PDA

View Full Version : Is the mobile phone rule draconian?



firegoat7
12-09-2004, 03:08 PM
what do people think, is the mobile phone rule draconian?

First some background.

1)Fide state quite clearly that a player ought to be forfeited when their mobile phone call occurs during a game.
2) Fide also state quite clearly in their rules that they are guidlines and that arbiters have the ultimate authority to ignore or interpret them.

I will give you three examples which demonstrate the problematic nature of such an issue

Example 1
Recently in the Australian Masters I had the unfrotunate experience of a mobile phone dispute occuring. It was Johansen-Rujevic. The players an I went outside to sort out the dispute. Johansen had brought the claim to my attention and asked for a ruling. Rujevic (whos phone went off) was to emotional to discuss the situation rationally and resigned on the spot. Which was sad I think, because i would have ultimately ruled for the game to continue. I justify this decision by suggesting it was an accident, and that it did'nt occur during a critical period of the time ie in time trouble.

Example 2
Roger Beattie was forfeited during th recent Vic reserves by G.Wastell because his phone went off in his game against S.Wertheim (wertheim had been better all game but Beattie had some drawing chances). Wastell had this rule in place before the tournament and posted it during every round. There could be no other result.

Example 3

We regularly have about 3 phones a night going off during a tournament. Nobody really bothers about it and the proceeding offender walks out of the room to have their conversation ( an interesting point-who is this really affecting)

Anyway back to the analysis.

Doctors and certain professional people need to be contacted 24 hours a day if need be. Sometimes ordinary people need to be contacted as something unusual happens in their lives, I think that spouses and families ought to retain those rights. People need to be contactable for a whole range of mundane family activities. By not allowing for this the mobile phone rule seeks to alienate professional and family orientated people. I mean afterall we are not talking FIDE world championships here, we are talking local competition. Most people here the phone ring, turn it off then walk out the room and call back the whoever rung. Seems pretty civilised to me.

Another point to clarify is- Does an Sms alarm count as a mobile phone ring? could a phone turning itself on and off be counted as annoying? I myself turn my phone off before tournaments but sometimes it accidently turns on in my pocket!

Finally I would like people to consider this rule as a comparative example of fair play. Fide state quite clearly that an opponent is supposed to record all their moves during a game. I have never seen an arbiter forfeit somebody for not recording, and yet some people are habitual offenders.

Just recently Malcom Pyke and myself warned one competitor 5 times during a game to update his scoresheet. At one stage he was over 30 moves behind and was blitzing his opponent. During the game he broke down in tears and people at the club accused us of being cruel because he was an old man. Yet, who is the real emotional tyrant here? At the end of the game he blamed us (the arbiters) for him drawing the game (yes he was winning easily), stating that we destoryed his concentration. His opponent was oblivious to the problem, it didn't bother him. Should it have bothered us?
My understanding is that after 3 occassions he should be forfeited. Maybe something similar should happen with mobile phones? what do other people think?

Cheers FG7

firegoat7
12-09-2004, 03:16 PM
Damn it i got timed out on the poll!

Rincewind
12-09-2004, 03:25 PM
The mobile phone rule is fair and reasonable. People who need to be contact can leave the playing area and check their voice mail somewhere where it will not bother other players or their opponent. Accidents happen: phones are left on; players touch the wrong piece; games are forfeited either way.

I believe any alarm, including those used for arrival of a new SMS message should constitute a mobile phone ring. Other similar forms of distractions (like electronic watch alarms, etc) should also be dealt with in a similar way. Though in that case you would probably have to have warned the offender at least once before unless it is prominently posted at the start of every round.

eclectic
12-09-2004, 03:25 PM
I would have thought the mobile phone rule was introduced to stop people receiving assistance from outside sources during a game ... so letting people go outside thee playing area to answer a call is NOT ok.

Doctors and other professionals do need to be contacted but surely they can have some silent tactful pulsing system against their skin (if such a thing exists).

Do you think, however, that if someone was being affected some family event and were waiting for important news they would be wasting their time playing chess?

As for the disqualificiation for not writing moves ... if mobile phone offenders don't get a warning then why should non move writers?

The elderly are often the ones who know how to milk the system for sympathy.

It's not a certain someone with an established FIDE rating who should know better?

:whistle:

eclectic

Rincewind
12-09-2004, 03:31 PM
I would have thought the mobile phone rule was introduced to stop people receiving from outside sources during a game ... so letting people go outside thee playing area to answer a call is NOT ok.

In cases where cheating is suspected and resources permit an arbiter or the like could stay within earshot.

There is nothing to stop players cheating by phone, or many other methods, so I doubt it is worth getting hot under the collar about allow players to use mobile phones in the middle of games provided it is done is public and away from the playing area. Perhaps people with the need to check for voicemails in the middle of their games should OK with the arbiter before the start of the round and perhaps notify them of their intent at each instance, but that is sounding a little over the top for a club event or weekender. Perhaps in a Aust Master or some title event such a protocol could be employed.

eclectic
12-09-2004, 03:36 PM
Perhaps people with the need to check for voicemails in the middle of their games.

check for voicemails?

give me a break !!!

eclectic

firegoat7
12-09-2004, 03:37 PM
I would have thought the mobile phone rule was introduced to stop people receiving assistance from outside sources during a game ... so letting people go outside thee playing area to answer a call is NOT ok. Does this mean smoking ahould be banned? Further reducing the number of chessplayers?



Do you think, however, that if someone was being affected some family event and were waiting for important news they would be wasting their time playing chess? Yes, simple problems happen all the time without planning. Dad where is the house key Im locked out? Mum Can you pick up some panadol on the way home from chess, little jenny is sick and you have the car?

Garvinator
12-09-2004, 03:41 PM
i have given my opinion before, but will add further too it. First of all i am a firm believer in the mobile phone forfeiture rule. When a mobile phone goes off in the tournament hall(ie rings, sms anything basically) it disrupts every game in the tournament hall because every player hears it.

Barry said it is part of the rules like any other rule and this is correct, but to take this a bit further, normally most of the rules only affect the board that the incident occurs at ie touchmove etc etc. A mobile phone going off in the tournament hall affects everybody.

eclectic
12-09-2004, 03:50 PM
Does this mean smoking ahould be banned? Further reducing the number of chessplayers?

Well it is banned inside the tournament hall because like mobile phones it affects all players.

As for taking leave to go outside and smoke it amazes me how chess players while purporting to be intelligent then go outside to suck in carbon monoxide etc when what the brain and lungs need is fresh air !! :doh: :doh:

As for those emergencies isn't the idea that only the tournament director's phone etc is the only point of contact?

eclectic

Alan Shore
12-09-2004, 03:51 PM
Personally, I don't really care. However, if it's part of the rules you would think it has to be something to be stuck by. It still will always be the perogative of the Tournament Director however whether the rule is in place or not must be specified before the tournament begins.

Garvinator
12-09-2004, 03:54 PM
Does this mean smoking ahould be banned? Further reducing the number of chessplayers?
dont worry fg7 about a dop or club/state association having any choice in this matter. Qld are making their smoking laws alot stricter and i would say that the other states will follow, which will most likely mean that players will not be able to just step outside to have a cigarette, as they will still be inside the no smoking area of the building.

Garvinator
12-09-2004, 03:56 PM
Personally, I don't really care. However, if it's part of the rules you would think it has to be something to be stuck by. It still will always be the perogative of the Tournament Director however whether the rule is in place or not must be specified before the tournament begins.
actually by the letter of the law this is incorrect. The only penalty for a mobile phone going off is loss of game. Any tournament that does not follow this penalty is not playing by fide rules.

Alan Shore
12-09-2004, 04:01 PM
actually by the letter of the law this is incorrect. The only penalty for a mobile phone going off is loss of game. Any tournament that does not follow this penalty is not playing by fide rules.

So what, what's the FIDE rule on taking kings in lightning? Will be a cold day in hell before I ever accept that you can't take a king.

eclectic
12-09-2004, 04:05 PM
So what, what's the FIDE rule on taking kings in lightning? Will be a cold day in hell before I ever accept that you can't take a king.

who takes lightning seriously anyway?

;)

eclectic

Garvinator
12-09-2004, 04:18 PM
So what, what's the FIDE rule on taking kings in lightning? Will be a cold day in hell before I ever accept that you can't take a king.
that is different, the arbiter is given the choice of what penalty if any for king captures. For the mobile phone rule, the arbiter has no choice.

Rincewind
12-09-2004, 04:43 PM
check for voicemails?

give me a break !!!

It's much better than having a phone go off in the middle of the playing area.

Alan Shore
12-09-2004, 05:35 PM
that is different, the arbiter is given the choice of what penalty if any for king captures. For the mobile phone rule, the arbiter has no choice.

No, that's wrong according to firegoat:


2) Fide also state quite clearly in their rules that they are guidlines and that arbiters have the ultimate authority to ignore or interpret them.

Bill Gletsos
12-09-2004, 05:48 PM
Personally, I don't really care. However, if it's part of the rules you would think it has to be something to be stuck by. It still will always be the perogative of the Tournament Director however whether the rule is in place or not must be specified before the tournament begins.
Totally incorrect if you wish to play by FIDE laws.
In fact arbiters should not just based on their own whim decide to accept or reject any part of the FIDE laws.

Bill Gletsos
12-09-2004, 05:50 PM
So what, what's the FIDE rule on taking kings in lightning? Will be a cold day in hell before I ever accept that you can't take a king.
That day will likely arrive ar the next Rules Commission meeting during the Olympiad.

The following propsed rule will become part of the laws of chess.

1.3 It is not allowed to capture the King

Alan Shore
12-09-2004, 05:56 PM
Totally incorrect if you wish to play by FIDE laws.
In fact arbiters should not just based on their own whim decide to accept or reject any part of the FIDE laws.

Are you saying firegoat's comment is wrong?

Also it would not just be whim, it would be a consensus among participants and organsisers.

Alan Shore
12-09-2004, 05:58 PM
That day will likely arrive ar the next Rules Commission meeting during the Olympiad.

The following propsed rule will become part of the laws of chess.

1.3 It is not allowed to capture the King

I want that law stricken, it's the source of biggest confusion among players first learning the game. Why does it have to be a checkmate? Philosophically, there is no reason for this law to be in place whatsoever.

Bill Gletsos
12-09-2004, 05:58 PM
No, that's wrong according to firegoat:
Firegoat doesnt know what he is talking about.

The penalty if any for king captures is up to the arbiter.

The penalty for mobile phones ringing is not. Its automatic loss of the game.

As for his:

2) Fide also state quite clearly in their rules that they are guidlines and that arbiters have the ultimate authority to ignore or interpret them.
Although that is true for some circumstances it is not true for mobile phines ringing.

Bill Gletsos
12-09-2004, 06:00 PM
Are you saying firegoat's comment is wrong?
Yes.


Also it would not just be whim, it would be a consensus among participants and organsisers.
The players dont get to chose which laws are enforced and which are not.
As for organisers they should be allowed to pick and choose either.

There is no good reason not to follow the FIDE Laws.

Bill Gletsos
12-09-2004, 06:01 PM
I want that law stricken, it's the source of biggest confusion among players first learning the game. Why does it have to be a checkmate? Philosophically, there is no reason for this law to be in place whatsoever.
I'm also personally in favour of allowing King captures but what we want doesnt matter.

It is what FIDE decides is important.

Bill Gletsos
12-09-2004, 06:03 PM
Although the loss of the game for a mobile going off has been in place and enforcable since the FIDE Congress last year the following is the proposed wording to be added to the Laws.

It is strictly forbidden to bring mobiles or other electronic means of communication into the playing hall. If a player’s mobile phone rings in the playing venue during play, that player shall lose the game. The score of the opponent shall be determined by the arbiter
and
It is forbidden for anybody to use a mobile phone in the playing venue.

