+- 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) - Alex McFarlane - 26-08-2014
I would suggest that the wording should simply be -
A player cannot refuse to play an opponent on the grounds of their disability.
I think this covers most of the points and has the advantage of using fewer words.
A player can always refuse to play someone. The reason for the refusal may have to be considered and what action, if any, should be taken by the arbiter/organiser.
Re: Motion 1 (wording to go to Council) - Matthew Turner - 26-08-2014
Only being semi-serious if I am deaf can I refuse to play someone who is blind?
Re: Motion 1 (wording to go to Council) - StevieHilton - 26-08-2014
"A player can always refuse to play someone. The reason for the refusal may have to be considered and what action, if any, should be taken by the arbiter/organiser.[/quote]
Then surely Alex the onus would be on the Federation to give guidance to the arbiters to base their decisions on. If a pairing has been done correctly there are no grounds for refusal to play an opponent. This is separate from rules of play with the disabled.
Matthew, your post is disgraceful this is a serious issue. If a blind player is paired with a deaf player and its a correct pairing there would be no grounds for refusing to play. As for the practicalities that is a different matter and assistant would be required to communicate the moves to the blind player. This in fact happened to me at the Scottish in Hamilton in 2010 when I was paired with a deaf player. I recall that Donald W and Andy H took it in turns to assist in the game. The result was a well fought out draw
Re: Motion 1 (wording to go to Council) - Kevin Mayo - 26-08-2014
Can I refuse to play someone who is blind on the grounds that I am severely disadvantaged by:
1. The necessity to move their pieces on "our" board
2. The distraction of them shouting out their moves at a random moment of their choosing
3. The fact that they are on completely familiar territory, whereas I am forced to adjust to a brand new set of circumstances
4. All of the above contributing to a huge impact on the level of concentration I am able to give
Yes, I get a few minutes extra time. It is not even remotely close to sufficient compensation.
Controversial? Not really.
Discriminatory? Not at all.
Re: Motion 1 (wording to go to Council) - Matthew Turner - 26-08-2014
Steve,
"Matthew, your post is disgraceful this is a serious issue. If a blind player is paired with a deaf player and its a correct pairing there would be no grounds for refusing to play."
So, just to be clear then a deaf player who couldn't hear what a blind was saying and therefore couldn't ensure that the blind player's assistant was making the 'correct' move would have no recourse to request an alternative pairing. I wonder if you need to think about it a little bit more?
Re: Motion 1 (wording to go to Council) - Alan Jelfs - 26-08-2014
Kevin Mayo Wrote:Can I refuse to play someone who is blind on the grounds that I am severely disadvantaged by:
1. The necessity to move their pieces on "our" board
2. The distraction of them shouting out their moves at a random moment of their choosing
3. The fact that they are on completely familiar territory, whereas I am forced to adjust to a brand new set of circumstances
4. All of the above contributing to a huge impact on the level of concentration I am able to give
Yes, I get a few minutes extra time. It is not even remotely close to sufficient compensation.
Controversial? Not really.
Discriminatory? Not at all.
During the 70s my school would play Worcester Blind School once a year. The first time, yes, it was "unfamiliar territory" and I lost. But after that I would win because by watching which areas of their board they are feeling with their fingers, you can "see" what they are thinking about. Swings and roundabouts.
In Matthew's hypothetical case above, then the deaf player should be provided with a hearing assistant.
Re: Motion 1 (wording to go to Council) - StevieHilton - 26-08-2014
Matthew Turner Wrote:Steve,
"Matthew, your post is disgraceful this is a serious issue. If a blind player is paired with a deaf player and its a correct pairing there would be no grounds for refusing to play."
So, just to be clear then a deaf player who couldn't hear what a blind was saying and therefore couldn't ensure that the blind player's assistant was making the 'correct' move would have no recourse to request an alternative pairing. I wonder if you need to think about it a little bit more?
Matthew it is not I who should read my whole response but you, I have worked in disabled chess for a number of years so I do know what it is like when deaf and blind players meet. The deaf player could make use of an assistant as well had you considered that? They tend to have their own sign language assistant.
I attended an event in Dresden in October 2013, called the World Disabled Chess Championships and it was a great success and no problems
Re: Motion 1 (wording to go to Council) - StevieHilton - 26-08-2014
Kevin Mayo Wrote:Can I refuse to play someone who is blind on the grounds that I am severely disadvantaged by:
1. The necessity to move their pieces on "our" board
2. The distraction of them shouting out their moves at a random moment of their choosing
3. The fact that they are on completely familiar territory, whereas I am forced to adjust to a brand new set of circumstances
4. All of the above contributing to a huge impact on the level of concentration I am able to give
Yes, I get a few minutes extra time. It is not even remotely close to sufficient compensation.
Controversial? Not really.
Discriminatory? Not at all.
Kevin,
You moan about having to move both sets of pieces on the board on the rare occasion that you play a blind/visually impaired player and you say that are severely disadvantaged. As a Visually handicapped player, I have to move both sets of pieces for the rest of my life. Now tell me who has the severe disadvantage
No you are not on a brand new set of circumstance. You played me in a Glasgow League match a number of years ago
Re: Motion 1 (wording to go to Council) - Matthew Turner - 26-08-2014
Steve,
"The deaf player could make use of an assistant as well had you considered that? They tend to have their own sign language assistant."
Is it the responsibility of the tournament to provide one? Of course they would need to speak German, because the blind player would have to follow the FIDE rules and announce their moves in German.
These rules/guidelines have been written for a reason and I don't think it so the organisers can have a German/sign language translator present just in case a deaf player plays a blind player. The rules cannot cover every eventuality so maybe it is better that they don't try. How about this
1. Organisers and players are reminded of the need to abide by all anti-discrimination legislation. It is the organisers responsibility to make all reasonable steps to enable the participation of all disabled participants.
2. See guideline 1.
Re: Motion 1 (wording to go to Council) - StevieHilton - 26-08-2014
The use of German comes into play only when there is no common language between the two players. You would not seriously expect two English speakers to speak in German when they are playing in a blind event.
Sign language assistants would be able to translate to their deaf clients.
These matters are for the new disability officer to resolve not me. I am not a member of the council of CS.