+- 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) - Ianbrownlee - 26-08-2014
Matthew Turner Wrote:Only being semi-serious if I am deaf can I refuse to play someone who is blind?
no as rules (and guidelines ) stand no one able bodied or disabled can refuse to play an opponent on any grounds other than arbiter error. If anyone does refuse, they can expect to be defaulted. I understand the point you are making but to allow a disabled player grounds to refuse over an able bodied player's rights is discriminatory against any able bodied player. Hopefully the arbiter can make judgement calls on what resources may be available to make such a pairing possible.
I always thought the Mick Hanley rule always applied i.e rule 1 the arbiter is always right, etc. The point I am making is that I believed the arbiter always has some leeway in making the draw, but once the draw is made there is no redraw unless the arbiter accepts a mistake has been made. There is absolutely no redraw on the basis of personality clash or ill well on the players part.
I also spoke to a senior director today whose opinion is basically that even with FIDE tournaments, an arbiter only has to try his best to accommodate disabled players. If the arbiter/organiser fails, there is no penalty. The phase used was that "a guideline is not an instruction"
A player refusing to play an opponent is separate from the discussion on this thread. By all means lets create a separate thread on this if a serious discussion so us to comment on
Re: Motion 1 (wording to go to Council) - Matthew Turner - 26-08-2014
Ian,
I think all that you say makes sense. However, the issue of the deaf player playing the blind player is not as quite as straightforward as you suggest. You could argue (quite reasonably) that the deaf player is not refusing to play the blind player because the blind player is blind, but because they themselves are deaf. The deaf player cannot monitor that the blind player's moves are being played correctly. So, by pairing the deaf playing with a blind player you giving the deaf player a disadvantage that an able bodied player would not have - is that discrimination?
Matt
Re: Motion 1 (wording to go to Council) - Ianbrownlee - 26-08-2014
Matthew Turner Wrote:Ian,
I. You could argue (quite reasonably) that the deaf player is not refusing to play the blind player because the blind player is blind, but because they themselves are deaf.
aha flaw in your logic kemo sabey. The deaf player presupposes his opponent can communicate his moves to the deaf player therefore his expectation cannot be met unless a third party is present, therefore the arbiter should know in advance that such a draw may be possible and either provide a third party or instruct in advance one or both players to provide the third party, therefore eliminating the scenario you present ( or avoid the draw in the first place which technically I think he can do). I'm sure having two or more disabled people in a tournament increases the possibility of helpers being available.
Re: Motion 1 (wording to go to Council) - Matthew Turner - 26-08-2014
Ian,
I don't totally understand what your written. My experience of blind players in England is that they don't normally turn up without an assistant and I cannot think that I have ever seen a deaf player with an assistant. I think Alex MacFarlane would say that in a FIDE rated event if the correct pairing was for a blind player to play a deaf player then this would have to stand. Clearly, the tournament would have to find an assistant for the blind player (to make their moves). The deaf player would be at a disadvantage to an able bodied player because they could not hear what the blind player was saying and couldn't monitor that the correct move was being played. However, I don't think it would be reasonable for the deaf player to expect the tournament to provide an assistant to communicate the blind player's speech to them. Whilst the deaf player is at a minor disadvantage to an able bodied counterpart the remedial action would be disproportional to the disadvantage suffered - how much would it cost to employ someone to be at the board for five hours? I would have thought 99.99% of people would accept this as common sense. How do you write the rules/guidelines to cover this and every other relatively unlikely scenario? Maybe you just say something very general in terms of protecting the rights of disabled players, hence my one guideline suggestion above.
Re: Motion 1 (wording to go to Council) - Ianbrownlee - 26-08-2014
Hi Mathew
yes you are right and I hope you understand the kemo sabey part (only joking as well) . My point is that the arbiter should be able to handle eventualities and we cant legislate for all possibilities. Al we can do is lay down guidelines to assist the organiser and not hinder him. My worry was the stick(as opposed to the carrot) part in addressing the use of penalties. I think CS would choose what penalty if any to impose if any , in any words to grade or not to grade. It certainly would not affect any match result in my opinion.
Re: Motion 1 (wording to go to Council) - Ianbrownlee - 26-08-2014
Matthew Turner Wrote:Ian,funnily enough my experience at the SNCL is the exact opposite which brings into the equation the degree of disability. Steve Hilton is visually impaired but didn't use an assistant and the deaf people at the SNCL had assistants
I don't totally understand what your written. My experience of blind players in England is that they don't normally turn up without an assistant and I cannot think that I have ever seen a deaf player with an assistant.
Re: Motion 1 (wording to go to Council) - Phil Thomas - 27-08-2014
Bit of tidying up required in paragraph 6
6. Any disabled competitor, who reasonably requests in time the placing of their equipment in a particular seat or orientation, has the right to do so - provided that they does not disadvantage their opponent or other competitors. The event organiser must ensure the needs of both players are catered for.
For starters the grammar grates in
provided that they does not
8-|
Re: Motion 1 (wording to go to Council) - Kevin Mayo - 27-08-2014
StevieHilton Wrote: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
Awesome.
Moaning? Nice turn of phrase. No, not moaning. Moaning would be something like
It is ridiculous, totally unfair and discriminatory that i have to play someone who is "visually impaired" (to some degree or other) as I am severely disadvantaged by:
1. ....etc
Instead, I simply asked a question.
"I have to move both sets of pieces for the rest of my life. Now tell me who has the severe disadvantage"
Yup, you miss the point entirely.
I'll tell you again who has the severe disadvantage.
I have the severe disadvantage.
If you can't work out why, it's point 3 in my original post.
Actually, it's points 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Re: Motion 1 (wording to go to Council) - Ianbrownlee - 27-08-2014
Stevie correct me if I'm wrong
When we played each other at the sncl didn't I move one set of pi
Ices and you moved the disabled set or is my memory failing me
Re: Motion 1 (wording to go to Council) - Andrew McHarg - 27-08-2014
Kevin Mayo Wrote:I'll tell you again who has the severe disadvantage.
I have the severe disadvantage.
If you can't work out why, it's point 3 in my original post.
Actually, it's points 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Are you seriously suggesting that when you play a blind player it's you who has the severe disadvantage? What complete nonsense.