Don't be the guy who says "wrong move" when playing 3. ...Nf6 in 3 knights defence in black and he tries to play fried liver, but I showed him the corect defence so I destroyed him.
Don't be THAT guy at the chess tournament

Don't be that guy who lifts his piece THEN check whether moving it is bad or not, THEN saying 'I Adjust'.

Don't be that guy who lifts his piece THEN check whether moving it is bad or not, THEN saying 'I Adjust'.
LOL

An even better link to premoves -
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=What+is+a+premove+in+chess%3F
;)
Don't complain that a fork/taking a hanging piece/sacrifice/other legal move is "unfair". ETA: mildly understandable if you're 6. If you're 45, not so much.
When the TD pulls out the USCF rule book and points something out, don't be the guy saying, "I disagree". That's not an argument you're going to win.

Don't be the guy who says "wrong move" when playing 3. ...Nf6 in 3 knights defence in black and he tries to play fried liver, but I showed him the corect defence so I destroyed him.
What's the ECO code for the "3 knights defence"?

An even better link to premoves -
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=What+is+a+premove+in+chess%3F
;)
Don't complain that a fork/taking a hanging piece/sacrifice/other legal move is "unfair". ETA: mildly understandable if you're 6. If you're 45, not so much.
When the TD pulls out the USCF rule book and points something out, don't be the guy saying, "I disagree". That's not an argument you're going to win.
I disagree.
Just because the TD points out something does not mean that it applies to the current situation. Just make sure that if you disagree, you reference a section and subsection.

Don't be the guy who says "wrong move" when playing 3. ...Nf6 in 3 knights defence in black and he tries to play fried liver, but I showed him the corect defence so I destroyed him.
What's the ECO code for the "3 knights defence"?
I think there's a 3 knights in the english (?) don't remember the position though heh.
Here it is, A27. lol, the main move is 3...Nf6. Why did it get called the 3 knights system? Unrelated to the fried liver though of course.

Just because the TD points out something does not mean that it applies to the current situation. Just make sure that if you disagree, you reference a section and subsection.
I disagree with your disagreement. Must we duel now? I'm thinking more along the lines of something like the 3-fold repetition rule where it's pretty black and white (ooh! Chess...pun? Not really a pun. Vague reference, perhaps. Never mind.). Where someone is attempting to argue that it isn't applicable because the repetitions weren't back-to-back-to-back and are, therefore, not repetitions but cosmic coincidences.

Chess dictationa for tournaments and such. They're pretty helpful. I just don't play in tournaments anymore and want to get rid of it. Someone could make better use of it.

Have heard some pretty bad things about them thingies and, to boot....
http://chessconfessions.blogspot.com/2007/05/my-monroi-is-evil.html
....a book like this wouldn't be possible with people running around with those gizmo's:

@CanonicalKnight What if the player claiming the 3-fold repetition does not have a complete scoresheet, but the other player does? If the player who disagrees with the repetition can cite some specific requirements which have not been met, they will be very happy that the TD pulled out e rule book. Even better, maybe they have their own rule book handy, which has an updated version of the rule in question.

If you make a "mistake" on Monroi, you can go back and correct it. If you do that on your scoresheet, it's called note-taking and is not allowed. Monroi should be banned from all official tournaments.

Monroi is here to stay. They encourage its usage on the top boards. What I don't like is the Monroi inspired rule that you can no longer write your move ahead of time on your scoresheet, which always was a time honored piece of advice in scholastic competition. OH WAIT I CAN'T PLAY E5 HE CAN JUST TAKE IT!!!

@CanonicalKnight What if the player claiming the 3-fold repetition does not have a complete scoresheet, but the other player does? If the player who disagrees with the repetition can cite some specific requirements which have not been met, they will be very happy that the TD pulled out e rule book. Even better, maybe they have their own rule book handy, which has an updated version of the rule in question.
I would assume the TD would check the complaining party's scoresheet first, then, upon finding it incomplete, would ask to see the opponent's scoresheet since both scoresheets are the property of the tournament. Beyond that, it will come down to whether or not the repetitions took place. *sighs quietly* It was only meant as a "for instance" and not as a "No s***! There I was!" story (points to any other RPGers/SCA folks who recognize that reference.) *heads back towards Chess Mentor*
The guy who says check out loud.
I've been wondering about that having not played an OTB tournament game in years. I take it saying 'check' is no longer fashionable and only patzers do it(?) I have heard something to that effect. How about "I adjust"? Or anything else for that matter.
i dont just say check and i adjust otb, ill type both of em out online too -thats right, i adjust digital pieces =)
(Probably dont wanna be me ^^ )