Евгений Александрович вдруг дал нечеткий ответ голландскому журналисту:
(недавнее интервью есть и в его фейсбуке)
P.D: Do you still think Bibisara cheated?
E.S: Sometimes only future gives clear answers to questions. This is the case.
Дескать, только будущее дает ясные ответы на вопросы.
Неужели засомневался? Непорядок получается..
А можно хотя бы скрины, холопам, не допущенным до информации барской
Евгений Александрович распорядился напомнить ссылку:
https://www.chess.com/news/view/gm-solozhenkin-suspended-for-cheating-accusations-fellow-gms-protestА вот полная версия его ответов Петру Емельяновичу Доггерсу:
P.D:
Did you think your analysis of Bibisara's games provided proof that she cheated?E.S: I don't believe that any analysis can be a proof of cheating or not cheating. Neither mine nor made by prof. K. Regan for example. An analysis can merely give rise to a suspiсion. The proof should be only material evidence: electronic devices found on the body of a player, a conversation recorded during the game or an intercepted signal between a player and his accomplice operator.
P.D:
Ken Regan does not see anything special in her games. What do you think of this? Do you doubt his method?E.S: After I have filled the complaint in Uruguay in which I pointed out the episode of the conversation my daughter had heard in the restroom, FIDE authorities had enough time to make efforts to get the phone billing, as the place and the approximate time were known. But it is so troublesome and evidently there is no personal profit for them to apply such efforts. It is much easier to contact Ken Regan and ask him for his “screening tests”. I don't really know who and when have decided to approve “Regan's method” as the official tool to consider a player a cheater or non-cheater. Please see the analysis by K. Regan forwarded to me by Ethics (text 1) and my answer where I give my own examination of his method (text 2). In brief, I think that the method of Mr. Regan cannot reveal instances of so-called “smart cheating” and should not be used as the official instrument to declare a suspect player guilty or innocent.
P.D:
Do you still think Bibisara cheated?E.S: Sometimes only future gives clear answers to questions. This is the case.
P.D:
Was there any moment you regretted posting the article on the forum?E.S: I begin my article with stating that I would have never shared my suspicions publicly if I had no real evidence. And probably I would decide to continue the story in another manner if I were informed somehow by the arbiters about the checking procedures. But there was complete silence from the arbiters. If I did not post the article on the forum, of course I would not have obtained different personal problems, but also I would never have learned extremely interesting facts concerning WYCC in Montevideo - like the absence of any metal detector up to the 5th round (I filled out my complaint in the morning before the start of the round 4), in spite of the announcement of its “presence” at the technical meeting. That is, the Chief Arbiter publicly lies to the heads of National teams' delegations that all anti-cheating measures have been fully taken. But we are not kids. Nothing happens without a reason. What were the reasons not to take official anti-cheating measures (saying at the same time that they are “taken”)? As a journalist, can you please address these questions to FIDE authorities? Is the absence of a metal detector up to the 5th round recognized by FIDE as a violation of the rules? I am very interested in getting the answer. Is there anyone responsible for that violation? And simply, how is this fact explained by FIDE?
After my 18-month ban was announced, I published comments on my facebook with all the documents provided:
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php… "
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=157896071695289&id=100024246900127"&HYPERLINK "
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=157896071695289&id=100024246900127"id=100024246900127 Later chess-news.ru reposted it on
http://chess-news.ru/node/24440 There is a lot of additional information about this story and the people involved. Unfortunately it is in Russian. Together with my two previous articles, it forms my personal point of view on the whole story. The links are
http://chess-news.ru/node/23790http://chess-news.ru/node/23831To answer your question: let me emphasize that I never told any lie in this story. I trust my daughter; she heard the conversation about the evaluation of the actual game position. I am sure it has really happened. And my conscience is clean.
P.D:
Are you planning to appeal against the decision? Or fight it in another way? (E.g. at CAS in Lausanne?)E.S: Russian athlets accused by WADA (they lost the Olympics because of that accusation) fight in CAS using financial support like the support of former President of Russian Biathlon Union, a famous businessman Mikhail Prokhorov. I have no such an opportunity. I would believe that future will give the proofs of my righteousness and this will give me the possibility to restart the conversation with FIDE.
P.D:
Is there anything else you would like to mention?E.S: In my opinion, the decision of Ethics is the revenge executed through the Ethics, and an act of intimidation (see 3.12 of the motivation, text 3). And this is not only my opinion. I appreciate all people who signed the “Letter of GMs”. Apart from the 41 GMs who sighed this letter, there are many IMs and untitled players who wished to sign it as well.
What can be the true attitude towards Ethics Commission after its decision concerning “the Kovalyov case”? A "takeback" player, a person who had been involved in Strumica-95, who himself should be a client of Ethics Commission, provoked a young player to withdraw from the World Cup. No remorse, no responsibility....
Скрины, к сожалению, дать не можем. Светлана Эммануиловна не разрешила..
Если нужен толмач - это к RusGrossу. Артём с переводом не успевает.
Вот гугл-переводчик маленько поможет.
Напомним, что очередное заседание суда в пятницу, 20 апреля.
Голосование
