared the draw) and the floor arbiter and tries to understand what happened. The game arbiter does not speak any English or French (makes total sense in a World Youth competition!, only Spanish) so the interpreter - an arbiter from Venezuela comes. The chief arbiter asks the interpreter (important: he is an arbiter as well) to ask the game arbiter whether the Belgian player’s and Lloyd’s next move were played or not. Important Note: Both Lloyd and his opponent have the extra two moves written down on the scoresheet - a clear proof that the moves were made on the board. According to FIDE rules the move has to be written down only after it had been played on the board. The Spanish arbiter replies in Spanish that the two moves had indeed been played and then the interpreter arbiter says, also in Spanish “No, no, do not say it, this means you made a mistake” Then the Spanish arbiter says “No, the moves were not played” I do understand and speak Spanish so this conversation between two arbiters(!) was quite appaling to me. Basically, one arbiter made a very, very bad mistake and now tries to cover it up and the other arbiter helps him to do so! I explained all this to the chief arbiter but he said I was an interested party and he has to trust his arbiters so he declares the game a draw. If we wish [to] appeal we have about 20 minutes to do so (according to the tournament rules all appeals had to be sumbitted within an hour of the game finish. All appeals must be in writing and accompanied by 100 Euro (refundable if we win the appeal) The arbiter chooses not to tell us how to appeal and only with the help of Ellen Nadeau and Gerry Walsh do we manage to figure out how to do it. We write down a quick appeal and hand it in to Gerry Walsh. Later we write a formal description of what happened. It is already 9pm so Lloyd goes to eat dinner and Natalia and me go to talk to the FIDE appeals committeee.
5) At the appeals committee meeting (Messrs: Azmaiparashvili, Campomanes, Makropoulos, Vega) they go over all that happened. Basically it is Lloyd and Natalia and me vs. the arbiters. Somebody is not saying the truth. The clock surfaces from somewhere and shows the move count that did not include the last two moves. Where was this clock before? It is implied repeatedly that Lloyd is a liar and Natalia and me weren’t there and just try to [help] our player. Mr. Azmaiparashvili does believe us though and raises the question of why both players have the moves written down on the scoresheets. It is then decided to bring the Belgian player. It is nearly 11pm.
6) Belgian player and his captain are found in their rooms. Why have they not been notified beforehand? We are asked to leave the room while the Belgian player’s testimony is heard. The player behaves very honourably and says the truth, that two extra moves were indeed made on the board and the arbiter is not saying the truth. The appeals committee declares the game should be continued. At this point the Belgian players thinks he is getting punished for something and starts crying. Throughout this whole ordeal the Belgian captain and other people from the Belgian delegation behave very correctly and do not seem to take any offence at us but rather at the arbiters. The Belgian player is clearly distressed but so is Lloyd. It is implied by someone in the room we had the time to analyze the game - not true! All of us had been sitting in the room with FIDE committee all this time. The game continues and Lloyd wins.
Mr. Azmaiparashvili takes me aside and says we did the exactly right thing and should be proud of it. It is not a matter of half a point but we got justice and revealed a bad and dishonest arbiter. The arbiter’s first name is Eric and he is from Spain. Mr. Azmaiparashvili suggests disciplinary actions will be taken against the arbiter.
While it is unfair to have the player woken up at 11pm to testify, the root of the problem were the Belgian player not knowing the rules and the arbiter making a big mistake and then trying to cover it up. I believe we did the right thing and thanks to the Belgian player’s honesty justice prevailed. I believe the Belgian player received an award for the most honest player or something similar at the closing ceremony (I do not remember the exact title of the award). Noone ever apologized to us, not even for implying we were liars.
Please let me know if you need any further information. Please feel free to distribute this letter as you find necessary.
Best Regards
Yan [Teplitsky, IM]“
Alas,
the canadians filed the appeal right after the game
and you met the committee at 9 pm?
