Back to SCCU home page     Open Forum (general)     Open Forum: Grading

---

Updated 10.11.08
OPEN FORUM: MOBILE PHONES
AND THE LAWS
__________________

From Laurence Ball
9.11.08
Hello Richard
Being the new Kent Open captain, I do not know what has previously been discussed with regards to cellular phones in county games, so please forgive me if I what I suggest has already been discussed.
      In the Kent vs Middlesex match yesterday (8/11) the Middlesex captain and myself agreed that we would allow the two captains' cellphones to remain on until all of the players were at the venue. The arbiter for the match, Peter Bayliss, accepted our agreement.
      I have been away from home for the remainder of the weekend and have only just read the emails concerning the unfortunate defaults. An interesting point raised by the Middlesex captain was that although this agreement was in place the players could not have known this and therefore would not expect to get through to their captain after play had commenced.
      I would therefore like to propose that all captains for county matches be allowed to have their cellular phones on until all of their players have arrived at the venue and from when they are aware of their arrival.
      Would there be a problem with having this rule implemented? Is there something that I have not thought about that would make this suggestion unworkable?
Laurence Ball
Kent Open captain    


From Richard Bates
5.8.08
Richard,
Well the British Championship organisers seem to have gone out of their way to demonstrate that existing Mobile laws (default) aren't draconian enough. From the entry form:
      "Mobile phones: - Mobile phones must be switched off in the playing hall. Competitors should avoid bringing phones to the venue. They will be immediately defaulted if their mobile phone is found to be switched on, and they may be considered to have withdrawn(!) from the event."
      By the way it should be pointed out that whilst it was originally assumed (and is the assumption of postings on this thread) that the laws on mobile phones concerned "distraction", i don't think that that is anymore the thrust of the reason for this ie. it is about cheating. Thus it is not sufficient to put phones on "silent", and why they say that you shouldn't have phones on you at all.
      And my opinion, the law as most seem to want it applied in League chess sucks. People may have logicality and consistency on their side in demanding instant "no-discretion defaults", but some of us actually want to play chess for fun, not for grading points. Fortunately the London League is currently more enlightened. And it almost makes up for Wood Green winning it every year [emoticon deleted].
Richard Bates
rjh: The London League rules begin:
1. LAWS OF CHESS
Play in all Divisions shall be governed by the FIDE Laws of Chess.
1a) At the start of each match Captains should announce that, "All mobile phones must be switched off for the duration of the match". The Penalty for breaking this rule: First ring - warning to the player to switch off; Second ring - loss of game. Such game losses must be reported in writing to the League Secretary.
1b) "It is forbidden to write your move in advance on your scoresheet." Repeated transgessors must be reported in writing to the League Secretary.


From Neill Cooper
29.5.08
Richard
I complete agree with Dan Rosen (and others) that you should lose any county or club match if your phone rings. But I think that this should be a competition rule, not a law of chess. This is because the laws of chess should apply to all matches, not just those between experienced players who know the laws of chess.
      If in a match between two schools a player does not know the en Passant rule, we can just say that it is a law of chess, even if you did not know it. The move stands.
      If a player’s phone rings in a school match, I would like the team managers (often teachers with limited chess knowledge) to be able to use their discretion. However, a knowledgeable opponent could claim that they should win the game, and point to the laws of chess. The fact that wins are not always given in competitive play would probably not be known to the teachers.
Neill Cooper


From Dan Rosen
25.5.08
The obvious answer to Neill Cooper (24 May) is that receiving advice from a team-mate or reading a book affects only your game, but the mobile phone disturbs everyone in the room. Likewise to Geoff Marchant (28 March) in differentiating a ringing mobile phone from the unlawful retraction of a move: in some sense the former is more offensive than the latter because of its wider impact.
      I agree with David Lettington (21 March) when he says “I feel that to be in possession of a ringing mobile phone in the playing venue is in breach of that [sporting] spirit”, but actually I would go further. It is unfortunate that the chess equivalent of the death penalty is necessary to make some people aware of the nuisance caused by their ringing phones, but there is a simple solution – switch it off or put it on silent!
      Why should I keep having to make allowances to those who can’t or won’t show me reasonable courtesy and consideration in this regard?
Dan Rosen
Surrey


From Neill Cooper
24.5.08
Richard
I agree with Geoff Marchant [28.3.08] that the existing rule 12.2 is a bad law. Why do the laws of chess say you lose if your phone rings, but leave the arbiter to decide what to do if a team mate gives you advice, or your read a book about the opening you have just played?
      On the ECF Forum Roger de Coverly mentioned that FIDE rules were to be revised soon. I’m not sure if this includes the rules of playing, but, if so, I would like to suggest that the phrase “If a player`s mobile phone rings in the playing venue during play, that player shall lose the game.” be removed. There is a need for arbiter’s flexibility, e.g. for inter-school chess matches.
Yours
Neill Cooper
rjh: - Yes, we're talking about revisions to the Laws of Chess. Geoff Marchant has already made noises to FIDE - see the May 08 issue of "An Arbiter's Notebook" on the Chess Cafe site. The rule is not liked, and there are various proposals for change.


From Neil Graham
17.4.08
Regarding the question of players scoring in descriptive notation, as an event arbiter if I receive a complaint I warn the player that FIDE stipulates algebraic notation but that there will be no penalty for this transgression in the event/match. I have no intention of doing anything other than this.
Neil


From David Fryer
15.4.08
It doesn't reflect well on me but I did make an objection regarding the use of descriptive notation during a game in the Major Open (a FIDE rated tournament) at the British Championships in Scarborough. My only excuse for being rude to my opponent was that I was upset about messing up a good position in time trouble. However I played my opponent again this year and he didn't seem to remember so no serious harm done. Possibly of more interest is that I suspect the arbiter's initial judgement was incorrect.
      The time control was 40 moves in 2 hours then 20 moves in 1 hour and 30 minutes to finish the game. Due to time trouble before the first time control I failed to write down about 10 moves.
      The rules state that: "If only one player is not required to keep score under Article 8.4 he must, as soon as either flag has fallen, update his scoresheet completely before moving a piece on the chessboard. Provided it is the player`s move, he may use his opponent`s scoresheet, but must return it before making a move." So I asked to look at my opponent's scoresheet and he passed this over to me. Now not only was the scoresheet almost illegible he was in fact using descriptive notation. I genuinely found it difficult to read but mischievously pretended to not understand descriptive notation and I referred the situation to the arbiter for a judgement. He told me that descriptive notation was allowed in a BCF event and that I must write down the moves. I asked to use another board to reconstruct the game but this request was refused by the arbiter who then left the area of the game. My opponent now took back his scoresheet and asked me to continue the game. I refused on the grounds that I had to update my scoresheet before making a move. We were now at an impasse but to cut a long story short the arbiter did eventually interpret the scoresheet for me allowing me to write down the moves and continue to play.
      I would like to say that this episode psychologically affected me and that is why I went on to lose the game very quickly but in fact my position was completely hopeless and what I should have done on reaching the time control and assessing the position was to politely shake hands and resign.
      However the reason for this posting is to enquire whether the arbiter was correct to dismiss my objection regarding the use of descriptive notation and if not what penalty should have been applied to my opponent.
David Fryer david(at)brackenhurst(dot)freeserve(dot)co(dot)uk
Crowborough, Sussex



From Kevin Thurlow
13.4.08
Dear Richard
In answer to Richard Almond, I felt it shouldn't be necessary to remind people to turn phones off. However, when I am arbiter, I always (except when I forget) tell people to turn phones off at the start of each round. Phone ringing seems to have replaced loss on time as the law which the loser thinks shouldn't count for some reason, and it reduces the number of arguments. I find it ridiculous that people think it is an excuse that they didn't hear announcements as they arrived late.
best wishes
Kevin


