17-09-2013, 11:23 AM
Thanks for posting Alex.
"11,3 (b). 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, as in airport screening 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 12.10 "
[12.10 stipulates various penalties ranging from warnings up to expulsion from the tournament - WB]
This gives unprecedented powers to arbiters without even attempting to provide specification of situations that might be thought to justify their use. A player might say to the arbiter that he thinks his opponent may be cheating or have cheated. This rule would allow the arbiter, on that basis alone, to require a search. Even without an accusation of cheating, the search could be justified on suspicion that a player has a mobile on his person or baggage.
Looking at it again, it doesn’t even say there must be a suspicion of cheating before a search can be demanded.
This is far too far. The justification and authority for ‘airport-style screenings’ is to prevent planes and people from potentially being blown up, not to stop people potentially enhancing their prospects in a chess game.
There should have been a section devoted to measures expressly devised to dealing with possible cheating. This would allow powers to be devised in accordance with requirements, instead of given out carte blanche. For example, an accusation of cheating should have been made in a responsible way, e,g, must be made in writing to the arbiter and signed by at least two people, giving reasons. In the absence of any accountability for the accusation, the accused player should be entitled to refuse such indignities that clearly fall outwith the realm of ‘chess rules’.
The laws of chess should not be giving powers like arbitrary search rights to arbiters.
Alex do you have any wisdom on this, or input? Cheers
"11,3 (b). 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, as in airport screening 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 12.10 "
[12.10 stipulates various penalties ranging from warnings up to expulsion from the tournament - WB]
This gives unprecedented powers to arbiters without even attempting to provide specification of situations that might be thought to justify their use. A player might say to the arbiter that he thinks his opponent may be cheating or have cheated. This rule would allow the arbiter, on that basis alone, to require a search. Even without an accusation of cheating, the search could be justified on suspicion that a player has a mobile on his person or baggage.
Looking at it again, it doesn’t even say there must be a suspicion of cheating before a search can be demanded.
This is far too far. The justification and authority for ‘airport-style screenings’ is to prevent planes and people from potentially being blown up, not to stop people potentially enhancing their prospects in a chess game.
There should have been a section devoted to measures expressly devised to dealing with possible cheating. This would allow powers to be devised in accordance with requirements, instead of given out carte blanche. For example, an accusation of cheating should have been made in a responsible way, e,g, must be made in writing to the arbiter and signed by at least two people, giving reasons. In the absence of any accountability for the accusation, the accused player should be entitled to refuse such indignities that clearly fall outwith the realm of ‘chess rules’.
The laws of chess should not be giving powers like arbitrary search rights to arbiters.
Alex do you have any wisdom on this, or input? Cheers