In all of the years that I’ve been doing Uni Watch, I think chess has come up maybe once or twice in the Ticker. But I’m doing a full chess post today, because the International Chess Federation issued a €100 fine (about $111) to a Dutch player named Anna-Maja Kazarian for wearing impermissible “sports shoes” — in her case, a pair of Burberry sneakers — during the recent World Rapid and Blitz Championships in Uzbekistan.
Update: I got fined. This is absolutely ridiculous. @FIDE_chess please revert this warning. My shoes are NOT sports sneakers https://t.co/3VlGwMtaPp pic.twitter.com/vRcGlMgeFh
— Anna-Maja Kazarian (@AMKazarian) December 27, 2023
Kazarian went back to her hotel in between games and switched into a pair of heels, but the situation surrounding her fine has become a bit of a cause célèbre in the chess world. I’ve read a bunch of articles about it, the best of which is this one, which I strongly recommend — deep reporting, good writing. But here’s the gist: The International Chess Federation has a dress code, but as that linked article points out, “Generally, sneakers are allowed, but ‘sports sneakers’ are not. The difference between the two is not clearly stated in the dress code.” That ambiguity is at the heart of the situation.
Several other players at the tournament were also cited for inappropriate footwear. Those players all accepted their fines; Kazarian is the only one who objected, and she’s been pushing back against the fine on social media. Here she is making her case on YouTube:
On the one hand, it seems pretty clear to me that Kazarian was wearing fashion or lifestyle sneakers, not sports sneakers. On the other hand, I can see that even fashion sneakers have an informality that goes against the grain of traditional “grown-up” attire. And that really captures how this dispute features so many of the cultural tensions that we see throughout the uni-verse: traditional vs. contemporary; stoicism vs. personal expression; the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law; “no fun league” officials vs. “look at me” players; and so on.
It’s worth noting that the chess world has also had recent scandals and controversies involving doping, cheating, trans players, and shitting in a hotel bathtub (really). Chess: It’s just like sports, but without all the Nike nonsense.
From the article on shitting in the bathtub…
“…Yan had cheated during the competition by using anal beads equipped with wireless transmitters to send and receive signals.
Yan allegedly clenched and unclenched rhythmically to communicate information about the chess board via code to a computer, which then sent back instructions on what moves to make in the form of vibrations…
Seems to me the author is burying the lede a bit.
This is NOT your father’s chess, kids!
Unsubstantiated.
When I read that, my brain went in circles trying to figure out how that would work.
I would have to imagine this is a product that may have alternate uses.
Holy shit! There’s an It’s Always Sunny episode where Frank does exactly this.. Reality beats out Fiction once again.
Given that the rule is (presumably) about aesthetics (as opposed to being about performance or safety or another reason) – I’m confused as to what definition could exist to differentiate between “sneakers” and “sports sneakers” on purely visual grounds.
Like her shoes may be Burberry produced but they’re just Chucks/PF Flyers with bells and whistles, which should be considered “sports sneakers.”
I really want to see what is worn vs. what gets flagged, because I’m struggling to think of what sneaker could be distinctly different looking to not feel like “sports” (and presumably too casual).
The only thing coming to mind are the orthopedic type shoes in black leather I associate with my grandparents and fake being a “dress shoe.” That or the Cole haan Nike era stuff that was more of a dress/sport hybrid.
Even common projects are all sports sneakers, they just use expensive materials and marketing
Interesting, while certainly subjective, I would imagine 99.9% of people would consider them casual lifestyle sneakers as opposed to athletic/performance sneakers.
I can certainly understand anyone’s rebellion against dress shoe formality as a rule, since historically they are incredibly uncomfortable (and also bad for physical health of your foot). But recently I have found plenty of dress style shoes that are wide toe box, zero lift, and all the other features you want for your foot to be comfortable and strong. I no longer fret about dress code obligations when it comes to my feet.
Certainly it is an entirely different case when it comes to women given heels and the whole style and culture surrounding women’s footwear.