Garvinator
12-09-2004, 06:05 PM
It is strictly forbidden to bring mobiles or other electronic means of communication into the playing hall. If a player’s mobile phone rings in the playing venue during play, that player shall lose the game. The score of the opponent shall be determined by the arbiter
and
It is forbidden for anybody to use a mobile phone in the playing venue.
hmm i can see it now, Charles Z in nsw tournaments will have to have 100 mobiles in his possession :owned:

Bill Gletsos
12-09-2004, 06:20 PM
The following important change is proposed to Artcile C3 of the Laws concerning Blitz.


An illegal move is completed once the opponent's clock has been started. However, the opponent is entitled to claim a win before he has touched a piece according to Article 4. If the opponent cannot checkmate the player by any possible series of legal moves with the most unskilled counterplay, then he is entitled to claim a draw before making his own move. Once the opponent has made his own move, an illegal move cannot be corrected
The highlighted part is the change.

Previously it said before making his own move.

Since capturing the king was always simply just a means of demonstrating the opponent had left his king in check then even with that wording it could be argued that capturing the king was illegal since the right to claim was lost by actually making the capturing move.

What the new wording means is that it would be totally impossible to claim a win by capturing the king because the player loses the right to claim as soon as he touches a peice which is a physical impossability unless he is telekinetic.

Alan Shore
12-09-2004, 06:30 PM
The following important change is proposed to Artcile C3 of the Laws concerning Blitz.


The highlighted part is the change.

Previously it said before making his own move.

Since capturing the king was always simply just a means of demonstrating the opponent had left his king in check then even with that wording it could be argued that capturing the king was illegal since the right to claim was lost by actually making the capturing move.

What the new wording means is that it would be totally impossible to claim a win by capturing the king because the player loses the right to claim as soon as he touches a peice which is a physical impossability unless he is telekinetic.

How about if I wore gloves? That's not touching the piece.. or if I used some tweasers perhaps? There's always a way around rules :cool:

Alan Shore
12-09-2004, 06:33 PM
I'm also personally in favour of allowing King captures but what we want doesnt matter.

It is what FIDE decides is important.

I see you edited this from what it said before which I would have flamed, good thing you provided the redaction.

Point though, if the top players i.e. Kasparov, Karpov, Kramnik etc. refuse to obey FIDE on certain points what is stopping us from doing the same? If you got sufficient support I am sure the participants and organisers would be happy enough to boycott the rule.

Bill Gletsos
12-09-2004, 06:41 PM
How about if I wore gloves? That's not touching the piece.. or if I used some tweasers perhaps? There's always a way around rules :cool:
No that doesnt cut it. In fact any competent arbiter wouldnt give that excuse a seconds thought.

A player is deemed to have touched a piece if he does so deliberately with the intent of moving or capturing said piece.

Alan Shore
12-09-2004, 06:44 PM
No that doesnt cut it. In fact any competent arbiter wouldnt give that excuse a seconds thought.

A player is deemed to have touched a piece if he does so deliberately with the intent of moving or capturing said piece.

OK, how about this - I will claim the win before I touch any piece. Then, after the win has been claimed, I shall take the king. Nyah!

Bill Gletsos
12-09-2004, 06:47 PM
I see you edited this from what it said before which I would have flamed, good thing you provided the redaction.
My support for allowing capturing the king has been on record on this and the previous BB many times.
However after posting my original wording, I considered that most of the vloens would either have forgetten that or deliberately overlooked it.
As such I decided to state it again.


Point though, if the top players i.e. Kasparov, Karpov, Kramnik etc. refuse to obey FIDE on certain points what is stopping us from doing the same?
Totally irrelevant as the top players dont refuse to play the game according to the FIDE laws of chess.
Their issues are with FIDE in other areas.

If you got sufficient support I am sure the participants and organisers would be happy enough to boycott the rule.
As I said thats immaterial.
The players dont get to choose the rules. In fact the majority of players dont even know most of them.

Of course you could run you own little tournaments how you like provided you pre announced any changes you were making that were in direct contradiction to the FIDE laws.

Bill Gletsos
12-09-2004, 06:54 PM
OK, how about this - I will claim the win before I touch any piece. Then, after the win has been claimed, I shall take the king. Nyah!
Techically the game ended when you made your claim, therefore what you did after that is immaterial.

However you could still risk losing the game.
If there was no witness to your claim and your opponet climed illegal move on your part for capturing his king then when the arbiter appears at the board he would have no choice but to rule you lost by the evidence on the board.

Not that I would condone cheating but you might just deserve it for trying to be a smart-ass. ;)

Alan Shore
12-09-2004, 06:56 PM
Of course you could run you own little tournaments how you like provided you pre announced any changes you were making that were in direct contradiction to the FIDE laws.

Of course I could. Lightning isn't even rated so I would have no reservations whatsoever at my own interpretation of the rules of chess. I believe players would welcome my courage to not support such a ridiculous rule. Perhaps when we get some sensible people on the FIDE rules committee this law will be changed back to what it once was - the best way to play the game and not to penalise players when they have obviously won the game in the eyes of any observer.

Recherché
12-09-2004, 06:57 PM
The number of phones in use these days which don't have a silent vibrate feature is very small. They certainly haven't been sold in at least 5 years. There's really no excuse for having a phone ring out loud.

That said, I'm largely indifferent to this rule. If my opponent's phone rang I wouldn't insist on forfeiture, and I wouldn't bother reporting it to the arbiter if it wasn't noticed at the time.

Bill Gletsos
12-09-2004, 07:02 PM
Of course I could. Lightning isn't even rated so I would have no reservations whatsoever at my own interpretation of the rules of chess. I believe players would welcome my courage to not support such a ridiculous rule.
Maybe, maybe not.
I believe the no king captures rule has been in force for a good while in some European countries. In fact according to FIDE king captures have been illegal since 1992 and FIDE re-iterated this in 1998. Unfortunately at that time they forgot to specify a penalty.


Perhaps when we get some sensible people on the FIDE rules committee this law will be changed back to what it once was - the best way to play the game and not to penalise players when they have obviously won the game in the eyes of any observer.
Perhaps organisers should have been teaching players like yourself when you were juniors that king captures were illegal. If they had the juniors coming thru would not have known any other rules and thsi would be a non issue.

Bill Gletsos
12-09-2004, 07:04 PM
The number of phones in use these days which don't have a silent vibrate feature is very small. They certainly haven't been sold in at least 5 years. There's really no excuse for having a phone ring out loud.
True.


That said, I'm largely indifferent to this rule. If my opponent's phone rang I wouldn't insist on forfeiture, and I wouldn't bother reporting it to the arbiter if it wasn't noticed at the time.
I'd be surprised if it wasnt heard by others.
However if that was the case it might be difficult to prove to the arbiter that it did in fact go off in the first place.

Trizza
12-09-2004, 09:27 PM
Well the WA state lightning was held today and despite my best efforts, I was unable to convince anyone (including the arbiter) that you can't take the king.

However I haven't read this thread until now and didn't realise you lose the right to claim an illegal move after touching a piece. In 2 games I touched a piece and indicated by moving it towards the king (but not making contact) that an illegal move was made. Guess I was a bit lucky :)

In a third game I said 'illegal move' while picking up the checking piece simultaneously. What should happen here?

The arbiter did however say that from now on he was going to impose the FIDE penalty for a ringing phone from now on. In the recently completed state championship a spectator's phone went off and as far as I know there was no penalty.

Recherché
12-09-2004, 09:36 PM
In the recently completed state championship a spectator's phone went off and as far as I know there was no penalty.

Well, it's a bit hard to impose a penalty on a spectator, except expulsion/barring from the venue. Or was the person in question a player who had finished their own game?

JGB
12-09-2004, 10:43 PM
The mobile phone rule is fair and reasonable. People who need to be contact can leave the playing area and check their voice mail somewhere where it will not bother other players or their opponent. Accidents happen: phones are left on; players touch the wrong piece; games are forfeited either way.

I believe any alarm, including those used for arrival of a new SMS message should constitute a mobile phone ring. Other similar forms of distractions (like electronic watch alarms, etc) should also be dealt with in a similar way. Though in that case you would probably have to have warned the offender at least once before unless it is prominently posted at the start of every round.

Spot on. I agree. if Fide have rules about mobile phones why not accept them? It is impossible to judge case by case, and its plain weak and allows for too much dispute. A phone goes off, the game should be lost. Otherwise we end up having disputes between the players themselves.

Yeah Doctors and other people need to be on call... whatever! They got by 10 years ago without a mobile phone why not anymore? Most clubs have a telephone, why can someone not call the club directly if it is an emergency perhaps something can be arrangend? If not too bad its just a game of chess and if it has to be forefited then so be it! Most of these mis-interpreations of rules are a load of crap, mainliy inspired by smart arses who just like to stir sh*t.

Garvinator
12-09-2004, 10:44 PM
Well, it's a bit hard to impose a penalty on a spectator, except expulsion/barring from the venue. Or was the person in question a player who had finished their own game?
also the mobile phone rule covers spectators too, if a spectators phone goes off in the tournament hall, they are expelled from the tournament hall.

Lucena
12-09-2004, 10:45 PM
that is different, the arbiter is given the choice of what penalty if any for king captures. For the mobile phone rule, the arbiter has no choice.
That's all very well to say, but that doesn't work out in practice. I know of more than one occasion when a player's phone has gone off and the arbiter has chosen to overlook it or give a warning. So much for, "the arbiter has no choice". And as firegoat (1st post) pointed out, the arbiter can interpret rules at his discretion, eg if there is some sort of extenuating circumstance. I have been at tournaments where the DOP has clearly stated "two strikes and you're out"-ie you get warned 1st time, forfeited second time.

Garvinator
12-09-2004, 10:47 PM
Yeah Doctors and other people need to be on call... whatever! They got by 10 years ago without a mobile phone why not anymore? Most clubs have a telephone, why can someone not call the club directly if it is an emergency perhaps something can be arrangend? If not too bad its just a game of chess and if it has to be forefited then so be it! Most of these mis-interpreations of rules are a load of crap, mainliy inspired by smart arses who just like to stir sh*t.
well if a doctor gets a call and has to go to hospital or something,then they have to leave the tournament anyways. So there is no issue really there.

PHAT
12-09-2004, 10:47 PM
Get your own thread - this isd a bout phones.

once the FIDE make the mobile ring a forfeit, that is IT.

However, I think it will take a little help from all of us to make it the norm. The DOP must state the rule at the begging of every round. This will have to happen for serverl years until the SMS gets in.

(As a personal aside, I hate mobiles. People who "need" them are full on losers. If you are so important that you HAVE TO be contacted, someone will contact you by hook or by crook. If you are not THAT, important you don't need a mobile anyway. Some scientific ignoramii say mobiles will give you brain cancer. They are wrong - but I wish they were right.)

Garvinator
12-09-2004, 10:49 PM
That's all very well to say, but that doesn't work out in practice. I know of more than one occasion when a player's phone has gone off and the arbiter has chosen to overlook it or give a warning. So much for, "the arbiter has no choice". And as firegoat (1st post) pointed out, the arbiter can interpret rules at his discretion, eg if there is some sort of extenuating circumstance. I have been at tournaments where the DOP has clearly stated "two strikes and you're out"-ie you get warned 1st time, forfeited second time.
and that interpretation is clearly in violation of fide rules. I am still of the opinion that any tournament that doesnt follow fide rules should not be rated, but Bill disagrees.

Lucena
12-09-2004, 10:51 PM
As an aside the USCF uses a set of rules that are at variance in part to the FIDE ones and they get away with it.

JGB
12-09-2004, 10:53 PM
well if a doctor gets a call and has to go to hospital or something,then they have to leave the tournament anyways. So there is no issue really there.

Thats my point so they can leave their phone on if they want knowing that any call is very important, and on the phone ringing I hope that person (Dr)out of honour would forefit the game himself. ... I just hope the kids ar'nt calling Dad asking 'whats for dinner?' ;)

Garvinator
12-09-2004, 10:53 PM
As an aside the USCF uses a set of rules that are at variance in part to the FIDE ones and they get away with it.
that doesnt mean we have to follow america blindly :P :P :P

Lucena
12-09-2004, 10:54 PM
I actually find people talking near my board at least as distracting as a mobile phone going off.