But it took untill 11 pm before someone decided to wake up the belgian player?
weird that the canadians accepted this but i’m still wondering what you were doing during this 2 hours
“the root of the problem were the Belgian player not knowing the rules”
so it’s ok te be woken up. so it’s ok a child has to play a game of chess at midnight.
you are indeed missing the whole point Mr Berry.
Well well, Yan Teplitsky. How is it possible to miss the point completely like this? Besides the fact that all the laws of defense have been violated and that several details of your letter are false to my knowledge, we finally have the human attitude of the canadian team here on black and white. The crucial point here is that we are dealing with two kids of 14 year old. I pitty the boys under your guidance and will take care my son never gets in touch with people like you. You should be ashamed of yourself having let this happen, and this has nothing to do with the “Laws of Chess”. Ever heard of the word “empathy”? It is a human character trait (just like sportsmanship). Knowing what I know now I have more sympathy for the arbiter than for you. Keep telling yourself justice happened, you may convince yourself, I’m sure.
Btw: the name of the award is “World Chess Fair Play Award”. I repeat: the two boys are the victims of a lot of incompetent adults (and that includes you to my humble opinion).
It does stress the importance of teaching even kids the rules. How hard can it be to stress a few important rules ( 10.2 claim if applicable, repetition claim ) before such an important tourney? This should be a lesson for every nation, for every coach.
However, the canadians are indeed well besides the point. Why did they not accept the draw? Even though the referee’s did very bad things and should be punished, the draw was in no way a gross injustice to the canadian player -> the threefold repetition did occur. Instead they went really far to restart the game. They accepted that the belgian player was waked up without informing his coach and forced to restart the game after being honest. The final decision was according to the rules the only decision that the appeals committee could have taken, but it did not have to be accepted.
Sometimes you win some, sometimes you lose some. A very important lesson that should have been taught by the canadian coach. Also, I don’t think this was a good preparation for the next round for Lloyd Mai either!
Finally, I hope the tourney directors next year will have better arrangements for referee’s and appeal committee’s. I really do wonder why three of the most corrupt and questionable men (with no link to youth chess I think) need to form the appeal’s committe on a WYCC. Azmaiparashvili for example has a very bad reputation: buying votes for Ilyumzhinov and I also remember him ending up in a fist fight with someone he disagreed with (the infamous picture of the blue eye, I dont recall what occasion but I think a FIDE congress). What is such a man doing at a tourney with (little) children??
“2) In round 10 Lloyd was white against a player from Belgium named Nils Nijs. Lloyd had an advantantage for most of the game but drifted a bit in the middlegame and at some point approaching time trouble allowed a three-fold repetition still in a much better, probably close to winning position.”
This statement isn’t correct, both players played a theoretical dragon very far. If i remember correctly 25 moves were still in the book “play the dragon, Dearing”, after which Nils found an improvement for black also given by Rybka up to move 30 (theory gives a forced draw by perpetual). After the forced queensacrifice by white, black always has a small advantage but white can keep equalty. In the resulting position only black could play for a win, exactly what Nils did, but he overreached his position and landed up with a lost position. At the moment of the threefold repetition white had an advantage of +1,5.
ABSURDE.
The chiefs, instead punish the boy, should punish the arbiter…or do nothing.
If they ask to me to play at midnight…i will give them the right answer….
Dario
Well..
FACT: The claim of draw was wrong. (whether a threfold repetition ocured is totally irrelevant if they contiued and played 2 extra moves)
FACT: The arbiter made wrong decision and behaved really badly afterwards
QUESTION: What can an appeal comitee decide on this issue?
ANSWER: Punish the arbiter (we all agree here).
QUESTION: Which result should be counted?
ANSWER 1: Let it be a draw. Then the Canadian player is grossly punished. He played according the rules and his opponent was given half point for asking wrongly the draw because of a mistake by the arbiter.
ANSWER 2: Default the game for the Belgian player, because he made a wrong claim. Very unfair for the Belgian player. It was the mistake of the arbiter. His wrong claim would normally cost him only 3 minitues.
