Galway Chess Congress 2015 Cancelled

rob51

sinbad68 wrote: »

I think both sides may welcome mediators in this dispute , well known senior figures required to act as mediators.

Surely the point is that the ICU Executive should be the responsible senior figures working to resolve any disputes. Instead this Executive have caused most of the disputes.

Sparks

Gonzaga seem to have joined the protesting side now.

sinbad68

rob51 wrote: »

Surely the point is that the ICU Executive should be the responsible senior figures working to resolve any disputes. Instead this Executive have caused most of the disputes.

Executive tried to be different to it's predecessors which it saw as weak and indecisive and this was the result

Sparks wrote: »

Gonzaga seem to have joined the protesting side now.

The guy in ballynafeigh blog who is posting these articles under " news & gossip " is not directly involved in the dispute and getting his info from a third party, so I be a bit careful, even though he is likely right. I haven't been reading that blog for a long time til galway rapid dispute began.

you only wrote one line but took much more space than comment above it which was much longer.

brianhere

The ICU PRO has just joined the debate on the above mentioned Ballynafeigh blog here: https://ballynafeighchess.wordpress.com/commentsideasgripes/ .

He appears to be of the view that people who criticize the ICU, or at least facilitate such criticism, should be sanctioned somehow. Maybe including going slow on the question of uniting the Ulster and Irish Chess Unions.

Anyway he also is strongly hinting that Kilkenny will go the same way as Galway, that it's results will also not be registered on ICU ratings and he thinks it might not go ahead as a result.

Gosh that would be quite an escalation, Kilkenny is obviously a much bigger tournament than Galway.

brianhere

This is where he says that anybody criticising the ICU may find themselves sanctioned, presumably banned from being an ICU member:

"It appears that unless the UCU clean up their act they will never be taken back and allowed affiliate, but individual players will always be welcome as ICU members, though some who have violated various ICU codes of conduct, pertaining to damage to the image and reputation of Irish chess and the ICU, will either be refused entry or be subject to immediate disciplinary proceedings in which they will have the chance to explain and defend their activities to avoid being suspended as an ICU member."

Sparks

Colm Daly

maol

I spoke with one of the main Irish weekend organisers a few days ago and indeed what's being reported elsewhere about tournament organisers being up in arms is true. I just hope that there are some sensible people who are wiling to run for office at the next ICU AGM. I usually ignore chess politics, but I was hoping to play a weekend tournament or two this coming season!

Tychoo

What a farce this has turned into.

Just to recap, Galway Chess Club refuses entry to a person to an event it was running on the grounds that this person has been a disruptive in past events.

This person then appeals to the I.C.U. to intercede on his behalf.

The I.C.U has no option but to take up his case as this person is under no current sanction and inters into a series of correspondence with GCC with out any resolution.

The I.C.U. finally takes the action of not rating the results from the rapid play event.

The GCC responds by cancelling the Galway congress to which several other organizers of events have appeared to back GCC and also threatened to cancel coming events, so it’s looking like we’ll have no chess to play.

So what of our “disruptive player” My understanding is that the I.C.U. has dealt with this person, and the sanctions dispensed and severed.

No criminal actions were taken against him by the Gardaí as a result of his actions so he has no conviction and is as free as you or I to enter events.

So the bottom line is that we could be left with no major chess to attend this year while our friend has the ways and means to attend chess events outside of Ireland. It seems he’s having a good laugh at us all as we cut or noses off to spite our faces

Let him play so “we all can play” if he infringes the rules then “kick him out”

checknraise

I completely disagree, if a tournament is being privately run they have the right to refuse entry.

The ICU could have easily told the people in question to cop on and support Galway chess club which would have been the right thing to do. There are a number of players with good reason who are not allowed to play in certain tournaments. It is between the tournament and the player in question nobody else should need to get involved.

As an example I go to a random chess club to play a few games. One guy keeps on smashing me and I decide enough is enough and through a punch. No charges are filed to the police as the incident to the police is still quite minor.

Do you believe I should still be allowed play in that club or play in a tournament they are organising?

The 2 people not allowed play in Galway certainly should have had no issue with not being allowed play.

