Posts: 1,120
Threads: 70
Joined: Aug 2011
Can someone who attended the AGM update us on the current situation. I understood that amendments would be added to the original motion (shall becomes should etc) that would mean that the motion became guidelines only and could not be enforced at any CS or independent event. I believed that Steve and Andy were "angling for option 2" which supported a guidelines only proposal.
Were the amendments published on the CS website and presented as such to the AGM?
What was the outcome of any voting?
Does this disability motion at the top of this thread "overrule" Steve and Andy's amended motion?
I am not clear how the motion can now be enforced (according to Andy).
Posts: 1,929
Threads: 263
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
5
The AGM have agreed with the principle of the motion and the wording is going to Council to be agreed.
CS have the option to enforce for their events or to take it as guidance but for all others it will be advisory.
FIDE rated events have the original wording (for Scotland that includes, Scottish, Edinburgh Congress, Richardson, Spens, SNCL etc) and it is enforced as per FIDE.
"How sad to see, what used to be, a model of decorum and tranquility become like any other sport, a battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee"
Posts: 1,120
Threads: 70
Joined: Aug 2011
Ok,
I am still not clear on this right to enforce for non Fide CS events but I guess it will be clear in the AGM minutes.
Moving on, in section 2..
2. No one has the right to refuse to meet either a disabled player against whom he has been correctly paired or an able bodied player against whom they have been correctly paired.
As this motion is for players with disabilities it would seem to me that it should simply read...
2. No one has the right to refuse to meet a disabled player against whom he has been correctly paired.
Posts: 333
Threads: 22
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation:
3
I am still not clear on the point of guideline 5. I had considered Mr. McNicoll's scenario where a disabled player knocks/touches a piece accidentally; but don't the rules state that you must move a piece (if you can) if you touch it with the intention of moving it? It seems to me that disabled players are covered by the current rules and guideline 5 is at best confusing the issue.
Posts: 576
Threads: 14
Joined: Aug 2011
I think Guideline 5 states the driving principal being followed by this set of rules/guidelines. If the concept behind 5 is followed the rest of the document follows on quite logically.
In which case guideline 5 is in the wrong part of the document. It should be placed after
1.These guidelines shall be used for all tournaments run by Chess Scotland.
and before
No one has the right to refuse to meet either a disabled player against whom he has been correctly paired or an able bodied player against whom they have been correctly paired
Looking at the second of those 2 quotations with my arbiter's hat on.
Would a previous poster have me ask a player if he is disabled or not because his correct opponent does not wish to play him?
What if that player answers not with a yes /no (& not all questions are capable of a black and white yes/no response) but instead wants to know who he would be playing if the draw were to be changed?
Ludicrous.
Perhaps his new opponent would then object to the new pairing?
More ludicrous.
If I was given this rule to follow, I would assume for the interpretation of this rule and this rule only that all the players are disabled.
Even more ludicrous (but only a concept used inside my head - I wouldn't tell anyone)
When I do a draw it tells everyone who their opponent is, what colour they have and where they are sitting. It is not a basis for players to negotiate their next opponent.
Posts: 576
Threads: 14
Joined: Aug 2011
To simplify the second half of my posting tonight for those who have trouble understanding my original words.
Is it acceptable for any player to refuse to play against the opponent he is correctly drawn against? This is a simple yes/ no question.
Pat McGovern failed to answer the question.
Robin seems to think that this should only apply to pairings made against disabled people
And guess what ?? the able bodied person whose opponent refused to play him was me.
The moderators have not given me permission to release more facts about that incident.
Posts: 1,120
Threads: 70
Joined: Aug 2011
Phil wrote,
"Pat McGovern failed to answer the question.
Robin seems to think that this should only apply to pairings made against disabled people
And guess what ?? the able bodied person whose opponent refused to play him was me."
I must admit, I don't get it.
Posts: 576
Threads: 14
Joined: Aug 2011
robin moore Wrote:Phil wrote,
"Pat McGovern failed to answer the question.
Robin seems to think that this should only apply to pairings made against disabled people
And guess what ?? the able bodied person whose opponent refused to play him was me."
I must admit, I don't get it.
Let me try again.
Is it acceptable for any player to refuse to play against the opponent he is correctly drawn against?
(a) Yes
(b) No
© Its OK to refuse when the opponent is Phil Thomas
(d) I don't understand the question
Posts: 1,120
Threads: 70
Joined: Aug 2011
Phil,
I am happy to play any opponent (as are you) at any event.
Posts: 576
Threads: 14
Joined: Aug 2011
robin moore Wrote:Phil,
I am happy to play any opponent (as are you) at any event.
This is totally correct and a valuable contribution from Robin. Unfortunately this is not true of all active players on the Chess Circuit in Scotland.
As a recent incident confirms. I still do not have permission from any of the moderators to publish details of that incident (nor have I been refused permission to publish)
Looking at the international situation
FIDE handbook Section C04.2 Paragraph D.10 states
The pairings once published shall not be changed unless two players have to play the second time.
Which prevents any player refusing to play another player once the draw has been made.
FIDE have the situation legislated for. Sadly there is no equivalent rule operating within Scotland. There needs to be. The pragmatic way to introduce such a rule is to modify one of the paragraphs in the document that is being discussed within this thread - a document that should be effective soon after the next council meeting.
The wording I recommend is
No one has the right to refuse to meet either a disabled player against whom he has been correctly paired or an able bodied player against whom they have been correctly paired
The alternative to not modifying this rule would be to give extra rights to disabled players that are not available to able bodied players. Surely this is not anybody's intention
