|
Home > Archive > Misc Chess games topics > November 2006 > Arbiter Gijssen gives his side of the Kramnik forfeit
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Arbiter Gijssen gives his side of the Kramnik forfeit
|
|
| Taylor Kingston 2006-11-19, 8:37 pm |
|
Readers who followed the Kramnik-Topalov match may be interested in
FIDE Arbiter Geurt Gijssen's account of events surrounding the aborted
5th game, and of his decision to forfeit Kramnik:
http://www.chesscafe.com/geurt/geurt.htm
| |
| Ian Burton 2006-11-19, 8:37 pm |
|
"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1161199959.936787.7880@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> Readers who followed the Kramnik-Topalov match may be interested in
> FIDE Arbiter Geurt Gijssen's account of events surrounding the aborted
> 5th game, and of his decision to forfeit Kramnik:
>
> http://www.chesscafe.com/geurt/geurt.htm
Thank you, Taylor. I definitely look forward to a response from Seirawan.
--
Ian Burton
(Please reply to the Newsgroup)
quote:
>
| |
| Mike Murray 2006-11-19, 8:37 pm |
| On 18 Oct 2006 12:32:40 -0700, "Taylor Kingston"
<tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote:
quote:
>
> Readers who followed the Kramnik-Topalov match may be interested in
>FIDE Arbiter Geurt Gijssen's account of events surrounding the aborted
>5th game, and of his decision to forfeit Kramnik:
>
>http://www.chesscafe.com/geurt/geurt.htm
Says Gijssen:
<quote>
" ...there were some decisive items:
According to the accepted regulations, the Appeals Committee had
the right to make a decision, and this decision was final. Whether it
is wrong or right does not matter.
The fact that a player refuses to play is not a reason to
postpone a game. Of course, I understood his decision, but the
decision of the Appeals Committee was final..."
<end quote>
In the conflict between law and justice, uh, in this case, regulation
and justice, Mr. Gijssen comes down officiously and complacently on
the side of the former.
BTW, isn't he the guy who pumped for the FIDE regulation making
recording before moving illegal? I see in the new Chess Life that
MonRoi is "FIDE certified".
| |
| David Kane 2006-11-19, 8:37 pm |
|
"Mike Murray" <mikemurray@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:9ckdj25adc8sa2qlp63qj4cn5sfd09krof@4ax.com...
quote:
> On 18 Oct 2006 12:32:40 -0700, "Taylor Kingston"
> <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote:
>
>
> Says Gijssen:
>
> <quote>
>
> " ...there were some decisive items:
>
> According to the accepted regulations, the Appeals Committee had
> the right to make a decision, and this decision was final. Whether it
> is wrong or right does not matter.
>
> The fact that a player refuses to play is not a reason to
> postpone a game. Of course, I understood his decision, but the
> decision of the Appeals Committee was final..."
>
> <end quote>
>
> In the conflict between law and justice, uh, in this case, regulation
> and justice, Mr. Gijssen comes down officiously and complacently on
> the side of the former.
The "just following orders" rationale for his behavior does not persuade.
He also forgets to mention that the "final" decision of the appeals
committee was in fact overturned.
The bottom line is that he risked the integrity of the WC match
when he started Kramnik's clock in game 5 and he should
be condemned for it.
| |
| David Richerby 2006-11-19, 8:37 pm |
| David Kane <davidekane@comcast.net> wrote:
quote:
> "Mike Murray" <mikemurray@despammed.com> wrote:
>
> The "just following orders" rationale for his behavior does not
> persuade.
Since we're not discussing Crimes Against Humanity, `following orders'
is not relevant. The arbiter's job is to make sure that the games are
played correctly, not to determine whether or not a game should be
played.
Gijssen was placed in a very difficult position: there wasn't anything
else he could have done.
quote:
> The bottom line is that he risked the integrity of the WC match when
> he started Kramnik's clock in game 5 and he should be condemned for
> it.
No! The Appeals Committee risked the integrity of the WC match by
accepting Topalov's ludicrous complaint that was based on evidence he
had no right to see.
If you're going to blame Gijssen, do you also blame the man who turned
the key in the lock of the toilet? After all, he should have seen
that the Appeals Committee's decision was morally wrong and refused to
lock the door.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Radioactive Bulb (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ light bulb but it'll make you glow in
the dark!
| |
| Mike Murray 2006-11-19, 8:37 pm |
| On 19 Oct 2006 13:10:49 +0100 (BST), David Richerby
<davidr@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
quote:
>If you're going to blame Gijssen, do you also blame the man who turned
>the key in the lock of the toilet? After all, he should have seen
>that the Appeals Committee's decision was morally wrong and refused to
>lock the door.
He was the thrird shift janitor who doesn't play chess or read the
news.
| |
| David Kane 2006-11-19, 8:37 pm |
|
"David Richerby" <davidr@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:1zp*sRDtr@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
quote:
> David Kane <davidekane@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Since we're not discussing Crimes Against Humanity, `following orders'
> is not relevant. The arbiter's job is to make sure that the games are
> played correctly, not to determine whether or not a game should be
> played.
Who says? He had great leverage to produce a more satisfactory
outcome, and failed. That is just fact. Not only did he sacrifice the
integrity of the competition, but he comes across as rather proud
of having done so.
quote:
> Gijssen was placed in a very difficult position: there wasn't anything
> else he could have done.
That's what Gijssen would have you believe, but it's simply not true.
quote:
>
>
> No! The Appeals Committee risked the integrity of the WC match by
> accepting Topalov's ludicrous complaint that was based on evidence he
> had no right to see.
Sure, but this information was known by Gijssen as well.
quote:
> If you're going to blame Gijssen, do you also blame the man who turned
> the key in the lock of the toilet? After all, he should have seen
> that the Appeals Committee's decision was morally wrong and refused to
> lock the door.
>
Some wisdom and bravery on the part of Gijssen would have been
appropriate, but possibly there were others who could have done
more but didn't as well. So now you've transformed it to the "just
following orders ... like the janitor" defense. Gijssen might make
a fine janitor, but has failed as an arbiter.
| |
|
| In article <0sqdne6k5uuQAarYnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"David Kane" <davidekane@comcast.net> wrote:
quote:
>
> That's what Gijssen would have you believe, but it's simply not true.
So you think that the arbiter should directly violate the expressed
written rules of the match?
Isn't his job simply to enforce the expressed written rules of the match?
It's not his job to interpret the contracts signed by the players and
FIDE. That's a job he's not qualified to do, nor has he been asked to
do. For him to grant a delay he is expressly not allowed to grant
strikes me as patently absurd.
It is explicitly not the job of the arbiter to decide if one player has
a good reason for not showing up at the board or not. It is his job to
take a specific set of actions when a player doesn't show up at the
board.
What if he doesn't start the clock, and then Kramnik shows up 59 minutes
later and wants to play? Topalov then has been sitting in the game area
for an extra hour - a distinct advantage to Kramnik.
-Ron
| |
| David Kane 2006-11-19, 8:37 pm |
|
"Ron" <ronaldinho_m@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ronaldinho_m-E9ADE5.21282419102006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
quote:
> In article <0sqdne6k5uuQAarYnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "David Kane" <davidekane@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> So you think that the arbiter should directly violate the expressed
> written rules of the match?
> Isn't his job simply to enforce the expressed written rules of the match?
The fallacy is that there is a unique way to do this. Just for starters...
1.1 The game of chess is played between two opponents ...
No reference to an omnipotent appeals committee.
What if the appeals committee had ruled that Kramnik
must play without his queen? Is our "good soldier"
arbiter bound to uphold that ruling?
6.7 Any player who arrives at the chessboard more
than one hour after the scheduled start of the session
shall lose the game unless the rules of the competition
specify or the arbiter decides otherwise.
This gives the arbiter the explicit option to "decide otherwise".
6.13 If the game needs to be interrupted, the arbiter shall stop the clocks.
The arbiter can stop the clock.
12.1 The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into
disrepute.
Topalov's actions brought the game of chess into disrepute.
13.2 The arbiter shall act in the best interest of the competition. He should
ensure that a good playing environment is maintained and that the players are
not disturbed. He shall supervise the progress of the competition.
This could be interpreted to give the arbiter the power to
unlock Kramnik's bathroom, postpone the game, negotiate
between the players etc.
The arbiter clearly violated 13.2, and had ample latitude to conduct the
match in a fair way. He failed to do so. Would doing so have harmed his
status in the FIDE hierarchy? Possibly, but he had a duty to be something
beyond a good soldier.
quote:
> It's not his job to interpret the contracts signed by the players and
> FIDE. That's a job he's not qualified to do, nor has he been asked to
> do. For him to grant a delay he is expressly not allowed to grant
> strikes me as patently absurd.
