Galway Chess Congress 2015 Cancelled

brilliantboy · 22-07-2015 3:46pm

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 · 22-07-2015 3:48pm

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 · 22-07-2015 10:29pm

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 · 22-07-2015 11:08pm

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 · 23-07-2015 11:46am

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 · 23-07-2015 12:09pm

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 · 23-07-2015 12:19pm

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 · 23-07-2015 12:23pm

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 · 23-07-2015 12:25pm

Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »

I don't think Mr Ballynafeigh was giving advice

And even if he was, what of it?

Retd.LoyolaCpt · 23-07-2015 12:29pm

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

cdeb · 23-07-2015 1:09pm

Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »

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

Wasn't really directed at you - more at the complainant.

Or even a rhetorical question.

Sparks · 23-07-2015 1:59pm

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 ?

<insert rude word here>.

If the ICU were run with half the good-natured passion that Ballynafeigh have been showing, we'd all be better off.

sinbad68 · 23-07-2015 2:31pm

I don't understand why there is so much hostility towards me after my post here ?!. I think the meaning of my response to Mr ballynafeigh was lost in translation, After his post yesterday, he was expecting a flurry of responses which did not happen and I was just trying to explain to him why this was the case, that's all . As regards ucu joining icu, why would anyone try to get on the Titanic after it has hit the iceberg ?. Why ucu don't have own fide affiliation, like wales or scotland or join a more stable entity ?.

Ballynafeigh Chess · 23-07-2015 2:34pm

" why would anyone try to get on the Titanic after it has hit the iceberg ?"

because if you can fix the hole, your on a beautiful ship

Ballynafeigh Chess · 23-07-2015 2:45pm

To those of you that wrote the complimentary and supportive comments above many thanks it made pleasurable reading

Sparks · 23-07-2015 2:46pm

sinbad68 wrote: »

After his post yesterday, he was expecting a flurry of responses which did not happen and I was just trying to explain to him why this was the case, that's all

...and you were not only completely hopelessly wrong about that, but you were exceptionally rude in the way you went about it.
Or were you unaware that someone posting in an RoI board telling an NI poster to mind their own business was an especially rude thing to do?
(And if so, how? What civilisationless corner of Mayo were you hiding in for the last forty years?)

As regards ucu joining icu, why would anyone try to get on the Titanic after it has hit the iceberg ?. Why ucu don't have own fide affiliation, like wales or scotland or join a more stable entity ?.

Because FIDE wants one federation per country and so long as the ICU doesn't bar the UCU from affiliation, the UCU can't get into FIDE seperately.

However, if the ICU PRO is now publicly saying they can't because the ICU won't have them, well, that might change matters.

sinbad68 · 23-07-2015 2:46pm

Ballynafeigh Chess wrote: »

" why would anyone try to get on the Titanic after it has hit the iceberg ?"

because if you can fix the hole, your on a beautiful ship

Strangely enough , in order to fix the hole, you only have to throw a couple of bad apples overboard, that's all !.

Ficheall · 23-07-2015 2:59pm

brianhere wrote: »

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

He also seems to believe, if it is indeed CD, that
"It seems Galway was heading for a bit of a disaster with the numbers"
which is a curious observation since GCC hadn't even started accepting any entries yet...

reunion · 23-07-2015 3:19pm

Sparks wrote: »

What civilisationless corner of Mayo Roscommon South-Leitrim were you hiding in for the last forty years?

Just needed to fix that, he could have come out since the vote.

Sparks wrote: »

Because FIDE wants one federation per country and so long as the ICU doesn't bar the UCU from affiliation, the UCU can't get into FIDE seperately.

However, if the ICU PRO is now publicly saying they can't because the ICU won't have them, well, that might change matters.

The ICU covers the entire Island of Ireland. If the UCU want to run FIDE events they need the ICU.

If I had to guess, the current ICU executive want to bill the UCU for every member they have.

Galway should have run this year being UCU rated - ICU rated could be a conditional if the ICU decided to use common sense.

sinbad68 · 23-07-2015 3:28pm

reunion wrote: »

Just needed to fix that, he could have come out since the vote.

If you want come out , you should really do it , instead of falsely labling others .

