Chess Player Strip Searched

[Roger de Coverly]

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.

So it's the evil ACP who are to blame rather than FIDE. It makes a certain amount of sense given the attitude of some lower ranked GMs that anyone untitled having the temerity to beat them had to be cheating. It also makes sense that the ACC showed no interest in checking for ratings and title fraud out of deference to the ACP. British or English members of the ACP are invited to defend the organisation.

I would contend that at least in principle, it is the FIDE General Assembly who are the arbiters of last resort.

[NickFaulks]

If you can offer some precise wording of 12.3b

To be fair Nick, I don't really think that's my job.

I don't this will be solved unless somebody does something that isn't their job. It won't be you, though. Understood.

[NickFaulks]

So it's the evil ACP who are to blame rather than FIDE.

This assumption that anyone on the other side of an argument must be evil is the biggest reason why progress is so difficult. Of course, it inevitably hardens as an election approaches, so this is an unfortunate moment for such major changes to be made.

Many professional players, including some very big and widely respected names, are known to believe that cheating is already a significant problem, and has the potential to ruin the sport which is their livelihood. They are talking about systematic cheating by fellow professionals. You may think that's just paranoia, or sour grapes because they occasionally lose to a lesser player, but I'm willing to believe their fears are more genuine that that. Perhaps they know something.

I don't expect that they care about your local league, even were it to register for FIDE rating. They care about the 4NCL, though, and I doubt that they will be satisfied by assurances that nothing needs to be done because cheating isn't a problem.

[NickFaulks]

This has just appeared in the latest ACP newsletter. I had seen it, but did not know whether it was public knowledge.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/262 ... 0Final.pdf

It contains

"Law 11.3.b will be adopted in a milder version to take account of the circumstance
that many amateur players will take part in a tournament after work or other social
activities. It may become inconvenient or impossible for them to leave all devices out
of the playing venue. The ACC therefore recommends to adopt the following rule 5 :
“In tournaments open to amateur players, the prohibition to introduce electron-
ic devices in the playing venue may, and indeed should be waived. However,
under no circumstances a player shall be allowed to carry an electronic device,
whether switched on or off, working or not, on his body during play. This in-
cludes, but is not limited to, carrying a device in a bag or in the pocket of a
jacket. Any player found carrying such a device shall immediately be forfeited
his game, with rating points calculated. A second offense during the same tour-
nament shall imply an immediate ban from the tournament, with the player’s
name forwarded to the ACC for further investigation."

Is this something new? I'm losing track, and have no idea whether it will be acceptable in England.

By the way, note 5 is

"5 Please note that this may require substantial changes in the Laws of Chess. The Committee strongly suggests that
these changes be adopted before July 1 2014."

I don't know how that is to be achieved.

[JustinHorton]

I'm losing track, and have no idea whether it will be acceptable in England.

I'm not sure I like "carrying a device in a bag or in the pocket of a jacket". I've always put mine in a bag at club matches. Where else should I put it?

The Committee strongly suggests that these changes be adopted before July 1 2014."

I don't know how that is to be achieved.

Don't worry about it. rewriting history is perfectly normal in the chess world.

[Roger de Coverly]

Is this something new? I'm losing track, and have no idea whether it will be acceptable in England.

This isn't new, as it was in the original report. The idea that you are defaulted if you put your jacket on is total nonsense and defies common sense. If the intent is that you should not take a phone to somewhere secluded like a restroom, then it should say so.

The proposal starts

In tournaments open to amateur players, the prohibition to introduce electronic devices in the playing venue may, and indeed should be waived.

and that's where it should finish apart from making the obvious point that the device should be switched off no later than the start of play and not be switched on again until play had ended. It can then discuss the practicalities of enforcing this, whether these are by hiding the phone out of sight, putting it on the table next to the clock, etc.

[NickFaulks]

This isn't new, as it was in the original report.

Indeed, I'm having version control issues.

I have an annotated version where it is noted that the word "carrying" was used deliberately to allay your ( and my ) concerns. Taking your phone out of your jacket and laying it on the table would be construed as carrying it by only the most awkward arbiter. What you can't do is walk around with the thing in your pocket. Make sense?

[Roger de Coverly]

What you can't do is walk around with the thing in your pocket. Make sense?

It makes sense only to arbiters looking for the slightest excuse to default players. Such arbiters exist as evidenced by the 2008 Olympiad and by the "rules is rules" attitude seen in some discussion threads. British arbiters are currently mostly free of such attitudes.

Try this example. Someone arrives late, assuming a non-zero default time. Their normal pre-game practice is to remove their jacket and place it on the back of the chair. This I think is legal on the ACC's wording provided it is done before play commences. Unless they remove the jacket before entering the room, or even the playing venue itself, an eagle-eyed arbiter could default them.

If it's intended as a concession, it's even more likely to take events out of FIDE rating or even taking place than an outright ban, just down to the shear arbitrariness of it.

Is it worth asking whether the ACP has a view on ratings and Norm fraud? The ACC seems not to have been interested or to have been steered off into worrying about whether amateur players are allowed to wear jackets and how to identify players making moves that are far too good for them.

[MartinCarpenter]

Reading the suggested wording, I'm not at all sure if it would be legal to have it in a jacket on the back of your chair during your game. The wording is very ambigious on that point.

I'd have thought that something like banning people from having them on their person (in any sense) if/when they leave the playing hall while their game is ongoing would be logical. Very hard to think of plausible ways to cheat using mainstream mobile phones etc while actually staying in the playing area.

[Louise Sinclair]

At this rate all players should be allocated stretchy form fitting body stockings to prevent any forbidden electronic device being concealed on their person.
Louise

[Peter Sowray]

This latest ACP wording looks sensible to me. I hope it is adopted in the 4NCL and e2e4 events.

[Roger de Coverly]

This latest ACP wording looks sensible to me. I hope it is adopted in the 4NCL and e2e4 events.

Are you serious? You have an arbitrary rule that you lose if you put your jacket on, have a device in your pocket, or carry a bag with a device in it.

[Peter Sowray]

Yes

[Roger de Coverly]

Yes

Why do you want an arbitrary rule then? The ACC come up with the sensible idea that you have different rules for amateurs and then invent a totally stupid suggested implementation, capable of arbitrary interpretation. I would not wish to play under such rules.

[Mick Norris]

I can't see myself leaving my mobile in my car at the 4NCL once I have checked out (or before checking in, given I have at least twice had to leave luggage at reception as my room wasn't ready before the Saturday game started)

I particularly can't see me leaving it in someone else's car if I wasn't driving that weekend - in fact, I can't see me leaving it anywhere other than in my trouser pocket, switched off of course for the duration of my game

I don't have any issues if my opponents do the same

Is this a minority view?