I will not go into how I was distracted, except to say my opponent is old enough to know better.
The important point, at least from a results perspective, is not the cause of a distraction, but how one handles it.
Instead of fuming, I should have either remonstrated with my opponent, or called an arbiter.
Failing that, if wanting to avoid a scene, which is a distraction in itself, I should have at least ensured my head was cleared before I made a move.
If necessary, and it was early in the game, so there was no question of time trouble, I should have got up and walked around a bit to calm down.
LESSON: no one wants to hear a sob story, and excuses for a loss do not translate into points on the tournament score chart. Playing while distracted is a bit like playing with a hangover, except the latter is self-inflicted and likely to last the whole game. The former, even if the cause cannot be removed, can, and should, be ameliorated.
Distraction is a lot more common these days. Modern chess tournaments, like libraries, have become much noisier. I guess we have all had problems from time to time. From my experience arbiters are not usually sympathetic unless they have witnessed the situation themselves. League chess, generally, does not have an arbiter unless you wish to distract your captain!
ReplyDeleteThe one advantage league chess has in such matters is that sometimes team-mates will intervene if someone on their team is behaving obnoxiously/ignorantly.
Delete