Collusion or Conspiracy?

Fischer v Korchnoi, Curacao Candidates 1962

There have been many accusations of collusion, either of players deliberately losing (often to help a friend get a norm), of players agreeing draws or teams agreeing to throw matches to prevent another from winning an event.

Researchers at Washington University in St. Louis claim that Soviet players colluded in world chess championships held from 1940 to 1964.

They argue that players agreed draws amongst themselves to improve their chances. The most famous instance, the 1962 Candidates' Tournament, concerned the allegations of collusion by the Soviets.

The three top finishers, Petrosian, Geller and Keres drew all twelve of their games against each other, in an average of only 19 moves. Soon after the tournament, Fischer publicly alleged that the Soviets had colluded to prevent him from winning. His main allegation was that Petrosian, Geller and Keres had pre-arranged to draw all their games.

Yuri Averbakh

Fischer's allegation has long been accepted as correct. Yuri Averbakh, who was head of the Soviet team at the time, admitted collusion in a 2002 interview, 'Keres wanted to conserve energy, and Petrosian and Geller were good friends with a history of drawing with each other.'

Fischer's complaint titled 'The Russians Have Fixed World Chess' published in Sports Illustrated (August 20th 1962), forced FIDE to change the format of future Candidates' Tournaments beginning with the 1966 cycle. They were replaced by a series of elimination matches to prevent collusion and to avoid further embarrassment.

Could such collusion, between players, teams or even clubs happen in amateur chess? Of course it can. Last year in the MCA league, match re-arrangments in Division 1 during the second half of the season led to accusations of collusion. A delay of over four months occurred before two clubs got round to playing their crucial 'decider'. And John Carleton's article 'Fair Competition' eloquently details the extent to which officials will go to, to win at all costs i.e. to prevent another club from winning the league competition fairly.

A disturbing feature is that the collusion took place under the very noses of the league officials. This is bad enough but worse, the officials have failed to take any action or condemn the behaviour and another club has gone to the extent of publicly congratulating the 'winners'. This bizarre twist should be an alarm call to any self-respecting player because it begs the question - where does the collusion end - two clubs, three clubs?

By any reasonable measure and on the evidence available, that's the direction in which things are moving in the Merseyside League.

Arctic Securities Rapid: Anand and Carlsen lead with 2.5/3

The first half brought the result many expected: the World Champion and the world's highest ranked player won both their games against their lower-ranked opponents, and drew the encounter against each other. But it was not all smooth sailing. In his game against compatriot Jon Ludvig Hammer Magnus stared disaster in the face. First day report with poignant videos by Europe Echecs.

This rapid chess tournament is taking place in Kristiansund from Saturday, August 28th to Monday, August 30th 2010. It is a double round robin with four players: Magnus Carlsen, Viswanathan Anand, Judit Polgar and Jon Ludvig Hammer. On Monday there follows the finals between the two leading players, together with the bronze final for third place. Time controls are 20 minutes + 10 seconds increment per move.


Introduction and excerpts from the press conference before the tournament.


Interviews with the players

In the second video report the "blunder of the day" is vividly described by Jon Ludvig, who apparently like all Norwegians speaks a very high level of English. Starting at 1:57 min into the video he talks about the missed chance, while the thumbnail on the top left (from 2:14 min) shows Magnus playing 39.Rd2?? and Hammer immediately recapturing with his h-rook – and realising what he has missed at 2:21 min. Heartbreaking to watch.

Links

• Official tournament site
• All games in PGN
• Videos by GM Robert Fontaine and Gérard Demuydt for Europe Echecs

Text: Courtesy of Chessbase

Ratticus Norvegicus

There are an estimated 70 million rats in the UK, which roughly equates to one for every person. They're often seen in places where rubbish is lying around, in drains, sewers and outbuildings. They're also found in rural areas and are becoming a serious nuisance. They have also contaminated some areas of Liverpool.

As well as creating structural damage, rats pose a health risk because of the diseases they carry such as salmonella, E.coli and Tuberculosis. They also have ticks, mites, fleas, b.o. and bad breath. It is therefore imperative that you protect yourself from these pests or you’ll find yourself with a big problem.

It is said that at any one time, no person in Britain is more than nine metres away from a rat. During match nights at one chess club in Liverpool this decreases to one metre. Reason: The Club has been infested by rats. These rats can lie, deceive and spread falsehoods about fellow members. There are even cases of rats using computers to spread propaganda and twisted versions of reality for the gullible to injest. Their poison is dangerous so take great care. These rats rarely marry but they do form themselves into groups to comfort one another, drink copious amounts of beer and plot against the innocent.

However, smart people such as rat catchers with no more than the slightest whiff of their stench take immediate and permanent action. They set traps which these pesky vermin fall into, giving rat catchers the upper hand. This is a most gratifying outcome and can rid an area of these hazardous and selfish vermin once and for all.