Far less absurd that what actually happened -awarding Topalov
a game because Kramnik did not go along with a ruling which
was grossly incorrect and subsequently overturned.
quote:
> It is explicitly not the job of the arbiter to decide if one player has
> a good reason for not showing up at the board or not. It is his job to
> take a specific set of actions when a player doesn't show up at the
> board.
>
> What if he doesn't start the clock, and then Kramnik shows up 59 minutes
> later and wants to play? Topalov then has been sitting in the game area
> for an extra hour - a distinct advantage to Kramnik.
>
There quite likely are many unreasonable things
that the arbiter could have done but didn't.
I'm only talking about the unfair actions he
actually took.
| |
|
|
| richardstanz@msn.com 2006-11-19, 8:38 pm |
|
Taylor Kingston wrote:
quote:
> On Oct 18, 3:32 pm, "Taylor Kingston" <tkings...@chittenden.com>
> wrote:
>
> GM Yasser Seirawan rebuts Gijssen:
>
> http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3441
My personal view is that Seirawan comes across as overly harsh and a
bit of a jerk on this one. I think it's unreasonable to expect Gijssen
to have taken it upon himself to call for some kind of an official
match time-out while everything gets sorted out. That's the kind of
solution that sounds fine in hindsight, but its really too much to ask
of a match arbiter. The arbiter is supposed to be a neutral figure,
there to enforce the rules and regs, etc. For him to decide that the
Appeals Committee -- a body put in place to resolve exactly this kind
of protest -- was mistaken, favoring one player over another, etc. and
could sort all this out with a litlle more time, well, it simply wasn't
his place.
It's not about being a good soldier or following orders either. Some
may object to the tone of Gijssen's original article. That may be a
translation problem or stem from the fact that Dutch and not English is
likely his original language. Or, maybe he is a stickler for the rules
-- that is, after all, his job as arbiter and why he is considered one
of the better ones. The point is that there was already a process in
place for resolving conflict -- whether we thought it was working
fairly or not. Think about how extraordinary it would have been for
the arbiter to call for a time out, essentially telling the Appeals
Committtee and the FIDE President that he disagreed with their decision
and if they'd only take a little more time, they'd see the light. The
arbiter just doesn't have that kind of authority or power. At least,
he doesn't as I understand the arbiter's role.
One of the interesting things I find in all this is that I have not
seen Kramnik or his camp express criticism over Gijssen's actions with
respect to Game 5. (Have they?) From the accounts I've seen, it
sounds like Kramnik knew full well that Gjissen would have to forfeit
him, and that that he, Kramnik, knew he would have to seek to excise
that forfeit later, either in negotiation of through lawsuit.
Fortunately, it didn't matter and Kramnik won anyway. Remember, we
were in this mess because of the Topalov camp, who had lost the first
two games. Imagine if, after an hour of waiting, Gijssen had told
Topalov that he wasn't going to forfeit Kramnik. At this delicate time,
with all the balls still up in the air, would Topalov have walked and
put an end to the match then and there? What then would the chess
world be saying about Gijssen?
My two cents,
Richard Stanz
| |
| David Kane 2006-11-19, 8:38 pm |
|
<richardstanz@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1161542589.761072.259130@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> Taylor Kingston wrote:
>
> My personal view is that Seirawan comes across as overly harsh and a
> bit of a jerk on this one. I think it's unreasonable to expect Gijssen
> to have taken it upon himself to call for some kind of an official
> match time-out while everything gets sorted out. That's the kind of
> solution that sounds fine in hindsight, but its really too much to ask
> of a match arbiter. The arbiter is supposed to be a neutral figure,
> there to enforce the rules and regs, etc. For him to decide that the
> Appeals Committee -- a body put in place to resolve exactly this kind
> of protest -- was mistaken, favoring one player over another, etc. and
> could sort all this out with a litlle more time, well, it simply wasn't
> his place.
>
> It's not about being a good soldier or following orders either. Some
> may object to the tone of Gijssen's original article. That may be a
> translation problem or stem from the fact that Dutch and not English is
> likely his original language.
I found Gijssen's tone quite irritating, but it is his actions, not his
writings, that deserve to be condemned.
Or, maybe he is a stickler for the rules
quote:
> -- that is, after all, his job as arbiter and why he is considered one
> of the better ones.
This interpretation misses the entire point of Seirawan's article.
i.e. he was only a stickler for *certain* rules.
The point is that there was already a process in
quote:
> place for resolving conflict -- whether we thought it was working
> fairly or not.
This is not an insignificant point. The arbiter has an obligation
to ensure fair conditions. Period.
Think about how extraordinary it would have been for
quote:
> the arbiter to call for a time out, essentially telling the Appeals
> Committtee and the FIDE President that he disagreed with their decision
> and if they'd only take a little more time, they'd see the light. The
> arbiter just doesn't have that kind of authority or power. At least,
> he doesn't as I understand the arbiter's role.
First, that is not the only conceivable course of action
open to the arbiter. But, for the sake of argument, your suggestion
strikes me as perfectly reasonable. He doesn't have to
reference the Appeals committee at all. He can simply
declare that the match can only proceed under fair conditions.
That, after all, is his primary reason for being there.
In effect, Gijssen unilaterally abdicated his authority
and, in doing so, sacrificed the integrity of the event.
Whether he behaved this way because he is a weak
individual, or partial to Topalov, or to gain favor with
Kirsan etc. really doesn't matter. He had a job
to do and didn't do it.
quote:
>
> One of the interesting things I find in all this is that I have not
> seen Kramnik or his camp express criticism over Gijssen's actions with
> respect to Game 5. (Have they?) From the accounts I've seen, it
> sounds like Kramnik knew full well that Gjissen would have to forfeit
> him, and that that he, Kramnik, knew he would have to seek to excise
> that forfeit later, either in negotiation of through lawsuit.
> Fortunately, it didn't matter and Kramnik won anyway. Remember, we
> were in this mess because of the Topalov camp, who had lost the first
> two games. Imagine if, after an hour of waiting, Gijssen had told
> Topalov that he wasn't going to forfeit Kramnik. At this delicate time,
> with all the balls still up in the air, would Topalov have walked and
> put an end to the match then and there? What then would the chess
> world be saying about Gijssen?
Personally, I'd be applauding him. If a chief arbiter (!) has no
role in seeing that a match is fair, then who does?
quote:
>
> My two cents,
> Richard Stanz
>
| |
| vkarlamov@yahoo.com 2006-11-19, 8:38 pm |
|
Taylor Kingston wrote:
quote:
> Readers who followed the Kramnik-Topalov match may be interested in
> FIDE Arbiter Geurt Gijssen's account of events surrounding the aborted
> 5th game, and of his decision to forfeit Kramnik:
>
> http://www.chesscafe.com/geurt/geurt.htm
>
I don't think it's Gijssen's fault. The fault lies with the FIDE
leadership and the Appeals Committe which violated the agreed upon
match rules.
Gijssen was just doing his job.
| |
|
| In article <1161533832.859458.110920@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote:
quote:
> GM Yasser Seirawan rebuts Gijssen:
>
> http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3441
I find Seirawan's attitude here to be absurd an obnoxious. He seems to
be taking Gijssen to task for the fact that Kirsan (who, ultimately, has
the power to fire Gijssen) would change the rules of the match. Gijssen
is following the rules - you can't blame him if Kirsan is going to
ignore or change them (which seems to be what Seirawan is doing).
He also seems to be making a mash of things by talking about Kirsan as
being a member of the appeals committee simply because he suggested a
solution to them.
quote:
> This is not an insignificant point. The arbiter has an obligation
> to ensure fair conditions. Period.
But allowing one player to unilaterally cause a delay at no penalty is
not fair match conditions.
-Ron
| |
| David Kane 2006-11-19, 8:38 pm |
|
"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1161533832.859458.110920@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
>
> On Oct 18, 3:32 pm, "Taylor Kingston" <tkings...@chittenden.com>
> wrote:
>
> GM Yasser Seirawan rebuts Gijssen:
>
> http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3441
>
Seirawan gets the essentials right. He wrote:
"Mr. Gijssen cannot have it both ways: Either
he held a position of responsibility and
accountability or he did not. In my view,
the Chief Arbiter holds a very important
position and is required to insure that the
regulations and Laws of Chess are properly
followed"
Actually, I think Seirawan comes across as
rather soft on Gijssen because he does not
connect Gijssen's abdication of his responsibility
with the improper "appeals committee" decision
in the first place. The absence of a competent
arbiter zealously working to ensure a fair match
created a vacuum that allowed injustice to flourish.
Would the appeals committee have ruled as it did
in the face of a strong, fair arbiter? Highly unlikely.
| |
|
| Ron wrote:
quote:
> In article <0sqdne6k5uuQAarYnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "David Kane" <davidekane@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> So you think that the arbiter should directly violate
> the expressed written rules of the match?
