Chess Player Strip Searched

[Roger de Coverly]

When he visited the toilet during his game on Sunday

Doesn't the way they reported it miss a key point? That he left the board whilst it was his move in an opening position where the next move was a difficult decision. This was after appearing to have left the board under similar circumstances the previous day. That was why the arbiter challenged him, his own actions leading him to be suspected of cheating.

I'm still none the wiser as to whether it will be permitted to be in the playing area with a switched off phone or other electronic device from 1st July.

[Stewart Reuben]

Roger. The new Law to take effect from 1 July states:
11.3 a. During play the players are forbidden to use any notes, sources of information or advice, or analyse any game on another chessboard.
b. During play, a player is forbidden to have a mobile phone and/or other electronic means of communication in the playing venue. If it is evident that a player brought such a device into the playing venue, he shall lose the game. The opponent shall win.
The rules of a competition may specify a different, less severe, penalty.
The arbiter may require the player to allow his clothes, bags or other items to be inspected, in private. The arbiter or a person authorised by the arbiter shall inspect the player and shall be of the same gender as the player. If a player refuses to cooperate with these obligations, the arbiter shall take measures in accordance with Article 12.9.

You had ample opportunity to suggest amendments if you thought the rule is unclear.
It states the player mustn't have such a device in the playing venue. It does not state that the organisers must provide equipment to ensure this.
It does make it clear that the player will lose if it becomes evident that a player had brought such a device into the venue. That would usually be because it makes a noise.
It makes it clear that the rules of the competition may specify a less severe penalty. This was written with local leagues in Britain in mind.
The business about the arbiter being able to insist on inspection of a player is new. The operative word is 'may'. It was difficult to express. It is possible it will have to be changed in the next three years in the light of experience.

Nick, you were present when Israel Gelfer asked, concerning anti-cheating, about whether the Laws would be immutable from 1 July 2014. I responded that they could be changed, with due notice, in that period, if it was deemed necessary. If, for example, it were challenged in a Swiss Court of Law, about inspecting a player and the challenge were won; then that article would have to be revised. We have changed the Laws during the 4 year cycle before due to changing conditions.

[Ihor Lewyk]

I think the rule is unworkable to the average tournament such as e2e4 and 4NCL. I trust the arbiters to come up with a sensible solution.

How are people able to safely store laptops and mobile phones while they play their last round? At the 4NCL on a Sunday the room is littered with overnight bags while people play their last round game. It seems reasonable to state that if the device is switched off and remains in the bag during play then this should be acceptable and can be used as a local rule in place of the FIDE rule.

Chess players are a pretty honest bunch but all it would take is for a few of these bags to vanish then the chess world would have a far greater problem.

The alernative would be to ask the arbiter if they can look after it for you but they would get fed up if it is more than just one or two they are holding.

[Roger de Coverly]

It makes it clear that the rules of the competition may specify a less severe penalty. This was written with local leagues in Britain in mind.

I'm aware of that. It remains ambiguous. Does "less severe penalty" include "no penalty"?

[Stewart Reuben]

Roger Does "less severe penalty" include "no penalty"? No, that would have been a step too far to get through. I think a glare at a league match is a penalty, which has to suffice currently.

Ihor >I think the rule is unworkable to the average tournament such as e2e4 and 4NCL. I trust the arbiters to come up with a sensible solution.<

The new FIDE Law will work perfectly well for e2e4 and 4NCL, provided it is stipulated in advance. Currently that is not the case because the current FIDE Law is more rigid. So local leagues have to say, 'contrary to the FIDE Laws of Chess'.

[Brendan O'Gorman]

OK Stewart, it's the last day of a weekend congress. Players have checked out of their hotel rooms. Some are travelling by public transport. Their hotels are either too far away to store their baggage or the hotels do not offer baggage storage facilities. Do such players have to entrust their phones (possibly worth hundreds of pounds) to a possibly unwilling arbiter?

