Mobile phones and late arrivals

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
Christopher Kreuzer
Posts: 7526
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
Location: London

Mobile phones and late arrivals

Post by Christopher Kreuzer » Sun Aug 08, 2010 5:21 pm

LozCooper wrote:You could always try phoning your opponent on the off chance he has his mobile switched on :shock:
:lol:

Would that be done anonymously or not? If the number showed up on the screen, I suppose the opponent could show the arbiter that it was his opponent ringing and/or plead extenuating circumstances ("my opponent was ringing to say he would be late"). I suspect it would end up as a double default (and none of the other players could complain that it was disgraceful that no-one got awarded any of the points - though possibly some might try in some circumstances).

I have, when ringing a captain to say I will be late, made sure I've done so before play starts. Ringing your captain and causing him or her to be defaulted because his or her mobile rang when you called might cause discontent within the team! Though when captaining a team myself I have, when players are late, asked opposing captains and my opponent to be allowed to step outside and check my phone to find out what the latest progress is with a late player, and they've never objected.

User avatar
Mateusz Zajac
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 5:49 pm

Re: Mobile phones and late arrivals

Post by Mateusz Zajac » Sun Aug 08, 2010 11:23 pm

Nice idea about asking your opponents, I should try it.
But what if they say no? :twisted:

I never had any problems with my teammates being late.
But probably because they know they would be replaced and thay wouldn't play any more in this tournament.
But if you do not have any good substitutes this won't work.
Study chess on Youtube! http://www.youtube.com/user/zajacblog
Learn from annotated games! http://www.bestchessblog.blogspot.com

Jon D'Souza-Eva

Re: Mobile phones and late arrivals

Post by Jon D'Souza-Eva » Sun Aug 08, 2010 11:57 pm

Someone told me a story about a chess match where one player hadn't arrived at the start time, so after he had made a move his captain went round the back of the venue and called him on his mobile. Unfortunately his player had arrived by the front door in the meantime and started his game - the captain's phone call resulted in him losing his game!

David Sedgwick
Posts: 4060
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: Mobile phones and late arrivals

Post by David Sedgwick » Mon Aug 09, 2010 12:47 am

My favourite story is the one about the player who won his game even before he arrived. He was a few minutes late and his opponent was sitting at the board awaiting him. You can guess what happened next.

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 3927
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Mobile phones and late arrivals

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Mon Aug 09, 2010 1:02 pm

My father once won a game on default by forgetting he was playing in the match... His captain was fretting about my father's whereabouts, when the visiting captain apologised that they were a player short, so with admirable speed of thought, the home captain thanked him and said he would go and phone his player's office to tell him not to bother to turn up.

We used to play one team in the Surrey League who always turned up late (if at all) and then complained that it was a long trip to our venue. I did point out to them that it was an equally long trip to their venue and we seemed to manage. One of their players defaulted against me, by turning up 41 minutes late. It was half hour default time, but we generously waited ten minutes before we started the clocks (quite contrary to league rules and they could have insisted that we put the time on our clocks), so the clock was showing one minute past default time when he arrived. He demanded to play, I pointed out the loss and he then screamed abuse at me and said he was 1 minute late; I pointed out he was 41 minutes late, so he screamed again then stormed off. All his team-mates during the course of the evening came over for a friendly chat, without discussing the subject, which I took as a rather nice apology! This did train me though that when I have won on default since, I get out of the venue as quickly as possible.
"Kevin was the arbiter and was very patient. " Nick Grey

Scott Freeman
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:42 am

Re: Mobile phones and late arrivals

Post by Scott Freeman » Wed Aug 11, 2010 10:33 am

David Sedgwick wrote:
My favourite story is the one about the player who won his game even before he arrived. He was a few minutes late and his opponent was sitting at the board awaiting him. You can guess what happened next.


I am guessing this was from the CCF Get Me a FIDE Rating event of a couple of years ago, where one of the players was sitting at the board waiting for his opponent when, after about 10 minutes of play, he obviously realised that his mobile was still on. He leant down to his bag to switch it off and managed to set off some sort of tune. As such, I was forced to default him.

The other player didn't arrive until about half an hour in (I had tried to ring him to tell him but got his wife, who was clearly in a strop that her husband was coming at all, and put the phone down on me when I told her that he didn't need to come if he was still at home). It was handy that they were both members of CCF so they were able to play a club championship game instead. However, it did mean that the plater who defaulted the first game did end up with 2 graded losses to the same player on the same day!

