PDA

View Full Version : Watches



MichaelBaron
11-02-2020, 01:11 PM
https://en.chessbase.com/post/adhiban-loses-for-possessing-analog-watch-in-national-teams-2020

GM lost because of wearing an analogue watch. Probably it is fair that they should be disallowed...however ... he was wearing same watch at a significantly larger event (Gibraltar) and nobody seemed to mind!

Patrick Byrom
11-02-2020, 01:54 PM
https://en.chessbase.com/post/adhiban-loses-for-possessing-analog-watch-in-national-teams-2020 GM lost because of wearing an analogue watch. Probably it is fair that they should be disallowed...however ... he was wearing same watch at a significantly larger event (Gibraltar) and nobody seemed to mind!Apparently it's a rule specific to that event. Several commentators have suggested a warning for a first offence would make sense, which I agree with - unless the watch has computational abilities or is capable of transmitting or receiving signals. If it did, then it would definitely be an electronic device under FIDE rules.

But this statement in the article is incorrect: "Logically if a watch had batteries in it, it would become an electronic one." My torch has batteries, but it's not an 'electronic' device.

Garvinator
11-02-2020, 07:45 PM
I think the ban on analogue watches ie the type described in the article, is an over-reach under the rules.

I think it is important to remember what the mobile phone rule is designed to do:

1) To avoid any possibility that the player is receiving assistance ie either by using a smart watch phone to analyse the game (for instance), or
2) To distract the opponent by having the watch making noises during the game ie alarms, because as the rules state, it is the responsibility of the player to not distract their opponent in any manner.

I do not see how an analogue watch falls into either of these categories. Of course, if the players analogue watch starts beeping, or the alarm goes off, then that is when the arbiter should step in. I think something like, after the analogue watch has gone off, a fair decision is for the arbiter to say, 'thank you, I will keep possession of that watch until your game has ended' is sufficient.

Kevin Bonham
11-02-2020, 08:45 PM
Some people out there have got a bit silly about the definition of "electronic", and this possibly reflects language issues with words like "electronic" and "electrical" and available translations in other languages.

Incidentally smartwatches are a growing problem. I've heard of a case of an Australian club level player being defaulted for wearing one, although there was no evidence of cheating. The rules are black and white - a player wearing a smartwatch that has not been specifically permitted by the arbiter loses the game unless the regulations of the event specify a different less severe penalty.

BlairMandla
11-02-2020, 09:11 PM
Final round of NSW State Championships, Cameron Mcgowan claimed a win against Vlad Feldman as Mr Feldman was wearing a smart watch. The bigger issue is it was the last round and from what I am told the claim was made after Cameron had exhausted all other avenues of winning. Ths claim got Cameron =1st for the title.
Honestly the rules are just stupid nowdays, and its why I will not play tournaments anymore.

Bill Gletsos
11-02-2020, 09:50 PM
Final round of NSW State ChampionshipsYou need to get your facts straight. It happened in the third round which isn’t even close to being the last round.

BlairMandla
11-02-2020, 10:15 PM
Oh please bill. The game was postponed and played after the final round... Could of been 2nd last round

MichaelBaron
11-02-2020, 11:37 PM
Final round of NSW State Championships, Cameron Mcgowan claimed a win against Vlad Feldman as Mr Feldman was wearing a smart watch. The bigger issue is it was the last round and from what I am told the claim was made after Cameron had exhausted all other avenues of winning. Ths claim got Cameron =1st for the title.
Honestly the rules are just stupid nowdays, and its why I will not play tournaments anymore.

Irrespective of the rules, very poor sportsmanship.

Kevin Bonham
11-02-2020, 11:56 PM
Irrespective of the rules, very poor sportsmanship.

I'd be inclined to wait until I'd heard both sides of the story before drawing such conclusions.

Bill Gletsos
12-02-2020, 10:29 AM
Oh please bill. The game was postponed and played after the final round... Could of been 2nd last roundThat is totally untrue.