From Richard Almond
9.4.08
Dear Richard,
On Mobile offences.
      What about the blameless victim? By that I mean the opponent of the player whose phone rings. He's hardly to blame that his opponent didn't turn off his phone. I should say I am primarily referring to incidents in County and League matches. A player may well have given up a significant chunk of time, travelled a considerable distance and spent a decent sum. It should also not be forgotten that such participants are amateurs who presumably are giving up their time and money for the enjoyment of having a game of chess. The normal pattern seems to be that if a phone rings it will be after only a few moves. Therefore the non offending party in effect has had a complete waste of time and money. While some may be happy to have got the point in this way, the rest I am describing as victims.
      Even though the rules probably are written with top level tournaments in mind and so not always ideal at the amateur level, I'm not sure it would be the right approach to have national or local versions of the "Competition Rules" sections of the FIDE Laws. While it may solve local issues, I think it would create problems of players being unsure of the rules when they go between jurisdictions or progress to a higher level e.g enter International Openings etc. Even now some very experienced players don't know fundamental rules of the one version, let alone if was more than one. Equally I think the Laws should be the same at all levels of play, so players that progress to higher levels already know the score.
      That said, and also that it is clear a ringing phone loses, what can be done for the blameless victim? Well additional rules can be put in place in League and County competitions. Currently in the County Competitions where a player wins by default a claim can be made against the opposing County for travelling expenses. Shouldn't that be the case if the opponent's phone rings, particularly if right at the start of the game? The County that is having to re-imburse could seek to get the money back from the player concerned or in perhaps some circumstances the Captain.
      Although I have noted Kevin Thurlow writes a lot of sense in this forum, I can't agree less preventative action should be taken against mobiles ringing (if I am understanding the thrust of his last letter). As I feel everything reasonable should be done to avoid creating "blameless victims" needlessly, so at the start of each match a reminder should be announced, and any other reasonable possible precautions taken. For example it wouldn't cost much to produce some re-usable laminated cards that could be put out at each board as a visual reminder and for late arrivals. If there was a potential financial loss by compensating the opponent for travel expenses, Club and County Officials no doubt would be fairly imaginative in coming up with preventative ideas.
      My only experience of a phone ringing relating to my own game, was a County match where I had a two-and-a-half hour journey each way. My opponent's phone rang after 6 moves. While there was no option other than that my opponent lost, either with regard to the rules or any other consideration, it wasn't satisfactory to have my whole Saturday wasted. My opponent agreed to play on as a graded friendly. I wonder though with reflection if that was entirely satisfactory as my opponent in the circumstances probably didn't play as well as he is capable. I won over the board as well, but whether it was entirely worthwhile I'm not sure.
Regards
Richard Almond


From Kevin Thurlow
9.4.08
Hi Richard
I think when the "compulsory" algebraic came in, it was one of those Laws where it was generally regarded here as only applying to FIDE-rated events, but even there, arbiters sometimes turn a blind eye. One player did once comment to me that his opponent was using descriptive, but I didn't think it worth imposing any penalty. The important thing is that you can actually read the scoresheet!
      Some players write a countdown of moves to time control on their scoresheets, which I think is illegal. Certainly, recording the game in a scorebook is illegal, as you might refer to previous games in the same line. (If your opponent uses a scorebook and wanders off with it during the game, it might be worth seeing if he's looking at previous games....) But unless the latter event actually happened, most arbiters would not complain. I have seen players annotating the game as they go along with !,? and !?, which is frequently comical. I did tell a club colleague off after the game for writing things like 23.Rxf6 on the opposite page of his scorebook, as he hadn't actually played the move. He explained he wanted to remember to analyse the move after the game, but I pointed out that if he played Rxf6 later in the game, his opponent could complain that he was referring to written notes, which is definitely illegal. The real highlight was the change of law to prohibit writing the move down before you played it, but FIDE forgot if you are claiming a draw by repetition, you must write the move down and say you are claiming a draw. If you actually make the move the claim fails....
best wishes
Kevin Thurlow
Redhill
rjh: - It's funny. I had a feeling they'd forgotten this, but when I checked a while back the rule on the FIDE site said "It is forbidden to write the moves in advance, unless the player is claiming a draw according to Article 9.2 or 9.3." Kevin and I have misremembered, if FIDE have not prettified the rule since it was made. Don't try going there now. They've re-jigged the site since I was there last week, and the Laws have disappeared. But the version on the ECF site has the quoted words.
     Hang about. I have just checked a draft copy of the Laws which was in circulation shortly before the last revision, and another copy from just after the revision. Both say "It is forbidden to write the moves in advance."


From Ian Hames
4.4.08
Hi Richard
The question of Algebraic/Descriptive notation has been raised, among other contentious issues with match rules. Has anyone ever tried to claim a game on the basis that their opponent used descriptive notation? If so what was the result? I understand there should also be no other markings on the score sheet other than the players names etc on the top part of the form. Where do arbiters stand if, for example, something resembling move timings are annotated?
      I would be interested to know other people's views on this. If there is some old correspondence, could you point me in the right direction?
Thank you.
Ian Hames
Birchington/Thanet
rjh: - I have never heard of a player objecting to the opponent's descriptive notation. Anyone come across it? Or previous correspondence? (There may be some in the Archive.) Recording the clock times is specifically allowed by 12.3 of the Laws. Writing your name on the scoresheet isn't, but perhaps it comes under "other relevant data".


From Geoff Marchant
28.3.08
Dear Richard,
In response to the dictum "hard cases make bad law", it may also be argued that "bad law creates hard cases in the first place", as I believe has happened with the mobile phone law. Logically, as many of your correspondents have pointed out, the ringing of a mobile phone is a point of etiquette and should in no way relate directly to the Laws of Chess. For the same reason a comparison should not be made between the ringing of a mobile phone and the retraction of a bad move. They are, dare I say, philosophically fundamentally different; one relates to a player's conscious thoughts and actions whilst playing the game and the other is peripheral and not at all related.
      Anyway, as I see it, this Article (12.2b) is inconsistent with the other Laws of Chess. Article 12.7 states that "infraction of any part of the Articles 12.1 to 12.6 shall lead to penalties in accordance with Article 13.4.". Article 13.4 leaves such penalties to the discretion of an arbiter. This implies that in the case of a mobile phone infraction, a decision (such as 13.4d - declaring the game to be lost) is to be made, yet within Article 12.2b itself there is no scope for future decision-making. Furthermore, in the preface to the Laws we have the statement: "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". Here, clearly, we have such a case of too detailed a rule.
      I'm not saying that an automatic loss of the game on the ringing of a mobile phone should not happen - just that, in my opinion, it shouldn't be an explicit Article in the Laws of Chess.
Regards,
Geoff Marchant
Purley, Surrey


From Bernard Cafferty
27.3.08
Richard,
Mobile Phones:
I am surprised that no-one has yet quoted the well-known legal dictum: 'hard cases make bad law'.
      Examples are quoted such as 'it only rang out once'. Similar attempts are made to minimise the seriousness of the problem. Could I remind readers that I have quoted in the Forum a number of examples which are far from minimal: a phone goes off for a long time because the owner has left it in a bag in the playing room and gone off somewhere (a county match involving four teams at a Herts venue, and another one at Cambridge in the days when they fielded a team in the Open); a phone goes off, the arbiter, in the days when there was no sanction, frowns and the offender claims to have turn it off, only for it to ring again a few minutes later (a Hastings Challengers of about five years ago).
      No, I am with Kevin Thurlow and others who approve of the full rigour of the law. The rule is clear, and should be applied automatically with no special pleading allowed.
Bernard Cafferty
Hastings


