Bill Gletsos is behaving like a dictator!

[Firegoat7]

Everyone has probably heard about the fiasco that was the Victorian Blitz championship , recently held at the MCC, by now. Obviously the officially accredited Fide arbiters may appear to have made a mistake in a ruling. Arbiters are human and they do make mistakes. They are not machines and they certainly deserve a fair trial with a possible rap over the knuckles if guilty. They of course should be presumed innocent until a fair investigation is held on the matter. It is sadly very disappointing and disturbing that respected Victorian arbiters are being tar and feathered by a lynch mob over at Chesschat led by the Australian ratings dictator Bill Gletsos, with a few punches thrown in by other usual suspects.

I have informed the Chief Organiser of this tournament that in my capacity as the ACF FIDE Ratings Officer I will not submit it for FIDE rating and will be requesting FIDE to delete the tournaments registration.

The ACF Executive have been informed of my decision.

This comment is way out of line. It is an unethical, dictatorial, reactionary decision by Gletsos to run roughshot over Australian chess. Gletsos is using his position of power to force his will upon the wider chess playing community-in his opinion, because the arbiters made the wrong decisions. Rightly or wrongly this line of reasoning is unreasonable towards Australian chess players.

On the flyer it states quite clearly "....Ratings: ACF quick and FIDE blitz rated. It is not unreasonable for the average chess punter to expect the tournament to be rated for a number of reasons.

1. The tournament is advertised as ACF and Fide rated
2. It is reasonable for players to expect proper rulings from accredited officials
3. Chess Victoria and the ACF collect rating fess from participants.
4. Most games were not affected by any official ruling.

As an Australian chess player I suggest it is extremely important that players understand that Gletsos' stand on the matter is clearly unacceptable. The tournament should be rated, anything less, brings the ACF into disrepute! If this tournament is not rated then every player deserves a total refund of their entry fee! You cannot take money from people, in good faith, without delivering what was promised in writing. In Australia this would constitute an illegal act that is regulated and fully enforceable in law.

[Firegoat7]

Gletsos and Bonham ACF logic Guilty until proven innocent! Hanging arbiters publicly before a trial!

[HydraTED]

On the flyer it states quite clearly "....Ratings: ACF quick and FIDE blitz rated. It is not unreasonable for the average chess punter to expect the tournament to be rated for a number of reasons.

Actually, it is also "not unreasonable" for a chess punter to expect that if they show up to a tournament advertised as a FIDE-rated chess tournament then it will be run according to the FIDE Laws of Chess. If it is not so run then players deserve to be protected from having their ratings damaged by incorrect rulings (such as the one that saw James Morris defaulted against Anton Smirnov in the opening - what an absolute embarrassment) and rules made up on the day. With a non-existent rule having been imposed at virtually no notice - not even pre-announced in tournament advertising - players were expected to unlearn the blitz habits of a lifetime on the spot or risk losing ratings points. While only a relatively small number of games were subject to rulings under the new rule, every game was affected by it unless both players in the game habitually always waited for their opponent to press before moving.

If this sort of tournament is to be rated, then where do you draw the line? How about a tournament where the players turn up and the DOP suddenly announces that in this tournament castling is not allowed before move 25? Should that be rated, because it was advertised as a rated event and the players expected it to be a rated tournament?

2. It is reasonable for players to expect proper rulings from accredited officials

Exactly. And that didn't occur. So it shouldn't be rated. Simple. You would see this in an instant were your brain not so utterly twisted and melted by your festering hatred of Bill, me, the ACF, Chesschat etc.

Some more points you clearly don't appreciate:

1. Following the Laws of Chess in FIDE-rated tournaments is compulsory. There is no discretion, unless FIDE decide to waive their own rules. FIDE rating regs item 2:

"2.
Laws to be followed


2.1
Play must take place according to the FIDE Laws of Chess."

2. The ACF cannot conduct a lengthy inquiry before deciding whether to rate events. It is impossible to complete lengthy inquiries before the deadline for ratings submissions, which in this case is the end of the month.

3. The organisers are obviously aware of the kerfuffle as one of them has been posting results in the middle of it as if nothing had happened. They have had ample opportunity to correct the record if the claims being made are substantively false. They have not done so in any way.

As for the ratings fees, Chess Victoria is responsible for the conduct of the tournament and should certainly offer appropriate refunds (at least of the ratings fee portions). It is not the ACF's fault if someone advertises a tournament as rated and then does not run it properly.

