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

Or perhaps, when leaving the board, the opponent has the option of starting your clock and accompanying you wherever you may go.

Actually there was no quoted rule.  thirdstreet posted below a rule without quoting it.  I had to go find it just now.

Yeah the rule wasn't bolded in the OP or anything.

The bolded rule in the op is different from the rule referenced in the thirdstreet comment, and my subsequent comment.

Funny, this was your original point.

You practice talking in circles or does it come naturally?

The rule has an "also" in it. I think it is in conjunction with another anti-cheating rule, such as "Players may not bring phones to the bathroom"

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.

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

Yes.

        You cannot possibly need a mobile phone in the room where a chess tournament is taking place or in nearby toilet facilities and it is obvious to any sensible person how such a device might be used to assist in cheating. One example is the "texting" of a move to a competitor. As for mobiles, it does not need stating that we all managed perfectly well before they were developed.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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. 

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?

Bingo!

Atleast they don't have to play barefoot.