Lucena
12-09-2004, 10:57 PM
that doesnt mean we have to follow america blindly :P :P :P

Just making the point that no one's going to get upset with the odd bit of leniency around the place - you know, the good old Aussie blind eye ;) :shhh:

JGB
12-09-2004, 10:59 PM
I saw a bloke the other day in a tournament who's phone went off in his bag next to the board. Rang about five times, he never answered it and when everyone asked if his phone rang he just said 'i dont own a phone'. Obviously bullsh**ing and red in the face, but not losing as it can not be proved.

Lucena
12-09-2004, 11:02 PM
I saw a bloke the other day in a tournament who's phone went off in his bag next to the board. Rang about five times, he never answered it and when everyone asked if his phone rang he just said 'i dont own a phone'. Obviously bullsh**ing and red in the face, but not losing as it can not be proved.

I'm not sure about that one - I can think of a couple of arbiters who would consider that sufficient grounds for forfeiture if the situation you describe occurred when they were arbitering

JGB
12-09-2004, 11:05 PM
I'm not sure about that one - I can think of a couple of arbiters who would consider that sufficient grounds for forfeiture if the situation you describe occurred when they were arbitering

I would also. At the time at least 5 people were gathered around the game and it was pretty obvious. Maybe coz the guy looked so stupid and red in the face they let him off. It was in the under 1800 class, and his opponent said nothing.

Bill Gletsos
12-09-2004, 11:16 PM
Well the WA state lightning was held today and despite my best efforts, I was unable to convince anyone (including the arbiter) that you can't take the king.
Clearly the arbiter is playing with the rule "King captures are allowed" in place.
See below for further comment.


However I haven't read this thread until now and didn't realise you lose the right to claim an illegal move after touching a piece. In 2 games I touched a piece and indicated by moving it towards the king (but not making contact) that an illegal move was made. Guess I was a bit lucky :)

You must have misread what I typed the current rule states you cannot claim once you have made a move. Iy is the proposed new wording that says toching a piece.

However all that is irrelevant. The following states the FIDE Rules Commision view on the issue.


At the Rules Commission meeting during the Olympiad in Bled in 2002 the issue was discussed again. The following is taken directly from the minutes:
Discussions took place about the situation in Blitz chess where a player makes a move, which leaves his king in check. There was no consensus. Some arbiters believed that, if the player captured his opponent’s king, then the player should lose. Others believed that the player should win. It was decided not to disturb the current rules in place. Thus, if a player effectively
claims a win by capturing the king, he runs the risk of the arbiter declaring otherwise.

Geurt Gijssen the Chairman of the Rules Commision noted in reference to that extract the following:

As a result, each arbiter in a Blitz tournament has to announce in
advance what will happen if the King is captured.

Thus there is no problem with having king captures allowed in Blitz provided the arbiter announces it at the start of the tournament. Likewise there is no problem if he announces King captures are not allowed and will lead to loss of the game.



In a third game I said 'illegal move' while picking up the checking piece simultaneously. What should happen here?
You win the game.


The arbiter did however say that from now on he was going to impose the FIDE penalty for a ringing phone from now on. In the recently completed state championship a spectator's phone went off and as far as I know there was no penalty.
With regards a spectator all you can do is expel him from the playing area/venue.

For a history on the laws regarding King captures refer to http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=23971

Bill Gletsos
12-09-2004, 11:20 PM
phk the king take shite. Get your own thread - this isd a bout phones.
His post was valid.
At least if offered up more than the rest of your post.


once the FIDE make the mobile ring a forfeit, that is IT.

However, I think it will take a little help from all of us to make it the norm. The DOP must state the rule at the begging of every round. This will have to happen for serverl years until the SMS gets in.

(As a personal aside, I hate mobiles. People who "need" them are full on losers. If you are so important that you HAVE TO be contacted, someone will contact you by hook or by crook. If you are not THAT, important you don't need a mobile anyway. Some scientific ignoramii say mobiles will give you brain cancer. They are wrong - but I wish they were right.)
This didnt add anything to the debate.

Alan Shore
12-09-2004, 11:20 PM
As an aside the USCF uses a set of rules that are at variance in part to the FIDE ones and they get away with it.

Awesome. While I don't like the following US part, that is certainly good to see that people there at least have a brain and can rationally justify their own sets of rules without blindly following ridiculous amendments by FIDE.

Bill Gletsos
12-09-2004, 11:29 PM
That's all very well to say, but that doesn't work out in practice. I know of more than one occasion when a player's phone has gone off and the arbiter has chosen to overlook it or give a warning. So much for, "the arbiter has no choice". And as firegoat (1st post) pointed out, the arbiter can interpret rules at his discretion, eg if there is some sort of extenuating circumstance. I have been at tournaments where the DOP has clearly stated "two strikes and you're out"-ie you get warned 1st time, forfeited second time.
I think the current problem is due to the fact that the FIDE Rules Commision makes binding decisions but dont exactly pass this information on to the rest of the world in an easily accessible manner since its hidden away in minutes of the Rules Commissions meetings. What they should do is highlight it on the FIDE web site.
Every 4 years FIDE updates the Laws of chess and this year they are at it again. They will come into effect from July 2005. Because not only will ythese updated laws appear on the FIDE web site but also a new version of Stewart Reubens book will likely appear there will be no excuse for players not knowing about the mobile rule amongst others.

Bill Gletsos
12-09-2004, 11:32 PM
As an aside the USCF uses a set of rules that are at variance in part to the FIDE ones and they get away with it.
One of the few countries in the world that does.
Overall its probably not a good idea.
It actually causes significant problems for overseas players participating in events there.

Bill Gletsos
12-09-2004, 11:34 PM
Thats my point so they can leave their phone on if they want knowing that any call is very important, and on the phone ringing I hope that person (Dr)out of honour would forefit the game himself. ... I just hope the kids ar'nt calling Dad asking 'whats for dinner?' ;)
The point is there is no need for even that to happen, as there is no good reason why the phone cannot be set to silent "vibrate". This is done often in work related meetings that I attend.

Bill Gletsos
12-09-2004, 11:36 PM
I saw a bloke the other day in a tournament who's phone went off in his bag next to the board. Rang about five times, he never answered it and when everyone asked if his phone rang he just said 'i dont own a phone'. Obviously bullsh**ing and red in the face, but not losing as it can not be proved.
That is simple to resolve.
The arbiter simply confiscates the bag as lost property and waits for the "owner" to claim it. :owned:

Lucena
12-09-2004, 11:46 PM
One of the few countries in the world that does.
Overall its probably not a good idea.
It actually causes significant problems for overseas players participating in events there.

This is true actually-I think the US has gone way too far. I was amused to read Loek van Wely's account of his US experiences in New In Chess(this was some time ago)-he said he learns a new bizarre rule each time he goes to the US. At the time of writing, the most recent one had been "claiming your own flag" to get a draw... :whatthe:

Lucena
13-09-2004, 12:02 AM
Here's the historical game: Agrest-Ponomariov, European Teams Championship, Plovdiv 2003. Black is in trouble here.

1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 b6 3. Nc3 Bb7 4.d3 Bxf3 5.exf3 c5 6.d4 cxd4 7.Qxd4 Nc6 8.Qd1 g6 9.Be2 Bg7 10.f4 0-0 11.Be3 e6 12.0-0 Ne7 13.Qa4 Nf5 14.Rad1 Nxe3 15.fxe3 Qc7 16.Kh1 a6 17.Bf3 Ra7 18.Rd2 Rc8 19.Be2 Qb8 20.Qb3 Bf8 21. e4 d6 22.f5 Nd7 23.fxe6 fxe6 24.Bg4 Re8 25.Ne2 Ne5 26.Bxe6+ Rxe6 27.c5 d5 28.Qxd5 Rae7{1-0}

I also read somewhere that some time later Agrest himself lost due to his phone going off, after playing 1.e4! Some wag suggested it was Ponomariov himself who had called him...

JGB
13-09-2004, 12:58 AM
That is simple to resolve.
The arbiter simply confiscates the bag as lost property and waits for the "owner" to claim it. :owned:

The player would admit to owning the bag im sure but how do you prove its contents if he does not want you to see?

it is pointless anyway, we both agree that phones are freaking disturbing in chess

Bill Gletsos
13-09-2004, 01:05 AM
The player would admit to owning the bag im sure but how do you prove its contents if he does not want you to see?
I would think the arbiter could rule that his phone went off. The onus would then be on the player to prove that a) there was no phone in his bag or b) if there was that it didnt go off because it isnt on.


it is pointless anyway, we both agree that phones are freaking disturbing in chess
On this we agree.

Lucena
29-09-2004, 01:07 PM
How about this one. Player has phone on vibrate. Someome rings him, it vibrates, he takes the call away from the board. Any thoughts?

Recherché
29-09-2004, 01:12 PM
How about this one. Player has phone on vibrate. Someome rings him, it vibrates, he takes the call away from the board. Any thoughts?

I wouldn't be inclined to penalise this, as it isn't disturbing other players in the tournament. The risk of cheating doesn't seem greatly increased by this either.

The FIDE rules forbid even taking the phone into the playing hall don't they? Seems rather impractical for local club tournaments.

Garvinator
29-09-2004, 01:15 PM
The FIDE rules forbid even taking the phone into the playing hall don't they? Seems rather impractical for local club tournaments.
no, at the present stage the rule is if the phone goes off in the tournament hall, loss of game.

Lucena
29-09-2004, 01:23 PM
I wouldn't be inclined to penalise this, as it isn't disturbing other players in the tournament. The risk of cheating doesn't seem greatly increased by this either.

The FIDE rules forbid even taking the phone into the playing hall don't they? Seems rather impractical for local club tournaments.

Careful - I didn't say how far he took it away from the board... in one example of this that I witnessed last night, the player was clearly audible. [I'm not going to say who it was.] Let me rephrase. Let's consider 2 cases:

case a): player is not audible

case b): player is audible

You've given your answer to case a). What if he is clearly audible as in b)?

Lucena
29-09-2004, 01:24 PM
no, at the present stage the rule is if the phone goes off in the tournament hall, loss of game.

so if my phone is silent and I get a call, I take the call somewhere where I'm not distracting people, that's ok right?

Trent Parker
29-09-2004, 01:30 PM
does "going off" include vibrate????? or should that be "if the phone rings audibly"???????

arosar
29-09-2004, 01:31 PM
so if my phone is silent and I get a call and take the call somewhere where I'm not distracting people, that's ok right?

The committee report says, "All mobile phones and other specified equipment must be switched off in the playing venue". For a breach, the DOP can turn to 13.4.

If I'm the opponent, I make a judgement on whether or not I like the guy. If I hate him, I'll report him to the DOP and claim a win. If he's me mate, I'll just keep me mouth shut. And in case the DOP happened to hear his mobile phone go off, I'd insist that the DOP not forfeit my opponent (who's me mate).

AR

Recherché
29-09-2004, 01:35 PM
case b): player is audible

You've given your answer to case a). What if he is clearly audible as in b)?

Well, what are the normal penalties for someone talking in the playing hall?

Trent Parker
29-09-2004, 01:37 PM
Sorry. I didn't think the way I worded it would cause any confusion. When I said the phone is silent, I meant there is no incoming call alert except for a silent vibration. The case a) and b) refer to whether the phone user can be heard speaking.

Well i think that arosar has the answer anyway "phones are to be turned off" Therefore even vibration should lose.

Lucena
29-09-2004, 01:39 PM
Well, what are the normal penalties for someone talking in the playing hall?

But is this the same thing?

Bill Gletsos
29-09-2004, 01:44 PM
The committee report says, "All mobile phones and other specified equipment must be switched off in the playing venue". For a breach, the DOP can turn to 13.4.

