If you are the #1, everyone is looking to beat you. A loss against the #1 is meaningless, but a win means a lot. That Magnus has concern about fair play above what others feel is to me very understandable. His position as #1 makes him vulnerable, in that it is like he has a target on his head, and I sympathize with him. Not many people have the experience of being a somebody, rather than a nobody, and understand that even though there are benefits that come with being a somebody in a particular world, it has challenges that a nobody would not know. Before anyone judges him, they should consider that their experience playing chess with other people is likely very different from Magnus's.
I like that the top player took a stand about bringing devices to the board with them. Carlsen made it clear he was not intending a slight toward his opponent.
@jruncertainty said in #24:
> If you are the #1, everyone is looking to beat you. A loss against the #1 is meaningless, but a win means a lot. That Magnus has concern about fair play above what others feel is to me very understandable. His position as #1 makes him vulnerable, in that it is like he has a target on his head, and I sympathize with him. Not many people have the experience of being a somebody, rather than a nobody, and understand that even though there are benefits that come with being a somebody in a particular world, it has challenges that a nobody would not know. Before anyone judges him, they should consider that their experience playing chess with other people is likely very different from Magnus's.
+1
> If you are the #1, everyone is looking to beat you. A loss against the #1 is meaningless, but a win means a lot. That Magnus has concern about fair play above what others feel is to me very understandable. His position as #1 makes him vulnerable, in that it is like he has a target on his head, and I sympathize with him. Not many people have the experience of being a somebody, rather than a nobody, and understand that even though there are benefits that come with being a somebody in a particular world, it has challenges that a nobody would not know. Before anyone judges him, they should consider that their experience playing chess with other people is likely very different from Magnus's.
+1
Magnus posted a statement which is the basis for this controversy:
“ I was completely crushed in my game today. This is not to accuse my opponent of anything, who played an amazing game and deserved to win, but honestly, as soon as I saw my opponent was wearing a watch early in the game, I lost my ability to concentrate.”
“I did ask an arbiter during the game whether watches were allowed, and he clarified that smartwatches were banned, but not analog watches. This seems to be against FIDE rules for events of this stature”
@Peppie23
The Qatar Chess Open 2023 has stated that the “FIDE anti cheating regulations” details the regulations which apply for the tournament. These regulations provide details on what is considered cheating and what actions are to be taken.
Furthermore, there are rules that tournament players should be familiar with as they are the standard rules for chess around the world. The “FIDE laws of chess" state:
"11.3.2 During a game, a player is forbidden to have any electronic device not specifically approved by the arbiter in the playing venue."
"12.8 Unless authorised by the arbiter, it is forbidden for anybody to use a mobile phone or any kind of communication device in the playing venue or any contiguous area designated by the arbiter."
Neither of these documents can be mistaken by Magnus that the event arbiter acted “against FIDE rules”, so he must be referring to a vade mecum for different levels of anti cheating measures for events organisers to use for the differing events. Where the prize money is over €100k, the guidance which Magnus is concerned the Qatar Chess Open 2023 didn't follow is:
3) Maximum protection - to apply to tournaments identified in Section 1 (A).
ii) Watches, pens and other writing devices containing metal are not allowed in the playing area. However, these items can be stored in the facilities under v) below.
The enforcement for this is: “Tournaments that are found not to materially comply with the AC Protection Measures shall not be rated.” To material comply the infraction would have had to matter to the document (ie. that cheating or attempted cheating had been affected by the lack of adherence). Magnus stated, his opponent “deserved to win” so he agrees that there is no lack of material compliance, therefore he is already wrong. So why is Magnus publishing “out of turn” about rules he didn’t read properly? He has done this before and can't plead ignorance, FIDE are still investigating his previous smearing campaign at Sinquefield Cup.
@mcgoves
Whether this criteria of the vade mecum even applies, the value of the prize money must be above €100k, but the value has been below €100k for most of the year. The test is: on which day does Magnus claim the Qatar rules were finalised, in order for him to begin to challenge the validity of the rules in accordance with the vade mecum. Well he was not on the committee or he would have addressed it then, and he can't presume it was on a date on which the exchange rate did not invalidate this application of the rules to make his case, so he so we are compelled to consider the other option.
