Galway Rapidplay on Saturday: Statement from Organizers

Pete Morriss

Unfortunately, we have to let you know that – due to circumstances beyond our control (explained below) – we cannot at present be sure that this tournament will be FIDE-rated, as we had advertized. Further, given the consequent uncertainty about the numbers playing, we cannot guarantee the prize fund which we announced. We will announce the prize fund at the tournament on Saturday, pitched at a level such that we ensure that we at least break even for running the event.

The reason for this uncertainty is, in a nutshell, as follows. An ICU member applied to enter the tournament on 24 April; this member had been persistently disruptive at previous Galway tournaments (and in other tournaments elsewhere in Ireland) and we decided that, for the good of the tournament, we could not accept his entry. (At least two other tournament organizers have made the same decision about this particular player in recent months, without any subsequent sanction by the ICU.) The player was informed, and on 29 April he complained about this to the ICU. Four weeks later, the ICU Chairperson wrote to us requesting the reasons for our decision. Whilst we were composing our reply, he wrote again last Sunday, threatening – out of the blue – that the ICU would not facilitate the FIDE-rating of this tournament unless we provided reasons that it found satisfactory. We provided a brief account of our reasons, and the ICU Chairperson replied, suggesting a compromise. We replied accepting the compromise – but requiring that we could make public what that compromise was – and asking for an assurance that the threat not to facilitate the FIDE-rating of this tournament be withdrawn. The ICU Chairperson then replied, in the early hours of Thursday (today) morning, completely ignoring our acceptance of his proposed compromise, and introducing a new demand: that we pay a sum of €300 to the ICU. A defamatory and dishonest statement was also placed publicly on the ICU website around the same time. Note that the ICU informed FIDE on 7 March that it wished this tournament to be FIDE rated; at no time between that date and today had there been any mention of us having to pay a fee for this. Further, the cost of rating this tournament to the ICU would be €1 per player, which we would willingly have agreed to pay if asked about it in due time; the fee of €300 is clearly designed solely as a deterrent. Since we will not pay the €300 – and even if we did, what new demands would suddenly be concocted? – the current position is that the ICU will not submit the results for FIDE rating.

We had decided that, in that event, we would cancel the tournament, as an unrated tournament would not be the tournament we had advertized, or wished to run. However, we have taken advice from a very senior official within FIDE, and he has suggested that, should the ICU not submit the results in good time, FIDE will consider rating it anyway, should we submit the results to them direct. He said that FIDE was fed up with federations using the FIDE rating system as a weapon in internal disputes, which is not the purpose of the rating system. So that is what we will do. Should you wish to ask the ICU to send this tournament for rating itself, so that we do not have to bother FIDE and bring this dispute to their attention, then of course you can feel free to do so.

A fuller account, with full documentation, will appear on our website shortly.

In the meantime, we are still open for entries, which may be sent to our email address until midday on Friday 5 June (tomorrow), when entries will close.

mikhail

Thanks for the statement, Pete.

Regardless of where one stands on the specific complaint, I think the ICU's handling of it has been disappointing. If they want to impose restrictions on tournaments, and the voting members let them, so be it. At least organisers would get into things with their eyes open. But this last minute flurry of demands and wild threats to tournaments is actively harmful to the tournament scene here.

I'm not available that weekend, so I won't be there myself, but I hope the tournament's a roaring success.

RoundTower

Bravo Pete. An example to tournament organizers everywhere not to be bullied. It's a sad day when FIDE has more integrity than the ICU.

Retd.LoyolaCpt

Seems to be a running theme that the ICU wants to derail tournaments at the last minute with ever increasing threats. Didn't notice that lowering tournament attendances was part of their mantra at the last AGM

sinbad68

@ pete . IF there is history of persistent disruption in tournaments , that is very different . I think everyone here assumed that the BAN was due to a single incidence in cork which occurred couple of years ago .Icu should rate this competition and NOT punish the entrants and sort this out with organisers later . This squabble between icu and organiser is damaging to irish chess locally and on international level.

Danville

I think it is disingenuous of the ICU to publish its child protection policy one day and then berate Galway organisers for doing exactly that the following day!

BTW was that a solo run by an ICU official or was it an executive decision?

I suggest ICU leave tournament organising to those with a good record of doing same.

Let ICU stick to what it does best-what is that exactly?

mikhail

Danville wrote: »

BTW was that a solo run by an ICU official or was it an executive decision?

