Chess Scotland Noticeboard

Mike Scott · King Joined: 01 Feb 2007 Posts: 676 Location: Edinburgh

In a lothian league match my son played a visually impaired player who was unable to score due to his poor sight. As a result he lost 10 minutes from his clock. While my son was happy to have the extra time he did feel it was unfair for his opponent to be further disadvantaged and also that 10mins was excessive - it surely doesn't take much more than 5 ses to score a move and so for 34 moves the penalty should be ~ 3mins.

Alex McFarlane · King Joined: 13 Mar 2007 Posts: 413

Why didn't the player concerned use a tape recorder as is the norm in such situations? However I agree that 10 minutes does seem a bit excessive.

Beware the wrath of Steve Hilton Evil or Very Mad

Geoff Chandler · Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:16 pm Post subject:

This is the first time I have heard of this rule.

Why should the disabled player suffer any penalty at all?

Surely there is not a FIDE law stating such a penalty?
(if there is then it has to get changed).

SteveHilton · King Joined: 24 Jul 2007 Posts: 443 Location: Greenock

Mike the wrath has come Smile

!!

Firstly, the rule about time deduction is clear. You cannot deduct time against a visually impaired player for non taking down of moves. If I had been the victim, I would have refused to play in the match Mike.

The fact is that the visually impaired player here has been clearly discriminated against and that leaves Chess Edinburgh breaking the disabilty discrimination act as this incident clearly shows.

Who made the decision to take the time off the Visually Handicapped player? Has this decision been endorsed by Chess Edinburgh?

This match should be replayed under the circumstances described

I know that it must have been distressing for your boy Mike

Best Wishes
Steve Hilton
Secretary General
Internation Braille Chess Association

AMcHarg · Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:42 pm Post subject:

I have seen this rule played before and I also disagree with it. Confused

It basically implies "you're blind so you consequently get less time for the 'hassle'". Question

Donald Wilson · Queen Joined: 07 Mar 2007 Posts: 143

The truth is, in games such as these both players are disadvantaged, and ideally they should both get more time, not less, to complete the game.

At many league venues, of course, allowing more time to finish a game is simply not an option, but where it is possible it may be worth trying.

I won't comment on the rights or wrongs of the particular game in question, because there may be relevant facts that I am not aware of.

Trevor Davies · Queen Joined: 15 Feb 2007 Posts: 131

Seems that there are 3 separate issues:

(a) Should a player who can not keep score, for any reason (e.g., religious) , be time penalized?
(b) Should a handicapped player get extra time?
(c) Should an opponent who is disturbed by the special playing conditions get extra time?

In my opinion:
(a) Yes - 3 mins sounds reasonable.
(b) Yes in principle - no in practice (impractical on several counts)
(c) Yes in principle - no in practice (as above)

In any case, roughly speaking any extra time in (b), (c) might cancel out.

admin · Site Admin Joined: 09 Jan 2007 Posts: 1386

Looking at the laws of Chess

"If a player is unable to keep score, an assistant, who must be acceptable to the arbiter, may be provided by the player to write the moves. His clock shall be adjusted by the arbiter in an equitable way.""

Comments by the CAA on the matter

"If a player is unable to record, an acceptable assistant may be used. The player’s time available may be reduced by a small amount.}"

So before anyone goes condemming Chess Edinburgh for this, I'd like to point out that what they did is completely within the rules.

I don't know the circumstances of the event but I disagree with reducing the time for 10 minutes, that seems very excessive. If a time reduction was given (and to be honest I would not do it, thankfully the laws give us lattitude with the word may!) 3 minutes would be sufficient.

As Sec of the IBCA, I would suggest that Steve would be one of the best people to talk to about this.

Steve, are you aware of precident of this rule being applied or is it a case that most players use a dictaphone?

Mike Scott · King Joined: 01 Feb 2007 Posts: 676 Location: Edinburgh

Steve,
The visually impaired player was playing for the home side and it was the them that setup the clocks and hence decided on the amount of time to deduct (assuming there is no specific CE local rule that defines the 10 mins). In which case it does not seem appropriate to blame CE or to suggest the game be replayed - if the visiting team had insisted on the 10min penalty then that would be different.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that Jonny was distressed!

SteveHilton · King Joined: 24 Jul 2007 Posts: 443 Location: Greenock

A number of points have been raised that I have been asked to respond to. I am giving my opinion as Secretary General of the IBCA

Andy: I do not know of a precedent covering the situation in Edinburgh.
I think that the implemtation of a time penalty against the visually impaired player is discriminatory and should not be used. The rules for visually impaired also have the word may in them in regards to the use of an assistant and this gives a bit a latitude in the same way you describe in regards to the time penalty issue
I can only speak for myself about this but I do oppose on principle the deduction of time.

I have personally refused to play where time was going to be deducted from my clock in the situation given in the original post

Trevor,
I disagree with you on point a in regards to time deduction.

Mike,
"The visually impaired player was playing for the home side and it was the them that setup the clocks and hence decided on the amount of time to deduct (assuming there is no specific CE local rule that defines the 10 mins). In which case it does not seem appropriate to blame CE or to suggest the game be replayed - if the visiting team had insisted on the 10min penalty then that would be different. "

It sounds to me that Chess Edinburgh should have guidlines in regards to play with the visually impaired. If they dont have then they should have.
The rules as regards play with the visually impaired are in the Chess Scotland handbook and I would suggest that the leagues make the clubs and captains aware of them

Graeme Forbes · Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 5:06 pm Post subject:

Just to stir the pot a little more. I recently played a match in the Hull lge v a visually impaired opponent. this player did use a dictaphone, and a peg board which he kept on his lap -this is important as it makes it out of my sight.

at one point in the game he announces Rd3 -a completely playable, if completely losing move for him.

a few moves later he realised he should have announced Rd6 -an equally playable move in the previous position and not completely losing. He indicated he had played this move on his peg board. But he had announce -and dictated into his tape machine the Rd3 move. Some confusion ensued and with no prompting/coersion from me he decided he would stick with his announced move -e.g. the losing one, as it happened I messed up later and the game ended in a draw.

But my question is, is his announced move-played on the main board by me- the move which should have been used, or does the Rd6 become the actual move?

Since both moves were not actually illegal surely an illegal move rule could not be used to go back to the position after Rd6?

in all my games v visual impairment in Sco either; I could see the peg board and point out the error to my oppoenent at the time or they have had an assistant who has moved their pieces -although again there sometimes they are non chess playing and I have had to point out corrections.

is there a rule book on this? or is it a Geuissen submission to chesscafe?

Alex McFarlane · King Joined: 13 Mar 2007 Posts: 413

Laws of Chess Appendix E
E2
5. The visually handicapped player must keep score of the game in Braille or longhand or record the moves on a tape recorder.

6. A slip of the tongue in the announcement of a move must be corrected immediately and before the clock of the opponent is started.

7. If during a game different positions should arise on the two chessboards, they must be corrected with the assistance of the controller and by consulting both players’ game scores. If the two game scores correspond with each other, the player who has written the correct move but executed the wrong one must adjust his position to correspond with the move on the game scores.

8. If, when such differences occur and the two game scores are found to differ, the moves shall be retraced to the point where the two scores agree and the controller shall readjust the clock accordingly.

I agree with Trevor in this case about the time penalty. The player being visually impaired is not sufficient reason for not scoring. If the player is deaf/blind then we have a different situation of course.
In any situation common sense should prevail.

SteveHilton · King Joined: 24 Jul 2007 Posts: 443 Location: Greenock

Alex,
I am sorry but I have to still disagree with you and Trevor in regards to time penalty. What do you do then in a situation where the visually handicapped does not have a dictaphone/recorder or does not use braille or does not have an assistant? but still cannot take notie of the game? Do you bar him from playing?

Alex McFarlane · King Joined: 13 Mar 2007 Posts: 413

The penalty is a general one and would apply whether the player had a sight disability or not. If it were not so then we would have discrimination the other way. Whilst I can see some arguements for positive discrimination in some circumstances these must be taken on a case by case basis.

admin · Site Admin Joined: 09 Jan 2007 Posts: 1386

Just a thought, but would this game not have been played at allegro time controls??