@newlinkwave
If the prize value is not based on the day of finalising the rules, it seems Magnus would have to be insisting the tournament base their rules on the rate of exchange on the day the prizes are awarded, which he could view as the prize money value "effective" date.
@jruncertainty
If we were to blindly go along with Magnus, and agree that the tournament rules should be amended retroactively based on the exchange rate on the day of the award ceremonies, and penalties issued to the players, arbiters and tournament officials in cases where the actual tournament rules were adhered to instead of the future possible rule amendments, then we should consider some other problems with his falsely virtuous position on anti cheating in this instance. There is no provision in the handbook which says that the arbiters discretion is superseded by the most extreme interpretation of the exact wording of the FIDE anti cheating methods handbook. And in all fairness it would be ridiculous for FIDE to do so, to impose on tournaments and arbiters that players filling their score sheets in with crayon or oil paint, or insisting on using a quill pen and blotting paper should override the arbiters common sense and judgment to allow others to use a normal biro to comply with the rule “pens and other writing devices containing metal are not allowed in the playing area”.
It is worth mentioning that Magnus has undisputedly cheated on video many times, but has never come clean and never apologised, which is why “falsely virtuous” is provably accurate.
@morphyms1817
Which leads us to the next point: it’s wildly unlikely that any pen used in the tournament doesn’t contain metal: ball point, roller balls, fountain pens, even fine-liners contain metal. They are as useless for cheat communication as an analog watch, but surely have the same ability to affect his play, and Magnus could have pointed out that he himself had a pen containing metal within the playing area to make his point. Instead he targeted his successful opponent with distracting him: “but honestly, as soon as I saw my opponent was wearing a watch early in the game, I lost my ability to concentrate.” And he insists that we and the public at large must be aware of, and somehow buy into his cause to the extent of publicly holding the tournament and arbiters to account in order that they eliminate Magnus' fall in concentration due to a player wearing an analog watch? At this moment, it’s worth pointing out that he frequently plays chess tournaments slurring inaudibly due to being extremely drunk; playing loud music; chanting, singing and shouting expletives; his friends making jokes in the background; and has even played a chess tournament on his phone in a van and claims "even extremely intoxicated my chess strength and knowledge is still in my bones". But expects tournaments which allow players who aren't "tense in critical positions" or are "wearing a watch" as the priority problem to address on account of his unreliable concentration?
@Ben10Tenyson
The question actually is: why hasn’t Magnus been released from this tournament in recognition of his flouting of Qatar Master Open 2023 rule 9.1 "The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute."? And when is FIDE going to do something conclusive about his highly damaging and far reaching Sinquefield Cup tantrum? It has become obvious that unless FIDE action is taken, he will continue to mindlessly slander anyone in chess that he possibly can, in order to compensate for his own embarrassing performances.
@Cedur216 , @srikara97 , @goofy00
And to the Magnus worshippers, we realise you’re likely going to downvote this, just appreciate that it doesn’t make the substance in this post not true, so consider what that says of you.
“ I was completely crushed in my game today. This is not to accuse my opponent of anything, who played an amazing game and deserved to win, but honestly, as soon as I saw my opponent was wearing a watch early in the game, I lost my ability to concentrate.”
“I did ask an arbiter during the game whether watches were allowed, and he clarified that smartwatches were banned, but not analog watches. This seems to be against FIDE rules for events of this stature”
@Peppie23
The Qatar Chess Open 2023 has stated that the “FIDE anti cheating regulations” details the regulations which apply for the tournament. These regulations provide details on what is considered cheating and what actions are to be taken.
Furthermore, there are rules that tournament players should be familiar with as they are the standard rules for chess around the world. The “FIDE laws of chess" state:
"11.3.2 During a game, a player is forbidden to have any electronic device not specifically approved by the arbiter in the playing venue."
