Millionaire Chess 2!!

The "little guy" often wins a big law suit. Pro Bono attorneys love to represent discrimination cases, for the publicity and a sense of justice.

Play in the open section of open tournaments and forget about sandbagging. Unless you don´t really enjoy OTB, of course.

Your point being?

Point being it would be futile, a case against MC laughed out of court, that their high priced lawyers would chew up the little man; I disagree with.

A TD exists to ensure a tournament runs smoothly and lives up to the standards it promised. He/she is responsible for enforcing the rules written in the guidelines. They are not there to make subjective decisions based on their personal viewpoint.

It seems some here want to give the power of God to a TD. To write in the tourneys guidelines they are given the right to deny or change entries without due cause. (Their decision based on a "suspicion").

I think you may have some small difficulty comprehending what you read. That or you just don't read carefully enough. My point was simply about trying to persue a lawsuit without an attorney. You "disagree" by stating that there are attornies who do pro bono work. Which is absurd on your part, as having an attorney who's working pro bono to represent you is still having an attorney represent you.

BTW: I will next to guarantee that you will not find any attorney willing to work such a lawsuit pro bono. Pro bono work is generally done as a community service type deal - convicts trying to get their case re-tried, residents of poor communities who have been neglected by the municipality in some manner, women trying to get themselves and their children away from an abusive spouse. Things like that. Suing an organization like Millionaire Chess because you're mad that they grouped you in a different section than you wanted isn't exactly community service.

Md, I'll give you an example.

Let's say someone plays football. Now at some point he commits a foul in midfield by overly aggressive tackling an opponent. Now in the rules of football it clearly states that the arbiter has to send him off. (red card). The man get's a suspension for 4 games. He now can't play for a month and therefore his salary with him being a top-player and all of 1 million euro's for that month can be considered an extreme operating loss.

And now, before you argue 'but, that's clearly specified in the rules', I would like to point out that there are many cases where one footballer is punished much harsher than others because of the timing of the event ('we need to make an example'), media pressure or another number of possible reasons. The sporting and suspension committee has full discretion to do as they see fit. Because THAT is covered in the rules.

Now the club and player, in consultation, decide to go to court. Arguing that this is totally unreasonable since if you'd do the same let's say somewhere in the street you probably would be fined a couple of hundred or thousand maximum. To use woton expression, they would be "laughed out of court."

Now, to go back to the case at hand. If you clearly state in the rules that "the organizational entity can 'at there discretion' place any player in any group they see fit". There is nothing anybody can do about it. They may provide some reasons like, 'you suddenly dropped 300 points over the last 2 years' or 'we find your rating suspect' or whatever. The point however is. They don't have to.

Judges will not touch cases where 'the internal rules of some sporting governing body' are questioned, unless there is a case where bigger interests are involved. (like as you mentioned, discrimination)

Of course one could try and start a case at for instance the Court of Arbitration for Sport, CAS in Luzern. But really, for something small like a $1000 entree fee?

Don't think so.

Also, md.

You are being unreasonable.

As far as I know, nobody said the TD is to be given the power of a God and/or can base decisions on his personal viewpoint. Of course there will be other people. Every decent tournament organization has a tournament committee where among others, people with a legal background are involved. With 'maybe' the TD having a big say.

You are clearly misrepresenting the way these things work.

Also placing a chess player in another section is not "discrimination", as you keep calling it.
An individual court case about something like this?. Let's not forget we are talking peanuts here.

>MC should acknowledge they got taken in.<

Unlikely. And the sandbagging was one of three issues - the other two were the pairings with withdrawn players in round one, which was actually a much bigger issue for most entrants than a few sandbaggers - and the failure of the TD to stop Nakamura from advancing to ultimate victory with a 9-move draw, which made the upper end of the event a joke. 

>With...a reputation for delivering a quality event, Millionaire Chess is confident <

MC defines its own standards for quality. 

And to answer the question - why continue to bash this enterprise? Because it's BAD for chess.  It is hurting, not helping, our game.

Those of us who have been sharply critical of MC since day one have not been so just to pick on people, or to get our jollies lancing a faulty business plan. We have stated (and some much more elegantly than I) the reasons that this operation is damaging to our game.

Its values, its marketing, its structure, and its reputation are all contradictory to what is good and should be encouraged in US chess. That they are going for a third round is not to be celebrated. 

 I totally agree. This whole MC thing is a joke and I wouldn't even play if they invited me and told me I could play for free, expenses paid.

 Your discrimination argument doesn't hold water.  Such suits are filed on the basis of laws prohibiting discrimination because of race, gender, etc.  There is no law prohibiting a TD from placing a player in a higher section.

mdinnerspace

I'm looking at an old copy of the USCF rule book, but I don't think that it has changed:

28E.  The director may assign a rating to any rated player.

28E.2.  A rating may be assigned only for reasonable cause, including but not limited to, the following:

28E.2.d  The player's moves, time management, statements, or other actions during play in a previous tournament have caused the director to conclude that the player did not make a reasonable effort to avoid losing games.

Woton.. thanks. My point is shown by your examples. Cause is found and can be pointed to in the rule book. I guess I over stated my stand that I do not think TD'S should have "discretionary power" to make decisions based solely on subjective observations. They should have things in writing, rules to cover their decisions. Some arguments here seemed to want to give TD'S unlimited powers. I probably read these incorrectly as many have dismissed my arguement regarding TD's. Ashley got himself in a pickle imo, thinking he could make a decision that was contrary to a sanctioning body, that his decision would supercede other rules already in place. It took a consultation with his lawyers for him to back down.

28E.2.d The player's moves, time management, statements, or other actions during play in a previous tournament have caused the director to conclude that the player did not make a reasonable effort to avoid losing games.

This is an excellent example.

The TD can point to specific games to make a reasonable conclusion. What I've trying to say is that the TD has solid ground to stand on by showing the rulebook and recounting of games. If a player shows up to register and is simply told he is a suspect without any evidence I think is wrong. Maybe it can be done. I may be in error. Maybe some tournaments will allow it.

It gets even better.  Rule 28H  allows the director to revise the players rating at any time, even during play.  If it results in the player being ineligible for the section, the player is removed from the section.

Thus, it's possible for the director to watch the play of suspected sandbaggers, and, if necessary, take action.  It still requires a judgement on the director's part.  I'm not sure that this would be practical, but it is an option.

(I'm assuming that the rules haven't changed.  I no longer play in tournaments and haven't bothered to get a new rule book)

I think that FIDE laws would have been the highest authority at MC2.

 Only the Open Section is FIDE sanctioned.  The remainder are only USCF sanctioned.  The egregious sandbagging occurred in the USCF sanctioned sections.

The problem here is: what is considered reasonable evidence?

We seem to have a different position on this and it looks like I'm inclined to give the TD and the tournament committee (mostly some experienced/strong players and some people with a legal background) more leeway than you do. But that's cool.

I would be willing to go quite far to screw these disgusting sandbaggers over. Even if in an incidental case someone innocent unfortunately might suffer.

My best advice to anyone. Stay away from ridiculous tournaments like this.

ps, Now back to the Tom-bashing. You're doing a good job there.

Ah, okay. Point well made.