Chess_Coach indicated here that it was expected to be discussed at a committee meeting. Seeing as the tournament is this weekend, you'd imagine that meeting has taken place by now.

Beyond that, it's Irish chess, so you'll hear seven wildly divergent accounts from three people who corner you at assorted tournaments to tell you about how they're personally great and the other people involved in the whole thing are crazy buffoons and/or destroying Irish chess. Next year, much the same things will happen involving a different set of people.

RQ_ennis_chess

sinbad68 wrote: »

I think everyone here assumed that the BAN was due to a single incidence in cork which occurred couple of years ago .

Maybe you thought that, I am quite sure that everybody here didn't

Sparks

RQ_ennis_chess wrote: »

Maybe you thought that, I am quite sure that everybody here didn't

Honestly, I personally thought that single incident to be more than sufficient justification for such a ban. Assault on a minor? Disregarding the disciplinary process to go to the press and thus compromising the entire process and getting horrible negative publicity for Irish chess in general? That's not exactly using the wrong fork for the fish course.

RoundTower

Must be a pretty nasty piece of work for that not to be the main justification for not wanting him at your tournament.

ovinelover

Sparks wrote: »

Honestly, I personally thought that single incident to be more than sufficient justification for such a ban. Assault on a minor? Disregarding the disciplinary process to go to the press and thus compromising the entire process and getting horrible negative publicity for Irish chess in general? That's not exactly using the wrong fork for the fish course.

There was no assault. Had there been the police would have taken action. However there was an incident but that incident would not have happened had there been no cheating.
The "Ancien Regime" found that there were extenuating circumstances that justified the cheating.
There were no guidelines as to what one should do when one catches one's opponent cheating - had the tournament controller had his shoes on things may well have turned out differently.
After the incident the victim of the cheating - which was criminal - was subjected to a legal
onslaught (threatening all sorts of sanctions) which both ignored and denied the cheating. Only a legal letter pointing out to the cheat's lawyers that knowingly defending criminal acts and tampering with physical evidence made them liable to criminal charges, softened their cough.

Mod snip - random libel removed.

Sparks

ovinelover wrote: »

There was no assault.

The person in question stood in front of the 2013 ICU AGM, with thirty-plus witnesses (including me), two of whom (one a committee member) were making audio recordings along with the minutes, and stated that he had used physical force to remove the minor from the stall in the toilets.
That's assault under Section two of the 1997 Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act.

You might think that it needs to be a bout of fisticuffs that draws blood before it's assault; you would be wrong.

had the tournament controller had his shoes on things may well have turned out differently.

Do the rules not state that players report that sort of thing to the controller instead of chasing a minor into the toilets?
Does common fupping sense not say the same thing?

RoundTower

ovinelover wrote: »

There was no assault. Had there been the police would have taken action. However there was an incident but that incident would not have happened had there been no cheating.
The "Ancien Regime" found that there were extenuating circumstances that justified the cheating.
There were no guidelines as to what one should do when one catches one's opponent cheating - had the tournament controller had his shoes on things may well have turned out differently.
After the incident the victim of the cheating - which was criminal - was subjected to a legal
onslaught (threatening all sorts of sanctions) which both ignored and denied the cheating. Only a legal letter pointing out to the cheat's lawyers that knowingly defending criminal acts and tampering with physical evidence made them liable to criminal charges, softened their cough.
In all of this nobody mentions the fact that prior to the incident several of the cheat's club mates were doing the same thing i.e. making frequent trips to the toilets and turning weak positions into less weak/strong positions. It was an open secret.

Not sure that this piece of **** deserves a reply. But as someone involved with the case , every word of this post is a lie.

Retd.LoyolaCpt

Awww ovinelover, you're so cute! It's like a 3 year old trying to speak knowledgably about a historic event. Please, by all means continue with your pharsical, Illinformed and entirely untrue story of the events. To quote any part of it would be like quoting a statement from FIFA claiming they are a non profit organisation.

cdeb

So cheating is a criminal offence, but assault isn't?

Right so.

For me, this is the thing that galls most about this whole, sorry, affair. You've a grown man admitting to forcibly dragging a kid out of a toilet cubicle and assaulting him (the dragging alone is assault) - but then refuses to acknowledge that this is in any way a problem. It's always someone else's fault. Sure what was a poor fella to to do but beat the crap out of the kid? He made me do it, sir.

Also, mod note - if you have evidence other players from the same club were cheating, post it. Otherwise, it's libel. Post snipped.

cdeb

Also, just to nip this "There was no assault" stuff in the bud, here's the player himself admitting there was assault - and that he had to kick down the toilet door cubicle, AND that he was proud of his actions - in the national press.

That's assault, end of story.

As someone involved in running a junior club, this guy's actions - at the time and since - are despicable and he should have been banned for a lot longer than he was.

reunion

cdeb wrote: »

Also, just to nip this "There was no assault" stuff in the bud, here's the player himself admitting there was assault - and that he had to kick down the toilet door cubicle, AND that he was proud of his actions - in the national press.

That's assault, end of story.

As someone involved in running a junior club, this guy's actions - at the time and since - are despicable and he should have been banned for a lot longer than he was.

And he should be banned from junior clubs until such time as he admits guilt and submits an apology to the child and the ICU for his behaviour.

Anyway back on track here.


The icu has advertised this event for months now. Seeing as we don't have a transparent disciplinary process here to prove the galway event committed any wrong doing, the ICU's actions are entirely unjustified. Where is the minutes or agenda (or what executive meeting) decided that hurting tournaments was the way to go?

Pete Morriss

I see that the statement on the ICU website, referred to in my previous post, has been removed. This is wise, as it was libellous. However, it has been replaced by another, which is just as bad.

There is mention there of a second person who has been refused entry to the tournament. This particular person has a long history of aggressive behaviour in Irish chess, including towards me, and I will be the sole arbiter at this event. He has made threats against (at least) two of the ICU members who will play in this event; threats which they take very seriously. He is well known to drink heavily, and, when drunk, to be violent. The venue of this tournament provides no security - which has always been fine, as the vast majority of chess players in Ireland are wonderful people. Given these facts, it would have been grossly irresponsible for the tournament organizers to have accepted this person's entry.

It is my firm belief (shared by the Galway committee) that this particular person never had any intention of playing in the event (he has not played any tournament outside Dublin for years), but only applied in order to make trouble when he was rejected. Since he was only informed of his rejection late yesterday afternoon, it is quite possible that this application was made in collusion with senior figures in the ICU.

You would think that the people running the ICU would have better things to do to promote chess in Ireland than engage in these petty campaigns against this tournament.

pawntof4

Pete Morriss wrote: »

A fuller account, with full documentation, will appear on our website shortly.

Looking forward to the games tomorrow. Can you confirm how soon "shortly" will be.

Whether the ICU are in the right or wrong I am getting pretty annoyed at this sort of stuff coming up so late in the day again!

Pete Morriss

The promised documentation is now on the Galway Club website. I can't post links here, but go to the website at galwaychess.com, and go to the link at the end of the item headed "Galway Rapidplay on Saturday 6 June: Further Update". Incidentally, we are extending the closing time for entries to 6 p.m., so there is still time to get your entry in!

cdeb

This is the specific link, though it's on the front page of the site.

Ficheall

Here is the link for the correspondence.

sinbad68

Pete Morriss wrote: »

The promised documentation is now on the Galway Club website. I can't post links here, but go to the website at galwaychess.com, and go to the link at the end of the item headed "Galway Rapidplay on Saturday 6 June: Further Update". Incidentally, we are extending the closing time for entries to 6 p.m., so there is still time to get your entry in!

@ pete .I just read you document . I am being objective here .

1. If you state someone has been persistently disruptive , you should be able to be more specific and give details of what happened and the names of any witnesses/ individuals involved and perhaps record disruptive events in the future.

2.If individual agrees to sign a document you want ( good behaviour ..etc ) why would you want it to be public ?.This amounts to public humiliation .

3.You are a decent guy .It would be easier to take a break and let someone else from your club organizing tournament and not bring unnecessary grief on yourself.

4. ICU has acted in a rash and unprofessional manner in this case and has been damaging to irish chess. It should sort this out with organisers at a later date .NOT rating this tournament amounts to collective punishment of entrants who have done nothing wrong and is against ICU's own constitution.

Ficheall

sinbad68 wrote: »

@ pete .I just read you document . I am being objective here .
2.If individual agrees to sign a document you want ( good behaviour ..etc ) why would you want it to be public ?.This amounts to public humiliation .

