Rwanda: Controversy Hits Chess Team Over ‘fair Play’ Gesture At Olympiad
Team Rwanda returned from the Chess Olympiad in Tromso, Norway on Saturday embroiled in a bitter controversy.
The controversy started on the final day of the tournament on Thursday last week, when in round 11, a Seychelles player against Rwanda’s Alain Patience Niyibizi on board 2, suddenly collapsed and was later pronounced dead.
Although Rwanda was leading on the score against Seychelles before the incident, team captain Maxence Murara chose to sacrifice two games as loses in a gesture of goodwill to Seychelles, a decision which did not go down well with his teammates.
Godfrey Kabera, Rwanda’s only internationally rated chess player, termed the decision as “personal” and “shameful” and that it was not done in consensus with other team members.
“The gesture was done without consulting the other players… we lost on board 2 to a deceased player; this is the first time it’s happened in chess history.
“The captain was also nowhere to be seen for close to an hour when all this was happening. He only came in later to change the decision which was initially given as 3-1 to Rwanda,” Kabera said.
He added: “The matter should be referred to the General Assembly and administrative measures taken against the people who fail to put national interests above anything else.”
Kabera accused the Team captain for interfering with the final results of the game, which had been signed and accepted by arbiters as a 3-1 victory, only to be changed to a 2-2 draw later.
“When the team learned of this we were very angry, frustrated and dissatisfied with a decision that was depriving one of our players the title of Candidate Master on board 4,” he said.
“The captain went back and changed the score to give board 4 a win and remove board 1 a point. We don’t know how he decided this or why? If it was done in the spirit of fair play, the least one can expect is for players to be consulted about the matter so as to collectively cede the points in the spirit of fair play.”
The decision cost Rwanda 15 points.
However, the president of Rwanda Chess Federation, Kevin Ganza stood by the captain, saying that in the wake of such a sad incident as death, the least Rwanda could do was to conduct a “fair-play gesture.”
“It was so sad; fair-play is the least thing we could do in the face of such a tragedy. I really support the gesture of our captain; it is the right expression of condolences to the Seychelles Chess Team,” Ganza said.
Murara also defended his actions, saying: “It was wrong to take advantage of the death of a player”.
He added that he took the decision as captain because the team had failed to reach consensus.
“As captain and leader I took responsibility especially because there was no consensus. I am ready to explain it during the General Assembly,” he said.
Source: http://allafrica.com
Bad decision.
Stupid decision & gesture. Making decision by himself is akin to Martial Law or Dictatorship. No wonder Rwanda as a country is such a mess because people in power dont know how to make the right decision. Its not fair play, its stupidity
It seems unfair that the team came out worse off after the unfortunate circumstances. None of the positions looked lost on the Rwanda side.15 places dropped is a lot.I would call it a bad decision
What stupid comments, it was justice, to take adventage is those circunstances is horrible. I support the captain solution, is the captain, the leader.
Although it may sound heartless, the reality is, if you don’t survive the chess game, you lose — this is a well-established precedent in competitive chess, and has been so for hundreds of years. It isn’t like this was the first time someone died during the tournament…
The FIDE handbook on tournament regulations and role of captain 13d states: “(d) Players are subject to the same prohibitions. Even though in a team competition there is a certain team loyalty, which goes beyond a player’s individual game, a game of chess is basically a contest between two players. Therefore a player must have the final say over the conduct of his own game. Although the advice of the captain should weigh heavily with the player, the player is not absolutely compelled to accept that advice. Likewise, the captain cannot act on behalf of a player and his game without the knowledge and consent of the player.” You make your own mind up