+- 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: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 (/thread-831.html)
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - David G Congalton - 08-01-2014
Ianbrownlee Wrote:... create online tournaments run by Chess Scotland to cater for remote users
Maybe this should be one of the first ideas the working party (if approved) looks at. It would allow them to gauge the level of interest in different regions and identify areas of potential for future attention. If they suddenly find a large and growing interest on the island of St Kilda they could look at supporting a "live" local event there.
There would possibly be added benefits in other regions and other areas. Such tournaments could be used to measure the potential interest in the game in Scotland which may be helpful in a number of ways.
All good stuff for a working party to consider, which is fundamentally what the motion is proposing.
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - Matthew Turner - 08-01-2014
I think we are all aware that more players cheat at online chess than over the board chess. So, it stands to reason that if playing remotely was akin to playing over the Internet then there would be a greater possibility that a player would cheat.
What should we do?
1. Not bother with (the possibility) of playing remotely
2. Regulate it to death
3. Try to ensure that playing remotely mimics playing over the board
I am suggesting that we need to focus on point 3. Firstly playing remotely will never be the same as playing in an Internet tournament. It is perfectly possible (although still obviously wrong) to justify cheating online by saying everyone else is doing it. This will not be the case participating remotely in an over the board tournament.
Secondly, I chose an example carefully, so to reiterate
"Let me give you an example, 2 players from the Shetlands Isles wish to participate in the Major Tournament at the Ayr Congress. We could say that they have to travel several days to get to Ayr or we could look at the possibility that they play their matches at the local community centre where the Internet connection will be fantastic."
In that scenario, I just don't see cheating being a problem.
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - Alex McFarlane - 08-01-2014
I agree with Ian Brownlee that there are two issues here.
There is the issue of players in remote parts and there is the issue of disabled players. Whilst the suggested methods of integrating such players may have overlaps the two issues are separate and should be treated as such.
Can such players be integrated into the Congress circuit? I have my doubts. As Ian Marks indicated it is not so much actual cheating that is a current problem but the opponent's belief that cheating is taking place. I recently had a player who could not make eye contact with his opponents. This lead to one opponent thinking that he had to be cheating and couldn't 'face' him.
It is the fear that cheating may be happening rather than the actuality of it taking place that requires the presence of a neutral. It is obviously not cost effective to have an arbiter for every such board. It might be possible if you had many members of a remote club playing in the club premises.
A couple of people have said that the type of solution suggested would be unacceptable to them. I totally accept this. It strikes me as being a totally different game. I have arbited a large number of telephone games and none of them seemed quite real. The loss of time in transmission of the moves often amounting to some 50% over (a 4 hour match lasting 6 hours). Computers would help reduce that but how many venues would be suitable to stage such games?
Would there answer be as negative however if it was someone they had known on the congress scene for many years? We have had one or two stalwarts over the years whose health has caused a quick exit from the chess scene. If these people could prolong their activity in such a way would as many people refuse to play them? I doubt it. I accept this is a further complication in the debate but I think it is a valid consideration.
Many premises are not disable friendly. The Edinburgh Congress (moving this year) played in a venue where wheelchair users could not get access to the main hall. The alternative provision was not ideal. Many clubs meet in premises where such access is impossible. DnA in Glasgow used to play all their matches at their own venue for that reason.
We want chess to be all inclusive. Chess is one of the few activities where age and physical ability do not act as a barrier to achievement. I think the proposal is a good one and should be accepted. The idea has merit but I doubt if it will be able to achieve all that has been suggested. Certainly FIDE rated events seem to be out of the question already.
Perhaps at this point we want to consider what is possible at the moment before over committing to the ideal.
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - IMarks - 08-01-2014
Quote:If the remote player was disabled FIDE guidelines say you cannot refuse to play a player on the grounds of their disability...If a congress decides to allow remote play, then providing the pairing is a proper one then there no grounds for a player to refuse to play such a player. Look at the FIDE Guidelines for play with disabled playersSteve –
I did. Point 2 of the Guidelines says ‘No one has the right to refuse to meet a disabled player against whom he has been correctly paired’ and they go on to mention in great detail conditions at the venue, so it seems reasonable to infer that the guidelines apply to players who are actually there. They make no reference to remote play, as you imply. If I choose not to play an unknown opponent via the internet, I do so for that reason, not because s/he is disabled. Disability doesn't come into it. I don't see how you can shoehorn remote online play into the FIDE guidelines.
Since a number of other posters have indicated that they'd be leery of playing someone online, consider this scenario: a remote player enters for the Such-and-Such Major. Let's say three other would-be entrants would prefer not to risk being paired with him, for reasons of having to play online, possible cheating, whatever. So they don't enter. End result - 1 entry, 3 non-entries - cost to organiser 2 entries, say 50 quid. As I said in a much earlier post, cui bono?
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - Matthew Turner - 08-01-2014
Ian,
If I said to you, look at such and such a major in one of the games you might have to make your opponents' moves for them, you might well say, That is ridiculous. It is distracting. What happens if I want to go the loo? How will we handle the clock? However, the vast majority of players accept that is exactly what happens when we play a blind player.
