Unethical chess players - a discussion

I don't think there is a game or sport which has as much unethical play as chess, especially on this website. The etiquette of players is extremely poor, as such it makes it difficult for a new player to progress due to the sheer amount of griefer style gameplay which takes place in the 1000-1500 range.

In just a few months on this website and lichess.org I have seen players who:

1. Ask for takebacks, but refuse to accept takebacks from the other player (I would assume a 1:1 is the most ethical way to approach this but many players just use the takeback feature to gain an advantage)
2. Ask for a takeback when they have blundered a major piece in order to not lose the game, then proceed to win the game.
3. Run down the clock despite being in a losing position in order to win on time.
4. Force the other player to reach a repetition stalemate despite being in a losing position. Usually this is followed up by me trying to break the repetition and then losing the game.
5. Abort the game as black if they see an opening they do not like.
6. Play the London System because they know it will lead to a advantageous position, this puts Black at a massive disadvantage every single game.
7. Practice a set of rehearsed trap openings designed to win quickly and move up the ratings ladder. These players have no sense of learning chess properly, they just have a repertoire of traps which they have memorised/written down and employ them every single game. E.g. they will play the Stafford Gambit over and over again. Or a Vienna trap they saw on Youtube. This means that beating those players requires also memorising a lot of opening traps in order to avoid them, this is a major barrier to increasing rating as you will come across Youtube-guided trap players a lot before 1500, and they will beat you unless you play perfectly.
8. Ask for rematches when they have clearly outplayed you. They just want to up their ratings against a weaker player which is clearly bullying behaviour.

I have also played some OTB chess where I have seen:

1. Players using an illegal move to win the game, hoping the opponent does not notice it.
2. Players declaring themselves the winner and walking away from the board, when in actuality there is no check-mate on the board.
3. Players cheating the clock or moving quickly whilst incorrectly hitting the clock for a time advantage.
4. Various psychological tricks and intimidation tactics instead of playing better chess, they will stare at opponents, speak a lot, get their friends to come and speak near the board etc. 

My question is, why does chess seem to attract so many pathetic, insecure nerds whose only vain desire is to win games, at the expense of all sportsmanship and comradery? I have played football, tennis, Warhammer, Catan, etc, and I have never seen such displays of awful behaviour. What is it about winning a chess game which becomes these player's narcissistic addiction?

I don't think it's nearly as bad as you make it out to be. Perhaps you are seeing more bad behavior because you are actively pursuing the leagues.  

We don't have takebacks on chess.com.  That takes care of your first two points.

There are strict limits on aborting games, so you can't use it to avoid openings.

The London System is nothing to fear. Maybe you just need to study a bit.

Draws by repetition of position are in no way unethical. 

I played a fair amount of tournament chess in big and small tournaments. I never heard of an actual case of someone making a deliberately illegal move.  I'm sure it has happened but I don't think it's a big problem. Or someone trying to claim a win walking away from a lost position.   That's why they require score sheets and have tournament directors.

#2 yeah, if they beat you with an unsound trap because you don't know theory, it's your fault. And how will you improve if you decline rematches from people who outplayed you?

What is wrong with forcing a repetition when you’re losing? How is that unethical?

He said “on chess.com and lichess” in his post

He's only played here for a month. I assume that most of his complaints stem from play on lichess.

A few of the replies seem to think that memorising opening traps is a valid way of playing. You don't seem to realise the mathematics of improving your rating on here.

Let's say I (rated 1400) play 10 games against 10 different players rated 1400. Five of those players are players like me, who are just learning to play chess tactically. Against those five, I have a 50% chance of winning and a 50% chance of losing.

The other 5 players have each learned one different opening trap each. Now, versus each opening trap I should have a decent chance of playing, if I understand tactics. But these players are not playing at 1400 level, because each of them has memorised their opening perfectly. In effect, they're playing at 1900-2000 level because of their opening knowledge.

My chance of winning against these 5 players is no more than 20% per game. So out of 10 games, I win 2.5/5 plus 1/5 = 3.5/10 games, despite the fact that I am playing at 1400 level against fellow 1400 players. The players who have memorised a single opening have a massive, massive advantage.

What I learned from this topic:

Usain Bolt should have all his medals taken away, since it's highly unethical how he used his superior skill at running to outrun the other contestants who weren't able to run quite as fast as him.

1 and 2: In Profile / Game Behavior, you can disable the Takeback option.

3. Time is part of chess. Sometimes the faster player can outlast the better player.

4. That's chess. Forcing repetition is a legitimate way to get a draw.

5. Agree. Poor sportsmanship. And missing an opportunity to learn something.

6. Playing the London System is not unethical, it's just...playing the London System. Do your homework and you'll learn how to beat it.

7. Trap me once, shame on him. Trap me twice, shame on me.

8. Click "Decline" and find another opponent.

No, the equivalent would be Usain Bolt tripping up or distracting his opponents, or cutting corners around the track.

I feel like if my opponent has bothered to learn a specific pet line a lot better than me, then my opponent probably deserves to win if I allow them to get that position, and I should probably learn to avoid that position or learn how to deal with that position in the future.

As for OTB stuff... damn, that sounds ridiculous. I feel like I'm lucky, never having faced any of those yet. In all of those situations, though, you should be able to talk to an arbiter and get your opponent penalized somehow.

#10 no, if you lose to unsound stuff it's only your fault. Your opponent can be the biggest expert in the world in the Stafford Gambit but if you don't refute the opening, it's still your fault

1. Never ask/accept takeback... Problem solved
2. See #1.
3. That one can be annoying... But managing the clock is a part of the game. Play faster (or with an increment)
4. If you can force à repetition you are not in a losing position... Actually I think forcing a draw from a supposedly lost position is one of the most beautiful thing in that game.
5. Ok for that one
6. LOL...
7. True... But just learn refutations and  stack easy wins. Learning openings is a part of becoming a chess player... You have to start Somewhere.
8. How would you know why they want a rematch?

Playing the London System is still staying well within your track, but you're pacing yourself better than the other guy.

Maybe because it is a perfectly valid way of playing... The point is opening traps may bring you to a certain point (good for you) but not further. You will soon play against oponents who know how to refute or avoid your trap and get crushed. Instead of studying the mathematics of ranking  , maybe you should spend time learning how to react to those traps.  

#1

"Ask for takebacks" ++ Do not ask, do not grant
"Ask for a takeback" ++ Do not ask, do not grant
"Run down the clock" ++ Play with increment
"Force the other player to reach a repetition" ++ That is ethical
"Abort the game as black" ++ Abort should not be allowed
"Play the London System" ++ That is ethical but does not lead to a advantageous position or does not put black at a disadvantage
"Practice a set of rehearsed trap openings" ++ Do not fall for traps, the Stafford Gambit is bad. Refuting it does not require memorising, but thinking
"Ask for rematches" ++ Do not ask, do not grant

"Players using an illegal move" ++ causes them to lose
"Players declaring themselves the winner" ++ the score sheet must be signed by both
"Players cheating the clock or moving quickly" ++ moving quickly leads to mistakes and losses
"stare at opponents" ++ allowed, "speak a lot" ++ forbidden,
"get their friends to come and speak" ++ forbidden