>
> Isn't his job simply to enforce the expressed written
> rules of the match?
As I recall, some sporting events (not chess) have been
won or lost on account of the referee (or umpire) making
decisions based on the rules in effect at that time, even
though nearly everyone agreed afterward that the rule
applied was unfair and should be amended. But the
referee was not responsible for writing that unfair rule;
the referee was responsible for enforcing that rule as
fairly as he could under the circumstances.
quote:
> It's not his job to interpret the contracts signed by the players and
> FIDE. That's a job he's not qualified to do, nor has he been asked
> to do. For him to grant a delay he is expressly not allowed to grant
> strikes me as patently absurd.
>
> It is explicitly not the job of the arbiter to decide if one player has
> a good reason for not showing up at the board or not. It is his job
> to take a specific set of actions when a player doesn't show up at
> the board.
>
> What if he doesn't start the clock, and then Kramnik shows up 59 minutes
> later and wants to play? Topalov then has been sitting in the game area
> for an extra hour - a distinct advantage to Kramnik.
As far as I know, even Kramnik has *not* blamed Gijssen
personally for the forfeit of game 5. So why do some other
people seem determined to condemn Gijssen personally?
--Nick
| |
|
| In article <1161643320.791500.54290@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
"Nick" <nickbourbaki3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
quote:
> As far as I know, even Kramnik has *not* blamed Gijssen
> personally for the forfeit of game 5. So why do some other
> people seem determined to condemn Gijssen personally?
There seem to be group of people who are so infuriated by Topalov's
behavior that they want to tar and feather everyone who didn't condemn
him loudly and in every manner possible.
It's absurd to me that people are accusing Gijssen of creating the
leadership vaccuum which the appeals committee and later Kirsan
blundered into - as if Gijssen ever had a position of "leadership" or
Kirsan to begin with!
Gijssen did what any arbiter should do: stay out of the contract dispute
and simply enforce the rules of the game in the playing room.
-Ron
| |
| David Kane 2006-11-19, 8:38 pm |
|
"Nick" <nickbourbaki3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1161643320.791500.54290@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> Ron wrote:
>
> As I recall, some sporting events (not chess) have been
> won or lost on account of the referee (or umpire) making
> decisions based on the rules in effect at that time, even
> though nearly everyone agreed afterward that the rule
> applied was unfair and should be amended.
A common defense for wrongdoing is that there have
been worse wrongs. True, but generally irrelevant.
But the
quote:
> referee was not responsible for writing that unfair rule;
> the referee was responsible for enforcing that rule as
> fairly as he could under the circumstances.
This is not analogous to the situation being discussed.
quote:
>
> As far as I know, even Kramnik has *not* blamed Gijssen
> personally for the forfeit of game 5. So why do some other
> people seem determined to condemn Gijssen personally?
When people offer the defense that
they were "just following orders" to
excuse their wrongdoing they are
supporting the position that corruption
is inevitable. Those sorts of arguments
should always be scrutinized very
carefully. I don't detect that it is
even remotely personal in Seirawan's
case, but simply one of principle.
It would be completely pointless to
speculate on Kramnik's actions, of
course. The idea that his alleged
silence should muzzle all of humanity
is a bit strange to say the least.
| |
|
| David Kane wrote:
quote:
> "Nick" <nickbourbaki3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1161643320.791500.54290@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
I was just mentioning what has happened in other sports
and not attempting to make an exact analogy to the
Kramnik-Topalov match.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> A common defense for wrongdoing is that there have
> been worse wrongs. True, but generally irrelevant.
"Since we're not discussing Crimes Against Humanity,
'following orders' is not relevant."
--David Richerby (writing to David Kane)
Like David Richerby, evidently, I feel that David
Kane is 'blowing out of proportion' this matter.
By the way, many people have to work under
conditions of more unfairness, on account of
racism or sexism, than what Kramnik would
have experienced for game 5. How much
sympathy would those people get if they
were to refuse to do their work?
By the way, most Americans of my acquaintance
like to use the 'there have been worse wrongs' line in
their attempts to excuse and minimise US war crimes.
quote:
>
> This is not analogous to the situation being discussed.
I already have explained that I was not attempting to
make an exact analogy to the Kramnik-Topalov match.
quote:
>
> When people offer the defense that they were "just following
> orders" to excuse their wrongdoing they are supporting the
> position that corruption is inevitable. Those sorts of arguments
> should always be scrutinized very carefully.
As I understand it, Gijssen has asserted that he lacked
the authority to overrule the match appeals committee.
Is that true or not?
quote:
> I don't detect that it is even remotely personal in
> Seirawan's case, but simply one of principle.
David Kane seems to have misunderstood what I wrote.
I was saying that 'some other people' (not Kramnik;
I did not mention 'Seirawan' by name) seem determined
to hold Gijssen personally responsible for the game 5
forfeit of Kramnik and to condemn Gijssen for it.
As far as I can tell, David Kane seems determined
to condemn Gijssen personally for the game 5 forfeit.
quote:
> It would be completely pointless to speculate
> on Kramnik's actions, of course.
I have noticed that many people (perhaps including
David Kane) have written much speculation about
Topalov's supposed motivations, though those
people were not in a position to know exactly
what Topalov was thinking.
quote:
> The idea that his alleged silence
Kramnik's 'alleged silence' about Gijssen?
Can David Kane cite a Kramnik quotation in
which Kramnik blames Gijssen personally
(by name) for the game 5 forfeit?
quote:
> should muzzle all of humanity
> is a bit strange to say the least.
Did I write anything about 'muzzling (censoring)
all of humanity'? David Kane has the right to
express whatever foolishness comes to his mind.
1) With regard to the game 5 forfeit, Kramnik
had far more at stake than David Kane did.
2) There's no evidence (known to me) that
Kramnik believes that Gijssen wronged him
by what Gijssen did with the game 5 forfeit.
3) *If* Kramnik really believed that Gijssen
has wronged him, then Kramnik would
have said so by now.
4) Hence, Kramnik's absence of criticism
of Gijssen implies that Kramnik does
*not* feel wronged by Gijssen.
Yet David Kane seems to act as though he
knows that Kramnik *must* feel wronged by
Gijssen. Perhaps David Kane could attempt to
persuade Kramnik to make public statements
(which would please David Kane) denouncing
Gijssen personally.
In this thread, I think more highly of the comments
of Ron, David Richerby, and Richard Stanz than
those of David Kane.
--Nick
| |
| David Kane 2006-11-19, 8:38 pm |
|
"Nick" <nickbourbaki3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1161654847.156304.241820@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> David Kane wrote:
>
> As I understand it, Gijssen has asserted that he lacked
> the authority to overrule the match appeals committee.
> Is that true or not?
I don't recall anybody suggesting that course of
action. There were many ways to proceed in a
fair way, and those have been discussed.
quote:
>
> As far as I can tell, David Kane seems determined
> to condemn Gijssen personally for the game 5 forfeit.
That's a reasonably fair statement, in the sense that
he was a chief arbiter who neglected his responsibilities.
You'll have to explain what you mean by the word
"personally", though.
quote:
>
>
> I have noticed that many people (perhaps including
> David Kane) have written much speculation about
> Topalov's supposed motivations, though those
> people were not in a position to know exactly
> what Topalov was thinking.
>
>
> Kramnik's 'alleged silence' about Gijssen?
> Can David Kane cite a Kramnik quotation in
> which Kramnik blames Gijssen personally
> (by name) for the game 5 forfeit?
I know of no such statements, but I don't
pretend to follow Kramnik. Your own phrase
began with the words "As far as I know ..."
which doesn't suggest exhaustive research
on your part either. Hence, it's an allegation.
quote:
>
> Did I write anything about 'muzzling (censoring)
> all of humanity'? David Kane has the right to
> express whatever foolishness comes to his mind.
>
> 1) With regard to the game 5 forfeit, Kramnik
> had far more at stake than David Kane did.
>
> 2) There's no evidence (known to me) that
> Kramnik believes that Gijssen wronged him
> by what Gijssen did with the game 5 forfeit.
>
> 3) *If* Kramnik really believed that Gijssen
> has wronged him, then Kramnik would
> have said so by now.
>
> 4) Hence, Kramnik's absence of criticism
> of Gijssen implies that Kramnik does
> *not* feel wronged by Gijssen.
An amusing diversion. Since Kramnik
says nothing, he must agree with you!
A rather lax approach to evidence,
don't you think?
But, of course, I have not referred
to Kramnik's state of mind in forming
my opinion, nor do I think Seirawan
has, in forming his similar, but not
identical, one. So it is completely
irrelevant to the merits of the discussion.
quote:
> Yet David Kane seems to act as though he
> knows that Kramnik *must* feel wronged by
> Gijssen. Perhaps David Kane could attempt to
> persuade Kramnik to make public statements
> (which would please David Kane) denouncing
> Gijssen personally.
