At the very first FIDE KO, at Groningen 1997, Nigel Short declared "We are all prostitutes". If you sell out all principle for money, that is an appropriate description. The FIDE rules on default times, the ludicrous increment time-limits, the drug tests, all of these rules could be ended within 24 hours. All it needs is all the players in (eg) the Olympiad, or World Cup, to announce at the start of the first round, that they will not start play until these rules have been withdrawn.

Game over. End of story. But if all the GMs are interested in is Kirsan's dodgy money, then they have no leverage. If you choose to work as a prostitute, you have to put up with whatever indignities your pimp decides to inflict on you.

The strongest argument against the rule IMO is the disproportionate character of the penalty.
Zero-tolerance can however be necessary and effective, but not in a civilized sport
as chess.
Zero-tolerance is something for crime-ridden neighbourhoods in big cities, to
prevent that the situation becomes totally out of control.

I agree completely.
Unfortunately this "zero tolerance" is a sign of our time and has very little to do with justice.
Compare with the France-Ireland world cup qualification football-match.
Always the federation bobo's manipulating their marionets and destroying the truth in sports, looking after their own interests.
Corruption and bribery all over the place...a shame.

zero tolerans is obviously bad. But what would you suggest instead? Obviously it is also not good that people can simply show up whenever they please. Its not fair to the waiting player. Maybe some arbitrary time then before you auto-lose, like 5-15 minutes?

There are several options, xtra, e.g. a certain amount of money deducted from the prizes per late-arriving minute, etc. But of course there already is a penalty: you lose time on the clock.

Good article, I couldn't agree more. The zero tolerance rule is simply a brainfart, now there's even more proof...

Superb point. I too had believed they should forfeit, for lack of better information. But reading this article has made it clear that this rule is really ridiculous.

I am in favour of default if you are not present at the start of the game, although "zero-tolerance" seems to be a bit extreme in this situation.

At this level chess is a professional sport which means that the players are paid to play. The sponsor and the public expect certain standards from the players and being present at the start is one of those conditions.

Comparing it to being at work on time in the morning is not fair, it's more like being on time for an important meeting with clients. If you were late for such an important meeting it might cost the company a contract and you might be fired or lose your bonus as a result.

However, its seems that the problem was not with the players, but with the infrastructure e.g. lack of fixed start time, lack of notification system. On the face of it, the application of "zero-tolerance" in this situation seems extreme.

The rule needs to be amended to also emphasise that organisers must provide the facilities so that the players can meet their obligations.

Or, simply in this case, that the rule is only applicable when game start times are fixed 24 hours in advance.

Maybe the grandmasters and professional players bodies should be putting pressure on FIDE regarding this ?

You all forget the point of the rule. The (paying) spectators and sponsors want entertainment from first minute. Its ridiculous to have a pro sport where the participants are not present at the start of the game.
If you are uncertain about the starting time, be there in good time! Be seated and ready 5 minutes before you expect the game to start. Simple, really.

If you want chess to continue to be an amateur sport and you don't want to be paid for it, then by all means, show up when you feel like it.

I am not even sure if the Chinese players had to be forfeited with the current rules. The rules say "Any player who arrives at the chessboard after the start of the session shall lose the game." but don't specify the word session. It might have been possible just to get them and to start their games when they have arrived?

it's really a farce to forfeit players if they have no way to find out when the game starts. they should at least implement a rule change like "If a tournament uses zero tolerance there has to be a very clear way for the players to know when the game starts".

If FIDE wants players to be on time they should simply apply a reverse grace period. You have to report to the arbiter at least 10 minutes before the game starts, or sanctions apply, and you have to stay within the playing area until the games start. So easy do to, but of course FIDE is FIDE.

Guys at Chessvibes, this time you are wrong. There is no debate. If you have read the chat at the Chessdom live, there were 3 people blogging from the playing hall in Khanty (alegedly one was a GM that did not want to identify!), and all of them confirmed there were warnings that the round will start 3 minutes, 1 minute and at the start of the round. And in a rapid game being late, excuse me, but breaks the whole idea of rapid. Chessvibes totally wrong, I hope some editor will distance from the ludicrous opinion here.

I saw the facts live, and let me ask you. If Manchester united comes 10 minutes late against Chealsea what would happen??? Aaaa, this will never happen cause they are professionals. And you at Chessvibes advocate obviously unprofessional behavior.

Or you are smokers and defend the smokers:)

Anyhow, you are wrong, now go defend yourselves and scream about what I write, but I advise youto distance from that mistake as fast as possible. Chess should be professional sport and you advocate exactly the oposite, works even against you!

To summarise: you have the facts wrong, chess should be professional, stop smoking.

In the last few years FIDE has imposed several rules on the organised chess playing fraternity which were highly unpopular:

- minor details like castling: first lift the king, then lift the rook over it - otherwise its an illegal move,
- or forbidding the use of upturned castles for queens in time trouble,

- the so-called FIDE time modus - needing electronic clocks - replacing the 2 hours/40 moves plus eventually adjournment rule.
Chess players grumbled - and acquiesced.

- the idiotic drugs tests - making everybade grimace with pain - I mean , who needs chess to be an olympic sport ?
Chess players grumbled - and acquiesced.

- and now the equally idiotic default rule if You are not at the board on time - Chess players grumbled - and acquiesced.

These rules were introduced by FIDE officials in FIDE General assemblies, and the bleeping sheep who represent chess players there voted them in overwhelmingly. Chess players themselves have no vote - they are represented by delegates from National Federations, who cdn't care less what players want. A truly democratic plebiscite of organized players would end these idiot rules instantly. But it is not just professionals who depend on chess for their livelihood who keep their head down - it is the huge mass of club players, occasional torunametn visitors and lowly federated players who who fall into line. Perhaps it has to do with teh disciplime chess inculcates from early on - respect the rules, or the game loses its sense.

The recipe against FIDE dictats and ukases: dissociate yourself from being a federated player - or stop playing competitive chess, which is what a lot of people are doing. Or the very best: organize non-FIDE tournaments, and to hell with ELO ratings. If You recall that is what the traditionalists in the Roman Catholic Church did (Lefebre's followers) - and in the end the Vatican did give in....

@ svej You're missing the point, since this column is not about facts.

@svej, Eiae and others:

Please read the article. We don't say we think it's a bad thing that players should arrive on time. This is obviously good for a number of reasons, just as it's good to arrive on time for a meeting at work or whatever. But the current measures are simply disproportionate. The minor harm done by a player arriving a few minutes late can't even begin to be compared with the damage done for this player when he loses the game, gets kicked out of the tournament as a result and especially the enourmous waste of work, energy and money as a result of this measure.

Great article, couldn't agree more!

I had a few examples of zero tolerance absurdity, which happened during the latest chess european championship. But alas, I dont remember the names of the players. Anyway, it was in New in Chess a while ago :
- a player got forfeited because he was STANDING behind his chair at the time the game started, and not sitting on it ;
- a couple players got forfeited because they were IN THE PLAYING HALL and not right at their table when the game started ;
- finally, a player was forfeited because he was RUNNING TO HIS CHAIR when the game started ;
At least in cases 1 & 3, I would have punched the arbiter to death if I were the player. Just cause my mind can only bear a certain amount of stupidity and pure sadism. This rule is dumb, and to those you think it must be applied to "professionalize" chess, well let me tell you that chess never had such a little audience than since it's becoming "professionnal". If you want a big TV show, bet your money on chessboxing, cause it got more future as a mass entertainment.

@Peter: the fastest excuse :) but does not repair the anti sports view

@Arne: minor harm done leaving sponsors, officials, etc to wait in front of a crowd for the honorary move? Or the minor harm of leaving thousands of chess fans wondering if it is transmission problems? Or the minor harm of bringing chess to unprofessional level with a few late appearances (yes, a few is enough!). Please Arne, go the Peter way and find a fast excuse. You are just proving one more time youare out of line and do not have a clue what takes a sport to be professional and high level.

Any other editor want to show incompetence at this topic?

Wonderful writeup, I agree entirely. Just what was wrong with the onehour rule? Frankly, I think there needs to be a cut off somewhere where either the opponent shows up or doesn't but if its not going to be one hour then it certainly shouldn't be less than 15 minutes! Lets not forget Hou Yifan was forfeited for BEING IN THE ROOM with in 2 FEET of her seat but NOT sitting at it when the clock was started. I mean can you get any more ridiculous? The intent of the law is clearly to try to bring about professionalism by making the players on time. However, the reality of the law is that it is creating unprofessionalism by destroying many games that should take place! Intentions do not matter... reality does. The reality is the zero tolerance rule is hurting chess!

"What’s interesting in the discussions on this site and others, is that a lot of people actually agree with the measure taken against the Chinese players."

I may be (considered) one of them, but I would separate two issues:
1) Does the rule make sense? Personally, I do not have a definite opinion, but consider this - in the first instance - irrelevant for
2) Is it soooo hard to stick to the rule (which the players were well aware of)? Who is to be blamed (more) in the given situation, FIDE or the players?
I would say the players. Incidentally, the rule was strictly enforced at Chinese events, so Wang Yue and Li Chao probably cannot expect, and will not get support from their own federation.
Regarding "All the work, the preparation, the hours spent looking for novelties – all gone in two minutes.": this need not happen and will not happen if you are on time (or two minutes early to be on the safe side).

Yet another issue is nonsense written by some people such as
- Russian organizers discriminate Chinese players (when the decision, in accordance with known rules, was made by the Armenian arbiter)
- As players don't know (at all?!) when the next round will start, there isn't even time for a toilet or cigarette break. The next round starts 10 minutes after the end of the previous one. If your game is the last one to finish, you have guaranteed 10 minutes. If your game was _not_ the last one, you have 10 minutes, then you can return to the venue, and maybe you will have another 10 minutes for another cigarette .... .

Even if you don't understand the announcements, it shouldn't be too difficult to figure out that they concern the start of the next round - there is a remote chance that it's something else such as "happy birthday Mr. Shirov" .... .

BTW, a "Corus gong" wouldn't help: clocks are switched on, and games start _immediately_ after the gong.

I must say that the drug testing rules FIDE is trying to impose are idiotic as many other things they have done. Drug testing has nothing to do with Chess; it is completely misguided when there has not been a concrete proof about which substances can have an effect for improved performance. Also, I am suspicious about the particular incident, I mean whether the Chinese had been properly warned or not, considering the fact there is no stict schedule for the rapid games.

However, I cannot but agree with the essence of the tolerance rule. There should be zero tolerance if we want to be a serious sport. It is a matter of conduct and respect towards the game and the opponent. All other opinions have their points but if you mention them to non chessic people the will look at you with a puzzled face. No, we have to be serious, a sport is a sport and punctuality is a part of it.

I, for example was playing a couple of years ago a game against Bjarke Kristensen. He came to the game with 50 minutes of delay. I got so angry that I could not think of anything during the game, I lost in 20 moves or so although I was about 200 or more rating points higher than him. It is funny that I consumed all two hours just thinking of how disrespectful this guy was towards me and he... played the game in just 20 minutes. I got crushed on the kingside like an amateur, while being a GM around 2630.
After the game he submitted to me his apologies...Rubbish.
This is not an ethical behaviour.
Making this rule is one of the very few things FIDE has done right.

Svej:

Come on. You can do it. Let's think for a while. Human are human. And Zero Tolerance will not the change that fact. This rule, the way it is now, only will produce some forfeits before some games started. Because one player doesn't get to the chair at time. That happened and that will happen. That's a fact.

You are an extremist defender of the sponsors. But, let's do this. Just think for a while. If you were a sponsor. Do you prefer that some games doesn't start at all because some player didn't show up with perfect time? Or do you prefer, for instance, some more flexible rule (like the player lost of money of the prizes) and the game, when the player doesn't get to the chair in perfect time, be played after all?

You can answer that question. Is simple. But of course, you won't think at all. That's the way you are. You don't think. You just talk.

Agreed with Vassily, FIDE has done right.

The problem with Chessvibes is that they seem to lack this kind of reflections on important matters. (hm, I wonder where have I seen this sentence :) )

I stand corrected after reading DrTom's post... apparently you can get more ridiculous... being behind your chair standing instead of sitting. Sigh. I guess its a sign that chess will never be a professional sport if FIDE wishes to continue acting like a child on a playground.

@Pablo: If you watch the Premirship do you hear the commentator say "The game Chealse - Man U startted 10 mins late due to late appearance by the second team. The delays due to late appearance in Birningham - Aston Villa was 11 minutes, Arsenal surprisingly came a minute early!"

Come on. If you play chess in the garden ok, if you play for a large audience than it is not ok. SImple.

@editors: you will sparkle discussion, but do you want to ridicule yourselves in front of people who really care about chess and understand professional image of sports? The quicker you repair the points of view (and you are a blog that is easy to be done) the quicker you will repair your own image. For me now Chessvibes stands not professional. It was better when you were sticking to videos.

But that is just my opinion. As Peter said this is not about facts, but the fact is the decision is right and the discussion is useless.

@svej I really don't understand why you're reacting so unfriendly. It doesn't really encourage me to reply any further.

@Thomas I think the answer is: Yes, it's difficult to be in time when you're a professional who is focusing on the game as much as possible, and one shouldn't have anything else on one's mind than the games. In between games one should be able to leave the room, rest and focus on the next game. In my opinion someone else, a board, a beeper or a Corus gong (of course not 1 second before the games are due to start, but e.g. 1 minute) should be responsible for letting the player know that it's time to start again in such a tense situation as an eliminating tiebreak.

And you launch against FIDE, but can you cite the price funds from 10 years ago? Can you calculate them now (in times of crisis)?

Well price funds are not the only professional thing about a sport, but as we already stated you do not get the other points right....

Don't whine, buy a watch.

Svej. One more time. Compare chess to football is not exactly a great comparation. In chess you are alone. Let's think tennis, for example. The Us Open. Let's think if one player would get a few minutes late to an advanced instance. I don't think the organizers will forfeit that player. But still, comparations sometimes are not happy. We have to think about what is better for chess.

I agree, somehow, with Vassily. I was thinking about something like that. The psichological factor when a player arrived too late. Nigel Short lost a game when his opponent arrived like one hour and a half late. There is a lot of pression in that situation. Strange, but still. A lot of pression. I understand both point of views. But i think the rule has to be more flexible. But not "super" flexible. Just a little more.

Congratulations for the article...! We are still humans not robots even though some people try to convince us for the opposite !

@Peter: it is not unfriendly, it is critical. You are criticising a rule that is good for chess, but you do not accept criticism that would make this site better? That is Elista style :) Wait, even Elista accepts advice, so you see what I mean.

I see what you are doing, looking to hit the general public opinion on a debatable topic where you expect some 70% or more support. However, you miss the point that chess professionals want this sport to develop. And opinions like that, without facts (you stated it!) and without desire for improvement (again you said you do not want to reply) being a serious questionmark.

It is so easy to edit the article, now it is up to you to acknowledge if Chessvibes is working towards chess improvement or towards yellow media stories.

The implicated conclusion:
By demanding players to show up at the start of their games FIDE destroys "the entire structure and beauty of tournament chess, which has worked fine for over 150 years."

Well, I think you go a bit far.

There are pros and contras in this issue, and I think your column is rather biased. You do not like this zero tolerance rule, it is obvious. Others like it, and you just do not make the slightest effort to understand them.
Hey chessvibes guys, you should be more open-minded!

Organizers are interested in a punctual start of the game. We all agree that this is sensible. What is the easiest way to ensure that the games start in time? Get all the players at the board, i.e. just look for them and tell them to come to the board. We are not talking about an Olympiad but an event where you can almoust count the contestants by one glance. Why didn't they do this? The stricter the rules the more arbiters and official need to handle things skillfully, i,e. avoiding cases of hardship where possible.
I don't like the zero-tolerance rule either but I think every organizer should be able to decide for themselves how important being on time is for them. But in practice I think that the most important thing is to make it easy for the players to meet all expectations (punctuality, dress-code etc.). And I have the feeling that in FIDE events this is NOT the case.
And, by the way, comparisons with (other) sports are more often that not totally out of place and just make the readers roll with their eyes. I'm confident most readers will agree on this.

@Pablo: at tennis if you are late for Wimbledon you do not get an invitation ever in your life. I do not know how it is with other events. So comparing to golf, tennis, football, or any other top sport is logical and brings one conclusion. The decision to enforce the rule is correct.

Someone said "people are not robots". That is why they should arrive on time and foster values as respect and dignity. Towards the thousands in the crowd and the oponent.

As stated before: chess is a turn-based game, so there obviously is no intrinsic need to be simultaneously at the board. When you are not present to make your move, the only time you waste is your own.

So please Svej-I-want-chessplayers-to-look-professional, and others, stop comparing chess to real-time based sports, that's simply ludicrous.

And FIDE of course is a mockery of a democratic organization, in fact it's a mockery of an organization proper.

@Bert de Bruut: aaa, so politics now? hm, but this is not about politics, it is about normal human behavior and respect. The respect towards chess fans.

Chessvibes fosters anti FIDE opinions at this article, but as stated by WGIFM in a closed minded out of line way. And you Bert, as a good crowd go with the sheep (sorry, but I mean it!).

I actually like playing blitz. So one day if I meet you over the board, I will go to the cafe sit, talk to my friends, watch F1, and then I will return for the last minutes. I do not care about the score, I play for fun, but I am sure you will be pissed.

Ok, too many examples can be given, but all will point towards the fact (yes fact!) that this rule is necessary and the only wrong of FIDE is that it was not imposed many years ago.

@Arne: for the first time I see you not answering vigorously or defending your opinion. I hope at least you will distance from this farce. An article presenting an opinion throwing just a bunch of data, no facts, and stating "FIDE is bad" does not really show a point, and as it cannot be defended Peter preferred to stop talking. But I expect more from you as your articles normally are good.

@Svej, for some reason I had gotten the impression that it is not you that is the black sheep, but that it your kind that flocks to be fed by the IOC and perceived sponsors, and for that goal you willingly sacrifice the distinctiveness of chess, for the sake of pleasing the hand that hopefully will feed you a little more...

And as for the rest, when you willingly avoid being present at our board, I might be offended (though the free win when you take another coffee will be good compensation). However, in case your F1 car runs a flat tire and you arrive late, I won't mind playing the game as if nothing happened...

Anyway. The good thing with ChessVibes is that they really think what they write. This is like a magazine. You can perfectly disagree with the editor opinion. There's no problem with that. Even more: they have this chat place where we can argue with the writers and have a nice talk. No problem at all. After all, even if you don't agree with the main point of this "talk" or this article, you can still go enter in chessvibes and see the excelent coverage of the tournaments.

I don't understand why some people have to be, unnecesary, so rude. Maybe i'm defending Chessvibes too much. I know. But i can't defend those persons who attack this page in that harsh way. Like if the future of chess depends on what Chessvibes write about it. Lol. No sense at all.

@Bert: No man, not about IOC or any of the above :) For the sake of the chess fans (and in this case I am defending you as well!)

Thanks for the wish about F1 car and good coffee as well;)

"To us, it’s a bit surprising that usually sensible and intellectually developed people like chess players can be so strict and narrow-minded, especially in a situation where reason and the will to solve problems in an intelligent (rather than bureaucratic) way, seem to be called for."

Way to go, Chessvibes editors. Assuming those who do not share your opinion are narrow-minded tells a lot about your own open-minded way to see the issue. It's awesome that you decided to start what could have been a healthy discussion making that clear.

Time to go share my narrow-minded ideas somewhere else, I guess.

In all I'm sayin, pls believe me, no disrespect meant!

It's incredible that the "Editors", instead of really folowing (reading, but also really considering and really participating --- Arne had been answered, but shuted down from then on) the threads where this matter has been discuted, and come now with the power of a most parcial article which really demonstrates they considered zilt of those discusions and informations in their own site.

ChessVibes is good and animated enough --- honnor to them on that --- it doesn't need that kind of cheap provocations. But well, the site is yours, it's your notion of journalism that must prevail here, right?

I'm not going through everything again (maybe that's one kind of thing you guessed before writing this blind article?)
You're completely wrong.
When someone have the need and manage to say something like (puting it in other's arguments, of course!):
"Never mind tolerance, exciting competition and great chess"
One can see the weakness and demagogy inerent!

That's absolutely not a case of excess of bureaucracy, at least from my and others part and point of view, and at least in comparing with the aplication of other rules. Thats an easy demagogy that has been more than refuted days ago.

The "catastrofistic" comparison with a boss depriving you of your salary have that problem.
First, it hides what would be your vision about tolerance (or not!) in every other rules of competitive chess (for instance, how about getting 61 minutes late under the "old rule" of one hour? How about sligtly touching a piece but wanting to move other one? Are you a bureaucrat?? Get real!)
Then, even if a potential boss of your's would have that rule, it would be illegal, because he must pay at least what you worked before. Nothing comparable to the question "What makes you lose one game of chess in this competition?", ONE of the answers to which being "arriving late". Answers that, BTW are fully known and accepted by all and aplyed to all, from the begining!

You can be against the rule (as I am against several others) but I think it's somewhat irresponsible to feed a fuzz on this concrete aplication of it, which were nothing but fair.

As for the pseudo-gravity of calling this rule "zero-tolerance", it's realy demagogic as it has the same tolerance, in aplication, as any other, namely the old rule, which in fact was more strict, because it didn't allow any other than 60 minutes time tolerance, and was as "fascist" or "bureaucratic" as any rule could be. A fact that you insist in hidding.
If organizing a tournament, maybe I'd adopt some time tolerance different (not some hour sharp), but is it so difficult for you getting at time or even somewhat earlier to a game? Play other tournament or, at least, if you enter or are a fan in this, don't pretend to be scadalized with the aplication of the rules, or do it with EVERY rule, for god sake!

If I was the arbiter and it came the time to forfeit some player because of being late, and I was grabing the clock 20 secons past that limit but in my back the player was arriving and geting my atention, like "Good afternoon!", I think I'd not forfeit him, but merely warn him of the thing I was about to do, and that he should be more careful next time.

Now the culmination:
"This really has to stop. FIDE is systematically destroying not only the dreams and hard work of two promising players, but also the entire structure and beauty of tournament chess, which has worked fine for over 150 years. Like Swiss clockwork"
What a moral teacher we have here!
Shame on you! You didn't need this kind of rubbish.

svej
You compare an event with ONE game with an event with 459 games (at the time of writing) and counting...
You compare an event with THOUSANDS of people in a stadium who PAYED tickets, possibly millions in front of their TV's, millions of advertising involved, with an event with 5 spectators in the hall, the rest online who can replay whenever and how often they like.
Etc. Chess is not football, chess is not tennis, chess is not golf. Etc.

We talk about two minutes delay and Chinese people didn't know the exact time that the rapid games start (because it was unknown ! ), some gays are not serious, they try with all their efforts to be but they simply are not .

@Pablo: I totally agree with you! They always write what they think and they defend it well except in this case... they just do not want to speak as probably they know they have made a wrong step.

I am not attacking the page "harsh", I am giving advise and also pointing out a mistake in logic and facts missing. And the "Chessvibes editors" are not little girls and they should stand up and a) defend what they say or b) correct themselves but not c) "I am not gonna talk to you because I do not want to"

Trying to summarize what I am pointing out with my posts: the article misses facts, has wrong logic, and brings out a "destructive" conlusion in many ways. But ok, who takes the conclusion seriously after reading the article.... my advise, rework the data with facts and try again.

If FIDE wants professionalism, they should act in a professional manner FIRST by not making a mockery out of their most prestigious event of the year.
Sure, Manchester United or Roger Federer or whoever show(s) up on time, but think a little about HOW that happens...
Whatever the rumors might be, it's 100% unlikely that the TD told the pleayers, or the Chinese coach, that they will be forfeited if they don't get their asses moving and the players said "oh, give us a break". Btw, these guys are Chinese and hence very much used to inflexible rules and stupid people in power - they would have run to their seats in no time.

If UEFA can manage that ALL Champion's League games that are scatered all over Europe can begin at exactly the same time 20:45 (CET) then it can't be that difficult for a chess competition that is taking place in the same hall, to start all games at exactly same time.

And yes, punctuallity IS a matter of professionalism. Also my answer to your question about job and monthly salary is YES - I have no problem with it.

