PDA

View Full Version : An interesting little event!



ER
19-10-2016, 02:26 PM
Nigel uses the Catalan to upset the Women's World Champ!
Jorden van Foreest no match for Ivan Sokolov!

http://hoogeveenchess.nl/en

Kevin Bonham
19-10-2016, 05:29 PM
Nigel uses the Catalan to upset the Women's World Champ!

Not an upset - he is rated eight points higher than her. Even if that's a little bit generous, if he is white against her in a game he is more likely to win it than she is.

ER
19-10-2016, 07:41 PM
Not an upset - he is rated eight points higher than her. Even if that's a little bit generous, if he is white against her in a game he is more likely to win it than she is.

yeah, I was talking about age difference. Not to mention that Hou Yifan has already entered the I can be the next Polgar trip (not likely in my opinion)! Then again Nigel has produced quite a few goodies recently and I think references to him as the only 50 + yo GM to make the best 100, will sooner rather than later
he is already within the best 80?

Vlad
20-10-2016, 09:24 AM
Sounds a bit unfair to Kasparov who recently demolished Short.

ER
20-10-2016, 12:33 PM
Sounds a bit unfair to Kasparov who recently demolished Short.

To each their own! Garry Kimovich belongs to a different category. Had he returned to tournament chess, it would not take him long to establish himself along the best 10!

Adamski
20-10-2016, 05:26 PM
Ivan Sokolov, who I chatted with in Al Ain 16 months ago, should never be underestimated. On his day he can beat anyone. His books are good value too.

normanghaskell (Axiom)
20-10-2016, 05:38 PM
Garry Kimovich belongs to a different category!

Garik Kimovich Weinstein

ER
20-10-2016, 05:50 PM
Garik Kimovich Weinstein

him too!

Kevin Bonham
20-10-2016, 07:40 PM
yeah, I was talking about age difference.

I am reminded of Reagan's famous quote from his debate against Mondale.

ER
21-10-2016, 12:39 AM
I am reminded of Reagan's famous quote from his debate against Mondale.

LMAO Classic!!! :lol:

Kevin Bonham
26-10-2016, 05:57 PM
There's been some post-match controversy about the rating of Game 6, won by Hou Yifan after Short had already scored 3.5 points. Nigel relied on FIDE Handbook Rating Regs 6.5 "Where a match is over a specific number of games, those played after one player has won shall not be rated" to have the final game not rated. Clearly he was totally within his rights but he has copped quite a spray from the organisers for doing so. This has set off yet another exchange of Short vs Polgar pleasantries.

MichaelBaron
27-10-2016, 10:55 PM
There's been some post-match controversy about the rating of Game 6, won by Hou Yifan after Short had already scored 3.5 points. Nigel relied on FIDE Handbook Rating Regs 6.5 "Where a match is over a specific number of games, those played after one player has won shall not be rated" to have the final game not rated. Clearly he was totally within his rights but he has copped quite a spray from the organisers for doing so. This has set off yet another exchange of Short vs Polgar pleasantries.

Van Vely, who is one of the organizers of the event has also been active on Twitter criticizing Short.

Ian Rout
28-10-2016, 08:22 AM
Van Vely, who is one of the organizers of the event has also been active on Twitter criticizing Short.If it's a FIDE rating rule I don't see where Short has the option to waive it, or to demand that it not apply if he had won, unless there's another provision that wasn't quoted in post 11 above and that I can't see on a quick browse.

In any event if people don't like the rule they should lobby to change it before the event, not retrospectively. The players' decisions in the last game were in part informed by having the freedom to play in a crowd-pleasing style because the game was unrated (which is one of the benefits of the rule, though not its purpose).

Kevin Bonham
28-10-2016, 09:11 AM
I would find it amazing that people are even arguing about this situation, except that it is Nigel and some people dislike him for various reasons and may for that reason not realise he is completely in the right. The whole thing is ludicrous. The rule is black and white, well known, and there is no discretion. Furthermore the organisers apparently did not give Nigel a straight answer about the question, meaning that he went into the last game not knowing whether the organisers intended to attempt to have it rated or not. A farcical situation that isn't even acceptable at club level.

Kaitlin
28-10-2016, 05:29 PM
I thought The Nige was well liked, no-body had posted anything negative when he toured Australia before, everyone seemed to like it.