The game in question was played on the the 11th June 2019 the date of the third round.
The results were posted here (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?17575-NSW-State-Championships&p=449720&viewfull=1#post449720) on 12th June by the arbiter.
Feldman appealed on the 13th June.
He then withdrew from the competition prior to the fourth round.
That is why his remaining 5 games were listed as losses on forfeit (see crossable here) (http://www.nswca.org.au/results.php?ItemID=99).

Next time don't be so totally gormless and demonstrate your cluelessness for all to see.

BlairMandla
12-02-2020, 02:01 PM
I apologies, I stand corrected on the detail of the dates.
As far as I know the details surrounding the claim are true, and the default of the game gave Cameron the likely additional half a point which he utilized to earn =1st.

Ian Rout
12-02-2020, 02:49 PM
I'm not greatly familiar with smart watches, but as I understand it they are in effect simply smart phones attached to a watchband and with a clock face. This makes them worse than phones because they have the additional benefit that they can be hidden in plain sight.

I wouldn't want to claim a win just because an opponent was wearing one; they probably have no nefarious intention and probably no idea it's banned. But I would like to be able to ask the arbiter to ask the player to remove it and put it somewhere inaccessible, like a normal phone. Unfortunately I don't think it's possible to do that without the arbiter then having to default the player.

Is it normal practice now for abiters to specifically mention watches when doing the spiel about phones?

Patrick Byrom
12-02-2020, 06:25 PM
I wouldn't want to claim a win just because an opponent was wearing one; they probably have no nefarious intention and probably no idea it's banned. But I would like to be able to ask the arbiter to ask the player to remove it and put it somewhere inaccessible, like a normal phone. Unfortunately I don't think it's possible to do that without the arbiter then having to default the player.If you're confident that there is nothing sinister going on, why not just ask the player to remove it and put it in their pocket, and leave it in their bag in future? Then you could later ask the arbiter to keep an eye on the player in future rounds. That's what I would probably do.


Is it normal practice now for abiters to specifically mention watches when doing the spiel about phones?At the Brisbane Club, the player only gets a warning for a first 'mobile phone' offence, so I wouldn't need to. But I did have to rule a while ago on some sort of heart rate monitor worn on the wrist, which I ruled wasn't a mobile phone - although it might now be considered an "electronic device".

ER
12-02-2020, 06:33 PM
.

At the Brisbane Club, the player only gets a warning for a first 'mobile phone' offence,

Isn't that against the rules or after all the whole thing regarding mobile phones is at the arbiter's discretion?

MichaelBaron
12-02-2020, 07:24 PM
If you're confident that there is nothing sinister going on, why not just ask the player to remove it and put it in their pocket, and leave it in their bag in future? Then you could later ask the arbiter to keep an eye on the player in future rounds. That's what I would probably do.



Exactly!
And based on the story provided by Blair..it is NOT that the arbiter spotted it but that the opponent complained to earn a point in this way in a position where he could not do so otherwise.
So it is clearly a case of very poor ethics.

MichaelBaron
12-02-2020, 07:24 PM
Isn't that against the rules or after all the whole thing regarding mobile phones is at the arbiter's discretion?

If its not Fide Rated...why not. When playing Allegro - we are allowed to have our phones on.

ER
12-02-2020, 07:34 PM
If its not Fide Rated...why not. When playing Allegro - we are allowed to have our phones on.

makes sense, thanks!

Kevin Bonham
12-02-2020, 07:56 PM
Isn't that against the rules or after all the whole thing regarding mobile phones is at the arbiter's discretion?

It is not necessarily against the rules even for FIDE-rated events:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11.3.2.1

During a game, a player is forbidden to have any electronic device not specifically approved by the arbiter in the playing venue.

However, the regulations of an event may allow such devices to be stored in a player’s bag, provided the device is completely switched off. This bag must be placed as agreed with the arbiter. Both players are forbidden to use this bag without permission of the arbiter.

11.3.2.2

If it is evident that a player has such a device on their person in the playing venue, the player shall lose the game. The opponent shall win. The regulations of an event may specify a different, less severe, penalty.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(my emphasis)

The discretion is not with the arbiter, it is with the regulations of the event.

A warning is a penalty so what Pat is talking about is fine provided that it is part of the rules of the event.

