I thought the French only cheated on their spouses, ha ha! Can someone explain this whole kerfuffle to me in a few short sentences using small words? Has anyone actually provided any evidence yet? You don't go public so big with something this explosive without showing the evidence if you have any, otherwise you create the overwhelming impression you are simply trying to slander someone. (Memo to Mamedyarov.) It's not as if they'd be worried about tipping off people about how they got caught. I can't think of any other reason to withhold the evidence from the public -- and the accused. Is it really all hearsay? Anonymous witnesses sending in allegations? No smoking gun? Hard to believe.
"(Memo to Mamedyarov.) "
Love it.
I’ve not seen any compelling reason why the names of the accused, or perhaps even the fact of the inquiry, needed to be publicized prior to the completion of a full investigation, as they have been. In addition to condemning the targets of the inquiry to the type of publicity we are witnessing, the French Federation’s (FFE) trumpeting of the accusations in advance of an investigation suggests that the investigators have made up their minds prior to completing their work. Likewise, why is a FFE representative calling the response issued by one of the accused “pathetic” prior to a full investigation? Without regard to the content of that player's response, such a statement by an FFE representative is also blatantly prejudicial. I’m all in favor of taking a very hard line against cheating, but the French Federation’s shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later approach undermines the seriousness with which the process should be pursued in these situations. It was the FFE’s responsibility upon receiving a credible accusation to promptly and fully investigate and only then announce its determinations. Quite frankly, the FFE’s conduct thus far likely forecloses the possibility a thorough and satisfying investigation. For example, given the FFE’s conduct, the accused players likely would be well advised not to cooperate in an investigation, as they may well have done if the FFE’s process appeared to be impartial. In all events, the FFE’s apparently prejudicial and unfair conduct will always cast a shadow of doubt over its ultimate findings, which does the anti-cheating cause no good. Indeed, based on what we have seen, it is a very sad commentary that the FFE’s ultimate findings can now hardly be in doubt even though, from what we have been told, the FFE is only in possession of a credible accusation but not yet is possession of the results of a full investigatory analysis. This has all the earmarks of petty officials getting some accusation, however credible, that the officials new would constitute Big News, and they were more eager to show their importance by starting to blab to the press than they were to discharge their important obligations in the responsible manner that the situation merits. It is really discouraging that so many matters of chess administration are conducted in such an amateurish, unprofessional, and embarrassing manner.
Comparisons with Mamedyarov (or Topalov, I don't get it why only one world top player is always blamed for cheating accusations against his opponent) are misleading. This would have been the case if one of Feller's Olympiad opponents ("victims"?!) or his federation had come up with such accusations, then we could say 'sore losers' ... . It's a different story if the players' own federation sees reasons for action.
French federation spokesman Battesti said they cannot disclose details of an ongoing investigation to the public (for whichever reason), it's at least possible that the players themselves were told more. The investigation ran for about a month before their first press release, apparently at that stage they considered the evidence strong enough to go public. I see two possible reasons:
- They don't want the players to get invitations in the forthcoming months. Odd comparison: someone who is suspected of child abuse (with evidence being more than hearsay) shouldn't work in child care even if he isn't convicted yet.
- Rumors about a French team scandal at the Olympiad were about to leak out, so the federation made things public. They had to give the names of those under investigation to make clear that the other players (including Vachier-Lagrave, Fressinet and Tkachiev playing in Wijk aan Zee) are fully innocent.
As to calling Feller's response "pathetic", it doesn't refer to his claim of being innocent. Which doping sinner in other sports has ever confessed before the evidence became overwhelming? Not saying that Feller is guilty, just that he isn't innocent because he says so. The word "pathetic" referred to his counterattack: hinting that he is punished for supporting Ilyumzhinov while the federation supported Karpov, hinting about financial irregularities within the federation.
Anything is "possible," but all we know so far is that the FFE have effectively slandered several players without offering any evidence and also without making any specific accusation which might allow the players to defend themselves. They've managed to create a presumption of guilt which, as you say, prevents the players from getting invitations, aka "work."
That's pathetic.
And comparing cheating at chess - even if proven, which in this case it is not - to child abuse, is offensive.
I think you are slicing the baloney a bit too thinly when you say that the “pathetic” remark from the FFE "doesn't refer to his [Feller's] claim of being innocent." The chessbase interview is quoted as follows: [CB] "What do you think of Sebastien Feller's denials?" [responce] "Pathetic!" See http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6966
Moreover, that same FFE statement included the remark that Feller should be "taking responsibility." For what? Clearly these remarks reflect obvious prejugement. Of course, we are free to form opinions about Feller's denial and even express them, but a supposedly neutral arbiter/investigator ought not say the denial is "pathetic." Imagine a criminal trial is ongoing and the the accused makes a press statement proclaiming his innocence. Would the trial judge immediately issue a counter press statement that the accused public denials, for whatever reason, are "pathetic?" The thought is absurd. It would never happen, and for good reason.
