Answers.Body: <blockquote>
  <p>I had the better position and plenty of time on my clock.<br />
  My opponent had less then 10 minutes on his clock.<br />
  I also taken a couple of bathroom breaks.<br />
  ...<br />
  He opened his bottle and started to drink it.<br />
  About 10 minutes after drinking the water, my opponent needed to use the bathroom which he did.<br />
  While he was gone from the board, he went over on the clock.</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>I may misunderstand the chronology - It does not quite seem to tally as if taken at face value he would have drunk the water at or after the end of his available time.  <strong>However</strong>, taking that to mean that he was within a few minutes of his time expiring, it sounds like him drinking and then taking a toilet break were within a few minutes of each other and very close indeed to his time expiry.</p>
  <p>No rational person would abandon a situation that was critical to them instead of waiting a few more minutes even under extreme duress. It is also very likely that a highly dehydrated person will also have a full bladder.</p>
  <p>I above said &quot; ... no rational person ...&quot;. It seems likely that the person was either acting irrationally (which is quite possible in such circumstances) or was effectively resigning. You could not reasonably expect such behaviour as a response to your action.</p>
  <ul>
  <li>At &quot;best&quot; you might expect to gain a few seconds from their opening the drink.</li>
  <li>Distraction per se is a possibility but probably a rather extreme gambit.</li>
  <li>It is also  likely that the water would improve their ability to play better in the closing moments.</li>
  <li>It seems almost unthinkable that giving them water at that stage would have initiated a 'toilet break'.</li>
  </ul>
  <p>Overall you action seems on balance to have been neutral or to have improved their (slim) chances.  To we as onlookers your actions seem ethically proper.</p>
  <p>It seems worth adding, and only you know this one way or the other,  that it MAY be that your intentions were in fact calculated to add to your advantage and that you still remember this long after. Even if this was the case, it seems a ploy more liable to fail than succeed and the actual degree of its success would be very unexpected.</p>
  <p>An aside - which may actually help: I'm getting 'oldish'.  On occasions I wake in the wee small hours with memories of events from decades or many decades past where I recall &amp; mentally run through past actions and wonder if I did things as well as I could. I am generally seen as &quot;an honest &amp; upright&quot; person - and that is my aim in life. It doesn't seem to stop my brain questioning my past motives and deeds :-)</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-12-31T02:45:54.467Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-12-31T04:09:26.737Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-12-31T04:09:26.737Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Russell McMahon
Answers.Body: <p>No, what you did is what is known as a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambit" rel="noreferrer">gambit</a>. You offered your opponent material (in this case a water bottle), which he accepted. This would be considered a blunder on his part, since although it gave him a temporary hydration advantage, it ended up costing him time due to the uncomfortable situation it caused for his bladder, which needed to be resolved. If he had instead declined the gambit, he may have won, but such is the way of the game.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-12-31T03:34:32.060Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2021-02-26T10:38:08.243Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2021-02-26T10:38:08.243Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Christopher King
Answers.Body: <p>According to the FIDE <a href="https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/E012018" rel="noreferrer">Laws of Chess</a>:</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p>It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever.</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>If you placed the water there with the <em>intent</em> that it would cause him to use the bathroom (and thus distract him) this would be an issue. If you were just doing it to be nice, there is no problem.</p>
  <p>The FIDE <a href="https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/FIDECodeOfEthics" rel="noreferrer">Code of Ethics</a> doesn't really have much to say about a situation like this. The closest thing is probably</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p>Failure to comply with normally accepted standards of courtesy and chess etiquette. Misbehavior of a personal nature which is generally unacceptable by normal social standards.</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>Again, I think this is only violated if there is intent.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-12-30T01:53:34.693Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-12-30T01:53:34.693Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: D M
Answers.Body: <p>I think maybe you're overthinking this a <em>lot</em>, especially if this was many years ago.</p>
  <p>I'll echo what another respondent said: if there was intent, sure. But even then? You can't control another person's bladder. If your opponent was really invested in the game, I'm sure he would have &quot;held it&quot;. Perhaps it was an admittance of defeat.</p>
  <p>No, nothing unethical here. Quit dwelling on the past.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-12-30T22:19:53.973Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-12-30T22:19:53.973Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Carmen HQ
Body: <p>Many years ago, I was playing in a chess tournament. We had been at the board for at least three hours. My opponent had spent the entire time at the board trying to find good moves. I had the better position and plenty of time on my clock. My opponent had less then 10 minutes on his clock. I also taken a couple of bathroom breaks.</p>
  <p>The tournament provided free bottles of water. I got up from the board and got two bottles of water. I started to drink one and placed the other bottle near him. Neither one of us said anything to each other. He opened his bottle and started to drink it. About 10 minutes after drinking the water, my opponent needed to use the bathroom which he did. While he was gone from the board, he went over on the clock.</p>
  <p>Did I do anything unethical?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-12-29T23:24:20.873Z
Comments.Text: This is a very odd question. First off, I don't think water passes through a human body in mere minutes, but even if that were the case there isn't much of a discussion to be had here. Why would you assume that this could in any way be construed as unethical behaviour? Did your opponent accuse you of something after the game?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Scounged
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-12-30T00:37:06.230Z
Comments.Text: I don't see what the unethical behavior could be.  Is there any specific behavior you can concerned about.  Needing bathroom breaks is predictable and part of time management.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Michael West
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-12-30T13:34:08.863Z
Comments.Text: @Bob I mean... "HE OFFERED ME THE WATER THAT WAS AVAILABLE FOR FREE, I DECIDED TO DRINK IT, HE OBVIOUSLY MADE ME LOSE"..... does that sound like a reasonable argument? Props for wanting to make sure this isn't unethical, but honestly.... think about the stance that your opponent would need to take to pin that on YOU.... it's a stretch :P.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Patrice
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-12-30T21:33:33.643Z
Comments.Text: Your opponent had agency to choose whether or not to drink the water.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Schwern
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-01-01T13:22:18.047Z
Comments.Text: @Bob If you feel bad about it, it may not be your actions that were wrong, but your motive. Since you're the only one who can judge your motive, it's important to do so carefully. (In my experience, that's the only way to make the "feel-bads" go away.) Good luck!
Comments.UserDisplayName: jpaugh
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-03-01T23:34:02.547Z
Comments.Text: I'll ask the obvious- was the water spiked with diuretics?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Comic Sans Seraphim
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-03-03T14:56:48.293Z
Comments.Text: @Studoku It was not spiked with anything. It was a sealed bottle of water.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Bob
Tags: <etiquette>
Title: I provided water bottle to my opponent, he drank it then lost on time due to the need of using bathroom. Is this unethical?
ThreadText: # I provided water bottle to my opponent, he drank it then lost on time due to the need of using bathroom. Is this unethical?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2020-12-29)
  
