Chess Player Strip Searched

[MartinCarpenter]

Rulemakers have to grapple with it because its becoming very possible (cf a certain Bulgarian) to do this fairly invisibily at a very high level.

If they then feed restrictions down to low levels in a way which won't really help with most worring forms of cheating and markedly inconcenviences people there will start to be problems.

If nothing else, up to a non trivial level all people doing this would be achieving is cheating themselves anyway.

Places like American opens with (I believe?) genuinely non trivial prize funds for grading bands etc might be right to worry.

[Roger de Coverly]

Arbiters and rulemakers aren't coming up with this stuff in order to inconvenience other people for a laugh.

A cynic would say otherwise. Generally speaking the adjective power-crazed doesn't currently apply to British arbiters. Technophobic perhaps. Some of their international counterparts on the other hand delight in the use of arbitrary power. The 2008 Dresden Olympiad and the exercise of zero time defaults being a case in point.

[Roger de Coverly]

Rulemakers have to grapple with it because its becoming very possible (cf a certain Bulgarian) to do this fairly invisibily at a very high level.

If it is cheating and not a new style of play, that's likely to be a concealed camera to capture the moves and a shoe or body computer communicating by vibration. You have to catch him in the act really. Rules saying you lose if you have a phone in your pocket, but not if it's in a jacket you aren't wearing wouldn't have a lot of effect.

Rather you have to agree to be searched if a high enough level of suspicion is raised with refusal being treated like a refusal to take a doping test.

Places like American opens with (I believe?) genuinely non trivial prize funds for grading bands etc might be right to worry.

Here's a link to the site of one of the major organisers
http://www.chesstour.com/devices.htm

Despite the apparent leniency towards those making calls and having phones switched on, their solution is that it isn't there if you cannot see it.

There's a discussion at
https://www.uschess.org/forums/viewtopi ... dea209b1ad
although the rules as they now are written appear to post date the discussion.

[Steve Rooney]

although I have never witnessed one in 40-odd years of playing with plenty of casual access at congresses to strong players and bookstalls

I really don't believe that access to strong players or bookstalls are, as potential aids to cheating, on anything like the same level as the technology which was not available to us forty years ago.

Of course, advancing technology is a factor, but access to a strong player, or just another person assessing the position is far easier to do than shuffling off to the toilet and entering the whole position on your phone's software. I just don't believe that many players are inclined to cheat at chess; and of those that are tempted, most would refrain from fear of detection. So there may be a tiny proportion who might cheat, and we shouldn't devise rules that end up spoiling the game for everyone else.

I have been very clear that I am talking about amateur chess and fully accept that professional level, or high stakes semi-pro events might want to take a sterner view and frisk everyone on entry, But that should not be allowed to wash through to the rest of us who simply want to have some fun playing chess in the evening or at a weekend congress with modest amounts of prize money.

[David Shepherd]

I normally do not take my mobile to chess games, but for one evening match I went straight from work and forgot that it was in my coat pocket. The phone rang and under the league rules I lost - I resigned and we just carried on the game, what was the point of both of us travelling and then not getting a game. However the game didn't have the same tension as a live match and it seemed to me that the rule had ruined the evenings entertainment and in many ways it would just have been better to play on the internet with no wasted journey after work when I was tired. Another nail in the coffin of club league chess.

I have also been at a congress where a player was caught with the game position on their mobile phone the main punishment seemed to be his elimination from the congress. In my opinion this is where it all falls down, if a player is caught cheating in this way there should be no excuse, they should be banned from FIDE and ECF rated tournaments for life (my only slight reservation is there could be a case where the player is not guilty, so for example the phone was slipped into their pocket by someone else or the position on the device was from pre game analysis). In my opinion this is more the answer than putting in place rules that impact on all players.

"Players who have a mobile phone in their possession must register the phone number before the commencement of round 1 of their FIRST section. The registration must be
accompanied by a charge of £1 per player. (All money collected will be donated to a local charity.)" . So if a player turns up to the venue on day 2 and discovers that they have accidentally left their phone in their pocket (and have not registered it before round 1), should they just go away again?

At the British it would now seem sensible if all players registered their phone number before the start even if they had no intention of taking it to the hall in order to guard against the fact they may accidentally leave it in a pocket (previously not an issue if it was off).

[Roger de Coverly]

At the British it would now seem sensible if all players registered their phone number before the start even if they had no intention of taking it to the hall in order to guard against the fact they may accidentally leave it in a pocket (previously not an issue if it was off).