" Rumors about a French team scandal at the Olympiad were about to leak out, so the federation made things public. "
This must be the reason, as FFE hasn't yet shown any evidence of anything. Just throwing names and announcing more and more investigations, trials, petitions, whatever to keep the buzz momentum, and hoping that some documented evidence will suddenly appear somewhere. Which so far is not the case at all.
If someone is pathetic here, it's the FFE, as it is possible to prove cheating (as for this 1900 german player who suddenly defeated GM after GM, the magazine ShachFreunde found that he had bought some James Bond stuff, including a wig to hide the earplugs; or Volodia Vaisman - later a part of FFE staff - whose adjournment envelopes more than once disappeared, as well as a few pawns of his opponent's) but it is never possible to prove that there was no cheating. Even if FFE keeps failing to show anything concrete, the suspicion will remain upon the mentionned players.
French Chess Feds claim Feller, Hachaud cheats at Oly-mp-iad. They say no; one invokes Ilyum-some-one, the other l'esprit de Declaration of Rights and Man and Citizen. Then Biel confirms three (3) ano-nym-ous claims against same. No evidence released yet. They are rumored Internet cheats too. (Gasp)
Blog commenters show displeasure at: the French people (traditional cheats), the need to translate the French language (and it still makes no sense), *men* in general as cheats (cf. female blogs like AK, probably SP too), computer advances that allow cheating (no fans of the Shannon Prize are they), chess sites for reporting insubstantial rumors (we were wondering when you'd join the crowd), and chess politics in general (made worse by Danailov winning 100% of the Bulgarian vote).
In other news, the maker of the 2005 computer engine Fruit (also French!) suddenly reappeared after 5 years of hibernation, and published an open letter asking for information concerning Rybka being derived from Fruit ("copy with different words if you like, similar to a translation").
Got your own USAmerican in Gibraltar right there: Paul Szuper
Plesase!
DFTT
Seems that they are clearly guilty. Should be banned from chess imo.
[responce] "Pathetic!" See http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6966
That Chessbase article shows this guy Battesti sitting in front of a chessboard with what looks like an impossible position. Maybe it's a metaphor for the impossible position that FFE finds itself it, or maybe more likely the guy wants to look like a chess player even though he isn't.
I've seen the leader board at Gibraltar. While you're at it, why don't you name the other comparably rated individuals also having "surprising" results. Why single out this particular player?
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6966
That Chessbase article shows the FFE spokesman Battesti sitting in front of a chessboard with what looks like an impossible position. Maybe it's a metaphor for the impossible position that FFE finds itself it, or maybe more likely the guy wants to look like a chess player even though he isn't.
"traditionalist | February 2, 2011 10:03 AM | they are clearly guilty."
Finally some factual elements known by Traditionalist! Would you mind sharing?
I seem to have a minority view at least among those sharing their thoughts (also on Chessvibes). Some clarifications and additions:
- I did not directly compare cheating in chess with child abuse (this should have been clear from "odd comparison" in my earlier comment). There are many differences, e.g. the latter is clearly worse and a criminal act. But both are professional acts of misconduct. Maybe a better comparison: if someone is suspected (not yet convicted) of cheating in gambling halls, he's no longer welcome in that Las Vegas casino, and the patron may also inform his colleagues-competitors.
- If you quote Battesti saying "pathetic", you should give the full context. First, it was a Europe Echecs interview originally in French (maybe slightly relevant, see below). Second, more complete quotes are:
Feller "I completely deny the cheating accusations by the French Chess Federation [so far so good]. This disciplinary procedure is in fact related to my support, during the Olympiads, of the current FIDE president as opposed to the current administration of the French Chess Federation. ...
Furthermore, I mentioned in private conversations, which were repeated, of accounting irregularities by the French Federation (specifics will be provided at a later date) which angered the president."
Battesti (answering "What do you think of Sebastien Feller's denials?")
"Pathetic! And insulting to our president and his federation. I think this young player is ill-advised because instead of taking responsibility, he seeks to divert attention by sullying the honor of a great man of French Chess."
As you mention a trial judge, if a suspect merely said "I am innocent with regard to being charged of murder" it won't provoke a strong reaction. But if he adds "And by the way, you only prosecute me because I'm a Republican and you're a Democrat. And you have robbed a bank.", it's another story, isn't it?
[again, I am not comparing Ilyumzhinov and Karpov with US political parties, or robbing a bank with accounting irregularities]
Final point: Having lived in France for 1 1/2 years, my impression is that 'pathetic' is more widely used and not quite as strong as in English - hence it's nnot exactly 'translatable'.
My own little preliminary reduction: If Feller isn't guilty, he's at least a dope for that comment.
