Chess Player Strip Searched

[Roger de Coverly]

I cannot see that your previous comments can be construed to be in any way less than a statements that such removal is likely.

As I understood it, the whole point of the ECF owning its own forum was that it would be in a position to remove adverse comment. It doesn't seem to have been to enable directors or officers to communicate with players and potential players as with the usual exceptions, they have been as silent as before.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I cannot see that your previous comments can be construed to be in any way less than a statements that such removal is likely.

As I understood it, the whole point of the ECF owning its own forum was that it would be in a position to remove adverse comment. It doesn't seem to have been to enable directors or officers to communicate with players and potential players as with the usual exceptions, they have been as silent as before.

What the ECF obviously want is a forum where the lines between what is acceptable and what is not acceptable are drawn differently to here. That doesn't mean all (or even any) criticism will be removed. What it probably means is that a tougher line will be taken in some cases where things go too far. The only way to find out whether that applies to your posting tone and style, Roger, is to post there.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

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?

Good point (if a moderator is around to do this, it would help). Ironically, that would be done more rigorously over there than here.

[Paul Buswell]

It seems to be a "decision" or "recommendation" of the CAA, who seem to be taking the view that "no penalty" isn't a "lesser penalty". I would have thought the ECF AGM in October an opportunity to challenge this, if it hasn't already been reversed by player boycotts.

I understand that the same principle will apply to all sections, high to low, at Hastings 2014/15. I have not seen the entry form yet but my sources are well placed. If that is the case I will not be playing at Hastings: in my view it is all just too silly, the existing rules being adequate for amateur chess.

I'm sorry that you won't be playing at Hastings. Is it really too much hassle to quote your mobile phone number on the entry form?

British arbiters are doing their best. The problem has been caused by the present wording of Law 11.3.b, which has been the subject of worldwide condemnation.

If the wording doesn't survive Tromso, as I fervently hope, things will look different in a few months time. I also hope that in this instance different will mean better.

I think, David, that it's the apparent presumption of guilt, at an amateur event, that affronts me. I much prefer Adam Raoof's application of common sense that he mentions in another post.

PB

[Mick Norris]

http://ruchess.ru/news/report/gorit_kaz ... doi_novoi/

I'm not sure exactly what has gone on, as Google Translate might not be clear

[Matthew Turner]

What is Russian for sour grapes?

[Paolo Casaschi]

The FIDE/ACP Anti-Cheating Committee (“ACC”) are about to announce their draft proposals in a 24-page document.
...
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/262 ... 0Final.pdf
http://www.chessprofessionals.org/conte ... g-proposal

I thought this proposal should have been discussed in Tromso: can someone point to an account of the discussion and the planned next steps?

[Chris Rice]

The FIDE/ACP Anti-Cheating Committee (“ACC”) are about to announce their draft proposals in a 24-page document.
...
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/262 ... 0Final.pdf
http://www.chessprofessionals.org/conte ... g-proposal

I thought this proposal should have been discussed in Tromso: can someone point to an account of the discussion and the planned next steps?

I haven't seen any sign of any discussion even on the social media. A meeting of the Anti-Cheating Commission was scheduled for 8 August according to the schedule. No idea whether it went ahead or not.

http://www.fide.com/images/stories/FIDE ... _Feb_5.pdf

[Andy Howie]

It seems to be a "decision" or "recommendation" of the CAA, who seem to be taking the view that "no penalty" isn't a "lesser penalty". I would have thought the ECF AGM in October an opportunity to challenge this, if it hasn't already been reversed by player boycotts.

I understand that the same principle will apply to all sections, high to low, at Hastings 2014/15. I have not seen the entry form yet but my sources are well placed. If that is the case I will not be playing at Hastings: in my view it is all just too silly, the existing rules being adequate for amateur chess.

I'm sorry that you won't be playing at Hastings. Is it really too much hassle to quote your mobile phone number on the entry form?

British arbiters are doing their best. The problem has been caused by the present wording of Law 11.3.b, which has been the subject of worldwide condemnation.

If the wording doesn't survive Tromso, as I fervently hope, things will look different in a few months time. I also hope that in this instance different will mean better.

I think, David, that it's the apparent presumption of guilt, at an amateur event, that affronts me. I much prefer Adam Raoof's application of common sense that he mentions in another post.

PB

11.3 (b) will be changing from 1 September, I don't have the exact words to hand but it is going to be allowable for players to have their mobiles switched off in a bag

[Roger de Coverly]

I thought this proposal should have been discussed in Tromso: can someone point to an account of the discussion and the planned next steps?

I don't know where Mike Truran got his information from, but this is one of the few places I've seen any suggestions as to what might have be proposed.

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/Forum/vi ... t=136#p844. This is dated the 11th, so after meetings of the Anti-Cheating Committee, but before the General Assembly discussion. Given the tangle they got themselves into because of delays in electing the African Continental President, the amended draft may never have been discussed, let alone ratified.

The Australian Delegate mentions the ACC once or twice in his blow by blow account.
http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php ... ess-Tromso. This seems to confirm Mike's account that phones and devices can be permitted as long as they are be seen to be out of use.

[Lewis Martin]

11.3 (b) will be changing from 1 September, I don't have the exact words to hand but it is going to be allowable for players to have their mobiles switched off in a bag

That's a relief. It is a lot more convenient this way. It is glaringly obvious if you leave the room with a bag with the game in play (and should be banned in my opinion unless for whatever medical reasons required) in the first place so hopefully it'll be fine.

I was just wondering what on earth I was going to do if I wasn't allowed to put my phone in my bag since usually my team stay at a different hotel and all the police advice about not leaving your valuables in your car, or at least leave them out of sight.

It is just common sense really.

[Stewart Reuben]

Such a rule was agreed by the Rules Commission in Tromso. BUT, the General Assembly was a complete shambles and this was therefore not finalised. If the statutes are followed it cannot be done until 2016. It isn't that different though. I think the changes are what we refer to as 'cosmetic'. I have put the new material in "inverted commas".

BE AWARE. THE FOLLOWING IS NOT IN THE LAWS OF CHESS.

11.3b.
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.

In case some people are confused. A person does not become a player until the game has started and ceases to be one when it finishes. This permits somebody to get through the door!

[Roger de Coverly]

A player is forbidden to carry a bag holding such a device, without permission of the arbiter."

It rather leaves the question unanswered as to what happens if you travel light without a bag. Was the suggestion of using something like an airport liquids bag serious?

Is it not possible to have a virtual GA for a single issue vote? In other words Federations appoint proxy A if they approve a measure and proxy B if they don't. A and B then hold a meeting. Perhaps that is now outlawed by restrictions on proxies and quorum requirements.

[Stewart Reuben]

I see nothing in the proposed Law to prevent a clear plastic bag being used. Indeed Sophia Rohde (who Roger will remember) suggested such bags be marketed with logos.
The worry is about theft or stepping on them accidentally. They will often also be forgotten. I think people should inscribe their names on their mobile phones.

[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.

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.