It's not just the tournament organiser who would have had reservations about the player in question's presence, but some of the other entrants/potential entrants too.
So even if Galway Chess Club had assurances that the player would behave, if this was not made public, then other entrants/potential entrants would see the player's name on the list of registered participants and decide not to play.

Would you advocate allowing the player in question to play, but keeping this secret from other players until they had arrived at the tournament?

Sparks

sinbad68 wrote: »

1. If you state someone has been persistently disruptive , you should be able to be more specific and give details of what happened and the names of any witnesses/ individuals involved and perhaps record disruptive events in the future.

That would require formal written dossiers to be kept on people by the club for use in denying people entry to club events.
It would be interesting to see (a) how people would respond to that, and (b) what data protection legislation, if any, might apply.

2.If individual agrees to sign a document you want ( good behaviour ..etc ) why would you want it to be public ?.This amounts to public humiliation .

I think once a 47-year-old man is standing up in the media stating he assaulted a minor in the toilets at a chess match because he suspected cheating, instead of notifying the tournament officials, we're past the point where you can say people running tournaments who have concerns about him and people attending tournaments who have concerns about him are the source of the humiliation.

In the rest of the adult world, you do something that stupid, the consequences are on you, and frankly, even the concession you're talking about seems overly lenient to me.

3.You are a decent guy .It would be easier to take a break and let someone else from your club organizing tournament and not bring unnecessary grief on yourself.

Seems to me the grief has been dumped on Pete, he hasn't gone seeking it out.

reunion

sinbad68 wrote: »

@ pete .I just read you document . I am being objective here .

1. If you state someone has been persistently disruptive , you should be able to be more specific and give details of what happened and the names of any witnesses/ individuals involved and perhaps record disruptive events in the future.

The galway club did give an example where an arbiter at the last galway congress stated that due to this individuals behaviour he would not be an arbiter for this player. I also think the icu demanding more reasons than 1 seems to indicate tat the icu has no faith that galway can't determine good candidates for their event.

sinbad68 wrote: »

2.If individual agrees to sign a document you want ( good behaviour ..etc ) why would you want it to be public ?.This amounts to public humiliation .

The galway club states why. No secret deal. For an executive about transparency, it seems secret deals and no minutes are the norm. Again this is an individual who has stated (in national papers) he thinks what he did was good. This individual needs to publicly state he realises his actions were idiotic, he is extremely remorseful and offers an apology to the parents and the child involved. he understands parents concerns for safety as he is a parent himself and would not stand for assault on his daughter. Clearly he doesn't understand parents concern.

sinbad68 wrote: »

3.You are a decent guy be easier to take a break and let someone else from your club organizing tournament and not bring unnecessary grief on yourself.

He is the arbiter. The galway club is the organiser. Get your facts straight. Pete is posting here on behalf of said club. Similarly the emails are addressed to and sent from the galway club. The grief is from the ICU who for a full month did nothing regarding a complaint. A week before the event, they informed the organisers that the event may not be rated unless they agreed to a deal offered to them. They agreed but stated it should be public but received a different demand less than a day later for €300.

sinbad68 wrote: »

4. ICU has acted in a rash and unprofessional manner in this case and has been damaging to irish chess. It should sort this out with organisers at a later date .NOT rating this tournament amounts to collective punishment of entrants who have done nothing wrong and is against ICU's own constitution.

It seems like the ICU should have done something as a result of the last congress to refuse this individual. Not before.

Oh and the second individual threatened to assault pete at an executive meeting, assaulted Pete and threatened others at the AGM.




I would have accepted this individuals entry with condition that the icu pay the tournament €300 for loss of entries or permit to rate the event without this individual.

Ficheall

Well, the tournament was great craic and enjoyed by all, I believe.

Crosstable and final standings available on the Rapidplay page now, with report to follow in due course.

Congrats to Conor O'Donnell who won with an impressive 8/9 points.

NubieOne

As a new adult player to Chess in Ireland, who doesn't normally use blogs, social media, etc., I have to say that I was very confused after playing in the Galway Rapid Play yesterday. It was an excellent event and I enjoyed it very much but, at the event, there was a lot of talk that it may not be rated. I hadn't realised this and I'm unsure why, different people I spoke to had differing stories.

