http://www.calchess.org/modules.php...

My first thought after reading Taylor's response was how on earth he felt it was appropriate to hover around(or right in front of) his wife's board during a game, chat(whisper) with her, etc.

It doesn't need be some overly paranoid kid to point out that the situation is two things:

1) Extremely eyebrow-raising for Taylor's wife's opponent, whom has every right to ponder(and disclose) the POSSIBILITY that the pair might be cheating.(Taylor's whole "We're a caring, chess-loving pair, we'd never cheat" yarn is the exact reason people sometimes get swindled.)

2) A simple violation of USCF rules.(As Bent Bexley pointed out.)

"The only tiny little snag is this: during the game, there is no caption! No one whispers in your ear! (Unless, of course, your partner in crime has pocket Fritz and a wireless connection to your Walkman, but that’s another story!)" ....from THE DIFFICULT OPPONENT, T Taylor (2/5/06)

Mr. Taylor obviously need to stop chatting with his wife during play, and they both need to stop using such stupid excuses as arranging childcare to rationalize it. His article is pretty harsh, yet I also sense the self-righteous indignation of someone falsely accused, so that's somewhat understandable. I do agree with him naming his accuser as a matter of principle.

The TD definitely comes across best. Note the businesslike format and objective tone of his response, also the clever inclusion of a previous incident involving the Taylors. He makes several strong statements but in a naturally polite fashion, making his position totally believable. Surely he must have been annoyed by such a distraction (involving players and parents) during a busy tournament.

Here are a few more examples of prize money in U.S. tournaments...

My take on this article/incident is a bit different from those I've read here. The incident occurred. The reasons really aren't important: whether the boy should have handled his suspicions differently or whether his parents should or shouldn't have gotten involved; whether the Taylors should or shouldn't have been talking casually during the game. The fact is that they were talking; after the game the boy complained and the TD took a decisive and binding course of action. End of incident.

The problem is the article. Taylor could have used this experience to write a great article from all different points of view, such as what goes through the mind of someone falsely accused and how he comes to terms with it, or how times have changed an how people find cheaters, like terrorists, behind every bush and jump at every shadow, or even an instructive essay on the necessity of maintaining a higher level of perceived propriety and how a professional, like Caesar's wife, must be above suspicion, or something deeper and more philosophical such a Kafka himself might have written. But Taylor took the lowest road available and wrote a piece that hints of vindictiveness and self-pity rather than insightfulness and self-awareness.

The problem was never the incident. It was the journalism.

I think this is a bit much to ask from a 16 year old. I dont know how experienced he is with chess tournaments, but it is plausible that he hasnt played in too many tournaments. And even if he has, it is very likely he has never had to go to the TD with a complaint about his opponent's behavior.

I wouldnt really know what to do in that situation, and probably would have just told the two people to stop talking. If they didnt stop talking, I dont know what I would do, though.

As far as the tone of the letter, dang he is 16. We should be happy he can construct complete sentences.

Check out the actual game. When did Reshevsky's flag drop? Choose from the following options:

A) Reshevsky's flag dropped after he played his 45th move, before he could punch the clock. So what? Denker then immediately <played> 45...Rb4, and forfeited any right he had to claim a win on time.

B) Reshevsky's flag fell as soon as Denker played 45....Rb4. Well, there's an obvious problem: <it would therefore be a new time control>. Reshevsky doesn't lose on time here either!

It's probably true that the referee erred by awarding Reshevsky a win on time. (Since Reshevsky kept quiet about this while Denker was writing about this in books, that is probably the case.)

However, it is a fair point that the best result Denker gets from what happenned is a draw, not a win. He gets a draw by virtue of the fact that the position on the board is a dead draw.

Nethertheless, it was highly unethical of Reshevsky to accept a win on time when he knew that Denker's flag had not dropped.