People seem to have different amounts of tolerance for “hassle”. You seem to be somewhat hassle-averse. However, where the rules have anything to say about religious accommodations, which is very little, these accommodations are entirely at the discretion of the director. Your preference to avoid what, according to you, is “hassle”, is not actually required of other TD’s. While you point out that directors are not “forced” to your point of view, it does seem that you are claiming the moral high ground here, which is a bit annoying. I hope, at least, that you are consistent, and that your hassle-avoidance principle extends equally to all religions.
As for me, in a game with a sudden death time control where there is a delay clock available, I would enforce the “delay clocks are preferred” rule, and wouldn’t permit any clock-pressing assistant(s). A player who was unable to accept this ruling, for whatever reason, would have the option of withdrawing.
With all due respect, you have no clue as to what my “tolerance” is. I’m quite certain I’ve dealt with enough complex - and emotionally charged - situations in tournaments to rely on my judgment as to what is worth fighting over. This subject simply doesn’t make the cut.
Observant players have historically been granted assistance when possible. The specific case of Jewish players is, by far and away, the most common, and has more than enough history to make a reasonable determination on the veracity of the claim. If a player of another faith requested religious relief, that case would be evaluated. It’s never come up in a tournament I’ve run, but a request for relief from a non-Jewish player wouldn’t be summarily dismissed.
As for the question of a “moral high ground”, you are (yet again) incorrect. It is not a matter of morality. It is a matter of practicality. The rules allow directors the latitude to accommodate an observant player. Historically, it has proven much easier to accommodate the player than to reject the accommodation. The rule is written to give directors significant latitude precisely because it is a difficult subject, and one where the application is open to interpretation. Making the rule more rigid - in either direction - is misguided.
Most players would generally much rather play a game than take a forfeit win. (This is even true of players who would normally get forfeit wins when their opponents don’t show up. In both scholastic and open events, their overwhelming preference is to play.) So, rather than deprive both players of the game just to satisfy a director’s personal preference, I would suggest at least consulting the opponent to find out if he has any objections. If the opponent does not (and, again, I have not encountered any who have), then I would simply find an assistant. If the opponent does object, I would use the rule language to apply some time deduction to the observant player, and advise the opponent that the pairing stands.
It's true that parents don't really have standing when it comes to the rules of Chess and disputes that arise under those rules. However, it seems that you are overlooking a simple fact. They do have standing to remove their child from the tournament. Therefore, the question of whether the religious objection comes from the parent or from the child is moot. The fact is that the child, if he plays, will be playing under those restrictions.
Re: the “rules” issue.
The USCF Rules of Chess are written, specifically, to accommodate religious restrictions. It isn't bending or breaking the rules when those restrictions are accommodated. The rules say that you can accommodate the restrictions. Whether or not they ought to be written that way is a worthwhile question, but they are written that way. No rules are being broken when a clock-pushing assistant is employed. The rules allow for them, and they do so deliberately.
Given that the rules allow for such accommodation, and there are cases where a player cannot play without such accommodation, should such accommodation be made? (Note: I use "cannot" advisedly, because their are cases where the player, a child, does not have the authority to make the decision about playing or not playing. His parent may refuse permission to play, whether or not that is the will of the child.) In the case of children, I do believe that the "moral high ground" is held by those who would accommodate the restrictions. The bottom line is that unless those accommodations are made, there will be an eight year old boy who is told to go home.
So, if the situation ever comes up, be a mensch and let the kid play.
For adults, the situation is somewhat hazier, because they have voluntarily adopted those restrictions themselves. In my case, I would still be inclined to accommodate for the simple reason that I don't see those accommodations actually creating a problem for anyone else. As long as the religious person is not gaining some sort of advantage by the accommodation, I just can't see any reason to not make the accommodation.
You are correct that a director shouldn’t let threats of withdrawal effect his decision. He also shouldn’t allow personal prejudices about religions effect it.
My view is that the rules should be uniformly applied, including the ones where the Delegates in their wisdom have given me discretion not to uniformly apply them.
As regards people with disabilities, I don’t have any discretion because the rules say I have to make accommodations. This is fine with me because I support making exceptions for people with disabilities.