I have never once claimed to speak for Kramnik,
nor do I particularly care what he says. You might
try reading more carefully if capable.
quote:
> In this thread, I think more highly of the comments
> of Ron, David Richerby, and Richard Stanz than
> those of David Kane.
Perhaps it's not a coincidence that the chess world
seems to run into these sorts of controversies so
often. Perhaps the desire to cover up wrongdoing
rather than address it has something to do with it.
| |
| n_cramerSPAM@pacbell.net 2006-11-19, 8:38 pm |
| "Nick" <nickbourbaki3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
quote:
> David Kane wrote:
> Yet David Kane seems to act as though he
> knows that Kramnik *must* feel wronged by
> Gijssen. Perhaps David Kane could attempt to
> persuade Kramnik to make public statements
> (which would please David Kane) denouncing
> Gijssen personally.
Perhaps Mssr Kane had placed a large wager on Kramnik. ;-/
--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families!
Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! !
~Semper Fi~
| |
| David Kane 2006-11-19, 8:38 pm |
|
"Ron" <ronaldinho_m@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ronaldinho_m-893DF3.16305823102006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
quote:
> In article <1161643320.791500.54290@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> "Nick" <nickbourbaki3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> There seem to be group of people who are so infuriated by Topalov's
> behavior that they want to tar and feather everyone who didn't condemn
> him loudly and in every manner possible.
As far as I know, most people already condemn Topalov.
But let's face it. If his chess is good enough (and it might be),
ultimately people will overlook it. We can't
legislate that great chessplayers will be good people.
But Gijssen was in a position to do something, and didn't. That's
a problem with a solution. e.g. The chess world can insist on
having good arbiters.
quote:
> It's absurd to me that people are accusing Gijssen of creating the
> leadership vaccuum which the appeals committee and later Kirsan
> blundered into - as if Gijssen ever had a position of "leadership" or
> Kirsan to begin with!
>
Why is it absurd? The very name "chief arbiter" connotes some
authority. I don't think Kirsan would find it at all easy to replace
an arbiter in the middle of a match. There would be major credibility
issues.
quote:
>Gijssen did what any arbiter should do: stay out of the contract dispute
>and simply enforce the rules of the game in the playing room.
We're talking about the conditions that the
players experience *during the game*. Anyone
with backbone would have been incensed
*before* the "appeals committee" issued its
decision.
You've never addressed the hypothetical
question somebody posed earlier. What should
the arbiter have done if the Appeals Committee
had decided that Kramnik must play nude, and
Kramnik refused to play under those conditions?
Please answer.
| |
| David Kane 2006-11-19, 8:38 pm |
|
<n_cramerSPAM@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:20061023232513.653$5d@newsreader.com...
quote:
>
> Perhaps Mssr Kane had placed a large wager on Kramnik. ;-/
>
To be honest, I don't know any big gamblers, but at least
in the movies they are people who (like Nick) don't
care about competitions being fair. I'm just the
opposite. I didn't have a great favorite (initially pulling
for Topalov in fact) but found the lack of fairness
in the event upsetting in the extreme.
| |
| David Richerby 2006-11-19, 8:38 pm |
| David Kane <davidekane@comcast.net> wrote:
quote:
> You've never addressed the hypothetical question somebody posed
> earlier. What should the arbiter have done if the Appeals Committee
> had decided that Kramnik must play nude, and Kramnik refused to play
> under those conditions? Please answer.
Start the clock at the scheduled start time. If Kramnik turns up to
play the game, clothed or not, the game continues.
Since we're playing the hypotheticals game, which of the following
people do you believe should be condemned for not taking unilateral
action to free those wrongly convicted of crimes they did not commit:
1) prison governers;
2) prison guards;
3) prison ancillary staff, such as cleaners?
Dave.
--
David Richerby Artificial Laser (TM): it's like an
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ intense beam of light that's made
of plastic!
| |
| David Richerby 2006-11-19, 8:38 pm |
| David Kane <davidekane@comcast.net> wrote:
quote:
> But, of course, I have not referred to Kramnik's state of mind in
> forming my opinion, nor do I think Seirawan has, in forming his
> similar, but not identical, one.
Note that Seirawan has, at least partially, retracted his earlier
comments:
``Your correction clearly shows that my Laymans knowledge is
outdated. The powers of the Appeals Committee have been greatly
expanded under the current FIDE administration. It would seem
that with point f (`all other matters which the Committee
considers important') the Committee could become responsible for
anything and everything. A remarkable usurpation of powers by
FIDE Deputy Makropoulos and his FIDE World Chess Championship
Committee.''
quote:
> Perhaps it's not a coincidence that the chess world seems to run
> into these sorts of controversies so often. Perhaps the desire to
> cover up wrongdoing rather than address it has something to do with
> it.
Which wrongdoing has been covered up? As far as I can see, the
Appeals Committee's decision and Gijssen's implementation of it have
both been done in the full gaze of the world's media. In the ordinary
sense of the term, `cover up' does not mean `fail to correct somebody
else's mistakes', even leaving aside the question of whether Gijssen
acted correctly.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Accelerated Permanent Widget (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a thingy but it'll be there
for ever and it's twice as fast!
| |
| David Richerby 2006-11-19, 8:38 pm |
| David Kane <davidekane@comcast.net> wrote:
quote:
> <richardstanz@msn.com> wrote:
>
> This is not an insignificant point. The arbiter has an obligation
> to ensure fair conditions. Period.
No. The arbiter has an obligation to ensure that the games are played
according to the match regulations and the laws of chess.
quote:
> He can simply declare that the match can only proceed under fair
> conditions. That, after all, is his primary reason for being there.
No.
quote:
> In effect, Gijssen unilaterally abdicated his authority
No. Gijssen did not have the authority you ascribe to him. He had
nothing to abdicate.
quote:
> Personally, I'd be applauding him. If a chief arbiter (!) has no
> role in seeing that a match is fair, then who does?
The chief arbiter's job is to make sure the games are played according
to the rules. He has no remit to `fairness' or `the match.'
Dave.
--
David Richerby Perforated Sushi (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ raw fish but it's full of holes!
| |
| David Richerby 2006-11-19, 8:38 pm |
| David Kane <davidekane@comcast.net> wrote:
quote:
> Would the appeals committee have ruled as it did in the face of a
> strong, fair arbiter? Highly unlikely.
Objection! The witness is speculating.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Homicidal Laser (TM): it's like an
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ intense beam of light but it wants to
kill you!
| |
| David Richerby 2006-11-19, 8:38 pm |
| Taylor Kingston <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote:
quote:
> Taylor Kingston <tkings...@chittenden.com> wrote:
>
> GM Yasser Seirawan rebuts Gijssen:
>
> http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3441
I think Seirawan has allowed his emotions to overtake his thinking.
Let's look at some of the ``logical deductions'' he makes. Frankly,
I'm appalled.
Paragraph 3: ``It is striking that nowhere in Mr. Gijssens article
does he point a finger to assign blame [...] It must be truly
marvelous to live in a world where bad things do not happen and
everyone is blameless.''
Just because Gijssen doesn't say who he thinks was to blame does not
mean that he thinks nobody is to blame. It just means he doesn't want
to make accusations.
Paragraph 5: ``the FIDE President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov become the
Chairman of the Appeals Committee; for a time, the FIDE President was
the whole Committee.''
As far as I can see, Ilyumzhinov took the role of the Appeals
Committee between the resignation of the first committee and the
arrival of the second. No games were played during this period. The
chairman of the second committee was Jorge Vega; the other members
were Boris Kutin and Faik Gasanov.
http://www.worldchess2006.com/main.asp?id=1047
Paragraphs 6-9. Seirawan claims that Gijssen is being inconsistent
because he claims that decisions made by the Appeals Committee are
final, while Ilyumzhinov says that ``The technical loss of Kramnik can
be cancelled.'' There is no inconsistency here: cancelling the
forfeit of Game 5 would not be reversing a decision of the Appeals
Committee.
Paragraph 10. ``It is inconceivable that Mr. Gijssen would then have
jumped up and said, `No! Such a compromise, agreed to by the players
and the FIDE President, is against the regulations. The decision of
the Appeals Committee is final!' '' Argument by straw man. Seirawan
accuses Gijssen of being inconsistent because he believes that Gijssen
would have behaved differently in a hypothetical situation. This is
not an inconsistency of Gijssen: it is an inconsistency in the Gijssen
in Seirawan's head.
Paragraphs 10-15 continue to conflate the ideas of ``The decisions of
the Appeals Committee are final'' and ``The forfeit of Game 5 cannot
be reversed.''
