08-01-2014, 11:39 AM
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.
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.