I am not sure knowing the rule but really have jean ... it is crazy rule in any case.
I'm not saying I agree with the rule or the specific way it was applied... But Magnus definitely knows the rules.
Edit: for people downvoting... Can you please explain how the world's best chess player of all times wouldn't be familiar with FIDE rules? How is that even plausible? All of the players who compete at these events know the rules.
Magnus pants were fine. He is absolutely correct that they were singling him out and you can look back to many recent tournaments to see the clear double standard.
4.10.1. The dress code is strictly observed for the
tournament and all the official events and press
conferences.
4.10.1.1. Dress code for men.
Shoes: Oxfords, loafers, leather shoes or boots, classic
suite shoes.
Dark-coloured pants: black, navy, grey, beige, brown, in
any case unicoloured. No bright colours.
Long-sleeved light-coloured (white, light blue, beige,
brown, etc.), blue or black shirt, in any case
unicoloured. No bright colours.
Dark-coloured jacket, waistcoat or cardigan with
buttons: black, navy, grey, beige, brown, in any case
unicoloured. No bright colours.
Jacket, waistcoat or cardigan may be taken off during
play.
Tie is not mandatory.
[...]
4.10.1.3. No players with t-shirts, jeans, shorts,
sneakers, baseball caps or inappropriate dress are allowed
in the playing area. Any requests to wear national or
traditional dress shall be approved by FIDE Supervisor.
[...]
4.10.9. If a player fails to fulfil his/her duties listed
in Articles 4.10.1, 4.10.4 – 4.10.8, he/she can be
penalised by FIDE Council as follows: 5% of his/her prize
money shall be forfeited to the Organiser and a further 5%
to FIDE for each breach. In cases of serious misconduct,
the player may be disqualified from the event.
Refusing to match him with a competitor because of this, effectively preventing him to compete, was disproportionate regardless.
4.10.1.3. No players with t-shirts, jeans, shorts,
sneakers, baseball caps or inappropriate dress are allowed
in the playing area. Any requests to wear national or
traditional dress shall be approved by FIDE Supervisor.
It's entirely possible to read 4.10.1.1, conclude that blue jeans are fine, and then skim over 4.10.1.3.
However the Carlsens read it, after reading it, years will have passed. Carlsen didn't dress like he did after a studious read of the rules. He just put on some nice clothes that were no different from what he usually wears at tournaments.
Except he forgot a belt. A proper organiser would have offered to lend him one.
He's not a regular participant, Magnus is almost an institution of his own.
Either way, it's literally his job to follow the FIDE rules (which is unusual but true), and he's the best in the world at his job.
---
> "It's entirely possible to read 4.10.1.1, conclude that blue jeans are fine, and then skim over 4.10.1.3."
In all fairness I originally did the same, so I hear ya. But I'm not a pro at this.
He is also very much no in agreement with FIDE (a tradition for chess champions - see Fischer, Kasparov). And to be honest FIDE is on FIFA level when it comes to being dodgy as an organisation so it’s hardly surprising.
This is some combination of
- "I'm above the law"
- teenage rebellion
- protest against the system
4. 10. 1. 2. Dress code for women.
Classic shoes.
Trouser or skirt suit or dress, preferably unicoloured, but not mandatory
So, the logical conclusion is perhaps, no surprise, that FIDE don't really want to enforce a strict dress code, but rather want to promote the sport, and that translates differently into dress codes (or lack of them) for men vs women...
Meanwhile Arkady Dvorkovich, President of FIDE : https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/1hntyjb/arkady_dvork...
Dvorkovich is putins puppet, covering for Medvedev when putin was pretending to take a break.
FIDE is an agency that exists to promote and develop chess.
Magnus Carlsen is the biggest draw in the chess world by far.
A minor dress code violation should have been dealt with a fine as the rules very much allow for the benefit of the game.
Also, I don’t think there’s a single player who would complain about that (well, other than Kramnik, but Kramnik complains that spectators breathe too loud and that’s cheating).
And then FIDE should have stepped back and thought about the recent growth in the popularity of chess, since the pandemic and thanks to the work of the likes of Magnus and Gothamchess and should have reconsidered the strict dress code rules in the first place.
