Disappointing Sportspersonship

[slyall]

So we just finished the Merv Morrison this weekend. A pretty good tournament with several higher rated players.

Some disappointments though (I won't name the people although all in late teens or adults).

One player lost to an low-rated player in the first round and didn't come back. He didn't inform the organisers at all so his 2nd round opponent got a default-win.

A high-rated player pulled out after 4 rounds (apparently also unhappy with his performance). He didn't inform the arbiter until the morning so it was too late to change the draw for round 5 (and he was due to play on a high board).

Another player also disappeared after 4 rounds (I am not sure if he informed the arbiter but he was paired for round 5 ).

In the last round a player got into a losing position ( Knight vs 2 pawns and a bishop). He had about 80 minutes on the clock (his opponent had about 24 minutes) so he chose to let his clock run down (wandering around for a while and then sitting at the board looking distressed). When his clock reached about 2 minutes he started playing normally. His opponent managed to Queen and chased his King into the corner. With mate-in-two he sat for another 3 minutes until he lost on time.

[Garry Kaspahon]

So we just finished the Merv Morrison this weekend. A pretty good tournament with several higher rated players.

Some disappointments though (I won't name the people although all in late teens or adults).

One player lost to an low-rated player in the first round and didn't come back. He didn't inform the organisers at all so his 2nd round opponent got a default-win.

A high-rated player pulled out after 4 rounds (apparently also unhappy with his performance). He didn't inform the arbiter until the morning so it was too late to change the draw for round 5 (and he was due to play on a high board).

Another player also disappeared after 4 rounds (I am not sure if he informed the arbiter but he was paired for round 5 ).

In the last round a player got into a losing position ( Knight vs 2 pawns and a bishop). He had about 80 minutes on the clock (his opponent had about 24 minutes) so he chose to let his clock run down (wandering around for a while and then sitting at the board looking distressed). When his clock reached about 2 minutes he started playing normally. His opponent managed to Queen and chased his King into the corner. With mate-in-two he sat for another 3 minutes until he lost on time.

"In the last round a player got into a losing position ( Knight vs 2 pawns and a bishop). He had about 80 minutes on the clock (his opponent had about 24 minutes) so he chose to let his clock run down (wandering around for a while and then sitting at the board looking distressed). When his clock reached about 2 minutes he started playing normally. His opponent managed to Queen and chased his King into the corner. With mate-in-two he sat for another 3 minutes until he lost on time." some players says you can't do anything about it but personally for me, it's a sign of disrespect to his/her opponent, can the arbiter do something about it?

[Patrick Byrom]

"In the last round a player got into a losing position ( Knight vs 2 pawns and a bishop). He had about 80 minutes on the clock (his opponent had about 24 minutes) so he chose to let his clock run down (wandering around for a while and then sitting at the board looking distressed). When his clock reached about 2 minutes he started playing normally. His opponent managed to Queen and chased his King into the corner. With mate-in-two he sat for another 3 minutes until he lost on time." some players says you can't do anything about it but personally for me, it's a sign of disrespect to his/her opponent, can the arbiter do something about it?

A similar case was discussed on the Rules and Etiquette thread. The arbiter could sanction the player for bringing the game into disrepute. But I'd suggest that before doing that the arbiter could have spoken to the offending player, and even given him a warning.

[Zelgiusfan5000]

People can look at the tournament results and see exactly who you’re referring to, no real reason to hide their names. It looks pretty childish for these guys to be dropping out but I won’t judge them too much, haven’t heard their side of the story.

[Ian Rout]

some players says you can't do anything about it but personally for me, it's a sign of disrespect to his/her opponent, can the arbiter do something about it?

I don't think you can really do much about this. It's a player's right to allocate their time as they see fit. Moreover B+2P v N is not always completely trivial so it makes sense to, in effect, adjourn play in the hope that your opponent will lose their rhythm or their sense of danger.

As for the unannounced withdrawals, some sort of penalty such as banning from the tournament in future, or at least a warning or show-cause notice, or reporting to the national body, would seem to be appropriate. I suppose it depends how this is normally treated.

[Kevin Bonham]

Some photos of the stalling incident including the positions where the stall occurred have been posted on the NZ Chess website.

The position where the main stall occurred is lost but it is possible the player would swindle a draw depending on the opponent's endgame skill. I probably wouldn't resign it just yet (but nor would I stall for 90 minutes.)

The stall at the end is strange as the player has only one legal move. That said, it's one where an inexperienced opponent might respond to that move by delivering stalemate.

Odd.

[Desmond]

Some photos of the stalling incident including the positions where the stall occurred have been posted on the NZ Chess website.

The position where the main stall occurred is lost but it is possible the player would swindle a draw depending on the opponent's endgame skill. I probably wouldn't resign it just yet (but nor would I stall for 90 minutes.)