[Firegoat7]

Actually, it is also "not unreasonable" for a chess punter to expect that if they show up to a tournament advertised as a FIDE-rated chess tournament then it will be run according to the FIDE Laws of Chess.

Nobody is disagreeing with this point. However, there is an implicit assumption in your statement that the "FIDE Laws of Chess" have been broken and (very importantly) proper official regulatory process has been followed!

If it is not so run then players deserve to be protected from having their ratings damaged by incorrect rulings (such as the one that saw James Morris defaulted against Anton Smirnov in the opening - what an absolute embarrassment) and rules made up on the day.

Well first of all there are three separate discussions that need to take place. 1.Has the arbiter had a chance to defend himself against allegations of wrong doing in an official capacity? Obviously it is extremely important that the arbiters in question are allowed to defend themselves against any claim regardless of guilt before a punishment is invoked by a kangaroo court. 2- Let us presume the arbiters did in fact make an error, is it then right that the whole tournament is not rated? 3- Is it professional for a national ratings officer to bully people on Chesschat making outrageous claims without due process, and in doing so undermine the authority of Internationally accredited arbiters?

With a non-existent rule having been imposed at virtually no notice - not even pre-announced in tournament advertising - players were expected to unlearn the blitz habits of a lifetime on the spot or risk losing ratings points.

It is difficult to judge if any rule has been broken when there is no official statement from the ACF or Fide as to what is correct procedure and more importantly, why the arbiters in question were guilty of breaking rules.

While only a relatively small number of games were subject to rulings under the new rule, every game was affected by it unless both players in the game habitually always waited for their opponent to press before moving.

Clearly this is just a lie since without any information from the arbiters involved this is just speculation. I very much doubt that "every game was affected" is even tenable as a position.

If this sort of tournament is to be rated, then where do you draw the line?

Well first you have to actually prove OFFICIALLY that a mistake was made. Then providing this is the case, which is not even proven yet, you have to adapt in the future and prevent the same mistake. Rating or not Rating it is a secondary consideration based on proof.

How about a tournament where the players turn up and the DOP suddenly announces that in this tournament castling is not allowed before move 25?

Obviously you are just being a drama queen, but realistically I would expect the arbiter would have to justify this ruling in some capacity before it was rated or not rated. Then i would refund all entry fees if clearly the arbiter had no justifiable position for his ruling based on a professionalism that Chess Victoria and the ACF should be guaranteeing.

Should that be rated, because it was advertised as a rated event and the players expected it to be a rated tournament?

Yes...If the arbiter can justify in a professional capacity why they made their ruling and the governing body accepts his justification then of course it should be rated.

Exactly. And that didn't occur. So it shouldn't be rated.

A nice example of Bonham presuming his point is correct without any consideration for appropriate due process in such cases. Why again are Bonham and Gletsos egos more important then correct due process?

Simple. You would see this in an instant were your brain not so utterly twisted and melted by your festering hatred of Bill, me, the ACF, Chesschat etc.

I think you have lost all objectivity as usual. It is actually not professional to judge people based on BB heresay. It is simply ridiculous for democratically elected officials to pre-judge guilt and make threats towards the Australian chess community.

Some more points you clearly don't appreciate:

1. Following the Laws of Chess in FIDE-rated tournaments is compulsory. There is no discretion, unless FIDE decide to waive their own rules. FIDE rating regs item 2:

"2.
Laws to be followed


2.1
Play must take place according to the FIDE Laws of Chess."

2. The ACF cannot conduct a lengthy inquiry before deciding whether to rate events. It is impossible to complete lengthy inquiries before the deadline for ratings submissions, which in this case is the end of the month.

3. The organisers are obviously aware of the kerfuffle as one of them has been posting results in the middle of it as if nothing had happened. They have had ample opportunity to correct the record if the claims being made are substantively false. They have not done so in any way.

It is interesting that you are claiming that the arbiters in question have had "ample opportunity to correct the record". On what assumption do you base that claim? It appears on the surface that this "record" is a public bulletin board in which, one of the main antagonists ie a National Rating Officer is drawing zealous conclusions (bad in itself), before publicly announcing action (complete dictatorship), based on his own measured (rightly or wrongly) opinion about an incomplete record of facts.