Paragraph 19: ``Mr. Gijssen wrote, `No member of the Appeals
Committee can be from the federation of either player.' Yet it was the
`proposal' of the FIDE President that prompted the Appeals Committee
to lock Kramniks bathroom door. It is clear that the FIDE President, a
Russian, interfered with the Appeals Committees deliberations and
proposed to the Committee its eventual ruling.''
Whether or not it was proper for Ilyumzhinov to make such a
suggestion, it is clearly not in breach of the rule that there can't
be any Russians (or Bulgarians) on the Appeals Committee. Whether or
not Ilyumzhinov dictated or merely suggested terms to the Committee
seems rather irrelevant to Gijssen's handling of the Committee's
eventual ruling. There appears to be some attempt to attack Gijssen
in this paragraph (why, otherwise, quote him at the top?) but I really
don't see how Ilyumzhinov's actions showed the Gijssen quote to be
untrue.
Paragraph 21: ``Dare I suggest the obvious: If the FIDE President can
appoint himself as the Appeals Committee, he can most certainly
overrule its decisions.''
Suggest all you like but that's not obvious to me. The President
appointed himself to be the Appeals Committee because, at that time,
there was no Committee! They'd just resigned en masse! Ilyumzhinov
stopped being the Committee as soon as the new members reached Elista.
It is totally unclear to me whether Ilyumzhinov would have appointed
himself if there had been a committee in place.
Paragraph 23: ``I freely confess that I was unaware of the most recent
FIDE regulations.'' May I respectfully suggest that you appraise
yourself of the current roles of the Chief Arbiter and Appeals
Committee? Criticizing Gijssen for not behaving as a Chief Arbiter
would have behaved a quarter of a century ago is irrelevant.
Paragraph 25. Pure ad hominem.
Paragraph 26: ``Clearly, [Gijssen] could have extended that delay or
called for an official time-out.'' Clearly, from the match
regulations the Arbiter does not have the authority to call time-outs.
Paragrpah 27. Pure ad hominem.
Paragraph 28. Pure ad hominem.
Paragraph 30: ``The Appeals Committee was not an independent body.
Rather, it was controlled by the FIDE President, who interfered with
the Committees deliberations and ultimately told the Committee
Chairman how to rule on the protest.''
Note the gradual escalation here. The first time this is brought up
(paragraph 18), the Committee ``accepted the FIDE President's
proposal.'' By paragraph 19, Seirawan is casting unfounded aspersions
about whether this proposal was really a proposal or an order. Now,
in paragraph 30, the President ``controlled the committee'' and ``told
the Committee Chairman how to rule''. Nice trick. Start with the
truth and then corrupt it gradually in the retellings so that people
still agree with you but don't realise they're now agreeing with
something different.
Seirawan has some valid points to make. It is unfortunate that he
makes them in a piece of sloppily-written invective.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Beefy Clock (TM): it's like a clock
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ that's made from a cow!
| |
| David Kane 2006-11-19, 8:38 pm |
|
"David Richerby" <davidr@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:q3h*hF3tr@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
quote:
> David Kane <davidekane@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Start the clock at the scheduled start time. If Kramnik turns up to
> play the game, clothed or not, the game continues.
Huh? If Kramnik shows up wearing clothes, he's violating the
hypothetical Appeals Committee ruling, which, according to you, he
has no power to do!!!
Please explain your inconsistency.
quote:
> Since we're playing the hypotheticals game, which of the following
> people do you believe should be condemned for not taking unilateral
> action to free those wrongly convicted of crimes they did not commit:
>
> 1) prison governers;
> 2) prison guards;
> 3) prison ancillary staff, such as cleaners?
None. An arbiter, however, is bound to uphold the rules of chess,
which require him to act in the best interest of the competition and
ensure that a good playing environment is maintained.
A very bad analogy.
| |
| Chris Mattern 2006-11-19, 8:38 pm |
| In article <TNidnSl1SdJeqKPYnZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@comcast.com>, David Kane wrote:
quote:
>
>None. An arbiter, however, is bound to uphold the rules of chess,
Uphold the rules of chess. Not write the rules of chess.
quote:
>which require him to act in the best interest of the competition and
>ensure that a good playing environment is maintained.
No, it requires him to uphold the rules of chess. Which he did.
You may not agree with the rules; in fact, in this case I don't
think I do either. But as you yourself say, upholding them is
what he has to do.
quote:
>
>A very bad analogy.
>
On the contrary, I thought it was an excellent analogy.
--
Christopher Mattern
"Which one you figure tracked us?"
"The ugly one, sir."
"...Could you be more specific?"
| |
| David Kane 2006-11-19, 8:38 pm |
|
"Chris Mattern" <syscjm@sumire.eng.sun.com> wrote in message
news:12jsmmqn88cpq3d@corp.supernews.com...
quote:
> In article <TNidnSl1SdJeqKPYnZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@comcast.com>, David Kane wrote:
>
> Uphold the rules of chess. Not write the rules of chess.
>
>
> No, it requires him to uphold the rules of chess.
Those words are taken directly from the rules of chess.
The arbiter broke the rules.
| |
|
| David Kane wrote:
quote:
> <n_cramerSPAM@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:20061023232513.653$5d@newsreader.com...
>
> To be honest, I don't know any big gamblers, but at
> least in the movies they are people who (like Nick)
> don't care about competitions being fair.
Apparently, David Kane has claimed that 'Nick',
which may refer to Nick Cramer or may refer to me,
"doesn't care about competitions being fair".
If David Kane has written that about me, then
it's an offensive false accusation by David Kane.
I know of no evidence that Nick Cramer "doesn't
care about competitions being fair". Of course,
Nick Cramer can speak for himself.
I would submit that David Kane has shown that
he's beyond reasonable discussion in this thread.
--Nick
quote:
> I'm just the opposite. I didn't have a great favorite
> (initially pulling for Topalov in fact) but found the
> lack of fairness in the event upsetting in the extreme.
| |
|
| David Kane wrote:
quote:
> "Nick" <nickbourbaki3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1161654847.156304.241820@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Some of the context was snipped by David Kane.
[vbcol=seagreen]
This question can be answered by 'yes' or 'no'.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I don't recall anybody suggesting that course of action.
> There were many ways to proceed in a fair way, and
> those have been discussed.
I believe that it would have been better for game 5
to be postponed until the dispute was sorted out.
But I don't know that Gijssen had enough authority
to order that postponement on his own.
quote:
>
> That's a reasonably fair statement, in the sense that
> he was a chief arbiter who neglected his responsibilities.
> You'll have to explain what you mean by the word
> "personally", though.
>
>
> I know of no such statements, but
> I don't pretend to follow Kramnik.
David Kane has admitted that he does not know
of any statement in which Kramnik has blamed
Gijssen personally (by name) for the game 5 forfeit.
quote:
> Your own phrase began with the words "As far
> as I know ..." which doesn't suggest exhaustive
> research on your part either.
David Kane has shown his poor reading
comprehension and/or powers of inference.
quote:
> Hence, it's an allegation.
If I were to write that, based on the evidence
of my birth certificate, "As far as I know, I was
born on (date) at (place)", then would David Kane
conclude that I *allegedly* was born on (date)
at (place)?
quote:
David Kane has shown his poor reading
comprehension and/or powers of inference.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> An amusing diversion. Since Kramnik
> says nothing, he must agree with you!
Again David Kane has shown his poor
reading comprehension and/or powers
of inference. I did *not* express my
independent opinion of whether or not
Gijssen wronged Kramnik. I was doing
my best to ascertain Kramnik's opinion
about whether or not he feels wronged
by Gijssen
quote:
> A rather lax approach to evidence,
> don't you think?
Does David Kane know what the maxim
'qui tacet consentit' (silence implies consent)
means?
quote:
> But, of course, I have not referred
> to Kramnik's state of mind in forming
> my opinion, nor do I think Seirawan
> has, in forming his similar, but not
> identical, one. So it is completely
> irrelevant to the merits of the discussion.
>
>
> I have never once claimed to speak for Kramnik,
> nor do I particularly care what he says.
It seems clear enough that David Kane seems
determined to condemn Gijssen even though
Kramnik has not blamed Gijssen for the
game 5 forfeit.
quote:
>You might try reading more carefully if capable.
>
>
> Perhaps it's not a coincidence that the chess world
> seems to run into these sorts of controversies so
> often. Perhaps the desire to cover up wrongdoing
> rather than address it has something to do with it.
I would submit that David Kane has shown that
he's beyond reasonable discussion in this thread.
--Nick
| |
|
| David Kane wrote:
quote:
> "Ron" <ronaldinho_m@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ronaldinho_m-893DF3.16305823102006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
>
> As far as I know,
David Kane has used the phrase 'As far as I know.'
