Hamilton Chess Club

Scott says:

I want to point out that the Hamilton chess club code of ethics (which is similar to the ACF and FIDE code of ethics, and the Ranges chess club code of ethics) has a few items that the German pair have breached. Note I couldn’t lay my hands quickly on an NZCF code of ethics.

a) Participating in an event under a false name or while under suspension (not in the FIDE ethics, but all the others say this)

b) Cheating or attempts at cheating during games and tournaments (all mentioned code of ethics say this)

c) Engaging in conduct likely to injure the reputation of the Hamilton chess club, its events, organisers, its participants or sponsors (all mentioned code of ethics have words with this intent).

And the Hamilton chess club code of ethics is posted on the walls of the club, where the Rookies event took place, for all to see.

And so the pair by mis-stating their names have breached (a) and by not declaring their rating (and please do not try to split hairs about what is a rookie, or that they had no NZCF rating), and in Lara’s case, her age, I would consider this means they have breached (b). I know from reading some comments to the various blogs that have reported the affair, that the Hamilton club, the event or the organisers have been the target of criticism – perhaps over time item (c) could also apply.

Even if you disagree with me about them breaking (b) or (c), it is black and white they have breached (a). They have very badly abused the hospitality previously shown to them by the Hamilton chess club, nor have they proffered an explanation or apology.

The penalty for breaching the code of ethics (all of the referenced codes) is exclusion from games or events for an appropriate period. The Hamilton committee could determine what is appropriate and apply any ban (from Hamilton events) if they choose.

AND a note about the idea of holding a rookies event. The intent was to attract grass roots players, those starting out or returning to chess after a break, those with hopes of improving their chess, and to play others of similar strength, and maybe win something along the way.

Some sports define a rookie as playing for the first year (in usually a professional capacity, ie turned pro from the amateur ranks). As an organiser, I cannot determine if a chess player is ‘new’ to chess, and so using a rating benchmark seems sensible. We can argue as to what that rating level should be, but open tournaments use ratings prizes in a similar manner. And yes even in a rookies event you get players of many years playing experience, but their rating is still under the threshold – an organiser then has to trust the rating system that tells them something about the player’s strength. It would also be hard to find a non-rookie chess player in NZ (or Aus) if we had to define them as professionals.

Getting back on track, the rating threshold ensures — as best as we can without also introducing age limits — that players will play others of similar strength. So to misrepresent your rating is to disappoint players hoping for a fair contest.