On a related point, what about tablets (machines, not medicine) fitted with a sim card? Presumably, they are (or should be) covered by this rule?

I must say, I agree with Roger that the position is as clear as mud. Some seem to think "lesser penalty" includes no penalty (I agree with you that normal English usage surely precludes this interpretation), you suggest a glare (seems like no penalty to me), Alex McFarland has mooted a small fine, and so on …

Doubtless we'll muddle through but this seems another example of rule making by folk that dwell in a different universe to the rest of us.

[MartinCarpenter]

I rather doubt if the FIDE rules actually define what a penalty is If they don't then a stare from an arbiter would I think have to count, as would public embrassment arising from the phone going off etc. Probably lucky that it doesn't specify anything about repeated offenses.....

No doubt that its a very silly rule for congresses etc. Public phoneboxes just gone in the UK now.

It should at least help with facilitating sensible measures like nothing being allowed to be switched on in the venue on pain of non trivial punishment, putting them away relatively firmly etc.

[NickFaulks]

We've been round and round this, and I do not see even the ghost of a problem, no matter how hard people try to create one.

Why can't the competition rules say something like "if it comes to the attention of an arbiter that a player has a cellphone in the playing area, a penalty will be imposed at the discretion of the arbiter. This penalty may be less severe than the loss of the game."

If a phone falls out of a player's coat pocket when he is reaching for his pen and lands on an arbiter's foot, the penalty may be to be told not to let it happen again. If it rings and he proceeds to hold a conversation, then I would personally hope that he would be expelled from the tournament. That opinion has nothing to do with cheating.

[E Michael White]

The new FIDE rules specify that a player cannot have a phone in the the playing venue.

A lesser penalty than loss of the game is permitted on discovery that a player brought a phone into the playing venue but the rest of the rule seems to still apply, as it is forbidden to have a phone in the playing venue.

After discovery, the player must not then continue to keep the phone in the playing venue, otherwise he should be defaulted for persistent refusal to comply with the rules as stated in rule 11.7 (new version). No lesser penalty is available for rule 11.7.

It's probably the right time for professional rule writers to be employed for the final versions of rules as the senior ENG arbiters involved seem unable to produce clear and unambiguous versions. By all means keep some arbiters involved in early discussions but don't assume that their arbiting skills mean they can write clear rules.

[Angus French]

... So local leagues have to say, 'contrary to the FIDE Laws of Chess'.

The help file for the online grading database states:

Games can only be graded if they are played under acceptable conditions, with clocks. Lightning and Correspondence games are excluded.

It is required that:
a. The FIDE Laws of Chess are used....

I think it would be helpful if the ECF was to issue guidance on the application of new law 11.3b.

[MartinCarpenter]

Oooops. That penalty for repeated defiance would be a genuine problem, yes

Even if it could be worked round happily, the spirit of the thing really isn't good. This isn't something the odd person will be doing - the laws are saying that something that a considerable majority of the people in the event will be doing is illegal. The default penalty suggests that its viewed as a rather serious offense too.

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

[E Michael White]

Oooops.

Yes some knowledge of mathematical chaos theory is needed to understand chess rules, board decisions and the grading system.

[Stewart Reuben]

What on earth is wrong with a fine?

EMW has a touching faith in professional rule writers. Most people have a different experience in this country with the laws that have been written.
Nick has at last found common ground with Ignatius. They both like the idea of forfeiting people or, better still, expelling them from the event. Let us execute them, just like recently in the US. That was something caused by professional rule makers.

I have often thought the Swiss system was a perfect example of the 'butterfly flapping its wings in the Amazon jungle' theory. One changed result changes everything.

[NickFaulks]

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".

[NickFaulks]

After discovery, the player must not then continue to keep the phone in the playing venue, otherwise he should be defaulted for persistent refusal to comply with the rules as stated in rule 11.7 (new version). No lesser penalty is available for rule 11.7.

This is rather obscure, but may be a real unintended problem. Stewart, did anyone think of this? I certainly didn't.