Mobile Phone problems at local league level.

[Mike Truran]

Scott - not an unfair synopsis, but comparing a situation where using a phone could result in you and 300 others plunging into the ground like a dart with a phone going off in a chess match is a touch disingenuous!

I repeat (yet again) the same point - if it's possible for people to have their phones off, it's possible for them to refrain from shuffling their feet, talking to themselves, blowing their noses, analysing loudly after the game, slamming doors when they go to the toilet etc etc. As I've argued on the other thread, it's really about the noise not the cheating at local league level, so why one rule for one source of noise and not the same rule for other sources?

Anyway, why is it confusing to have different rules for different leagues? Are we saying that players who play in different leagues are bright enough to get themselves to the right league match in the right town without getting confused between leagues but can't cope with different local conditions?

Anyway, I'm clearly banging my head against a brick wall and I think I'll stop now.

[Mike Truran]

As I said - I'm clearly banging my head against a brick wall and I think I'll stop now, save to say that since options 3 and 5 are virtually indistinguishable your "2:1" comment is as disingenuous as a much of the other stuff that has been spouted on this and the other thread.

[Peter Shaw]

It would also alienate a lot of new players interested in taking up the game, who would wonder why the rules don’t follow FIDE, preferring instead to do something else, e.g. football, where the on-pitch rules are simple, rarely changed and global.

Recently I was at a match where the phone of a new player rang. It was his first competitive game. If he'd been defaulted it would have probably been his last as well! I don't think defaulting people is going to encourage new players.

[Mike Gunn]

I'm in favour of having a uniform (for England) rule for leagues that says if your phone rings your opponent gets an extra 2 minutes the first time and you are defaulted on a second occasion. My main reason for supporting this is a significant body (possibly a majority) of active players think the FIDE rule is just too draconian for local leagues. A law that isn't supported by a clear majority of players is a bad law.

[Alex Holowczak]

Why do people insist on making different local league rules where all these games (local leagues, tournaments, British Championships) feed up into the ECF grading system?

Maybe someone should make a local rule overruling how the pieces move?

[Roger de Coverly]

Why do people insist on making different local league rules where all these games (local leagues, tournaments, British Championships) feed up into the ECF grading system?

Perhaps because these rules are imposed from above without those affected by them ever having a say about whether they should be accepted or not. It's particularly annoying when what is regarded as a perfectly rational rule set is overruled by some FIDE dictat. The obvious response is to retain the old rules. It's the response that FIDE would have got had they attempted to apply zero time defaults to every game.

I don't think that the ECF Council has ever taken a vote about what national rules to apply which is why the dissent and voting drops down to local level where AGM's can and do make up rules (and even vote on them).

A less controversial one than mobile phones is not writing the move down before playing it. Whilst there is a good case for having this rule, it was imposed from on high before many of us even realised it was a proposal. It was not to my knowledge even noted, let alone discussed at ECF Council.

[Sean Hewitt]

I don't think that the ECF Council has ever taken a vote about what national rules to apply which is why the dissent and voting drops down to local level where AGM's can and do make up rules (and even vote on them).

A less controversial one than mobile phones is not writing the move down before playing it. Whilst there is a good case for having this rule, it was imposed from on high before many of us even realised it was a proposal. It was not to my knowledge even noted, let alone discussed at ECF Council.

I'm sure you're right. However, it's interesting that clubs, players and leagues get no say at all in football law changes and yet it does not appear to cause anything like the same level of debate.

[Roger de Coverly]

I'm sure you're right. However, it's interesting that clubs, players and leagues get no say at all in football law changes and yet it does not appear to cause anything like the same level of debate.

Unlike physical sports, chess is played at (or near) a top level by players of all ages. Those of a senior disposition see no reason to have rule changes dictated without discussion by less experienced (and younger) administrators. (My objection to non-playing ECF directors refers ) This particularly applies if a rule change overturns something that they had sponsored themselves in an earlier life.

[Scott Freeman]

Mike Gunn wrote:
I'm in favour of having a uniform (for England) rule for leagues that says if your phone rings your opponent gets an extra 2 minutes the first time and you are defaulted on a second occasion. My main reason for supporting this is a significant body (possibly a majority) of active players think the FIDE rule is just too draconian for local leagues. A law that isn't supported by a clear majority of players is a bad law.

I put my vote for default on the other page and am happy with that.

However, with my interest and understanding of the other views on the subject, I would like to develop Mike's idea if I may and see what others think. I do not believe that 2 minutes to just the opponent is enough as the whole of the team are disturbed (usually). If we are talking about trying to develop a rule for the whole country for team matches, how about a rule that states that if a player's mobile goes off during a team match, then him/her and ALL members of his/her team are immediately docked 5 minutes off their clock. The 2nd ring by any of the team and the whole team is defaulted.

The idea is that everyone in the team might become more alert to the risk of their mobile - who would want to be the player that costs their team mate a key 5 minutes at a crucial moment in the game? It gets everyone who fears what they see as a draconian rule away from immediate default for the first offence but gives a significant and meaningful penalty to the benefit of the WHOLE of the opposing team - but then leaves the possibility of a much bigger and more draconian default if anyone in the team does it after that (the theory is that the 1st ring should be enough to remind everyone).

