A recent story from Iceland raises the question about how far does an arbiters (or chess associations) jurisdiction extend. In this specific case a player was removed from an event due to a very loud dispute over where the board should be placed. At some point after the round had finished, the two players paths then crossed (away from the event) and further words were exchanged. The organisers argued that while they could rule on the initial case, the subsequent meeting was away from their control and they could take no further action.
I've heard of a number of situations similar, if not identical, to this. A round of the ACT Chess Championship was held up a number of years ago because two players would not agree on which set to use. The argument went on for at least an hour before a decision was made. Another incident (involving at least one player from the previous one), centered around how close a table should be to the wall, and ended with all the pieces on the floor of the chess club. And at an Australian Open a number of years back, hotel security was called because two players were having a heated argument in the car park over a parking space. In all three cases the organisers took the path of least resistance and no further punishment was visited upon the players.
No comments:
Post a Comment