English Chess Forum

Nigel Short wrote: ↑

Wed May 15, 2019 5:26 pm

The player who falls ill should lose - as they do in tennis. End of story.

Agreed. At the professional level, nothing else makes any sense. Amateur players may of course behave differently, although this can lead to argument when there turns out not to be agreement regarding the proper degree of dispensation.

Stewart Reuben wrote: ↑

Thu May 16, 2019 1:43 am

Nigel Short > The player who falls ill should lose - as they do in tennis. End of story.<

Law 12.2.6
The arbiter shall take special measures in the interests of disabled players and those who need medical attention. Beginning of story.

Another case in chess of "Arbiter as God Syndrome". Instead of a clear, logical rule which protects the entirely blameless, healthy player from being imposed upon, arbiters - who write the rules for their own convenience in a cosy little commission, almost invariably without the slightest input from players - have again carved out the right for themselves to decide whatever the hell they want. And they will be right, because they are arbiters, and because they wrote the rules.
As Nick Faulks points out, at the professional level, nothing else other than forfeiting the unwell player (assuming he is unable to continue) makes any sense. But try explaining that to those officials who have not the slightest intention of seeing their powers curbed.

It would probably be more convenient for the arbiters if they had a nice simple rule that said the player loses who falls sick.

"Correspondence chess, If a player dies, his games are adjudicated. "

In team events, you are normally allowed a substitute.

Nigel Short wrote: ↑

Thu May 16, 2019 6:11 am

Stewart Reuben wrote: ↑

Thu May 16, 2019 1:43 am

Nigel Short > The player who falls ill should lose - as they do in tennis. End of story.<

Law 12.2.6
The arbiter shall take special measures in the interests of disabled players and those who need medical attention. Beginning of story.

Another case in chess of "Arbiter as God Syndrome". Instead of a clear, logical rule which protects the entirely blameless, healthy player from being imposed upon, arbiters - who write the rules for their own convenience in a cosy little commission, almost invariably without the slightest input from players - have again carved out the right for themselves to decide whatever the hell they want. And they will be right, because they are arbiters, and because they wrote the rules.
As Nick Faulks points out, at the professional level, nothing else other than forfeiting the unwell player (assuming he is unable to continue) makes any sense. But try explaining that to those officials who have not the slightest intention of seeing their powers curbed.

I don't interpret 12.2.6 to mean that at all. I interpret it to mean things like:
- Making sure a wheelchair-bound player can get in and out of the playing area properly and safely
- Calling an ambulance if there's a medical emergency
- If a player has cut themselves on something, the arbiter doesn't sit there and let them bleed, they go and get a plaster from the First Aid kit

I don't think the rule is needed at all, because ... well, surely any decent human being would do this sort of thing anyway? Does it really need to be written down? Are arbiters really so mean-spirited that we need to write in the Laws that if a player is suffering a heart attack, we're not going to call an ambulance because 12.2.6 wasn't in the rules?

I don't interpret the rule to mean "arbiter as God" in terms of deciding what the result of the game should be.

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Thu May 16, 2019 6:30 am

It would probably be more convenient for the arbiters if they had a nice simple rule that said the player loses who falls sick.

I don't think this is needed either; I think an ill player losing their game if they are unable to continue is a logical consequence of them not being able to continue. If a player has just been taken to hospital and has 15 minutes on their clock, then you can reasonably decide that they're going to lose on time if nothing else.

A more interesting question that occurs to me is, if a player is bleeding, or has a nosebleed or something, should the clock be stopped while that's being sorted out? I would argue yes, but I wonder if others would disagree...

Alex Holowczak wrote: ↑

Thu May 16, 2019 9:44 am

A more interesting question that occurs to me is, if a player is bleeding, or has a nosebleed or something, should the clock be stopped while that's being sorted out?

Or if they fell asleep, should they be woken up?

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2009/ ... nk-kolkata

A more recent case

https://livestreamfails.com/post/42991

The problem, yet again, Alex Holowczak, is that the rules are not clearly specified. A lot of sports make allowances for injury, but such interruptions to the flow of play are not, and should never be, indefinite. If it were specified that the arbiter may stop the game for, say, up to 10 minutes, to allow for medical assistance and determine whether the player is able to continue, then I would have no issue. The problem is, as usual, that the arbiters have arrogated to themselves untrammelled powers of intervention. The interests of the opponent, the spectators and the sport itself is of secondary importance to the rights of arbiters. The fact that some arbiters, such as yourself, might make a commonsense decision in such circumstances is not the point: other arbiters might make entirely unreasonable decisions, and yet still be entitled to do so by law. That is wrong.

Alex Holowczak wrote: ↑

Thu May 16, 2019 9:44 am

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Thu May 16, 2019 6:30 am

It would probably be more convenient for the arbiters if they had a nice simple rule that said the player loses who falls sick.

