(Chess) Life Returning To Normal

[Tim Spanton]

The Law is certainly muddy because of the continuous Government misinformation on what the law is, with the guidance being presented as if it was the law.

Indeed. Right from the start the Government has been trying to make us believe that the restrictions are stricter than they are.

I think you probably could organise a tournament with a total of up to 30 players and officials legally.

As I understand it, the current regulations prohibit gatherings of more than 30 persons only in certain kinds of place, such as private dwellings. I don't see anything prohibiting a typical congress in a school, university or whatever, with any number of players.

Careful does it - favouring a (so-called) quick return to OTB chess is not a popular position with the we-are-doomed fanatics on this forum

[Bruce Baer]

Must admit general club nights dont appeal to me - am i right in thinking there isnt much enthusiasm for getting league chess going before the end of the year then

[MartinCarpenter]

Must admit general club nights dont appeal to me - am i right in thinking there isnt much enthusiasm for getting league chess going before the end of the year then

Not in general, I think.

The real problem is that the typical timing for chess leagues to restart is going to run headlong into a - based on everything we know very likely - 'second' wave kicking off.

[Wadih Khoury]

The main issue is that the government's approach is to put the responsibility of mitigation measures on citizen. Something about not wanting to be a nanny state.
Which then allows them to say it's people's fault if everything goes bad.
As if citizens had the knowledge and training to determine what is acceptable or not in a constantly changing scientific landscape.

The government should determine the minimum acceptable risk, telling clearly what are the consequences. And then congresses can resume under these conditions, and citizens can make the choice whether the risk is acceptable for themselves or others.

But we shouldn't be in a position to debate between ourselves as a community whether OtB should resume or not (on a personal note, if it is ok to go to work, to open Primark or hairdressers, I don't understand why a Congress in a large venue with mitigation cannot work starting next week). Either it's acceptable to the government and scientists or not. And it's the government's responsibility, not ours.

[Jacques Parry]

Careful does it - favouring a (so-called) quick return to OTB chess is not a popular position with the we-are-doomed fanatics on this forum

I didn't say it was a good idea. I said it wouldn't be illegal.

[Tim Spanton]

Careful does it - favouring a (so-called) quick return to OTB chess is not a popular position with the we-are-doomed fanatics on this forum

I didn't say it was a good idea. I said it wouldn't be illegal.

For a forum about chess, there seems to be an awful lot of people who want to go out of their way not to be associated with playing chess

[NickFaulks]

For a forum about chess, there seems to be an awful lot of people who want to go out of their way not to be associated with playing chess

The past few months have changed my view of English chess players in more than one way.

[MartinCarpenter]

But we shouldn't be in a position to debate between ourselves as a community whether OtB should resume or not (on a personal note, if it is ok to go to work, to open Primark or hairdressers, I don't understand why a Congress in a large venue with mitigation cannot work starting next week). Either it's acceptable to the government and scientists or not. And it's the government's responsibility, not ours.

The Government isn’t doing blanket regulations based on purely safety vs not. They’re focusing on OKing specific things that they think are essential to try and reopen for (mainly) economic good.
(A reasonable approach in principle, execution not perfect.).

Club level chess is/was never remotely likely to qualify as that.

Also, when you’re doing stuff matters. Right now is (relatively!) quite a reasonable time. At this point, expecting to be able to run an evening league starting in Autumn through winter is incredibly optimistic.

[JustinHorton]

Careful does it - favouring a (so-called) quick return to OTB chess is not a popular position with the we-are-doomed fanatics on this forum

You could do with being a lot less flippant about human life and concern for human life than you are. The people who are dead were real people and are really dead. And you're not funny.

[JustinHorton]

I mean, "we-are-doomed fanatics". How crass do you have to be to write something like that and think it's funny?

[Wadih Khoury]

But we shouldn't be in a position to debate between ourselves as a community whether OtB should resume or not (on a personal note, if it is ok to go to work, to open Primark or hairdressers, I don't understand why a Congress in a large venue with mitigation cannot work starting next week). Either it's acceptable to the government and scientists or not. And it's the government's responsibility, not ours.

The Government isn’t doing blanket regulations based on purely safety vs not. They’re focusing on OKing specific things that they think are essential to try and reopen for (mainly) economic good.
(A reasonable approach in principle, execution not perfect.).

Club level chess is/was never remotely likely to qualify as that.

Also, when you’re doing stuff matters. Right now is (relatively!) quite a reasonable time. At this point, expecting to be able to run an evening league starting in Autumn through winter is incredibly optimistic.

And this is where I disagree. If the government thinks it is ok that we risk our lives to work or to go shopping, then there is a problem. It shouldn't be allowed in the first place.

If in the other hand the risk is minimal, then no need to block leisure activities that adopt mitigating measures, and let citizens vote with their feet if they want the risk or not.

[MartinCarpenter]

And this is where I, disagree. If the government thinks it is ok that we risk our lives to work or to go shopping, then there is a problem. It shouldn't be allowed in the first place.

If in the other hand the risk is minimal, then no need to block leisure activities that adopt mitigating measures, and let citizens vote with their feet if they want the risk or not.

It isn't really me you're disagreeing with This is how we're doing things. We could/should have been much more logical and clear though.

In the Government's defence, the problem isn't with any specific activity, it's the need to keep the aggregate amount of social mixing in the population down.

It's a difficult thing to intuitively grasp.

[NickFaulks]

It's a difficult thing to intuitively grasp.

Playing competitive chess is being made impossible at the same time as we are being bribed to go out and eat in pubs and restaurants ( of which I intend to take full advantage ).

I'm afraid that is indeed beyond my intuitive grasp.

[Jacques Parry]

Playing competitive chess is being made impossible

By whom, and how?

[MartinCarpenter]

It's a difficult thing to intuitively grasp.

Playing competitive chess is being made impossible at the same time as we are being bribed to go out and eat in pubs and restaurants ( of which I intend to take full advantage ).

I'm afraid that is indeed beyond my intuitive grasp.

Well, yes. Eating out is a critical economic need or something daft....... Evening league chess isn't!
(The Government's messaging is very confused at times.).

What we certainly can't do is to open everything out at once.