The stall at the end is strange as the player has only one legal move. That said, it's one where an inexperienced opponent might respond to that move by delivering stalemate.

Odd.

Photo #7 - did the arbiter actually write down the result of the game still going on the table it was being played at?

[Keong Ang]

Photo #7 - did the arbiter actually write down the result of the game still going on the table it was being played at?

Such bad behaviour must be put on public record. Therefore it is published in the 28th October 2019 article in New Zealand Chess News website frontpage.
Incident at Board 13, Round 6, Merv Morrison Memorial 2019. Dare, Richard (White) 1926 FIDE vs Qin, Oscar (Black) 1582 FIDE.

The only thing that allowed this incident to drag on for so long were other games still being played, the last of which was critical in deciding a major prize. Otherwise this nonsense would have been stopped much earlier.

Yes, in photo #7 the arbiter (me) actually did "write down the result of the game still going on the table it was being played at"!
This was after Black informed me exactly what moves he would play in reply to White's only remaining 2 legal moves before forced checkmate.
Not only were the results written down, but Black signed the scoresheets on my instruction and then it was simply a matter of waiting for White to either run out of time, or resign, or play remaining 2 moves to checkmate.

Photo #7 was actually taken after final results for the event with crosstables and prizewinners were published (between when photo #4 and photo #5 were taken) which explains the smaller crowd in photo #6 and photo #7. People were looking at the noticeboard and getting ready for prizegiving.

Since there were less than 5 minutes remaining we thought it would be entertaining to observe the game end naturally instead of earlier idea to commence prizegiving with all the loud noise that goes with it. We were ready to receive an appeal, in writing with $100 appeal fee paid (that would be refunded only if appeal was successful), and the appeals committee was ready to conduct a proper hearing publicly. That would have been good entertainment to finish off the event!
If this incident had happened in an earlier round, the game would have been forcibly ended at least an hour earlier with expulsion of offending player from event. Such unsporting behaviour ruins the chess event for everyone. We had gone far beyond expected tolerance for this sort of behaviour in this case.

While there is nothing wrong with playing on however lost the position may be, the player with the "lost position" needs to make moves efficiently and not blatantly waste time. Just sitting there not making moves while running down own clock is just plain rude and disrespectful to opponent and everybody else involved in the event. Especially in this case where incident began with nearly 1 hour 45 minutes on the clock (in a game where players start with 1 hour 30 minutes each and get 30 seconds increment!) and the under 12 kid had already waited patiently for more than half an hour before photo #1 was taken. A really bad situation where an under 12 kid was subjected to enduring nearly 2 hours of this nonsense from a guy who is nearly 30 years old.

[ER]

Since there were less than 5 minutes remaining we thought it would be entertaining to observe the game end naturally instead of earlier idea to commence prizegiving with all the loud noise that goes with it. We were ready to receive an appeal, in writing with $100 appeal fee paid (that would be refunded only if appeal was successful), and the appeals committee was ready to conduct a proper hearing publicly. That would have been good entertainment to finish off the event!

This $100 appeal fee in my opinion is grossly unfair to say the least. It only gives the right to seek justice for a person who has that amount of money and doesn't really care if they lose or win the case.
It excludes players who don't have that amount of money or cannot afford to risk it if they are short of it. But that's another story.

What I really find completely inappropriate and unacceptable is your attitude of staging an open air tribunal in order to "provide entertainment for the public"!!!
If you are willing to treat such a serious affair as a public laughable spectacle I suggest you rent a clown, unless of course there's someone willing to volunteer for the job!

If this incident had happened in an earlier round, the game would have been forcibly ended at least an hour earlier with expulsion of offending player from event. Such unsporting behaviour ruins the chess event for everyone. We had gone far beyond expected tolerance for this sort of behaviour in this case.

Why is it less an unsporting behaviour if the incident occurred in the last round and the offending party wasn't expelled from the event during it?

[MichaelBaron]

This $100 appeal fee in my opinion is grossly unfair to say the least. It only gives the right to seek justice for a person who has that amount of money and doesn't really care if they lose or win the case.
It excludes players who don't have that amount of money or cannot afford to risk it if they are short of it. But that's another story.

What I really find completely inappropriate and unacceptable is your attitude of staging an open air tribunal in order to "provide entertainment for the public"!!!
If you are willing to treat such a serious affair as a public laughable spectacle I suggest you rent a clown, unless of course there's someone willing to volunteer for the job!




Why is it less an unsporting behaviour if the incident occurred in the last round and the offending party wasn't expelled from the event during it?

Good point about appeals fee.

[Kevin Bonham]

This $100 appeal fee in my opinion is grossly unfair to say the least. It only gives the right to seek justice for a person who has that amount of money and doesn't really care if they lose or win the case.

Appeal deposit requirements are common in order to discourage appeals that are frivolous, meritless or vexatious. The FIDE General Regulations for Competitions (applicable to all FIDE-rated events but can be modified if "appropriate", whatever that means) state:

10.4 An appeal shall be accompanied by a fee and submitted in written form not later than the deadline. Both fee and deadline shall be fixed in advance. The decisions of the AC shall be final. The fee is returnable if the appeal is successful. The fee (or part of it) may also be returned if the appeal is unsuccessful but considered reasonable in the view of the committee.

Of course one can debate what level of deposit should be required but I do not think $100 is excessive. If a player's cause is just then it is highly likely other players will be willing to assist with the deposit if necessary. If a player is short of money then the organisers would be at liberty to make some alternative arrangement such as accepting an IOU for the appeal cost in the event of the fee not being refunded.

In my experience appeals committees will recommend deposits be refunded even if the appeal completely fails, provided the player who appeals is sincere and serious about it.

What I really find completely inappropriate and unacceptable is your attitude of staging an open air tribunal in order to "provide entertainment for the public"!!!

Keong may be taking the mickey (there have been cases of this in the past) - for what it's worth I have never heard of a public hearing for a chess tournament appeal. That said even harrowing, demeaning or embarrassing court cases are often open to the public so I'm not sure chess appeals being open is necessarily such a terrible idea. Might give some players a good idea what goes on in them.

[Capablanca-Fan]

Why is it less an unsporting behaviour if the incident occurred in the last round and the offending party wasn't expelled from the event during it?

It is indeed no less unsporting, but in previous rounds, the arbiter may have another reason to expel the offending party, from the FIDE Laws:

Article 12: The role of the Arbiter (see Preface)

12.1 The arbiter shall see that the Laws of Chess are observed.
12.2 The arbiter shall:

12.2.1 ensure fair play,
12.2.2 act in the best interest of the competition,
12.2.3 ensure that a good playing environment is maintained,

It is in the best interest of the competition and for a good playing environment that unsporting stalling is called to a halt on pain of expulsion.

[Garvinator]

It is interesting that IA Shaun Press has just made a blog post regarding this exact type of subject.

His commentary is as follows:

What happens if your opponent refuses to move, and decides that they would rather lose on time than either resign or be checkmated? Pretty much nothing. The time on their clock is to do with as they please, and if that involves sitting at the board for an hour, then that is their right.

As a tournament arbiter, this has happened on occasion, and I've been asked whether I can do anything. I certainly can't make the player move or resign, but I can make sure they follow the rules while the game is still in progress. The one rule that I do insist upon in this situation is that they must remain at the board during their move. I also forbid them from talking to anyone, or acting in a distracting manner. Interestingly, when I have done this, resignation usually occurs quite quickly.(my bolding)

Of course it is poor sportsmanship to behave in this manner, but for some players, their chess reputation doesn't seem to matter. For younger players this is understandable, but for players old enough to know better, it is a bit of a mystery to me. Maybe they've seen the story of Curt von Bardeleben (who famously walked out on Steinitz rather than resign) and decided that infamy is just as good as fame.

[ER]

It is indeed no less unsporting, but in previous rounds, the arbiter may have another reason to expel the offending party, from the FIDE Laws:

Article 12: The role of the Arbiter (see Preface)

12.1 The arbiter shall see that the Laws of Chess are observed.
12.2 The arbiter shall:

12.2.1 ensure fair play,
12.2.2 act in the best interest of the competition,
12.2.3 ensure that a good playing environment is maintained,

It is in the best interest of the competition and for a good playing environment that unsporting stalling is called to a halt on pain of expulsion.

Thanks Capablanca-Fan, indeed it makes a difference!

[Desmond]

It is indeed no less unsporting, but in previous rounds, the arbiter may have another reason to expel the offending party, from the FIDE Laws:

Article 12: The role of the Arbiter (see Preface)

12.1 The arbiter shall see that the Laws of Chess are observed.
12.2 The arbiter shall:

12.2.1 ensure fair play,
12.2.2 act in the best interest of the competition,
12.2.3 ensure that a good playing environment is maintained,

It is in the best interest of the competition and for a good playing environment that unsporting stalling is called to a halt on pain of expulsion.

Come off it. You're seriously going to kick someone out of the competition for using their time? If someone using their time causes a bad playing environment, organisers should choose a different time control or organise their round start times better. The opponent used almost as much time too, maybe you want to kick him out as well.

Arbiter acting in the best interests of the competition might include things like starting (or at least pairing) the next round if there's an exceptionally long game still going (Eg very high number of moves with long increment), assuming a result therein. He should not do so while writing an assumed result of the ongoing game at the the board where it is being played. The game in question didn't seem to be particularly long.