Friday, 20 February 2009

Edward Naoumov banned for 2 years

The Australian Chess Federation has handed down its decision in the case of Edward Naoumov, who was caught using a hand held chess computer at the 2009 Australian Open Under 1600 event.
The motion, which passed 13-0 (no abstentions), read

That in light of the seriousness of the offence of using computer assistance to cheat during the Australian Open event that Edward Naoumov be banned for a period of 2 years commencing 1st February 2009 from participation in any ACF, Affiliated State Associations and Associated Bodies events or activities.

6 comments:

Denis jessop said...

It is, to put it mildly, rather unfortunate that this decision has been made public as Edward has not yet been informed of it. It was not made public by any member of the ACF Executive.

DJ

Brian Jones said...

Denis. Then why doesn't the ACF publicise it's decisions within 24 hours. A prompt press release would avoid all the problems.

Sometimes I think the ACF is working in its own (very slow) time warp!

Denis Jessop said...

Brian

Your old warhorse has died on this occasion. The improper and unauthorised release of the decision occurred 16 minutes after the President declared the result of the e-mail vote.

DJ

Brian Jones said...

Then they would have known in WA a few hours before the result was declared!!

But seriously, I don't buy this "improper and unauthorised" ACF secrecy crap - we all have a stake in the decisions taken and should be informed without undue delay!

OzChess.com said...

Denis,

Can to please explain the circumstances leading to this leak? Was it accidental?

Obviously it looks unprofessional for the ACF penalty to be discussed on public forums before Edward has even been officially advised. That is regrettable.

Alex

Anonymous said...

Dear Denis,

There is no obligation to inform Edward Naoumov before hand. Your comments infer that there is some sort of injustice where there is none. You are fabricating a non-sensical procedural injustice that simply does not exist. Your whole argument and your persistance with it, casts you in a very suspicious light. You are coming across as an apologist for Edward Naoumov. Attacking the process that was used in making this decision is at best counter productive.

Regards
Michael O'Donohue