12-08-2014, 08:53 PM
Motion 1 appears to be based on the Chapter in the FIDE Handbook dated 25 February 2013 entitled: Guidelines on treatment of disabled chess players. C. 14 of this document states: It is strongly recommended that all organisers of chess events adopt these guidelines. ‘Recommended’ - so not compulsory but rather an ideal or aspiration. Moreover, the ‘requirement’ for all chess venues to be accessible, or for an acceptable alternative venue to be made available with full supervision etc., etc. is predicated on the understanding/condition that ‘all competitors are known’ before a circular is sent out, containing an entry form etc. and asking whether ‘any potential competitor has an impairment that will require special circumstances’. The onus is then on such a competitor to inform the organisers about these special circumstances at least 20 days before the start of the event’. Obviously, any organiser here in Scotland would have booked his venue much sooner than this!
So, these terms/conditions - as stated - seem more appropriate to a closed event than an open congress wherein numbers and identities are not known beforehand? Even so, I see nothing wrong with the spirit of Motion 1. I can’t speak for organisers, but I think John has put his finger on the button: the practice(s) are already implemented by most (all?) organisers/congresses/tournaments. All that Motion 1 does is to formalise existing custom/practice. (Why didn’t I go the whole hog and risk eightpence on John!)
As for League chess, I’m not at all sure that Motion 1 applies. At any rate, it seems to me that C.12 of the FIDE Handbook Chapter quoted from above is geared towards Team events at a different plane/level/status - such as 4NCL perhaps? Or, Glynis’ National League? But, not club chess - through of course it goes without saying that they, too, need no prompting to encourage disabled chess players to participate - but without the paraphernalia associated with, or advocated for formal FIDE Tournaments as per the Handbook.
As for Chess Scotland’s role, it too is covered by the FIDE Handbook. Chapter 02 - Membership: Member Federations spells it out. C.2.1 defines Members of FIDE as ‘national chess federations which have principal authority over chess activities in their own countries …’ Note, ‘principal’ - not exclusive or complete - authority. FIDE Laws are intended to provide management guidance. They do not supersede national laws etc and it is these that bind chess players here in Scotland. No chess player or organiser in his right mind is going to transgress the national law in respect of disabled players.
So, where does all this leave us? First, Motion 1 proposes a Code of Conduct (or similar) - not legislation that entails punishment for failure to observe/apply. Second, are we quite sure that ‘it’s the law of the land; if a disabled player wants to play and is refused, the owner of the premises can be prosecuted’? That strikes me as (i) extreme and (ii) unjust. The poor owner probably knows very little about how any exclusion ever came about. And would it, really? That outcome seems fanciful to me. If the organiser has done his best to accommodate the disabled player, why should anyone be punished? Motion 1 as good as states this: ‘The less advance notice given to the organiser, the less the competitor can expect co-operation.’ (Actually, this form of words does not appear in the relevant section of the FIDE Handbook!) Third, at least some of these details should be negotiable. For example, the statement that ‘the space between rows of tables should be 3m’ is too precise/dogmatic. Not every disabled player will require wheelchair access; three metres may be too generous given the hall/venue used.
All told, Motion 1 exhibits the right spirit and can usefully articulate and endorse what is largely existing practice. It should not be intended or regarded as a big stick! Note what FIDE Tournament Rules (Handbook Chapter 05) C.1 states: ‘Where an event has a problem not covered by internal rules, these Rules (i.e. Chapter 05) shall be considered to be definitive.’ So, the local Federation (i.e. Chess Scotland) does have some discretion.
PS I’m sorry if some of this has been overtaken by comments submitted while I was researching/drafting.)
So, these terms/conditions - as stated - seem more appropriate to a closed event than an open congress wherein numbers and identities are not known beforehand? Even so, I see nothing wrong with the spirit of Motion 1. I can’t speak for organisers, but I think John has put his finger on the button: the practice(s) are already implemented by most (all?) organisers/congresses/tournaments. All that Motion 1 does is to formalise existing custom/practice. (Why didn’t I go the whole hog and risk eightpence on John!)
As for League chess, I’m not at all sure that Motion 1 applies. At any rate, it seems to me that C.12 of the FIDE Handbook Chapter quoted from above is geared towards Team events at a different plane/level/status - such as 4NCL perhaps? Or, Glynis’ National League? But, not club chess - through of course it goes without saying that they, too, need no prompting to encourage disabled chess players to participate - but without the paraphernalia associated with, or advocated for formal FIDE Tournaments as per the Handbook.
As for Chess Scotland’s role, it too is covered by the FIDE Handbook. Chapter 02 - Membership: Member Federations spells it out. C.2.1 defines Members of FIDE as ‘national chess federations which have principal authority over chess activities in their own countries …’ Note, ‘principal’ - not exclusive or complete - authority. FIDE Laws are intended to provide management guidance. They do not supersede national laws etc and it is these that bind chess players here in Scotland. No chess player or organiser in his right mind is going to transgress the national law in respect of disabled players.
So, where does all this leave us? First, Motion 1 proposes a Code of Conduct (or similar) - not legislation that entails punishment for failure to observe/apply. Second, are we quite sure that ‘it’s the law of the land; if a disabled player wants to play and is refused, the owner of the premises can be prosecuted’? That strikes me as (i) extreme and (ii) unjust. The poor owner probably knows very little about how any exclusion ever came about. And would it, really? That outcome seems fanciful to me. If the organiser has done his best to accommodate the disabled player, why should anyone be punished? Motion 1 as good as states this: ‘The less advance notice given to the organiser, the less the competitor can expect co-operation.’ (Actually, this form of words does not appear in the relevant section of the FIDE Handbook!) Third, at least some of these details should be negotiable. For example, the statement that ‘the space between rows of tables should be 3m’ is too precise/dogmatic. Not every disabled player will require wheelchair access; three metres may be too generous given the hall/venue used.
All told, Motion 1 exhibits the right spirit and can usefully articulate and endorse what is largely existing practice. It should not be intended or regarded as a big stick! Note what FIDE Tournament Rules (Handbook Chapter 05) C.1 states: ‘Where an event has a problem not covered by internal rules, these Rules (i.e. Chapter 05) shall be considered to be definitive.’ So, the local Federation (i.e. Chess Scotland) does have some discretion.
PS I’m sorry if some of this has been overtaken by comments submitted while I was researching/drafting.)