Vlad
28-10-2016, 11:02 PM
I would find it amazing that people are even arguing about this situation, except that it is Nigel and some people dislike him for various reasons and may for that reason not realise he is completely in the right. The whole thing is ludicrous. The rule is black and white, well known, and there is no discretion. Furthermore the organisers apparently did not give Nigel a straight answer about the question, meaning that he went into the last game not knowing whether the organisers intended to attempt to have it rated or not. A farcical situation that isn't even acceptable at club level.

I think the choice here is very simple: either "the rules are rules" and then Short was meant to follow the request from Jamie Kenmure during the Olympiad. If not, then it is quite a low way to avoid playing black against a strong opponent. Pretty shocking actually...

Kevin Bonham
28-10-2016, 11:25 PM
I think the choice here is very simple: either "the rules are rules" and then Short was meant to follow the request from Jamie Kenmure during the Olympiad.

Mid-game checking is currently problematic under the Laws of Chess. The Laws currently allow a player to be inspected, but only in private. Were the scans conducted in private? The Laws also require the arbiters to ensure players are not disturbed. A mid-game check, absent of any reason to suspect cheating, is quite disturbing.

I add that choosing Jamie as the arbiter to do the task - whoever made that decision and this is no reflection on Jamie - was unfortunate. Jamie has been the subject of a harsh personal attack by Short in a magazine, which means that Short interpreted Jamie approaching him through the lens of their previous interactions and assumed it was payback for the article. It would have been better to get somebody else to do it.

Even if Short was in the wrong there, that doesn't mean he doesn't have rights under the FIDE rules.

Ian Rout
29-10-2016, 10:01 AM
I add that choosing Jamie as the arbiter to do the task - whoever made that decision and this is no reflection on Jamie - was unfortunate. Jamie has been the subject of a harsh personal attack by Short in a magazine, which means that Short interpreted Jamie approaching him through the lens of their previous interactions and assumed it was payback for the article. It would have been better to get somebody else to do it..Yes, I think Jamie has been around long enough to understand that it wasn't a good time, but wasn't in a position to refuse. It would be more productive to identify and educate whoever gave the order than blame Jamie.

There's a subtle difference in the two circumstances though. The ratings rules are largely routine and even if there was some discretion there is no cause to apply it; this is a normal instance like a million others. On the other hand the checking of players for hidden devices is subject to discretion. Of itself it's not necessarily a bad rule, but Short's objection was to the arbiters' use of their discretion in applying it rather then the rule itself. I think most players of any level if fed the facts of both circumstances as hypotheticaals without names would take the same view as Short.

It might also be noted that Short reportedly received a penalty, albeit only a warning, for his reaction in Baku, but there are no reports (unless I missed them) of the Hoogeveens arbiter being reprimanded for knowingly submitting unrateable gaames for rating. Others have had their accreditations cancelled for this offence.


Even if Short was in the wrong there, that doesn't mean he doesn't have rights under the FIDE rules.In addition, it's not just about Short. Any precedent would then apply to everybody. Also Short didn't raise the matter as a question of his rights, it was before the game was played and the outcome could have been to his detriment.

MichaelBaron
29-10-2016, 04:14 PM
I thought The Nige was well liked, no-body had posted anything negative when he toured Australia before, everyone seemed to like it.

Lol. Actually, he is quite a controversial figure in the chess world...I do like him though.

MichaelBaron
29-10-2016, 04:17 PM
And this is when Fide should really consider at least reviewing the rule! After all the rules are there to be followed....as well as to be changed if there is evidence that they are not making a lot of sense.

Kevin Bonham
29-10-2016, 09:13 PM
And this is when Fide should really consider at least reviewing the rule!

I think what they should do is make sure they apply it consistently and automatically so that cases of this kind are not even controversial and that if organisers try to submit such a game for ratings the ratings program just rejects it.

The rule is an excellent rule that makes complete sense. Firstly if the game is not rated the players are free to play creatively to entertain those following the match. Secondly because the match is decided, the players lack motivation and are basically playing for nothing but ratings points, and a game played under such peculiar circumstances is not likely to be predictive. Therefore rating it makes the rating system less accurate. Thirdly, because the games are meaningless there is an increased risk of the games being thrown if they are rated.

pax
29-10-2016, 11:22 PM
I'm no particular fan of Nigel Short, but I have to say Van Wely's attack on him is absolutely outrageous. The rules are very clear, and the arbiters or organised should not need to be asked to enforce them.

Capablanca-Fan
30-10-2016, 02:07 AM
The rule is an excellent rule that makes complete sense. Firstly if the game is not rated the players are free to play creatively to entertain those following the match. Secondly because the match is decided, the players lack motivation and are basically playing for nothing but ratings points, and a game played under such peculiar circumstances is not likely to be predictive. Therefore rating it makes the rating system less accurate. Thirdly, because the games are meaningless there is an increased risk of the games being thrown if they are rated.
I agree. The same would seem to apply to an old and now abolished rule that a player could not lose rating points in a tourney he or she won.

