Local Law Variants

[Ian Thompson]

Ermenkov arrived at the board and attempted to fill in the headings of his score sheet. His pen did not work. On the arbiter's table at the end of the row of boards, there were spare pens for players' use. He went to get one - round trip approximately 20 seconds. During that 20 seconds the gong sounded and he was defaulted. He protested and the matter was referred to Chief Arbiter Leong. Ermenkov's opponent wanted to play, so the game started. After they had played about ten moves Leong arrived and confirmed the default by resetting the pieces.)

Well that must have been the right decision as it was made by an arbiter who has "arbitrated in numerous major world and international competitions for 30 years and [has] not made a mistake." (http://www.fide.com/component/content/a ... le-default)

[Mike Truran]

Alex

I was happily able to retire a while back - so the answer I'm pleased to say is "no"!

[John Saunders]

With the greatest respect John I think it is you that has missed the point. Namely that the punishment (whatever it is) should in my opinion be fixed in the rules rather than be at the airy fairy whim of an arbiter.

OK, I think I understand that. So the difference between us is that I tend to think the arbiter should have discretion to impose penalties and you prefer set penalties for specific infractions. In an ideal world, I might agree with you but our current chess world is a long way from being that.

As you say, there is probably a cultural difference between chess and other games and sports. For one thing, some sports have a much worse track record that chess does as regards the behaviour of the players. In football it seems to me that some players spend much of the game trying to cheat in various minor ways and pull the wool over the eyes of the ref! We are surely better behaved than that (aren't we?).

Returning to our main bone of contention: until very recently, chess had no set penalties. Instead, the rules allowed arbiters a range of solutions to infractions. I am not aware that this system had truly broken down. However, the spectre of electronic cheating then reared its ugly head and FIDE reacted to this by introducing a set penalty for mobile phones.

Unfortunately they overreacted and made a mess of the legislation. At first the rule said that you couldn't carry a mobile phone into a playing venue - which proved totally unworkable, as should have been perfectly obvious from the start. They then tinkered with the rule and now you can have a phone on you but it must be switched off. However, the penalty is still the same - instant loss of the game. I know some people think that is a good thing but if we now return to analogies with other sports, it is worth saying at this juncture that very few sports and games specify "game over" as a set penalty for infractions. Various penalties are imposed for behavioural breaches in other sports but usually the game goes on in some shape or form (I know there are exceptions - stay away from that keyboard, Alex). FIDE decided on the chess equivalent of capital punishment for all crimes. The game is dead - off with its head. To use that ringing phrase that you yourself coined, Sean - a clear case of "chess prevention"!

Next, Kirsan Ill-Lunatic had a bee in his bonnet about people turning up late for games. So, same again, game over, no exceptions, no allowances for illness, accidents, traffic delays, etc. They could have legislated for time to be deducted from the offender's clock (overlooking the fact that being late effectively penalises itself) or various other things, but they lack the imagination to do anything other than truncate the game. After a hard fight, people with more sense and (democratic) sensibility won the concession to set a more reasonable alternative default time but the wording still suggests that FIDE prefer their zero default time and they still inflict it on people in their own tournaments. An aside - am I right in thinking that 'zero default' has yet to be applied in any UK competitions? I hope I am.

With that sort of track record for imposing inappropriate penalties, does anyone seriously want a schedule of set (or advisory) penalties for specific infractions? I might agree with Sean if FIDE rule-makers were more sensible than they are. In the meantime, I prefer the "airy fairy whims" of the arbiter to the presidential diktats of FIDE.

[Sean Hewitt]

With that sort of track record for imposing inappropriate penalties, does anyone seriously want a schedule of set (or advisory) penalties for specific infractions? I might agree with Sean if FIDE rule-makers were more sensible than they are. In the meantime, I prefer the "airy fairy whims" of the arbiter to the presidential diktats of FIDE.

I think we are on the same page here John. What I am trying to convey is that a fixed penalty is always my preferred route, whether that's globally or locally. If the law makers at FIDE are not sensible that's not a reason to change my mind on that point. Rather, we should lobby hard (as was the case with zero default) to change the law to prescribe a more appropriate penalty.

As to whether chess players are better behaved than footballers? Some are, but some are definitely not!!

[David Sedgwick]

Ermenkov arrived at the board and attempted to fill in the headings of his score sheet. His pen did not work. On the arbiter's table at the end of the row of boards, there were spare pens for players' use. He went to get one - round trip approximately 20 seconds. During that 20 seconds the gong sounded and he was defaulted. He protested and the matter was referred to Chief Arbiter Leong. Ermenkov's opponent wanted to play, so the game started. After they had played about ten moves Leong arrived and confirmed the default by resetting the pieces.

Well that must have been the right decision as it was made by an arbiter who has "arbitrated in numerous major world and international competitions for 30 years and [has] not made a mistake." (http://www.fide.com/component/content/a ... le-default)

Yes, I had the Ermenkov incident in mind when I commented on Leong's remarks at the time.

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1096

[Justin Hadi]

I know I am of an era when we did not have mobile phones and we seemed to manage very well, in my case for the best part of 55 years until my wife decded I had to have one about 10 years ago. I rarely use it and never take it with me when I play chess- why would I want to, if theres a possibiity of being called away I should not be playing in the first place.

I can see both sides of this debate and lack the wisdom of Solomon to suggest an answer- perhaps there really isnt one that is going to satisfy everyone. (thats why in a democracy we have laws/rules!)

