English Chess Forum

Given the disputatious nature of the chess world, it would be a pity not to record some of the most significant disputes in a systematic way in book form. Too often, residual bitterness leads to polarised accounts of emotional interludes. The behaviour of chess players, who are generally regarded by society as intelligent and rational, will be of interest to psychologists and anthropologists in years to come. Are there any suggestions for the main chapter headings?

John Foley wrote: Are there any suggestions for the main chapter headings?

For sheer longevity, County Eligibility has to be a chapter heading, sub heading Greater Manchester v Lancashire. Adjudication v Adjournment v Quickplay v Increment is a likely one as well.

You could use underlying psychological traits as chapters like Rowson did in 'The Seven Deadly Sins of Chess' or just form collective nouns from expletives that commonly describe unliked opponents, for example;

Chapter 1 Dic****ds
Chapter 2 W****ers
Chapter 3 Knob***ds
Chapter 4 Cheating Ba*****s

and so on... .

Certain players should have a chapter all of their own.

There are plenty of serial offenders about.

Yorshire (collective) vs the ECF too of course.

Chess players do tend to be rational but are also prone to trending into the sort of mind set that can, if they considering something a point of principle, go way, way beyond the point of reason and stay there for absurd lengths of time.

Clock-smashing. Saw it once in St. Albans.

John Foley wrote:Given the disputatious nature of the chess world, it would be a pity not to record some of the most significant disputes in a systematic way in book form. Too often, residual bitterness leads to polarised accounts of emotional interludes. The behaviour of chess players, who are generally regarded by society as intelligent and rational, will be of interest to psychologists and anthropologists in years to come. Are there any suggestions for the main chapter headings?

You could have a chapter on the reaction of ECF officials when they don't get what they'd like - plenty of readily available, recent, material on that I would have thought.

Ian Thompson wrote:

John Foley wrote:Given the disputatious nature of the chess world, it would be a pity not to record some of the most significant disputes in a systematic way in book form. Too often, residual bitterness leads to polarised accounts of emotional interludes. The behaviour of chess players, who are generally regarded by society as intelligent and rational, will be of interest to psychologists and anthropologists in years to come. Are there any suggestions for the main chapter headings?

You could have a chapter on the reaction of ECF officials when they don't get what they'd like - plenty of readily available, recent, material on that I would have thought.

Especially when they lose elections

You don't really need a book when this forum does already an excellent job on the subject.

You all obviously live in a different universe from me.
In chess, disputes are rare by comparison with bridge or football. I organised the British Chess Championships 18 times. In all there were 10 appeals. Say 60,000 games and half those appeals were in quickplay finishes. As the late Harry Baines said, they don't count as disputes.
Some of what are referred to above, are not disputes. They are discussions.
The main function of a chess arbiter is to avoid disputes. That is why, when they do occur, they can be major.

Deleted.

Whether John was being mischievous or not in starting the thread (and I'm sure he wasn't), I'm not sure that BCC appeals (or discussions - call them what you will) are what he had in mind. So yes, maybe we are living in different universes.

John Foley wrote:Given the disputatious nature of the chess world, ...

I would dispute your premise!
In every walk of life there are individuals who raise questions. Who is to say whether an individual does so legitimately or mischievously?
A more positive suggestion might focus on how disputes could be resolved rather than seek to add fuel and perpetuate them.

I would dispute your interpretation of dispute.
A dispute may be mischievous but can also be both legitimate and genuine. You are adding a value judgement to the word!

This reply is, of course, an example of a mischievous dispute, but actually it is also a genuine and legitimate one.