Autors: Ivans Trofimovs
We continue the epic with matches for the title of world champion in international drafts.
On August 23, the Russian Drafts Federation sent an official letter ( in Russian and English ) to the FMJD Executive Committee , and earlier Alexander Getmansky himself submitted a protest to the FMJD Ethics Committee with a request to return him the right to the match-2022.
How will events develop now and which decision of the FMJD would be the fairest?
For the answer to this and other questions, let us turn to the multiple world champion Anatoly Gantvarg .
– Hello, Anatoly Abramovich! Perhaps you are the only one who addressed the Ethics Committee a few years ago with a complaint against the FMJD leadership. How do you assess the appeal of Alexander Getmansky and what are his chances of achieving a positive decision?
– Hello, Ivan. Alexander Getmansky took the only possible action to challenge the decision of the FMJD Executive Committee (hereinafter referred to as FMJD EC). It operates in accordance with the Code of Ethics.
It can be seen that a good lawyer has worked on the complaint, and this is an unpleasant signal for his opponents.
I can make two important points.
In fact, Alexander is clearly winning. That is, we see his complaint and the conclusions of the Players Committee with facts and arguments, and in contrast – the decision of the Executive Committee and the letter of J. Pavlitsky ( in Russian I in English ) without facts and significant arguments, which can be regarded as a response to the decision of the Players Committee and interview with Alexander Georgiev.
The main argument in these documents is that A. Georgiev refused the 2020 match against R. Bomstra and they, as it were, compensate the Dutch player for this loss with the 2022 match.
Moreover, in his letter J. Pavlitskiy declares with some pathos: “We know that A. Georgiev refused the match.”
So what? Where was he then? Now he is canceling rules and annexes? That is, A. Getmansky can be ignored along with his rights? Can I ignore the GMs from the Players Committee?
If we evaluate the essence of the issue, then the loss of the RK FMJD is obvious.
– What is the second point?
– It is necessary to pay special attention to it.
The Code of Ethics describes the dispute resolution procedure.
It should be understood that in international federations the Ethics Committees play the role of courts.
Their decision can only be challenged in the International Sports Arbitration in Switzerland. Therefore, the Code of Ethics is created by lawyers and the Ethics Committee should include people with at least minimal legal knowledge.
Usually weak federations with financial problems almost completely rewrite the code of ethics for strong federations that have lawyers.
FMJD, naturally, “ripped off” the Code of Ethics from chess – and it did the right thing.
However, F. Teer and then J. Pavlitsky appeared in the FMJD, made changes to the code, the most important of which makes them, after the decision of the independent Ethics Committee, turn to the General Assembly.
Any lawyer will say that the GA is not the body that can resolve such issues. GA is the legislative branch, and has nothing to do with the judiciary.
Since the GA takes place every 2 years, it is impossible for the players to exercise their rights and achieve justice. This is legal nonsense. In all legal procedures, deadlines are set so that the processes cannot be delayed. This Code of Ethics allows the final decision to be delayed by 2.5 years. For example, in chess – many times faster, since the decisions of the Ethics Committee are contested immediately in the Sports Arbitration. That is, after 3 months. For sports, urgency is especially important.
The current code was drawn up by J. Pavlitsky. He promised to attract lawyers, but in this code, as they say, they do not smell.
Moreover, the numerous changes show that J. Pavlitsky does not have the legal knowledge necessary to draw up such a document.
– What is the main purpose of these changes?
– All changes indicate that the only goal of the authors was to create maximum difficulties for the players to achieve a fair solution.
Judge for yourself: the match should take place in a year and a half. For other international federations, this time is more than enough to get the CAS decision. And in the FMJD … I find it difficult to find the right word, except for the obscene one.
That is why a letter from J. Pavlitsky appeared, demonstrating complete disregard for the players and decisions of the committees within the FMJD.
I saw the FShR statement. I am confused by the requirement to create a commission in connection with the scandalous decision of the EC FMJD.
I think it would be better if the FCR, the Players’ Committee, the Technical Committee demanded an answer from Y. Pavlitsky regarding changes in the Code of Ethics that do not correspond to the goals, common sense, legal norms, urgency of decisions, etc.
Why has the most important clause 4.9 of the Code of Ethics been changed, which allowed to challenge the decision of the Ethics Committee in CAS? It was the same for all international sports federations.
They should also apply to the Ethics Committee with an urgent request for an expert opinion on this paragraph 4.9 of the Code of Ethics.
I think that A. Getmansky will be helped by the CAS decision on the complaint of Y. Anikeev.
The fact is that a strong lawyer took part in Y. Anikeev’s court case – and the delay was defined as a denial of justice. That is, a precedent has been created, which, in my opinion, can help Alexander.