Actually the propsed wording for the laws of chess at the next rules commission eeting next month are:
It is strictly forbidden to bring mobiles or other electronic means of communication into the playing hall. If a player’s mobile phone rings in the playing venue during play, that player shall lose the game. The score of the opponent shall be determined by the arbiter

Note that it says "rings". I doubt a silent vibrate would qualify as a "ring" as far as the rule is concerned.
Also the rule does not specify a penalty for actually bring the mobile into the playing hall. The penalty therefore would be up to the arbiter.


If I'm the opponent, I make a judgement on whether or not I like the guy. If I hate him, I'll report him to the DOP and claim a win. If he's me mate, I'll just keep me mouth shut. And in case the DOP happened to hear his mobile phone go off, I'd insist that the DOP not forfeit my opponent (who's me mate).
You can insist all you like but it isnt up to you. ;)
Its up to the arbiter. He is required to enforce the laws, especially where a penalty is explicitly mentioned.

Recherché
29-09-2004, 01:44 PM
But is this the same thing?

Assuming having it vibrate-alert is legal, what's the difference, objectively? Take away the ring and it's just talking.

But if the rule is "phones must be switched off", that seems pretty clear to me.

Bill Gletsos
29-09-2004, 01:47 PM
Well i think that arosar has the answer anyway "phones are to be turned off" Therefore even vibration should lose.
There is nothing in the wording that says phones must be turned off.
This is of course due to the wording prohibting them being in the playing area.
However as I noted above the article does not prescribe a penalty for actually bring one into the playing area. It only prescribes a penalty if the phone "rings".

Lucena
29-09-2004, 01:47 PM
The irony I see in this whole thing is that there are behaviours that are just as if not more harmful to your concentration than allowing a phone to ring. Someone having their little conversation for a prolonged amount of time I find worse than a ring tone.

Bill Gletsos
29-09-2004, 01:49 PM
Assuming having it vibrate-alert is legal, what's the difference, objectively? Take away the ring and it's just talking.
The rules already cater for a player talking in the playing area and disrupting the game.


But if the rule is "phones must be switched off", that seems pretty clear to me.
As I said that isnt part of the proposed wording.

Bill Gletsos
29-09-2004, 01:52 PM
so if my phone is silent and I get a call, I take the call somewhere where I'm not distracting people, that's ok right?
I would think you could take the call only outside of the venue.
Of course even if you leaft it on vibrate to let you know you have a call it would be wiser just to have the phone divert to voicemail and check it out by going outside the venue.

Lucena
29-09-2004, 02:02 PM
I would think you could take the call only outside of the venue.
Of course even if you leaft it on vibrate to let you know you have a call it would be wiser just to have the phone divert to voicemail and check it out by going outside the venue.

after getting the arbiter's permission, I assume?

Rincewind
29-09-2004, 02:09 PM
The irony I see in this whole thing is that there are behaviours that are just as if not more harmful to your concentration than allowing a phone to ring. Someone having their conversation for a prolonged amount of time I find worse than a 10-15 second tone.

Tell me about it! As one of the "slower" players at my club (ie I like to use most, if not all, of my time) I tend to have to play through a couple of post-game analyses most nights. Definitely more distracting than a mobile phone ring which is usually a very short (if loud) interruption.

However, if I was REALLY short on time a sudden mobile ring might be worse than the background talking at another board.

Lucena
29-09-2004, 02:20 PM
You can insist all you like but it isnt up to you. ;)
Its up to the arbiter. He is required to enforce the laws, especially where a penalty is explicitly mentioned.

Bill is correct in saying that the arbiter is "required" ;) ;) to rule a forfeit in this situation under the rule. On the other hand what Amiel is saying illustrates the very problematic nature of this rule. If one had the power, quite often one would do one's best to avoid this penalty being applied, because it is so harsh (this goes for some arbiters). Despite what Bill says, and he is entirely correct in his interpretation of what the rule actually says, I have known more than one arbiter to apply discretion and not rule a forfeit, and I am confident very few players were unhappy with this whenever it happened.

Bill Gletsos
29-09-2004, 02:22 PM
after getting the arbiter's permission, I assume?
Of course. ;)
After all a player requires the permission of the arbiter before he leaves the playing area.

Bill Gletsos
29-09-2004, 02:24 PM
Bill is correct in saying that the arbiter is "required" ;) ;) to rule a forfeit in this situation under the rule. On the other hand what Amiel is saying illustrates the very problematic nature of this rule. If one had the power, quite often one would do one's best to avoid this penalty being applied, because it is so harsh - this goes for some arbiters. Despite what Bill says, and he is entirely correct in his interpretation of what the rule actually says, I have known more than one arbiter to apply discretion and not rule a forfeit.
Would I be correct in assuming that this in the case where they have not explicitly stated that a mobile ringing would lead to loss of the game.

Bill Gletsos
29-09-2004, 02:32 PM
Just to clarify the situation regarding mobile phones, the following should be noted.

The current ruling of the FIDE Rules Commission from the 2003 meeting in October last year states the following:
If a player’s mobile phone rings in the playing venue, then this player shall lose the game. The arbiter shall ensure that all the players are informed in advance of this rule.

The planned wording to be introduced to Article 13 of the Laws of Chess at the FIDE Rules Commission meeting next month and coming into effect on July 1st 2005 is:
It is strictly forbidden to bring mobiles or other electronic means of communication into the playing hall. If a player’s mobile phone rings in the playing venue during play, that player shall lose the game. The score of the opponent shall be determined by the arbiter
and
It is forbidden for anybody to use a mobile phone in the playing venue.

Lucena
29-09-2004, 02:38 PM
The arbiter shall ensure that all the players are informed in advance of this rule.

Ah. I see what you mean.

The way I see it, the fact that not everybody insists on this rule is evidence that it is overly harsh.

I have a strong suspicion at one relatively recent NSWCA tournament they had announced the rule, and within the hour(I think) a phone went off. The fact that the penalty was not in fact applied is testimony to its harshness. I doubt if anyone present in that room, if they had been the arbiter, would have had the heart to rule that poor Norm had lost his first round game for forgetting to turn his mobile phone off.

Rincewind
29-09-2004, 02:53 PM
Most social players would probably think the touch-move rule as draconian. I think it is a matter of habit and expectation. When expectations move suddenly there will be a period of inconsistent application of the rules. But after a while I think it will become as "natural" as the touch-move rule (and probably cause as many disputes).

ursogr8
29-09-2004, 02:56 PM
The current ruling of the FIDE Rules Commission from the 2003 meeting in October last year states the following:
If a player’s mobile phone rings in the playing venue, then this player shall lose the game. The arbiter shall ensure that all the players are informed in advance of this rule.



Bill

Do you rate events if Arbiters forget to do this in a Club event?

starter

Bill Gletsos
29-09-2004, 03:17 PM
Bill

Do you rate events if Arbiters forget to do this in a Club event?

starter
Its irrelevant to the rating of the event.

Recherché
29-09-2004, 03:17 PM
As I said that isnt part of the proposed wording.

Yes; we posted at the same time, and I hadn't read yours at the time of writing. :)

Bill Gletsos
29-09-2004, 03:18 PM
Most social players would probably think the touch-move rule as draconian. I think it is a matter of habit and expectation. When expectations move suddenly there will be a period of inconsistent application of the rules. But after a while I think it will become as "natural" as the touch-move rule (and probably cause as many disputes).
I think you are right.
Much the same way that it was long allowed to let a player castle who had in fact touched his rook first. Nowadays that is no longer allowed.

ursogr8
29-09-2004, 04:22 PM
Most social players would probably think the touch-move rule as draconian. I think it is a matter of habit and expectation. When expectations move suddenly there will be a period of inconsistent application of the rules. But after a while I think it will become as "natural" as the touch-move rule (and probably cause as many disputes).


Without wishing to argue with your prediction analysis I speculate there may be a difference in outcome between
> the touch-move rule
>> the touch-rook rule, and
>>> the mobile rings = forfeit rule.

For >, the opponent is the policer of the rule and draws the arbiter's attention to incidents. Enough of us as opponents grow tired of the 'hoverers' whose fingers seem to flit from piece to piece like a butterfly, to actually report this to the arbiter. So, as you say, touch-move then becomes natural.

But for >>, this is such a rare event I don't feel comfortable with your conclusion that compliance is natural.

And for >>>, we will watch with interest to see if there is a policing element that penalizes incidents sufficiently often for the rule compliance to become natural. What I have observed so far, and what is apparent from a few posters here, is that 'rule disobedience' by arbiters (the policemen for this rule) is at a significant level. If this persists then the compliance will not become natural; except perhaps in State and National championships.
The genisis for the 'disobedience' is that the rule is draconian.

Bill has said he will rate events even if there is rule disobedience (on >>>) by arbiters.

starter

Bill Gletsos
29-09-2004, 05:30 PM
Without wishing to argue with your prediction analysis I speculate there may be a difference in outcome between
> the touch-move rule
>> the touch-rook rule, and
>>> the mobile rings = forfeit rule.

For >, the opponent is the policer of the rule and draws the arbiter's attention to incidents. Enough of us as opponents grow tired of the 'hoverers' whose fingers seem to flit from piece to piece like a butterfly, to actually report this to the arbiter. So, as you say, touch-move then becomes natural.
You should pay more attention to the rules starter.
The arbiter is obliged to enforce the rules when he is aware that they have been infringed.
Therefore the arbiter can enforce the touch move rule without the player having to claim. This is obvious since Article B5 notes that in rapid play the arbiter should only rule on touch piece if requested by one of the players.
Also Article 13.1 makes it clear the Arbiter is required to ensure the rules are strictly observed.


And for >>>, we will watch with interest to see if there is a policing element that penalizes incidents sufficiently often for the rule compliance to become natural. What I have observed so far, and what is apparent from a few posters here, is that 'rule disobedience' by arbiters (the policemen for this rule) is at a significant level. If this persists then the compliance will not become natural; except perhaps in State and National championships.
Once the new wording comes into force on July 1st 2005 there is no option for the arbiter to ignore it, unless he no longer wishes to be running the event under FIDE Rules.


The genisis for the 'disobedience' is that the rule is draconian.
Only in some peoples opinions.


Bill has said he will rate events even if there is rule disobedience (on >>>) by arbiters.
Players can always appeal against the arbiters decision, at least in NSWCA events.

ursogr8
29-09-2004, 08:16 PM
You should pay more attention to the rules starter.

OK Bill
Help me understand which part I have got wrong in my quote
For touch-move, the opponent is the policer of the rule and draws the arbiter's attention to incidents.

I have watched chess for the better part of 30 years, and I have watched quite a few Arbiter's in action. To be honest nearly every touched-move incident, I have watched, has been brought to the arbiters attention by the opponent. Tell me what part of the player, or arbiters actions, have been not 'attending to the rules'.
The opponent has been the policer of the rule; the arbiter has been the judge of the incident.

starter

ps There have been a few occasions where I have watched an arbiter observe the game of a 'known toucher'. In this case, the Arbiter becomes both the policer and the judge. But these are the exception of incidents, small in number.

ursogr8
29-09-2004, 08:19 PM
Bill
Is the FIDE rule set available on line somewhere?
starter

Rincewind
29-09-2004, 08:26 PM
Is the FIDE rule set available on line somewhere?

This should get you started...

http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE101

Garvinator
29-09-2004, 08:27 PM
Bill
Is the FIDE rule set available on line somewhere?
starter
http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE1

both the laws of chess and the appendix are relevant.

Garvinator
29-09-2004, 08:28 PM
almost snap barry ;)

ursogr8
29-09-2004, 08:36 PM
Once the new wording comes into force on July 1st 2005 there is no option for the arbiter to ignore it, unless he no longer wishes to be running the event under FIDE Rules.



hi Bill
Will arbiters be enforcing

8.2 The scoresheet shall be visible to the arbiter throughout the game.

8.3 The scoresheets are the property of the organisers of the event.


8.7 At the conclusion of the game both players shall sign both scoresheets, indicating the result of the game.

starter

ps In particular will arbiters take action against players who put a pencil over their written move while they reconsider if it is a good move?