Such a stance by Gletsos is untenable and it is quite frankly pathetic that you are encouraging his open expression on such a subject without due process. Clearly, all arbiters are required to complete appropriate official paperwork in submitting a tournament for ACF and FIDE rating and any objections or queries should be investigated before any public announcement of sanction.

As for the ratings fees, Chess Victoria is responsible for the conduct of the tournament and should certainly offer appropriate refunds (at least of the ratings fee portions). It is not the ACF's fault if someone advertises a tournament as rated and then does not run it properly.

There are many possible imagined outcomes. For example If ChessVictoria draws a conclusion that the arbiters did not make a mistake and submits the tournament for rating, but the ACF refuses to rate the tournament then it is clear the ACF will face issues. Gletsos and Bonham ought to be rebuked for foolishly placing the ACF at risk for not allowing due process to follow before threatening and intimidating people.

Some might think that damaging Kenmures and Sandlers reputations on heresay from a Bulletin board is a trivial thing, but it seems completely ludicrous that Gletsos and Bonham would keep their official positions over such a matter. Will we get strong leadership from the ACF President resolving this issue?

[HydraTED]

However, there is an implicit assumption in your statement that the "FIDE Laws of Chess" have been broken

If the accounts we have seen are even remotely true then the FIDE Laws of Chess were repeatedly broken during this event by the arbiters. The organisers and arbiters have had every opportunity to dispute these accounts and haven't done so.

Well first of all there are three separate discussions that need to take place. 1.Has the arbiter had a chance to defend himself against allegations of wrong doing in an official capacity? Obviously it is extremely important that the arbiters in question are allowed to defend themselves against any claim regardless of guilt before a punishment is invoked by a kangaroo court.

This is melodramatic nonsense because no punishment is being imposed on the arbiters. If it was to be decided, for instance, to suspend the arbiters over this incident, then they would be given appropriate opportunities to show cause why such punishment should not be imposed. At this stage no-one has proposed that they be punished - it has simply been decided not to submit the event for ratings.

2- Let us presume the arbiters did in fact make an error, is it then right that the whole tournament is not rated?

Yes and obviously so because the "error" was systematic, affecting so many games throughout the tournament that it is impossible to determine which games were affected and which games were not. If it was simply an incorrect ruling about one game a decision could be taken not to rate that game, but in this case the reports indicate that an incorrect rule was announced as applying through the whole event.

3- Is it professional for a national ratings officer to bully people on Chesschat making outrageous claims

Now you are just being silly. It is not outrageous to say the FIDE laws were not followed if in fact there are many undisputed witness claims suggesting they weren't.

You're also being hypocritical - you make outrageous claims constantly and yet expect others to refrain from saying anything.

It is difficult to judge if any rule has been broken when there is no official statement from the ACF or Fide as to what is correct procedure and more importantly, why the arbiters in question were guilty of breaking rules.

What a load of rubbish. The FIDE Laws make it completely clear that once one player has made their move, their opponent has the move. Yet the arbiters were allegedly defaulting people for touching pieces when it was their move if the opponent had not pressed the clock!

Clearly this is just a lie since without any information from the arbiters involved this is just speculation.

An idiotic claim that implies that the word of an arbiter is the only possible source of reliable information about what happened.

I very much doubt that "every game was affected" is even tenable as a position.

I very much doubt that your strawmanning by selective quoting is even tenable as the actions of a person with a brain.

Well first you have to actually prove OFFICIALLY that a mistake was made.

No, we do not have to apply a ridiculously high standard of proof for a mere decision not to rate a tournament. The balance of probabilities is a sufficient standard in such a case and it is a standard that is easily met in this instance.

Then providing this is the case, which is not even proven yet, you have to adapt in the future and prevent the same mistake.

You ignore the likelihood that refusing to rate badly run events is actually a powerful method of discouraging the same mistake in future.

[idiotic claim snipped - KB]realistically I would expect the arbiter would have to justify this ruling in some capacity before it was rated or not rated.

And the arbiters of this event have not justified their standards. Even if they could present a reasonable argument for them and even if they had actually thought them through, it remains the case that the event was not conducted according to the FIDE Laws of Chess.

Then i would refund all entry fees if clearly the arbiter had no justifiable position for his ruling based on a professionalism that Chess Victoria and the ACF should be guaranteeing.