"Your own phrase began with the words 'As far as I know...'
which doesn't suggest exhaustive research on your part either."
--David Kane
quote:
> most people already condemn Topalov.
As far as I can tell, most writers in this thread
(Ron, VKarlamov, Chris Mattern, David Richerby,
Richard Stanz, and I) evidently believe that David Kane's
wrong to condemn Gijssen for the game 5 forfeit.
quote:
> But let's face it. If his chess is good enough (and it might be),
> ultimately people will overlook it. We can't legislate that
> great chessplayers will be good people.
I don't regard Topalov or Kramnik as a saint.
Shirov definitely does not regard Kramnik as a saint.
quote:
> But Gijssen was in a position to do something, and didn't.
> That's a problem with a solution. e.g. The chess world can
> insist on having good arbiters.
>
>
> Why is it absurd? The very name "chief arbiter"
> connotes some authority.
Are not the limits of the chief arbiter's 'authority' defined
by the match regulations or other FIDE regulations?
quote:
> I don't think Kirsan would find it at all easy to replace
> an arbiter in the middle of a match. There would be
> major credibility issues.
>
Was Gijssen supposed to be qualified enough to
adjudicate a legal dispute about contracts?
[vbcol=seagreen]
> We're talking about the conditions that the
> players experience *during the game*.
> Anyone with backbone would have been incensed
> *before* the "appeals committee" issued its
> decision.
>
> You've never addressed the hypothetical
> question somebody posed earlier. What should
> the arbiter have done if the Appeals Committee
> had decided that Kramnik must play nude, and
> Kramnik refused to play under those conditions?
> Please answer.
I would say that, assuming there's a law
prohibiting public nudity (I claim no expertise on
the laws of Kalmykia), the laws of civil society
would supersede the decisions of the match
appeals committee and/or the match arbiter.
If Kramnik were nude, however, then that would
be another reason for him to spent more time
in his private bathroom. :-)
--Nick
| |
| n_cramerSPAM@pacbell.net 2006-11-19, 8:38 pm |
| "Nick" <nickbourbaki3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
quote:
> David Kane wrote:
>
> Apparently, David Kane has claimed that 'Nick',
> which may refer to Nick Cramer or may refer to me,
> "doesn't care about competitions being fair".
>
> If David Kane has written that about me, then
> it's an offensive false accusation by David Kane.
>
> I know of no evidence that Nick Cramer "doesn't
> care about competitions being fair". Of course,
> Nick Cramer can speak for himself.
>
> I would submit that David Kane has shown that
> he's beyond reasonable discussion in this thread.
Speaking for myself, I want competitions to be fair. Peoples comments
regarding them are often influenced by other criteria.
Life is not a movie!
--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families!
Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! !
~Semper Fi~
| |
| David Kane 2006-11-19, 8:38 pm |
|
"Nick" <nickbourbaki3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1161740679.812738.35480@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> David Kane wrote:
>
> David Kane has used the phrase 'As far as I know.'
>
> "Your own phrase began with the words 'As far as I know...'
> which doesn't suggest exhaustive research on your part either."
> --David Kane
>
>
> As far as I can tell, most writers in this thread
> (Ron, VKarlamov, Chris Mattern, David Richerby,
> Richard Stanz, and I) evidently believe that David Kane's
> wrong to condemn Gijssen for the game 5 forfeit.
>
>
> I don't regard Topalov or Kramnik as a saint.
> Shirov definitely does not regard Kramnik as a saint.
>
>
> Are not the limits of the chief arbiter's 'authority' defined
> by the match regulations or other FIDE regulations?
This is a good question. The answer is no.
In practice, authority is also determined by behavior.
quote:
>
> Was Gijssen supposed to be qualified enough to
> adjudicate a legal dispute about contracts?
This bogus argument needs to be put to rest. The idea
that we are talking about some complicated
legal dispute is not the case. It's a dispute over
the playing conditions, which by tradition, by the
rules of chess, etc. do involve the arbiter.
quote:
>
> I would say that, assuming there's a law
> prohibiting public nudity (I claim no expertise on
> the laws of Kalmykia), the laws of civil society
> would supersede the decisions of the match
> appeals committee and/or the match arbiter.
Non responsive. The question was what the arbiter
should do in this case.
It is interesting to me that Gijssen's supporters
resist answering this hypothetical. David Richerby
has been the only to do so, and he *contradicted* the
Gijssen position.
I think it is because the idea that Gijssen had
no choice is ludicrous, and the defense that
the appeals committee rulings are final, is no
defense at all. Obviously the appeals committee
can make a ruling that conflicts with the laws
of chess (some believe this one did, but for
the sake of example it could be even more
extreme, e.g. Kramnik must play without
his Queen). One suspects that even the
craven Gijssen would not be willing to go
that far.
| |
| David Kane 2006-11-19, 8:39 pm |
|
"Nick" <nickbourbaki3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1161737927.892742.208170@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> David Kane wrote:
>
> Some of the context was snipped by David Kane.
>
>
> This question can be answered by 'yes' or 'no'.
Many questions can. I have not challenged your understanding
of Gijssen's assertions (though if it's anything like
your understanding of my assertions chances are you are
missing important elements.)
quote:
>
> I believe that it would have been better for game 5
> to be postponed until the dispute was sorted out.
> But I don't know that Gijssen had enough authority
> to order that postponement on his own.
Amidst your nonsense, something of substance -
showing a surprising reasonableness no less.
The only thing to be added is that Gijssen might
have had many ways to achieve a fair result
short of "ordering a postponement on his own".
He *chose* a course of action (of an infinite number
of possibilities) which was very close to the worst
possible in the given situation.
The chess world would have been much better off
if Gijssen had stayed in bed guzzling vodka and
watching "Caddyshack" dubbed into Russian,
for example.
The argument that people had no choice is almost
always false, and often made by people who
know they did the wrong thing.
quote:
>
> If I were to write that, based on the evidence
> of my birth certificate, "As far as I know, I was
> born on (date) at (place)", then would David Kane
> conclude that I *allegedly* was born on (date)
> at (place)?
The issue is the quality of the evidence. A birth
certificate would normally be accepted as good
evidence of birth information, so use of the
word "alleged" wouldn't be appropriate.
But your "evidence" that Kramnik agrees with
you is apparently based on the fact that neither
you nor I have read anything to the contrary.
In my case, I have made no attempt to find
out what Kramnik feels. I haven't spoken with
him personally, etc. My knowledge pretty much
begins and ends with things written in English
which are a few clicks from Chessbase. If you
have better evidence, you haven't revealed it
here, so appears equally worthless. So use
of the word "alleged" is appropriate in
this case. In any case, my argument is not
contingent upon Kramnik feeling a certain
way. It is completely irrelevant to the
issue.
| |
|
| In article <hJSdnUvpxOQ6EKLYnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"David Kane" <davidekane@comcast.net> wrote:
quote:
>
> This is a good question. The answer is no.
> In practice, authority is also determined by behavior.
Ah, the idea of the "activist judge" - he doesn't care what the laws
actually say, we rewrites them in his interpretation of what they should
say.
When sports referees start rewriting the rules of the competition on the
fly, bad things happen - like the US/USSR Olympic basketball final.
quote:
>
>
> This bogus argument needs to be put to rest. The idea
> that we are talking about some complicated
> legal dispute is not the case. It's a dispute over
> the playing conditions, which by tradition, by the
> rules of chess, etc. do involve the arbiter.
The rules of chess say that bathroom access is the purview of the
arbiter?
Kramnik didn't show. The rules of chess are VERY clear as to what's
supposed to happen when a player doesn't show up.
The rules of chess, on the other hand, don't say anything about how each
player should have a private bathroom.
quote:
> Non responsive. The question was what the arbiter
> should do in this case.
>
> It is interesting to me that Gijssen's supporters
> resist answering this hypothetical. David Richerby
> has been the only to do so, and he *contradicted* the
> Gijssen position.
With respect to your hypothetical, for Kramnik to play in the nude he'd
have to actually show up. The proper hypothetical question is what would
Gijssen do is Kramnik were ordered by the appeals committe to play in
the nude, he showed up wearing clothes ... and now what?
But in any event your hypothetical is so absurd as to be irrelevant.
You're asking us to assume that Gijssen is reasonable and the Appeals
Committee is insane.
Many people - including those you're arguing with here today - believe
that the appeals committee was wrong. It's a big leap, however, to go
from that to ascribing them absurd, malicious rulings.
-Ron
| |
| David Kane 2006-11-19, 8:39 pm |
|
"Ron" <ronaldinho_m@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ronaldinho_m-31BAF9.10243525102006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
quote:
> In article <hJSdnUvpxOQ6EKLYnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "David Kane" <davidekane@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> Ah, the idea of the "activist judge" - he doesn't care what the laws
> actually say, we rewrites them in his interpretation of what they should
> say.