I come from another sport and am coming late to Chess but from what I gather, the rating of my games yesterday is dependent on the ICU and how they view the non-admittance of one of their members by the organisers. If that's correct then I don't really care if the organisers are justified or not in refusing the entry in question, my strongly held view is that, from the valid accepted entrants point of view, I played my games, it was advertised as a FIDE rated event, I want my games rated.

My primary motivation in entering a few weeks ago was to get a FIDE rating, this row has nothing to do with me, I don't know the details and I don't want to know them either. I just want my games rated and I will be telling the ICU that in the strongest possible terms.

sinbad68

Sparks wrote: »

That would require formal written dossiers to be kept on people by the club for use in denying people entry to club events.
It would be interesting to see (a) how people would respond to that, and (b) what data protection legislation, if any, might apply .

Disruptive behaviour in a tournament is something that is not easily forgotten, specially when you claim history of repeated disruptive behaviour. When asked pete should have at least been able to provide the nature of disruption ( being noisy, drunk ..etc ) . As for your claim of an organiser keeping personal note on a disruptive player would clash with your so called " data protection legislation ". Give us a break with nonsense !.

reunion wrote: »

The galway club states why. No secret deal. For an executive about transparency, it seems secret deals and no minutes are the norm. Again this is an individual who has stated (in national papers) he thinks what he did was good. This individual needs to publicly state he realises his actions were idiotic, he is extremely remorseful and offers an apology to the parents and the child involved.

As for why there was No secret deal, I think this has more to do with someone exacting their pound of flesh . As regards apologizing , you want the victim of cheating to apologize to the cheat, how about asking a chess cheat to apologise to the victim and rest of us ?!. It would be also good to stop calling a 16 year old a child . If a 16 year old fell off his bike and needed to go to a hospital, he would have to go to an adult hospital as children hospital wouldn't take him.

NubieOne wrote: »

As a new adult player to Chess in Ireland, who doesn't normally use blogs, social media, etc.

My primary motivation in entering a few weeks ago was to get a FIDE rating, this row has nothing to do with me, I don't know the details and I don't want to know them either. I just want my games rated and I will be telling the ICU that in the strongest possible terms.

@ nubieone. I have a feeling you've been playing chess alot longer than you admit.

As I said, I believe both icu and galway organisers share the blame in this fiasco, a more pragmatic organiser would have let the banned individual in, with a warning of future ban if any disruption.

As regards getting this tournament rated, If icu refuses to forward results , then pete should submit the results directly to fide, and the results should be accompanied with attached,supporting emails from other tournament organisers, fide arbiters and former/current icu executive .. etc. then I think this tournament has a decent chance of being rated .

RoundTower

sinbad68 wrote: »

As regards apologizing , you want the victim of cheating to apologize to the cheat, how about asking a chess cheat to apologise to the victim and rest of us ?!...

He did apologise at the disciplinary meeting.

pawntof4

Does anyone know what rule was broken by the organisers?

Sparks

sinbad68 wrote: »

Disruptive behaviour in a tournament is something that is not easily forgotten, specially when you claim history of repeated disruptive behaviour.

Remembering that someone has been disruptive several times and having all of those times listed in detail that you could stand over in court are two very different levels. That's why when management refuses service normally, they don't give a reason.

Give us a break with nonsense !.

Sure, no problem, just move to another country whose laws aren't quite so nonsensical (what, you think I wrote the Act just to annoy you or something? It's the law, it's not my fault parts of it are daft). And if you think that the funny aspects of the data protection acts are "nonsense" then you're going to need to invent new words to describe the other things you can learn about Irish law, because they are way further away from what we'd call common sense.

As regards apologizing , you want the victim of cheating to apologize to the cheat

It might just be me - I suppose I might be a weirdo because of this - but I happen to think that while cheating in a board game is bad and reflects poorly on the cheat; a grown man assaulting a minor in a toilet is quite a hell of a lot worse. So yeah, I'd rather see that apology more.

It would be also good to stop calling a 16 year old a child

The 16-year-old is a minor.
Not a child.
Nobody's said the word child here bar you.

If a 16 year old fell off his bike and needed to go to a hospital, he would have to go to an adult hospital as children hospital wouldn't take him.

