Mobile Phone problems at local league level.

[Susan Lalic]

Team A is leading Team B 8-7 in a county match. In the remaining game the A player's mobile rings. Under the present regulations that player loses and the final score is 8-8.

Under the proposed system Team A is docked a point and the game continues. Suppose the B Player wins. Now the final score is 8-7 to Team B and Team A have lost a match that, on the face of it, they could do no worse than draw.

Is that really preferable?

I don't see the problem. The match was drawn but team A were penalised for a mobile phone going off.

[John Saunders]

Let us suppose the penalty is one point.

Team A is leading Team B 8-7 in a county match. In the remaining game the A player's mobile rings. Under the present regulations that player loses and the final score is 8-8.

Under the proposed system Team A is docked a point and the game continues. Suppose the B Player wins. Now the final score is 8-7 to Team B and Team A have lost a match that, on the face of it, they could do no worse than draw.

Is that really preferable?

I was perfectly aware when I suggested it that this penalty system could be more draconian in some circumstances than the existing law! However, I am not necessarily advocating the specific penalty to be used, merely the principle that a game should continue to its logical conclusion (which is what many players prefer) and that the penalty should not favour the opponent more than the other players in the room (since the vast majority of people here seem to be concerned with disturbance rather than potential cheating). Personally, I'm in favour of an initial warning rather than any immediate docking of points.

Incidentally, it is also possible to demonstrate that the existing default rule is sometimes not a penalty at all. For example, if I am paired with Garry Kasparov, I may as well leave my phone switched on since I am going to lose the game anyway. Or, in a totally lost position, I may as well switch my phone back on and take an incoming call since that is likely to be of more value to me than what is left of the game.

[Adam Raoof]

I may be oversimplifying, but this whole discussion appears to me to boil down to two things;

a) Disturbing the opponent, and other players.

b) Electronic devices used for cheating

It is already part of out rules that a player should not disturb his opponent. I believe that in this circumstance an arbiter is entitled to apply a penalty as he sees fit, including a default penalty, if the infringement is severe enough.

FIDE introduced another, badly thought out, rule in order to combat cheating. Even having a device on can lead to a default because if it makes a noise - people know you have a device. However this covers devices such as phones, laptops, satnav systems and digital watches.

I don't think we need a special rule for mobile phones, any more than I think it is appropriate to default a player for not being at the board at the start of a game. Mobiles should be covered by the general laws and the usual etiquette of competition play. Where events don't have arbiters and the team captains are expected to stand in that role, captains should simply deal with infringements the way they usually deal with infringements of other kinds; by consultation.

It is our responsibility to organise chess competitions and provide the best playing conditions for the players that we can, with the minimum of interference.

We have to be careful to make sure that we don't make events ineligible for FIDE ratings and titles, but I am sure we can redraft the laws to make them fairer and simpler to apply. A red pen would sort most of the issues out, and a little common sense.

[Anthony Taglione]

I found your post uplifting, Adam. It's good to feel reassured and to see that there are rational beings involved in the whole process of managing chess.

[John Saunders]

I may be oversimplifying, but this whole discussion appears to me to boil down to two things;

a) Disturbing the opponent, and other players.

b) Electronic devices used for cheating

I disagree! A major part of the debate has been about whether we need (a) definite rules and set penalties for infringements or (b) arbiter discretion. There has been relatively little about potential cheating in the recent threads on this subject. People are much more concerned about the disturbance factor.

It is already part of out rules that a player should not disturb his opponent. I believe that in this circumstance an arbiter is entitled to apply a penalty as he sees fit, including a default penalty, if the infringement is severe enough.

A lot of people here disagree with this (though I'm not necessarily one of them). There has been quite a lot of comment about how people find mobile phone ringing significantly more disturbing than run of the mill noise. And a lot of people don't like the idea of arbiter discretion and have produced some very good examples of why it is undesirable.

FIDE introduced another, badly thought out, rule in order to combat cheating. Even having a device on can lead to a default because if it makes a noise - people know you have a device. However this covers devices such as phones, laptops, satnav systems and digital watches.