If no such rule has been specified in advance, and it is a FIDE-rated event, then the player must be defaulted. Otherwise, even if a player is not defaulted only once, it could result in the entire tournament not being rated.

FIDE recommends that all competitive events, FIDE-rated or not, be played under the FIDE Laws. Of course, people may ignore that recommendation, but if people ran a tournament that very severely breached the Laws (for instance, players were openly consulting computers during the game and the arbiter didn't stop them) it's possible the ACF would also refuse to rate it.

MichaelBaron
12-02-2020, 08:45 PM
It is not necessarily against the rules even for FIDE-rated events:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11.3.2.1

During a game, a player is forbidden to have any electronic device not specifically approved by the arbiter in the playing venue.

However, the regulations of an event may allow such devices to be stored in a player’s bag, provided the device is completely switched off. This bag must be placed as agreed with the arbiter. Both players are forbidden to use this bag without permission of the arbiter.

11.3.2.2

If it is evident that a player has such a device on their person in the playing venue, the player shall lose the game. The opponent shall win. The regulations of an event may specify a different, less severe, penalty.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(my emphasis)

The discretion is not with the arbiter, it is with the regulations of the event.

A warning is a penalty so what Pat is talking about is fine provided that it is part of the rules of the event.

If no such rule has been specified in advance, and it is a FIDE-rated event, then the player must be defaulted. Otherwise, even if a player is not defaulted only once, it could result in the entire tournament not being rated.

FIDE recommends that all competitive events, FIDE-rated or not, be played under the FIDE Laws. Of course, people may ignore that recommendation, but if people ran a tournament that very severely breached the Laws (for instance, players were openly consulting computers during the game and the arbiter didn't stop them) it's possible the ACF would also refuse to rate it.


Does it mean that we can hold FIDE events without worrying about phones going off subject to tournament organisers accepting it?

Kevin Bonham
12-02-2020, 09:11 PM
Does it mean that we can hold FIDE events without worrying about phones going off subject to tournament organisers accepting it?

No. Firstly the organisers have to specify some kind of penalty, and endless warnings wouldn't be a meaningful penalty.

Secondly the Laws of Chess oblige arbiters to take action to:


12.2.2

act in the best interest of the competition,

12.2.3

ensure that a good playing environment is maintained,

12.2.4

ensure that the players are not disturbed

...so the arbiters must take action to effectively discourage mobile phone noise, cheating and suspicion of cheating during games.

Ian Rout
12-02-2020, 09:25 PM
If you're confident that there is nothing sinister going on, why not just ask the player to remove it and put it in their pocket, and leave it in their bag in future? Then you could later ask the arbiter to keep an eye on the player in future rounds. That's what I would probably do.There's a difference being confident as in completely sure and confident that in the majority of cases it would be nothing but you can't be certain.

As a principle players should not be rushing into officiating their own games, except where specifically provided in the rules. It can lead to unpleasantness, especially if you appear to be in effect accusing the opponent of cheating, and gives them a certain level of justification for a belligerent response or a counter-claim that you are breaching the rules yourself by speaking to them. You really shouldn't have to put yourself in that position in a circumstance where you are completely in the right. It's standard practice for arbiters to instruct players to talk to them, not start fights and shouting matches.

As I said, I would LIKE to be able to ask the arbiter to do something but not end the game. If it's an opponent I know well and if I'm certain it is a smart watch then I would probably be relaxed about mentioning it, more in their own interests for later rounds than because I was worried. If it's someone I don't know - well, I'll have to decide what to do when it happens.

ER
12-02-2020, 09:34 PM
It is not necessarily against the rules even for FIDE-rated events:

11.3.2.1
(…)
11.3.2.2
(…)



I read all of your interpretations of different possibilities and find them logical, correct and to some extent player friendly when no blatant violation of the rules occur.
I also understand that it is important to have all these rules before the tournament begins presented in a written form and the arbiter to refer to them in a synoptic way before the start of each round.
I also understand that sooner or later a uniform rule should be implemented in order to avoid player confusion when fronted with different rules tournament after tournament.
Michael gave us an example before regarding MCC Allegros' relaxed way of dealing with mobile phones and that makes sense. (I also understand that those tournaments are rated neither by FIDE nor byACF) (*)
On the other hand rated tournaments at MCC as well as the Chess Artists (I am a member in both and play as much as I can in their tournaments) the mobile phone as well as electronic devices rule
is strictly applied to and announced by Aleksei in each and every round. (*) Wrong move IMHO by MCC, for both their rapid as well as their blitz tournaments not to be officially rated, but that's another story.