From Mike Gunn
27.3.08
Richard,
FIDE 8.1 requires games to be recorded in algebraic notation and FIDE 8.7 requires both players to sign both scoresheets at the end of the game. Based on my personal observation of what goes on at evening league matches, very few league games are entitled to be graded. Perhaps the ECF should draw up a list of permitted local variations to the FIDE laws? Then at least some order would be maintained, each league could have strict FIDE version or a (standard) local variation which would be decided locally?
Mike


From Simon Brown
27.3.08
Dear Richard
I have been following the debate about mobile phones with increasing incredulity. Now I readily admit that when I last played over-the-board chess, mobile phones were extremely rare and were about the size of a brick, so I don’t pretend to add anything to current practice. But even back then it was considered polite not to disturb your opponent and I guess that much hasn’t changed.
      From reading your website, this seems to be a fairly common occurrence despite the fact it is against the rules both specifically and indirectly. Can people really be so attached to their mobiles that they can’t turn them off (or set them to mute) for the few hours of a chess match? What do they do in a theatre, or a concert, or a church? I carry two with me all the time and always switch them off when appropriate. It isn’t difficult.
      So debate over. Learn the Rules, and live with them.
All the best
Simon Brown


From Tim Spanton
27.3.08
Kevin is right to correct my maths - so it would be 24 times in a six-board match and, say, 400 times at the Hastings Congress. A further point: what if a player has two mobiles on him? One rings twice and he finally gets around to turning it off. Does he get two more chances for the other phone if he's forgotten he's got it on him?
Tim Spanton


From Kevin Thurlow
26.3.08
Dear Richard
I think Tim Spanton's maths are awry - surely, in a six-board match, there are twelve players, so there could be 24 instances of the phone going off, before someone loses. I agree with David Lettington in that I used to umpire hockey matches, and the system we used there was that if a player were cautioned for a bad tackle, everyone knew that the next player to infringe in that way would be sent off. The difference is of course that at hockey, football etc., you might mistime a tackle, but at chess you know your phone should be switched off, so why should there be a further warning?
      David also mentions FIDE Laws; as he says you can produce more detailed rules but not conflict with them (whatever that means), an example is, default time at present in FIDE events is one hour, but most leagues and weekend tournaments use 30 minutes. It depends what you regard as a conflict.
      I really don't know why people want a second chance if the phone goes off. Are we going to allow people to retract a bad move once in a game? And why do you need captains to announce before a match "turn off your phones."? I can see a brave new world where a match will be preceded by both captains solemnly intoning the entire FIDE Laws of Chess, followed by the local league rules, in English, Polish and Arabic, and subtitles or sign language as required. (Powerpoint presentations may be allowed by agreement of both parties.)
      Or perhaps we could just know the Laws and rules and abide by them.
best wishes
Kevin Thurlow

From Mike Gunn
26.3.08
Richard,
Thanks are due to David/you/Paul for the point about about ECF grading requiring adherence to FIDE laws (which had escaped me). I will pass this point on to the officers of the Border League. There is of course one other case where FIDE laws are not followed: many leagues still have adjudication to decide the results of games and these games are graded (the subject of another discussion on here, I recall).
      Personally, I'm on the side of the hawks (mobile rings -> lose game) on this issue, but if most people don't want it then I think there should be some discretion for organisers (e.g. for junior tournaments) and I'll be supporting Paul in lobbying for a rule change. If the majority don't back the rule then it reflects badly on the ECF and chess organisers, generally.
Mike Gunn


From Tim Spanton
26.3.08
I don't know how many boards there are in a Surrey Border League match, but if there were six it would mean mobile phones could go off 12 times before someone loses a game. Imagine a congress such as Hastings where there are, say, 100 boards in play at one time: mobile phones could ring 200 times before a game is decided. Brilliant!
Tim Spanton


From David Lettington
25.3.08
Richard,
I was interested to read Mike Gunn's comment that the Surrey Border League has a local rule on mobile phones. I might be wrong (I'm sure that someone will point it out if I am) but I didn't think was possible to create a local rule that was contrary to the Laws of Chess?
      The preface to the Laws of Chess says "A member federation is free to introduce more detailed rules provided they... do not conflict in any way with the official FIDE Laws of Chess". Article 12.2b says that the player "shall lose the game" if their phone rings. There might be other Laws of Chess that are contradicted locally, but I can't think of any myself, I would be interested to know if anyone else can?
Many thanks
David Lettington
rjh: Contravening the Laws was the subject of the exchange between me and Paul Buswell four days ago. I would argue that a local event, since it is not a "member federation" of FIDE, can do what it likes. But not if it wants ECF grading, because the ECF grading rules require events to use the FIDE Laws. (That's the theory. It's not a question that seems to come up much in practice.)


From Mike Gunn
25.3.08
Richard,
One of the leagues I play in (the Surrey Border League) already has the local rule that Roger de Coverly suggests. Essentially a mobile phone ring is treated as an illegal move (2 minutes extra to your opponent on the first two occasions your mobile rings and then loss of the game on the third occurrence).
      If most players in a league want this then there should be some sort of meeting before next season starts where this change could be voted in.
Mike Gunn


From David Lettington
21.3.08
Richard
In response to Paul Buswell and Martin Benjamin, I would like to offer a different view.
      As the captain of the opposing team, I can confirm that Paul's account of the U60 match is accurate, but I would like to add that it was it was the Hastings captain that informed his own player that they had lost the game, although I confirmed that I wished the decision to be upheld.
      The penalty for breaking the rule regarding ringing mobile phones is indeed severe, although in my opinion it is not "draconian" as Paul suggests. I agree with Martin that for amateur players it is important that games are played in a "sporting spirit". I feel that to be in possession of a ringing mobile phone in the playing venue is in breach of that spirit. Martin says that to hold a conversation on the phone would be "distracting and disrespectful", but I think that applies to it simply ringing too.
      I find that as a relatively weak player it is difficult to work out the best line of play, and if I'm distracted then I have to re-check all of my analysis. Therefore, I think it is just as important to us amateurs that we are not distracted by our opponents, especially by a noisy ringtone. The FIDE rule does NOT say that "mobile phones are banned from playing areas", it says that they are forbidden when they are "not authorised by the arbiter" (article 12.2b). Presumably in amateur competitions there is either tacit or explicit authorisation from the arbiter that phones are permitted in the playing venue (I should think it would be good practice to make a clear announcement before the start of play).
      As for the coughers, sneezers and paper rustlers; yes, they are annoying, but this is dealt with by article 12.6 "It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever", although it doesn't suggest penalties for breaking this rule, unless it is "persistent". Martin, as he says, has not quoted the other FIDE rules verbatim, but I don't think he has portrayed them (articles 12.5 or 13.7a?) accurately either.
      Let's take the example of a league match with six players per team. Is it reasonable for each of the twelve players to have their mobile phone ring once and all of them continue with the game? Perhaps one could argue that after the first ring the players should be warned (again, assuming a warning was given before play started) that in the event of another ring from any player, that a loss will be awarded? But, if that were to be the case, the first player whose phone rings will be allowed to play on, but the second player would not. This seems unfair.
      Perhaps Paul's suggestion that "a significant time penalty would be a reasonable alternative" is a possibility, but I feel that a lesser penalty would not be enough of a deterrent. I feel that the current punishment does fit the offence. If a loss for a few players is what it takes to make all players think about their phones before they go into a playing area, then I feel that its a price worth paying.
      It's true that no one can really "gain satisfaction" from winning this way, but neither can one gain satisfaction from allowing the distraction of ringing phones to continue without an attempt to curb it.
David Lettington


From Roger de Coverly
21.3.08
Like the webmaster I see no reason why local leagues should not adopt rules which depart from strict observance of the international FIDE laws of chess. The following logic suggests itself.
(1) Mobile phones should be switched off or silent during play.
(2) There should be a penalty if one rings
(3) Loss of the game is too harsh a penalty in the local league context, therefore the penalty should be the addition of time to the opponent or the subtraction of time to the player. This places the offence as similar to that of an illegal move.
Roger de Coverly
rjh: - Paul has queried my footnote, and he has a point if grading is required.


