Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 41 of 41

Thread: Watches

  1. #31
    CC International Master ElevatorEscapee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,148
    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
    20,851
    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 history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  3. #33
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,608
    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
    574
    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
    2,148
    @ 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
    574
    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
    15,422
    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!

  8. #38
    CC Rookie
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    2
    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.
    Smart watches today are telecommunications devices in their own right. The Apple Watch comes in a version that communicates without any need for a mobile phone. There are plenty of Chinese Android watches that do the same. There are also watches that are smart but have analog moving hands, they’re called hybrid watches.

    IMO I don’t get what is wrong with asking people to follow the rules: check your watch in to storage. Why should arbiters have to be experts in horology too?

  9. #39
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    Posts
    574
    Quote Originally Posted by jasonwalls View Post
    Smart watches today are telecommunications devices in their own right. The Apple Watch comes in a version that communicates without any need for a mobile phone. There are plenty of Chinese Android watches that do the same. There are also watches that are smart but have analog moving hands, they’re called hybrid watches.

    IMO I don’t get what is wrong with asking people to follow the rules: check your watch in to storage. Why should arbiters have to be experts in horology too?
    I don't think there's any serious debate about actual smart watches - they are clearly captured by the relevant definition in the Laws (electronic device), just as tablets and laptops are. Mechanical analogue watches are also clearly not captured by this law as they aren't electronic by any serious definition.

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

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

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

  10. #40
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,608
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig_Hall View Post
    I don't think there's any serious debate about actual smart watches - they are clearly captured by the relevant definition in the Laws (electronic device), just as tablets and laptops are. Mechanical analogue watches are also clearly not captured by this law as they aren't electronic by any serious definition.

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

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

    The online Collins Dictionary defines it as: "An electronic device has transistors or silicon chips which control and change the electric current passing through the device".

  11. #41
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    15,422
    I am not sure arbiters can be expected to examine all the devices and understand whether they could be used for cheating or not. Not all arbiters are experts in electronics.
    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
  •