I'm reminded of when my cute little niece wanted to shift attention away from herself while surrounded by doting moms, she would point to the sky and say "Look!"
Can anyone (including Mig) explain me what exactly is the accusation for?
French chess players were cheating? how? where?
Thanks.
I'm suspicious about the accusations... All the more reason why I'm pissed that the FFE is acting like complete fools. Perhaps they intend to botch this.
Do you have any evidence that the Feller gang are innocent? If they are not, in fact, innocent of the charges, then the FFE's accusations will not be slanderous. If they cheated--irrespective of whether the FFE has garnered compelling evidence--then they are cheats. Just like one can't slander O.J. Simpson by calling him a (double) murderer.
Don't bother with "innocent until proven guilty". That's *English* Common Law. The French have a lower burden for the prosecution
But based on recent coverage, it appears that there is the possibility that Feller and his accomplices are about to be criminally prosecuted for Fraud. In which case, you can be sure that the evidence will be made public, and we will know the mechanism by which they cheated.
By the way, in the entire history of sport, has there ever been anyone accused of, say, doping, who is later proven to be innocent? Some beat the rap because samples are tainted, or inadequate chain of custody, but those are just technicalities.
I will agree that the FFE officials are buffoons
DOug, You may be misunderstanding my position. If the accused are guilty, it is all the more important that he investigatory process has integrity. A biased, irresponsible process forever casts doubt on the truth and potentially limits the ability of organized chess to take action. Prior to a full investigation, you and I are free to shoot from the hip and express our views about whether or not these guys are guilty. FFE does not have that luxury. Even if someone commits a crime, misdeeds by a judge or police investigator is going to lead many to think that it was an effort to railroad the accused. The conclusions of a bunch of officials who, as you say, acted as buffoons, will carry no weight. And an investigatory or prosecutorial process that is mishandled and objectively unfair will - and should - result in the accused party walking away without punishment. Letting guilty parties off without punishment because of a prejudged ass-backwards investigation is the price we need to pay to ensure that prejudged ass-backwards investigations are not used to attack the truly innocent, which, given the nature of some chess officials and politicians, is not beyond the imagination. There are many places in the world, including places from which high ranking chess officials come, where prosecuting innocent but inconvenient people is sadly commonplace. The threat of that seeping into the chess world is one half of the challenges presented by the growing technological possibility of cheating. People have been wrongly accused in this regard. A world champion has.
Nice observation, this made me laugh. Though I think the position is possible if White just captured on f8 with an underpromotion.
[quote] DOug replied to comment from calvin amari | February 2, 2011 9:11 PM | Reply
Do you have any evidence that Feller [and the two other players] are innocent? If they are not, in fact, innocent of the charges, then the FFE's accusations will [still] be slanderous. If they cheated--irrespective of whether the FFE has garnered compelling evidence--then [thx Captain Obvious] they are cheats. Just like one can't slander O.J. Simpson by calling him a (double) murderer.
[] bother with "innocent until proven guilty". That's *English* Common Law. The French have a [same] burden for the prosecution
But based on [ yet another announcement by the same FFE], it appears that there is the possibility that Feller and [the two other players] are about to be [] prosecuted for [f]raud. In which case, you can be sure that [if anything concrete is finally found ] the evidence will be made public, and we will know the [alleged] mechanism by which they ["]cheated["]. [If needed they can be brought to Guantanamo and processed with hot irons}
By the way, in the entire history of sport, has there ever been anyone accused of, say, doping, who is later [media-covered with the same buzz intensity when ] proven to be innocent? Some beat the rap because samples are tainted, or inadequate chain of custody, but those are just technicalities.
I will agree that the FFE officials are buffoons [/quote]
Fixed.
"There are many places in the world, including places from which high ranking chess officials come, where prosecuting innocent but inconvenient people is sadly commonplace. The threat of that seeping into the chess world is one half of the challenges presented by the growing technological possibility of cheating. People have been wrongly accused in this regard. A world champion has."
Yes, and by someone who is now a high ranking chess official ...
Follow the money.
The world champion you refer to was accused by the semi-criminal manager of the challenger, in a cynical and shameless attempt to throw the world champion off balance psychologically.
In this case however the three players are being accused by reputable and long serving officials of their own federation, who are described as elderly gentlemen.
What would they have to gain with making dubious accusations public?! What could be their motive? One person could go crazy, true, but they are, firmly, as a body behind these accusations.
This to me suggests that the evidence must be impeccable. As does Feller's ridiculous response. "It's because I like Kirsan" Yeah right, we believe you.
You might want to re-read what I wrote, this time for comprehension. I'm not saying that anyone in the FFE is carrying out some vendetta against the accused players. I'm saying that, to the extent FFE handles the allegations it has received in a way that appears biased, prejudged, or otherwise procedurally flawed, it will harm the anti-cheating cause. Moreover, I am saying that we need to hold chess officials to the highest procedural and professional standards in these circumstance because, if publicity-laden, prejudicial, or otherwise flawed processes are tolerated, that affords chess officials too much power to shatter careers with false allegations in the future.