I guess it is quite funny now, but I hated the situation at the time!

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Mobile phones and late arrivals

Post by Alex Holowczak » Wed Aug 11, 2010 10:45 am

Scott Freeman wrote: I am guessing this was from the CCF Get Me a FIDE Rating event of a couple of years ago, where one of the players was sitting at the board waiting for his opponent when, after about 10 minutes of play, he obviously realised that his mobile was still on. He leant down to his bag to switch it off and managed to set off some sort of tune. As such, I was forced to default him.
That's a bit dopey. I discovered my phone was still on once during a game. So I went to the toilet, switched it off, and returned to my seat. If it did make a noise, there would be no one there to hear it.

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 3927
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Mobile phones and late arrivals

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Wed Aug 11, 2010 12:16 pm

"That's a bit dopey. I discovered my phone was still on once during a game. So I went to the toilet, switched it off, and returned to my seat. If it did make a noise, there would be no one there to hear it."

Don't try that against Topalov...
"Kevin was the arbiter and was very patient. " Nick Grey

David Pardoe
Posts: 1225
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:29 pm
Location: NORTH WEST

Re: Mobile phones and late arrivals

Post by David Pardoe » Wed Aug 11, 2010 12:53 pm

This Mobile issue seems to me to be symptomatic of rule makers getting carried away with legislation..
The Golden rule with all such legislation is that the punishment should fit the crime...
Thats why I`m suggesting a two-tier approach..
A fairly tough penalty for the `professionals` playing International & Congress chess, where prize money & titles, etc..are at stake, and playing conditions are more stringent. Here, the FIDE rule, although draconian, is probably right (although I`d still favour a 5-min penalty for first infringement).
For league/club/county matches, where pub noise/distractions such as TV football is common, I`d go for a lesser penalty(s), eg... warning for first occurance, followed by `red card` for subsequent offences... I`d allow mobiles in `silent` mode.... but any blatant abuses should be marked by more severe penalties...even fines.
I`ve seen other options...such as Red card for first offence, but allowing mobiles on `silent`. This is pointless in my view, because it doesnt deal with the majority cases in league chess, where a player simply forgets to switch off the mobile. These players will get cloddered too harshly, I believe.And another variant rule declaring a draw if player doesnt have sufficient mating material..probably ok for league chess..but should be extended to include cases where players can demonstrate a forced win , or forced draw. Hard to know where to draw the line. So, at league level, I`d be in favour of a standard 5 min clock penalty for all offences. In my experience, this doesnt happen very often in a league match, and I`ve never come across multiple occurances.
Incidentally, I understand that the final decision is with the players, ie, if both agree to `play on`, then thats fine...game continues...very sporting.
BRING BACK THE BCF

Alan Walton
Posts: 1318
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
Location: Oldham

Re: Mobile phones and late arrivals

Post by Alan Walton » Wed Aug 11, 2010 1:24 pm

Remember the reason for the "Mobile Ban", it is nothing to do with noise distractions, it is there for restricting the opportunities for outside assistance (cheating), that is why they are switched off.

It is nothing to do with rule makers getting carried away, there has been many high profile problems with people cheating using mobile devices, and the rules were brought in to counteract cheating

Regarding default times, I think we should just have a universal 1 hour after scheduled start time, not 1 hour elapsed), and this should be enforced rigidly. At least everybody knows where they stand

So if you are travelling long distances, you have to assume the worst regarding road conditions and give plenty of time for the journey (a journey which normally takes 1 hr allow for 2 hrs on the road)

Eoin Devane
Posts: 517
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 5:21 pm
Location: Cambridge

Re: Mobile phones and late arrivals

Post by Eoin Devane » Wed Aug 11, 2010 1:36 pm

Alan Walton wrote:Remember the reason for the "Mobile Ban", it is nothing to do with noise distractions, it is there for restricting the opportunities for outside assistance (cheating), that is why they are switched off.

It is nothing to do with rule makers getting carried away, there has been many high profile problems with people cheating using mobile devices, and the rules were brought in to counteract cheating
I wouldn't say "many". And in any case, the rule, as practised in most leagues and congresses, doesn't do this, as if one really wants to cheat, one could just pop to the toilet and check the Pocket Fritz or whatever there. There are plenty of players, myself included, who like to leave the board quite frequently, so it wouldn't even look all that suspicious. Alternatively, one could just ask a stronger friend for his suggestions - I'd say that is potentially a much bigger problem than mobile use. If someone's caught cheating I'm all for throwing the book at them, but this rule just seems way over the top as, almost exclusively, those punished are most definitely not cheating.

