Laws of Chess

[Kevin Thurlow]

"To get up from the board when it is your move and leave the playing area, without saying anything, is naturally going to cause concern. I don't think I have ever seen that happen and I have been playing and/or organising chess for 67 years. "

Play in the Surrey League! There is one individual who does it habitually, and has been warned in a tournament. When he did it against me, I followed him and he was pacing up and down in the street outside the venue. It didn't help him - he lost on time, although he was busted already. The same character got through about 12 moves of theory in a Sveshnikov and then left the room after every move for the next 10 moves, but not for long. That actually looked more suspicious, and might be a cause for a search...

[NickFaulks]

Play in the Surrey League!

Not just there, either. The fact that such a senior and experienced player and arbiter as Stewart sees no problem is in itself a concern.

For years I occasionally felt my opponent was behaving oddly and might have thought "if I didn't know better I might wonder whether he was cheating". But of course I did know better, because who would bother to do that in an unimportant game?

Sadly, events over the past couple of years have altered this view. One of my opponents who left the room after every move was subsequently unmasked "in breach of the anti-cheating regulations", so now when others behave in the same way I can't help wondering. It is at least an unwanted distraction.

[Brendan O'Gorman]

Hastings congress security in action.

[Stewart Reuben]

Nic > The fact that such a senior and experienced player and arbiter as Stewart sees no problem is in itself a concern.<

I am sure the very presense of an arbiter reduces the number of untoward incidents.
Read what I wrote.I think the Laws dealing with the problem are not as oppressive as some people seem to think.
It is surprising, but people do cheat, even though there is virtually no benefit to be gained. This is more prevalent in bridge than chess. At least in poker they have a logical reason. Additionally many think that cheating in poker is not unethical, but just part of the game.

Kevin's oddly behaving player in the Surrey League is breaking the Laws. He has been warned. He should be forfeited. Therein lies a problem. With no arbiter present, it is very difficult to forefeit anybody.

[Roger Lancaster]

I'm not 100% clear how the rule over leaving the playing area works in practice. I've had the situation where, midway through a game, a toilet break was indicated. So I made my move on the board and rose to leave the playing area but, before I could move away, my opponent made his reply. I sat down, thought for a few minutes, moved and rose again - only for the same thing to happen. My question is, how in these or similar circumstances can I ease my predicament without infringing the rule?

[Michael Farthing]

An interesting new form of gamesmanship! (Though, hopefully, perhaps your opponent was innocently unaware of the suffering he was causing).

[Alex Holowczak]

I'm not 100% clear how the rule over leaving the playing area works in practice. I've had the situation where, midway through a game, a toilet break was indicated. So I made my move on the board and rose to leave the playing area but, before I could move away, my opponent made his reply. I sat down, thought for a few minutes, moved and rose again - only for the same thing to happen. My question is, how in these or similar circumstances can I ease my predicament without infringing the rule?

Under the current Laws, I think it is generally accepted that if you get up to leave the playing area, then you're allowed to keep going even if your opponent moves before you leave the room. It's a grey area if you've seen the move your opponent has made. But you're allowed to ask the arbiter to leave the playing area even then, so if you explain it to the arbiter, I'd expect most would say that that was OK.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Some of the discussion here seems to ignore some basic psychology and physiology. It is well known (or should be!) that once you have made a conscious decision to go to the toilet, that this can cause 'relaxation' and it can (for some people) then be harder to hold on again. So for some people once they have made a decision to go, it is not reasonable to expect them to stop and make another move first. In fact, it should never be acceptable to expect someone to make a move before going to the toilet. How did it ever become acceptable to say when someone can and can't go to the toilet? Are chess games going be treated like an examination, with an invigilator overseeing the trips to the toilet?

Some links:

https://www.bladderandbowelfoundation.o ... ontinence/

"Knowing that you will soon be able to go to the toilet may cause your bladder to contract so that you have to rush to get to the toilet. Some people experience a similar urgency feeling when they hear running water."

http://bigthink.com/neurobonkers/how-ne ... ion-making

"How needing a wee affects your decision making"

a.k.a. Inhibitory Spill-Over: Increased Urinating Urgency Facilitates Impulse Control in Unrelated Domains

(The conclusions there may surprise most people here)

So I'll throw the question out there: does wanting to go to the toilet make it harder to think about a chess move?

[NickFaulks]

I am sure the very presense of an arbiter reduces the number of untoward incidents.

It may help, but in my experience not much. An arbiter sitting twenty yards away is not keeping tabs on who leaves the room and how regularly, let alone what they do while they're away.

For what my opinion is worth, I never believed that Kramnik was cheating against Topalov, but thought he possibly didn't mind the fact that the strange behaviour was clearly winding him up. Eons ago, that was also my theory regarding the Reese / Shapiro bridge cheating allegations.

[Stewart Reuben]

Nick< I never believed that Kramnik was cheating against Topalov,<

Accoding to David Anderton, Kramnik was smoking in the toilet and didn't want his girlfriend (wife?) to know. He preferred to be accused of cheating than the real dire truth come out.

[Alex Holowczak]

Nick< I never believed that Kramnik was cheating against Topalov,<

Accoding to David Anderton, Kramnik was smoking in the toilet and didn't want his girlfriend (wife?) to know. He preferred to be accused of cheating than the real dire truth come out.

Well, as long as that's kept private, and not put into the public domain on some Forum, I'm sure Kramnik will be OK.

[Brian Towers]

So I'll throw the question out there: does wanting to go to the toilet make it harder to think about a chess move?

Much against my better judgement (because it is part of my recent relative success) I'll let you into a secret. No! Quite the opposite. Since I first came across this research 5 or 6 years ago I try and make a point of drinking early in my game, either beer in the evenings or water during the day.

I know. Many forumites have been unwittingly following this route to (legitimately) improved performance for decades.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ch ... t-thinking
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... right.html

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Well, as long as that's kept private, and not put into the public domain on some Forum, I'm sure Kramnik will be OK.

That is an absolute DISGRACE! How dare you. This is not just some Forum, this is THE forum (the one everyone reads, dontcha know?)

[John Upham]

It may help, but in my experience not much. An arbiter sitting twenty yards away is not keeping tabs on who leaves the room and how regularly, let alone what they do while they're away.

Nick,

To put your mind at ease, arbiters in action from 2012 :

_JEU0081.jpg

[Stewart Reuben]

If they have been sitting there since 2012, how have they coped with problems with the toilet?