PDA

View Full Version : Tournament Hall Noise



Basil
02-10-2007, 12:01 AM
Gripe 01
It's well known that many players will engage in a little chit chat just after their game - thereby being capable of causing disturbance to others. They wouldn't dream of doing so just after the start of the round while silence is absolute.

Gripe 02
People milling about the top boards or last games to finish causing all manner of disturbances. Kids running under adults' legs to actually lean up against the table, rock from side to side and you name it.

Why is this behaviour tolerated? Is it universal (in other countries)? If so, why? If not, whey does it exist here? Does anyone else find this annoying. Why the bloody hell do I have to fix these things while everyone else stands around with their thumb up their butt? ;)

Mischa
02-10-2007, 12:08 AM
Another complaint I have heard ...tho not politically correct I guess is other opponents talking in another language in and around the board..during the game and outside while having a smoke in the middloe of their own game.

Mischa
02-10-2007, 12:16 AM
I also remember a junior tournament where the boards were sectioned off.
Two kids were about 4 spectators deep from a crucial game ...whispering...they were behind a others who could could not hear what they were saying...The mother of one of the players got very cross and made a complaint to the arbiter.
She was behind the whisperers....

CameronD
02-10-2007, 12:31 AM
I agree with the mother...

... I played a rated game with a significant amount of spectators (dont ask me why, they mustn't have a life... anyway) my opponent moves and the spectators started whispering. So I thought that he must have made an error. I searched deeper than normal spending 8 minutes till I found it. I certainly wouldn't have found it without the spectators present.

I always keep a poker face when spectating and say nothing

Basil
02-10-2007, 12:36 AM
Universal Problem
After some frenzied dialogue in the shoutbox, it appears that this is a common problem that (the few) commentators present universally wished gone.

Separate Areas
It was mentioned that some club nights do not have an analysis area. I suggested that regardless, post match chatter at the board should be OUT. No exceptions. Period. As in STFU. As in penalty. As in ratified at ACF. As in mandatory. As in the mobile phone rule. As in ZERO wriggle room.

Basil
02-10-2007, 12:40 AM
Another complaint I have heard ...tho not politically correct ...
Oh shucks, that'll slow me up ;)


I guess is other opponents talking in another language in and around the board..during the game and outside while having a smoke in the middloe of their own game.
Doesn't worry me Mish. Not really what I was driving at in this thread.

Basil
02-10-2007, 12:49 AM
I should iterate, and then I'll let others have a go, that if we could achieve this, it would be a MOST SIGNIFICANT STEP forward for the culture of the game.

The cultural permeations would flow to the other part (of my gripe) which I feel very strongly about which is respect and conditions for our top board players.

I really do get upset when I see the pros having to wallow in the same sloppy conditions that I myself object to as a player. It's not right. Not if we respect this game - not if we respect our champions - and those aspiring to be them.

I recall watching Solo and Rogers suffer through this - I mean WTF is wrong with this picture? Is it just me?

Davidflude
02-10-2007, 10:17 AM
The following are some points. I have to watch myself.

Tournament preparation
- have an analysis room.
- set up boards so that spectators can watch from a distance


Before the game.

- get to the venue in time
- sit down at your board before the start time.
- check clocks, and that pieces are set up correctly.

During the game

- kibitzers should be seen and not heard
- do not go close to the boards.
- DOP should police this


After the game
- winner puts up the result
- loser sets up the pieces
- go to analysis room.

WhiteElephant
02-10-2007, 10:21 AM
Personally I am easily distracted during a game and will tell spectators to shut up or whatever is necessary to be able to concentrate on my game. At a recent Rookies Cup at Box Hill (15-min allegro games), 2 players next to me finished their game and proceded to begin replaying their game at the board with very loud commentary after every move! I was on board 1 and they were on board 2 so my game was quite important to the overall result of the tournament. I saw that my opponent was trying to block out the noise coming from the board next to us but didn't say anything. So I took matters into my own hands and in no uncertain terms told them to analyse out the back. The thing was that they were so preoccupied with what they were doing, they hadn't realised that they were distracting us and so apologised and moved away immediately.

Having said that, I believe that spectators at the board are great for chess. Few other sports, if any, allow spectators to get that close to the action. I love the feeling when I am playing an important game, that people are interested in the outcome. It adds to the pressure and to the excitement. I also love to be able to check out a game in progress, particularly when it is a GM or IM game.

So what is the solution? I don't believe it is banning spectators altogether. I think that the arbiter just needs to be tougher and more vigilant when it comes to crowd noise. This includes making an announcement before each round that noise will not be tolerated and immediate expulsion from the playing hall of people who talk/whisper/make noise or distract the players in any way. One complaint from the players should be enough to expel the offender. After a while, spectators would get the message that noise is not acceptable and less policing from the arbiter would be required

bergil
02-10-2007, 11:31 AM
The cone of silence will be available to the first person who asks for it at the Aus Champs. Unfortunately while blocking out all noise it also restricts the user to the first three ranks of their board. Enjoy! :P

Aaron Guthrie
02-10-2007, 11:38 AM
The cone of silence will be available to the first person who asks for it at the Aus Champs. Unfortunately while blocking out all noise it also restricts the user to the first three ranks of their board. Enjoy! :PBut then it would also prevent their opponent from invading said ranks.

eclectic
02-10-2007, 11:45 AM
resolution from an imaginary acf meeting:

the acf has now decided that henceforth for all tournaments within australia all players, spectators and officials must have their mouths duct taped while in the tournament area and to that end auslan is to become the official language used in the conduct of all such tournaments

:P

Denis_Jessop
02-10-2007, 12:26 PM
Another complaint I have heard ...tho not politically correct I guess is other opponents talking in another language in and around the board..during the game and outside while having a smoke in the middloe of their own game.

That's one that I have fond memories of from many years ago. I was playing in an interclub match and my opponent was very short of time. Two spectators from the club we were playing against started commenting on the game in German, unaware that I had studied German at school and knew what they were saying. Of course I didn't protest as that would have helped my opponent and I duly won the game. It's a very bad practice in any language but especially questionable in one other than English as the discussion may well be about a game in progress and I suspect usually is.

DJ

Denis_Jessop
02-10-2007, 12:34 PM
I should iterate, and then I'll let others have a go, that if we could achieve this, it would be a MOST SIGNIFICANT STEP forward for the culture of the game.

The cultural permeations would flow to the other part (of my gripe) which I feel very strongly about which is respect and conditions for our top board players.

I really do get upset when I see the pros having to wallow in the same sloppy conditions that I myself object to as a player. It's not right. Not if we respect this game - not if we respect our champions - and those aspiring to be them.

I recall watching Solo and Rogers suffer through this - I mean WTF is wrong with this picture? Is it just me?

Not only top board players but all players deserve this respect. I have found it to be a real problem in club play. Usually in bigger events spectators seem to behave better such as in the Doeberl Cup or Australian Championships. My cynical view is that a significant number of chess players are so self-centred that they have no reasonable regard for any one else and especially players they think are not as good as they are (which for this kind of player is almost everyone). I should hasten to say that this is not a shot at really strong players but at really weak players who think they are potential GMs.) There aren't many of them but if a few of them get together they make quite a disturbance.

DJ

Basil
02-10-2007, 06:19 PM
I was initially going to make a compendium of posts and follow-ups, but I think George's post nails it - so I will suffice with his, although there appears to be much common ground.


Personally I am easily distracted during a game
I have every reason to believe this is the prevailing opinion of the majority of players.


... I saw that my opponent was trying to block out the noise coming from the board next to us but didn't say anything...
Been there, seen that. I have every reason to believe this is the prevailing opinion of the majority of players.


So I took matters into my own hands and in no uncertain terms told them to analyse out the back.
I too have been in that situation. One shouldn't have to. I have every reason to believe this is the prevailing opinion of the majority of players.


The thing was that they were so preoccupied with what they were doing, they hadn't realised that they were distracting us and so apologised and moved away immediately.
Not sure about how preoccupied people can be. I think the 'shock, I'm sorry I didn't realise' defence is the disrespectful Honest-Joe's little white lie when caught. I believe they think they can sneak a quick convo in because they're special. Either way, where I'm headed with this (topic) will make it a thing of the past.


I don't believe it (the solution) is banning spectators altogether.
I have every reason to believe this is the prevailing opinion of the majority of players.


I think that the arbiter just needs to be tougher and more vigilant when it comes to crowd noise. This includes making an announcement before each round that noise will not be tolerated and immediate expulsion from the playing hall of people who talk/whisper/make noise or distract the players in any way.
All that is missing is an appropriate edict ratified at ACF and we're away. I would also support a 12 month heavy education program flowing down through the state bodies, to all organisers and arbiters, with a leniency moratorium, culminating in mandatory enforcement commencing Jan 1st 200_and_dot.


One complaint from the players should be enough to expel the offender.
Agreed. But with the law (as Bill G described to me in the shoutbox last night) firmly incorporated. Bill, would you care to iterate please?


After a while, spectators would get the message that noise is not acceptable and less policing from the arbiter would be required
I'd like to alter the "after a while" to "by the Jan 1st 200_and_dot", players will have had ample opportunity to digest both the rule and the culture.

Thanks George. Great post - said it all.

Basil
02-10-2007, 06:28 PM
Why is this behaviour tolerated? Is it universal (in other countries)?
Anyone?

eclectic
02-10-2007, 06:33 PM
Anyone?

it's universal and based on the fallacious assumption that no one can hear you whispering

:doh: :doh: :doh:

Aaron Guthrie
02-10-2007, 06:36 PM
it's universal and based on the fallacious assumption that no one can hear you whispering

:doh: :doh: :doh:Ugh, I am reminded of whispering in lecture halls.

Kevin Bonham
02-10-2007, 10:21 PM
I have added a poll at Howard's request. His original poll question, which was too long to fit in the space, was:


In principle, are you in favour or against the ACF drafting a by-law (requiring 100% voting support from its members) with the aim of forbidding post game analysis at the board, for rated tournament play in Australia?

Basil
02-10-2007, 10:25 PM
Many thanks, Kevin.

Southpaw Jim
02-10-2007, 10:26 PM
I voted in favour, think it's pretty rude when there's games still being played. Can't see why it'd be too hard to take a board and pieces outside the playing hall.

CameronD
02-10-2007, 10:30 PM
A better poll would be...

that there will be no talking or communication in the tournament hall unless allowed by the laws of chess (eg draw offers, arbitering issues). This applies to players and spectators, spectators are to only watch and perform no other activities while in the tournament hall.

Would like gunners opinion


ps- players become spectators when there game is finished!!!


pss - boards/pieces should never leave the playing hall, that's how things go missing etc. People can bring there own sets or use the analysis room

Southpaw Jim
02-10-2007, 10:31 PM
I'm seeing 3 votes Howz.

Kevin Bonham
02-10-2007, 10:37 PM
I have not voted; I believe the current total of three votes is correct.

eclectic
02-10-2007, 10:38 PM
i confess! :eek:

Basil
02-10-2007, 10:38 PM
A better poll would be...

that there will be no talking or communication in the tournament hall unless allowed by the laws of chess (eg draw offers, arbitering issues). This applies to players and spectators, spectators are to only watch and perform no other activities while in the tournament hall.

Would like gunners opinion
In my broadly extended/ limited :eek: (make of that what you will) experience in admin/ law and related fudged skillsets :doh: :wall: :eek: :cool: :P , my opinion is:

-- best to go slowly
-- lay down framework, piecemeal
-- can always add
-- double-decker (more complex) motions make for split votes and confused direction

so best just to start here - with what I hope is a simple, self-encompassing concept, which in itself is a worthwhile goal, capable of meeting the least resistance.

Aaron Guthrie
02-10-2007, 10:42 PM
anyone else? whatever :doh: all my posts on the counting issue will self-destruct in 5 minutesOr is that 4 minutes?

eclectic
03-10-2007, 01:30 AM
there was a lot of noise in the tournament hall tonight :whistle:

Basil
03-10-2007, 01:05 PM
I would genuinely appreciate the 'no's' submitting a rationale. That input may be useful to the 'yes' and 'undecided' community.

Ian Rout
03-10-2007, 02:55 PM
I lean towards voting No on this one. Not because I disagree with the aim; I think more could normally be done about noise both in playing rooms and adjacent to them (some players seem to believe that any door is 100% soundproof, even an open one).

However I tend to think it is better for organisers and arbiters to attend to this under a general principle of optimising playing conditions. A great long list of what should be done could be drawn up but the line has to be drawn somewhere. Many things annoy me. Unnecessary late starts, for instance. Or ten-player sets featuring three shades of black, five shades of white plus pink and yellow (I don't notice it wnen playing but as a spectator I find it highly unprofessional).

Unlike the above cases noise isn't even Yes/No; any environment contains some noise - the Canberra Chess Club plays in a pub, for instance, and many club and weekend events are in licensed clubs. Even decibels aren't a guide, some noises are more penetrating than others. In practice it would be difficult to frame a meaningful by-law.

Basil
03-10-2007, 04:47 PM
Thanks Ian

This proposal is not intended as a silver bullet. Noise will still exist (as you say), but the idea is to identify and reduce one cause of it - a major one at that. I believe it has the benefit of being easily conceived (in the minds of the players) and easily governed by arbiters. The subjectivity of any by-law is the root of its inefficiency, and I believe this one could be a goodie!


In practice it would be difficult to frame a meaningful by-law
Perhaps. I don't share this opinion. In any event, I'd iterate that the discussion is for in principle, not whether any subsequent framing is practicable.

Nor I do feel the existence of other annoyances (I sympathise with the ones you nominate) is any reason to stand against this one.

I appreciate your input.

Garvinator
03-10-2007, 04:53 PM
I voted no on this one. The main reason I voted no is enforcability. The acf has no power to tell individual clubs how to run their tournaments. This is the current thinking of the acf and the states from what I can tell.

So I voted no as I hear way too often people saying that the acf should ban this and that.

Basil
03-10-2007, 05:01 PM
I voted no on this one. The main reason I voted no is enforcability.
If it were enforeable (and indeed was enforced successfully), how would you feel about that?


The acf has no power to tell individual clubs how to run their tournaments. This is the current thinking of the acf and the states from what I can tell.
I have much to say on this - all of it no doubt dribble by contrast to what Den Den might have to say, so I shall desist.

Garvinator
03-10-2007, 05:03 PM
If it were enforeable (and indeed was enforced successfully), how would you feel about that? If it was enforceable, then the australian chess scene would be a very different place and we would not be having this discussion ;) How is that for an answer? Or would you just prefer a yes/no :lol:



I have much to say on this - all of it no doubt dribble by contrast to what Den Den might have to say, so I shall desist.Who is Den Den?

Basil
03-10-2007, 05:18 PM
Or would you just prefer a yes/no :lol:
Yes please!


Who is Den Den?
Denis Jessop

CameronD
03-10-2007, 05:27 PM
All of my comments (past and present) are in response to tournaments (weekends etc) and not normal club night tournaments as clubs have responsibilities to both social and serious players, and their location may make this impossible.

The acf has no power to tell individual clubs how to run their tournaments. This is the current thinking of the acf and the states from what I can tell.

The ACF could threaten not to rate such tournaments and lose grand prix status if they receive numerous complaints that are upheld after an investigation. Commonsense should be used. All players deserve the respect to play there games in a quiet environment.



ps - I played an opponent once who used ear plugs/dampaners in there games, I'm considering doing the same in future if required.

Axiom
03-10-2007, 05:36 PM
2 Warnings to be issued by the arbiter, a 3rd one - an official last warning.
the 4th- expulsion and forfeit from the tournament.
This to be clearly written on noticeboard prior to start of tournament.

CameronD
03-10-2007, 05:39 PM
2 Warnings to be issued by the arbiter, a 3rd one - an official last warning.
the 4th- expulsion and forfiet from the tournament.
This to be clearly written on noticeboard prior to start of tournament.