CV's responsibility is another question but the ACF should not be expected to guarantee every tournament in the country. Indeed if we did, we would have to financially compensate those who were alarmed by the fight you were jointly responsible for at the Doeberl Cup 2000, aggravated by your failure to apologise for it, and then we would have to sue you for all costs involved. So I suggest you abandon any line of argument that holds the ACF responsible for a blunder at state level in a non-GP tournament.

Yes...If the arbiter can justify in a professional capacity why they made their ruling and the governing body accepts his justification then of course it should be rated.

That is not what FIDE think. You may think that if the players turn up expecting a chess tournament and it is actually tiddlywinks then that is all OK if the ACF thinks it is. However, this isn't the case.

A nice example of Bonham presuming his point is correct without any consideration for appropriate due process in such cases. Why again are Bonham and Gletsos egos more important then correct due process?

Ah yes, remind me again of the concern for correct due process you showed when you incorrectly banned antisense from this site on the false belief that antisense was me? Or when you deleted three of my accounts without any process whatsoever? You're just a charlatan, a hypocrite and a fraudulent troll who throws around concepts like "due process" when it suits you without having the slightest belief in them, let alone understanding of when it is appropriate that formal due process procedures be applied.

In this case, a decision has been issued. The organisers could still appeal that decision to the ACF Executive or Council if they wished to do so, though I have to say I do not like their chances.

I think you have lost all objectivity as usual. It is actually not professional to judge people based on BB heresay.

What is being judged is primarily a tournament and whether it should be rated. But we have multiple witness accounts and the organisers have not disputed them, nor indicated that they intend to.

It is interesting that you are claiming that the arbiters in question have had "ample opportunity to correct the record". On what assumption do you base that claim?

The fact that the Chief Arbiter and Chief Organiser both have accounts in good standing on Chesschat and post regularly there. One of them is also an ACF executive member in regular email contact with the ACF executive.

It appears on the surface that this "record" is a public bulletin board in which, one of the main antagonists ie a National Rating Officer is drawing zealous conclusions (bad in itself), before publicly announcing action (complete dictatorship), based on his own measured (rightly or wrongly) opinion about an incomplete record of facts.

Even if this actually appeared true to anyone who was not completely biased and clueless, it would be irrelevant to the fact that the arbiters/organisers have had ample time to comment.

Clearly, all arbiters are required to complete appropriate official paperwork in submitting a tournament for ACF and FIDE rating and any objections or queries should be investigated before any public announcement of sanction.

No, you are actually completely clueless about this as usual. There is no "paperwork", it is all electronic. Most of the processing occurs before the tournament and the only post-event processing is the submission of SP or Vega files. Again, you completely ignore the point that there is not enough time for a formal investigation.

For example If ChessVictoria draws a conclusion that the arbiters did not make a mistake and submits the tournament for rating, but the ACF refuses to rate the tournament then it is clear the ACF will face issues.

No it isn't.

Gletsos and Bonham ought to be rebuked for foolishly placing the ACF at risk

What "risk"?

Some might think that damaging Kenmures and Sandlers reputations on heresay from a Bulletin board is a trivial thing, but it seems completely ludicrous that Gletsos and Bonham would keep their official positions over such a matter.

If the claims about the event are even close to correct then any reputation damage they have suffered is entirely self-inflicted and is flowing primarily from the witness reports rather than the official response.

If anyone has an issue with how I've responded to the situation they are more than welcome to run against me for Vice-President.

[Sobriquet]

This thread is a wonderful case-study presented to test the patience, equanimity and forensic analysis of chess commentators over the holiday period.

At first exposure of the original issue was around here
< http://www.chesschat.org/showthread....l=1#post418340 > at 19/12/2016, 10.07 pm. >
and, naturally, early discussions revolved seeking a ruling within the FIDE Laws of Chess and Handbooks.

But the issue has widened because decisions have been made, by process managers (2), at ACF level, and announced on the ACF preferred chat-board.
The widening of the issue now requires some clarification not just on the FIDE Laws but also on
• what sets of rules
• what code of behaviour
• what conditions of entry and play
should be used to decide if an appropriate end-point has been reached.

As noted by
http://www.aussiechess.com.au/showth...ll=1#post90365
reasonableness of expectation of proper rulings from accredited officials is part of the widened issue.
Although,
http://www.aussiechess.com.au/showth...ll=1#post90380
shows that one camp is keen to keep the accredited officials view restricted to a subset of stakeholders view. Under this restricted view the whole event will not be ACF nor FIDE rated.