Not very sportsmanlike behaviour, I must say (and I am saying this as someone who admires MC).
This one is hard to tell because not all of them have been alive at the same time. Morphy was really, really good, but in the 1850s.
Currently there's Ivanchuk, who is good enough to beat anyone but has no stamina so can't win tournaments reliably enough to be world champion.
Both parties could have handled this much better.
It's pretty black and white.
4.10.1.3. No players with t-shirts, jeans, shorts,
sneakers, baseball caps or inappropriate dress are allowed
in the playing area. Any requests to wear national or
traditional dress shall be approved by FIDE Supervisor.
Wish I had found that section earlier, but I'm less familiar with the chess regulations so it took me a bit to assemble all of the essential parts.
Well, you are the one who posted the quote, which I used as the basis for my comment. I thought I had read it twice over, and saw no reference to jeans, hence my question. Not statement, question. I did not make anything up.
Did you by any chance add the relevant section of the rules to your comment after I asked a question? The proper thing to do would have been to quote the relevant portion of the rules, instead of adding that later.
So, no. Apologies not accepted. Sorry.
When you're the third party and they trusted your quoting skills, that criticism is pretty weak.
It makes me wonder if he's been enabled by tournament organizers being lax about enforcement of the rules for top players, when it should be the opposite - those with the most experience should be held to the highest standards because they should know better.
Women athletes who are forced to wear what amounts to underwear when the men aren't - they have a valid complaint about uniform standards. This sounds like a bunch of whiny silver-spooned brats.
Everyone is saying it's literally their job to know the rules, but for players like Hikaru and Magnus, this is not their job in any meaningful sense, it's a hobby.
Also, Magnus isn't lookirg for sympathy, he's just saying why he can't be bothered complying with these regulations, there's not that much in it for him.
It's not his occupation in some ways. He makes a lot more money from every other venture, so there is not a major economic incentive for him. Likewise, he works with creators and platforms that pull in big numbers of engaged viewers.
For what it's worth that was the same organization - FIDE - that has made those terrible choices in the past as well.
for the most part theyre paying a lot for non-playimg middlemen to be in the way
What
I don’t read the license agreement of every bit of software or the privacy policy of every website, after all.
Likewise, I use GPL software daily, for a living - doesn’t mean I’ve ever read the license.
You need to care about the bits around the actual chess playing, but regulations for these things are overwhelmingly made of "play nice, be reasonable, don't be a dick" rules. If you try to play by those high-level rules, apologise if you break the nitty gritty of the low-level rules and fix things at the earliest opportunity, it shouldn't be a big issue. Also, things like dress code can easily be a "not an actual rule, just convention" sort of affair.
They’re professionals because they understand the game and are in the top 1% of people who play it. Not because they are the best at memorising rules. The latter group are people Who become umpires/referees instead.
The facts are he violated the dress code rule and then withdrew when it was enforced. He then mentioned his FIDE alternative in the ensuing press coverage.
Edit: also, on paper, him attending a sponsor event and then violating a rule at the competition because he "didn't have time to change" speaks volumes about his priorities.
The arbiter didn’t clarify what was going on first saying it’s a 200$ fine which was meaningless to him, then latter saying you need to change or skip the next round.
I find it weird to witness all the drama, pomp, and circumstance around the professional chess scene. It is a board game. I couldn't care less if they decided to play pool-side with swimming trunks and flip-flops.
Magnus' priorities are clearly that he's won everything up for grabs and plays for fun. He doesn't need to worry about money nor rules set by a sport federation stuck about half a century in the past. If only the rest of us were so free!
What I was saying is that I think Magnus was protesting, and doing it as a publicity stunt. He didn't forget anything. He didn't expect to be given a pass.
And FIDE also weren't being dicks by enforcing the current rules.
Attending corporate sponsorship events sounds soul crushing for someone so free, not fun. His priority is keeping his sponsors happy as he tries to fire up his new thing.
Clothes has nothing to do to with chess.
That’s the “objective” according to https://www.fide.com/images/stories/NEWS_2013/FIDE/Proposal_....
