I have an interesting situation with an upcoming tournament. The time control is increment 40/100, SD/45 +30"/incr. I have a blind player who has registered to play in the tournament. This leads to a problem. The only clocks that I’m aware of that blind players can directly read the time of are analog. It’s not fair to either player to just ignore the increment and what if the sighted player claims that their digital clock is “more preferred”.
There is an out of stock digital clock that announces the time to an earpiece. That seems the best option but it looks like it was only for sale in Europe and I don’t see it for sale anywhere. It seems like it had problems too.
What do people think is the best option?
Thanks,
Mike Regan
The easiest solution, IMO, would be to use an analog clock for the game, and apply Rule 5F1d to adjust the clocks so the players don’t lose any total reflection time. If the player with a digital clock raises a fuss, you could solicit an assistant for the blind player during his game. The assistant could read the clock times back to the blind player upon request.
Adding a time-announcing feature to digital clocks would be a nice idea, I would think.
Rule 35F5 can be cited if the sighted player complains about using an analog clock.
A CHESS CLOCK MADE ESPECIALLY FOR THE VISUALLY-IMPAIRED OR DISABLED PLAYER SHALL BE ADMISSABLE FOR USE IN THAT PLAYER’S GAME.
Moderator Mode: Off
So Jeff, are you saying that if I show up to a tournament with the time controls having a delay or increment, and I am paired with a blind player, I am forced to play with an analog clock (with no delay or increment) because my opponent is blind?
This would be a deal breaker for me. The tournament is advertised and run with a delay or increment. Simply because I am paired with a handicapped player, I must now be penalized in my play by not having the delay or increment, according to the rule you cite and the application you indicate.
This enters the area of me demanding a refund of my entry fee and my expressing extreme displeasure with the TD and organizer for wasting my time and money in my travelling to and being at this tournament.
One assumes that a clock “made especially for the visually impaired … player” could handle the published time control for the tournament. I’d be hesitant to rule that a BHB is “made especially for the visually impaired … player”. Is this silly of me?
Alex Relyea
I was forced to use an analog clock in the last round (rd9) of the 2008 US Open in Dallas when paired with a (near) blind expert. Other circumstances from that game make me say, “Never again,” but the analog was a contributing factor. In round 8 I had to rifle through moves 32-40 on the delay time to make it to time control–having to play on his turf (analog) definitely made me nervous.
Can a DGT board/clock announce the moves/time through a Bluetooth headset? (I know that the board can connect to a computer via Bluetooth.)
One would think that there would be ONE digital clock with the ability to connect to a standard BT headset, given that game clocks are now used for multiple purposes. (In fact, a BT keypad might even be an easier way to set such a clock…)
That said, I found these interesting web references…
wereurope.org/en/program/chess-for-everyone (on digital clocks)
braillechess.org.uk/equipmen … locks.html
villwock.onpw.de/lebenslaufeng.html
caturterengganu.blogspot.com/201 … -2011.html (is that a DGT digital clock in the photo?)
How do you think the blind player felt? I will bet he would rather have his sight than be stuck with the special rules too. I wonder if he would have some sort of legal complaint if the TD did not allow him the use of his special clock?
Moderator Mode: Off
Tim, this is a regular tournament we are talking about here, not one designed for handicapped players. I certainly understand the problems of the blind as I am an optometrist that has a specialty in Low Vision and I have dealt a lot with the visually impaired.
The visually impaired need aids that allow them to function in the everyday world, visually. In a rated chess game, the everyday world now includes either delay or increment in the time controls. Eliminating the delay or increment makes this a “not everyday world” rated chess game.
It is not fair to the normally sighted player to force him to play without the delay or increment only because he has had the fortune, or misfortune, to draw a visually handicapped player as an opponent in a regular tournament. When playing a chess game, a good number of people plan on the time control as part of the game. When I go to a tournament that has G/90, 30 sec inc., I know what to expect in my time management. To make a player change his predicted game plan of time management because he has drawn a visually handicapped player in a round is wrong.
The answer is to make arrangements for the visually handicapped player to still function in the game with the standard equipment that all others use, including the clock and set, for the opponent. Now, giving the handicapped player a braille board and set would be one such accommodation. You wouldn’t expect the regular player to play on the braille set would you? You best not expect such things, and simply allow the handicapped player to have his braille set separate from the main, game set with moves announced both for and by him as needed.
The same should hold with the clock. If you don’t have a clock capable of communicating the time to the handicapped player that also has the delay or increment, then you have someone there to tell the player the times when asked. Forcing the game to go backwards in technology to an analog clock, because it is braille, is wrong for the competition. Now if you have a Blind Chess Tournament where all the players are visually handicapped then you can use analog clocks for all the games and for the whole tournament. That would be right.
I’m not sure about all of the possible capabilities of such clocks. The ones I’ve seen are analog with no glass on the front so that the hour and minute hands can be touched, with braille numbers by the printed numbers. That is a bit different from a standard BHB. I haven’t checked the links in the other posts, but a delay digital with an ear bud for times (possibly requiring hitting a button on the clock to get them announced) sounds interesting.
Based on what I’ve heard regarding other areas for the blind, the accessibility laws passed in the late '80s/early '90s under the first Bush would seem to make it a viable legal complaint (may or may not be winnable, but viable enough to legitimately go to court - with a prerequisite for said complaint being that a different clock for the visually impaired was not used either when the player’s clock was not used as otherwise a game between two blind players each with their own clock would always result in one of them being able to file a complaint).
It might be appropriate here to adopt a somewhat creative (even if slightly questionable at first blush) approach.
Let the players use the analog clock. At the start of the game, set each side for 5 minutes more than the announced time control. Every 10 moves, add another 5 minutes to each side. That would be virtually identical to a 30-second increment.
If this idea is explained in advance to each player, in a diplomatic manner that truly seeks to solve a difficult problem, I would hope that almost any chess player would be amenable.
The TD would have to make it a point to stop by the game every few minutes. If he didn’t arrive precisely at move 10, it would be no big deal to add the five minutes at move 12 or 13 instead. (The next adjustment would still be due at move 20.)
The extra trouble for the TD would be minimal. The psychological adjustment for the sighted player should be no big deal, if that player has even an ounce of reasonableness in him.
I suppose the same solution could be used for players that have religious objections to electronic clocks. I have always hated the idea that such a person could impose his preferences on an opponent. I wonder how many sudden religious conversions there have been by players who dislike digital clocks.
Bill Smythe
Tim – all fine points and some of the reasons I didn’t push the issue and used the Diamond Quartz (not a “special” clock, but something he could see). So we added 5 minutes to the initial time control and started the game.
However…this player’s desire for self-sufficiency also resulted in him accusing me of cheating when he could not see the board well enough and did NOT use his rules option to feel the placement of the pieces (again…I agreed to that b/c the guy is practically playing blindfold). With no witnesses I’m just glad I record moves with ink and not pencil. That situation cost me more than just a half point, and I spent a few months afterwards explaining (fairly, mind you) what happened to avoid a bad reputation. I firmly believe that player is a nice guy (he was at the beginning of the game) but wow…he blew up at what was, in reality, his own issue.
To play on “his turf”, you would have to have worn a blindfold the whole game.
I am a physically disabled life master. My biggest challenge while playing is reaching across the board and reach the clock to press it. I usually ask my opponent to slide the board closer to me. On standard tables, it is a matter of a few inches (i.e. my opponent has to reach a little further).
Most opponents are accommodating. In about 1400 tournament games, I have been forced to invoke the disabled player rules exactly once. One person wanted to have the board and clock centered on the table. Instead of arguing the point, I insisted on an assistant. Finding an assistant would not have been a problem. As you might imagine, when the TD explained it to my opponent, he was none too pleased. Eventually, he found it easier to shift the board and clock to my side.
I have twice faced a blind player. In both cases, we used his analog clock, which was not a big issue to me. However, in one game, we were forced to recruit a volunteer to move his pieces, since he had zero vision and I couldn’t reach all the way across. I found that experience quite distracting! If it ever happens again, I will prefer to pull out a 12" vinyl analysis board that I use while reading books.
Chess is a game between two players. It is often much easier to accommodate than to bring in a third person!
Michael Aigner
I’ve never played a visually impaired opponent, but I have played several opponents with physical ailments that necessitated assistance on my part, including one opponent who needed me to press his clock for him after each move. In every case, I figured that whatever competitive disadvantage I incurred by accommodating my opponent was nothing compared to the physical disadvantage the opponent had.
I never cease to be amazed at all of the players who only see terms of “me, me, me”. As both players in this situation are playing without delay or increment the time allotted to both players is equal. It would only be a penalty if one player had no delay or increment.
As others have stated here, being blind is a big disadvantage. Think of all the extra time the blind player has to consume using his hands to feel the pieces on his special board while the sighted player can move his eyes to look at those same areas of the board in a fraction of a second. Even with special rules for blind players, the sighted player still has the big advantage.
One must also consider the blind player’s rights. What if sighted players had the right to refuse to play a blind player. If everyone thought that way, the blind player would have no opponents except other blind players. To me this appears to be a policy that would permit discrimination against the handicapped. This would be bad for the reputation of the objecting players and chess as a whole. I would not enjoy seeing a news headline stating “Chess Tournaments Discriminate Against the Blind”. This is not publicity chess (the USCF) needs or should permit to happen.
We all like to win but objecting to rules which make an attempt to minimize the blind player’s disadvantage is going too far. For a sighted player to claim he’s being penalized is not considering all of the facts.
This.
Moderator Mode: Off
I am not saying, “me, me, me”. I am saying the tournament is advertised with a time control that includes either a delay or increment. And as a customer paying money, the entry fee, I am “buying” that time control as part of the games I will be playing. I am also saying the USCF has officially recognized delay and/or increment as being the official and standard time control for its rated games.
To say that a customer will be forced to accept something other than is offered in the advertising because of a draw of a particular opponent is, simply, wrong.
There is a time when a person needs to personally receive that which he has paid for and nothing less or different or sub-standard to the game. This is not being selfish.
As an optometrist that has specialized in Low Vision, I have experienced many people with all types of visual handicaps. The tournament is about the game and the handicapped competitor needs to have technology or other aids to allow him to compete at that level and not some sub-standard one. Making delay and increment available to the blind would give them more time as well.
All I have said is that the sub-standard analog clock should not be forced on a competitor. And yes, if a player is prepared for a particular time control and you suddenly put him in a more limited and different time control, that is a disadvantage and/or a penalty on that player.
I have never said the blind or anyone else should be discriminated against. If the blind player wants to play and compete in a rated tournament with a delay and/or increment, that player should have it so that he is made able to play in that time control. If we are organizing and directing a running race (which I also have done) the handicapped are not discriminated against because they cannot walk or run, but they cannot compete as a runner either.
I also never said the sighted players should have the right to refuse to play a blind player. I did say any player should have the right to play under the time controls he signed up for and sub-standard ones are not acceptable.
Well, this is a nice thing to say If this were the situation, but it isn’t.
As I have said a few times, the point has nothing to do with or against the blind player himself. The point is that a sighted player deserves to have the playing conditions and rules be consistent and the same as are advertised and practiced in the tournament under normal circumstances. If you have a handicapped player, no matter what the handicap, aids of all types should be used to allow that handicapped player to compete under the tournament conditions and rules, including the time control.
Interesting discussion.
The provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act makes many people hesitant to disallow an accomodation that seems reasonable. It is the definition of reasonable that can be questioned.
I’ve heard that you cannot discriminate by flat-out prohibiting a blind person from getting a driver’s license, but you can make the passing of a vision test and a road test a prerequisite for getting a license. We’ll see what happens if the day comes that video technology and computer recognition allows a blind person to pass those.
The question here is whether or not playing a rated game with a clock is seen as the critical issue versus playing a rated game with a delay/increment clock. In sports like golf and tennis I thought there were moves to limit the effect of technology (in clubs and rackets) while pushing for delay/increment would be a push to extend technology, at a time when the more limited technology is still considered valid if an extended technology clock is not available. On the other hand, the push for more technology for protective gear in football might weigh in to the advantage of those pushing for using a delay/increment clock even if the clock was not designed for use by the blind.
Aigner’s case seems clearer because the only thing in question was the physical position of the board on the table, not a change in the board, pieces or clock.
It’s always “fun” when both sides of an argument have points in their favor.
The official rules also say that a special clock is allowed. You seem to be picking and choosing which rules are relevant based upon “me, me, me”.