But the issue has now widened and includes
 the national ratings officer
 the CV Executive, sponsoring the event (also a stakeholder)
 the population of 56 players (also stakeholders)

In this widened context, a broad criteria to judge ‘proper rulings’ might be phrased as
Why should all players be penalised for the misjudgements of a few?
Using this criteria we are quickly led to the appropriate solution for the CV Executive (who would be the body submitting the event for rating) is to delete the 6 games in which the new interpretation of the FIDE rule decided the outcome of the game. Around 362 games formed the tournament and as consequence of this widened analysis 356 should be submitted for rating. No prizes are changed to reflect the deleted games.

To finish, we need to address the question raised in http://www.aussiechess.com.au/showth...ll=1#post90380
If this sort of tournament is to be rated, then where do you draw the line?
Well, we should not draw the line on the basis of the extremist strawman proposed < How about a tournament where the players turn up and the DOP suddenly announces that in this tournament castling is not allowed before move 25? >.
Instead, the line is drawn at what was proposed at the start of the tournament when the controversial interpretation was announced. All players had an opportunity to hear this tournament condition and if uncomfortable with this turn of events they could withdraw and ask for their money back. Fair enough.

Those that decided to play on should be deemed to have accepted the new rule interpretation as a tournament condition/interpretation, and these players reasonably expect rating of the event; albeit with 6 games withdrawn from rating because of the unforeseen ruling out of the new interpretation.


ps It is unlikley that CV Executive would meet and agree a response before 1/1/2017.

[Firegoat7]

I can see that Kevin Bonham is clearly in an emotional state over the legitimacy of his role in the pre-determined scapegoating of Mr Sandler and Mr Kenmure. Therefore it is probably best to let him take a few deep breaths and calm the ???????????? down before I bother responding to his irrational rantings above.

There is only one important question to consider. Have Mr Sandler and Mr Kenmure been allowed to present their side of the story, in an official capacity, to the ACF before Bill Gletsos decided it wouldn't be rated? And no Chesschat is not an official resource, nor is it an appropriate place for making an informed judgement.

[Sobriquet]

I can see that Kevin Bonham is clearly in an emotional state over the legitimacy of his role in the pre-determined scapegoating of Mr Sandler and Mr Kenmure. Therefore it is probably best to let him take a few deep breaths and calm the ???????????? down before I bother responding to his irrational rantings above.

There is only one important question to consider. Have Mr Sandler and Mr Kenmure been allowed to present their side of the story, in an official capacity, to the ACF before Bill Gletsos decided it wouldn't be rated? And no Chesschat is not an official resource, nor is it an appropriate place for making an informed judgement.

hi fg7 (MOZ* here; just using my CV hydra for this issue)

I don't know the answer to your question.
I do know that one of the overseas players remarked that he was surprised to see the National Ratings Officer assume the NRO was the decision-maker whereas in most other federations the NRO would be the decision-manager only; and the Federation governing body would be the ultimate decision-maker.

[HydraTED]

Sobriquet should disclose that he is MOZ (Edit: done - belatedly.)

The widening of the issue now requires some clarification not just on the FIDE Laws but also on

No, there is no clarification needed on the FIDE laws; they are entirely clear on the key point and have been for a long time.

• what sets of rules
• what code of behaviour
• what conditions of entry and play
should be used to decide if an appropriate end-point has been reached.

I don't care what you think is an appropriate end-point and I hope nobody else does either.

In this widened context, a broad criteria to judge ‘proper rulings’ might be phrased as
Why should all players be penalised for the misjudgements of a few?
Using this criteria we are quickly led to the appropriate solution for the CV Executive (who would be the body submitting the event for rating) is to delete the 6 games in which the new interpretation of the FIDE rule decided the outcome of the game. Around 362 games formed the tournament and as consequence of this widened analysis 356 should be submitted for rating. No prizes are changed to reflect the deleted games.

Leaving aside whether it is even correct to describe it as a "new interpretation" rather than what it actually was (a total fiction that clearly contradicted existing Laws), the suggestion above remains disingenuous rubbish. The reason it is so is that the announced "rule" affected not just those games where a ruling was made, but also those games where players modified their behaviour in response to the "rule". Doing so would have affected some players' ability to play blitz successfully more than others. Moreover, while at ACF level a decision to just not rate a subset of games might fly, it would be very difficult to get it past FIDE.

