(Chess) Life Returning To Normal

[John Sellen]

Cant quite work out what this has to do with chess

[Chris Goodall]

I believe North Shields Council are keeping an open mind, while the landscape constantly changes around them. And Northumberland Police wouldn’t sign off on the event, and will investigate complaints if they arise on the weekend.

"Wouldn't sign off on the event" suggests they were unhappy with the event. The reality is that British police exist to uphold order, not law, and so giving legal advice is above their pay grade.

And clearly also above the pay grade of anyone at the ECF. "Our understanding is", "none seem to cover", "very difficult if not impossible", "cannot offer specific advice". Look, if you're a national governing body, then either give us a proper legal opinion that we can take to the bank, or shut the **** up! Don't cover us in a layer of unidentifiable green sludge and walk away thinking you've added some value.

This theatre is getting 400 people into a smaller area than the congress is getting 120, and has taken the new rules in its stride: https://www.troubadourtheatres.com/wemb ... -19-update. It's 10 miles from Westminster and no-one has shut it down. Draw your own conclusions.

[Richard Bates]

I believe North Shields Council are keeping an open mind, while the landscape constantly changes around them. And Northumberland Police wouldn’t sign off on the event, and will investigate complaints if they arise on the weekend.

"Wouldn't sign off on the event" suggests they were unhappy with the event. The reality is that British police exist to uphold order, not law, and so giving legal advice is above their pay grade.

And clearly also above the pay grade of anyone at the ECF. "Our understanding is", "none seem to cover", "very difficult if not impossible", "cannot offer specific advice". Look, if you're a national governing body, then either give us a proper legal opinion that we can take to the bank, or shut the **** up! Don't cover us in a layer of unidentifiable green sludge and walk away thinking you've added some value.

This theatre is getting 400 people into a smaller area than the congress is getting 120, and has taken the new rules in its stride: https://www.troubadourtheatres.com/wemb ... -19-update. It's 10 miles from Westminster and no-one has shut it down. Draw your own conclusions.

I think eminently reasonable point re: ECF "guidance" - especially as it appears to have been released in advance of legal regulations actually being published and presumably therefore uninformed by them!

However, whilst you are undoubtedly correct in principle about the role of the police, do you not think that the sensible course of action would be to advise them of the event and how it will operate, stating why you believe it legal (and obviously preferably with a strong legal opinion behind you). Because otherwise they are likely to break up the event and leave you to seek subsequent legal remedy.

This may not be the how they would normally operate, when they would be content to let go ahead and subsequently pursue prosecution, but given the context they are more likely to prioritise preventing the risk of spreading of the virus. Which doesn't help the (one off) congress. A theatre putting performances on every night could sustain the short term hit for long term gain of legal clarity. On the other hand, being taken to court and winning might represent a short term loss (abandonment of tournament) but a long term gain for all other congresses through the precedent set!

[Brendan O'Gorman]

The organisers of the Northumberland congress have informed the local police.

[Matt Bridgeman]

...and they wouldn't agree with the Council to sign off on the event, and will investigate any complaints received over the weekend as they would normally with anyone else.

[Jacques Parry]

Here is the bit about "restrictions on participation in gatherings" as it now stands: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/202 ... gulation/5

Paragraph (1) of regulation 5 now says that a person must not participate in a gathering of more than six people. But it creates several exceptions to that rule.

One such exception (see regulation 5(1)(b)) is that --
a) the gathering takes place on premises (other than a private dwelling) operated by a business, charity or public body (see paragraph (2)), and
b) the person concerned participates in the gathering alone (or as a member of a qualifying group, but I think we can ignore that bit).

I confess I am mystified by this.

In the first place, participation in a gathering alone seems something of a contradiction in terms. But I suppose it would at least cover someone who travels to a tournament alone and just plays his or her games without speaking to anyone.

Secondly, as far as I can see, the explanatory note on the new regulations (which you can download from https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/986/memorandum) doesn't appear to reflect the exception in regulation 5(1)(b).

