Bad Behaviour at the board

[Alex Ferreira]

Hello,


In my opinion, this kind of thing needs to be passed on in terms of education from the arbiters / organizers / parents to the players.
"Distractions" can be incredibly vague. And the rules must be malleable. A lot of it should be "common sense", I'll try to cover some of it below. I would be against some type of strict / super specific manual trying to cover a lot of these little things.


Some posters made reference to poor behaviour by juniors. I don't necessarily agree that juniors are more problematic than adults, though there might just be more juniors than adults out there. I may agree that (mis)behaviour can be more contagious among juniors than among adults, and therefore can get out of hand more rapidly.
I am copying / pasting a short list someone had posted, with my personal opinions:

1. Banging the clock on every move
- unacceptable. Intimidation tactic, poor sportsmanship. Some leeway may be considered if players are on blitz mode with insufficient increment per move.
2. Staring at you when it’s your move
- you're beautiful, be happy. If you think it's a thing, make sure you never make eye-contact, that should discourage your new admirer. Or stare back! Share some chocolate after.
3. Standing behind you in your field of vision when it’s your move.
- some players do it to get the reverse perspective of what you may be looking at. If your opponent is doing this during YOUR move, you can request the arbiter to tell him not to. It can be perceived as intimidation or annoying. However... during his clock time, if he wants to come around, I don't see the issue.
4. Constantly sniffing instead of blowing their nose
- Kids are magnets for the common cold. And they hang out in large numbers. Virus move around. When I have a cold, I can go through a ton of tissue paper. Maybe some juniors (or adults) didn't stock their pockets with enough tissue. Maybe organizers should have a box of tissue paper, never thought of it until now, but all things considered, small thing. The player himself is probably more bothered and feeling worse than you.
5. Sighing in boredom when you’re thinking.
- What is this? Did we have to invent something to complain about?
6. Not shaking hands properly
- Yes... some people will present you with a wet-noodle handshake. Sometimes it's cultural, sometimes it's not. Some juniors haven't gotten comfortable with this. I have a big hand! When I shake anyone else's hand (who I don't know), I do a full-hand but soft handshake not to crush some junior's hand who is 1/3 the size of mine. This is a ridiculous complaint, move on!
7. Repeatedly offering draws in a losing position
- The polite thing when offering draws is: I offer once. If my opponent declines, the "draw offer option" should be on his court. In other words... the next draw offer made in the same game should be made by my opponent. If he then offers a draw and I decline, the "draw offer option" is now on my court, and so on. Repeated draw offers ARE annoying, disrupting, and should not be allowed. As per regulations though, there should be nothing wrong, even if by the same player, to offer a draw 20 moves later. The position has taken a beating since the last offer.

---

Some other bits...
- No eating at the board, 100% agree. Allergies, grease, dirty fingers, dirty chess pieces. Step outside to eat your granola bar or piece of fruit.
- Adjust your pieces on your own time, with your clock running. Otherwise you're distracting your opponent. Gesturing over the board: if it's your own time running, should be fine. If you get bothered by it, when your opponent's time is running, that sounds like a you-problem.
- No talking, 100% agree. Offer Draw, Resign, or call arbiter about some ruling / infraction. Why should anything else be discussed?

---

Adult tournament players should know better. But if they don't, odds are they're career criminals.
With juniors, a lot of the times we can educate them, in my opinion. Instead of just telling a junior to do or not to do something, start by explaining it. Why it's a rule, why it's polite, or that it's distracting or bothering someone. A lot of the times the junior isn't even aware that it's an issue. If the problem persists, and there is a parent present, explain to the parent as well. Many parents are not chess players and they may understand tournament etiquette even less than their kids. If the offence is worthy of forfeiture when repeated, explain that too. And finally, if the player, junior or adult, simply doesn't get it, then the arbiter must be ready to administer a forfeit. But I think it's important to begin the approach allowing the player the benefit of the doubt, unless we know the player to be a career offender. Especially when it comes to juniors, an explanation preceding a warning might go a lot further than just a barked order.

Some of these distractions are real. Of course the same "distraction" will be perceived very differently from person to person. Some of these (presented above by other people) are in my opinion, absurd. For the hyper-sensitive, anything and everything will be a distraction.

Nobody wants to be forfeited. Sometimes it's what it takes. However, and I may be naive, I really don't believe the majority of these "distractions", especially by juniors, are out of malice.


Alex Ferreira

[Fred Harvey]

One of the better posts on here! I suppose that the chess community has a greater than average number of people that like to see everything in neat little packages like lists, rules and laws, as opposed to judgement and common sense. Surely "bad behaviour" is a judgement call - I can't imagine any list would be all-encompassing, and would actually be counter-productive in that the offender would be given more ammunition to cause trouble?

[Aris Marghetis]

One of the better posts on here! I suppose that the chess community has a greater than average number of people that like to see everything in neat little packages like lists, rules and laws, as opposed to judgement and common sense. Surely "bad behaviour" is a judgement call - I can't imagine any list would be all-encompassing, and would actually be counter-productive in that the offender would be given more ammunition to cause trouble?

I think that Fred does a good job describing the situation. The challenge with specifics is that some folk use the specifics to find soft spots they can push. And push. And push. It can be quite frustrating for regular honourable people. I suggest that judgement and common sense are there, but sometimes we're slow to reprimand the bad guy, which in effect punishes the good guy.

[Bob Gillanders]

I think that Fred does a good job describing the situation. The challenge with specifics is that some folk use the specifics to find soft spots they can push. And push. And push. It can be quite frustrating for regular honourable people. I suggest that judgement and common sense are there, but sometimes we're slow to reprimand the bad guy, which in effect punishes the good guy.

