Chess Player Strip Searched

[NickFaulks]

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".

Have you suggested wording which would be acceptable to you, and has been rebutted? I feel that I have some idea of what English organisers will not accept ( and in some cases agree ) but have not seen an example of what they will accept.

[Mike Truran]

Well, something along the lines that the presence of mobile phones in the playing area is discouraged but not forbidden, and that (a) all mobile phones should be switched off (b) if any mobile phone in the playing area goes off during the game the player concerned loses the game might be a good start. No doubt the words could be improved, but hopefully the gist is clear.

The difficulty with events like the 4NCL and e2e4 is that in practice it is impossible to (for example) effectively police players popping back to their rooms or to their car for a spot of light mid-game analysis, or to prevent them popping into the bar or reception area for a quick chat with an accomplice who happens to have a laptop - so picking on mobile phones in the playing area only addresses a small part of the problem. Also, arranging storage facilities for phones is no doubt possible in theory, but highly onerous in practice. Moreover, the ethos of mass participation events is that the players, who are overwhelmingly amateur, are fundamentally honest and should be treated as such.

No doubt I have lit the blue touch paper. So I shall now retire for a few hours and go and enjoy the rain at the Henley Regatta.

[NickFaulks]

Well, something along the lines that the presence of mobile phones in the playing area is discouraged but not forbidden,

Come on, you know you have to do better than that. ""Discouraged but not forbidden" = "permitted". If that's what you really want, then please say so explicitly, and we shall at least all know where we are.

I'm taken with the idea that mobile phones may be left in full view by the clock. This scheme seems to have been anathemised, but I don't know why.

[Roger de Coverly]

Have you suggested wording which would be acceptable to you, and has been rebutted? I feel that I have some idea of what English organisers will not accept ( and in some cases agree ) but have not seen an example of what they will accept.

It's a standard announcement at English events in the seconds before the formal start of play that if you have a mobile phone with you, it should be switched off and, by implication, remain so for the entire game. This has been the case for approaching ten years or so. Leagues, but not Congresses, are often lenient if someone had forgotten to do this and receives a text causing the phone to announce this.

Saying that something is permitted is not the same meaning as saying that something is discouraged. The message that residential events like the 4NCL and e2e4 would like to promote, is that if you have access to a hotel room, you should leave the phone in it. You can at least go to the public restrooms with or without your jacket without giving rise to suspicions.

[NickFaulks]

Have you suggested wording which would be acceptable to you, and has been rebutted? I feel that I have some idea of what English organisers will not accept ( and in some cases agree ) but have not seen an example of what they will accept.

It's a standard announcement at English events in the seconds before the formal start of play that if you have a mobile phone with you, it should be switched off and, by implication, remain so for the entire game. This has been the case for approaching ten years or so. Leagues, but not Congresses, are often lenient if someone had forgotten to do this and receives a text causing the phone to announce this.

Saying that something is permitted is not the same meaning as saying that something is discouraged. The message that residential events like the 4NCL and e2e4 would like to promote, is that if you have access to a hotel room, you should leave the phone in it. You can at least go to the public restrooms with or without your jacket without giving rise to suspicions.

Roger, you know as well as anyone that regulations are not just messages that people would like to send. You are obviously capable of drafting a version of 12.3b with which you would be happy, but I genuinely do not know what the wording would be, and it would inform this discussion far better than the previous ten pages of general discussion.

You are entitled to consider that no regulation of cellphones is required unless and until they disturb the peace - that approach was widely accepted for years. If you think that remains valid, please say so.

[Roger de Coverly]

You are entitled to consider that no regulation of cellphones is required unless and until they disturb the peace - that approach was widely accepted for years. If you think that remains valid, please say so.

That would indeed be my view, one I suspect shared by a majority of participants and organisers in English events. It's not noisy cellphones that are the problem, it's devices capable of running chess software. So if I'm playing someone with a "supporter" outside the playing area using a laptop, that's potentially more worrying if they frequently leave the board, than if they have a phone in their possession.

It also goes beyond that. If the rule set means that you cannot have a mobile phone or tablet in your possession and play chess, for many players that is a ruling that they are no longer freely permitted to play chess. There's sufficient organiser representation in the voting membership of the ECF to make that unlikely for domestic events, but the trend of weekend Congresses in particular going FIDE rated would likely to be reversed.

[JustinHorton]

It's not noisy cellphones that are the problem

They certainly are a problem.

[NickFaulks]

It's not noisy cellphones that are the problem

They certainly are a problem.

Yes, they really are, and I hope that issue does not get lost within the other one.

[Mike Truran]

Come on, you know you have to do better than that. ""Discouraged but not forbidden" = "permitted".