Bill Gletsos
29-09-2004, 08:44 PM
OK Bill
Help me understand which part I have got wrong in my quote
For touch-move, the opponent is the policer of the rule and draws the arbiter's attention to incidents.
Your wording stated that the player is the policer of the touch move rule.
I just pointed out that that is not the case as far as the rules of chess are concerned and the arbiter should enforce it if he sees it occur.


I have watched chess for the better part of 30 years, and I have watched quite a few Arbiter's in action. To be honest nearly every touched-move incident, I have watched, has been brought to the arbiters attention by the opponent. Tell me what part of the player, or arbiters actions, have been not 'attending to the rules'.
The opponent has been the policer of the rule; the arbiter has been the judge of the incident.

ps There have been a few occasions where I have watched an arbiter observe the game of a 'known toucher'. In this case, the Arbiter becomes both the policer and the judge. But these are the exception of incidents, small in number.
All that is irrelevant.
The rules do not make the responsaibilty of the touch move the players alone but also the arbiters.

ursogr8
29-09-2004, 08:52 PM
Your wording stated that the player is the policer of the touch move rule.
I just pointed out that that is not the case as far as the rules of chess are concerned and the arbiter should enforce it if he sees it occur.



So you are no longer saying that I was wrong when I pointed out most (touch-move) incidents are raised to the arbiters attention by opponnts?

Bill Gletsos
29-09-2004, 08:54 PM
hi Bill
Will arbiters be enforcing

8.2 The scoresheet shall be visible to the arbiter throughout the game.
Gjissen has covered this in his column.
The arbiter is entitled to move the pencil if needs be to determine if the player is keeping his scoresheet up to date.


8.3 The scoresheets are the property of the organisers of the event.
All this means is the organisers can decided to keep the scoresheets.


8.7 At the conclusion of the game both players shall sign both scoresheets, indicating the result of the game.
I would suggest an arbiter could only highlight this and potentially punish the players if the result was in dispute by either player after the result was submitted to the arbiter.


ps In particular will arbiters take action against players who put a pencil over their written move while they reconsider if it is a good move?
Provided the arbiter can determine if the players scoresheet is up to date then this is irrelevant.
However if the planned change to the rules to make recording the move prior to making it on the board illegal then it may well become relevant.

Garvinator
29-09-2004, 09:05 PM
However if the planned change to the rules to make recording the move prior to making it on the board illegal then it may well become relevant.
is this rule change being proposed at the next rules congress?

Bill Gletsos
29-09-2004, 10:27 PM
is this rule change being proposed at the next rules congress?
So I believe.

Garvinator
29-09-2004, 10:49 PM
So I believe.
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :D

Kevin Bonham
30-09-2004, 12:40 AM
So you are no longer saying that I was wrong when I pointed out most (touch-move) incidents are raised to the arbiters attention by opponnts?

Nearly all touch-moves I have enforced have been ones I observed and enforced on the spot rather than ones claimed by the opponent. But that is because outside of junior chess I cannot remember a disputed touchmove incident here. Usually the opponent just says "touchmove" (strictly they should get the arbiter to assist) and that is the end of it.

In weak junior chess players often fail to enforce a touchmove, especially if it is correcting an illegal move. I always intervene when I see such a case - they have to learn somehow.

I once did not enforce a touchmove by my opponent - I didn't want him to move the touched piece and preferred him to move something else, so I let it go. :lol: Didn't do me any good, he still got a draw.

ursogr8
30-09-2004, 08:03 AM
Nearly all touch-moves I have enforced have been ones I observed and enforced on the spot rather than ones claimed by the opponent. But that is because outside of junior chess I cannot remember a disputed touchmove incident here. Usually the opponent just says "touchmove" (strictly they should get the arbiter to assist) and that is the end of it.


hi Kevin

I think you are agreeing with me.

You say ...(bolded above) Usually the opponent just says "touchmove" .
I said...For touch move, the opponent is the policer of the rule.


You say "(strictly they should get the arbiter to assist)"
I said........"and draws the arbiter's attention to incidents."

Bill interpreted my policer as judge or arbiter...which I clearly did not mean.

starter

ursogr8
30-09-2004, 09:29 AM
Tell me about it! As one of the "slower" players at my club (ie I like to use most, if not all, of my time) I tend to have to play through a couple of post-game analyses most nights.

Most social players would probably think the touch-move rule as draconian. I think it is a matter of habit and expectation. When expectations move suddenly there will be a period of inconsistent application of the rules. But after a while I think it will become as "natural" as the touch-move rule (and probably cause as many disputes).

So, Baz, when do you think the 'no disturbance rule compliance will move from 'inconsistent application' to 'matter of habit' and 'natural', at your Club?

starter

ursogr8
30-09-2004, 09:34 AM
Only in some peoples opinions.


I agree Bill. My opinion is that the mobile phone rule is draconian, and I hope our delegate to these FIDE rule-setting discussions is listening to all opinions.
Where do I vote for my personal preference on this rule? Does our delegate read here?

starter

Bill Gletsos
30-09-2004, 09:41 AM
You say "(strictly they should get the arbiter to assist)"
I said........"and draws the arbiter's attention to incidents."

Bill interpreted my policer as judge or arbiter...which I clearly did not mean.
Once again you have it wrong.
I never interpreted it that way at all.
I interpeted it to mean that as far as you were concerned the only policer was the opponent which is clearly incorrect since in reality the arbiter is also a policer of the situation.
The only difference is the arbiter also happens to be the judge, but that does not impede his role as policer.

ursogr8
30-09-2004, 09:54 AM
Once again you have it wrong.
I never interpreted it that way at all.
I interpeted it to mean that as far as you were concerned the only policer was the opponent which is clearly incorrect since in reality the arbiter is also a policer of the situation.
The only difference is the arbiter also happens to be the judge, but that does not impede his role as policer.

However, Bill, I did not use the phrase 'only policer'.
And it was clear from the context of Barry's post and my reponse at post #93 that I was highlighting that the move to general compliance to a rule (and probably all rules are of course judged by arbiters) was strengthened by those circumstances where the the opponent takes on policing.

What I do agree is that it is not your responsibility to interpret correctly, but it is my responsibility to express my writing clearly.
We have been a little off-centre on this one.

regards
starter

Bill Gletsos
30-09-2004, 12:43 PM
However, Bill, I did not use the phrase 'only policer'.
And it was clear from the context of Barry's post and my reponse at post #93 that I was highlighting that the move to general compliance to a rule (and probably all rules are of course judged by arbiters) was strengthened by those circumstances where the the opponent takes on policing.
Unfortunately many players dont know the rules so your wording had the effect to potentially mislead readers into believing only the player could claim the touch move and not the arbiter.


What I do agree is that it is not your responsibility to interpret correctly, but it is my responsibility to express my writing clearly.

I'd agree with that.

We have been a little off-centre on this one.
Whats this we. :hmm:
Based on what you actually said I wasnt off-centre.
If you had expressed yourself clearly then there would have been no need for me to highlight your ambiguity. :hand:

ursogr8
30-09-2004, 01:19 PM
Unfortunately many players dont know the rules so your wording had the effect to potentially mislead readers into believing only the player could claim the touch move and not the arbiter.


I'd agree with that.

Whats this we. :hmm:
Based on what you actually said I wasnt off-centre.
If you had expressed yourself clearly then there would have been no need for me to highlight your ambiguity. :hand:
Bill
I would like to think there is a difference between your new sentiment that 'some may have misread my (starter) post and hence been misled, and you (Bill) felt the need to clarify for them', and


You should pay more attention to the rules starter.
.




Once again you have it wrong.



Looks to me you were a bit off-course too. ;)

starter

Bill Gletsos
30-09-2004, 01:28 PM
Bill
I would like to think there is a difference between your new sentiment that 'some may have misread my (starter) post and hence been misled, and you (Bill) felt the need to clarify for them', and






Looks to me you were a bit off-course too. ;)

starter
I stand by what I said.
You gave no evidence you were aware of the rules and your statement was clearly wrong.

I notice that you eventually asked where you could find a copy of the FIDE rules.

BTW you are doing an admirably job of bolstering my post count while Matt's away. :whistle:

ursogr8
30-09-2004, 01:46 PM
I stand by what I said.
Bill
We know you will stand by what you say.
But your own words, "Unfortunately many players dont know the rules so your wording had the effect to potentially mislead readers into believing only the player could claim the touch move and not the arbiter." show that all you were doing was making sure others did not misread mine.


... your statement was clearly wrong.
and yet you said "Unfortunately many players dont know the rules so your wording had the effect to potentially mislead readers into believing only the player could claim the touch move and not the arbiter.". There is a difference between being wrong and having others misread; as you have correctly come to the conclusion.




I notice that you eventually asked where you could find a copy of the FIDE rules.
That is two out of contexts in one week Bill.
I sought a copy of the rules to pursue Barry's 'compliance becomes a natural' argument.


BTW you are doing an admirably job of bolstering my post count while Matt's away. :whistle:

Did you you make similar errors with him? :eek:
1 Quoting words out of context.
2 Misinterpreting posts and then not being able to agree that was the root-cause.


starter

Trent Parker
30-09-2004, 01:50 PM
However if the planned change to the rules to make recording the move prior to making it on the board illegal then it may well become relevant.

What???? :confused: :mad: :mad:
This is silly. I write my moves down before i play them in order to ensure that i remember to write down my moves.
Obviously i disagree with banning it :wall:

Bill Gletsos
30-09-2004, 01:53 PM
Bill
We know you will stand by what you say.
But your own words, "Unfortunately many players dont know the rules so your wording had the effect to potentially mislead readers into believing only the player could claim the touch move and not the arbiter." show that all you were doing was making sure others did not misread mine.
I never said they would misread them, I said your comments would mislead them.


and yet you said "Unfortunately many players dont know the rules so your wording had the effect to potentially mislead readers into believing only the player could claim the touch move and not the arbiter.". There is a difference between being wrong and having others misread; as you have correctly come to the conclusion.
Again it is not misread but mislead. You statements were wrong and hence would mislead anyone who did not in fact know the rules.


That is two out of contexts in one week Bill.
The only one taking things out of context here is you.
Your defence here sounds as silly as your "marketing puff" rubbish in the other thread.


I sought a copy of the rules to pursue Barry's 'compliance becomes a natural' argument.
Good for you.
One would have thought an apparently smart fellow like you would have thought to check out the FIDE web site first. :doh:




Did you you make similar errors with him? :eek:
1 Quoting words out of context.
2 Misinterpreting posts and then not being able to agree that was the root-cause.
I quoted nothing out of conext and misrepresented nothing.
Your post was misleading and hence incorrect.
Keep this rubbish up and you may well be able to become a trainee Matt, with the applicable adjectives soon to be attached. :rolleyes:

Rincewind
30-09-2004, 01:57 PM
What???? :confused: :mad: :mad:
This is silly. I write my moves down before i play them in order to ensure that i remember to write down my moves.
Obviously i disagree with banning it :wall:

Now all you need to do is get on the FIDE Rules and Tournament Regulations Committee. ;)

Lucena
01-10-2004, 12:24 AM
Once the new wording comes into force on July 1st 2005 there is no option for the arbiter to ignore it, unless he no longer wishes to be running the event under FIDE Rules.



Does the way these things are done mean that this rule being passed is a fait accompli?

Lucena
01-10-2004, 12:28 AM
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :D

Why :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :D ?

Bill Gletsos
01-10-2004, 12:33 AM
Does the way these things are done mean that this rule being passed is a fait accompli?
The changes are just a draft.
I would expect the majority of them to be passed.
However not all of them might be passed.
With regards mobile phones I would believe these will be passed as there appears concensus amongt the members.
What will be interesting is to see if the proposed explicit wording banning king captures get thru as the impact on blitz would make capturing the king result in loss of the game for the capturer and the rules commission members seemed to be previously split over this.

Bill Gletsos
01-10-2004, 12:35 AM
Why :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :D ?
He is obviously in favour of players not recording their moves prior to making them.

