English Chess Forum

This is probably not a newly raised issue but I wanted to know the general rules for players with special requirements and disabilities.

I can think of at least 2 or 3 occasions where I have had to have a word with my opponent and ask them to stop being distractive, only to later be told that they have disabilities or conditions. There was one such player who kept shaking the table and I had to have a word with him on more than 1 occasion. It was only after the game had finished that he told me he suffered from parkinson's disease. This made me feel both very embarrassed and guilty. Despite this I believe the problem could have been avoided. There was a more recent occasion where I played someone who kept on mumbling to himself as well as pointing at the pieces whilst thinking. He informed me his behaviour was part of his autism.

I actually envy and support people who are disabled that go and fulfil their passions but is it or should it be mandatory for all players to specify any special requirements needed on the tournament entry form.

Regards

Kishan Pattni

A difficult subject but one well worth discussing for arbiters and players alike!

You mention you were told after games that players were disabled; was it the arbiters/organisers who mentioned this, or the players themselves? This is an important distinction. I should firstly point out that your experience is one reason that it is generally required to speak to the arbiter about infractions for distraction, or other such problems. They are invariably in possession of all the facts, and this can help reduce embarrassment from either/both sides.

Tournament organisers/arbiters naturally have the obligation to provide equal facilities for those who are disabled. Examples might be ease of access to venue or to tables. On many occasions you will find that a wheelchair-bound player is seated at the end of a row, for such ease. In cases where the player requests to be normally seated, the arbiter has the final discretion, so as to keep the event running smoothly. Disabilities which are less obvious (if that is the right word) are a different kettle of fish. I played with a blind player in a league for a few years. The only problem I experienced was something that would readily grace an arbiters page.

Said player, according to Fide rules, can make use of an assistant, whose duties include declaring flag fall. As team captain I did this for him. The opposing captain took the view that this was an illegal interference in a game, and decided after some time and debate (nearly half an hour later all told) that he would get the players back together, add time to their clocks, and insist that they play on. My pleas that he simply refer the dispute upwards to our controller fell on rather deaf ears. The game carried on, and my man again won on time, though to avoid ire I refrained from pointing it out. Our player then checkmated his opponent, who duly lost the same game three times! We only just managed to catch our train back home, for which I was eternally grateful.

While not a disability, a player who has lost or does not have the ability to write his moves may have some time subtracted from his clock before the game, typically up to 5 minutes, again at arbiter discretion. Again an assistant is used in such situations (but note that in rapid and lower time control games, the moves need not be written anyways).

I would imagine that without adequate arbiter supervision, the onus should be on a player to inform their opponent of anything relevant that might cause distraction. Where an arbiter feels that a distraction may be caused, intentional or otherwise, time may be added on as a compensation, to the affected player's clock. This is not something I have heard of happening very often in a pre-emptive state though, since the issue is undoubtedly rarely touched upon.

If we oblige players to mention disability, this may lead them to feel that they are being in some way singled out. Regardless of the treatment they would receive (hopefully equal; certainly I have never seen anything bad), this in itself cannot be a good thing for the image of the game or tournament involved. At any rate, how can one force a player to specify something he does not wish to disclose? Perhaps those forumites, who organiser higher-level tournaments than I, can share their experiences.

This is an interesting topic as all clubs must have players with problems. Take someone with Parkinsons for instance who cannot write their moves down. What would be the standard arbiter ruling on how to handle this? I've heard all sorts of versions from deducting some time from the player, insisting someone writes the moves down for them or leaving them to play as normal but saying that they cannot win on time. I would be interested in hearing views from arbiters on this.

Whilst nothing to do with disabilities I've played against an Isreaeli player at Hastings who had time deducted from his clock as he didn't write his moves down for religious reasons on that particular day. From memory it was 5 or 10 minutes that was taken off. I suspect that the time deduction would be the same for the reasons quoted above.

michele clack wrote:What would be the standard arbiter ruling on how to handle this? I've heard all sorts of versions from deducting some time from the player, insisting someone writes the moves down for them or leaving them to play as normal but saying that they cannot win on time. I would be interested in hearing views from arbiters on this.

