English Chess Forum

I would be of interest to know, whether or not there is any morality in chess anymore? When situations like the below happen, it makes me question why I am playing this sport?

(Bob and Dave are Alias' for the following scenario)

"Bob, are you available to play for my team in a few weeks?"
"Yes, I am available if required."
"Great, you're in. You're playing board 3 and here are some games I have played against your opponent before"
3 Weeks later ...
"Bob, Sorry mate, but I have found someone better to play instead, so you are not playing in the match in 2 weeks time mate"

Now, Is this right or do people agree with me, that this is not only disgraceful but creates a lack of trust and disharmony within the team.

I think it is an awful thing to have been done. This has actually happened within the 4NCL. I thought chess, which is played by 99% of people who pay expenses out of their own pocket to enjoy this wonderful game, was ethical and played by people who uphold promises and play the game for enjoyment more than anything else. Why is it some managers feel that it is acceptable to subdue this sort of attitude, like the one used in arrogant sports such as Football and tarnish the game of chess?

I don't think it is right and would like to hear other people's points of view.

Thanks.

I agree completely, it's totally unfair to get a player committed for a game, to get them using their time to study their opponent, and possibly cancel prior arrangements to help their team out. There are even financial implications for the burned player here, which is not right.

As a League Team Captain I will comment. I think its bad management but sometimes if a better player can be found and it benefits the team then it might be needed. When I have had this same situation I have talked to both players and given the agreed player first choice on who plays. Thats the only way a captain can come to an agreement.

It's a tough choice and it's one that all captains will face at some point. Do they go with their morals and stick with the player they asked to cover or plump for the stronger player who arrived last-minute?

Personally I tend to err on the moral side but then again I don't commit myself so fully, rather I would canvas players for availability and gather a pool of potentials picking whoever I thought would be best AND most reliable. Having made that decision I would stick with it even if a stronger player later turned up.

But what if you're playing a match where the average grade is 150 and top board is about 180. You then get the opportunity to play an IM or FM on top board. Would you then keep your 115 board 5 substitute or take the stronger top board player?

This is simply a case of morals over points. Which will win is down to the captain.