Garvinator
01-10-2004, 12:58 AM
He is obviously in favour of players not recording their moves prior to making them.
yes, i do believe that players should not be permitted to write their moves on their scoresheet before playing them on the board. Partly though, the amount of :clap: was because there was a rather long debate on here about the legality of writing your moves down on scoresheet before playing them ;)

With our discussions on here regarding mobile phones, king captures and recording moves, it could be debated that members of fide rules committee read this bb and use our ideas :lol: :lol:

Bill Gletsos
01-10-2004, 01:02 AM
It appears a number of the proposed changes mirror Gjissen's views.
The question is do they mirror the views of the majority of the Rules Committee members.

Kevin Bonham
01-10-2004, 04:58 AM
Bill, do you know what the official status of that draft I sent you is? I don't.

Rincewind
01-10-2004, 07:58 AM
Bill, do you know what the official status of that draft I sent you is? I don't.

Was that on "castling rights"?

Bill Gletsos
01-10-2004, 04:36 PM
Bill, do you know what the official status of that draft I sent you is? I don't.
It was my understanding that the draft document was going to be the one Gjissen would present at the Rules commission.
If nothing else I would expect it to be the main focus of discussion.
Of course it may transpire that other Rules Commission members have ideas contrary to his that are not shown in that draft.

One defineite problem I see with the draft is as follows.

1) the taking of the king is explicitly forbidden at the start of the Rules.
2) Nowhere in the rules is a penalty prescribed if this actually does happen.
3) The blitz rule is changed to say that you lose the right to claim an illegal move as soon as you touch a piece.

Therefore the following scenario could transpire:
1) The Black King on g7 has been left in check from a white Bishop on f6.
2) White instead of immediately claiming illegal move touches the White Bishop.
3) He therefore can no longer claim illegal move but must move the Bishop if legally possible.
4) Obviously he would not capture the Black King or he would immediately lose the game to an illegal move claim by Black, so he has to make any other legal move with the Bishop. If the Bishop cannot move to any other square other than g7 then White would be free to choose to move any other piece.
5) However what would happen if White did actually capture the Black King and now Black touched one of his own pieces instead of claiming a win by illegal move because he had failed to notice the King capture.
6) Since he now cannot claim illegal move, Black would apparently be forced to play a move with the touched piece and the game would have to continue.
7) Black of course can no longer lose this game because he cannot be checkmated nor can he even lose on time as White cannot construct a mating position since in both cases Black no longer has a King. The only way Black could lose would be if he made an illegal move in the future with one of his remaining pieces.

I seriously doubt that Gjissen even considered this scenario as he likely never would believe that a player who had his King captured would not claim illegal move.

The problem here is due to the fact that at no point is it stated in the proposed rules that actually capturing the King leads any sort of penalty.

Bill Gletsos
01-10-2004, 04:39 PM
Was that on "castling rights"?
No it was a document from FIDE (?) of the FIDE Laws of Chess with proposed rules changes included in it.

antichrist
01-10-2004, 06:03 PM
Some of this is important stuff which should be on a more approp. thread.

Lucena
02-10-2004, 12:02 AM
He is obviously in favour of players not recording their moves prior to making them.

I was after a little elaboration.

Garvinator
02-10-2004, 12:05 AM
I was after a little elaboration.
let me guess, you want to know why i agree with the proposed rule change ;)

Lucena
02-10-2004, 12:08 AM
let me guess, you want to know why i agree with the proposed rule change ;)

yes but you seemed to be saying it's already been discussed before so don't worry about it

Garvinator
02-10-2004, 12:40 AM
yes but you seemed to be saying it's already been discussed before so don't worry about it
i do recall the debate previously, but i dont know where it is located.

Here is the relevant rule from the fide handbook:

Article 8: The recording of the moves

8.1

In the course of play each player is required to record his own moves and those of his opponent in the correct manner, move after move, as clearly and legibly as possible, in the algebraic notation (Appendix E), on the 'scoresheet' prescribed for the competition.
A player may reply to his opponent's move before recording it, if he so wishes. He must record his previous move before making another. Both players must record the offer of a draw on the scoresheet. (Appendix E.12)
If a player is unable to keep score, an amount of time, decided by the arbiter, shall be deducted from his allotted time at the beginning of the game.

The debate centred on whether a player can write down their move before playing it. It did get a bit pedantic at times.

I was in the minority in the debate with most saying that they dont have a problem with players writing their moves down first before playing them.

The main issue to me was that i believe chess is played in the mind. You have to analyse and work out everything in your head.

Also the debate centred around the part of the rule, move after move.

Lucena
11-10-2004, 11:01 PM
Why can't I edit my posts here? This is really bizarre-I can only edit this one!

skip to my lou
11-10-2004, 11:16 PM
You can only edit your messages for 12 hours after you post them. If you need to edit after 12 hours you need to request a mod or admin to do it.

JGB
11-10-2004, 11:17 PM
Why can't I edit my posts here? This is really bizarre-I can only edit this one!

There is a new limit on edits of 12 hours I think

Lucena
15-10-2004, 12:03 PM
You can only edit your messages for 12 hours after you post them. If you need to edit after 12 hours you need to request a mod or admin to do it.

Why did you introduce this?

Recherché
15-10-2004, 12:13 PM
Why did you introduce this?

Presumably so people can't go back and change things they've said days or even weeks later. Message board systems such as this don't generally track changes (only the fact they happened, and usually only the last one), so once someone edits their post, there's no way of knowing what they had written before.

Sometimes somebody will have quoted the original text prior to the edit, but there's no guarantee of the accuracy of a quote. You can edit it however you like, or just write something yourself:


Jeo is the greatest and beyond reproach.

rob
15-10-2004, 02:29 PM
The ABC has today reported a study that has found that 10 or more years of mobile phone use almost doubles the risk of developing nerve tumours.

I know there have been adverse effects considered in the past and I feel that as more ppl use mobiles over the longer term the prevelance of adverse health effects will become apparent. I'm not usually a 'scare monger' or 'doomy' person but if you or your family must use mobiles - I'd strongly suggest minimal use, especially for kids.

Garvinator
15-10-2004, 02:42 PM
I'd strongly suggest minimal use, especially for kids.
even more so during chess games ;)

rob
15-10-2004, 04:36 PM
even more so during chess games ;)

Any distraction to players during the game should be punished enough to deter repetition.

WBA
09-12-2004, 04:49 AM
Bannig mobiles straight up is a ridiculous idea and at teh very least a warning system needs to be in place. The school of thought that people can just turn there phones on later to check for messages is very ignorant to what messages may be coming through. I am on pager for example and am payed to be contactable 24 hours a day 365 days a year. As the systems we support are real time and critical we cannot afford to wait around for a break in play to check our voice mail especially when we can solve a lot of problems over the phone. Explaining to work that I was unable to call in to fix a problem because I was playing chess would be completely unaccpetable. I would be just one of many faced with a similar dilemma and faced with a decision on whether or not to enter a tournament this would be a deciding factor for me. Whilst understanding that I would incur a warning/time penalty/forfeit from my phone ringing it would be an acceptable consequence. However to spend my money on a motel, then entry fee etc for a weekender, only to be forfeited for a phone call is unaceptable.

That covers the work side of things, what about the other side Daivd has mentioned, as in the family side of life. Another reason for me having a mobile is so I can be contacted if my children have been involved in accidents. Recently my 3 yo son was staying at his cousins house and split his head on the coffee table, I had to rush down to the Geelong Hospital as he was refusing to talk with anyone and getting worked up when they were trying to touch him. If I was in a situation where i had 23 moves is 25 minutes and so did my opponent and it was a tough tactical battle, there is no way you would be remembering to get up and check phones. so potentially you play through to the time control and only then check your phones. Meanwhile your child has been in the hospital for an hour wondering why their father has not come for them. The chess administration really needs to realise that chess is a past time, a hobby, a sport for people, family & jobs need to come first and they are the reasons we carry devices which allow us to be contacted at the most inoppurtune time.

We are in the information age and more and more aspects of our lives involve teh need for all hours contact

Chess is struggling to attract the numbers it could to a number of events and I believe in a country like Australia especially, tournament administrators need to be open to the needs of competitors and be flexible with their interpretations of FIDE rules.

Rincewind
09-12-2004, 08:02 AM
As the systems we support are real time and critical we cannot afford to wait around for a break in play to check our voice mail especially when we can solve a lot of problems over the phone. Explaining to work that I was unable to call in to fix a problem because I was playing chess would be completely unaccpetable.

What would happen if you played a physcial sport like football or soccer where even carrying the pager would be impossible?

WBA
09-12-2004, 12:16 PM
What would happen if you played a physcial sport like football or soccer where even carrying the pager would be impossible?

uite simply I would not be able to play. Or I would require my club runner (in football) to carry my personal mobile. As this is a team environment, then this would be potentially possible, though still unlikely as it could cause a logistical nightmare for the runner if everyone then expected the same, and resentment for others if that service was not provided for all.

Individual sports may or may not allow for me to carry a mobile and I would address whether or not I would play the sport accordingly. To put it simply, whatever my choice of recreation, I must be contactable & others are in the same predicament. It is up to the recreation to either cater for these situations or lose people to their activity.

Bill Gletsos
09-12-2004, 12:20 PM
Havent you guys heard of silent/vibrate.

Rincewind
09-12-2004, 12:24 PM
uite simply I would not be able to play. Or I would require my club runner (in football) to carry my personal mobile. As this is a team environment, then this would be potentially possible, though still unlikely as it could cause a logistical nightmare for the runner if everyone then expected the same, and resentment for others if that service was not provided for all.

Individual sports may or may not allow for me to carry a mobile and I would address whether or not I would play the sport accordingly. To put it simply, whatever my choice of recreation, I must be contactable & others are in the same predicament. It is up to the recreation to either cater for these situations or lose people to their activity.

There's your answer.

Rincewind
09-12-2004, 12:25 PM
Havent you guys heard of silent/vibrate.

Vibrate is good but sometime I find I miss calls using it.

Garvinator
09-12-2004, 12:27 PM
It is up to the recreation to either cater for these situations or lose people to their activity.
and to also judge whether having mobiles going off quite often during a tournament is going to put players off playing in a tournament, especially if other tournaments have a no mobile rule. I know that I wouldnt play in a tournament that allowed mobiles to be on.

Bill Gletsos
09-12-2004, 12:29 PM
Vibrate is good but sometime I find I miss calls using it.
You just need to shove it somewhere so you cant help but notice it vibrate. ;)

PHAT
09-12-2004, 12:33 PM
You just need to shove it somewhere so you cant help but notice it vibrate. ;)

You are so vulgar, you are a disgrace. ;)

Bill Gletsos
09-12-2004, 12:37 PM
and to also judge whether having mobiles going off quite often during a tournament is going to put players off playing in a tournament, especially if other tournaments have a no mobile rule. I know that I wouldnt play in a tournament that allowed mobiles to be on.
As far as i am aware virtually all events in Australia are played under the FIDE laws of chess without any exceptions to them.

Once the new 2005 laws come out from 1st July, then loss of the game for an audible mobile ringing will most likely become the norm in Australian events.


If the call is important the person will leave a vociemail.

I was on call last night.
The mobile vibrated in my shirt pocket whilst I was playing.
I ignored it.
After making my move I exited the playing room, to see if either the missed call number was displayed or if there was a voicemail.
There was a vociemail from work, so I returned the call.

No problem either to me or the other players.

Bill Gletsos
09-12-2004, 12:38 PM
You are so vulgar, you are a disgrace. ;)
Its your mind thats in the gutter as usual.

WBA
09-12-2004, 01:03 PM
and to also judge whether having mobiles going off quite often during a tournament is going to put players off playing in a tournament, especially if other tournaments have a no mobile rule. I know that I wouldnt play in a tournament that allowed mobiles to be on.

