Most Annoying Behaviour?

[Andy Price]

The only time I've refused to shake hands with my opponent after a game...

Simon, I'm always wary of shaking someones hand after they have excused themselves from the board stating that they are "nipping to the loo", then make it back to the board in suspiciously quick time!

Worse - they sneeze on their hand during the game instead of using a hankie. I always forget and shake their hand at the end of the game, and only afterwards recall the sneeze.
But what really gets my goat is the people who reply instantly at the start of the game, then use your time to write the move down. Perfectly legal, but it just seems so petty.

[Scott Freeman]

One of my pet hates is those people who play inter-club chess who, at "adjudication" time, start loud conversations as if nobody else playing in the room can possibly be playing anything more important than "chess skittles." We have a lot of FIDE rated chess played internally in our club - and the contempt that some show for those still playing annoys me, especially when I have to personally add to the noise (as the arbiter) by trying to shut everyone up!

[Alex Holowczak]

On a similar line to Scott, the thing that annoys me most is at adjournment time (OK, I find that annoying enough), you then ask which date the opponent wants to play on. Then, wearing a surprised expression - what question was I going to ask? - they then hunt for their diary. The diary is rarely optimally placed, it's usually crushed beneath various things in their bag. I switch my phone on to look at the calendar there. The conversation might proceed:

Can you do next week?
No, sorry, I've got a game then. You could come to our venue next Tuesday if you like?
No thanks, I'm the home player, you forced me to adjourn, so you can come here.
Well, I can't do the following Tuesday because I've got a Cup game in the <someother> League. etc.

After many minutes of consultation, both with the diary, the guy in their team who adjourned in another game, and the guy on their team who has to be coaxed into giving them a lift because neither of the adjourners drive, you then agree a date and venue - which was not necessarily your own despite your earlier principled stand - to continue the game. (Why is it the people who choose adjournments are always the people who are least able logistically to actually adhere to them?)

And then you agree a draw or resign by e-mail a few days later.

Adjournments would be so much less painful to endure if the people who chose to adjourn were actually prepared for the eventuality that they might arise.

[Roger de Coverly]

Adjournments would be so much less painful to endure if the people who chose to adjourn were actually prepared for the eventuality that they might arise.

If you cannot get a league to abolish adjournments, you could try to make them more difficult and to abolish the end of game chaos. You word the rules so that you have to agree the provisional date, time and place of the second session before play starts. In the absence of agreement you default to qp finish. One of the local leagues uses this approach. The effect is next to no adjournments, helped admittedly that most local players are against them.

The idea might be less desirable if the default was adjudication. There's an idea on this as well, probably never tried in practice. That is that the adjudication requires of minimum of, say, 60 moves to have been played.

[David Shepherd]

Whenever I get an adjournment we normally just swap email address (or sometimes phone numbers), and arrange later. Simple ,easy no fuss - but given a choice I go for quickplay

[Alex Holowczak]

Whenever I get an adjournment we normally just swap email address (or sometimes phone numbers), and arrange later. Simple ,easy no fuss - but given a choice I go for quickplay

We can't do that; we have to write a date on the match card and envelope, so that the Records Secretary knows what's going on. Which is fair enough. Maybe when I schedule the fixtures this year, I'll ask the teams if they're choosing adjournments or quickplay, and then ask those who choose adjournments to give me a date for a second session.

[kishanpattni]

Of course the points made are very important. The reason why I want the abolishment of both adjournments and adjudications is simply because chess is meant to be a 2 player game!

[Ljubica Lazarevic]

The most annoying thing recently I had to put up with was at Southend last year where my opponent spent much of the game belching at regular 15-20 second intervals...

[Stewart Reuben]

Article 12.6 of the Laws of Chess make it perfectly clear: 'It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever.' Yet my opponents do it all the time by playing strong moves. It's disgraceful and they aren't even punished.

Stewart Reuben

[John Upham]

The most annoying thing recently I had to put up with was at Southend last year where my opponent spent much of the game belching at regular 15-20 second intervals...

What was the gender assignment of your opponent?

[Stewart Reuben]

John Upham >Was your opponent male or female?<
Probably Ljubica's response will be 'yes'.

Stewart Reuben

[John Upham]

John Upham >Was your opponent male or female?<
Probably Ljubica's response will be 'yes'.

Stewart Reuben

Not necessarily : over the years players have been observed who do not visually reveal such information along with those for whom personal hygiene is a matter for others only.

[matt_ward]

Most annoying issue I have encountered was a junior before constantly offering a draw, most annoyingly he had the ignorance to do so after I politely stated he should offer it during his time not mine.

Matt.

[Stewart Reuben]

I was not at all annoyed in this year's European Senior Team Championship when my opponent from Israel 2 constantly recorded his moves in advance of his playing them.
This was because he was doing it constantly. Thus, after about 15 moves, he had reached move 19 on the scoresheet without any crossings out.
It was less amusing when he, and others in the event, press the wrong clock. That is not covered in the Laws.

Continuing the discussion with John Upham, though I would prefer him to concentrate on changing 14 to 16, it is now many years since computers have played in open chess tournaments. Thus I was correct in stating that probably the opponent was male or female.
Stewart Reuben

[matt_ward]

Stewart Regarding your last comment, I would assume common sense would suggest it has to be a male or female.


Matt.