Motion 1 (wording to go to Council)

[Kevin Mayo]

Yes I am serious.
But seeing as you have presented your argument so cogently I can but defer.

[StevieHilton]

Stevie correct me if I'm wrong
When we played each other at the sncl didn't I move one set of pi
Ices and you moved the disabled set or is my memory failing me

Ian your memory is not failing you yet!! you are correct.

Kevin,
You are talking nonsense. to your point 3 it is you who has the advantage, as you are able to tell what a blind/ opponent is thinking about by where the hands are feeling the pieces in the position.

[Kevin Mayo]

Yes, of course, I am so stupid. What on earth was I thinking about? I have no idea.
You are quite correct. It's so clear now it has all been pointed out to me.
How embarrassing that I could be so naive.
Thank you all for explaining my "nonsense".

[Jim Webster]

Isn't this now getting a bit personal for a public forum. And it's way off thread.

Let's do a "where we are" summary of the Motion 1 (wording to go to Council) and move on to the next part to be looked at.

[Andrew McHarg]

I'm quite surprised that this needs any explaining Kevin. I propose a challenge to you to see which disadvantages you most. Put yourself in the shoes of a blind player by entering a tournament where you wear a blindfold and use a blind player's equipment. When the tournament is finished, come back here and tell everyone which was more of a disadvantage; having an opponent who had some distracting mannerisms, or being "blind".

And of course, this is even overlooking the fact that you have had your eyes for all these years to read Chess study materials - something blind players lack.

[StevieHilton]

Isn't this now getting a bit personal for a public forum. And it's way off thread.

Let's do a "where we are" summary of the Motion 1 (wording to go to Council) and move on to the next part to be looked at.

Jim,
You will be shocked to learn I agree with you

[Phil Thomas]

Bit of tidying up required in paragraph 6


6. Any disabled competitor, who reasonably requests in time the placing of their equipment in a particular seat or orientation, has the right to do so - provided that they does not disadvantage their opponent or other competitors. The event organiser must ensure the needs of both players are catered for.


For starters the grammar grates in

provided that they does not


8-|

Going back to paragraph 6. The logic/syntax seems askew. All the words up to the dash do no more than allow the disabled player to put in a request. More to the point and in keeping with the purpose of this document is how the arbiter handles requests that do come in.


No doubt I'll change my mind later or others will see improvements but how about

When a disabled players makes a reasonable request regarding the placing of their equipment in a particular seat or orientation - the control team should comply with that request as soon as reasonably practical - provided that this does not disadvantage any competitors.

[Jim Webster]

There is a need to be just a little careful here.

The original motion was:
1.1 Implementation of Guidelines from FIDE for Tournaments in which Disabled Players Participate

Copied below this was the actual wording of the FIDE Guidelines. These are not as far as I am aware negotiable/alterable by Chess Scotland
( OMG - Steve might agree with me again - don't know if I could take this twice in a week).

What we should be discussing is how to implement these, albeit modified, into CS only events. Clubs, leagues, congresses but NOT those that are FIDE rated.

There may well be cases where these guidelines cannot be fully implemented, but in that case there should be an exception clause added in any pertinent notices. There are precedents in taking exceptions as they happen quite often with the "zero tolerance" time for being at the board at the designated start time.. I have seen FIDE rated tournament conditions specifically altering this.

There is, I think, a need to clearly identify and label that these modified guidelines are for use within Scotland for non FIDE rated events.

[StevieHilton]

Jim,
I am afraid to tell you this but I do agree with you must be getting old :-bd
As far as FIDE events go they are non negotiable

"There is, I think, a need to clearly identify and label that these modified guidelines are for use within Scotland for non FIDE rated events." They can be adapted to meet the local situation. That is why they are going to council.

I am getting old I am starting to agree with people :-bd

[Phil Thomas]

For paragraph 8 reproduced below isn't the whole of the first sentence superfluous ?
In the second sentence the word "as" seems to have crept during translation.



8. After making the pairings the Arbiter shall decide manually on which board each player shall play: Visually impaired players should always play at the same board as unless they request otherwise. Players in wheelchairs require a larger space but not necessarily 3 m wide aisles throughout the venue as implicated in the FIDE guidelines.


Which changes would give this modified version.

8. Visually impaired players should always play at the same board unless they request otherwise. Players in wheelchairs require a larger space but not necessarily 3 m wide aisles throughout the venue as implicated in the FIDE guidelines.

Then I suggest tidying up the wording a little to this.

8. Visually impaired players will normally be allocated the same board throughout the event - unless they request otherwise. Players in wheelchairs will need sufficiently wide access to their board - but not necessarily 3 m wide aisles throughout the playing area as stated in the FIDE regulations for FIDE graded tournaments.

I'm not at all certain that "stated" in the last sentence is the appropriate verb - ideas ?