Live Boards

[Adam Bremner]

I don't think anyone has the right to refuse to play on a particular set just because they don't like the idea of their games being broadcast online. Most congress entry forms suggest that the organisers have the final say in such matters, and I think they should exert that authority.

I do not agree, therein lies the problem. Some people, myself included may feel (rightly or wrongly)that there is added pressure when their game is going online.
I believe that if you decide not to play on these boards then that should be your right.
There probably will not be too many people who will feel this way but surely they have rights to their opinion.
After all some people on this noticeboard are always harping on about the rights of "the minorities".

Well look at the world of professional sport. Imagine if a particular tennis player refused to play in front of cameras (or spectators) because it distracted him? Should he be allowed to demand that he doesn't play under those circumstances? Sure he can refuse to play, in which case he should lose the match by default. He can't - however - expect everyone just to do as he pleases.

I completely agree with this. I have no problem to saying I am one of the players that was upset with this situation at Oban and am happy to outline why.

George's issue about adding extra pressure had nothing to do with the situation mentioned, but I accept this is a valid point. However, if we start giving reasons why not to play on a particular set, then where does it stop? Say I feel that my colourblindness gives me a disadvantage on a board with dark green squares, or that I find the fold in the board offputting, or the height of the pieces is obstructing my view of the pawns. If the set is approved by FIDE, and the event has one of these boards laid out, you should accept to play on it. My own feeling is that it is an honor to get one of these boards, as your game is deemed to be of interest to the public. Of course, this is a personal view, and not one you can force people to have.

I would also like to say that I think the organisers at Oban were put in a difficult situation by this, made even more difficult by the fact the player involved was an IM. However, I don't think that the wishes of one player, regardless of who that is, should be upheld against the wishes of several people, considering that the wishes of the many were only to have the default tournament conditions upheld. Although I do not intend to speak on his behalf, Clement had stated before his game to the organisers that he wanted it to be broadcast live, and only became aware that the transmission was switched off during the game. Surely in a situation like this, the normal thing to do would be to play the game under the conditions it was originally intended.

As Jonny says, these live boards were part funded by the donations of CS members, who wanted to have the chance to watch games on them. The fact that the event has to pay a hire fee for them, and gives free entry to certain people who then refuse to use them is sad. There were some cracking games in all sections that people would have loved to see. Also, the perceived advantage was presumably being used by the person in question, despite him refusing to allow it to happen to him.

I think this is quite an important issue, as this is the first time the situation has arisen, and it is likely to come up at a congress soon. I believe that organisers will have to consider what the wish to do, and it is unlikely that the solution will please everyone. What I will say though, is that I would be strongly discouraged from entering an event where this will happen again, as will I suspect many others.