A new twist on mobile Phones.

[Alex Holowczak]

I think that's certainly better than the automatic default rule (if the player whose phone rang goes on to win the game, it's effectively scored as 1-1 rather than 0-1), although at any level below major national/international tournaments (where it's more likely that someone would want to cheat, because the financial reward if they do so and get away with it is higher) I think a warning for the first instance and time penalty for any subsequent one. In an amateur game it's all but certain that a phone ring just means that the player forgot to switch it off, rather than that there's someone outside running Fritz and trying to give advice.

I agree completely that it's always 100% accidental, and I hate the idea of the penalty being in force. However, this seems like the best compromise. When a IM played a FM last year, they were quick to claim the phone going off... Whereas the bottom board in the bottom pairing would be less strict. So both extremes have to be catered for.

If there really has to be a penalty, then I still want the maximum number of games out of it.

[J. F. Lambert]

Would appreciate an explanation of the 'potential to cheat' if a mobie rings.

[Roger de Coverly]

Would appreciate an explanation of the 'potential to cheat' if a mobie rings.

A watching spectator passing on the thoughts of Fritz, Rybka etc.

This is a particular danger with live coverage.

[Alex Holowczak]

A watching spectator

As opposed to a non-watching spectator?

[Michael Jones]

Would appreciate an explanation of the 'potential to cheat' if a mobie rings.

A watching spectator passing on the thoughts of Fritz, Rybka etc.

This is a particular danger with live coverage.

If I recall the Chessbase reports correctly, there has already been more than one instance of this happening, although it's not usually with a mobile; the standard trick is to use a baseball cap to hide some device in the player's ear, through which a 'friend' relays computer moves.

Ah, here we are:
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3280
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4570

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Just noticed that someone in the Olympiad got defaulted when their mobile phone went off:

http://thestar.com.my/lifestyle/story.a ... =lifefocus

"Apparently, it doesn’t matter whether or not a mobile phone is in silent mode. When it’s time for the alarm to go off, it will. Mas Hafizul had set his alarm to go off daily at 12.20pm because he wanted to be reminded of lunch time. Unfortunately, the final round of the Chess Olympiad had started earlier at 11am instead of the usual 3pm."

Oops!

I wonder what would have happened if his opponent had been going for a GM norm? Do such games still count for norms or not?

[Joey Stewart]

I do quite like this rule, even though I have personally had two extremely close scrapes with my own phone turning itself back on, it just helps to combat the selfishnes attitude which many people have that they 'couldnt possibly' switch their phone off at any time and care nothing for those disturbed by it (or the resulting conversation) as it is too important to them.

[Roger de Coverly]

I wonder what would have happened if his opponent had been going for a GM norm? Do such games still count for norms or not?

I believe so. Ketevan's attempted GM norm at Liverpool EU 2008 was aided by Nigel's Nokia.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4903
http://www.liverpoolchessinternational. ... s_rd10.htm

[E Michael White]

I wonder what would have happened if his opponent had been going for a GM norm? Do such games still count for norms or not?

I believe so. Ketevan's attempted GM norm at Liverpool EU 2008 was aided by Nigel's Nokia.

The FIDE rating rules B02, include:-
5.0 Unplayed games
5.1 Whether these occur because of forfeiture or any other reason, they are not counted. Any game where both players have made at least one move will be rated.

So it reads as if a phone going off before White's first move causes the result not to be counted, as the game is defined as not having been commenced, and if it goes off before Black's hand leaves the piece on the first move, it may not be counted as only White has made a move.

Oddly in 2009 my database shows just 1.d4 by Delchev but Conquest's FIDE rating record shows him as winning a game counted for rating.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"5.0 Unplayed games
5.1 Whether these occur because of forfeiture or any other reason, they are not counted. Any game where both players have made at least one move will be rated."

Unfortunately, that is ambiguous, as it doesn't say that any game where "both players have not made one move will not be rated".

Apart from a default, I think the game exists as soon as the gong (or whatever) for the start of the round goes off. I did hear of a case where someone turned up late for a match and was told he had won as his opponent's phone had gone off while he was waiting...

[E Michael White]

Unfortunately, that is ambiguous

Well its not exactly ambiguous it just has a gap if both players have not made a move. Now there is a precedent from the Delchev - Conquest game that if White has made a move he can lose if his phone goes off and the game will be rated. When gaps in FIDE rules exist Stewart Reuben usually posts that the gap is intentional to allow the arbiter flexibility.

