The shortest answer is to say, “see Rule 35F and it’s accompanying TD TIP.” The explanation for someone not willing to read that is that there is tradition codified in that tip to try and accomodate religious and philosophical accommodations for players, similar to disabled players, when possible. The simplest solution would indeed be to make all players supply their own assistance or they cannot play. That would be consistent with deontological ethics, which one would think would work well for a game with fixed (perhaps even ossified) rules of play. But it isn’t wrong to consider the consequences or utility of such a rule.
Speaking to the stated question… While the opponent might refuse if one can’t find an assistant and if both players are willing I’d propose the opponent press the clock for the accomodated player. (With clear understanding that the accomodated player must accept the reaction time of the opponent and that person should be given additional time as compensation for the distraction of doing so… If a loss on time occurs by the accomodated player that’s still solely on the accomodated player… but if that happened it would be close to end of round and I’d expect an assistant would be able to take over.) If I were approached as an opponent in that context (or as an assistant after my game had finished) I’d be willing to do so, though I’d understand that not everyone would. Also, personally, I’d forewarn the player seeking accomodation that if no assistant is available and no other solution presents itself that the player would have to take a forfeit for that round (or be willing to allow a game to be played without time… or have a mechanical clock as a backup… lots of possibilities but I’d just want to
The TD tip uses the word ‘might’ not ‘shall’. It seems very unfair to make a player jump through hoops to accommodate his opponent’s superstition. This game is hard enough.
Agreed that it is questionable for the TD to propose that the religiously-non-disabled player press the clock for both players. And even if this player volunteers to do so, the TD might want to warn both players of the pitfalls, such as, what happens if the clock-pressing player is in the washroom when his opponent makes his move? And, shouldn’t it really be the obligation of the religious player to bring an assistant to handle all necessary chores, i.e. score-keeping and clock pressing, as the case may be?
Bill Smythe
In this case, the accommodations don’t seem particularly burdensome. An aide to press the clock and keep score does not seem to me to create an unfair situation. You can, of course, run your tournaments as you see fit, but it seems to me that striving for inclusion, consistent with the core values of the US Chess Federation, is the right approach here.
This probably depends on the nature of the competition. A big money event? You’re probably right, and a separate aide makes more sense to me. A local club event, though, or a small weekend event such as the one in this instance? If no alternative is available, I’d be willing to at least ask. (And yes, explain various details and pitfalls.) Again, striving for inclusion seems most important to me here.
Maybe, but just because an obligation falls to one person doesn’t mean another person cannot help. In this case, the potential motivations for the TD to help include, at the very least, (a) striving for inclusion, as above, and (b) good customer service.
Have you never helped someone set a clock? Explained a rule to someone who did not know it? Pointed someone to the nearest restroom? Why is helping find assistance in this situation any different?
Was it necessary to be offensive?