You say that the FFE is not one crazy person but that they "are, firmly, as a body behind these accusations." Is that really the case? At least at the time of the irregularities that I pointed out, the FFE itself maintained that it was not itself making any accusations, that it had, however, received credible accusations, that it was investigating those accusations, and that its investigation was not complete. The confusion that this has engendered, as reflected in Mig's inquiry above, stems from the FFE's publicity gun-jumping and it could have been avoided if the FFE stayed quiet until after the conclusion of a complete investigation. The fact that you were led to believe the FFE had firm opinions about the underlying merits of the matter when it went public proves that the FFE either is, or at least plainly appears to be, prejudging the matter. That does not mean that the accused are innocent or that they are guilty. I am limited my remarks only to the importance of a process with sufficient integrity when an accusation of cheating has been made.
Calvin, I have to wonder about the ability of those officials to have kept a tight lid on the story for the amount of time it would take to resolve it. If there was a leak, which is highly probable, they would have to resort to damage control as respects the entire French contingent, would they not?
So perhaps they sought to prevent that by publicizing, at least, the fact of the pursuit.
Someone else intimated this possibility already, so I'm not alone in the thought.
You speak sense for a change. Clearly the purpose, whether rightly judged or not, was to protect the other French players from insinuations. By coming out themselves, instead of waiting for potential leaks (how many knew of the allegations is uncertain, but probably many outside of the EFF did) the French chess federation officials shielded Vachier-Lagraeve, Romain Edouard and other innocent parties from potentially highly damaging publicity. One of the accused is long time coach of V-L let us not forget.
The four others have in all probability been made aware of the evidence against the accused, and the way their immediately distanced themselves from the accused trio further suggests the evidence is firm.
There was not one word in defense of their olympic team mate or (former?) coach.
One of the accused is listed to participate in Aeroflot. We will see whether he will show up / will be allowed to take part.
Aren't doping suspects in cycling, track and field etc. temporarily suspended while waiting for results of the B-test? The same should apply here I'd say.
OK. Assume that other players were contacted as part of the investigation. Presumably they could be told to keep quiet, but let's say they didn't and rumors started to circulate. So what? Would it show up in headlines on all the chess websites? Would I have heard about it? Would the whole world be ostracizing the accused prematurely? Would any Tom, Dick or Harry be able to opine in print, as many have done, that they think the accused are guilty? I doubt it and hence I fail to see any justification for the FFE's actions and nor has the FFE offered one. And it is not only the FACT of FFE's publicity but its CONTENT that is a problem. Note that 'traditionalist' above came to the conclusion that the FFE was "firmly, as a body behind these accusations" when it went public, notwithstanding that the FFE admitted that they had not completed an investigation. For reasons I have recited elsewhere, there is good reason for observers to have reached the conclusion "traditionalist' did based on the FFE's conduct and words.
Thomas is right about "pathetique", or do we all recall Beethoven's "Pathetic" Sonata? The Greek root "Pathos" in general means more than the English variant, e.g., "an appeal to the emotions" (or simply "emotional") would be an appropriate sense here. The French meaning traditionally depends on the shrug/scowl the speaker has when intoning it. :-P
Calvin, what is your reaction to Feller's defensive statement? Justifiable? Brilliant?
And what is your answer to Trad's point made above: "The four others have in all probability been made aware of the evidence against the accused, and the way they immediately distanced themselves from the accused trio further suggests the evidence is firm."
No?
[quote] traditionalist replied to comment from kenh | February 3, 2011 10:07 PM | Reply
The four others have in all probability been made aware of the evidence against the accused, and the way their immediately distanced themselves from the accused trio further suggests the evidence is firm.[/quote]
"In all probability" is your own assumption. And "immediately distanced" could not be more wrong as they were at the Olympiad and published their post only months later, in all probability when told so by FFE, and if it suggests something it is only that there is no evidence at all but FFE is hoping that by piling up the posts and communiques, the chess community will form its opinion even without the slightest beginning of a concrete proof. If something against the rules had happened during the Olympiad, the other team mates would in all probability have noticed something and would in all probability have reacted during the event.
By the way, there is still even no hint about what they allegedly did. Web parrots keep posting about asking a comp which move to play. But maybe the rumors are about someone seeing French team captain with the ear on russian team door, possibly trying to know which player is at which board.
[quote]Thomas | February 2, 2011 4:26 AM | Reply
The word "pathetic" referred to his counterattack: hinting that he is punished for supporting Ilyumzhinov while the federation supported Karpov, hinting about financial irregularities within the federation.[/quote]
In french it means "something which causes compassion", which is not much in line with what Battesti says. My bet is, he knew that it would be translated into "pathetic" when quoted on the foreign chess websites.
Now this is odd to say the least: If you give an interview in French, to a French journalist working for a French magazine (Europe Echecs), why should you even wonder or worry how single words will be translated into other languages, let alone make 'efforts' in that respect?
In general, all original sources are in French. While the story is discussed on the _World Wide_ Web, it's basically a French affair. FIDE was informed, foreign organizers (e.g. Aeroflot, as traditionalist suggests) may take notice, but it doesn't seem like the French federation made a dedicated effort to seek international attention. On Chessvibes, Peter Doggers wrote (answering my question) "The French federation didn’t send a press release, as far as I know."
BTW, this is different from a German scandal before the Olympiad (financial disagreements between top players and the federation, to put it in neutral terms). Then Naiditsch was sending an open letter (in English) published at Chessvibes, clearly seeking international attention and insulting federation officials. Whatever people think about the scandal in general and the open letter in particular, the "procedure" was different in that case.
Actually a leak could potentially arise by negligence or carelessness, rather than bad intentions. Imagine the following conversations in a bar, late in the evening after a few drinks:
(Tabloid) journalist: Congratulations on the French result at the Olympiad!
Federation official 1: Well, unfortunately we can no longer be all happy about it
Journalist: What do you mean? Tell me more!
Fed official: Well ........
10 minutes later:
Federation official 2: Do you know whom you were talking to? Whatever you told him, he may write about it tomorrow or next week!
Fed official 1: Ooooops
The initial statement by the federation, short and possibly written in a hurry, would be consistent with such a scenario!?
If we turn things around: Imagine a few weeks or months from now a journalist finds out that Feller and colleagues were cheating, the federation knew about it or had reasons to be suspicious but did NOT investigate, or didn't make things public when the evidence became serious (note that their statement happened one month after the start of the investigation). I guess the same or other people would have a field day at federation bashing ... .
How about a motive? Ask why federation officials would bother with all this in the first place? Are they bored with their lives? Are they trying to publicize an event? Are they trying to weaken the French team by taking down one of the top GMs on the team? Do they believe the French team should have a new coach? Do they want to throw the star player's game off by introducing a little investigative flak? (It may have worked, but not well).
Submit your answers in writing.
It would seem that here in France Justice still has that strange notion of "being innocent until proven guilty". The fact that it's a chessplayer allegedly cheating doesn't mean the man is guilty before the whole process. It seems quite strange that a young, improving player would cheat, even less at no less a place than a Chess Olympiad. To top the whole cake, so far no evidence has been provided, while one can easily guess that prejudice has already been made to the player and (hint, hint) his coach, a major figure in training. Couldn't this just be a political issue, more importantly, against the coach and not the player? I will believe it's a cheating one when i will see the evidence.
Disclaimer beforehand (which I won't repeat, but it also applies to possible future posts of mine): I don't say Feller and others cheated. But I do think the federation has reasons to investigate and, one month later, go public which have nothing to do with your conspiration theories. Only your first two sentences make perfect sense to me.
- If the federation just wants to get rid of Hauchard, they can simply fire him quoting "fundamental differences" on whatever.
- If they want to hurt Hauchard and Feller even more, there is still no need to "choose" the Olympiad, casting a shadow on the entire team and country (even though the other four players are absolutely innocent). For example, they could have chosen Feller's 8/9 score at the Paris International Championship July 2010 - fabricating evidence according to your conspiration theory.
- Why would a young improving player cheat? As a categorical denial, this is at least quite naive: Many young improving athletes were (caught) cheating in other sports, and every cheater does so thinking that he won't be caught. No a priori reason that chess is ALL different ... .
- Why would he do so at the Olympiad? Among other things, the Olympiad is THE place to make yourself known, which might result in future invitations to tournaments and team competitions. So for some, there may be an extra incentive to reach the best possible score by all means. And maybe not every federation will investigate cheating suspicions against their own team member?
Well stated, and thank you for the effort, because I learned something.
Based on all that we can observe, my personal best 'guess' is:
A. Something improper (who knows what exactly) occurred with the Feller (and who knows who else).
B. (1)The French Chess Federation officials having received an accusation from a reliable source knew an important and mildly sensational issue landed on their desk and, in an act of self-importance, went to the press prematurely (by their own admission prior to a full investigation); (2) it was unnecessary and improper for the French Federation to have done so; (3) the Federation's actions elicited both denials from the accused and a blizzard of questions from the press and others; (4) these reactions put the French Federation in a defensive mode, which prompted it to make further improper statements that very strongly suggest that it reached a conclusion of guilt at the same time it was maintaining that its investigation was not complete; (5) this unquestionably casts reasonable doubt on the integrity of the investigation and the neutrality of the Federation in handling the matter; (6) notwithstanding its clear improprieties and impressions of bias (and consistent with proposition A above), the Federation's initiation of the investigation in the first instance was not an act of planned malice toward the targets of the investigation.