"12.8 Unless authorised by the arbiter, it is forbidden for anybody to use a mobile phone or any kind of communication device in the playing venue or any contiguous area designated by the arbiter."
Neither of these documents can be mistaken by Magnus that the event arbiter acted “against FIDE rules”, so he must be referring to a vade mecum for different levels of anti cheating measures for events organisers to use for the differing events. Where the prize money is over €100k, the guidance which Magnus is concerned the Qatar Chess Open 2023 didn't follow is:
3) Maximum protection - to apply to tournaments identified in Section 1 (A).
ii) Watches, pens and other writing devices containing metal are not allowed in the playing area. However, these items can be stored in the facilities under v) below.
The enforcement for this is: “Tournaments that are found not to materially comply with the AC Protection Measures shall not be rated.” To material comply the infraction would have had to matter to the document (ie. that cheating or attempted cheating had been affected by the lack of adherence). Magnus stated, his opponent “deserved to win” so he agrees that there is no lack of material compliance, therefore he is already wrong. So why is Magnus publishing “out of turn” about rules he didn’t read properly? He has done this before and can't plead ignorance, FIDE are still investigating his previous smearing campaign at Sinquefield Cup.
@mcgoves
Whether this criteria of the vade mecum even applies, the value of the prize money must be above €100k, but the value has been below €100k for most of the year. The test is: on which day does Magnus claim the Qatar rules were finalised, in order for him to begin to challenge the validity of the rules in accordance with the vade mecum. Well he was not on the committee or he would have addressed it then, and he can't presume it was on a date on which the exchange rate did not invalidate this application of the rules to make his case, so he so we are compelled to consider the other option.
@newlinkwave
If the prize value is not based on the day of finalising the rules, it seems Magnus would have to be insisting the tournament base their rules on the rate of exchange on the day the prizes are awarded, which he could view as the prize money value "effective" date.
@jruncertainty
If we were to blindly go along with Magnus, and agree that the tournament rules should be amended retroactively based on the exchange rate on the day of the award ceremonies, and penalties issued to the players, arbiters and tournament officials in cases where the actual tournament rules were adhered to instead of the future possible rule amendments, then we should consider some other problems with his falsely virtuous position on anti cheating in this instance. There is no provision in the handbook which says that the arbiters discretion is superseded by the most extreme interpretation of the exact wording of the FIDE anti cheating methods handbook. And in all fairness it would be ridiculous for FIDE to do so, to impose on tournaments and arbiters that players filling their score sheets in with crayon or oil paint, or insisting on using a quill pen and blotting paper should override the arbiters common sense and judgment to allow others to use a normal biro to comply with the rule “pens and other writing devices containing metal are not allowed in the playing area”.
It is worth mentioning that Magnus has undisputedly cheated on video many times, but has never come clean and never apologised, which is why “falsely virtuous” is provably accurate.
@morphyms1817
Which leads us to the next point: it’s wildly unlikely that any pen used in the tournament doesn’t contain metal: ball point, roller balls, fountain pens, even fine-liners contain metal. They are as useless for cheat communication as an analog watch, but surely have the same ability to affect his play, and Magnus could have pointed out that he himself had a pen containing metal within the playing area to make his point. Instead he targeted his successful opponent with distracting him: “but honestly, as soon as I saw my opponent was wearing a watch early in the game, I lost my ability to concentrate.” And he insists that we and the public at large must be aware of, and somehow buy into his cause to the extent of publicly holding the tournament and arbiters to account in order that they eliminate Magnus' fall in concentration due to a player wearing an analog watch? At this moment, it’s worth pointing out that he frequently plays chess tournaments slurring inaudibly due to being extremely drunk; playing loud music; chanting, singing and shouting expletives; his friends making jokes in the background; and has even played a chess tournament on his phone in a van and claims "even extremely intoxicated my chess strength and knowledge is still in my bones". But expects tournaments which allow players who aren't "tense in critical positions" or are "wearing a watch" as the priority problem to address on account of his unreliable concentration?
