Stunning story at World Youth
6 December 2007, 12:01 PM CET, by peter
We were notified by the Belgian chess blog De Schaakfabriek about a stunning course of events during the World Youth that was held 17-29 November Kemer, Antalya (Turkey). A 14-year-old player from Belgium had drawn his game in the penultimate round after a threefold repetition. At 23.00 hours at night, he was suddenly lifted from his bed to see the officials Azmaiparashvili, Campomanes and Makropoulos. The result: around midnight he had to continue his game.
After he had gone to sleep, the 14-year-old Belgian player Nils Nijs heard somebody knocking on the door of his hotel room. He was told that he had wrongly claimed his draw that afternoon. There had been a threefold repetition (not consecutively) and then Nijs had made his move, stopped the clock and claimed a draw with the arbiter. According to regulations, this is a wrong claim because in case of a threefold repetition, a claim should be put forward before making the move. But the arbiter had made the blunder to accept the claim. Mai Lloyd, Nijs’ Canadian opponent, had not agreed with the draw because different moves had been played between the three identical positions (which of course is irrelevant). He had walked away without signing the score sheet. Later it appeared the Canadian delegation had filed a protest concerning the wrong claim, about which the Belgian delegation was never informed.
And so, to his astonishment, together with his coach, Nijs had to go back to the hotel/playing hall where Zurab Azmaiparashvili, Florencio Campomanes and Georgios Makropoulos of the protest commission were waiting for him. His opponent was already there too, and both teenagers were heard by the commission. Because Nijs honestly told them that indeed he had played the move before claiming the draw, it became clear that the arbiter had tried to cover-up his mistake.
Here is the full story.
Below is the response from the Canadian delegation:
Leave it to FIDE. They know what’s best for chess.
This is typical! Just one more example of what a bunch clowns these so called “professional chess people” are really like.
>>The head of the Belgian delegation decided to write a letter to the commission. Not because they didn’t agree with their decision, which stricktly speaking was correct, but because of its inhuman character:
>>
It wasn’t correct. After the game is too late to rectify such errors. Like discovering an illegal move after the game. Too late. If the arbiter screwed up it’s his fault, not the players.
The impromptu midnight playoff is also not prescribed by the rules of chess.
Can anyone explain why you must claim the 3 fold position-draw rule BEFORE you move? I’ve never understood this. Does it really make a difference when you claim the draw? Or is it to prevent someone from noticing the 3-fold, but playing on because he/she believes their position to be better and only claiming it much later in the game if the game goes against them?
Hi Susan,
Please also mention the link to “Chesstalk” the Canadian forum where one parent has posted the response of IM Yan Teplitsky, the Canadian delegation coach, directly involved in this incident:
http://members5.boardhost.com/ChessTalk/msg/1197245907.html
Thank you,
Valer Eugen Demian
Vancouver, BC, Canada
Three fold repetition of position not moves is the subtle but important point – but in this case it could be almost any issue concerning a draw or other non-decisive end to a game. The appropriate team leaders should have been contacted at the outset. That the Belgians weren’t contacted when the challenge was made shows poor form by the tourney officials – the two kids actually behaved pretty well – one stuck by his understanding of the rules and was not bullied. The other was very honest and didn’t try to cover things up. The one person who deserves all of the invective being tossed around by some of the discussants is the arbiter – he really should know better and should be held to that standard.
Susan, what do *you* think about this incident? Probably you have experienced similar things before.
A perfect example of the minority complex that so many chess players have. Can’t just live with a draw, no they need to play a**hole.
Probably the two players are the least guilty here.
This waking up of the boy at 23:00 and having him play at 23:30 just shows how brain damaged some people can be.
Pity that the belgian delegation does not dare to tell FIDE the following:
“either the draw stands or we sue all people who broke into the privacy of an unacompanied minor for kidnapping.”
But for Nils, may this be your comfort: honesty last longest!
It may be useful to actually post the letter of IM Yan Teplitsky made reference to by Val Demian … as the format of Canadian ChessTalk is such that all threads eventually scroll off the Discussion Board and cannot, unlike a blog, be accessed in an archive.
The following letter was sent to Hal Bond, a Canadian IA at the event, and Patrick McDonald, a Youth Coordinator for the Canadian team.