I imagine most people would agree with this, it is a matter of respect turning a phone off before a game, and for that reason a default seems an appropriate punishment. It is annoying for everybody in the hall, even though both the incidents were quite amusing in their own way at Blackpool. I do think though that it should be up to the opponent whether or not to claim a win, they may prefer to play rather than terminate the game abruptly or they may want to go for the prize money. I can see reasons for both actions, in the unlikely event I would be in with a shout of significant prize money for the last round in Blackpool I'd claim, on most other occasions I'd play on. And so I don't think there's any issue in one game being claimed and one not, provided this is allocated for in the rules.

[Justin Hadi]

Not your first paragraph Ernie, but your second. As I said in the other thread, for the first incident the phone was switched off, unbeknown to its owner the phone alarm was capable of turning the phone on and making a noise! I'd be surprised if anyone but the most committed pedants would chastise someone for that. Recall Nigel Short's low battery noise turning his phone on with similar consequences in Liverpool.

[John Saunders]

I was actually quoting Sean when I used the word "whims" in relation to arbiters. I certainly would not advocate individual arbiters making decisions on the fly at tournaments. Competitions which vary FIDE laws should state those amended rules clearly in their rules, on entry forms and on noticeboards as appropriate. Arbiters at such events should then apply the amended rules exactly as stated. I don't agree with Justin's idea of letting opponents claim wins by mobile ring. The decision must be made by an arbiter, must be consistent with the published rules of the event and must be applied consistently throughout the whole event. The word 'claim' is inappropriate in regard to the mobile phone rule. If a game is played under the strict, unamended FIDE law, the phone ring simply ends the game. True, it has to be proved and the possessor of the ringing device identified, but a win does not have to be claimed. The opponent plays no part in what transpires other than being a aural witness to the phone ring.

[Alex McFarlane]

Back in the early 80s when I was starting out arbiting I had to resume an adjourned game. The sealed move was illegal. It was reasonably obvious what the player had meant to write down but what was written was definitely wrong and even allowing for a slip of the pen there were two or three possibile interpretations of what was written. The other player went on at great length about how silly it was that he should win like this. Apologising to his opponent profusely. Indeed he went on in such a manner that I suggested that we could agree the move whilst illegal was clear in its meaning if they wanted to play on.

He complained to the organiser and Chief Arbiter about my behaviour!!!

I decided from then on that the Arbiter just can't win.

[Justin Hadi]

I don't agree with Justin's idea of letting opponents claim wins by mobile ring. The decision must be made by an arbiter, must be consistent with the published rules of the event and must be applied consistently throughout the whole event. The word 'claim' is inappropriate in regard to the mobile phone rule. If a game is played under the strict, unamended FIDE law, the phone ring simply ends the game. True, it has to be proved and the possessor of the ringing device identified, but a win does not have to be claimed. The opponent plays no part in what transpires other than being a aural witness to the phone ring.

We will have to agree to differ there. In general I would prefer to play chess and would like this to be allowed in the laws. You are correct that under the FIDE law that a mobile ring ends the game. However that doesn't mean that all leagues/tournaments have to adopt this, and they could easily make clear their rules would override FIDE rules (for example the London League).

[John Saunders]

I was simply stating the law "as is". As it happens, I am not personally in favour of an immediate default for a mobile ring - I think players should get a warning in the first instance (not necessarily one warning per game, perhaps one warning per event).

One problem with amending the law to allow the opponent of the phone transgressor to decide whether to play on or take the point is that the decision could prejudice a third party's chances of winning a prize (who might also have been disturbed by the phone ring).

[Justin Hadi]

I was simply stating the law "as is". As it happens, I am not personally in favour of an immediate default for a mobile ring - I think players should get a warning in the first instance (not necessarily one warning per game, perhaps one warning per event).

That may be the best compromise and lead to people turning their phones off (even though they already should have) while allowing the game to carry on. It may be advisable to add extra time to affected parties, for example if they are in time trouble and are distracted.

[John Saunders]

Indeed, Justin. We are beginning to converge with two other threads discussing the question of mobile phone rule infringements. It's obviously an issue of great interest to many people and we all seem to have our own ideas on how to deal with such infringements! Like you, I am in favour of the game going on if at all possible, particularly when it comes to local league chess or non-FIDE rated congresses.

[Alex McFarlane]

In answer to Ernie's question there was no meeting of the arbiters beforehand. Sometimes incidents are discussed after a round but I wasn't involved in any conversation this time. I wasn't in the best of health so went to bed rather than partaking of a small libation so cannot guarantee that the events were not discussed.

My tournament was in the bowels of the earth, well away from the main arena and thankfully totally free of incident. Indeed the number of players who came up to thank me at the end of the event was very gratifying and much larger than usual.

Exceptions to the Laws of Chess can be difficult to administer. It is fair enough to say that if the two players want to play on then let them but is that fair on the player on an adjacent board who is deprived of a prize as a result?

I was also very concerned when the Glasgow League agreed a one ring before punishment rule and Chess Scotland agreed to grade these games. My problem was that there were two juniors in the same age group who were very close on grade and I could see future international selection being influenced by their grades where one player had won a game in congress from an inferior position because of a phone going off and the other had lost from a level position despite his opponent's phone ringing in a league match.
I just imagined £,000s being wasted in legal fees.

[LozCooper]

I would like to also offer these thooughts.

Personally I think the ECF should take a lead on this issue.

Just trying to be helpfull.

It seems a sign of the times that a player needs to know before he starts any game of chess what the rules are regarding mobile phones in the event he is playing in, checking with either the Arbiter or Team Captain as appropriate.