X-CAA-SPAM: F00000
From: "Susan Wang" <susan_wang@comcast.net>
To: "Ray Orwig" <rorwig@saintmarksschool.org>,
"Alan M. Kirshner, Ph.D." <alan.kirshner@comcast.net>
Cc: <tom@tracychess.org>,
<jmc-chess@sbcglobal.net>,
<Carl.Moy@comcast.net>,
<ALAN.KIRSHNER@COMCAST.NET>,
"Brian Lu" <b.lu@aixtron.com>
Subject: Re: Tournament Appeal
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:23:29 -0800
Hi Ray,
I was wondering if you can clarify on a couple of points that you mentioned
in your email to Dr. Kirshner.
1. In point #5, you wrote,
“5. We felt that the decision we made was a fair and compassionate one
for both players concerned. They were both happy with it and the reasons
we gave.”
Were you the one who informed Michael of the final decision from the
hearing?
If yes, when did you inform Michael of the decision and what reason was
given to Michael?
If no, please inform me as to a) specifically, who from the hearing
committee or the tournament staff inform Michael of the decision, and b)
when (time frame) was Michael informed.
I am asking because I am baffled as to when the committee had a chance
to inform my son without my knowledge. Michael returned to us right after
the last round, informed us that three TDs/Coaches had questioned him in
the playing room. After he returned, we collected our belongings plus
getting the chess clocks from the team room, and proceeded walking to
our car via the bridge connecting the Santa Clara Convention Center/Hyatt
with the parking structure. On the bridge, we had passed by three people
sitting outside one of the room and one of them was Tom Langland. We
dropped off our stuffs in the car (parked on the second floor of the parking
structure) and walked back to the convention center/hotel side via the
connecting bridge again. This time, the three that were sitting outside the
room earlier were not there any more. We headed directly to the award
ceremony room, and stood by the door before finding seats in the back. Dr.
Kirshner and Ted Castro joined us not long after. It was at the award
ceremony that we first heard about the decision from the hearing from Dr.
Kirshner. My son definitely was not happy about the decision when Dr.
Kirshner told him, so I am a bit baffled as to how you got the impression
that ‘They were both happy with it and the reasons we gave.’.
2. In the second part of point #1, you wrote,
“Also a technical point; USCF Rule 21H1 (and Rule 21H4) specifically says
that "a player" may appeal any ruling. It does not say a coach, a parent,
but that it must be a player.”
a) So, if a coach or a parent cannot appeal a ruling, then why was Dr.
Kirshner not informed of such at the time that he requested the appeal?
b) In addition, if a coach cannot appeal any ruling, then why the committee
held a hearing to consider the appeal?
c) Lastly, if Dr. Kirshner’s appeal cannot be considered valid, then on what
grounds were the originally ruling by John McCumiskey overturned?
To be honest, I don’t really care about who got the point, and who didn’t.
However, I would like to have clarifications on how the rules are written,
and the interpretation of the rules by the committee and the tournament
staff, so that I can better educate my kids as well as other kids in the future
when they play in tournaments. Plus, would the committee interpret the
rule the same way if this happened to a kindergartener?
3. In point # 3, you wrote,
“3. We did in fact speak to Michael and asked him what had occurred, how
the request was worded, and what he would like the outcome to be. ...”
So, your recollection is that you had asked what outcome Michael would
like to have, in addition to what the TD had told him on day 1. However,
my understanding from Michael is that he was asked by the three of you
on what the TD had said, and he answered. In addition, he also said that
the committee had asked him whether he did not press the clock because
he felt that he was forced not to, or just being nice. Michael answered that
he felt that he couldn’t. After which, he was told by the committee that the
committee had everything that was needed from him. So, could there be
some misunderstanding from the committee or maybe the committee had
asked the opponent but forgot to ask Michael on what outcome he would
like to see? Common sense would tell me that any one in Michael’s
position would not have wanted to see what the committee had ruled in the
final ruling.
Regards,
Susan Wang
Michael Lu’s mom