Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Proposed Laws
The Presidential Board has made significant changes to the proposed Laws of Chess.

These will have a significant effect on chess in Britain if implemented.

They appear on the Laws page of the CAA website.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->
Alex McFarlane Wrote:The Presidential Board has made significant changes to the proposed Laws of Chess.

These will have a significant effect on chess in Britain if implemented.

They appear on the Laws page of the CAA website.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->

Any chance you can list ones you think are important - ie interpret for the neds
Countries no longer allowed to introduce their own additions
Automatic draw after 75 moves if no piece capture or pawn move (don't know how this is worked out).
Automatic draw after 10 CONSECUTIVE occurrences of the same position (don't know how this is possible as making a move changes the position)
Removal of Article 10 (Quickplay finishes)
Changes to Rapidlplay and Blitz which don't make it clear what will happen. Indeed one change to blitz is the removal of A2 from it. A2 meant that you didn't have to record!!! Therefore you will now have to record a Blitz game until you have less than 5 minutes.
Stupid and an obvious mistake but it shows the lack of care and thought that went into these proposals from the ECF Presidential Board.

I'd welcome comments on any changes.
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
The search part was 'passed' in Istanbul but at that time the rest of the wording made it clear that it would only apply in the top events where passing through a scanner is already done and that it could also allow action to be taken against a suspected cheat. At that time phones were still allowed, though they had to be switched off, so the 'searching' would not normally be used but if an accusation was made the arbiter would be allowed to ask to see if the phone was on or not.
The change in the wording makes this far more draconian than the original.
Thanks Alex. Controversial measures promoted on one contingency have a habit of quickly spreading to become standard practice.

How can it be ‘made clear’ in draft documents but made draconian in what’s then circulated. What’s the status at the moment – this is FIDE presumably, do we have a delegate, any quick info on the process and our input to it? Thanks in advance..
It is of course FIDE PB and not ECF as I said earlier.

I'm hoping to attend but registration was by 1st August and these proposals have only come out in the last week or so. Awaiting answer from FIDE as to if it is OK to attend.
Andy Howie is the normal delegate.
I can imagine that it would also depend on the implementation of it. For example a watch could be classified as an electrical means of communication device as it communicates time to user via light or sound (i.e. an alarm clock function).

Rule about mobile phones in playing hall is logical at top flight events but unless events have a special area where players can securely store their valuables in absolute confidence (e.g. lockers) I don't see how it can be that practical. As many events finish relatively late at night (11pm on Fridays) if someone is returning by public transport and they have an accident on way home not having a mobile phone could put player's lives at risk if they are unable to call for assistance.

I guess only good thing is that it's merely "recommended" for non-fide events so theoretically it can be ignored for all non-fide rated games.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)