Tuesday, October 10, 2006

When is a ring not a ring?

Last week, debate raged between Aussie chessers over one of the most contentious rules in the Laws of Chess - rule 12.2b, the "mobile phone rule". It was sparked by an incident at the Ryde-Eastwood Open wherein someone's mobile phone rang but the arbiter, IA Jason Lyons, opted not to declare the game lost for the offending player (Player A).

Player B, Trent Parker, was apparently not very happy with this ruling. He has since lodged an appeal with the NSWCA.

For details, check out this post by Matthew Sweeney in the Australian Chess Club Forum.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hmm...no consistency in applying the rules...great way to engender distrust in DOP's in general.

Anonymous said...

anonymous:
Hmm...no consistency in applying the rules...great way to engender distrust in DOP's in general.

From the FIDE Laws of Chess PREFACE

The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions. Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations, which are discussed in the Laws. The Laws assume that arbiters have the necessary competence, sound judgement and absolute objectivity. Too detailed a rule might deprive the arbiter of his freedom of judgement and thus prevent him from finding the solution to a problem dictated by fairness, logic and special factors.

FIDE appeals to all chess players and federations to accept this view.

12.2b

It is strictly forbidden to bring mobile phones or other electronic means of communication, not authorised by the arbiter, into the playing venue. If a player`s mobile phone rings in the playing venue during play, that player shall lose the game. The score of the opponent shall be determined by the arbiter.

There's no consistency in the rules themselves.

If mobiles are forbidden in the playing area unless authorised then why are they allowed in the playing area in the first place and if their admittance is authorised can their going off then be used to disqualify?

"Rings" is too vague a term. Should it apply to a mobile as a result of a call coming in? Should it apply to any sound?

If a player turned off a mobile in good faith only to have the power on option become activated because of an alarm they overlooked should they be penalised?

If a mobile only has its light go on should that player be forfeited too? A fair question - the colored light might disturb someone with epilepsy - who knows?

Kevin Bonham said...

It's odd that TCG links to a one-post ACCF thread when a 100+ Chesschat thread at http://chesschat.org/forumdisplay.php?f=57
has been running for several days contains considerably more detail, including comments from the arbiter who made the decision in question. Both threads contain material not found on the other one so why not link to both?

Matthew Sweeney said...

KB: "Both threads contain material not found on the other one so why not link to both?"

MS: ACCForum broke the NEW news. Therefore it gets the link. Furthermore, ACCForum is the place where people can post comment WITHOUT being abused and denigrated by the likes of the ACF officials who bully their way around the Chess Chat site. Anyone who cares about how Australian chess might look to *potential sponsors* and the public at large would *not* want them reading Chess Chat. ACCForum is the future.

BTW Keven, harry wants you to know that u are being obscenely hypercritical . Asking TCG to link directly to CC when your CC refuses to link directly to ACCForum is archetypical of a bully botboy who has less intellectual honesty than a flat-earther .

Kevin Bonham said...

Well here we go again. Matt's site was indeed the first to reveal that Trent lodged an appeal, but many other aspects of the incident have been discussed for days on chesschat and the matter has never been covered on TCG before, so a link to chesschat as well would have provided far more useful information.

As it turns out my previous comments were too kind since Matt's post abounds with spurious claims to the point of being more or less useless. For starters, what ratings prize did Trent's opponent win? Perhaps Matt could tell us what rating Trent's opponent had that might entitle him to a ratings prize? And contrary to Matt's conspiratorial nonsense, I predict that while understandable enough to return any deposit made, the appeal must be dismissed since Lyons' decision is at worst not clearly wrong.

As for "harry", Matt can tell his imaginary friend* that there is nothing hypocritical in chesschat banning links to Matt's site, since Matt has got himself banned from chesschat by his own persistent breaches of the forum rules, but no similar consideration applies in this case.

* "harry", a troll obsessed with moderation, was banned from chesschat for pretending to be a junior (and acting like an exceedingly dense one) when actually not a junior at all. "harry" also habitually misspelt my first name as "Keven". If Matt thinks this irritates me in any way, his delusion level is astonishing.

Anonymous said...

if a mobile were to ring in the accforum it would ordinarily be cause for rejoicing insofar as it would indicate a quantum leap in activity there however sticklers for the rules would insist on it being forfeited from the ezboard forum hall ... permanEntly.