How can you be quiet about the so-called "classic chess" London tournament (with FIDE's approval, BTW) is something that puzzles me, that one yes, realling destroying something big about 150 years chess, with his "Bilbao rule" that, in fact, changes the whole weight and relations of chess pieces and combinations, and the "Sofia rule" which fakes chess beyond what chess could be faked already.
THAT is amazing!

@Castro: Well done and good disection of the article, something I was ommiting to do. There are even more details that are simply incorrect, but the worse as pointed is bringing a conclusion that is simply not true in this case.

@test: just to clarify, I am comparing to other sports because we all want chess to be there. And every chess player, no matter with small or big rating, and every chess enthusiast should be happy if chess is aiming at that. Tennis became professional in only 2 years, with stable rules and good media presence. Why not chess?

Zero tolerance has never worked. Nowhere. Ever.

@Svej "just to clarify, I am comparing to other sports because we all want chess to be there. And every chess player, no matter with small or big rating, and every chess enthusiast should be happy if chess is aiming at that. Tennis became professional in only 2 years, with stable rules and good media presence. Why not chess?"

I take that as a confession. Keep on dreaming, Svej!

Ok that is it, enough is said. As Peter, Arne, or any other person is not sticking up their head and admitting the mess of an article they give us, I guess it is time to say bye. I was often reading this blog hoping something will become of it, but I guess I was wrong.
Bye and enjoy

Completely agree with the article. Bureaucrats and technocrats in their powerhunger are trying for ages to kill this beautiful game. FIDE is an orgainisation to be deeply ashamed for

@svej: "I saw the facts live, and let me ask you. If Manchester united comes 10 minutes late against Chealsea what would happen???"

They will start later. It does happen sometimes with football that a club arrives late...

But now, what will happen if a soccer player goes outside the stadium during the game because he needs a smoke? I mean, if you are not allowed to arrive late, why should you be allowed to leave the board during the game?

@Svej, it's not that we don't want to defend our point of view, it's just that you apparently haven't at all read the article, which is not about whether players should or should not arrive late for their game and why (about which you keep talking), but about the disproportional measures of FIDE for violating this very provocative and stress-inducing (to say the least) rule.

Well, I am actually glad that ChessVibes is taking a stand on this issue. Recently I read Anand's opinion about the prospect of chess joining Olympic sports. He mildly endorsed this move by saying that once you become a member of Olympic sports, you get a lot of support from state level. True, some players from countries who are less willing to support chess might be benefited from chess joining the Olympic family. But, there is a downside. That means more politics! We have more than enough politics meddling into our beloved games (well, let's be fair; we bring that into blogs ourselves all the time), and FIDE's move toward Olympic is bringing in more regulations such as 'doping rules' (Do you remember what happened to Chukey?) and 'zero-tolerance' rules. No, sadly, politics is not going away from chess. That is true. I am merely stating that we need not to add more politics. Given the state we are in without being a member of the Olympic family, I am not too excited about the prospect of chess taking a part of it. I mean, all the trouble for what? Being on a par with Tennis and football? Are we going to get some hooligans as well? Please! Chess supposed to be, in my mind, much more civil, less noisy, and intelligent than those 'sweaty' things! I absolutely see no point in FIDE's attempt to impress IOC. I dearly miss the days of Ólafsson!

The guy actually accuses the editors of being out of line on their own website. Priceless.

@Arne

I read the article! I answered you here and on other article too!
Answer those things, will you please?

LONG INTERESTING READ LONG INTERESTING READ

I think this is rather a simple issue. FIDE and the organizers had made it clear way before the first game is played: Everybody must be at their boards at the scheduled time. Is it that hard?? And Peter, punctuality IS very important at work, and maybe one day arriving a few minutes late is not going to get you fired, but doing it consistently can. Not to mention that the interested one in working is us (in this case, players are the ones interested in playing and earning money). If I was the president of Gazprom and had to wait for 50 minutes for the world champion or anyone for that matter to arrive, I would be very very pissed. Is a matter not only of professionalism, but also of courtesy and respect. And if you dont want to do it out of courtesy and respect, then you will do it out of professionalism otherwise you are out. It is simple. Cheparinov-Short, everybody remembers that. Handshake in the end came out of professionalism, not courtesy. Now, we cannot force people to be friends, but we cannot tolerate childish behaviour. We cannot force people appreciate the kindness of punctuality, but we can show them we are not taking it. If you dont agree with the rule, then dont play! But if you agreed, then there is no argument, no discussion. Thats what contracts are for. People against this rules are the ones that feel at best with anarchy and lack-of-law, in a continuous state where they can do whatever they want. Because in that situation they can try to take advantage of the disorder.

An annecdote: A player in a tournament game is losing his game, lost a piece and is in a totally lost position, but the kind of positions that you can still play for 30 more moves. Instead of continue playing or resigning, he just stands and started watching other games while his clock was coming to zero, thus holding the adversary in complete despair and shock. After more than an hour passed, finally somebody complained, and he was forced to seat and play. And rightfully so...

To the proposers of anarchy, do you think it is proffessional if Kramnik stood up in the middle of a game he is losing against Anand, and starts watching other games until his clock comes to zero? How would Anand feel? The spectators? The organizers? The sponsors? It is totally innapropriate, and should not be tolerated. The fact that your clock is ticking doesnt makes it any less important.

Wow this is getting real serious... so I'll propose let's read Tkachiev interview at the official World Cup site... have a good laugh and relax a bit!

Not even the Chinese players made such a big fuss over the whole situation!

I don't disagree with the main part of the article. The punishment seems disproportional to the benefit of the rule. But why is no-one commenting on the choice part of this? Everyone has a choice. If you participate in an event, you tacitly agree to the rules that the event runs under. If you don't like the rule, don't participate, which was exactly the point of the first post by Mr. Tractor.

As an aside, if I had a month's pay riding on me being somewhere on a specific time, even if I did not know exactly when that time was, I'd be sure to be there in time.

@Castro

Apart from the fact that words like "cheap provocations", "blind article" (we were actually just expression our opinion), "demagogy", "rubbish" and - I like this one the best - "shame on you" aren't really inviting a normal response, to you, too, I would simply reply: read the article.

Does it say a rule against arriving late is wrong by definition? Do we favour (as Vesco and others seem to think) total anarchy? Not at all.

The article is not about that. It's getting a bit painful to repeat it once again so this is really the last time, but the article is about the fact that the rule is EXTREME compared to the harm done for arriving a bit late. What's so "demagogic" about that opinion?

The purpose of the "pseudo"-work-analogy (FYI: an analogy is never perfect, but it can help to illustrate a point) is to show that while your boss would be rightly annoyed if you showed up late for a meeting (and, if it happened again, might consider more serious measures), it would be absurd to withdraw an entire month's salary after just one violation. Still, this is exactly what happens in the FIDE rule: violate it once, and you lose the game (which potentially costs you thousands of dollars, or the value of an entire month's salary). So you see, this is another example of an EXTREME measure, hence the analogy.

As far as I'm concerned, the only interesting point you raise is what our opinion is on 'tolerance'. Well, this really depends. I think tolerance is all about being reasonable. And being reasonable excludes, I think, any forms of EXTREME measures. So yeah, arriving 61 minutes late was also not allowed under the previous rules, but at least there was a tolerance MARGIN of an hour for arriving late. Under the current zero-tolerance rule, there is, well, zero tolerance, or no margin at all. Do you see the difference?
And of course, no rule is ever perfect, and I agree it's quite arbitrary to set the rule at 60 minutes (it could well have been 30, or indeed 120), but alas, some rules have to be set. However, that doesn't mean rules have to be as extreme as they are now. Surely, there can also be intermediate forms, that try to negotiate between one evil and another and acknowledge that things are not always black and white. Nor do they have to be. But FIDE seems to have abandoned that point of view long ago.

@DrTom and CALDaniel: Yes, there were excesses - another example: at the Olympiad one player was forfeited because he went to the arbiter's table to get a pen. But this stands loose from the spirit of the rule which, as far as I remember, contains a clause "unless the arbiter decides otherwise". So it is more an issue of an individual arbiter employing his/her power rather than being flexible (while still applying the written rule!).

@Peter Doggers: I have been to Corus as a spectator. The main function of the gong is presumably a signal for spectators (there are dozens to a few hundred around) that, from that moment onwards, they have to be quiet or as-quiet-as-can-be. I wouldn't know if the gong can be heard outside of the hall or in the backstage area for GMs and press (off-limits for me :D ). It certainly cannot be heard in the smoking area which, even for the GMs, is a tent outside of the building.
But, as I wrote, at the World Cup there _were_ advance announcements for the players which, IMO, should have been clear enough even if you don't understand the words. BTW language is no longer an issue - from now on one announcement in Russian is sufficient!

The problem in the given case is that we do not really know what _exactly_ happened because journalists ("usual suspects" include, among others, Peter Doggers and Macauley Peterson) didn't travel to Siberia .... for understandable reasons.

Although I fully agree with the article, there may be one good (in my opinion) reason for maintaining a zero-tolerance policy, and that is that it would simply be undoable to judge transgressions from case to case. If somebody arrives late once, sure, no prob. If he arrives late twice, well, okay. If he arrives late thrice, well, let's talk to the man. Then four times, five.. hey, why don't we stop this? Don't we have a rule about this kind of thing?

It's the same with the zero-tolerance rule for taking liquids into a plane. Of course it's ridiculous to have people throw away all those deodorants etcetera. But the point of the zero-tolerance policy there is not that the rule always makes sense - the point is to never have to go into discussions about it, and to make sure that everybody, always, knows exactly what will be tolerated and what won't.

That said, I do think that the zero-tolerance policy is misplaced here.

Onkelpazuzu, it's normal practice for chess arbiters (for instance when an illegal move is being made several times in one game) to give a warning first, then to give a time penalty (e.g. 3 minutes extra for the opponent, etc.), and only then forfeit the game. Anyway, this is academic in the current case because the player arriving late already IS being punished (in a way) because he has less time to think.

as a fan, i was disappointed in the zerotolerance policy. But if Carl Lewis was late in showing up in the 100 in the olympics, they would forfeit the Olympian, cigarette or no cigarette. Besides, who says the time in a rapids game belongs to only one player? Even Wang Yue said he couldn't dispute the rules. He did say they need a big monitor or something.

It is not bad to have that rule with a small correction: may be applied by request of the opponent. Similar to 3-fold repetition and 50 moves rules. Both law and spirit are preserved then.

I agree with you!. The damage done was enourmous. Wang Yue was playing splendid chess ad a minute late throws away everyhting. It is ludicrious to do this against them!

"- Was the decision fair to your mind?

Yes, the decision was correct, according to the rules. The only decision that could be taken. But to my mind not fair. We cannot do anything . We just need to accept it . -"

Interview on the official K-M website

They (the Chinese) said they cannot dispute the decision, given the actual rule.
They never said it's a good rule which cannot be disputed.

-

@Arne

If it were good enough to point particular expressions on the other's speach, in order to gain decisive aknownleage of that other being wrong, I would have simply sticked to your (Read article!)

“Never mind tolerance, exciting competition and great chess”

which in fact shows all the article bias and unconsideration, almost plainly equal to call us all stupids! --- specialy because of the disregard on earlier discusion on this.

That said, "ofended virgins" calmed down, lets see:

"Demagogy" - It sufices to call one thing up: The incoherence regarding tolerances any other rule. That you cannot uncover EVER.

"violate it once, and you lose the game" - Other than being exactly that way for other rules, that day was not the first day of a tournament, the regulations and their aplication of which they FULLY knew and accepted. (In fact it was already the 3rd day of rapid tiebreaks. And far from being a first tournament with this!)

"Do you see the difference?"
Yes, I see the difference. It's you who seem not to see the similarities. I never defending blind and extreme measures, it was NEVER an issue in discusion for me (if you read me too). That is a rule FIDE didn't have to change urgently, but they did, in a way that allows the organizers to put a limit of 0 or more to arriving late to a game, and I think it is acceptable, far more acceptable than forcing white to move if black isn't present, for instance. And far more acceptable than some phone ring aplication of the rule. And lots of others!
If forced to be there at some time sharp (which is merely one of the organizer's options), the player KNOWS what to expect, and even can get more than he expected, if there's a little non-written tolerance, or if he has a GOOD reason for the delay. It's normal in lots of things in life!

Nevertheless, if someone wants to change that rule (and not just make fuzz and artificial scandall on it's present aplication), say, for having at the games a tolerance of "no less than 15 minutes", he can count on me! Why not?? I agree with it, it's non-harming and maybe less prone to fuzz, anyway!
But right now, congratulations to the organizers, arbiters and players on that, at this World CUP!

Really hope you read me too, this time.

Jesus FH Christ. How often does this need to be repeated?
The article does not dispute the case itself. Yes indeed, the rules being what they are, there was nothing Wang Yue could do to dispute the case.

>>"But if Carl Lewis was late in showing up in the 100 in the olympics, they would forfeit the Olympian..."
No they would not forfeit him. The reason? If he would show up one minute late, the race would already be over.
But wait, chess Is Not the 100 meters race in the Olympics.
The end.

Ah the demagogy, test! :-)

The idea of having a final with one ot even two Chinese players in RUSSIA is a kind of danger that FIDE could not afford. Maybe this is a reaction from FIDE against the Chinese Federation, who did not contributed enough to support Kirsan´s ambitions.

For FIDE Is OK to pay first round fee for a bunch of unknown Egyptcians and South Americans, but totally wrong to let a top Chinese play his game.

Fischer forfeit an official game against Spassky: he did not show up, what is quite different for being in the building waiting for a call, and for whatever reason, having failed to reach the board for a couple of minutes. This arbitrary rule does not make any sense, since you have a clock to punish the late player, besides both players have the right to be late until the last possible minute, or this game is not chess, but a sort of childish Harry Potter´s game zone.

For the two ill fated Chinese nothing could be done, for FIDE arbitrary applied the rule just to eliminate them.

Shame for FIDE.

(not gonna bother with the above discussion, most people here aren't good enough at discussing to really create a productive one. It is just shouting out your opinion).

A couple of sanctions I could think of for coming late, keeping in mind that the goal is to have the match played out, but somehow giving a fair punishment since it is both bad for the organizers and for the other player when someone is late:
-since there will almost always be a way to contact someone who isnt there (with cellphones and what not), but very hard to know if a player is aware of when the game starts until the game actually starts, have it forfeited after some time, like 5-10 minutes. And especially since there will almost always be someone who can contact the player who is late, like with cellphones or if he is close by smoking a cigarette.
-to add to this, you can have a time punishment. It could be on a scale, like 0-5 minutes late, 10% of the time, 5-10 minutes late another 10% of the remaining time, 10-15 minutes late 50% of the remaining time, and then forfeit after 15+. Something like that. Mainly for classical time control. For blitz you need asomething different.
-or, a strike system. Late one time during a tournament, one strike. 3 strikes and you are out. This wouldnt even have to be in the tournament, you could instead just lose a couple of rating points if you are reported late to a game to FIDE. For many players, I think that would actually be quite annoying. This doesnt compensate the opponent who is waiting, so there should still be some kind of on-site punishment.
-or you could simply disregard all of the above and just have the player forfeited after an extra 5 minutes (or rather: if a move hasnt been made within 5 minutes, forfeit). 5 minutes isnt that long to wait for someone, and for a Blitz game it would mean you lose. It could also be 10 or 2 or whatever, just something to make it not an absurd rule that makes it impossible to actually organize a large tournament in a way that ensures that there wont be a lot of forfeited games. It's easy to just lay the responsibility on the players, but in fact the responsibility is split between players and organizers, and the rules should reflect that.

For Christ sake, this has nothing to do with a conflict between russia and china.
This was not an anti-chinese measure.
The Chinese were not even playing against russians.

Why do you think it is extreme? Is not extreme, is out in the open and very well explained. According to Arne's logic, the first time somebody steals from you he should only be warned, not penalized, because it was his first time...

Give me a break, everybody knows the basic laws in society. As everybody in chess knows they now have to be on time. It is not intolerant. As a matter of fact, I think a lot of people here are intolerant of the people that want order in chess. The fact that the player is losing time is not an excuse. Nobody answered if standing up in a lost position is ethically acceptable. I imagine Topalov standing up right next to his board watching the game next to him while Carlsen waits for him to move or resign... But Carlsen in that position should not get mad, since it is Topalov's time...???!!

Also, as was correctly pointed out, it is not a first time issue. So, Wang Yue does it in this tournament. At the next tournament, if he does it again, is it a first time or a second one? Who can control all that? In the same logic, how do I know that the guy stealing from me is doing it for the first time or the third? How can an arbiter or organizer know if you are doing it for the first time?

The rule is correct, as it brings order and predictability. If you dont like it, dont play where it is implemented. Dont go crying because you think is intolerant because you are not tolerating the organizers and players...

I recently read about a 1st grader who brought a little camping knife/fork/spoon to school in his lunchbox and was suspended 45 days under a zero-policy weapons rule. Also an eagle scout who had a 2-inch knife locked in his car on school property was given a 30-day suspension.

We have a criminal-justice system which punishes to 1) deter others from criminal activities, 2) rehabilitate the offender 3) promote the general welfare. Whatever punishment that goes beyond what is necessary to do that is, by definition, excessive and unjustly infringes on the rights of the offender. When in doubt, you err on the side of safety at the risk of abusing the offender's rights. Alternately, you have to enquire whether zero-tolerance policies create new problems that would not have otherwise existed and are disproportionate to the original problem.

I have no strong opinion on how far FIDE rules and determents, by analogy, need to go to solve any given problem, but FIDE needs to recognize that zero-tolerance could be too far. It would do well to cite tournament organizer data that proves that slightly-less-than-zero-tolerance was not a sufficient deterrant.

>>"Ah the demagogy, test!"

Oh really? Let's see. Let's review a few forms of demagogy:

1) Apples and oranges: Did I do this? I would say no. Can't say the same of some of the other comments here however.

2) False dilemma: assuming that there are only two possible opinions on a given topic. The article here clearly goes for the middle way, a point largely "ignored" by a large proportion of the comments.

3) Demonization: identifying others as a mortal threat. Ok, one could say that FIDE is under attack here, but it wouldn't be the first time, neither will it be the last, and with good reason. I wouldn't say however that they are being described as the devil.

4) Straw man: mis characterizing the opposing position and then arguing against the mis characterization. Not the article, but exactly what some commenters here have done.

5) Emotional appeal or personal attack. Is the article guilty of this? No, but again can't say the same of some of the comments here however.

Vesco, you want order? Go to a court of law. Or even better: go look at the structure of a crystal or an atom. This argument, on the other hand, is about chess,a game played by human beings. It actually involves people who are not robots and don't follow strict logical laws all the time. You can try to impose order everywhere around you, sure, but at what costs? Anyway, have fun with the crystal, I hope it will calm you down.

Still don't understand what to discuss. A player is declared lost according to existing rule. Lost. The exising rule isn't perfect and must be changed. The most natural way is to change the "zero tolerance" to the "opponent's tolerance", i.e. like forfeiting on time can be declared only by the opponent, forfeit on not showing up could be declared only by the opponents. What to discuss?

@test

My comment was on YOUR comment alone, because there's no need for the 100 meters race in the Olympics to be chess to something of it being similar to some aspect of a chess game, and because --- supreme inconvenience! --- in the present case IT IS!

As for the features you listed, I'm not responsible for everyone's misjudgements here, not even if they end up with some conclusions I do too.

@Arne

I thought so (you would stop answering. And no, I don't expect you'd insult inteligences trying to have good reasons for that).
No one likes to be proved wrong, I know (experience too). But...

vosurum, having a rule where the opponent may choose to declare a zero-tolerance forfeit would put some people in an uncomfortable position, especially when their opponent starts begging.

@Ben: sure, it will expose everyone. I don't think guys like Anand or Ivanchuk (and many more) will ever use the "forfeit by not showing up" rule. Be as you are, don't hide. I think, it's good.

How is the situation less orderly if there were no rule against arriving late, vesco? The anarchy you fear is in your mind, not in reality.

@Ben: even simpler: an opponent who isn't presented cannot starts begging.

chessvibes, they turned up on time for the FIRST game of the tiebreak round.

Surely that is enough!!

............Also they came to the board only 2 minutes after the start time... they didn't bring the game into disrepute. Chess is a unique game. There is no need to make false comparisons with "other major sports like football or athletics".

@test

"But wait, chess Is Not the 100 meters race in the Olympics.
The end."

Testy, I'm not altogether certain that the no tolerance shouldn't be repealed or amended. But remember, people watch chess and they also watch the hundred meters sprint: in each case, fans are let down by the lateness of the competitors, in chess, you are let down for maybe 20 minutes or more during a rapids game. But to the chess fan, that steals quality analysis from various portals. Imagine if a boxer showed up late for a boxing match ... the boxer wouldn't be able to get into the ring. Why, because the sponsors would be cheated of the time not watched. Showing up late for events called say, "World Cup"...well it has a dramatic effect on many people. I think Wang Yue was very smart to not protest the directors decision to forfeit both him and his newfound smoking buddy. The show must go on!

The reason there is a no tolerance policy is to make chess a bigger sport than it already is. This will help players like Wesley So and Gata Kamsky get monies for seconds and trainers. Sometimes FIDE makes sense, other times it's just way out there.

The End.

All the examples describing despicable behaviour from chess players are exceptions from the normal. People do not behave outrageously just because there is no rule to stop them. And remember this - a true morality only arises from within, it cannot be externally enforced.

Both camps in this debate have points to make, but it is quite clear that "professionalism" in this case inevitably comes in conflict with humanism. Maybe it is just a matter of what you value higher in this world. The professional players, sponsors and organizers rely on each other in mutuality, and rooting for the interests of any single party involved is too simplistic a stance.

It all boils down to the vitality of a democratic process in which all can parties engage to jointly create a healthy, progressive, and indeed professional chess scene. Surely even with such circumstances not all desicions, rules and regulations will be to everyones liking, but at least they will exist on a fairly sound foundation, and there will furthermore be future democratic discussions coming up where one can pursue one's interests.

The fact that strong sentiments are expressed in many of the previous posts is somewhat disquieting because it easily triggers ego-centered conflict. Yet it is also inspiring and uplifting, as it shows how much people care about chess and the future of the game.

My best regards to all chess friends!

I won't repeat previous arguments, much has been said already. Let's suffice by saying that I do agree with xtra that there isn't much discussion going on here. It's mostly debating...

On a different note, I missed an important issue in all discussion and debate so far: what's the main 'target group' for the standard FIDE Rules of Chess? At the highest level, I feel that both adherents and opposers of the zero tolerance rule have a case. On the amateur level though, I'm quite uncomfortable about zero tolerance being the standard. I feel that many of the arguments in favour of zero tolerance do not apply at amateur level. Almost all club level players I spoke with do not want zero tolerance to apply at amateur level (that's no proof of a general opinion, of course, is there anyone who feels that most amateurs are in favour of zero tolerance at their level?).

This motivates my following question to the adherents of the zero tolerance rule: I'm genuinely interested why you feel that a zero tolerance policy should be included in the general rules of chess? Building upon earlier comparisons to professionalism in other sports: at the moment chess is the exception in the sense that a desired level of professionalism at the highest level is set as a standard for all. Two examples were mentioned earlier in favour of the rule: football and tennis. In both sports, there is actually very much tolerance at low levels! Stricter professional norms for high level encounters are regulated seperately (e.g. the Champions League matches that all need to start at the same time). Relate this to chess: a similar situation would be that organisers may choose for themselves to include zero tolerance in their specific tournament rules if they want to. Why would chess so different from much more professional sports like football and tennis that little tolerance at lower levels is a good idea?

Tired of words. Logically: if the forfeit on time can be declared only by the opponent, the "forfeit on not showing up in time" can be declared only by the opponent. Good night.

Most comparisons with other sports fail: if a tennis player isn't present, you can't start the match. If a football team isn't there you can't start. But if a chess player isn't present you can just start the game! And the beauty is that the penalty is incorporated in being late. It is really simple.
Of course, a player can become upset when his or her opponent is (very) late. But hey, ... speaking about professionalism: learn to handle such situations. Being late is not always on purpose anyway, so try not to become upset in the first place.

In my opinion, forfeiting immediatly is a bad rule. It can change a tournament drastically.

a few scenarios to back up my claim:

say we're playing an olympiad, after 8 out of 10 rounds Armenia and the Netherlands are first, with a 2-2 draw against each other and all their other matches won. Netherlands is first because they scored bigger wins then Armenia.

Russia, who is also in this tournament and by far the highest rated team, lost 2 matches early, but are now catching up, beating everyone with big scores.

in round 9 Netherlands play Russia, which ends in a 2-2, while Armenia win their match and thus become 1st.
However, in the final round the dutch have a weak opponent, and Armenia faces Russia. if NL wins and Armenia loses or draws, NL will be the champions.

Final round: Russia-Armenia, 1 russian is late. His game is forfeited and due to this the Armenians win 2,5-1,5 and thus win the tournament.

Is it fair for the russian player to be punished for being late? Yes
Is it fair for the russian team to be punished for one of them being late? Also yes
However, Netherlands now lost the cup, they had nothing to do with it, but it gave their opponents a free point.
In this scenario Netherlands is also being punished for a russian being late!

Another scenario: Instead of being late on his first rapid game, Wang Yue is late for his 2nd normal game (white vs Bacrot). Now not only does Bacrot get a free point and thus a victory in the match, he also gets a free rest day, and more time to prepare for his next opponent.

Grishuk, who is Bacrots next opponent, had nothing to do with this, but is severely disadvantaged because of Wang Yue being late.

Now I agree that top players should be professional and should be punished for being late. However not this way!
If you give them a big fine instead of forfeiting them they will be very motivated to be on time as well. In the scenario of someone still being late (which will happen, you can't control everything) they get a big punishment, but without such a great effect on the rest of the tournament.

Niether chess nor even ChessVibes needed none of this!

It's wrong to make a fuzz about this rule in particular. It's about being on time to the games. It's ok to maybe have some tolerance, and the tournaments that players accept to play may have it. But what if not? The players know they must be on time (or before, if they wish). Nothing from outer space!
But the rule can be changed (I've already sugest a kind of change I'd agree)

It's specialy wrong to make such a scandall about a rule

- That many of us find harmless, or even positive;
- Which has no more "intolerance" than those of (among many) piece touched or phone noises;
- Only after it being (obviously and regularly, and once more in months!) aplied;
- Forgeting (keeping quiet about) various much more harmful or outragious rules. Opinions may vary, but in my opinion the present rules about:
*Forbiding draws
*Dress codes
*Phone noises (the blind aspect of it)
*White must play (if there's a time tolerance and Black is not there yet),
(for just some I'm recalling now) are far worse and needed to change. I just wouldn't contribute --- let alone trigger --- an absurd fuzz after one of their aplications to, say, Anand or Topalov!
That's the difference! I'm not trying to make fuzz, nor make stupid out of no one!

Wrong, wrong point of view, that of those "scandalized" and (seemingly) primitive anti-FIDE.
Want to change the rule? Defend it (I or others may defend it's mantainance, but that's ok).
There was (at least) one precedent on ChessVibes, in creating artificial scandall: The "copyright on chess moves" scandall.
I assure you: ChessVibes is awsome nice enough to go very well without that kind of thing.

Forgive my English and some rudeness I'd like to avoid.

Haha, Arne, you are taking my statements out of proportion. But even in the way you want to make it look, your argument is still flawed. First of all, instead of replying with questions, reply with answers. You said that I should go to a court of law.

Quote 'This argument, on the other hand, is about chess,a game played by human beings. It actually involves people who are not robots and don’t follow strict logical laws all the time'.

So, let's drop laws and social rules because everybody is human, bound to make mistakes and under the influence of emotions that can wildly change the way they act minute to minute. Essentially, thats what you are proposing.

Rules are made and meant to keep people under control, checked. Even if you dont like how that sounds, thats the essence of a law. It is an agreement between people because people prefer that everybody is under some limits and not that everybody is doing as they please.

I am not against human emotions, as you want to put it. I am against people doing as they want and then saying it is intolerant of others not to take it! Remember, the truth shall make you free, not tolerance (and I am waiting for you or others to say I am intolerant now).

The chinese did well accepting their punishment, as they were warned and they accepted to act according to the rules when they signed for playing the tournament.

@gg

"Good article, and to me the zero-tolerance rule is just silly. People claiming that chess would be destroyed by a player losing time by arriving late could just as well claim that chess is destroyed by the same player using the same amount of time going to the restroom or thinking for too long on a move"

Some of you seem from other planet (or could it be me...)!

- Chess WOULD NOT be "destroyed" by none of that. DEMAGOGY.

- The begining of a game is something that doesn't repeat itself at any other instance of it.

(Why people force me to come and say these La Palisse things? Not being stupid themselves, the only explanation is TRYING TO MAKE STUPID OUT OF OTHERS)

So, reasoning based on that kind of (childish) absurds is absurd, and DEMAGOGY.

So, SO unneeded all that!

Answering WGIFM's questions:

1.Does it make sense to apply any kind of pressure on players to arrive on time to the boards?
A: Yes.

2.Is the zero tolerance rule fair or not? I. e. is it “fair” to forfeit a player because of arriving late?
A: Fair, it is, if accepted by all, and aplied equally to all. Exactly 0, not necessarely. Not exactly 0 required. But acceptable and fair, sure.

3.Will the zero tolerance rule solve the problem of showing up late at the board?
A: Yes, but other tolerances may, too, do it. They're allowed by the rule.

4. Was this rule applied fairly in the case of the Chinese players?
A: Yes. It STRONGLY seems like it was. Nice and smoothly.

I agree with Johan and disagree (on this point) with the Editors. The opponent of the latecomer does not generally benefit. Arriving late is not only bad etiquette, it can be disturbing, annoying and irritating for the opponent. That is how I experience it, anyway.

Even though this thread is already impressively long, I hope I can add some new thoughts:

The Laws of Chess (aka FIDE rules) have traditionally conceded a lot of discretionary powers to the arbiter and in my view this is a good thing. The preface says the following:
"The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions. (...) The Laws assume that arbiters have the necessary competence, sound judgement and absolute objectivity. Too detailed a rule might deprive the arbiter of his freedom of judgement and thus prevent him from finding the solution to a problem dictated by fairness, logic and special factors."

This sounds very sensible indeed. Unfortunately FIDE has recently introduced new rules which completely contradict this nice preface. In some situations the arbiter is now forced to give out extremely severe punishments, even if it's obviously silly. He isn't allowed to use his common sense any more. I think this is an ill-advised tendency.

I agree that a player deserves punishment, if he arrives late at the board. The mere loss of time on the clock may not be enough. However, the arbiter should still be able to react to the circumstances. For instance, if he notices that a player regularly arrives late during a tournament, he might warn him and eventually forfeit him after, say, the third time. In the case of the two Chinese players, however, it was obvious that they didn't have any intention to irritate their opponents. A warning would have been fully sufficient. They wouldn't have made the same mistake again. I don't think any arbiter in their right mind would forfeit a player in such a situation, if he weren't forced to do so by some stupid rule.
The same can be said about the anti-mobile phone rule that can lead to the most ridiculous situations. I could give plenty of examples.

I very much hope that FIDE comes back to their senses and once again allows the arbiters to take decisions that are (as the above-mentioned preface puts it) "dictated by fairness, logic and special factors".

The rule is there, but it is required for it to be valid to announce the start of the games properly. I can't imagine that wasn't the case. And if that was the case, then this article or column is just bad journalism and plain sensation. Sorry Peter, get your facts straight before you start something like this. there are in fact ethics in journalism.

As I said before: this column (COLUMN) is not about facts. It's about the zero-tolerance rule, and how FIDE deals with it.

Excellent article. Personaly, I was touched by the humility of both chinese players who didn't make a mess about it.
I must say that your analysis is quite clever and interesting, and far beyond chess.
Thank you

Right to the point, Michael!

"So, let’s drop laws and social rules because everybody is human, bound to make mistakes and under the influence of emotions that can wildly change the way they act minute to minute. Essentially, thats what you are proposing.
"Rules are made and meant to keep people under control, checked. Even if you dont like how that sounds, thats the essence of a law. It is an agreement between people because people prefer that everybody is under some limits and not that everybody is doing as they please."

But rules are not always good, useful, logical, moral etc. They are made by people. And by saying some rule is bad rule, clearly doesn't imply that all rules are useless.

I don't find the argument (which appears often from the editors) that the player who's late has a penalty per definition - having less time on his clock - too convincing. In fact this is a very disrespectful thought in it's self and is just as simplistic as the zero-tolerance is extreme.
Arriving late at the board should be severely discouraged. Zero tolerance is (almost) the way to go.

I very much liked vosuram's idea:
"It is not bad to have that rule with a small correction: may be applied by request of the opponent. Similar to 3-fold repetition and 50 moves rules. Both law and spirit are preserved then."

Classy idea! Very nice. Solves all problems in my opinion, because the punishment should depend whether the opponent is offended or not by the act of being late.
I'd have one addition though. I'd have a penalty even if the opponent doesn't request the forfeit. I'd have a buffer of about 15 minutes for being late, and the time penalty would be percentage of the buffer is used up reduced from the first time control.
So, eg. you are 5 minutes late and the time control is classical 2h/40, you lose 40 minutes. If you are 5 minutes late and it's rapid 25m+5s, you lose 8 minutes, etc.

All this said I believe it's quite a joke what happened here. I also very much liked Coco Loco's post :)
Getting the players to the board on time is as much FIDE's (or the organizers) responsibility as it is the players'.

Vesko.

An advice: don't believe always in rules. The most of the time, you didn't know which human being made it.

Agree with Dr.Tom and Bert de Bruut. Like the love & peace of Pablo.

Rules are no excuse to turn off your brain. Rules should constantly be questioned, reconsidered, adjusted to do justice to specific situations, handled with care. It's like language, it's alive. Opinions can differ, no big deal. It's good to question the static 60 minute default time, why not. Of course we want to be professional, but also human. The organisation of things should be strict, but also smooth. People hiding behind rules seem to deny the complexity of reality.

@svej: sorry dude, had some work to finish before I could start reading your fourteen contributions.

Forgot to mention that I liked Coco Loco's post very much as well! Rules paired with humanity.

I very much liked vosuram’s idea:
“It is not bad to have that rule with a small correction: may be applied by request of the opponent. Similar to 3-fold repetition and 50 moves rules. Both law and spirit are preserved then.”

An extra time penalty (on top of the time already lost by being late) makes sense because everyone gets the same penalty.
Letting the opponent choose if the player being late has the right to begin to play is simply absurd and not logical at all.
Can you imagine Wang Yue may continue but Li Chao not ??
Imagine in the same tournament 2 matches : Grischuk-Jakovenko and Kramnik-Topalov. Grischuk and Kramnik are late. Grischuk knows he may play because his good friend and former second Dima would never play such a trick on him; they even laugh when they greet each other.
Kramnik gets a zero upon arriving late.
We don't need "classy, elegant solutions" but proportionate sanctions and uniformity, the same punishment for everyone. These are 2 very important principles in any sanctioning system, be it by FIDE or by a state.

to avoid misunderstandings : in my former post, the first paragraph is a copy of Mihajovics' post !!

On TWIC, Mark Crowther had, I think, made an important point about rules and rules such as the "zero tolerance": with such a rule the position of an arbiter has been subverted. Now they are the rule-enforcers instead of being tournament organisers. If the latter, your priority is to ensure a smooth running of the tournament which means trying your best to ensure that all players are present to "play". However with being FIDE enforcers, arbiters are corrupted by the power to forfeit.

I agree with Steven's example. Punishment should be the same for everybody. And yes, rules should be questioned, but not this way. Not because we are "human", implying that "humans" cannot stop smoking for 3 minutes to be on time on their game, we cant have a rule like this one. Please, some other argument, not with the human stuff. The one's that discovered human physiology surely have the ability to be disciplined enough to turn off a cigarrette and be on time. If it was that Wang Yue's mom was sick and he had to attend something, that would be different. But he was smoking! Smoking people!! What a great excuse!

Why is Usain Bolt able to comply with his federation's requirement of him being on time, and chess players cannot?

I have a theory... chess players like to think they are smarter and more disciplined that the rest of the mere mortals, but in reality the large majority are not. But thats another subject...

Western European Chess Federations should have left this undemocratic Organisation FIDE long ago. Unfortunately our chess functionaries are more often than not weak players with a lack of common sense, who don't stand up against the ridiculous decisions taken by FIDE.

There is of course other effective punishment for late arrival than immediate forfeit of the game.

Actually, I think a couple of distinct problems intermingle here.
1.Does it make sense to apply any kind of pressure on players to arrive on time to the boards?
2.Is the zero tolerance rule fair or not? I. e. is it "fair" to forfeit a player because of arriving late?
3.Will the zero tolerance rule solve the problem of showing up late at the board?
4. Was this rule applied fairly in the case of the Chinese players?

The sad thing in the above debate is that people try to argue along different problems. Saying No to Q1 does not mean that you say No to Q3 or Q2.

By my view:
Q1 Yes
Q2 Yes
Q3 Do not know. Pehaps No
Q4 Probably No

Q1 Yes
Q2 Yes
Q3 Our best bet right now
Q4 Probably no, because there was no specific time stablished. (although they were warned)

Good point, WGIFM. Here is my own answers (for what they're worth):

Q1 Yes, but starting the clocks should bring enough pressure.
Q2 No. It's unfair, not only for the players, but also for the fans. I mean, who would accept that a World Championship match be decided upon late arrival of one of the players?
Q3 No. It creates more unfair situations than it solves (e.g., forfeit a player for not being sitted)
Q4 Almost certainly not (this is FIDE we are talking about).

I would make an exception and post here for the first time in years.

The article is absolutely right , i fully agree that the time you loss when you arrive late is punishment enough and that lateness is not a threat for broadcast nor sponsors nor opponents .
Arbiter should start the clock at the stipulated time and that's it , white to move...
I also like to congratulate the site for talking about the lack of democracy in FIDE , which is IMO the big cause behind all this misfortunes and problems.
This message will self-destruct in 5,4,3,2,1...

What I don't understand of people who so strongly are in favour of the zero-tolerance rule is why they insist so much on players being behind the board at the START of the game only. It seems kind of arbitrary to me. Suppose a player arrives in time, makes a move and doesn't come back at the board for 60 minutes, you have no problem with that? Why not? Why is this suddenly less 'rude' or professional than a minute ago? It sounds like double standards to me, creating not less, but more confusion. (Also, for the 'it-does-not-happen-in-soccer-so-it-should-not-happen-in-chess' fans: as far as I know soccer players aren't allowed to visit the toilet during play. Would you be in favour of such a rule for chess players too? Why not?)
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that this is an excuse to abolish all rules, it just strikes me that the vehemence with which the current rule is defended (apart from the extremity of the rule itself!) combines badly with the apparent abitrariness of its nature. And this is exactly why a mild and tolerant approach simply seems best: things are never simple when you start thinking about it.
Perhaps some proponent cares to explain?

Is not right to make a move and leave! That's exactly the point of my previous examples! As it is rude to make a move and then leave, or to not resign in a lost position and just let the clock run, it is rude also to not be there on time! Is not professional and not good for the game. So, start the game on time, and finish it the right way.

@Vesco
"It is rude not to be on time". Personally, I am never offended by my opponent being late. And it happens quite often. Maybe you should change your own tolerance level a bit! There can be many reasons why a player may be late.

"It is not professional." Wow! Is it professional to forfeit a game because of being one second late? If that is the difference between being professional and not being professional then I really don't understand what the word professional means. I am sure that those players mentioned are true professionals. Why not give them the freedom to use their time the way they want to use it (finish their smoking for instance)? Why do we need needless rules? Try to take it professionally while waiting for the opponent. It's his, not your clock that is ticking.

"It is not good for the game." I would say it is not good for the game to forfeit players because of a ridiculous unnecesary rule. You don't want the game to be played! How can that be good for the game?

There was a good rule: At the time the game is supposed to commence, the clock is started. And what you're doing in your own time is up to you, like it is during the whole game. Why does the first second of the game have to be different?

We really don't need rules and regulations where they are not necessary and certainly, we don't need rules and regulations that are harmful to (professional) chess players.

i completely agree with the essence of this article.

Just wanted to add that in my country no tournament is organised under this silly rule. luckily organisers can still set a logical forfeit time, and usually a 45 minute period is adopted.
even in 59th greek mens championship a 30 minute period is granted for the players to appear to the board. And may i remind you that FIDE vice president Mr Makropoulos is chairman of the greek chess federation...

I do not agree with the zero-tolerance rule. But it's there, and till it is changed chessplayers do have no other choice than be in time.
The players are responsible to being in time. But I agree that with the tiebreak, with no fixed times, the organisation could have done a bit more to warn the players.
For top tournaments I can imagine (a bit) that for publicity it's important that players are in time. Players arriving when it's not allowed anymore to make photographs is not what a sponsor wants.
You say the two Chines players lost a lot of money. That's speculation. Without the zero they also could have lost.
For the Dutch League (last year) I asked the Dutch chess federation not to use the zero-tolerance rule. And thank God they didn't. A lot of chessplayers (most amateurs) should have to leave very early if they don't want to risk losing the game for being late.

it would be interesting to know how many of the supporters of the zero tolerance rule have ever played chess competitively.
Just like FIDE president that devised the rule, my guess is that the vast majority of them has not, which is quite apparent if you notice them comparing chess with football, a comparison that would enrage every chessplayer on this planet!

myself, i don't play football, so i would never think of imposing rules for football players, but apparently others think differently.

Good article, and to me the zero-tolerance rule is just silly. People claiming that chess would be destroyed by a player losing time by arriving late could just as well claim that chess is destroyed by the same player using the same amount of time going to the restroom or thinking for too long on a move.

Haha, excellent point, gg. How boring it is to watch a player think for an hour on one move! Without even moving! How can we ever make chess exciting for television with behaviour like this? How unthoughtful to the sponsors, the organizers and the online viewers who are all dying to know what's happening at the board! How utterly unprofessional!

@Arne Moll: "What I don’t understand of people who so strongly are in favour of the zero-tolerance rule is why they insist so much on players being behind the board at the START of the game only."

I will care to explain ... : If the opponent is late at the start of the game, you don't know if he will show up at all. If you really want to play, you might even make efforts trying to find him: go to his hotel room to wake him up?! From my own (amateur's) perspective: maybe you had other alternative plans for the afternoon or evening but decided to play chess. With the old rules, you had to wait for a whole hour. With the current rules, you still have to travel to the venue (and maybe your non-chess-playing girlfriend gets mad at you!?)

Maybe zero tolerance is a consequence (overshoot) linked to earlier excessive (IMO) one-hour tolerance?

Letting the opponent choose: I agree with steven that this doesn't make sense. Let's take Vallejo Pons as an example: He won by forfeit against Laznicka at the European Team Championship, but said himself that he would rather have played. If he chose (could have chosen) to be clement, his teammates might get mad at him? Even in an individual event, your sponsor may get mad at you if you let an opportunity slip away - or your wife/girlfriend because you decline prize money that you could have earned easily?

Regarding the two Chinese "losing money in two minutes": The same could happen in seconds if you blunder a piece - unless you keep your nerves together and recover in the next game. Or is recovering from a forfeit loss tougher than recovering from a badly played game?

It is not always a benefit if your opponent arrives too late.
Most of the time it is irritating that you have to wait when you just want to play a game. Some chessplayers even arrive too late ON PURPOSE. Just to irritate the opponent.

@luzin
I think the easiest way to dismiss someone else's arguments is to question his authority on the topic without any background knowledge. I think it is rather superficial approach toward the debate.

I think many of us having a background of competitive chess has their good reason to welcome this new rule.

I totally agree that a lot of painful incident can emerge due to this ZT rule, but without it we faced other painful incidents. If someone is due to show up at the board, I do not catch the point why an additional 30 or 45 minutes incriment is to be given. I can accept suggestions of no time limit. If you wish, you arrive, if not, you do not. That is logical. However it is not fair towards your opponent, who actually arrived on time.

Chessvibes columnist used a pretty cheap rethorical strategy, choosing arguments pro ZT easy to falsify:

1. Kirsan is pissed
2. It is etiquette
3. It is only point is to allow photographers to shoot some pictures.

C'mon. Why do not you try to falsify or oppose heavier arguments presented here in some comments.

1. Delay might disturb the opponent.
2. Starting is part of the game. Do not forget, that it is not an online event.
3. The one being late waist only "his" time, but he uses the total time as well. All of us know, that you use your opponents time as well to calculate.
etc.

You should never be late for a serious game of chess. Being late, not matter if it is two or thirty minutes, is unkind and a little offensive against your opponent and the organisers, especially if it is a grand tournament with sponsors and potentially media interests.
Well, it happens (even to me :)) that a player for some reason is a bit late. It is usually settled with an excuse to the opponent and the arbiter.
But in principle being late should be treated as a violation, event though a mild such, of 12.6 in the Rules of Chess:
"It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever...."
The first sanction in this case is a "warning", and so it should be. In the actual case a few serious words from the arbiter to these chinese kids would by far have been enough. I am sure they will NEVER do this again.
Doing it in this way is in fact also a kind of "zero tolerance". What is completely out of proportions is of course the penalty, forfeitings of the games.
And the worst is that it will in no way diminish the actual problem. Quite likely we have not seen the last of such episodes.

Thomas, you really made my day. FIDE showing concern for the players girlfriends... how do you come up with that stuff?

It is possible to punish a player for being late, without giving a zero. I don't think the public and the sponsors benefits by games not being played, so this should be avoided. There are alternatives, like a financial penalty (as used in the Corus tournament), or an extra time penalty (in addition of the time used by being late). This is more effective than giving a zero in my opinion.

A game of chess should be decided by playing chess. Not by anything else. This is like the telephone rule. A warning should be enough the first time it happens.

Oh yeah, and getting players to the board on time and letting them leave when necessary has the same foundation: mutual respect. So using one against the other is silly I think.
Taking advantage of the latter should also be sanctioned, but that I think simply can't be done.
Also some sort of routine to make players attend press conference after the game would be nice.

"I don’t think the public and the sponsors benefits by games not being played"

Exactly, cases when players are forfeited for being seconds from the board just destroy the traditions of the game. At the Chinese Championships Hou Yifan filled out her scoresheet, walked around a bit, and suddenly, ouch, she isn't actually sitting in the chair the exact second the game is supposed to start, and is forfeited while being very close to the table.

@WGIFM
"I think the easiest way to dismiss someone else’s arguments is to question his authority on the topic without any background knowledge. I think it is rather superficial approach toward the debate."

you are absolutely right my friend, tt's why i tried to be mild on that, e.g. i say "it would be interesting to know" not "everyone supporting the rule is a patzer".
All the chessplauers i have talked to are against this rule, so i guess most chessplayers are against it, but again i cannot be sure, so here we are, we have some, including you, that like the rule.
I think it is more important to know what chessplayers themselves think about it than fans. Chess fans very very rarely pay tickets to watch chess, and they never watch it on TV, they just replay the game afterwards, so they should have no say on the matter IMO...

Good point on uniformity. I retreat the forfeit by request idea :)

I actually asked someone eruditive in jurisdiction. He said, that pschychologists generally agree that the best sanctioning system is one that has a discomfortably noticable and even more importantly an immediate effect.
Eg. catching every pick-pocket and putting them in jail for 2 weeks is much more effective than catching every 1000th pick-pocket and executing the poor fella.

A proper money fine with a strict time penalty would work wonders I believe.

I don't even know what's so hard to understand for the PRO-zero tolerance rule ; is it ok to be late for a game ? NO, of course not. Is it ok to forfeit someone who's standing behind his chair rather than on his chair when the game starts ? Oh please, dare to say yes to this one...
Unless you're a complete moron (but you may as well be one, who knows), you can't agree with the extreme stupidity this rule has lead to. What is so hard to understand ? Do you ever know why there are judges in a court of law ? So that the law is not blindly but "humanly" applied. That's why we have arbiters. And, as far as I know, we've seen some completely inhuman behaviour. What is so hard in tolerating that the guy standing behind his chair, or running through the hall to sit down, doesn't get forfeited ? Can you really say these guys were being incorrect, impolite or behaved in an unsportsly manner ?

"In this scenario Netherlands is also being punished for a russian being late!"

Of course not! Netherlands is NOT being punished whatsoever.
This is the kind of misundertandings poisoning all this.
Everybody wins when fair rules are fairly aplied.
1. The competition is not about one game;
2. Accepting that being late equals losing the game, it is as legitime loss as any other (Netherland could also have that kind of wins in previous rounds! Or not! It doesn't matter!);

There must even be harshier punishments to avoid losing games on purpose, but is already there, and could happen in a 80-move game.

Of course Grischuk would NOT be "disadvantaged" in no way either!
That is distorting things. There have been always --- and there will always exist --- unlucky or unpredictable circunstances (let alone illegal ones) that "favored" some athlete or some team. Always, injuries, forfeits, ... In all sports at all times!But that IS part of the game.
Trying to minimize ocasions and bad effects is something that makes sense, but none of that is at stake here.
If you want people to be there on time for the games, it's really not about having more or less minutes of tolerance.
People CAN be on time (or earlier) to apointments. If they fail it for a good reason, then they HAVE A GOOD REASON, and if the game is important enough, there can be special circunstances to observe, and the game might be played anyway.

In football, I think a team must be there at least one hour BEFORE the begining of the game. At least! Otherwise they got an imediate 0-3 loss.

@Paul Janse, contrary to you, I would say that generally the opponent of a late-arriving player does profit because he gains time ... but there are of course cases where this is not so, especially if the opponent is easily influenced by psychological aspects and bad etiquette - perhaps this includes both you and me ;-)
But it's another question whether FIDE should be so sentitive to guys like us as to immediately award arriving late with a 0.

@Castro, the least you could do in this discussion is lose the football-analogy. In football, players are usually not allowed to visit the toilet during play, are they? They're also not allowed to buy a cup of tea or eat a sandwich. Sports differ and can't be compared one on one, is that so hard to understand?

@Arne

Usualy, you're so careful in explaining us what an analogy is, that I recomend one of your definitions. In the present case it is merely to present how it is posible to be in peace with something you'd call "bureaucratic", or "useless" or "extreme".
Hard to understand? Don't think so.

The difference being, of course, that our analogy was made to actually elaborate and explain our point of view with arguments, while the football-analogy so far has only been used as a kind of 'appeal to authority' fallacy (because it happens in football, it therefore is a good rule and we should be at peace with it.)

Why is the rule so useful in football? Why would we want to compare two completely different sports anyway in one aspect and not another (such as allowing a player to leave the field during play)? Finally, how do we know the rule in football actually exists and is applied as rigorously as was the case in Khanty-Mansysk, especially at the highest level? (In tennis, for instance - to make another useless comparison - I've often seen strong players arrive a little late without being forfeited.)

@Arne
"used as a kind of ‘appeal to authority’ fallacy (because it happens in football, it therefore is a good rule.) "

No, wrong interpretation. Right interpretation is exactely what I said. NOT this distortion you're trying to push. No understanding? No simply reading? Or worse?

"Why would we want to compare two completely different sports anyway in one aspect and not another"

Because (see your own definitions!), an analogy is precisely that. My god, have you felt assleep??

Maybe in football (or anywhere else this kind of things happen) there are people thinking "One hour before? That's too much, that's not useful" OR "We arrived 50 minutes before, and not 60, because of trafic. Who gains in forfeiting us for 10 bloody minutes? We can dress and all the rest on time to play! Fascist bureacrats!". Maybe there is! On some "footballvibes" site column they may... :-)

Yes, it's an analogy, Castro, but what's the PURPOSE of the analogy? Why take football as an example, apart from the fact that they are both, well, sports? Why would the (apparent) strictness of football rules (if that's what they are) also be good for chess? Why not take tennis (which is already a better analogy, because at least both are individual sports), where the rules are much less strict already? Or draughts, or boxing, or whatever.

It's one thing to make an analogy, but it's another thing to actually EXPLAIN your analogy and back it up with arguments, instead of just making it and then throwing your hands up saying 'it's an analogy, what more do you expect?'

What are the positive arguments for comparing football and chess - in this aspect - rather than boxing or tennis or indeed any other individual activity imaginable?

@Castro
Just to repeat my earlier argument:
Football is something else: you can't start a football game if the opponent isn't there. So everybody has to wait for the opponent to be able to start.

But you CAN start a chessgame by just starting the clock. And the penalty is proportional with the delay! Nobody is waiting, the game has started.

Anyway, who cares what they do in football. So, please, stop those confusing analogies.

I think how Donner, famously, wrote it, was: "you can compare many things with chess, but chess can't be compared with anything".

Maybe it's worthwhile checking what's exactly in the Laws of Chess:
"Any player who arrives at the chessboard after the start of the session shall lose the game. Thus the default time is 0 minutes."

Different from what I thought to remember, it doesn't include a clause "unless the arbiter decides otherwise". But presumably the preface quoted by Michael still applies, and there is still a little room for interpretation: "at the chessboard" could still mean standing behind one's chair, "0 minutes" could allow a few seconds. So in some of the most extreme cases quoted above, I would blame the arbiter rather than FIDE.

Generally the old rule (default time 60 minutes) said "it's OK to be late, just don't exaggerate". The new rule could eventually become "be on time, or have a valid reason for being late". Valid reasons could be [at least at amateur level] car breakdown, public transport problems, even difficulties to find the venue. But not
- "I overslept"
- "I had to finish my cigarette", and certainly not
- "I was busy with last-minute opening preparation"

@Ab: Actually a similar scenario happened at the last round of the European Team Championship involving the Netherlands, Russia and Azerbaijan (in different roles): If Stellwagen had held his theoretically drawn rook endgame against Gashimov, Russia rather than Azerbaijan would have won gold. Not blaming Stellwagen, certainly not suggesting that he lost on purpose.

Why is this a similar scenario? Games, matches and tournaments can be decided by blunders. As the new rule is widely known, a late arrival forfeit would also qualify as a blunder. It is not always possible to avoid blundering during a game - but it should be possible to avoid such a blunder on move zero!?

@Arne
Actually you manage to make me laugh! :-)
"just making it [an analogy] and then throwing your hands up saying ‘it’s an analogy, what more do you expect?"

I didn't do that (not even methaphoricaly).

Now I'll copy-paste the part where I explained (as if it was necessary!) "the PURPOSE" of the analogy:

«In the present case it is merely to present how it is posible to be in peace with something you’d call “bureaucratic”, or “useless” or “extreme”.»

And (on OTHER seemingly unread post)

«Maybe in football (or anywhere else this kind of things happen) there are people thinking “One hour before? That’s too much, that’s not useful” OR “We arrived 50 minutes before, and not 60, because of trafic. Who gains in forfeiting us for 10 bloody minutes? We can dress and all the rest on time to play! Fascist bureacrats!”. Maybe there is! On some “footballvibes” site column they may…»

No one is saying chess is like football. Why several persons here insist in making that distortion?
Haven't you all understood I'm merely against making such a fuzz and scandall about --- And that I say --- a normal and fair (though maybe not the only posible)rule on punctuality. One that has months of aplication! And merely AFTER some important player was punished.
Ponomariov and lots of others too, including me! have lost games because of cell phones. And I don't agree with that rule, as it is!

@jjs
Other than what I just wrote, let me say that the game being able to "begin" with some of it's players missing

(BTW, not everybody agrees on that, and demands that you MUST present yourself before anything else --- maybe wanting to change the rule on THAT direction)

it's no ARGUMENT of it is better being that way.
I repeat (ANALOGY, for what it worth) that someone may already demonstrate tha 60 minutes before is too much, and not necessary at all for some purpose --- A football match FOR INSTANCE.
And that's not (UNTIL IT IS) because of that demonstration that they are changing the rule (in football, IT'S merely an ANALOGY!). Maybe they change it in the future.
A far different thing is saying it is "unfair" or “extreme", and starting to put all who doesn't agree on the role of stupids or fascists or chess hatters or bureucrats or whatever nonsense alike.

Two points on zero tolerance. Firstly remember that Fischer was a few minutes late for his first game with Spassky in 1972, he was caught in traffic. Ponder what might have happened if he had been forfeited. Secondly it seems that now organisers can make their tournaments more attractive to competitors by advertising, say, a 30 minute default time. This is the case for the upcoming Australian Championship. In this way the fate of zero tolerance might ultimately be decided by players voting with their feet.

First we had FIDE looking after the interests of players girlfriends, now we must use football to come at peace. Great entertainment, guys!

@Castro: What will you use after capital letters to try and persuade us of your view on the matter?

It's an excellent idea to see to it that the rules of football and chess get more similar. A player that pushes a passed pawn too far should risk an offside whistle from the Arbiter, and Beckham should be able to think for an hour when executing one of his free kicks. If at the start of the Champions League final the players that are supposed to kick off happen to be ten meters away from the center circle, the team should be forfeited immediately, one must consider what sponsors and spectators would say otherwise. Football teams should also be able to agree to a draw, while a pawn could be red carded if a player tries time-wasting while ahead. Three points for a win is at least a start!

Castro, I don't mean any disrespect, but after rereading several time your comments, I really find it very hard to understand the point you're trying to make (an I admire Arne for his patience).

Instead of littering your comments with obscure (and often aggressive) sentences, I would suggest you try to shorten your comments to the bare minimum. Remove all unnecessary sentences. Make sure each sentence is written in your best English. Keep it at one idea per paragraph.

I'm sorry if I sound patronizing. Feel free to completely ignore this comment if you think I'm out of bound.

God, the football analogy is so ridiculous ! In football, it is forbidden to tackle an opponent from behind, and it's also forbidden to score a goal with your hand : did you ever see a team being forfeited because these things happened ? In most cases, the player won't even get a red card !
All this "law enforcement" delirium applied to chess is utter bs. Soon, we won't even have the right to stand up during the game, to spend more than 30 minutes thinking on a move (or 20 ? or 10 ? What's decent ?), to have a drink or something to eat and such.
Don't get me wrong : there is a gaming etiquette, yes, but "law enforcement" to these extremities is just plain stupid.

@Jarvis
“…is arriving late (while your clock is ticking) such a big problem that it justifies the strictness (loss of the game) of the measure?”

As I said before, there are lots of people (some organizers, some players, some fans,...) demanding that both players must absolutely be at the board at the game's beginning. (Some tournaments can fulfill that demanding with the present rules, but some other may do the contrary.)
I'm NOT one of those. I find both the old rule and the new one (and also other possibilities) acceptable.
When I'm an arbiter, I aply it with no problem, and trying to be human with some little tolerances. (I feel much more revolted in aplying the cell phone rule, sometimes!)
When I'm a player, I get ther somewhat earlier, again with no problem. The so called "zero-tolerance" has even one (sad) advantage for me: It avoids those events when I'm White and they force to make a first move even if Black is not there (otherwise it's MY clock which ticks). THAT is revolting!
When I'm a fan following such a tournament (like this World Cup), I also have no problem in knowing the rule is aplied, as long as with equanimity and fairness.
So my short answer to your question is "No", but of course it is not exactely the problem here.

"We know your favourite word is “demagogy”. (...) We know you desperately want to pursuade everyone else that your personal opinion is the only correct opinion"

There's a song with an answer for you:
"... Should have known better..."

It was not me who ---- from the beginning of this subject, on threads on this column (including the column itself) and on other articles --- started presenting things like a "scandall", something "obviously" wrong from FIDE et al, that "obviously" meant this and that horror, ETC.!
When you (all who tried that) found out that there was people with a completely different view and backed with some strong points, you just didn't get so amused.
We understand you, keep cool on that!
(As for thinking I'm right, yes, unless discovering otherwise. And that happen many times, that's why you --- not knowing me --- are also simply unfair.)
(If you still think this demagogy didn't get refuted already, please ilustrate us)

"You haven’t “proved” anything"

As a matter of fact, I think I did, but it should be those against the rule (specialy because of the violence of their atack and the disregard for other's opinions) to get down from their revolted excitment, and present undemagogicaly their arguments. Above all, having the calm and presence of spirit to drop those refuted.

"you have desperately imposed your personal view on the matter"

I reproduce this sentence of yours just to say two things:
1. I never desperated on this. YOU look desperade!
2. And unfair. Again. I'm sorry to say.

'More importantly, we think the facts are completely irrelevant in this matter. It’s the zero-tolerance rule itself (in fact any zero-tolerance rule) that we have problems with.'

A very strange way of reasoning.
The facts determine whether a particular situation falls within the scope of a rule, any rule.
The facts therefore are always of prime importance.
One may be convinced that a zero-tolerance policy is inappropriate or ineffective or undesirable, but that is an altogether different discussion.
Once the rule is in existence, one must enforce it. If one is unhappy with the rule, then the proper procedure is to change or abolish the rule, not to make exceptions.
Furthermore, the rationale for making exceptions can only be based on the specific circumstances of the particular case, in other words: the facts of the case.
As long as the rule is in existence, one will have to take the facts into account.

For the record: I fully agree that this rule is unwise and should be abolished, but completely disregarding the facts while the rule is still in effect is just as unwise.

Admiring the patience of those who REALLY have to have it (not Arne but whoever read he's column with some sense of reality),

and thanking all the free advices, well intended but anyway childish misinterpretations, and information on my rights,

I'll answer those somewhat new or interesting arguments:

@Roland Brockman
"Fischer was a few minutes late for his first game with Spassky in 1972, he was caught in traffic. Ponder what might have happened if he had been forfeited"

Fischer (as anyone!) should be submited to the rules forfeiting him on that, IF the rules were those (The fact that he broke some rules unpunished, or that others made some wrong things on him, also unpunished, doesn't come to matter here. I just said what he SHOULD).
And he should be submied to that rules AS HE WAS (or should have been) submited to the rules that were valid at his time.
Nothing more, nothing less. (for instance, at his time he knew he --- "extremely", you would say ---- couldn't take back a move, and the consequences of trying it).
I know it's a cheep comparison, and some poor demagogues could come with "Haha, comparing chess to travelling! Great entertainment, guys!", but what if Fischer got to the airport after the time for the plain to go? Is it because of being Fischer that we should be scandalized?

"it seems that now organisers can make their tournaments more attractive to competitors by advertising, say, a 30 minute default time. This is the case for the upcoming Australian Championship"

You're right. See? The present ruling is actually more free! Unfair, extreme (or even discriminatory or illegal!) surely are things this rule ain't.

@ratjak
"For the record: I fully agree that this rule is unwise and should be abolished, but completely disregarding the facts while the rule is still in effect is just as unwise"

Someone brave and wise! Congratulations!
I don't think like you (I say the rule is acceptable and doesn't need to be abolished), but I'm glad one more person have the guts of having some sense of reality.
Repeating myself:
"A far different thing is saying it is “unfair” or “extreme”, and starting to put all who doesn’t agree on the role of stupids or fascists or chess hatters or bureucrats or whatever nonsense alike"
The rule is defensable, and even harmless, but the main point is that all the fuzz against it is artificial. Specialy because there are really outragious rules on FIDE regulations, and the punctuality rule isn't one of them!

Firstly I admit I havent read through everyone's comments but the real problem with zero-tolerance rules is the lack of the human factor in consideration of the situation at hand. I am reminded of the old Star Trek episode where the ONLY punishment a planet had was the death penalty. One of the young characters was playing, tripped and fell on the grass and this was against the law... the result well thats the drama of the show.

Here the problem is the same... the judge in the show has no ability to take into account outside circumstances. There is only one thing to determine guilt.. not the degree of guilt or the circumstances in which the situation occurred nothing. just guilt.
Could the organizers contributed to the situation? Could the organizers have done something that prevented the problem? Sure but these factors are unimportant when it comes to the degree of punishment.
This is why zero-tolerance rules are ignorant rules in any situation as a first resort, they have always failed and caused more problems than they solved.
Imagine right now how upset the Chinese goverment and chess Federations are at their players being basically forfeited because of this rule.(not meant as a segway into a critique of the Chinese goverment policies either.

Forfieting a game because your standing 3 meters away from your chair and not seated is not in the spirit of the rule.

Those people that talk about football teams not showing up late. Guess what! There are players that occasionally show up late to the field and run out of the locker room late,... they are fined but still play. Also they are expected to show up for warmup before the game and if they are late then people search for them so that is a poor analogy.

any rule that takes all the decision making out of the judge's hands is bad.
If showing up late is a problem then there should be a standard contract that has a range of punishements based on the severity of the infraction.
If the focus is on sponcors and money then start implimenting finacial fines.
if a player loses 100 - 1000 euro from their prize money (or appeance fees) Ill bet they start paying attention.

@Tony
"the lack of the human factor in consideration of the situation at hand"

This isn't the case, because
1. You can play (or follow) just those tournaments with, say, 15 minutes or more of tolerance after the apointed beggining;
In this tournament, one of the ways to lose a game is by arriving late (no matter how much late). Not the first tournament in this. Everybody knew, and everyone who played expressly accepted.
2. Special circunstances are in fact posible with this rule, something that doesn't exist on cell phone rule or touched piece rule, for naming just two.

"Forfieting a game because your standing 3 meters away from your chair and not seated is not in the spirit of the rule"
Well said!
It's not acceptable to forfeit you are "3 meters away from your chair", or arriving shortly after, but no later then the moment the arbiter is about to forfeit you.
I am an arbiter, the rules don't force me to do that kind of forfeits, and I won't do them! Dare to doubt?
There indeed exist space for tolerance, even in thoses cases of the written one being "zero". If there are cases of forfeiting players blindly, those, in my view, are cases of bad arbiters. That didn't happen in the World Cup, as far as we know.

"Poor analogy"
Really poor is distorting sistematicaly on that, to the point of showing that you didn't read any of the explanations --- which I had enough in pursuing (or even reading the analogy itself?). That is poor, and bad, mainly on yourself!

As I said, I find the rule acceptable as it is now, but your sugestion on having a range of punishments is constructive and matter for consideration. BTW, not on this rule alone, I presume! And saddly because (and hence, AFTER) famous players have been subject of it's aplication! ;-)

Some try to make dumb out of others; some just seem particularly engaged in looking as if they are dumb themselves.

For just these two particular categories, I present something now.

I have a (another one!) proposal that could please both "zero-tolerance" "hard" defenders (something I'm not, and the present rule DOES NOT force), and "zero-tolerance" fundamental hatters (from which not ONE good argument is to be found on this site, but anyway, capable from big BIG noise).
How about (a concrete example is easier to fast-present):

"The games begin at 16:00. Players have to present themselves at the board between 15:00 and 16:00. Failing in do so imply the loss of the game"

Would you find this acceptable? If not, exactely WHY NOT? Because it looks like someone trying to fool you with a rule identical IN PRACTICE? But you have there "your time-tolerance!" (and the other "fundamentalists" have there "their" obligatory presence at the beggining of the games!)
Please try to explain ----- not to me, but TO YOURSELVES! You'd be fooled if accepting such a change merely because you've been fooling yourselves before on this whole issue!

(I repeat this would be a non-needed change, except for trying to bring an acceptable rule for everyone. The present FIDE is acceptable for me.)

Make a poll, scrutinizing that sugestion of mine please! :-) Thanks.

Arne/Peter,
What's the problem with discussions involving Israel-Palestina? Less reactions, less emotions.
You don't check Vibes for 2 days: more than 150 comments. Interesting subject, but I cannot put myself to read them.
About time to get this to another level: interviewing key figures?

Can I put out the light or is someone still there?

"“zero-tolerance” fundamental hatters (from which not ONE good argument is to be found on this site, but anyway, capable from big BIG noise)."

Your personal opinion. BBIIGG deal.

“The games begin at 16:00. Players have to present themselves at the board between 15:00 and 16:00. Failing in do so imply the loss of the game”

So, by your rule, it is mandatory for a player to present himself at the board before the start of the game. Having fulfilled this duty, the player is then free to wander around, and come back later (even after the start of the clock) to play his first move. That can't be what you meant, right?

Perhaps you meant that the player has to actually stay at the board once he presented himself, or that he may wander around but has to be back for the start of the game, in which case you're just making the zero tolerance rule even stricter. Great job.

@Guillaume
"Having fulfilled this duty, the player is then free to wander around, and come back later (even after the start of the clock) to play his first move. That can’t be what you meant, right?""

As anyone can see --- even you --- that matter should be the easiest to solve, for those who really wanted to positively contribute to solving something here, and not merely making a fuzz or trying to see have opinion prevail, whatever merits it has.
As you ask me, indeed that could be a solution for me, but not (for instance) for those stricktly defending the player's presence at the exact begin of the game (an opinion I respect and you don't, because you and others sistematicaly mock on it, BTW with comparisons and analogies from the poorest lot).

As I wrote, if you think my sugestion would be stricter, and hence an atempt on fooling someone, you have everything to see that it is in fact you who've benn fooling yourself. In fact, if you think, that sugestion (and the presen rule too) is inocuous and harmful. Fears, revolt, paranoia arround them are out of place.
As long as you enter a "zero-tolerance" (demagogic name, as I proved before), just BE THERE, on time for the games (or before)!
Count on some little non-written tolerance by your opponent and the arbiter? Good!
Have a strongly good reason for a delay? Even better!
That's it! Otherwise don't play or follow that tournament, as I'm doing regarding the stupid only-money London chess-variant one.

Nevertheless, "Good job!" for you, on that another demagogy exercise!

@Jarvis

Yes, Jarvis, NOT ONE. Try me with one at a time, and I'll show you why it is childishly refuted or where it has already been fully refuted. Big deal you can have!

@Frits, the only reason not to encourage Israel/Palestina discussions is because the escalation/insult rate is about 10 times faster than any other topic, including this one. As far as I'm concerned: the more comments the better, provided nobody gets insulted personally and the level of arguments does not deteriorate.

Arne,
Of course you are completely right about Israel/Palestina discussions. But: the last one on that topic had 34 comments, now we are nearing the 200 mark. Not manageable anymore, leading to nothing.
Chess vibes makes me remember my pub days. You pop in for half an hour a day (I'm lying now), and mostly everything is pleasantly the same. Ceann is drunk, Thomas is smoking his pipe and Castro has heated arguments with anybody willing to listen. Arne or Peter are behind the bar and maintain a minimum of order.
But you were out for a couple of days and in the mean time the mayor has proposed to, say, ban smoking in pubs. You come back and the place is filled with people tumbling over eachother, some after many months (Manu?), to speak shame about the mayor or to defend him.
The problem is, the next morning everyone has forgotten what all the fuzz was about, as allways in pub discussions.
What I hope is that the Chess vibes editors (who more and more seem to be trying to professionalize their thing, isn't it?) don't see themselves as simple bartenders, but as journalists with a mission. You now have all the arguments; confront the right people with them.

@Castro: "...is arriving late (while your clock is ticking) such a big problem that it justifies the strictness (loss of the game) of the measure?"

Many think that the answer to the question above is: no, it isn't. If you don't agree, that's your personal opinion. It really painful to see your subjective view on the matter being repeated time and again. We know your favourite word is "demagogy". We know you really think you are right. We know you desperately want to pursuade everyone else that your personal opinion is the only correct opinion.

Many other arguments have been raised against the rule in question, and it's obvious that you don't agree with them. You haven't "proved" anything, you have desperately imposed your personal view on the matter.

@Chessvibes: Please close the thread, for the sake of world peace.

Again sorry, just to complete:

When I'm a player (in a tournament of whatever time tolerance), if I fail to be there on time because I simply went astray or other minor reasons, of course I accept a loss (as I accepted, frustrated but resigned, one cell phone loss). No big deal.
I may wish to change some rule (circunstances or penalities), but this one is NOT a matter of legitime scandal.

When I'm ORGANIZING a tournament, I prefer to set some time tolerance different from zero, but I never organize big tournaments, and I never do it by myself, so I may agree on "zero-tolerance" sometime in the future, because it's indeed no big deal, if everybody is aware of it. The players can (in those cases "should") point for some time earlier, just to be on the safe side. In big pro tournaments like that, also do as sugested, or else pay the price. Until the rule changes, if enough people think it should. Some of us don't.

"indeed that could be a solution for me, but not (for instance) for those stricktly defending the player’s presence at the exact begin of the game"

Are you suffering from split personality, or are you just trolling? What have you been advocating for all along if not for the mandatory presence of the players at the exact starting time of the game?

Ah! You just pretend you read, but the bigger part is prejudice? Not good!
You should guess that that kind of things surface, sooner or latter!
And I should have guessed, by the incredible recurrent misanderstandings!

@Castro: You don't think it's necessary for Chessvibes to make such a fuzz about the rule. I don't think it's necessary for you to make such a fuzz about that.