Gens Una Sumus...or Not: Part 6,325,784
Wednesday, October 26, 2011 at 5:02PM Iranian GM Eshan Ghaem Maghami was paired with Israeli FM Ehud Shachar in round 4 of the Corsica Circuit, refused to play, and was not only forfeited from the individual game but excluded from the tournament as well by chief arbiter Leo Battesti. Maghami has emphasized that this is not due to any personal problem he has with Israeli players; rather, his decision was due to the political situation between the players' countries.
Of course the tidiest solution would have been a different pairing, and Battesti didn't need to boot Maghami from the tournament as well, but I guess he felt like taking a stand. Regardless of your political persuasion, it's a tough situation for Maghami, who would be taking a huge risk if he defied his government and is otherwise at the mercy of the pairings and the tournament directors whenever he plays in an open event.
Much more on the controversy here.
Reader Comments (8)
Surely there are other countries he would have problems with – the US for one. But isn't this an individual event, not a team one, so nationality should not be an issue. I would have thought he should have got clearance from his authorities before travelling to play anyone in this event. At least he is allowed out of the country.
Well said. I suspected that he (Maghami) was sort of forced into that stance due to the political differences between their countries. By the way, does anyone know why Israel is allowed to participate in the European Championship? They're not on the European continent! If that's the argument, then Jordan and Syria have a better claim.
Though I don't a priori sympathize with the state of Israel the tournament director made the right decision. Of course not GM Ghaem Maghami is to blame, but his government. It forces the Iranian GM into this nasty dilemma. Giving in due to sympathy would mean giving in to the Iranian regime though. Such appeasement already has occurred too often in the past - think of the Olympiads in the Arabian countries.
For the sake of clarity: my opinion would be exactly the same if an Israeli player would refuse to play against a Palestine.
[DM: At least as egregious was the decision to hold the 2004 FIDE k.o. in Tripoli, Libya.]
Battesti (via Chessvibes):
5 Israeli and 2 Irani were playing among 40 players of their levels. Could you imagine the numbers of forfeits... I have never been informed of his intention before this 4th round. If they had informed me before the open, I would have told them not to take part. It's a special open which qualifies the first 14th with 6,000 € of prizes. Could you imagine the consequences of arranged pairings on the sportive equilibrium of this qualification? So it will be a permanent position considering also, of course, that chess is a sport.
Some good points by him, no?
[DM: Maybe. I don't know what "level" he's referring to, but I wouldn't consider FM Shachar to be on the same level as GM Maghami. Further, round 4 is not round 9, and a repairing in the first half of the tournament is unlikely to make much difference at this stage. The issue of late-round forfeits is a bigger issue, but I'd like to know all the players' ratings before making a judgment on this particular tournament. In general though, it's a problem that should be worked out in advance.]
Looks like an open with 182 entrants. Approximately thirty 2300+ players. Five Israelis: 2505, 2355, 2329, 2304, 2173. Iranians: 2583, 2136. Something like 45 or more 2100+ players overall.
By “levels” I suppose he means players of similar rating with some reasonable likelihood of being paired with one another over the course of the tournament (nine rounds).
“Could you imagine the consequences of arranged pairings on the sportive equilibrium of this qualification?” Exactly. That's a lot of tricky pairing issues.
“In general though, it's a problem that should be worked out in advance.” “If they had informed me before the open, I would have told them not to take part.” I call that common ground.
If I recall correctly, an Iranian and a Syrian were blocked by the US government from entering the United States in order to play
in a FIDE World Championship tournament. In 1988 a Cuban GM finished second in the New York Open, but his $10,000 prize
was confiscated by the US government. Western governments have not always avoided mixing politics and chess.
[DM: It's hard to avoid, but political conflicts should be avoided where possible and conflicts are easily foreseen. Holding the 2004 FIDE Championship in Tripoli was insane, but while I'm far more pro-Israel than pro-Qaddafi I'd agree that it would likewise be nuts to hold such an event in Israel as many Arab players through no fault of their own would probably be unable to participate. Similarly, it would be dumb to hold a Candidates' event in Armenia or Azerbaijan if players of the opposite country are participating.
I wouldn't agree, though, at least not without further detail, that the examples above show that a government is mixing politics and chess. Rather, they were simply applying generic policies already in place.]
The players from Israel are - in order of standings after round 8 - GM Baron (2505), FM Shachar (2355), Yair Judkovsky (2329), Nadav Egozi (2173) and Udi Weisbuch (2304, 1/8, seems he dropped out for a different reason). The players from Iran are/were GM Ghaem Maghami (2583) and Mehrdad Pahlevanzadeh (2136). So Ghaem Maghami and Baron might have competed for the top prizes (Baron is a possibly underrated junior), and Egozi and Pahlevanzadeh for a rating prize.
Maybe the problem was worked out in advance, and the organizers had decided that they will not manipulate the pairings. What they could have done is tell the players from Iran in advance (before they even travelled to the venue?) that they will not accept their demands, and that a forfeit will have drastic consequences. I presume they hoped that there would be no reason or need for a scandal. Even though Steve Giddins on his blog suggests that they DID enjoy the extra publicity for their event .... but he is probably wrong at the very start: the organizers did not invite players from both Iran and Israel, it's an open tournament where everyone can sign up (Battesti probably couldn't even have prevented Feller from playing ?!).
BTW one round later there was another "home-made" scandal, mentioned only at Whychess: The official result of Arnold-Mamedov is 0-0, what happened? The players agreed to a draw after 22 moves in a simplified and rather sterile position, which wasn't accepted by the organizers - the event has what they call Corsica rules, and what's more widely known as Sofia rules.
[DM: I agree with your labeling the latter a scandal - it's absurd to give a double forfeit. At worst they could have made them keep playing a while longer. It's also absurd to have the Corsica/Sofia rules in an open tournament unless the participants are getting paid to play.]
I attempted to post this earlier, but it failed. I hope this attempt succeeds.
You seem to have somewhat misunderstood my comment about "mixing chess and politics".
I was writing quickly and had to be too concise. The cases that I mentioned were different.
After the 1988 New York Open, Cuban GM Garcia's $10,000 prize was confiscated by the
US government on account of a US law banning the transfer of American money to Cuba.
Before playing, GM Garcia should have been advised that if he won a prize, he should not expect to take it home. Would he still like to play?
[DM: I don't disagree, but I'm assuming that US government officials weren't running the tournament. Of course if tournament organizer and sponsor Jose Cuchi knew about this in advance he should have said something. It was a very unfortunate situation, but it's possible for it to have happened without anyone directly involved being to blame.]
Amir Bagheri (Iran) and Imad Hakki (Syria) could not play in the 1999 FIDE World Championship because the US government refused to issue visas to them. As far as I know, the US government never explained why it refused the visas.
[DM: Unless American officials were routinely awarding visas to Iranians and Syrians but made a special exception for these two chess players, then my earlier response stands: the government wasn't "mixing" politics and chess; they were simply applying policies already in place.
The remainder of your comment doesn't seem to undermine the point I made in my response to your last post, but it is highly inflammatory and is being snipped. As I stated in the original post, my desire is to touch on these issues very lightly, in a way that will apply regardless of one's particular political stand on this or that conflict.]