Mobile Phone problems at local league level.

[Adam Raoof]

Is it not the case that part of the reason why mobile phones are so disruptive is because we have such a draconian rule against them? Whenever a mobile phone goes off during a game, half the room seems to turn towards the offender because they know that they are likely to be defaulted. I would argue that there are plenty of comparable noises that aren't as disruptive, largely because they are not prohibited by such harsh measures. For instance loud heating / lighting, noisy / squeaky doors, other people playing blitz etc..

This is not to mention the fact that invariably the mobile ring is followed by a protracted discussion / argument between the players and the arbiter, which is bound to be more distracting than the ringtone itself. I agree that this is something that would be more appropriately dealt with as part of chess etiquette rather than with a law. At the start of events / matches there are often several notices along the lines of "Please do not talk loudly during the games", "Please do not analyse your games in this room", .... Players tend to obey these rules by and large, even though it's highly unlikely that they'd be defaulted if they were to break them. We could simply add a comment about mobile phones to these.

In the event of a mobile phone going off and distracting someone, I believe the Laws of Chess already make provision for the arbiter to award a player extra time due to the distraction, which I think would be a more equitable compensation than the award of the game.

I could not agree more.

Have you ever thought of standing for a position in your County Association or even the English Chess Federation?

[Mike Truran]

Adam and David - as you're the ECF's director of home chess (Adam) and experienced arbiters (both of you), would you not be the most appropriate people to take this forward with the ECF on everybody's behalf? If as it appears the ECF are able to derogate from the FIDE rules for non-FIDE rated events (such as local leagues) without FIDE caring, surely it makes sense as David suggests for the ECF to develop a sensible recommended framework intended to operate in the real world (as opposed to FIDE's Alice in Wonderland world) that local leagues can adopt without the need for extensive local tailoring?

[David Sedgwick]

Adam and David - as you're the ECF's director of home chess (Adam) and experienced arbiters (both of you), would you not be the most appropriate people to take this forward with the ECF on everybody's behalf? If as it appears the ECF are able to derogate from the FIDE rules for non-FIDE rated events (such as local leagues) without FIDE caring, surely it makes sense as David suggests for the ECF to develop a sensible recommended framework intended to operate in the real world (as opposed to FIDE's Alice in Wonderland world) that local leagues can adopt without the need for extensive local tailoring?

That's a very fair comment, Mike. As with so many things, it's a question of finding the time.

[Simon Spivack]

Last night I played another match and one of the opposing team took a loud call on his mobile at about move 11 - we claimed the game. Of course we could have decided to give him a warning, but we didn't. Our player could have chosen to waive the penalty, but in this circumstance I might have stepped in as Captain and claimed the game, as it disrupted the whole match.

Looking at the Hendon website, I see the match report has

Hendon managed to field the strongest team in the history of the club

I wish to protest in the strongest possible terms at this hyperbole. In the early to mid 1990s Hendon had a chance to win the Middlesex League. It was the fag end of the season. The club put out a team at Endell Street which had Bogdan Lalic on top board when he was 2600+. Steve Berry played on board five or six, I can't remember for certain. It may be that the team at Ealing is the strongest Hendon side never to have been beaten.

[Adam Raoof]

Last night I played another match and one of the opposing team took a loud call on his mobile at about move 11 - we claimed the game. Of course we could have decided to give him a warning, but we didn't. Our player could have chosen to waive the penalty, but in this circumstance I might have stepped in as Captain and claimed the game, as it disrupted the whole match.

Looking at the Hendon website, I see the match report has

Hendon managed to field the strongest team in the history of the club

I wish to protest in the strongest possible terms at this hyperbole. In the early to mid 1990s Hendon had a chance to win the Middlesex League. It was the fag end of the season. The club put out a team at Endell Street which had Bogdan Lalic on top board when he was 2600+. Steve Berry played on board five or six, I can't remember for certain. It may be that the team at Ealing is the strongest Hendon side never to have been beaten.

I am guilty of hyperbole, and of not having an editor as strict about historical accuracy as you, Simon! Can you recall the rest of the team?

Maybe I should have written 'the strongest team in the history of the club since it moved to Golders Green'

[Simon Spivack]

I am guilty of hyperbole, and of not having an editor as strict about historical accuracy as you, Simon! Can you recall the rest of the team?

I really ought to remember it better, it was a notable upset. I believe we duffers beat Hendon All Stars five-three. I may have the match record buried somewhere. If you want I will have a look, that would be better than guessing. This may have been the only time in his adult life that Steve did not play board one for Hendon.

[Alex Holowczak]

Its a bit like all the folk we see walking around with phones stuck to their ears talking about the most mundane useless stuff that could wait until they get home or see the individual on the other end.

I may be of the generation which is most guilty of this, but I completely agree!

[E Michael White]

This is not to mention the fact that invariably the mobile ring is followed by a protracted discussion / argument between the players and the arbiter, which is bound to be more distracting than the ringtone itself.

If you are suggesting the rule causes more problems than it solves, this misunderstands the rules and the duties of the arbiter.

If a game is played with unmodified FIDE rules when a phone emits a noise, the game concludes without the need for any claim. More importantly the players immediately become spectators according to FIDE rules, as their game has finished. If more than a few words are exchanged the offending spectators (former players) should be treated similarly to other spectators having a disruptive conversation and asked to leave the playing area. If a disruptive argument ensues unabated this is down to weak arbiting. On what other occasion would an arbiter allow spectators to discuss rules whilst games are in progress or even join in the discussion h(im/er)self ? Arbiters should simply follow Sean Hewitt's approach, mentioned in a previous post.

[Eoin Devane]

I agree in theory, but in practice it seems that in almost every case of a mobile phone going off there results some kind of dispute. People don't tend to be very happy at being defaulted!

[Tim Spanton]

I agree in theory, but in practice it seems that in almost every case of a mobile phone going off there results some kind of dispute. People don't tend to be very happy at being defaulted!

But not as unhappy as people who lose on time while making the last move before the time control!

[William Metcalfe]

As a team captain the last thing i tell my teams is switch of your phones.That puts a stop to all these problems is that too hard for other captains to do.

[Eoin Devane]

But not as unhappy as people who lose on time while making the last move before the time control!

If someone loses on time as a result of being distracted by a mobile phone ringing, then I believe there is already provision in the rules for the arbiter to award them more time. This is correct, isn't it?

[IM Jack Rudd]

But not as unhappy as people who lose on time while making the last move before the time control!

If someone loses on time as a result of being distracted by a mobile phone ringing, then I believe there is already provision in the rules for the arbiter to award them more time. This is correct, isn't it?

I'd need to check the rules to be sure of this, but my gut instinct here is to say "only their opponent's phone"

[Eoin Devane]

Law 13.5 is:

13.5 The arbiter may award either or both players additional time in the event of external disturbance of the game.

It looks like this would cover the situation of any mobile phone going off.

[IM Jack Rudd]

So it would. Good spot.

Of course, figuring out what to award and when would be a tricky matter...