The Filipino lawyer for a woman who filed a paternity lawsuit claiming that Bobby Fischer was the father of her daughter, has criticized how tissue samples were obtained to perform the DNA tests. The test, which reportedly came back negative on Tuesday, was ordered by the Supreme Court of Iceland as part of a dispute over Fischer’s estate.

Bobby Fischer died in January 2008 at the age of 64 and left no will.

The lawyer, Samuel Estimo, also criticized the lawyer who represents the woman and daughter in Iceland, Thordur Bogason, saying that he had disclosed the results without the authorization of his clients, Marilyn Young and her daughter, Jinky.

 Bobby Fischer’s grave site in the cemetery of Laugardaelir Church in Iceland.

Mr. Estimo also said that Mr. Bogason had prematurely withdrawn the mother and daughter’s claim to the estate.

Mr. Estimo aired his criticisms and concerns about the case by forwarding a series of e-mail exchanges with Mr. Bogason to media organizations, including The New York Times, a day after the paternity test results were divulged.

In his e-mails, Mr. Estimo included a detailed description from Mr. Bogason of how the tissue samples were retrieved from Fischer’s grave in the cemetery of Laugardaelir Church in Iceland. Mr. Estimo included the description of the exhumation, though Mr. Bogason’s letter said that the manner in which it was done should be kept confidential.

Read full story

NH Chess Tournament: Rising stars v Experience

In the sixth round, The Experience team once again outscored the Rising stars, closing the distance to 15.5-14.5. Nakamura beat Ljubojevic to come within a half point of Rising Star leader, Giri. Gelfand continues to stamp his authority, this time beating Howell, and van Wely scored his first NH Chess win after sixteen tries.



In the fifth round of the NH Chess Tournament the Rising Stars and the Experience team split the points. Anish Giri’s win over Peter Heine Nielsen was compensated for by Boris Gelfand’s win over Hikaru Nakamura. Halfway through the event the Rising Stars lead 13½-11½.

The NH Chess Tournament takes place August 12-22 in hotel Krasnapolsky, in the heart of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. As always, the tournament is a confrontation between a team of five young ‘Rising Stars’ and a team of five ‘Experienced’ grandmasters.

The two teams play a ‘Scheveningen’ tournament, which means that each player of one team plays against each of the players of the other team. They do so twice, once with the white pieces and once with the black pieces. The team that collects most points wins the tournament. The best player of the ‘Rising Stars’ team will be invited to the 20th Amber Blindfold and Rapid Tournament in March 2011 in Nice, provided he or she scores over 50% in the NH Chess Tournament in Amsterdam.

All games in PGN
Official tournament site

Reflections on the EGM

Dear Chessfriends,

My reflections on the recent EGM of the Club are obviously going to be a great deal shorter than those of Club members who managed to sit through the meeting to the end. But here we go.

I raised an important question at the start of the meeting regarding how the proposed Constitution had come to be be moved at this time. I had raised the same question with the Secretary in an e-mail when members were sent a copy of the proposed Constitution. I also asked for the identity of those moving the Constitution to be revealed, and also for a quick explanation of the rationale behind each section of the document. It seemed to me most important that members should have a chance to reflect on what was being proposed before the meeting. In fact we had been provided with a copy of the draft only after a request from Dave Hurley. I received no reply whatsoever to my requests.

Thus when Dave James revealed that the draft Constitution was in response to the behaviour of Dave Robertson, Steve Connor and myself, it became finally clear to me that the business afoot was a continuation of the dispute already provoked, not by the three of us, but rather by Dave James and his cronies.

So it was entirely appropriate that I stressed pertinent information relating to that dispute, including new information that had come to light as a result of the AGM. When Dave James made the explicit criticism of us, it meant that the discussion of the Constitution was doomed to be tarnished until the earlier dispute was resolved. I should stress that it was at the insistence of Dave James that the meeting, rather bizarrely, interrupted the unfinished business of the dispute (and its related dummy motion concerning to the election of webmaster) to discuss the proposed Constitution. It was also his accusation/explanation for the constitution coming up now that meant the dispute and its ramifications had to be dealt with first. Thus the repeated interruptions from the chair were inappropriate, as were many of those from the floor.

About the small contribution I was able to make, I would make the following points. The Secretary was correct to say that the evidence I produced regarding doctoring of proposed minutes looked very bad. He was correct to offer his resignation. This resignation should be accepted. His explanation that the situation arose through gross incompetence rather than design does not hold water in respect of the evidence produced, and indeed the further evidence I will publish if it is felt necessary. It is also inconceivable that the Secretary acted without input from at least the Chair of their committee since at no point did the Secretary take a leadership role in (their provoking of) the dispute. Thus, being prevented from doing first things first, I felt obliged to exempt myself from the remainder of the meeting.

I should say that if a constitution is regarded as useful, then Tom Bimpson's proposals do seem eminently reasonable and reflect a fair and appropriate way that club members can interact. This is in stark contrast to the original proposals. It does not require a psychologist to work out that these proposals were a continuation of the bellicose intentions of those involved in its production.