Patrick Byrom
12-02-2020, 10:32 PM
There's a difference being confident as in completely sure and confident that in the majority of cases it would be nothing but you can't be certain. As a principle players should not be rushing into officiating their own games, except where specifically provided in the rules. It can lead to unpleasantness, especially if you appear to be in effect accusing the opponent of cheating, and gives them a certain level of justification for a belligerent response or a counter-claim that you are breaching the rules yourself by speaking to them. You really shouldn't have to put yourself in that position in a circumstance where you are completely in the right. It's standard practice for arbiters to instruct players to talk to them, not start fights and shouting matches.

As I said, I would LIKE to be able to ask the arbiter to do something but not end the game. If it's an opponent I know well and if I'm certain it is a smart watch then I would probably be relaxed about mentioning it, more in their own interests for later rounds than because I was worried. If it's someone I don't know - well, I'll have to decide what to do when it happens.I wasn't suggesting that a player should make any accusations. You could just point out to them that their watch may be in breach of the rules, in the same way that a player could point out to their opponent that they haven't pressed their clock. You would be trying to help them avoid a penalty. If they ignore you, or tell you to mind your own business, then you don't need to do anything else - it's now entirely their problem.

Patrick Byrom
12-02-2020, 10:42 PM
I read all of your interpretations of different possibilities and find them logical, correct and to some extent player friendly when no blatant violation of the rules occur.
I also understand that it is important to have all these rules before the tournament begins presented in a written form and the arbiter to refer to them in a synoptic way before the start of each round.
I also understand that sooner or later a uniform rule should be implemented in order to avoid player confusion when fronted with different rules tournament after tournament.
Michael gave us an example before regarding MCC Allegros' relaxed way of dealing with mobile phones and that makes sense. (I also understand that those tournaments are rated neither by FIDE nor byACF) (*)
On the other hand rated tournaments at MCC as well as the Chess Artists (I am a member in both and play as much as I can in their tournaments) the mobile phone as well as electronic devices rule is strictly applied to and announced by Aleksei in each and every round. (*) Wrong move IMHO by MCC, for both their rapid as well as their blitz tournaments not to be officially rated, but that's another story.Local variations in the application of rules can certainly be a problem. But as long as players are notified, I don't think it's a major problem. In the initial example on this thread, apparently the rule was applied much more strictly than usual - but players were warned in advance.

ER
12-02-2020, 11:35 PM
(…) But as long as players are notified, I don't think it's a major problem (…)

yes Ι understand that's why I noted :


I also understand that it is important to have all these rules before the tournament begins presented in a written form and the arbiter to refer to them in a synoptic way before the start of each round.



In the initial example on this thread, apparently the rule was applied much more strictly than usual - but players were warned in advance.

Yes, I noticed and indeed it's an extreme case! I believe that the arbiter (not sure who she/he was) handled the situation correctly.
However, it would be useful i to have their point of view of the situation as well!

Capablanca-Fan
13-02-2020, 01:28 AM
But this statement in the article is incorrect: "Logically if a watch had batteries in it, it would become an electronic one." My torch has batteries, but it's not an 'electronic' device.

My watch is electronic and digital, but not smart, so certainly can't receive chess signals or analyze a game. It is a time piece. There is no way I could cheat with it even if I wanted to. It would be moronic to forfeit me for wearing it. The tournament rules have become absurd and paranoid, punishing lots of innocent people to try to stop a few guilty ones.

Desmond
13-02-2020, 12:15 PM
My watch is electronic and digital, but not smart, so certainly can't receive chess signals or analyze a game. It is a time piece. There is no way I could cheat with it even if I wanted to. It would be moronic to forfeit me for wearing it. The tournament rules have become absurd and paranoid, punishing lots of innocent people to try to stop a few guilty ones.

I have some empathy for arbiters in this regard. It may well be that your watch doesn't have those features, but others do and it may not be so easy for arbiters to tell one type from the other in all cases.

In general smart watches extend the capabilities of a smart phone. So while the watch can't make calls on it's own, it conects to the phone that does, Eg over bluetooth, and lets you read messages etc. So if it's accepted that phones should be banned, those watches probably should be too.

Patrick Byrom
13-02-2020, 12:43 PM
I have some empathy for arbiters in this regard. It may well be that your watch doesn't have those features, but others do and it may not be so easy for arbiters to tell one type from the other in all cases.In the general case I agree with you - the arbiter can't win whatever he does. However in this case, the watch was definitely analog (https://en.chessbase.com/post/adhiban-loses-for-possessing-analog-watch-in-national-teams-2020), so unless it belonged to James Bond it probably doesn't present a threat.

Adamski
13-02-2020, 04:57 PM
Is it normal practice now for abiters to specifically mention watches when doing the spiel about phones?At Rooty Hill for rated games we collect mobiles and smart watches before the games start. Players have 2 choices: don't bring them to the playing venue or hand them in. The same applies for late arrivers.

ER
14-02-2020, 01:03 PM
See off topic thread for a rather indirectly related comment on this!

ElevatorEscapee
14-02-2020, 08:55 PM
I've read this entire thread, and I must say that I am deeply disappointed in the lot of you!

You have all missed out on so many Dad joke opportunities!

Not so much as a "he was forfeited for wearing an analogue wrist watch, gee, he must be ticked off about that!"

Nor... "GM Abhidhan was aware of the local restriction, so he should have known to watch out for it"?

Sigh, I feel almost as meta as AC here - come on you lot, lift your game! :D

Capablanca-Fan
15-02-2020, 04:05 AM
I have some empathy for arbiters in this regard. It may well be that your watch doesn't have those features, but others do and it may not be so easy for arbiters to tell one type from the other in all cases.
You make a fair point. But I also hope that arbiters will rescind forfeits if it is clearly shown that the watch is innocent. A genuine analog watch with physical hands clearly qualifies.


In general smart watches extend the capabilities of a smart phone. So while the watch can't make calls on it's own, it conects to the phone that does, Eg over bluetooth, and lets you read messages etc. So if it's accepted that phones should be banned, those watches probably should be too.
True.

Patrick Byrom
15-02-2020, 12:15 PM
I've read this entire thread, and I must say that I am deeply disappointed in the lot of you! You have all missed out on so many Dad joke opportunities! Not so much as a "he was forfeited for wearing an analogue wrist watch, gee, he must be ticked off about that!"I'm not trying to wind you up, but although the watch was analogue, it was powered by batteries :)

Craig_Hall
15-02-2020, 01:21 PM
Smart watches allow notes if nothing else, so that's an excellent reason to ban them with or without the attached smartphones.

That said, plain digital watches are usually analogue watches with a liquid crystal display (LCD), so they're about as much an electronic device as any other analogue watch i.e. not worth banning.

ElevatorEscapee
15-02-2020, 04:34 PM
@ Patrick :lol:

It appears there is another competitor in the same event has run afoul of this rule:

https://www.chess.com/news/view/second-watch-forfeit-chess-swati-ghate

That her opponent noticed the wristwatch and didn't complain, and after it had been noticed by the arbiter, who enforced the forfeit. Her opponent requested that she be allowed to continue to play as an appeal to common sense, indicates that this is not a popular rule among the players. (The forfeti stood, despite the player's opponent appealing).

I understand that a smart watch may be disguised to resemble an analogue watch, however, this appears to be another example of a broad based interpretation of simplified rules not passing a common sense test.

Craig_Hall
16-02-2020, 10:04 AM
I think if FIDE wants to capture watches within the rule on electronic devices, it needs to reword the Laws accordingly. Organisers are welcome to regulate their own events, obviously, but if this is to become more widespread, it should go through the normal process.