I don't think we need a special rule for mobile phones, any more than I think it is appropriate to default a player for not being at the board at the start of a game. Mobiles should be covered by the general laws and the usual etiquette of competition play. Where events don't have arbiters and the team captains are expected to stand in that role, captains should simply deal with infringements the way they usually deal with infringements of other kinds; by consultation.

It is our responsibility to organise chess competitions and provide the best playing conditions for the players that we can, with the minimum of interference.

I find this all a bit woolly. What, precisely, are you advocating? It sounds to me like you are suggesting a return to the rules as they were before the mobile phone rule was brought in. Again, I'm not personally against this but the anti-mobile lobby will not be happy.

We have to be careful to make sure that we don't make events ineligible for FIDE ratings and titles, but I am sure we can redraft the laws to make them fairer and simpler to apply. A red pen would sort most of the issues out, and a little common sense.

I don't think we have any leeway at all when it comes to FIDE-rated games - we've got to implement the letter of the FIDE laws or risk the games not being rated. Unless, of course, you feel we can go out on a limb as the USCF have done and simply run chess by the ECF's own rules and submit games for rating anyway.

I don't disagree with what you are suggesting as regards the rules that we should play to, but I don't think this is a very accurate summary of the debate that has gone on here in various threads. So, yes, you are oversimplifying!

[Adam Raoof]

John - what course of action do you think we should follow, having read all the comments here, and with all your experience?

[John Saunders]

Adam, I thought I had more or less spelt it out further up the page!

OK, I'll try to summarise. I'm more or less in the 'dove' camp (I don't like the current 'sound = end of game' rule which I think is anti-chess), however I think we should also try to appease the anti-mobile lobby to some extent (yes, I know Neville Chamberlain tried 'appeasement' - and look where it got him - but it's worth a try). People do find these interruptions particularly vexatious and I think we should try to respect their feelings, but at the same time recognise that it is very unfortunate when people are penalised simply for being forgetful.

My basic principle is that a phone going off should NOT end the game. Instead, the game continues as normal. However, the player whose phone rings becomes liable to a penalty. In the first instance I would suggest simply a warning and in the second a deduction of one (or a half) point from their competition score. In team competitions I suggest that there should be just one warning on the night per team, not per player, thereafter either (a) one point deducted from a team's score (which could be quite a harsh penalty as David Sedgwick has pointed out) or (b) (rather less harsh) simply add it as a notional 'defaulted board' to the defaulted board tally (which a lot of leagues have for boards defaulted, with, say, half a match point deducted per four games defaulted). The precise penalty used can vary from competition to competition, but perhaps the ECF could constrain it within certain guidelines. Alan Walton mentioned the use of monetary fines and I suppose this could be used in some way.

Whatever rules are used, they should be clear and consistently applied. I'm not in favour of arbiter discretion as inconsistent application causes bad feeling.

[Adam Raoof]

My basic principle is that a phone going off should NOT end the game. Instead, the game continues as normal.

I have my page set up so that I read top down

OK, here's what I think.

I agree that a phone going off should not necessarily end the game. It is one of the options an arbiter can apply to the situation if he thinks

There is already arbiter discretion in the rules as written. You cannot avoid that, and the rules can't be written to enforce it.

I don't think we needed special rules for mobile phones.

[Mike Truran]

I suggest if the ECF can come up with a sensible framework that just specifies which FIDE rules it's OK for non-FIDE events (local leagues, weekenders etc) to derogate from, that should be sufficient. We should leave it to the individual non-FIDE rated events to spell out in their own rules, entry forms etc what rule they want to apply. Each event can then do what is best for its own participants, whether it be no penalty at all ranging to instant default on first offence. I don't see any particular need for the ECF to define the specific penalties.

[John Saunders]

One of the big problems with rules relying on arbiter discretion is what happens when there is no arbiter. That is when you really need a hard-and-fast rule, typically in team chess, which doesn't allow the two captains any wiggle room.

