Excuse me but you did not write the post to which I was responding. Why don’t we let Allen decide for himself what he was or was not implying.
– Hal Terrie
Whoever advised Col. Hater of this was simply not correct, in my opinion.
All I said was now the US Open champion, if otherwise qualified, gets a spot in the US Championships. However one can have a champion of the Open who doesn’t qualify. For example this is a zonal year. Only players eligible to represent the US in international competition are able to play in the US Championships in zonal years.
I’d that set in stone forever? Nothing is.
Can you elaborate? Under what circumstances would the champion of the US Open be eligible for the US Championships in a non-zonal year but not in a zonal year?
As to your second paragraph, certainly. But I would hope that the choice made by this year’s US Open seed would not be a factor in deciding whether the US Open qualification should be terminated. And I do not interpret anything you have said as an indication that is a likely result of this situation.
The following will, I hope, shed some light on this situation.
I was consulted about this matter on Friday night. I reached the following conclusions, and spoke with officials at both tournaments in question. All indicated their agreement with these conclusions.
- There is no US Chess rule against playing multiple US Chess tournaments at the same time.
- There is no FIDE rule against playing multiple FIDE tournaments at the same time.
- There is a Continental Chess Association rule against playing multiple games at the same time. Mr. Gareyev’s intended schedule did not violate that rule.
- There is no provision in the player contracts for the 2019 US Championships prohibiting play in a concurrent event.
Based on the above, I advised Mr. Hater that Mr. Gareyev did have the right to enter the Mid-America Open.
However, I also spoke directly with Mr. Gareyev about 20 minutes before the first round of the two-day schedule at the Mid-America Open. I strongly urged him not to participate in that event. I noted that while he had the right to do so, I believed it was the wrong idea for many reasons, which I covered with him in detail. That did not work out as I had hoped.
I expect there will be a “Gareyev clause” in future US Championship player contracts.
In reverse order…
The action of any one individual should not govern a policy decision. I didn’t intend to imply anything at all regarding the current situation. My only point was and is that nothing is guaranteed to be the same forever, not an intention to change anything in particular.
A player mist be eligible to represent the US in international play to play in our zonal championship. A player might otherwise be qualified by citizenship and/or residency and immigration status but might still be flagged to another country in FIDE because of not meeting the transfer fee requirements. . Every other year is a zonal year. In the non zonal year a player otherwise qualified but who has not met the transfer fee requirements can play. See the invitational rules for more details.
What if a player is entered in a one-game-per-week tournament (like many chess clubs have) that is ongoing? Will he be barred from playing in the US Championship? What about an ongoing team event that meets over the course of many months (like the Bundesliga, or 4NCL in Great Britain)?
What about rated online play? Or, as very often happens, a simul?
My point is, some thought needs to go into any knee-jerk reaction to this.
Personally, I don’t think this is such a big deal. Gareev generates a lot of publicity for chess worldwide. C.f. the recent “Chess Life” cover of him skydiving with a chess set. Far from being a “clown,” his net effect is highly positive for the game. Besides, he needs to earn a living! Would a player be barred from giving lessons during the event too?
He earned his spot; let him do what he wants. Just my opinion.
-Matt
yup, i agree!
…scot…
maybe we should mandate that they can’t drink alcohol during an event too? as you said, let’s not be hasty.
…scot…
I appreciate Boyd Reed’s input, and his well-reasoned statement of why the advice was given. I am heartened (and not surprised) that he discouraged the attempt in the strongest terms.
Section 6(h) of the US Chess Code of Ethics, for good reason, prohibits “barring someone from entering a US Chess-sanctioned event for personal reasons.” It goes on to say, in the same breath:
This is a strong protection, which is in place to avoid denials of entry for a parade of horrible discriminatory reasons (race, sexual orientation, gender identity). The protection should be strong to protect against the reasons the protection exists.
An entry in a weekend swiss by a competitor in a concurrent US Championship in the same town with a conflicting schedule falls into the category of “behavior inconsistent with the principles of this code and or/the rules of chess.” What was likely to happen is what did happen: The third round opponent got a free point but no game; the rest of the field was down incrementally with respect to him. The field was impacted.