As regards religious impediments to complying with the rules, I do have discretion, and I would use that discretion to apply the rules uniformly because my view is that religion does not represent a valid reason for making an exception to the rules. By making this a matter of discretion, the rules allow another director to make a different ruling. I don’t know what makes my opinion “a prejudice”, unless it is simply that you have a different opinion.
The rules clearly specify that this is a matter of director discretion (in the one or two places where this issue is touched upon by the rules at all), so it is hard to see how there can be any grounds for appeal. There would be no facts in dispute, and the director has not imposed a penalty, so there is no question as to whether a penalty is proper. The director is merely requiring a player to comply with the rules, and opting not to use his discretion to relieve a player with religious objections from complying with the rules.
You seem to be saying that, de facto, directors do not have discretion in this matter, despite the rules clearly stating otherwise. You are saying, in effect, that players have a right to rules exceptions in cases where their religious scruples conflict with the rules, that players can appeal to the USCF to enforce these rights, and that a USCF appeals committee would likely overrule a director who failed to excuse a player from compliance with the rules in these cases. Finally, you say that the best a director exercising the “wrong discretion” could expect would be to be upheld but reproached.
Are there any other areas where the real rules enforced by the USCF appeals process are not the written rules in the rulebook? Are there any other player rights that I should know about which aren’t mentioned in the rules?
If what you are saying is true, why does the rulebook say that directors have discretion, when they do not in fact have discretion? Are you sure you really want to be saying this about the USCF appeals process in a public forum?
Players always have the right of appeal on any TD decision. If the player cannot appeal successfully on site, further appeal would normally come in the form of a complaint, often to the Ethics Committee. Such complaints have a refundable deposit that must be remitted along with the complaint. The deposit is not refunded if the complaint is found to be frivolous.
Also, I am rapidly tiring of the (at best) haphazard manner in which my specific points are being paraphrased. For the sake of honesty, I never said that the discretion on either side of this issue is “right” or “wrong”. In fact, I said that you would be within the letter (if not the spirit) of the rules if you chose to deny the accommodation. What I did say, though, is that your position is not only impractical and unnecessarily antagonistic, but also directly at odds with the historical handling of this situation at USCF events.
I said exactly what I meant. Incorrect and unnecessary extrapolation on your part does not constitute a need for retraction on my part.
As has been pointed out several times - such accommodation has historically been granted whenever possible. I am now in my 23rd year of directing and organizing. In all that time, I have never previously run across a director who would treat this situation as you would. I realize that, in your certitude, you probably will not ask why that is. I submit, however, that asking such a question could prove useful.
This is why I think that, even if you were upheld on a complaint filed with USCF, you would still be advised that it would be easier for everyone - the complainant, his opponent, you, the other players, and USCF as a whole - to avoid this complaint entirely in the future. The topic just is not important enough to warrant such a hard line.
Meanwhile, I am done with this issue, as further constructive conversation on this topic seems to be as impossible a dream as me being cited correctly.
I see some discretion in the rulebook, but it doesn’t seem to me to be for outright rejection. If you determine that the conditions are genuine, you could require the player to find someone to press his clock and if he couldn’t then you could require normal rules. But it appears to me that you must at least do that.
I would be very surprised to find a Jewish player who refused to use a digital clock, but was willing to write down his moves. Also, keep in mind that the issue is not “analog”, but “electric”. An observant Jew who refused to use a digital clock would also not use an electric analog clock. The key prohibition is against starting a fire, and somewhere along the line, a group of rabbis decided that completing an electric circuit was basically identical to starting a fire. Since writing is explicitly forbidden among that group of Jews, it would surprise me to find someone who refused to “start a fire”, but was willing to write.
Also, I would guess that a lot of people would follow Reshevsky’s take on the subject.
Of course, the nuances of Jewish law are such that a lot of Jews themselves don’t understand them, so you get a lot of variation in practice, even before you get to Reform minded Jews like my family who don’t observe any of the Law as strict commandments. My son would press the clock and write the moves in between bites of pepperoni pizza.
The larger and more significant point you were making is, however, valid. I think the point you were making, correct me if I am wrong, is that there is a lot of variation in religious belief and practice, and that itisn’t wise to try and figure it all out. Just deal with whatever comes up, and try to let people play, within reason.