From Paul Buswell
21.3.08
I find myself echoing Martin Benjamin's sentiments. I hadn't really given the matter too much thought, but an incident in a recent Kent League match makes me focus on it. (I wasn't at the match but write from reliable reports).
     The Hastings player in a Kent League average grade under-60 match lost when her mobile went off after 3 (!) moves; she had, unfortunately, arrived slightly late and missed the reminder announcement. The consequences: one 'distraught' player; a 10-year-old opponent with an afternoon of idleness away from home; and our League season ended, as we needed to at least draw to possibly qualify for the play-offs (the other boards in the match finished level).
    The Laws are the Laws, and the Kent League has set out its procedures quite clearly. I have no criticism whatsoever of our opponents - I don't think that the system allowed any alternative to the loss. But I do say that the penalty is draconian and disproportionate to the offence; and how can I justify it, in anything other than a strictly legalistic sense, to a player in the environs of an average under-60 contest which has always been competitive but relaxed. I would not be surprised if any such novice player said the game wasn't worth the candle.
    I suggest that a significant time penalty would be a reasonable alternative for the culpable disturbance, but unfortunately the FIDE Laws are absolutely prescriptive in this matter. Would anyone care to join me in lobbying the ECF to lobby FIDE to change the Laws to put the penalty in non-FIDE-rated events into the hands of local organisers? If so, e-mail
Paul Buswell PaulBuswellChess@aol.com
rjh: - May not local organisers contravene the FIDE Laws at their discretion?


From Martin Benjamin
19.3.08
Richard
I am aware that I am in a minority on this, and my comments may attract some derision, but I think the introduction of the FIDE law relating to mobile phones was a bad day for league chess, and I was disappointed to read some of the incidents described earlier in this forum. The law is there, and those who want to insist on imposing a loss irrespective of the circumstances can do so, but I hope people will apply it in the same way as all laws pertaining to games should be applied - with common sense and sportsmanship.
     Unless our livelihoods depend on the outcome, presumably the intention for nost of us as amateurs is to have a game played in a sporting spirit. If someone intentionally makes a call, and then continues a conversation impervious to others, it is clear that this is both distracting and disrespectful to the other players, and merits a loss in my view if they do not immediately switch off when asked. However, if someone has made a genuine mistake, looks mortified and embarrassed if the phone rings, and hastily turns it off, I am not going to claim a win. Does anyone really gain satisfaction from winning after one move because a phone rang (as I once saw happen)? I long to ask people why they play chess when they insist on a win in such circumstances, but it is a personal decision, and would probably just create more bad feeling, so I never have. Is a single ring on a mobile any more distracting than playing someone with a cough? I had a bad persistent cough earlier this season, which was detrimental to my play, but I am sure also distracting to my opponents. What about opponents who rustle sweet papers, spill their tea, vibrate their legs causing the table to tremor or have other unconscious mannerisms which some may find distracting?
     No doubt others will say "the laws need to be applied consistently". Fair enough as a principle, but let's see how that works if all FIDE laws are applied consistently. Apologies if I am not quoting FIDE laws verbatim, or have misunderstood the precise wording of the relevant law, but I hope the point I am making is readily apparent:
     1. Mobile phones are banned from playing areas, so if my opponent has one in his possession, I can impose a win for me (oh, sorry, apparently we were not thinking of applying that particular FIDE law rigidly).
     2. Players should not speak to anyone except in the hearing of the arbiter in case they receive advice. (Apply this rigidly in league matches, and lots of games will end in a default).
     3. Players should ask permission to leave the playing arena for any reason (e.g. to visit the lavatory), and be defaulted if they do not, or if they go anywhere unobserved, where they might have a quick look at Pocket Fritz.
I shall not continue this slightly mischievous and provocative list, but it seems a shame that from the experiences described on this forum, people do not seem to be applying the mobile phone law in a common sense manner.
Martin Benjamin
London


From Richard Haddrell
20.2.08
Kevin,
On grading ½-0 scores.
     There are better ways than the Dummy family, if you want to do it. (There is an AN Other, but I think he's there for different reasons.) It is already possible to report a game as ½-0 using the players' right names. The result is ignored, as the system stands, but it could be graded if it was thought desirable and worth the programming work. The return on the work would be pretty negligible. This score has been reported once in the last five years and more.
     You'll have noted that FIDE rating won't do funny scores, even though arbiters can impose scores of ½-0 (or ¾-0 or p-0) if so inclined. In practice I think the funny scores don't happen.
Richard Haddrell
Tunbridge Wells


From Kevin Thurlow
20.2.08
Dear Richard
Then change the grading system! Or you could invent dummy players, with the same grades as the players in the 0.5-0 game, and then tell the computer the results, P Neatherway draw A Dummy, P Neatherway's opponent 0-1 B Dummy. Easy isn't it? I doubt the Dummy family will ever play enough games to get on the grading list. (Let's hope they don't get invited to the British Championship.) However, I am not saying that I agree this particular game should be scored 0.5-0, without convincing evidence.
      At Spectrum Portsmouth over the weekend, a phone rang, the offending player looked horrified, pulled his phone out, shrugged, and shook hands. He obviously wasn't happy (both players were on 3/3), but he accepted the result without argument.
best wishes
Kevin Thurlow
Redhill


From Kevin Thurlow
19.2.08
Dear Richard
Mike Gunn is right when he says that if you cannot possibly win, the game may be scored 0.5-0. If Phil had mating material, then he wins. This is a Law of Chess.
     I don't understand the rjh footnote - of course the game is graded - it is not a forfeit - it is a result, like allowing your opponent mate in 1 or losing on time.
best wishes
Kevin
rjh: Who cares whether it's a "forfeit"? (The Laws of Chess use the word, without saying what they mean by it.) My point was that, while there are obvious reasons why mobile-losses (that better?) should be graded, ½-0 is not a gradeable result. Not without changing the ECF grading system.


From Mike Gunn
Richard,
I have always assumed that the arbiter's discretion was to prevent a player who was incapable of winning being awarded a full point (similar to the provisions in the laws about winning on time). On the other hand, the laws don't explicitly state that, and Phil's League Committee were within the letter of the law. In all the cases I have observed of this rule being implemented the game has been scored 1-0 (or 0-1).
Mike Gunn
rjh: ½-0 can't be graded. Shouldn't mobile-forfeits be graded?


From Phil Neatherway
16.2.08
Richard,
In a local League match last October, after about an hour's play my opponent's mobile rang, thereby losing the game. Our opponents were absolutely furious - they thought the game should have continued - and it led to a lot of bad feeling. The League was called upon to make a ruling and confirmed my opponent scored zero but using the discretion permitted to the arbiter awarded me only ½ point. I have to say I was astonished by the ruling - what do others think?
best wishes
Phil Neatherway phil(underscore)neatherway(at)ntlworld(dot)com


From Kevin Thurlow
1.2.08
Dear Richard
I could have phrased the "claim" bit better; what I meant was that it is not like an adjudication where you claim a win, or article 10.2 where you claim a draw - it is a statement of fact, "Your phone made a noise - you lose". Of course, if your opponent's phone makes a noise, and you choose to play on, then the game continues. This could be fun, because if a spectator (i.e. somebody else playing) objects, you can then complain about them interfering with your game!
      As for harmonising the "rules", we could just use the FIDE Laws, but remove the requirement to not have a phone with you at all. Obviously, the FIDE Laws assume you are playing a tournament where you all stay in the hotel staging the event, whereas leagues are mainly played in the evenings and people arrive direct from work with laptops, mobile phones etc.
      Mobile phone arguments seem to be taking over from time loss arguments. As you know, there is an attitude where someone loses on time and it doesn't count because they had a better position. Handshake arguments will start properly when the next FIDE Laws are published.
best wishes
Kevin Thurlow
Redhill