Having sat in the children's hospital's A&E with my child watching 16-year-olds be treated for injuries (albeit from GAA matches rather than bicycling), I think I'd have to disagree with you.

reunion

sinbad68 wrote: »

As for why there was No secret deal, I think this has more to do with someone exacting their pound of flesh .

considering arbiters are in short supply and the word of a long standing arbiter whom the organisers trust has said that this individual would risk losing arbiters for the event due to his behaviour at a recent galway congress (just 1 example cited) then they would need to reassure the arbiters which would mean making this information public (arbiter doesn't equal organiser)

It should be pointed out here, at no point did I read "you were refused entry due to your use of force on a minor" or something similar. So this thread is not the place to discuss if an individual found guilty of the use of force of a minor is sufficient reason to refuse entry to a tournament.

The facts we do have are as follows:
*A player was refused entry to an event common practise with national and international tournaments.
*the player submitted a complaint to the ICU
*The ICU waited until a week before the event to act
*the icu sent a demand to the organisers
*the organising committee agreed to the demands provided they were made public (so other organisers would know of these new rules or many other reasons)
*the icu ignored their response and gave an 11 hour deadline to pay 300. No calculations of this figure were given. The ICU also threatened to remove funding from a different event despite it being unrelated.
*the organisers didn't comply

sinbad68 wrote: »

As regards apologizing , you want the victim of cheating to apologize to the cheat, how about asking a chess cheat to apologise to the victim and rest of us ?!. It would be also good to stop calling a 16 year old a child . If a 16 year old fell off his bike and needed to go to a hospital, he would have to go to an adult hospital as children hospital wouldn't take him.

You are confusing things here. The individual was a victim of cheating and the cheat apologised. He also didn't go to papers to praise his cheating. He was remorseful.

The second issue is the use of force on a minor. Of which this individual has not apologised or shown remorse for (actually publicly states he was right). Be went to the papers to trumpet his use of force. I don't remember reading about any other individual caught for cheating that was also assaulted as a result of being caught that not an acceptable behaviour. So let's not begin to discuss or attempt to discuss (or debate) reasons assaulting a child would be justified. It's not ever. End of story. Go to a different sub forum or forum to discuss that topic.

Retd.LoyolaCpt

Bringing us back on point.... somewhat. @ovinelover, didn't you find it stunning that Conor managed to get 8/9 in the rapidplay despite having to use the facilities after every move? Amazing really, wasn't it? Or maybe, he's just ultra talented, and you haven't a clue what you're talking about

sinbad68

Sparks wrote: »

Sure, no problem, just move to another country whose laws aren't quite so nonsensical (what, you think I wrote the Act just to annoy you or something? It's the law, it's not my fault parts of it are daft). And if you think that the funny aspects of the data protection acts are "nonsense" then you're going to need to invent new words to describe the other things you can learn about Irish law, because they are way further away from what we'd call common sense.

By "Nonsense" I was referring to your interpretation of " data protection act" that you claim would make it illegal for a tournament arbiter to make personal notes on disruptive individuals and NOT the law itself. As you regularly make statements with reference to irish law, it would give credibility to have links or proof to back up what you say .

Sparks wrote: »

The 16-year-old is a minor.
Not a child.
Nobody's said the word child here bar you.

Really !! Nobody called a 16 year a child bar me ? .You need to get your facts right. Strange that you quoted me while I was responding to this quote below where a 16 year old was referred to as a child.

reunion wrote: »

This individual needs to publicly state he realises his actions were idiotic, he is extremely remorseful and offers an apology to the parents and the child involved.

Next ........

Sparks wrote: »

Having sat in the children's hospital's A&E with my child watching 16-year-olds be treated for injuries (albeit from GAA matches rather than bicycling), I think I'd have to disagree with you.

FYI . Aged 15 or below ----> children hospital & 16 or over ----> adult hospital .Contact crumlin children hospital and tell A&E , you have an injured 16 year old and see what they say, Having said that, I am sure even if an injured adult turned up at the door and needed urgent treatment , some aid would be given.

Sparks

sinbad68 wrote: »

you claim would make it illegal for a tournament arbiter to make personal notes on disruptive individuals

No, I didn't. What I was talking about was that if you keep such notes you could be a data collector under the terms of the 1988 Act and that has some interesting implications.

Really !! Nobody called a 16 year a child bar me ?

Suffering cats, that's the point that you're latching onto? A 47-year-old man assaulted a 16-year-old boy in the toilets and you think that someone calling the 16-year-old a child instead of a junior or a minor is the problem here?

Are you completely devoid of common sense and perspective?