Kevin Bonham
30-10-2016, 11:49 AM
I agree. The same would seem to apply to an old and now abolished rule that a player could not lose rating points in a tourney he or she won.

I don't remember seeing such a rule so assume it would be long-abolished. If a strong player loses to a weak player early in a tournament but recovers to win the tournament then they deserve any loss of ratings points that might occur. With winners managing their lead by taking draws, a strong player who does this once is probably likely to do it reasonably often, so it is predictive (for them) to rate it. The comparable issue might be players dropping points after they have already assured themselves of outright first.

Capablanca-Fan
30-10-2016, 03:01 PM
I don't remember seeing such a rule so assume it would be long-abolished.
Maybe I'm showing my age. I can't remember how long ago it was now.


If a strong player loses to a weak player early in a tournament but recovers to win the tournament then they deserve any loss of ratings points that might occur.
Maybe, but that might be hard to manage were there such a rule.


With winners managing their lead by taking draws, a strong player who does this once is probably likely to do it reasonably often, so it is predictive (for them) to rate it.
Does it necessarily correlate to how a player would play if he hasn't won the tourney?


The comparable issue might be players dropping points after they have already assured themselves of outright first.
Yes, someone who takes a draw against a lower-rated player to guarantee first prize, and who would not have been inclined to do so at any other time. So this is non-predictive.

Kevin Bonham
30-10-2016, 04:22 PM
Does it necessarily correlate to how a player would play if he hasn't won the tourney?

It doesn't matter because if the situation is likely to repeat on a predictable basis then it is part of a player's mathematically expected average score for a given game. On the other hand playing a rated game at the end of a match where one player has already won is not a relevant predictor, since most players don't play any matches and those matches that are played are often either not decided before the final game, or halted if so decided.


Yes, someone who takes a draw against a lower-rated player to guarantee first prize, and who would not have been inclined to do so at any other time. So this is non-predictive.

It is if they will do it again should the same condition arise again, given that it is reasonably likely that it someday will. Ratings aim to predict a mean playing level, not a mode or median. If that data point is thrown away, then over time the rating will overestimate the player's results.

Craig_Hall
30-10-2016, 04:37 PM
I don't remember seeing such a rule so assume it would be long-abolished. If a strong player loses to a weak player early in a tournament but recovers to win the tournament then they deserve any loss of ratings points that might occur. With winners managing their lead by taking draws, a strong player who does this once is probably likely to do it reasonably often, so it is predictive (for them) to rate it. The comparable issue might be players dropping points after they have already assured themselves of outright first.

It's still a rule in the NZ rating system. IMO the best reason for it is that it allows strong players to play in local events and still be able to protect their rating - otherwise at least some strong players will be discouraged from playing in local events for fear their rating will suffer.

Kevin Bonham
30-10-2016, 05:36 PM
It's still a rule in the NZ rating system. IMO the best reason for it is that it allows strong players to play in local events and still be able to protect their rating - otherwise at least some strong players will be discouraged from playing in local events for fear their rating will suffer.

Yes this is probably a sensible non-prediction related reason for having such a rule.

I've quite often lost ratings points in tournaments I won - usually through bad play rather than managing leads - but on the other hand I've got easy ratings points from stronger players who were taking draws to manage their leads. So in my case it all balances out.

lost
02-11-2016, 09:35 AM
I have noticed there has been some discussion on chesschat relating to the recent Match of Nigel Short and Hou Yifan. During this discussion, it has being raised again the Anti-Cheating incident during the Olympiad. I personally would like to respond to the following discussions:


I think the choice here is very simple: either "the rules are rules" and then Short was meant to follow the request from Jamie Kenmure during the Olympiad. If not, then it is quite a low way to avoid playing black against a strong opponent. Pretty shocking actually... – Posted by Vlad on the 28-10-2016

Rules are rules and these were put into the tournament regulations and it was made as a separate link: http://www.bakuchessolympiad.com/content/73 This link outlines everything that was to be expected in the Olympiad so there was no reason for him not to do the check. He should have made it very clear to his captain to raise it in the captains meeting and also if it was to be an extreme major problem, he should have not played in the Olympiad at all.

In regards to the recent match he played with current Women’s World Champion, GM Hou Yifan, and quoting Article 6.5 which states “Where a match is over a specific number of games, those played after one player has won shall not be rated.” I would like to point out, why didn’t Nigel Short report this even in a rapid match that he played in this year?