Hasn’t the anal vibrator thing happened before in chess? It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia even did an episode that had a similar situation a few seasons ago.
At first glance, those sure look like Chucks. Which would be defined as sport shoes.
While I am aware that even pro basketball players have worn Chucks in games for years, I doubt that rhey would have worn those had modern sports shoes like Air Jordans or even New Balances been available back then. Likely, I doubt that any NBA pro players would even consider wearing them today short of a stunt or gimmick or at a charity or showcase, exhibition event, like how the Lakers wore short shorts for the first half of a game. On the other hand, they do look like skateboarding shoes kids wear, and calling x-games events “sporty” would definitely be an understatement. Personally I think it’s nitpicking, but perhaps the conservative, traditionalist officials might not want it be become a slippery slope. Would they be forced to allow Air Jordans if they were a one-off collaboration with Gucci, Versace or Prada? I think it’s a dumb rule; at the very least this particular ruling was harsh or wrongly applied. It’s not like they are playing on glass tables. If players wore Crocs or Yeezys or flip flops, then perhaps it could be easier issue a warning–unless it’s a “chess on the beach” tournament series. In my opinion.
I atill rememeber reading stories about high school cross country runners disqualified after a district, league or state final for wearing those Livestrong rubber bracelets and ones for other causes. Sometimes some were DQ’d for wearing them, while others were DQ’d for wearing too many that exceeded the limit allowed. I didn’t think it helped them nor gave them an advantage; if anything, the more bracelets they had on, the more additional weight they’d be carrying, not to mention any increased wind resistance, negligeable or not. Heck, if runners wanted to wear ankle weights or in full XFL uniform like Brian Goldsmith in a marathon, then let them.
Given that the rule is (presumably) about aesthetics (as opposed to being about performance or safety or another reason) – I’m confused as to what definition could exist to differentiate between “sneakers” and “sports sneakers” on purely visual grounds, even considering what brand makes the shoes.
Like her shoes may be Burberry produced but they’re just Chucks/PF Flyers with bells and whistles, which should be considered “sports sneakers” even though they aren’t used for performance anymore (that part should be irrelevant – it’s just people choosing to use something for a purpose distinct from its original intent).
I really want to see what is worn vs. what gets flagged, because I’m struggling to think of what sneaker could be distinctly different looking to not feel like “sports” (and presumably too casual).
The only thing coming to mind are the orthopedic type shoes in black leather I associate with my grandparents and fake being a “dress shoe.” That or the Cole haan Nike era stuff that was more of a dress/sport hybrid. Even common projects are all sports sneakers, they just use expensive materials and marketing. And that’s where your example falls too – what you described is still a sneaker, it’s just become acceptable in certain circles culturally and within fashion trend to replace dress shoes with a sneaker.
Despite being super into fashion and would want as a kid to dress however I pleased for a tournament like this, her reaction seemed more spoiled than anything. The rule shouldn’t rely on a brand determining what does/doesn’t look ok, and namedropping them misses the point IMO. The rule should be communicated better but she’s wearing sports inspired sneakers at worst and seems like a weak complaint.
“Like her shoes may be Burberry produced but they’re just Chucks/PF Flyers with bells and whistles, which should be considered “sports sneakers” even though they aren’t used for performance anymore (that part should be irrelevant – it’s just people choosing to use something for a purpose distinct from its original intent).”
“Should be considered sports sneakers” part is subjective and is what is at the heart of this whole “controversy,” which is also subjective as for some it might not rise up to that level to be considered as one.
“And that’s where your example falls too – what you described is still a sneaker, it’s just become acceptable in certain circles culturally and within fashion trend to replace dress shoes with a sneaker.”
Which example specifically? The hypothetical Gucci Air Jordans? It’s obviously still be sports sneakers, which was why I brought it up. I even said that it was perhaps it might be the reason why these “Chucks” were disallowed so that it wouldn’t lead to a slippery slope that would lead to perhaps having tp then also allow Gucci Nikes. I was trying to figure out their reasoning and not at all saying that Gucci Nikes aren’t sneakers. Theyare definitely still sneakers, and way more sport sneaker-like then they allege these “Chucks” are. What about patent leather Christian Louboutin Air Jordans with trademark red leather heels where it could never be intended to be used on the hardwood as it would be not only slippery but dangerous?