Clean jeans are normal for “smart casual” now. And the dress code shouldn’t be so prescriptive. If you can pass as “smart casual” somewhere else, should be legal.
There are people who think that it can be reformed and there are people who don't think that FIDE can improve, but certainly no one argues that its past proves its commitment to professionalism.
I'd say you'd be hard-pressed to find a worse performing global sport federation.
This is nothing more than a dumb outdated rule. He wore jeans. Not a fluorescent jump suit.
I think Magnus is under a lot of slow-burn pressure. He's the best, but chess is a grindy game, it only takes one mistake to lose, everyone is watching him, there's nowhere to go but down, and he wants to have fun instead of practice his ass off.
A few tantrums might be a way of getting out of the competitive scene on his own terms.
Sadly this sentence does not compile. Facts cannot be gathered from Reddit threads, as we cannot know who is behind the messages. Facts can only be gathered from reliable sources. Therefor those are not facts, but hypotheses.
Other people in this thread are contradicting the Reddit hypotheses[1], who should we believe?
Source?
How do you define reliable?
Why is the authors identity important?
Facts don't change because you know the authors name, or trust the source, or like the person telling lies.
The idea that anonymous sources, or "untrusted" sources (for someones definition of trusted) cannot be the source of facts is gaining ground right now, and it needs to be pushed back on wherever it is seen.
It's a lazy Ad hominem, and it's down right dangerous.
I don't care if it's elected officials claiming Russian malinformation or a random chess thread, this is the hill I choose to die on.
Unknown sources on the internet are usually not reliable. Anonymous sources should not be trusted, even when there are more than one saying the same thing. Bots and deliberate misinformation abound.
This is not a hill you should die on as it’s a hill that can greatly harm democratic society.
Quite often this is simply not possible.
Next time I read "according to our anonymous sources in the FBI", I'll make sure I reach out to them for verification.
on edit: note I do not say anything about verification, as that is a different thing as to whether or not a thing is a fact. Verification is about how sure the knowledge we have is a fact, but whether a fact is verified or not it remains a fact even if we do not know it is a fact.
Which mythical reliable sources? Humans are known to make errors regardless where they work.
You can gather them from anywhere they exist. There might be places where it is easier to gather facts than Reddit.
But wherever you get purported facts, it's hard to know whether they are merely claims, or actual facts. Most of us do indeed short-circuit our evaluation of claims when we trust the source, and although this sometimes causes us to wrongly believe false claims are facts, I think it's probably a good optimization on balance.
Nevertheless, "who should we believe?" remains one of the most fundamental questions of human existence. The tremendous energy required to confirm the factuality of even a trivial claim makes me agree with what I think is your premise — the quoted poster was making a highly dubious assertion of "facts".
But I think s/facts/claims/ would suffice to fix it.
• He chose not to contest it, for which there is a clear protocol, and simply withdrew.
• Based on two previous well-publicized incidents, it DID cross his mind that it would be a violation.
"The principle is simple: it is still required to follow the official dress-code, but elegant minor deviations (that may, in particular, include appropriate jeans matching the jacket) are allowed."
"They were saying that jeans were generally not allowed. If it's generally not allowed, that must mean that there must be exceptions. And if I, with a decent attempt at an outfit apart from that, didn't meet that exception, I don't see what would, frankly."
He wasn't trying to protest the dress code or make a scene, it wasn't on his mind at all. He had been out for an appearance with a sponsor during a break, then came back to the venue for the next round, and didn't notice that he was wearing jeans and it didn't cross his mind that that would be a violation.
Then he was told to change, and there wasn't enough time for him to go do that before the upcoming round. He thought he was told he could do it either after that round or for the next day, but then was told he would be excluded from that round, and at that point he said f--- it and withdrew entirely.
The controversy was about exactly how the penalty is imposed. The rule is a fine for the first violation and disqualification for multiple. It wasn't clear if his appearance for the day would count as one violation (so he could just incur the fine and wear correct clothing tomorrow), or if each round would be a separate violation. It also wasn't clear if he could play while in violation or would be excluded from each round until he changed. Precedent from other events wasn't clear for either of these.
The headline of "disqualified" is wrong and did not happen - he chose to withdraw.