Chess Player Strip Searched

[Angus French]

I've just noticed something in the Laws.

"12.9

Options available to the arbiter concerning penalties:

a. warning "

I think that settles one question. A warning IS a "lesser penalty".

Hmm. How many people would consider a warning to be a type of a penalty?

[Roger de Coverly]

I think that settles one question. A warning IS a "lesser penalty".

As far as leagues are a concerned, if they don't wish to apply any kind of penalty merely for possession, their rules will continue to have to state "Contrary to the FIDE rules of chess". Congresses will follow them if they want to avoid incidents.

Mr Gamesmanship is playing a critical last round game in a league or Congress. He is aware his opponent will have a mobile phone or other electronic device in his possession. He demands either that he wins the game or the arbiter imposes a penalty.

If we are playing chess, as seems likely, in technical contravention of the Laws of Chess then you want a blanket exemption, not something at the whim, fancy and favour of individual arbiters.

[NickFaulks]

Why on earth not write it to allow events to ban them from the playing venue if they feel the need to?

Because a number of federations, including some large and influential ones, are very agitated about cheating. A rule that did not even look as though it was discouraging the practice of bringing cellphones to the playing hall would have not have passed. This wording was devised to show the world that FIDE is not unaware of the cheating problem, while in practice allowing federations and tournaments to tackle it in their own way.

[NickFaulks]

Mr Gamesmanship is playing a critical last round game in a league or Congress. He is aware his opponent will have a mobile phone or other electronic device in his possession. He demands either that he wins the game or the arbiter imposes a penalty.

No. The wording is "If it is evident that a player brought such a device into the playing venue...". How is it going to be evident? The arbiter will not carry out a search unless there is at least a formal accusation of cheating, and having a turned off cellphone in one's bag does not constitute cheating.

Furthermore, even if the device did reveal itself he could only demand that the arbiter impose some penalty, for instance a warning. So what?

[Roger de Coverly]

No. The wording is "If it is evident that a player brought such a device into the playing venue...". How is it going to be evident?

A computer is an electronic device and if you bring what looks like a bag containing a computer into the playing venue, that's evident. For that matter, someone removes a mobile phone from their pocket to turn it off, or places it on the table in view of the opponent.

You may be happy with playing while in technical contravention of the Laws of Chess, but many will not be and insist that leagues and Congresses offer a greater clarification than arbiters turning a blind eye.

[Angus French]

... some penalty, for instance a warning...

I contend that a warning is not a penalty.

[NickFaulks]

For that matter, someone removes a mobile phone from their pocket to turn it off,

If that opponent is more interested in being a pain than in playing chess, he will call over an arbiter, who will warn the player that he must not do it again - which he will presumably not need to.

[NickFaulks]

... some penalty, for instance a warning...

I contend that a warning is not a penalty.

You are entitled to that view, but 12.9a says quite explicitly that it is.

[MartinCarpenter]

Yes, that bit is easy

Modern mobile phones are big and often fairly easily visible in trouser pockets to anyone who cares to look. For that matter anyone with any knowledge of UK mobile ownership/behaviours patterns will find it entirely evident that nearly everyone at an event will be carrying one.
(Well the normal age spread is often old enough that a reasonable number won't be, but many will.).

[NickFaulks]

Today's battleground seems to be the definition of the word "evident". I suggest that English arbiters should be told ( recommended? ) to use the interpretation that the item needs to be seen in clear view or heard. Bulges in clothing or bags with "Toshiba" written on them will not do.

Having a phone in a trouser pocket is in any case bad practice. The use of the vibrate function to facilitate cheating is a real possibility. You don't need a complex code to transmit a move, just the meaning "there's a trap in this position so watch out" could be very valuable.

[MartinCarpenter]

Well the 4NCL was being very sane last weekend - get seen with one switched on and it sounded like you'd get shot Otherwise not.