  Many years ago, I was playing in a chess tournament. We had been at the board for at least three hours. My opponent had spent the entire time at the board trying to find good moves. I had the better position and plenty of time on my clock. My opponent had less then 10 minutes on his clock. I also taken a couple of bathroom breaks.
  
  The tournament provided free bottles of water. I got up from the board and got two bottles of water. I started to drink one and placed the other bottle near him. Neither one of us said anything to each other. He opened his bottle and started to drink it. About 10 minutes after drinking the water, my opponent needed to use the bathroom which he did. While he was gone from the board, he went over on the clock.
  
  Did I do anything unethical?
  
  **Tags:** etiquette
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: This is a very odd question. First off, I don't think water passes through a human body in mere minutes, but even if that were the case there isn't much of a discussion to be had here. Why would you assume that this could in any way be construed as unethical behaviour? Did your opponent accuse you of something after the game?  
  > **username_2**: I don't see what the unethical behavior could be.  Is there any specific behavior you can concerned about.  Needing bathroom breaks is predictable and part of time management.  
  > **username_3**: @username_0 I mean... "HE OFFEREusername_9E THE WATER THAT WAS AVAILABLE FOR FREE, I DECIDED TO DRINK IT, HE OBVIOUSLY MADE ME LOSE"..... does that sound like a reasonable argument? Props for wanting to make sure this isn't unethical, but honestly.... think about the stance that your opponent would need to take to pin that on YOU.... it's a stretch :P.  
  > **username_4**: Your opponent had agency to choose whether or not to drink the water.  
  > **username_5**: @username_0 If you feel bad about it, it may not be your actions that were wrong, but your motive. Since you're the only one who can judge your motive, it's important to do so carefully. (In my experience, that's the only way to make the "feel-bads" go away.) Good luck!  
  > **username_6**: I'll ask the obvious- was the water spiked with diuretics?  
  > **username_0**: @Studoku It was not spiked with anything. It was a sealed bottle of water.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 4 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_7 on 2020-12-31. Score: 6 | Accepted answer
  