Retd.LoyolaCpt · 23-07-2015 3:30pm

reunion wrote: »

Just needed to fix that, he could have come out since the vote

This is a chess thread, shouldn't we be keeping politics (even if its satirical) out of it; you would be calling 34% of the electorate "civilisationless" and singling out one constituency when several were essentially toss ups. Stay on topic

Sparks · 23-07-2015 3:44pm

reunion wrote: »

The ICU covers the entire Island of Ireland. If the UCU want to run FIDE events they need the ICU.

Not if the ICU refuses them membership *and* has no clubs up north.
At that point the UCU can claim discrimination in their application to FIDE.
I'm not saying it'd be nice; but it would change the context of the application significantly.

sinbad68 · 23-07-2015 3:46pm

Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »

This is a chess thread, shouldn't we be keeping politics (even if its satirical) out of it; you would be calling 34% of the electorate "civilisationless" and singling out one constituency when several were essentially toss ups. Stay on topic

Yes , you are right , when people can't win arguments , they use insults, meanwhile I really hope reunion finds the courage to come out.

Sparks · 23-07-2015 3:49pm

sinbad68 wrote: »

when people can't win arguments , they use insults, meanwhile I really hope reunion finds the courage to come out.

mikhail · 23-07-2015 3:51pm

Sparks wrote: »

Not if the ICU refuses them membership *and* has no clubs up north.

The ICU and FIDE do not have affiliate clubs, only individual members. I think a lot of that stuff was thrashed out when the UCU split in the 90s and FIDE refused to recognise them, but others may know the details.

Retd.LoyolaCpt · 23-07-2015 3:52pm

Sparks wrote: »

Not if the ICU refuses them membership *and* has no clubs up north.
At that point the UCU can claim discrimination in their application to FIDE.
I'm not saying it'd be nice; but it would change the context of the application significantly.

I think you might be jumping the gun here. The PRO has personally said something which is totally unfiltered and in no way an indication of how the rest of the committee feels as the PRO has done on many occasions this year. The PRO has no power other than a vote on the committee and certainly does not have the authority to exclude the UCU by himself. Even if it was posted directly to the ICU site, I'd have my doubts about where the opinion is coming from.

cdeb · 23-07-2015 3:54pm

Mod note - can we leave out the silly gay jibes and just keep on topic?

Warnings next time

Please and thanks!

Retd.LoyolaCpt · 23-07-2015 3:55pm

sinbad68 wrote: »

Yes , you are right , when people can't win arguments , they use insults, meanwhile I really hope reunion finds the courage to come out.

Ok fellas, lets put this to bed here. This is above both of you

Sparks · 23-07-2015 3:56pm

Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »

I think you might be jumping the gun here. The PRO has personally said something which is totally unfiltered and in no way an indication of how the rest of the committee feels as the PRO has done on many occasions this year. The PRO has no power other than a vote on the committee and certainly does not have the authority to exclude the UCU by himself. Even if it was posted directly to the ICU site, I'd have my doubts about where the opinion is coming from.

Maybe; but it's not our job to make that determination. The ICU PRO has posted in public about ICU policy. If he's just posting random thoughts from his own head and they totally misrepresent the ICU's actual position, that's something for the ICU to rectify, not the readers.

That's just part and parcel of any PRO's job. And if he can't do it, and has been making this mistake constantly and the ICU don't relieve him, then the party at fault is the ICU and again, that's not a call for the readers to make, it's a fault for the ICU to rectify.

So if they publish an official statement saying he was talking out of his hat, well and good, but otherwise, reading it as official is not unreasonable.

cdeb · 23-07-2015 3:59pm

Sparks wrote: »

So if they publish an official statement saying he was talking out of his hat, well and good, but otherwise, reading it as official is not unreasonable.

They do say the only official ICU outlets are ICU.ie, IrishChessUnion.net and Ratings.ICU.ie

Anything else is outside their control.

I think we have to take from that that a punter posting on another site, even as an ICU exec member, isn't an officially authorised ICU posting.

If they have a press release, etc, you'd imagine it'd go on their website first, and so be official ipso facto.