This was a likely enough scenario and a big enough deal that I still think the decision to accept the entry was profoundly unwise by the organizer of the Mid-America Open. The right of entry is not absolutely unconditional, and this strikes me as one of the limited corner cases that the Code of Ethics contemplates in the exception to clause 6(h).
So acknowledging that clause 6(h) is necessary, this is not one of the cases why the clause exists. Still an easy no in my book, not for personal reasons, but for field protection and logistical reasons, after a discussion of options to ensure due process (which happened here). Not to mention the PR reasons associated with the US Championships, but that’s a side issue to the decision whether to accept the entry.
Boyd and Brennan both make a good case. This raises the interesting question of whether an appeal of Brennan’s ruling (if he had been the TD) would have been successful. I’d ask the same question about the actual ruling, but it’s not clear to me who would have had standing to appeal.
Mr. Gareyev has the right to do as he pleases with regard to his career. He is no “clown.” He actively promotes the game to a wider audience, and as such supports the new mission statement of US Chess.
As a TD, I would have welcomed him to play in the CCA event. I would have pointed out the difficulties in doing both events and shown him ways using half point byes to be able to compete. If that would not do, I would have pointed out that he could be assigned zero point byes for any round he expected to miss. He would have the choice to do that in advance. This would least affect pairings. I would strongly point out that since he was receiving a free entry, he should check in with the TD before pairings were made. My preference would be that he be physically present, but in a world of smart phones, he could still call to say he was there at the site or on his way to the venue. If he failed to appear within the one hour grace time, the time forfeit would mean he would be withdrawn from the event. He would also have to pay an entry fee for that tournament or a future event.
To those discomfited by this situation, boo hoo. Next time put your imaginary cheese somewhere else. Garevey was doing no harm to either event. With proper communication and consideration of all options, this was no big deal. Making it more than it is shows how petty and nosy people have become. Last time I looked, this was still a free country where people have the right to work, play, and do their happiness thing the way they want.
If you are still upset, and a TD or organizer, then ban half point byes and zero point byes in your events. Make GMs, IMs, and others pay entry fees at your events. Invite no GMs and do not have any simuls, lectures, or other side activities before or during the event as entertainment and enrichment for the players. Do not provide hotel rooms or any other freebies to encourage GMs to play; if other players do not get those freebies, then the GMs shouldn’t either. Resurrect the stupid FIDE policy of zero tolerance concerning players showing up to play on time. Be as draconian as you wish and provide players with no accommodations for disability, religious practice, or their desire to listen to music in any round. Set up policies to frisk and use electronic wands over players at any time to inhibit cheating. Allow no spectators, TV camera men, reporters, and any publicity for your event. Do whatever you can to make competing in chess tournaments an unpleasant experience. Make sure to publicize this in advance in all event TLAs and pre-event literature to make sure that players are informed and can make other plans.
There are no byes in the US Championships. There are rest days. I realize in the discussion of byes you were referring to the other event. But just making it clear in case someone reading didn’t know.
FYI
The player contract for the US Champions (both open and women) calls for the players to be on time even though failure to arrive on time does not result in an automatic forfeiture of the game. There is also a dress code stipulation in the contracts. These are set out by the organizer of the tournament and are included as part of the response bid package for the event.
Player #12 was able to get to bed earlier after a relaxing supper. Perhaps he checked out some games and purchased a book at the bookseller. Wow!, he was really harmed by winning on forfeit in the third round. 
I don’t buy the argument that “the field” is damaged. Players think of themselves and their own interests, not the “field.” I have played in a major event on a high board in Round 1 where the GM who was supposed to play did not show up. Stuff happens. The TD told me that his flight was delayed. I was able to watch some games and then, because it was an evening round, was able to get a better night’s sleep. The next day I played against two strong players. The “field” was likely glad that he was a point behind them.
Many players go to tournaments because they want to play chess. Preferably against strong opposition. While a player who only cares about money (and lets face it, big money tournament do draw plenty of those) may not mind a forfeit, many would feel cheated out of a game they paid good money for.
I once suggested, only half-jokingly, that a player who forfeits a game but goes on to win a cash prize in an event should have to pay the player he forfeited to for the cost of that game (entry fee / number of rounds) out of his winnings.
Our club fines players who forfeit, and we pay the victim of the forfeit the same amount.
-Matt