Well, we should not draw the line on the basis of the extremist strawman proposed < How about a tournament where the players turn up and the DOP suddenly announces that in this tournament castling is not allowed before move 25? >.

Firstly your use of "strawman" here shows you don't know what a strawman is. Strawmanning occurs when one person argues a position, and the other claims they have argued a different position because it is easier to knock that different position over. In this case I am not saying firegoat has said such a tournament should be rated - rather I have invited him to explain why his position would not entail that such a tournament should be rated as well. (He went much further in the direction of saying that it should than I expected!)

Secondly, while you are alleging that example is different, you are not providing any evidence that it is different.

Instead, the line is drawn at what was proposed at the start of the tournament when the controversial interpretation was announced. All players had an opportunity to hear this tournament condition and if uncomfortable with this turn of events they could withdraw and ask for their money back. Fair enough.

Now, this is actually what I would have done had the organisers insisted on breaching the Laws of Chess in such a way in an event I played in. But I would also have asked the organisers to refund all my costs of travel to the venue and to reimburse me for the time lost in travelling to a tournament that I had reason to expect would be played according to the Laws of Chess.

But it is not so easy for players who do not know the Laws of Chess inside out without a copy on hand to be sure of their position in making such a call. They may not realise how serious the organisers are about it at first and may decide to just go along with it and see how it pans out. Moreover, they may not immediately anticipate the extent to which the "rule" is ambiguous or to which its enforcement and problems arising from it will disrupt the tournament and its atmosphere.

Those that decided to play on should be deemed to have accepted the new rule interpretation as a tournament condition/interpretation,

No, because a condition on the contract was imposed with inadequate notice and this was done after the good in question (entry to the event) had been purchased and players had made plans and in many cases incurred travel costs and other inconvenience accordingly. Such acceptance is therefore under duress and meaningless.

ps It is unlikley that CV Executive would meet and agree a response before 1/1/2017.

When the CV Executive does meet, the response it agrees on should be an apology, compensation to players, and appropriate measures to ensure nothing like this can ever happen again.

Questions should be pursued about the power structures of CV in a situation in which the President is Chief Arbiter of a CV tournament and superior in that position to an arbiter of much higher FIDE standing.

[HydraTED]

I can see that Kevin Bonham is clearly in an emotional state over the legitimacy of his role in the pre-determined scapegoating of Mr Sandler and Mr Kenmure. Therefore it is probably best to let him take a few deep breaths and calm the ???????????? down before I bother responding to his irrational rantings above.

I see that Firegoat is the one who is getting hot under the collar here since he has again been swearing because he cannot cope with having his feeble arguments subjected to logical examination, and less still with exposure of his constant hypocrisy.

Have Mr Sandler and Mr Kenmure been allowed to present their side of the story, in an official capacity, to the ACF before Bill Gletsos decided it wouldn't be rated?

Nothing stopped either presenting their story at any time and they are still able to do so should they wish - if they appealled the ACF could still overturn the decision, though I think this is highly unlikely.

Bill was in contact with the Chief Organiser before posting the decision so the CO had an opportunity to put his case.

[HydraTED]

I do know that one of the overseas players remarked that he was surprised to see the National Ratings Officer assume the NRO was the decision-maker whereas in most other federations the NRO would be the decision-manager only; and the Federation governing body would be the ultimate decision-maker.

The discretion of the ACF FIDE Ratings Officer to take unilateral action to not rate incompetently managed tournaments was discussed and again confirmed in the absence of any objection at the most recent Council meeting. The Council remains the ultimate decision-maker in that ACFFRO decisions can in theory be overturned.

(Bill's capacity as National Ratings Officer refers to his ACF ratings hat.)

[Firegoat7]

I see that Firegoat is the one who is getting hot under the collar here since he has again been swearing because he cannot cope with having his feeble arguments subjected to logical examination, and less still with exposure of his constant hypocrisy.

In my younger days I worked as a shunter, the sort of job where grown adults were smashed to pieces by trains and every second word started with F. It was great entertainment watching union members telling management to ???????????? off when we were having a safety meeting. Now I know some weak pseudo intellectuals out there think that swearing is an emotional response, but these tend to be the same type of people who don't like getting their hands dirty, some might even call this type of prejudice class bias.

Nothing stopped either presenting their story at any time and they are still able to do so should they wish - if they appealled the ACF could still overturn the decision, though I think this is highly unlikely.