Well said Aris & Fred. I totally agree.
I hear too frequently from chess officials that they struggle with enforcing behavioural norms. Some times they get the "there ain't no specific rule that says I can't do that". Well, that is not sufficient grounds for continuing bad behaviour. It can be difficult to confront these people, but take comfort in the knowledge that the majority of players are behind you.

[Frank Dixon]

Most tournament chess players in Canada are honourable people and honest, considerate competitors. It is the 5 to 10 per cent who are not in this category who cause almost all of the problems. As an organizer, director and arbiter for 50 years now (and I am only 61!), what annoys me the most is people who are informed by arbiters, in a respectful manner, that their conduct is inappropriate, and why, and then they continue doing the same thing, or something else which is objectionable. The toughest problem I have found to deal with is with people who discuss, in the playing hall, games which are still in progress, sometimes within hearing distance of the games themselves. This problem is getting worse, in my opinion.
Frank Dixon
NTD, Kingston

[John Brown]

If you want to start curbing Bad Behaviour you have to start penalizing these people. Warnings are a joke . You warn them then they do it again somewhere else.. Penalize them add their name to a bad behaviour list and soon the bad behaviour should start to decrease.
I've been in many cases of bad behaviour and even when I tell the TD most times they do nothing.
Manners need to be started at the teaching levels. If people misbehave and they are penalized in front of their peers they will tend to Smarten Up.

[Aris Marghetis]

If you want to start curbing Bad Behaviour you have to start penalizing these people. Warnings are a joke . You warn them then they do it again somewhere else.. Penalize them add their name to a bad behaviour list and soon the bad behaviour should start to decrease.
I've been in many cases of bad behaviour and even when I tell the TD most times they do nothing.
Manners need to be started at the teaching levels. If people misbehave and they are penalized in front of their peers they will tend to Smarten Up.

In my humble opinion, John is largely correct. Somehow over the last couple of decades, in life as well as in chess, the word warning has achieved a remarkably broadened spectrum. Some things immediately deserve more than a warning. I once ejected a player for a single horrible swear word uttered at their opponent during play. I haven't had to do that again ever since. What a miracle lol.

I remember when I was a kid, you only got warnings for things that your parents, teachers, etc. figured you LEGITIMATELY might never have had the chance to assimilate before. When you knew you were doing something inappropriate, you also knew you were in line for more than a warning. Warning players who deserve more is a way of enabling cheating vs. properly behaving players.

[Brad Thomson]

Aris,

How does the TD decide when to act and when not to? For example, if your opponent has your Q in their hand when you are trying to promote in a time scramble it is up to you to stop the clock and then seek out the TD and tell them that your opponent has your Q in their hand and that you would like to use it to promote a pawn. But if the TD hears a single bad word, is that sufficient or necessary reason for them to act without someone stopping their clock and then asking them to do so?

[Aris Marghetis]

Aris,

How does the TD decide when to act and when not to? For example, if your opponent has your Q in their hand when you are trying to promote in a time scramble it is up to you to stop the clock and then seek out the TD and tell them that your opponent has your Q in their hand and that you would like to use it to promote a pawn. But if the TD hears a single bad word, is that sufficient or necessary reason for them to act without someone stopping their clock and then asking them to do so?

Come on Brad, those aren't comparable situations, and it wasn't just a "bad" word. And I've never been an Arbiter for the first case above. All one can do is apply their judgement in the moment.

[Brad Thomson]

Well, then that answers my question perfectly- you use judgement. This it seems to me is the first principle when TDs make decisions. It is impossible to have rules that will govern for every possible happenstance, therefore an overriding power of discretion is required. You are a discrete man yourself. :)

[Aris Marghetis]

Well, then that answers my question perfectly- you use judgement. This it seems to me is the first principle when TDs make decisions. It is impossible to have rules that will govern for every possible happenstance, therefore an overriding power of discretion is required. You are a discrete man yourself. :)

Thanks for your reply Brad. If I may pseudo-summarize a bit: whereas some of the posters are looking for something more scripted, I am of the school that, at the end of the day, it's judgement and common sense that Arbiters and Organizers are actually relying on. It seems most of the more recent posters feel that way. However, I do sense another angle to this thread, which is the sheer WILLINGNESS of Arbiters to impose penalties. I am hearing, admittedly anecdotally, that people want that more? That was where my example of the horrible word came in, that precisely because I DEALT with it, it never happened again (admittedly, to my knowledge). I do tend to agree with John that recent society seems hesitant to enforce, which seems to be making such problems worse?!

P.S. I hope you meant I'm discreet vs. discrete, I'd like to think I have "range" lol

[Fred Harvey]

I agree.... this was my point when I first posted earlier.

Aris,

How does the TD decide when to act and when not to?

My first reaction to this question was if a TD has to ask questions like this. they are in the wrong job!

[Brad Thomson]

"My first reaction to this question was if a TD has to ask questions like this. they are in the wrong job!"


A curious reaction insofar as the person who asked the question made no claim to being a TD. Rather, the question was asked of a respected and experienced TD, which would seem to indicate, one would think, that the person asking the question was not a TD and was instead seeking information about how respected and experienced TDs make their decisions. Perhaps your clear and obvious desire to insult rather than to learn is the reason for your curious question. I am of the opinion that this forum would be better served by attempts at gaining information than attempts at insults.

[Fred Harvey]

Oh dearie me! No-one accused you of being a TD, so no insults, veiled or otherwise. So sensitive.....

[Peter McKillop]

Oh dearie me! No-one accused you of being a TD, so no insults, veiled or otherwise. So sensitive.....

Another Brad Thomson reading comprehension brilliancy.