Retd.LoyolaCpt · 23-07-2015 4:06pm

Sparks wrote: »

Maybe; but it's not our job to make that determination. The ICU PRO has posted in public about ICU policy. If he's just posting random thoughts from his own head and they totally misrepresent the ICU's actual position, that's something for the ICU to rectify, not the readers.

That's just part and parcel of any PRO's job. And if he can't do it, and has been making this mistake constantly and the ICU don't relieve him, then the party at fault is the ICU and again, that's not a call for the readers to make, it's a fault for the ICU to rectify.

So if they publish an official statement saying he was talking out of his hat, well and good, but otherwise, reading it as official is not unreasonable.

I feel like a broken record dragging up the NCC again, but that is the best example I can think of; "Cancelled" by the PRO with an unofficial and poorly written message on the ICU site because this individual wanted it rescheduled for Dublin so that his team could play (it was reduced to an odd number because his team pulled out last minute - as he couldn't go - a member of his team came to watch regardless). The event in fact was still to go ahead. Take everything with a pinch of salt until they're voted out (if they ever announce an AGM).

I realise what you are saying about it not being our job to make sense of it, but this is one member who has apparently lost support within the current executive apart from the man who elected him on the day of the last AGM; so his word (especially his word on sites where his identity is not completely established) should be given as much weight as it deserves: little or none. Speculation is grand, just wanted to clear up some things

Sparks · 23-07-2015 4:54pm

Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »

I realise what you are saying about it not being our job to make sense of it, but this is one member who has apparently lost support within the current executive apart from the man who elected him on the day of the last AGM; so his word (especially his word on sites where his identity is not completely established) should be given as much weight as it deserves: little or none. Speculation is grand, just wanted to clear up some things

Nope, sorry, that dog won't hunt.
He's the PRO. If he's spouting nonsense and misrepresenting the ICU board in public, he gets the boot. If he doesn't get the boot for that, then that's tacit approval by the board, especially since they haven't commented to the contrary.

And saying "it's only official if it's on X website" is rather undermined by the PRO's statements coming after that, and by the whole kerfuffle about the ICU website.

If he comes out and says "I think the French is boring", fair's fair, that's not an ICU statement.

If he comes out and says "individual players ... 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 [to the ICU] 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", fair's fair, that's a statement of ICU policy being made in public by an ICU board member whose sole function is to relate the board's position to the wider membership and public at large.

If that isn't what the ICU board meant, it's up to them to suspend the PRO and issue a public retraction of his comments on their behalf. Until that happens, well, it's an ICU statement.

gordongekko · 23-07-2015 4:55pm

Has anyone approached person a and asked them to withdraw their entry from the competition?

Retd.LoyolaCpt · 23-07-2015 5:00pm

Sparks wrote: »

Nope, sorry, that dog won't hunt.
He's the PRO. If he's spouting nonsense and misrepresenting the ICU board in public, he gets the boot. If he doesn't get the boot for that, then that's tacit approval by the board, especially since they haven't commented to the contrary.

And saying "it's only official if it's on X website" is rather undermined by the PRO's statements coming after that, and by the whole kerfuffle about the ICU website.

If he comes out and says "I think the French is boring", fair's fair, that's not an ICU statement.

If he comes out and says "individual players ... 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 [to the ICU] 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", fair's fair, that's a statement of ICU policy being made in public by an ICU board member whose sole function is to relate the board's position to the wider membership and public at large.

If that isn't what the ICU board meant, it's up to them to suspend the PRO and issue a public retraction of his comments on their behalf. Until that happens, well, it's an ICU statement.

I understand your point but this is essentially an anonymous post; anyone can go onto baords or that site and use whatever name they like. Just because he shares the username of the PRO, doesn't mean it is him.

However, his email is on the ICU website and knowing him personally, I'm sure he'd be only too happy to expand on that post if it was him. He'd probably call you a few names too, but unfortunately his response would be the length of a book, so you'd lose interest well before the end.

sinbad68 · 23-07-2015 5:01pm

Sparks wrote: »

...and you were not only completely hopelessly wrong about that, but you were exceptionally rude in the way you went about it.

The flurry of response was to my comment and not his, so you are the one who is wrong and also rude .

