Chess Player Strip Searched

[Roger de Coverly]

Those which may have a problem are those which enforced the old Law (if your mobile sounds, you lose) with full rigour, but wouldn't wish to extend that to mere possession of a mobile.

That applies to almost every Congress, whether FIDE rated or not.

(On Roger's point, the ECF have informed their arbiters that the CAA statement on this, coherent or not, is to be taken as ECF policy.)

Has anyone informed the players? A statement to that effect on the "official" forum might be an idea. This would then test the moderation if it provoked a stream of anti-ECF diatribe. Arguably it should be anti-FIDE, but that organisation under its current management is almost a lost cause as far as promoting chess as a leisure activity is concerned. "Current" management in that context also includes those whom Kasparov has induced to defect.

[David Sedgwick]

Those which may have a problem are those which enforced the old Law (if your mobile sounds, you lose) with full rigour, but wouldn't wish to extend that to mere possession of a mobile.

That applies to almost every Congress, whether FIDE rated or not.

Yes, but in general a Congress doesn't have to pass a motion at a General Meeting in order to change the regulations which applied in the previous year / season.

[Roger de Coverly]

Yes, but in general a Congress doesn't have to pass a motion at a General Meeting in order to change the regulations which applied in the previous year / season.

I was rather more thinking that it's a standard condition that if you play in a Congress, your phone, if present, is switched off and you lose if it rings or indicates its presence.

Leagues have variously introduced looser interpretations.

If you don't follow FIDE, the ECF or the CAA, you might reasonably suppose that the established rules continue unchanged unless there's a specific alert either in the pre tournament material or in the pre-game announcements. The British at Aberystwyth is a case in point. Every entrant has entered blind, not knowing the mobile phone rule applicable. The layout of the premises will make a difference. If it's possible to leave the phone or device in your room and pick it up after the game on the way to the evening's eating and drinking, that's more acceptable than if the accommodation is on the other side of a steep hill. With the demise of the answer machine giving pairings, it's now common practice to look up the next day on a smart phone whilst in a restaurant or bar in town.

[NickFaulks]

I am one of the many arbiters at whom the strictures in your first sentence are presumably addressed.

As I'm sure you realise, you are not. However, I am equally sure that the attitude I describe does exist, and is well represented on this forum.

Generally, changes to regulations are made on a four year cycle, avoiding Presidential elections, and I think we can see why this is a good idea. In 2014, too many people have a vested interest in presenting anything FIDE does as an unworkable shambles. Of course, FIDE also feel they must be seen to be doing something urgently about cheating, which many federations take far more seriously than the ECF. After prevaricating far too long, they are now moving ahead with more speed than best practice really allows.

When the Tromso smoke has cleared, and the usual hyperbole and name-calling is over, I fear we may find ourselves with a result which nobody likes, and it will have been completely avoidable.

[David Sedgwick]

I am one of the many arbiters at whom the strictures in your first sentence are presumably addressed.

As I'm sure you realise, you are not.

In that case, perhaps I should be.

I'm perfectly happy to be associated with the view that Law 11.3 is totally impractical and needs to be reconsidered at the earliest opportunity. As I've previously mentioned, that was a widely held view at the International Arbiters' Workshop in Brussels. I don't believe for one moment that anyone who commented was motivated by electoral considerations.

I regard Shaun Press's proposed wording as a very considerable improvement.

[NickFaulks]

This is the wording which says that if my phone is in my coat pocket on the back of my chair I'm fine, but if I need to put it on because I'm in England and it's freezing, I'm in breach. I think that needs work.

[Mike Truran]

I think that needs work

Well, can whoever it is who is is responsible for "doing the work" (LOL) actually do it please, so that the people who actually do the real work (i.e. the event organizers), as opposed to the people who seem to spend their time theorizing in a reality-free world, can have some clarity on the matter?

[MartinCarpenter]

You'd hope the sorts of events likely to take this seriously would have good enough venues not to require wearing coats while playing the game
(Which I can't say for all the places I've played evening league chess!)

[David Williams]

After sixty pages i'm still none the wiser as to why there need to be any new rules at all for electronic devices, particularly as none of the suggestions seem to solve the problem.

If your phone makes a noise, that's just distracting your opponent, already against the rules. If you have one in your pocket and go to the toilet with it, is that any different to having a book in your pocket and going to the toilet with it? And presumably you've never been allowed to do that.

[NickFaulks]

I think that needs work

Well, can whoever it is who is is responsible for "doing the work" (LOL) actually do it please, so that the people who actually do the real work (i.e. the event organizers), as opposed to the people who seem to spend their time theorizing in a reality-free world, can have some clarity on the matter?

As I understand it, the "theorizing in a reality-free world" approach was dropped some time ago, and suggestions from organizers have been welcomed. I actually thought you might have made one, and was pleased about that. Did something go wrong?

[Roger de Coverly]

If you have one in your pocket and go to the toilet with it, is that any different to having a book in your pocket and going to the toilet with it? And presumably you've never been allowed to do that.

That's absolutely the case, also taking recommendations from the titled player on top board isn't allowed either. If you can trust players, the rule needs to say little more than that a device capable of analysing or reporting chess moves should be switched off at the start of the game and remain switched off for the duration of the game.

If players are not to be trusted, you need more stringent rules. These would ensure the device was either securely stored or was in plain view and thus could not be consulted.

[Mike Truran]

Did something go wrong?

I'm not sure what you mean by the above. If you mean "Has a set of proposals been put forward which recognizes the needs of mass-participation FIDE-rated events", then the answer as far as I can see is "no".

[Michael Farthing]

Has anyone considered having two sets of rules: a strict set and a relaxed set.
Organisers could then simply announce whether they would follow the strict or the relaxed rules.
It would still be possible for events to draw up their own amended conditions, but might not then have to bother.

The strict would basically be intended for the professional game and the relaxed for the amateur.
There might be further guidelines that the strict should always be used for say title norm events.

[Barry Sandercock]

That sounds a good idea.

[Roger de Coverly]

The strict would basically be intended for the professional game and the relaxed for the amateur.
There might be further guidelines that the strict should always be used for say title norm events.

If you read the ACC proposals that's what they are proposing. It's the supposed "relaxed" that is being argued about. The nonsense that you can leave a device in your jacket, but only if it's hung over the back of the chair is a case in point.

I don't think anyone would disagree that devices capable of running chess software or receiving messages should be switched off for the entire duration of a game, although I think even that may put a ban on anyone expecting or required to be "on call". The arguments are about how it should be enforced. If you can have a certain amount of trust in players and mutual respect, it need go no further than that you trust them not to knowingly break the rules. That's the same, by the way, in not having analytical conversations during the game with a much stronger player, or consulting the bookstall whilst playing.