PDA

View Full Version : Disappointing Sportspersonship



slyall
28-10-2019, 06:54 PM
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
28-10-2019, 09:55 PM
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
28-10-2019, 11:12 PM
"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 (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?17664-Q-amp-A-re-Rules-amp-Etiquette). 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
29-10-2019, 08:00 AM
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
29-10-2019, 08:58 AM
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
29-10-2019, 12:02 PM
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
29-10-2019, 12:54 PM
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
31-10-2019, 09:30 AM
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 (https://newzealandchess.nz/) 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 (https://scontent.fakl8-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/74443836_10157780750798750_2950287613434527744_o.j pg?_nc_cat=103&_nc_oc=AQm4tMoz8H5DLKYXIrrEj03PPaFp9xx5r1T7mj-xnInG8wULcbuIaL3QFPJMY6EWJTw&_nc_ht=scontent.fakl8-1.fna&oh=8c11b1edef596ea8ac8b58746c135443&oe=5E5F1919) the arbiter (me) actually did "write down the result of the game still going on the table it was being played at"! :cool:
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 (https://scontent.fakl8-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/74443836_10157780750798750_2950287613434527744_o.j pg?_nc_cat=103&_nc_oc=AQm4tMoz8H5DLKYXIrrEj03PPaFp9xx5r1T7mj-xnInG8wULcbuIaL3QFPJMY6EWJTw&_nc_ht=scontent.fakl8-1.fna&oh=8c11b1edef596ea8ac8b58746c135443&oe=5E5F1919) was actually taken after final results for the event with crosstables and prizewinners were published (between when photo #4 (https://scontent.fakl8-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/74335427_10157780751638750_4880519849823961088_o.j pg?_nc_cat=109&_nc_oc=AQnk5iAB9CTiuf-pqIKCzMuNUWqy7R6OuR7asVanbFZhJRPXyRlyJhutvn-qH86gNSE&_nc_ht=scontent.fakl8-1.fna&oh=d5239e22ced3427e8ea5dc3b0fe9fabb&oe=5E5D1A23) and photo #5 (https://scontent.fakl8-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/75328662_10157780751153750_6415494891731681280_o.j pg?_nc_cat=104&_nc_oc=AQkxKcAhIkkgJfOTzLhf1cUZ2sUBvZ-krTaMG-JjDMvG0qOm8zuTOonppkjiwkVbBZ4&_nc_ht=scontent.fakl8-1.fna&oh=778573921ea09a189ccbc306367c5e20&oe=5E5D144A) were taken) which explains the smaller crowd in photo #6 (https://scontent.fakl8-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/74909817_10157780751573750_510578698466885632_o.jp g?_nc_cat=108&_nc_oc=AQkWPc2ceINlYnv2_3uLmYoNJqoDO4CCl8cALRT0MTP DwY_heIL3elyQKr91AT6sasc&_nc_ht=scontent.fakl8-1.fna&oh=b811f5ab5bb53bd90e95e1ecd853dd64&oe=5E4F18A3) and photo #7 (https://scontent.fakl8-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/74443836_10157780750798750_2950287613434527744_o.j pg?_nc_cat=103&_nc_oc=AQm4tMoz8H5DLKYXIrrEj03PPaFp9xx5r1T7mj-xnInG8wULcbuIaL3QFPJMY6EWJTw&_nc_ht=scontent.fakl8-1.fna&oh=8c11b1edef596ea8ac8b58746c135443&oe=5E5F1919). 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 (https://scontent.fakl8-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/74634713_10157780754723750_3131471620565106688_o.j pg?_nc_cat=108&_nc_oc=AQn41od0lSK5zkFahrisnosXDMa0TrVASCw-i9Gey2ndHL3FOZQ-Rv_teKLfygJuU2M&_nc_ht=scontent.fakl8-1.fna&oh=5f4a87ec19fc8afff769803b1d0dd629&oe=5E536842) 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
31-10-2019, 06:34 PM
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
31-10-2019, 09:04 PM
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
31-10-2019, 10:30 PM
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
01-11-2019, 01:15 AM
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 (http://rules.fide.com/images/stories/Laws_of_Chess_2018_-_EB_approved_-_clean_version.pdf):


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
01-11-2019, 02:53 AM
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
01-11-2019, 05:22 AM
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 (http://rules.fide.com/images/stories/Laws_of_Chess_2018_-_EB_approved_-_clean_version.pdf):


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
01-11-2019, 06:24 AM
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 (http://rules.fide.com/images/stories/Laws_of_Chess_2018_-_EB_approved_-_clean_version.pdf):


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.

Desmond
01-11-2019, 06:26 AM
It is interesting that IA Shaun Press has just made a blog post regarding this exact type of subject.

His commentary is as follows:

Very good commentary, IMO.

Capablanca-Fan
01-11-2019, 07:55 AM
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 board where it is being played. The game in question didn't seem to be particularly long.

I was continuing the argument in:


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.

That is, explaining why it might have been justifiable to expel in earlier rounds but not in the last round, although the behaviour was equally unsporting regardless of the round.

As for the rest of your post, it wasn't the time alone that was unsporting, because no one doubts that one has a right to use one's thinking time. The problem was stalling for time when there was only one legal move available.

Capablanca-Fan
01-11-2019, 07:57 AM
[Citing IA Shaun Press]


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.

That rule is a good one. From the photos, it does seem that this stalling player was at the board.

Capablanca-Fan
01-11-2019, 08:03 AM
Pardon the interruption, but it's worth mentioning that this tournament was the Merv Morrison Memorial, and Brodie crossed the ditch to add to his recent tournament winning streak (https://www.newzealandchess.nz/2019/formCodeACC/MervMorrisonMemorial2019.html). He was half a point behind IM Paul Garbett going into their last round game, and Brodie won to overtake Garbett for first.