The first part of your statement is factual, the second is open to debate. Up until this moment have you played in tournaments? If so this is contradicting what you are saying. I am not suggesting there should not be a penalty if a phone rings, but surely straight forfeiture of a game is insane. I am suggesting that a staggered approach for penalties, not unlike many of rules infiningements in chess, be imposed.

Would you play at a tournament that warned players they were expected to fill in their timesheet??

Surely a reasonable and sensible approach should always be sought. This is not about giving arbiters the power of a iron fist, it is about finding a flexible solution to what is a ticklish problem.

Bill Gletsos
09-12-2004, 01:25 PM
The new 2005 FIDE Laws dont allow for a staggered approach.
Article 12.2 states
b. It is strictly forbidden to bring mobile phones or other electronic means of communication, not authorised by the arbiter, into the playing venue. If a player’s mobile phone rings in the playing venue during play, that player shall lose the game. The score of the opponent shall be determined by the arbiter. .

It is clear that the arbiter can at his discretion allow a mobile phone in the area but it is also clear from this that the penalty is not at the arbiters discretion. If the players phone rings and is detectable (i.e. audible) then he loses.

WBA
09-12-2004, 01:46 PM
Understanding that Bill, but lets take that a step further.
Your mobile rings and is on vibrate, your opponent notices and asks that you are forfeited because your mobile rang. The rule seems to be aimed more at the communication during games, which is ludicrous.

Now although it is a FIDE law and as such in the interim is required to be followed until amedned for all FIDE tournaments, there is no reason for Australian Chess to not create its own considerably more reasonable by-laws

Also there is a case to suggest that the Australian Federation should consider lobbying FIDE for an amendment to the rules. Just becaue a law of Chess is passed by a congress this does not make the law correct.

If for example the ACF passed a law stating that if the communication device went off in an audible fashion the player will be penalised would this not be areasonable approach??

And if so why not also changes reflecting more appropriate penalties?

Bill Gletsos
09-12-2004, 02:06 PM
Understanding that Bill, but lets take that a step further.
Your mobile rings and is on vibrate, your opponent notices and asks that you are forfeited because your mobile rang. The rule seems to be aimed more at the communication during games, which is ludicrous.

Now although it is a FIDE law and as such in the interim is required to be followed until amedned for all FIDE tournaments, there is no reason for Australian Chess to not create its own considerably more reasonable by-laws

Also there is a case to suggest that the Australian Federation should consider lobbying FIDE for an amendment to the rules. Just becaue a law of Chess is passed by a congress this does not make the law correct.
This law has actually been in place for about 2 years. Its just most people are not aware of it.
There appears to have been little to no attempt by Federations to have it removed.


If for example the ACF passed a law stating that if the communication device went off in an audible fashion the player will be penalised would this not be areasonable approach??

And if so why not also changes reflecting more appropriate penalties?
Personally I think its a matter of degree and and ability to stop/enforce it.

In the case whether no mobile is involved but having a person talk next to your board is distracting and you can get the arbiter to intervene.
If of course you have a player who disturbs many games or goes ballistic for whatever reason, the arbiter may decide to declare his game lost or even expel him from the event.

A ringing mobile phone distracts/disturbs many players in the venue.
However in the case of mobile phones, all this can easily be avoided.
Either dont bring it into the venue, have it turned off, or have it on vibrate.
Everyone is aware of the penalty if the phone rings and is audible.

WBA
09-12-2004, 02:22 PM
Bill

I think that on occassion the argument of the rule is the rule and therefore must be applied to the letter is used to suit one side argument and then on other occasions a reasonable approach is called for. I am not particuarly interested in winning this debate, but more interested in finding an answer to this.

The question of whether or not the rule is draconian would seem to have an obvious answer, the question shoul perhaps be how tdo we address the mobile phone issue in chess.

To leave a phone on vibrate is not the answer as you put it in your pocket and often do not feel it vibrate. So to me the answer is in the penalties. If a phone rang for a second, the call accepted button was pressed and the person left the playing area t ohold the conversation I cannot see the problems, they should receive a verbal warning that they are conrtravening the said law and further instances of that throught the tournament will result in forfeiture. I do not consider the phone ringing as being equivalant to somebody casuing a loud ruckus as there is a greater sense that the individual is having total disregard if they are runnig around a tournament making leaving mayhem in their wake. This will leave chess players irate.

The Melbourne CC has a phone which is audible from the playing hall, should the phone be unplugged druing the tournament?

Again we are living in an information age and chess has to be adaptable.
I am surprised that people would vigorously defend the FIDE rule, because it is clearly a bad rule, even if it has the right intentions.

I also appreciate that national organisations may well not have put in any proposals to amend the laws, but that does not make the laws right. Just look at the state justice systems in the USA to find incredible examples of laws that have not been amended throughout time and with hind-sight we can asess how ludicruous and invading they are.

Rincewind
09-12-2004, 02:30 PM
My understanding is one should seek the permission of the arbiter/DoP to have a mobile phone in the playing hall at all (even turned off or set to vibrate). Is this right?

WBA
09-12-2004, 02:36 PM
My understanding is one should seek the permission of the arbiter/DoP to have a mobile phone in the playing hall at all (even turned off or set to vibrate). Is this right?

I interprete the rules exactly as you have stated.... Surely the majority of chess players do not believe that they should be required to ask the permission of the arbiter to carry a phone which is switched off??

Bill Gletsos
09-12-2004, 02:42 PM
My understanding is one should seek the permission of the arbiter/DoP to have a mobile phone in the playing hall at all (even turned off or set to vibrate). Is this right?
That would be my reading of the 2005 Laws.

That is however a concession compared to the actual proposed wording. The proposed wording did not allow for any arbiters permission at all. Mobile phones were banned outright from the venue.

WBA
09-12-2004, 02:51 PM
and in all honesty Bill do you really believe the wording in either approach is refelctive of a reasonable approach in 2004/05

In a tournament of 200 people that is a hell of a large record DOP's would need to keep in regards to remembering who has permission to have a phone in the area.

Whilst the rule is an improvement on the original proposal, so too was Kruschev an improvement on Stalin. I realise the stupidity in the comparison before any body points it out, I am merely making a point that an improvement on bad can still be bad

Bill Gletsos
09-12-2004, 03:04 PM
and in all honesty Bill do you really believe the wording in either approach is refelctive of a reasonable approach in 2004/05

In a tournament of 200 people that is a hell of a large record DOP's would need to keep in regards to remembering who has permission to have a phone in the area.
I believe the change in wording was so that DOP's could allow everyone to bring a phone into the area. In fact Article 13.7 notes b. It is forbidden for anybody to use a mobile phone in the playing venue and any area designated by the arbiter.

It should be noted that the NSWCA has been announcing at that start of its events that the use of a mobile is not allowed and that if it rang it would lead to loss of the game. there have been some cases where it was announced that for a first offence there would be a warning, the loss occuring for a second offence during the event.

Other than the player who ended up being banned for threateninbg an arbiter, no one has actually complained to the arbiters about this that I am aware of.

WBA
09-12-2004, 03:16 PM
It should be noted that the NSWCA has been announcing at that start of its events that the use of a mobile is not allowed and that if it rang it would lead to loss of the game. there have been some cases where it was announced that for a first offence there would be a warning, the loss occuring for a second offence during the event.

Exactly the point I am making. This is an infinetly more appropriate & reasonable approach and one I applaud. I would just like to see the laws changed to reflec this approach


Other than the player who ended up being banned for threateninbg an arbiter, no one has actually complained to the arbiters about this that I am aware of

Obviously when discussng rationale behind deciding on appropriate changes to rules etc, the idocy of an individual is irrelevant because the rule has not created this scenario, the idiot has

Bill Gletsos
09-12-2004, 03:24 PM
It should be noted that the NSWCA has been announcing at that start of its events that the use of a mobile is not allowed and that if it rang it would lead to loss of the game. there have been some cases where it was announced that for a first offence there would be a warning, the loss occuring for a second offence during the event.

Exactly the point I am making. This is an infinetly more appropriate & reasonable approach and one I applaud. I would just like to see the laws changed to reflec this approach
My point was more in line that we are moving to following the FIDE law, rather than making an exception to it.
So you wont be applauding that. ;)



Obviously when discussng rationale behind deciding on appropriate changes to rules etc, the idocy of an individual is irrelevant because the rule has not created this scenario, the idiot has
I was just pointing out that our enforcing the mobile phone rule had not led to any dissent by our members or threats not to play.

Sheroff
04-04-2009, 09:33 PM
To the poster that said that " Doctors and some professional people need to be contacted 24 hours a day" - indeed. Up until about 1990 no one had mobile phones, and managed to play in chess tournaments and conduct other life business without a phone stuck in their pocket. Modern society has become so enamoured of mobile phones, the internet, Blackberies etc. that they forget they are not required appendages at all, but new-fangled contraptions which up until relatively recently were not needed at all. If an arbiter gives a warning on mobile phones before a tournament, and your phone goes off, as far as I'm concerned that's it - you're out. Leave the darn thing in your car and just check for messages or ring the family between rounds. Or put it on vibrate. Surely we can take a break from these insidious devices for the brief time it takes to play a game of chess...

Basil
04-04-2009, 09:36 PM
Hear hear! Except that I think just about everyone has finally come around to that way of thinking.

Bill Gletsos
04-04-2009, 09:45 PM
To the poster that said that " Doctors and some professional people need to be contacted 24 hours a day" - indeed. Up until about 1990 no one had mobile phones, and managed to play in chess tournaments and conduct other life business without a phone stuck in their pocket.Of course many of them used pagers.

Kaitlin
04-04-2009, 10:01 PM
cant they just leave their phones like at a table in buzzz mode and have someone answer it and take messages or go and get them if its an emergancy

eclectic
04-04-2009, 10:19 PM
brrng brrng
yes
is {insertnamehere} about?
he's playing chess
i have a message
his granny was hit by an elephant on arbour avenue and 7th street
oh! i'll let him know
your granny got hit by an elephant on arbour avenue and 7th street
thx for letting me know [plays Ra7]

:mrgreen:

ER
05-04-2009, 09:45 PM
brrng brrng
yes
is {insertnamehere} about?
he's playing chess
i have a message
his granny was hit by an elephant on arbour avenue and 7th street
oh! i'll let him know
your granny got hit by an elephant on arbour avenue and 7th street
thx for letting me know [plays Ra7]

:mrgreen:

:rolleyes: Which Rook though? The one on a1 or the one on g7?:whistle:

William AS
06-04-2009, 05:02 PM
cant they just leave their phones like at a table in buzzz mode and have someone answer it and take messages or go and get them if its an emergancy
Not possible. In some exceptional circumstances tournament officials may decide to mind a mobile phone for a player eg. relative x is seriously ill in hospital x and I may be asked to go to the hospital immediately or I am a Doctor at X hospital and I may be asked to go to the hospital immediately [they would have to already know the player was a doctor at that hospital]. A message asking the player to go to hospital immediately may be passed on, and if so, the player would be expected to shake hands with their opponent and leave immediately. I can guarantee that even in these circumstances no official is going to pass on the message, please meet me at Bishops Restaurant at 7 Frederick Street, before the game is finished. A message like that could get the player in serious trouble with the arbiter.

eclectic
06-04-2009, 05:07 PM
if your relative was seriously ill (and maybe near death's door) would you be in the mood for (or even consider) playing chess?

Miranda
06-04-2009, 05:13 PM
if your relative was seriously ill (and maybe near death's door) would you be in the mood for (or even consider) playing chess?
What if they were in an accident while you were playing?

eclectic
06-04-2009, 05:16 PM
What if they were in an accident while you were playing?

that's something different entirely; in such an event all rules would be broken to contact you

fritz
06-04-2009, 06:45 PM
Not possible. In some exceptional circumstances tournament officials may decide to mind a mobile phone for a player eg. relative x is seriously ill in hospital x and I may be asked to go to the hospital immediately or I am a Doctor at X hospital and I may be asked to go to the hospital immediately [they would have to already know the player was a doctor at that hospital]. A message asking the player to go to hospital immediately may be passed on, and if so, the player would be expected to shake hands with their opponent and leave immediately. I can guarantee that even in these circumstances no official is going to pass on the message, please meet me at Bishops Restaurant at 7 Frederick Street, before the game is finished. A message like that could get the player in serious trouble with the arbiter.