:)

Matthew Sweeney said...

KB: Well here we go again. WOOF!

MS: You got that right! It is all about you trying desperately to engage me in banter. When you feed a stray dog, the mongrel never leaves. Same for trolls apparently. Now, Dog #2, I have little more to feed you, so, “take a long walk off a short pier.” [An in joke for those of us you know that Dog2 considers that that old saying is a death threat LOL]

KB: Matt's site was indeed the first to reveal that Trent lodged an appeal, but many other aspects of the incident have been discussed for days on chesschat and the matter has never been covered on TCG before, so a link to chesschat as well would have provided far more useful information. WOOF!

MS: I broke the story – there is nothing *more* useful than that. You are just cut up that you are not able to quote my story on CC because of YOUR disgusting anti free speech rules.

KB: As it turns out my previous comments were too kind since Matt's post abounds with spurious claims to the point of being more or less useless. For starters, what ratings prize did Trent's opponent win? Perhaps Matt could tell us what rating Trent's opponent had that might entitle him to a ratings prize? WOOF!

MS: Listen super sleuth, I reported the story as it was told to me. Compared to the meat of the story – the appeal – it had some minor errors. BIG DEAL, not. Find some other bone to knaw.

KB: As for "harry", Matt can tell his imaginary friend … WOOF! WOOF! WOOF!

MS: As for “harry”, you know he is me – so don’t try to be cute. Of course if you did not know that “harry” was me, you are in deed a low grade Asperger’s, a high grade dupe, and an ungradable laughing stock.

Now, go away D2 there’re no more scraps. V..

Kevin Bonham said...

Matt, it doesn't bother me at all that we can't quote your silly post on chesschat. The claim that Trent is making an appeal has appeared there and virtually nothing else in your post is correct.

As for desperation to engage, you are (again) the one who first decided to get personal and abusive and drag in irrelevant nonsense, showing (again) that you can only interact civilly in your artificial microcosm. And yes, it has been clear to me for some time that "harry" was you.

Matthew Sweeney said...

KB: As for desperation to engage, you are (again) the one who first decided to get personal and abusive and drag in irrelevant nonsense,

MS; The only way I wish to engage with you is the time honoured method of dealing with stray dogs - a kick in the ribs. You pretend to be oh-so civil from time to time, here and there. No body is fooled. At any moment you will turn feral (again) - and you will blaim everyone else for making you do it (again). On the other hand, I admit my short comings and wear the consequences like a man. You, however, are a boy, still clinging the he-started-it defense. Grow up, puppy

KB: ... showing (again) that you can only interact civilly in your artificial microcosm.

LOL. Go back to Logic 101, idiot. Question 1. How can you prove a negative?

[***KICK!***]

Anonymous said...

Let me explain consistency to you...you either forfeit all players when their mobile goes off or you forfeit none...you dont make exceptions!

Rujevic lost a game last year to Johansen when his mobile went off...no exception was made even though he is an IM. Trents opponent should have been forfeited. Plain and simple.

Kevin Bonham said...

Amusingly, Matthew's first paragraph applies far better to his own behaviour than mine, and far from admitting his own shortcomings, he frequently digs in in defence of them. Otherwise he would by now have made apologies for his conduct on UCJ. As for disproving a negative, I would be more than happy to be proved wrong on that, but I have lost all hope of that ever occurring.

Anonymous said...

let me explain consistency to you ... seeing gms and ims pay entry fees like the rest of us

lol

seriously though consistency should apply via not having mobile phones in the playing area in the first placE :)

Matthew Sweeney said...

KB: Otherwise he would by now have made apologies for his conduct on UCJ.

What? You mean apologigise for having jokes at your expense and for some gross-out lampooning of the BotDog? You are so up yourself you look like a pretzel roll with feet and no head.

Kevin Bonham said...

anonymous: The rule does not refer to "going off", it refers to what happens when a mobile phone "rings". See the chesschat thread for extensive discussion of the difference (leastways, most posters on the thread believe there is one).

Matthew Sweeney pretends that his sins on UCJ extended only so far as jokes at my expense and "gross-out lampooning" of an unknown entity he refers to as "BotDog". This is typical of the pattern of digging in in defence of his shortcomings that I referred to - especially as he actually went considerably further than that.

Anonymous said...

OMG...Kevin...most of the general public would equate "goes off" with ring...how is it that you could get the two confused? lol