Arbitration question

[soheil_hooshdaran]

...

[soheil_hooshdaran]

Hi.
During the game, my cellphone was in my jacket which was hung at my chair. After the game the arbiter asked me if I have phone to be given back. I told her that I had it with me. And she declared my won game lost. She turned 1-0 to 0-1. Shouldn't that be a - +?
The problem is that the law is unfair, the result was not declared over the board ...

[Alex McFarlane]

The changed result is totally correct. You had a phone on your person throughout the game. That is totally against the Laws.

How is the arbiter, or your opponent, to know that you did not use it? You were not ejected from the tournament. The loss of a few rating points is a relatively minor punishment if you consider what you could have done with that phone.

The Laws are quite clear on this and on the punishment. The game counts for rating. Hopefully you will never again carry a phone in your pocket during a game.

[soheil_hooshdaran]

It is not "a few" rating points" sir. She was 1593 points lower than me. That is what is burning me ....

[Tim Spanton]

If, as is stated, the jacket was hanging on a chair and not being worn, surely the phone was not on the player's person?

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Alex,

Sorry to trouble with such a moot question but whilst you are here. A few month ago this position appeared In CHESS magazine. Rauf Mamedov vs David Navara, Romania, 2022. Black to play.

r3k2r/1R4b1/p5p1/4p2p/4p3/8/PP3PPP/R1B3K1 b kq - 0 23

Ignore the fact this was a blitz game and Black played 23...0-0-0 and White resigned.

Just say Black had played 23...Ra4 and because it was an illegal move it was retracted and according to the touch move rule Black has to make a Rook move. Could Black still be allowed to play 23...0-0-0.

It is a Rook move but the Rook has moved (albeit legally) and when castling you must touch the King first so would the touch move rule mean in that situation you can only move the Rook and not play 0-0-0.

[Ian Thompson]

If, as is stated, the jacket was hanging on a chair and not being worn, surely the phone was not on the player's person?

We haven't been told whether the event had allowed any exceptions to the "During a game, a player is forbidden to have any electronic device not specifically approved by the arbiter in the playing venue" rule. Even if it did, a jacket is not a bag. A bag is the only place the FIDE laws allow a phone to be stored if an exception is in force.

If a jacket hanging on the back of a chair is not "on the player's person" then it's not an automatic loss, but the arbiter can choose to apply that penalty. The 4NCL rules, for example, say that a phone left in the playing venue anywhere other than in a bag will be treated as on the player's person and consequently will be an automatic loss.

[Tim Spanton]

If, as is stated, the jacket was hanging on a chair and not being worn, surely the phone was not on the player's person?

We haven't been told whether the event had allowed any exceptions to the "During a game, a player is forbidden to have any electronic device not specifically approved by the arbiter in the playing venue" rule. Even if it did, a jacket is not a bag. A bag is the only place the FIDE laws allow a phone to be stored if an exception is in force.

If a jacket hanging on the back of a chair is not "on the player's person" then it's not an automatic loss, but the arbiter can choose to apply that penalty. The 4NCL rules, for example, say that a phone left in the playing venue anywhere other than in a bag will be treated as on the player's person and consequently will be an automatic loss.

Thanks

[Roger de Coverly]

If a jacket hanging on the back of a chair is not "on the player's person" then it's not an automatic loss, but the arbiter can choose to apply that penalty. The 4NCL rules, for example, say that a phone left in the playing venue anywhere other than in a bag will be treated as on the player's person and consequently will be an automatic loss.

I think some British arbiters have been known to permit a phone in a jacket. Also the phone being face down next to the board, not in a bag.

Given the increasing use of phone apps to make contactless payments, perhaps this will cause problems in the near future. The refreshments at a venue are only available contactless, no coins or notes accepted. Someone, a junior perhaps, with a phone app, but without a debit or credit card is excluded from refreshments whilst the game is in progress.

[soheil_hooshdaran]

Unfortunately the regulations only said FIDE rules apply.

I myself had my phone with me in Golden States tournament in USA, but it was allowed in the tournament regulations specifically

[Alex McFarlane]

In answer to Geoff - castling is defined as a move of the king.
If the rook is touched first only that rook may move, even if the player immediately 'jumped' the king over.

The Laws of Chess are quite clear on mobile phones. They are banned unless the tournament regulations say otherwise. Since the regulations said that FIDE rules apply, then without the exemption they are not allowed.

[Roger Lancaster]

In answer to Geoff - castling is defined as a move of the king.
If the rook is touched first only that rook may move, even if the player immediately 'jumped' the king over.

Useful clarification. Just one further point - if a player castles 'correctly' (in as much as he touches the king before the rook) but the king in fact has no legal move, does the obligation to move a touched piece then devolve to the rook? Or, since castling is a king move, is the rook deemed untouched? My question assumes that the move has been completed through the player's clock having been pressed.

[Geoff Chandler]

If the rook is touched first only that rook may move, even if the player immediately 'jumped' the king

Thanks Alex,
It was just a thought I had. Would the player be able to castle after they had illegally moved the Rook first even though it was moved not intending castling.

[Alex McFarlane]

Just one further point - if a player castles 'correctly' (in as much as he touches the king before the rook) but the king in fact has no legal move, does the obligation to move a touched piece then devolve to the rook?

No. There is a slight complication there in that if the player had touched but not moved the king and then touched the rook does the arbiter force the player to move the rook? I would ignore the player's claim that he was intending to castle so did not have to move the rook.

Would the player be able to castle after they had illegally moved the Rook first even though it was moved not intending castling.

If I understand this question correctly, no. The rook must be moved by a method other than castling.

[Reg Clucas]

Just one further point - if a player castles 'correctly' (in as much as he touches the king before the rook) but the king in fact has no legal move, does the obligation to move a touched piece then devolve to the rook?

No.

Are you sure about this? The rules state -
4.3 Except as provided in Article 4.2.1, if the player having the move touches on the chessboard, with the intention of moving or capturing:
4.3.1 one or more of his/her own pieces, he/she must move the first piece touched that can be moved.