There have been a lot of debate about the fiasco of game 5 forfeit in Elista. Some people including Yasser Seirawan pointed their fingers at the arbiter Geurt Gijssen. As I said at that time, I must respectfully disagree. I feel that the issue should have been addressed to the Appeal’s Committee. I do not want any arbiter to step out of his or her bound and make rogue decisions. Arbiters MUST follow the rules.
I also stated that if I was Kramnik, I would have played game 5 and if I was Topalov, I would have refused to take the forfeit win.
Now, Mr. Geurt Gijssen has issued his last response to my friend Yasser Seirawan regarding game 5 decision. Please feel free to offer your comments but please be respectful to Mr. Gijssen and GM Seirawan.
My last response to Mr. Seirawan regarding Appeals Committees and arbiters
Reprinted with permission of ChessCafe.com and Geurt Gijssen
I was really surprised by the number of e-mails and phone calls I received after the publication of Mr. Seirawan’s article at ChessBase, my response at ChessCafe and his subsequent response at ChessBase.
As a matter of fact I was not surprised that the majority of the reactions I received supported my decision.
There was one point in my article I tried to explain and I thought I had explained it well. But Stephane Escafre, Chairman of the French Arbiter’s Council, was able to explain it in a much better way than I. He has given me permission to publish it:
Obviously, Mr Seirawan doesn’t know the basic notion of “Separation of Powers.” First, the Legislative Branch makes the law. Second, the Executive Branch executes the law. Last, the Judicial Branch interprets the law. It is clear that the Arbiter represents the Executive Branch. Mr Gijssen executes the law. He can neither change nor interpret the law. Maybe you don’t like it but it would be quite dangerous for democracy if the Executive (police, military etc) made its own rules. The main problem in this World Championship came from the Judicial Branch: The Appeals Committee.
Why? Because the Judicial Branch (Appeals Committee) was not separated from the Legislative Branch (FIDE). Instead of abiding by the Law, the Appeal Committee didn’t follow the rules and made its own laws: this is against “Separation of Powers” doctrine and this is not democracy.
Many things for which Mr Seirawan reproaches the Arbiter should be in fact directed to the Appeals Committee or to FIDE. From a democratic point of view, Mr Gijssen exercised his duty as a representative of the Executive Branch. Mr Seirawan wrote “When an injustice is committed it should be righted.” Yes, Sir, but not by the Executive Branch. Injustice should be righted by Judicial Branch.
I will not react to all his points, but there are some remarks I would like to make.
First of all the Appeals Committee. The President of FIDE or the Deputy President is the chairman as per FIDE’s own governing regulations. They also state that no member of the Appeals Committee may belong to the same federation as one of the participants. What I had been trying to explain is the following: Suppose the President is the Chairman of the Appeals Committee, and does not have the same citizenship as one of the participants. The Appeals Committee makes a decision. How can the President, as member of the Appeals Committee, overrule that committee in his capacity as President?
That is why I wrote, that the fact that the President can overrule the Appeals Committee is “nonsense.”
However, more important is the fact that it is not stated anywhere that the President may overrule the decisions of the Appeals Committee.
That Mr. Seirawan several times apparently chooses to cast what I put forth as “nonsense” is his own personal viewpoint.
A short remark about the Appeals Committee:
When we experienced a short period without an Appeals Committee (less than one day!), the President had the capacity to act per Article 3.23.1 of the Match Regulations:
At any time in the course of the application of these regulations, any grounds that are not covered or any unforeseen event shall be referred to the Presidential Board or the President of FIDE, for final decision.
And it was clear that we had an unforeseen situation. I cannot remember any important FIDE event without an Appeals Committee.
I disagree with Mr. Seirawan that the President acted as an Appeals Committee. He started negotiations with both teams. He made several proposals for further continuation of the match, which were not accepted. What this really means is that he did not make any decision, but tried to find a solution acceptable to both sides. I do not understand Mr. Seirawan’s remark wondering why it is not possible to continue to negotiate, even when the Appeals Committee’s decision is final.