The first version, deducting some time from the player not writing his moves down, is the correct one. It's actually catered for in the Laws of Chess, and not in an Appendix:
8.1 If a player is unable to keep score, an assistant, who must be acceptable to the arbiter, may be provided by the player to write the moves. His clock shall be adjusted by the arbiter in an equitable way.

In an arbiterless situation, it seems likely that substitution of the words "acceptable to the arbiter" with "acceptable to the opposing team captain", and "adjusted by the arbiter" with "adjusted by anyone who can be bothered to do it" should be the rule.

Saying that they cannot win on time is a poor solution, and may actually be illegal. The practical problem is that the opponent can just sit there all night without moving, because he can never lose on time. The legal problem is that the player is not playing an equal game, and is being disadvantaged due to his disability. The proposed solution in the Laws of Chess is an equalising measure, to take account of the player's disability being an advantage. The solution where he can't win on time is a clear disadvantage from his opponent, who can win the game in a way that his opponent can't.

Alex said

8.1 If a player is unable to keep score, an assistant, who must be acceptable to the arbiter, may be provided by the player to write the moves. His clock shall be adjusted by the arbiter in an equitable way.

Does that mean that the player does not have to provide someone to write the moves down but should have some time deducted from his clock instead? If he has someone to write the moves down does he still have time deducted?

michele clack wrote:Alex said

8.1 If a player is unable to keep score, an assistant, who must be acceptable to the arbiter, may be provided by the player to write the moves. His clock shall be adjusted by the arbiter in an equitable way.

Does that mean that the player does not have to provide someone to write the moves down but should have some time deducted from his clock instead? If he has someone to write the moves down does he still have time deducted?

In principle the answer to both your questions is yes. A player who employs an assistant to record the moves saves time through not having to do so himself.

ECF guidelines state that you shouldn't deduct time from a disabled player as opposed to a player who is unable to record the moves for religious reasons (see Loz Cooper's post above). This is not the universal view internationally; a controversy about an injured English player at the World Youth Championships was reported on this Forum.

From the ECF Website:

Guidelines on Treatment of Chess Players with Impairments

1 ) These guidelines will be used for all ECF events.
2 ) No one has the right to refuse to play another player against whom they have been correctly paired on the grounds of race, gender, age or impairment.
3 ) All chess venues must either be accessible to all, or an alternative venue of at least equal quality with full supervision to be available to those who cannot access the nominated venue.
4 ) A circular to be sent out when all competitors are known, or with any entry forms, asking if any potential competitor has an impairment that will require special circumstances.
5 ) No chess player to be penalised on a time parameter against the normal rates of play because of their impairment.
6 ) Any impaired competitor who reasonably requests the placing of their equipment in a particular seat or orientation, has the right to do so, provided that this does not disadvantage their opponent. The event director has to ensure that the needs of both players are catered for.
7 ) It is strongly recommended that any playing conditions are printed out and placed on all boards before the start of play, including maps of the venue showing the location of toilets, refreshments, bookstalls, emergency exits etc.
8 ) It is recommended that all events have a first aid kit with the tournament director in case of accident, and that the local hospital/doctor’s phone numbers are known.
9 ) If a competitor cannot access the refreshments/bookstall, arrangements should be made for their needs to be met.
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.
11 ) If a player has made a prior request, copies of all notices should be available in large print. If a player is unable to read large print, then the notices must be read to her/him before the start of each round, and on request without disturbing other players.
12 ) It is strongly recommended that all congresses adopt these guidelines and include on their entry form a section allowing an entrant to indicate any impairment and the nature of that impairment or remedial actions which need to be taken.
13 ) It is recommended that all team events have the rule that if a visiting team indicates that it has a player with an impairment coming with them giving sufficient notice, that the home team does everything which is reasonable to ensure that that player can participate.
14 ) If there are any problems, please contact the Director of Home Chess or the Disability Officer.

David Sedgwick wrote:

michele clack wrote:Alex said

8.1 If a player is unable to keep score, an assistant, who must be acceptable to the arbiter, may be provided by the player to write the moves. His clock shall be adjusted by the arbiter in an equitable way.

Does that mean that the player does not have to provide someone to write the moves down but should have some time deducted from his clock instead? If he has someone to write the moves down does he still have time deducted?