Imagine that before the match, Kirsan threatened Gijssen's life
if he acted contrary to Kirsan's wishes. In that case, Gijssen
would in practice have no authority, despite what is written somewhere.
Written rules were broken repeatedly in this match.
quote:
> When sports referees start rewriting the rules of the competition on the
> fly, bad things happen - like the US/USSR Olympic basketball final.
>
>
> The rules of chess say that bathroom access is the purview of the
> arbiter?
>
> Kramnik didn't show. The rules of chess are VERY clear as to what's
> supposed to happen when a player doesn't show up.
>
> The rules of chess, on the other hand, don't say anything about how each
> player should have a private bathroom.
>
>
> With respect to your hypothetical, for Kramnik to play in the nude he'd
> have to actually show up. The proper hypothetical question is what would
> Gijssen do is Kramnik were ordered by the appeals committe to play in
> the nude, he showed up wearing clothes ... and now what?
Well, if you want to change the hypothetical, go ahead. But you
still haven't answered it.
quote:
>
> But in any event your hypothetical is so absurd as to be irrelevant.
> You're asking us to assume that Gijssen is reasonable and the Appeals
> Committee is insane.
Huh? This is a hypothetical with nothing to do with Gijssen. It's a question
about what a generic chief arbiter should do. Why do you resist
answering it?
quote:
>
> Many people - including those you're arguing with here today - believe
> that the appeals committee was wrong. It's a big leap, however, to go
> from that to ascribing them absurd, malicious rulings.
>
Not so big. "Absurd" and "malicious" are words that could
easily be applied to the actual ruling.
GM Hans Ree: "Topalov and Danailov may have been as surprised
as everybody else when the Appeals Committee granted their
idiotic demand that Kramnik's toilet would be closed."
"Idiotic" and "absurd" sound pretty synonymous to me.
| |
| David Kane 2006-11-19, 8:39 pm |
|
"Ron" <ronaldinho_m@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ronaldinho_m-31BAF9.10243525102006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
quote:
> In article <hJSdnUvpxOQ6EKLYnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "David Kane" <davidekane@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> Ah, the idea of the "activist judge" - he doesn't care what the laws
> actually say, we rewrites them in his interpretation of what they should
> say.
>
> When sports referees start rewriting the rules of the competition on the
> fly, bad things happen - like the US/USSR Olympic basketball final.
>
>
> The rules of chess say that bathroom access is the purview of the
> arbiter?
>
> Kramnik didn't show. The rules of chess are VERY clear as to what's
> supposed to happen when a player doesn't show up.
>
> The rules of chess, on the other hand, don't say anything about how each
> player should have a private bathroom.
I was hesitant to answer this because
1. it would be hypocritical to do what I have criticized
Gijssen for doing - i.e. create an argument based on a
narrow interpretation of a subset of the rules.
2. I am not an arbiter of any kind.
But ...
As to the arbiter's general function:
From the Preface to the FIDE Laws of Chess:
"Too detailed a rule might deprive the arbiter of his freedom of judgement and
thus prevent him from finding the solution to a problem dictated by fairness,
logic and special factors"
Note "fairness", "freedom of judgement", and anticipation of "special factors"
are *explicitly* mentioned in the preface to the rules.
This does not stem from an alleged preference for "activist" judges.
Now, on to the supposedly "clear" rules:
"6.7 Any player who arrives at the chessboard more
than one hour after the scheduled start of the session
shall lose the game unless the rules of the competition
specify or the arbiter decides otherwise."
There is no definition of "otherwise". Presumably it
covers any possibility including the possibility that
the non-arriving player shall not lose the game. Moreover,
there is no clue as to what the arbiter's decision shall
be based. So this "clear" law can be effectively translated
as "the arbiter can decide what happens"
Consider some other rules:
"1.1 The game of chess is played between two opponents ...
Article 13: The role of the arbiter (see Preface)"
I don't see *any* explicit mention in the rules of *any* other parties being
involved. (no reference to the FIDE president, "Appeals Committees": etc.) This
means that the rules are written such that the arbiter and players must handle
everything involved with the game itself. *Only* the arbiter can act on the game
and we already know he is allowed to find solutions to problems dictated
by fairness, logic and special factors. That is not a powerless role.
"13.2 The arbiter shall act in the best interest of the competition. He should
ensure that a good playing environment is maintained and that the players are
not disturbed. He shall supervise the progress of the competition. "
Note this is a FIDE Law of Chess. It is not a suggestion that an arbiter can
consider only if he feels like it, or only if he concludes that doing so will
not upset
the FIDE president.
"12.5 Players are not allowed to leave the `playing venue` without permission
from the arbiter. The playing venue is defined as the playing area, rest rooms,
refreshment area, area set aside for smoking and other places as designated by
the arbiter. The player having the move is not allowed to leave the playing area
without
permission of the arbiter."
The playing venue explicitly includes the rest rooms. Logically the "playing
venue"
would be a subset of the "playing environment" covered by 13.2.
Interesting, too, that Gijssen's supports here have not condemned him
for delaying the start of game 5 by 22 minutes. I guess consistency only
goes so far.
| |
| markgravitygood@gmail.com 2006-11-19, 8:39 pm |
|
David Kane wrote:
quote:
> Actually, I think Seirawan comes across as
> rather soft on Gijssen because he does not
> connect Gijssen's abdication of his responsibility
> with the improper "appeals committee" decision
> in the first place. The absence of a competent
> arbiter zealously working to ensure a fair match
> created a vacuum that allowed injustice to flourish.
> Would the appeals committee have ruled as it did
> in the face of a strong, fair arbiter? Highly unlikely.
I don't think Gijssen's jurisdiction or influence crosses over to the
Appeals Committee and all that entails. His job is to referree the
actual "playing" of the game, not the match itself and all that happens
outside the 64 squares.
I think he did the right thing by starting the clock and subsequently
forfeiting Kramnik, at least by the letter of the law.
He cannot be faulted here.
We shoule be thankful Kramnik won the match outright and avoided a
messy legal battle...
| |
| David Kane 2006-11-19, 8:39 pm |
|
<markgravitygood@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1161892386.746234.224200@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> David Kane wrote:
>
> I don't think Gijssen's jurisdiction or influence crosses over to the
> Appeals Committee and all that entails. His job is to referree the
> actual "playing" of the game, not the match itself and all that happens
> outside the 64 squares.
It's not as if Kramnik all of a sudden refused to play because
he wanted the split of the purse to be 60-40 instead of 50-50.
It was a dispute about the playing conditions. The playing
conditions are *explicitly* the responsibility of the arbiter
in the rules of chess.
In fact, one response would have been for Gijssen to
resign his position, citing interference from the appeals committee.
Though it might have been criticized as grandstanding, this
would have been a principled course of action even if the
Appeals Committee ruling had been reasonable and
both Kramnik and Topalov had agreed with it. Even
better would have been to threaten to resign, *before*
the ruling was made, thereby avoiding the initial
injustice that ended up snowballing into something
much bigger.
Of course, I'm not sure how complicit Gijssen was
in the original ruling. Some suggest that the whole
thing was "team Kirsan" acting in unison. But Gijssen
may have been out of the loop.
quote:
> I think he did the right thing by starting the clock and subsequently
> forfeiting Kramnik, at least by the letter of the law.
>
> He cannot be faulted here.
I think he can. The letter of the law also required him to
ensure that a good playing environment is maintained and
that the players are not disturbed. That was not done.
quote:
> We shoule be thankful Kramnik won the match outright and avoided a
> messy legal battle...
>
Agreed.
| |
| David Richerby 2006-11-19, 8:39 pm |
| David Kane <davidekane@comcast.net> wrote:
quote:
> "David Richerby" <davidr@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
> Huh? If Kramnik shows up wearing clothes, he's violating the
> hypothetical Appeals Committee ruling, which, according to you, he
> has no power to do!!!
My point was that the arbiter could allow the game to continue under
the old match conditions. He could ``not notice'' that Kramnik was
clothed. After the game, Topolov could make another appeal that
Kramnik had disobeyed the previous Appeals Committee ruling. The
Appeals Committee would presumably accept this appeal and forfeit
Kramnik the game but the point is that the Arbiter can distance
himself from this stupidity: it is clear that the forfeit was due to
the Committee and the arbiter had absolutely nothing to do with it.
However, in the case of locking the toilets, the Arbiter has no
physical power to restore the previous match conditions so this option
isn't open to him.
quote:
>
> None. An arbiter, however, is bound to uphold the rules of chess,
> which require him to act in the best interest of the competition and
> ensure that a good playing environment is maintained.