OK, carry on.

antichrist
01-11-2019, 08:15 AM
If there were open tribunals or court cases on chess issues it would be terrific publicity. My mother only followed cricket after that underarm bowling controversy. And she hated those big dark West Indies bashing up the Aussies.

Adamski
01-11-2019, 09:06 AM
Pardon the interruption, but it's worth mentioning that this tournament was the Merv Morrison Memorial, and Brodie crossed the ditch to add to his recent tournament winning streak (https://www.newzealandchess.nz/2019/formCodeACC/MervMorrisonMemorial2019.html). He was half a point behind IM Paul Garbett going into their last round game, and Brodie won to overtake Garbett for first.

OK, carry on.

Thanks for the link , Jono. And we'll done once again, Brodie!

Kevin Bonham
01-11-2019, 09:15 AM
Note that under the FIDE Laws the player having the move is only strictly required to remain in the playing area (except if the arbiter permits otherwise). The playing area is the room(s) where the games are being played. However a player who keeps getting up and going walkies on their move when they should be thinking might be deemed to be a distraction. Making a player who is obviously stalling remain in their seat can also be considered as a measure in the interests of the competition.

I do wonder if FIDE should have a specific anti-stalling rule, or if it would be too hard to phrase and implement without catching out some players who were legitimately taking their time.

Desmond
01-11-2019, 10:35 AM
I was continuing the argument in:



That is, explaining why it might have been justifiable to expel in earlier rounds but not in the last round, although the behaviour was equally unsporting regardless of the round.

As for the rest of your post, it wasn't the time alone that was unsporting, because no one doubts that one has a right to use one's thinking time. The problem was stalling for time when there was only one legal move available.Not so, the only problem was the time.

Most of the stalling was not done on the last move. As per opening post of the thread, 80 mins were spent on a single move earlier, at the last position it was just a few.

Ian Rout
01-11-2019, 11:35 AM
I do wonder if FIDE should have a specific anti-stalling rule, or if it would be too hard to phrase and implement without catching out some players who were legitimately taking their time.I think this would be used so rarely as not to be worthwhile, or applied too commonly as a result of false positives. What might appear to be "stalling" is often a legitimate tactic, for instance to keep an opponent squirming in time trouble. Other than extreme cases it would need an arbiter to be an experienced player to exercise sound judgement, given the difficulty of producing a workable definition. A better sanction is to not accept an offender's entry next time.

$100 in NZ is a bit less than here but it does sound a little excessive for the purpose of discouraging frivolous appeals. It seems to err on the side of intimidating players away from legitimate or marginal appeals, especially when a tournament official appears to be publicly taunting potential appellants about it.

On that subject, I think if I were on the committee I would have to rule that no laws had been broken and the arbiter had exceeded his authority in inserting himself into the game to the extent of discussing analysis with a player and effectively confirming its accuracy, unless there is some sort of defence based on it being consistent with normal practice in that part of the world or some sort of supplementary tournament conditions. However I would also rule that the result should stand as it probably wasn't affected by the incident, though only because of the triviality of the position.

Patrick Byrom
01-11-2019, 01:37 PM
Note that under the FIDE Laws the player having the move is only strictly required to remain in the playing area (except if the arbiter permits otherwise). The playing area is the room(s) where the games are being played. However a player who keeps getting up and going walkies on their move when they should be thinking might be deemed to be a distraction. Making a player who is obviously stalling remain in their seat can also be considered as a measure in the interests of the competition. I do wonder if FIDE should have a specific anti-stalling rule, or if it would be too hard to phrase and implement without catching out some players who were legitimately taking their time.Wouldn't requiring players not to leave the board when it's their move, without the permission of the arbiter, be a workable rule?

Kevin Bonham
01-11-2019, 02:12 PM
Wouldn't requiring players not to leave the board when it's their move, without the permission of the arbiter, be a workable rule?

It could be a lot more work for the arbiter at times. When players are competing for a prize in the final rounds of a tournament it's fairly common for the player on the move to check the results or what is going on on an adjacent board because that knowledge can affect their decision (especially if they have been offered a draw).

Ian Rout
01-11-2019, 03:26 PM
It could be a lot more work for the arbiter at times. When players are competing for a prize in the final rounds of a tournament it's fairly common for the player on the move to check the results or what is going on on an adjacent board because that knowledge can affect their decision (especially if they have been offered a draw).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.

slyall
01-11-2019, 04:18 PM
That rule is a good one. From the photos, it does seem that this stalling player was at the board.

That was not the case. When it was first his move he wandered around for several minutes looking at other games. He was at the board (from memory) for at least the last 30 minutes, pretty much continuously though.

ER
01-11-2019, 05:54 PM
Good point about appeals fee.

of course, just imagine a junior, and they constitute a very respectable percentage - if not the majority of participants in some cases these days,
having to cough up $100 for an appeal when they feel unjustly done! Let alone those whom we all know still frequent chess events as
participants, who wouldn't know what a $100 appeal fee looks like even if it hit them on the head!
After all maybe financially hard done by chess players should be excluded from the cashless dole payments! :D :P

ER
01-11-2019, 05:57 PM
He was at the board (from memory) for at least the last 30 minutes, pretty much continuously though.

He looks sad!

Patrick Byrom
01-11-2019, 06:08 PM
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
01-11-2019, 08:11 PM
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
02-11-2019, 10:57 AM
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
03-11-2019, 08:28 PM
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 :D ) 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
04-11-2019, 01:32 AM
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
04-11-2019, 11:12 AM
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.)