Ian Thompson
Posts: 2584
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Awbridge, Hampshire

Re: Mobile phones and late arrivals

Post by Ian Thompson » Wed Aug 11, 2010 1:42 pm

Alan Walton wrote:Remember the reason for the "Mobile Ban", it is nothing to do with noise distractions, it is there for restricting the opportunities for outside assistance (cheating), that is why they are switched off.

It is nothing to do with rule makers getting carried away, there has been many high profile problems with people cheating using mobile devices, and the rules were brought in to counteract cheating
In that regard the mobile phone rule is of limited use. The cheat can comply with the rule requiring him to have the phone completely switched off in the playing venue while he's in the playing area, and likely to be under observation by arbiters. He can then go somewhere else within the playing venue where he's unlikely to be observed, such as the toilets, to turn it on and receive advice.

For the player who has no intention of cheating, loss of the game is a draconian penalty for forgetting to switch it off, and a much more severe penalty than he'd be likely to receive for other disturbances he might cause during play.

E Michael White
Posts: 1378
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:31 pm

Re: Mobile phones and late arrivals

Post by E Michael White » Wed Aug 11, 2010 2:21 pm

Alan Walton wrote:Remember the reason for the "Mobile Ban", it is nothing to do with noise distractions, it is there for restricting the opportunities for outside assistance (cheating)..........
I don’t believe that the original primary reason that the rules committee proposed this rule is the only point relevant to its subsequent use. Many players like not being disturbed.

Many of FIDEs rules have a side effect which players feel is of more benefit than the original purpose. For example when a player has to write down his previous move before playing another; as a side effect this helps reduce semi blitzing. Those who advocate that players should not start their move before their opponent has pressed the clock would be allowing the reintroduction of a limited form of blitzing.

Stewart Reuben and others, in respect of the FIDE rules committee, often speak along the lines of “that was not my/our intention when I/we wrote the rules”. FIDE rules are I believe written and proposed by the committee but approved in FIDE Council. I suggest that the understanding of those who voted and any points made during the debate in council are relevant but the intention of those writing the rules is not.

David Sedgwick
Posts: 4060
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: Mobile phones and late arrivals

Post by David Sedgwick » Wed Aug 11, 2010 2:48 pm

E Michael White wrote:Stewart Reuben and others, in respect of the FIDE rules committee, often speak along the lines of “that was not my/our intention when I/we wrote the rules”. FIDE rules are I believe written and proposed by the committee but approved in FIDE Council. I suggest that the understanding of those who voted and any points made during the debate in council are relevant but the intention of those writing the rules is not.
To be strictly accurate, they're approved by the FIDE General Assembly (in the even numbered years) and by the FIDE Executive Board (in the odd numbered years).

Over 90% of the time, there's virtually no discussion in the GA/EB of the reports of the Qualification Commission, Rules and Tournament Regulations Commission, Arbiters' Commission, etc. It's at the Commission Meetings themselves that discussion and debate take place.

There are exceptions, of course. The zero default time rule is an example.

E Michael White
Posts: 1378
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:31 pm

Re: Mobile phones and late arrivals

Post by E Michael White » Wed Aug 11, 2010 3:14 pm

David Sedgwick wrote:To be strictly accurate, they're approved by the FIDE General Assembly (in the even numbered years) and by the FIDE Executive Board (in the odd numbered years).

Over 90% of the time, there's virtually no discussion in the GA/EB of the reports of the Qualification Commission, Rules and Tournament Regulations Commission, Arbiters' Commission, etc. It's at the Commission Meetings themselves that discussion and debate take place.

There are exceptions, of course. The zero default time rule is an example.
ok I meant the Assembly but the point is the same. As you attend some of these meetings your name designation will be more accurate than mine.

As I understand it a UK judge, for example has only limited powers to vary from a normal meaning of the written words of laws at the time the legislation was passed, and one of the powers of variation is if he can convince himself via recorded debate in Hansard that the intention was different. This has some relevance to chess as any challenge which might go to the Lausanne sports court is determined the same way as regards rules.

Returning to the main point; what is written in the mobile phone rules is more important than the limited subset that many would regard as the original purpose. While there may be no debate in the Assembly/Board the option is there and a variation in written interpretation would have to take place in that debate rather than go back to the commissions. Those voting may have read the proposals and seen the side effects as more important than the original purpose and voted accordingly.
Last edited by E Michael White on Wed Aug 11, 2010 3:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Post Reply