3298

Article 6.5 is applied to all matches as it doesn’t state only for classical matches.


Mid-game checking is currently problematic under the Laws of Chess. The Laws currently allow a player to be inspected, but only in private. Were the scans conducted in private? The Laws also require the arbiters to ensure players are not disturbed. A mid-game check, absent of any reason to suspect cheating, is quite disturbing.

I add that choosing Jamie as the arbiter to do the task - whoever made that decision and this is no reflection on Jamie - was unfortunate. Jamie has been the subject of a harsh personal attack by Short in a magazine, which means that Short interpreted Jamie approaching him through the lens of their previous interactions and assumed it was payback for the article. It would have been better to get somebody else to do it.

Even if Short was in the wrong there, that doesn't mean he doesn't have rights under the FIDE rules. – Posted by Kevin Bonham 28-10-2016

I agree to a certain extent it can be problematic however it was clearly in the regulations which I have provided the link to. The thorough scans were done in private as per the regulations, but the quick 5-10 second scans were done on the spot.

In regards who chose it was done by the sector arbiter but regarding the random checks this was up to the arbiter itself. I can personally name all top players who I did checks on during the event that were 5-10 seconds long: Vladimir Kramnik, Anish Giri, Hikaru Nakamura, Gawain Jones, Eltaj Sarfali, Magnus Carlsen, Ian Nepomniachtchi, Alexander Grischuk amongst many others. I didn’t just “target” top players but I would check anyone from any section (not females as this was done by female anti-cheating arbiters only).

Regarding to the harsh personal attacks against me from Nigel Short, this was to be expected, but again, he is entitled to his opinion and I still respect him as a player. A link to an article https://chess24.com/en/read/news/Nigel+Short+calls+anti-cheating+rule+%E2%80%9Canti-chess%E2%80%9D which I knew was going to be publish from the journalist, informed me it was a harsh attack on me and I told this journalist to just publish what Nigel says, that I would let the community decide.

Many people in the chess community had supported me on this issue and I know there were many who didn’t as well.

I was however very shocked to see the Australian chess community attack me personally from the Melbourne Chess Club Facebook page which I have got pictures to produce:

3299
3300
3301


Yes, I think Jamie has been around long enough to understand that it wasn't a good time, but wasn't in a position to refuse. It would be more productive to identify and educate whoever gave the order than blame Jamie.

There's a subtle difference in the two circumstances though. The ratings rules are largely routine and even if there was some discretion there is no cause to apply it; this is a normal instance like a million others. On the other hand the checking of players for hidden devices is subject to discretion. Of itself it's not necessarily a bad rule, but Short's objection was to the arbiters' use of their discretion in applying it rather then the rule itself. I think most players of any level if fed the facts of both circumstances as hypotheticaals without names would take the same view as Short.

It might also be noted that Short reportedly received a penalty, albeit only a warning, for his reaction in Baku, but there are no reports (unless I missed them) of the Hoogeveens arbiter being reprimanded for knowingly submitting unrateable games for rating. Others have had their accreditations cancelled for this offence. – Posted by Ian Rout 29-10-2016

I have been around long enough to know, however there was anti cheating regulations in place and as you have correctly pointed I was not in a position to refuse the searches. I however did raise this with my sector arbiter and it was up to him to raise it to higher authorities. Nigel Short did receive an official warning on the matter from the Sector Arbiter – IA Klaus Deventer and Nigel Short did respond by saying "I told him not to bother if he wanted to search me during play in future, he should just forfeit me – a stance fully supported by my captain, Malcolm Pein." This is as per his article in New In Chess, the latest issue.

On a final note however I have expressed my concerns regarding the anti-cheating measures and I have suggested that there should be no scans during the games, however an anti cheating arbiter per sector, a Deputy Sector Arbiter and a Sector Arbiter. There should be random thorough searches after the games are completed at complete random. This is my view on this. Again, I personally support Nigel’s right to an opinion even if I may disagree with it.

lost

Kevin Bonham
02-11-2016, 11:14 AM
In regards who chose it was done by the sector arbiter but regarding the random checks this was up to the arbiter itself. I can personally name all top players who I did checks on during the event that were 5-10 seconds long: Vladimir Kramnik, Anish Giri, Hikaru Nakamura, Gawain Jones, Eltaj Sarfali, Magnus Carlsen, Ian Nepomniachtchi, Alexander Grischuk amongst many others. I didn’t just “target” top players but I would check anyone from any section (not females as this was done by female anti-cheating arbiters only).