MichaelBaron
17-02-2020, 02:52 PM
@ Patrick :lol:

It appears there is another competitor in the same event has run afoul of this rule:

https://www.chess.com/news/view/second-watch-forfeit-chess-swati-ghate

That her opponent noticed the wristwatch and didn't complain, and after it had been noticed by the arbiter, who enforced the forfeit. Her opponent requested that she be allowed to continue to play as an appeal to common sense, indicates that this is not a popular rule among the players. (The forfeti stood, despite the player's opponent appealing).

I understand that a smart watch may be disguised to resemble an analogue watch, however, this appears to be another example of a broad based interpretation of simplified rules not passing a common sense test.

And this competitor took it far closer to the heart and was in tears.

jasonwalls
01-11-2020, 05:19 AM
In general smart watches extend the capabilities of a smart phone. So while the watch can't make calls on it's own, it conects to the phone that does, Eg over bluetooth, and lets you read messages etc. So if it's accepted that phones should be banned, those watches probably should be too.

Smart watches today are telecommunications devices in their own right. The Apple Watch comes in a version that communicates without any need for a mobile phone. There are plenty of Chinese Android watches that do the same. There are also watches that are smart but have analog moving hands, theyíre called hybrid watches.

IMO I donít get what is wrong with asking people to follow the rules: check your watch in to storage. Why should arbiters have to be experts in horology too?

Craig_Hall
01-11-2020, 02:05 PM
Smart watches today are telecommunications devices in their own right. The Apple Watch comes in a version that communicates without any need for a mobile phone. There are plenty of Chinese Android watches that do the same. There are also watches that are smart but have analog moving hands, theyíre called hybrid watches.

IMO I donít get what is wrong with asking people to follow the rules: check your watch in to storage. Why should arbiters have to be experts in horology too?

I don't think there's any serious debate about actual smart watches - they are clearly captured by the relevant definition in the Laws (electronic device), just as tablets and laptops are. Mechanical analogue watches are also clearly not captured by this law as they aren't electronic by any serious definition.

Standard watches keep time by two ways - mechanical clockwork and battery-powered quartz crystal. Most watches are battery-powered quartz crystal as mechanical clockwork is rare. They display time in two ways - analogue (hands, usually pointing to numbers) and digital (just numbers e.g. 4:58), usually using a liquid crystal display (LCD). Whether watches are electronic watches comes down to how one defines electronic - if it is a battery-powered device, then most watches would be banned but it's hard to tell the difference between analog display watches with and without batteries, so presents some issues for arbiters. If it's based on having a microchip, then generally only smart watches would be covered.

A tournament organiser could ban all watches in the event regulations, but would need to specify that beforehand as the Laws as worded don't ban all watches.

Patrick Byrom
01-11-2020, 05:53 PM
I don't think there's any serious debate about actual smart watches - they are clearly captured by the relevant definition in the Laws (electronic device), just as tablets and laptops are. Mechanical analogue watches are also clearly not captured by this law as they aren't electronic by any serious definition.

Standard watches keep time by two ways - mechanical clockwork and battery-powered quartz crystal. Most watches are battery-powered quartz crystal as mechanical clockwork is rare. They display time in two ways - analogue (hands, usually pointing to numbers) and digital (just numbers e.g. 4:58), usually using a liquid crystal display (LCD). Whether watches are electronic watches comes down to how one defines electronic - if it is a battery-powered device, then most watches would be banned but it's hard to tell the difference between analog display watches with and without batteries, so presents some issues for arbiters. If it's based on having a microchip, then generally only smart watches would be covered.

A tournament organiser could ban all watches in the event regulations, but would need to specify that beforehand as the Laws as worded don't ban all watches.An excellent summary. I would only add that merely having a battery would only make a device "electronic" under an extremely broad definition. My torch has a battery, but it's only useful in a game of chess if there's a blackout :)

The online Collins Dictionary defines it as: "An electronic device has transistors or silicon chips which control and change the electric current passing through the device (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/electronic-device)".

MichaelBaron
02-11-2020, 10:46 AM
I am not sure arbiters can be expected to examine all the devices and understand whether they could be used for cheating or not. Not all arbiters are experts in electronics.