An idea for a "civil" chess league...

Or return to Rev-Darren's spot!

Some time ago I became aware of something missing in my chess life.  It wasn't lack of game challenges,  complaints with my ICS server,  (C)heating, or anything related to the game per se.

The problem:  People just don't seem to respect their opponents as thinking and emotional human beings.   "Chess is a fight," Bobby Fischer was once quoted as saying, which seems to represent the attitudes of  many players I've met.  Indeed, the object of the game is to win.  But many chessplayers I've seen seem to require an attitude of domination.  "If you can't beat me, you're nothing...."  That idea depresses me a little.

Think about the myriad ways chess can be described:  art, science, a living, employment, battle, war, struggle, conflict, a sport.  To me, chess really is a metaphor of life itself.  In the end, it is whatever you and your opponent wanted it to be.  Conversely, in the future it is whatever you and your opponent want it to be.  Today, though, is what we can work on.  Since I happen to like chess, I thought I'd take a stab at seeing if I could define some principles for what a "civil" chess league would be.  In the course of my philosophic ruminations, I wrote ten principles of civility and sociability that seem to me to be a necessity.  (At least, for myself.)  Here's the list:

1.  We, as humans, hold ourselves to be civil to one another.

Commentary:  You may define "civility" as you wish, but everybody seems to know what "being uncivil" is.  If you don’t know what “uncivility” is, think about the way you really need to be treated in life.  It's a start.  A correlary:  The concept of “loss” may be "good" or "bad," but both the winner and loser of a game can certainly be "good" or "poor." 

2.  Chess is a social and civil game.

Commentary:  Certainly, there is pride to be found in ratings and titles; but, not all chessplayers wish to be titled or even to be rated.  There are players that I do and do not like, and I suspect we all feel and think this way sometimes.  If the only thing true about chess is just chess, then we need to recognize civil behavior in every chessplayer, at any level of chess skill.  We also owe it to others to be sociable in our own playing habits.

3.  Part of playing a social, civil game means that you always respect a human opponent as a human being.

Commentary:  Playing computers certainly isn't evil or bad, but human beings are inherently different from computers.  Computers cannot creatively think, nor feel.  They compute, and play chess very well.  Should computers ever reach a level beyond "artificially intelligent," computers would deserve the same treatment.

Correlary:  While you certainly don't have to give take-backs, extra time, etc, neither do you have to belittle somebody who requests it in non-tournament play.  Further, in English language saying, "please," "thank you," and, "you're welcome," is basic civility in life.  (At least, the way I was taught, it is.)   This is true:  even when I lose a game, I like to thank my opponent for playing me.  Although nobody has to do these things, isn't a better existence when you do?

4.  In the end, all human players win some, lose some, and draw some.  Therefore, "It doesn't matter whether you win or lose.  It's how you play the game."

Commentary:  The most important words in that saying are, "how," and, "you."  Both are important.  You may be brilliant at chess, or hopelessly inept.  Your conduct in playing, on and off the board, determines whether others will see you as civil and sociable.  It also keeps chess respectable to those who do not play but might want to learn.

5.  Using a computer to play a chess game for you, without declaring so, is uncivil and antisocial.

Commentary:  It isn't that playing or using computers is inherently wrong.  Using them in your play, without making it clear that you are, is fraudulent behavior.  Fraud has equivalents in other sports, the business world, and anywhere else you look.  This practice in chess, also referred to as (C)heating, ultimately dehumanizes oneself.  It also, however, damages the ratings of those who do not engage in such uncivil behavior.  It is thus truly antisocial, and to be shunned utterly.

6.  Your choice of chess game to play or study is yours.  Others have theirs, and that is fine also.

Commentary:  Granted, there are nationally and internationally approved standards and rules followed for games.  But to say any chess time control, variant, or rule, is inherently wrong hurts those who enjoy that variant.  Isn't it better to say, "I like..." and find an opponent who believes likewise?  (Personally I do not currently care for bullet, blitz, or wild.  That does not make those who enjoy them wrong.  I have found it better to say, "I like standard without increment and correspondence, and I like to chat during my game."  Yet, I do not consider myself a "patzer," or a, "woodpusher,"  since I find those terms personally offensive.)

Corellary:  The history of chess includes a time when Castling, Bishops, Queens, 2-move pawns, timed games, and almost any current rule did not exist as we know them.  Piece-odds games were once practiced with vigor.  Why, then, should chess rules be held unchanging and eternal?

7.  Critiquing helps us to grow, however, criticism aimed at hurting or dehumanizing others is antisocial.

Commentary:  When you do or do not criticize someone else, why?  If it's aimed at improving your opponent, it might be helpful.  (If your opponent accepts it in a positive spirit, it is helpful.)  If it's aimed at destroying your opponent, it is always wrong.  There are uncivil and antisocial ways to pursue winning in chess.

8.  Chess existed long before any of us were born.  We, therefore, owe it to our posterity to help others learn it.

Commentary:  This isn't talking about "lessons."  Rather, be happy to show somebody who doesn't know a pawn from a queen how to play.  Encourage them to learn.  (Personally I offer piece odds and time odds, and I am not very skilled.)  You may make a friend in addition to an opponent.  You may also find the joy that there is in teaching others that cannot come from mere monetary compensation.

9.  Disagreements are acceptable, conflict on and off the board is inevitable, but fighting and destroying another human being for "fun" is uncivil and antisocialism at its worst.

Commentary:  This isn't talking about the game itself, but rather the world that surrounds chess.  You will have found others who disagree with you about almost everything.  Civil conduct also includes how you treat your opponents when you are not playing.  It also seems to imply, to me, that the decision of arbiters and arbitration processes in any singular game are final.  If you don’t want to submit to arbitrations, arbitration processes, or inevitable compromises, don’t play.

 10.  Chess is about enjoying a piece of life.

At one time, I thought that perhaps it would be worthwhile to actually form a "league" of chessplayers who might take these ten ideals and try to make them a reality.  The problem is, like chess, a league of one isn't too powerful.  This idea isn't supposed to be about any singular person's "power," either.  Nor am I interested in creating, "chess police," of any kind.  So, I guess what I'm interested in is knowing how many others agree with the ten ideals above.  The best way to know that would be for you to email me, and let me know if you agree with these ten ideas in principle.   Maybe we can go from there, and perhaps I will post the names of those who agree.

Rev. Darren Erickson, Jan. 25, 2001

[email protected]

Return to Rev-Darren's spot!