Local variants such as the ECF soft default time of 30 mins, sometimes conflict with other FIDE rules to produce arbiter headaches. What should the result be if Black arrives at next years British Championship 27 minutes late and his phone goes off before White arrives and White subsequently arrives 33 minutes late ?

If the arbiter in this hypothetical British declares the absent player the winner and Black immediately points out that the White King and Queen are on the wrong squares, should he still lose as the FIDE rules say the game is cancelled ? Surely you don’t think that an absent player can win a game for FIDE rating purposes, which in the normal course of events he would have lost by being late, and a game where no moves have been played in a position where the FIDE rules declare that game should have been cancelled and restarted ? But that is what the rules seem to state. Many FIDE rules are ambiguous, conflict with other rules or don’t exactly stated what is intended.

Many players believe, like you do, that the game commences at the actual start time of the round. The FIDE rules state that White commences the game, so how can he do this if he is not there ? Clearly the rules have been built up over many years and additions are often made which for clarity require a previously written different rule to be modified.

[Alex McFarlane]

[quote="E Michael White
If the arbiter in this hypothetical British declares the absent player the winner and Black immediately points out that the White King and Queen are on the wrong squares, should he still lose as the FIDE rules say the game is cancelled ? Surely you don’t think that an absent player can win a game, which in the normal course of events he would have lost by being late, and a game where no moves have been played in a position where the FIDE rules declare that game should have been cancelled and restarted ? But that is what the rules seem to state. Many FIDE rules are ambiguous, conflict with other rules or don’t exactly stated what is intended.[/quote]

The Laws state:
7.1 a. If during a game it is found that the initial position of the pieces was incorrect, the game shall be cancelled and a new game played.

Only games in progress can be cancelled because of the incorrect position of the pieces. The phone ringing ended the game so no claim of the pieces being incorrect would be accepted. Black has lost. White has not won however. White's result is determined by the arbiter. If he arrives on time then he would be given the win otherwise he too loses.

More interesting would be if the player had informed the arbiter of this and before restarting the game his phone rang. At that point he could be regarded as a spectator and barred from the playing hall.

[E Michael White]

White has not won however. White's result is determined by the arbiter. If he arrives on time then he would be given the win otherwise he too loses.

Alex - The power of the arbiter to determine White's score, except under limited circumstances, was changed during the 2009 rules. The arbiter can now only determine White as drawing if he does not have mating material.

However your approach of wait and see if the other player arrives is a sensible one which I almost suggested. This should really have been foreseen by the arbiters who put forward the 30 minute soft default a year ago; in their haste to be chummy it was overlooked. When one rule is changed it can often affect another and immediately after arrival is the point at which mobiles are most likely to go off.

When multiple penalties or defaults are in the air a good way to determine which applies, not just in chess but elsewhere, is to determine which illegal action occured first; your approach is basically that.

Not sure I agree your last point

At that point he could be regarded as a spectator and barred from the playing hall.

Players are regarded as spectators when they have finished their games not when their game is suspended or they have not yet started or restarted.

[Alex McFarlane]

Michael, I agree that 1 or 1/2 are the stated results of the opponent, but 12.8 still gives the arbiter the right to award a 0 for persistant refusal to obey the Laws. It could be argued that allowing a phone to ring is a persistant offence

But seriously, I would agree that this could be seen as a contradiction.

Whilst the Laws state that a player who has finished their game is a spectator, it does not specify that this is the only time they may be regarded as such!

My own particular grievance is with A3 and B2 regarding supervision of rapidplay and blitz games. This should certainly be defined as at the start of play. This is certainly the interpretation used in this country. But, if taken literally, the rules change as games finish.

[E Michael White]

Michael, I agree that 1 or 1/2 are the stated results of the opponent, but 12.8 still gives the arbiter the right to award a 0 for persistant refusal to obey the Laws. It could be argued that allowing a phone to ring is a persistant offence

Yes - but it's the other player, ie the late arriver not the phone player whose result you question. Regarding the late arriver as a persistent offender by being late is stretching things a lot to make a badly worded rule fit..

I dont see how you can, under the present rules and a 30 minute default amendment, award 0 to a late or none arriver when his opponent has already been defaulted. This is probably the result you and many players would want but the rules currently say otherwise. Clearly local event rules could specify that to be awarded 1 the opponent must have been present at some time before 30 mins from the start expires.