If the phone is in buzz mode, who is going to hear it ? The rule is, 'ringing' mobile phones not 'buzzing' mobile phones. This actually makes perfect sense and I am surprised that chessplayers don't set their mobiles to buzz mode - they can always leave the room, anyway to answer their mobiles.

eclectic
06-04-2009, 06:51 PM
If the phone is in buzz mode, who is going to hear it ? The rule is, 'ringing' mobile phones not 'buzzing' mobile phones. This actually makes perfect sense and I am surprised that chessplayers don't set their mobiles to buzz mode - they can always leave the room, anyway to answer their mobiles.

the mobiles are set to OFF to avoid ANY disturbance and to prevent the player accessing outside help for their game

Garvinator
06-04-2009, 06:54 PM
If the phone is in buzz mode, who is going to hear it ? The rule is, 'ringing' mobile phones not 'buzzing' mobile phones. This actually makes perfect sense and I am surprised that chessplayers don't set their mobiles to buzz mode - they can always leave the room, anyway to answer their mobiles.
From July 1 2009:


12.3 (b) Without the permission of the arbiter, a player is forbidden to have a mobile phone or other electronic means of communication in the playing venue, unless they are completely switched off.
If any such device produces a sound, the player shall lose the game. The opponent shall win. However, if the opponent cannot win the game by any series of legal moves, his score shall be a draw.
So this clears the matter up entirely. A mobile phone must be completely turned off, not just be put on silent. There is no ambiguity over what is or is not a ring. The phone must be completely off.

eclectic
06-04-2009, 07:24 PM
a little question, perhaps pedantic, ...

note what bill says about resignations here (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=236869&postcount=65)

this implies the surviving player is not required to prove they had mating potential; they get the full point

why doesn't the laws of chess simply say (paraphrasing):

"if a person's mobile goes off they shall be deemed to have resigned; this immediately ends the game" ?

in that event the status of the opponent's pieces or mating capability would be moot; they would get the full point

Desmond
06-04-2009, 08:51 PM
if your relative was seriously ill (and maybe near death's door) would you be in the mood for (or even consider) playing chess?Or, if you forfeited the game, would you even care?

William AS
06-04-2009, 09:01 PM
the mobiles are set to OFF to avoid ANY disturbance and to prevent the player accessing outside help for their game
This says it all.

William AS
06-04-2009, 09:07 PM
if your relative was seriously ill (and maybe near death's door) would you be in the mood for (or even consider) playing chess?
This has occurred locally when the situation persisted for some considerable time. :(

Rincewind
06-04-2009, 09:30 PM
a little question, perhaps pedantic, ...

note what bill says about resignations here (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=236869&postcount=65)

this implies the surviving player is not required to prove they had mating potential; they get the full point

Yes because a player wins if his opponent resigns.


why doesn't the laws of chess simply say (paraphrasing):

"if a person's mobile goes off they shall be deemed to have resigned; this immediately ends the game" ?

in that event the status of the opponent's pieces or mating capability would be moot; they would get the full point

Because that is not the intention. A mobile phone ringing is usually a unplanned event and does not constitute a player believing his opponent will inevitably win the game. The rule specifically reads at present...

If a player`s mobile phone rings in the playing venue during play, that player shall lose the game. The score of the opponent shall be determined by the arbiter.

It could have read the score of the opponent shall be a win. But the rules committee clearly did not intend that to be the case.

fritz
06-04-2009, 10:47 PM
o f f

eclectic
06-04-2009, 10:50 PM
12.3 (b) Without the permission of the arbiter, a player is forbidden to have a mobile phone or other electronic means of communication in the playing venue, unless they are completely switched off.

If any such device produces a sound, the player shall lose the game. The opponent shall win. However, if the opponent cannot win the game by any series of legal moves, his score shall be a draw.

Actually this law does'nt clear it up at all, because if a player obtains permission to have a mobile phone and if that device does not produce sound, then I can't see a problem.

please read this word

OFF

then let me know if you don't understand it

fritz
06-04-2009, 10:59 PM
Please read this word

ON

Let me know if you don't understand it

Garvinator
06-04-2009, 11:37 PM
huh is my response to both of the last replies?? :hmm:

Kevin Bonham
07-04-2009, 12:24 AM
please read this word

OFF

then let me know if you don't understand it

Some phones are quite difficult to turn off so that they will not turn themselves back on again. A classic example was the Nigel Short mobile phone loss (http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/nigel-short-vs-his-mobile-0-1/) - Short was not aware that his phone could sometimes make a noise even when switched off. Various other models have similar issues. Of course, one can remove the battery, but in many cases this results in settings being lost.

I not only turn my current phone off before each game but also put it into silent mode before doing so.

ER
07-04-2009, 12:51 AM
As pointed out by the arbiter of The Khalifman during the weekend, people focus only on mobile phones, whereas other devices such as wrist watches, metronomomes, in fact any electronic device which produces sounds is included in the rule!
I don't know if actuallly this is included in the FIDE rules, or the gentleman meant that it only applied in the said tournament?

Kevin Bonham
07-04-2009, 01:05 AM
As pointed out by the arbiter of The Khalifman during the weekend, people focus only on mobile phones, whereas other devices such as wrist watches, metronomomes, in fact any electronic device which produces sounds is included in the rule!
I don't know if actuallly this is included in the FIDE rules, or the gentleman meant that it only applied in the said tournament?

Both in the 2005 and 2009 laws, other electronic devices are only included in the rule if they are a means of communication. Watches and so on are not means of communication and are therefore not included in the FIDE laws.

Of course a tournament organiser can apply sanctions to watch noises as well but these should be very clearly advertised in advance.

Bill Gletsos
07-04-2009, 01:34 AM
Both in the 2005 and 2009 laws, other electronic devices are only included in the rule if they are a means of communication. Watches and so on are not means of communication and are therefore not included in the FIDE laws.Exactly.

The FIDE mobile phone rule does not apply to warches unless they happen to be of the dick tracey video type. :hmm: :whistle:

Of course a tournament organiser can apply sanctions to watch noises as well but these should be very clearly advertised in advance.Absolutely especially if the arbite/organisers intends to forfeit players whose watches beep.

If not advertised in advance then hopefully any competent appeals committee would overturn such a ruling by the arbiter.

ER
07-04-2009, 08:15 AM
Thanks for this information/clarification!

Desmond
07-04-2009, 08:33 AM
Both in the 2005 and 2009 laws, other electronic devices are only included in the rule if they are a means of communication. Watches and so on are not means of communication and are therefore not included in the FIDE laws.

Of course a tournament organiser can apply sanctions to watch noises as well but these should be very clearly advertised in advance.What if I took the sim card out of my phone, meaning it is not a means of communication, but left it on to use the clock.

Kevin Bonham
07-04-2009, 10:12 AM
What if I took the sim card out of my phone, meaning it is not a means of communication, but left it on to use the clock.

Tricky. It could be argued that it's still a means of communication; just a currently inoperable one.

ER
07-04-2009, 10:44 AM
Doing a bit of research on the topic, I found this

i use a watch that has a memory function, so it scrolls the notes across the screen.
Another eye opener for arbiters can be found here: (replace "english exam" with "opening variations"!
http://www.instructables.com/id/Cheat-At-School-Professionally/
lol and for those who have any funny ideas about using cheating devices, :hand: I will provide the appropriate authorities with a list of related cheating methods!!!:owned:
In other words
Ashes to Ashes
Dust to Dust
If Garvo won't get you,
Gletsos must! :lol: :owned: :whistle:

ER
07-04-2009, 11:52 AM
By the way was the info provided in the link provided in previous post the reason for the Captain of BHCC, making an announcement at the beginning of a recent tournament, prohibiting players using drink bottles during matches?:hmm:

Rincewind
07-04-2009, 02:39 PM
By the way was the info provided in the link provided in previous post the reason for the Captain of BHCC, making an announcement at the beginning of a recent tournament, prohibiting players using drink bottles during matches?:hmm:

Well drink bottles may be used as a means of communication by taking the lids off and connect two with a taunt wire.

Denis_Jessop
07-04-2009, 02:58 PM
And you can use a drink bottle and matches to make a Molotov cocktail and blow the tournament away.

DJ

Desmond
07-04-2009, 03:36 PM
Well drink bottles may be used as a means of communication by taking the lids off and connect two with a taunt wire.Or blowing across the mouth of the bottle.

Garvinator
07-04-2009, 04:54 PM
or they might have yoghurt in them ;)

Watto
29-04-2009, 10:49 AM
Just curious about the following hypothetical: If a player’s phone goes off and they act as if nothing is wrong while they switch it off and their opponent says nothing (possibly through ignorance of the rule), and the arbiter is not present to witness this, do the surrounding players have any obligations to report it or right to do so even? Or should they consider it none of their business?

Sorry if this has already been covered but there are a lot of pages on this thread!

arosar
29-04-2009, 11:04 AM
Being a typical good neighbour, I'd just ignore it. It's none of my business. Besides, who wants to be a rat?

AR

Watto
29-04-2009, 11:13 AM
Being a typical good neighbour, I'd just ignore it. It's none of my business. Besides, who wants to be a rat?

AR
Yes, I agree, and that’s why I called my post back in the classroom... At the same time, I’m not overly impressed if a player takes advantage of their inexperienced opponent. Anyway, I’m just curious to know what the actual rules are.

eclectic
29-04-2009, 11:50 AM
my reading of things is that it is up to the opponent to claim the forfeit or the arbiter to declare the forfeit not other competitors or spectators

however it's most likely a different matter when the player who wishes to "rat" has a vested interest as in being a friend of the opponent or knowing they gain (more) prize money as a result of the forfeit

i know that in the last round of the SIC a phone went off and those about whistled as though nothing had happened but if it had happened on the top board of the SIO it would have been a different matter

Watto
29-04-2009, 11:56 AM
my reading of things is that it is up to the opponent to claim the forfeit or the arbiter to declare the forfeit not other competitors or spectators

Okay then, that was my understanding of it too. Thanks.

Denis_Jessop
29-04-2009, 05:34 PM
Yes, I agree, and that’s why I called my post back in the classroom... At the same time, I’m not overly impressed if a player takes advantage of their inexperienced opponent. Anyway, I’m just curious to know what the actual rules are.

But what if the opponent doesn't claim not because of inexperience but because he/she thinks the mobile phone rule is bad and doesn't want to have any part in enforcing it - there is no obligation to do so - or otherwise is prepared to let the matter rest?

As for Arosar's comment, it may well be the business of other players if the phone going off disturbs them. They would be within their rights to draw the matter to the arbiter's attention but have no right at all to raise it direct with any of the players.

DJ

Kevin Bonham
29-04-2009, 05:47 PM
Another player is entitled but not obliged to report a mobile phone disturbance to the arbiter. As noise is supposedly one of the reasons for the rule, any player who is affected by it has standing to report it, not just the arbiter - though any player witnessing even a rule breach that doesn't affect them could report it to the arbiter anyway.

Watto
29-04-2009, 07:18 PM
Thanks for your input, Denis and Kevin. Much appreciated.

Spiny Norman
29-04-2009, 07:23 PM
In a tournament game last year at Croydon my opponent's phone buzzed with an SMS message. He took it out and read it, then put it away. I decided to ignore. A few minutes later it happened again, and this time he not only read it, but started typing a message back. I then decided to address it but, given our informal environment at Croydon, I quietly whispered "No, no, no" and wagged my finger. He stopped, mentioned something about his wife having trouble with the heaters (it was a cold night) and we went on with the game. He was a new player, so I didn't feel he needed to be hit with an arbiter's intervention. After the game (which I won incidentally), I explained to him that phones were a "no, no" and the case was closed.