Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2

[IMarks]

If the remote player was disabled FIDE guidelines say you cannot refuse to play a player on the grounds of their disability...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

Steve –

I did. Point 2 of the Guidelines says ‘No one has the right to refuse to meet a disabled player against whom he has been correctly paired’ and they go on to mention in great detail conditions at the venue, so it seems reasonable to infer that the guidelines apply to players who are actually there. They make no reference to remote play, as you imply. If I choose not to play an unknown opponent via the internet, I do so for that reason, not because s/he is disabled. Disability doesn't come into it. I don't see how you can shoehorn remote online play into the FIDE guidelines.

Since a number of other posters have indicated that they'd be leery of playing someone online, consider this scenario: a remote player enters for the Such-and-Such Major. Let's say three other would-be entrants would prefer not to risk being paired with him, for reasons of having to play online, possible cheating, whatever. So they don't enter. End result - 1 entry, 3 non-entries - cost to organiser 2 entries, say 50 quid. As I said in a much earlier post, cui bono?