Following representation by the Association of Chess Professionals, the Presidential Board in Sofia confirmed their previous decision that Organisers of events where the zero tolerance rule was in operation should be obliged to provide participants with the best conditions in order that they can respect the rule.
For events with more than 30 participants, a large digital countdown clock must be installed in the playing hall. For events with less than 30 players an announcement by microphone must be made 5 minutes before the game is due to start and again one minute before the start of the game.
I hope in the long run, this _______ (Insert your own negative adjective) rule will be overturned and replaced by a more human rule. If all players in a Round Robun event are in the house, the rule can make a tiny bit of sense. With the number of players at the Olympiad, any projection on how many forfeits will occur?
Sevan, Do you think this is a good rule? Have you had to enforce it at any of your RR’s?
I personally don’t find either the zero tolerance rule, nor the ‘put a big count down timer’ rule appropriate in many ways. I’m not a fan of the 60 minute forfeit rule either.
All things being equal, if the arbiter has not been contacted by the player saying there is a valid reason for lateness, then I believe a 30 minute forfeit rule is more appropriate. Of course this hurts the ‘winner’ by worse tie-breaks and norm opportunities, but that’s an issue regardless.
If the arbiter has been contacted and it’s a valid reason (and the arbiter has the right to make a call if the reason is valid - waking up late, bad traffic, or heavy partying the night before doesn’t count in my eyes as a valid reason), then I personally believe the clock should continue ticking. It’s not fair to penalize the winner which is what happens in a forfeit situation.
The USCF TD has always been allowed to extend the 60 minutes, up to the length of the first time control or up to the full 2 hours of a G/120, if the late player contacts the TD and has a good reason. The player who is getting the forfeit can also choose to extend the game and not claim a forfeit. Some do when they want to play and it is clearly in their best interest with the opponent having less time to play. Most do not.
I’ve had scholastic players who enter and are taking an important test the next day and request an extension beyond the 60 minute forfeit whcih is almost always granted. FIDE took flexibility out of the hands of the FA/IA with this rule.
I don’t have a problem with requiring a big countdown clock be present when the zero tolerance rule is in effect, though I wonder if this might not lead to fewer events enforcing the zero tolerance rule.
Moreover, there could be venues where more than one countdown clock would be needed because of the layout of the playing hall or because multiple playing halls are used.
Beat me to it - I’m wondering who might have the concession on large countdown timer clocks…
I’m also thinking that if it must be announced “by microphone” in less than 30-player situations if this doesn’t require organizers to purchase PA systems if ones aren’t installed at the venue. (Or picturing someone walking around with a portable megaphone… “ONE MINUTE WARNING! TAKE SEATS NOW OR PREPARE TO BE FORFEITED!”) Maybe I should purchase an airhorn similar to those at NHL games for the period start blaring…
This was pointed out a few moments ago during the online FIDE Arbiter Seminar, clarification on the zero tolerance rule:
6.6 a. Any player who arrives at the chessboard after the start of the session shall lose the game. Thus the default time is 0 minutes. The rules of a competition may specify otherwise.
The bolded (my bolding) portion was brought to our attention.
We were informed that so long as the tournament regulations (announcement, etc) specifies something different than zero tolerance, it is acceptable for the organizer to change this to whatever time frame the organizer states and the arbiter to enforce this.
The point that was stressed is announcing this in the tournament regulations. This would be valid for any type of tournament, rating, title norm, FIDE championship.
There is an assumption in most USCF-rated FIDE tournaments, not including some norm events, that USCF rules are followed. I know FIDE may get around to changing that, and we’ll have organizers up in arms again, but since there are USCF rules in effect and up to one hour of lateness is allowed, does it really take a special TLA announcement that 6.6a is not being followed? How about “USCF Lateness Rules in effect”
Can I post a sign to that effect or if I don’t, and someone is 2 minutes late to Rd 1 due to traffic, the player gets to forfeit his opponent? Here is the conundrum, it won’t be a USCF-rated forfeit, so the player will lose in FIDE and perhaps win in USCF?
In the preface to the FIDE Laws of Chess it states:
A member federation is free to introduce more detailed rules provided they:
do not conflict in any way with the official FIDE Laws of Chess, and
are limited to the territory of the federation concerned, and
are not valid for any FIDE match, championship or qualifying event, or for a FIDE title or rating tournament.
So we have this and the wiggle room on the zero tolerance rule.
You’re assuming a TLA is REQUIRED for a tournament. There is no where in the rules that says a TLA MUST be used. Tournament regulations for FIDE tournaments are generally published on the tournament website or organizers website, etc.
Players should be on time. As a USCF TD, I hate forcing players to hang around a full hour for a no show to earn a point. 30 minute leeway is plenty of time for a player USCF to arrive at a tournament due to traffic problems.
FIDE players should understand that sponsors, organizers, spectators and media want events that start on time with impressive photographic opportunities. B*tts in the seats, boys and girls.
Tiger Woods shows up on time; So should FIDE players.
Players “should” be on time, that is the ideal and the goal. Sometimes life intervenes and throws in unexpected obstacles. A zero tolerance rule rule for not only 1 second of lateness disallows for the chaotic vagaries of life and is on the surface just absurd. Rules that I believe were designed for top level round robins, where players are in the same facility and have no real excuse for being late, “should” not trickle down for open swiss events. USCF rules allow for even the extension of the hour of lateness, realizing that not everything in life is predictable and controlable.
Obviously I was referring to USCF-rated FIDE events when mentioning a TLA. Current procedure is for Walter at USCF to get the FIDE information from TLA’s and register the event with FIDE. I suppose you could just send him notice for a FIDE event that is not USCF-rated, a long time before the event needs a TLA, but the USCF currently rates all FIDE events in which USCF players participate so how would that work? Can you directly register events with FIDE?
I also believe that when a rule is absurd, pointless and negative to the point of hurting chess, that one fights and attempts to change the rule.
All FIDE rated tournaments being submitted by the USCF must be USCF rated. Buried somewhere in our rulebook I do believe that is there.
There is no rule for a TLA to be submitted. You can send an email to Walter or Chuck with the information and then have it submitted to FIDE, no TLA required. This is how it really should be, up to the organizer to tell the federation that there is a tournament to register and have rated. The federation shouldn’t have to sift through the TLA’s themselves.
And an out is provided in the rule if you don’t want to use the zero tolerance rule. If an organizer or arbiter is so lazy as to not make a small mention of it, then they shouldn’t be putting together that event or working at it.
USCF gives outs as well - it’s called announcing it.
I think that’s a very pernicious attitude – typical of FIDE bureaucrats, but it should have no place in the USCF. Tournaments are held for the benefit of the players, not the “sponsors, organizers, spectators and media.” If those can be accommodated withut inconveniencing the players, fine. If not, tough.
