Shortly after a round begins, two players call you (the TD) over to their board. White is using foam (non-electronic) earplugs and Black protests, stating that there could be a recording or some other device to help cheat at chess. After inspection of the earplugs, you find no evidence of any electronic device in the earplugs or any other cheating on White’s part. However, Black still insists that White not wear the earplugs during the game. To help his case, Black cites rule 20N which states in part that
Black claims that he is disturbed by the earplugs. White refuses to take the earplugs out, saying he needs them to concentrate, and that it is not reasonable for Black to be disturbed by something that is clearly non-electronic and makes no sound. At this time, no moves have been made by either side and neither clock has been started.
In this case there is no such thing as one “proper” ruling; because…
“discretion and with permission of the tournament director”
My opinion is that no player can make any weak claim of “disturbance” that he dreams up and demand that his weak claim be honored. This disturbance claim is weak. White keeps his earplugs, in my judgment. But YMMVary.
. .
I’m reminded of one NYA where a player made a claim that the opponent was violating the rules about distractions. His opponent had been distracted lfor a few minutes looking at a nearby game. I denied the claim.
The only “disturbance” the opponent is suffering is the fear that electronic cheating may be involved. Since in this case this fear is not justified, most TDs would rule that the player may keep the earplugs.
However, either ruling is automatically correct here, because of the part of 20N that says “may be used at the discretion and with permission of the tournament director”. If the TD rules in favor of the earplugs, he is thereby granting the required permission. If he rules against, he is thereby withholding the required permission.
Speaking of strange rulings TDs have had to make, one year I was a floor TD for the blitz side event at the National Open. Black made a long horizontal rook move, say Rh5-a5. But the rook slipped out of his hand and ended up on the floor 15 feet away. So he grabbed the other black rook (which had been captured) and put that one down on a5 instead. White protested, claiming black had to go retrieve the original rook and put it on the board before he pressed the clock. I ruled in black’s favor.
The sensible ruling is to allow the earplugs. The correct ruling, according to the wording of 20N, is that the player must be made to remove the earplugs, because they disturb the player with black, which limits the TD’s discretion. In this case, the correct ruling is not sensible. “Non-electronic earplugs” should not have been included in the rule where it is. Someone ought to move to reword it.
Pure subjection is seldom respected in the law. (An exception is the “satisfaction contract,” where a party has contracted for satisfaction in the other party’s performance.) Here, agree with Keith, except that I would read the word “reasonably” into the rule before the word “cause.” Think that is contrary to the rule? Then we need to change this rule.
One possibility is that the intent behind 20N is that a player could only use a music player, headphones, earplugs, etc. with the permission of both the director (“permission of the director”) and his opponent ("do not create a disturbance . . . ") In which case the opponent’s opposition to the device does not need to be reasonable.
OK, let’s alter the scenario slightly. Instead of earplugs, it’s a music player which is allowed with the discretion of the TD per the same clause in 20N. Same series of events happens, Black protests, you inspect the music player and find no evidence of cheating. White is able to demonstrate to Black’s satisfaction that Black will not be able to hear any music from the device, but Black states he doesn’t care if he can hear the music player or not, he doesn’t want White to have it while playing and insists that it disturbs him.
Would your ruling be the same as it was with the earplugs?
BTW, the TD Tip that goes along with 20N that was not posted yet:
TD TIP: All of the following violations are considered serious and should be treated as such. However, director’s discretion to penalize (or not to penalize) is advised taking into consideration all the known factors, such as is the activity clandestine or attempted to be hidden or is it open and obvious to all? What kind of activity is taking place? Make certain that any penalties imposed are unbiased, and consistently enforced.
Try this draft of a new 20N. The real challenge here is that “devices” were listed. The electronic world will change faster than our rules will change. And, annoying behavior is subjective. Have fun fine tuning it!
20N. Electronic communication devices. Except for medical devices, electronic devices are strictly forbidden to be used in the tournament room. Exempted from these regulations are chess clocks, approved electronic scoresheets and personal wristwatches (without alarm). All other devices may be used at the discretion and with permission of the tournament director. Any devices that cause a disturbance to the opponent or players on nearby boards are subject to rule “20G. Annoying behavior prohibited.”
Regardless of the TDs decision whether to allow the earplugs / music player or not, I would think a penalty against White would be inappropriate here. The game hasn’t started yet, and there’s been no effort on White’s part to conceal his device from Black.
In direct response to the original post we have the following:
I think it is not only possible but likely that Black’s claim is designed to disturb White and has nothing to do with his own being disturbed. White claimed:
Black has found something in the rules that he can use to distract his opponent if the TD goes along with him.
Upholding Black’s claim, wouldn’t then next logical step be for him to say that earrings are distracting? Where would the line be drawn? At this point if I was the TD I would find a polite way to tell Black that I don’t believe him. I would make the counterpoint that earplugs are less distracting because earrings are more likely to reflect light and are worn to be noticed. I would then rule these earplugs to be permitted.
Without knowing the players involved, I would not be surprised to learn that either there is an unpleasant history between these two or that Black is the type of person that will complain about almost anything if he thinks it will give him an advantage.
In the long run a player who complains about almost anything is doing himself a disservice. When a director encounters a series of frivolous complaints from the same player, he is less likely to take the future ones as legitimate.
A couple of years ago a player complained to the chief TD about me picking up the clock during a game to examine its setting even though the opponent paused the clock and then called me to the board to examine it. As the chief director told the complainant he would have done the same thing I doubt that similar future complaints would have been handled without the memory of “this is the same guy who complains when the TD acts properly”.
The chosen wording on this ruling reminds of ‘which of these things doesn’t belong here’.
The non-electronic earplugs is that thing.
Disturbance in relation to the other three examples provided, is giving reference over to an audible disturbance. Otherwise there would be no purpose to the part of the rule language to state ‘or players on nearby boards’.
This gives us another rule to clarify language on before and at Madison.
However I would rule to allow the earplugs. There is a reasonable test here that a TD needs to realize.
Yes. I purposefully made Black as unreasonable as possible in the first scenario to set up the second question.
Although I don’t know anybody who refuses to play anybody who uses non-electronic earplugs, I DO know someone who absolutely refuses to play anyone who uses a music player or electronic noise-cancellers, regardless of how audible it is.
I’m paraphrasing, but he basically says something like, “I came here to play chess, not listen to music! I don’t want to have to think that my opponent might be using his electronic equipment to cheat! It disturbs me!”
I think we all agree that the non-electronic earplugs stay. The real question I am asking is about the music player or headphones. Would you deny the use of these devises if the opponent objects?