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

Interesting situation. I must say, I've never heard one like this
before. I have a couple suggestions:

1) Try to solve the problem amicably and get White to apologize and
admit he was playing a bad joke, in return for dropping the serious
punishments.

2) If neither side wants to solve the problem amicably, then I'd have
to side with Black and I don't believe this was an "illegal" move in the
true sense. In my opinion it was changing the position while an
opponent was away from the Board from a losing one to a winning one.
This is clearly a violation of USCF's Code of Ethics in my opinion, so
White doesn't have a leg to stand on if he appeals to USCF in my view.

3) What is the past behavior of these players? Do the players have a
personal grudge against one another? Have they ever played before?

4) My guess is that White was joking around, but this was a foolish and
kind of a mean thing to do, not to mention unethical.

5) Chess will be hurt if White quits because of an incident he was
meaning originally as a joke.

6) Chess will be hurt if White is allowed to get away with this without
even a warning, unless White apologizes to Black.

7) Chess might be hurt in your state regardless of what happens now,
as positions generally tend to harden, if the problems aren't
immediately solved.

I once witnessed an Iowa TD reverse the result of a time forfeiture,
because after the flag had fallen in time pressure, the coach of the
losing player pointed out a line that would have drawn the game. This
convinced the director who had ruled the position was too complicated to
award a ILC claim (the correct ruling), decided that since the coach had
seen the draw that his initial claim should have been to allow the ILC
claim, so he took the win away, and awarded a draw to the player who had
lost on time.

This director was suspended a few years ago for a multitude of reasons,
but I have never witnessed quite as big a *******ization of a USCF rule
as on that day.

Best Regards,

Bruce

Matt Nemmers wrote:

"Bruce Draney" wrote in message
...
Interesting situation. I must say, I've never heard one like this
before. I have a couple suggestions:

Thanks for the comments, Bruce.

1) Try to solve the problem amicably and get White to apologize and
admit he was playing a bad joke, in return for dropping the serious
punishments.

White refuses to apologize, feeling he's done nothing to warrant an apology.
In fact, and as I stated earlier, white thinks his opponent owes HIM an
apology, as does the Board for "unjustly" suspending him and overstepping
our authority.

Sounds like he wants to be suspended in that case to prove some idiotic
point or to make some kind of statement.


2) If neither side wants to solve the problem amicably, then I'd have
to side with Black and I don't believe this was an "illegal" move in the
true sense. In my opinion it was changing the position while an
opponent was away from the Board from a losing one to a winning one.
This is clearly a violation of USCF's Code of Ethics in my opinion, so
White doesn't have a leg to stand on if he appeals to USCF in my view.

I agree, but does the USCF ethics committee decide these kinds of matters
which are state problems?

I've never been on the Ethics Committee, but in my view that is
PRECISELY what their main purpose is. When I chaired the Affiliate
Affairs Committee I had several cases come through involving players who
had been suspended by their State Associations. In almost every case,
we forwarded it to the Ethics Committee, because, technically there are
no restrictions in the USCF bylaws on what the State Associations can do
to the players in their states for misbehavior.

The only recourse for the player in many of these situations is to
appeal to the Ethics Committee on the grounds that the State Association
has committed an ethics violation by unfairly punishing them by limiting
their right to participate in USCF events as a paid member in good
standing. I do not know how any of these cases turned out, and the
Ethics Committee generally does not make it's decisions public as far as
I know. In many cases the players did something that ****ed people in
the state leadership off. The state leadership then overreacts, and
both sides harden their positions and become certain that they've got an
ironclad case.



3) What is the past behavior of these players? Do the players have a
personal grudge against one another? Have they ever played before?

Black is a newcomer to the state, moving to Iowa from Texas a few months
ago. I don't think either had ever played each other before. Since I don't
know him well, I can't comment on black's past behavior, but he seems like a
very intelligent, amiable guy.

White, on the other hand, has a history of dubious behavior and has been at
odds with many players throughout the state. He's been trouble before.

There you go. I think you've got your answer. White's been a Knight's
ass before, and now he's being a Knight's ass again. Has he ever been
warned for crossing the line before? If so then it seems reasonable
that he knows his behavior is unacceptable and your suspension should
stand unless the guy decides that apologizing is not so bad after all.



4) My guess is that White was joking around, but this was a foolish and
kind of a mean thing to do, not to mention unethical.

That would've been my guess too, and what I'd like to believe, but he
doesn't say it was a joke even now. And yes, it would be a joke in very
poor taste, not to mention that's it's extremely poor sportsmanship.


5) Chess will be hurt if White quits because of an incident he was
meaning originally as a joke.

Yes. But chess will also be hurt if black quits because he's a Local TD
that runs many tournaments throughout the state and may choose not to run
these events if he's given the boot. But being a TD just reinforces my
belief that he should be booted because he certainly ought to know better.

Sounds like it's now a question of whether keeping White active is
worth having to allow his misbehavior and crappy attitude. I'd say
suspend him and forget him. If he's a born troublemaker, he'll cause
you more grief in the long run than you'll gain from him running
tournaments. In fact there's a big danger that if he gets away with
misbehaving here, he'll screw someone else over even worse in the future
and drive off potential members and directors, who resent his outrageous
behavior.



6) Chess will be hurt if White is allowed to get away with this without
even a warning, unless White apologizes to Black.

Definitely.


7) Chess might be hurt in your state regardless of what happens now,
as positions generally tend to harden, if the problems aren't
immediately solved.

Yes. I really don't see a good end to this. Chess is going to be hurt
either way. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few," so I
wonder if getting rid of him might hurt chess more because of fewer
tournaments being run in an area lacking TDs. But then, nobody wants a
dishonest person running tournaments. It should be noted, however, that the
tournaments white has directed have been pretty smooth with no problems
arising that I know of.

Go with your original intent if White remains intransigent.



I once witnessed an Iowa TD reverse the result of a time forfeiture,
because after the flag had fallen in time pressure, the coach of the
losing player pointed out a line that would have drawn the game. This
convinced the director who had ruled the position was too complicated to
award a ILC claim (the correct ruling), decided that since the coach had
seen the draw that his initial claim should have been to allow the ILC
claim, so he took the win away, and awarded a draw to the player who had
lost on time.

Bad news. Don't know who that was.

Write me offline and I'll tell you. No names here on RGCP.



This director was suspended a few years ago for a multitude of reasons,
but I have never witnessed quite as big a *******ization of a USCF rule
as on that day.

Best Regards,

Bruce

Take care, Bruce.

Right back at you.


Regards,

Matt

Best Regards,

Bruce

First of all, I've often made such moves as a funny way to resign.

However, in this case, it was, by this players behavior, a cheating attempt.
His unsportsmanlike behavior is not called for at all.

He had the chance to make it all go away, he made it worse. Perhaps this is a
jurisdiction question- but I wouldn't have any problems with him being
suspended. We have no place for that in chess.

John Fernandez

"Matt Nemmers" wrote in message news:9_b5b.335773$YN5.231054@sccrnsc01...

(snip)

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."

(snip)
__________________________________________

That is a decent general saying, but not always true.

In the case of your association, I doubt if you could apply them
retroactively, but you should strongly consider amending your Bylaws
to expressly cover such situations in the future.

KidDon

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

Matt Nemmers wrote:


I agree, but does the USCF ethics committee decide these kinds of matters
which are state problems?


Matt:

The Code of Ethics provides in section 3:

The standards, procedures, and sanctions set forth in this code of ethics shall
apply only to: (A) actions and behavior by members of the USCF that occur in
connection with tournaments or other activities sponsored by or sanctioned by
the USCF; and (B) individuals and entities acting in an official capacity as
officers or representatives of the USCF.

Wick Deer

"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.


Matt,

My suggestion would be to copy the entire contents of this thread
(those entries that are relevant) into your state newsletter. Air the
laundry and let the state's players decide for themselves. I believe
they will see this turkey for what he is, and react accordingly.

Regards,
Mike Petersen

"Matt Nemmers" wrote in message news:9_b5b.335773$YN5.231054@sccrnsc01...

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.

I agree that he was trying to pull a fast one and that his conduct was
reprehensible. I would also note that Article XI, sec. 2 of your
bylaws gives the Board of Directors the right to temporarily amend the
bylaws. Perhaps you could amend them to give yourself the right to
suspend miscreants.


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

Personally, I would be reluctant to vote to suspend until I was
comfortable that I had the authority to suspend. It may be that
public censure is the best you can do. On the other hand, the Bylaws
are not necessarily the sole source of the authority. There might be
something in the Articles of Incorporation or in the Iowa Corporation
Act. There might also be authority based on an implied obligation to
abide by and enforce USCF rules concerning state affiliates. Maybe
there is an argument that Robert's rules are an implicit part of the
Bylaws.


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?

I do, but I am not sure that implies the right to suspend someone who
fails to live up to that responsibility.


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


Absent the authority to suspend the guy, I would tend to go with
public censure. I am just not sure whether the risks created when the
directors stretch the limits of their authority is greater than the
risks associated with letting this guy continue to be a pain in the
ass.

Vince Hart

Bruce made several good suggestions on how to deal with the situation. Just as
John mentioned, once or twice, I've also made an illegal move, but in sight of
the opponent as a funny way of resigning. It is perhaps possible that the
player was intending this and did not really intend to try to avoid losing by
cheating. When accused, perhaps he got backed into a corner and now is stuck
with an untenable position (again:-))

Now putting on my Parlimentarian in Training hat, without specific Bylaws
authority providing for suspension of a director, it does not seem like a good
idea. It is proper that he should have no input other than as any party to the
dispute when the problem is discussed by your board and this is supported by
Robert's Rules.

In any event, please be sure to give him an opportunity to formally see the
charges and to respond to the charges in both the game situation and concerning
the suspension. This can either be in writing or at a meeting.

The only way to see if the Ethics Committee will deal with the dispute is for
someone to submit a complaint. I tend to doubt that they would deal with the
suspension as board member but only the committee can decide. In any case,
perhaps before making it an Ethics case, try mediation. Perhaps one or more of
the State Affairs or Bylaws committees would be willing to serve if asked.

Regards, Ernie

In article 9_b5b.335773$YN5.231054@sccrnsc01, "Matt Nemmers"
wrote:

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



Regards, Ernie
Ernest W. Schlich