PDA

View Full Version : Alarm sounding on a turned-off mobile phone (sf. 2006 Ryde-Eastwood Open)



Oepty
02-10-2006, 03:58 PM
There's been a couple of interesting moments ... an alarm sounding on a turned-off mobile phone ...

What was the ruling with the mobile phone?
Scott

bergil
02-10-2006, 06:01 PM
What was the ruling with the mobile phone?
ScottA warning only.

Rincewind
02-10-2006, 10:23 PM
A warning only.

Law 12.2 (b) says in part

"...If a player`s mobile phone rings in the playing venue during play, that player shall lose the game..."

That looks like grounds for an appeal.

How does an alarm sound on a mobile phone which is switched off?

Basil
02-10-2006, 10:30 PM
How does an alarm sound on a mobile phone which is switched off?
Don't know. Does the wording "ring" relate to an incoming call? Does it refer to a noise? If the player was tossed for an 'alarm' when the phone was incapable of ringing (in the sense of an incoming call), then perhaps grounds for appeal the other way!

Perhaps the the law requires clarification.

Rincewind
02-10-2006, 10:36 PM
Don't know. Does the wording "ring" relate to an incoming call? Does it refer to a noise? If the player was tossed for an 'alarm' when the phone was incapable of ringing (in the sense of an incoming call), then perhaps grounds for appeal the other way!

Perhaps the the law requires clarification.

I don't think so. To me ring is more about the sound than the cause of the sound. The reason is that it is distracting to the opponent and other players within hearing.

Basil
02-10-2006, 10:49 PM
The reason is that it is distracting to the opponent and other players within hearing.
Indeed. Very annoying. Does the buzzing of a pager fall of 12.2? As we all know, what the law states and how it is interpreted can be entirely different things. Then there's intent (or the spirit) of the law.
I really don't know. I agree there's grounds for appeal as you have suggested. And I maintain a good case could be made for appealing an expulsion!

Post edited to make better sense. Not edited for the purposes of discussion with Baz with whom I either agree or am playing devil's advocate.

Rincewind
02-10-2006, 11:03 PM
Indeed. Very annoying. Does the buzzing of a pager fall of 12.2? As we all know, what the law means and what it says can be entirely different things. Then there's intent (or the spirit) of the law.
I really don't know. I agree there's grounds for appeal as you have suggested. And I maintain a good case could be made for appealing an expulsion!

To my mind a pager is not a mobile phone. If something other than a mobile phone had been the cause of the distraction that it would have been governed by 12.6 and penalised according to 13.4. The fact that the object of the distraction was a mobile phone makes 12.2(b) applicable which prescribes that the penality is that (as a minimum) the game is lost. Further penalties may also be applied according to 13.4. Expulsion is the most serious penality and would not be justified for an innocent, first offence.

Alan Shore
03-10-2006, 12:54 AM
Law 12.2 (b) says in part

"...If a player`s mobile phone rings in the playing venue during play, that player shall lose the game..."

That looks like grounds for an appeal.

How does an alarm sound on a mobile phone which is switched off?

Actually I think a warning is fair there, for the reason that alarms on phones can go off even when a phone is switched off (something not everyone is aware of).

Rincewind
03-10-2006, 06:51 AM
Actually I think a warning is fair there, for the reason that alarms on phones can go off even when a phone is switched off (something not everyone is aware of).

If a mobile phone can make a noise, then it is not truly switched off. If you have a mobile phone which cannot be truly switched off then you should not bring it into the playing hall.

The question is not what Belthasar thinks is fair as interesting as you think that might be. Belthasar probably also thinks it is fair to allow king capture and a whole host of other things which are explicitly against the laws of chess.

The point is the rules give the arbiter no leeway on this point. At a minimum the game is lost. Simple as that.

Alan Shore
03-10-2006, 08:11 AM
If a mobile phone can make a noise, then it is not truly switched off. If you have a mobile phone which cannot be truly switched off then you should not bring it into the playing hall.

The point is, that some people are not aware of this feature - apparently you were not aware yourself. That they complied with instructions and turned off their phone is a definite mitigating factor therefore an arbiter issuing a warning is a fair call. These things are not always black and white Barry as you erroneously seem to think.


The question is not what Belthasar thinks is fair as interesting as you think that might be.

If I am the arbiter of a tournament (and I have been multiple times) then it's exactly what I think is fair that goes - the rules are there and I as arbiter would have the discretion to interpret them how I saw fit.


Belthasar probably also thinks it is fair to allow king capture and a whole host of other things which are explicitly against the laws of chess.

Nice try at deflection - this is completely irrelevant to this discussion.


The point is the rules give the arbiter no leeway on this point. At a minimum the game is lost. Simple as that.

And when is an alarm the same as a ring? Get off your high horse dude. Now that it's happened and people know about it I'm sure it can also be explained by the arbiter at the start of play that alarms can fall into the same category.

Actually another question - an SMS doesn't constitute a ringing phone either, how do you see that occurrence?

Desmond
03-10-2006, 10:10 AM
I think Belty has a point there. Personally, I use the alarm on my mobile as a wake-up call each morning. The fact that it will still sound if it is switched off is useful if it went flat the night before and is on the charger, or if I otherwise forgot to switch it on.

I think that the issue is what is the fundamental problem with a mobile phone? I have heard it explained as the problem is that they are
a) communication devices, or
b) disruptive due to the noise.

If a) then the alarm is irrelevant. If b), then it should be allowed to have the phone switched on but set to discrete, whereby it will make no sounds even if it rings.

Rincewind
03-10-2006, 11:36 AM
The point is, that some people are not aware of this feature - apparently you were not aware yourself. That they complied with instructions and turned off their phone is a definite mitigating factor therefore an arbiter issuing a warning is a fair call. These things are not always black and white Barry as you erroneously seem to think.

No one is aware of all features of all phone that exist. It is the responsibility of the owner of a phone to ensure that it does not cause a disruption. If it does then the game is lost. Bad luck.


If I am the arbiter of a tournament (and I have been multiple times) then it's exactly what I think is fair that goes - the rules are there and I as arbiter would have the discretion to interpret them how I saw fit.

It is also the responsibility of the arbiter to uphold the rules (that is in the rules as well). What they say is that the arbiter should inteprete the rules in cases where the rules don't exactly cater for the situation in question. I would argue in this case, they do.


Nice try at deflection - this is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

Not a deflection. Just pointing out that your subjective concept of fairness is unimportant.


And when is an alarm the same as a ring? Get off your high horse dude. Now that it's happened and people know about it I'm sure it can also be explained by the arbiter at the start of play that alarms can fall into the same category.

From memory the arbiter told players to turn their phones off before the first round.


Actually another question - an SMS doesn't constitute a ringing phone either, how do you see that occurrence?

Anything which causes the phone to make a noise which can be heard constitutes a "ringing".

Rincewind
03-10-2006, 11:39 AM
I think Belty has a point there. Personally, I use the alarm on my mobile as a wake-up call each morning. The fact that it will still sound if it is switched off is useful if it went flat the night before and is on the charger, or if I otherwise forgot to switch it on.

I'm not saying that that feature does not have it's uses. However care must be taken if you take such a phone into a playing hall.


I think that the issue is what is the fundamental problem with a mobile phone? I have heard it explained as the problem is that they are
a) communication devices, or
b) disruptive due to the noise.

They are both problems but I believe (b) is the worse in terms of likelihood of occurence in impact on number of games.


If a) then the alarm is irrelevant. If b), then it should be allowed to have the phone switched on but set to discrete, whereby it will make no sounds even if it rings.

I agree that setting a phone to discreet should be allowed in most weekenders.

Desmond
03-10-2006, 12:38 PM
I'm not saying that that feature does not have it's uses. However care must be taken if you take such a phone into a playing hall.

They are both problems but I believe (b) is the worse in terms of likelihood of occurence in impact on number of games.

I agree that setting a phone to discreet should be allowed in most weekenders.
Ok, but why then do arbiters instruct players to turn off mobile phones? The rules state that if a phone rings blahblahblah, so if it rings silently, technically it is still a forfeit.

arosar
03-10-2006, 12:39 PM
When I was reading this, I was almost persuaded by Rincey. But then when you read 12.2, it seems to be talking about devices that can be used for "electronic means of communication".

So basically, I'm thinking, if the player switched off the phone, it stopped being an "electronic means of communication" and transformed into a device for alarm. You know, like a wristwatch. In this instance, when the alarm sounded, the apt rule to invoke would be 12.6 (and then, of course, 13.4).

I think we have to take into account here the action of the player. He clearly intended to switch off the "phone". That is sufficient mitigating factor I think.

AR

Bill Gletsos
03-10-2006, 12:51 PM
Ok, but why then do arbiters instruct players to turn off mobile phones? The rules state that if a phone rings blahblahblah, so if it rings silently, technically it is still a forfeit.Not if the arbiter permits it as is his right under Artilce 12.2 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.
As such the arbiter could authorise mobile phones in the area either switched off or on silent.

Rincewind
03-10-2006, 01:19 PM
When I was reading this, I was almost persuaded by Rincey. But then when you read 12.2, it seems to be talking about devices that can be used for "electronic means of communication".

If that was the reason then the rules would state should a mobile phone be found to be turned on in the playing venue then the game is lost. Obviously the trigger for the loss of the game is the phone ringing (ie the distraction), not the act of having a means of communication. The intent of the rule is clear to me to strongly discourage phones making noises.


So basically, I'm thinking, if the player switched off the phone, it stopped being an "electronic means of communication" and transformed into a device for alarm. You know, like a wristwatch. In this instance, when the alarm sounded, the apt rule to invoke would be 12.6 (and then, of course, 13.4).

Your thinking is flawed. If the phone is switched off, it is still a mobile phone.


I think we have to take into account here the action of the player. He clearly intended to switch off the "phone". That is sufficient mitigating factor I think.

12.2(b) doesn't not mention mitigating circumstances. Phone rings you lose. No one intends to have their phone ring during the game. The purpose of the rule is to ensure players DO ENOUGH to prevent the disruption. In this case the player obviously did not do enough.

Kevin Bonham
03-10-2006, 02:56 PM
My memory is that the original rationale for the severity of the rule was actually not the distraction but the potential for use of the phone to seek outside assistance at high levels of play. Therefore I favour a severe warning only in a case where the noise is not any kind of incoming information alert, but the onus is on the player to satisfy the arbiter that this is so.

I would consider "ringing" to be either an incoming call noise or an incoming message noise.

Some phones while switched off can be accidentally turned back on and will make a startup noise if this occurs. If you are going to forfeit players for that on account of the disturbance then you should instruct players not merely to switch their phones off but to disconnect the batteries as well.

eclectic
03-10-2006, 03:21 PM
There ought to be cloaking facilities at chess venues for mobile phones to be dismantled (battery and sim card removed) and then stored.

If mobile phones were not permitted under any circumstances in the designated playing arena then the pedantry about whether the sound it gave off was an alarm, in incoming call or an SMS would become redundant.

My primary objection about the mobile phone has always been this:

If the offending person was clearly losing when their mobile went off then realistically what penalty if any have they suffered?

Its punitive effects are clearly biased against those who are winning and, to a lesser extent, those who are drawing.

It would not surprise me if there are those who, clearly losing a game, would, instead of resigning gracefully, persist to the bitter end in the hope that their opponent might suffer the embarrassment of having the mobile in their back pocket go off by leaning back against their chair.

Finally, apropos the straw breaking the camel's back, I hope we never ever see a case where some chess player with personal problems and under severe emotional stress takes their life because their mobile went off.

Kevin Bonham
03-10-2006, 03:28 PM
I reckon a better rule would be that any mobile phone making any noise whatsoever, irrespective of owner, is confiscated by the arbiter for the duration of the tournament. Only if a player actually answers a mobile phone while playing should they be forfeited.

Rincewind
03-10-2006, 08:44 PM
My memory is that the original rationale for the severity of the rule was actually not the distraction but the potential for use of the phone to seek outside assistance at high levels of play. Therefore I favour a severe warning only in a case where the noise is not any kind of incoming information alert, but the onus is on the player to satisfy the arbiter that this is so.

If that was the case it seems strange to have the ringing of the phone to trigger the lose of game.


I would consider "ringing" to be either an incoming call noise or an incoming message noise.

Any audible alarm is a ringing to my way of thinking for the reasons mentioned above. Ringing doesn't mean an incoming call because a vibrate would not constitute a ringing or a disturbance. Naturally I agree with you regarding incoming calls and SMS messages with an audible alert.


Some phones while switched off can be accidentally turned back on and will make a startup noise if this occurs. If you are going to forfeit players for that on account of the disturbance then you should instruct players not merely to switch their phones off but to disconnect the batteries as well.

Anything can happen accidentally. Most devices that might make a noise (watch, alarm clock, camera, etc) are not explicitly covered by the rules and therefore can be treated at the arbite's discretion. However mobile phones are explicitly covered and therefore there is less scope for arbiter judgement to come into play.

Consider the following hypothetical...

Player A and B are playing and A is winning comfortably. Player B's mobile "rings". He takes it out of his pocket and stops the noise. The arbiter then calls him over to discuss the issue. B explains the alert was the hone accidentally coming on or whatever and the arbiter instructs him to not let it happen again and to continue with the game.

Now in the mind of player A he has won the game but player B comes back and continues playing again. Perhaps A thinks B just wants to analyse the position and so he makes the move that he was considering playing in that position. However, this move is a blunder which changes the position from winning to losing. Then he discovers that the game is in fact continuing despite rule 12.

It seems to me that when you have a rule as prescriptive as rule 12.2(b) it should be enforced to the letter of the law or else the possibility for confusion is too great. If you start making exceptions for different sort of ringings you have the possibility of players arguing that this noise was an time alarm, battery running low alert, or whatever. It will just lead to confusion.

As I said in an earlier post, I believe the rule is this prescriptive and punitive so as to ensure players take all necessary care to ensure that a mobile phone does not make a noise during their game. In this case the player did not take enough care. Simple as that.

Alan Shore
03-10-2006, 10:38 PM
No one is aware of all features of all phone that exist. It is the responsibility of the owner of a phone to ensure that it does not cause a disruption. If it does then the game is lost. Bad luck.

I think it would be fortuitous for the arbiter to be clear about what will be enforced before the start of play (regarding lesser known rules) or have the rules on display for public access to minimise the potential for disputes. Regarding your specific claim, there is plenty of ambiguity in the rules pertaining to an alarm function. Let's see the rule in entirety:


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.

Bill covers this first part:


As such the arbiter could authorise mobile phones in the area either switched off or on silent.

The rest of the law suggests that communication is the issue, not noise. An alarm isn't an indication of communication. Therefore I am also in agreement with Kevin's assessment:


My memory is that the original rationale for the severity of the rule was actually not the distraction but the potential for use of the phone to seek outside assistance at high levels of play. Therefore I favour a severe warning only in a case where the noise is not any kind of incoming information alert, but the onus is on the player to satisfy the arbiter that this is so.


It is also the responsibility of the arbiter to uphold the rules (that is in the rules as well). What they say is that the arbiter should inteprete the rules in cases where the rules don't exactly cater for the situation in question. I would argue in this case, they do.

And I disagree due to reasons stated above.


Not a deflection. Just pointing out that your subjective concept of fairness is unimportant.

Seemed pretty convenient, but ok.


From memory the arbiter told players to turn their phones off before the first round.

So the instructions were followed. Rules are there for the guidance of the wise and the obedience of the foolish. Being completely anal about technicalities is not in the spirit of the game.

Rincewind
03-10-2006, 10:54 PM
I think it would be fortuitous for the arbiter to be clear about what will be enforced before the start of play (regarding lesser known rules) or have the rules on display for public access to minimise the potential for disputes. Regarding your specific claim, there is plenty of ambiguity in the rules pertaining to an alarm function.

There was no dispute. Everyone knows or should know the rule regarding mobile phones ringing, I know of a number of games in NSW that have been decided by the phone.


The rest of the law suggests that communication is the issue, not noise. An alarm isn't an indication of communication.

Crap. Firstly you do not justify the interpretation that communication is the issue. If so why isn't a a player seen speaking on a phone an automatic loss of game? Secondly, even if your intepretation is valid, how can a arbiter confidently say that the noise was only an alarm and could not have been a indication of an incoming message?


Therefore I am also in agreement with Kevin's assessment:

Kevin's assessment is based on his intepretation of how the rule was justified. I agree that this would have been a convenient way to argue the new rule's inclusion. However, it is immaterial your argument.


And I disagree due to reasons stated above.

As you failed to even attempt a justification of your position that the pertinent section of the rule is aimed at preventing communication and not distraction, you have not given any reasons above.


So the instructions were followed. Rules are there for the guidance of the wise and the obedience of the foolish. Being completely anal about technicalities is not in the spirit of the game.

You can recite inapplicable aphorisms until the cows come home. 13.1 states...

"The arbiter shall see that the Laws of Chess are strictly observed."

The reason is to prevent the sort of confusion I gave in my hypothetical above.

Denis_Jessop
03-10-2006, 11:30 PM
There are a number of aspects of the laws that have been touched on so far in this thread and not all of them, with the greatest respect, accurately. I'll summarise some relevant points.

Art. 12.2.b. raises a number of issues.

First, it forbids the bringing of "mobile phones or other electronic means of communication" into the playing venue. So a pager is forbidden as well as a mobile phone.

Secondly, this prohibition is subject to the arbiter being allowed to authorise the bringing of those things into the playing venue. Presumably he can allow eveything or allow some, eg phones, but not others, eg pagers.

Thirdly, there is no mention in the law of the arbiter being allowed to impose conditions, eg that the phones be switched off, but this is a reasonable implication, and probably a necessary one, in light of the second sentence of Art.12.2.b.

Fourthly, the law does not prescribe a penalty for a breach of this provision so the general penalty provision in Art.13.4 applies.

Fifthly, the law goes on to provide that if a player's mobile phone rings in the playing venue, the player loses the game. This penalty is mandatory and applies only to the ringing, not to the bringing of the phone into the venue. In this context the word "rings" is used as an intransitive verb and clearly has the ordinary meaning of the sound made by a ringing phone. If there is no sound at all, there is no "ring". This is consistent with the object of the law being to prevent disturbance of other players. This part of the law applies whether or not the arbiter has authorised the bringing of the phone into the venue.

Sixthly, if a player uses a mobile phone in the playing venue, which includes answering even a silent call, the player infringes Art.13.7.b. which forbids such use by "anybody". The penalty is as prescribed by Art.13.4.

Seventhly, it does not follow that, because player A's mobile rings and he loses the game, player B, his opponent, receives a point, or even half a point, as his score is within the discretion of the arbiter.

DJ

Bill Gletsos
03-10-2006, 11:37 PM
Seventhly, it does not follow that, because player A's mobile rings and he loses the game, player B, his opponent, receives a point, or even half a point, as his score is within the discretion of the arbiter.My understanding for the reason for this is so that a player whose opponents phone rings only gets 0.5 if the position is such that he cannot mate even with the most unskilled play.

Basil
03-10-2006, 11:39 PM
Denis, thanks. Its a pleasure to read. I'm better informed because of it.

I would add that the part about 'ring' being interpretated as an intransitive verb is monstrous poppycock! :) I can't substantiate my claim - I just wonder how you can reach that far into the text.

The rest is good and you are thanked. For your slight overstretch, please visit the amended smoking poll once (and if) Barry complies with my recent request! :)

Rincewind
03-10-2006, 11:50 PM
There are a number of aspects of the laws that have been touched on so far in this thread and not all of them, with the greatest respect, accurately. I'll summarise some relevant points.

Art. 12.2.b. raises a number of issues.

First, it forbids the bringing of "mobile phones or other electronic means of communication" into the playing venue. So a pager is forbidden as well as a mobile phone.

Secondly, this prohibition is subject to the arbiter being allowed to authorise the bringing of those things into the playing venue. Presumably he can allow eveything or allow some, eg phones, but not others, eg pagers.

Thirdly, there is no mention in the law of the arbiter being allowed to impose conditions, eg that the phones be switched off, but this is a reasonable implication, and probably a necessary one, in light of the second sentence of Art.12.2.b.

Fourthly, the law does not prescribe a penalty for a breach of this provision so the general penalty provision in Art.13.4 applies.

Fifthly, the law goes on to provide that if a player's mobile phone rings in the playing venue, the player loses the game. This penalty is mandatory and applies only to the ringing, not to the bringing of the phone into the venue. In this context the word "rings" is used as an intransitive verb and clearly has the ordinary meaning of the sound made by a ringing phone. If there is no sound at all, there is no "ring". This is consistent with the object of the law being to prevent disturbance of other players. This part of the law applies whether or not the arbiter has authorised the bringing of the phone into the venue.

Sixthly, if a player uses a mobile phone in the playing venue, which includes answering even a silent call, the player infringes Art.13.7.b. which forbids such use by "anybody". The penalty is as prescribed by Art.13.4.

Seventhly, it does not follow that, because player A's mobile rings and he loses the game, player B, his opponent, receives a point, or even half a point, as his score is within the discretion of the arbiter.

Thanks Denis, I agree with everything you wrote.

Let me add that as arbiters generally request (and did at the RE Open) that phones be switched off this would constitute in my mind approval for such items to be brought into the playing venue. However, complynig with this request does not prevent someone still losing a game by 12.2(b) should the switched off phone ring.

Bill, my understanding is much the same as your but one could imagine other situations. For example, if it were to come to light that the opponent was somehow implicated in the phone going off, the arbiter might decide a double loss is appropriate.

Desmond
04-10-2006, 07:17 AM
Fifthly, the law goes on to provide that if a player's mobile phone rings in the playing venue, the player loses the game. This penalty is mandatory and applies only to the ringing, not to the bringing of the phone into the venue. In this context the word "rings" is used as an intransitive verb and clearly has the ordinary meaning of the sound made by a ringing phone. If there is no sound at all, there is no "ring". This is consistent with the object of the law being to prevent disturbance of other players. This part of the law applies whether or not the arbiter has authorised the bringing of the phone into the venue.The word "ring" is the ambiguous one here. I don't think that you have sufficiently dealt with this.

I have not heard a mobile phone "ring" for a couple of years now.

I have heard them play songs to alert the owner to an incoming call or message. Does that constitute a ring?

I have heard them speak, usually an audio snippet from a movie etc, to alert the owner to an incoming call or message. Does that constitute a ring?

I have heard the soft sound of a mobile phone vibrating in someone's pocket. Does that constitute a ring?

I have not heard them when there is an incoming call and the phone is set to neither play a ringtone nor vibrate. Does that constitute a ring?

What about if I pre-record my own voice saying j'adoube, and set that as my ring tone for the weekend. Does that constitute a ring?

Rincewind
04-10-2006, 08:19 AM
The word "ring" is the ambiguous one here. I don't think that you have sufficiently dealt with this.

I have not heard a mobile phone "ring" for a couple of years now.

If you are taking ring to mean make a particular type of noise then you are taking a too restrictive definition of the word ring. In this context the rule is intended to penalise players who distract their opponents. Therefore anything audible to others is a ring. This makes the the answering of your questions easy and unambiguous.


I have heard them play songs to alert the owner to an incoming call or message. Does that constitute a ring?

Yes.


I have heard them speak, usually an audio snippet from a movie etc, to alert the owner to an incoming call or message. Does that constitute a ring?

Yes.


I have heard the soft sound of a mobile phone vibrating in someone's pocket. Does that constitute a ring?

If audible to someone other than the owner, yes.


I have not heard them when there is an incoming call and the phone is set to neither play a ringtone nor vibrate. Does that constitute a ring?

No.


What about if I pre-record my own voice saying j'adoube, and set that as my ring tone for the weekend. Does that constitute a ring?

Yes.

Desmond
04-10-2006, 08:28 AM
If you are taking ring to mean make a particular type of noise then you are taking a too restrictive definition of the word ring. In this context the rule is intended to penalise players who distract their opponents. Therefore anything audible to others is a ring. This makes the the answering of your questions easy and unambiguous.But where is that explicitly stated in the rules? Is that not your interpretation, and as such could not other arbiters make a different but equally valid interpretation?

arosar
04-10-2006, 08:35 AM
In this context the word "rings" is used as an intransitive verb and clearly has the ordinary meaning of the sound made by a ringing phone. If there is no sound at all, there is no "ring". This is consistent with the object of the law being to prevent disturbance of other players. This part of the law applies whether or not the arbiter has authorised the bringing of the phone into the venue.

What is so special about mobile phones then? Why is it that the "ring" (or sound) they make is so much more special, and treated more harshly, than any other disturbing sound like that emitted by a wristwatch, say?

Now I know what you blokes are saying and it's all very simple to understand. But I suppose it's just interesting to entertain the idea that a device can actually transform, in purpose, from one to another. So in the RE example, the device, which is generally and almost always a phone, stopped being a phone and became an alarm clock. There is no rule saying that when you're alarm clock (or a wristwatch) goes, then that's it!

AR

Rincewind
04-10-2006, 08:41 AM
But where is that explicitly stated in the rules? Is that not your interpretation, and as such could not other arbiters make a different but equally valid interpretation?

You are just posting a silly intepretation. Come up with an equally valid intepretation and you might have a point.

As pointed out earlier the purpose of the rule is to prevent disturbances caused by mobile phones. Anything audible could be a distraction regardless of whether it sounds like a bell, buzz, movie quote or a recording of the owners voice. Therefore I can't see any purchase for your position nor any difficulty in the hypothetical issues you raised.

bergil
04-10-2006, 08:46 AM
The word "ring" is the ambiguous one here. I don't think that you have sufficiently dealt with this.

I have not heard a mobile phone "ring" for a couple of years now.

I have heard them play songs to alert the owner to an incoming call or message. Does that constitute a ring?

I have heard them speak, usually an audio snippet from a movie etc, to alert the owner to an incoming call or message. Does that constitute a ring?

I have heard the soft sound of a mobile phone vibrating in someone's pocket. Does that constitute a ring?

I have not heard them when there is an incoming call and the phone is set to neither play a ringtone nor vibrate. Does that constitute a ring?

What about if I pre-record my own voice saying j'adoube, and set that as my ring tone for the weekend. Does that constitute a ring?Yes to all there's no ambiguity.

The "Alarm" sounded just like a ring tone and as usual it was bloody loud, I was two boards away and got up to complain to the arbiter who had also been informed by Nick Kordahi.

The player involved had a good position in the game (the arbiter thought it mate in three when he looked at the board) before he was disturbed and on his next move made a huge blunder that cost him the game.

Another board in the same round proved to be more of a problem though as the noise from that game continued on and off for about half an hour with pieces being banged, clock slammed, uncontrollable sobbing and a refusal to write the moves down all topped off by the player throwing his arm out and himself across the board in anguished sobs at the conclusion of the game, when the opponent then tried to comfort the player he was rudely shrugged off and glared at.

Rincewind
04-10-2006, 08:49 AM
What is so special about mobile phones then? Why is it that the "ring" (or sound) they make is so much more special, and treated more harshly, than any other disturbing sound like that emitted by a wristwatch, say?

Because they are ubiquitous enough to require an explicit exception and by their nature are likely to cause distraction without any forethought from the owner.

People who have wristwatch alarms go off in a tournament hall should be dealt with more harshly as that did require forethought on behalf of the owner.

BTW the rule doesn't say the mobile phone disturbance should be dealt with more harshly. It just prescribes the penalty is immediate loss of game. A wristwatch disturbance may be dealt with more harshly.


Now I know what you blokes are saying and it's all very simple to understand. But I suppose it's just interesting to entertain the idea that a device can actually transform, in purpose, from one to another. So in the RE example, the device, which is generally and almost always a phone, stopped being a phone and became an alarm clock. There is no rule saying that when you're alarm clock (or a wristwatch) goes, then that's it!

Time travel is also an interesting idea to entertain but I don't subscribe to the view that flicking a switch transforms a device from a phone to an alarm. It is just a phone which is switched off.

Desmond
04-10-2006, 08:51 AM
You are just posting a silly intepretation. Come up with an equally valid intepretation and you might have a point.Leaving aside the cheap shot, I take that to mean you confirm that other interpretations are possible.


As pointed out earlier the purpose of the rule is to prevent disturbances caused by mobile phones. Anything audible could be a distraction regardless of whether it sounds like a bell, buzz, movie quote or a recording of the owners voice. Therefore I can't see any purchase for your position nor any difficulty in the hypothetical issues you raised.The issue is that the problem with the mobile phone is that it is not only a noise-making annoyance but also a communication device. From what you said above, you are quite happy for a player to have a phone switched on and receive messages, provided that they are silent.

Rincewind
04-10-2006, 09:03 AM
Leaving aside the cheap shot, I take that to mean you confirm that other interpretations are possible.

What I confirm is that I will entertain another intepretation if you can come up with a valid one. The onus is on you to come up with one though.


The issue is that the problem with the mobile phone is that it is not only a noise-making annoyance but also a communication device. From what you said above, you are quite happy for a player to have a phone switched on and receive messages, provided that they are silent.

No what I thik I said is that in most weekenders in Australia a mobile switched on but set to a setting so that it makes no audible disturbance should be allowed. Using a mobile phone in the playing venue by anyone except the arbiter is also against the rules.

Desmond
04-10-2006, 09:12 AM
What I confirm is that I will entertain another intepretation if you can come up with a valid one. The onus is on you to come up with one though.No, the onus is on you to state your interpretation as what it is, not claim that it is the only possible interpretation. My point is that the FIDE laws are not sufficiently clear. I would have thought that was pretty obvious, but you seem determined to defend the laws to the death.

Rincewind
04-10-2006, 09:34 AM
No, the onus is on you to state your interpretation as what it is, not claim that it is the only possible interpretation. My point is that the FIDE laws are not sufficiently clear. I would have thought that was pretty obvious, but you seem determined to defend the laws to the death.

Unlike you, I don't claim that there is more than one valid intepretation. I just entertain the concept that another might exist. To support your position you clearly have to come up with an alternative.

Desmond
04-10-2006, 10:21 AM
Unlike you, I don't claim that there is more than one valid intepretation. I just entertain the concept that another might exist. To support your position you clearly have to come up with an alternative.Belty's assertion that an audible alarm does not qualify as a "ring" seems reasonable enough to me.

Rincewind
04-10-2006, 10:26 AM
Belty's assertion that an audible alarm does not qualify as a "ring" seems reasonable enough to me.

As I pointed out in my unanswered reply to Belty that makes no sense. The rule is obviously meant to prescribe the penality for the disturbance as it is given for the ringing and not for using a mobile phone which is also against the rules but does not have a prescribed penalty. As such Belty's argument around the communication function of the device is flawed.

Next?

Ian Rout
04-10-2006, 10:46 AM
In this context the word "rings" is used as an intransitive verb and clearly has the ordinary meaning of the sound made by a ringing phone. If there is no sound at all, there is no "ring". This is consistent with the object of the law being to prevent disturbance of other players. This part of the law applies whether or not the arbiter has authorised the bringing of the phone into the venue.
DJ
I recall a comment by Gijssen in the Forums section of fide.com that a silent ring (e.g. vibration) is the same as a sound ring for the purpose of the rule. It may be that I'm wrong and he actually said the opposite, but I'm pretty sure he has addressed it if someone wants to hunt it out.

Desmond
04-10-2006, 11:02 AM
Unlike you, I don't claim that there is more than one valid intepretation.Would you like to rethink that last drink in view of Ian Rout's response. Irrespective of which way Gijssen interprets it however, it is pretty obvious to me that the rule can be interpreted either way. That is, some people say a silent ring qualifies as a "ring", others say it does not.

arosar
04-10-2006, 11:13 AM
I recall a comment by Gijssen in the Forums section of fide.com that a silent ring (e.g. vibration) is the same as a sound ring for the purpose of the rule. It may be that I'm wrong and he actually said the opposite, but I'm pretty sure he has addressed it if someone wants to hunt it out.

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/geurt69.pdf
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/geurt70.pdf
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/geurt72.pdf

AR

Garvinator
04-10-2006, 11:25 AM
Hello arosar,

Those three documents are from older versions of the laws of chess ie not the 2005 ones (the dates of the pdf's are 2003, 2004). In previous versions, the mobile phone rule was either not in existance, or was not as clearly defined as it is now.

Therefore, using those rules to judge decisions made in tournaments nowadays is rather pointless.

Garvinator
04-10-2006, 11:27 AM
I do recall a reply on the fide website forum from Stewart Reuban where he talks about the matter of alarms on mobiles v rings. I have been searching the fide chat website for the reply and cant find it. Is somebody else aware of what I am talking about?

arosar
04-10-2006, 11:48 AM
Therefore, using those rules to judge decisions made in tournaments nowadays is rather pointless.

They are not completely irrelevant IMO. Note the discussion over the definition of what constitutes a "ring".

AR

Basil
04-10-2006, 12:17 PM
Berg, I assume you covered all of this and more when considering your position and making the ruling on the spot! :P :P :mrgreen:

Denis_Jessop
04-10-2006, 12:40 PM
I can see a lot of sense in what has been said about what constitutes a "ring" on a mobile phone. Much of it can be resolved by considering what is commonly regarded as a ring. For example, all those exotic sounds that one can now get either with the phone or downloaded from the net are, I believe, commonly described as "ring tones" and any other alert that there is such as the fanciful "j'adoube" would also qualify.

My reference to intransitve verbs that so tickled Howard was not just showing off. The dictionary (Chambers 21st C, inthis case) definition of "ring" pointed out that with "ring" used as a transitive verb you get "he rings the bell". Used as an intransitive verb "the bell rings" describes the sound make when "he rings the bell". Translating this concept to mobile phones etc the ring is the sound made when the call alert is activated by a caller ringing the owner of the phone.

This matter is a good illustration of one of the difficulties faced by drafters of rules and legislation. The commonly used word "ring" has been thought by the FIDE drafters to be sufficient to cover all the alert sounds made by a mobile phone. The alternative would be to include a definition of "ring" which would be fairly easy to do but would make the law more cumbersome. Legal drafters don't worry so much about the complexity factor though even there it has been the trend for many years to draft laws in plainer English. In the Laws of Chess, I assume the aim is to make them as readable as possible. This can sometimes lead to uncertainty, as here, though I feel that there is probably no need for a definition of "ring". One can rely on what is commonly taken to be a ring, which includes all the exotic sounds there are for mobiles.

DJ

Basil
04-10-2006, 01:34 PM
Abso-f*&%-lutely! :)

DJ: I wasn't tickled. I was impressed. However the bar (as you may well agree) is extra high when it comes to interpretation, and I questioned the reach (although on balance I thought you were correct).

But enough of that ... I was really trying yet another back end run to seduce you to the smoking poll.

Rincewind
04-10-2006, 01:39 PM
Would you like to rethink that last drink in view of Ian Rout's response. Irrespective of which way Gijssen interprets it however, it is pretty obvious to me that the rule can be interpreted either way. That is, some people say a silent ring qualifies as a "ring", others say it does not.

I see that some people may be able to make that intepretation and I respect that view. However, that was the opposite of the position you were holding.

I never said that there was only one intepretation. In fact quite the opposite. I just said your view was not valid due to the aforementioned flaws.

Desmond
05-10-2006, 08:46 AM
I see that some people may be able to make that intepretation and I respect that view.Earlier you were saying how clear cut it is, and how the arbiter has no choice or discretion.
However, that was the opposite of the position you were holding.My position has always been (and was prior to this discussion) that the law is ambiguous. I can play the devil's advocate and argue either way to point out the ambiguity.


I never said that there was only one intepretation. In fact quite the opposite. I just said your view was not valid due to the aforementioned flaws.Perhaps I just misinterpreted you then. ;)

harry
05-10-2006, 09:22 AM
this is Australia right? we can make our own rules ok? :wall: if a phone goes off the DOP can do whatever . I think sure they were told to turn everything off because it is disturbing and they didnt . so what to do is something like have a penalty like 30 minutes taken off your clock time. Some of you are no funs :(

Rincewind
05-10-2006, 09:41 AM
Earlier you were saying how clear cut it is, and how the arbiter has no choice or discretion. My position has always been (and was prior to this discussion) that the law is ambiguous. I can play the devil's advocate and argue either way to point out the ambiguity.

The point as to whether an inaudible alarm is a ringing or not is another discussion. The question here is whether an audible alarm constitutes a ringing. It does and it is not ambiguous and you or anyone else has not come up with a reasonable counterargument.

Rincewind
05-10-2006, 09:44 AM
this is Australia right? we can make our own rules ok? :wall: if a phone goes off the DOP can do whatever . I think sure they were told to turn everything off because it is disturbing and they didnt . so what to do is something like have a penalty like 30 minutes taken off your clock time. Some of you are no funs :(

Harry,

if we are to compete internationally and if we are going to run international events in Australia is is important that Australia follows the official laws of chess.

According to the preface to the Laws


A member federation is free to introduce more detailed rules provided they:

a. do not conflict in any way with the official FIDE Laws of Chess
b. are limited to the territory of the federation in question; and
c. are not valid for any FIDE match, championship or qualifying event, or for a FIDE title or rating tournament.

I emphasised the clause which would be a problem to your argument.

harry
05-10-2006, 10:51 AM
Harry,

if we are to compete internationally and if we are going to run international events in Australia is is important that Australia follows the official laws of chess.

According to the preface to the Laws



I emphasised the clause which would be a problem to your argument.

yeah riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight like this event is a cat 30 international. You forget that under those same FIDE rules the DOP can do whatever he has to 2 make sure the tournament runs smooooooooooooth ./ Get a grip:P

Bill Gletsos
05-10-2006, 11:11 AM
yeah riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight like this event is a cat 30 international. You forget that under those same FIDE rules the DOP can do whatever he has to 2 make sure the tournament runs smooooooooooooth ./ Get a grip:PRincewind is correct. You dont know what you are talking about.

harry
05-10-2006, 11:20 AM
Rincewind is correct. You dont know what you are talking about.

I do know what i am talking about . I know plenty . in this case there are two sides dont agree and that means that the DOP gets to do whatever he thinks is the right thing . here is the quote to prove it .

"PREFACE

The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions. Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations, which are discussed in the Laws. The Laws assume that arbiters have the necessary competence, sound judgement and absolute objectivity. Too detailed a rule might deprive the arbiter of his freedom of judgement and thus prevent him from finding the solution to a problem dictated by fairness, logic and special factors."

now Bill Gletsos dont insult me just stay out of my face :hand:

arosar
05-10-2006, 11:21 AM
But surely it is only absolutely necessary to follow the FIDE rules to the letter if the event is FIDE rated and is a title event, right?

AR

arosar
05-10-2006, 11:23 AM
The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions.

Yes, but what if the situation is specifically covered - like the phone issue?

AR

Desmond
05-10-2006, 11:24 AM
The point as to whether an inaudible alarm is a ringing or not is another discussion. The question here is whether an audible alarm constitutes a ringing. It does and it is not ambiguous and you or anyone else has not come up with a reasonable counterargument.It would seem to me to be the same discussion, since we are exploring the definition of a ring. You have not demonstrated that your answer to that question is the only reasonable interpretation. In fact, you earlier stated that there was nothing wrong with the rules as they stand. Now we have agreed to some ambiguity.

You are defending the current rules to the death. The rules will change. This is a rule regarding a newly pervasive technology. I'm not blaming FIDE for getting it slightly wrong. All I'm saying is that the rules can and should be improved. So, my question to you is this: when the rules are updated, will you defend them to the death, or will you stick to your guns and continue to prefer the rules discussed in this thread?

Bill Gletsos
05-10-2006, 11:24 AM
I do know what i am talking about . I know plenty . in this case there are two sides dont agree and that means that the DOP gets to do whatever he thinks is the right thing . here is the quote to prove it .

"PREFACE

The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions. Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations, which are discussed in the Laws. The Laws assume that arbiters have the necessary competence, sound judgement and absolute objectivity. Too detailed a rule might deprive the arbiter of his freedom of judgement and thus prevent him from finding the solution to a problem dictated by fairness, logic and special factors."

now Bill Gletsos dont insult me just stay out of my face :hand:Look firekid you dont get to choose who responds to your posts.
On top of that you dont know what you are talking about.

Bill Gletsos
05-10-2006, 11:25 AM
Yes, but what if the situation is specifically covered - like the phone issue?Exactly AR. He doesnt know what he is talking about.

harry
05-10-2006, 11:28 AM
Yes, but what if the situation is specifically covered - like the phone issue?

AR

like the phone issue is not agreed . cuz an alarm is not ringtone the rules dont cover it so the DOP makes the call to fit.

Bill Gletsos
05-10-2006, 11:30 AM
But surely it is only absolutely necessary to follow the FIDE rules to the letter if the event is FIDE rated and is a title event, right?No, we dont pick and choose which sections of the laws of chess we follow. Here we follow the FIDE laws of chess.

Otherwise how about allowing draws after double repetition or some other such change.

harry
05-10-2006, 11:33 AM
Look firekid you dont get to choose who responds to your posts.
On top of that you dont know what you are talking about.

I am not firegoat GOT IT! i know he is tho he is at Melbourne Chess Club . I know what i am talking about and u are insulting me when u say i dont when i do. :hand:

Bill Gletsos
05-10-2006, 11:38 AM
I am not firegoat GOT IT!I never said you were. However you have the same habit as him of telling people not to repond to posts he makes on a public forum and when they do you still respond. Hence the firekid tag.

i know he is tho he is at Melbourne Chess Club .Good for you.

I know what i am talking about and u are insulting me when u say i dont when i do. :hand:Because you dont know what you are talking about.

arosar
05-10-2006, 11:39 AM
No, we dont pick and choose which sections of the laws of chess we follow. Here we follow the FIDE laws of chess.

Yeah I know that Bill and I don't disagree with you. But what harry is saying could be done with little or no effects whatsoever beyond that specific event. A good example is the king capture.

AR

Bill Gletsos
05-10-2006, 11:45 AM
Yeah I know that Bill and I don't disagree with you. But what harry is saying could be done with little or no effects whatsoever beyond that specific event. A good example is the king capture.No. I disagree.
You dont pick and choose which rules to apply. Otherwise lets do away with touch move.

Just because some players dont like some particular rule doesnt mean you choose to ignore it.

As for King captures FIDE expicitly outlawed them in the 2005 Rules.
It is no different than the fact that for many years you used to be able to castle even if you touched the Rook. That was outlawed a number of years back.

harry
05-10-2006, 11:46 AM
No, we dont pick and choose which sections of the laws of chess we follow. Here we follow the FIDE laws of chess.
you can only follow them when they are absolutely clear . the rules on the phone thing are not so the DOP has to say what should happen for fairness .

Otherwise how about allowing draws after double repetition or some other such change.
You are taking my opinion on one thing and trying to say if we keep going down the road like that we do stupid things. well it is a stupid argument like saying if you let one refugee into the country you will let everyone in . Well it doesnt work like that does it.

Stop talking to me about me or the things i say cus u are always on peoples cases . stay away from me :evil:

Basil
05-10-2006, 11:49 AM
Stop talking to me about me or the things i say cus u are always on peoples cases . stay away from me :evil:
You really do sound like mini-goat.

Apart from that, you had no problem attacking me when you weren't in the prior discussion which makes your quoted post disingenuous.

Silly mini-goat!

arosar
05-10-2006, 12:05 PM
Just because some players dont like some particular rule doesnt mean you choose to ignore it.

Hang on a sec Bill. (And I can sense that you're in that argumentative mood/mode).

I'm not advocating what harry's saying. Certainly, I'm not saying that the NSWCA or ACF go down the path of creating new rules or ignoring the regular FIDE body of rules. Hec, even in social games I still personally follow 99% of the FIDE rules.

However, I can perfectly imagine unique situations where an arbiter might choose to simply his life by either amending on the spot or even discarding the more contentious FIDE rules (e.g. 12.2, say). We're not talking about ignoring the touch move rule or changing the way pieces move.

Now, of course, the NSWCA/ACF might choose not to rate this kind of event - but that's another question altogether. Then again, why wouldn't you rate the event? Let's say Matt Sweeney said: "OK, for the Common Man, we'll amend 12.2. If a mobile phone rings, you get a warning. Ring a second time and you lose on the spot". Matt might want to do that because he feels the rule is harsh and unjust - I wouldn't know. But for this very subtle change, the event is just like any other chess event; everything else is followed as normal. What's the problem?

AR

Bill Gletsos
05-10-2006, 12:05 PM
you can only follow them when they are absolutely clear . the rules on the phone thing are not so the DOP has to say what should happen for fairness .Yes well just because it isnt clear to you doesnt mean it isnt clear to others.

You are taking my opinion on one thing and trying to say if we keep going down the road like that we do stupid things. well it is a stupid argument like saying if you let one refugee into the country you will let everyone in . Well it doesnt work like that does it.Given your question regarding touch move one would think you dont actually have that great a knowledge of the laws of chess.
Do you actually have any experience at arbitering any events?

Stop talking to me about me or the things i say cus u are always on peoples cases . stay away from me :evil:It is simple really, firekid. Just stop making incorrect statements. :hand:

EGOR
05-10-2006, 12:05 PM
It would be nice if "we" could drop the insults and focus on the issues.
Question: Are the rules on mobile phones 100% clear or are the situations not clearly covered and requiring the Arbitors best judgement?:hmm:

Bill Gletsos
05-10-2006, 12:10 PM
Hang on a sec Bill. (And I can sense that you're in that argumentative mood/mode).No, I just dont agree with you. ;)

I'm not advocating what harry's saying. Certainly, I'm not saying that the NSWCA or ACF go down the path of creating new rules or ignoring the regular FIDE body of rules. Hec, even in social games I still personally follow 99% of the FIDE rules.

However, I can perfectly imagine unique situations where an arbiter might choose to simply his life by either amending on the spot or even discarding the more contentious FIDE rules (e.g. 12.2, say). We're not talking about ignoring the touch move rule or changing the way pieces move.I dont agree. The arbiter shoulod not pick and choose which rules he will and will not apply and under no circumstances should he do so as you put it "on the spot". Any arbiter doing so would undoubtedly have their decision overturned on appeal.

Now, of course, the NSWCA/ACF might choose not to rate this kind of event - but that's another question altogether. Then again, why wouldn't you rate the event? Let's say Matt Sweeney said: "OK, for the Common Man, we'll amend 12.2. If a mobile phone rings, you get a warning. Ring a second time and you lose on the spot". Matt might want to do that because he feels the rule is harsh and unjust - I wouldn't know. But for this very subtle change, the event is just like any other chess event; everything else is followed as normal. What's the problem?I see it as the arbiter just selectively picking what rules he does and does not wish to apply. I believe we should play by a standard set of rules. In this case the FIDE rules. That way every player knows what to expect.

Rincewind
05-10-2006, 01:00 PM
It would seem to me to be the same discussion, since we are exploring the definition of a ring. You have not demonstrated that your answer to that question is the only reasonable interpretation. In fact, you earlier stated that there was nothing wrong with the rules as they stand. Now we have agreed to some ambiguity.

Please provide my direct quote and context whare I say there is nothing wrong with the rules as they stand. All I said is that the laws don't need to be updated to cater for alarms, polyphonic ringtones or recordings of the owners voice. These are all obviously rings as intended by the laws. The question of inaudible incoming calls could be disputed. If you wish to discuss that situation further then start a new thread on it.


You are defending the current rules to the death. The rules will change. This is a rule regarding a newly pervasive technology. I'm not blaming FIDE for getting it slightly wrong. All I'm saying is that the rules can and should be improved. So, my question to you is this: when the rules are updated, will you defend them to the death, or will you stick to your guns and continue to prefer the rules discussed in this thread?

I'm am interested in the laws applicable at the time of the dispute in question. In this case we are talking about the current laws of chess. It makes no sense to speculate about future changes. If the laws change then they will apply forward from their time of enactment. It will not have any bearing on this discussion.

Also at no point do I see myself as "defending the laws". Such a statement is senseless and in fact almost meaningless. The laws are the rules of the game and we are discussing what they mean and how they apply in a specific circumstance. The laws themselves need no defense. I'm not interested in arguments that the laws should be changed. I believe there is little argument that in the the specific case in question 12.2(b) was applicable, was breached by a player and the arbiter did not follow through correctly with its application. Hence my comment that there were grounds for an appeal.

Rincewind
05-10-2006, 01:03 PM
Now, of course, the NSWCA/ACF might choose not to rate this kind of event - but that's another question altogether. Then again, why wouldn't you rate the event? Let's say Matt Sweeney said: "OK, for the Common Man, we'll amend 12.2. If a mobile phone rings, you get a warning. Ring a second time and you lose on the spot". Matt might want to do that because he feels the rule is harsh and unjust - I wouldn't know. But for this very subtle change, the event is just like any other chess event; everything else is followed as normal. What's the problem?

Amiel this is one of your more ludicrous suggestions (although the transmutating mobile phone was a good entry in this category too).

Arbiter's cannot make up rules on the spot especially when the rules cover the specific case in question. This is why we have an appeals process. I quoted Law 13.1 earlier. Perhaps you should read it again.

Garvinator
05-10-2006, 01:28 PM
Harry,

One of the main reasons why arbiters should not deviate from the published fide laws of chess is so that players can anticipate what laws they will be playing under. This then provides consistency between every tournament, instead of having situations where players get into trouble because of differences between tournaments.

This then makes each arbiters life a bit easier because they are following a set of published laws.

The only time an arbiter should vary from the fide laws of chess is when it is CLEARLY stated on the entry form (or similar) when each player enters the tournament.

jase
05-10-2006, 02:31 PM
Arbiter's cannot make up rules on the spot
WHAT!? I am taken aback that you should attack the core of my arbitering philosophy so brazenly (Apostrophe Man says grazi by the way). I'm going to let it slide Barry so I can move on to the subject of this thread.

I preferred the previous incarnation of the rule governing mobile phones, whereby some discretion was provided for, and a warning was the recommended course of action. That allowed the arbiter to take into account the manner of the disturbance (and, possibly, the likelihood that the player was cheating).

Whilst I respect the necessity for the arbiter to observe the laws governing the event, I also consider it my duty to faciliate a friendly and positive environment where the rules are applied to facilitate the event, rather than dominate proceedings. Consequently I have never enforced

12.2 b. It is strictly forbidden to bring mobile phones or other electronic means of communication, not authorised by the arbiter, into the playing venue

despite having never authorised anything of the sort to be in the playing hall. Nor has any player made such a request to me. Players who are aware of rule 12.2 and regard it as prescriptive, are willfully breaking this law by bringing their phone into the playing hall. Examples of such players may be found on this thread :lol:

Where my intervention is required, I prefer to do so in a manner that provides for the outcome to be determined by what happens on the board. In this instance, the following matters influenced my decision:
- I was satisfied that his phone was turned off
- The player appeared to be inexperienced (a judgement I made based on his approximate age, that I'd never seen him before, and his unfamiliarity with the rule)
- the level of disturbance was relatively minimal; his phone emitted an alarm that lasted less than one second.

It would have been reasonable for me to forfeit this player. I didn't do so, instead choosing a subjective interpretation of the law, relating to what constitutes a ringing phone. I determined that an alarm sounding does not necessarily equate to ringing (though it may do). In this instance I regarded the sound as closer to a beep, an interpretation influenced by my preference that, where feasible and reasonable, results of games be determined over the board.

That player was of course most appreciative, his opponent (who blundered a rook up and lost!) went on to win a cash prize, so chess was the winner on the day. Yay! :uhoh:

The defence rests, Your Honour:shhh:

Rincewind
05-10-2006, 02:42 PM
I preferred the previous incarnation of the rule governing mobile phones, whereby some discretion was provided for, and a warning was the recommended course of action. That allowed the arbiter to take into account the manner of the disturbance (and, possibly, the likelihood that the player was cheating).

We all may have personal preferences but are bound by the currently enacted rules.


Whilst I respect the necessity for the arbiter to observe the laws governing the event, I also consider it my duty to faciliate a friendly environment where players get the most out of the event. For example, I have never enforced

12.2 b. It is strictly forbidden to bring mobile phones or other electronic means of communication, not authorised by the arbiter, into the playing venue

despite having never authorised anything of the sort to be in the playing hall. Nor has any player made such a request to me. Player who are aware of rule 12.2 and regard it as prescriptive, are willfully breaking this law by bringing their phone into the playing hall. Examples of such players can be found on this thread :lol:

My take in this irrelevant point is that arbiters almost invariable announce before round 1 that players mobile phones should be switched off. This is the equivalent of authorising their presence in in the playing venue. You also made this announcement at this event.


Where possible I prefer to let outcomes be determined by what happens on the board. In this instance, the following matters influenced my decision:
- I was satisfied that his phone was turned off
- The player appeared to be inexperienced (a judgement I made based on his approximate age, that I'd never seen him before, and his unfamiliarity with the rule)
- the level of disturbance was relatively minimal; his phone emitted an alarm that lasted less than one second.

As previously discussed on this thread these factors are immaterial. All that matters is "was it a mobile phone?" and "did it ring?" If the answers are both yes then the game should be declared lost.


It would have been reasonable for me to forfeit this player. I didn't do so, instead choosing a subjective interpretation of the law, relating to what constitutes a ringing phone. I determined that an alarm sounding does not necessarily equate to ringing (though it may do). In this instance I regarded the sound as closer to a beep, an interpretation influenced by my preference that, where feasible and reasonable, results of games be determined over the board.

I think it was unreasonable NOT to forfeit him and a breach of your duty as an arbiter under Law 13.1.

jase
05-10-2006, 02:57 PM
This is the equivalent of authorising their presence in in the playing venue. You also made this announcement at this event.
This is not the case, as I made no such announcement. As such, was it unreasonable of me NOT to have taken action against you on the weekend for being in breach of Rule 12.2?

Kevin Bonham
05-10-2006, 03:15 PM
Question: Are the rules on mobile phones 100% clear or are the situations not clearly covered and requiring the Arbitors best judgement?:hmm:

It is 100% clear that if the phone rings the game is lost for the player.

It is not 100% clear what ringing constitutes as opposed to other noises/actions that a mobile phone may make. It is at least arguable that not all noises made by a mobile phone are rings and because it is possible to argue that way, the matter cannot be considered clearly defined.

I totally agree with jase's decision as he has outlined it.

Garvinator
05-10-2006, 03:24 PM
Serious proposal:

That 'someone' emails Geurt or similar and asks for further information regarding the alarm feature etc in relation to the mobile phone law.

Especially in relation to when arbiters have permitted mobiles in the playing hall, which is common practice in weekenders.

arosar
05-10-2006, 03:57 PM
It is 100% clear that if the phone rings the game is lost for the player.

It is not 100% clear what ringing constitutes as opposed to other noises/actions that a mobile phone may make. It is at least arguable that not all noises made by a mobile phone are rings and because it is possible to argue that way, the matter cannot be considered clearly defined.

Can we argue this way?

If a ring or whatever sound emitted by the phone was for communicative purposes (a call, SMS, MMS, etc), then 12.2 is satisfied.

If the ring or other sound emitted by the phone was for other purposes (time alarm, flat battery, auto-shutdown, etc), then 12.2 is not satisfied.

So basically, it doesn't matter what the sound was; rather, I think we should be considering the purpose of that sound or its cause.

What do you think?

AR

arosar
05-10-2006, 04:00 PM
Btw, what would you do here?

Bill is running late, very late. He arrives at the venue some 20 minutes after start of play. He's just had an emergency at work.

He rushes to the table, sits down, shakes his opponent's hand, then makes his move. As soon as he touched the piece, BEEP BEEP BEEP! Bill's phone goes off.

I take it the fundamentalists among you will just declare the poor bastard lost eh?

AR

Rincewind
05-10-2006, 04:12 PM
This is not the case, as I made no such announcement. As such, was it unreasonable of me NOT to have taken action against you on the weekend for being in breach of Rule 12.2?

My memory is failing me. Well if you apply that ruling fairly and equal to all then...

Kevin Bonham
05-10-2006, 04:13 PM
Can we argue this way?

If a ring or whatever sound emitted by the phone was for communicative purposes (a call, SMS, MMS, etc), then 12.2 is satisfied.

If the ring or other sound emitted by the phone was for other purposes (time alarm, flat battery, auto-shutdown, etc), then 12.2 is not satisfied.

So basically, it doesn't matter what the sound was; rather, I think we should be considering the purpose of that sound or its cause.

What do you think?

AR

That is my view too but it is obvious from this thread that not everyone agrees.

Kevin Bonham
05-10-2006, 04:15 PM
I take it the fundamentalists among you will just declare the poor bastard lost eh?

I would declare him lost. He should (and Bill would) remember to turn off his phone when entering the venue even if that made him 21 minutes late instead of 20.

There are exceptions I consider valid. For instance a doctor who is on call playing in a local event should be allowed to have a communication device switched on, preferably in soundless vibrate mode.

Rincewind
05-10-2006, 04:23 PM
So basically, it doesn't matter what the sound was; rather, I think we should be considering the purpose of that sound or its cause.

The problem with this line (which seems roughly to be Kevin's and Jase's position) is that the rule would seem to be clearly written to punish the player whose mobile phone creates a distraction, not for the possibility of communication. The reason is it is the ringing which is the trigger for a loss of game. Using a phone in the playing venue is also forbidden but there is no such prescribed penalty. This only makes sense if the distraction is the reason for the forced loss. If we accept that then if the alarm is audible to anyone other than the player then a distraction has occurred. As such the only consist application of 12.2 is to award the game lost.

The only question which is up in the air is if a discreet incoming call constitutes a "ring". My position is that it does not since no distraction has occurred. Others may disagree and I have no interest in arguing for or against that particular interpretation.

Brian_Jones
05-10-2006, 04:28 PM
Especially in relation to when arbiters have permitted mobiles in the playing hall, which is common practice in weekenders.

FIDE is concerned mainly about International tournaments not weekenders.:)

In international events it is clear that mobile events are NOT allowed in the playing hall.:evil:

arosar
05-10-2006, 06:10 PM
There are exceptions I consider valid. For instance a doctor who is on call playing in a local event should be allowed to have a communication device switched on, preferably in soundless vibrate mode.

Personally, I would widen the consideration to that specific circumstance in which Bill found himself. He just had a work emergency. His mind was everywhere and turning off his cell was probably the last thing on his mind.

Now, if this particular Bill happened to be Bill Gletsos, someone I know who is quite knowledgeable of the rules, then I consider that to be even more reason to excuse him.

Of course, this thinking has certain problems for it begs the question: what might be other excusable circumstances? So maybe, the absolutist approach is the only approach. :hmm:

AR

Bill Gletsos
05-10-2006, 06:14 PM
Personally, I would widen the consideration to that specific circumstance in which Bill found himself. He just had a work emergency. His mind was everywhere and turning off his cell was probably the last thing on his mind.

Now, if this particular Bill happened to be Bill Gletsos, someone I know who is quite knowledgeable of the rules, then I consider that to be even more reason to excuse him.If I was the arbiter in your hypothetical I would declare the game lost for me.

Oepty
05-10-2006, 06:54 PM
I am not sure were I stand on this, but just a bit of observation. The SA Chess center has a fixed line phone that when it rings can be heard clearly throughout all of the venue. It does seem to make inforcing the rule a bit redundant, but if I was arbiting I would enforce it.
Scott

Denis_Jessop
05-10-2006, 09:23 PM
FIDE is concerned mainly about International tournaments not weekenders.:)

In international events it is clear that mobile events are NOT allowed in the playing hall.:evil:

Stewart Reuben mischievously points out that Art. 13.7.b forbidding the use of a mobile phone "in the playing venue and any area designated by the arbiter" literally allows the arbiter to ban mobile phones anywhere in the world. He comments that this may not be a bad thing. :clap: :cool: :rolleyes: :lol:

DJ

Kevin Bonham
05-10-2006, 11:01 PM
The problem with this line (which seems roughly to be Kevin's and Jase's position) is that the rule would seem to be clearly written to punish the player whose mobile phone creates a distraction, not for the possibility of communication. The reason is it is the ringing which is the trigger for a loss of game. Using a phone in the playing venue is also forbidden but there is no such prescribed penalty. This only makes sense if the distraction is the reason for the forced loss. If we accept that then if the alarm is audible to anyone other than the player then a distraction has occurred. As such the only consist application of 12.2 is to award the game lost.

Your argument is that if communication using a mobile phone is an issue why does the rule not explicitly apply the forfeit to outgoing calls too. The counter-argument is that if any noise using a mobile phone is the issue why does the rule not explicitly apply the forfeit to noises other than rings. Both arguments seem more or less equally compelling to me.

While I have seen claims that the communication issue was the main rationale these may have come only from Gijssen, who is not immune to putting his own stamp on why things were decided a particular way. Another possibility is that both issues were in the air at once and it just happened that decreeing a forfeit only for the issue that is both a distraction and a potential attempt to cheat was most satisfactory to all parties.

Rincewind
05-10-2006, 11:06 PM
Your argument is that if communication using a mobile phone is an issue why does the rule not explicitly apply the forfeit to outgoing calls too. The counter-argument is that if any noise using a mobile phone is the issue why does the rule not explicitly apply the forfeit to noises other than rings. Both arguments seem more or less equally compelling to me.

That argument only makes sense if you distinguish different sort of noises as some of them rings and other not. I would classify any audible alarm as a ring, whether it be an timed alarm, incoming call, SMS, low battery of "switch on/off" alarm. They all cause the device to ring.

Garvinator
06-10-2006, 12:36 AM
In international events it is clear that mobile events are NOT allowed in the playing hall.:evil:Oh come on Brian, you had lead yourself into an area where you could have given yourself a gratitous free plug-
http://www.chessaustralia.com.au/open/index.cfm?p=section&a=Rules, regarding mobiles for an international tournament ;) :whistle:

Kevin Bonham
06-10-2006, 12:42 AM
I would classify any audible alarm as a ring, whether it be an timed alarm, incoming call, SMS, low battery of "switch on/off" alarm. They all cause the device to ring.

Suppose that the alarm sound is a beep. In this case I expect most people would say the phone is beeping not the phone is ringing.

Indeed my phone makes a beeping sound when it is low on batteries. People (at least those aware of my mediocre hearing) say to me "your phone's beeping" not "your phone's ringing" when it does this.

Basil
06-10-2006, 12:46 AM
Post #97

Suppose that the alarm sound is a beep. In this case I expect most people would say the phone is beeping not the phone is ringing.

Post #4
http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=125508&postcount=4

Are we making any progress gentlemen? :)

Desmond
06-10-2006, 12:59 AM
Post #97


Post #4
http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=125508&postcount=4

Are we making any progress gentlemen? :)
Yes, that has been obvious to some for a while. Others are taking more convincing.

:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:

Rincewind
06-10-2006, 08:57 AM
Suppose that the alarm sound is a beep. In this case I expect most people would say the phone is beeping not the phone is ringing.

Indeed my phone makes a beeping sound when it is low on batteries. People (at least those aware of my mediocre hearing) say to me "your phone's beeping" not "your phone's ringing" when it does this.

People may say, your phone is ringing, your alarm clock is ringing, your doorbell is ringing, the fire-alarm is ringing, etc. The intransitive form of ring basically means to make a noise. This is also consistent with the objective to punish the disturbance and not the communication as is indicated by way the law is worded.

Basil
06-10-2006, 11:41 AM
People may say, your phone is ringing, your alarm clock is ringing, your doorbell is ringing, the fire-alarm is ringing, etc. The intransitive form of ring basically means to make a noise. This is also consistent with the objective to punish the disturbance and not the communication as is indicated by way the law is worded.
There is much in what you say wise one, as was the case with DJ delictable handing down - in fact so much so that I'm inclined to agree.

Nevertheless,
1. It is still interpretion. Do we really expect everyome to interpret like this?
2. Technology has progressed rapidly.
3. A combination of this law makes it practically unworkable with absolute certainty - just look at us!

Perhaps it would be easier if we were to concede YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT! From there it might easier for us all to agree that for the purposes of universal and practical exercise, the law needs to re-written! :)

So dare I say, back to post #4?

Kevin Bonham
06-10-2006, 03:28 PM
People may say, your phone is ringing, your alarm clock is ringing, your doorbell is ringing, the fire-alarm is ringing, etc.

Considering the noise my alarm clock makes I don't think anyone would describe it as ringing. "Going off" seems to be the expression used.

In my dictionary the intransitive form is far more specific than you claim and means "give a clear resonant or vibrating sound of or as of a bell". That's prior to mobile phone ringtones doubtless modifying the meaning but I still doubt that common parlance generally includes all sounds made by alarms as ringing.

There is also a meaning "permeated with a sound" but that is in the context "rings with", eg "rings with applause".

Rincewind
06-10-2006, 06:16 PM
Considering the noise my alarm clock makes I don't think anyone would describe it as ringing. "Going off" seems to be the expression used.

In my dictionary the intransitive form is far more specific than you claim and means "give a clear resonant or vibrating sound of or as of a bell". That's prior to mobile phone ringtones doubtless modifying the meaning but I still doubt that common parlance generally includes all sounds made by alarms as ringing.

There is also a meaning "permeated with a sound" but that is in the context "rings with", eg "rings with applause".

Permeate with sound is a relative term. It is one thing to permeate a busy city street with sound, quite another to permeate a chess playing venue with sound. Geven that you have some trouble with the meaning of ringing perhaps you should consider the intention of the law. Do you agree the law is written to punish the disturbance and not the potential for communication?

Secondly, in this particular case, an eye witness described the incident thusly...


The "Alarm" sounded just like a ring tone and as usual it was bloody loud, I was two boards away and got up to complain to the arbiter who had also been informed by Nick Kordahi.

Would that testimony change your interpretation of how 12.2(b) should be applied in this particular case?

Basil
06-10-2006, 06:20 PM
Would that testimony change your interpretation of how 12.2(b) should be applied in this particular case?
If I may ... I know I shouldn't, "NO, it wouldn't change my interpretation. Else we open the door for incoming calls that don't sound like ringing - say just a light appearing / flashing !!!!!!

And that's a whole differnt ball game.

Hey, here's an idea. How about clarification and development of the law? :P

Kevin Bonham
06-10-2006, 06:48 PM
Do you agree the law is written to punish the disturbance and not the potential for communication?

As already indicated I don't think it's clear and that the law was probably crafted by agreement between those who variously held either or both intentions.


Secondly, in this particular case, an eye witness described the incident thusly...

Would that testimony change your interpretation of how 12.2(b) should be applied in this particular case?

If I was the arbiter I would certainly require firm convincing that the noise was an alarm and not a ring tone. Burden of proof to this effect would be on the owner of the phone.

arosar
06-10-2006, 06:53 PM
OK, let's take a slightly different angle. Should this kind of law that is so decisive be allowed to remain in the long term? Why not go back to an escalating style of punishment like 2 strikes or whatver? Even if we take Rincey's definition and application, I think this law is a bit too unjust. It does not consider reasonable factors like if a player is in a rush or something.

What do you think? I have a feeling that most players and arbiters feel bad about this law. This is why most players just give a smile when a cell goes off instead of dobbing the poor bastard in.

AR

Rincewind
06-10-2006, 07:07 PM
As already indicated I don't think it's clear and that the law was probably crafted by agreement between those who variously held either or both intentions.

Is that opinion based on the current wording or on your recollection of the debate that the new rule was proposed. Based on the placement of a required penalty for a phone ringing but no such penalty for a using a mobile phone (as per 13.7). It would seem to be definitely leaning in that direction to me.

Furthermore, although 13.7 forbids the use of mobile phones there is no such rule regarding land-lines which might happened to be present in the playing venue.


If I was the arbiter I would certainly require firm convincing that the noise was an alarm and not a ring tone. Burden of proof to this effect would be on the owner of the phone.

Given that in this case at least 2 games in which the offending player was not involved were disturbed enough such that a player from each of them left their board to complain to the arbiter separately, what would constitute proof in your eyes?

Garvinator
06-10-2006, 07:12 PM
The current penalties ie loss of game, solve the problem outright and there are very few mobiles 'going off' (either a beep or ring) in the playing hall. To have any leeway ie warnings, will allow mobiles to ring repeatedly in the playing hall.

I think some of the posters really are 'missing the point'. Warning- I am very well known for my anti mobiles being on in playing halls stance, so this could be viewed as a bit of a rant.

I take the view that players are responsible for their own conduct. The laws of chess are very clear across three different rules as to their intention:


12.2
a. During play the players are forbidden to make use of any notes, sources of information, advice, or analyse on another chessboard.
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.

12.6 It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever.

13.7 a. Spectators and players in other games are not to speak about or otherwise interfere in a game. If necessary, the arbiter may expel offenders from the playing venue.
b. It is forbidden for anybody to use a mobile phone in the playing venue by the arbiter

Put all these three together as I do regard it as easy to see what the correct penalty is supposed to be prescribed by the law makers regarding alarms on mobile phones.

Furthermore, if a player in an open weekender is old enough to play in the tournament and make moves, record their game etc, then they are old enough to be governed under the laws of chess.

I expect some people to now come back and abuse with claims that I am hard-hearted, that I am not compassionate enough. I expect that claim from some. I stand by the fact that if players are clearly told what the consequences are for a mobile phone 'going off' in the playing hall is and that it is forfeiture, there are alot less mobile phones going off in the playing hall.

Kevin Bonham
06-10-2006, 07:23 PM
Is that opinion based on the current wording or on your recollection of the debate that the new rule was proposed.

Both.


Based on the placement of a required penalty for a phone ringing but no such penalty for a using a mobile phone (as per 13.7). It would seem to be definitely leaning in that direction to me.

I previously commented on why I thought it could be taken either way.


Furthermore, although 13.7 forbids the use of mobile phones there is no such rule regarding land-lines which might happened to be present in the playing venue.

Probably because the risk of a player employing one to receive a call is slight.


Given that in this case at least 2 games in which the offending player was not involved were disturbed enough such that a player from each of them left their board to complain to the arbiter separately, what would constitute proof in your eyes?

The "given that..." etc is irrelevant once the fact that a phone has made a noise is established.

The arbiter (jase) said that he reckoned the noise was more like a beep than a ringtone.

If I was in any doubt (thinking "hmmm, I'm not sure, I think that could be a ringtone") I would want to test the phone myself to ascertain that its ringtone-like noise was in fact only an alarm. This could raise some practical difficulties as you would need to have an arbiter spare who could take the phone outside and watch while the player proved (on their time of course) it was an alarm.

When I made some of my posts above I had not noticed the debate about whether the "alarm" sounded like a ringtone. That does change my attitude significantly. The basic principle is still the same (if it's not a ringtone/SMStone it ideally shouldn't be a forfeit) but if it is not clearcut and there is no way to easily test it without disrupting the event I'd be inclined to rule a forfeit. jase presumably heard the noise in question and was in the best position to judge for himself what it was.

Oepty
06-10-2006, 07:25 PM
OK, let's take a slightly different angle. Should this kind of law that is so decisive be allowed to remain in the long term? Why not go back to an escalating style of punishment like 2 strikes or whatver? Even if we take Rincey's definition and application, I think this law is a bit too unjust. It does not consider reasonable factors like if a player is in a rush or something.

What do you think? I have a feeling that most players and arbiters feel bad about this law. This is why most players just give a smile when a cell goes off instead of dobbing the poor bastard in.

AR

Amiel, I have seen a number of times where it has been next to impossible to tell from exactly where the noise of the phone ringing comes from, especially if the person silences it quickly.

As far as the direct issue at hand. I think the right decision was made in the original incident, mostly because the issue is unclear.

As far as when a player should be forfeited for their mobile phone doing something, i believe it should be when ever the phone is activated by another person. This is because it could be a obserser of the game giving the player a signal that there is a win in the position or something like that. Of course if the phone is in a bag or something like that makes no audible sound then no one even the player is going to know it rang. This covers the communication side of the problem with a mobile phone. The ban should also apply to any device that can be activated by a person other than the player.

As far as other noises the phone makes. With an alarm it is possible for a player to set it go off at a particular time, so it is possible they could set it to distract their opponent. I think that this kind of deliberate cheating deserves a forfeit.
I am not sure what other noises mobile phones can make seeing I don't own one. Is there any other noises a mobile phone can make while it is turned off?
If not then although it probably is a bit harsh then I think a player should be forfeited whatever noise their phone makes because they had it turned on while playing.

Scott

Basil
06-10-2006, 08:08 PM
3 STRIKES, 2 STRIKES ETC ...

No soft-clock stuff. If it makes a noise - you outta there. Soft clock carry-on is the thin end of the wedge EVERY TIME!

Bill Gletsos
06-10-2006, 08:21 PM
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/geurt69.pdf
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/geurt70.pdf
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/geurt72.pdf

ARYou a missed a few.
The following all apply to the post 2005 rules.

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/geurt83.pdf
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/geurt96.pdf
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/geurt99.pdf
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/geurt100.pdf
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/geurt101.pdf

Rincewind
06-10-2006, 08:40 PM
3 STRIKES, 2 STRIKES ETC ...

No soft-clock stuff. If it makes a noise - you outta there. Soft clock carry-on is the thin end of the wedge EVERY TIME!

Not sure if you were attempting autoparody here but there is some sense in what you say. If you open the door of uncertainty it makes tre rule harder to enforce as players will appeal based on the noise not being a "ring".

Furthermore it was not unreasonable for the opponent to have expected the game adjudged lost and that would create even a greater disturbance and potential source of uncertainty than simply the noise of the phone itself.

Rincewind
06-10-2006, 08:53 PM
Both.

Could you try to form an opinion based simply on the wording and ignornig your recollections?


The arbiter (jase) said that he reckoned the noise was more like a beep than a ringtone.

Was this explicitly stated? My recollection is jase has referred to the incident as an "alarm sounding" in at least two posts.


jase presumably heard the noise in question and was in the best position to judge for himself what it was.

I believe jase's statement was he was satisfied that the phone was switched off. (Although how he could determine this post hoc is not clear.) He also seemed to take into account the length of the disturbance and the apparent inexperience off the offender.

Garvinator
06-10-2006, 09:09 PM
3 STRIKES, 2 STRIKES ETC ...

No soft-clock stuff. If it makes a noise - you outta there. Soft clock carry-on is the thin end of the wedge EVERY TIME!
ahhh howie, welcome to the dark side. I had only a couch for myself, but I will get an extension for you. Be warned though, I dont expect anyone else to be joining us ;)

Kevin Bonham
07-10-2006, 06:47 PM
Could you try to form an opinion based simply on the wording and ignornig your recollections?

That opinion is based simply on the wording. My recollections were more that the main issue had been claimed to be cheating not disruption.


Was this explicitly stated? My recollection is jase has referred to the incident as an "alarm sounding" in at least two posts.

In post 78, jase wrote: In this instance I regarded the sound as closer to a beep, an interpretation influenced by my preference that, where feasible and reasonable, results of games be determined over the board.

Oepty
07-10-2006, 07:57 PM
ahhh howie, welcome to the dark side. I had only a couch for myself, but I will get an extension for you. Be warned though, I dont expect anyone else to be joining us ;)

Garvin. I guess I am on the couch as well.
Scott

Basil
07-10-2006, 08:59 PM
Garvin. I guess I am on the couch as well.
Scott
Excellent. But let's not fprget who the Daddy is! :uhoh:

arosar
10-10-2006, 12:16 PM
Trent Parker has lodged an appeal.

Go to my blog for details.

AR

Trent Parker
16-10-2006, 12:12 AM
Appeal has been denied.

I will be putting in a motion to the NSWCA AGM to have NSWCA event venues mobile free zones.

As for the reasons why i'll leave you all in the lurch and let Mr Gletsos let everyone know.

Garvinator
16-10-2006, 12:38 AM
I will be putting in a motion to the NSWCA AGM to have NSWCA event venues mobile free zones.
Hello tcn,

An issue that I think you will have to show a solution to is- who takes custody of mobiles for those who have brought them to the playing hall. This is a real concern. Nobody will want to take custody of the phones.

eclectic
16-10-2006, 12:56 AM
Hello tcn,

An issue that I think you will have to show a solution to is- who takes custody of mobiles for those who have brought them to the playing hall. This is a real concern. Nobody will want to take custody of the phones.

Chess could go hi tech by having mobile phone suppressors like they do in movie theatres and concert halls.

:uhoh:

Trent Parker
16-10-2006, 01:06 AM
Hello tcn,

An issue that I think you will have to show a solution to is- who takes custody of mobiles for those who have brought them to the playing hall. This is a real concern. Nobody will want to take custody of the phones.

Easy. It should say on the flyer no phones allowed and if a mobile phone makes a sound whether it be an alarm, sms, phone call whatever that person loses.

no one has to take custody of phones.

People can leave their mobile phones at home and use public telephones if they need to make a call......

Rincewind
16-10-2006, 07:02 AM
Easy. It should say on the flyer no phones allowed and if a mobile phone makes a sound whether it be an alarm, sms, phone call whatever that person loses.

no one has to take custody of phones.

People can leave their mobile phones at home and use public telephones if they need to make a call......

This is a problematic issue in some circumstances. For example at the Australian Open if there was some security concerns regarding the hotel, it would not be wise to force all the players to leave their phones in their hotel rooms.

Brian_Jones
16-10-2006, 07:46 AM
I will be putting in a motion to the NSWCA AGM to have NSWCA event venues mobile free zones..

I would support the motion for weekenders and major chess tournaments but not for club nights and grade matches.

Serious chess events must be free of electronic devices. They should not be allowed in the playing hall. Players should make their own arrangments ie leave at home or with friends.

Social events such as grade matches are less important; devices should be allowed in the room but switched off else games must be forfeited if the device goes off!

Trent Parker
16-10-2006, 09:41 AM
RW
a) there is always public phones.

b) the Aus Champs is not a NSWCA Event.

c) What is the chances of a security scare?

d) What would have happened pre mobile phones?

Brian

Agreed! I am willing to make slight alterations to see this pass.

Garvinator
16-10-2006, 12:53 PM
Tcn, couldnt another solution be that if the mobile phone makes any noise at all it is automatic forfeiture? This includes the beeps from alarms?

Garvinator
16-10-2006, 01:33 PM
As for the reasons why i'll leave you all in the lurch and let Mr Gletsos let everyone know.I would like to see the formal answer if possible.

Garvinator
16-10-2006, 01:33 PM
tcn, how come you havent asked what others think of the ruling ie what they would have done if on the appeals committee?

Bill Gletsos
16-10-2006, 01:48 PM
Tcn, couldnt another solution be that if the mobile phone makes any noise at all it is automatic forfeiture? This includes the beeps from alarms?I informed Trent that I will be recommending to the NSWCA Council at its next meeting that in future we inform our Arbiters to announce at the start of the round that players switch off their mobiles, including the built-in alarm.

eclectic
16-10-2006, 01:56 PM
I'm curious ...

Is a mobile forfeited game a rated game when no moves have been played?

If such a game is not rated can the forfeit be overruled if the player who won by forfeit needed a validly rated game to achieve a norm or a title?

Are rated games won by such forfeits able to be counted towards norms or titles?

[Of course if as Brian Jones suggests there ought to be no such devices in the playing areas of high level events then there would be no need my asking these questions.]

Bill Gletsos
16-10-2006, 03:13 PM
[Of course if as Brian Jones suggests there ought to be no such devices in the playing areas of high level events then there would be no need my asking these questions.]Such devices are allowed even in FIDE high level events. Mobile phones were allowed in the playing area during the recent Olympiad.

eclectic
16-10-2006, 03:30 PM
Such devices are allowed even in FIDE high level events. Mobile phones were allowed in the playing area during the recent Olympiad.

Well I guess you can only tempt fate so often. ;)

Trent Parker
16-10-2006, 03:58 PM
I would like to see the formal answer if possible.

I would like to ask permission if i could reproduce the official email, Bill?

Brian_Jones
16-10-2006, 04:22 PM
Such devices are allowed even in FIDE high level events. Mobile phones were allowed in the playing area during the recent Olympiad.

But are generally banned in most events in Asia!

Maybe the Europeans are naive?:)

EGOR
16-10-2006, 04:30 PM
Maybe the Europeans are naive?:)
Spoken like a true Pom!:lol: :lol: :lol:

bergil
16-10-2006, 04:50 PM
Spoken like a true Pom!:lol: :lol: :lol::shhh: Or you'll attract the wrath of the culturally sensitive goat! :P

Rincewind
16-10-2006, 05:59 PM
RW
a) there is always public phones.

b) the Aus Champs is not a NSWCA Event.

c) What is the chances of a security scare?

d) What would have happened pre mobile phones?

You have me on (b) as I glossed over that qualification and was thinking nationally. Sorry, won't happen again. ;)

My point is that in any event when you have a reasonable proportion of people travelling and staying in commercial accomodation. Large weekenders run by the NSWCA might fall into this category if they can get their act together. :) The argument is stronger for a 2 week event but can be applied to a weekend.

It is hard to expect someone to travvel and stay away from home for several days without their mobile phone. Also mobile phones are expensive and hotels normally come with warning to not leave them in the room, likewise, leaving them in a vehicle is not an option.

Therefore I think the most reasonable solution is for DOPs to allow people to be in possession of mobile phones on the proviso that they be switched off.

The current rule ensuring that a mobile phone ringing forces a forfeit should be sufficient to ensure compliance.

Garvinator
16-10-2006, 08:27 PM
I would like to see the official communication if that is possible.

The reason being is that I think the appeal should have been rejected, but not for the reasons I am seeing at the moment.

Kevin Bonham
16-10-2006, 11:49 PM
I wonder if "disconnect the battery" should someday become the standard instruction for tournament halls.

My mobile phone switched on unexpectedly in an airport today. Presumably my leg knocked the on button. Luckily I had entered the terminal a split-second earlier, but I was on a regional flight where I had to go through a security scanner on disembarking and handing it over to go through the hand luggage checker switched on was quite embarrassing.

Phil Bourke
17-10-2006, 12:12 AM
I feel that I am missing something here, I always felt that the original idea behind the banning of mobile phones from the playing area was to eliminate the possibility of them being used as a means of cheating. The ringing of a mobile phone only indicates its presence, not that it is being used by the player for outside assistance, and as such, a phone left in the owner's bag beneath the table, could ring, not be answered, and as such wouldn't contravene the outside assistance aspect. Annoying and distracting, yes, but sufficiently for the arbiter to forfeit the owner, I don't know. I am sure that we can think of a dozen other things that are just as annoying, but will never be banned from the playing arena ;)
With the abundance of mobile phones, and the number of people who have travelled and are staying away from home, unless you have somewhere where phones can be checked in prior to playing, you are always going to have this problem. It also occurs to me that a player if he wanted to could go for a toilet break, ring up his GM trainer, get advice on a tricky situation, switch his phone back off, return to the playing hall and continue playing :) But then again, why bother, just take your pocket Fritz with you and tell everyone that it is a mobile phone :) As far as I know, a pocket Fritz will never ring :)

Brian_Jones
17-10-2006, 07:47 AM
I have seen someone lose on time when disturbed by a mobile phone going off in the playing hall!

Rincewind
17-10-2006, 08:24 AM
I feel that I am missing something here, I always felt that the original idea behind the banning of mobile phones from the playing area was to eliminate the possibility of them being used as a means of cheating. The ringing of a mobile phone only indicates its presence, not that it is being used by the player for outside assistance, and as such, a phone left in the owner's bag beneath the table, could ring, not be answered, and as such wouldn't contravene the outside assistance aspect. Annoying and distracting, yes, but sufficiently for the arbiter to forfeit the owner, I don't know. I am sure that we can think of a dozen other things that are just as annoying, but will never be banned from the playing arena ;)
With the abundance of mobile phones, and the number of people who have travelled and are staying away from home, unless you have somewhere where phones can be checked in prior to playing, you are always going to have this problem. It also occurs to me that a player if he wanted to could go for a toilet break, ring up his GM trainer, get advice on a tricky situation, switch his phone back off, return to the playing hall and continue playing :) But then again, why bother, just take your pocket Fritz with you and tell everyone that it is a mobile phone :) As far as I know, a pocket Fritz will never ring :)

Phil, I think you answer your own questions to a certain extent in your meandering post.

Mobile phones and other electronic means of communication (pagers etc) are banned from the playing venue unless authorised by the arbiter. Since everyone has one and arbiters generally make an announcement that mobiles should be switched off means that generally there is tacit acceptance of them in playing venues by arbiters. Part of the issue is that of players to travel a distance to venues where leaving the phones at home is not an option.

Now the rule says that if a player's mobile rings in the venue during a game then that player shall lose the game. There is no prescibed penalty for using a phone to make a call, or take a call (provided the phone didn't ring) or running Pocket Fritz on a PDA or even to be discovered with a unauthorised phone or an authorised phone which is not switched off. These may be offenses and as such the arbiter is within their right to penalise the player. However, it is only if the phone rings that the arbiter must rule the game lost by that player.

To my mind, the fact that ringing alone is the only offense for which the presribed penalty exists makes it clear that the purpose of the rule is to act as a deterrent. It is there to ensure that players do enough to guarantee that their phones do not disturb the other players, because failure to do so has a dire consequence.

Part of the problem in my opinion is the loss of discretion by arbiters (the fact that they must rule that the player loses the games) is not popular with some of the arbiters themselves. Therefore we find, as in this case, that an arbiter has interpreted the word "ring" to have a certain meaning. However I think this sets a precedent which will lead to any player whose mobile makes any sort of noise to claim it was a low battery alarm, accidentally switch on noise, alarm clock sound, or anything except an incoming call. Therefore the deterrent of the law is weakened and we go back to more mobile phone interruptions in playing halls.

Desmond
17-10-2006, 09:09 AM
To my mind, the fact that ringing alone is the only offense for which the presribed penalty exists makes it clear that the purpose of the rule is to act as a deterrent. It is there to ensure that players do enough to guarantee that their phones do not disturb the other players, because failure to do so has a dire consequence.Yes, ringing, saying j'adoube, clearing your throat, the precise noise made by your wristwatch are all unacceptable when coming from a mobile phone. Depending on how Jupiter is aligning with the moon on the particular day.

Phil Bourke
17-10-2006, 09:10 AM
Brian,
Granted, they may be a distraction, but give me a china cup and a teaspoon and I could make enough innocent noise in the deathly quiet of a tense chess match to make you think that I have a jackhammer :) Or even send the kids in with a packet of chips and tell them to stand just to the side of the table and eat them, the players will think the building is falling down on them :) There are many forms of distraction, and what I may find distracting, may not bother you, and vice versa. Perhaps the problem may lie in the insistence of quiet in the playing venue, because then any noise in that situation is going to be greatly enhanced.
Barry,
You have hit on something here. Why is it that the ringing of a mobile phone is an offence punishable by immediate loss of the game? I take it from your post that I could possibly pull a pocket fritz out of my bag, start playing with it, and with an extremely kind arbiter, only get a warning. I know that is an extreme example, but it seems to highlight the ludicrous nature of such an emphatic ruling on what may be an annoyance compared to the more lenient ruling on what may be seeking outside assistance on the game.
I now have it, Brian, start selling ear plugs :) Those pretty little foam ones that factory employees get to use on the floor in an endeavour to maintain their hearing, or for the more fashion conscious, headset style muffs in a range of suitable colours :) Can I preorder a fluoro green set, on a pink hardhat, with the words, "Speak up if you offer a draw" on the front :)
I really don't mean to take the mickey here, but it has always amazed me how some sports insist on silence, and others encourage noise from the spectators. Tennis, Golf, Chess would see a spectator tossed from the arena if their phone rang, yet Basketball, Football, Cricket, at times the person with the phone would be lucky to hear it ring :) I never played at the highest levels, but I can recall stepping up to take free throws in basketball with the home crowd of around 600 stomping and clapping in an effort to distract. Very satisfying to be able to focus, nail them both, and smile at the crowd.

Brian_Jones
17-10-2006, 09:22 AM
Personally I don't have a problem with noise - I can play in any conditions!

But some players are very sensitive to noise, particualrly when playing for sheep stations!

Garvinator
17-10-2006, 11:53 AM
particualrly when playing for sheep stations!
well that is not playing for very much these days :whistle:

Kevin Bonham
17-10-2006, 11:56 AM
I have seen someone lose on time when disturbed by a mobile phone going off in the playing hall!

An arbiter should reverse the loss on time in this situation and give the player extra time to compensate for the disturbance. If the opponent is short of time (and was not the phone owner) the opponent should also get extra time.

ElevatorEscapee
17-10-2006, 10:52 PM
Just curious, what happens if someone's digital watch alarm accidentally goes off during the course of a tournament game?

I know my digital watch sometimes seems to have a mind of it's own (it's buttons can get bumped against things while I am wearing it, and occasionally this changes: i) whether the alarm goes off, ii) when the alarm goes off, and iii) whether it decides to give an audible beep on the hour, every hour.

I can understand how a sudden and unexpected noise can distract someone whose flag is about to fall, and cause them to sudenly 'freeze' and lose on time instead of making the move they were reaching out to play.

However, as far as I understand, a digital watch alarm does not automatically mean forfeit of a chess game.

Should an alarm accidentally set off on another electronic device such as a hand held computer gaming system or a mobile phone be treated in a similar fashion?

I understand that as technology advances, the three different examples I have given may evolve closer to being one and the same thing. Does this raise another question: is FIDE potentially restricting itself with this rule by referring to a specific technology, rather than electronic communications devices in the abstract?

eclectic
17-10-2006, 11:04 PM
I understand that as technology advances, the three different examples I have given may evolve closer to being one and the same thing. Does this raise another question: is FIDE potentially restricting itself with this rule by referring to a specific technology, rather than electronic communications devices in the abstract?

Arbiter: Sir, I distinctly heard your phone go off and as such I must forfeit you.

Maxwell Smart: I protest! It was my shoe and to the best of my knowledge there is no mention of shoes in the laws of chess.

:cool:

ElevatorEscapee
17-10-2006, 11:22 PM
Arbiter: Sir, I distinctly heard your phone go off and as such I must forfeit you.

Maxwell Smart: I protest! It was my shoe and to the best of my knowledge there is no mention of shoes in the laws of chess.

:cool:

:lol: That Maxwell must be a Smart man to so swiftly come up with such an excuse. ;)

Kevin Bonham
17-10-2006, 11:28 PM
I can understand how a sudden and unexpected noise can distract someone whose flag is about to fall, and cause them to sudenly 'freeze' and lose on time instead of making the move they were reaching out to play.

As I mentioned above the arbiter should overturn the loss on time in such a case.


However, as far as I understand, a digital watch alarm does not automatically mean forfeit of a chess game.

Should an alarm accidentally set off on another electronic device such as a hand held computer gaming system or a mobile phone be treated in a similar fashion?

I would suggest so, although a slightly harsher response in the case of mobiles is justified by specific reference to them being prohibited in the playing area and by the arbiters generally specifically telling players to switch them off.

Trent Parker
18-10-2006, 12:09 AM
I would like to ask permission if i could reproduce the official email, Bill?

Over 24 Hours and still no answer.......

eclectic
18-10-2006, 12:20 AM
Over 24 Hours and still no answer.......


Shouldn't the results of such appeals and the reasons why be on the public record anyway for instance as an addendum to the arbiter's report?

Rincewind
18-10-2006, 06:48 AM
Shouldn't the results of such appeals and the reasons why be on the public record anyway for instance as an addendum to the arbiter's report?

I agree. I cannot think of a reason why the findings of an appeals committee should be considered confidential, and I can think of plenty of good reasons why they should be published.

Rincewind
18-10-2006, 06:55 AM
Phil, (and Boris) I don't deny there are other offenses which are equally or more disturbing which aren't regulated by the rules. However they are all immaterial here. Rule 12.2 is specific for ringing mobile phones and as such we must determine the most correct application of the laws as they stand.

Brian, Whether noise (per se) is a problem is also beside the point. The important point (I think) is to determine what is meant by "ringing" in 12.2 and in doing so I beieve the thing to consider the intent of the rule.

Skaro, I think most reasonably arbiters consider that Max's shoe is a phone. In fact, they would probably take a dim view of a player bringing a phone disguised as a shoe into a playing venue. :)

arosar
18-10-2006, 08:47 AM
Over 24 Hours and still no answer.......

Have some friggin' balls and simply publish them. They are in the wider public (chess people, that is) interest as the rulings how we conduct tournaments.

They can't sue you for anything. Trust me. And they certainly wouldn't be able to expel you from the NSWCA.

AR

pull_my_finger
18-10-2006, 10:05 AM
Over 24 Hours and still no answer.......Enough dummy spitting, why don't you ask privately as it was official correspondence?

Trent Parker
19-10-2006, 02:41 AM
pull your own finger. I wasnt dummy spitting in that post. Just pointing something out that Bill has not replied when i have been asked by ggray to see official correspondence. Thus i asked on the forum for everyone to see that i have permission.