Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Ridiculous new "anti-cheating" rule for the World Open.


  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #141

    Admiral_Kirk

    SilentKnighte5 wrote:
    Kieseritzkys_Revenge wrote:

    It's obvious to me what this would prevent.  Here is a scenario for you to ponder:

    Player purchases a cheap andriod smart phone off of ebay.  They then put stockfish and SCID on it.  The player then has his accomplice who has already finished his game stash the phone in a lavitory stall.  Behind the shitter, or in a paper dispensor, or just leave it in the stall and the player uses the stall immediately after the accomplice stashes the phone.  The cheater then makes use of the phone.  The cheaters could even just hand the phone off while making use of urinals that are side by side or even in passing with only minimal slight of hand skills.  Everyone should be banned from brining electronics into the bathroom.

    And this rule doesn't address that scenario since it would already being addressed by the NO CHEATING rule.  Just because there's a rule against bringing phones into the bathroom doesn't stop someone from doing whwat you just described.  Walking into the bathroom to take a piss after your game is over shouldn't result in a forfiet.

    I've never understood the whole "criminals (in this case cheaters) will do it anyway, so why ban it?  The rest will do it responsibly."

    This is used so often when opposing gun control in America, but I ask why we don't apply this idea to all laws.  Murder shouldn't be illegal because criminals will just do it anyway.  The non-criminals will only murder in self defence, etc.

    But I digress.  I'm not going to get into a political debate, I'm just using that as an example.  You can say that people will bring a phone in and do that anyway, so why have the rule, but I would then ask why we have any rules at all.

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #142

    ChipotleJones

    People in this thread have claimed that cellphone use is discourteous (Admiral_Kirk); that cellphones have "taken over" people's lives (MSteen); they prevent people from relating to each other as humans (wilbert_78); it's an addiction (I_am_second) or the "total death of humanity" (DAILYWATERSITTING).

    I realize I'm not going to change any of those minds today, so I will only point out that nothing anybody above said is true. People hate public cellphone use because there is a weird thing in human brains that makes it way more distracting to overhear one side of a conversation than to overhear both sides. Some people have the brainpower or willpower to overcome this; these people apparently don't. They are self-important jerks who think their annoyance outweighs anybody else's rights, and they make up the above justifications in order to still see themselves as decent people.

    We've established that banning cellphone use (in bathrooms or outside them) not only won't prevent cheating, it won't even make cheating significantly more difficult. As one person said, people communicated just fine before cellphones were ubiquitous. So a person with a strong chess computer SOMEWHERE can still communicate moves SOMEHOW to a player in the tournament area.

    If we're not preventing cheating, then what exactly are we doing with these rules? We're indulging selfish people who think the world revolves around them. Nothing more.

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #143

    ChipotleJones

    balente suggests a jamming device. These are illegal, for good reason. If someone needs to call 911, but their phone is jammed, you're now responsible if somebody dies because it took longer to get an ambulance to the scene.

    Wilbert_78 suggests people should read books instead of using their phones. I READ BOOKS ON MY PHONE. IN FACT, I HAVE A SMALL LIBRARY ON MY PHONE.

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #144

    shell_knight

    Takes away plausible deniability.  No longer can you say you wipe your ass with your phone.

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #145

    Admiral_Kirk

    ChipotleJones wrote:

    People in this thread have claimed that cellphone use is discourteous (Admiral_Kirk); that cellphones have "taken over" people's lives (MSteen); they prevent people from relating to each other as humans (wilbert_78); it's an addiction (I_am_second) or the "total death of humanity" (DAILYWATERSITTING).

     

    I realize I'm not going to change any of those minds today, so I will only point out that nothing anybody above said is true. People hate public cellphone use because there is a weird thing in human brains that makes it way more distracting to overhear one side of a conversation than to overhear both sides. Some people have the brainpower or willpower to overcome this; these people apparently don't. They are self-important jerks who think their annoyance outweighs anybody else's rights, and they make up the above justifications in order to still see themselves as decent people.

     

    We've established that banning cellphone use (in bathrooms or outside them) not only won't prevent cheating, it won't even make cheating significantly more difficult. As one person said, people communicated just fine before cellphones were ubiquitous. So a person with a strong chess computer SOMEWHERE can still communicate moves SOMEHOW to a player in the tournament area.

     

    If we're not preventing cheating, then what exactly are we doing with these rules? We're indulging selfish people who think the world revolves around them. Nothing more.

    My apologies, I was unclear with regard to it being discurteous.  My intention was to say that cell phone use in restrooms (bathrooms, etc.) is not curteous.  I would also say, and I think you would agree, it's not curteous to use them in the playing area, but I was more referring to the bathroom.

    With the restroom, it's just like how it's questionable to whip out a camera in a restroom.  If you're talking on the phone, the other person may hear certain noises from other restroom attendees, and that's kind of rude, to be broadcasting that to others.  Just carrying it in, though, would generally be considered okay, as long as you don't get it out, but some would say it's different at a chess tournament where the bathroom is in the playing area; that has already been discussed.

    On the more general topic of cell phone use in public places, you call us "self-important jerks" because we don't have the "willpower" to ignore it. While I believe in respectful debate, not name calling and mudslinging, I don't understand how the multiple people who are driven crazy by it are self-important, but the one person who had to whip it out in public, perhaps knowing it annoys other people would not be classified that way.  If you're doing something that annoys the people around you (if you can go to a private place, which admittedly is not always), but you benefit, then one person, you (not you, but "one" technically) are benefiting while maybe five people are annoyed.  I fail to see how the one person benefiting is the selfless one and the other five are selfish.

    As for the topic of willpower and mental discipline, it's not about that in terms of who it annoys.  A majority of people I've talked to think loud phone conversations and the like while in public (when the caller could go to a private place) are annoying.  I have a great deal of mental discipline and have the qualifications to get into MENSA (not trying to brag, I think MENSA is actually a stupid organization because IQ tests are known to be extremely unreliable in judging actual intelligence), but it annoys me.  Simply, it doesn't matter how good your brain is, or your mental discipline, it still might annoy you.

    While I do not agree with it, I respect your opinion.  I hope you and I can continue participating in respectful debate without the need to call anybody any names.

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #146

    SilentKnighte5

    Admiral_Kirk wrote:
    SilentKnighte5 wrote:
    Kieseritzkys_Revenge wrote:

    It's obvious to me what this would prevent.  Here is a scenario for you to ponder:

    Player purchases a cheap andriod smart phone off of ebay.  They then put stockfish and SCID on it.  The player then has his accomplice who has already finished his game stash the phone in a lavitory stall.  Behind the shitter, or in a paper dispensor, or just leave it in the stall and the player uses the stall immediately after the accomplice stashes the phone.  The cheater then makes use of the phone.  The cheaters could even just hand the phone off while making use of urinals that are side by side or even in passing with only minimal slight of hand skills.  Everyone should be banned from brining electronics into the bathroom.

    And this rule doesn't address that scenario since it would already being addressed by the NO CHEATING rule.  Just because there's a rule against bringing phones into the bathroom doesn't stop someone from doing whwat you just described.  Walking into the bathroom to take a piss after your game is over shouldn't result in a forfiet.

    I've never understood the whole "criminals (in this case cheaters) will do it anyway, so why ban it?  The rest will do it responsibly."

    There's already a rule against cheating.  There doesn't need to be an additional rule against bathroom cheating because the 1st rule covers it.

    There are laws against murder.  There doesn't need to be another law against murdering someone in a bathroom.

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #147

    I_Am_Second

    ChipotleJones wrote:

    People in this thread have claimed that cellphone use is discourteous (Admiral_Kirk); that cellphones have "taken over" people's lives (MSteen); they prevent people from relating to each other as humans (wilbert_78); it's an addiction (I_am_second) or the "total death of humanity" (DAILYWATERSITTING).

     

    I realize I'm not going to change any of those minds today, so I will only point out that nothing anybody above said is true. People hate public cellphone use because there is a weird thing in human brains that makes it way more distracting to overhear one side of a conversation than to overhear both sides. Some people have the brainpower or willpower to overcome this; these people apparently don't. They are self-important jerks who think their annoyance outweighs anybody else's rights, and they make up the above justifications in order to still see themselves as decent people.

     

    We've established that banning cellphone use (in bathrooms or outside them) not only won't prevent cheating, it won't even make cheating significantly more difficult. As one person said, people communicated just fine before cellphones were ubiquitous. So a person with a strong chess computer SOMEWHERE can still communicate moves SOMEHOW to a player in the tournament area.

     

    If we're not preventing cheating, then what exactly are we doing with these rules? We're indulging selfish people who think the world revolves around them. Nothing more.


    What is rude, is being someplace and someone is on there phone talking loud enough for others to hear.  Go outside and talk...go somewhere where youre not bothering others...sitting in a movie theater on your phone is rude, sitting in a restaurant talking on a phone is rude.  Trying to have a conversation with someone, and they dont even have the deceny to look at you, but can stare at a phone, and just answer "uh huh" is rude.    Unless youre waiting for a donated organ, it can wait. 