Sparks, you and many others here are relentlessly attacking icu pro and very negative about him all the time, BUT never mention positive things about him, for example his achievements as a chess player and the time and the energy he has spent whether on icu websites or organising things. What have you ever done for the chess community here ?

Retd.LoyolaCpt · 23-07-2015 5:12pm

sinbad68 wrote: »

The flurry of response was to my comment and not his, so you are the one who is wrong and also rude .

Sparks, you and many others here are relentlessly attacking icu pro and very negative about him all the time, BUT never mention positive things about him, for example his achievements as a chess player and the time and the energy he has spent whether on icu websites or organising things. What have you ever done for the chess community here ?

he has achieved a lot; 16th highest rated player atm, fair play to him.

The time he has spent on the icu.ie website has been to try to dismantle a site that was beautifully made. The time he has spent on the irishchessunion.net site which is of his own making is essentially redundant because it will cease to exist when a new committee is elected in (so long as they are).

Sparks · 23-07-2015 5:31pm

sinbad68 wrote: »

Sparks, you and many others here are relentlessly attacking icu pro and very negative about him all the time

We have very good reasons for doing so.

pawntof4 · 23-07-2015 5:35pm

sinbad68 wrote: »

Sparks, you and many others here are relentlessly attacking icu pro and very negative about him all the time

On a whole do you think he has been a successful PRO?

reunion · 23-07-2015 5:47pm

sinbad68 wrote: »

you and many others here are relentlessly attacking icu pro and very negative about him all the time, BUT never mention positive things about him, for example his achievements as a chess player and the time and the energy he has spent whether on icu websites or organising things. What have you ever done for the chess community here ?

I could, I really could go into a rant about how he hasn't done anything selfless in the last 3 years for irish chess, how he attacks people online or how much of a hypocrite he is but I'm going to put on my mod hat here and say

Let's not derail this thread to publicly bash Colm here. The guy is human and this can turn into quite the bullying thread. Let's calm down about Colm. This thread is about the Galway Congress being cancelled of which Colm had a very small part to play.

gordongekko wrote: »

Has anyone approached person a and asked them to withdraw their entry from the competition?

Nobody had entered Galway Congress when they cancelled it. However for the Rapidplay the individual would not withdraw their entry.

RQ_ennis_chess · 23-07-2015 6:12pm

sinbad68 wrote: »

Sparks, you and many others here are relentlessly attacking icu pro and very negative about him all the time, BUT never mention positive things about him, for example his achievements as a chess player and the time and the energy he has spent whether on icu websites or organising things. What have you ever done for the chess community here ?

Well obviously its because he is such a pleasant and unassuming person who spreads joy and sows harmony wherever he goes and everybody here is heartless and cruel.

Re Galway what I can't understand is why the organisers just dont go ahead and hold the tournament anyway. Does anybody really care if the ICU rate it or not?

mikhail · 23-07-2015 6:24pm

RQ_ennis_chess wrote: »

Well obviously its because he is such a pleasant and unassuming person who spreads joy and sows harmony wherever he goes and everybody here is heartless and cruel.

I hear that when he castles queenside, a heavenly chorus can be heard, and that he once promoted to a unicorn.

Re Galway what I can't understand is why the organisers just dont go ahead and hold the tournament anyway. Does anybody really care if the ICU rate it or not?

I do care, though it wouldn't have stopped me playing, especially under the circumstances. However, it may have affected the viability of the tournament.

RQ_ennis_chess · 23-07-2015 6:35pm

Well can only speak for myself but if it were FIDE rated it would be an inducement to play in it but with 3 rounds in a day it can't be. I couldn't care less whether the ICU rate it or not and wouldn't affect my enjoyment of the tournament in any way.
I could understand how someone who had a really good result might be miffed at not getting any rating points but does it really matter that much that it is necessary to cancel the tournament?

sinbad68 · 23-07-2015 9:19pm

RQ_ennis_chess wrote: »

Well can only speak for myself but if it were FIDE rated it would be an inducement to play in it but with 3 rounds in a day it can't be. I couldn't care less whether the ICU rate it or not and wouldn't affect my enjoyment of the tournament in any way.
I could understand how someone who had a really good result might be miffed at not getting any rating points but does it really matter that much that it is necessary to cancel the tournament?

