Chess once we restart over the board

[Tim Spanton]

If some people are unprepared to suffer a tiny risk from coming into contact with a pen then that is up to them. But it is not a reasonable reason to prevent the going ahead of a tournament at all.

But if your tournament was only just breaking even previously, some people are choosing to stay home so income is down, and your costs are up due to needing to provide more space between boards and more cleaning - that might well stop you going ahead.

Absolutely - there are a lot of commercial considerations, including the fact that fewer opportunities mean demand (for tournaments) is much higher right now than supply (at least in Britain where the latter is currently at zero)

[Kevin Thurlow]

"But the key, when applied to things like chess contests, must surely be towards “reasonable” risk mitigation, rather than risk elimination altogether."

Yes - my chemical safety work outlined the "hazards", you then decide how to deal with the "risk". Knowing that concentrated nitric acid is rather corrosive, if you handle it, you wear gloves and safety glasses (and maybe a face shield), and get ready to put large amounts of cold water on any parts of you that you splash. Being aware of potential problems is usually enough to manage them. Crossing the road is hazardous, so is driving, so is making a cup of tea, or using stairs, but of course we (mostly) manage the risk.

Covid-19 can be transmitted by hard surfaces. I noticed when going for a blood test, that the surgery demanded that you press the button outside, then a disembodied voice notes you're there and tells you to retreat to your car until you're collected by a nurse. Everyone else used an ungloved finger to press the button. I used the end of the car key... (They now tell you to telephone the surgery once you've arrived.)

But, again, I applaud the Irish plan - they have obviously really thought about it.

[Richard Bates]

If some people are unprepared to suffer a tiny risk from coming into contact with a pen then that is up to them. But it is not a reasonable reason to prevent the going ahead of a tournament at all.

But if your tournament was only just breaking even previously, some people are choosing to stay home so income is down, and your costs are up due to needing to provide more space between boards and more cleaning - that might well stop you going ahead.

Of course - complying with the law and Government guidance is just one part of the equation. Organisers taking the 'risk' of putting on events also need to have the confidence of those they wish to participate (in sufficient numbers to make the event viable). Which is to some extent where my point about how this crisis has arguably revealed interesting things about some people perception of risk (which as i suggested is somewhat at odds (in my opinion) in some cases with the risks that many took routinely as part of normal life).

An organiser might theoretically be able to devise measures to put on an event where objectively (and if participants follow the measures implemented - which is a big IF) a participant takes more non Covid risk driving to the event in the first place, but if players are reluctant to take any Covid risk at all then there is a obviously a problem.

Incidentally differing preparedness to take risk is also why it is going to be far harder to get events like league chess or 4NCL going. A normal tournament organiser can put on an event knowing that they don't need to cater to all levels of individual risk assessement. Just sufficient numbers to make an event viable. Leagues, and particularly something like the 4NCL, by their nature have to cater for the slowest ships in the convoy.

[Mick Norris]

Incidentally differing preparedness to take risk is also why it is going to be far harder to get events like league chess or 4NCL going. A normal tournament organiser can put on an event knowing that they don't need to cater to all levels of individual risk assessement. Just sufficient numbers to make an event viable. Leagues, and particularly something like the 4NCL, by their nature have to cater for the slowest ships in the convoy.

That's the point; to resume the postponed Manchester League needs 16 clubs with 43 different teams to be willing and able to play their outstanding fixtures; (some of) the Trophy finals, with 8 teams from 7 clubs, might be possible

[Ian Thompson]

Incidentally differing preparedness to take risk is also why it is going to be far harder to get events like league chess or 4NCL going.... Leagues, and particularly something like the 4NCL, by their nature have to cater for the slowest ships in the convoy.

Yes they should, but does that mean waiting until the last team is ready to resume play?

Suppose 20% of the teams consist mainly of players at high risk who quite reasonably won't want to play again for a considerable time. Why can't the 80% resume play and the rest rejoin when they feel able to? You might, for example, temporarily reduce division sizes so that those teams sitting it out can rejoin in their previous division when ready.

Whilst something like this would complicate the organisation of the league a bit surely it's better than suspending the whole league for an extended period.

[MartinCarpenter]

Incidentally differing preparedness to take risk is also why it is going to be far harder to get events like league chess or 4NCL going. A normal tournament organiser can put on an event knowing that they don't need to cater to all levels of individual risk assessement. Just sufficient numbers to make an event viable. Leagues, and particularly something like the 4NCL, by their nature have to cater for the slowest ships in the convoy.

That's the point; to resume the postponed Manchester League needs 16 clubs with 43 different teams to be willing and able to play their outstanding fixtures; (some of) the Trophy finals, with 8 teams from 7 clubs, might be possible

The other problem here is that the risk simply would be much larger for a league. You're mixing people from different places far more often than a single congress. Far harder to be confident of controlling it too.

The Irish event looks clever, I think they've got a much lower basic population incidence of Covid than England though? That obviously really cuts the risk down.
(10 fold from a quick google search.).

If anyone wants an idea of how weird working out the population risks are, you only need to think about that Sage member talking about shutting pubs to allow schools to reopen! Obviously no direct link Quite serious though.

You need to avoid exponentional growth in the overall population kicking off.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Suppose 20% of the teams consist mainly of players at high risk who quite reasonably won't want to play again for a considerable time. Why can't the 80% resume play and the rest rejoin when they feel able to? You might, for example, temporarily reduce division sizes so that those teams sitting it out can rejoin in their previous division when ready."

Which is more or less what county cricket has done. Eventually everybody decided to play a short competition, but it doesn't really count. When we stopped league chess, we were about to play the Somerset Cup Final, and the expected board 1 pairing would feature two people who are "at risk", so might not want to play yet. (I believe the plan is to play that match when we can to tidy up the season, but left over league matches might not happen.) Another factor is that players might be perfectly fit and healthy themselves, but live with somebody who has to be shielded. There are cases where people go for medical treatment and are told to instruct everyone in the household to have no contact with the outside world, not just for the patient's sake, but for the hospital's sake!

I think inevitably that when club chess restarts, there will be a drop in numbers playing, but with luck others will return in due course. Of course, people who have been stuck at home might have been learning chess and be ready to join clubs!

[NickFaulks]

Why can't the 80% resume play and the rest rejoin when they feel able to?

Because then the 20% would be victims of FOMO.

[Michael Farthing]

Not to mention that the 80% would suffer CKDB.

[Tim Spanton]

Not to mention that the 80% would suffer CKDB.

Huh?

[Roger de Coverly]

The papers today mention a Government threat to attempt to prevent over 50s leaving their houses.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... -scenarios

It could even lead to those aged between 50 and 70 given “personalised risk ratings”, in a move that would add to the 2.2 million people who were deemed most vulnerable and asked to shield themselves from society during the spring peak.

Previously it was only ever advisory, else there would have been a run of stories where the police were asking people out and about to prove they were young enough.

[NickFaulks]

The papers today mention a Government threat to attempt to prevent over 50s leaving their houses.

I know who I think shouldn't be allowed out.

[Nick Grey]

Suppose 80% of the teams consist mainly of players at high risk.
So glad I am not up north.

[J T Melsom]

The papers today mention a Government threat to attempt to prevent over 50s leaving their houses.

I know who I think shouldn't be allowed out.

Our lists would probably differ, but Tory MPs over the age of 50 seem to pose a particular danger.

[Alan Walton]

Suppose 80% of the teams consist mainly of players at high risk.
So glad I am not up north.

Well I am up north and I think my club will be fine; considering I am one of the older players at 45