Am I missing something?

[Roger de Coverly]

In the first place, participation in a gathering alone seems something of a contradiction in terms. But I suppose it would at least cover someone who travels to a tournament alone and just plays his or her games without speaking to anyone.

A suggestion made to me is that the "unit"" of gathering is a game of chess consisting of two players. You can then have multiple gatherings in the same room provided they are suitably far apart. Is that the position of the Northumberland organisers as well?

[Matt Bridgeman]

In the first place, participation in a gathering alone seems something of a contradiction in terms. But I suppose it would at least cover someone who travels to a tournament alone and just plays his or her games without speaking to anyone.

A suggestion made to me is that the "unit"" of gathering is a game of chess consisting of two players. You can then have multiple gatherings in the same room provided they are suitably far apart. Is that the position of the Northumberland organisers as well?

The maximum group size is 6 (3 tables with 2 at each table) - is the interpretation they are going with.

[Adam Raoof]

In the first place, participation in a gathering alone seems something of a contradiction in terms. But I suppose it would at least cover someone who travels to a tournament alone and just plays his or her games without speaking to anyone.

A suggestion made to me is that the "unit"" of gathering is a game of chess consisting of two players. You can then have multiple gatherings in the same room provided they are suitably far apart. Is that the position of the Northumberland organisers as well?

The maximum group size is 6 (3 tables with 2 at each table) - is the interpretation they are going with.

If someone gives me a free venue big enough for 4 people and in NW London I could run a) a four player double round rapid or b) a four player all play all standard fide rated event.

You can scale that format up as well, as long as you keep the players in each apa group apart.

[Jacques Parry]

A suggestion made to me is that the "unit"" of gathering is a game of chess consisting of two players. You can then have multiple gatherings in the same room provided they are suitably far apart. Is that the position of the Northumberland organisers as well?

Sorry Roger, I did mean to comment on this when you mentioned it before. It may be arguable, since the regulation says "there is a gathering when two or more people are present together in the same place in order to engage in any form of social interaction with each other, or to undertake any other activity with each other". If I play three games in a day, and don't speak to anyone except my opponents, am I undertaking an activity "with" the other 20 players in my section?

But I'm not sure it matters. The regulation seems to be saying that it doesn't matter how many people the gathering consists of, as long as paragraph (2) applies and the person in question participates "alone".

[Matt Bridgeman]

In relation to the North East of England, Matt Hancock said the government will announce "further steps this week" but would not confirm if that meant local lockdowns.
https://www.itv.com/news/tyne-tees/2020 ... strictions

[NickFaulks]

I think eminently reasonable point re: ECF "guidance" - especially as it appears to have been released in advance of legal regulations actually being published and presumably therefore uninformed by them!

Possibly, except that reading them still seems to leave skilled lawyers as uninformed as when they started. That is the problem faced not just by chess organisers but by anyone trying to do anything constructive in this country.

On the other hand, being taken to court and winning might represent a short term loss (abandonment of tournament) but a long term gain for all other congresses through the precedent set!

Except that by then the regulations will most likely already have been changed at least once.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"The reality is that British police exist to uphold order, not law, and so giving legal advice is above their pay grade."

Yes, but also, they probably have not been told what the law says... So it would be quite wise not to offer advice.

[Matt Mackenzie]

"The reality is that British police exist to uphold order, not law, and so giving legal advice is above their pay grade."

Yes, but also, they probably have not been told what the law says... So it would be quite wise not to offer advice.

Or, indeed, they have not fully worked out what it says yet?

[Mike Gunn]

If I play three games in a day, and don't speak to anyone except my opponents, am I undertaking an activity "with" the other 20 players in my section?

If an infectious person plays in a 5 round Swiss he is potentially infecting up to another 31 people but if he plays in an all play all section of 6 then just 5 players are at risk.

APA sections are definitely the way to go both from the point of view of both reducing possible infection and also staying within the law!