[Richard Bates]

It is vaguely amusing that people can simultaneously argue that having a mobile phone go off is a distraction of potential magnitude to justify defaulting a player, whilst putting forward alternative solutions like adding 5 minutes to several players clocks! Because that won't cause any distraction

I'm coming to the conclusion that (outside of the "FIDE are those who must be obeyed" sticklers) many people's views are formed more by some sort of viceral hatred of mobile phones, probably formed in the early years before they were widespread in the population and people using mobiles were identifiable as loud-mouthed and oblivious to the world around them, than any sensible assessment of the relative scale and consequences of the offence.

[Scott Freeman]

Richard

I personally see default as a good option the vast majority of the time but as I have said before, I understand other views and appreciate where they are coming from. As such, I felt my idea my be helpful to Mike Gunn or anyone else that feels that they want to follow it up and see whether there would be support for such a move. I am not necessarily "strongly" in favour of default that I can't consider other ideas and I feel it important to keep other options open if the majority were to want a change. If a change to the rule were to be brought in, I would like to see it as something that could be reasonable and workeable - thus my input. I appreciate that others will disagree with the idea. Apologies if you felt it too much of a contradiction.

Scott

[E Michael White]

On the other thread at the present time 69% of voters prefer something more than a wishy washy warning on the first offence; 43% of players favour immediate default.

If the rule is to be dumbed down for Leagues, heavy penalties are going to be needed to convice the 43% currently favouring default.

[Mick Norris]

I'm coming to the conclusion that (outside of the "FIDE are those who must be obeyed" sticklers) many people's views are formed more by some sort of viceral hatred of mobile phones, probably formed in the early years before they were widespread in the population and people using mobiles were identifiable as loud-mouthed and oblivious to the world around them, than any sensible assessment of the relative scale and consequences of the offence.

Richard

I voted default and I don't hate mobile phones - I just don't see why people can't switch them off for a few hours - I do so in meetings, I don't answer while driving, I switch them off at the cinema, theatre, concerts (not that I get to many these days), in church (funerals mostly)

I had a mobile on deliberately once while playing - I told my opponent and both captains that if it rang I was immediately leaving to see my daughter born (if it hadn't been a crucial promotion match, I wouldn't have risked playing - we won, the birth was the following morning)

Yes, there are lots of distracting things while playing chess, fortunately I no longer have to put up with struggling to see the board through cigar or cigarette smoke, time moves on

When I am running events, I have a lot on my mind, and worrying about cheating shouldn't be one of them, neither should listening to mobiles going off

[Peter Shaw]

I voted default and I don't hate mobile phones - I just don't see why people can't switch them off for a few hours

Of course they should be switched off. But occasionally people are going to forget, do they really deserve to get defaulted? We are all human. If Nigel Short can forget to switch off at the EU champioships it shows it can happen to anyone.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3331

Of course Short is a professional who really should know better. Should we really hold someone playing in Division 4 of the Sheffield League to the same standard? At evening league level I don't see the occasional mobile ringing as a big enough issue to warrant defaulting people.

[Richard Bates]

I'm coming to the conclusion that (outside of the "FIDE are those who must be obeyed" sticklers) many people's views are formed more by some sort of viceral hatred of mobile phones, probably formed in the early years before they were widespread in the population and people using mobiles were identifiable as loud-mouthed and oblivious to the world around them, than any sensible assessment of the relative scale and consequences of the offence.

Richard

I voted default and I don't hate mobile phones - I just don't see why people can't switch them off for a few hours - I do so in meetings, I don't answer while driving, I switch them off at the cinema, theatre, concerts (not that I get to many these days), in church (funerals mostly)

I had a mobile on deliberately once while playing - I told my opponent and both captains that if it rang I was immediately leaving to see my daughter born (if it hadn't been a crucial promotion match, I wouldn't have risked playing - we won, the birth was the following morning)

Yes, there are lots of distracting things while playing chess, fortunately I no longer have to put up with struggling to see the board through cigar or cigarette smoke, time moves on

When I am running events, I have a lot on my mind, and worrying about cheating shouldn't be one of them, neither should listening to mobiles going off

With respect, Mick, this is missing the point. Nobody is arguing that mobile phones shouldn't be turned off during play. The question is whether ludicrously disproportionate penalties are required. As has been argued repeatedly the London League does not abide by the "instant default" rule. And yet there is no widespread problem in the London League with mobile phones going off. This is because the vast majority of players recognise that it is bad etiquette to have their phones going off during play. In the few instances where it occurs it is almost always instantly accompanied by an immediate apology with the phone being switched off.

Now at the international level one can reasonably argue for the rule on the grounds to discourage cheating. Personally i think the case is pretty weak - there are far easier and more effective ways to cheat if one is so inclined - but despite this there are grounds for doing so. But this is not a serious issue at local league issue - nobody disputes otherwise - it is all about the noise. But since i believe that any transgression is almost always generated by accident, rather than by design, (and is anyway very rare) it is something which is no more a candidate for extreme deterrant than any other source of noise/distraction which any individual will encounter on almost any occasion they choose to play in any tournament.