Posts: 152
Threads: 11
Joined: Aug 2011
As some of you may be aware, a situation arose this weekend in Oban regarding a certain player and a refusal to play on a live board. I don't want this to turn into anything personal or overly negative, but there were a large number of us seriously disgruntled by what went on that I feel it is worth raising so that something similar can either be avoided or fully clarified.
Live boards were in operation on the top 4 boards of the Open this weekend, in order that people watching could see some of the highest quality games played in Scotland purely for the entertainment and interest of spectators. After round 1, a request was made by the resident of the top board that he did not want to play on a live board, for what I believe was due to him feeling that he was disadvantaged by having games online which could be potentially used in future rounds for prep (matches are available on the same night in a database at most international tournaments by the way). As a result, you may have noticed that no moves were broadcast from this board for the rest of the event. Funnily enough, the IM in question seemed to be the only person who wasn't at the pub quiz on the Saturday night... Must've been preparing in his room for his game the next morning against my flatmate!
The reasons why some of us were upset is as follows:
These sensory boards were funded by the generous donations of CS members in order that games could be watched by people who either could not make the event, or do not play tournaments but still enjoy following them. By refusing to play on such a board seems somewhat selfish. It should also be noted that when one of Scotland's top players plays, the event becomes more interesting to everyone, including potential sponsors.
This player played the remainder of the games on a DGT board but with the transmission switched off. This seems a farce, as a perfectly functioning board was not being used to broadcast some of the other incredibly hard fought games in all 4 of the sections.
The thought of refusing due to prep issues during an event seems quite poor sportsmanship. Everyone is allowed to go and watch games, and even request to see duplicate scoresheets from the arbiter. Nobody really uses these games for preparation.
This is not meant as an attack on the person in question, but instead some clarification of what will happen in the future would be nice. As far as my own personal opinion goes, a clause should be inserted into all congresses that means all entrants agree that if they are due to play on a board which is being broadcast, it is being broadcast because the organiser feels it is something of interest to online followers, and therefore the game must be played on this board.
If anyone else has views on this it would be nice to hear them.
Posts: 678
Threads: 29
Joined: Apr 2017
Reputation:
3
I don't think anyone has the right to refuse to play on a particular set just because they don't like the idea of their games being broadcast online. Most congress entry forms suggest that the organisers have the final say in such matters, and I think they should exert that authority.
Posts: 66
Threads: 5
Joined: Aug 2011
Andrew McHarg Wrote:I don't think anyone has the right to refuse to play on a particular set just because they don't like the idea of their games being broadcast online. Most congress entry forms suggest that the organisers have the final say in such matters, and I think they should exert that authority. I do not agree, therein lies the problem. Some people, myself included may feel (rightly or wrongly)that there is added pressure when their game is going online.
I believe that if you decide not to play on these boards then that should be your right.
There probably will not be too many people who will feel this way but surely they have rights to their opinion.
After all some people on this noticeboard are always harping on about the rights of "the minorities".
Posts: 678
Threads: 29
Joined: Apr 2017
Reputation:
3
George Thomson Wrote:Andrew McHarg Wrote:I don't think anyone has the right to refuse to play on a particular set just because they don't like the idea of their games being broadcast online. Most congress entry forms suggest that the organisers have the final say in such matters, and I think they should exert that authority. I do not agree, therein lies the problem. Some people, myself included may feel (rightly or wrongly)that there is added pressure when their game is going online.
I believe that if you decide not to play on these boards then that should be your right.
There probably will not be too many people who will feel this way but surely they have rights to their opinion.
After all some people on this noticeboard are always harping on about the rights of "the minorities".
Well look at the world of professional sport. Imagine if a particular tennis player refused to play in front of cameras (or spectators) because it distracted him? Should he be allowed to demand that he doesn't play under those circumstances? Sure he can refuse to play, in which case he should lose the match by default. He can't - however - expect everyone just to do as he pleases.
Posts: 66
Threads: 5
Joined: Aug 2011
I would probably play in this situation, but for no other reason than trying not to be a nuisance to event organizers who have enough on their plate without added and probably needless problems.
I would then blame any loss on the "added pressure" of being online.
Who won this event by the way?
Posts: 188
Threads: 7
Joined: Aug 2011
It's a shame that anyone trying to follow the tournament can't watch the board 1 game in the Open when there are a number of live boards available...(which can actually be exciting sometimes, see below)
Especially when the player in question quite possibly gets some conditions such as free entry.
[pgn][Event "Oban"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2012.11.18"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Sreeves, Clement"]
[Black "Mannion, Steven"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C52"]
[PlyCount "98"]
[SourceDate "2012.02.19"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. d4 exd4 7. O-O Nge7 8.
Ng5 d5 9. Nxf7 Kxf7 10. exd5 Ne5 11. Bb3 Qd6 12. Ba3 Qg6 13. Kh1 Nf5 14. cxd4
Nh4 15. d6+ Ke8 16. Rg1 Bg4 17. Qf1 Nhf3 18. Qb5+ Bd7 19. Qxb7 Bc6 20. Ba4 Bxa4
21. gxf3 Bc6 22. Rxg6 Bxb7 23. Re6+ Kd8 24. Rxe5 Bxf3+ 25. Kg1 Re8 26. Rxe8+
Kxe8 27. Bc5 cxd6 28. Bxd6 Rc8 29. Na3 Rc6 30. Bg3 Bc3 31. Rc1 Bxd4 32. Rxc6
Bxc6 33. Nc2 Bc3 34. Bd6 Be4 35. Ne3 Kd7 36. Bf8 Bf3 37. h3 Ke6 38. Kf1 Kf6 39.
