After losing game 6 against Women’s World Champion Hou Yifan, Nigel Short created a public scandal and insisted that the game should not be rated to save a few rating points.
Ultimate Shameful Unsportsmanlike Conduct In Chess (part II)
More facts from the past:
On April 25, 2016, Nigel Short tweeted about his 6-game match against GM Hjorvar Steinn Gretarsson in Reykjavik, Iceland. The match took place on May 21-22, 2016.
Nigel drew the 1st game, lost the 2nd game, then won 3 straight. The score after 5 games was 3.5 – 1.5, identical to the match against Hou Yifan. It means that he won the match after 5 games.
But there was no protest. There was no boycott. There was no complaint. He sat down and played game 6, won, and game 6 was rated by FIDE as I showed above. There was no demand for the game not to be rated.
So what is the difference? The different is he lost to Hou Yifan and defeated Gretarsson. This is CLEARLY a double standard.
In an interview with Chess.com, Hou Yifan said:
“I was surprised, because I didn’t get any information before the game. Even after [Nigel]Â told me, the arbiter didn’t say anything.
“I didn’t face this situation before; either the match will not continue, or if we play a standard game, normally it’s rated because it’s a normal time control. Everything is normal, so I didn’t expect such an issue.”
Statement by Tournament Director GM Loek Van Wely on Chess.com:8
The Hoogeveen chess tournament would like to clarify a few things regarding the 6th match game between Nigel Short and Yifan Hou.
On the eve of game 6, it was brought to my attention the existence of rule 6.5 and Nigel insisted that this rule would be enforced.
“Rules are rules” is a common saying, however we don’t agree. Enforcing this rule would mean violating the spirit of the game, something which is much more important than blindly following the rules.
First of all , it had always been the idea to have 6 rated games, because rated these days means a guarantee to have a serious game.
Secondly, it would be wrong to think the match is over when the winner is known. This match is an exhibition match, and like a training match, will last the full amount of games.
Thirdly, conditions in a match are supposed to be equal, or at least as close as it could be. Enforcing this rule would seriously harm Yifan’s interests.
And last but not least, I would like to point out that Nigel is very keen in using rules when they are favoring him, but when they are stupid, bad and especially working against him, he believes common sense should prevail. A while ago, when his first round opponent didn’t show up in the open of Isle of Man, he got re-paired. Obviously the organizers wanted to see him play for his money, but unfortunately this was against the rules, Nigel held his ground and left (with his fee). On a more recent occasion, in the Baku chess olympiad, Nigel was subject of a search, was not too pleased with.
It, did not consent, should have been forfeited if rules were rules, but instead made a scandal out of it (and got away with it).
On another note, we were surprised to see a player with such a reputation, desperately trying to avoid playing a rated game with black against Yifan Hou, in a match which he was dominating, just trying to save a few elo points?
In the future I would like  to suggest Nigel to try harder in his last round games, just in case, or only to play unrated events if this is too hard for him to handle.
We (the arbiters and I) think the last game should be rated to do just.
Loek van Wely, tournament director Hoogeveen
It sounds like you are trying to make a scandal with quite subversive piece of writing – and without a full understanding of all the facts.
These are the exact words from Hou Yifan and Loek Van Wely. Mr. Short had the option not to play game 6 if he disagreed with the condition by Mr. Van Wely, the tournament director, and the organizer. He chose to play and lost fair and square.
I’ve written before and you seem to have moderated the comment out – but you know you’ve is-read the colours Short had in the previous match?? He had Black in the last game there too!
Of course the difference between Nigel and Loek is that Nigel only found out about the regulations after his fifth game – Loek knew the regulations and had previosuly chosen to ignore them.
Mr. Short should have refused to play game 6. He had every right to. No one questions this. The problem is he sat down, shook hands with his opponent, lost, then demanded for the game not to be rated. His opponent was unaware of any problem and played the game in good faith. While it may be within the rules, it is against the spirit of chess and poor sportsmanship. Another way to put it is sore loser. He does not get the benefit of the doubt. He never ever demanded for his final game against GM Gretarsson to be corrected and rating adjusted. This is clearly a double standard.