As luck would have it, we had a psychologist to hand anyway: Andrej's demolition of the "expulsion clause" did help to restore some sanity to the situation. Thereafter the club should be appreciative of Tom's efforts to introduce a calm and sensible working document.

One of my regrets at leaving early was that I did not have the opportunity to hear Dave James propose item 17, regarding disputes. "In the event of a dispute with a team from another club this will be taken up by the Captain with the Captain of the opposing team. In the event that this does not resolve the dispute it shall be pursued by the Secretary under advisement of the relevant Captain and the Committee."

It would have been particularly interesting to hear how, when I had an unresolved dispute as Atticus2 Captain and tried to assemble a meeting to discuss the issue, and hopefully obtain consensus on united action, that:

(a) no such meeting was ever forthcoming, and
(b) how Dave James's briefing of Club members against me - while not informing me of what he was doing - squares with this eminently reasonable section of the new Constitution.

The proposal of the original section 17 regarding threatening or abusive behaviour would also have been an interesting pitch. I'm sure that Dave James's crystal clear view that everything is Dave Robertson's fault would have come across forcefully. I am still available to go through the truth with anyone who is still in doubt.

With regards to the Constitution itself, may I just pose a few questions?

• Will the constitution stop a group within the committee calling a meeting, and taking action against an uninvited committee member; and indeed not inviting another elected committee member who is likely to oppose their view?

• Will the constitution prevent some committee members pretending to be a complete committee and then traducing some club members on a public forum?

The answer to both of these questions must be "no". Both these events happened during last season. The fact that the answer is "no" is not the fault of the Constitution because a Constitution cannot be expected to cover matters of such basic common decency.

• Another situation that falls outside the sphere of the reasonable is that of Dave James's stirring up club members with misinformation behind my back, referred to above. Naturally no constitution can be expected to cover such flawed and warped behaviour. But how does the Club respond? Does it feel this is appropriate behaviour?

• Will the constitution stop part of the committee invoking made-up powers; e.g telling the Webmaster that everything he publishes has to be agreed by the committee? The answer here is "yes"; (this also happened last season). Under section 18 "In the event of complaints about the content of the Atticus Chess Club website this will be dealt with by the the Webmaster under the advisement of the General Committee"; it is clear that the whole tenor of the Chair's communications with Steve Connor were grossly improper.

My main regret at leaving the EGM early is that I was unable to express my personal gratitude for the unstinting work in the service of Chess and Atticus of two of our members. First, I must honour the Club's finest son, Dave Robertson. It is no slight on Steve Connor that I designate him thus. Dave Robertson's selfless and tireless work on behalf of Chess and our City over many years, but particularly during 2006-2008, have been well documented. The pushing of Atticus into the 21st century with the provision of the fabulous Adelphi venue and the complete restocking of our boards and sets, all at no cost to the Club, is undoubtedly one of the two main reasons why Atticus is currently such a magnet for chess players.

In most other clubs Steve Connor would be the greatest servant of Chess in their history. He is currently webmaster for the British Championship site, the 4NCL site and the London Classic site. His professionalism and dynamism are respected by all sections of British Chess. The Atticus website under his care has undoubtedly been the other most significant reason for the recent growth of the Club, and has been admired far and wide for the whole of Steve's tenure.

I am ashamed to be a member of a Club that treats its greatest servants so badly, but proud to regard Dave and Steve as my friends. You may question my judgement. For it is true that I thought Dave James was a friend for well over 30 years. Reality has taken over only as I felt his stiletto between my shoulder blades. However in the case of Steve and Dave you need not concern yourself with my judgement; their record of unambiguous, straightforward exposition of the beauty and occasional deceit within our great game is the only testament they require together with the legacy of their many achievements within Chess.

John Carleton
July 27, 2010

After 38 years

Following an EGM on 19 July 2010, the club has split and been destroyed by a clique of spineless individuals calling themselves a committee.


Concerns for the welfare of remaining members should be of interest to all chess players.

For the record, I remain in full support of John Carleton, David Robertson and others who have taken a principled and courageous position regarding the dispute with Widnes over the last 18 months or so.

They are outstanding examples of kind, hard working, honourable people the like of which we rarely meet in our lives.

For 38 years they have given unstinting support to Atticus Chess Club.

The unforgivable and unprecedented public attack on them and other long-serving members published on the MCA website was a disgrace. The ‘Dossier’, produced by the 'committee', a further act of lies and malice, should be treated with contempt as should the individuals who attach their names to it; individuals morally bankrupt, prepared to betray their colleagues at the drop of a hat and possessing a breath-taking level of vindictiveness. They know who they are and when the truth unfolds, others will too.

My contribution as webmaster has been to support and promote chess for the benefit of the Club and the wider community. I have acted honourably and recognition for such action has been forthcoming. Only this ‘committee’ with their propaganda and paranoia could see it differently. But they ignore the truth because it’s no longer convenient.

Members not so easily hoodwinked will no doubt have their own worries and so they should because this ‘committee’ will now take the Club down some very dark and dreary pathways in the years ahead.