If I have a kid who is visually impaired wants to play in a chess tournament, will his special needs require an accommodation under ADA? I’m considering specifically a situation where the person’s vision problem requires that the player use large pieces and a corresponding board to be able to discern diagonal lines. By large I mean a 5 inch king and a board with 2 1/2 inch squares. I imagine the disabled player would consider and make moves on his board while his opponent would make corresponding moves on a regulation set and board of his choosing.
Has anyone had to deal with such a situation? Thanks for any insight you might provide.
I’d suggest letting each TD/organizer know well ahead of time (well before going to the tournament) that you’ll need special accomodations. What you mentioned sounds reasonable to me, if the player is furnishing the chess set, but you should check for each tournament to make sure it’s possible.
I’ve had one or two playing sites that wouldn’t accomodate an over-sized board without some problems (the tables were narrow and would just barely hold a standard board, but two of them together would be awfully wide – too wide to play on comfortably). If somebody were at such a site, they’d need as much notice as possible so they could accomodate him.
Would other accomodations work? Like a demo board, for example? The larger conventional set & board might be easier to accomodate in nearly all tournament sites, but there’s always a few odd-balls out there like the narrow-table site I mentioned.
For adults, you’d normally allow seconds, furnished by the players, to duplicate the moves from one board to another. Some TDs are reluctant to allow this for kids because of coaching/cheating concerns. The TD might want to arrange an independent adult to act as a second and that might take even more time for the TD to set up.
I wouldn’t let any of this discourage me. Most TDs/organizers will bend over backwards to accomodate special needs if you give them adequate notice.
I have a kid now who is visually impaired who may need an accommodation. I also have a friend who is retired who confronted a similar problem when his eyesight became poor around 1990. He tried to get such an accommodation at two tournaments and was refused. As a result, he stopped tournament play completely.
While it may be a TD issue on one level, it may be a legal issue on an organizational level due to ADA. ADA puts the burden of making the reasonable accommodation on the organizer.
I agree with what you say, but I’m still wondering about what rights the player has under ADA and if anyone has confronted the issue from the standpoint of considering rules for TDs to abide by for consistency across the country.
I’ve had people dispute that ADA would really cover this case (and others claim that it would). I think a TD or organizer would be foolish to make himself a “test case”, not to mention that refusing to accomodate a disabled player just isn’t the RIGHT THING TO DO.
There can be some disagreement on just exactly what is a “reasonable” accomodation – that’s why I suggest working out the details as far in advance as possible. Be prepared to “prove” the need for the particular accomodation if it’s somewhat unusual (like the player that claimed to need a 2-D board, like a demo board).
A few months ago I played in a tournament where there was a player with some sort of peripheral vison problem that made it necessary to use a slightly smaller board with regulation size pieces. I think in all rounds the opponent simply played on the smaller board with no complaint. Though with the rules written the way they are, an opponent could ask for a second board.
A number of years ago at the US Amateur Team East, I played a blind player who was using a braille board and set. He also had a special clock that allowed him to feel where the hands were, and when the flag dropped it made an audible click sound. I played on my own set. We would announce our moves, and there was no time accomodation for me to make his move on my board. I was concerned what would happen if there was a time scramble, but fortunately we agreed to a draw before it became an issue.
The organizers at the USATE had an assigned board for the blind team in one of the smaller rooms. This gave the four players plenty of room for their special boards and the opponents’ regular boards. It also made easier for the blind and sighted players to hear each other’s moves. In that same room was another team who has a player with no legs. He plays lying on his stomach on top of a table with a pillow to prop himself up. With advance notice it’s very easy for the organizer to make the necessary arrangements to accomodate these types of situations.
At this year’s USATE there was an adult player who said he had severe ADHD and wanted to use his DGT board. The request was denied. I think part of the issue was that this was not requested in advance so there was no arrangements made to put the player and his team in a room with an outlet close by, and extra space for the computer. I only knew about it because the player asked me some questions about my Mon Roi and its legality for tournament play.
We’ve just found out that Rule 35F 1 entitles the disabled player to use his own board and pieces. If his opponent objects, the opponent is entitled to use his own board and pieces. The accommodation is required due to the rule saying that the player is “entitled” to the accommodation which is in line with the ADA. The rule also gives the example of a blind player using his/her braille set while the opponent uses his.
I can’t come up with many situations in which a TD wouldn’t be able to make a reasonable accommodation given advance notice.
We used to run tournaments at a site that didn’t have a way for wheelchair-bound players to get to the tournament room, which was on the 2nd floor, but we were able to put the player and his opponent in a room on the 1st floor. Though we no longer use this facility, my understanding is that this site (a local rec center) has since been remodeled and now has an elevator to provide access to that floor.
Expecting the TD to provide any special equipment necessary or someone to assist him or her is a separate issue.
Pages 204-209 cover all aspects of situations involving disabled players in great detail. I think the sections most relevant to Mr. Lafferty’s question deal with the issue of on-site accomodation:
Rule 35F1 states, : "A blind or disabled player is entitled to use a chessboard with securing apertures or other devices designed specifically for use by disabled players even if a non-disabled opponent prefers to use a normal board simultaneously. In a game between two unsighted or disabled players, each is entitled to individually use a separate board.
In a game involving a single disabled player, such player may use an additional special board, while the non-disabled player uses a normal board. In a game between two disabled players, either is entitled to use a special board, but the game may be played on a single special board if both players agree. In cases where there are two boards in use, the game position is maintained on both. A player or his assistant is responsible for physically moving the pieces on any board used by that player."
There is also Rule 35F10, which states in part, “A blind or disabled player shall have the right to make use of an assistant…” The rest of the rule lists all the the various acceptable duties for an assistant.
This is followed by a TD Tip: “Though not required to do so, the TD should do everything possible to help both the disabled and non-disabled players to secure assistants. Often spectators or players with byes are willing to act as assistants.”
What all of this means is that TDs (and tournament organizers) are required to do the best they can for disabled players but only within reason. The players have the right to use special equipment and even assistants but only if this does not put an undue burden on the TD/organizer. If a player needs a special set, he must provide it. If he needs an assistant, he cannot just show up and assume that the TD/organizer will provide one. However, TDs/organizers cannot refuse to make accomodations which are simple and cost-free.
My father is blind and played in tournaments for years. I never saw him encounter a single TD who was not willing to make at least some accomodations. Usually it was as simple as allowing him some extra space for his braile board and playing at the same spot in every round. I also do not remember any of his opponents having a problem with these accomodations. Afterall, most people go to a tournament to play, and as long as they aren’t giving their opponent an advantage, they will be happy to accomodate.
I am not blind, but I am physically disabled and in a power wheelchair. I can safely say that over 1000+ USCF rated games, every single TD that I ever met has been extremely accomodating and eager to have me play at their event. Of course, being a tournament director is a public relations position and the grumpy TDs will not get repeat customers.
My only advice is to call the TD ahead of time so that 1. he or she knows about your situation and 2. you can discuss the necessary accomodations (i.e. you will bring a big board). For example, the TD might need advance notice in order to rearrange the tables in the playing room. It is a bad idea to show up at a tournament where you have never played before and suddenly expect the TD to negotiate your special accomodations while trying to take entries and start round 1 on time.
Michael Aigner
P.S. I am still mildly disappointed (maybe ‘amused’ is the proper word) by the occassional tournament which offers an elevated yet inaccessible stage for the top boards. By sheer luck, I’ve never had to move a game that should have been played at board 1 or 2 on an elevated stage, e.g. some of the US Opens. Fortunately the 2006 US Open where I played on board 2 in twice, including the last round, didn’t have that particular problem.
This doesnt pertain to the ADA, but I just bought a really big set (I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to buy this set… ). I am not blind nor physically disabled, but if I simply wanted to use that set (a plastic 5" Drueke set), would that violate either the letter or the spirit of the rules? I do not want to annoy or distract my opponent, but it IS a “standard” type of Staunton set, and I HAVE seen red sets, yellow sets, and blue sets being used. If my opponent objects, would I be within my rights to insist on my set (presuming, of course, I was black, or my opponent had a non-standard set)?
No, it’s not “standard”. I think the largest set the USCF has sold as a “standard” set was 4.3" or 4.4" in height (King height).
The pieces have to fit on standard boards, with an appropriate amount of empty space around the base of the pieces. They also have to be properly proportioned (base width to height). This combination makes 4.5" about the biggest you can get and be “standard”.
I use a 4.4" set myself and I’ve had a FEW complaints (one or two only) about the size, but the complaints have never been sustained by a TD. I think a 5" set would get complaints being upheld.
While a 5" set isn’t “standard”, it’s probably “more standard” than some sets I’ve seen used. Just be prepared for not being able to use it every time you have black.
Don’t take my earlier remark as the final word. The rules aren’t perfectly clear and some TDs may have different opinions. IF you’re going to try using a large set, I’d suggest a board with 2.5" squares. They’re a little more expensive and a little harder to find, but they’d be worth it for a larger set.
). I am not blind nor physically disabled, but if I simply wanted to use that set (a plastic 5" Drueke set), would that violate either the letter or the spirit of the rules? I do not want to annoy or distract my opponent, but it IS a “standard” type of Staunton set, and I