I (USCF 1908 at the time) am losing to a 1450 player. My opponent loses a pawn and begins moaning and throwing his hands up in despair. The position was straightforward to me – I was still dead lost, but you never know what’s going through your opponent’s mind. He might have believed his advantage was dissipated, or that he was blundering a rook (I’ve had worse delusions). He might have offered me a draw at that point, or even resigned.
The only other person in the room, a solid 1900 player sitting 2 feet away, begins shaking his head and muttering, “no, what’s the problem?” I forget his exact words. I throw a dirty look his way. My opponent is still muttering, probably not hearing anything. I’m saying nothing, hoping for a draw offer or better, and the kibitzer again comments to the effect that nothing has really changed, it’s ok. At which point I tell him to “shut the [heck] up” and read him the riot act. The position (Black has just played Rd1-d3+; it is White’s move):
One could imagine how a player who was rated slightly >2000 15 months ago could beat or draw, from the black side, someone who was rated <1200 15 months ago, no?
Anyway, the game continues. Two moves later I blunder from a +/- to a ± situation and 10 moves later I lose. My opponent felt so bad he offered not to rate the game, but I refused. He deserved the win, and I more than deserved to lose the 20 rating points.
What do you do? What is the official rule? You can’t really change the outcome of the game, otherwise it would be possible for either side to nullify a bad result by working with a confederate.
I was acting director that night, by the way. Not that it matters to the legalists, but both guys are friends of mine and the last thing our club needs is a list of banned players.
As a Local TD I have experienced things similar to this.
Angelo, as you said you were losing and blundered even more so just after the other 1900 giving his opinion of the position to the lower rated player. Taking the loss is something you just need to do, as you have said.
You did read the guy the riot act and informed him to keep quiet about the game as it was rated.
You guys are all part of a friendly chess group, so “education” is the best thing, here.
When you say you were the acting director that night, I sense there are others qualified to direct.
The next time you get together, I would just remind the other 1900 player and inform or remind all others about the rules and etiquette of rated chess. I’m sure the other 1900 would make sure to not say anything the next time, even if he is chuckling or just shaking his head all the while.
One of the biggest problems we have is people telling the players about the clock and times on it. We also do need to remind people about not discussing the game as well.
My rule book is in my car, about 150 feet from here. Most others don’t have a book, and USCF does not publish its rulebook online (a disgrace, IMO). Please explain the rule. You can leave out the part(s) about taking the offender out and shooting him.
I agree with all your points, which reflect the course of action I took. Sometimes you have to bite the bullet. But I disagree with the idea behind this one comment. I’ll always wonder, had my opponent not perhaps been alerted that the sky was not falling, if he would have offered a draw or resigned. I’ve been involved in half a dozen strange games where opponents resigned in drawn positions, claimed draws in dead won positions, assumed I had resigned when I had done no such thing, bawled me out after I forgot the agreed-upon opening (a pre-arranged opening, not result), etc. We do strange things in the heat of battle.
Not to dominate my own post, but I wanted to throw out another idea: It is impossible to restore what tournament bridge directors term “equity” in situations such as this. You can do everything up to and including executing the offender, but that does not solve the problem, viz-a-viz the game, that he/she created. The ranges of positions, positional complications, individual perspectives of them, and possible player emotional states creates a swath of uncertainty a mile wide and deep.
Imagine if some idiot had walked up to Evans-Reshevsky, US Championship, 1963, just before Sammy played …Qg5-Qxg3?? and said, “C’mon Larry, just resign this POS so we can go have dinner”? Would Reshevsky had avoided the stalemate, as one of the top players in the world should? And if he had, wouldn’t this game have been ruined?
You’re right. If he would have never said anything, there is a chance you could have even won the game. I wouldn’t be surprised if the comment and your reaction to it didn’t affect your play causing the next error you then made. Unfortunately, we can’t have things un-said once they’re out like that.
I was just mentioning that you said you were losing AND you blundered even further after the 1900 comment about the game. I was saying there’s nothing that can be done about that, now.
Not many chess players like to lose, me especially. I have to say though that when I played a game against a 1100 player last month where I played the opening so poorly, he had 3 separate mate in 2 chances. He missed those and I went on to checkmate him just after he promoted a pawn to a queen, giving him 2 queens to my 0 queens. If someone would have been watching and make any type of exclamation when the various mate in 2 situations existed, I would be dead.
I recall an incident from about twenty or so years ago when an up and coming high school student was struggling against an A player as another strong player was passing by the game. The student played … Qb6+ and, knowing his knight on e4 would give him a perpetual check, promptly offered a draw. The spectator gasped or something and walked away from the board. After the A player declined the draw offer with Kh1 Nf2+, Kg1 he offered the student a draw. Alerted that there might be more in the position than just a perpetual, the student discovered … Nh3+! and the smothered mate.
When asked why he declined the first draw offer, the A player said he thought the spectator was laughing at him and didn’t want to give him the satisfaction. Nothing was done to the spectator and the 0-1 result was posted.
There can be interference when a person is doing absolutely everything possible to not say anything or give anything away with an expression.
A number of years back there was a game going at the club between two weaker players. I have a good poker face and know not to say anything, but the mere fact that I spent a little time looking at the position before walking on was enough to alert one of the players that there might be something there. That player then spent some time analyzing and found the winning six-move combination I’d seen.
After that I learned to not spend too much time at a board unless it is one of the last games going or there is some other obvious reason for me to be watching it (such as time pressure for a first time control).
I thought there was a legitimate chance that a 13xx adult player would find it during the club tournament (no entry fee, no cash prizes), so I wasn’t overly surprised to later learn that it had been played. After the game the winner said that my simple act of stopping and looking at the board was what actually caused the player to even consider looking into the position for complications. If my mid-1990s memory serves correctly it involved setting up and saccing a Q for R and then saccing a B for P with check uncovering an attack to win back the Q for nothing (net gain of an R and P for a B).
