Dramatic changes in congress performances

[Roger de Coverly]

I wrote a piece about tanking in Kingpin years ago (it's not online) in connection with a gentleman to whom I am not related but whose name is similar to mine.

By not such a strange coincidence, that was a name that springs to mind when discussing how poor form always seemed to coincide with league matches.

Promoting past winners to the next highest section is a sanction that tournament organisers can adopt. For rapidly improving juniors, it isn't so much of a problem. I can recall a tournament where the winner of the previous year's Major faced the previous winner of the Open in the first round. She went on to win and either won or came close to winning the Open.

[NickFaulks]

This was probably not a FIDE rated congress. Unfortunately in rated events the decision is not up to the opponent, it's an automatic loss.

Where is this FIDE rule? I can't find it.

[Mick Norris]

I take it the reference is to Stephen Crockett whose results look very inconsistent. Could there be a reason for that?

Do you have any suggestions for the reason(s)?

I have absolutely no idea. A medical condition maybe? I was hoping that someone "in the know", like you perhaps, might be able to throw some light.

Has anyone actually analysed the results? Is he perhaps ruthless against opponents below a certain grade, and awful against others of sufficient strength?

[JustinHorton]

If that were so, it'd be unlikely to have scores of 100% or 0% in congresses.

[Michael Flatt]

This was probably not a FIDE rated congress. Unfortunately in rated events the decision is not up to the opponent, it's an automatic loss.

Where is this FIDE rule? I can't find it.

11.b During play, a player is forbidden to have a mobile phone and/or other electronic means of communication in the playing venue. If it is evident that a player brought such a device into the playing venue, he shall lose the game. The opponent shall win.
The rules of a competition may specify a different, less severe, penalty.
The arbiter may require the player to allow his clothes, bags or other items to be inspected, in private. The arbiter or a person authorised by the arbiter shall inspect the player and shall be of the same gender as the player. If a player refuses to cooperate with these obligations, the arbiter shall take measures in accordance with Article 12.9.

In a competition the sound of a mobile phone/electronic device is distracting to other players and not only the offender's opponent. The wording of the rule has changed from its original version to be an anti-cheating measure as well as eliminating a potential distraction to players.

The rule allows the organisers/arbiters some discretion but in general it is better for the rules to be applied consistently across all events. In the UK it has become practice to allow players to have their phone switched off and stored in their bag and to lose the game should it ring. The regular players know that they risk losing their game and adhere to the rules. The number of incidents involving mobile phones/electronic devices is thankfully low.

In the last 2 years, I recall 2 games being lost due to a ringing mobile phone. One of the offenders was a club team mate who accepted the penalty without argument. Had the penalty not been imposed we, no doubt, would have been accused of favouritism.

[Brian Towers]

This was probably not a FIDE rated congress. Unfortunately in rated events the decision is not up to the opponent, it's an automatic loss.

Where is this FIDE rule? I can't find it.

My understanding on this is that for certain levels of FIDE event (continental championship event and higher) it is an automatic loss. Below that it is a matter for the national federation who have discretion to apply a lower level sanction including delegate to the event. There was an urgent amendment to the rules issued about a year ago by FIDE clarifying the position. The Chess Arbiters' Association has a copy - http://www.chessarbitersassociation.co. ... Law_11.pdf although I see it doesn't mention national federation discretion, only event organizer discretion. Perhaps that is an ICF interpretation / ruling.

I don't know what the ECF policy is on this. For the ICF it is still automatic loss.

[Michael Flatt]

Has anyone actually analysed the results? Is he perhaps ruthless against opponents below a certain grade, and awful against others of sufficient strength?

It is more blatant than that. Plot the percentage score obtained in each congress over time it is rather obvious what is happening. Sometimes, the grading record doesn't record a first round result as he may have requested a half point bye, but I have ignored that and focused on graded games.

Despite regularly recording maximum or near maximum scores his long term average is close to 50 per cent.

I am surprised that the organisers of the Midlands Under-150 Rapidplay Grand Prix haven't questioned and investigated his performance.

[Michael Farthing]

The quoted law (not rule) does not say that a player whose phone sounds automatically loses the game. Can Adam supply such a rule? It would presumably be in the FIDE competition rules, not the laws. To what extent can the FIDE competition rules be overridden by the competition rules if the tournament is to be FIDE rated?

[Mick Norris]

Has anyone actually analysed the results? Is he perhaps ruthless against opponents below a certain grade, and awful against others of sufficient strength?

It is more blatant than that. Plot the percentage score obtained in each congress over time it is rather obvious what is happening. Sometimes, the grading record doesn't record a first round result as he may have requested a half point bye, but I have ignored that and focused on graded games.

Despite regularly recording maximum or near maximum scores his long term average is close to 50 per cent.

I am surprised that the organisers of the Midlands Under-150 Rapidplay Grand Prix haven't questioned and investigated his performance.

