02-01-2014, 02:54 PM
"1.2 Motion to create a Working Party to explore the use of live boards and internet to allow players from remote Scottish communities to participate in Chess Scotland congress events.
The logistics and expense of travelling to Chess Scotland congress events precludes a proportion of chess players who live in remote locations of the country from participating at Chess Scotland supported events. Internet is now widely available in many of these remote locations which would allow chess players to transmit played moves to a congress event in real time. It would be possible for a player in a remote location to play a game over the internet and have those moves relayed onto a chess board by a volunteer sitting at a congress board or in time by an automated board as demonstrated in the following video clip <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX37LFv8jWY">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX37LFv8jWY</a><!-- m -->. To ensure fair play the remote player will be supervised by an independent observer such as an arbiter, fellow chess club member etc. Such conditions may also apply to participants within Scotland who cannot attend Congresses for other special reasons e.g. a disability. Although there are a number of potential logistic problems the Working Party will investigate these and make recommendations on overall feasibility.
Proposed : Sean Milton Seconded: Gerald Lobley, David Deary, David Congalton, Calum MacQueen"
I would like to ask the proposer or any of the seconders this important question?
Who did you consult in preparing this motion?
Did you consult with the Disability officer or with disabled players for that matter? I know that I was not asked by anyone for an opinion on this.
How much research has been done in preparing this motion.
There are FIDE guidelines for the treatment of disabled players that come into force in July 2014.
I want an answer to my questions because if there is none it is a bit presumptuous to raise the issue of disability in this motion, which is in fact a good motion, but I am concerned at the lack of consultation by the proposer and seconders on this.
The logistics and expense of travelling to Chess Scotland congress events precludes a proportion of chess players who live in remote locations of the country from participating at Chess Scotland supported events. Internet is now widely available in many of these remote locations which would allow chess players to transmit played moves to a congress event in real time. It would be possible for a player in a remote location to play a game over the internet and have those moves relayed onto a chess board by a volunteer sitting at a congress board or in time by an automated board as demonstrated in the following video clip <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX37LFv8jWY">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX37LFv8jWY</a><!-- m -->. To ensure fair play the remote player will be supervised by an independent observer such as an arbiter, fellow chess club member etc. Such conditions may also apply to participants within Scotland who cannot attend Congresses for other special reasons e.g. a disability. Although there are a number of potential logistic problems the Working Party will investigate these and make recommendations on overall feasibility.
Proposed : Sean Milton Seconded: Gerald Lobley, David Deary, David Congalton, Calum MacQueen"
I would like to ask the proposer or any of the seconders this important question?
Who did you consult in preparing this motion?
Did you consult with the Disability officer or with disabled players for that matter? I know that I was not asked by anyone for an opinion on this.
How much research has been done in preparing this motion.
There are FIDE guidelines for the treatment of disabled players that come into force in July 2014.
I want an answer to my questions because if there is none it is a bit presumptuous to raise the issue of disability in this motion, which is in fact a good motion, but I am concerned at the lack of consultation by the proposer and seconders on this.