In principle the answer to both your questions is yes. A player who employs an assistant to record the moves saves time through not having to do so himself.

ECF guidelines state that you shouldn't deduct time from a disabled player as opposed to a player who is unable to record the moves for religious reasons (see Loz Cooper's post above). This is not the universal view internationally; a controversy about an injured English player at the World Youth Championships was reported on this Forum.

David got there before me, but it's worth adding that usually, visually handicapped players record their moves on an electronic tape recorder, such as a Dictaphone. If the player does that, then there's no time penalty.

I normally suggest to the opponent that I will give the disabled player not recording 2 minutes less. In almost every occasion the opponent has declined any time advantage. As regards recording, if duplicate scoresheets are given then the opponent is effectively recording for the disabled player though an arbiter should be more alert to potential time trouble. Obviously if the opponent is in time trouble then someone (arbiter) has to record as opposed to the normal situation where it is assumed the other player will be recording.

I would accept up to 5 minutes being deducted but think that 10 is too much compensation.

As Loz implies the Law deals with religious reasons for not recording as well as physical ones.

A couple of points.

Guidelines on Treatment of Chess Players with Impairments wrote:2 ) No one has the right to refuse to play another player against whom they have been correctly paired on the grounds of race, gender, age or impairment.

This is pretty strange. While the sentiments are noble, why are "race, gender, age" referred to in a document about "Chess Players with Impairments"?

Guidelines on Treatment of Chess Players with Impairments wrote:14 ) If there are any problems, please contact the Director of Home Chess or the Disability Officer.

I know who the Director of Home Chess is, but who is the Disability Officer?

I think there was a related situation at the British Championship with Chris Ross. There was at least one game where there was quite a serious time scramble, and all other things being equal (which of course they aren't) the opponent was at quite a serious disadvantage because Chris was speaking his move and pressing his own clock - hence the opponent was losing time before the move had actually been made on the board. Not disastrous with an increment, but potentially quite a serious problem without.

Richard Bates wrote:I think there was a related situation at the British Championship with Chris Ross. There was at least one game where there was quite a serious time scramble, and all other things being equal (which of course they aren't) the opponent was at quite a serious disadvantage because Chris was speaking his move and pressing his own clock - hence the opponent was losing time before the move had actually been made on the board. Not disastrous with an increment, but potentially quite a serious problem without.

It should be the same for both players. You have to execute the opponent's move on your board, make your reply, speak your move and only then press the clock.

The visually handicapped player should be penalised if he speaks the move and presses the clock before he has excuted the move on his board.

David Sedgwick wrote:

Richard Bates wrote:I think there was a related situation at the British Championship with Chris Ross. There was at least one game where there was quite a serious time scramble, and all other things being equal (which of course they aren't) the opponent was at quite a serious disadvantage because Chris was speaking his move and pressing his own clock - hence the opponent was losing time before the move had actually been made on the board. Not disastrous with an increment, but potentially quite a serious problem without.

It should be the same for both players. You have to execute the opponent's move on your board, make your reply, speak your move and only then press the clock.

The visually handicapped player should be penalised if he speaks the move and presses the clock before he has excuted the move on his board.

I'm not saying he wasn't following protocol. Just that the "sighted" player, especially when short of time, will be concentrating on his own board not the other one. So can have a problem if the assistant/arbiter isn't very efficient at executing the move. Of course the blind player is at more of a disadvantage of failing to hear the move properly.

What happens if the move made is spoken "ambiguously" (Rf/a-d1 etc?)

Richard Bates wrote:I think there was a related situation at the British Championship with Chris Ross. There was at least one game where there was quite a serious time scramble, and all other things being equal (which of course they aren't) the opponent was at quite a serious disadvantage because Chris was speaking his move and pressing his own clock - hence the opponent was losing time before the move had actually been made on the board. Not disastrous with an increment, but potentially quite a serious problem without.

Aren't both players equally disadvantaged?

1. Blind player moves on his board, announces his move and presses the clock. Sighted player, or assistant, then confirms the move and makes it on his board while his clock is running.

2. Sighted player moves on his board, announces his move and presses the clock. Blind player then confirms the move and makes it on his board while his clock is running.