I don't think this is needed either

My point here is simply that I don't think the present arrangement exists for the convenience of arbiters.

I would like to think I would be reasonably sporting with my decision if an opponent was suddenly and unexpectedly taken ill at the board (though if they dropped dead, if it not like they really need those rating points anymore....)

What bothers me more is when people knowingly turn up with massive colds, coughs or flus and expect you to sit there facing their germs for several hours - there should be no shame in calling off but a lot seem to think it is better to infect everybody then show weakness- sadly this attitude is not confined to chess only, if we ever do get a major epidemic in England then we are surely doomed by our arrogance when it comes to the prevention of the spread of disease .

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Thu May 16, 2019 10:59 am

My point here is simply that I don't think the present arrangement exists for the convenience of arbiters.

I don't think convenience is the best choice of word. Gratification, perhaps.

At one particularly trying meeting of Rules Commission, I felt impelled to say that some speakers seemed to feel that the role of the arbiter was to decide the result of the game, and the regulations governed the extent to which the players themselves were permitted to be involved in this process. Rhetoric, of course, but it did express my feelings towards a pervasive attitude.

Slightly off topic, but what about Fire Alarm breaks? There's little alternative to stopping the clocks and leaving the room, but is anything actually written down describing best practice? I'm thinking possibly of measures to prevent players having conversations about games in progress. I don't think players would, but in an atmosphere of partial paranoia about cheating, something might be needed.

The final round at Telford this month was affected although I had finished my game by this stage. There was also a fire alarm break in the last round at Doncaster which may have affected my thought process as I failed to find the correct solution in a "White to play and win, but almost everything else loses" position.

Alex Holowczak wrote: ↑

Thu May 16, 2019 9:44 am

I don't think the rule is needed at all, because ... well, surely any decent human being would do this sort of thing anyway? Does it really need to be written down? Are arbiters really so mean-spirited that we need to write in the Laws that if a player is suffering a heart attack, we're not going to call an ambulance because 12.2.6 wasn't in the rules?

Wouldn't say mean spirited, but if the event has a buffet it might take a law to convince the arbiter to put down the sandwich and pick up a phone

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Thu May 16, 2019 12:37 pm

Slightly off topic, but what about Fire Alarm breaks? There's little alternative to stopping the clocks and leaving the room.

One alternative I can think of is not stopping the clocks and leaving the room if you can see smoke and flames.

benedgell wrote: ↑

Thu May 16, 2019 12:42 pm

Wouldn't say mean spirited, but if the event has a buffet it might take a law to convince the arbiter to put down the sandwich and pick up a phone

That obviously wouldn't work. If there was a buffet the arbiter would be blissfully unaware of anything (else) happening in the playing hall.

Nigel Short wrote: ↑

Thu May 16, 2019 10:41 am

The problem, yet again, Alex Holowczak, is that the rules are not clearly specified. A lot of sports make allowances for injury, but such interruptions to the flow of play are not, and should never be, indefinite. If it were specified that the arbiter may stop the game for, say, up to 10 minutes, to allow for medical assistance and determine whether the player is able to continue, then I would have no issue. The problem is, as usual, that the arbiters have arrogated to themselves untrammelled powers of intervention. The interests of the opponent, the spectators and the sport itself is of secondary importance to the rights of arbiters. The fact that some arbiters, such as yourself, might make a commonsense decision in such circumstances is not the point: other arbiters might make entirely unreasonable decisions, and yet still be entitled to do so by law. That is wrong.

A few points...

Firstly, I think you'd find that a lot of arbiters are not exactly thrilled with the Laws as they are currently written. While you may think they are the preserve of the arbiters, actually, I would contest that they are the preserve of just a few arbiters. Sadly, they seem to be the arbiters who do lots of official FIDE events and not much else, and as a result some of the laws are entirely unsuitable for amateur chess. I'll spare you the technical details, because this post would multiply in length...

I would also observe that some of the recent rulechanges did not come from the Rules Commission, but were the result of PB meddling after the relevant meetings. The most notorious example is the 0-minute default, which was entirely at Kirsan's behest. There are other examples in the Laws of rules being changed by the PB that hadn't undergone scrutiny of a wider audience, and so they're not really very well-written laws.

I share your disappointment, which I have implied given you haven't explicitly said so, that even under the new regime, the Rules Commission is mostly arbiters. It seems to me that there should be organisers, trainers, players, broadcasters, and any other interest groups also involved. Cricket's recent law changes involved all of these groups, which was a much more open way of doing it.

This is a genuine question: If it is possible for an arbiter to make a common sense decision, but other arbiters do not, is this a problem of the laws in how they are written, or the arbiters in how they are trained? (Maybe you think it's both!)