From David Smith
30.1.08
Richard
Wow!
      Sincere thanks to Mike Gunn for daring to suggest that both Match Captains and players should read the Rules of the competition in which they are playing. As County Match Controller for a number of years now I have been asking regularly that Officials and players do just that in order to ensure the smooth running of both the matches and the competition as a whole. A belated New Year's Resolution?
     Co-incidentally, I was the Acting Match Captain for the Essex U150 team when they entertained Surrey at Wanstead House last Sunday. In my post-match report to the squad and others, I made it quite clear that any criticism voiced against the Surrey player was completely unjustified, as he was just correctly applying the Rules of this competition.
      Whilst I agree with Kevin Thurlow that a "claim" should not be neccessary, nevertheless someone has to speak up; in a match at Wanstead CC last week a visiting mobile rang out long and loud but not a word was said by anyone. Perhaps our player was so engrossed in his analysis that he failed to notice the offence. The owner of the offending instrument eventually stopped it after some hesitant fumbling, but did not even apologise for the disturbance caused.
      It is unfortunate that different bodies have produced different Rules to cover the situation; should we not be giving some thought to trying to harmonise these varying Rules in order to lessen any confusion in players minds when dealing with this situation?
David Smith
SCCU County Match Controller
South Woodford


From Kevin Thurlow
30.1.08
Dear Richard
I read the correspondence on mobile phones with increasing incredulity. If the phone makes a noise it is an automatic loss - all this talk of claims is irrelevant. I suppose it would be harsh to also default the nearby players who interfered, but they should certainly have had two minutes added to their clocks for the distraction. We are talking about a law of chess - I would quite like to move a knight like a bishop occasionally, but the opponent might unsportingly complain!
best wishes
Kevin Thurlow
Redhill


From Mike Gunn
29.1.08
Richard,
As nobody has mentioned it in this correspondence, here is the SCCU local rule about this for county matches: "19. Mobile phones are allowed in the playing area. However they must be either switched off or switched to silent mode for the duration of play. Match captains must remind players of this requirement. If a player's phone rings audibly during his game then he automatically forfeits the game." (copied directly from the website)
      2 weeks ago I informed one of my own players that he had lost his game when his mobile phone went off. I'm a little alarmed to see many people seem to be unaware that there is no discretion over this in county matches! Captains and players: please look up the rules of whatever competition you are playing in!
Mike Gunn
Surrey U125 captain


From Geoff Marchant
28.1.08
Dear Richard,
Last Saturday a mobile phone default occurred in an SCCU inter-county U150 match; Essex versus Surrey. Unfortunately it has probably caused more trauma and heart-searching to the recipient of the default point than it did to his opponent. After stating that the mobile phone caused a default loss to Essex, the Surrey player was reproached by players from both counties on an adjoining board for being 'unsporting' and displaying 'shameful behaviour'. This situation was somewhat exacerbated by his own captain on the day commenting that he would leave it up to the player himself to 'claim' the win, or he could just ignore the fact that the phone rang and carry on! This notwithstanding the fact that the Essex captain had made the, by now, customary announcement and indeed that the same Surrey player himself had earlier shouted over to remind me to turn my own phone off, well within earshot of his opponent. The Surrey player did also offer to continue or restart the game for personal grading purposes, which was declined by his opponent.
     I think this incident highlights a continuing problem with this law; many people still do not fully understand it, including match captains. I feel that this is partly due to contrary resolutions in different leagues and regions (for example; giving warnings on the first ring), and partly because it really is too draconian a rule to exist as a fundamental Law of Chess, to be adhered to by all. If I were playing chess in my front room with my six year old grandson and his mobile phone went off, should I seriously tell him that constituted a chess victory for me?
Kind regards,
Geoff Marchant
Purley, Surrey
rjh: I'm not suggesting it makes a difference, but I understand that play had been in progress for two minutes at the time.


From Tim Spanton
28.1.08
"The Surrey player did also offer to continue or restart the game for personal grading purposes, which was declined by his opponent."
      Surely the game already counted for grading purposes? A loss on phone-ringing is the same as a loss on time or for any other reason.
Tim Spanton
London


From Bernard Cafferty
28.1.08
Dear Richard,
I am with Tim Spanton on this one - the loss is automatic. No discretion is given, and there should not even be any claim needed. It happened, the penalty applies and no match captain should try to vary from that. The phone rings, the game is over.
      Leaving your phone on is a show of disrespect not just towards your opponent, but towards all in the playing room. It is a matter of regret that variable reaction to the FIDE rule in different leagues has led to confusion, but, for me, it is a matter of even greater regret that players in that U-150 match should upbraid a player who was the innocent party in the incident. As I once had to say to a recalcitrant opponent: "Learn the rules of the game - and apply them!"
Bernard Cafferty
Hastings


From Scott Freeman
28.1.08
Hi Richard
MOBILE PHONES
The mobile phone subject has been a controversial one... In recent months, incidents have reared their heads and made me decide to stick something in the public arena to be agreed with or shot down in flames. I claimed a game just 3 weeks ago when my opponent's phone went off; he answered it and held a brief conversation with someone whilst I picked my jaw up off the floor. I claimed the game despite his pleadings, because the rule was blunt and I had no discretion. In fact, I can say that should my phone ever go off, I will not wait wait to be defaulted but will default myself on principle. In fact, I defaulted a player in my own Super League team 18 months ago after bringing it to the attention of the opposing captain.
      A couple of months ago, an opposing team captain claimed the game when one of the CCF club members' phones went off. Absolutely correct decision. Ironically, a few weeks earlier, the boot had been on the other foot when the 2 clubs had been involved in a match but the guilty player (at the other club) that night had claimed that the rules were "2 strikes and you are out" which was totally incorrect under SCCA rules, but I understand was correct under London League rules (why?). He got away with it. Such is life! But we only have ourselves to blame for not pushing it at the time.
      I am writing this after being made aware of a couple of recent incidents because I want to support players who claim the game in those situations. The rules are clear. If your phone sounds, you lose, whatever you think of the rule (Article 12.2). Other rules insist that Kings move 1 square in any direction and that touch piece move rule applies. I don't recall anyone compromising there, so what's the difference?
      I feel that, being "British," we sometimes are not prepared to implement rules when it will look bad on us personally to do so. Yes, it is hard emotionally to force a win in those situations (I know from personal experience) but the rule is there for a reason and whether a phone rings after 2 or 82 moves, the wording is clear...
Scott Freeman
[This letter has been abbreviated.]