  > I had the better position and plenty of time on my clock.  
  > My opponent had less then 10 minutes on his clock.  
  > I also taken a couple of bathroom breaks.  
  > ...  
  > He opened his bottle and started to drink it.  
  > About 10 minutes after drinking the water, my opponent needed to use the bathroom which he did.  
  > While he was gone from the board, he went over on the clock.
  
  I may misunderstand the chronology - It does not quite seem to tally as if taken at face value he would have drunk the water at or after the end of his available time. **However**, taking that to mean that he was within a few minutes of his time expiring, it sounds like him drinking and then taking a toilet break were within a few minutes of each other and very close indeed to his time expiry.
  
  No rational person would abandon a situation that was critical to them instead of waiting a few more minutes even under extreme duress. It is also very likely that a highly dehydrated person will also have a full bladder.
  
  I above said " ... no rational person ...". It seems likely that the person was either acting irrationally (which is quite possible in such circumstances) or was effectively resigning. You could not reasonably expect such behaviour as a response to your action.
  
  * At "best" you might expect to gain a few seconds from their opening the drink.
  * Distraction per se is a possibility but probably a rather extreme gambit.
  * It is also likely that the water would improve their ability to play better in the closing moments.
  * It seems almost unthinkable that giving them water at that stage would have initiated a 'toilet break'.
  
  Overall you action seems on balance to have been neutral or to have improved their (slim) chances. To we as onlookers your actions seem ethically proper.
  
  It seems worth adding, and only you know this one way or the other, that it MAY be that your intentions were in fact calculated to add to your advantage and that you still remember this long after. Even if this was the case, it seems a ploy more liable to fail than succeed and the actual degree of its success would be very unexpected.
  
  An aside - which may actually help: I'm getting 'oldish'. On occasions I wake in the wee small hours with memories of events from decades or many decades past where I recall & mentally run through past actions and wonder if I did things as well as I could. I am generally seen as "an honest & upright" person - and that is my aim in life. It doesn't seem to stop my brain questioning my past motives and deeds :-)
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_8 on 2020-12-31. Score: 34
  
  No, what you did is what is known as a [gambit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambit). You offered your opponent material (in this case a water bottle), which he accepted. This would be considered a blunder on his part, since although it gave him a temporary hydration advantage, it ended up costing him time due to the uncomfortable situation it caused for his bladder, which needed to be resolved. If he had instead declined the gambit, he may have won, but such is the way of the game.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_9 on 2020-12-30. Score: 26
  
  According to the FIDE [Laws of Chess](https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/E012018):
  
  > It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever.
  
  If you placed the water there with the *intent* that it would cause him to use the bathroom (and thus distract him) this would be an issue. If you were just doing it to be nice, there is no problem.
  
  The FIDE [Code of Ethics](https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/FIDECodeOfEthics) doesn't really have much to say about a situation like this. The closest thing is probably
  
  > Failure to comply with normally accepted standards of courtesy and chess etiquette. Misbehavior of a personal nature which is generally unacceptable by normal social standards.
  
  Again, I think this is only violated if there is intent.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_10 on 2020-12-30. Score: 6
  
  I think maybe you're overthinking this a *lot*, especially if this was many years ago.
  
  I'll echo what another respondent said: if there was intent, sure. But even then? You can't control another person's bladder. If your opponent was really invested in the game, I'm sure he would have "held it". Perhaps it was an admittance of defeat.
  
  No, nothing unethical here. Quit dwelling on the past.
  
  
  ---
  
  