If all players in a tournament are under 2200 rated . fide rated games can be as short as 90 minutes for each player ( no increments) time frame or 60 min+ 30 secs , so you can easily have 3 games in one day. Why don't you run galway congress as you are in locality ?

Ficheall · 23-07-2015 9:40pm

sinbad68 wrote: »

If all players in a tournament are under 2200 rated . fide rated games can be as short as 90 minutes for each player ( no increments) time frame or 60 min+ 30 secs , so you can easily have 3 games in one day. Why don't you run galway congress as you are in locality ?

Well, the ICU didn't allow the FIDE rapidplay to be rated despite FIDE and the ICU having previously announced that it would be, so I wouldn't be too hopeful about the ICU allowing the Congress to be FIDE-rated...

And besides, there wouldn't be enough players with a FIDE-rating to enable the tournament to be properly FIDE-rated, as you have to play against a certain number of FIDE-rated players to get a rating.

rob51 · 23-07-2015 10:22pm

Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »

I feel like a broken record dragging up the NCC again, but that is the best example I can think of; "Cancelled" by the PRO with an unofficial and poorly written message on the ICU site because this individual wanted it rescheduled for Dublin so that his team could play

The NCC is one of two competitions 'organised' directly by the ICU and they turned it into a farce with that cancellation attempt.
I also note it has not been rated and there is no report on the ICU website(s). Apparently it just never happened. A genuine un-tournament. This use of the rating system as a plaything of the Executive is unprecented to my knowledge. Nobody has given the Executive the power to decide which tournaments will be rated. Games were played and results recorded this messing is an insult to the integrity of the rating system.
P.S. As I didn't play in the NCC I don't have a personal stake in this.

Retd.LoyolaCpt · 23-07-2015 11:36pm

rob51 wrote: »

The NCC is one of two competitions 'organised' directly by the ICU and they turned it into a farce with that cancellation attempt.
I also note it has not been rated and there is no report on the ICU website(s). Apparently it just never happened. A genuine un-tournament. This use of the rating system as a plaything of the Executive is unprecented to my knowledge. Nobody has given the Executive the power to decide which tournaments will be rated. Games were played and results recorded this messing is an insult to the integrity of the rating system.
P.S. As I didn't play in the NCC I don't have a personal stake in this.

I'd a 2250 rating performance... stings

also, another player i drafted in for it (who was specifically there for FIDE rated games) would have gained 30-40 points. Our games were all played (legitimately) against different teams and opponents.

reunion · 24-07-2015 8:54am

rob51 wrote: »

The NCC is one of two competitions 'organised' directly by the ICU and they turned it into a farce with that cancellation attempt.
I also note it has not been rated and there is no report on the ICU website(s). Apparently it just never happened. A genuine un-tournament. This use of the rating system as a plaything of the Executive is unprecented to my knowledge. Nobody has given the Executive the power to decide which tournaments will be rated. Games were played and results recorded this messing is an insult to the integrity of the rating system.
P.S. As I didn't play in the NCC I don't have a personal stake in this.

The ICU probably asked the Ennis club to pay €300 to the ICU to FIDE rate the event.

What's odd is that they have stated they would rate the Rapidplay AND the NCC. Nothing was stopping them from rating either event, except that they wanted to cancel the NCC so were probably looking for any excuse to invalidate it.

It was grossly negligent to not inform members that the rapidplay mightn't be rated or that a similar ultimatum was given to the Ennis Congress. As a result they permitted members to enter the Rapidplay with the ICU's blessing it would be rated to only revoke it a few days before the event.

Retd.LoyolaCpt · 24-07-2015 11:38am

Anyone notice the Calendar on the icu site hasn't been updated in what must be months... No info on Kilkenny, or Bunratty next year, or the Irish Championships and Galway hasn't been removed (they're only 4 of our most important events...). You'd think that they could have at least taken Galway off when they were busily writing up 500 word essays criticizing it.

cdeb · 24-07-2015 12:16pm

Kilkenny's always announced fairly late anyway in fairness.

But Galway being there does indicate it's not being updated.

Galway Chess Congress 2015 Cancelled

Comments