Kg1 Kg5 40. Kh2 Kf4 41. Bd6+ Ke4 42. Kg3 Be2 43. Nc2 Bd1 44. Ne3 Bh5 45. Ng2
Bf7 46. f3+ Kd3 47. a3 a5 48. f4 Be6 49. Nh4 Be1+ 0-1[/pgn]
Posts: 188
Threads: 7
Joined: Aug 2011
George,
Steven Mannion deservedly won the tournament. This would have been easier to work out had the board 1 game in the open been broadcast.
Posts: 455
Threads: 46
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
5
In the past I have had players reluctant to hand over scoresheets as they could be used by opponents in preparation. Some of these players were happy to do so if a bulletin was being produced but unhappy if only the chess press were getting access. FIDE now insists that in norm tournaments the game scores are put in the public domain.
I would have little sympathy with any player who is offered conditions and refuses to do a relatively simple thing to promote the event. If no conditions are on offer and the entry form doesn’t warn of the requirement then the player may have more grounds to object.
The usefulness of this course of action may be limited in this age of forums. Already one of the games has been published. This could have happened for all of the games and taken place within minutes of the end of the game had the opponents so wished. That would have negated what appears to be the main reason for taking the action but could have soured relationships between players.
Posts: 247
Threads: 6
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
0
Andrew McHarg Wrote:George Thomson Wrote:Andrew McHarg Wrote:I don't think anyone has the right to refuse to play on a particular set just because they don't like the idea of their games being broadcast online. Most congress entry forms suggest that the organisers have the final say in such matters, and I think they should exert that authority. I do not agree, therein lies the problem. Some people, myself included may feel (rightly or wrongly)that there is added pressure when their game is going online.
I believe that if you decide not to play on these boards then that should be your right.
There probably will not be too many people who will feel this way but surely they have rights to their opinion.
After all some people on this noticeboard are always harping on about the rights of "the minorities".
Well look at the world of professional sport. Imagine if a particular tennis player refused to play in front of cameras (or spectators) because it distracted him? Should he be allowed to demand that he doesn't play under those circumstances? Sure he can refuse to play, in which case he should lose the match by default. He can't - however - expect everyone just to do as he pleases.
I completely agree with this. I have no problem to saying I am one of the players that was upset with this situation at Oban and am happy to outline why.
George's issue about adding extra pressure had nothing to do with the situation mentioned, but I accept this is a valid point. However, if we start giving reasons why not to play on a particular set, then where does it stop? Say I feel that my colourblindness gives me a disadvantage on a board with dark green squares, or that I find the fold in the board offputting, or the height of the pieces is obstructing my view of the pawns. If the set is approved by FIDE, and the event has one of these boards laid out, you should accept to play on it. My own feeling is that it is an honor to get one of these boards, as your game is deemed to be of interest to the public. Of course, this is a personal view, and not one you can force people to have.
I would also like to say that I think the organisers at Oban were put in a difficult situation by this, made even more difficult by the fact the player involved was an IM. However, I don't think that the wishes of one player, regardless of who that is, should be upheld against the wishes of several people, considering that the wishes of the many were only to have the default tournament conditions upheld. Although I do not intend to speak on his behalf, Clement had stated before his game to the organisers that he wanted it to be broadcast live, and only became aware that the transmission was switched off during the game. Surely in a situation like this, the normal thing to do would be to play the game under the conditions it was originally intended.
As Jonny says, these live boards were part funded by the donations of CS members, who wanted to have the chance to watch games on them. The fact that the event has to pay a hire fee for them, and gives free entry to certain people who then refuse to use them is sad. There were some cracking games in all sections that people would have loved to see. Also, the perceived advantage was presumably being used by the person in question, despite him refusing to allow it to happen to him.
I think this is quite an important issue, as this is the first time the situation has arisen, and it is likely to come up at a congress soon. I believe that organisers will have to consider what the wish to do, and it is unlikely that the solution will please everyone. What I will say though, is that I would be strongly discouraged from entering an event where this will happen again, as will I suspect many others.
Posts: 1,003
Threads: 101
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation:
1
What a strange thing to happen.
With regard to the player in question, Steve Mannion is one of the easiest to prepare for players (openings-wise) I have encountered in Scotland. As someone who routinely prepares for every game I have 1000+ games of his in my database and he rarely varies from his (very-well constructed) repertoire - the idea that a live game or 2 from Oban would be of additional help to his opponents (who most likely would be sitting close enough to him to see the games as they are played) doesn't really make sense. As mentioned also, the pgn of games is often available quite quickly, as are those posted on forums and in other media.
With the other 3 top boards going out live, the whole scenario would be much more likely to favour Steve. Seeing what Hamish Olsen, K.Maack or some of the others play would be very useful as they don't have many games available from other sources.
On a personal level (not being able to attend Oban because of work) I was looking forward to watching the top games play out. Technical issues with the sensory boards aside, the idea that I could see all but the top board seems ridiculous.
As others have pointed out, not only have the sensory boards been donated for just such events, it seems likely that titled players would have free entry and should therefore do everything within reason to ensure the event is a success, particularly with Oban Congress having lots of sponsors (lots of small local ones which always impresses me and is a great recipe for others to follow).
Anyway, perhaps there is more to this than we are hearing about, but as it stands I'm not very impressed.
|
