Too much dishonesty in chess

[Paul Dupré]

Games not being rated if one player is over 2400.

Best of both FIDE / ECF ratings

Adjudications

Adjournments

Not recording if one player has less than 5 minutes

3-move repetition

should I go on...

[Roger de Coverly]

should I go on...

You could explain why you think such practices represent dishonesty.

[Paul Dupré]

Games not being rated if one player is over 2400: Simple, don't play if you don't want your game rated

Best of both FIDE / ECF ratings: the only legal draw was not applied at the Guildford "FIDE" Congress because the wrongs ratings were used

Adjournments: Allow help from silicon chip OR other players - why play chess at all if you think this is okay

Adjudications: 100% help from someone else to finish your game

Not recording if one player has less than 5 minutes: Allows that player to have more thinking time, for being bad at time management OR maybe just cheating the system

3-move repetition: You have to claim in the exact right way, with you to move, if your opponent doesn't agree, stop the clock, get the arbiter, blah blah blah. Why not, if you can prove it, then that's final.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Amazed that adjudications are *still* a thing!

[Reg Clucas]

Not recording if one player has less than 5 minutes: Allows that player to have more thinking time, for being bad at time management

It's not necessarily being bad at time management, it's simply moving more slowly than your opponent. Anyway, not recording moves carries the risk that you won't be able to claim draws by repetition or 50 move rule, so you can hardly call it 'dishonest'.

[MJMcCready]

What about sabotaging your opponents scoresheet before he arrives at the table by drawing pictures on it. I've seen that happen before.

[MJMcCready]

Okay so he was only about 8 years old, but he still did it.

[Roger de Coverly]

Games not being rated if one player is over 2400: Simple, don't play if you don't want your game rated

That's only if the nominal session length is less than four hours. I believe all UK based events with session lengths less than that are rating restricted.

Best of both FIDE / ECF ratings: the only legal draw was not applied at the Guildford "FIDE" Congress because the wrongs ratings were used

I don't know what you mean by "legal draw". Outside of Norm events, arbiters are allowed to choose a pairing scheme without disqualifying games from being rated. The premise behind using the ECF ratings is that for many British players, ranking by ECF rating is a more reliable measure of relative strength than FIDE ratings.

Not recording if one player has less than 5 minutes: Allows that player to have more thinking time, for being bad at time management OR maybe just cheating the system

The rule is that a player with less than five minutes in games WITHOUT a 30 second increment is allowed to cease scoring. I don't know how long that's been in Laws of Chess, probably it predates FIDE or even the BCF. Increments modified it in the 1990s to require score to be kept.

3-move repetition: You have to claim in the exact right way, with you to move, if your opponent doesn't agree, stop the clock, get the arbiter, blah blah blah. Why not, if you can prove it, then that's final.

It isn't 3 moves, it's the position being repeated for the third time no matter how many moves have been made in the meantime. I could agree that some arbiters would adopt an over officious approach. But if the claim is unlikely to be disputed by the opponent, I would offer a draw at the second repetition. That works provided organisers avoid the temptation to impose "no draw" rules.

Outside perhaps of Surrey, Sussex and some others in the Greater London area, adjournments and adjudications were abolished over twenty years ago, so not an issue for the majority of UK players.

[Paul Dupré]

Okay, what I should of said is: "In my opinion, there's too much dishonesty in chess"

[Paul Dupré]

BTW none of your replies have changed my mind.

[Paul Dupré]

People accept things because they are the law, I don't.

[Paul Dupré]

Best of both FIDE / ECF ratings: the only legal draw was not applied at the Guildford "FIDE" Congress because the wrongs ratings were used

I don't know what you mean by "legal draw". Outside of Norm events, arbiters are allowed to choose a pairing scheme without disqualifying games from being rated. The premise behind using the ECF ratings is that for many British players, ranking by ECF rating is a more reliable measure of relative strength than FIDE ratings.

Don't just disagree with me, quoting such and such rule tell me why you don't agree.

Personally, I think FIDE event should mean FIDE ratings... I don't like fake FIDE ratings, why does ECF over-ride FIDE in a FIDE event. Obviously, this is something new-ish and I don't see any reason for it. Maybe, there's too much flexibility for organisers / arbiters.

I don't understand how ECF ratings can be more accurate, when they are not based on FIDE rated events. Guildford were not using the most accurate rating, they were using the highest rating. How do you know the highest rating is more accurate. It's all wrong. Make it clear in the draw, that it is not a real FIDE rating, that's all I'm asking really.

It's down to the the players themselves to pay the entry fees and improve their own rating. For me it feels like you're just giving "under-rated" players too much credence and helping these players get an easier draw. I'm sure there's no evidence that ECF ratings based on 2/3 hour games are more accurate for a 4/5 hour game.

[Brian Valentine]

Maybe I have too vested an interest, but the Guildford Event was ECF rated. I find it strange why anyone would want to completely ignore the national rating list, just because the event is advertised as also being rated by another body.

To be put in a class of cheating and dishonesty does a diservice to people like you Paul who help make it as accurate as possible.

[Paul Dupré]

Maybe I have too vested an interest, but the Guildford Event was ECF rated. I find it strange why anyone would want to completely ignore the national rating list, just because the event is advertised as also being rated by another body.

To be put in a class of cheating and dishonesty does a diservice to people like you Paul who help make it as accurate as possible.

I believe it was advertised as a FIDE event, yet has not been FIDE rated.

Non-FIDE rated players should count as zero rated in my mind, with a secondary rating of local rating (ECF) if known.

[Wadih Khoury]

Maybe I have too vested an interest, but the Guildford Event was ECF rated. I find it strange why anyone would want to completely ignore the national rating list, just because the event is advertised as also being rated by another body.

To be put in a class of cheating and dishonesty does a diservice to people like you Paul who help make it as accurate as possible.

I believe it was advertised as a FIDE event, yet has not been FIDE rated.

Non-FIDE rated players should count as zero rated in my mind, with a secondary rating of local rating (ECF) if known.

Might be a misunderstanding, but if it was a FIDE event, all your games will be rated except the ones against players with no Fide ratings.
You will also be rated for Ecf.