I saw this during a Kings Island Open several years back. I had always thought that the activities were linked myself. But I figured this was just another reading of Jewish law. The opponent in this case actually volunteered to press both clocks himself. Of course, I couldn’t allow that, but I thanked him for trying to make my job easier.
He stated that in a late-1950s interview in Maariv, which I believe is published in Hebrew. I can’t remember where I read the translated excerpt, but the comment made was that it was a “surprising” position.
Given that this game would be in the evening, I’d be more likely to be annoyed about the pizza than the clock.
This is an excellent summary of my view on the point under discussion. Also, thank you for the additional information.
The material on page 62 is a “TD Tip”. What is the status of TD Tips? Even assuming that “TD Tips” are just a quaint caption on certain rules, but are still rules, the wording of the tip clearly gives directors discretion. The tip does not say that exceptions “shall be permitted”. It says they are “permissable”. They can or may be permitted. The tip also says that this or that “may” be done. It does not say that those things “shall” be done. “May” does not mean “shall”. There is nothing in the rulebook which requires a director to make an exception to the rule about delay clocks being the standard equipment, for reasons of religious scruple. They “may” make such an exception, implying that they also “may not”.
You are entitled to your opinion, but “prejudice” is pejorative. This is not a case where a person is being deprived of rights due to his religion, or where people are being treated differently according to their religion. That would be prejudice and would be wrong. It is a case where a person is demanding special treatment, a dispensation from a rule, because of his religion, and the director not giving the dispensation. That is not prejudice, unless the director gives dispensation to some religions and not to others.
Other directors may be more disposed than me to regard religious scruples as a valid reason for special treatment, and (unfortunately, in my opinion) the rules give the directors that latitude. Probably among those who may feel this way are directors who are religious themselves, even if it is a different religion. For some odd reason, religious people are more favorably disposed towards other religious people, even when they have no specific beliefs in common, than they are towards non-religious people. Regardless of the specific content, a lot of people tend to consider being religious as virtuous, rather admire the “strictly observant”, and want to accommodate them. But I see nothing in the rules anywhere which obliges a director to adopt this view or to regard religious scruple as a valid reason for special treatment.
If the USCF wants directors in these situations to provide special treatment for people claiming religious scruples, and it wants them to set aside the rules to which there are religious objections, the rulebook should state that more clearly. I think the working assumption of directors should be that the rules are written the way they are for good reasons, and that they should not be trumped by the preferences of the players, even those claimed to be based on religious scruples.
To return to the specific case at hand. I do not see why religious scruples should be given any more weight than simply “not liking” digital clocks. If a player can elect to have a mechanical analog clock, or be relieved from pressing a clock entirely, merely by announcing a religious scruple against electric clocks, then the USCF should abandon any notion of making digital delay clocks standard equipment.
By the way, in most of the recent tournaments where I have TD’ed, I have been the Chief TD. This is courtesy of the other TD’s around here, who are mostly more senior than me, so that I can earn Senior TD experience credits. At some point in the future, I dare say I will be Chief TD of our tournaments less frequently.
Believe it or not, I am a nice dutiful little Assistant TD, when that is my role, and I would certainly consult the Chief TD if this issue arose at a tournament, and defer to his decision. Whether the other Massachusetts TD’s would exercise their discretion the same way as I would, I do not know. Discretion is discretion, which means that they are free to make their own decisions about this, as I apparently am when I am making the decision.
Moreover, all the tournaments I run are for the MACA Scholastic Committee or the MACA Tournament Committee. Those committees are not shy about establishing rules for the tournaments. Faced with a difference in approach between different Chief TD’s, those committees might feel that MACA should be consistent, so that players don’t have to guess whether they will be accommodated this week, or not, based on who turns out to be the Chief TD. So, the MACA committees might set a consistent policy.
Of course I would follow it, even if I disagreed with it. Now there is an interesting concept: a consistent policy and no TD discretion. No TD “tips”. No “may” this or that. “Shall” be permitted, or not, rather than “permissable”. A clear consistent rule. Why didn’t the USCF think of that?
This is why Rule 15A1 is worded as it is. It can’t possibly cover all potential situations where accommodation could (or, if you prefer, should) be granted. So it gives the TD some guidance in the event the TD elects to grant such accommodation.
If this comes up in an open tournament, the player would normally be advised that he must keep score. I’ve actually shown new players how to take algebraic notation within a few minutes at tournaments, so I don’t think this is a big problem.
For the purpose of getting them started, just showing them the form “e2-e4, g8-f6” is enough for them to be within the rules. You can cover things like piece abbreviations, avoiding ambiguous moves (is that Rhe1 or Rae1?) and capture markings later.
At a scholastic tournament, it generally is a question of what section you’re talking about. In most scholastics I’ve run, primary-school players are often excused from keeping score for an entire game, though they’re encouraged to at least try the first few moves. Elementary-school players are often expected to keep score, and once you hit junior high, it’s non-negotiable.
I imagine this would have been a greater concern prior to the advent of the Internet. Then as now, though, a director would have relied on his judgment as to whether to grant the accommodation.
As has been pointed out on this thread, there is a great deal of disagreement on how Jewish law is interpreted. Again, this is why 15A1 leaves much of the final determination to the TD.
That is a lot of work to go through just to get out of keeping notation. That’s also a one-trick pony. Moreover, if you find out during the tournament that the player lied, you have some options for dealing with him. Even if you find out after the tournament that the player lied, you can make it clear that the player is under a zero-tolerance policy for any future tournament (or even bar him from future events you run, though this seems extreme to me).
I wouldn’t assume a player needed an assistant, unless he asked for one.
There is a very talented high school player in this area who has a disability that, at first glance, would make one think he requires an assistant when he plays. He does not, and in the nine years I’ve seen him play, never has.
As you say, that’s a suggestion. You could impose a greater penalty if you choose. However, I submit that any time penalty at G/30 is significant, and I wouldn’t impose more than 10% of base time as a penalty for an accommodated player in any case. If the player doesn’t have an assistant to keep score, then that player further forfeits the right to make scoresheet-related claims. This seems like a pretty significant handicap.
Whether or not I would accommodate a player would depend on a lot of different factors. The one tournament where this came up for me was an unrated school tournament, not affiliated with USCF, and the kids didn’t keep score. In that case it was a no brainer decision, but when I ran it the following year I did have my mechanical analog clock with me, just because I thought it made sense for all players to follow the same rules as much as possible.
Some factors that would make a difference for me in whether or not to accommodate would be the time control and the prize fund. An assistant would not make a significant difference in any game with an 30 second increment control, but I wouldn’t allow one in a blitz tournament. If there is a large prize on the line, I would be extra careful that any accommodation did not result in an advantage for one player. I find that in a G/30 game (which is what I play most often OTB), keeping score is a significant burden. In that case, I would advise both players that they need not keep score at all, but if they did not keep score, they would forfeit any time-sheet related challenge rights.
In general, my guiding principle would be, “Be nice.” If it doesn’t cause any harm to let someone follow his religious beliefs and still play in my Chess tournament, I would do it. If, for some reason, it did cause a problem, I wouldn’t let him do it. In almost every case, it wouldn’t cause a problem, unless you count someone’s anti-religious bigotry as a problem, so I would tend to allow it.
Some players who have learned how to keep score but are still new to it take significantly more than 1m30s to record all of their moves in a 30m game. So the issue may be whether the game will last more than 25m, or even 20m.
Players generally can’t know midway through a game how long it is going to last, and therefore they can tend to get nervous as soon as their clock pushes past the halfway mark (particularly if their opponent has logged less time than they have) and not spend enough time thinking about their moves.
Players can find it distracting to record their moves, if they’re not accustomed to doing it when they play. And, I might add, this can happen even if they’re fairly adept at recording moves (I know because this happened to me the first time I played in a sanctioned tournament). You could argue that it’s their own fault that they find it distracting because they should have been recording their practice games to get used to it, and of course you would be right. But that doesn’t change the fact that, until they get used to it, they will play worse when they’re required to keep score.
I suppose one could argue that the fact that the general religious objection existed prior to the game itself could make your opinion a prejudice. The use of a clock came to be accepted knowing the difficulty in Sabbath play and accommodations have been made for it.
I suppose also, that one might be able to argue that some Civil Rights law might apply to this situation. It’s not something that I would choose to venture to test. If someone thought that Jews were being routinely prejudiced against, I can see where they might - as a group - raise it as an issue. Given the history of past accommodation, I would think a TD would have a difficult defense in deciding not to be accommodating.