Assuming, as I do for the time being, that both sets of propositions above are essentially true, where does that leave us? In a mess as usual I suppose. A plague on both their houses for bringing all this upon us!
I have it from people who were actually at the International Open where he scored that brilliant result, and they told me there simply was no way he could have cheated, not physically possible. And the point with Hauchard is that he has a great status as a coach, there's no way for the FFE to fire him because he doesn't respond to them. But they can slander his and his pupils' reputation in, for example, this way. In any case, i'm not connected to them, just that this accusation seems not clear at all and in the mean time, they find themselves publicly accused; guess what such a thing can do to a coach's name. And i still find it hard to believe that they cheated in the Olympiad and nobody from the officials nor their own team(if they saw it, even the players would try to stop them from playing as the risk would be too high) has shown any relevant information so far.
Would not have been physically possible to cheat? That is a ridiculous claim, unless the tournament was played in a sealed environment.
With the technological devices available today cheating can be nearly impossible to detect and completely unvisible to the eye.
With the technological devices available today cheating can be nearly impossible to detect and completely unvisible to the eye.
@traditionalist- Is that then not a strong argument in favour of restraint and decorum in making allegations of cheating without an immediate accompaniment of proof?
The current investigation against Lance Armstrong is also proceeding w/o proof. This method is definately not unprecendented or unusual. That doesn't mean Feller isn't guilty, but, yea, there is a better way.
Again I ask what the motives could be for the scrutiny of the two Frenchmen? No one has even conjectured about that. Is it a vendetta? Or is the whole investigation just a red herring? What?
"Is that then not a strong argument in favour of restraint and decorum in making allegations of cheating without an immediate accompaniment of proof?"
I should hope so. The situation with false accusations, official or otherwise, threatens to dwarf the cheating issue itself. One senses grumblings, wispers and misgivings whenever a rating perfomance is well above expectations.
hum , i'm native french speaker , and the word "pathetic" can indeed mean "something that affect the pathos " and have slightly different meaning in litterature , music , psychology , philosophy etc
But , when used in such a way that a person or an argument( in a discussion) is pathetic means exactly the same as in English (ie : that this argument is feeble or weak or slightly funny , in the case of a person , that he/she is ridiculous or inspires pity through her attitude , claims or appearance etc
This might be slightly meaningful if it were a one word quote. It wasn't. One has to strain to interpret the whole quote and the direct context as anything but prejudicial even if, like me, one has only two years of university French.
They do not have any solid evidence at least no where near enough to prove their guilt. But they are certain they are guilty. In this situation they try to punish them by the process. Its unpleasant and immoral but avery common tactic. Maximum publicity maximum delay in hearing the case and reaching a decision. By the time it comes we have all forgotton about the case and the reputations of the accused are smashed. If you have a really good case with powerful eye witness dpcumentary and perhaps other (mobile phone computer etc) evidence you jost hold the hearing and convict and it speaks for itself . where you know they did it but cant prove it you screw them in other ways - quite simple really :)
Andy,
I think you raise excellent points, although I recognize, if I am guessing identities correctly, that this is a truncated version of your exposition elsewhere.
I share much of your experience in analogous matters, and I just wanted to draw one distinction. You note that the FFE "knows" that the accused are guilty, but I presume you are using that terminology in a subjective sense. At the very least, I trust you would acknowledge that the preconceived notions of guilt that those in a prosecutorial mode may have sometimes, and counterintuitively, get reinforced rather than eroded with their continued failure to find proof. The very same type of frustration that prompts some people in this posture to punish by process in unpleasant and immoral ways (knowing that a formal finding of guilt is not obtainable) likewise creates a dynamic for very skewed perspectives. In short, not only can they simply be dead wrong (always a possibility) but those who lash out in this improper way are more likely to be wrong than prosecutors who maintain their belief but are willing to fold their tent in the face of a lack of proof.
Prosecutorial abuse, such as sharp public allegations in the absence of proof, is always wrong and always has potentially negative and broad ramifications. In the case of allegations of chess cheating, however, I think those negative ramifications are very concrete. Unfounded allegations of cheating are very easy and very convenient and very effective tools for the unprincipled. If the FFE knows that it does not have a provable case, notwithstanding what it may believe, it should recognize that an official chess body lashing out in frustration like this creates a terrible precedent. Chess officialdom needs to come down just as hard on unsubstantiated allegations of cheating as it does on cheating itself.
Andy & calvin almari- very good points and so well put.
The other danger is that jealous rivals can simply damage the reputations of players on a hot streak, at the moment with apparent impunity. Imagine Fischer's US Championship clean sweep and Kasparov's Banja Luka burst being greeted, not as the herald of new stars they were, but with insinuations of impropriety.
