Topics

2010 Rule Changes

David Fryer Starts a Discussion on The Rule Changes Passed at the 2010 AGM

8th June 2010

I was the only one that spoke against rule 8.1 but in the cold light of day this does need rewriting and I will propose at the next AGM the following change

Wording as voted for

The FIDE laws apply in general and the MC will utilise the version produced by the Chess Arbiters Association for interpretation of the various aspects of these laws in the context of the MSCL.

Should read in my opinion if I understand the intended meaning properly

FIDE laws of chess apply and the MC will utilise the Chess Arbiters Association interpretation of the various aspects of these laws.

 However the further complication is that the MC guidelines that were also effectively accepted at AGM states

-          use of Descriptive Notation is permitted as an alternative to algebraic notation.  (Article 8.1 of the FIDE Laws refers)

-          where a player has a good reason to leave a mobile 'phone or other communication device on (e.g. on call or a sick relative) this should be notified to the opponent and agreed between the team captains before the match starts.  (Article 12.3 b)

these contradict the new rule 8.1 as the Chess Arbiters Association comments are actually subtly different in that they do not change the Laws of Chess only change the practice of applying them.

Article 8.1 makes the use of Descriptive Notation illegal. The nature of the event and age of the participant may determine what action, if any, is taken.

 Most arbiters will allow a player to have a mobile phone on in silent mode provided there is a good reason for it (sick relative, on call, etc) and the arbiter has been informed in advance. Many players seem to think that a phone in silent mode is 'off'. This is not the case. If the phone makes a sound the player loses and the opponent wins unless the opponent could not possibly win in which case the opponent is given a draw

There is a big difference between a phone being on and a phone being in silent mode and not taking any action against using descriptive is quite different to permitting it as difficulties can arise with the use of descriptive notation if the arbiter and opponent cannot understand descriptive notation. That is probably not the case in the MSCL and hence the issue as far as I know has never been raised and therefore pretty pointless legislating on it but I am sure someone will correct me.

My opinion is that tinkering with the rules is dangerous and should be avoided at all costs.

David Fryer

Crowborough & Uckfield Chess Clubs