Welcome back!

Well… having worked for Sports Illustrated in New York and coming from a sports-mad city of Chicago, you’d better believe I have researched a lot of other sports.

However, I’m not sure how much apply much from the golf lesson. Garry Kasparov openly cheated against Judit Polgar and nothing happened… it was not even mentioned to him during or after the game. Why didn’t someone forfeit Garry when the rules are clear?

I believe there are enough cases in chess where we can focus on improvements as opposed to trying to retrofit other sports examples to our chess situation.

Agreed – FIDE’s implementation of the zero-tolerance rule is flawed. I said so earlier. I also said that the underlying goal is still a good one, as part of a broader effort to improve the staging of chess events.

Tiger would definitely be forfeited. Again, I said his reaction would then determine what happened next. If he complained that his disqualification was unfair, too harsh, that could lead to a battle where one side or both sides might lose. In that scenario, it wouldn’t be surprising to see the PGA Tour back down and change the rule, after the fact, since Tiger’s emergence has dramatically increased the revenue for everyone involved in golf.

My bet is that Tiger would just blame himself, and move on. He also has his image to consider — why risk being viewed as someone who wants a pass from obeying the rules. The PGA has been very supportive of what he wants to do. They don’t hassle him about the fact that he plays very few PGA Tour tournaments, which lets him play in more lucrative guaranteed fee events like in Dubai. And they moved an established tournament to a less desirable slot so that he could have his own signature event that weekend.

I’m glad to see you researching other sports. We in chess can learn a lot from the successes and failures of other sports.

Guess what? I just read an interesting article in today’s New York Times about golf sponsorship and the difficulties they are having in these turbulent financial times. The argument is that corporations want to avoid being perceived as loose spenders in a time when fiscal responsibility is needed.

There was an issue of the bankers who received TARP money from the failed institutions and had spent it on parties and junkets which included golf. The image of golf took a hit and affected sales of corporate tents and tickets as execs pulled back. The article basically stated organizers are hedging their bets on the X factor… Tiger Woods.

Your statement,

If Tiger Woods signs and turns in an inaccurate scoresheet at the end of today’s third round of the US Open, would they kick him out of the tournament ? Would the reason that his scoresheet was inaccurate make a difference in how the situation was handled?

These are interesting questions. The rules are clear in golf about scorekeeping, but the article lead me to believe if Tiger had an incorrect scorecard, he may not be disqualified. Pete Bevacqua, the U.S.G.A.’s chief business officer stated,

“If Tiger weren’t in golf, what would the impact really be?” Bevacqua said. “You can’t even measure how important he is to the game. He’s a Michael Jordan, Tom Brady and Sidney Crosby all rolled into one for us.”

Of course we are not talking about cheating by an elite chess player (i.e., Kasparov-Polgar), but the application of rules and their flexibility. I’m sure golf has some flexibility there. Chess should as well.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/sports/golf/21tiger.html

Good to see you here.

I believe that we don’t often examine the cause and effects of experiments whether in medicine or in sport. The pharmaceutical industry makes billions getting people to believe that it’s OK to be ill because they have pills to make it better. However, with these products come so many adverse side effects. All those commercials with smiling people jumping in the sunlight and green pastures is ignoring the “why” that you bring up.

In sport, officials make rule changes and they test them to see what adverse side effects arise. If the rule causes too much turbulence, then they adjust it. FIDE has a tendancy to change rules midstream just as they did in the Championship Cycle and at the last Olympiad in Dresden. The issue of how medals were awarded was another issue that caused a lot of controversy. Many argued that the highest performance rating was better than highest number of points. Yet the final match and team scores are determined by points and not performance ratings. What is more important?

The question you bring up is “why?” This simply inquiry is often overlooked and I believe FIDE continues to be reactionary because they want to be perceived a certain way.

Follow me here. My point was not the history of segregation, but the law that was imposed. It was an unjust law that many followed because it was a law and not because it was good in principle. Same with “zero tolerance” in chess. Arbiters are forfeiting players because it is a rule and not necessarily because it is good in principle. I talked to at least one arbiter in Dresden who disagreed with the rule. Others used discretion while others forfeited regardless of excuse. You have made that case that players should be forfeited because they violated a rule (true), but my issue is the principle and spirit of the rule.

It would be a ridiculous rule for a player to turn in a correct scoresheet in chess or forfeit. Unlike golf, an incorrect move on a scoresheet in chess doesn’t affect the outcome. However, if FIDE imposed this, then many would say they should be forfeited because it is now a rule. It is an issue of fairness. The question in all of this is whether the rule is just and what would be a better formula for increasing professionalism. I believe “zero tolerance” creates more problems than it solves and if I were a betting man, I would wager that it will NEVER be adopted on a widespread basis unless there is some flexibility.

Getting back to to the original topic of the thread… the Dresden and Wang Hao situations seem to be simply cases of players not bothering to be present on time. Such a goal is a worthwhile one, organizers and players should cooperate to achieve it, and it is fair (just) to hold themselves accountable via severe penalties, like game forfeiture. My experience is that quality execution leads to greater success.

Regarding the golf example I gave earlier, Tiger would be disqualified from the tournament, no doubt to the disappointment of TV advertisers and the local organizing group. That is what happened to Sergio Garcia at the 2007 PGA Championship – even though the root cause of the error was his playing partner’s (yes, his competitor) mis-marking of one of Sergio’s holes. The players keep each others scores during the round, but each player is still held strictly accountable for double checking the accuracy of the tally before he signs the scoresheet and turns it in at the scoring tent. Sergio was careless, probably because he had a disappointing round.

His reaction to going home with zero dollars — “I screwed up”. Even though Sergio is a multimillionaire, national hero in Spain, and gallery favorite because of his skill and animated style. But he also realizes that he has a responsibility to protect the goose that lays the golden eggs! Can you imagine if FIDE required chessplayers to turn in accurate scoresheets, or else be disqualified! lol

If someone comes along, they’ll have to have an interesting personality to attract sponsorship. None of the players I see today fit that bill. Nakamura is interesting. I’ve had long chats with him on Facebook and he is very candid… has a different way of thinking. He’s a bit brash and has a story to tell. The USCF is not using him to promote the game. He is the U.S. Champion and part of the elite and the USCF doesn’t have a clue on how to package him.

I agree 100% with #3. You have to be positive and cover the best angle of the story. However, a forfeit would be devastating for Magnus (or Hikaru if he was the offender) and all involved. Sheesh… no winners. I merely think having the commentators to “stretch” with pre-game information and allowing him to quietly come to his board and play without any commotion would be better than taking a chance of a media frenzy.

On points #1 and #2, I wouldn’t chose to debate whether the rule should be executed if it is a rule. If it is a rule, it will be executed and Magnus would lose. You’re right. I’m debating on whether the rule is a just rule. I don’t believe it is.

I remember reading history of the struggles against segregation in the 50s and 60s. The shopkeepers executed the law that Blacks could not eat in the front of public facilities. They had to go around the back and eat there or go somewhere else that served Blacks. That was a federal law in America. Now when people of that day were asked, “Should Blacks be allowed to eat in public facilities,” many would reply, “No because it’s against the law.” That’s not really what’s being asked.

What we should always argue is whether laws are just and a “no tolerance,” immediate forfeit is an unjust rule and should not be implemented without some flexibility. You may disagree, but I think by us examining the difficulties of dealing with the forfeit lets me know that there is another path. No top tournament has ever used that rule and I doubt if they would take that chance.