Matt,

Censure the offending party. Warn him that further problems will be cause
for further sanctions.

Tim Hanke

"Matt Nemmers" wrote in message
news:9_b5b.335773$YN5.231054@sccrnsc01...
Here's one for the books, fellas. Hope you can bear with me and maybe
give
me some insight.

Two months ago, there was a formal complaint filed against one of Iowa's
sitting directors for his conduct during a rated game at a local
tournament.
Set
up this position with black to move:

White: Pawns on h2, g2, d4, c3, b2, a2; Nh3, Be1, Qf2, Kg1
Black: Pawns on g6, f7, f5, c4, b5, a6; Bh6, Bb7, Qc6, Kg8

White's last move was Bd2-e1, so black plays the crushing ...Be3!, pinning
the white queen to her king while
threatening mate on g2. After making his move, black walks away from the
board for approximately 30 seconds, undoubtedly figuring the game is over
since white must either give up his queen (leaving black with a very
elementary win) or get mated. It's worth mentioning that white is a
former
state champion whose rating is
in the upper 1900s, while black is a newcomer to the state and rated in
the
mid-1700s.

Upon his return to the board, black notices that his clock is running and
his opponent is still staring intently at the board. White has made his
move, but quite a different position is now before him. White has
captured
black's Be3 with *his* bishop, winning a piece for nothing and removing
all
threats to the white king.

Now black, knowing he's playing someone who outrates him by more than 200
points, goes into panic mode: he thinks he may have blundered a piece.
White is just staring at the board, giving no indication that anything is
amiss or that a joke is being played on him. He reviews the last few
moves
of the game and decides something's fishy so he informs his opponent that
he's summoning the TD and stops the clock. Upon hearing this, white tips
his king in resignation. Black asks if white was trying to cheat, but
white
just walks away without offering any explanation or shaking hands, and
goes
to another board where a dispute has arisen to offer his two-cents. The
whole incident was witnessed by players on adjacent boards.

White filed a formal, written complaint to the state association's Board
of
Directors, claiming that his opponent tried to cheat by moving a bishop
like
a rook in order to save a lost game. An investigation was conducted by
the
state association president, who interviewed witnesses and attempted to
gather the facts of the matter from both parties. Black was very
cooperative, but white, who the complaint is against and is a sitting
officer in the state association, called the allegation "laughable" and
refused to explain his actions to anyone. He simply states that nowhere
in
the USCF rulebook does it say that an illegal move is cheating, and since
he
resigned after his opponent pointed out the illegal move and it didn't
change the outcome of the game, he is totally innocent of any complaints
against him. He has, however, steadfastly refused to answer the question
of
whether or not the illegal move he made was intentional while also
refusing
to apologize to his opponent for his conduct. In fact, he went so far as
to
say that his opponent owed *him* an apology for even suggesting that he
cheated!

The state's Board of Directors are now in a bit of disagreement. Some
(like
me) believe that state officers should be held to a higher standard of
honesty and integrity than the regular woodpusher and that an officer who
has committed an act of moral turpitude should be relieved of his
responsibilities as a director, while some are of the opinion that because
our Bylaws (http://www.iowachess.org/bylaws.html) don't provide for the
removal of an officer under such circumstances our hands are tied and all
we
should do is publicly admonish his actions and hope is isn't re-elected at
next year's annual meeting. His fate will be decided at a special meeting
at this weekend's Iowa Open, but in the meantime, he has been temporarily
suspended from his duties and is not being informed of matters that
require
a vote.

One other thing....along with being very uncooperative and refusing to
answer any inquiries into the matter, white decided to blast the Board of
Directors for "unjustly" suspending him -- claiming that we have
overstepped
our authority because the Bylaws don't specifically state what the Board
can
and cannot do in such situations -- and "blind copied" numerous, seemingly
random players throughout the state who were unaware of and uninvolved in
the situation in his email. The decision had been made to keep this a
closed door matter, but after several phone calls received by Board
members
as to what the email was about, we decided to make it an open forum.

Now, the questions:

1. I believe that this guy tried to pull a fast one. He didn't want to
lose a game to a lower-rated player, so he wanted to see if he could get
by
with something dubious. I've heard a lawyer's saying (and maybe KidDon or
Vince can verify this) that goes, "If the facts support your case, argue
the
facts; if the facts do not support your case, argue the law." This guy
has
argued the law and we are faced with a decision. Do you believe that we
have recourse to kick him off the Board because of his unprofessional and
unsportsmanlike conduct? (In the Navy we'd call this "Conduct Unbecoming
an
Officer.") Feel free to read up on what Robert has to say about Bylaws
and
the conduct of officers in organizations in his Rules of Order before you
answer.

2. Since our Bylaws don't provide for it, what is your opinion on the
suspension? Was it ethical? Was it kosher?

3. Do you believe officers in state associations have a responsibility to
those who elected them to be of unwavering honesty and integrity,
especially
when engaged in a rated game?

4. What do you think is the best solution to this?

5. What do you feel is the "correct" solution to this, if it's different
from the best one? In your opinion, what would be right?

I've made up my mind (and I'm sure the other Board members have as well),
but I'm curious as to how you all would vote in this particular situation.
It certainly isn't the normal, everday bull**** that comes with the
politics
of chess as I've experienced them, so I'd love to hear any comments.

Regards,

Matt