Special requirements/disability

[E Michael White]

Announcing a move is not the same as recording it.

Correct. The requirement to record by a blind player is stated

FIDE Appendix E

5. The visually handicapped player must keep score of the game in Braille or longhand or record the moves on a tape recorder.

The ECF guidance note conflicts with this point.

I have played at least 5 games v blind players and 4 v disabled players. The intervention of arbiters has in some cases confused matters as they quote from a variety of ambiguous or unclear documents. IMO its usually best to ask the disabled/blind player in advance how they usuually play/record the game and whether they use an assistant. In a Rapid game IMO the blind player should not be required to move the pieces on the Braille board if they can play that way in the last 3 minutes.

[Ian Thompson]

It isn't right when considered on its own. If a player doesn't record their moves they clearly do save some time compared to if they did have to. On the other hand, if a player has a disability which prevents them recording the game their disability may well cause them to take longer than normal to move pieces or press the clock. Trouble is, the FIDE Laws don't allow an arbiter to give a player extra time due to a disability - perhaps they should.

Wouldn't giving extra time due to a disability count as a change to the clock in an equitable way? I wouldn't be against anything that allowed arbiters the right to move the clock time forwards or backwards. To insist that the clocks should always be the same seems like not giving scope where there should be some.

I don't see anything in the rules allowing an arbiter to give a disabled player extra time due to being slower than an able-bodied player to do something. There's nothing at all about moving the pieces. The references to operating the clock and scoring the game only cover inability to do these things at all.

[Alex Holowczak]

It isn't right when considered on its own. If a player doesn't record their moves they clearly do save some time compared to if they did have to. On the other hand, if a player has a disability which prevents them recording the game their disability may well cause them to take longer than normal to move pieces or press the clock. Trouble is, the FIDE Laws don't allow an arbiter to give a player extra time due to a disability - perhaps they should.

Wouldn't giving extra time due to a disability count as a change to the clock in an equitable way? I wouldn't be against anything that allowed arbiters the right to move the clock time forwards or backwards. To insist that the clocks should always be the same seems like not giving scope where there should be some.

I don't see anything in the rules allowing an arbiter to give a disabled player extra time due to being slower than an able-bodied player to do something. There's nothing at all about moving the pieces. The references to operating the clock and scoring the game only cover inability to do these things at all.

This is true; I agree with you on that.

[Simon Spivack]

The requirement to record by a blind player is stated

FIDE Appendix E

5. The visually handicapped player must keep score of the game in Braille or longhand or record the moves on a tape recorder.

This is an obligation that would be enforced by an arbiter.

The related, but distinct, point of announcing and making moves covers the situation where the opponent of a blind player does not wish to carry out these tasks and the blind player has called upon no one else. In such a circumstance the organisers are expected to provide a third party.

Should a blind player wish to record the moves played, there is nothing the opponent can do about it. Should a blind player wish to make his move on the "main" board, then the opponent can deny him that privilege.

The ECF guidance note conflicts with this point.

This has not been demonstrated.

[Michele Clack]

Ah I misread this:

10) If a competitor cannot press his/her own clock or move his/her own pieces, an assistant should be available if the opponent is not willing to do so.

So as long as the player can make the moves and and press his clock he doesn't need to provide an assistant just to write the moves down. So I'm clear on that now.

[Stewart Reuben]

EMW I expect knows full well that the ECF does a little more than just arrange the finances of British Championships. In fact it does everything, except actually play the games for the players.

David Welch offered his opinion that the penalty for disabled players should be zero in English chess as a gudideline. He is our chief arbiter and there has been ample opportunity to disagree over many years.

Stewart Reuben

[E Michael White]

EMW I expect knows full well that the ECF does a little more than just arrange the finances of British Championships. In fact it does everything, except actually play the games for the players.

David Welch offered his opinion that the penalty for disabled players should be zero in English chess as a gudideline. He is our chief arbiter and there has been ample opportunity to disagree over many years.

Stewart Reuben

That doesnt really answer the question as to what this particular guideline means by "an ECF event".

None of the guidelines have been advertised/communicated very well so their effectiveness is minimal. I bet 90% of players had never heard of the one discussed. The way to improve the player experience and attract more players is not to sssue guidlines in secret to arbiters but to have clear communications available to players and have very little arbiter discretion involved. Most players seem to me to be happy to stick to the rules if they know what they are but dont like one arbiter saying one thing and a few weeks later another giving a different view.

The ECFs record is not good on consistency or communication eg:-

1. 4NCL GM mobile phone incident
2. stuck credit card late arrivals in Canterbury
3. "completed" or "made" as regards moves
4. senior arbiters inventing their own rules on underpromotion after a flag fall
5. procedure after illegal moves
   etc

[Roger de Coverly]

[*] senior arbiters inventing their own rules on underpromotion after a flag fall

You mean the issue as to whether K+N wins against anything other than K+Q. I thought the wording change at Dresden was specifically to rule that the Knight wins.

You could also mention the notion that you're expected to produce a higher standard of moves in a winning position with an arbiter watching than without.

[Alex Holowczak]

"completed" or "made" as regards moves

I don't think FIDE helps itself in this case.

Would you agree that there are three phases of a move in chess:
(1) Touching the piece
(2) Making the move
(3) Completing the move

All three things are defined in the Laws of Chess ... at completely different parts of the rules. Do you think it'd make more sense for the three definitions to go back-to-back in whichever section is deemed most appropriate?

[E Michael White]

You mean the issue as to whether K+N wins against anything other than K+Q. I thought the wording change at Dresden was specifically to rule that the Knight wins.

Yes, that type of thing but K+N has won on a flag fall since 1997 and possibly before. The wording was identical then except that the phrase "even with the most unskilled play" has now been taken out as unhelpful.

What I was getting at is that, when that rule was brought in, a group of senior English arbiters decided they would not "award" the win if it involved underpromotion so that K+N did not win against K+ P. Why they thought it was within their remit to do this only they know. The game is won when the position is reached and the flag falls.

In a game I played around 1999 my oppo declined my draw offer and raced the clock trying to win. When his flag fell I pointed out as I had K+N and he K+P +any it was a win. The arbiter cogitated for a while then disappeared off for his rule book returning with his own particular variant saying: "Show me the legal mating continuation and you can have the win". I did this and the correct result occurred. However the arbiter shouldn’t try to test a player in that way. The game is won when the position is reached, whether or not the player can indicate the legal mate. In another game I saw, an arbiter acted correctly when a flag fell in K+B v K+N + many pawns; the arbiter marched up and said that’s a win for the K+B.

You could also mention the notion that you're expected to produce a higher standard of moves in a winning position with an arbiter watching than without.

Yes in the arbiter's view but in most cases in an open event he will likely be less skilled than the players and may not know what is going on.

don't think FIDE helps itself in this case.
Would you agree that there are three phases of a move in chess:
(1) Touching the piece
(2) Making the move
(3) Completing the move

Well yes and no. You need to know a bit more about the history of the rule changes. From 1955, when the rules were in French, until 1997 the rules said the move was completed when the hand left the piece etc and in addition used the expression that the move is only considered complete on the last move of a time control and the clock is pressed.

In 1997 a group of English senior arbiters proposed some changes to replace completed by moved and for completed to be reserved for moving and pressing the clock. This is all documented on the CAA website until they read this and take it down. They had in mind extra workload resulting from increases in increment chess and wanted to reduce it. They wanted to prevent players moving before their oppos had pressed the clock avoid complications concerning illegal moves and the move counter. They managed to get all their changes agreed except for the requirement for not moving until the opponent has pressed the clock. And so here we are now. Unfortunately the jargon phrase move completed is sometimes taken out of context by arbiters including Mike Gunn who seem to say; "Oo look ! Bad manners! He has moved before his opponent has completed his move."

So I agree your sequence (1) (2) (3) above if the special FIDE rules jargon meaning is attached to the word completed. Why do arbiters think they can rule something is bad manners when it has been accepted practice and within the rules since 1955, confirmed in 1958 as "per se" part of the game and reconfirmed for sceptical arbiters again in 2008. Naturally if arbiters want to change the rules and go through the right channels, who would object ? Not me. Having said that I think too many rules are determined by arbiters and a disproportionate number of arbiters are on the ECF board; what is really needed are a few more experience players involved in framing the rules or proposing changes.

[Alex Holowczak]

OK, so filtering out the CAA bits:
(1) Touching a piece - obviously, touching with the intention of moving it
(2) Making a move - moving the piece to the destination square and releasing it (in whatever guise; whether it's a promotion, capture or castling)
(3) Completing the move - now means pressing the clock, but once meant the act of releasing the piece. Presumably this once meant that "made" was once the bit between touching it and releasing it.

Not having been around in 1955, and not having an interest in chess in 1997, it does seem rational to me to have four phases of a player's actions:
(1) Touching a piece
(2) Making the move
(3) Completing the move; i.e. releasing the piece, in your words
(4) Pressing the clock

I have great trouble persuading people that you can move before your opponent has pressed his clock, and the source of this ambiguity is the word "completed". If it said "pressed the clock" instead, it would save a lot of arguments.

[E Michael White]

I have great trouble persuading people that you can move before your opponent has pressed his clock, and the source of this ambiguity is the word "completed". If it said "pressed the clock" instead, it would save a lot of arguments.

Thats right. Using complete in that sense causes the confusion, which is why I mentioned the background. There is not really a suitable alternative. Maybe registered would have done originally. The use of completed was also tied into shortening the blitz rules where an illegal move takes effect only when the clock is pressed.