+- Forums (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Members Only (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-16.html)
+--- Forum: General Chess Chat (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: Motion 1 (wording to go to Council) (/thread-1052.html)
Re: Motion 1 (wording to go to Council) - David Deary - 25-08-2014
Phil, I don't disagree with the principle you are advocating.
However, this motion (#1) was to deal specifically with disabled players and your ammendment widens the scope of the motion somewhat. Can a seperate motion not be put forward regarding playing who you are correctly paired against?
Food for thought as well, how compatable is this ideal with the following caveat that is on most congress entry forms: "The organisers reserve the right to take any measures deemed necessary to ensure the smooth running of the congress." or words to that effect. I think this needs to be incorporated into your motion as well to cover all bases.
Re: Motion 1 (wording to go to Council) - Ianbrownlee - 25-08-2014
Phil Thomas Wrote:As a recent incident confirms. I still do not have permission from any of the moderators to publish details of that incident (nor have I been refused permission to publish)
Hi Phil
I'm back from holiday I am aware of the incident and as a friend and as a moderator I would ask you to refrain from publishing until the weekend so that we may discuss this separately. I believe the player in question did not ask to redraw your pairing on disablement issues therefore it is not appropriate to discuss it here on this thread. However your point is not lost on me and although I have heard a version of what happened, I would appreciate it if you would send me details of the incident
Motion 1 is being amended and will go forward to council for approval to get the kinks. There are still one or two kinks in my opinion but I'm sure we'll get there. Once its implemented i'm just a wee bit worried about the penalty side of it in the club competitions such as the Richardson and spens cup. As far as I can see the only forfeiture is that it doesn't get FIDE rated, Is that the game, the match or the whole tournament It also means if an away team has a disabled player, they need to announce that player to the home team which gives away a possible advantage in team selection
Re: Motion 1 (wording to go to Council) - robin moore - 25-08-2014
Phil,
It would be wrong of you to hijack this disability motion in order to highlight some sort of personal vendetta. I am certain you understand that.
Re: Motion 1 (wording to go to Council) - Mike Scott - 25-08-2014
Hi
Actually I thought that Phil's suggestion does make sense, especially from the view point that as disabled players are looking simply to be treated equally, the fewer the laws that are specific to disabled players the better.
To be honest I am amazed that anyone would or could successfully object to playing a particular opponent, other than on grounds of an error in the draw. You do not have to play but then you should simply be defaulted.
One thought though is that if there is the suggestion that the objection is based on disability, race, etc then perhaps there should be some legislation against that specifically as it surely has no place in chess (or anywhere else) so that some additional penalty could be imposed.
I seem to have changed my mind!
Re: Motion 1 (wording to go to Council) - Phil Thomas - 25-08-2014
Mike Scott Wrote:Hi
Actually I thought that Phil's suggestion does make sense, especially from the view point that as disabled players are looking simply to be treated equally, the fewer the laws that are specific to disabled players the better.
To be honest I am amazed that anyone would or could successfully object to playing a particular opponent, other than on grounds of an error in the draw. You do not have to play but then you should simply be defaulted.
One thought though is that if there is the suggestion that the objection is based on disability, race, etc then perhaps there should be some legislation against that specifically as it surely has no place in chess (or anywhere else) so that some additional penalty could be imposed.
I seem to have changed my mind!
I find myself agreeing with Mike Scott.
Moving the discussion on.
The last time I was drawn against Robin the game stared with a handshake. The game finished with a handshake followed by a short discussion and later on discussion on the notice board.
Had there been no handshakes and/or no discussion between players that would not have damaged either the tournament or the players enjoyment of the game.
Before the game my thoughts were mainly focussed on whether I should stick to my repertoire and allow Robin to play his most dangerous and most effective opening (IMO) or whether I should deviate early on and play a Caro-Kann.
Ian,
I will send you a private email tonight.
Re: Motion 1 (wording to go to Council) - Andrew McHarg - 25-08-2014
I suppose a player technically can refuse to play someone if they want to. That's not a crime on its own. However, such a player cannot then expect to be afforded the opportunity to play someone else. It should count as a default. Perhaps - even - the organiser should be allowed to disqualify the player from the tournament?
But I really wish people would stop all the babyish bickering that just makes them look petty. So you don't get on with certain other people; big deal! Lots of people don't get on with lots of other people and yet they don't tit-for-tat he did this so I'm doing that childish nonsense that this forum sees. Just ignore the people you don't like. The rest of us don't care about the historical accuracy (or lack of) of your private disagreements etc... thanks!
Re: Motion 1 (wording to go to Council) - David Deary - 25-08-2014
Phil, by all means ignore my point. If the motion goes forward to the first council meeting in November with the addition of the very seperate issue of 'players refusing to play against a correctly paired opponent' then I will vote for the motion to go back to the drawing board and be split into two motions. I don't like different issues being paperclipped onto the one motion. This would result in a delay until the following council meeting in March 2015. I don't think splitting it into a seperate motion is in any way an unreasonable request.
Andy & Steve's motion deals with guidelines for disabled players and is not where I would expect as an Arbiter to have to look for guidance on how to do pairings or run a tournament.
There are some wider issues regarding your motion:
A rather extreme hypothetical example:
Round 1, the current guidance allows arbiters to avoid pairings of siblings, clubmates etc using his or her discretion. Does your rule not threaten to override this? For instance, two siblings who were due to play are seperated by the arbiter in the pairings with one sibling refusing to play their new opponent on the grounds that the draw is wrong? Technically it is wrong...
Alos, as I highlighted, how do you see this working within the confines of the organiser being able to take any measures deemed necessary to ensure the smooth running of the tournament.
Another extreme hypothetical example:
Its an early round (1 or 2), the organiser knows two players have an extreme dislike for one another and in a previous encounter (at another tournament) this resulted in fisticuffs. The provisional pairing will see these two players playing against one another and will not necessary have an impact on the tournament (ie prizes). The organiser requests that the pairing is changed to ensure the smooth running of the tournament.
Re: Motion 1 (wording to go to Council) - Alan Jelfs - 25-08-2014
At the AGM, I remember someone indicated they would not be happy being paired with a remote participant at a nominally OTB congress.
And didn't Phil Giulian once refuse to play a computer when one was entered in a tournament?
Re: Motion 1 (wording to go to Council) - andyburnett - 25-08-2014
Alan Jelfs Wrote:At the AGM, I remember someone indicated they would not be happy being paired with a remote participant at a nominally OTB congress.
And didn't Phil Giulian once refuse to play a computer when one was entered in a tournament?
I would also refuse this 'remote player' pairing.
Phil Giulian refused to play a computer at the East Kilbride Turnkey Open iirc?! Not sure if refusing was given as an option on the entry form or not?
Re: Motion 1 (wording to go to Council) - Phil Thomas - 25-08-2014
Alan Jelfs Wrote:At the AGM, I remember someone indicated they would not be happy being paired with a remote participant at a nominally OTB congress.
And didn't Phil Giulian once refuse to play a computer when one was entered in a tournament?
Refusing to play a computer is different to refusing to play a human being. The computer has no legal rights.
For remote chess if everybody refuses to play the remote player - does that remote player win the tournament?
According to some of the discussion here only if the remote player is disabled. If able bodied it appears that he'd end up with 5 byes.