Black claimed that the player on the board next to him (two boards to a table) was annoying him. Specifically, the adjacent player, seated next to Black, was repeatedly scratching the side of his face, and the sound annoyed Black.
The tournament directors asked White whether he was willing to move to a different location. White was not willing to move.
Rule 20G addresses the issue of intentionally annoying behavior by a player’s opponent. After considering the text of 20G, the tournament directors decided that the adjacent player was not intentionally engaging in annoying behavior and disallowed Black’s claim.
After the game, Black argued that he found the behavior annoying and that this was not a matter for the directors to decide.
It should be noted that this was a round of our chess club’s championship tournament. These players were seated in the best area in the room, with the best lighting and the farthest distance from the doors (and therefore distracting noise). There is a small separate room available, but we did not decide to move Black’s game to this room since it would then confer an unfair advantage to that game (being in an isolated room away from all other games). It would not be feasible to move all the games in the championship tournament to this room (the room is too small).
How do others think this should have been handled?
Someone would have to be scratching their face a great deal before it would be annoying, then everyones standards are different. If the face scratching was that annoying, you would think more people would be annoyed with the action. If the face scratching was that annoying, then the other players would also find it annoying. On the face of it scratching you’re face is not that annoying.
What I think Black was doing, was to make White upset or take White out of the game with some reason to get the director. Any time the game has to be stopped, it takes time to restart the game and all the theories of the next move are on hold or lost. Even making the claim again after the game, would make all the people that is paired up with him feel like he is a lose cannon. If the players feel he is a lose cannon, they are not going to have a strong game out of it. Do not have any empirical evidence of this case, but its’ just my gut feeling it was just showmanship.
Looking how the TD performed his duties, there is no error I can see.
I think the truth of the matter is some people just want to come up with an excuse for losing, or to bring about commotion to in fact annoy their own opponent by disrupting the game. I have a rare chess movie from 1925 with Capablance, Frank J Marshall, Richard Reti and other greats. There were spectators making noise and not to mention opponents blowing smoke from pipes and Cigars thick a enough to put a smoke stack to shame. The players played! Now of course there are times when there is a legitimate claim but for the most part i think the players should be advised to play. This because the claims that i usually hear are equivalent to two kids yelling “mommy mommy he’s looking at me!”. I once had a player try to make a claim against me because he claimed that the fact that i put my hand over one of my pieces(not even touching it) and then decided not to move it bothered him. The only thing that was bothering him and is usually bothering such claimants is the fact that they are losing. If not for that they wouldn’t be bothered at all.
Impossible to say without having been there. A player is certainly entitled to complain about annoying or distracting behavior, but only if a reasonable person would be distracted or annoyed – it is not a blank check. (There was, for example, the player who wanted me to stop the invisible voices. Then there was the one who demanded the TD turn down the hurricane.) As a practical matter, if you can solve the problem by moving one of the boards with the players’ consent, you should do it. If you can’t, and if you, as a TD, think the complaint is frivolous, you should tell him to go back to his board and play.
Here is the rule as it appears in the 5th edition. It is not up to the player to decide if something is annoying or not. It is up to the TD.
20G. Annoying behavior prohibited.
It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. A director, upon a complaint by the opponent, has discretion to determine whether any particular behavior is in violation of this rule and to impose penalties. See also 1C2, Director discretion; 21F, Player requests for rulings; and 21K, Use of director’s power.
20G1. Inadvertent annoying behavior.
Sometimes a player’s actions, though annoying to the opponent and possibly others, are clearly unintentional. For instance, a player may occasionally cough. While the director has the right to invoke rule 20G, this is quite harsh if the player’s actions are involuntary. A partial solution is to assign such a player to a board in another room or far away from other games.
TD TIP: What is annoying to one person is perfectly acceptable to another. That is why the director decides what is and is not annoying. Uncommon and obtrusive activity is more likely to also be annoying activity. Often if a director just makes players aware that their activity is annoying, the activity stops; however, if that and a warning do not prevent the annoying activity, then stronger penalties can be imposed at the discretion of the director.