From Trevor Jones
24.1.07
Richard
Last Saturday a mobile phone went off early in another county match game (not mine) causing two players who had both travelled some distance for a full length game to have a wasted afternoon when the loss of game was applied. No reminder had been given at the start of play. I'd like to see comopetition rules (SCCU and leagues - I don't have a view on congresses) amended to say that it is the duty of captains to ensure a mobile phone reminder is issued to all present at the start of play in any match and that a failure to do so shall mean that the first occurrence of a mobile phone ringing shall be taken as the reminder without penalty for that infringement. (In competitions where players have more than one game in the same afternoon or evening session, such as rapidplay events, the reminder need only be given on the first occurrence.)
     Quite honestly I felt one ring wasn't itself much distraction to my own thinking, but I was more distracted by wondering whose it was and whether it would be penalised.
H Trevor Jones htjones@raildev.fsnet.co.uk
Guildford


From Gavin Strachan
12.9.06
Some mobile phones have the capacity to run chess software such as Chessmaster. Although it is in its relative infancy, I can see that in the not too distant future mobile phone chess software may be as good as current PC’s. You can also play chess on the Internet with play.com’s downloadable software. I like the fact that arbiters these days make every effort to remind players to turn their phones off at the start of a tournament. If a person needs their phone due to being ‘on-call’ then perhaps it is reasonable that they make the arbiter aware and put their phone on silent/vibrate if possible or a ‘not too loud or silly’ sounding tone.
     Article 12.2 “It is strictly forbidden to bring mobile phones or other electronic means of communication, not authorised by the arbiter, into the playing venue..." does give leverage for the arbiter to authorise the phone if the player makes him aware and gives a reasonable excuse as to needing it to be on in the playing hall. Players cheating by leaving the hall for assistance (any form) is difficult to catch and the opponent should perhaps make the arbiter aware of the situation if he has suspicions.
Gavin Strachan gavin@strax.efhmail.com
Brentwood


From Bernard Cafferty
10.9.06
Richard,
Excellent though the comments of Chris Howell and others recently on the Forum are, they do not exhaust the subject. What of the case where a mobile phone is left on and is in a bag in the playing room but the owner (often unknown/unidentified at first) is either a 'spectator' by virtue of having finished his game and having left the room, or he/she is still in play but is also absent from the playing area?
     It does happen. It has happened twice in county matches in which I have participated. The first case was before the FIDE rule was brought in. A colleague finally identified the offender's bag, rummaged around in it and put a stop to the nuisance after some minutes.
     The second case saw no-one take responsibility at first; the distraction to all in play continued for at least a minute before someone from the offender's side took the offending bag outside. No penalty was incurred on that occasion, as the officials (match captains) were bemused, just as the rest of us in play were not amused!
     That is why I feel the strictest wording of the rule should apply.
Bernard Cafferty bernardcafferty@tiscali.co.uk
Hastings


From Chris Howell
8.9.06
Dear Richard
Can I suggest a global solution to the mobile phone problem?
     There are two issues as it seems to me - "distraction" and "illegal use of electronic equipment". The distraction issue is resolved by the immediate loss of any player whose mobile goes off during his game and any "spectator" being removed permanently from the playing area. Anyone who needs to have a phone, pager or other communication device on for any reason must have it silent (on rumble at less than 5 on the Richter scale) and MUST have registered same device with arbiter if present or opposition match captain in a team event - otherwise loss if it goes off. To respond to said mobile or pager the player concerned would obviously have to leave the playing area with the arbiter/opposing mc being informed.
     Chess in this country has declined enough recently without losing Nick Butland [25.7.06] from its ranks...
Regards
Chris Howell chris.howell8@btinternet.com
Redhill


From Graham Mill-Wilson
6.9.06
Richard,
Mobile phones
We accept (at least most of us do) that it is impractical to ban phones altogether, so we brought in the rule that phones must be switched off last year. I myself fell victim to it (as congress secretary I had just warned everybody to turns theirs off, but forgot about my own!). However, a situation arose at this year's League Congress where a player was fiddling with his phone, although it didn't ring. It caused a lot of bad feeling with his opponent, an officer of the league. As a result, we now have a rule (if you come to play in a Bristol congress take note!) that anyone found with a phone switched on in the playing area loses their game. A second offence results in the player being kicked out of the congress. There is an exception for players who can persuade the arbiter before start of play that they must have their phone on for some important reason. The situation for league matches is not really any different. We agonised long and hard over whether team captains are arbiters, and decided that they are not, since they are playing their own games. However, the rule still applies. They must be off, or you're out! If it happens, the captains have to sort it out, and are allowed to stop their clocks if necessary to do so. I agree that we need a rule for all England, and I (we!) think that rule should be all phones switched off. A ringing phone doesn't only affect the opponent, it affects the whole congress. Incidentally, we also say spectators whose phones ring will be asked to leave, and that if your game has finished, you are a spectator.
Graham Mill-Wilson Tugmw@blueyonder.co.uk
Bristol & District League


From Kevin Thurlow
2.9.06
Hi Richard
Colin Walker raises an interesting point about mobile phones in the playing venue. FIDE Laws were written for "proper" tounaments, where you are staying in the hotel where the tournament is staged, so there is no excuse for having the phone with you. Ordinary English weekend tournaments or evening leagues are different, but even though players are starting to realise that if the thing rings they lose, you frequently see players scurrying from the room, looking at the phone. In evening leagues, we usually agree that the captain can have his phone on silent mode if the team is missing a player, in case a message is on the way. Article 13.7b says "It is forbidden for anybody to use a mobile phone in the playing venue and any area designated by the arbiter." Before each round at tournaments at which I am arbiter, I announce that it is illegal to use a phone during the game, (unless I give permission, i.e. for doctor on call) but I recently greeted a player who was sending a text message, and asked if he'd finished his game. He said "No", so I enquired why I shouldn't default him. Apparently he "didn't know" the Law ..... I let him off with a warning, but the time will come when using the phone will be scored as a loss also. Interestingly, players always claim not to have heard any announcements or read any notices, but if you're in a tournament, you are (by definition) aware of the Laws of Chess.
     In view of the recent cheating in USA, I expect Gijssen's proposal to be approved.
Best wishes
Kevin Thurlow Kjt2300@aol.com
Redhill


From Colin Walker
30.8.06
Dear Richard
Further to the recent comments on mobile phones, I note the following response from Geurt Gijssen in his Arbiter's Notebook column on the Chess Cafe website:

"It is very difficult to forbid mobiles in the playing hall, as many players do not like to leave them in their hotel room. By announcing that the players have to switch off their mobiles, the arbiter implicitly allows mobiles in the playing hall, as long as they are switched off. And I think you will agree that a mobile set to vibrate mode is not switched off. In 2008, I will propose that if the arbiter notices that a player has a mobile switched on in the playing venue, he will declare the game lost for that player."

This comment, together with widely reported accusations of cheating by means of electronic devices at recent events (see for example http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3292), suggests that FIDE will unfortunately have to adopt even more draconian rules on the subject of mobile phones and other electronic devices.
Colin Walker colinandmariawalker@yahoo.com
Wycombe


From Jeff Goldberg
25.7.06
In order to help clear up all this confusion about mobile phones, I wonder if the ECF might set up a helpline we could call?
Jeff Goldberg noonebutjeff@hotmail.com


From Nick Butland
25.7.06
Mobile Phones
I agree with Ken Norman & Phil Makepeace insofar as any rule must be both simple & applicable. Sadly my employers require me to be available on call in an evening & indeed I had some input on the Bucks rule 35 referred to below [17.7.06]. I would be very sad to have to give up chess.
Nick Butland Nick.Butland@acco.com