Retd.LoyolaCpt

Sorry reunion, I know you want this to continue elsewhere, but I can't allow that type of statement above to go unchallenged.

@Sinbad You want references:
Under the Child Care Act 1991 a child is defined as “a person under the age of 18 years, excluding a person who is or has been married”

Your interpretation of the word child is absolutely irrelevant.

Now, I'm going to ask you a straight forward question:
Do you think, in any scenario, an adult should follow a 16 year old into a bathroom, stand up on a toilet so that he can see the 16 year old in a cubicle, kick down the door, then drag this minor out of the cubicle?

sinbad68

pawntof4 wrote: »

Does anyone know what rule was broken by the organisers?

Code of fair play, along those lines , banning an icu/fide member without sufficient reason.

Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »

Sorry reunion, I know you want this to continue elsewhere, but I can't allow that type of statement above to go unchallenged.
Now, I'm going to ask you a straight forward question:
Do you think, in any scenario, an adult should follow a 16 year old into a bathroom, stand up on a toilet so that he can see the 16 year old in a cubicle, kick down the door, then drag this minor out of the cubicle?

Firstly , I want to state that both, the acts of cheating and the assault that took place were wrong.

" Any scenario " ? .All depends what the 16 year old did , we are all human and can lose our temper. Lets say you are in a shopping centre and your mother tells you that a teenager (16 year old) hit her and then went to the toilet , what would you do ?.

I would like to congratulate conor o'Donnell for winning galway rapid, a great achievement for this 16 year old y̶o̶u̶n̶g̶ ̶m̶a̶n̶ .. child.

I am done with this thread.:cool:

pawntof4

sinbad68 wrote: »

Code of fair play, along those lines , banning an icu/fide member without sufficient reason.

Does anyone have a link to the code of fair play that sinbad68 is referring to?

sinbad68

I wonder what is going to happen to galway congress this coming october?

Icu and galway are battling it out over the fide rating of galway rapid and there are only two possible outcomes.

1.Galway rapid gets fide rated, bypassing icu which would be humiliating for icu , In that case I expect icu to seek vengeance, starts disciplinary action against galway and then we will all get a sense of de javu as banned member/s to galway rapid would be encouraged to enter galway congress as well and if refused, you can forget about galway congress getting icu rated .

2. Galway rapid fails to get rated, then the possible scenarios are

a) icu satisfied , will leave it at that
b) icu goes for disciplinary action
c) banned members will try to enter congress anyway and s*** hits the fan again!.

There are really many combinations of what could happen, just like game of chess !.It is also unclear what format this competition will take and whether the bizarre format where players can dip in and out of different sections like a yo-yo is going ahead.

side notes; 1. in irish championship, ICU have thrown out the time limit proposal passed at the last agm meeting 2. we have a news chess tournament next january ( enniscorthy congress ) which probably would be fide rated and will add more pressure to LCU league fixtures........ drank too much lemonade , will have to go and lie down.

mikhail

sinbad68 wrote: »

I wonder what is going to happen to galway congress this coming october?

The ICU is not a monalith. There's an AGM in the meantime.

side notes; 1. in irish championship, ICU have thrown out the time limit proposal passed at the last agm meeting

Why is it that so many people who wind up on an ICU committee seem to develop delusions of importance? If the AGM voted it in, it should be in, short of some significant unforseen change in circumstances.

What was the time limit in question?

(I've a feeling of deja vu. Did this issue come up elsewhere?)

reunion

*mod note* I have moved your post Sinbad as it was in relation to the Galway Rapidplay potentially being FIDE rated.

Do not derail and revive a different thread just because you have said you won't post on this thread about this specific topic.

Please read the forum charter.

reunion

sinbad68 wrote: »

I wonder what is going to happen to galway congress this coming october?

This event and Galway Congress are different events, one which is supported by ICU grant money and one which isn't. They are separate events and aren't affected by each other.

sinbad68 wrote: »

Icu and galway are battling it out over the fide rating of galway rapid and there are only two possible outcomes.

1.Galway rapid gets fide rated, bypassing icu which would be humiliating for icu , In that case I expect icu to seek vengeance, starts disciplinary action against galway and then we will all get a sense of de javu as banned member/s to galway rapid would be encouraged to enter galway congress as well and if refused, you can forget about galway congress getting icu rated .