– Alexander Georgiev in an interview expressed the opinion that the match for the title of world champion – 2020 can be held. What do you think of it? In your opinion, what is the best decision that the EC FMJD could make?
– I think that FMJD has the only solution that will comply with the rules and at the same time satisfy the players.
It is obvious that A. Shvartsman and A. Getmansky should play the match in 2022.
It is also necessary to provide the KNDB with the opportunity to hold the match A. Georgiev – R. Bomstra for the title of world champion in 2020. You can spend it for, say, 8 months. This match aroused great interest among the drafts community, and the fact that it was not held is the fault of the FMJD. Players’ rights to this match must be exercised.
This match is not against the rules, as it has no consequences for either the 2022 World Cup or other players.
This option is different from the one that was proposed at the General Assembly and was contrary to the rules.
– Anatoly Abramovich, do you think FMJD will reject its decision?
– The FMJD must understand that their actions by force have exhausted themselves, as they lead to serious scandals.
They have also exhausted themselves in terms of their attitude towards the players, whom even numerous titles cannot protect from the arbitrariness of individual FMJD figures. They interfere inappropriately in the course of the World Championships.
Let’s take the events of the last year:
A) During the game of T. Tansykuzhina against N. Sadovsk ( match for the title of world champion ) Y. Pavlitsky appeared in the game zone and removed the Russian flag, disrupting T. Tansykuzhina’s concentration. As a result, Tamara lost in an incredible way.
According to the rules, after the start of the tournament, only the head judge makes any decisions – and no one else. Even if J. Pavlitsky believed that there should be no flag, why didn’t he agree on this issue before the start of the tournament?
B) The decision violating the selection rules for the 2022 World Cup was announced 2 rounds before the end of the World Cup . This influenced the game and the results of some of the participants. Of course, such actions are a violation of the rules.
C) There was a humiliating refusal of G. Valneris by the FMJD to grant him the right to a match with R. Bomstroy.
The fact is that at first it was the FMJD that granted the representative of China, Pan Yiming, the right to play the match, and then refused the stronger and more titled G. Valneris, who had absolutely the same grounds after the refusal of the Chinese player.
D) Finally, complete disregard of A. Georgiev’s requirements for the match against Bomstra, as Alexander talks about in an interview.
Some of them look more than reasonable in a pandemic. A. Georgiev in an interview asserted that J. Pavlitsky was against his proposals on all issues and took a one-sided position. This one-sided position led to the absurd decision of the FMJD EC during the 2021 World Cup regarding the 2022 match. The word “conspiracy” is more suitable for this solution. Collusion with KNDB.
J. Pavlitsky himself points out that he negotiated with different people. With whom?
The question arises: in the EC FMJD no one knows the rules and has not taken an interest in them?
In their decision, they wrote that they have no right to change the decision of GA-2021.
But other rules, including those given by A. Getmansky, are also adopted by the GA decision. And they also have no right to ignore them.
Moreover, at GA-2021 they were warned that there are such rules. What could have forced them to make such a decision?
– Last question. Could the players somehow influence the FMJD decisions and prevent such a scandalous situation? In response to my question about the rights for the 2022 match, Rul Bomstra noted that the situation with the match is very difficult now and that he was ready to play the match before the 2021 World Cup: “I was ready to play the 2020 match before this World Cup, and I think that it was possible (for example, with Valneris), but FMJD decided otherwise ”.
– In order not to suspect me of bias in this matter, I want to note that I like the game of Rul Bomstra more than others.
He is the only one who plays the whole game actively and for this he often undertakes a risky strategy. I am also impressed by his human qualities.
I was disappointed by the situation he got into. But he must see when decisions of the FMJD or KNDB violate the rights of others and they act by force.
I think he had the opportunity to positively resolve the issues of the match.
I believe that he and Georgiev could come to an agreement and, possibly, satisfy Alexander’s demands.
The fact is that vaccination has not yet begun, and the risks of A. Georgiev for health and life were significantly greater due to the 19-year age difference. Also, his requirements for the contract were reasonable – this was confirmed by the failed women’s match in Moscow .
He could also insist on holding a match against G. Valneris.
Probably, Ruhl was losing in the prize, but Latvia, represented by Robert Misans, believed that it could host the match, and one could trust him, given his previous experience. Better a tit in the hands.
The FMJD decision on the timing of the match was risky – and in this case the risk was not justified.
– Thank you very much for the interview, Anatoly Abramovich!
Finally, I would like to note that even in the Netherlands there are checkers who disagree with the FMJD decision to grant the rights to the match to Rulu Bomstre. The famous athlete, international master Wieger Wesselink writes about this on his website .