If it’s “sports inspired sneakers at worst ” as you wrote, then it’s still just sneakers and not fully sports sneakers, IMO. As Paul (Lukas) wrote: “The International Chess Federation has a dress code, but as that linked article points out, “Generally, sneakers are allowed, but ‘sports sneakers’ are not. The difference between the two is not clearly stated in the dress code.” That ambiguity is at the heart of the situation.”
Let’s complain about something important, like fútbol refs not overturning an offside call after VAR review negating a goal, and football refs lying about who didn’t check in as an eligible receiver instead.
If the soles were black instead of white, they would pass for dress shoes in most modern situations, especially if worn by a man. Even Allen Edmonds sells similarly constructed sneakers with black soles as dress shoes these days.
Can we talk about her lacing technique? Unusual, and I like it.
Shoe stop lacing. Looks great with an even number of eyelets, less so with an odd number (which she has)
link
At least you can’t use the anal beads for sports . . . just chess. . .
Cue the intro to a 2025 documentary about the Patriots dynasty:
“And you’ll NEVER BELIEVE how Belichek was able to almost always seem to call the right plays in every situation…” hahaha
And like every other fake Patriots scandal, the league will be accused of the same ‘infraction’ a few years later, and there will be… crickets.
Yes, the rule is confusing.
But if you are asked to change, just change the damn shoe.
Most of you are going to come nowhere close to “changing the world”.
You are just going to help in making it more annoying.
She DID change.
Perhaps the International Chess Federation could … check … their rules again?
Too late to start “My match, my shoes” campaign?
Will this be covered in the next season of The Queen’s Gambit?
I hesitate to quote “One Night in Bangkok” from Murray Head, but here goes…
The city don’t know what the city is getting
The crème de la crème of the chess world
In a show with everything but Yul Brynner
One town’s very like another
When your head’s down over your pieces, brother
It’s a drag, it’s a bore, it’s really such a pity
To be looking at the board, not looking at the city
What do ya mean?
You’ve seen one crowded, polluted, stinking town
One more from that song that may be applicable to wearing “kicks” like those…
“I get my kicks above the waistline, sunshine”.
Head’s ludicrously exaggerated dialect on the track makes “polluted” sound like “palooka.”
That article about trans chess players was a tough read, largely because it didn’t make any sense. But I struggle to understand what at all gender has to do with playing chess. The only logical conclusion is that noise made about trans chess players is about nothing more than virtue-signalling to bigots.
Women’s chess has been a thing unto itself for as long as there’s been organized chess competition. The reasons for differing average levels of chess performance between male & female players have always been unclear, and are tough to theorize about without falling into just-so stories or circular logic. But the differences are unquestionably there, so it’s expedient to have men’s & women’s leagues.
As with other recent controversies, the situation becomes extra-sticky when you have a player competing in a women’s league who grew up and became accomplished at the game without any of the perceived handicaps or societal circumstances THAT WERE THE REASONS FOR CREATING A WOMEN’S LEAGUE IN THE FIRST PLACE. So as with other sex-separated forms of competition, this issue might drag on for quite a while before getting put to rest, if ever.
frankly, i dont understand why what ANY chess player wears should matter. They aren’t engaging in a physical game, what they wear has no bearing on their play (unless you consider the ‘wearing’ of anal beads, lol). To me, the entire thing is as silly as chess competitions being gendered.
I don’t see stoicism as being at odds with personal expression. Thoroughly enjojoyed the article though. About to go down a chess rabbit hole!
So, the dress code allows for dress shoes. It allows for sneakers. But not the bridge between dress shoes and sneakers.
Between this, the anal beads and the bathtub deuce, I feel like chess is about to have a moment.