zlacker

> [Carlsen] it became a point of principle

I think if anybody's to be commended for their principle it's probably the organisers? They have their dress code, he violated it, was warned, continued to violate it, and they enforced the rule despite his name.

>>OJFord+(OP)
Precisely this. The dress code was not a secret. Once Carlsen had little chance of winning the event he decided to make it about himself with this display. No one should commend this selfish arrogance, and in no universe is it "principle" to exhibit such prima donna behaviour for attention (and to conveniently exit from a likely loss).

Magnus is a tremendous chess player. He's also, by all evidence, a massive asshole, and continuously shows boorish behaviour and terrible sportsmanship.

>>OJFord+(OP)
‘[…]Carlsen said: “I said I’ll change tomorrow … but they said you have to change now it became a matter of principle for me so here we are. […]’

I can’t even figure out what the principle was.

>>OJFord+(OP)
In my experience "dress code" is very selectively enforced. Men are expected to wear very formal dress, that may limit their breathing and body cooling! While women get away with tshirts, sweat pants and flip flops!

This is sport event after all, and he is an athlete!

It is like asking female athletes to wear corset and long dress, because that was traditional dress in Victorian England!

>>OJFord+(OP)
Disagree. FIDE's dress code has double standards, there was a dude in chinos made to look like jeans and they were allowed. To me it seems like a very antiquated rule that needs to be reworked/abolished to keep up with the times.

>>OJFord+(OP)
The principal is “I should be allowed to wear reasonable everyday attire” Standing by the principle was when faced with an ultimatum: “Change now or else.” He chose “Naw, I’ll just leave.”

>>Erikun+51
They fined/censored him. He accepted the consequence and said "ok, I'll change as soon as I'm back at my hotel." They then hit him with a second infraction, for still being out of dress code.

I'm not a chess dress code rules lawyer, but I think the principle here is that the judge was power tripping and hit him twice for a single dress code violation.

>>sammy2+o2
This rule is new, by the way. There used to be no dress code at all, and it's become increasingly strict in the last few years.

>>more_c+p2
I understand that, and I'm saying the organisers also have the dress code principle, and stood by it when faced with 'oh but the violator is a very famous player, and this might make the news tomorrow'.

I think they come off better, personally. I'm not saying that should be the dress code, he shouldn't be allowed to wear jeans or whatever, or even that it's bad of him to decide not to play rather than to play in jeans. I just don't think 'it became a matter of principle' is a great argument for him, because it just makes me think better of the organisers for similarly standing by theirs.

>>sammy2+o2
It's not that I think the dress code is great, I just think it is what it is, and the one's who can say 'it's a matter of principle' (and get my sympathy anyway) are the ones that uphold that written code of the event, and don't waive it for a famous participant; not the famous participant who.. just wants to violate it basically.

>>adastr+c3
I'm sorry but now we surely have lost the meaning of the word censored. Now it means not getting to play chess in a tournament?

>>sapiog+94
Was there a reason for implementing it?

>>Pokemo+K9
Perhaps they meant censure instead of censor.

>>OJFord+(OP)
The principle here isn’t about the dress code per se (Carlsen hasn’t made much fuss about it earlier[1]), but the fact that a minor mistake on his part (he chose the wrong pants) is being punished severely. What would would be wrong with giving him a $200 fine and warning him he would be disqualified if he didn’t abide by it next day? Why is it so important to change immediately when you’re still very much dressed acceptable? Stressing about your clothing is not what you want to do when you’re focused on making a come back.

The reason is (according to Carlsen) of course that FIDE is driven by a strict adherence of «rules» which are defined by a small set of people in power. Whenever something happens they always say «oh, but these are the rules», but the process for changing the rules is very one-sided and power driven. This was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Yet another example of a silly unnecessary rule.

[1]: In an earlier WC he got stuck in traffic and arrived in ski clothing, but changed after the first round.

>>Pokemo+K9
>I'm sorry but now we surely have lost the meaning of the word censored. Now it means not getting to play chess in a tournament?

Yes, we have. That ship has sailed long ago.

But, in this context, specifically, the GP might have meant 'censured' instead of 'censored' and it was autocorrect or mental confusion.

>>OJFord+(OP)
He didn't protest being fined. Rather, he (and many other pundits) think being forfeited for a dress code violation is outrageous. (And it doesn't even follow the letter of the law - nowhere is it explicitly stated that violating the dress code can lead to forfeiting a round.)

>>more_c+p2
Also, this is a world rapid blitz tournament - not a "classical" chess tournament. Full length jeans is effectively business casual by today's standards. If a player said they made a mistake because they were late and confirmed that they would change their attire the next day, they should be fined but permitted to play with a warning.

>>wavemo+Rb
Not explicitly, but you’re “not allowed to play”.

>>sapiog+94
>This rule is new, by the way.

You can't call a rule new, which is nagging them for nearly a decade now:

https://www.chess.com/news/view/dress-code-incident-at-world...

>>astura+Mb
That makes more sense. Sorry about that.

>>chucks+db
Note especially that in many languages "censor" and "censure" are the same word.

>>judofy+rb
The hotel is three minutes away. He wasn't asked to change immediately, but he was asked to change on the same day.

>>chucks+db
I did indeed.

>>OJFord+m9
If two people have conflicting principles and both choose to stand by their principles then they'll be in conflict, but you're not obliged to pick a winner.

>>OJFord+(OP)
If "wearing jeans is not okay for someone playing chess" is a principle, it's a pretty stupid one. Being consistent about enforcing dumb rules is not a virtue when the alternative is not to have dumb rules in the first place

>>cjbpri+5Z
How is "it's a few minutes to the next game, if you play that in jeans you will be unlisted" not the same as "change immediately"?

>>matsem+H52
That is not what happened. Carlsen refused to change on the same day because it was "a matter of principle" (his words) -- not because there was insufficient time to.

>>beyond+3l
en passant is still considered a new rule, and it was there in the 16th century

>>OJFord+m9
the sense check i get from hammer's interview with hikaru is that they think magnus was targetted, and that where typically they wouldnt mind and the "oh, yeah ill wear fancy pants tomorrow" would typically be fine, magnus was targetted because of the freestyle chess negotiations.

another player was not fined or punished at all for wearing basically the same thing

>>beyond+3l
Even at that time, it does not appear that the dress code explicitly forbade what the contestant was wearing?

>>throw9+81
Considering last year at the same event a female player was fined for wearing the wrong shoes I have to disagree with your claim.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-29/chess-player-fined-ov...

>>judofy+rb
" that FIDE is driven by a strict adherence of «rules» which are defined by a small set of people in power. Whenever something happens they always say «oh, but these are the rules», but the process for changing the rules is very one-sided and power driven. "

This every government or organization that has ever existed. Every human group from beginning of time. Left or Right, up or down.