06-01-2014, 12:19 AM
Comments so far, my own included, have referred to one 'remote' player. What if 2/3/4... 'remote' players wish to avail themselves of the option? Where do the requisite number of arbiters suddenly come from? Would players at the venue be truly happy with a guy's mate supervising him? And presumably the supervisor would have to be IT savvy in case of glitches. (I spent 45 minutes this afternoon dealing with a fairly minor internet hiccup. I certainly wouldn't want that sort of interruption during a game. How will organisers factor in unknowable periods of time to cater for this sort of eventuality?)
Remoteness works both ways. What if players in, say, Glasgow or Edinburgh, fancy playing in Inverness, but decide it's too 'remote'? In the interests of fairness, they would have to be allowed to play via the internet. What if 9 or 10 or more such players so wish? Where are all the necessary internet connections going to come from and be operated without distracting players at the venue? Would organisers have to shell out for another room, passing on the extra cost to all competitors, thereby probably resulting in fewer entries...?
In an ideal world I think the proposal has mileage. In the real world I have my doubts.
Remoteness works both ways. What if players in, say, Glasgow or Edinburgh, fancy playing in Inverness, but decide it's too 'remote'? In the interests of fairness, they would have to be allowed to play via the internet. What if 9 or 10 or more such players so wish? Where are all the necessary internet connections going to come from and be operated without distracting players at the venue? Would organisers have to shell out for another room, passing on the extra cost to all competitors, thereby probably resulting in fewer entries...?
In an ideal world I think the proposal has mileage. In the real world I have my doubts.