Thanks for the detailed explanation and comments Jamie. Regarding this: my understanding of "random" is that there is some process that selects players to be targeted so that the chance of each player to be targeted is more or less the same. For instance, check every fifth person who comes through a certain entrance (like airport security with chemical testing), or use a random number generator to pick a list of players to search (I think this happens with random drug testing).

Was there any kind of process to select players randomly in this way, or is the idea that the arbiter just walks around with a scanner and tests anyone they happen to see who it is convenient to scan? It sounds more like what I would call opportunistic scanning rather than random scanning.

lost
02-11-2016, 11:30 AM
Thanks for the detailed explanation and comments Jamie. Regarding this: my understanding of "random" is that there is some process that selects players to be targeted so that the chance of each player to be targeted is more or less the same. For instance, check every fifth person who comes through a certain entrance (like airport security with chemical testing), or use a random number generator to pick a list of players to search (I think this happens with random drug testing).

Was there any kind of process to select players randomly in this way, or is the idea that the arbiter just walks around with a scanner and tests anyone they happen to see who it is convenient to scan? It sounds more like what I would call opportunistic scanning rather than random scanning.

Hi Kevin,

For the thorough searching it was done on the top boards mainly but no player could be checked twice in a period of 5 rounds. So what I mean by this was that lets say you were checked in Round 1 the next time you could be check at the very earliest is round 6 or 7.

As for the quick 5-10 second searches, it was completely random. I personally would do it like the first 5 that would come through and nothing for the next say 30 minutes or so. I would never check anyone after the maximum time of 4:45pm local time (1 hour 45 minutes after schedule of play) as I knew this was time pressure for players. If I had seen a player I had checked, I would never check them again in random searches that day or the next 2-3 days. That was my system for checking. I cannot comment on any of the other arbiter's system's for checking the players in the quick searches.

We were not allowed in the playing hall to scan players, but more so near the toilets (like not outside of them of course) and the smoking area. I would never target anyone in particular and I remember I did a quick search in front of Emil Sutovsky as well. I even remember scanning our very own ZYZ during the event too.

I hope this answers your question Kevin.

lost

Kevin Bonham
02-11-2016, 11:42 AM
It does. Thankyou.

Capablanca-Fan
02-11-2016, 03:43 PM
I'm no particular fan of Nigel Short, but I have to say Van Wely's attack on him is absolutely outrageous. The rules are very clear, and the arbiters or organised should not need to be asked to enforce them.

Agreed. Malaysian chess identity, FIDE (World Chess Federation) Trainer, IA, FM Peter Long (https://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=5700051) has a good piece, Rules? What rules? (http://en.chessbase.com/post/hoogeveen-controversy-on-final-ratings) that links to a Facebook post by GM Emil Sutovsky which is also good.

MichaelBaron
02-11-2016, 10:04 PM
Hi Kevin,

For the thorough searching it was done on the top boards mainly but no player could be checked twice in a period of 5 rounds. So what I mean by this was that lets say you were checked in Round 1 the next time you could be check at the very earliest is round 6 or 7.

As for the quick 5-10 second searches, it was completely random. I personally would do it like the first 5 that would come through and nothing for the next say 30 minutes or so. I would never check anyone after the maximum time of 4:45pm local time (1 hour 45 minutes after schedule of play) as I knew this was time pressure for players. If I had seen a player I had checked, I would never check them again in random searches that day or the next 2-3 days. That was my system for checking. I cannot comment on any of the other arbiter's system's for checking the players in the quick searches.

We were not allowed in the playing hall to scan players, but more so near the toilets (like not outside of them of course) and the smoking area. I would never target anyone in particular and I remember I did a quick search in front of Emil Sutovsky as well. I even remember scanning our very own ZYZ during the event too.

I hope this answers your question Kevin.

lost
One way to avoid such situations in future is for Fide to establish a clear policy for selecting individuals to be checked.

jammo
02-11-2016, 10:17 PM
Isn't the point that its a random check?

lost
02-11-2016, 10:17 PM
One way to avoid such situations in future is for Fide to establish a clear policy for selecting individuals to be checked.

For the thorough checks there was a policy but I personally was not aware of it as this was up to the Sector Arbiter. For the random 5-10 second checks this was ultimately up to the anti-cheating match arbiter to decide.

lost

MichaelBaron
03-11-2016, 10:18 AM
Isn't the point that its a random check?

Just because the checks are random, it does not mean that there should not be a clear policy for carrying it out.