Gentlemen and Ladies in Chess

Running Chess Tournaments
1

What is the balance between aggressiveness, sportsmanship, and being a gentleman or lady over the chessboard??

Should one remind an opponent (perhaps repeatedly) to press his clock after a move??
Should one without objection offer his/her scoresheet to an opponent who falls behind??
How “stern” should a player be in claiming touch move?? For example, if there is a question about whether the touch was intentional, or an
accidental brush, should one call it??
If white and black both have digital clocks, and similar equipment, is black not being a gentleman or lady by claiming their right of choice??
For that matter, if a player brings a beautiful antique classic set with the pieces topped off by the opposite color, is their opponent not being a gentleman or lady if they refuse to play with such a set??

I have heard the argument back in forth about what constitutes a gentleman or lady in chess, and what does not.

Comments, please.

Rob Jones

2

I think these are all judgment calls, but I’m happy to give my opinion.

I don’t think there is any obligation to let the opponent know when he has forgotten to hit the clock, but I always do so. To me, it’s the courteous and gentlemanly thing to do. I want to win, but I want to do so by playing better chess – not by playing tricks with the clock.

I would not normally offer my scoresheet to the opponent unless he/she is obviously having trouble. But I will always do so if asked.

In a touch move situation, I always try to give my opponent the benefit of the doubt. But if they clearly grabbed the piece with the intention to move it, I will insist on enforcing the rule.

If my clock is “more standard” (digital vs. non-digital, for example), I will insist on using it, regardless of which color I have. Otherwise, I don’t really care. If the opponent wants to use his/her clock, and it’s a standard clock, I’m OK with that. In fact, my most recent tournament game had this exact situation. I was playing Black, but my opponent obviously wanted to use his clock. No problem – we used his clock.

Some players will object to using “special” sets, because the standard plastic USCF sets are “what they are used to”. If my opponent is such a one, I will respect his wishes. Personally, I’m not picky, as long as the pieces are recognizable. I would not want to play with a Civil War or Star Wars set, but would consider it a treat to use a set such as you describe.

In general, I prefer to be a gentlemen, and chess is more enjoyable if everyone does so. But I can only control my own behavior.

3

Hi Rob. I prefer that my students display proper etiquette at the board before, during, and after the game. That is how I learned to play. It is not too much to expect other players to do the same.

In the case of the clock button not being pressed during a regular tournament game, my preference is that the opponent be reminded that he failed to press the button. I do it all of the time, but I would not hold people to that standard. If you tell a person 5 times to press his clock, that should be enough. You do not have to disturb your own rhythm by constant reminders, but it does not bother me. In the case of new or novice players, who are not that familiar with the procedures and practices of tournaments, I think it is better to keep reminding them as necessary as they are just learning to play tournament chess. Unfortunately, failure to press the button might mess up move counters and increment time.

If I arrive at a board and the pieces and clock are already set up, I do not assert my right as the player of the Black pieces to use my own equipment. To do so would only disturb the other players and annoy the opponent. Most sets are acceptable. If the clock is not a good one, I will say that we should use my DGT NA. Usually, I ,am the one who arrives first and sets up my pieces and clock. On occasion, a player has demanded to use his own pieces/board/clock and cited his rights under the Rulebook. That was his first mistake.

In the case of a beautiful chess set, as long as it is within the piece height/size parameters, I will be happy to play on such a set. I will be careful with the pieces. Have played with a number of such expensive, gorgeous sets; I considered it an honor to the player and to the game of chess. I am mindful of how much chess means to some people and I see no reason not to respect that. Playing chess with a master on a fine chess set is important to them.

When my opponent requests to see my score sheet on his own time, I will lend it to him. He may have some difficulty reading my half algebraic/half descriptive writing. If I see he is fumbling his writing of the moves, I will help him out to see to it that he has a complete score. This happens to novices and experience players alike.

