Repercussions / Fallout from FIDE Elections?

[Alex Holowczak]

Compulsory re-pairing has not been legalised in (3).

If the default rule is optional re-pairing, why cannot the rules of the competition specify otherwise, compulsory re-pairing?

"Compulsory re-pairing has not been legalised in (3)"
Why is it not allowed if specified in the rules of the competition?

Yes, I was re-reading this back after my post, and now I'm doubting myself. From what I recall of the discussion, the Americans were keen to put "Unless the rules of a competition specify otherwise" before (3), whereas Andy and I were originally expecting to put it in (4) in order to re-legalise multiple byes when we started the discussion. So yes, I think competitions are now allowed to specify that forced re-pairings are permitted. I'm not sure I quite understood why the Americans wanted it in (3), but it didn't seem like a point worth arguing about at the time.

[Alex Holowczak]

The other interesting thing about the Competition Rules was that the Rules Commission met in the afternoon of the day where the Anti-Cheating Commission met in the morning. ACC were very keen to insist that the Laws of Chess trump the laws of the land. So if you agree to play FIDE-rated chess, you agree to be searched, and so on. The Rules Commission met and the line "National Laws of the hosting country take precedence over FIDE Rules." was questioned. The meeting advised/instructed RC to speak to ACC about this, given it is a direct contradiction to what ACC had said in the morning, but that line - and thus the contradiction - remains.

[NickFaulks]

ACC were very keen to insist that the Laws of Chess trump the laws of the land.

I think the ACC view on this and other issues can safely be ignored.

[Alex Holowczak]

ACC were very keen to insist that the Laws of Chess trump the laws of the land.

I think the ACC view on this and other issues can safely be ignored.

We'll quote you on that when they say the 4NCL shouldn't be rated/norms should be ineligible because we're not complying with their regulations, which - I assume they were approved - require us to run the 4NCL as if we were running the World Championship match from an Anti-Cheating perspective.

[JustinHorton]

The other interesting thing about the Competition Rules was that the Rules Commission met in the afternoon of the day where the Anti-Cheating Commission met in the morning. ACC were very keen to insist that the Laws of Chess trump the laws of the land. So if you agree to play FIDE-rated chess, you agree to be searched, and so on.

Just to clarify - do you really mean "trump the laws of the land"? If I attend a football match, for instance, I agree to be searched, and often have been. This is not, as far as I am aware, outside the laws of the land.

[NickFaulks]

If I attend a football match, for instance, I agree to be searched, and often have been. This is not, as far as I am aware, outside the laws of the land.

But if a security guard approaches you during the match and insists on searching you again, that may be. Even if it isn't, they may eventually take some action which is. The ACC says that doesn't matter.

[JustinHorton]

Well in either event, it might or might not be. Attending a football match doesn't necessarily mean I only agree to be searched on entry. But of course I might feel any given search was excessive or inappropriate for any number of reasons, it's not carte blanche for whatever Disunited Rovers Ltd or their employees may see fit to do. Similarly with chess organisers, no?

[NickFaulks]

Similarly with chess organisers, no?

That's what everyone except ACC says.

[Alex Holowczak]

If I attend a football match, for instance, I agree to be searched, and often have been. This is not, as far as I am aware, outside the laws of the land.

But if a security guard approaches you during the match and insists on searching you again, that may be. Even if it isn't, they may eventually take some action which is. The ACC says that doesn't matter.

ACC's main argument, that they mentioned twice in the 15 minutes I was there, was that if you take part in a boxing fight you can't then report your opponent to the police for assault afterwards, on the grounds that he'd been punching you in the face. So boxing's rules beat the national laws.

By extending that analogy to chess, ACC contend that a player can't refuse to be searched or scanned during the game if the arbiter wants to do that; or at least, if they do, they should lose the game immediately and the arbiter should (presumably) report the incident to ACC. Because when they entered the tournament, they did so knowing that they were the terms on which they entered.

I wonder what the limits of that principle are. If the Laws of Chess say that the arbiter can indiscriminately wander around the playing area collecting people's drinks to drugs test them for banned substances, would that be OK?

[JustinHorton]

If I attend a football match, for instance, I agree to be searched, and often have been. This is not, as far as I am aware, outside the laws of the land.

But if a security guard approaches you during the match and insists on searching you again, that may be. Even if it isn't, they may eventually take some action which is. The ACC says that doesn't matter.

ACC's main argument, that they mentioned twice in the 15 minutes I was there, was that if you take part in a boxing fight you can't then report your opponent to the police for assault afterwards, on the grounds that he'd been punching you in the face. So boxing's rules beat the national laws.

By extending that analogy to chess, ACC contend that a player can't refuse to be searched or scanned during the game if the arbiter wants to do that; or at least, if they do, they should lose the game immediately and the arbiter should (presumably) report the incident to ACC. Because when they entered the tournament, they did so knowing that they were the terms on which they entered

But that's right, surely, absent or pending any test case that would serve to clarify or otherwise restrict the respective rights of organisers and players?

Re: boxing, you do surely have the right to report your opponent after the game, for assault or for anything else you choose. It'll never get near a courtroom, but you have the right.

[Alex Holowczak]

But that's right, surely, absent or pending any test case that would serve to clarify or otherwise restrict the respective rights of organisers and players?

What about if the FIDE Competition Rules approved at the General Assembly say that "National Laws of the hosting country take precedence over FIDE Rules."? That would seem to call the value of the analogy into question.

[JustinHorton]

I'm not seeing how.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Re: boxing, you do surely have the right to report your opponent after the game, for assault or for anything else you choose. It'll never get near a courtroom, but you have the right."

Although If you take part in consensual spanking for example, it might result in a court case.

Law is not entirely consistent. I can imagine also that if FIDE tried to overrule the dress code in certain countries, they would not be terribly successful.

[JustinHorton]

"Re: boxing, you do surely have the right to report your opponent after the game, for assault or for anything else you choose. It'll never get near a courtroom, but you have the right."

Although If you take part in consensual spanking for example, it might result in a court case.

Sorry, not sure what you're getting at here

[NickFaulks]

I think the point is that a boxing ring is not, like a foreign embassy building, a place where the national law does not apply. It is a place where it is varied. If a boxer produces a knife and stabs his opponent with it, I have no doubt that he is committing a criminal offence.

ACC's insistence that their rules override national laws is simply wrong. Maybe they can convince local jurisdictions that some laws can be loosened in chess venues, as presumably happened centuries ago with contact sports, but this cannot be assumed.