Chess Scotland Noticeboard

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

Andy,

Have a read at what Chris posted (well I posted on behalf of Chris). He makes a very valid point.

Phil Thomas · King Joined: 26 Mar 2007 Posts: 758

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.

I have to agree with Andy's McCulloch's point on this one. I think the rules is largely aimed at players like me. If I damaged my right hand I and unable to keep score I would expect to be docked a few minutes of time and have the clock put on the left of the board. After the game I would probably ask my opponent for a copy of his moves.

Agreeing with Andy for a second time (I do have the ability to edit this post) The key word in all this is MAY..........The rules allow and expect arbiters to use common sense and discretion.

Following up Alan's post 3.5 out of 8 in World Youth yesterday. Further details on Junior forum and full details on the official web site. On this occasion I decided to put junior chess onto the junior chess page.

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

Andy McCulloch · King Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Posts: 280

To be perfectly honest, I have just been nit-picking at the rules, which I have read, including those referring to visually impaired players.

On the few occasions that I have played opponents , sighted or not, who were not keeping score I simply did what was asked of me by the arbiter. I cannot recall a single game where an opponent had time deducted, I never asked that it should happen, and I cannot imagine that I ever will. The statement about expecting a time penalty in my last post was extreme and I should never have made it, even for the purpose of an argument.

Before this thread I had only glanced at the rules about recording moves and Appendix E about blind and visually handicapped players. The appendix clearly states that the VI player must record the moves. Interestingly, if the VI player does not have an assistant, the sighted player can have someone to make the moves and announce them, but not to keep score.

What I intended to compare was the treatment of a sighted player who cannot record moves as against a VI player who cannot record.

In my limited experience, arbiters in Scotland make no adjustment to the clock in either case, so all players are treated equally.

Recording moves must have some impact on play, otherwise why would the necessity of recording be dispensed with in the last 5 minutes before a time control?

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

How is "inclusiveness", or otherwise, relevant to this topic?

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

Inclusiveness is important because if the rules are seen to be discriminating against a disabled player, then that does not look good for the image of chess as an all embracing sport.

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

Andy,
On further reflection, you have raised valid concerns. I have never sought to seek advantageous treatment for VI players or any other group of players. I trust the arbiters in Scotland toally as I do with the ones I have dealt with on my travels to Braille events all over the world.

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

.... my point being that it's not all obvious in what way the rules are (said to be) discriminatory.

(Let's set aside the obvious and irrelevant fact, in this context, that it's hard to play chess if you are, say, blind).

Angus McDonald · King Joined: 08 Apr 2009 Posts: 162

I think that the desires being expressed here are worthy.

The fairness of the the sport we participate in is ofcourse relevent to us all and I think all are are largely discussing what is fair.

Whilst agreeing with Alan about having the debate about the development of Chess in Scotland I do though think that's Steven's vision here! is greater. The potentially highly inclusive nature of Chess is a key to the development of Chess as a whole imho. Stripping away any barriers or penalties to participation may be the friendly and best way to go!?

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

Andy M,
The rule is that the VI player may make use of an assistant when playing a sighted player. The key word here is may and not must.
However it goes on to say that if the VI does not make use of an assistant then the sighted player may use one, but his duties would be the same as if he/she were working for the VI player including moving the pieces on the main board and keeping a score of the game telling me how many moves have been played and how much time I have left

Andy McCulloch · King Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Posts: 280

Sorry to disagre yet again Steve, but the rules only state that an assistant to the sighted player may

a. Make either player’s move on the chessboard of the opponent.
b. Announce the moves of both players

and that is all that is given in the rules.

No scoring for the VI player, can't give the number of moves nor the time on the clocks. This assistant cannot claim a touch move against the sighted player, nor claim that the sighted player has lost on time. Basically he/she is of little use to the VI player.

This does not seem very fair to me.

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

Andy,
You are completely wrong mate.

Did you look at the following paragraph in the rules

9. The visually handicapped player shall have the right to make use of an assistant who shall have any or all of the following duties:
a. Make either player’s move on the chessboard of the opponent.
b. Announce the moves of both players.
c. Keep the game score of the visually handicapped player and start his opponent’s clock, (keeping rule 3.c in mind).
d. Inform the visually handicapped player only at his request of the number of moves completed and the time used up by both players.
e. Claim the game in cases where the time limit has been exceeded and inform the controller when the sighted player has touched one of his pieces.
f. Carry out the necessary formalities in cases where the game is adjourned. If the visually handicapped player does not make use of an assistant, the sighted player may make use of one who shall carry out the duties mentioned under point 9a and b.

The last paragraph is important as it allows an able bodied player to make use of an assistant should the VI player not make use of one

Jim Stevenson · Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 12:36 pm Post subject:

I think 9f speaks for itself, namely that what Andy mac says is correct.

If the assistant is working for the sighted player he only carries out 9a and 9b.

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

That is not quite correct Jim. If a visually impaired player does not make use of an assistant then the opponent can make use of one
The assistants duties could be any or all of what I wrote down in my previous post

Jim Stevenson · Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 3:08 pm Post subject:

Well Steve, I am not an expert on all the rules pertaining to VI players but based on the specific quote which you provided for rule 9, I think it is clear that this rule is referring to the VI player. Afterall, it explicitly says so. (' The visually handicapped player shall have the right to make use of an assistant who shall have any or all of the following duties')

After the sentence ending ' f. carry out the necessary formalities in cases where the game is adjourned', we read 'if the visually handicapped player does not make use, etc....'

It is not particularly clear to me from the way you have presented it above (Presumably the final sentence should be on the next line), but logically the final sentence (not final paragraph) represents a separate statement, a clarification specifically as to what part of rule 9, would pertaint to a sighted player.

Here it clearly says 'the sighted player may make use of one who shall carry out the duties mentioned under point 9a and b'. I would take that to specifically exclude points 9c,9d,9e and 9f.

There is another very obvious point: why on earth would a sighted player want to appoint an assistant to carry out tasks which are exclusively for the benefit of the VI player, in a situation where the VI player has specifically declined assistance ? That makes no sense to me whatsoever, and is indeed rather unwelcome interference.