It's by no means obvious how you do this if you happen to be a few minutes late arriving for your first round. Even more so, if the first you learn about the rule is by reading the paper programme. Arguably you shouldn't even do that whilst playing in case it contains a game or several.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Does the current wording (about registering phones in your possession before the first round of your event) cover people who buy a phone during the chess event? Some smartphones are cheap enough now that this is possible. Having said that, I agree with what Steve Rooney said earlier. This is likely to get very silly and ruin amateur chess if people don't try and be sensible about it.

[Roger de Coverly]

This is likely to get very silly and ruin amateur chess if people don't try and be sensible about it.

Leagues are likely to continue with their current policy by default if nothing else, if no-one at their AGMs raises it. It's Congresses where the arbiters have got this fixation about declaring phone numbers in exchange for a fine that represent the problem.

Admittedly they are run by someone the ECF (or is it the CAA?) classifies as a "Trainee" arbiter, but there's nothing I can see about devices in the Golders Green and related websites.
http://www.goldersgreenchessweekender.blogspot.co.uk/

A protest on the other forum in the provocatively titled "What's wrong with the ECF" might be possible where it not for the fear that such an action be deleted for fear of frightening potential sponsors.

[Adam Raoof]

This is likely to get very silly and ruin amateur chess if people don't try and be sensible about it.

Leagues are likely to continue with their current policy by default if nothing else, if no-one at their AGMs raises it. It's Congresses where the arbiters have got this fixation about declaring phone numbers in exchange for a fine that represent the problem.

Admittedly they are run by someone the ECF (or is it the CAA?) classifies as a "Trainee" arbiter, but there's nothing I can see about devices in the Golders Green and related websites.
http://www.goldersgreenchessweekender.blogspot.co.uk/

A protest on the other forum in the provocatively titled "What's wrong with the ECF" might be possible where it not for the fear that such an action be deleted for fear of frightening potential sponsors.

When it come to phones and other devices I'm applying common sense, and trying not to ruin friendly competitions with paranoia. I have a properly trained and vetted arbiter to do all the arbiting.

[Paolo Casaschi]

A protest on the other forum in the provocatively titled "What's wrong with the ECF" might be possible where it not for the fear that such an action be deleted for fear of frightening potential sponsors.

Why don't you just try posting there instead of endlessly debating what might or might not possibly and eventually happen in case you posted something that someone could potentially object and supposedly delete in breach of basic human rights?

[Roger de Coverly]

Why don't you just try posting there

I cannot post there because I haven't registered. I rather have the idea that posts and posters critical of the ECF will be unwelcome. It's not human rights, but I do have an objection to expressed opinions being summarily deleted.

[Michael Farthing]

Why don't you just try posting there

I cannot post there because I haven't registered. I rather have the idea that posts and posters critical of the ECF will be unwelcome. It's not human rights, but I do have an objection to expressed opinions being summarily deleted.

Blatant mass spams for enhancing (Polish) body parts have been deleted.
Some posters that failed to respond to a request to reregister under their real name were removed with all their posts, having been warned that this was the site policy.
I believe there has been only one other deletion, in the first day or so, but on the basis that it was perceived to be off-topic. The site administrator specifically apologised for it and indicated clearly where such posts should in future be placed.

I have openly criticised a moderator and asked him to withdraw allegations he made. He has not done so, but my posts have remained as have a number of others in like vein. I have had an altercation with the ECF FIDE representative and asked a blunt question of the Chief Executive (answered). These posts are still there.

I am not thrilled with the ECF forum: it is generating very little more feedback than there was here. Indeed, the best ECF officals for posting are ones that posted here anyway and, I believe, mostly still do. I also see the other forum as a deliberate attempt to undermine this one. It seems to be failing in that endeavour.

However, there is no evidence that it is suppressing posts. One of its moderators accused this forum of allowing aliases and it was pointed out to him that this was factually inaccurate. He was asked (by me oand others) to formally withdraw that comment. He did not. I now ask you, Roger, to formally withdraw your allegation. Are you prepared to?

[Roger de Coverly]

He did not. I now ask you, Roger, to formally withdraw your allegation. Are you prepared to?

I am not accusing the official forum of removing posts. I suspect that it would do so in the future if there was heated criticism of the ECF, its officers or directors. That is, as yet, an opinion rather than a tested fact.

[Michael Farthing]

I am not accusing the official forum of removing posts. I suspect that it would do so in the future if there was heated criticism of the ECF, its officers or directors. That is, as yet, an opinion rather than a tested fact.

The evidence so far is that it won't. I cannot see that your previous comments can be construed to be in any way less than a statements that such removal is likely. You say:

"It's not human rights, but I do have an objection to expressed opinions being summarily deleted. "

Most fair people might assume you had reason to believe this was actually happening rather than a private fear that it might.

[Steve Rooney]

Is it possible for the discussion about the ECF forum to be moved to another thread so that we don't forget this important discussion on the mobile phone rules?