Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 52
  1. #31
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    The relevant laws are:

    11.3
    During play the players are forbidden to use any notes, sources of information or advice, or analyse any game on another chessboard.
    During play, a player is forbidden to have a mobile phone and/or other electronic means of communication in the playing venue. If it is evident that a player brought such a device into the playing venue, he shall lose the game. The opponent shall win.
    The rules of a competition may specify a different, less severe, penalty.
    The arbiter may require the player to allow his clothes, bags or other items to be inspected, in private. The arbiter or a person authorised by the arbiter shall inspect the player and shall be of the same gender as the player. If a player refuses to cooperate with these obligations, the arbiter shall take measures in accordance with Article 12.9.
    This is from the 2014 rules, which have been superseded.

    Article 11.3 from the 2018 FIDE Laws of Chess is as follows:

    Quote Originally Posted by FIDE Laws of Chess
    11.3.1

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

    11.3.2.1



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

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

    11.3.2.2

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

    11.3.3

    The arbiter may require the player to allow his clothes, bags, other items or body to be inspected, in private. The arbiter or person authorised by the arbiter shall inspect the player, and shall be of the same gender as the player. If a player refuses to cooperate with these obligations, the arbiter shall take measures in accordance with Article 12.9.

    11.3.4

    Smoking, including e-cigarettes, is permitted only in the section of the venue designated by the arbiter.
    Southern Suburbs Chess Club (Perth)
    www.southernsuburbschessclub.org.au

  2. #32
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    Wouldn't that be covered by 11.1: "The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute."? Concealing an infraction of the laws would seem to be qualify.
    Yes, under the proviso that the offender is caught. If the player is not caught, and there is no suggestion or evidence of wrongdoing, then there is no disrepute. The public image of chess would not be damaged.
    Southern Suburbs Chess Club (Perth)
    www.southernsuburbschessclub.org.au

  3. #33
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,835
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    Wouldn't that be covered by 11.1: "The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute."? Concealing an infraction of the laws would seem to be qualify.
    An arbiter might interpret it that way. The disrepute rule is very vague.

  4. #34
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,981
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Hardegen View Post
    I don't think this is correct. The tournament rules can specify a less severe penalty, but the FIDE Laws do not give the arbiter any discretion. The arbiter has to apply the penalty.
    I was allowing for the possibility that the competition rules could give the arbiter the discretion to apply different penalties, depending on whether the arbiter thought that the presence of the phone was accidental or deliberate. But I think you're correct that this type of arbiter discretion wouldn't be allowed under the laws, and the penalties would have to explicitly specified.

  5. #35
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,981
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Hardegen View Post
    This is from the 2014 rules, which have been superseded. Article 11.3 from the 2018 FIDE Laws of Chess is as follows:
    Thanks. It seems that a direct link to the online FIDE Handbook doesn't take you to the new Laws

  6. #36
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,981
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Hardegen View Post
    Yes, under the proviso that the offender is caught. If the player is not caught, and there is no suggestion or evidence of wrongdoing, then there is no disrepute. The public image of chess would not be damaged.
    An interesting ethical question. I would argue that the player could still bring the game into disrepute by concealing the infraction, even if he isn't caught. For example, he might hypothetically boast about it on a blog many years after the incident.

    However if nobody except the player ever becomes aware of what happened, then 11.1 can't be applied.

  7. #37
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    An interesting ethical question. I would argue that the player could still bring the game into disrepute by concealing the infraction, even if he isn't caught. For example, he might hypothetically boast about it on a blog many years after the incident.

    However if nobody except the player ever becomes aware of what happened, then 11.1 can't be applied.
    I agree. If a player boasts about his crime then it becomes known, and the game is brought into disrepute by virtue of the crime becoming known.

    We also agree that if a player commits wrongdoing and is not caught, and nobody ever finds out, then the game is not brought into disrepute.

    In sport, the ethics are fairly absolute. Conforming to the rules is right, and breaking them is wrong. In my post http://www.chesschat.org/showthread....l=1#post444214 I argued that in the case where a player discovers that they have broken a rule, inadvertently or otherwise, the ethical thing to do is to self-incriminate, irrespective of the consequences of doing so.

    If they self-incriminate to the arbiter, in most cases they should be able to do so in confidence, and very few people need to know the details or divulge them to outsiders. I think the game is brought into disrepute by people who publish unnecessary details and/or unfounded rumours that bring no benefit to anyone.

    If we agree that failing to self-incriminate adds more gravity to a crime, then I guess it would make sense to have a rule that requires players to self-incriminate, thus formally defining such cases as more serious. In cases where an offender is not caught and stays silent, then they not in breach of 11.1 but are still in breach of the law requiring them to self-incriminate.
    Last edited by Andrew Hardegen; 07-01-2019 at 03:09 PM.
    Southern Suburbs Chess Club (Perth)
    www.southernsuburbschessclub.org.au

  8. #38
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,087
    I have just read all the comments here and tried to work out what has occurred and the laws that apply. In my view, I think there needs to be a modification to this section of the mobile phone rule.

    As it stands, unless the tournament has specified that a lesser penalty can be applied, then as soon as a player brings the mobile phone into the playing venue, or keeps the mobile phone in a player’s bag, provided the device is completely switched off. This bag must be placed as agreed with the arbiter. Both players are forbidden to use this bag without permission of the arbiter, then the 'offending' player is completely toast as soon as they realise they have brought the mobile phone into the playing venue.

    Most sports have a rule where if you are approached by illegal bookmakers or other dodgy characters, there is a window to self-report these interactions and no further actions will be taken.

    So, in this case here, as soon as Kanan Izzat realised he had a turned on mobile phone in the playing venue, there was no way to get out of being defaulted for the game. As Kanan has said, in hindsight he should have self reported, but as the rules reading has shown, this would not have saved him from being defaulted.

    And I am of the opinion that this is where there is a missing segment of the rules that should be adding. As the rules stand, Kanan Izzat, by self reporting, would have gained no advantage by self reporting. The actions he took didn't help by trying to turn the phone off, but had he played the rest of the game with the phone on and it not made a sound, he might have 'gotten away with it', so to speak.

    And I do not think this is the type of behaviour the rules should be trying to encourage. I think it would be far better to add a section where if the player realises they have brought a turned on mobile phone into the playing area, they can self report and if the chief arbiter is satisfied that there was no cheating involved, the player receives an official warning for the first offence. How to punish a second offence would need to be worked out? Default one game or both games so the punishment is equal for both games?

    But I think chess would be better off by encouraging good behaviour by self reporting and letting the arbiters sort it out, rather than what has occurred with possible paranoid theories and counter claims of various merits.

  9. #39
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Hardegen View Post
    I agree. If a player boasts about his crime then it becomes known, and the game is brought into disrepute by virtue of the crime becoming known.

    We also agree that if a player commits wrongdoing and is not caught, and nobody ever finds out, then the game is not brought into disrepute.

    In sport, the ethics are fairly absolute. Conforming to the rules is right, and breaking them is wrong. In my post http://www.chesschat.org/showthread....l=1#post444214 I argued that in the case where a player discovers that they have broken a rule, inadvertently or otherwise, the ethical thing to do is to self-incriminate, irrespective of the consequences of doing so.

    If they self-incriminate to the arbiter, in most cases they should be able to do so in confidence, and very few people need to know the details or divulge them to outsiders. I think the game is brought into disrepute by people who publish unnecessary details and/or unfounded rumours that bring no benefit to anyone.

    If we agree that failing to self-incriminate adds more gravity to a crime, then I guess it would make sense to have a rule that requires players to self-incriminate, thus formally defining such cases as more serious. In cases where an offender is not caught and stays silent, then they not in breach of 11.1 but are still in breach of the law requiring them to self-incriminate.
    And the proposed rule also has some practical value besides definition of unconfessed crimes as more serious. If a player commits a wrongdoing that is clearly known to them, and that player is caught red-handed by the arbiter, then the proposed law requiring them to self-incriminate can be applied, without needing 11.1. Thus, more severe penalties may be applied, without there being any requirement that the game be brought into disrepute. (This does not necessarily apply to cases of suspected cheating, which are required to be reported to Fair Play.)
    Southern Suburbs Chess Club (Perth)
    www.southernsuburbschessclub.org.au

  10. #40
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by Garvinator View Post
    I have just read all the comments here and tried to work out what has occurred and the laws that apply. In my view, I think there needs to be a modification to this section of the mobile phone rule.

    As it stands, unless the tournament has specified that a lesser penalty can be applied, then as soon as a player brings the mobile phone into the playing venue, or keeps the mobile phone in a player’s bag, provided the device is completely switched off. This bag must be placed as agreed with the arbiter. Both players are forbidden to use this bag without permission of the arbiter, then the 'offending' player is completely toast as soon as they realise they have brought the mobile phone into the playing venue.

    Most sports have a rule where if you are approached by illegal bookmakers or other dodgy characters, there is a window to self-report these interactions and no further actions will be taken.

    So, in this case here, as soon as Kanan Izzat realised he had a turned on mobile phone in the playing venue, there was no way to get out of being defaulted for the game. As Kanan has said, in hindsight he should have self reported, but as the rules reading has shown, this would not have saved him from being defaulted.

    And I am of the opinion that this is where there is a missing segment of the rules that should be adding. As the rules stand, Kanan Izzat, by self reporting, would have gained no advantage by self reporting. The actions he took didn't help by trying to turn the phone off, but had he played the rest of the game with the phone on and it not made a sound, he might have 'gotten away with it', so to speak.
    I agree with you that we should look to identify ways of encouraging players to self-report. However, I don't see any problem with the current mobile phone rule. Kanan expressed that he doesn't either, and nor does any other strong player that I know of. In fact I can't recall any club player expressing to me that they are unhappy with the current rule.

    Quote Originally Posted by Garvinator View Post
    And I do not think this is the type of behaviour the rules should be trying to encourage. I think it would be far better to add a section where if the player realises they have brought a turned on mobile phone into the playing area, they can self report and if the chief arbiter is satisfied that there was no cheating involved, the player receives an official warning for the first offence. How to punish a second offence would need to be worked out? Default one game or both games so the punishment is equal for both games?

    But I think chess would be better off by encouraging good behaviour by self reporting and letting the arbiters sort it out, rather than what has occurred with possible paranoid theories and counter claims of various merits.
    The rule is there to prevent wrongdoers from cheating. If the rule were to be softened by allowing a `get-out' clause like the one you suggest, then what would stop a player from bringing a phone into the venue with them, using it to refer to opening databases and engines for the first hour of the game, and then wiping the phone and handing it in once they have attained a won game?
    Southern Suburbs Chess Club (Perth)
    www.southernsuburbschessclub.org.au

  11. #41
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    922
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    Thanks. It seems that a direct link to the online FIDE Handbook doesn't take you to the new Laws
    Here is the direct link to the 2018 Laws of Chess: https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.h...8&view=article

    lost

  12. #42
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,835
    Quote Originally Posted by Garvinator View Post
    I think it would be far better to add a section where if the player realises they have brought a turned on mobile phone into the playing area, they can self report and if the chief arbiter is satisfied that there was no cheating involved, the player receives an official warning for the first offence.
    I think that's risky. For instance suppose a player actually is cheating, but they come to suspect (without being sure) that another player might have noticed that they have a mobile on them. So, aware that they will be defaulted if the other player's suspicions become concrete enough to contact the arbiter first, they simply erase the evidence that they have cheated and then hand in the phone, thereby getting away with a warning.

    For major events I prefer the stick approach in this instance. Make it an extra offence for a player to fail to admit to having a mobile phone illegally in their possession during the game once aware of it, so that there is a clear option to fine the player or expel them from the tournament.

  13. #43
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,981
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    For major events I prefer the stick approach in this instance. Make it an extra offence for a player to fail to admit to having a mobile phone illegally in their possession during the game once aware of it, so that there is a clear option to fine the player or expel them from the tournament.
    For major events, I agree with this. But I would also like to see a requirement in the Laws that arbiters warn players about handing in or turning off their mobile phones at the start of each round. That might have avoided this incident, although it seems the players arrived late anyway. If a player is warned, but still fails to hand in their mobile phone, then I have little sympathy for them.

  14. #44
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,835
    Posts moved

    Posts about possible new cheating technologies have been moved to Arbiters Corner.

  15. #45
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,563
    Many legal systems, the best known of which is the American, regard it as a fundamental right that a person should never be forced to incriminate himself.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Can you lose rating points when you win a tournament?
    By FM_Bill in forum Ratings Arena
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-03-2012, 05:30 PM
  2. Do i lose my rating?
    By Wade in forum Ratings Arena
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 27-09-2007, 10:48 PM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-04-2006, 09:46 AM
  4. Both Kramnik and Adams lose in R6!
    By News Bot in forum Chess Australia
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 19-05-2005, 03:01 PM
  5. Australia lose 3-1 to Mexico
    By News Bot in forum Chess Australia
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 27-10-2004, 11:01 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •