Disappointing Sportspersonship

[Patrick Byrom]

You'd also need a further rule that a player must return to their seat when their opponent moves, otherwise it can be circumvented by getting up immediately after moving. So arbiters not only have to run around finding players but brandish stopwatches to see how quickly they got back. All in all a lot of mucking about for something that happens rarely and is hardly the end of the world - after all, the player still loses, unlike gamesmanship designed to gain an advantage. Of course it does happen; there was an instance in an interstate game I played a few years back (I just ignored it and pretended I hadn't noticed). It should however be pointed out that the offence here was not taking a break to rest or to look at other games, it wasn't even wasting time. It was making it obvious that he was wasting time. We know from an earlier post that he hadn't done this in an earlier round., which raises the question of whether he was asked why he was doing it now.

I agree that talking to the player is probably the best solution (I even suggested it myself!). And I agree that a new FIDE rule is not really necessary.

But the problems raised by Kevin and yourself aren't completely fatal - the arbiter wouldn't necessarily have to enforce the rule rigorously in every case, but could reserve it for obvious cases of time-wasting. So perhaps the rule could instead be that players must return to the board when it's their move if requested by the arbiter.

[Brodie]

After everything it was still an awesome event! A nice and healthy chess culture with many under-rated players especially juniors trying to swipe some rating points I had lots of fun and hope to play more events in the foreseeable future !

[Ian Rout]

But the problems raised by Kevin and yourself aren't completely fatal - the arbiter wouldn't necessarily have to enforce the rule rigorously in every case, but could reserve it for obvious cases of time-wasting. So perhaps the rule could instead be that players must return to the board when it's their move if requested by the arbiter.

That would be manageable though I don't see a lot of point to it. It's a very rare issue and a player can still return and then run down their time.

One concern with such a rule is the spotlight-seeking arbiter looking for a chance to apply it and harassing some innocent victim taking a break from their board - who proceeds to make the point that they won't be pushed around by some jumped-up little Napoleon by sitting and running their time down when they otherwise had no intention of doing so.

I imagine that the current rules already give the arbiter the authority to give this direction under their general authority, but with it not being explicit they have to be ready to justify it by demonstrating extraordinary circumstances.

[ER]

After everything it was still an awesome event! A nice and healthy chess culture with many under-rated players especially juniors trying to swipe some rating points I had lots of fun and hope to play more events in the foreseeable future !

Congrats for the victory Brodie. I really enjoyed your discussion with Capablanca-Fan! (*) You gave us the events from a player's point of view who had a thorough knowledge of the situation
away from boring references to what the book, or the laws, or the experts say (not that they aren't useful but still dead boring ) Also very interesting your approach of understanding
instead of castigating the "guilty" party as well as your no-nonsense suggestion about what should be done in dealing with such people. All the best son! (*) in another forum.

[Garvinator]

From the solution Shaun Press suggests, I think a few posters have taken matters way too far and are extrapolating to many other situations that do not apply.

In the situation that Shaun talks about, the player at the board is hopelessly lost and is intent on just letting their clock run down, either by sitting at the board and doing nothing, or walking around the playing area, chatting with others and watching other games.

So the key part of the equation here is - the player is hopelessly lost and the action Shaun has recommended cuts down the options available to the player. Furthermore, it is highly likely that any arbiter taking the action that Shaun is recommending would be doing so after a complaint or raising of the issue by the opponent.

So the distraction rule has already been met and now the arbiter is stepping in and giving their rule for what is to occur from now on.

So all talk about players looking at other boards so they can get an idea of the result of the other boards does not apply in this situation. In those situations, the game in question is a live game and still being contested.

We are talking about one scenario - player dead lost, will not resign and is instead intent on wasting their opponents time (ie having to wait around for a game to finish that is dead lost) and potentially wasting the tournaments time if it is one of the last games of the round and there is another round to start after this game is concluded.

[Kevin Bonham]

So the distraction rule has already been met and now the arbiter is stepping in and giving their rule for what is to occur from now on.

One could say that unnecessary stalling meets the "annoy" component of "It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever." (But one could also if being literal say that about playing good moves.)