English Chess Forum

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 02, 2021 10:17 am

Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 02, 2021 10:00 am

I suppose the extreme case, which hadn't occurred to me earlier, is that of "assisted suicide".

As you say, we have come a very long way from permitting a chess player to sit in a room with others who are unmasked, in conditions less crowded than in all the pubs and restaurants where nobody is wearing a mask.

One of the features I find quite endearing about this forum, although others may take a contrary view, is its ability to digress from the path indicated by a subject-line and wander gently [or, sometimes, not so gently] through various side alleys before eventually getting back on track.

Matt Bridgeman wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 02, 2021 10:27 am

Is it likely the idea of being able to claim a half point bye if your opponent doesn’t want to wear a mask will be commonly adopted by chess organisers? Or is it more likely just to be a short lived idea?

Or could an unmasked player claim half-point byes if opponents insist on covering their face and so try to gain an advantage by hiding their emotions?

Tim Spanton wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 02, 2021 10:52 am

Matt Bridgeman wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 02, 2021 10:27 am

Is it likely the idea of being able to claim a half point bye if your opponent doesn’t want to wear a mask will be commonly adopted by chess organisers? Or is it more likely just to be a short lived idea?

Or could an unmasked player claim half-point byes if opponents insist on covering their face and so try to gain an advantage by hiding their emotions?

If either player had the right to not play the game and claim half a point, what happens for the other player (half a point, one point, paired against someone else, something else)?

Half point isn't really enough I don't think - it could be exploited, for example in a tournament by a low seed who could refuse to wear a mask just to get a half point against the top player.

Jacques Parry wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 02, 2021 7:45 am

The law says that you are responsible for harm foreseeably caused by your failure to take reasonable care for the safety of others. That is nothing to do with Covid restrictions. And "you chose to take the risk" is not a defence. Even if it were, how would it work in the case of people who don't choose to attend but catch Covid from someone who did?

Where does this leave the owners of pubs and restaurants, who allow people to mingle without masks as they eat and drink in conditions a good deal more crowded than would be acceptable in a chess tournament?

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 02, 2021 12:11 pm

Jacques Parry wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 02, 2021 7:45 am

The law says that you are responsible for harm foreseeably caused by your failure to take reasonable care for the safety of others. That is nothing to do with Covid restrictions. And "you chose to take the risk" is not a defence. Even if it were, how would it work in the case of people who don't choose to attend but catch Covid from someone who did?

Where does this leave the owners of pubs and restaurants, who allow people to mingle without masks as they eat and drink in conditions a good deal more crowded than would be acceptable in a chess tournament?

It’s not exactly the same as a restaurant I don’t think. The under 18 age group may be sitting in front of someone without a mask for 3 hours plus, probably within the 2 metre range. It may be quickly called very low risk here, but for some it’s a genuine anxiety. I saw that the youthful (if in fact 36 year old) Lewis Hamilton, the top Formula One driver, is currently anxious he’s suffering from long covid after contracting covid way back in December?

Matt Bridgeman wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 02, 2021 12:52 pm

The under 18 age group may be sitting in front of someone without a mask for 3 hours plus, probably within the 2 metre range.

So we're now defining the under 18s as the "vulnerable" group for whose benefit normal life must be suspended? This isn't just moving the goalposts, it's putting them in the road outside the ground!

Matt Bridgeman wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 02, 2021 12:52 pm

The under 18 age group may be sitting in front of someone without a mask for 3 hours plus, probably within the 2 metre range.

If you accept the premise that the intention of mask wearing is to protect others rather than oneself, is it the vaccinated non mask wearing adult who is at risk from the non mask wearing under 18 rather than the other way round?

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 02, 2021 1:09 pm

Matt Bridgeman wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 02, 2021 12:52 pm

The under 18 age group may be sitting in front of someone without a mask for 3 hours plus, probably within the 2 metre range.

So we're now defining the under 18s as the "vulnerable" group for whose benefit normal life must be suspended? This isn't just moving the goalposts, it's putting them in the road outside the ground!

I meant vulnerable in the sense that they will remain in the main the unvaccinated group. Going back to my question, I was curious if there is likely going to be a mechanism in place by chess organisers for pro-mask players to choose whether to play someone without a mask or not? Or is it as the gist is on here, that it’s probably not really workable?

Matt Bridgeman wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 02, 2021 1:25 pm

Going back to my question, I was curious if there is likely going to be a mechanism in place by chess organisers for pro-mask players to choose whether to play someone without a mask or not? Or is it as the gist is on here, that it’s probably not really workable?

At the recent 4NCL Congress there was a convoluted rule in place about playing unmasked players. But that was in the context where masks were legally mandated so non-masked players with medical reasons would be a self identified minority.

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 02, 2021 12:11 pm

Jacques Parry wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 02, 2021 7:45 am

The law says that you are responsible for harm foreseeably caused by your failure to take reasonable care for the safety of others. That is nothing to do with Covid restrictions. And "you chose to take the risk" is not a defence. Even if it were, how would it work in the case of people who don't choose to attend but catch Covid from someone who did?

Where does this leave the owners of pubs and restaurants, who allow people to mingle without masks as they eat and drink in conditions a good deal more crowded than would be acceptable in a chess tournament?

If they take the recommended precautions they are probably fine. If they suppose that they need not take any precautions because the Covid regulations have gone, they are mistaken: they could still be held liable for negligence.

Jacques Parry wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 02, 2021 1:44 pm

If they take the recommended precautions they are probably fine.

This is where you get restrictive legislation by the back door. In other words there's no law that says that X isn't permitted and attempts to get a law passed to outlaw it would likely fail. Nevertheless if supporters of such a ban can get it included in guidance and have lawyers and insurers to enforce compliance with the guidance, it can have the same effect.

Jacques Parry wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 02, 2021 1:44 pm

If they take the recommended precautions they are probably fine.

Only probably? In any case, where should I look for the current recommended precautions? All I can find on a brief search is

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... s-covid-19

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 02, 2021 1:56 pm

Jacques Parry wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 02, 2021 1:44 pm

If they take the recommended precautions they are probably fine.

Only probably? In any case, where should I look for the current recommended precautions?

Yes, because a court could decide that the recommended precautions didn't go far enough. I think that's unlikely, because I assume that the recommended precautions are fairly strict. But I don't actually know what they are, or where you would find them.

I am sure the interests and safety of deaf players has been considered by pro - mask people. It is difficult to communicate unless the deaf person can lipread.
The equalities act might be quite interested in this nuance.