From Kevin Thurlow
24.7.06
Dear Richard
Gavin again raises interesting points (letter sent 19.7.07). The FIDE Law does state you are not permitted to bring electronic communications devices into the playing area. This is of course written for "proper" tournaments, e.g. Gausdal, where you play in a hotel and most of the players are staying there. You leave the computer and 'phone in your room then go and play. In evening leagues, players often turn up straight from work, so this Law cannot really apply. Beware of players visiting friends/parents outside the playing area, when the non-player mysteriously has Fritz on the screen....
     You could not reasonably complain if you were defaulted for using a phone during a game. There was an amusing incident in the Surrey League last season, where a player's phone went off early in the game. His opponent was not going to claim the game, until the player answered the phone then carried on a conversation as he left the room. The player and his captain accepted the loss, but then complained afterwards as the same thing had happened to the same player in a match the previous week, and his opponent had let him get away with it! One opponent of Redhill last season actually picked up his phone and made a loud call during the match, but our player decided not to claim the game.
     There was some debate about personal stereos some years ago - a player complained about his opponent listening to such a device; the arbiter looked puzzled and was not interested, so the player said, "Supposing it's a Basman tape on openings?" I guess you would notice if the opponent kept stopping and rewinding the tape! Players have cheated by using earpieces to receive advice from strong players or friends with computers. I would not automatically default a player for listening to an Ipod.
     It was illegal to make use of "written or otherwise recorded information" during a game (so if you are forced to play a computer, you can just claim the game!) Some years ago, I played a junior who wrote a move down, thought about it, put a thin line through it, wrote another move down, etc, until he found one he liked, and then played it - and he frequently referred to what he had written. So that was illegal, and I think that is what the "new" Law is intended to prevent. In practice, if e.g. your opponent goes QxQ+ and the only legal move is KxQ, I doubt anyone will worry if you write your move down before playing it, as you are not benefitting from the action. I played a game last year where my opponent had gone for a walk, so when I played e.g. QxQ+, as there was only one legal reply, I wrote my opponent's move down before he played it. This appears to be legal. Strictly speaking, using a scorebook is not, as the player may refer back to his last Sveshnikov....
     Back to ECF - I quite agree that since Roy Heppinstall arrived, BCF/ECF has improved immeasurably, and if you only have a peripheral interest and/or are inexperienced, you might think everything is wonderful. Those of us who have considerable experience, remember e.g. making a donation to help an English player fight for the world championship, only to discover that the money didn't get there..... This is just one example. Most readers will be aware of this and other incidents. I hope all readers can understand that makes you cautious. ECF does do a lot of good work of course, but didn't David Norwood significantly sponsor the Olympiad team? That should be remembered, and I wonder if ECF will ever make a comment on the series of incidents involving Danny Gormally. Surely, they must say something?
best wishes
Kevin Thurlow Kjt2300@aol.com
Redhill


From Gary Cook
24.7.06
Richard
I have read with interest the talk on mobile phones. In the North Circular League we had a long discussion about this at our last AGM. Finally the members (who the League is designed for) agreed to allowing the mobiles into the playing area, but stating they must be turned off, or with the permission of the captains be switched to silent. Any player whose phone audibly rings loses. This meant making certain amendments to the "official" rules of chess.
     If we had gone down the line of having to use the pure FIDE rule would we also be forced to accept rule 12.5 where they define the playing venue (where mobiles are banned)? This defines the playing venue to include "the refreshment area and area set side for smoking". Since the smoking area in most clubs is outside the building and the refreshment area is in another room, would we also default a player whose phone rings there?
Gary Cook ncclsecretary@yahoo.co.uk
Secretary, North Circular Chess League


From Ken Norman
21.7.06
Richard,
If I could made one further contribution. The correspondence about mobile phones has demonstrated the confusion that currently exists. Roger de Coverly drew attention to the rule applied in the Bucks League. This is different from the rule in the London League. The Berks League has a third version. The Surrey/Hampshire border League a fourth. So we have a situation with multiple interpretations of the law on Mobile Phones. If you are playing in the 4NCL or County Matches (unless you play against Warwickwickshire) the Fide RULE applies. One ring and you have lost the game. At the other end of the spectrum the Berkshire League allows unrestricted access to your mobile phone with no penalty if it rings during play. I'm a bright guy having been a semi-finalist on Brain of Britain a few year ago but I am unable to remember all these different premutations of the rule on mobile phones.
     We need one rule for all competitions. My suggestion is an ECF regulation stating that the FIDE rule on mobile phones must apply in all league matches. Games played under any other rule are not eligible for grading.
Ken Norman knorman@trl.co.uk



From Ken Norman
20.7.06
Richard
Regarding Richard Almond's email to open forum. His recollection of events at the start of the Warwickshire v Sussex match is not correct. My board was very near to the two captains and I could clearly hear every word that was spoken during the pre match announcements and I heard the Warwickshire match captain state that there would be NO penalty if a Mobile Phone range during the match. After the end of his remarks there was an exchange between myself and the Warwickshire match captain when I stated that if my opponents mobile phone rang I would be claiming the game and I got a very unsatisfactory reply from the Warwickshire Captain.
     It seems to me that the Sussex Match Captaining duo of Richard Almond and Paul Selby fell down on the job that day by not challenging the Warwickshire match captains statement immediately it was made.
NOTE FOR NON SUSSEX PLAYERS:
Richard Almond raises the team and informs the players about venues etc. Paul Selby is non playing Match Captain on the day of the match thus allowing Richard to play his game undisturbed.
Ken Norman knorman@trl.co.uk
rjh: - I had not expected this to turn into a disagreement between Sussex people, but so be it. I am sure they will resolve it in private.


From Gavin Strachan
19.7.07
Hi Richard,
What happens if you have your phone on vibrate (no one notices), go out and answer it? Can your opponent claim a win or arbiter decide you lose for chatting on phone? I vaguely remember a huge tournament happening in Minnesota (i think) last year where the prize money was exceptionally high even in the lowest grading section that they had to do all sorts of measures to stop cheating (which a few players did try). I also remember a couple of juniors listening to walkmans whilst playing in a tournament (this was years ago, if it was recent I would say ipod); is that illegal now?
     FIDE state that the rule against writing your move down before playing it has always been in place; yet I do feel there is a bigger emphasis on applying this rule in recent times (not that I ever wrote a move down).
Regards
Gavin Strachan webmaster@brentwoodchessclub.org
Brentwood Chess Club


From Richard Almond
19.7.06
Dear Richard
A recent letter by Ken Norman has set off a chain of several contributions about the Sussex v Warwickshire match. My recollection of pre-match events is different from that of Ken. As Sussex Match Secretary I was the only person from Sussex in contact with Warwickshire in the build up to the match. So I can confirm absolutely that no agreement was made between the two counties to set aside the FIDE rule that stipulates the loss of the game if a mobile phone rings. There is no discrepancy in the rules for this competition and FIDE Laws of Chess, as it is also specifically stated in the ECF County Championship Rules.
     My recollection is that our Match Captain made the technical announcements before play began. My memory is that to do this he once again quoted from the notes provided to SCCU Match Captains at the start of the season to remind players of the FIDE law changes of July 2005. Firstly if a mobile rings it is loss of the game and then going on to remind that you aren't allowed to write your move before playing it. Finishing that point by saying that there wasn't a specific penalty given in the laws. Which is perfectly true and as per the mentioned SCCU notes. So from my recollection I think the confusion has arisen because our Captain said there was no penalty on the scoring matter. There is no reason for me to think our Captain said there wasn’t any penalty for a ringing mobile even if my memory might be inaccurate. I think the Warwickshire Captain’s remarks revolved around the playing arrangements, such as encouraging all to tuck into the excellent spread of refreshments he had laid on.
     One thing I can be certain of, is that had my opponent had a mobile phone that rang during the game, I personally fully believed at the time I would get the point.
     I hope Ken is not offended that I am offering my differing recollection. However I felt I should considering from whom comment has been attracted in this forum and also that it has been reported on to David Welch.
Best Regards
Richard Almond richardalmond141@hotmail.com
Sussex Match Secretary


From Scott Freeman
18.7.06
I have just "bulk-read" a lot of the recent emails on the site and find myself agreeing with many of the points raised.
.......
     (3) Mobile Phones. If the same flexibility were shown to the touch piece move rule as is apparently shown to the mobile phone rule, our competitions would be a shambles. I have had to default two players at Coulsdon in the last year because of phones going off (one whose Mum phoned him to check he had arrived safely at the venue and another thanks to his opponent coming up to me and telling me that it was his opponent who was guilty (I was trying to work it out) but he wasn't asking me to default him......?) and had a third (rather amusing) scenario which I will come to in a minute. Either it's in the laws or it isn't. As has been pointed out, you technically cannot bring such equipment onto the premises of an event without the permission of the arbiter. This wording, no doubt, is to give the arbiter absolute clout if they feel someone is abusing the presence of a phone or computer. Surrey (as the arbiter for SCCA team events) has allowed phones on silent mode as common sense must prevail in the scenario of team members running late or being lost, etc. But they do not allow them to ring out loud. It seems some people think we should come up with some sort of official scheme that allows it in some circumstances and not others? Maybe we should give people two options to touch pieces and then move another before we enforce that rule. Personally, I like Kevin Thurlow's previously stated view that EXTRA penalties should be given to anyone whose phone rings out loud with the Crazy Frog ring-tone.