Player A is accused of assaulting a minor, regular unsporting behavior and is a general bollix at nearly every tournament.

Player B threw a pint of beer on the arbiter.

Are you telling me Galway Chess Club were unreasonable not allowing them to play?

This incident is a reflection on how poorly the ICU is currently being run.

Sparks

Tychoo wrote: »

[he] is as free as you or I to enter events.

If by "as free as" you mean "can be refused entry by the organisers, the same way as anyone else".

Let him play so “we all can play” if he infringes the rules then “kick him out”

Why don't you volunteer your kid to be the one he infringes the rules with instead of someone elses?

gordongekko

Sparks wrote: »

If by "as free as" you mean "can be refused entry by the organisers, the same way as anyone else".

Why don't you volunteer your kid to be the one he infringes the rules with instead of someone elses?

Let him play and as the hotel to refuse him entry. Problem solved.

Sparks

gordongekko wrote: »

Let him play and as the hotel to refuse him entry. Problem solved.

At which point the hotel will just say "Oh, we're playing pass the buck are we?", take his money and then point the Gardai to the organisers if/when something happens.
Problem not solved.

reunion

checknraise wrote: »

I completely disagree, if a tournament is being privately run they have the right to refuse entry.

And this is the norm for every NON-FIDE sanctioned tournament. A FIDE rated tournament can deny entry but the world championships has to permit those that qualify.

So the ICU run events (Junior Championships/ NCC/ Senior) permits anyone to play that meets the criteria. Every other event that is ICU Rated but NOT run, can refuse entry to individuals.

checknraise wrote: »

Player A is accused of assaulting a minor, regular unsporting behavior and is a general bollix at nearly every tournament. and was found guilty of using force on a minor by the icu

Player B threw a pint of beer on the arbiter at a committee meeting where he also threatened other members of the executive.

Are you telling me Galway Chess Club were unreasonable not allowing them to play?

This incident is a reflection on how poorly the ICU is currently being run.

Just added the bold items to clarify the reasons why an organiser would be negligent to permit these individuals to interact with minors or compete against individuals they have threatened or threatened.




I can't wait for the AGM and the current executive to politely step aside and let someone with common sense run things.

One of the few things running properly at the moment is the Junior Officer role.

reunion

Tychoo wrote: »

The I.C.U has options but decided to take up his case as this person is under no current sanction by the ICU (he could have other sanctions from other organisations) and enters into a series of correspondence with GCC after a month of taking no action (which is a week before the event) to contact the organisers. They do not wait for any resolution.

The I.C.U. finally takes the action of informing FIDE not to rate the results from the rapid play event. They do this without any disciplinary committee or any due process or any consultation with members or people effected.

The I.C.U do not alter their policy or investigate how they could have handled the Rapidplay incident better or how they could improve their policy or consult with organisers for feedback. The GCC, under threat of the I.C.U not rating the event (even after giving approval), responds by cancelling the Galway congress so members don't invest money and time for an event the I.C.U would deliberately sabotage. to which several other organizers of events have appeared to back GCC and also threatened to cancel coming events as the I.C.U have not changed or altered their policies and have shown that they will not even rate national events (NCC). so it’s looking like we’ll have no chess to play.

Had to fix that for you. You omitted some key details.

This whole fiasco - Galway tournament, Galway rapidplay - is a result of the ICU.

Player A has been banned from other events previously. It seems they gave some courteous to Ennis and came up with a compromise. However, they didn't extend the same to Galway (or even let organisers/players know about it).

pawntof4

reunion wrote: »

Player A has been banned from other events previously. It seems they gave some courteous to Ennis and came up with a compromise. However, they didn't extend the same to Galway (or even let organisers/players know about it).

From my limited understanding of the situation with Player A. Was the person not punished by the ICU and didn't they "serve their time". When should the punishment end?

Lecale

There are 2 issues really:
You're talking about tournament organisers - either Official ICU or Club - having the right to bar entry.
Then you have the right of the ICU to refuse to handle rating events.

I don't think anyone really argues over the first issue. It is more the second issue that is the trouble. That is acerbated by the fact that you are making up a policy on the hoof on a fairly big issue.

reunion

pawntof4 wrote: »

From my limited understanding of the situation with Player A. Was the person not punished by the ICU and didn't they "serve their time". When should the punishment end?

They served their "time" for any ICU organised event, any ICU rated event, and any FIDE rated event held in Ireland so they can now enter ICU organised events. This does NOT grant them automatic right to enter any FIDE or any ICU rated event in Ireland. Could you really post that with a straight face and say that player A should be allowed to compete in Cork again?

I presume we can agree that a tournament may refuse entry to an individual even if they are in good standing with the ICU.


Also Player A is still banned from being appointed to any position of authority. AND has a suspended sentence currently. So his "time" isn't finished until his suspended sentence is concluded so I wouldn't call him a member in good standing (more like a member on thin ice). People without sanctions or suspended sentences are in good standing.

Sparks

pawntof4 wrote: »

When should the punishment end?

It already has. This isn't part of that sanction, it's the organisers of a private event having the option to refuse entry to individuals, which is a pretty standard thing in many walks of life in Ireland (that "Management reserves the right to refuse service" sign you'll see in most businesses is the most visible example).

However, it ought to be noted that Galway gave him an option to enter the competition so long as he publicly stated that he would not behave badly. That way they had something to show aggrieved third parties in case they had a complaint about him to bring to GCC. That option was not taken up, and got treated rather stupidly (see the details earlier in the thread).

This is a fiasco that was chased after, not one that was unavoidable.

sinbad68

Sparks wrote: »

However, it ought to be noted that Galway gave him an option to enter the competition so long as he publicly stated that he would not behave badly. That way they had something to show aggrieved third parties in case they had a complaint about him to bring to GCC. That option was not taken up, and got treated rather stupidly (see the details earlier in the thread).

This is a fiasco that was chased after, not one that was unavoidable.

Yes , galway gave him an option alright , to be publicly humiliated for the sake of entering a tournament .The truth is, they simply didn't want him there and acted like a stubborn mule instead of being pragmatic and paid the price ( so did the entrants ), creating a lot avoidable trouble for many people. Both gcc & icu are to blame but galway's share is greater.

sinbad68

maol wrote: »

I spoke with one of the main Irish weekend organisers a few days ago and indeed what's being reported elsewhere about tournament organisers being up in arms is true. I just hope that there are some sensible people who are wiling to run for office at the next ICU AGM. I usually ignore chess politics, but I was hoping to play a weekend tournament or two this coming season!

If so many organisers are against icu executive , then they should have NO trouble nominating candidates ,raising a small army to show up in agm and grab power and go for a pint afterwards to celebrate instead of moaning from the sideline and sniping in the blogs.

brilliantboy

sinbad68 wrote: »

Yes , galway gave him an option alright , to be publicly humiliated for the sake of entering a tournament .The truth is, they simply didn't want him there and acted like a stubborn mule instead of being pragmatic and paid the price ( so did the entrants ), creating a lot avoidable trouble for many people. Both gcc & icu are to blame but galway's share is greater.

Humiliated? Come off it. A willingness to accept past mistakes and strive for better relations in the future could only improve his reputation in the eyes of many.

As far as I'm aware, the organizers of the Ennis Congress only relented and let him enter after he signed a similar guarantee of good behaviour. The only difference is it wasn't made public, and probably as a result a lot of people aren't even aware that it happened.

sinbad68 wrote:

If so many organisers are against icu executive , then they should have NO trouble nominating candidates ,raising a small army to show up in agm and grab power and go for a pint afterwards to celebrate instead of moaning from the sideline and sniping in the blogs.

There has to be an AGM for that to happen. There's no date set, and a little horsie is hinting that the ICU may try to postpone it as long as possible.

Sparks

sinbad68 wrote: »

Yes , galway gave him an option alright , to be publicly humiliated for the sake of entering a tournament

He brought that on himself.
GCC's point of view would have been that they'd be asked why they let him in after what had happened. They would have had to have had something to point to to say "he gave a committment not to repeat that". That is, for most adults, perfectly reasonable.

