Laws of Chess

[Michael Farthing]

It's always easy to speak to the umpires in cricket

[Alex Holowczak]

It's always easy to speak to the umpires in cricket

In Baku, all you had to do was look at the arbiter, point towards the door to leave, and the arbiter would nod back.

[Stewart Reuben]

Thi is what the Laws actually state about leaving the playing venue, or playing area
11.2.3
Only with the permission of the arbiter can:
11.2.3.1
a player leave the playing venue,
11.2.3.2
the player having the move be allowed to leave the playing area.
11.2.3.3
a person
who is neither a player nor arbiter be allowed access to the playing area.
11.2.4
The regulations of an event may specify that the opponent of the player having a move
must report to the arbiter when he wishes to leave the playing area.

Of course 11.2.4 should be 11.2.3.3. But I failed to get the numbering changed. 11.2.4 allows the organisers to introduce that rather ridiculous rule that applied in Baku.
I think the penalty can be left to the discretion of the arbiter. But what does Alex H mean by: a player does leave the playing area without informing an arbiter.
What is a player? The player, that is the person whose move it is may not leave the playing area. Surely that is quite easy to police? He may be away from his board, the most likely reason being he wants to view the game of his closest rival, or the games of his team mates. If he leaves the playing area, that should cause consternation. The most likely reason is a sudden desperate need to go to the toilet. Recently I was on board a cruise ship, about to start my dinner and had to leave to vomit. I reached the toilet just in time.
The opponent can normally leave the playing area without consulting the arbiter.

Alex M. the area set aside where people can smoke is defined as being part of the playing venue.
The penalty for infringing the Laws can be left to the discretion of he arbiter, as is made clear in Article 12. I don't know why Alex H wants his hands tied more.

What has not been commented on is that the PB clearly wanted to reduce the amount of discretion the arbiter has. They may not even have been aware of this objective.
The PB has acted against the FIDE Statutes which clearly state that the Laws and Qualification Rules are the responsibility of the Rules and Qualification Commissions respectively, NOT the PB. It is relatively easy for people, for whom English is their first language, to adjust. But what about those federations preparing translations?
None of you have seen the tangled web I substantially managed to amend before publication.

[NickFaulks]

I imagine it is seen as an anti-cheating measure.

If you're going out to cheat, it is naive to assume that this can only be of value when it's your move.

edit : I do approve of the idea that, in events where there are sufficient arbiters, players should inform one of them when they are leaving the room. It is far too common for players, particularly juniors, to get into the habit of getting up and leaving the room after every move. I have no doubt that at most a tiny minority of them are cheating ( what are they doing? ), but I just wish that their coaches would mention to them that this is a bad habit and they shouldn't do it.

[Roger de Coverly]

No one bats an eyelid about it in cricket though, so why is it an issue for chess?

In cricket, a fielder is still part of the game. In chess, the person waiting on their opponent's move doesn't have any playing function other than to wait. You can and do play chess without the presence of an arbiter. I imagine playing cricket without the presence of an umpire would be next to impossible. Arbiters are therefore an optional extra and shouldn't be allowed to act as if they were teachers in a primary school. Elsewhere in the Laws of Chess, the phrase, "the rules of the competition may require" or similar appear. This is one where that should apply.

[NickFaulks]

Elsewhere in the Laws of Chess, the phrase, "the rules of the competition may require" or similar appear. This is one where that should apply.

Why is that even necessary? The rules of the competition should be allowed to require anything that is not in conflict with the Laws. The fact that some of these are specified merely leads to confusion regarding those which are not.

In case anyone is wondering, matters such as requiring people to adopt certain dress codes in FIDE events are an entirely separate issue, where the Laws of Chess have nothing to say.

[NickFaulks]

The PB has acted against the FIDE Statutes which clearly state that the Laws and Qualification Rules are the responsibility of the Rules and Qualification Commissions respectively, NOT the PB.