Dear Hal/Patrick,
There is a lot of nonsense written on the net (chessvibes.com, chesstalk and even twic) about an appeal we won at the WYCC. Most of those writing have no idea about what really happened yet somehow find it fit to critisize Lloyd ang go as far as call him not sportsmanlike so I feel it is important to clarify the story. This is the real account of what happened:
1) To start with, let me say that I am absolutely behind Lloyd in this case and I think he behaved very properly and respectfully and I have a lot of respect for the way he fought for his right and against injustice even when confronted by high officials and called a liar. I think he did the exact right thing and should be proud of it. Also, I am sorry for the size of this email but there is no other way to explain it.
2) In round 10 Lloyd was white against a player from Belgium named Nils Nijs. Lloyd had an advantantage for most of the game but drifted a bit in the middlegame and at some point approaching time trouble allowed a three-fold repetition still in a much better, probably close to winning position. According to the rules of chess Lloyd’s opponent could write his move down then call the arbiter and claim the draw by three-fold repetition. His opponent had a lot of time, much more than Lloyd. Instead, the player from Belgium makes his move on the board, thus already invalidating any possible draw claims. Moreover, after this move Lloyd made another (good) move away from the repetition and pressed the clock.
3) At this moment Lloyd’s opponent stops the clock, calls the abiter and demands the draw retroactively as if he did not make his last move and Lloyd did not make his reply – clearly an invalid claim. The arbiter from Spain comes, appears not to speak any English or French, calls another arbiter and clearly wrongly declares the game a draw. Lloyd protests but noone listens to him, He does the exact right thing- refuses to sign the scoresheet and demands to see his captain (me). During the last two games noone was allowed into the playing hall after two hours.
4)Lloyd finds me in the lobby, I confirm he is right and we go back together. We have to fight the security who do not want to let us back in and when 5 minutes later we come to the playing hall, the game had been cleared, the clock disappeared, Lloyd’s opponent had left and the arbiters do not want to talk to us. Eventually with the help of Ellen Nadeau and Gerry Walsh from England, whom I know from my team in England, we find the chief arbiter who speaks English but seems not very interested in listening to us. We explain our story and ask him to question the arbiter. He calls the game arbiter (who declared the draw) and the floor arbiter and tries to understand what happened. The game arbiter does not speak any English or French(makes total sense in a World Youth competition!, only Spanish) so the interpreter – an arbiter from Venezuela comes. The chief arbiter asks the interpreter (important: he is an arbiter as well) to ask the game arbiter whether the Belgian player’s and Lloyd’s next move were played or not. Important Note: Both Lloyd and his opponent have the extra two moves written down on the scoresheet – a clear proof that the moves were made on the board. According to FIDE rules the move has to be written down only after it had been played on the board. The Spanish arbiter replies in Spanish that the two moves had indeed been played and then the interpreter arbiter says, also in Spanish “No, no, do not say it, this means you made a mistake” Then the Spanish arbiter says”No, the moves were not played” I do understand and speak Spanish so this conversation between two arbiters(!) was quite appaling to me. Basically, one arbiter made a very, very bad mistake and now tries to cover it up and the other arbiter helps him to do so! I explained all this to the chief arbiter but he said I was an interested party and he has to trust his arbiters so he declares the game a draw. If we wish do appeal we have about 20 minutes to do so (according to the tournament rules all appeals had to be sumbitted within an hour of the game finish. All appeals must be in writing and accompanied by 100 Euro (refundable if we win the appeal) The arbiter chooses not to tell us how to appeal and only with the help of Ellen Nadeau and Gerry Walsh do we manage to figure out how to do it. We write down a quick appeal and hand it in to Gerry Walsh. Later we write a formal description of what happened. It is already 9pm so Lloyd goes to eat dinner and Natalia and me go to talk to the FIDE appeals committeee.
5) At the appeals committee meeting (Messrs: Azmaiparashvili, Campomanes, Makropoulos, Vega) they go over all that happened. Basically it is Lloyd and Natalia and me vs. the arbiters. Somebody is not saying the truth. The clock surfaces from somewhere and shows the move count that did not include the last two moves. Where was this clock before? It is implied repeatedly that Lloyd is a liar and Natalia and me weren’t there and just try to hep our player. Mr. Azmaiparashvili does believe us though and raises the question of why both players have the moves written down on the scoresheets. It is then decided to bring the Belgian player. It is nearly 11pm.