Just before the start of game 5, I received a request to briefly postpone the start, because a letter from the President was on the way. Of course, I did not know the content of this letter, but it was, in my opinion, appropriate to wait for this letter. I suggested to both players to wait for this letter. As previously mentioned, Mr. Kramnik did not change his mind and informed me that he would not play. What then happened is well known.
I repeat, I had no authority to call for a time out.
Mr. Seirawan finished his letter as follows:
Mr. Gijssen would do well to remember that such an impasse (in case Mr. Topalov had won the match) would have resulted in him, and other match officials, being called upon to explain their conduct in a court of law.
Well. Mr. Seirawan, 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.
I shall refrain from replying to the unfortunate ad hominem remarks made by the respected American grandmaster. They were unnecessary and unwarranted. This shall be my last public statement on this entire episode.
“Copyright 2006 Geurt Gijssen and CyberCafes, LLC”
Here is the link of the original article on ChessCafe.com.
Certainly glad this is his last comment. Even lantonov admits that Topalov was in the wrong here. Arguments about whether Gijssen could have stopped it are beside the point.
Yasser lost all his credibility and respect by making a lot of wild in the dark guesses and bad comments at the time ..Yasser even later admitted after that Polish GM put him in his place that he (Yasser) was not up to date with the true facts at Topalov’s expense….as Yasser got on the chessbase bias wagon…(Yasser started a lot of people of with his kind of bad untrue comments) If Yasser was a true man he would publicly apologize his mistake and to Topolov
Is this soap opera over already!?!
Who cares about this arbiter’s views on things?? He’s just an arbiter.
Yasser may express his opinions, he’s a GM.
Now please make this old man stop responding, ok? Thank you.
NOT interesting articles on the chessbase site! I hope they start some hyping of the coming computer match!! :))
That would be much more interesting!
Theo
That I admit some guilt of Topalov is wishful thinking by some anonymous logic twister. I was about 40% sure of Kramnik cheating at the beginning which now increased to 80% sure by the guilty reaction of Kramnik and his manager.
Personally I am tired of all this. It doesn’t advance the image of chess. Put it to rest and let’s see in the future who is right and who is wrong.
“please be respectful to Mr. Gijssen and GM Seirawan.”
Did you read this anon? And I disagree with each point you make, except the computer match is interesting to a lot of people. I’d personally like to se your insulting comments and mine which acknowledges it pulled. I just find it rather shocking that you could talk about someone like that.
One more thing, anonymous. I see that you are the same one who throws mud on me in many threads. Go back several days ago to see the deep trap you fell in with your twisted logic.
>>This shall be my last public statement on this entire episode.
Amen (gosh, I am going to puke)
hoddy you are all messed up. dead wrong.
Yasser was spot on. 100% correct.
Gijssen lost all respectability. He is now seen as a milk toast. A whimp. A nothing. A person of no inner strength. Not suitable for the job.
Everyting Gijssen says in this article is total garbage. He is dead wrong and knows it and that his why he runs away from a good clean discussion of what he could have done better.
The best he can say is that he believes he is right. big deal. he is wrong but can say he believes he is right. that is a dangerous belief.
And hoddy please be more respectful of Yasser. He is a great man and a great thinker and one who is able to find the truth. Yasser worked hard to find a good solution.
The best anyone can say is that they believe they are right.
Gijssen-Seirawan 1-0
“Yasser worked hard to find a good solution.”
How many of his FIDE solutions were accepted in the past?
By their awful actions and decisions, the Appeals Committee members put everyone else in a lose-lose situation, including Kramnik and Gijssen.
Because the Arbitor’s role is more public, and because it was his finger that started Kramnik’s game 5 clock, Gijssen has been hit with blame that should have been re-directed at the A.C. members.
In his second open letter, Seirawan’s stance is that in extreme circumstances, enforcers of a rule should consider whether the rule itself is excessively unreasonable.
Gijssen’s thrust seems to preclude the concept of an enforcer questioning any rule (beyond simple interpretation).
This is an age old dilemma. There is an underlying disconnect between the philosophical perspectives of these two men.
Seirawan presses on by saying in Elista Gijssen chose to disregard certain rules, supposedly proving Seirawan’s point. Who knows, it becomes less important and too confusing.
