Chess Player Strip Searched

[Richard Bates]

If you do that again I'll warn you not to do that again.

Regardless of the question of whether a warning constitutes a penalty, it seems to rather miss the point that it is a rather pointless step to apply to the prohibition on having a phone at the venue. Because the have any sense the warning must extend to future games in the event, and not apply to the game during which the warning was issued. Which is not something which is appropriate for the Laws, which should cover in game play.

[Angus French]

If you do that again I'll warn you not to do that again.

Regardless of the question of whether a warning constitutes a penalty, it seems to rather miss the point that it is a rather pointless step to apply to the prohibition on having a phone at the venue.

No, it doesn't miss the point, it's an additional point: because the wording of 11.3b says 'The rules of a competition may specify a different, less severe, penalty' and it matters (I think) what constitutes a penalty.

[Roger de Coverly]

If you do that again I'll warn you not to do that again.

Those who wrote the rule and contributed to the writing of it are wriggling on the hook that were FIDE or those claiming to enforce its regulations to absolutely ban the presence of mobile phones and computing devices from being in the possession of amateur players, the likely effect would be a parting of the ways between amateur chess and FIDE. Suggesting that arbiters will ignore the presence of phones and devices might be pragmatic, but liable to break down as soon as an arbiter decides to apply the letter of the law.

For those leagues and tournaments not subject to FIDE rating requirements, their simplest solution would be to announce that no penalty would apply to those in possession of a mobile phone or other computing device, provided it was switched off at all times during play.

What is going to happen at Aberystwyth? I don't think the entry form that people are signing up to has anything specific mentioned.

[Angus French]

For those leagues and tournaments not subject to FIDE rating requirements, their simplest solution would be to announce that no penalty would apply to those in possession of a mobile phone or other computing device, provided it was switched off at all times during play.

Though currently it appears that for a game to eligible for grading, the Laws of Chess have to be used.

What is going to happen at Aberystwyth? I don't think the entry form that people are signing up to has anything specific mentioned.

The draft minutes of the 19 Jan Board Meeting state: 'PE mentioned AH’s report to him that planning for the British Championships in Aberystwyth was proceeding well, and that measures were being negotiated to accommodate secure storage of players’ mobile phones.'

[Richard Bates]

If you do that again I'll warn you not to do that again.

Regardless of the question of whether a warning constitutes a penalty, it seems to rather miss the point that it is a rather pointless step to apply to the prohibition on having a phone at the venue.

No, it doesn't miss the point, it's an additional point: because the wording of 11.3b says 'The rules of a competition may specify a different, less severe, penalty' and it matters (I think) what constitutes a penalty.

Well of course it does (although reading between the lines it seems pretty clear to me that the intention is for there to be an effective option of "no penalty" without actually saying so - because this distinction would apparently cause problems with many countries). It seems to me that the reason the laws often give the impression of being drafted badly is because such equivocation is being written into them quite deliberately - the English language is being exploited for the purposes of being interpreted differently by England to everyone else. Natural English speakers see the hidden nuances and equivocation - textbook English speakers don't.

My point in saying that the point was being missed was that regardless of whether a warning is a penalty or isn't - either way it is inappropriate in the case of possessing a mobile phone at the venue (as opposed to using it), and in the context of the Laws (as opposed to, say, the tournament rules). It is fairly easy to see this by trying to specifically write the law to mandate the issuing of a warning for transgression.

[NickFaulks]

In my understanding of English, warnings and penalties are two distinct things and the first isn't an example of the second.

Article 12.9 defines a warning to be an example of a penalty. This may not precisely match your understanding of the English language, and I might agree with you, but the point is completely clear. You would probably be happier if 11.3 said "The rules of a competition may specify a different, less severe, penalty or a warning" but nobody thought that was necessary, and it isn't.

ps The late Mikko Markkula used to say that the international language of FIDE is bad English.

[Roger de Coverly]

You would probably be happier if 11.3 said "The rules of a competition may specify a different, less severe, penalty or a warning" but nobody thought that was necessary, and it isn't.