I appreciate that I am painting rosy pictures and no doubt there will be teething troubles, but with remote play in an ideal scenario we are talking about you being sat a board in a Congress Hall with all the other players. Sat opposite you will be a human being. When you have decided what move to play you will move your piece and press your clock. At some point the human opposite will play a move and press their clock. It doesn't sound terribly different to a normal game does it? Of course there are some differences, the human opposite you will not be the person you are actually playing and there may not be the opportunity to analyse (or go down the pub) with your opponent afterwards.
In those circumstances are people going to say this disabled person or this person in a remote community shouldn't be allowed to participate in this event because of the potential 'problems' it creates for me. I would suggest that the evidence of blind players taking part suggests that this would not in fact happen.
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - davidpgillespie - 08-01-2014
When I enter a tournament i want to play someone over the board and not a faceless screen which I already do by playing internet chess. One of the main points of playing in an OTB tournament is to socialise and meet new people, so personally i think turning up to play a computer screen would be very irritating 8)
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - StevieHilton - 08-01-2014
Ian,
'I did. Point 2 of the Guidelines says ‘No one has the right to refuse to meet a disabled player against whom he has been correctly paired’ and they go on to mention in great detail conditions at the venue, so it seems reasonable to infer that the guidelines apply to players who are actually there. They make no reference to remote play, as you imply. If I choose not to play an unknown opponent via the internet, I do so for that reason, not because s/he is disabled. Disability doesn't come into it. I don't see how you can shoehorn remote online play into the FIDE guidelines.'
I have never said that you could. What I have said is that with a number of venues still not accessible to disabled players who may wish to play in competitions, but cannot physically attend, then this might well be a solution to the problem. I intend to discuss this idea within FIDE committee 'Chess for the Disabled' at our next meeting in Tromso this summer.
If this proposal is adopted it would show that chess is inclusive as Alex McFarlane points out. This is a great selling point .
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - amuir - 08-01-2014
Allow remote players to play (100 miles or more) but game is not graded.
Remote players found to be cheating should be banned for a long period.
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - IMarks - 08-01-2014
Matthew –
I’ve played a number of blind and VI players both in Scotland and abroad, but in that case there is an opponent sitting across the board from me, unlike in remote internet play. Re which you said, “Sat opposite you will be a human being. When you have decided what move to play you will move your piece and press your clock. At some point the human opposite will play a move and press their clock. It doesn't sound terribly different to a normal game does it?” Well, actually I think it does! As you go on to say “the human opposite you will not be the person you are actually playing”!
Steve –
“I have never said that you could.”
Well, here’s what you wrote earlier: “If a congress decides to allow remote play, then providing the pairing is a proper one then there no grounds for a player to refuse to play such a player.” If that doesn’t try to marry up remoteness and disability I don’t know what does.
As Alex and others have said, there are clearly two strands involved, inability to attend on grounds of (1) remoteness and (2) disability. I would never refuse to play anyone on the grounds of disability, of course, but if a congress is being held in a modern disabled-friendly venue, and the disabled player lives a reasonable travelling distance away, you would be entitled to wonder why they couldn’t manage along. If I may be permitted a little aside, I’m aware of the problems disabled people face getting around. I was heavily involved in helping a good friend who was confined to a wheelchair with MS during the last years of his life, so I know all about the logistics of ‘transporting’ people in his situation (plus doing lots of other things you really don't want to hear about). And could I go on record here to express my admiration for John Deary who travels the country playing weekenders? Granted, he has a helper and his faithful Umber, but still.
As the adage says, where some see a problem, others see an opportunity. Despite my reservations, I do see this as an opportunity worth exploring, but there are many major issues that need to be considered. It could be a case of ‘be careful what you wish for, you might get it’.
Anyway, I think I’ve said enough on the matter, so I’ll just sit back and enjoy the rest of the debate.
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - David G Congalton - 08-01-2014
Nobody is guaranteed 5 rounds in a weekend swiss. Perform badly and you may suffer the dreaded full point bye. So at the start of the tournament all players run the risk of not having an opponent at all in one round. If the pairing rules were adapted to stipulate that a venue player could not be paired against a remote opponent more than once, for those who would rather have a flesh and blood opponent opposite them, is that vastly different from not having an opponent at all.
You may want to make the arbiters life more fun by stipulating that you can't have a full point win by default and a remote opponent in one tournament. So if you get a bye you'd be safe from a remote opponent and vice versa.
Maybe we should simply be looking at updating the current rules for telephone matches to incorporate games by any means of "instant" communication and letting those who wish to organise events decide whether to include such games.
Alternatively, Chess Scotland could be proactive about promoting and giving support to the game in the Highlands and Islands and other areas where chess players are isolated, using the internet to create opportunities for the creation of clubs, leagues and other competitions.
At the moment, as far as I am aware, there are two clubs at opposite ends of the country who do not (through no fault of their own) have a local league, largely due to the nearest club being quite a distance away. Would the players from present clubs such as Inverness and Dumfries and potential clubs such as Stornoway, Lerwick, Wick and Fort William benefit from having a set of guidelines for games played over the internet to be acceptable for grading? Such guidelines may allow the formation of a "Remote" league which could, in theory, be open to every club in Scotland.
Going back a few posts, I think Ian Brownlee's suggestion of a Chess Scotland schools internet chess competition is a superb one and serious consideration should be given to getting something in place for the 2014-15 season.