Those worries about subtle cheating are true and objectively very worrying. Sadly I rather doubt if anyone doing 'subtle' cheating involving needing a helper to program the board in then send a signal like that would use something as obvious as a mobile to transmit the vibration Enough organisation by that point to stick something tiny in your shoe or somewhere else. Even using off the shelf things, smart watches say are just about getting main stream and aren't obvious to pick out from normal ones. Basically invisble wearable computing is most definitely coming, and probably fairly fast with it.

The real worry with mobiles is the sort of casual thing that's been seen once or twice, or more likely the worry of that happening affecting people.

[Richard Bates]

Today's battleground seems to be the definition of the word "evident". I suggest that English arbiters should be told ( recommended? ) to use the interpretation that the item needs to be seen in clear view or heard. Bulges in clothing or bags with "Toshiba" written on them will not do.

Some might contend that the BEST place for a (clearly switched off, possibly with battery removed) phone is "by the board in clear view". That way there can be no suspicion of cheating (using that device, anyway). A rule that says "if you have a phone and make the organisers clearly aware of that fact then you get a penalty", but also where "if you have a phone but conceal this sufficiently cannot result in penalty" doesn't sound like a good basis for averting suspicion and/or deterring cheating to me.

BTW when does an illegal device cease to become an illegal device, but merely an "object". A switched-on phone - illegal. A switched off phone - illegal. A switched off phone with battery removed - ?. A child's toy phone - legal?

[Stewart Reuben]

Angus French >I contend that a warning is not a penalty.<
As Nick says you can contend as you wish. But it is one in many sports. You are simply wrong.
Warning, 'If you do that again, your opponent will get extra time on his clock'. I have applied that to a GM. The GM made his move, pressed the clock and then adjusted the piece in his opponent's time. How can you not describe that warning as a penalty? In the new Laws that is specifically forbidden.

This century I am sure I will be possible to have an embedded computer in your brain. Indeed somebody has applied for a license to do it. Nothing to do with chess. That may well mean the end of chess as we know it.

Having a mobile phone in your trouser pocket is utterly stupid. It is too close to the genitals. Nobody knows for sure what effect, if any, that may have. I have a fitted defibrillator. I can't put a phone in a left hand side pocket. The only possible place is in shirt on the rhs or trouser pocket.

Two people chatting is a much easier way to cheat. There are all sorts of ways of cheating. But, unlike bridge, the rules are not generally written on the assumption that people will cheat.

If electronic equipment emits a sound or vibrates it can be pretty evident. If it gives out a light it may be evident.

You can only get such rules to work if there is an arbiter present. In the London League somebody was playing Julian Farrand. He consulted me, another player. I asked him what he was doing. He responded, 'surveying stock prices.' I believed him and, anyway what were we to do as players? I told him never to do it again. Next time he would be forfeited. I was certain he was just being naïve. Satisfactory? No, but in the absence of an arbiter who could have forfeited him?

[Ian Thompson]

You can only get such rules to work if there is an arbiter present. In the London League somebody was playing Julian Farrand. He consulted me, another player. I asked him what he was doing. He responded, 'surveying stock prices.' I believed him and, anyway what were we to do as players? I told him never to do it again. Next time he would be forfeited. I was certain he was just being naïve. Satisfactory? No, but in the absence of an arbiter who could have forfeited him?

I had a London League game about 18 months ago where my game was the last to finish, the match depended on the result, and it had reached a tablebase rook and pawn ending. I discovered after the game was over that members of my opponent's team had been using a mobile phone to look the position up in an online tablebase to see what the result would be with best play, whilst in the playing room. There was no reason to think that any information was passed on to my opponent, but I thought it was unacceptable for them to do this.

[Angus French]

Angus French >I contend that a warning is not a penalty.<
As Nick says you can contend as you wish. But it is one in many sports. You are simply wrong.
Warning, 'If you do that again, your opponent will get extra time on his clock'. I have applied that to a GM. The GM made his move, pressed the clock and then adjusted the piece in his opponent's time. How can you not describe that warning as a penalty? In the new Laws that is specifically forbidden.

In my understanding of English, warnings and penalties are two distinct things and the first isn't an example of the second.
If an arbiter says 'If you do that again, your opponent will get extra time on his clock', that's a warning. If the player reoffends then the penalty can be applied.