Randy notices 7-year-old Lisa dominating at the chess table. However, it’s quickly apparent that she’s no prodigy, but a hustler – moving pieces when no one is looking, making up rules to her advantage, and as a result winning the adulation of adult spectators unfamiliar with the game. He wonders whether to intervene, and if so, how.
On the one hand, no money is at stake, and Randy doesn’t know anyone at this community picnic. It’s not like Lisa’s his niece or it’s his own children being unfairly beaten. On the other hand, there at least three things wrong with what’s happening.
First the losing kids are probably getting their feelings hurt. Some may be able to brush it off, but others may be in tears. We don’t know from the case details, but to the extent Lisa’s victims are visibly distraught, this would give Randy reason to say something.
Second, the longer Lisa gets away with her trickery, the more likely she’ll develop a deceptive, cheating personality, which may lead her to inflict future harms. Chess cheating today could lead to investment fraud tomorrow… Yet an effective correction could prove a pivotal moment in the development of a legendarily virtuous character – “Lisa the Just,” the philosophers would call her…
And third, not only are the kids being tricked, but so are the spectators. They wouldn’t praise Lisa if they knew she was cheating, and so are being deceived in a way that’s probably amplifying the embarrassment of the losers, as well as reinforcing Lisa’s propensity to deceive in the future.
Something should be done, and since Randy is the only person there besides Lisa who truly understands chess, he’s the guy to do it. But what?
Given that Lisa is only 7, his approach needs to be gentle. Were Lisa 30, Randy could be more direct. A 30-year-old could better handle directness emotionally, and even if they couldn’t, would be more blameworthy for their actions. Our capacities for reflection and moral reasoning aren’t fully developed when we’re young – this is why we have a juvenile criminal justice system with less harsh punishments for offenders under 18. Lisa has some understanding that what she’s doing is wrong. But at 7, she’s less sensitive to the impact of her actions on her peers, doesn’t fully appreciate why deception is wrong, or comprehend how her actions today will mold her character of tomorrow.
So Randy might simply say, “I’m sorry young lady, but a player only has to say ‘check’ when they’re attacking their opponent’s king. Being aware of whether your queen is in danger is each player’s responsibility – no verbal warning required.”
Or, “Wasn’t it the case that this rook was actually on this square? The wind must have slid it over.”
Randy might even use the opportunity to coach. Lisa obviously has the interest and some skill, and would probably prefer to win legitimately if she could.
“Might I suggest castling? Oh, you don’t know how to castle? Here, let me show you – this move helps protect your king, and frees your rook to go on the offensive.”
Whether Lisa is receptive to any of this will likely depend on the reasons driving her behavior. Maybe an older sibling tends to cheat her at the chess table, and she’s simply modeling their behavior. Or maybe the innocent-looking kids she’s beating were bullying her earlier, and she’s simply putting them in their place.
But whatever her motives, and whatever her response, something needs to be done, and the power disparity between Randy and Lisa (plus the fact that he’s a stranger) rule out a heavy-handed approach. Were his attempts to mold her in a more honest direction ineffective, Randy might consider consoling the kids she’s defeating, or offering to coach them.