On “touch move” situations, I know the difference between an intentional and unintentional touching of the pieces. If a player bumps a piece or nips it with a shirt cuff, it is no big deal. I do know players who will make a scene when an accidental touching occurs. Most TDs cut them off at the pass and deny their claim immediately. They know the player is only making a claim to rattle the opponent. If a player frequently adjusts pieces on my time, however, I may see the tournament director to have him explain the proper procedure.

Rob, a gentleman or lady in chess does not cause problems. They will, however, note to the TD and the opponent that they have rights as well and expectations that each player will be treated with respect. If the gentleman takes off his watch and ring and puts them in his pocket, my experience is that a melee is about to ensue.

4

As of the fifth edition of the Official Rules of Chess (which came into force January 1, 2005), sets with different color knobs on the top of the bishops and queen are considered standard. The fourth edition had an explicit prohibition against such sets, but that prohibition was removed in the fifth edition.

5

That is entirely the prerogative of the opponent who has failed to operate his clock properly.

Presuming the opponent’s clock is running, the player should offer the score sheet if asked, because he will be directed to offer the score sheet when the opponent’s clock is running if the request goes to the TD.

Accidental brushes are easy to spot. Fistfuls of pieces merit enforcement every time.

No. These are his rights as the player who makes the second move.

I don’t care how beautiful the antique set is. If it is topped with the opposite color, it is nonstandard, and it is the player who offers such a set that is engaging in unsporting behavior. These sets are not permitted in my events even if the opponent doesn’t object, because it is just as important that I am not confused by the set as it is that the players are not confused by the set.

6

Not in my events. Rule 40C establishes the Staunton design as the standard form and indicates that “Minor variations in design may be tolerated, especially in sets that are widely used.” An opposite color top, in my view, is neither a minor variation in design nor widely used.

7

I agree with Brennan in all respects, except that where a non-standard set is concerned I don’t declare it impermissible unless the opponent complains. If the two players involved in the game are OK with it, I am, as well. It’s their game, and I try not to intervene unless required to do so. I once TD’d a tournament game played with a Simpson’s chess set on a red and black checkerboard that was about half as large as regulation chess board. Both players were comfortable with it, so I let it go.

8

I know of an instance where an older gentleman, after many years of being away from the game, came to a tournament in a municipal building with an old, but very nice chess set that had intricate carvings. The King was a little tall, but all of the pieces fit well on the wooden board that the man brought with him. The TD, who was hired by the chess club to do the tournament, rejected the set out of hand and said that the players would have to play on the chipped single weighted sets that he provided for the tournament. The man’s opponent and other players did not object to the old, expensive set, but the TD told them no, they had to play on his sets because he brought them and that they were standard. The older gentleman asked to withdraw from the event, but was told that he would not have his advance entry fee returned, which was noted in the fine print on the tournament flyer. He quietly left the building, according to what I was told.

About an hour later, in the middle of the first round, a police car appeared at the site. The officer informed the TD that the chess players had to leave the building because the permit for the event was pulled. That old gentleman was on the township council as well as being the local Republican Party chairman. When he left he called the recreation director and a couple of council members. They ordered the permit, which provided a free site and use of the kitchen, to be pulled immediately. No more free site for the tournaments, nor for the USCF chess club affiliate which met at that building on Thursday evenings. Their no cost site use permit was pulled as well.

When I became a tournament director at age 18, the old gentlemen who showed me the ropes informed me that half of the job of a TD was public relations. You had to know your clientele and how to bring them back for future tournaments and maybe as members of the club. You never knew who might walk in to play. I am sure that my mentors would have had no problem with the set the old gentleman came in with. They probably would have tried to find out something about him. At the very least, they would have treated him with respect and returned his entry fee if he was unhappy. Beware of old gentlemen! When they are angry, there is no telling what they might be capable of doing. The same is true of the tiger moms, helicopter moms, and the mama bears who are protecting their babies from the bad old TD who made their kids cry. They will put up with a lot, but be careful about poking them. Don’t just read the Rulebook and cite chapter and section. Realize what you, the TD are there for, to facilitate the entertainment of the players. As the saying goes, no one pays to see the umpires.

