As an American chess teacher and near-expert player who visited Saint Louis (and many other clubs) and follows chess in America, I vouch that IA Chris Bird has always acted with integrity, so I fully trust anything they say.
I will write my own blog post about collective action problems in chess and beyond.
@ebk1976 said in #8:
> I completely understand the seriousness and harmfulness of his actions, and it is indeed unacceptable. An OTB 2-year ban would also not at all be unreasonable imo. However, I would argue that the GM title is awarded not on any behavioral basis but only on chess skill, which Yoo has demonstrated. I don't think any behavior outside of those that influence play, such as cheating, harassing opponents during the game, match fixing, etc. should cause a chess title to be revoked. Also, if FIDE had the authority and capability to revoke titles based on behavior, the titles that are meant to show chess skill could be revoked by a small group of people in authority if they disagreed with a player's opinion, behavior, and could become risky and arbitrary for players.
Actually, in the case of Latvian IM Andrejs Strebkovs, his IM title was revoked by FIDE after they found him guilty of the postal harassment of women and minors. His ban was extended to 12 years on appeal and cross-appeal.
https://www.fide.com/fide-ac-extends-ban-and-revokes-title-of-im-andrejs-strebkovs-over-harassment-of-female-players/
"In its initial ruling, the EDC First Instance Chamber found IM Andrejs Strebkovs guilty of several breaches of FIDE’s ethics and disciplinary code, imposing a five-year ban from all FIDE-rated events. Strebkovs appealed this decision, denying his involvement and challenging the evidence and FIDE’s authority to handle the case. FIDE, in turn, filed a cross-appeal, seeking a harsher sanction, including a longer ban and the revocation of Strebkovs’ International Master title, emphasizing the harm done to women and minors in chess."
Assault is bad! That's as complicated as it gets.
He has already been convicted of assault in the past, all of the ladies claims add up, No-one truly thinks he did not do this right?
Sure, it is possible he is innocent of this particular case. But when you have already assaulted someone on camera you lose the benefit of the doubt.
For now I'm just glad the assaulter is suspended! Hopefully this is the last we hear of him.
@Dude128 said in #13:
> Assault is bad! That's as complicated as it gets.
>
> He has already been convicted of assault in the past, all of the ladies claims add up, No-one truly thinks he did not do this right?
> Sure, it is possible he is innocent of this particular case. But when you have already assaulted someone on camera you lose the benefit of the doubt.
>
> For now I'm just glad the assaulter is suspended! Hopefully this is the last we hear of him.
Agreed. However we still need to follow investigative procedures regardless of how much benefit of doubt we give him.
The facts of the matter look bad. Considering his record, a 60-day suspension seems appropriate. I don't believe in cancel culture or cyberbullying/harsh judgements at all, but a temporary suspension had to be done.
However, I do not agree with a global extension of the ban. The significant travel costs, hassles, and mental issues from these incidents are enough issues on their own. What he has received is fair and proportionate punishment. A multi-year ban and revocation from all tournaments for this is unjustified and to be honest, I see some people advocating for this as advocating for cancel culture.
@chessalt2000 said in #15:
> Agreed. However we still need to follow investigative procedures regardless of how much benefit of doubt we give him.
>
> The facts of the matter look bad. Considering his record, a 60-day suspension seems appropriate. I don't believe in cancel culture or cyberbullying/harsh judgements at all, but a temporary suspension had to be done.
>
> However, I do not agree with a global extension of the ban. The significant travel costs, hassles, and mental issues from these incidents are enough issues on their own. What he has received is fair and proportionate punishment. A multi-year ban and revocation from all tournaments for this is unjustified and to be honest, I see some people advocating for this as advocating for cancel culture.
This is not just a punishment, it is also in order to prevent more victims. If you cannot post it on your main account, you should not post it at all.
Assault is bad! Mental issues are not an excuse to cause other issues, This is not "cancel culture" This is a company banning a player from their events. This is not a matter of cyberbullying, this is a matter of sexual assault.
I will not continue to entertain responses like this. If you truly believe him pretending to be room service to try and get into a women's room is not worthy of a lifetime ban, there's nothing I have to say to you.
I don't think people realise how common these things are in the chess world. No wonder there are so few women playing chess :(
Well, he has mental problems and apologized for previous incident. Also some benefit of a doubt can be given, I mean how much story is true, if we are given a whole part.
Age is important factor as well, even though he is 19. Because when I was a kid, playing actively, there were quite a few kids, who were either arrogant, antisocial, had emotional control problem. I am not ideal myself in that regard. Chess is a great game which brings social interaction but nobody can promise that it will be healthy, especially in a competitive atmosphere.
I don't believe in endless second chances, and one has to grow up at some point.
My message is that chess is filled with such people (not exact such, but still) and it's not necessary a bad thing, rather reality, because maybe it's better for them put their energy in chess than into something else. So chess, and community around it might help them control their inner demons.
So, investigation should be conducted, and if punishment needed, things above should be taken into consideration.
Christopher Yoo appears to be someone who has a violent tendency, given the events at STLCC last year. This makes the harassment observed at Sardinia Chess Festival not a lone appearance. This can lead us to the conclusion that these things WILL happen in the future with Grandmaster Yoo. I believe that showing disregard to the most basic of morals (keeping your hands to yourself) MULTIPLE TIMES in creepy manners deserves a lifetime ban, while we consider the revocation of his GM title, to keep our female players safe. Chess is a civil sport, pray us keep it that way.
@Dude128 said in #16:
> This is not just a punishment, it is also in order to prevent more victims. If you cannot post it on your main account, you should not post it at all.
>
> Assault is bad! Mental issues are not an excuse to cause other issues, This is not "cancel culture" This is a company banning a player from their events. This is not a matter of cyberbullying, this is a matter of sexual assault.
>
> I will not continue to entertain responses like this. If you truly believe him pretending to be room service to try and get into a women's room is not worthy of a lifetime ban, there's nothing I have to say to you.
We both agree assault is bad! It is not worthy of a lifetime ban because of the principles of proportionality in punishment. A lifetime ban from FIDE, this big company of chess tournaments, as well as his reputation and other losses (I've seen various forums, publicly, accusing him of being an incel and other messed-up shit) cannot be proportionate. But if FIDE decides on a 5-year ban for this, then Yoo has it coming. And frankly, he needs mental help. And yes, what he did was horrible.
But going the other way round and advocating for lifetime bans and other disproportionate rubbish for similar crimes sets a precedent that to me is worse than the crime.