I’ve read some things (from Susan Polgar and by extension Jeremy Silman (can’t find his original comments on the web, so no link). While completely wrong on some of the more minor points (Mr Silman, for example makes much of forcing GM’s to pay for the opportunity to make a living — as in entry fees — yet his exact description of them fits almost any independent businessman just as precisely as a GM, yet we indies also have to pay fees for the opportunity to make our living, so that dog just won’t hunt) they do have justice on their side in the major points.

But let’s consider the other side of the question for a moment. I’m an active player, and I also organize. My name is neither Goichburg nor Cuchi, so it should be obvious from that I’m not making a living off organizing events. If the event covers expenses, I consider it a win. I also do my best to be fair to the players, to the point of never using their names in promotions without their permission and also offering come form of compensation if I do. Titled players even play free in my events.

So I hope I’ve established that I’m not in the category of organizers Ms Polgar and Mr Silman are complaining about. But let’s take a look at things now from my side of the table. I’ve written before about chess parents, they’re a breed apart, so I’ll confine myself this time to remarks about players. I’ll even limit myself to recent events, and not go reaching back through the ages to pile up my list of grievances.

1. It’s the last round of an event. The game decides first place. The two players are both using custom two-part scoresheets that I have especially designed and printed for the events I run, and I have often during the event reminded the players that if they use those sheets, the yellow copy is to be turned in at the TD table after the game. Despite this, both players decline to turn in their scoresheets at the end of the game. Hence, any report of the tournament has to be written without the game that decided first place. Which, of course, diminishes the event report. And, as a historian I find it doubly annoying, because that game will be lost to history as well.
2. It’s the next to last round of an event, and a player complains, wanting the TD to forbid a spectator from copying down the score of the game. When told there is no rule against that, he shifts his complaint to another ground. TD tells spectator to not get close to the table. Player also complains of “theft of intellectual property,” despite the fact that since Lasker’s day courts have ruled chess game scores are news, and not property.
3. It’s the last round of an event, and a player withdraws from the tournament after the pairings have been made and posted, several hours after completion of his previous game. The logical course is to simply forfeit the game, but two things argue against it. One is my natural inclination to make sure everyone who is there has a game to play, and the withdrawal would even the number of players in the round, enabling me to give a game to someone who would normally have a bye. The other is that the player’s opponent is one of his students, so to forfeit the game would, in fact, enable the player’s rude behavior to benefit his student, who is fighting for class prize money, and in fact to enrich his own pocket (he was out of the money himself, but he gets a percentage of his student’s prize checks).

This admittedly brief list just covers notable events in recent tournaments; gives the highlights, as it were, of the life of a small tournament organizer. (Don’t ask me to identify the players involved, I won’t. Anyone present at the events will of course recognize the players, but they will have already formed their own opinion of the players, so this post is not influencing them in the least. I categorically refuse, however, to prejudice the opinion of anyone who has not met the players by naming names.) I’ll leave off the question of quick draws, because while I do not like them, I can understand what causes them, and feel (as I’ve written before) that they are more a direct result of flaws in the system than they are of player misconduct.

I could make the list longer with some effort (consulting notes and other TDs) but I’m not writing this to decry players as the Scourge Of The Organizers. Call it equal time, if you will. I won’t dispute Ms Polgar and Mr Silman on the subject of greedy organizers taking advantage of players. I’d just like some acknowledgement that players also don’t always deal with courtesy and respect toward organizers who don’t take advantage of them, even when the organizers are writing four-figure checks to support the players.

I have to admit being tempted towards the dark side, myself; since the players don’t seem to care whether I’m being fair, why should I try? Respect is a two-way street. I respect the effort and skill it takes to acquire titles, and even high USCF ratings, and offer some perks as reward; I just don’t see a whole lot of it flowing back towards me.

I can point to the fact that some of my more player-friendly policies have managed to “infect” other organizers in my locale, so I can be said to at least be trying to do my part in making things better. Can Ms. Polgar and Mr. Silman please do the same with respect to their fellow players?

This entry was posted on Sunday, July 9th, 2006 at 12:57 am and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.