Stewart,

Did the new Laws end up containing anything which Rules Commission did not approve? If so, there would seem to be a problem.

[Michael Farthing]

Alex M. the area set aside where people can smoke is defined as being part of the playing venue.

What are you saying Stewart?
Surely Alex was saying that that to smoke you would need to leave the playing area not the playing venue

[Stewart Reuben]

Nick >Did the new Laws end up containing anything which Rules Commission did not approve? If so, there would seem to be a problem.<

They deleted some material of which the RC had approved. e.g. The no going back after 10 moves had happened. That allows people to cheat. Your opponent makes an ilegal move. You say nothing. Then, just before you are about to lose, you say, 'Hang about. There was an illegal move 30 moves ago.'
The main problem is that they went about it in the wrong way. Consultation concluded in Baku. the Laws were agreed by the GA. Now many months later they changed things.
Many of FIDE's problems have come about due to not following the statutes.

[NickFaulks]

Nick >Did the new Laws end up containing anything which Rules Commission did not approve? If so, there would seem to be a problem.<

They deleted some material of which the RC had approved. e.g. The no going back after 10 moves had happened. That allows people to cheat. Your opponent makes an ilegal move. You say nothing. Then, just before you are about to lose, you say, 'Hang about. There was an illegal move 30 moves ago.'
The main problem is that they went about it in the wrong way. Consultation concluded in Baku. the Laws were agreed by the GA. Now many months later they changed things.
Many of FIDE's problems have come about due to not following the statutes.

All very true, but you haven't answered my question. Had RC approved what the PB did in Athens? If not, as I said, I think there is a problem.

[Stewart Reuben]

It would be more correct to say they acquiesced. The chairmen, first Geurt and now Ashot, are more willing to go along with whatever the PB wants.

[Roger de Coverly]

From a piece in the Guardian about exams
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... o-in-exams

However, one professor, who asked to be anonymous, cast doubts over how much they could check students were complying. They said: “At a university where I worked, students were not allowed to have mobile phones on their person during exams. There were strict rules around this, but we couldn’t bodily search them. But periodically, students would take toilet breaks and disappear for some time into a cubicle. When they got back to their seat, they would have a second wind and write frantically. I was always concerned that they were using their toilet visit to look up answers on a hidden device and message their contacts outside.”

[John Foley]

Surely the most significant change is 11.3.3. because the arbiters now have the power to order body searches.

11.3.3 The arbiter may require the player to allow his clothes, bags, other items or body to be inspected, in private.

Will this delicate task be included in the arbiter training course? Is there any special equipment required? What is to prevent claims of assault or battery? Will we see videos of chess players being dragged from their seats screaming their innocence?

[Nick Grey]

As for games of chess where in ECF we are trying to comply with laws which ones will we?

Personally I have to go to the toilets frequently, I really have no care whether my move or not as it will be very embarrassing for me, my opponent, & those in the near facility. Will obviously think it an issue having anyone coming into to the urinals to spy on me so my report them to the hosts & the police.

I am not sure we want big brother, as in 1984, it is very costly.

[Stewart Reuben]

11.3.3 The arbiter may require the player to allow his clothes, bags, other items or body to be inspected, in private.

Read the sentence instead of having an automatic reaction .
The arbiter MAY require... He doesn't have to. Very few British arbiters would so require.
If the player doesn't allow, he can be given a loss and/or be ejected from the tournament. Dragging players from their seats seems most unlikely.
Nick Grey: If you exlain the situation to the arbiter BEFORE the game, it is most unlikely there will be any problem. If there is no arbiter present, then explain matters to the opponent and possibly the match captains, before the game.
To get up from the board when it is your move and leave the playing area, without saying anything, is naturally going to cause concern. I don't think I have ever seen that happn and I have been playing and/or organising chess for 67 years.

I don't like these rules much, but I don't want paranoia to destroy chess.