Posts: 170
Threads: 6
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
0
Phil
I don't want to belabour the point. Initially, my post was blocked because my browser could not connect with the Board, which was declared to be busy - presumably you and Matthew squeezed in ahead of me. But, the fact is my post was written without sight of yours or Matthew's. Yet, Matthew drew exactly the conclusion about the named personality that your image was intended to achieve. That's why your image/question is 'inadmissible'. It's potentially libellous, and I for one do not want to be associated with it.
Your point about motorists deliberately slowing down in the fast lane because of the near presence of a Police car simply shows that some motorists don't know the law. So, it's not a very persuasive argument in your favour.
Splitting hairs? No.
Looks like Matthew was driving faster than me again!
Posts: 170
Threads: 6
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
0
Phil
I don't want to belabour the point. Initially, my post was blocked because my browser could not connect with the Board, which was declared to be busy - presumably you and Matthew squeezed in ahead of me. But, the fact is my post was written without sight of yours or Matthew's. Yet, Matthew drew exactly the conclusion about the named personality that your image was intended to achieve. That's why your image/question is 'inadmissible'. It's potentially libellous, and I for one do not want to be associated with it.
Your point about motorists deliberately slowing down in the fast lane because of the near presence of a Police car simply shows that some motorists don't know the law. So, it's not a very persuasive argument in your favour.
Splitting hairs? No.
Looks like Matthew was driving faster than me again!
Posts: 2
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2013
Reputation:
0
I realise most people prefer over the board - I get that- there is no harm trying it.
Would you feel the same if it was Montwani playing remotely? Reality is it will probably mainly only affect mid range players and if not it would only be the odd game on top boards. You could probably have a rule to opt for max one remote game per player.
Posts: 550
Threads: 37
Joined: Nov 2011
Perhaps Phil should consider being on the working party?
Posts: 370
Threads: 16
Joined: Sep 2011
Andy Burnett,
If play by remote were permitted in the future. You would not be allowed to refuse to play such an opponent.
There is a way round this to avoid a player using a chess engine.
It is called Screen Sharing
Player B ( The remote player) would be obliged to share their screen with the congress organizers. They can then use chessbase to show the congress organizers the position on the board. If player B tried to use an engine then that would show up on the screen in front of the organizers.
I have been using Screen Sharing for a number of years as part of my training for Braille events. I have also been playing Skype tournaments with fellow blind players for the past 2 years. Players have been caught out trying to use engines to aid them.
Posts: 1,003
Threads: 101
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation:
1
StevieHilton Wrote:Andy Burnett,
If play by remote were permitted in the future. You would not be allowed to refuse to play such an opponent.
There is a way round this to avoid a player using a chess engine.
It is called Screen Sharing
Player B ( The remote player) would be obliged to share their screen with the congress organizers. They can then use chessbase to show the congress organizers the position on the board. If player B tried to use an engine then that would show up on the screen in front of the organizers.
I have been using Screen Sharing for a number of years as part of my training for Braille events. I have also been playing Skype tournaments with fellow blind players for the past 2 years. Players have been caught out trying to use engines to aid them.
Hi Steve,
I can refuse to do things pretty much whenever I want! 
I get your point though - if it's in the rules then it's in the rules and I would have to choose to not play a particular event. I wouldn't play an event where a chess computer was in the field (for example, was it East Kilbride in the 90's where this was the case?) It doesn't interest me in the slightest to play an engine, and to a lesser degree playing an opponent not there in person makes me feel the same.
I use screen sharing all the time for coaching - I have 2 pc's and there is nothing to stop me from having an engine running the position on the 2nd one, so that doesn't solve the possible problem.
I don't think cheating would be a huge problem in any case (fear of cheating, on the other hand, could cause major problems) but I can't understand Matthew T's and other's belief that cheating wouldn't be more likely to occur 'in private' - people do all sorts of things in private which they wouldn't do if others were around to see them/catch them at it, so why should cheating be any different?!
Posts: 66
Threads: 2
Joined: Jul 2013
Reputation:
0
Quote:If play by remote were permitted in the future. You would not be allowed to refuse to play such an opponent.
Steve -
Why not? The FIDE Handbook, Chapter 01, para. 1.2., refers to ‘discriminatory treatment for national, political, racial, social or religious reasons or on account of gender’. I cannot for the life of me see how preferring not to play online in an OTB tournament could be classed as discriminatory (unless you know something we don’t). IMO, playing via computer would be virtually a form of correspondence (in the truest sense) chess. If I want to do that, or play online, I can stay at home. That’s why I play on the circuit – so I can compete against a guy or gal sitting across the board, mano a mano, with all that that entails. Simple as.
As for disability, as I said in an earlier post, I cannot think of any current congress venue which is not disabled-friendly, so the main thrust of the proposal is surely the remoteness factor.
Anyway, as someone observed, it will probably only affect a small number of players in middle events downwards, so I guess open players can sleep easy in their beds. 
Posts: 370
Threads: 16
Joined: Sep 2011
Ian,
If the remote player was disabled FIDE guidelines say you cannot refuse to play a player on the grounds of their disability.
I know that congresses in recent years have made great strides in arranging tournaments where access is is good for disabled players. That is only part of the problem, transportation is still difficult especially for wheelchair users.
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 players I can provide you with a copy
Andy B
I have known of two incidents in the braille tournaments I have played on Skype. In both instances, the players scores were annulled and the points awarded. Of course you can have more than 1 Pc or laptop operating, but if a player is using an engine, then that will show in his play. Just run a game through an engine, that's how to catch them
Posts: 247
Threads: 6
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
0
StevieHilton Wrote:I have known of two incidents in the braille tournaments I have played on Skype. In both instances, the players scores were annulled and the points awarded. Of course you can have more than 1 Pc or laptop operating, but if a player is using an engine, then that will show in his play. Just run a game through an engine, that's how to catch them
While that is true at higher levels, I think you could clean up at Minors and Majors by looking at an engine when a tactic may be on, but playing the rest of your game as per usual. I believe that using an engine at critical moments is the main problem these days, now people are wise to just replaying Houdini gets caught very easily. Anyway, I guess that is another issue altogether.
Like some of the others on here, I would be unhappy about playing someone via a computer, because that is (live) correspondence chess, and takes out the whole fun of having someone sit opposite. OTB chess has a psychological aspect, and you just wouldn't get that playing like this. Of course it has its benefits, but I know that I would find it extremely off putting, and make me unlikely to perform at my normal level.
As for refusal to play, if I really didn't want to play someone I would just not turn up, ask for a bye, or arrive agonisingly after the default time. Would I do any of these? Unlikely. Would I enter an event knowing there was a decent possibility of playing a game like this? Unlikely.
Posts: 946
Threads: 127
Joined: May 2012
Reputation:
4
I think the working party if elected is looking for people who have geographical issues is attending congresses not venue issues. I don't play any weekend venues but I am not aware of any difficulties at any venue regarding disability access etc therefore in my mind the disability card does not come into play. Therefore I think travel from remote areas should be the focus, not venue facilities. In my mind there has to be a nominated volunteer/arbiter at the remote area. Ian Marks is absolutely right- the local player has his rights as well. I am now of the firm opinion that both players in such a match should use software such as chess.com which would eliminate clock issues. We should also look at leaving existing congresses alone and create online tournaments run by Chess Scotland to cater for remote users
|
