Chess Covid regulations poll

[Joseph Conlon]

The 10-12th September 4NCL Congress at Leamington Spa is likely retaining the half point bye choice for the players facing non-mask players. It does seem like a smart idea, especially if we don't really know how much of a winter Covid rise we're all heading into.

While supportive of any compromises, trade-offs and nuances that encourage people in making them willing to play OTB at the current time, I hope such an arrangement is not seen as the basis for the long-term.

1. Allowing players to have a half point bye because they object to the opponent's clothing is a dangerous precedent. If the clothing is so objectionable, the organisers can impose a default, but allowing a discretionary veto is a dangerous precedent (it is perhaps worth noting that e.g. Iranian players playing a game against Israelis undergo personal risks far higher than someone facing a maskless opponent. There is no support for the idea that such Iranians should be able to take a discretionary 1/2-point bye when such pairings occurs).

2. The substantive protection against Covid is from vaccination not masks, especially if these are cloth masks or loosely worn surgical masks. I find it hard to see a scientific reason why sitting for 4 hours opposite someone wearing a home-made cloth mask would be acceptable, but not without a mask. And if someone feels very strongly about the risk of playing an unmasked opponent, I hope that they themselves are wearing an N95 mask...

3. Some of the demands for either legally or socially obligatory mask-wearing into the far future have the whiff of authoritarianism about them, and in my view the sooner this is removed from the body politic the better.

(I should also say that I am supportive of anyone wanting to organise events for those only happy to play double-jabbed masked opponents - but on the long-term basis I don't think players should have a discretionary right to object to a pairing if their opponent is satisfying the tournament conditions)

[Adam Raoof]

The 10-12th September 4NCL Congress at Leamington Spa is likely retaining the half point bye choice for the players facing non-mask players. It does seem like a smart idea, especially if we don't really know how much of a winter Covid rise we're all heading into.

While supportive of any compromises, trade-offs and nuances that encourage people in making them willing to play OTB at the current time, I hope such an arrangement is not seen as the basis for the long-term.

1. Allowing players to have a half point bye because they object to the opponent's clothing is a dangerous precedent. If the clothing is so objectionable, the organisers can impose a default, but allowing a discretionary veto is a dangerous precedent (it is perhaps worth noting that e.g. Iranian players playing a game against Israelis undergo personal risks far higher than someone facing a maskless opponent. There is no support for the idea that such Iranians should be able to take a discretionary 1/2-point bye when such pairings occurs).

2. The substantive protection against Covid is from vaccination not masks, especially if these are cloth masks or loosely worn surgical masks. I find it hard to see a scientific reason why sitting for 4 hours opposite someone wearing a home-made cloth mask would be acceptable, but not without a mask. And if someone feels very strongly about the risk of playing an unmasked opponent, I hope that they themselves are wearing an N95 mask...

3. Some of the demands for either legally or socially obligatory mask-wearing into the far future have the whiff of authoritarianism about them, and in my view the sooner this is removed from the body politic the better.

(I should also say that I am supportive of anyone wanting to organise events for those only happy to play double-jabbed masked opponents - but on the long-term basis I don't think players should have a discretionary right to object to a pairing if their opponent is satisfying the tournament conditions)

What happens to the opponent who is not wearing a mask? Do they get a half point bye as well?

[Ian Thompson]

What happens to the opponent who is not wearing a mask? Do they get a half point bye as well?

I've been waiting 6 days for an answer to that question and I've still not got one - viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11892&start=150#p269769

[Adam Raoof]

What happens to the opponent who is not wearing a mask? Do they get a half point bye as well?

I've been waiting 6 days for an answer to that question and I've still not got one - viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11892&start=150#p269769

On the entry form it actually says that both players will get a half point bye.

What happens if a player starts the game wearing a mask, then takes it off? What happens if a player objects to his opponent wearing a mask?!

[David Sedgwick]

What happens if a player starts the game wearing a mask, then takes it off? What happens if a player objects to his opponent wearing a mask?!

How are you dealing with such issues at your tournaments?

[Adam Raoof]

What happens if a player starts the game wearing a mask, then takes it off? What happens if a player objects to his opponent wearing a mask?!

How are you dealing with such issues at your tournaments?

The terms and conditions for entry are very clear, and you have to agree to them when entering and when playing.

Going back to the rules for this congress, I cant see anywhere on the entry form that asks "do you object to wearing a mask?"

It seems, theoretically, that players on both sides of the argument could find themselves with five half point byes!

[Bob Clark]

Why not run two sections, one where mask wearing is optional and the other where it is compulsory.
The number of entries for each section should give you an idea of what people want.

[NickFaulks]

Why not run two sections, one where mask wearing is optional and the other where it is compulsory.
The number of entries for each section should give you an idea of what people want.

Because that would be far too sensible.

[Adam Raoof]

Why not run two sections, one where mask wearing is optional and the other where it is compulsory.
The number of entries for each section should give you an idea of what people want.

Now that is a good idea! If you have two halls, it might not be practical in many venues. There is a middle way, which is to oblige players to wear masks indoors and during the game, but allow them to mutually agree otherwise at their board.

[Ian Thompson]

Why not run two sections, one where mask wearing is optional and the other where it is compulsory.

When the rules say

I understand that if HM Government guidance at the time of the congress is still that face masks should be worn in crowded areas, in the event that I do not wear a face mask at the board my opponent in any of the five rounds may elect not to play the game, in which case both players will receive a ½ point bye.

I'd be surprised if anyone who thinks it essential that everyone wears a mask enters. The rule provides no protection for someone who finds themselves sitting on a board next to non-mask wearer(s), which can't be much less of a risk than sitting opposite a non-mask wearer. It also provides no protection against non-mask wearing spectators standing near them.

[Roger de Coverly]

There is a middle way, which is to oblige players to wear masks indoors and during the game, but allow them to mutually agree otherwise at their board.

If there's a belief as evidenced by the demand for masks that infectious people might be present, what about the players at the next board?

[NickFaulks]

There is a middle way, which is to oblige players to wear masks indoors and during the game, but allow them to mutually agree otherwise at their board.

That is not a middle way.

[NickFaulks]

When the rules say

I understand that if HM Government guidance at the time of the congress is still that face masks should be worn in crowded areas

Needless to say they do not define "crowded", but to me it means the Underground at a busy time. Irrespective of Covid I would not organise, or be entirely happy playing in, a chess event where I considered conditions to be crowded.

[Mick Norris]

There is a middle way, which is to oblige players to wear masks indoors and during the game, but allow them to mutually agree otherwise at their board.

If there's a belief as evidenced by the demand for masks that infectious people might be present, what about the players at the next board?

How close is the next board? I would assume we are talking about 1 table per game and distance between tables?

[Jacques Parry]

When the rules say

I understand that if HM Government guidance at the time of the congress is still that face masks should be worn in crowded areas

Needless to say they do not define "crowded", but to me it means the Underground at a busy time. Irrespective of Covid I would not organise, or be entirely happy playing in, a chess event where I considered conditions to be crowded.

Indeed, "crowded" is hardly the right word. Presumably they mean "if HM Government guidance at the time of the congress is that face masks should be worn in conditions such as those in the playing area". Or rather, since it would be naive to suppose that the guidance will be clear on this point, "if, in the opinion of the organisers (which is final), HM Government guidance at the time of the congress is that face masks should be worn in conditions such as those in the playing area".