Off to chess club now to play some kids, millennials, and old gentlemen this evening. I hope some mom brings brownies. Oh well, maybe I’ll stop at the store on the way and pick something up for us. We will listen to the Sharks vs. Penguins game while we play. “It’s a hockey night in Pittsburgh.”

9

I’d have to see the set at issue to pass judgment on it, and the refusal to refund the entry fee was poor form, fine print or no.

That said, if the carvings on the set were so intricate as to potentially cause confusion, the other half of the job of the TD is to protect the field. I can diplomatically acknowledge the beauty of an ornate chess set while being firm about its inappropriateness for tournament play.

See also Rule 39A:

Now, I can’t really blame the aggrieved player for pulling some strings based on the lack of refund. But absent that, I can’t fault the TD for enforcing the expectation of Rule 39A, particularly if the set was so ornate as to be over the top. If protecting the field makes one person mad while unifying the experience for sixty others, I’ll protect the field every time, consequences to the playing hall be d—ed.

10

The choice is quit clear. One can choose to be an officious A___________, or oriented towards USCF growth. It is clear the choice Mr. Price has made.

Rob jones

11

While this is an accurate quote of rule 39A, it is rare that a TD would actually require that the equipment he supplies be used in preference to any supplied by the players. Much more common is to have equipment available, should the players request it, but to let them use their own equipment if they so choose. That is how I have always operated, and quite frankly, I don’t see the point in forcing my equipment on players who wish to use alternative equipment as long as the equipment they supply is standard or they both agree to use it, standard or not.

If the set in question in this particular case was so ornate and intricately carved that in my estimation it was non-standard I would tell the gentleman providing it that he is welcome to use it if his opponent agrees, but that the opponent would have the option to refuse. This fellow has been away from the game for a while, and may not remember the rules on equipment standards. If he agrees to play under those circumstances, then the problem is solved. If he decides that he doesn’t want to play under those circumstances, then I would absolutely refund his money. It is ridiculous to not refund an entry fee if the player cancels before play has begun. I will always refund an entry fee for any reason if the player cancels before I have nailed the first round pairings to the wall. I may refund the entry fee after that, but I will always do so before that.

I also don’t see that the field needs the TD to protect them in this case. The other players have a simple way to protect themselves; they can simply refuse to play with non-standard equipment. Each player involved in a game with this gentleman in question would have that option. The TD is the grease that makes the tournament wheels turn smoothly, but he is not the reason for the tournament; the players are. TD’s need to keep that in mind.

12

The TD could have handled it differently, though I do wonder what would have happened if the TD had to rule on one of the old gentleman’s games.

The old gentleman… wasn’t a gentleman at all. Find a way to make your point without ruining a tournament and a club for others.

Customer relations matter. The appropriate use of clout matters, too.

Which brings me back to the original question of this thread. To be a lady or a gentleman in chess means you get to stick up for your own rights as long as you do so courteously. At some point a ruling won’t go your way, and that might be utterly unfair. How you behave once the ruling goes against you will say a lot about how much of a gentleman or lady you are. It’s the rare player who always gets it right, but most of us try.

13

Maybe a better way to handle the situation is to ask the opponent before taking action. But I can’t see myself not asking the opponent if I observed such a set. And my question would probably be leading. All part of being an officious attorney, I guess. :slight_smile:

14

Unless the set was pretty bad, I am fairly sure I would agree to play with it, and if a TD tried to prod me to refuse, I would tell the TD off and most likely refrain from playing in their events again. This is not a situation where the TD needs to flex their muscles if the opponent does not initiate a complaint. I appreciate the TDs who look out for the field (for instance monitoring noise levels and dealing with offenders head-on). This is overkill.

15

Oh, alright, I give. 0-1.

16

I am going to protect the guilty here by not naming names or the town it happened in, but I know the TD in question who caused the problem for the chess club. He likes to make fun of the players and rolls his eyes if they ask him a question. His condescending attitude has irritated a number of players. His favorite response is to tell the players to read the Rulebook before coming to see him. I see that he is directing less and less. The chess club head hired him because of the guy’s greater experience and because it was anticipated that there would be a bigger entry. He did not know about the personality issues; he just looked at the level of certification.

It was sad that my friend lost his club and tournament site. I hope it is only temporary, because it is a nice little town. Strangely, he was not mad at the politician who pulled strings. He had worked the guy for months to start playing chess again. He did not know that the reason the man had quit before was because of a problem with a TD at a big tournament many years ago. Like Sisyphus he planned to push the rock up the hill again, this time working on the politician’s wife who was mad as a wet hen that her husband had spoiled the tournament for their grandson. My friend told me that she was working in the kitchen making sandwiches for the players when the tournament was abruptly halted. One can imagine that conversation when she got home. I suggested to my friend that next time to hire her as the TD.

17

I’d consider it being a gentleman or lady to remind your opponent that they forgot to hit their clock button. But I wouldn’t consider it a matter of sportsmanship, since the rules don’t require that a reminder be given. A player should always consider the possibility that their opponent may be delaying completion of their move because they are considering taking one of the actions described in Rule 9G, and that giving the reminder might, in that case, be considered annoying behavior.

Yes, if their opponent asks for it. If the player refuses, their opponent will simply summon the TD who, if he/she is competent, will require that the scoresheet be shared (see Rule 15D3). So why waste everyone’s time?

No. If the TD is competent, he/she will deny the claim if there is any question about it (see the TD Tip for Rule 10). So why waste everyone’s time by making the claim?

Not at all! Any player who brought a clock presumably prefers that clock to his/her opponent’s (assuming that the clocks aren’t identical). The same pairing rules that are designed to insure each player gets white about half the time also insure that each player gets his/her preferred clock about half the time (assuming the clocks are equivalent in digital/delay/increment capabilities). And there is reciprocity in the rule: White gets to choose the first half-move, but black gets to choose the clock. So why should black feel any obligation to give up the part of the rule that benefits him/her?

Assuming that their opponent is playing black, a player shouldn’t refuse to play with their set provided the identities of the pieces in the set are visually clear and assuming that the pieces are adequately weighted, etc.

Bob

18

The gentleman handled this situation perfectly. The fine print citing thief got the comeuppance he richly deserved! Great story.

19

By the letter of the law, was the TD correct?? Yes, as apparently, or assuming, anyhow, there was fine print declaring the TD’s sets the only approved sets for the tournament. In some sense, I can see this, as by providing his own sets, there should be no questions about what is standard, and what is not.
It was also stated that the sets were “old and chipped”. If the TD is supplying the sets, and demanding that they be used, then, are “old and chipped” really standard??
From the description of the nice old and expensive set, it appears that while non-standard, the pieces were easily discernable. And, that the opponent had
no problem with the pieces. Question here – should a non-standard set be allowed if approved by both players?? To what degree should a TD go in allowing non-standard sets ??
There was a report several years ago now from an Alabama tournament several years ago that had a similar fate. A playing Td ruled his opponents
beautiful antique set with white tops for the dark bishops, and white cross atop
the dark king, was non-standard, and not allowed. So, the TD and his opponent played with The TD’s set. The opponent, who happened to be the
venue owner, questioned the TD’s ruling on the chess set, and asked to see the rulebook. The TD told him to hush, that he did not have to provide one. On they played, until, accidentally, the opponent knocked a piece off the board, to get angrily rebuked by the playing TD. The venue owner had enough,
and ordered everyone out ending the tournament. While technically, the TD
may have been correct, at what price?? Knowing who the major figures in a tournament is and can be quite important. Keeping those who control access to venues happy is important.
But also, at what price?
Rob Jones