Both gcc & icu are to blame but galway's share is greater.

No, this one is squarely on the ICU's shoulders.

Ballynafeigh Chess

This matter didn't really take a lot of foresight to envisage the seriousness of the situation and the possibility and probability of escalation. It really is a poor position to begin to try to resolve this issue as it should have been addressed before it spiralled to where it is now.

However it is what it is and people have now committed themselves so robustly and openly to their stated position that backtracking would be extremely unlikely. There are now only three options left to explore that could possibly terminate this dispute or at least limit the potential long term damage to Irish chess

1. Replacing all the tournament controllers/organisers/arbiters (Just not going to happen)
2. Replacing the ICU board
3. This is the more difficult one to achieve as the tournament controllers are in such a strong position now that they would have to be coaxed to take part for the sake of Irish chess and that would be an open vote by the ICU membership on the issue. It would allow the losing side of the argument to be able to climb down from their position citing the democracy of the Union as the reason

I can think of no other way to resolve this dispute satisfactorily where humiliation will not follow defeat. But that’s just my view from Belfast, you guys have to solve the problem up close.

rob51

brianhere wrote: »

The ICU PRO has just joined the debate on the above mentioned Ballynafeigh blog.

He appears to be of the view that people who criticize the ICU, or at least facilitate such criticism, should be sanctioned somehow. Maybe including going slow on the question of uniting the Ulster and Irish Chess Unions.

I agree with the PRO. Of course considering what was being published about the ICU on his own website less than a year ago he should have been the first to be sanctioned!!

sinbad68

Ballynafeigh Chess wrote: »

But that’s just my view from Belfast, you guys have to solve the problem up close.

Mr balynafeigh. Thank you for taking time off dealing with your troubles to give advice to us in the south. If you are wondering why No response to your long post so far , it's perhaps, because icu members and in particular IRL federation players don't take kindly being told by outsiders & foreign federation players what to do ?

reunion

sinbad68 wrote: »

Mr balynafeigh. Thank you for taking time off dealing with your troubles to give advice to us in the south. If you are wondering why No response to your long post so far , it's perhaps, because icu members and in particular IRL federation players don't take kindly being told by outsiders & foreign federation players what to do ?

We don't take kindly to negative nancys like yourself.

The ICU Irish Chess tournaments and it's players are very welcoming of foreign players, new comers and outsiders.

Besides everyone in the North are technically IRL FIDE players (unless they request a different federation association) and are entitled to participate in the Irish Championships.

Lecale

sinbad68 wrote: »

Mr balynafeigh. Thank you for taking time off dealing with your troubles to give advice to us in the south. If you are wondering why No response to your long post so far , it's perhaps, because icu members and in particular IRL federation players don't take kindly being told by outsiders & foreign federation players what to do ?

Nebunul bãtrân e de douã ori mai nebun, and excuse me while I turn on the sunlight.

Retd.LoyolaCpt

sinbad68 wrote: »

Mr balynafeigh. Thank you for taking time off dealing with your troubles to give advice to us in the south. If you are wondering why No response to your long post so far , it's perhaps, because icu members and in particular IRL federation players don't take kindly being told by outsiders & foreign federation players what to do ?

I don't think Mr Ballynafeigh was giving advice, just pointing out some obvious truths. There was no response as some of us were adding "thanks" or just hadn't read it yet.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong here Mr Ballynafeigh, but I don't believe that being a non-ICU member changes one's federation. Many UCU members identify as IRL, many do not. Furthermore, the UCU have expressed some interest lately of rejoining the ICU and I would be very concerned with the current state of affairs of the ICU executive if I was them. I, like many of their concerned members, would be probing the average ICU (boards) member for indications of change/how we feel on the situation.

Your reference to the "troubles" is just ignorant and there was absolutely no need to include that in a thread about chess.

cdeb

Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »

I don't think Mr Ballynafeigh was giving advice

And even if he was, what of it?

Retd.LoyolaCpt

cdeb wrote: »

And even if he was, what of it?

Nothing of it, merely pointing out that I didn't believe it was advice, just fact - but good advice always welcome