Admin team
GM Short also had every right to play the last game unrated, and already talked about the rating before the game, not after. Whatever GM Short did in the rest of his career is irrelevant. It’s not his job to enforce the rule when it works against him.
And as a professional chess player, GM Hou Yifan should be aware of the rules, and if not, then the arbiter should explain them to her. It’s not GM Short’s job.
By the way, where did you read the possibility of not GM Short not playing the 6th game at all ? Did they publish the contract somewhere ?
I apologise .. I mean of course Hou Yifan.
Leaving John H’s last comment in is a bit like what some used to do: retouching a photo so that Trotsky is deleted, but forgetting his feet.
I would imagine that the purpose of the FIDE rule is to avoid “unsportsmanlike” issues like throwing the last game of a match that has already been won, just so the loser isn’t hurt too much by any rating loss. I agree with the rule, and if it wasn’t enforced, I might suspect some shinanigans. GM Short is quite right to insist on this rule, if only so that people, like me, understand the match is on the up-and-up.
The fact that the rule was broken once, and/or that FIDE made a mistake before, doesn’t mean that arbiters are free to ignore FIDE regulations. No matter what GM Short’s thoughts were, FIDE should not rate the last game. FIDE should also suspend the arbiters that decide to ignore FIDE regulations. If there was an “ULTIMATE SHAMEFUL UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT IN CHESS” it was that of the arbiters and the tournament director.
Susan Polgar and Nigel Short – the story of a great love. 🙂
I like Nigel for his straightforwardness, for his courage to take positions against the stream.
Yifan Hou still has the sympathy of the audience, but as a part-time chess professional she is simply not strong enough to hold herself among the top male players. Nigel won this match very convincingly. And if the FIDE rules say that a game isn’t rated after a match is decided, there shouldn’t be any discussions about it.
Loek van Wely has made an extremely bad job as a tournament director. Breaking the rules and unfairly pillorying a great personality of the game disqualifies him and his arbiters from further comparable engagements.
The Facebook statement of the President of the Association of Chess Professional (ACP), Emil Sutovsky, requires no further comment. (https://www.facebook.com/emil.sutovsky/posts/10154310251354681)
Mr. Nigel Short needs to address why he did not raise the issue of this specific rule in his match with GM Hjorvar Steinn Gretarsson. It appears that Mr. Short benefitted from non-application of the rule at that time.
If Mr. Short believes that since the rule is on the book and that arbiters are obliged to honour the rule, then he needs to provide answers.
It is true that FIDE rules must be enforced if they are still applicable. It is not arbiters that will ultimately do the rating, but the internal FIDE system that will rate matches. Also, the organizer Mr. Loek vam Wely is correct the emphasize the specific nature of this event, which was an exhibition match. The conditions in an exhibition match will vary according to organizers’ preferences. If the organizer of this recent event (i.e., match with GM Hou Yifan) wanted all games to be played as well as rated, then the participating in this event had an obligation to strictly adhere to the conditions. It appears that while Ms. Yifan did so, Mr. Short did not.
I am most concerned with Mr. Short’s own wilful dismissal of his past questionable actions. It seems that Mr. Short believes that he is so brilliant that he can dictate an artificial new reality that suits only Mr. Short.
I have cancelled all my subcriptions to New In Chess because they continue to provide a platform to Mr. Short to articulate private opinions as worthy newspieces. I do wish to donate my hard-earned money to such entities.
Some unfortunate typos in my post (keyboard issues):
The last sentence should read: “I do not wish to donate my hard-earned money to such entities.”
The organizer’s name should be correctly spelled as “Loek van Wely”.
And substitute the word “participants” in place of “participating” in the sentence in the third paragraph that begins with “If the organizer …”