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #148

    shell_knight

    SilentKnighte5 wrote:

    There's already a rule against cheating.  There doesn't need to be an additional rule against bathroom cheating because the 1st rule covers it.

    There are laws against murder.  There doesn't need to be another law against murdering someone in a bathroom.

    Well, I disagree, and I think you're arguing just for the sake of arguing.

    But are you still claiming it's ridiculous (as in the title) or have you downgraded the argument to it's redundant?

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #149

    Doggy_Style

    shell_knight wrote:
     

    Well, I disagree, and I think you're arguing just for the sake of arguing.

     

    Bingo! Wink

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #150

    Superqueen500

    Atleast they don't have to play barefoot.

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #151

    camter

    AKAL1 wrote:
    kaynight wrote:

    Is this what chess has come to?

    Yes.

    Same thing has happened to Checkers.

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #152

    MarkProb

    I'm getting pissed off, opps, I mean I'm going for a pee pee with my wee wee in the correct spot. Not in my pants firstly, preferably not a diaper secondly, I like the jug idea mentioned by "cardinal46" because I'm not shy ( & this has nothing to do with size ) but & this is a big BUTT, what if you have to go #2. I might be a little shy using that jug. Besides, it just ain't sanitary. This NOT GOING IDEA is a form of prejudice on many levels. Pit stops are a good idea. Not so with phones. Equal for everyone & not going to make a smell like no lavatory breaks will. Noise isn't the only possible distraction when playing chess. One walk in the hen house & you know what I mean. No phones, blackberries, laptops,desktops, & especially no BIG BLUES in the building past the door, check them at the door like you would in older days :- a gun ; your hat: your coat; bad manners: There has to be rules. Otherwise you could end up capturing a king with a bishop for the first time in over 1/2 century of playing chess like this morning's daily puzzle. I slamed that king in less than two seconds flat before I figured some thing was wrong. Really enjoyed it. Nice to know that errors are not all mine & that there are more human beans out there. I am the first to say that without mistakes life is pretty boring, but, & I repeat & this is a big BUTT, preferably not in my pants!  CHESS RULES !!!

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #153

    halfgreek1963

    Why not just bring porto-potties into the playing room? Problem solved.

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #154

    Kadub

    I suffer from schizophrenia and my alternate personality is rather good at chess. Would it be cheating if he occasionally suggested a move? And what about a midget in a suitcase or a Mechanical Turk?

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #155

    VULPES_VULPES

    Good thing none of this concerns me since I don't have a cell phone :P

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #156

    MarkProb

    No discrimination now...NO LITTLE PEOPLE in a suitcase! And definitely no confounded MECHANICAL TURKS! NO! NO! NO! Oh no gotta go!         CHESS RULES!!!

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #157

    MarkProb

    Good point. No cell phone is a good cell phone. Who wants to microwave their brains on a regular basis anyways. Sort of like putting an egg in a microwave & cooking it, only slower. They just don't come out right.                    CHESS RULES!!!

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #158

    owltuna

    camter wrote:

    Just to clarify, Is this word bathroom an American euphemism for whatever it is a euphemism for ?

    "Bathroom" is Merkin-speak for toilet, or WC. Sometimes the term "restroom" is used. I've been overseas enough to know these are both very odd terms to use when not inside the good ol' US of A.

    When I come back from extended trips, I tend to keep asking "Where is the toilet?" and get odd glances as if I'm fixing to piss on the floor if I don't find a urinal fast.

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #159

    owltuna

    SilentKnighte5 wrote:

    There's already a rule against cheating.  There doesn't need to be an additional rule against bathroom cheating because the 1st rule covers it.

    There are laws against murder.  There doesn't need to be another law against murdering someone in a bathroom.

    You aren't going to like this, and probably won't accept it. That's the nature of a troll. But for the benefit of the casual observer: The rule is to assist the tournament director in enforcing discipline against cheaters. When it's laid down in simple terms, no computers in the bathroom during the tournament, it takes away the cheater's resort to "Hey, you can't prove I was cheating and no you can't see my phone!"

    So yes, there are laws against murder. There are also laws against discharging a firearm in public. There are also laws against taking a weapon, permitted or otherwise, into an establishment that caters to patrons 21 years of age and above. So, if there is already a law against murder, why do we need these other laws?

    In the off chance you are dense instead of obtuse, the reason is to remove temptation. If I don't take my pistol into a nightclub, I remove the chance of getting drunk and shooting myself in the thigh, or someone else in the head. (Pun not intended, ha ha ha.)

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #160

    badger_song

    "Their is no reason to have a cell phone in a bathroom...."

     

    ...unless it's the Olympics in Russia,or for some other reason you find  you can't get out.


Back to Top

Post your reply: