Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 37 of 37

Thread: Watches

  1. #31
    CC International Master ElevatorEscapee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,102
    I've read this entire thread, and I must say that I am deeply disappointed in the lot of you!

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

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

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

    Sigh, I feel almost as meta as AC here - come on you lot, lift your game!
    "On my chess set, all the pawns are Hamburglers" ~ Homer Simpson.

  2. #32
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    20,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Desmond View Post
    I have some empathy for arbiters in this regard. It may well be that your watch doesn't have those features, but others do and it may not be so easy for arbiters to tell one type from the other in all cases.
    You make a fair point. But I also hope that arbiters will rescind forfeits if it is clearly shown that the watch is innocent. A genuine analog watch with physical hands clearly qualifies.

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

  3. #33
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,649
    Quote Originally Posted by ElevatorEscapee View Post
    I've read this entire thread, and I must say that I am deeply disappointed in the lot of you! You have all missed out on so many Dad joke opportunities! Not so much as a "he was forfeited for wearing an analogue wrist watch, gee, he must be ticked off about that!"
    I'm not trying to wind you up, but although the watch was analogue, it was powered by batteries

  4. #34
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    Posts
    547
    Smart watches allow notes if nothing else, so that's an excellent reason to ban them with or without the attached smartphones.

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

    www.chess.org.nz - Canterbury Chess Club
    http://respectrum.nz - Major sponsor

  5. #35
    CC International Master ElevatorEscapee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,102
    @ Patrick

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

    https://www.chess.com/news/view/seco...ss-swati-ghate

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

    I understand that a smart watch may be disguised to resemble an analogue watch, however, this appears to be another example of a broad based interpretation of simplified rules not passing a common sense test.
    "On my chess set, all the pawns are Hamburglers" ~ Homer Simpson.

  6. #36
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    Posts
    547
    I think if FIDE wants to capture watches within the rule on electronic devices, it needs to reword the Laws accordingly. Organisers are welcome to regulate their own events, obviously, but if this is to become more widespread, it should go through the normal process.
    IA Craig Hall

    www.chess.org.nz - Canterbury Chess Club
    http://respectrum.nz - Major sponsor

  7. #37
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    13,811
    Quote Originally Posted by ElevatorEscapee View Post
    @ Patrick

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

    https://www.chess.com/news/view/seco...ss-swati-ghate

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

    I understand that a smart watch may be disguised to resemble an analogue watch, however, this appears to be another example of a broad based interpretation of simplified rules not passing a common sense test.
    And this competitor took it far closer to the heart and was in tears.
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Does the electronic devices rule include watches?
    By ChessGuru in forum Arbiters' Corner
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 29-10-2013, 04:17 PM

Posting Permissions

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