Chess Player Strip Searched

[Alex Holowczak]

During play, a player is forbidden to have a mobile phone, electronic means of communication "or any device capable of suggesting chess moves" on their person in the playing venue. "However, the rules of the competition may allow such devices to be stored in a player’s bag, as long as the device is completely switched off. A player is forbidden to carry a bag holding such a device, without permission of the arbiter."
If it is evident that a player has such a device on their person in the playing venue, the player 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.

You are the arbiter.

A player has not been granted permission to carry a bag holding "such devices". You ask to inspect it, and find a mobile phone and a laptop. He says that the law specifies a penalty for having a device on his person, and for refusing to cooperate with an inspection, and he has done neither, so play should continue. His opponent says that "such devices" clearly refers only to the "device" mentioned in the previous sentence (one capable of suggesting chess moves), and does not entitle him to have a mobile phone in his bag, so he loses.

I think the point you're trying to make is an entirely deliberate drafting decision.

The Law does not specify a penalty for having a mobile phone in a bag when the arbiter has not given permission. So the arbiter can choose from a list of penalties from Law 12.9:

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

[Roger de Coverly]

"However, the rules of the competition may allow such devices to be stored in a player’s bag, as long as the device is completely switched off. A player is forbidden to carry a bag holding such a device, without permission of the arbiter."

It has been pointed out to me that whilst male players might pick up a jacket before they leave the playing area to visit the rest rooms, a female player would pick up a handbag. Both may contain "devices". Would the second be legal (with arbiter permission) but not the first?

This is a wording I suggested to a local evening league to form one of the local exceptions to the FIDE Laws.

Mobile Phones and Electronic Devices capable of running chess software are allowed to be present in the playing area. They should be switched off (not standby) at or before the start of play and remain switched off for the entire duration of the game. Exceptionally Match Captains may leave the playing area to attempt contact with missing players. Also exceptionally, by agreement between the captains, anyone required by their employment to receive messages may leave a phone in silent mode. Unless the exceptions apply, the penalty for a phone or device ringing, or discovered to be switched on are that it should be powered off and two minutes added to the opponent's time. The penalty for a second incident is loss of the game.

The general spirit was accepted although I was asked to refine it around medical devices and others not capable of running chess software. Also it was suggested that some models continue to use power even when completely powered off, thus introducing the low battery warning hazard. In fact it says much the same as the previous local rule from about ten years ago.

The use of a mobile phone during the match is not allowed. Match Captains may leave the playing area to give directions to the venue. Any phones in the playing area must be on silent mode.
Any sound from a mobile phone or other electronic means of communication shall result in a two minutes added to opponent s time

If you said that the new rule relied on players observing the long-standing general prohibition about external consultation and assistance, I would agree. A certain amount of trust and respect is necessary for an evening league run in the traditional manner of no external arbiters being present.

[Lewis Martin]

I think the point you're trying to make is an entirely deliberate drafting decision.

The Law does not specify a penalty for having a mobile phone in a bag when the arbiter has not given permission. So the arbiter can choose from a list of penalties from Law 12.9:

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

Is there going to be a determined standard across the arbiters in England for determining what penalty is appropriate to use? This is with regards to consistency.

One can imagine that before the first round of the weekend, there will be queues at the arbiter's desk where he/she is checking all the players' bags! Would there be some kind of announcement that at a typical weekend tournament, or even the 4NCL, that this mandatory checking will be scheduled, say 15 minutes before the start of the first round? (Incidentally, will there be some kind of checklist to confirm that the arbiter has searched a certain player's bag?)

I am probably over-thinking this, but I am sure you see where I am coming from.

[Roger de Coverly]

Is there going to be a determined standard across the arbiters in England for determining what penalty is appropriate to use? This is with regards to consistency.

The CAA seem to have settled on

a fine announced in advance

That's arbiters rather than organisers. Organisers have to be mindful of the point that players can and will decline to enter their events if unacceptable conditions are imposed.

At least I think that's the case. I was trying to work out from the ECF calendar a list of possible events to enter and that just showed up the point that there are now some gaps and a number of events are taking place on the same weekend. Having possibly killed off or at best discouraged a few local Congresses, the absence of e2e4 leaves a few gaps.

Not knowing the dates for the London Classic doesn't help either, although that's more of a problem for setting club fixtures.

(This is working from the ECF's own calendar)

[Stewart Reuben]

Lewis, I have peviously said that it is impossible to forfeit a player regarding mobile phones if there is no arbiter present. If there is none, the games cannot be FIDE Rated.
If the arbiter, or the rules, permit a player to have a mobile phone in a bag, why would he check each one?
So a player has a bag and may, or may not have a mobile phone in it.
It makes a sound. So he loses.
He. or more likely. she takes his bag to the toilet. The arbiter insists on searching it. The player refuses, the arbiter awards a penalty of some type.
The player has a bag. The opponent expresses his concerns to the arbiter, or the arbiter is himself concerned. So the bag is searched. It turns out that there is an electronic device in the bag and it isn't completely switched off. That woul have been covered in the new Laws - if only it had made it to the Laws.

Roger. The LCC starts 6 December. The exact format has not been announced.
It is quite likely there will be another international event in London starting after that concludes, finishing before Christmas.
Hasting 29 December to 6 January.
You can also play in the Poker Stars IOM 4-12 October
World Seniors in Greece 25 October to 6 November
Gibraltar 26 January to 5 February.
World Senior Team Championship in Dresden 24 February to 4 March
And many other events worldwide.

[Roger de Coverly]

If there is none, the games cannot be FIDE Rated.

This has been raised before in the context of County Matches. Interpretations vary, but there's at least one that says it's acceptable to have an arbiter or a national arbiter at the end of a telephone.

There isn't much enthusiasm for County Matches to be FIDE rated, even though the longer weekend playing sessions would permit it.

[Stewart Reuben]

Roger, the current regulations state
0.3 All arbiters of a FIDE rated tournament shall be licensed otherwise the tournament shall not be rated.

Leaving aside the clumsiness of that statement, there is now no doubt that a licensed arbiter has to be present for an event to be FIDE Rated. The days are gone where I had influence and an event had only to be 'supervised' by an arbiter.
I don't share others enthusiasm for ECF Grades as I have long believed English chess would be better served by everything being FIDE Rated.
But people are perfectly entitled to disagree.
We have wandered away from the thread.

[David Williams]

During play, a player is forbidden to have a mobile phone, electronic means of communication "or any device capable of suggesting chess moves" on their person in the playing venue. "However, the rules of the competition may allow such devices to be stored in a player’s bag, as long as the device is completely switched off. A player is forbidden to carry a bag holding such a device, without permission of the arbiter."
If it is evident that a player has such a device on their person in the playing venue, the player 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.

I think the point you're trying to make is an entirely deliberate drafting decision.

The Law does not specify a penalty for having a mobile phone in a bag when the arbiter has not given permission. So the arbiter can choose from a list of penalties from Law 12.9:

The point I'm trying to make is that every time you add new rules you risk making the situation worse, particularly if they are loosely worded. If the law does not specify a penalty then 12.9 applies. What is the purpose of specifying that it applies to non-cooperation? There must be an implication that it doesn't apply to other things. If not, it's redundant.

I wouldn't be bothered if my opponent was found to have a switched-off Kindle in his bag. But if the bag was transparent, and a single flick of the on-off switch took it to the opening we were playing . . . Yet he complies with the rules. You probably wouldn't let him have an opening book open on the table even if he pointed out that it wasn't switched on, in fact it wasn't even electronic.

If this rule was struck out and such matters attracted whatever the penalties are for distracting an opponent, interference from a spectator, seeking or gaining assistance, would it really be any more unsatisfactory?

[NickFaulks]

The days are gone where I had influence and an event had only to be 'supervised' by an arbiter.

Stewart has more influence than he believes. The Arbiters have announced their intention to try to change the Laws in 2017 to give the result he proposes. However, the days are hopefully gone when any one influential official can simply decree that a regulation means the opposite of what it says.

"Arbiters must be licensed". When you see a sign on an escalator stating "dogs must be carried", does that mean than you are not permitted to travel on it unless you have a dog?

[Paolo Casaschi]

The LCC starts 6 December. The exact format has not been announced.
It is quite likely there will be another international event in London starting after that concludes, finishing before Christmas.

Any more details about this other event in London?
Occasional players like myself sometimes need to plan time off in advance; I played the LCC in the last few years, but an alternative later in the month is worth considering.

[Roger de Coverly]

the current regulations state
0.3 All arbiters of a FIDE rated tournament shall be licensed otherwise the tournament shall not be rated.

As implemented by FIDE, that could just have stated

At least one spectator at a FIDE rated tournament shall be licensed otherwise the tournament shall not be rated

No chess knowledge is required by FIDE to obtain a National Arbiter title.

I'm aware that the ECF have now imposed a minimum standard, not just "found money" before it will put names through to FIDE.

This does now mean that it isn't worth considering suggestions that county chess or league chess should be FIDE rated. Presumably the same applies to a club Blitz or Rapidplay, which were touted a while back as being suitable for FIDE rating.

Appendix G Quickplay Finishes contains G6

The following shall apply when the competition is not supervised by an arbiter

That can only apply when the competition isn't FIDE rated.

[Adam Raoof]

The LCC starts 6 December. The exact format has not been announced.
It is quite likely there will be another international event in London starting after that concludes, finishing before Christmas.

Any more details about this other event in London?
Occasional players like myself sometimes need to plan time off in advance; I played the LCC in the last few years, but an alternative later in the month is worth considering.

I am planning a limited swiss event eligible for GM norms to begin just after the Classic (15-23 December) and to run for 7-9 days. I hope to agree terms with a venue in Hampstead this week, and I have expressions of interest from a lot of IMs, and hope to encourage a lot of visitors to the Classic to stay on and play. I expect the entry will be strong, possibly limited to players with higher ratings, depending on the size of the venue, perhaps two events. Add your name to my mailing list for more details!

[Paolo Casaschi]

I am planning a limited swiss event eligible for GM norms to begin just after the Classic (15-23 December) and to run for 7-9 days. I hope to agree terms with a venue in Hampstead this week, and I have expressions of interest from a lot of IMs, and hope to encourage a lot of visitors to the Classic to stay on and play. I expect the entry will be strong, possibly limited to players with higher ratings, depending on the size of the venue, perhaps two events. Add your name to my mailing list for more details!

Thanks for the answer, I'll keep an eye on the chessengland.com site (even if my rating might be too low for your event).

[Stewart Reuben]

Roger. The Preface to the Laws includes:
It is recommended that competitive games not rated by FIDE be played according to the FIDE Laws of Chess.

In the US, games which are not FIDE Rated, are played according to the USCF Rules. These are substantially different from the FIDE Laws. I believe this works to the disadvantage of US players when they play internationally. In England and other countries, it is often stated that the FIDE Laws apply, unless amended hereunder.
I was quite surprised to learn that Geurt Gijssen doesn't sign his scoresheet at the end of the game when playing in his local league in Holland. People are often surprised when I insist that this be done in the London League.

[NickFaulks]

That can only apply when the competition isn't FIDE rated.

That is nowhere in the FIDE regulations. You have invented it. However, you may well have success in persuading the ECF to introduce this restriction for events in their own jurisdiction. They seem content that very few English events are FIDE rated.