I disagree. While erring is human the arbiters on this level should know the FIDE handbook inside out. And in case of any doubt the decision should be pending and they should check the handbook. But they did not do that. They were stubornly claiming that all others were wrong, eventhough Socko, the camera man, the photograph and I don’t know who else explain them the rules.
They have no business being there and should be immediatelly replaced and thrown out of their expensive hotel room.
Mikko Markkula – Deputy Chief Arbiter (the guy who was the smartest, he even accused the camera man to destroy the end position and that now he can’t adjucate it)
@Susan Polgar, ok – thanks for your reply. I guess that this blog entry will not add to the fame of these arbiters 🙂 Nevertheless, as I have mentioned before, wrong decisions happen once in a while and they have found the correct decision, after the protest.
Btw. you are probably the most famous person who ever replied to anything I said or wrote, so I am currently dancing and celebrating. I wish you all the best.
The problem is FIDE gives these lucrative arbitre’s jobs (e.g. the Chief arbiter gets USD 4.000) to its own favourites, who are not much skilled as arbitres – this is not the first time at all! Problem of these two was, that the rules are changing sometimes, such as was in this case of the NxN ending (that one I have read, I know only the rules in action).
I don’t think that Veroci was chosen as a FIDE favourite. She is a (W)GM, an arbiter (my wife and I visited Miskolc in 2004. Guess who was directing the GM RR?), and a woman. Markkula is a long-time FIDE commission member (Rules Committee, Swiss Pairings Committee) whom I first met in 1996 at Yerevan.
The ideal FIDE Laws of Chess would be the ones that correspond with an objective observer’s idea of justice. But over the decades we’ve been straying further and further from that ideal.
I wonder what the upshot would have been, when Foisor stated that the position was a draw, with time still left on her clock if … the arbiter had interpreted it as an offer of a draw, if the arbiter had stopped Socko’s clock. “Your opponent has offered a draw”. “I decline”. “The position is King and Knight versus King and Knight, a dead draw. If you decline the draw, I will rule that you have brought the game of chess into disrepute and give you zero.”
Article 12: The conduct of the players
12.1 The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute.
FIDE arbiters are best.
Susan, what are you trying to tell us with this blog entry?
I mean, in situations of extreme stress, people may fail, sometimes. A world championship, an armageddon game, TV cameras…
Let’s be tolerant; I think in the end the correct decision has been found.
I disagree. While erring is human the arbiters on this level should know the FIDE handbook inside out. And in case of any doubt the decision should be pending and they should check the handbook. But they did not do that. They were stubornly claiming that all others were wrong, eventhough Socko, the camera man, the photograph and I don’t know who else explain them the rules.
They have no business being there and should be immediatelly replaced and thrown out of their expensive hotel room.
Permanent brain,
Some people were asking who the arbiters are. I just found these pictures on the official website.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
To attach names to faces:
ZZZsusanna Veroci (Hungary)
Mikko Markkula (Finland)
Markkula is in the grey suit.
I don’t think either were close to knowing what they did not know, as Rummy would put it.
http://nalchik2008.fide.com/principals/?lang=eng
I guess we could name them then:
Zsuzsanna Veroci – Chief Arbiter
Mikko Markkula – Deputy Chief Arbiter (the guy who was the smartest, he even accused the camera man to destroy the end position and that now he can’t adjucate it)
Galina Strutinskaia – Deputy Arbiter
Vyacheslav Khamruev – Deputy Arbiter
@Susan Polgar, ok – thanks for your reply. I guess that this blog entry will not add to the fame of these arbiters 🙂 Nevertheless, as I have mentioned before, wrong decisions happen once in a while and they have found the correct decision, after the protest.
Btw. you are probably the most famous person who ever replied to anything I said or wrote, so I am currently dancing and celebrating. I wish you all the best.
They didn’t make a mistake. They just didn’t know the rules. Thats a big difference.
If somebody doesn’t know the rules, well, that obviously leads to mistakes.
Zsuzsa Verőci judged in the spirit of chess, but her decision was in contrast with the rules. So she made a mistake.
The problem is FIDE gives these lucrative arbitre’s jobs (e.g. the Chief arbiter gets USD 4.000) to its own favourites, who are not much skilled as arbitres – this is not the first time at all! Problem of these two was, that the rules are changing sometimes, such as was in this case of the NxN ending (that one I have read, I know only the rules in action).
‘Susan, what are you trying to tell us with this blog entry?’
That she doesn’t approve of her countrywomen, who had better chess results than most of the participants in Nalchik put together.
Verőci is hot! Oh, she butters my potato!
viktor
I don’t think that Veroci was chosen as a FIDE favourite. She is a (W)GM, an arbiter (my wife and I visited Miskolc in 2004. Guess who was directing the GM RR?), and a woman. Markkula is a long-time FIDE commission member (Rules Committee, Swiss Pairings Committee) whom I first met in 1996 at Yerevan.
The ideal FIDE Laws of Chess would be the ones that correspond with an objective observer’s idea of justice. But over the decades we’ve been straying further and further from that ideal.
I wonder what the upshot would have been, when Foisor stated that the position was a draw, with time still left on her clock if … the arbiter had interpreted it as an offer of a draw, if the arbiter had stopped Socko’s clock. “Your opponent has offered a draw”. “I decline”. “The position is King and Knight versus King and Knight, a dead draw. If you decline the draw, I will rule that you have brought the game of chess into disrepute and give you zero.”
Article 12: The conduct of the players
12.1 The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute.
JB, IA