Mobile Phone problems at local league level.

[Anthony Taglione]

Not only the opponent is disturbed in a crowded room, full of games. The captains can hardly be going around giving an extra few minutes to everyone playing each time a phone goes off. Simpler, by far, to default the offending player.

On the other hand, I think it is truly ridiculous to suggest that an adult shouldn't talk to anyone over the phone simply because he or she is involved in a game of chess. Possibilities of cheating pale to triviality in comparison with the possible need to be contactable at times. As such, I applaud those organisations which choose to add provisions, such as operating in "silent" mode.

[Roger de Coverly]

I think it is truly ridiculous to suggest that an adult shouldn't talk to anyone over the phone simply because he or she is involved in a game of chess.

On the contrary, I think that a competition game of chess should be a no-phone calls zone and that calls should not be taken or made whilst playing. Where we get the difficulty is whether to default a player whose phone has been left on and who gets a call or text ,or where some form of alarm is active. Strict FIDE rules would default, a more relaxed position would use what have been referred to as Staffs rules, where the first offence is just a warning. Under Staffs rules presumably you are not entitled to make or receive calls though.

The other area where some latitude can be desirable is that match captains may need to leave the playing area to track down late arrivals. For example text or voice messages which might say "stuck in traffic ETA 8 pm" or "where the **** is the venue?"

If a phone call was that urgent, you would probably have to stop the game anyway.

[Eoin Devane]

One warning before the default sounds like a fair compromise.

I agree with Jack that it would be very hard to figure out when to award extra time etc.. For that reason, I wasn't really suggesting that every time a phone goes off (which I don't expect would be particularly often anyway) players should be compensated for the distraction. After all, when a door is banged closed or a cheer goes up from the bar next door after a goal in the football we don't go and award everyone extra time. I was merely pointing out that the FIDE rules already legislate for the possibility. I imagine really the only time you'd use this would be in the case mentioned earlier in which a player might be distracted sufficiently to fail to make his final move before the time control.

Out of interest, does anyone know of any instances in which rule 13.5 (adding extra time to compensate for an external distraction) has actually been applied?

[E Michael White]

Out of interest, does anyone know of any instances in which rule 13.5 (adding extra time to compensate for an external distraction) has actually been applied?

Yes, my opponent and I were offered extra time, 2 minutes if I recall correctly, in about 1999 when the right two legs on my chair collapsed throwing me against the player next to me. The arbiter offered the time rather than the players having to request it.

[Eoin Devane]

Yes, my opponent and I were offered extra time, 2 minutes if I recall correctly, in about 1999 when the right two legs on my chair collapsed throwing me against the player next to me. The arbiter offered the time rather than the players having to request it.

When I first read this I thought it said something along the lines of "when the right two legs on my chair collapsed when throwing it against the player next to me"! That would have been an interesting way of gaining a couple of extra minutes!

It sounds like an unfortunate situation - I hope you and the player next to you were both alright! I presume that the time awarded is left to the arbiter's discretion. At least, I don't see any guidelines in the Laws as to what should be awarded. Good to see that some things are still left to the judgement of the arbiter!

[Alex McFarlane]

I have always thought that before FIDE introduced this Law that the Arbiter had enough power to deal with the situation. However many of my colleagues felt that something more explicit was needed due to the increasingly common problem of phones ringing. It may now feel like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut but it has stopped the almost constant 'chirping' of mobiles which seemed to be occuring at one time.

The adding of additional time to any player disturbed is a possible solution but consider the following scenario.
We have a league match so no arbiter is present. A player is in severe time trouble. A team-mates phone rings. The player's flag falls. The player claims extra time because he was disturbed. Other than all hell breaking loose, what happens? Should a player benefit from a team-mates phone ringing? If not should this be covered by the Laws? If you think this should be prevented by the Laws where do you draw the line as there are other situations where a team-mate may cause a distrurbance?

We could end up with the Laws of Chess going to several volumes.

[Kevin Thurlow]

Players (particularly based in the South East) may play in a number of leagues, all of which have different time-controls, which can be confusing. If you start changing the Laws of Chess in every event, it will get a bit silly.