6) Belgian player and his captain are found in their rooms. Why have they not been notified beforehand? We are asked to leave the room while the Belgian player’s testimony is heard. The player behaves very honourably and says the truth, that two extra moves were indeed made on the board and the arbiter is not saying the truth. The appeals committee declares the game should be continued. At this point the Belgian players thinks he is getting punished for something and starts crying. Throughout this whole ordeal the Belgian captain and other people from the Belgian delegation behave very correctly and do not seem to take any offence at us but rather at the arbiters. The Belgian player is clearly distressed but so is Lloyd. It is implied by someone in the room we had the time to analyze the game – not true! All of us had been sitting in the room with FIDE committee all this time. The game continues and Lloyd wins.
Mr. Azmaiparashvili takes me aside and says we did the exactly right thing and should be proud of it. It is not a matter of half a point but we got justice and revealed a bad and dishonest arbiter. The arbiter’s first name is Eric and he is from Spain. Mr. Azmaiparashvili suggests disciplinary actions will be taken against the arbiter.
While it is unfair to have the player woken up at 11pm to testify, the root of the problem were the Belgian player not knowing the rules and the arbiter making a big mistake and then trying to cover it up. I believe we did the right thing and thanks to the Belgian player’s honesty justice prevailed. I believe the Belgian player received an award for the most honest player or something similar at the closing ceremony (I do not remember the exact title of the award). Noone ever apologized to us, not even for implying we were liars.
Please let me know if you need any further information. Please feel free to distribute this letter as you find necessary.
Best Regards
Yan
“Can anyone explain why you must claim the 3 fold position-draw rule BEFORE you move?”
It is to prevent another player to continue with his next move what exactly happened in this game.
It is pretty clear that knowing that a threefold non-consecutive repetition still counts as a threefold consecutive one, Canadian player would accept the draw claim of his opponent. He did not know the rules but the more experienced ones from the Canadian team knew better. They changed the original cause of not accepting a draw and decided to play on technicalities. Both young players ended as victims of the situation which could be easily avoided with a more pedagogic approach.
In response to the poster mentioning technicalities and pedagogic approaches, I would respectfully direct his attention to point 2 from the letter of IM Yan Teplitsky. The Canadian player refused the TD ruling on the spot, his only mistake being that he left the board in search of his TC. He should have stayed there demanding for the Chief Arbiter or his coach to assist him on the spot!
The root of the problem is that the coaches of the Belgian boy were pretty lousy when teaching him how toclaim a draw! Hahaha. Very funny story! Waking him up at 23.00, when all kids play computer games until 01.00 am? Yeah, right. Yeah, wrong. It boils down to this: Leave it to FIDE. They know what’s best for chess. All others keep quiet and obey.
Spanish arbiters are poor. And some like to say no truth (lie)?
Well…
FACT: The draw claim was wrong (they had played 2 moves one each after the position repetition)
FACT: the arbiter made wrong desicion
FACT: It is the arbiters responsibility to reject this claim and not the opponents. Whether the opponent doesn’t realise it, if he has not sign, he can always make an appeal that he should win.
FACT: The player did not sign and within the allowed time made an appeal
FACT: The games finished 9pm there was some time till they make a decision
FACT: Next round was the last round and was scheduled in the morning
QUESTION:What an appeal comitee could decide
ANSWER: Punish the arbiter (ok)
QUESTION: What result should they count
ANSWER: Legally, they should reject the decision of the arbiter (these are the laws of chess.. ask any arbiter)
a) Leave the result as it is
Grossly biased against the Canadian player
b) Count it as loss for the Belgian player
Grossly unfair for the Belgian player
c) Put them play on…
What would you do as an appeal comitee? Actually, I am sure that if they appeal comitee defaulted the Belgian player they would complain for not waking up the player to continue… and a final question:
QUESTION: Why, if the appeal was technically wrong, would Azmai and Makro favor the Canadian over the Belgian player??? Just because he was right?? They may be bad people but they simply are not that idiot.
Hi Susan,
nice to read your blog !
I introduce myself as Soumik… and had a clarification. And I hope you can help.
I played a match today and towards the end game claimed draw by three-fold repetition – as I was in a difficult position.(unfortunately we hadnt written the moves towards the end and there was no way to prove 3 position repetition). The arbiter asked us to continue and he started watching.
My opponent later blundered and I “won” the match. The arbiter ruled the match as draw as I had earlier claimed 3-fold repetition.
Was he right in doing so?