Has good great merit!!
The warnings should last the entire tournament and not just for the round/day!!
Should be enforced same as the mobile rule.

Denis_Jessop
03-10-2007, 08:04 PM
I lean towards voting No on this one. Not because I disagree with the aim; I think more could normally be done about noise both in playing rooms and adjacent to them (some players seem to believe that any door is 100% soundproof, even an open one).

However I tend to think it is better for organisers and arbiters to attend to this under a general principle of optimising playing conditions. A great long list of what should be done could be drawn up but the line has to be drawn somewhere. Many things annoy me. Unnecessary late starts, for instance. Or ten-player sets featuring three shades of black, five shades of white plus pink and yellow (I don't notice it wnen playing but as a spectator I find it highly unprofessional).

Unlike the above cases noise isn't even Yes/No; any environment contains some noise - the Canberra Chess Club plays in a pub, for instance, and many club and weekend events are in licensed clubs. Even decibels aren't a guide, some noises are more penetrating than others. In practice it would be difficult to frame a meaningful by-law.

Minor correction here - the Canberra CC meets in a licensed club but near the bar which is rather sad and causes me not to belong to any ACT chess club at the mooment.

DJ

Denis_Jessop
03-10-2007, 08:09 PM
I don't want to sound like a wet blanket (can anybody tell me what one sounds like) but a poll re an ACF by-law is of limited use as the ACF can only regulate ACF events such as Australian Championships.

The conduct of almost all Australian chess tournaments is within the jurisdiction of State Associations.

DJ

Basil
03-10-2007, 09:46 PM
I don't want to sound like a wet blanket (can anybody tell me what one sounds like)
A contender (albeit a commonly misused one ;) for the Mangled Sayings thread? (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=6709) I think it is rather a case of being a wet blanket rather than sounding like one, but I mattress :P


... but a poll re an ACF by-law is of limited use as the ACF can only regulate ACF events such as Australian Championships.
Thanks Denis. But is that entirely accurate (with respect to application) - I don't doubt the broad auspices as cited for a moment?

Plan 01
I confess to not having read the Constitution and willingly accept any flak for not having addressed this issue - one that I had forgotten since the last issue of jurisdiction arose (silly me, there are only a couple a year :wall:).

I was of the (lay) opinion that the ACF may write any change* it pleases (assuming the will and support exists). *A 'change' being any condition it deems to attach to its conditions and acceptance of membership. I'm stretching now, but didn't the recent FIDE rule regarding mobile phones come into play in Australia via an ACF edict?

Plan 02
Regardless of your answer (and I always look forward to edified educations), what I have proposed is certainly a tad on the 'fudge and fit' side of things.

Accordingly I would be prepared to lobby (only once I have lobbied here and elsewhere, and assuming I was successful on both counts) that the ACF consider adopting the 'proposal' as best practice and still raise the matter on behalf of moi, for unilateral adoption by the states. Under all circumstances, better having this come from the top and flowing down for reasons of both gravitas and central reference/ drafting.

Plan 03
I recall threatening to nick over to Paris for the dual purpose of
-- having a stern word with FIDE, and
-- some unfinished business on behalf of my bro #1 at McDonalds.

I should consider stopping off at ACF HQ and taking over with a view to sorting out the Constitution and the states so that these 'orrible paralysing impasses don't occur again.

To achieve this,
-- I will need 8 ninjas in balaclavas,
-- sometone to distract Bill Gletsos, and
-- young Den Den to draft the document.

Easy. Home in time for tea at elevenses.

CameronD
03-10-2007, 09:57 PM
Hey Gunner

You should nominate for the newsletter position. That way you would be able to push your own agendas (ie - hall noise) and arrange ACF/state protests and stuff and become the big cheese.

He who controls the media controls the masses!!

Basil
03-10-2007, 10:05 PM
You should nominate for the newsletter position.
Some light reading for you. You'll be forgiven for tuning out after 1/2 a second (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=5363)


That way you would be able to push your own agendas
:eek: I'm only interested in democracy. I feel I can be heard sitting on this stool in the corner.

Kevin Bonham
03-10-2007, 10:38 PM
The ACF could threaten not to rate such tournaments and lose grand prix status if they receive numerous complaints that are upheld after an investigation.

I think we've got to be quite careful when picking and choosing reasons for threatening not to rate things, and I'm not convinced this qualifies unless a case turns out to be so extreme that all hope of reasonable play goes out the window and players are stopping their games demanding that the issue be addressed before they continue.

Basil
04-10-2007, 01:31 PM
I think we've got to be quite careful when picking and choosing reasons for threatening not to rate things, and I'm not convinced this qualifies unless a case turns out to be so extreme that all hope of reasonable play goes out the window and players are stopping their games demanding that the issue be addressed before they continue.
I strongly support this sentiment. Despite having moderately aggressive (proactive) cause and effect ideals in my private life, I prefer alternative approaches in business and community affairs.

In this instance (as I have said) I support:
-- a democratically invoked rule (no post match analysis ATB)
-- universal timing and implementation
-- national education programme
-- 12 month moratorium

I firmly believe that would suffice. They key is all of the above, not the stick. I believe ensuing transgressions would be the remotest of incidents such as the one described in Toowoomba recently (senior and experienced-enough officials ignoring/ being unaware/ failing to act) on a universal and clear course of action.

The mobile phone rule is a great working model, and IMO is analagous to what I propose:
-- initial flippy floppy foot shuffling 'yeah-its-a-problem-but-what-do-you-do?'
-- rumblings near the top in acknowledgement that a problem may exist.
-- broad discussion & lobbying
-- administrators biting the bullet and taking action
-- broader pockets of the community arriving late to the discussion and chucking in the odd spanner, some worthy of scrutiny, others just knee-jerk dribble
-- discussion and where necessary, amendments for the genuine counter-points
-- dismissing (with chloroform where necessary) the trolls and twits
-- community-wide education process of the impending change
-- leniency (during the moratorium) for life-time offenders trying hard to break the habit (coz I'm a softy at heart)
-- QUIT DAY! implemented
-- a few die-hards still offending in their death throes ;)
-- across the board adherence to penalties reaffirming the unilateral implementation
-- lo and behold - no telephones!!!!!

Voila!

Denis_Jessop
04-10-2007, 02:30 PM
Thanks Denis. But is that entirely accurate (with respect to application) - I don't doubt the broad auspices as cited for a moment?

Yes.


Plan 01
I confess to not having read the Constitution and willingly accept any flak for not having addressed this issue - one that I had forgotten since the last issue of jurisdiction arose (silly me, there are only a couple a year ).

I was of the (lay) opinion that the ACF may write any change* it pleases (assuming the will and support exists). *A 'change' being any condition it deems to attach to its conditions and acceptance of membership. I'm stretching now, but didn't the recent FIDE rule regarding mobile phones come into play in Australi a via an ACF edict?

The ACF can't just write any change it wants as its jurisdiction is limited as I mentioned earlier. The mobile phones rule wasn't an ACF edict. It came in as an amendment to the FIDE Laws of Chess.


I should consider stopping off at ACF HQ and taking over with a view to sorting out the Constitution and the states so that these 'orrible paralysing impasses don't occur again.

That's what would have to happen (seriously :cool: ) but if you talk to Graeme Gardiner about his experiences in trying to get the ACF Commission proposal through to replace the ACF Council you might want to arm ourself with something more substantial than words - in small arms the AK47 is still the weapon of choice, I think :hmm: .

DJ

Basil
04-10-2007, 03:04 PM
The ACF can't just write any change it wants as its jurisdiction is limited as I mentioned earlier. The mobile phones rule wasn't an ACF edict. It came in as an amendment to the FIDE Laws of Chess.
Thanks Denis. I was aware that the mobile phone rule was was an amendment to the laws of chess at FIDE. I must be mistaken as to the role that the ACF played with respect to the rule's Australian implementation/ adoption. The very idea that the states & territories (and their disparate subsets) adopted the rule unilaterally without assistance from ACF... :eek: Nonetheless I do stand corrected.


That's what would have to happen (seriously :cool: ) but if you talk to Graeme Gardiner about his experiences in trying to get the ACF Commission proposal through to replace the ACF Council
I have, many times. But eeer Graeme is a gentleman ;) :lol:


... you might want to arm ourself with something more substantial than words ...
Aha! You doubt 'the presence'?

Basil
04-10-2007, 03:12 PM
... you might want to arm ourself with something
Freudian slip? ;)

Southpaw Jim
04-10-2007, 04:09 PM
You doubt 'the presence'?
For some reason I now have a mental image of Indian elephant riders with AKs.

Weird day.

bergil
04-10-2007, 05:06 PM
All players deserve the respect to play there games in a quiet environment.They do but quiet is not a vacuum and some noise is to be expected.

Basil
04-10-2007, 05:59 PM
They do but quiet is not a vacuum and some noise is to be expected.
It is to be expected, and no-one expects it eradicated. But to identify one common source and deal with that is not unreasonable, surely?

littlesprout85
04-10-2007, 09:18 PM
Really gots to vote for the set stardards as the are now.

Sprouty feels that being close to your fan base is good, & sometimez its good to have some weight like Elephants & heavys. Sprouty doesnt get mad-Elephants & heavys get mad (sceen outta 'back to school) -ufta:wow:

Going to have to remain the standard for now- follow in elephants path on this issue. Chess is making a major comeback in the world, alot has to do with access to the bigtime chessmasters. Thus the real cause for this surge is the internet. Online Chess has renewed the whole spirit behind this game of Kings :D So to have close access to you heroes- Why Not?

It is good for Chess in the whole & for your Fan Base. Sometimez you got to get louder than them -so be it. Always got to stand your ground-most the time they dont mean no harm- its only chess - IMAO

-Sprout :)

ElevatorEscapee
04-10-2007, 09:28 PM
They do but quiet is not a vacuum and some noise is to be expected.
My vaccuum cleaner makes a lot of noise... it most certainly is not quiet!

Basil
04-10-2007, 09:36 PM
Really gots to vote for the set stardards as the are now.

Sprouty feels that being close to your fan base is good, & sometimez its good to have some weight like Elephants & heavys. Sprouty doesnt get mad-Elephants & heavys get mad (sceen outta 'back to school) -ufta:wow:

Going to have to remain the standard for now- follow in elephants path on this issue. Chess is making a major comeback in the world, alot has to do with access to the bigtime chessmasters. Thus the real cause for this surge is the internet. Online Chess has renewed the whole spirit behind this game of Kings :D So to have close access to you heroes- Why Not?

It is good for Chess in the whole & for your Fan Base. Sometimez you got to get louder than them -so be it. Always got to stand your ground-most the time they dont mean no harm- its only chess - IMAO

-Sprout :)
Hi Sproutz

Thanks for your contribution. I appreciate it. You know I love you as a man, and I know you won't take offence when I say I thought that you wrote beautifully, but ...










WTF F F'ing F has any of that got to do with post match analysis at the board? *kiss* ;)

Aaron Guthrie
04-10-2007, 09:41 PM
My vaccuum cleaner makes a lot of noise... it most certainly is not quiet!So we all agree on this one thing then, that quiet is not a vacuum (cleaner)!

Denis_Jessop
04-10-2007, 11:08 PM
Freudian slip? ;)

Unfortunately probably just a typo that went unnoticed, but why?:) . Yet, come to think of it....:hmm: ;)

DJ

Garvinator
04-10-2007, 11:16 PM
So we all agree on this one thing then, that quiet is not a vacuum (cleaner)!
Are you sure about this? Perhaps time for a poll :whistle:

Kevin Bonham
04-10-2007, 11:18 PM
The mobile phone rule is a great working model, and IMO is analagous to what I propose:

Not really. The broad support for harsh policies regarding mobile phone use from top arbiters was only there because of the possibility that phones would be used for cheating. Had it just been a distraction issue it's quite unlikely automatic-loss-of-game would have got off the ground.

Aaron Guthrie
04-10-2007, 11:57 PM
Are you sure about this? Perhaps time for a poll :whistle:By "we all" I meant bergil, ElevatorEscapee and me. Now, assuming propositional identity holds (P->P), then such a poll shall not tell us anything. Since if we could not trust their words to begin with, then what will we gain by a poll? Unless of course you just meant a poll on whether or not I am sure about this. In this case, most certainly I am not, for I am open to revising my opinion on propositional identity! ;)

eclectic
05-10-2007, 12:07 AM
Not really. The broad support for harsh policies regarding mobile phone use from top arbiters was only there because of the possibility that phones would be used for cheating. Had it just been a distraction issue it's quite unlikely automatic-loss-of-game would have got off the ground.

if the possibility that [mobile/cell] phones could be used for cheating is the underlying raison d'etre for the harsh policy then surely the policy would [or should] have been harsher i.e. no phones in the tournament area period thus sparing us of the embarrassment of having results attributed to non playing factors

Kevin Bonham
05-10-2007, 12:11 AM
if the possibility that [mobile/cell] phones could be used for cheating is the underlying raison d'etre for the harsh policy then surely the policy would [or should] have been harsher i.e. no phones in the tournament area period thus sparing us of the embarrassment of having results attributed to non playing factors

What the FIDE laws say is that phones are indeed barred from the tournament area, unless they are authorised by the arbiter.

I'm not sure how the difference between banning them, period, and banning them unless authorised by the arbiter, creates the "embarrassment" you refer to (or even what that embarrassment is, in this case).

Kevin Bonham
05-10-2007, 12:14 AM
Some players are able to conduct post-mortems silently, eg by simply trying out different moves and then taking lines back once a clear outcome is reached. If a tournament lacks an analysis area with a board, then this is possibly preferable to the disturbance (and potential for loss of pieces) that may be created by taking the board outside. However on my reading such players would be affected by GD's proposal.

Aaron Guthrie
05-10-2007, 12:15 AM
What the FIDE laws say is that phones are indeed barred from the tournament area, unless they are authorised by the arbiter.

I'm not sure how the difference between banning them, period, and banning them unless authorised by the arbiter, creates the "embarrassment" you refer to (or even what that embarrassment is, in this case).And isn't there often talk about banning them in the playing area? That is to say, it seems to me that what is wanted is banning them, but this is seen as just too impractical.

eclectic
05-10-2007, 12:18 AM
I'm not sure how the difference between banning them, period, and banning them unless authorised by the arbiter, creates the "embarrassment" you refer to (or even what that embarrassment is, in this case).

i mean embarrassment in the sense of perhaps having to see the result of a game that was destined to be feted as a chess classic become unexpectedly reversed by the expected winner's phone going off

Aaron Guthrie
05-10-2007, 12:18 AM
Some players are able to conduct post-mortems silently, eg by simply trying out different moves and then taking lines back once a clear outcome is reached. If a tournament lacks an analysis area with a board, then this is possibly preferable to the disturbance (and potential for loss of pieces) that may be created by taking the board outside. However on my reading such players would be affected by GD's proposal.It is also possible to not even move pieces and still do something of an analysis via just waving ones arms about, in a carefully choreographed manner, above the board.

Kevin Bonham
05-10-2007, 12:20 AM
I should clarify - mobile phones are banned (unless authorised by the arbiter) from the playing venue:

The playing venue is defined as the playing area, rest rooms, refreshment area, area set aside for smoking and other places as designated by the arbiter.

Sunshine
05-10-2007, 01:09 AM
I'm not sure that this would be a move in the right direction.

It sounds a bit like the cricket administrators who are lamenting what one day cricket or 20/20 games are doing to the game and the type of crowds they attract.

Chess needs to works on its environment if it wants to compete for the leisure time of the less committed.

I've taken my young children to the cricket, tennis, library, golf and even snooker - all things that were quiet sedate activities in my time. I was pleased to see how welcome they were and how each of them had specifically targetted different age groups with something to appeal to them.

I have also taken them to North Sydney Leagues to watch chess tournaments on a few occasions because we play a lot at home. While they enjoyed it, I definitely felt like we should not be there.

I think over time things will change in chess to meet the expectations of the new generation - and I don't think stricter noise regulations will be part of that.

Garvinator
05-10-2007, 01:40 AM
I have also taken them to North Sydney Leagues to watch chess tournaments on a few occasions because we play a lot at home. While they enjoyed it, I definitely felt like we should not be there.
Interesting. You say that they enjoyed themselves. Isnt that the point, that they enjoyed themselves? If they were happy with the environment, that is a good thing, surely?

Garvinator
05-10-2007, 01:44 AM
I do think the bottom line of all this can be summarised very simply. In the playing area, play your tournament game of chess. That is the purpose of a specified playing area.

If you want to chat and analyse with your opponent and others, go to the analysis room or similar area provided. In the analysis area, each person can talk as loudly as they want, without disturbing those still playing tournament games.

I think one part that has not been given enough thought is that most entrants are paying a fair chunk of change to enter a chess tournament and so they don't want those games interfered with by unnecessary noise and disturbances.

Sunshine
05-10-2007, 01:57 AM
From what I understand the vast majority of chessplayers are not paying a fair chunk of change to enter a chess tournament they are chosing to do something else with their time and money. This seems to be particularly the case for some key demographics - particularly after they leave the more relaxed and noiser environment of juniour tournaments.

I don't think this can be summarised very simply - simple summaries generally miss the point.

CameronD
05-10-2007, 02:08 AM
[QUOTE=Sunshine]From what I understand the vast majority of chessplayers are not paying a fair chunk of change to enter a chess tournament they are chosing to do something else with their time and money. This seems to be particularly the case for some key demographics - particularly after they leave the more relaxed and noiser environment of juniour tournaments. [quote/]

I dont think changing the playing hall will increase entrants, but rather lose the people we currently have (I'd certainly leave and just play on the net). The people who want " more relaxed and noiser environment " probably just want to play blitz or a one day tournament instead of our longer variations.

Dont know much about the junior scene... how much classical chess do they play compared to lesser time controls.

Basil
05-10-2007, 09:32 AM
I now declare this thread an analogy-free zone, due their abject failure in making progress. I find I am not alone!


The mobile phone rule is a great working model, and IMO is analagous to what I propose
Not really. The broad support for harsh policies regarding mobile phone use from top arbiters was only there because of the possibility that phones would be used for cheating. Had it just been a distraction issue it's quite unlikely automatic-loss-of-game would have got off the ground.

I will take your word for it. I have no reason to doubt your motivation, or your general knowledge on these matters.

My analogy, however, was raised primarily for the purpose of illustrating the implementation process (notwithstanding that I did attach the (apparently) erroneous reason of 'disturbance').

ER
05-10-2007, 09:36 AM
ok now you lot
Enough wheinging, just be quiet and make a move! :owned:
Cheers and good luck!

Basil
05-10-2007, 09:38 AM
More analagous mayhem


It sounds a bit like the cricket administrators who are lamenting what one day cricket or 20/20 games are doing to the game and the type of crowds they attract.
To me it sounds more like fans making movement behind the bowler's arm.


Chess needs to works on its environment if it wants to compete for the leisure time of the less committed.
OK, but refer my eloquent answer to Sprouty. (Think big red capitals letters! ;))


I've taken my young children to the cricket, tennis, library, golf and even snooker - all things that were quiet sedate activities in my time. I was pleased to see how welcome they were and how each of them had specifically targetted different age groups with something to appeal to them.
OK, but refer my eloquent answer to Sprouty.


I have also taken them to North Sydney Leagues to watch chess tournaments on a few occasions because we play a lot at home. While they enjoyed it, I definitely felt like we should not be there.
Interesting. Why was that?

Sunshine
05-10-2007, 11:05 AM
OK, but refer my eloquent answer to Sprouty. (Think big red capitals letters! ;))

Sticking to the topic at hand has never been a particular strength of mine.

I also have no idea what the big read letters mean - and I'm probably better off never knowing.



Interesting. Why was that?

Too easy to cause a disturbance to people unlikely to be understanding about it.

Personally I enjoy the traditional environment and do not want to cause or have others cause any distractions.

Denis_Jessop
05-10-2007, 11:10 AM
Just to clarify things about mobile phones.

Distraction of players was at least as much an issue as possible cheating. Automatic loss of a game occurs only if a player's mobile rings in the playing venue during play (Art.12.2.b) hence the emphasis on distraction.

Art 12.2.b applies not only to mobile phones but to any electronic means of communication. It has two aspects - forbidding bringing a mobile phone etc into the playing venue and penalising a player whose phone rings.

There is also another provision (Art. 13.7.b) that forbids anybody (ie not just a player) using a mobile phone in the playing venue.

DJ

Basil
05-10-2007, 11:16 AM
Sticking to the topic at hand has never been a particular strength of mine.

I also have no idea what the big read letters mean - and I'm probably better off never knowing.
All in fun (and certainly respect). I was referring to this post on the previous page.

http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=169909&postcount=54


Too easy to cause a disturbance to people unlikely to be understanding about it.

Personally I enjoy the traditional environment and do not want to cause or have others cause any distractions.
Right. There is definitely the juxtaposition of weak links (in the presentation of chess as a proposition), viz no separate analysis on occasion, kids interaction (could any of us be quiet at age <10?) and player disturbance.

I am not unsympathetic to these issues which have been raised. Under the circumstances, I think a hierarchy of needs should be established (Duggan's Hierarchy of Needs - perhaps on wiki next to Maslow ;)). I think the prevailing requirement about all else should be player protection.

Actively working towards solving all the associated issues (which Ian Rout addressed early on this thread) is also a most worthwhile pursuit.

Axiom
05-10-2007, 05:00 PM
Would posting tournament rules( http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=6982&page=3 ) on a noticeboard prior to commencement,and then emphasised by the arbiter by pointing and gesticulating animately towards said rule list, immediately prior to round 1, help?
.....or make little difference?

Basil
05-10-2007, 05:08 PM
Would posting tournament rules on a noticeboard prior to commencement,and then empasised by the arbiter by pointing and gesticulating animately towards said rule list, immediately prior to round 1, help?
.....or make little difference?

IMO, both.
-- 'Help' in the sense that it (being generous) might slow down an offender or two.
-- 'Make little difference' in the sense I have seen this sort of thing done (the arbiter making a solid announcement) and there have still been problem children (read grown men) who definitely know better.

I do know a man who has been known to make announcements at the beginning of rounds which has resulted in absolute silence throughout. Rumour has it that players go home afterwards and ask their wives permission to speak - such was the programming in the hall. But he is but one man.

On a more serious note, what you suggest is a good idea IMO, but should occur in conjunction with a more formal edict.

Garvinator
05-10-2007, 05:17 PM
IMO, both.
-- 'Help' in the sense that it (being generous) might slow down an offender or two.
-- 'Make little difference' in the sense I have seen this sort of thing done (certainly the arbiter making a solid announcement) and there have still been problem children (read grown men) who definitely know better.

I do know a man who has been known to make announcements at the beginning of rounds which has resulted in absolute silence throughout. Rumour has it that players go home afterwards and ask their wives permission to speak - such was the programming in the hall. But he is but one man.

On a more serious note, what you suggest is a good idea IMO, but should occur in conjunction with a more formal edict. As such I believe this post would have been better in 'Noise #1' if you don't mind my saying so. I'd prefer this thread be solely concerned with whether a problem exists, and identifying it - not the solution.
I would add here that the rules that are announced/written HAVE to be enforced, otherwise they are completely meaningless and in fact can cause more problems because players/spectators realise quickly that the announcements wont be enforced.

Basil
05-10-2007, 05:18 PM
I would add here that the rules that are announced/written HAVE to be enforced, otherwise they are completely meaningless and in fact can cause more problems because players/spectators realise quickly that the announcements wont be enforced.
Oh indeed. If such a move (the proposal) were implemented, the 'willy-nilly half-arsed, implemented here and not there observation' is open slather to every pointy-head under the sun!

And they may well have a point (regarding slipshod admin) that they will use as obfuscatory traction (to divert from their poor behaviour).

Denis_Jessop
05-10-2007, 05:58 PM
In his "Chess Organiser's Handbook, 3rd ed., p.41, Stewart Reuben says "It is useless to read out a number of regulations prior to start of play. No player ever listens, instead they will become irritable." Given that many players don't know the Laws of Chess anyway, my view is that the best thing to do is to have a copy plus any other rules on a notice board. Then, nobody can claim not to have known the rules etc, nor can they use unavailability as an excuse, however weak it is. Ignorantia juris non excusat - I've been waiting 50 years to use that :doh: :cool:

DJ

Axiom
05-10-2007, 08:09 PM
In his "Chess Organiser's Handbook, 3rd ed., p.41, Stewart Reuben says "It is useless to read out a number of regulations prior to start of play. No player ever listens, instead they will become irritable." Given that many players don't know the Laws of Chess anyway, my view is that the best thing to do is to have a copy plus any other rules on a notice board. Then, nobody can claim not to have known the rules etc, nor can they use unavailability as an excuse, however weak it is. Ignorantia juris non excusat - I've been waiting 50 years to use that :doh: :cool:

DJ

i would begin an arbiter's pre tournament speech with
"listen to my words ,it may save you from disqualification, i repeat, ....listen to my words ,they may save you from forfeiture from this tournament,........now i know that is a harsh introduction, but this tournament prides itself on a fair level playing field...er...um.. board.
and im sure, all agree that to play one's game in a reasonably peaceful environment, is the entitlement to all.
....and what is 'reasonable' i hear you say?....well that is my job, and ,as i say, my most reasonable guidelines are there ,over on that wall (POINTING)......etc......i wish all well for an enjoyable tournament".

Kevin Bonham
06-10-2007, 06:52 PM
In his "Chess Organiser's Handbook, 3rd ed., p.41, Stewart Reuben says "It is useless to read out a number of regulations prior to start of play. No player ever listens, instead they will become irritable."

I'm just glad antichrist isn't here at the moment. :rolleyes:

bergil
06-10-2007, 06:54 PM
I'm just glad antichrist isn't here at the moment. :rolleyes:At the moment or period? :hmm:

Sam
07-10-2007, 03:10 PM
Another complaint I have heard ...tho not politically correct I guess is other opponents talking in another language in and around the board..during the game and outside while having a smoke in the middloe of their own game.

The reason they are talking in another language is because they are seeking advice,analysing each others games.
They know how to speak english but conveniently choose not to at a chess tournament. Its called collusion...and is a cheap form of cheating.

DanielBell
07-10-2007, 05:39 PM
The reason they are talking in another language is because they are seeking advice,analysing each others games.
They know how to speak english but conveniently choose not to at a chess tournament. Its called collusion...and is a cheap form of cheating.

Sometimes it's just because their home language is a lot easier to communicate in.. If you went to an overseas event and knew the language fairly well but spoke English better, i'm sure when you spoke with your fellow country men you would speak English also.

It would be fairly easy to know if they were analyzing anyway, you would hear the grid coordinates etc.

WhiteElephant
08-10-2007, 08:34 AM
This is a bit off topic so maybe can be moved to a more appropriate thread?

I had an experience which greatly annoyed me during a game last year.

I was playing an important game and was in time trouble. My board was at the end of an aisle so there was plenty of room for spectators to crowd around and watch, and a few were indeed hanging around watching the game. Suddenly one guy pulled over an empty chair and sat down in the aisle, literally centimetres from the board. He edged around in his chair and made himself comfortable. Then he proceded to stare, from me to my opponent to the board.

WTF!

For one thing, this guy was right in the corner of my eyesight, not to mention I wasted valuable time wondering what he was doing and watching him shuffling around in his chair. Finally I couldn't take it any longer and I asked him to please move. He looked at me like I'd just pulled out a gun, like how dare I say anything to HIM. With a great reluctance, he moved his chair (very noisily) and walked off.

This entire incident was very distracting, especially when in time trouble. What do others think about someone sitting on a chair next to a game in progress?

Basil
08-10-2007, 10:04 AM
This entire incident was very distracting, especially when in time trouble. What do others think about someone sitting on a chair next to a game in progress?
Distracting, to be sure. And George, I don't even know how uncommon it is!!! I never cease to be amazed - although my self-destructs come close.

I think the sitting on the chair is OK. It is the intrusiveness (and the proximity) of the behaviour which is more to the point - the chair sitting was probably incidental.

WhiteElephant
08-10-2007, 10:14 AM
It is the intrusiveness (and the proximity) of the behaviour which is more to the point - the chair sitting was probably incidental.

The chair made me believe that he was camped there for the long haul which was not a pleasant thought. :)

EDIT: Now that I think about it, the other problem is that his line of sight is lower when sitting down, so I can actually SEE someone looking at me as I am trying to concentrate which is hard to block out.

Basil
08-10-2007, 04:11 PM
The chair made me believe that he was camped there for the long haul which was not a pleasant thought. :)
Yeah, I know the 'setting up residence' feeling. I don't mind it when the body language is one of reserved and impartial genuine chess interest. The eyeballing you describe (as if watching a tennis match) is just rude - chalk it up another dead loss to parenthood.

As has been pointed out, all but unanimously, these things are very hard to regulate because the causes of the annoyances are many and varied.

It is my hope that the general culture of intrusiveness can be addressed and reversed. It will never disappear completely (given human nature). However, I feel confident that ongoing clarifying of unacceptable boundaries (for instance my plan of killing off post game analysis ATB) will collectively set and enhance a tone of greater respect.

Ian Rout
10-10-2007, 02:04 PM
I will sometimes sit in the chair at the completed next board game if I want to watch a game for a while. It hasn't occurred to me that this should be any more distracting than a standing spectator, nor do I detect any such effect when playing. In fact there's no difference between this and players of a game in progress looking at the next board.

I think someone standing behind the board or off-centre, where you are aware of their presence but can't quite see them, would be more distracting than a seated spectator. However this is just part of any tournament, unless spectators are not permitted at all.

If the complaint was about either the proximity of the spectator or the sudden movement during the time scramble then I can understand that.

We have a player in Canberra who, while not so active these days, was known for complaining that people were watching his games - not about their behaviour, just that they were watching. So of course people who didn't like him, which was just about everybody, would make a point of dropping past his games.

Garvinator
10-10-2007, 02:41 PM
I will sometimes sit in the chair at the completed next board game if I want to watch a game for a while. It hasn't occurred to me that this should be any more distracting than a standing spectator, nor do I detect any such effect when playing. In fact there's no difference between this and players of a game in progress looking at the next board.

I think someone standing behind the board or off-centre, where you are aware of their presence but can't quite see them, would be more distracting than a seated spectator. However this is just part of any tournament, unless spectators are not permitted at all.

If the complaint was about either the proximity of the spectator or the sudden movement during the time scramble then I can understand that.

We have a player in Canberra who, while not so active these days, was known for complaining that people were watching his games - not about their behaviour, just that they were watching. So of course people who didn't like him, which was just about everybody, would make a point of dropping past his games.
I think the main complaint W E had was the staring and because he had sat down, that this was going to be an ongoing concern, not just something that lasted a few seconds.

eclectic
10-10-2007, 02:54 PM
I think the main complaint W E had was the staring and because he had sat down, that this was going to be an ongoing concern, not just something that lasted a few seconds.

how does the offending party cope with the reverse i.e. if you were to take up a permanent seat beside one of his games and stare incredulously at his every move? :whistle:

Basil
10-10-2007, 03:10 PM
Absolutely no problem with the spectating - standing or seated. That in itself is all fine.

Proximity, staring and general behaviour contravening accepted social norms is the issue - and again we're back to the difficulty of policing and slapping the parents!

However, post-match analysis ATB is different. Easy to identify. Easy to fix.

MUST. PUSH. BARROW.

Sam
10-10-2007, 06:03 PM
Sometimes it's just because their home language is a lot easier to communicate in.. If you went to an overseas event and knew the language fairly well but spoke English better, i'm sure when you spoke with your fellow country men you would speak English also.

It would be fairly easy to know if they were analyzing anyway, you would hear the grid coordinates etc.


We are talking about people who have been here for more than 10 years and who's english is quite fine.:rolleyes:

The young and the innocent...:whistle:

DanielBell
10-10-2007, 07:08 PM
The young and the innocent...:whistle:

What is that supposed to mean?

eclectic
10-10-2007, 07:10 PM
What is that supposed to mean?

that they're not yet at the restless stage ;)

Denis_Jessop
10-10-2007, 08:35 PM
I will sometimes sit in the chair at the completed next board game if I want to watch a game for a while. It hasn't occurred to me that this should be any more distracting than a standing spectator, nor do I detect any such effect when playing. In fact there's no difference between this and players of a game in progress looking at the next board.

I think someone standing behind the board or off-centre, where you are aware of their presence but can't quite see them, would be more distracting than a seated spectator. However this is just part of any tournament, unless spectators are not permitted at all.

If the complaint was about either the proximity of the spectator or the sudden movement during the time scramble then I can understand that.

We have a player in Canberra who, while not so active these days, was known for complaining that people were watching his games - not about their behaviour, just that they were watching. So of course people who didn't like him, which was just about everybody, would make a point of dropping past his games.

There's nothing wrong with that I think but what cannot be countenanced is the spectator who puts a chair right next to the board on the "centreline" and proceeds to stare at the game from there. That is plain rude. Moreover it's much easier to control as arbiter than the chattering analyser. You just tell the guy to move away and if he doesn't you throw him out. By its nature this behaviour is more club-oriented than seen in major events.

DJ

WhiteElephant
10-10-2007, 08:44 PM
What is that supposed to mean?

I believe Sam is suggesting that everyone who talks in another language during a chess tournament is secretly whispering moves to each other and it is naive to think otherwise.

Sam, I am someone who speaks the most common foreign language heard at chess tournaments and I can tell you that sometimes people are just chatting about the weather.

Basil
10-10-2007, 09:20 PM
... but what cannot be countenanced is the spectator who puts a chair right next to the board on the "centreline" and proceeds to stare at the game from there. That is plain rude.
Okaaaaaaay


Moreover it's much easier to control as arbiter than the chattering analyser.
You cannot be serious! [/McENROE]
Denis, surely the issue of degree will arise, viz
"Do you want me to move back a bit?"
"I wasn't staring. I was looking"
"What do you mean I looked intense?"
"Hey, this is how I am, OK?"
and so it would rage on.

However, analysis (under my scenario) is out - plain simple out. No matter of degree involved.

Axiom
10-10-2007, 11:27 PM
Ive just pulled out an old chess ettiquette manual, and it states there, the following:-
"Spectators shall remain within a sector with its apex ,centred at the mid point of the e4,e5,d4,d5 squares, forming,at this point an angle of no more than 90 degrees,behind each player."

"Spectators shall remain inaudible to the players at all times"

"Spectators shall remain no closer than the point at which they can discern the board position"


this is all reasonable,without any need to discourage the perhaps over enthusiastic or over earnest spectator !

Denis_Jessop
11-10-2007, 03:55 PM
Okaaaaaaay


<snip>
Denis, surely the issue of degree will arise, viz
"Do you want me to move back a bit?"
"I wasn't staring. I was looking"
"What do you mean I looked intense?"
"Hey, this is how I am, OK?"
and so it would rage on.

However, analysis (under my scenario) is out - plain simple out. No matter of degree involved.

If the guy is camped close to the board as I described you ask him to move. If he doesn't you throw him out. He has no right to argue - in fact spectators have no rights at all; they are there as a privilege on sufferance though the situation may be different if they paid to enter. However, then, they wouldn't be allowed to get close to boards in any case unless the organisers were very lax.

DJ

CameronD
11-10-2007, 04:13 PM
There should be a regulated distence from the edge of the board. Personally, I think if a player can extend their arms out while seated and touch someone, then there to close, thats my standard when playing.

Sam
11-10-2007, 04:54 PM
I believe Sam is suggesting that everyone who talks in another language during a chess tournament is secretly whispering moves to each other and it is naive to think otherwise.

Sam, I am someone who speaks the most common foreign language heard at chess tournaments and I can tell you that sometimes people are just chatting about the weather.

I wasnt quite suggesting everyone,but it is very common for russians and people from the former yugoslavia to analyse games while they are in progress...this is collusion and cheating...and yes you would be naive to think that it doesnt happen.:whistle:

Basil
11-10-2007, 05:12 PM
If the guy is camped close to the board as I described you ask him to move. If he doesn't you throw him out.
Okay. No problems in principle. Are you suggesting that you would like to see a national adoption of this regulation? There remains (as with my approach to analysis ATB) the other issues of
-- universal awareness of the reg
-- universal implementation of the reg
-- disruption to game (not caused by the tossing itself - although this would also occur, but could be argued that disruption itself has already occurred), but caused as a consequence of failure from the first two's lack of adoption).


He has no right to argue - in fact spectators have no rights at all; they are there as a privilege on sufferance
:clap:


... though the situation may be different if they paid to enter
Perhaps easily fixed with:
-- beefed up conditions of (tournament) entry (for players)
-- clarification of definition of when a 'player' becomes a 'spectator'


However, then, they wouldn't be allowed to get close to boards in any case unless the organisers were very lax
Well it's evident that they are (lax) or no doubt in some cases looking to have greater support from the 'game' and 'authorities'.

WhiteElephant
11-10-2007, 05:29 PM
it is very common for russians and people from the former yugoslavia to analyse games while they are in progress.

Is it? How do you know? That's a big generalisation.

Garvinator
11-10-2007, 05:57 PM
I wasnt quite suggesting everyone,but it is very common for russians and people from the former yugoslavia to analyse games while they are in progress...this is collusion and cheating...and yes you would be naive to think that it doesnt happen.:whistle:
Is it really any more common that for people from Australia or Asian countries? Do you have anything of SUBSTANCE to back up your generalisitic claims?

Just to be clear, we are talking about Australian tournaments :whistle:

If you really think it is cheating, have you complained to the chief arbiter of any tournament you have participated. Cant help but think that you are only saying this become this is an easy way to make claims that you dont have to back up with any facts.

eclectic
11-10-2007, 11:23 PM
Cant help but think that you are only saying this become this is an easy way to make claims that you dont have to back up with any facts.

so would sam be legally permitted to (secretly) record such "foreign analysis" as "fact" to back up his claims? :whistle: :whistle:

Sam
12-10-2007, 09:49 AM
Is it really any more common that for people from Australia or Asian countries? Do you have anything of SUBSTANCE to back up your generalisitic claims?

Just to be clear, we are talking about Australian tournaments :whistle:

If you really think it is cheating, have you complained to the chief arbiter of any tournament you have participated. Cant help but think that you are only saying this become this is an easy way to make claims that you dont have to back up with any facts.

See here is the problem. Most australian arbiters ONLY speak english. Strong russian and yugoslav players are well aware of this,this is why they use their native language even though their english is more than adequate.

The main strong group of asian players in Australia is filipinos,I cant say I have seen them actively colluding. They generally arent preoccupied about winning the better prize money,they are there more for the love of chess.

I havnt had anyone collude against me,I'm not above 1800 and they dont consider me a threat for the main prizes. But I have seen a parent of a strong yugoslav player complain to an arbiter about a russian player analysing his position against his son with another russian player. The arbiter,who only speaks english,couldnt do anything because he couldnt prove anything.
The yugoslav parent knew enough russian to be in no doubt they were analysing a game in progress.

Kevin Bonham
12-10-2007, 10:48 AM
A related problem is players who have finished their games (or spectators) analysing in whispers in English but the whispers are loud enough for the players to hear. Some players seem to be compulsive analysers in this fashion and just can't resist telling others out loud their view of the position while still in the playing room. Arbiters should evict these individuals from the playing area immediately.

Basil
12-10-2007, 11:08 AM
... Some players seem to be compulsive analysers in this fashion and just can't resist telling others out loud their view of the position while still in the playing room. Arbiters should evict these individuals from the playing area immediately.

:clap:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y105/scene66/smilies/gora.gif

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y105/scene66/smilies/breakn.gif

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y105/scene66/smilies/dancingbanana.gif

Kevin Bonham
12-10-2007, 11:31 AM
What I do with juniors is tell them that if they continue to talk about a game in progress they will not be allowed to continue watching that game. Then the second time they talk about the game (even if it is just "you're in check!" I say "right, I told you you couldn't talk about the game and you kept talking about the game, so now you are not allowed to watch this game anymore".)

With adults there is no reason to even give them a single warning; they should know better.

Kruupy
12-10-2007, 11:41 AM
When I participated in my first tournament I felt that we had a serious problem with the juniors. Not there playing strength but there maturity when placed together in a group. They were very loud and generally extremely annoying..., though there behavour was probably amplified in my mind due to the pressure I was going though.

Cheers,
Kruupy

MichaelBaron
12-10-2007, 01:44 PM
I wasnt quite suggesting everyone,but it is very common for russians and people from the former yugoslavia to analyse games while they are in progress...this is collusion and cheating...and yes you would be naive to think that it doesnt happen.:whistle:

a) Just because someone is speaking language other than english while his game is in progress, does not mean he is discussing his game

b) It is Australians that need cheating to beat us...Europeans are usually strong enough to crush majority of Australian club players while relying on themselves only.

A funny story comes to mind. I was playing some 1500 rated idiot (the word "idiot" refers not to his chess rating as chess rating got nothing to do with one's IQ but to his personality) during the game, i had a chat in Russian with my 1600 rated friend. To my great surprise...my opponent complained to the arbiter and accused me of recieving advice while playing....

On a serious note, its up to tournament organizers to ban players from talking to one another while games are in progress. However, in this case the rule should apply to all chess players irrespectively of the language they speak.

MichaelBaron
12-10-2007, 01:46 PM
so would sam be legally permitted to (secretly) record such "foreign analysis" as "fact" to back up his claims? :whistle: :whistle:

I would not mind! He can record me as much as he likes :lol: This way he will realise some people got more than chess to talk about :)

Denis_Jessop
12-10-2007, 03:51 PM
The main strong group of asian players in Australia is filipinos,I cant say I have seen them actively colluding. They generally arent preoccupied about winning the better prize money,they are there more for the love of chess.

I'm doubt this. I looked at the list of the top players on the ACF web site and the only Philippino (and part-Australian) there was Arianne Caoili. I couldn't see any on the under-age lists. By far the strongest and most numerous group of Asian background are the Chinese from China,Singapore, Malaysia etc .

But I'd agree that I have never seen them conversing in a language other than English and as far as I know they set an excellent example of sporting and fair behaviour.

DJ

MichaelBaron
12-10-2007, 07:48 PM
But I'd agree that I have never seen them conversing in a language other than English and as far as I know they set an excellent example of sporting and fair behaviour.

DJ

Dennis, are you implying that people that converse in language other than english during chess tournaments should not be regarded as "examples of sporty and fair behaviour"?

If yes, i am greatly entertained by your comment. I never realised that whenever Mirko and Domagoj enter a chess club they need to start conversing in English only. and Next time i am going to see Igor or Leonid at a chess tournament , we should be singing "advance australia fair" rather than talk about everything under the sun in a language of our choice.

If people believe there is a possibility of cheating, talking during tournament games should be banned alltogether irrespectively of the language spoken.

Lets be honest, one of the reasons that complaints against "chess players talking to one another in serbian,russian, polish etc." arise is due to the fact that majority of europeans are strong players. When some "fairdinkum" patzer sees his position deteriourate, he sometimes struggles to find an explaination other than that "there is Russian/Polish/Serbian conspiracy" against him.

I did get accused by one 1500 in recieving assistance from my 1600-rated friend a couple of years ago (see one of my earlier postings today). I can not recall any stronger chessplayers complaining. At the same time I Never thought about protesting about Dragicevic talking to Rujevic during our game etc.

To suggest that someone is displaying "poor sportsmanship" on the basis of the fact that language other than english is being spoken is simply ridiculous. Btw, Fillipinos too speak their language at chess events :) (not that i mind). As for Chinese...it is the world's most spoken language at the moment..so chess arbiters should learn it anyway lol :).

Axiom
12-10-2007, 08:34 PM
To suggest that someone is displaying "poor sportsmanship" on the basis of the fact that language other than english is being spoken is simply ridiculous. .
I agree in principle Michael, but for sheer practical purposes,would not a rule, - that only english be spoken in the playing hall, be a good one, even if only to make life easier for the poor old over burdened arbiter ?

Garvinator
12-10-2007, 08:35 PM
I agree in principle Michael, but for sheer practical purposes,would not a rule, - that only english be spoken in the playing hall, be a good one, even if only to make life easier for the poor old over burdened arbiter ?
Is this your suggestion for a fide law of chess?

Axiom
12-10-2007, 08:43 PM
Is this your suggestion for a fide law of chess?
nearly, i would propose that only the official language of the region/country be allowed in the playing hall of that location.

Desmond
12-10-2007, 08:44 PM
Toughen up, the lot of ya.

Axiom
12-10-2007, 08:52 PM
Toughen up, the lot of ya.
are you implying we simply ignore practical realities ?

Remember im a humanist-libertarian, i want all to freely speak as they wish, in whichever language they wish, but in a defined serious competition, the playing field must be level as practically possible,and rightly so.
If the speaking of various languages could so easily be a cover for cheating, then maybe such a rule as i proposed above might be judicious , and hardly onerous for those effected.

Kevin Bonham
12-10-2007, 09:16 PM
Basically any player wishing to talk to someone during their game should conduct the conversation audibly in the presence of an arbiter in a language understood by that arbiter. Anything else, whatever language it is in, gives rise to potential suspicion of cheating.

Capablanca-Fan
12-10-2007, 09:34 PM
Basically any player wishing to talk to someone during their game should conduct the conversation audibly in the presence of an arbiter in a language understood by that arbiter. Anything else, whatever language it is in, gives rise to potential suspicion of cheating.
Makes good sense, so players are seen to be honest.

Basil
12-10-2007, 10:01 PM
Basically any player wishing to talk to someone during their game should conduct the conversation audibly in the presence of an arbiter in a language understood by that arbiter. Anything else, whatever language it is in, gives rise to potential suspicion of cheating.
Makes good sense, so players are seen to be honest.

The idea of 'being seen to do the right thing' is a good one, in prinicple
The idea of 'conversation being in the presence and audible to the arbiter' is a good one, in principle.
I am neither promoting nor denouncing the concepts.

However if (as is presently the all but universal practice) it is permissible for a player to have an inaudible and private conversation away from the board, during his game, then it should also be permissible for a player to have such a conversation in a different language.

The underlying principle is transparency - and it shouldn't be coloured [/brilliant double pun]. I claim it as the first this year!

MichaelBaron
12-10-2007, 11:50 PM
I agree in principle Michael, but for sheer practical purposes,would not a rule, - that only english be spoken in the playing hall, be a good one, even if only to make life easier for the poor old over burdened arbiter ?

As far as I remember, Fide has 5 official languages (English, French, Spanish, Russian and one other..i think arabic) to start with. Furthermore,No other language is regarded as "inappropriate to speak at chess events".

and what about international tournaments? Do participants have to take language tests prior to being invited?

Axiom
13-10-2007, 01:33 AM
As far as I remember, Fide has 5 official languages (English, French, Spanish, Russian and one other..i think arabic) to start with. Furthermore,No other language is regarded as "inappropriate to speak at chess events".

and what about international tournaments? Do participants have to take language tests prior to being invited?
perhaps no talking ( or sign-language ) whatsoever in the playing area ?

MichaelBaron
13-10-2007, 02:29 AM
perhaps no talking ( or sign-language ) whatsoever in the playing area ?

No talking is fine with me.

Sunshine
03-11-2007, 10:16 PM
940

Desmond
04-11-2007, 09:55 AM
:lol: I want one