Gijssen’s only motives were to do his best at arbitrating. Nobody can accuse Gijssen of swaying to the winds of popular opinion just to avoid criticism and make his own life easier.
Gene Milener
http://CastleLong.com/
Gijssen is paid and earns all his income from FIDE chess events. He was not about to conflict with Kirsan.
Let me say that had Kirsan been on the opposite side. I 100% GUARANTEE that Gijssen would have ruled the exact opposite of what he ruled and would have again argued it was his only choice.
Yes. His only choice to keep getting those lucritive payments for sitting around watching people play chess. Gijssen is the most biased person there. Gijssen was only interested in keeping Kirsan happy. He was not trying to do the right thing for the players.
Get real guys. Gijssen was on the FIDE bandwagon to destroy Kramnik. But Topalov still could not win with all of FIDE helping him and giving him free points.
What kind of a job with super high pay do you think Gijssen is qualified to do. NOTHING is the answer. But he does get those FIDE jobs and he intends to keep them. He is just like all the rest. Kirsan buys them all with money.
Poor senile old man…I won’t go over this point by point but consider his own lack of logic (notice this is an exact quote followed by my simple, clear, easy to understand reply):
“The President of FIDE or the Deputy President is the chairman as per FIDE’s own governing regulations. They also state that no member of the Appeals Committee may belong to the same federation as one of the participants. What I had been trying to explain is the following: Suppose the President is the Chairman of the Appeals Committee, and does not have the same citizenship as one of the participants. The Appeals Committee makes a decision. How can the President, as member of the Appeals Committee, overrule that committee in his capacity as President?”
========================================
Now, the quotation made, I ask you one simple question: Given the quoted conditions and reasoning, how can any ruling made by the Appeals committee be valid, and therefore EVERY ruling MUST be declared null and void BECAUSE the Appeals committee, by its very constitution violated the FIDE and contest guidelines. Note, this is akin to ex-President Nixon claiming executive privilege in justifying the blatantly illegal Watergate break-ins and subsequent cover-up in the early 1970s.
Summary: For lack of an appropriate judgement, I pity Geurt Gijssen
>That I admit some guilt of Topalov is wishful thinking by some anonymous logic twister.
>
He’s right, you do concede Topalov’s guilt. You never defend him on the facts, only attack his accusers. Actions speak louder than words. You don’t think Topalov’s behavior can be defended. If you did, you’d do it. Q.E.D. Sorry, pal.
The accused here is not Topalov but Kramnik. Kramnik is accused of cheating. By your logic, when you attack the accusers of Kramink, you admit that Kramnik is guilty of cheating. Hiding behind anonymity makes this look even more guilty.
to lantonov: susan did not want to post this : http://www.trud.bg/Default.asp?statid=39851&rubr=0&izd=2&fsize=&swidth=800&tr=1&im=11&id=18&iy=2006
v samia vestnik ima i snimka na protokola ot tazi proverka, s podpisite na Nikopulos, Bobaev, Danailov i drugi trima. Az rabotia vav firma za kabeli i tozi UTP kabel se izpolzva to4no za internet. Izvodoite gi ostaviam na teb.
to lantonov
http://www.24chasa.bg/Default.asp?statid=39961&rubr=0&izd=1&fsize=&swidth=800&tr=1&im=11&id=20&iy=2006
Понеделник, 20.11.2006 г. Всекидневник за новините, каквито са
Руснаци изнудвали Топалов с допинг
Резултатът от проверката – според изхода на мача в Елиста
ПАВЕЛ КОЛЕВ
С допинг афера са изнудвали Веселин Топалов организаторите на мача за световната титла по шахмат срещу Владимир Крамник в Елиста.
След напрегната 20-дневна битка и тоалетни скандали Веско загуби короната на гросмайстор номер 1 на планетата в драматичен тайбрек. Топалов обаче е получил недвусмислени намеци точно преди решителните партии по бърз шах и блиц, че евентуалната му победа ще бъде последвана от грандиозен допинг скандал.
Новината за заплахите бе потвърдена и от личния мениджър на Веселин Силвио Данаилов, който в момента е на почивка със семейството си в испански курорт.
Обратно Прочети докрай