Alright Tom, the official rules say that a special clock is allowed. Does it say that a special clock that has a substandard timing, in this case no increment or delay, can and should be substituted for a clock that does supply the now standard timing? The word allowed has a succinct and different meaning from demanded or “must be used”.
You say I seem to be picking and choosing which rules are relevant based upon, “me, me,me”. But in that, you are apparently wrong and flawed in your observations.
I am a TD, as you are. I am looking at this from the viewpoint of a TD and organizer. Let’s you and I look at this as a tournament we are organizing and directing together. Of course you are the Chief TD:
We have advertised a tournament of 4 rounds with a time control of G/75, 5 sec delay. There is an entry fee of $17 early entry fee and $20 at the door.
The day of the tournament has arrived. We have 45 people entered. In that group, 23 have registered at the door and paid the $20.
In that group is a person that is blind and uses a Garde chess clock that is set up and designed for the blind. It has the face glass removed and there are Braille numbers on the face. There also is an expanded 5 minute “marker” above the face of the clock for those last 5 minutes.
The first 2 rounds proceed without any problems.
In the 3rd round the blind player is playing White and paired against a gentleman in his 30’s that brought his brother and 2 sons to play in the tournament.
The gentleman is playing black and chooses to use his own equipment (a House of Staunton Set on a folding wooden board, and a black Chronos clock with red buttons). The blind player insists that they must use his analog clock and he wants to use a plastic set and vinyl board.
The gentleman comes to you, the TD, and states that he definitely chooses to use his own and standard equipment in the game. He understands the blind player wants to use a clock that he can “communicate with” better than any others.
After some discussion he agrees to play with the plastic set and vinyl board, and he also states that he would be happy to use a clock that the blind player could read. But this gentleman insists on having the time control of G/75, 5 sec delay. His reasoning is that the tournament was advertised with this time control and that’s what he planned on. There was nothing in the tournament advertising saying that a substandard, non-delay time would be used, as long as he had a clock capable of having the delay. He also points out the USCF rules state this.
This gentleman is solid in his decision to insist on using the standard time controls as advertised. On this he will not yield.
If we can’t find someone to press the clock and read it for the blind player then you must play with the blind man’s Clock. Two sets can be set up with the blind player using his set and you yours. Complain to USCF and forfeit the game if this is not acceptable. Complaints can be filed for $25 and USCF does no investigative work. I will be glad to give you your entry fee back (but only yours) and withdraw you from the tournament.
That sounds right. In particular, as TD/organizer you can’t let people bully you into making an incorrect decision because they are bringing in a lot of entries.
I would not object to players playing G/60d5 using G/65 to compensate for the loss of delay in a blind vs. sighted game. I can not look a time control in which both players start with an identical quantity of time as it being a disadvantage to either player. By calling this a penalty it logically follows that every game a blind player plays is one in which there is penalty against the blind player, yet I’ve seen no complaints in defense of the blind player.
It is not a disadvantage to either player, but it is an unfair and unannounced change in the time control. The main problem is that G/65 compensates for G/60 d/5 only through move 60.
Now, if the TD is willing to add another five minutes to both clocks at move 60, and still another at move 120, etc (i.e. setting the hands counterclockwise 5 minutes every 60 moves), then that might be a reasonable compromise. It would require only the slightest bit of extra diligence on the part of the TD.
The blind gentleman has no right to insist that he use a plastic set and vinyl board. He does have a right to insist on using a special set in which the pieces are set up with pegs. However, he does not have a right to insist that the sighted player also play on the same board. An assistant can be provided (I believe the blind person must provide the assistant, but I’d have to look that up) who will set up two boards. The blind player will move on the peg board. The sighted player will move on his own equipment. The assistant will mirror the moves on each board. (i.e., when the blind player moves on the pegboard, the assistant mirrors the move on the opponent’s board. When the sighted player moves, the assistant mirrors the move on the pegboard.)
I have a blind player who regularly plays in my tournaments. He explained the rules to me when he showed up at my first tourney. Most of us who have played against him just use his pegboard set, but a few people have insisted on using the assistant to mirror the boards.
As for what to tell the person who insists on playing the advertised time control even if there is no clock that the blind player can use that supports that time control , I believe in my case I would tell him, “Stop being a schmuck.”
ETA: Huh? Interesting. The autocensor recognized the Yiddish term.
As a possibly informational aside, I have never been unable to find an assistant for a handicapped player at a tournament. There are almost always chess people hanging around, even at a small tournament, and at least one is generally willing to help if the situation requires it.
But, if I couldn’t find one, I would do exactly as Tim prescribes.
+1.
Ron, as you’ve correctly noted before, the TD’s job is to get the call right. That means upholding the rules, even when it really ticks someone off.
When you enter a USCF rated tournament, you automatically agree to play under the USCF Rules of Chess. These rules give the blind or disabled player special rights which differ slightly from standard tournament practice. Buying an entry fee does not excuse you from whatever accommodation the TD deems most reasonable.
It would be nice to see a digital clock with Bluetooth that can pair to a headset - and on one tap give the time on one clock and on two taps give the time on the other.
I don’t. I don’t think the refund of his EF is justified.
As an aside, however, I have seen a clock with an analog display that also had a delay – I don’t know if it would also do an increment. I don’t know if such clocks are still available, but they would certainly be preferable to a BHB special.
You’re talking about the Garde Hybrid. It had moving hands which were operated by the clock’s digital innards. Yes, it had both delay and increment.
I use past tense in the above sentence because I’m pretty sure the clock is no longer available.
I bought one at the National Open one year because I thought it might solve the problem between players who like the analog display and those who like seconds-accurate timing along with delay and increment.
But I immediately discovered a bunch of problems. The analog hands moved in one-minute increments. Thus, when it appeared there was a full minute remaining, there might actually have been only a second or two. So you had to rely on the accompanying digital display to discern the exact truth. But the display was almost impossible to read – the black digits were tiny and did not contrast well with the dark greenish-gray background.
On top of all that, my specimen was defective. The flag on one side would not always fall when it was supposed to. Nor would it fall one minute later, because once time expired, the clock would stop. In retrospect, I have a hunch somebody else had bought that unit, and returned it because of that defect. (It still had a battery in it, even though the package said batteries not included.)
Quite aside from the problems, I doubt whether such a contraption would be suitable for blind players anyway. For one thing, it would probably be even less advisable to remove the cover glass on this clock than on conventional analog clocks. And, the blind player still wouldn’t be able to figure out, just from feeling the hands, just how much of a fraction of a minute was left.
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, people with disabilities have a right to readily achievable accommodations which enable them to use public accommodations. I do not know whether a chess tournament open to the public is a “public accommodation”; but the facilities of many private businesses, such as restaurants and hotels, are public accommodations and are subject to the ADA. So it seems likely that chess tournament organizers are required to provide readily achievable accommodations to disabled persons. I think most people involved in organized chess would want to do this anyway out of empathy with disabled chess-players and their challenging situation.
The main question of this thread is: what type of accommodations should be made? Chess is a sport and it has rules. It seems to me that it is not required to alter the rules in a way that changes the nature of the game in order to accommodate people with disabilities. When it comes to sports, it is not “readily achievable” to change significant rules. For example, organizers of basketball tournaments don’t need to eliminate the getting-the-ball-through-a-hoop aspect even if this particular rule is an impediment to a blind person participating. It wouldn’t be basketball. Parachuting competitions don’t have to accommodate people with a fear of heights.
What about delay clocks? Delay clocks are a relatively recent innovation in chess, but they significantly change the nature of the game, especially in combination with a sudden death time control. Delay clocks make SD time controls much more acceptable to players, and SD time controls make one day tournaments much more feasible. With a delay clock, a game can continue to its conclusion even under SD time pressure. A player with a won or drawn game can still win or draw, though seriously behind on the clock. Without a delay clock, a game nearing the SD time limit becomes clock smash, and being down on time creates a serious risk of losing a won or drawn game. Delay clocks were not as big a change as the introduction of chess clocks in the late nineteenth century, but they are still significant.
So if a tournament has a SD time control and its rules state that delay clocks are preferred, then these rules should not be changed to accommodate a person who is blind.
However, other accommodations that do not change the rules significantly, such as providing an assistant to press the delay clock and read it when requested, do seem readily achievable and ought to be provided, especially if the blind person gives reasonable notice that he will be entering the tournament. It would be good if delay clocks were available that were more friendly to blind people, such as clocks with some of the feature ideas that have been discussed in this thread.
The rules would seem to approve of accomodations made to permit the handicapped player to compete. They’re not an attempt to compensate for the handicap. If something like having someone else keep score or handle the clock is considered an advantage, it is accorded to both players. That seems entirely reasonable.
(There was a golf tournament several years ago in which a disabled golfer was fighting for inclusion. He was unable to walk the course, due to his illness, and wanted to ride in a cart. The other golfers argued that having enouigh stamina to walk was part of the sport, and riding would give this fellow an advantage. Now, if these guys understood the chess concept, they’d have to let everybody ride to be fair.)