Don't be patronizing, Nick. At least I've tried to come up with a form of words for overwhelmingly amateur mass participation FIDE rated events, which is more than you have done. Of course the words mean "permitted". So what? You, and everyone else, know exactly what I meant.

I said the words could be improved. If that's your best shot at improving the words, that's fine with me. So now you've done the wordsmithing bit, perhaps you can do something useful and lobby for something along the lines I suggest. Unless of course you disagree with me, which I rather suspect you do.

[Richard Bates]

Come on, you know you have to do better than that. ""Discouraged but not forbidden" = "permitted".

Don't be patronizing, Nick. At least I've tried to come up with a form of words for overwhelmingly amateur mass participation FIDE rated events, which is more than you have done. Of course the words mean "permitted". So what? You, and everyone else, know exactly what I meant.

I said the words could be improved. If that's your best shot at improving the words, that's fine with me. So now you've done the wordsmithing bit, perhaps you can do something useful and lobby for something along the lines I suggest. Unless of course you disagree with me, which I rather suspect you do.

Nick suggested that "not allowed" but with a penalty of a (perpetual) "warning" is "ideal", so who knows exactly what he thinks. Many would interpret that as "permitted"...

[Michael Farthing]

Did he really say (perpetual)?

[Roger de Coverly]

Did he really say (perpetual)?

I don't think so, but it was implied by the context. I assume the rules also apply to rapid-play rated tournaments, so there could be six games in a day. In the first round the arbiter spots that you have a switched off mobile phone or other electronic device in your possession and issues a warning. Are you then supposed to go through the same farce for the remaining five rounds?

Regarding amateur mass participation FIDE rated events, how many would-be lawmakers or even Delegates from club or county sized Federations have much experience of organising such events, or even playing in them?

(edit) This is what the Asia Chess Federation has to say on the subject.
http://www.asianchess.com/news/view/asi ... -you-know-

Referring to the new text of 11.3b

This is probably the article that will affect the average tournament player the most. Especially when tournament organizers decide not to use a less severe penalty (or simply don't pay attention to the new rules!), you can actually lose a game when you are holding a mobile in your hand - even just for switching it off.

[Michael Farthing]

I don't think so, but it was implied by the context. I assume the rules also apply to rapid-play rated tournaments, so there could be six games in a day. In the first round the arbiter spots that you have a switched off mobile phone or other electronic device in your possession and issues a warning. Are you then supposed to go through the same farce for the remaining five rounds?

I doubt it. Most arbiters, like Horatio Nelson, will only see the phone with their missing eye.
Only when another competitor complains will they need to penalise the player with a warning.
The culprit will almost certainly be careful thereafter to keep his phone hidden.
I suppose if he doesn't and if the other competitor complains in every round then the arbiter might feel obliged to issue five warnings, but if the arbiter has any sense he'll tell the o. c. not to be so pedantic.

Why's everyone so apoplectic? It's not going to be a problem.

[NickFaulks]

Don't be patronizing, Nick. At least I've tried to come up with a form of words for overwhelmingly amateur mass participation FIDE rated events, which is more than you have done. Of course the words mean "permitted". So what? You, and everyone else, know exactly what I meant.

I said the words could be improved. If that's your best shot at improving the words, that's fine with me. So now you've done the wordsmithing bit, perhaps you can do something useful and lobby for something along the lines I suggest. Unless of course you disagree with me, which I rather suspect you do.

I certainly did not intend to be patronising, and I don't think I was. You would never draft your own regulations so casually. However 12.3b ends up, we know that it will probably at some stage be challenged in court, and we know how expensive that can be if it isn't watertight.

I am at a loss to understand why you would think we are not in agreement on how we would like to see this resolved. If you can offer some precise wording of 12.3b ( NOT "along the lines of..." ) with which you would be content, then I expect I would be happy to lobby for it at next weekend's ACC meeting. Probably I'll be in a minority of one, but I'm used to that.

More generally, it occurs to me that not everyone in England may understand that the organisation with which they are primarily in disagreement is not FIDE, but the ACP. The players' organisation is on record as believing that cheating represents a clear danger to its members' livelihoods, and they are willing to go a bit over the top ( my interpretation ) if that's what it takes to stop it. I would imagine that the 4NCL might have better lines of communication into them than anyone else.

[Mike Truran]

If you can offer some precise wording of 12.3b

To be fair Nick, I don't really think that's my job. I've suggested as an organizer what I think the thrust of the regulations should be for mass participation FIDE events, and I suspect you understand exactly what I am getting at. If the people who decide these things like the suggestion, they should do their job of drafting something appropriate. If they don't like the suggestion and you are indeed in a minority of one, then I would be wasting my time anyway.