@Ben10Tenyson
The question actually is: why hasn’t Magnus been released from this tournament in recognition of his flouting of Qatar Master Open 2023 rule 9.1 "The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute."? And when is FIDE going to do something conclusive about his highly damaging and far reaching Sinquefield Cup tantrum? It has become obvious that unless FIDE action is taken, he will continue to mindlessly slander anyone in chess that he possibly can, in order to compensate for his own embarrassing performances.
@Cedur216 , @srikara97 , @goofy00
And to the Magnus worshippers, we realise you’re likely going to downvote this, just appreciate that it doesn’t make the substance in this post not true, so consider what that says of you.
Magnus is bringing disrepute to qatar masters due to lack of security .. if anything magnus is making chess more luxurious by requesting better security. I dont see how fide can take action for withdrawing from a tournament for personal reasons
@Ben10Tenyson said in #25:
> Magnus is bringing disrepute to qatar masters due to lack of security .. if anything magnus is making chess more luxurious by requesting better security. I dont see how fide can take action for withdrawing from a tournament for personal reasons
Sure, because the Alcatraz is the essence of luxury? The offence is Magnus' slanderous tweets, which instead of keeping personal, were very public. On both counts, the complete opposite of reality.
> Magnus is bringing disrepute to qatar masters due to lack of security .. if anything magnus is making chess more luxurious by requesting better security. I dont see how fide can take action for withdrawing from a tournament for personal reasons
Sure, because the Alcatraz is the essence of luxury? The offence is Magnus' slanderous tweets, which instead of keeping personal, were very public. On both counts, the complete opposite of reality.
@Nomoreusernames said in #24:
> Magnus posted a statement which is the basis for this controversy:
> “ I was completely crushed in my game today. This is not to accuse my opponent of anything, who played an amazing game and deserved to win, but honestly, as soon as I saw my opponent was wearing a watch early in the game, I lost my ability to concentrate.”
> “I did ask an arbiter during the game whether watches were allowed, and he clarified that smartwatches were banned, but not analog watches. This seems to be against FIDE rules for events of this stature”
>
Sounds like the guy wearing the watch played the player and not the game. Magnus was a chess player in this game and his opponent was a poker player in this game. He got into Magnus' head because he was wearing a watch.
> Magnus posted a statement which is the basis for this controversy:
> “ I was completely crushed in my game today. This is not to accuse my opponent of anything, who played an amazing game and deserved to win, but honestly, as soon as I saw my opponent was wearing a watch early in the game, I lost my ability to concentrate.”
> “I did ask an arbiter during the game whether watches were allowed, and he clarified that smartwatches were banned, but not analog watches. This seems to be against FIDE rules for events of this stature”
>
Sounds like the guy wearing the watch played the player and not the game. Magnus was a chess player in this game and his opponent was a poker player in this game. He got into Magnus' head because he was wearing a watch.
Suspect it was the arbiter knocking back his compliant that really upset him and ruined his game.
Wouldn't surprise me if some wag turns up to play Carsen wearing large metal antenna like earrings and/or evil-eye tattoos up and down their arms - or just one in the centre of their forehead.
Wouldn't surprise me if some wag turns up to play Carsen wearing large metal antenna like earrings and/or evil-eye tattoos up and down their arms - or just one in the centre of their forehead.
@JuergenWerner said in #27:
> Sounds like the guy wearing the watch played the player and not the game. Magnus was a chess player in this game and his opponent was a poker player in this game. He got into Magnus' head because he was wearing a watch.
Next opponent should come in with a box of anal beads, empty of course, and just set it down on the table. 1-0.
> Sounds like the guy wearing the watch played the player and not the game. Magnus was a chess player in this game and his opponent was a poker player in this game. He got into Magnus' head because he was wearing a watch.
Next opponent should come in with a box of anal beads, empty of course, and just set it down on the table. 1-0.
@hardbitten said in #7:
> analogueueu
You can spell it "analog" or "analogue", but you can't extrapolate from there.
> analogueueu
You can spell it "analog" or "analogue", but you can't extrapolate from there.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.