Having said which, it occurs to me that you don't need a decision on the night when you have a rule that stipulates that a ring-interrupted game is played to a finish. The league organiser can decide what is an appropriate penalty once they have had reports from the two skippers (always assuming that there is no argument about whose phone rang, of course).

Out of interest, can you give an example of a situation when you think it would be appropriate for an arbiter to give a discretionary instant default against a player if their phone rang? I am of course assuming for the moment that the existing mobile phone rule doesn't apply.

[Adam Raoof]

Out of interest, can you give an example of a situation when you think it would be appropriate for an arbiter to give a discretionary instant default against a player if their phone rang? I am of course assuming for the moment that the existing mobile phone rule doesn't apply.

I can't. But the arbiter has to have discretion. That's one reason most tournaments include the disclaimer 'the arbiter's decision is final'.

Two years ago, we were playing probably the most important match of the season, against King's Head. They are an excellent and sporting team, and were winning the League. We were right behind them in the table, and we were close to winning the match. It basically came down to one game - our player hadn't played for years, theirs was a very experienced though perhaps eccentric Barrister. Their player was fidgety all the way through the game, and talked to himself. My player made no complaint, and so I ignored it. Then in a blitz finish our player's mobile rang. It may not even have been a call, but it was clearly his phone. His opponent almost did a lap of honour - whilst his team looked a little sheepish. But the rule is clear - defaulted instantly.

Were there no rule, and if his opponent had asked for a ruling, an arbiter would possibly have given his opponent some extra time to recover (though he had more time left than our player).

We give up a lot of valuable time to play chess, so let's play chess.

[Mike Truran]

John

I repeat - hard and fast rules can be set at local level. They don't need to be set by the ECF. All the non-FIDE rated events need to know is in which areas it's OK for them to have their own rules. Then they can get on with setting them.

[Scott Freeman]

David Sedgwick wrote:
Thank you for clarifying that. Graeme Buckley was very upset by your original remarks, quite justifiably in my view.

Without wanting to go back to the rather vicious conversation that David and I had a couple of pages back on this thread, I think it only reasonable to say first of all that David and I/CCF have had some private email correspondence and we are both working to remove some of what was previously posted.

I also feel having said what I said in public that I need to give some proper and direct clarification and ought to publicly apologise to Graeme Buckley. Although my views on the original ruling and the hearing report have not changed, it was never my intention to attack him personally and I can see that people will have incorrectly felt that this was what I was doing. I allowed my anger at what I saw as (yet more) double standards by certain individuals on the SCCA board (I have a very short fuse on that now) to lead me to post something which I can see was unfair on Graeme, whose integrity in the matter I want people to know is absolutely assured as far as I am concerned. I would also like to apologise to anyone else on the forum who felt offended by it.

[Neill Cooper]

Tonight we had a player who has recently returned to club chess lose to the mobile phone rule.
As instructed, he switched his phone off, but it has a medical alert which he does not wish to remove which woke up the phone and made it bleep. Yes, we could have spent half the evening arguing about it but it was much better to instantly accept that it was a loss (this is Surrey, after all!). But what can he do in future? He comes straight to matches from work, needs to keep the phone with him, should not delete the alert. removing the battery is not ideal for this phone. Hopefully we can get it agreed that in future the opponents are informed of the issue and if it happens again he just switches the phone off again and does not lose the game.

[John Saunders]

John

I repeat - hard and fast rules can be set at local level. They don't need to be set by the ECF. All the non-FIDE rated events need to know is in which areas it's OK for them to have their own rules. Then they can get on with setting them.

Mike, my post was in reply to Adam's, not to yours (which you posted while I was composing mine). I agree with you - the ECF needs to 'hang loose'. In fact, I'm not entirely convinced the ECF needs to do much at all - maybe it should stick with its simple but sensible rules which cover what can be graded and what can't (http://grading.bcfservices.org.uk/help.php#eligible), and leave local rule-making to the locals.