2. Galway rapid fails to get rated, then the possible scenarios are

a) icu satisfied , will leave it at that
b) icu goes for disciplinary action
c) banned members will try to enter congress anyway and s*** hits the fan again!.

The ICU has a choice, let it be FIDE rated as they had given permission for this event to be rated AND advertised it on their website without seeking the appropriate information.

OR not FIDE rate the event which leaves no recourse as the event doesn't fall within the domain of the ICU.

The executive need to create a policy and advertise it to members asap. It's hard to organise events when the rules keep changing without notification.

mikhail wrote: »

Why is it that so many people who wind up on an ICU committee seem to develop delusions of importance? If the AGM voted it in, it should be in, short of some significant unforseen change in circumstances.

What was the time limit in question?

(I've a feeling of deja vu. Did this issue come up elsewhere?)

Why are the executive ignoring ICU member mandated changes? The Tournament Officer appears to be doing quite poorly in office which is reflecting poorly on the entire executive....

MBradley

Ref Cork incident, as an eye witnesses, be very clear, it was assault. Formal statements to that effect were taken.

There is no sane justification for the behaviour at any level.

reunion

MBradley wrote: »

Ref Cork incident, as an eye witnesses, be very clear, it was assault. Formal statements to that effect were taken.

There is no sane justification for the behaviour at any level.

It may have been assault, however, he has not been found guilty of assault. In a court, you would only have proof to say it was use of force on a minor.

An accusation is not the same as a guilty verdict. Gardai also take statements for false claims....

Sparks

reunion wrote: »

It may have been assault, however, he has not been found guilty of assault. In a court, you would only have proof to say it was use of force on a minor.

That is assault under the 1997 Act. The legal definition of "assault" surprises many people with its breadth. Paraphrasing, if the other person believes at the time that they are about to be harmed, that's assault. But read the original act for the unparaphrased version.

An accusation is not the same as a guilty verdict. Gardai also take statements for false claims....

Very true; but in this case, the person involved stated he had done so at an ICU AGM in front of thirty witnesses, at least two of whom were recording the meeting as well as the formal written minutes of the meeting.

reunion

Sparks wrote: »

That is assault under the 1997 Act. The legal definition of "assault" surprises many people with its breadth. Paraphrasing, if the other person believes at the time that they are about to be harmed, that's assault. But read the original act for the unparaphrased version.

Very true; but in this case, the person involved stated he had done so at an ICU AGM in front of thirty witnesses, at least two of whom were recording the meeting as well as the formal written minutes of the meeting.

What is proven is player A was not prosecuted or found guilty of assault but they were (by the ICU) for the use of force. That is a fact and when the courts agree it was assault, you can start calling it assault. Until then, I'd refrain from doing so.

Zugszwang

Semantics aside, anyone who, by their own admission, breaks down a toilet door to engage in a physical confrontation with the minor inside, can be thankful to be free to walk the streets, forget about being free to play chess tournaments.

The other person who was denied entry to Galway has a history of violence reaching back decades, has previously been banned from the ICU and from at least one chess club.

No one seems to have mentioned that the current ICU PRO has been banned from the Kilkenny event for many years.

cdeb

Zugszwang wrote: »

No one seems to have mentioned that the current ICU PRO has been banned from the Kilkenny event for many years.

Was banned from the ICU for many years (lifted in August 2005 - doc link).

I seem to remember Malahide was the only tournament he'd play, and even that was frowned upon in some quarters.

That said, not entirely sure if it's relevant here. He'd argue he's done his time.

(Well, he'd probably argue at length that someone else was at fault with an underlying unfathomable bitterness in bringing chess forward was at fault for denying the poor guy who only ever wanted to serve Irish chess his chance to so do - but a normal person would hold his hands up, apologise and move on)

MBradley

As organisers, it is very difficult to get business support for fianancing tournaments when small clusters of attention seekers create the negative vibe about chess with all the public sniping and ineptness on display.

What business wants to be associated with an event that sanctions the inclusion elements that may impact of their business credibilty by association & endangers the return of the "repeat customer" for future planning ... ?

Zugszwang

Kilkenny banned CD separately AFAIK, not sure if this is still in force? Anyway, my point was more that CD, having brought Galway down may have a new target.

We shouldn't judge him too harshly however. He has devoted his life to chess, sacrificing all without ever surpassing his contemporaries, and now has to watch as the new generation eclipses him. It must hurt; I feel for the guy.