Therefore the only logical conclusion to be drawn from your statement is that the ACF did not obtain Mr Sandler or Mr Kenmures version of events. Which, quite frankly is pathetic. I would go so far as to say that this is the key reason why the ACF is an amateurish organisation. Gletsos and Bonham are openly behaving like tinpot dictators deciding sanction and penalty without even attempting to engage with the professional representatives who were officially involved in running the tournament. This sad pathetic passive aggressive behaviour is a cancer that is all too prominent in Australian Chess politics. They constantly put their own personal egos ahead of sensible consensus decision making.

Bill was in contact with the Chief Organiser before posting the decision so the CO had an opportunity to put his case.

Normally, in these type of conflicts a third party mediates a bridge between the two groups before going public in announcing a decision. But that of course would require some strong leadership from the ACF President, who doesn't seem even involved. What normally doesn't happen when resolving a conflict within a professional organisation is a person like Gletsos demanding an answer from Mr Sandler and Mr Kenmure. It is beyond ridiculous for anybody to believe that Gletsos' behaviour here is acceptable.

[Firegoat7]

It is really quite simple are Mr Sandler and Mr Kenmure answerable to the demands of Gletsos and Bonham?

The answer is No

Why has the ACF leadership not stepped in and told Gletsos and Bonham that they cannot treat Internationally rated arbiters this way?

Mr Sandler is the President of the Victorian Chess Asscociation. Is it acceptable for ACF officials like Gletsos and Bonham to attack him on a public bulletin board and decide on a course of action without consulting the ACF?

[Firegoat7]

Have Bonham and Gletsos breached Fides code of Ethics?

2.

Breach of Ethics

The Code of Ethics shall be breached by a person or organization who directly or indirectly
2.1

offers, or attempts to offer or accepts any consideration or bribe with a view of influencing the result in a game of chess or election into FIDE office.
2.2

in other respects acts contrary to this Code.
2.2.1

Of particular importance in this respect are the following:

Fraudulence in the administration of any FIDE office or national federation office that affects other federations.
2.2.2

Office bearers who through their behavior no longer inspire the necessary confidence or have in other ways become unworthy of trust.
2.2.3

Organizers, tournament directors, arbiters or other officials who fail to perform their functions in an impartial and responsible manner.
2.2.4

Failure to comply with normally accepted standards of courtesy and chess etiquette. Misbehavior of a personal nature which is generally unacceptable by normal social standards.
2.2.5

Cheating or attempts at cheating during games and tournaments. Violent, threatening or other unseemly behavior during or in connection with a chess event.
2.2.6

Players withdrawing from a tournament without valid reason or without informing the tournament arbiter.
2.2.7

Gross or repeated violations of FIDE Laws of Chess or other approved tournament regulations.
2.2.8

In any top level tournament, players, delegations or teams must comply with a high standard dress code. Delegations includes both a player`s seconds and any other individual who the player allows to conduct business on behalf of the players. Players are responsible for the actions of acknowledged members of their delegations.
2.2.9

Players or members of their delegations must not make unjustified accusations toward other players, officials or sponsors. All protests must be referred directly to the arbiter or the Technical Director of the tournament.
2.2.10

In addition, disciplinary action in accordance with this Code of Ethics will be taken in cases of occurrences which cause the game of chess, FIDE or its federations to appear in an unjustifiable unfavorable light and in this way damage its reputation.
2.2.11

Any conduct likely to injure or discredit the reputation of FIDE, its events, organizers, participants, sponsors or that will enhance the goodwill which attaches to the same.


By all accounts Mr Sandler and Mr Kenmure may have made an honest mistake in their interpretations of the rules of chess. They certainly do deserve to be treated with respect. Gletsos and Bonhams behaviour on Chesschat and Ozchess is unacceptable and it seems quite clear that they are both behaving unethically.

cheers,

[Axiom]

Players make blunders, Punters make blunders, People make blunders.
Umpires make blunders, Referees make blunders, Judges make blunders.
Arbiters make blunders, and .. Administrators make blunders.


Fg's point about fair and due process is a highly salient and exacting one.

And in that light we may also look to the sanctioning without warning of a decorated State Treasurer, and the online life banning of feisty enthusiastic chess lovers.

The forming of a fair independent appeals process has confounded mankind for millennia; no matter the organised field of endeavour.

Who Watches the Watchers? - the eternal dilemma.