In concluding, I would appeal to arbiters everywhere not to do what I managed at the Coulsdon "Premiership" International of 2005. An un-named player (sorry!) walks in half an hour late and in a flap because he has lost his mobile phone. He has searched everywhere and has a logical theory. If his phone is at home, it will ring because he has it switched on. If his phone is stolen, it will be off so it cannot be traced. Please can the arbiter phone his mobile and let him know the outcome as he needed to get to his board. No problem.......except that I didn't get round to it for another 20 minutes and the outcome of it was such that I didn't have to go and tell him where it was. All I shall say is that I must be the first arbiter, since the rule came into force, to be directly responsible for a mobile phone going off in the playing area.......
Scott Freeman chess@ccfworld.com
rjh: - How does the phone know if it's been stolen?
sgf: - It doesn't, but the thief would switch it off to avoid being traced.


From Jonathan Melsom
18.7.06
Richard
This seems to be turning into the Bucks League chess forum! I am pleased that Phil Makepeace anticipates becoming a match captain shortly.
     As Roger de Coverly points out the issue of mobile phones is mentioned in the Bucks constitution, and the FIDE rules modified for local purposes. However the constitution does not indicate what action should be taken. I was not at the county AGM where this part of the constitution was added but if an incident arose and the matter came to me as League Controller I would expect a penalty (game forfeiture) to be applied, since it is a distraction to the opponent. In the absence of match captains being allowed to act as arbiters - I would be expect players to adhere to the FIDE rules (as modified) when playing a game. Roger will also know that I am unhappy with match captains having no clear role in respect of disputes, but my view on this and other issues rarely holds much support at county AGMs.
     On the merits of FIDE requirements - I've never used a scorebook during a game or written my move down before playing it, but both could be construed as consulting written information. There is value in these rules therefore, but the main reason for application at a local level must be to ensure consistency amongst players. With 4NCL etc bringing chess under FIDE rules to a much broader base of player it is reasonable to encourage correct practice amongst all players unless there are strong reasons to depart. However, the language in which a game is recorded should be regarded as a matter for a degree of subsidiarity, so I would be very unhappy if anybody suffered rebuke or penalty for recording in descriptive notation.
Jonathan Melsom jonathan.melsom@tiscali.co.uk
Bucks League Controller
Wycombe & Hazlemere


From Roger de Coverly
17.7.06
In response to Phil Makepeace, I would regard the Bucks position on mobile phones to be as stated in the constitution at http://www.buckschess.uk.eu.org/BCCA_Constitution_July_2004.htm.
     Match Environment
35. Mobile Phones should be switched off during play. Those with jobs who are needed "on call" may leave the phones in silent mode. Match captains may need to contact late arrivals: this should be done outside the playing area away from earshot of the players.
     This is one of four issues where I believe it is appropriate for an evening chess league to depart from strict compliance with the current Fide rules. The other three being
(a) writing the moves down before you play them
(b) using a scorebook as distinct from a scoresheet
(c) using descriptive notation.
     I am sometimes a match captain in the Bucks League. If a mobile phone rang I would expect the player to turn it off asap. I wouldn't anticipate a penalty. (There's no arbiter present to enforce one! - in the Bucks League match captains are not substitute arbiters.)
Roger de Coverly rdc@rdc200.fsnet.co.uk


From Phil Makepeace
17.7.06
Dear Richard,
I'd like to express my own dissatisfaction with the confusion regarding the mobile phone rules. I play in the Bucks League and while there have been discussions at the last couple of Bucks AGMs about this issue, I cannot say I know what would happen if a player's mobile phone did ring. Given I could be a match captain very shortly, this is clearly not acceptable.
     Focusing more on the ECF, I played in an ECF junior tournament last year where it was stated beforehand that a ringing mobile results in the loss of the game. However, in the two instances where this happened, no action was taken. While I sympathise with the arbiters - it must be difficult to enforce forfeiture for such an offence, especially with a junior - rules are rules and I was not impressed. Indeed, neither player whose mobile had rung went on to lose their game.
Regards,
Phil Makepeace phil_makepeace@btinternet.com
Wycombe & Hazlemere


From David Sedgwick
17.7.06
Dear Richard,
I was very surprised to learn from Ken Norman's letter that the FIDE Law regarding mobile phones was not applied at the recent County Match between Sussex and Warwickshire. I've always found that David Welch (ECF Manager of Congress Chess and Chief Arbiter) takes a very firm line on this issue. For example, the Law was applied strictly at the 2006 Gibtelecom Chess Festival, an event at which Ken was present. It was also applied at the 2005 Smith & Williamson British Championships in Douglas and I would certainly expect the same to be the case at Swansea.
     I'm copying this letter to David Welch to inform him about my comments and about Sussex v Warwickshire. I should make clear that the Counties Championships do not fall within David's area of responsibility.
Yours sincerely,
David Sedgwick david.sedgwick@amserve.com
23 Tierney Court, Canning Road, Croydon CR0 6QA


From Neill Cooper
16.7.06
Richard
At various EPSCA (English Primary Schools) team events I've been to, the FIDE rule have been applied - if your phone rings then you lose the game. And if a team manager's phone rings then the team lose a point. I'm not aware of a phone ever ringing. As with the Prom concerts, it is diplomatic to warn players before the start of the event.
     Note that the FIDE rule (http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE101 ) is that "It is strictly forbidden to bring mobile phones or other electronic means of communication, not authorised by the arbiter, into the playing venue." However the only penalty specified is that "If a player's mobile phone rings in the playing venue during play, that player shall lose the game." I think this rule should be the one that is used.
     Similarly you should not record your move before you play it. Some juniors are finding this a tough change, and Tony Miles' watch must be spinning in his grave.
Yours
Neill Cooper nsc@cplusc.co.uk


From Ken Norman
15.7.06
Richard,
Mobile Phones
In England we seem to be making a complete mess of applying the law on mobile phones.
     My friends in the Netherlands tell me that in the Amsterdam leagues they apply the FIDE rules. If your phone rings you lose. The SCCU applies the FIDE rule in its county matches. We had an example last season in the Surrey v Sussex match. The mobile phone of a Surrey player rang and he lost the game.
     However when Sussex played Warwickshire in the ECF stage of the Counties Championship it was announced before the start of play that there would be no penalty applied if a mobile phone rang. Apparently the ECF does not believe in applying FIDE rules to its own competitions. I shall be interested to see what rule is applied at the ECF Congress in Swansea. Will it be the FIDE rule or ECF rule?
     I have done a very unscientific survey of a few leagues. London League allows the mobile phone to ring once without penalty, if it rings a second time you lose the game. The Surrey/Hants Border League is more generous and allows the mobile phone to ring on two occasions. You lose the game if it rings a third time. Two other leagues had no mention of mobile phones in their rules. If there is no specific reference to mobile phones in the rules of a league does that mean the FIDE rule applies?
     The current situation is very unsatisfactory. It is very confusing for players and can be the cause of animosity between opponents. Am I the only person who believes we should have only one law about mobile phones and that law should apply without exception throughout England?
Regards
Ken Norman dandkn1066@virgin.net


Earlier material (lots of it) is in the Archive.

---

Back to top      Back to SCCU home page