Yer off on another limb, and it's a weak limb at that.
>By the way, in the entire history of sport, has there ever been anyone accused of, say, doping, who is later [media-covered with the same buzz intensity when ] proven to be innocent?
Of course. Diane Modahl, for one.
What strikes me about this (apart from the laughable ineptitude of the FFE, but you'd expect that, of course) is this: if you're going to cheat, why on earth would you do it during the Olympiad, an event with no cash prizes?
Well we haven't been told where and when the alleged cheating took place. It seems just enough in some warped minds to put vague allegations in the public domain and let conjectures do the rest.
Well, some amateurs may cheat for a few hundred to a few thousand Euros, British Pounds or Dollars - or maybe rather for a fake moment of glory and recognition?
For professionals or semi-profs (I don't know if Feller, at his age of 19, is already a full-time professional) Elo is what matters most, and what also means money in the mid-term. Feller gained 8 Elo points at the Olympiad (on the way to, possibly, crossing 2700), these points gained in Khanty-Mansiysk are worth as much as points gained in Paris, Reykjavik or Timbuktu.
Once again, I don't say Feller cheated, I just say that it doesn't make sense to suggest "cheating at the Olympiad doesn't make sense".
In a parallel thread, you defended the London organizers (whom you know personally) against absurd insinuations - I fully agree with you and stayed out of that nonsensical discussion. I guess you don't know the French federation officials, and maybe you have some automatic anti-federation bias (you wouldn't be the only one on this forum). IMO, at this stage the French federation deserves as much "benefit of doubt" as the players do.
Yep. Seconded.
>For professionals or semi-profs (I don't know if Feller, at his age of 19, is already a full-time professional) Elo is what matters most, and what also means money in the mid-term.
You reckon????
As a matter of interest, do you know ANY chess professionals? I can't think of a single one of whom this is true.
And anyway, cheating in a team context? Where four other players, presumably not in on the scam, are watching your game from the inside so intently? It's not where I'd choose to risk my entire career for eight ELO points.
As to giving the FFE the benefit of the doubt, I'm going off their public statements. Either they've received an accusation and they're investigating, or they've finished investigating and they're ready to make an announcement. What is not possible is to have received an accusation, made up your mind, and only then decide to investigate, and to judge from that pompous clown talking to Chessbase, that's their position.
As a matter of fact, I only know one or two 2400ish Dutch players who, obviously, struggle to make a living from chess and have to grab any income they can get (blitz and rapid events, team competitions in lower leagues, ...).
But "Elo matters" should be too obvious to require an explanation, anyway: after winning the Pfalz Open (a small German Swiss) in February 2009 Tiviakov was interviewed and asked whether he will come back next year: "of course, but now that my Elo is above 2700 I will ask a higher appearance fee" [another story is that he was >2700 only on one or a few live rating lists and is now down to 2623]. Feller might, for example, ask a higher remuneration to play for Werder Bremen in the German Bundesliga if his Elo improves.
Anyway, you cannot separate winning money from winning Elo as they mostly go together - actually Feller won an Olympiad board prize, don't know if and how much money that meant.
"It's not where I'd choose to risk my entire career for eight ELO points."
I trust you and, a priori, everyone that he will NEVER risk his entire career ... . But, it's naive to think that it won't ever happen, also given examples from other sports. If you are willing and able to cheat: It might make perfect sense to do so at the Olympiad, of all places, exactly because some people will rush to your defense stating that it doesn't make sense at all, hence you MUST be innocent.
Finally on the French federation, some facts which are in the original sources (but maybe some people can't read or ignore whatever doesn't fit their preconceived ideas):
- The investigation started Dec 22nd, the note on the federation homepage appeared Jan 21st. So correct seems "they've received an accusation [or had their own suspicions without getting a hint from anyone] and they're investigating"
- The Battesti interview was with EuropeEchecs rather than Chessbase (relevant also with respect to possible translation issues).
"...that pompous clown talking to Chessbase"
Apropos, Monsieur.
Native french speaker here too, and no there is no way pathetic could mean funny or ridiculous. As time goes by it may take this meaning because of osmosis with english.
One point for the FFE, on Feb 2nd they published on their website a reply by Feller (not the reply that Battesti found pathetic - whatever it means)
>and no there is no way pathetic could mean funny or ridiculous. As time goes by it may take this meaning because of osmosis with english.
Presumably if/when it does they'll have to rename Beethoven's sonata (do I mean Beethoven? One of that crowd, anyway.)
rdh
This may go a bit far, but it's just meant as a rebuttal to those who seem/claim to know _exactly_ what the P-word (originally French, translated into English) means, or what Battesti wanted to say.