So chess arbiters are allowed to use their moral judgement in deciding
what rules to follow but prison staff aren't. You have decided that
`the best interest of the competition' means `ignoring the Appeals
Committee's crazy ideas' but this is not necessarily the case.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Devil Game (TM): it's like a family
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ board game that's possessed by Satan!
| |
| David Kane 2006-11-19, 8:39 pm |
|
"David Richerby" <davidr@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:epB*tJiur@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
quote:
> David Kane <davidekane@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> My point was that the arbiter could allow the game to continue under
> the old match conditions. He could ``not notice'' that Kramnik was
> clothed. After the game, Topolov could make another appeal that
> Kramnik had disobeyed the previous Appeals Committee ruling. The
> Appeals Committee would presumably accept this appeal and forfeit
> Kramnik the game but the point is that the Arbiter can distance
> himself from this stupidity: it is clear that the forfeit was due to
> the Committee and the arbiter had absolutely nothing to do with it.
>
> However, in the case of locking the toilets, the Arbiter has no
> physical power to restore the previous match conditions so this option
> isn't open to him.
Why do you say that? He could have taken efforts to unlock the toilets, and
started the games only after he had done so.
Imagine, for example, that there was no appeal or appeal committee
ruling, but that Kramnik noticed his bathroom was locked and
approached the arbiter to have it unlocked. I contend that any
good arbiter would have done so, and would not have minded
delaying the match a little if that's what it took. Similarly if a
spectator had stolen Kramnik's queen, or punched Topalov
in the nose. In each case, the arbiter would act to restore the
playing conditions to an objectively high state, even if it did
open him up to the possibility of an appeal for not starting
exactly on time.
I don't see any difference, in principle, with those situations and
the situation that Gijssen actually did face.
quote:
>
> So chess arbiters are allowed to use their moral judgement in deciding
> what rules to follow but prison staff aren't. You have decided that
> `the best interest of the competition' means `ignoring the Appeals
> Committee's crazy ideas' but this is not necessarily the case.
>
Which of the prison staff have, in their job description, words that
they are supposed to use their "freedom of judgement" and supposed
to be guided by "fairness" and "logic"?
Read through the rules of chess and tell me which prison employee
his role sounds like. I don't think the legal system analogy is appropriate,
(because, chess like other sports, do not have well-developed and
elaborate justice systems), but I'd place an arbiter as something like
a super-judge.
| |
| David Kane 2006-11-19, 8:39 pm |
|
"David Richerby" <davidr@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:epB*tJiur@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
quote:
> David Kane <davidekane@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> My point was that the arbiter could allow the game to continue under
> the old match conditions. He could ``not notice'' that Kramnik was
> clothed. After the game, Topolov could make another appeal that
> Kramnik had disobeyed the previous Appeals Committee ruling.
What if, as is more likely, Topalov refused to play Kramnik clothed?
The
quote:
> Appeals Committee would presumably accept this appeal and forfeit
Not at all clear what the Appeal Committee would do. Nor relevant to
the arbiter's actions.
quote:
> Kramnik the game but the point is that the Arbiter can distance
> himself from this stupidity: it is clear that the forfeit was due to
> the Committee and the arbiter had absolutely nothing to do with it.
And the arbiter could have distanced himself from the stupidity
of the real situation too. And should have.
| |
| David Richerby 2006-11-19, 8:40 pm |
| David Kane <davidekane@comcast.net> wrote:
quote:
>"David Richerby" <davidr@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
> Come on. Now you are just being misleading. Is this your idea of a
> retraction?
It's my idea of a *partial* retraction, which is what I wrote.
quote:
> "I stand by the criticism I made in my original article: The Arbiter
> could have delayed the start of the clock or called an official
> time-out in case an immediate agreement was impossible.
Here, again, Seirawan displays his ignorance of the match conditions:
the Arbiter does not have the authority to declare an official
time-out.
quote:
> Gijssen has constructed what I think is a ridiculous defense based
> on a narrowly defined interpretation of selected rules.
>
> Even you don't seem to buy it, given your answer to the hypothetical
> question I posed in another thread.
My answer to your hypothetical indicates no such thing. In your
hypothetical, the Arbiter had options open to him that were not
available in the situation that actually occurred.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Edible Gnome (TM): it's like a smiling
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ garden ornament but you can eat it!
| |
| David Kane 2006-11-19, 8:40 pm |
|
"David Richerby" <davidr@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:cmv*ffDur@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
quote:
> David Kane <davidekane@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> It's my idea of a *partial* retraction, which is what I wrote.
Yet on the important elements, Seirawan was stronger than ever.
That's why your post was deliberately misleading.
quote:
>
> Here, again, Seirawan displays his ignorance of the match conditions:
> the Arbiter does not have the authority to declare an official
> time-out.
Yet that's only half the suggestion. He did not have to, and should not
have, started the clock.
quote:
>
>
> My answer to your hypothetical indicates no such thing. In your
> hypothetical, the Arbiter had options open to him that were not
> available in the situation that actually occurred.
>
That's not true. But the bottom line is that you did not have
the arbiter blindly following the hypothetical Appeals committee ruling. You
allowed him to exercise discretion, as his job description requires
him to do.
Gijssen's reply to Seirawan's criticism tried to hide his role in the
affair. Gijssen was completely aware of what was going on,
and did nothing to stop it.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3460
That makes Gijssen a Kirsan robot from the beginning.
He never had any interest in performing his duties
competently.
| |
|
| Nick wrote:
quote:
> David Kane wrote:
>
> Some of the context was snipped by David Kane.
>
>
> This question can be answered by 'yes' or 'no'.
>
Geurt Gijssen has written his final public statement
in response to Yasser Seirawan's statements:
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3493
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I believe that it would have been better for game 5
> to be postponed until the dispute was sorted out.
> But I don't know that Gijssen had enough authority
> to order that postponement on his own.
"I repeat, I had no authority to call for a time out. ...
I was ready--and remain ready now--to explain my
conduct in any appropriate forum, because I believed
then, as now, that from my perspective there was no
choice: I had to start game 5."
--Geurt Gijssen
quote:
>
> David Kane has admitted that he does not know
> of any statement in which Kramnik has blamed
> Gijssen personally (by name) for the game 5 forfeit.
>
>
> David Kane has shown his poor reading
> comprehension and/or powers of inference.
>
>
> If I were to write that, based on the evidence
> of my birth certificate, "As far as I know, I was
> born on (date) at (place)", then would David Kane
> conclude that I *allegedly* was born on (date)
> at (place)?
>
>
> David Kane has shown his poor reading
> comprehension and/or powers of inference.
>
>
> Again David Kane has shown his poor
> reading comprehension and/or powers
> of inference. I did *not* express my
> independent opinion of whether or not
> Gijssen wronged Kramnik. I was doing
> my best to ascertain Kramnik's opinion
> about whether or not he feels wronged
> by Gijssen
>
>
> Does David Kane know what the maxim
> 'qui tacet consentit' (silence implies consent)
> means?
>
>
> It seems clear enough that David Kane seems
> determined to condemn Gijssen even though
> Kramnik has not blamed Gijssen for the
> game 5 forfeit.
>
>
> I would submit that David Kane has shown that
> he's beyond reasonable discussion in this thread.
>
> --Nick
| |
| David Kane 2006-11-20, 2:39 am |
|
"Nick" <nickbourbaki3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1163991995.003308.281030@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> Nick wrote:
>
> Geurt Gijssen has written his final public statement
> in response to Yasser Seirawan's statements:
>
> http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3493
Gijssen covers up his own role in the unjust Appeals
Committee decision, and then makes the same tired
excuse that he had no "authority" to order a time out.
At the same time, he apparently had no problem in
exerting his authority to delay the start of the game.
Neither logical consistency nor fairness appear
to be in Mr. Gijssen's arsenal.
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2006-11-20, 2:39 am |
| FOUL PLAY
Blame attaches to all presiding FIDE officials who clearly wanted
Topalov to win.
There was no good reason the fifth game wasn't postponed until
Ilyumzhinov returned to Elista. He fired the appeals committee. He let
the forfeit stand because he felt his hands were tied by their
ridiculous decision.
"Kramnik didn't show up for the fifth game until the issue was
resolved,but a crisis arose when FIDE forfeited him instead of
postponing the game.Topalov threatened to walk out unless the forfeit
stood and Kramnik threatenedto walk out if it stood. Stalemate." -- GM
Larry Evans
http://wcn.tentonhammer.com/modules...article&sid=954
David Kane wrote:
quote:
> "Nick" <nickbourbaki3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1163991995.003308.281030@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Gijssen covers up his own role in the unjust Appeals
> Committee decision, and then makes the same tired
> excuse that he had no "authority" to order a time out.
>
> At the same time, he apparently had no problem in
> exerting his authority to delay the start of the game.
> Neither logical consistency nor fairness appear
> to be in Mr. Gijssen's arsenal.
|
| |
|
|