ANSWER 3: Put them continue the game . (I make no judgment)
All the people that complain, please tell me which of the 3 answers or any other do they suggest…
Answer 3, while cruel, is the only one that is not unfair for none of the players. Cruel indeed for both, but not unfair.
someone
ever heard of the human rights or rights of the child?
On OUR PLANET THE UNITED NATIONS FULLY OUTRANK FIDE CHESSRULES. Why don’t chessplayers get this?
the “error” made by the arbiter in no way justifies the way Nils was treated:
- belgian delegation wasn’t informed but Nils is a minor. (the adults are responsible)
- someone broke into a childs room (UN violation)
- someone woke him up (UN violation)
- an unprepared meeting with a committee ( also violation cfr criminal system)
- forced to play a game of chess at midnight ( clear psychological damage)
- the disadvantage of preparation
…
1. To punish arbiter for offence and lie.
2. To inform Belgian team about protest and to consider him next day
3. To finish game next day competitors they would have the same the conditions of game.
hahaha..
Yes they are criminals!
They broke in his room.. sure… (i.e. knocked his door and woke him up probably by a phone call). Will cause deep damage for the psyche of a 14 years old kid… (probably you have lived in a too protected environment to say so).
A kid woken up around (before) midnight is a UN violation!!
What the f..k are you saying. Come on, be serious. Kids around the globe are really treated much worse (including “western countries”). What do you think UN is? Please find for me the articles that says so. I would really be very interested to read them
Unprepared meeting with comitee, is a violation??? of what? Why? Are you supposed to be informed few days (or hours) earlier, before seeing the appeal comitee? It is not a court the appeal comitee. And always they have to decide between the end of the games and the night, which leaves them with no time for prior informing.
to kolokwium :
Yes what you propose would be ideal if possible. I agree.
BUT: It was the last round the next day.
This means that the next round started in the morning (10am) and was no time to finish the game and make pairings.
They could have woken up the kid at 7am to do so, but this would also be quite cruel.
Also, since it was last round, it would affect the other players of the tournament that wouldn’t know their opponents till the last minute, and thus would not be able to prepare at all. (remember this is a world championship)
To someone anonymous:
You presume the story of the canadian coach is correct.
Fact: Mai Lloyd contested the repetition of moves, this was totally irrelevant, it was NOT about the repetition of moves, it was about three times the same position. This draw claim would have been correct if executed in the proper order and no player would be punished.
The arbiter may not have understood english, Nils did and he heard it very well that Mai protested because he did not see repetition of moves! So can we safely assume Mai did not understand himself what was going on? Can we safely state Mai did not make the right protest himself?
Fact: Mai Lloyd left the board and got assistance from a coach: illegal, he should have contested the right claim himself at the board. He only made the correct claim after talking to his coach. If Nils could have talked to his coach before the claim I am sure he would have executed it in the proper way!
The two extra moves is an invention of the canadian coach and proves to me he is not trusthworthy at all. He wasn’t even at the board, so how does he know?! I have the proof here right in front of me: there are NO 2 extra moves whatsoever. The one extra move Mai did was forced when Nils tried to put the clock to a hold. Nils even noted that move when the arbiter told him to but when he replied he tried to stop the clock before that move the arbiter said to scratch it again. Apparently none of the three knew the rules quite well.
So even when we talk chess rules there remains a lot to be said, and I only add this to prove to those who still talk about “the only possible decision” and “justice happened” that this might not at all be the case.
AGAIN you chess rule nerds: THIS IS NOT THE POINT! (and if it is talk about it unbiased and when you know all the (correct) facts).
So someone: you make no judgment huh? You must be ashamed just like the canadian delegation and therefore: for your own good, please remain anonymous!
someone
It’s clear you think chessrules should be more important than the well-being of a child.
thanks
After both the Belgian and Canadian views on the matter have been published in the comments, and the discussion now starts to get out of hand, we have decided to close the comments under this article. But before doing this, we’d like to give some final words: