I have a couple of Orthodox Jewish players looking to play in an upcoming event where two of the rounds fall on their Sabbath. The time control for the event is G/90+30 so I looking for advice on the best way to accommodate these players since they cannot press a digital clock during this time. I’d like to avoid using a mechanical clock since that would put their opponents at a disadvantage on the clock. Has anyone else had this issue and how was it handled? Any other ideas?
If you can find a tournament aide willing to press (both) clocks, that would be ideal. Spectators are useful!
Alex Relyea
The Orthodox players may also be prohibited from keeping score. If so, the aide enlisted to press the clock should also be familiar with chess notation.
Yes, of course. Mr. Aldrich didn’t suggest that as a possibility. If the player is excused from keeping score a small (between five and fifteen minutes) time penalty is reasonable to restore equity. Just to be clear, the aide is willing to press the clock for each side (upon instruction of the player) so there is no time gained or lost, but if the aide keeps score for Black, he has a time advantage (from not having to keep score) so his base time should be reduced. In no case should White also be excused from keeping score.
Alex Relyea
It should also be permissible for the organizer or TD to require the player to furnish the aide. Expecting the tournament staff to furnish such an aide might not always be reasonable.
Bill Smythe
I’d rather say that it is better to request players bring their own aides. It is obviously best practice for a player requiring accommodation, regardless of the reason, to contact the organizer in advance, and to bring an aide if at all possible, but players shouldn’t be punished for not providing one.
Alex Relyea
A couple of notes.
There are reasonable arguments that a mechanical clock cannot be used during the Shabbat. The energy of the clock is considered by some to be similar to fire, and therefore not usable.
There are also arguments that playing chess itself is not allowed: making sounds, conducting business, non-Shabbos behavior.
Chess tournaments with prizes are arguably falling under “conducting business.” It is even more problematic for a professional chess player who is orthodox.
People who get upset should not play during Shabbat.
Theoretically, if a digital clock is turned on prior to Shabbat, it should be usable on Shabbat. Orthodox Jews do not believe, for example, that refrigerators, or electric heating, etc., should be turned off on Shabbat.
A digital clock that has a new battery or that can charge while being used (the CE clock for example) could be plugged into a significant USB-capable battery and could be useable on a Saturday - check with his Rabbi.
Notable is that another problem is getting to the tournament: An orthodox Jew is not allowed to drive or ride in a car, train, etc. on Shabbat.
Am I the only one who finds Mr. Bachler’s pronouncements about what the Orthodox Jews in Mr. Aldrich’s tournament should believe highly offensive? There are certainly many flavors of Orthodox Judaism, perhaps as many as there are Orthodox Jews. I don’t know if Mr. Bachler is an Orthodox rabbi, but I am virtually certain that he is not the rabbi of the players in question. As such, I suggest that he, and all of us, let the players work out with their rabbi and Mr. Aldrich a set of accommodations that are acceptable to all parties or, if such a thing is impossible, let them skip the tournament with an attitude of profound sadness.
It is not the right of any of us to tell strangers how to worship. It is certainly within our rights to tell players that the accommodations which must be required for a stranger to play in our tournament are too extreme, for example if a player insisted on having the TD provide opponents for him at 10 PM Saturday and 2 AM Sunday to make up for the rounds he missed because he was unable to play before sunset. It behooves us as affiliates of a 501(c)(3) organization to accommodate reasonable religious requests, even if the interpretation of the religious requirements is not one that we share.
Alex Relyea
I didn’t say anything about how one should follow Shabbat. My comments simply shared issues that have been raised over the years. Saying "There are reasonable arguments… . " or "There are arguments … " are hardly telling someone how to
worship.
In one case I specifically noted “check with his Rabbi”
I suppose the one phrase that could have been clearer is “People who get upset should not play during Shabbat.” should have had “according to several Rabbi’s.” I’m sorry what I wrote was a direct quote from one, and didn’t think about it.
The applciation of Torah to the aspects of daily life frequently varies between communities based on each community’s rabbinical traditition and interpretation. To make broad generalizations is, therefore, rather presumptive and will lead to erroneous assumptions.
Perhaps reacting by taking offense is too harsh. Nonetheless, you have claimed to have “done the research, and shared research” in a situation where research was neither invited nor necessary. At best, your post was mostly irrelevant.
Two players requested an accommodation for an event in January. They stated that they are unable to press a digital clock. Given that set of constraints, advice has been asked for how best to accommodate such a situation. Expounding on what the beliefs of others ought to be doesn’t particularly advance that conversation. The players have already communicated what their beliefs entail.
If an aide can be found that will keep score and press the clock for the player in question, should the aide be asked to press the clock for both players? If it were just a matter of the clock, I could see the point in having equal conditions, but with the additional burden of keeping score, I would think it a bit overwhelming for the aide to be responsible for all three things (keeping score, pressing for player A, and pressing for player B).
As but one example, consider the following sequence of events, with player A being the accommodated player:
- Player A makes a move (call it move 1A) on the board.
- Player A requests a clock press.
- The aide presses player A’s clock button.
- Player B immediately makes a move on the board (move 1B).
- Player B requests a clock press.
- The aide presses player B’s clock button.
- Player A immediately makes a move on the board (move 2A).
- Player A requests a clock press.
- The aide presses player A’s clock button.
- Player B immediately makes a move on the board (move 2B).
- Player B requests a clock press.
- The aide presses player B’s clock button.
- Player A immediately makes a move on the board (move 3A).
- Player A requests a clock press.
- The aide presses player A’s clock button.
During this sequence, the aide is also responsible for recording player A’s moves. But in addition, the aide must determine the proper time to do so.
It seems clear to me that move 1A must be recorded before (9). It also seems clear to me that move 1A should not be recorded between (5) and (6). Similarly, move 2A should be recorded before (15) and not between (11) and (12).
What about move 1B? Move 2B?
This just seems messy, and seems to put the aide in a difficult spot of having to make such judgments.
My initial thought is that providing an aide to player A for purposes of pressing the clock and recording the game, while leaving player B free to manage the clock, just seems cleaner and easier.
I could see an argument for allowing player B also to have an aide (but a different person). On the other hand, this isn’t a scholastic event, where parents abound. There’s no guarantee of finding two willing aides from the spectators, let alone four.
Not to the current situation. The players have already indicated mechanical clocks to be acceptable. However, Jeff expressed his desire to avoid this solution.
The players clearly made their requirements known that they cannot press a digital clock during the Sabbath, and while a follow-up clarification may well be reasonable, it seems a bit presumptuous to respond to a specific request for accommodation (cannot press a digital clock) by asking whether the accommodation is really accurate. I have mixed feelings on this one.
Additionally, the players have already indicated that it would be acceptable to have a digital clock used so long as the players do not have to press it, so I don’t believe it likely that turning the clock on or off will be relevant to this specific case.
(From a practical aspect, how do you guarantee that the clock won’t be turned off? What if it becomes necessary to reset the clock, or replace it in case of a defect? What if the batteries fail? What if the other player has a preferred clock? What if, in an effort to pause the clock, someone accidentally turns it off? Wouldn’t be the first time I’ve seen that happen in the past year, even. But again, none of this seems relevant to the particular case.)
That the players have suggested an ability to play if specific accommodations are available would suggest that they already have that worked out. So again, not particularly relevant to the current case.
(emphasis mine)
Here, you claim to know better than the players what accommodations they require. Perhaps your comments would have been better received had they been posed as questions rather than assertions?
In any event, I don’t find your posts particularly offensive, but neither do I see the relevance to the specific situation here.
Rule 35F10 covers this situation. In a nutshell, if the player makes use of assistance in making moves, pressing the clock, keeping score, etc., then the non-disabled opponent “is entitled to and must provide his or her own parallel assistance should he or she so desire.”
An aide must be offered to the opponent. Generally it is fine for both aides to be the same person. I agree that the scenario you pose below could become a problem, but I think it would be very rare and not last very long.
It should be reasonable for the aide to record the move immediately after the clock press, and if either player were to move instantly they would just have to wait until the aide was done recording. After all, the purpose of having an aide keep score can never be to allow the player to move faster. I’m only speaking of formal aides, not spectators who volunteer to keep score when the players are no longer required (in time pressure). In the formal case, either player should be allowed to use the scoresheet for claims, while in the informal case the players can’t.
Alex Relyea
To me it seems to be some confusion why are they playing in the first place? They move the pieces, so seems to me they should not even be playing on the Sabbath! Going back to keeping the Sabbath day holy. The truth will set you free. Directors want everyone to enjoy the tournaments and play but there has to be some common sense. The world and the Sabbath do not mix.
It is most certainly not the role of a tournament director to determine whether somebody’s religious beliefs preclude them from playing in an event. If the players say that they can play so long as they have specific accommodations, and if those accommodations are both reasonable and feasible, then the accommodations should be made. There is clearly precedent for including people who have religious accommodation needs, since it is discussed at multiple points in the rulebook. You might feel that the accommodations are unreasonable, but I suspect you are in the minority in this specific case.
I don’t think your interpretation of how the players are to act on Shabbat overrules the player’s rabbi and community tradition. The point is not what you think of their faith but whether accommodations can reasonably be made to the conditions of the tournament or not.
And one should not “Christianize” one’s response to other faith traditions.
While one should be careful to not make assumptions, there’s nothing “Christianizing” about his comments. Some orthodox Rabbi’s hold to the very concept he states, that any activity not focused solely on God is inappropriate. Others also note that chess tournaments that involve prizes can be viewed as business, another issue.
All of this goes back to my original post which lists things that MAY be issues.
If a person can’t press the clock because it is his choice not to press the clock, then they shouldn’t press the clock. Simple. Why put the onus on someone else to figure out a way to deal with it?