Seeking clarification then, the expectation is that players do not have their mobile phones or other computing devices in their possession when playing under strict FIDE rules. If enforced, watch for the backlash, as that says you shouldn't play chess after a day's work or play chess with your luggage with you on the first or last day of a tournament.

Isn't the required wording
"The rules of a competition may specify a different, less severe penalty, or no penalty at all" ?

Whilst it might have been difficult, if not impossible, to get general International agreement to this, why cannot the ECF or the CAA if the decision is devolved, state that to be the practical interpretation for most if not all events in England or the UK?

[NickFaulks]

Whilst it might have been difficult, if not impossible, to get general International agreement to this, why cannot the ECF or the CAA if the decision is devolved, state that to be the practical interpretation for most if not all events in England or the UK?

Yes, they could do that. It might be considered a little offensive, since the European federations who take cheating very seriously are aware that they got the short end of this compromise and might not welcome having their noses rubbed in it.

Whether we like it or not, arbiters in rated events are going to have fairly sweeping powers to deal with players who look as though they're doing something they shouldn't with electronic equipment. England is fortunate to have Stewart in a pivotal position on RTRC, but for obvious reasons no UK presence was considered on the Anti-Cheating Committee.

[Michael Farthing]

For crying out loud!!

"The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions. Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations which are discussed in the Laws. The Laws assume that arbiters have the necessary competence, sound judgement and absolute objectivity. Too detailed a rule might deprive the arbiter of his freedom of judgement and thus prevent him from finding the solution to a problem dictated by fairness, logic and special factors."

[Roger de Coverly]

"The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions.

Having a switched off mobile phone or computing device in your possession whilst playing chess is a likely frequent occurrence. It is therefore relevant to league and tournament players as to whether this is permitted and what attitude will be taken by arbiters.

I do not think it satisfactory for this to be determined on the whim of individual arbiters. The paragraph quoted (written by Stewart Reuben?) was designed to handle infrequent occurrences.

[E Michael White]

For crying out loud!!

"The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions. Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations which are discussed in the Laws. The Laws assume that arbiters have the necessary competence, sound judgement and absolute objectivity. Too detailed a rule might deprive the arbiter of his freedom of judgement and thus prevent him from finding the solution to a problem dictated by fairness, logic and special factors."

The section you quote applies to points that are not precisely covered by the rules; perhaps you meant that. It does not give the arbiter the option to put his own interpretation on a rule he dislikes; arbiters often think that that section allows them to override rules at their choosing.

The points being discussed in this thread are however precisely covered by the rules.

The paragraph quoted (written by Stewart Reuben?)

Oh no it wasn't. He often claims to have written it but it was taken from the findings report of the FIDE Rules Commission and written in 1958. Our Stewart took it, altered a few words and passed it off as his own !

[Michael Farthing]

For crying out loud!!

The points being discussed in this thread are however precisely covered by the rules.

On the contrary, the penalty is explicitly and deliberately imprecise.

[Stewart Reuben]

I amended the wording and have ensured it remains cemented in the Laws. Of course it is the RTRC that is responsible for the Laws. The PB interfered with this process in 2013 (against the statutes), which is why the new Laws have been delayed to 2014.
There are, I think, about 38 examples in the Laws from 1 July 2014 where the arbiter has discretion.

[Angus French]

For crying out loud!!

The points being discussed in this thread are however precisely covered by the rules.

On the contrary, the penalty is explicitly and deliberately imprecise.

It would be best, for most events covered by the ECF, if the application of the new law was lenient and consistent, no? Is that going to happen?

[Michael Farthing]

It would be best, for most events covered by the ECF, if the application of the new law was lenient and consistent, no? Is that going to happen?

I think and hope it will be lenient. [Though it won't affect me - I'm too died in the wool to have a mobile].
If it's going to be lenient that will probably make it reasonably consistent. However, it must surely be more rigourous at title level competitions, which is presumably why Angus includes the word 'most'.

Incidentally, my earlier editing has accidentally caused a misattribution of the quotations. Apologies to Michael White