Some Internet definitions for pathetic in various languages:
pathetique (French) - Qui suscite une profonde émotion [what provokes deep emotions]
pathetic (English)
1.causing or evoking pity, sympathetic sadness, sorrow, etc.; pitiful; pitiable: a pathetic letter; a pathetic sight. [Given the full content and tone of Feller's first public statement, methinks this would make perfect sense: "I feel sorry for him ..."]
2.affecting or moving the feelings.
3.pertaining to or caused by the feelings.
4.miserably or contemptibly inadequate: In return for our investment we get a pathetic three percent interest.
How can anyone be SURE that Battesti had the fourth definition in mind? Even if the interview was in English and he's perfectly fluent in English (he was born in 1953, to say the least not every Frenchman from his generation is), one could only be sure if he called Feller a 'pathetic liar'.
Slightly drifting away: Many people might call George W. Bush's triumphant "Mission accomplished!" after the fall of Saddam Hussein 'pathetic', having different meanings of the same word in mind.
For what it's worth ...
pathetisch (German, Beethoven's first language)
- in übertriebener Weise feierlich [overly festive, pompous, dramatic, zealous, ...?]
- full of pathos (acronym sober)
Beethoven may have used French just because it's sort of a lingua franca (sic) in classical music - for example his near-contemporary Schubert composed several Impromptus and Moments musicaux.
"Native french speaker here too, and no there is no way pathetic could mean funny or ridiculous. As time goes by it may take this meaning because of osmosis with english. "
Of course it does , dans le language usuel , si je te dis que ton message est pathétique , ce ne sera pas un compliment , ni une évocation du contenu émotionnel de celui-ci ;)
as i said , this word "pathétique" in french has a different meaning whether it is used in a technical context (as in litterature , music , psychology , medicine (ie :glandes pathetiques ), philosophy etc.. ) or if it is used in the daily life language
When Battesti says Feller's argument are pathetic in french , he uses the "common meaning" and basically says these arguments are ridiculous (feeble ; almost "funny" , not funny in a way that one would laugh at it like if it was a joke , but funny in a way that it makes Feller look awkward by saying such a thing )
Battesti is definitely not saying Feller 's argument is drawing emotions , or is dramatic , or is enticing strong pity feelings or any kind of other meaning of pathétique in French
Battesti is actually dismissing , downplaying , almost ridiculing Feller's argument by saying it is pathétique . it means it is a feeble excuse (support for ilyumzhinov ) whislt being meant to influence people's sensibility (pathos) about the cheating case
"Presumably if/when it does they'll have to rename Beethoven's sonata (do I mean Beethoven? One of that crowd, anyway.)"
In this case (in music in general and Beethoven's ), the word "pathétique" would mean "sad" :)
in the common languageiof everyday life , the word pathétique is almost always used in a ironical way , cheers :)
Hi Calvin
Yes this a shorter and hastily written version of a longer post on the same subject in chess vibes. When I say "know" they are guilty I mean purely subjectively - they have become convinced and frustration kicks in at the need for proper proof and due process. Once public statements have been made as in this case then ego's and reputations are on then line. I would like also to add that the reason for the public announcement that some have speculated upon namely some impending media announcement seems paper thin. I can see no justification for the way the federation have handled this.
In the mean time, not only doesn't the FFE provide any evidence, but even a disasterous article comes up at Le Monde
http://www.lemonde.fr/sport/article/2011/02/09/le-monde-des-echecs-francais-fait-la-chasse-a-la-triche_1477295_3242.html
So full of ready-made ideas and inexactitudes it hurts, briefly, the kind of thing someone without knowledge could write. Congratulations on the FFE for creating at least a bit of noise (is there such thing as bad publicity?)
"(is there such thing as bad publicity?)"
Heh, heh, not in show biz.
Hey, this article really put things in a rather new and interesting kind of light. Thanks for sharing this one. http://www.outdoorlightsgalore.com | http://www.outdoorlightsgalore.com/landscape-lighting | http://bestpelletstoves.blogspot.com/2009/07/pellet-stove-accessories.html | http://bestpelletstoves.blogspot.com/ | http://www.findacellphoneuser.com/2010/04/reverse-cell-phone-number-lookup.html
I visited this page first time to get info on people search and found it Very Good Job of acknowledgment and a marvelous source of info......... Thanks Admin! http://www.reverse-phone-look-up.net
Some people say that automatic link building works well. However, service to buy text link can use manual ways for search engine optimization. Good specialists know that manual ways of SEO.
Coach Factory recommended you to buy Coach Kristin Bags, the one which can fully display women's elegance and nobleness.coach factory stores embodied both strength of style and features, as well as what else are you able to request only one bag?
Not unlike any other major appliance, pellet stoves require regular maintenance to keep them working most efficiently.
The major components that will require occasional maintenance or cleaning include the ash drawer, ash traps, burn pot, glass, heat exchanger, venting systems (stove pipes), and the hopper and auger. http://www.pricenettools.com