Posts: 941
Threads: 127
Joined: May 2012
Reputation:
4
my turn I've just came in from One of Richard Cochrane's excellent lectures at Paisley Chess Club ( I heartily recommend them , well done Richard)
question 1 - how many fide rated events in Scotland ? I suspect I already know the answer
question 2 - why the need to adopt these guidelines. For those clubs running tournaments and events I can see only headaches although......
lets flip this and ask ourselves this
1. how many disabled players do we have and what types of disability? Surely we should be finding this out if we don't already We already have a disability officer does he have these facts
2. How many chess clubs already have disabled players and what facilities are utilised. If there are any difficulties what can be done to resolve them
3. Can Chess Scotland take the lead and design a disabled policy guideline which will help clubs
4. Refusal of entries due to disability not only leads to legal issues of discrimination but also more fundamentally leads to potential health and safety issues, for example fire/evacuation in the event of an emergency. To blindly accept polices without allowing for insurance and proper venue supervision can lead to legal and other practicalities.
I don't play in many tournaments but I personally haven't heard of any issues. that being said I think we have an opportunity to at least collate information.
The SNCL run by Glynnis has always catered for deaf, blind and other disabilities without any concern at all
Perhaps the disability office should inspect venues, perhaps not. All I know is if we implement policies then the responsibility of the venue could very much shift from the venue to Chess Scotland. If a policy is incorrectly implemented then its not just a slap on the wrist it quickly becomes deadly serious. Rather than resolve problems policies can cause them
Posts: 550
Threads: 37
Joined: Nov 2011
John, I fail to agree with this
Quote:Taking the specific example given of Troon's premises there is nothing in the Acts or FIDE guidelines which would prohibit any event taking place in the upstairs lounge, especially as the Railwaymens Assoc. whose premises they are, hold events there as well and are subject to the legislation too.
A disabled player, in failing to gain access to the playing area upstairs could result in the organiser falling foul of the guidelines "
All chess venues must either be accessible to all, or an acceptable alternative
venue with full supervision shall be available to those who cannot access the
nominated venue. " (my emphasis).
complying with this would place the extra duties on the organiser e.g. supervision
Posts: 550
Threads: 37
Joined: Nov 2011
Imagine tournaments such as Marymas, Dundee et al applying the guideline "2. The space between rows of tables should be 3m"?
Given the wording of the guidelines what would there be to stop a player insisting on the above thus rendering the previously workable arrangements null and void, with the effect of vastly reducing the capacity?
I think Ians suggestions "1. how many disabled players do we have and what types of disability? Surely we should be finding this out if we don't already We already have a disability officer does he have these facts
2. How many chess clubs already have disabled players and what facilities are utilised. If there are any difficulties what can be done to resolve them" should be looked at first before adopting policies that may impact on the vast majority of chess players.
Tournaments organisers should have an input in this too as they will be directly responsible for any demands/requests put to them by players with disabilities. In my experience I have found that any difficulties faced by players with disabilities are resolved by the organisers and the players enjoy reasonable conditions. An example was when I went to the Oban tournament a few years ago with a friend only to find that with seconds to go to the start of the first round that my friend could not write down his moves. This was immediately resolved by the organiser scribing for my friend and afterward arranging, with no fuss at all, a scribe for future rounds.
Posts: 370
Threads: 16
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation:
0
Pat the word is should not must.
John's point is valid that this motion only formalises a lot of what is in practice.
Posts: 1,120
Threads: 70
Joined: Aug 2011
With the motion as it stands, would clubs like Troon and Edinburgh be allowed to play home games in CS events like the Spens or Richardson?
Posts: 370
Threads: 16
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation:
0
The onus would be on the team that plays either to inform them that they have for example a wheelchair bound player in their team in order to comply with the guidelines and to give the 2 teams you mentioned time to organise alternative accommodation for that player(s)
The Spens as you know is not FIDE rated but the Richardson is
Posts: 360
Threads: 97
Joined: May 2012
Reputation:
3
Pat, if complying with the guidelines puts a little extra effort on an organiser so what?
I am fairly sure that tournament organisers can speak to the guidelines themselves, if and when they want to, without assumptions being made about the extra workload the guidelines would entail.
Again, any tournament organiser I know would and does their utmost to accommodate anyone.
If any such situation arises, which, as far as I am aware, it hasn't yet, then the guidelines are there to help both sides reach a solution.
I don't see any onerous, extra or vast difference in what happens now as to what would happen in the future.
The point must be made again, seemingly, that these are just guidelines, not laws, not rules and, as such, the only onus on any organiser in a situation which requires them is to follow as closely to them as is possible.
As regards to the Vineburgh Community centre venue a wheelchair user had entered in one of the first events held there and was accommodated successfully, as far as I was aware, without the minimum 3 metres between tables. While this meant that he could not go around the boards and spectate he was able to play without any special effort on his or any other players part.
Also if clubs play in FIDE graded tournaments then the disabled guidelines are there to help the teams decide where would be suitable to play, it may be that a neutral venue has to be sought but that happens already so no extra work required there.
I don't see a requirement for a register of disabled players either as the guidelines puts the onus on the disabled entrant to inform the organiser well before time of the requirements that he or she has.
And where would you draw the line with a register, I wear glasses and, technically, that makes me disabled so would I have register?
I would hope not, I like to think of everyone who plays this game as chess players, its just that some of us need a little more support than others.
Now I don't think that's too much to ask, especially as it's something we already do, this just formalises a procedure to be gone through to accommodate them.
Posts: 294
Threads: 8
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation:
1
Richardson isn't fide rated... Definitely won't say any more on that matter here for obvious reasons.
Posts: 678
Threads: 29
Joined: Apr 2017
Reputation:
3
This needs more clarity on how it will be implemented in Scotland. The motion suggests they are "guidelines", and yet it's worded more like a set of rules. We need to know to what extent the "guidelines" are to be encouraged/enforced. I'm all for equal opportunities and trying our best for disabled players, but we need to be realistic about this. If we are going to adopt an official document to direct the issue then it needs to be absolutely clear.
1) If these are guidelines only, then why should they only be for CS events? A good set of guidelines should surely be made available to all events? If not then the good they can do is limited because the vast majority of events are not CS-run ones.
2) How do these rules and regulations fit in with the law (which supersedes them). In other words, are they even legally enforceable (I suspect not in its current form). There are laws against disability discrimination, but having an event in the upstairs part of a lift-less building because that was the only feasible option is not - in my view - discrimination against the disabled. That's why laws on such things are usually accompanied by "wherever reasonable/proportionate/appropriate" etc - which this motion omits.
