IMJohnCox wrote on 03/15/07 at 09:17:23:

Not really it is just highly annoying, the paranoia only kicks in when a writer of a birdbook is talking with my 1.f4 opponent. I could have used Cox and Alekhine, Palliser and Nimzo or Greet and Spanish to make the same point 

Plus note the use of smileys in my previous post, which is maybe a tad different from the stiff upper lip approach on your side of the north sea

Quote:

Iirc Atalik does the same.

lnn2 wrote on 03/15/07 at 02:37:28:

Apparently it is in the tournament rules that players are forbidden from conversing with spectators and other players during their game, see the TD's letter. This seems like a perfectly normal rule (we have the same at our club), which usually is quite loosely obeyed (usually not), but is used only when someone is taking it too far. In this case I think Taylor went too far and certainly as a professional player should have acted better. After all if he had been just a spectator and not a player no one would have had any sympathy for his position.

Nothing to do with paranoia. When I am playing against someone who constantly talks with another person I'd get annoyed as well and prolly complain. I'd certainly complain if that other person was Mr Taylor and I am playing against a Bird

lnn2 wrote on 03/15/07 at 02:37:28:


Nice of you to share these geographic generalizations, but you don't address the question of whether the kid was within his rights to complain. And since when is even a mistaken complaint sufficient ground for the bad opinion to which this kid has been subjected, and in the world chess press, yet?

And why should be believe the appalling Taylor's account, more than the arbiter's?  Appalling, I say, in context of that terribly self-serving article.

IMJohnCox wrote on 03/15/07 at 00:30:59:


Tut, we'll all go to England to play chess then, and be served High Tea.  But wait, I don't own a boater!

P.S. I capitalize "High Tea" because I assume that it is a venerable institution there, akin to "Her Majesty."  Is that correct?

Well, I just read the article, and I think that there are two issues here.  The first is Tim Taylor.  I know him only through his writing, and the series he wrote for Chess Life based on his experiences in Hungary were quite entertaining.  On the other hand, to suggest that he is an egoist would probably not even offend him.  I'd also guess that the line between fact and fiction is blurred a bit for him -- this doesn't really bother me in general, but when one is complaining about other actual people (including a tournament direction and some random kid) one really ought to be careful.

The second is what actually went on.  Personally, I'm usually not bothered by people watching friend's games, or even talking with them during games.  Most people are honest, and are careful about not saying anything that might help their friend.  I could see how this might be distracting though; I try not to talk to anyone within sight of my board or opponent for that very reason.  This is good enough for me, and probably good enough for most people.  If this article is any indication, Tim Taylor might not have had the most reasonable reaction to the TD...

My opinion is somewhere between JohnCox and OstapBender -- one shouldn't do things to annoy your opponent, and talking at the board is one of them.  If you want to talk to your wife, friend, mistress, whatever, get up and walk away from the table.  I do think that the most likely turn of events is that the kid tells his father that it was distracting that Taylor kept coming by his board to chat, and his father then told the TD.

Frankly, my main reaction to this piece is that it is somewhat low of Taylor to be so aggressive towards this kid (not sure how young, but young enough for Taylor to call just a boy, even if as an insult).  Kids don't have great judgement, they are kids; some of them have pushy parents, that's not really their fault either.  Inexpert chess players drop queens.  End of story.

IMJohnCox wrote on 03/14/07 at 23:09:41:

I see your point and agree with you that certain types of complaints (like Naroditsky's) seem to miss the whole point of why we play chess in the first place.  But I still think you should cut this kid some slack.

In his response to Taylor's article Naroditsky wrote: Quote:

Taking the kid at his word, he was bothered enough by the Taylor's behavior --which apparently persisted throughout the entire game -- to be upset by it.  No doubt he probably wondered whether they were discussing the game while it was still being played which is a bit naive given the course of the game -- but who cares?  Kids can be naive at times -- only experience will cure this.  To me the TD's response to the kid's complaint seemed reasonable.

On the other hand Taylor's article was nothing more than petty slander -- but I repeat myself...  

IMJohnCox wrote on 03/14/07 at 17:56:35:

I'd agree that it would make sense for Taylor to be upset about being falsely accused of cheating, were there an actual cheating accusation.  But even then, to malign the kid and the TD publicly seems way out of line.

Obviously no cheating took place, but if there were no actions taken against the accused - or even an accusation - doesn't this seem a bit beside the point?