I assume that his actual strength is below 150, so he is eligible for the RGP anyway, but I'm not sure what the MCCU can do if the various congress organisers accept his entries in the various events

[Michael Flatt]

The quoted law (not rule) does not say that a player whose phone sounds automatically loses the game. Can Adam supply such a rule? It would presumably be in the FIDE competition rules, not the laws. To what extent can the FIDE competition rules be overridden by the competition rules if the tournament is to be FIDE rated?

I would refer you to FIDE Handbook C.01. Recommendations for Organization of Top-level Tournaments
There is no dispensation regarding mobile phones/electronic devices. The Laws of Chess apply in full.

[Brian Towers]

The quoted law (not rule) does not say that a player whose phone sounds automatically loses the game. Can Adam supply such a rule? It would presumably be in the FIDE competition rules, not the laws. To what extent can the FIDE competition rules be overridden by the competition rules if the tournament is to be FIDE rated?

This was the law in the pre-July 2014 rules-

•During play the players are forbidden to make use of any notes, sources of information or advice, or analyse on another chessboard
•Without the permission of the arbiter a player is forbidden to have a mobile phone or other electronic means of communication in the playing venue, unless they are completely switched off. If any such device produces a sound, the player shall lose the game. The opponent shall win. However, if the opponent cannot win the game by any series of legal moves, his score shall be a draw.
•Smoking is permitted only in the section of the venue designated by the arbiter

This was changed in the July 2014 version as noted previously.

[Michael Flatt]

I assume that his actual strength is below 150, so he is eligible for the RGP anyway, but I'm not sure what the MCCU can do if the various congress organisers accept his entries in the various events

If the matter were brought to the attention of the organisers and they could establish that the player was manipulating his results so as to gain an unfair advantage in the Grand Prix they could no doubt introduce a regulation to outlaw overt grade manipulation and disallow certain congress results.

[Roger de Coverly]

The Laws of Chess apply in full.

As always with rules drafted and redrafted by committees, there are anomalies.

If you don't read 11 b, or regard it as set aside in part by the "in a bag" interpretation, there's also 12.8 and 12.9

12.8
Unless authorised by the arbiter, it is forbidden for anybody to use a mobile phone or any kind of communication device in the playing venue or any contiguous area designated by the arbiter.
12.9
Options available to the arbiter concerning penalties:

a.warning
b.increasing the remaining time of the opponent
c.reducing the remaining time of the offending player
d.increasing the points scored in the game by the opponent to the maximum available for that game
e.reducing the points scored in the game by the offending person
f.declaring the game to be lost by the offending player (the arbiter shall also decide the opponent’s score)
g.a fine announced in advance
h.expulsion from the competition.

Provided you interpret a phone ringing or otherwise making a noise as "use", then awarding the game to the opponent is the application of penalty f. Lesser penalties such as a warning are also available.

British tournament arbiters for the most part have continued with the now traditional warning that mobile phones should be switched and you lose if they make a noise. Some have gone on to make the point that the phone should be out of use and seen to be out of use for the whole game, meaning that you leave the phone behind if you leave the room.

[Michael Farthing]

The quoted law (not rule) does not say that a player whose phone sounds automatically loses the game. Can Adam supply such a rule? It would presumably be in the FIDE competition rules, not the laws. To what extent can the FIDE competition rules be overridden by the competition rules if the tournament is to be FIDE rated?

I would refer you to FIDE Handbook C.01. Recommendations for Organization of Top-level Tournaments
There is no dispensation regarding mobile phones/electronic devices. The Laws of Chess apply in full.

Michael,

Firstly, there is a slight hint in the title of what you quote that would limit the authority of the document. it is the word 'Recommendation'
Secondly, the quoted law does not make mention of a phone ringing (it concerns itself with a phone being in the playing venue) and it does not say that the game must be lost. Indeed, it specifically says that a lesser penalty may be imposed.

[Brian Towers]

I have a document entitled "Comments for Arbiters on 2014 FIDE Laws". I don't remember where I got it, but it says this:

11.3 Mobile Phones Ban
It may be that some organisers will wish to ban mobile phones etc. from their event. That is acceptable. The entry form should state this.

It is acknowledged that for some people having a mobile phone with them at a chess event is a necessity. Therefore the default situation should be:
Where there is no safe keeping place for mobiles etc. the following will apply:
If anyone intends to bring a phone with them to a chess event they should register that position and their phone number with the organiser. Such phones should be switched off completely (there may be exceptions for doctors on call etc). If such a switched off phone makes a sound, e.g. low battery beep, then Law 11.5 applies.
If the phone is found to be switched on then the player should be defaulted.
In the application of these guidelines the entire tournament shall count as one instance.
The entry form should provide space to register the phone and number. The penalty could be a fine of £1 used for a good cause.
Some organisers may wish players to register at the event. Another penalty which may be issued would be a warning.
For games not under the supervision of arbiters (e.g. some league games) it is recognised that mobile phone use may be needed. This should be done with the knowledge of both captains. When this is done a more lax approach can be used. It is inappropriate to impose a penalty when any noise emitted is less than the ambient noise in the room.