I think it is better to use the FIDE Law on mobile phones, with the possible exception in a local league that the captains may agree for a phone to be on in silent mode, so that late arrivals can send a message to the appropriate captain, as outlined earlier.

It is not just the distraction - someone looks at a friend's game, wanders outside, texts "Play Bxh7+" and wanders back. I know it is much more likely that the players will have a chat somewhere or have a friend with Fritz in the analysis room, but you do want to avoid this. People do cheat, and also people get suspicious - if your opponent is receiving some sort of message, then plays a good move, it is quite natural to think (s)he's getting help.

So there are plenty of reasons not to have a phone with you when playing, including protecting yourself...

[Phil Neatherway]

I
I am of the opinion that the rule is in place for a reason and although the penalty is severe I see no reason to tamper with it but I suspect i am a lone voice in that respect.

Ernie, I agree with you.

Carl, how about a poll?

[Carl Hibbard]

You could create your own poll Phil?

[Roger de Coverly]

I think it is better to use the FIDE Law on mobile phones, with the possible exception in a local league that the captains may agree for a phone to be on in silent mode, so that late arrivals can send a message to the appropriate captain, as outlined earlier.

I don't think there's much of an issue with the point that in general phones should not be used during play with the possible exceptions of the match captain chasing missing players or those with employment that required it. There is the issue though that a phone might be left on and then ring or sound an alarm with the call cancelled within ten seconds by switching the phone off. The "Staffs" rules would not default a player in those circumstances. There's some sense to this for league and county play as players would not want to make a longish journey to get a game that could be over within 5 minutes.

[Anthony Taglione]

I'm still highly amazed that it's considered a reasonable request for anyone to isolate themselves from the outside world for the duration of a game. Clearly, the distraction of a ringing phone is unacceptable and the penalties for allowing your phone to make a noise have been long debated. This bears no relation, however, to the simple state of occasionally having need to communicate with someone.

During a typical game, there is plenty of opportunity to disappear for a minute or two. Players do this, anyway, to visit the toilets, for example. I've yet to see any reasonable suggestion as to why anyone should be denied the ability to make a phone call during that time.

If a phone call was that urgent, you would probably have to stop the game anyway.

I'm sure that a little thought could give any of us a plethora of reasons for wanting a very short conversation with someone not at the venue. (None of which involve any cheating)

[Phil Neatherway]

I'm still highly amazed that it's considered a reasonable request for anyone to isolate themselves from the outside world for the duration of a game.

To be honest, I'm amazed that you think that! Either you're playing chess or you're not.

During a typical game, there is plenty of opportunity to disappear for a minute or two. Players do this, anyway, to visit the toilets, for example. I've yet to see any reasonable suggestion as to why anyone should be denied the ability to make a phone call during that time.

Because you could use the phone call to consult someone else.

[Anthony Taglione]

If someone is going to cheat, they hardly need a phone to do it.

During a typical evening's play, most players spend much time wandering around; grabbing a drink; grabbing some refreshments; freshening up. One guy in this thread even suggests that he spends a big part of an evening's match playing pool with friends. During one British my opponent took two consecutive 40-minute ponders. I went for a swim during the second one, simply to relieve the tedium.

We are all able to play chess and have capacity to think of other things. At times, the other things might be so pressing that only a short phone call can alleviate their urgency. Imagine a loved one being in critical surgery, possibly thousands of miles away.

To ban this common appliance of modern life on the possibility that someone might, just maybe, find a way to cheat with it is outlandish.

[Roger de Coverly]

I'm still highly amazed that it's considered a reasonable request for anyone to isolate themselves from the outside world for the duration of a game.

It's the chess as (almost) a sport issue. You wouldn't expect to see a mobile phone in use by the players on a football field or a rugby pitch or even a cricket pitch. Non sporting analogies would be that you wouldn't expect someone to hold a conversation during a film, theatre performance or classic music concert.

[Adam Raoof]

During one British my opponent took two consecutive 40-minute ponders. I went for a swim during the second one.

May I just say that I admire your relaxed approach to the game? There is nothing more invigorating than a good swim and a quick tumble down the flume to break the tedium of another Exchange French, and moreover this only reflects the positive merits of longer time limits.