Do Arbiters Know The Rules Of Chess?

[LawrenceCooper]

As an aside I think the stuff about juniors is a red herring. Strong 10 year olds rarely if ever make illegal moves. Weak 80 year olds can do all sorts of strange stuff. It is more a question of strength than age.

[/quote]

I suspect that it's more national Under 7 events that are being considered, rather than strong 10 year olds.

[Mike Gunn]

Loz is right - this suggestion was prompted by the reported problem of several juniors losing games at the British Championships. On the other hand many of us regard rapidplay as a less serious form of chess activity and it is possible to argue for slightly less draconian rules. We all suffer from moments of chess blindness and I don't see the point of this rule (compared to losing after 3 illegal moves in standard and rapidplay), unless it is to stop cheating in the circumstances I describe above.

[Brian Towers]

Loz is right - this suggestion was prompted by the reported problem of several juniors losing games at the British Championships.

I think the broader picture is represented more by Adam Raoof's concern that the one strike and you're out rule is inappropriate for his U120 tournaments which he wants to be FIDE rated at brisk rapid time controls. I don't know how appropriate it really is for under 7's to be playing under FIDE rules at all.

On the other hand many of us regard rapidplay as a less serious form of chess activity and it is possible to argue for slightly less draconian rules.

59 minutes for the game is rapidplay rate not standard. That's not much slower than some leagues play their serious chess at.

We all suffer from moments of chess blindness and I don't see the point of this rule (compared to losing after 3 illegal moves in standard and rapidplay), unless it is to stop cheating in the circumstances I describe above.

You are misinformed. It is 2 illegal moves in standard and one in rapidplay and blitz.

[NickFaulks]

I have always felt that in all forms of chess, an illegal move played when you have less than five minutes on your clock ( or two minutes, or something else ) should lose the game. The game has been disrupted, perhaps to your own advantage, and there is nothing that can be done to compensate properly for that. Increasing the opponent's remaining time from 22 to 24 minutes is irrelevant.

[Ian Thompson]

I think the broader picture is represented more by Adam Raoof's concern that the one strike and you're out rule is inappropriate for his U120 tournaments which he wants to be FIDE rated at brisk rapid time controls.

The mistake was to allow FIDE ratings to go down to 1000, which is the standard of a beginner (and equivalent to an ECF grade of 40). It's reasonable that FIDE rated games should be played according to FIDE rules. It's not reasonable to expect beginners never to make illegal moves and to suffer loss of the game when they do.

[NickFaulks]

The mistake was to allow FIDE ratings to go down to 1000

No, this was not a mistake. Many federations treat FIDE ratings as their primary list, and some have abandoned their national rating systems altogether, or even have never had one. The FIDE rating system cannot be designed for the benefit of the few federations which are trying to resist its encroachments.

[Mike Truran]

Nick, if you'll forgive me that does come across as very pompous.

[NickFaulks]

Nick, if you'll forgive me that does come across as very pompous.

Yes, I thought that myself. Still true, though.

[Mike Truran]

I applaud your self-awareness, if not your pomposity.

[Ian Thompson]

The mistake was to allow FIDE ratings to go down to 1000

No, this was not a mistake. Many federations treat FIDE ratings as their primary list, and some have abandoned their national rating systems altogether, or even have never had one. The FIDE rating system cannot be designed for the benefit of the few federations which are trying to resist its encroachments.

The current FIDE rating list ought to be aimed at players who are good enough to play in international events, and exclude those who aren't.

If some federations can't, or don't want to, run a national rating system, FIDE could offer to run a national rating list for them. The national federation could then decide which games should be included in it, and the rules under which the games had to played. FIDE needn't care because the games wouldn't be included in the international rating list. All they would be doing is processing results.

[NickFaulks]

The current FIDE rating list ought to be aimed at players who are good enough to play in international events, and exclude those who aren't.

That is your view. It may well be the view of your federation. It may even be the view of one other sizeable federation noted for its isolationist tendencies, but that's about it.

[Mike Truran]

Nick, perhaps you could talk us through the FIDE process that elicited the views of the other "sizeable" federations before the new arrangements were implemented? While you're at it, perhaps you could also enlighten us as to how the "non-sizeable" federations were consulted?

[Roger de Coverly]

It may even be the view of one other sizeable federation noted for its isolationist tendencies, but that's about it.

If amongst your primary forms of participation in organised chess are games with nominal session lengths of between 150 minutes and 210 minutes, you have little choice but to retain your national and independent rating or grading system. That's assuming you aren't prepared to ban higher rated players from domestic chess.

Even if you have a session length of 240 minutes, the pile of paperwork necessary to become FIDE rated is a likely discouragement to less committed organisers.

[Bill Porter]

The current FIDE rating list ought to be aimed at players who are good enough to play in international events, and exclude those who aren't.

To discover players who've become good enough to play in international events, you require a rating list which includes players who are not (yet) good enough to play in international events.

With your new system, no new player can ever get a FIDE rating, since anyone without a FIDE rating is by definition not good enough to have a FIDE rating and no games (s)he plays can be considered for rating.

With your new system, the rating system will be permanently the sole preserve of already qualified players.

At last I see what you're getting at.

If some federations can't, or don't want to, run a national rating system, FIDE could offer to run a national rating list for them. The national federation could then decide which games should be included in it, and the rules under which the games had to played.

New Game Fee system:

£4 per game if you only want your wins counted.

£1 each for all games counted.

or £1 credit for games you've lost which your opponents want counted.

How high a FIDE approved grade do you want? How much can you afford?

[Ian Thompson]

With your new system, no new player can ever get a FIDE rating, since anyone without a FIDE rating is by definition not good enough to have a FIDE rating and no games (s)he plays can be considered for rating.

What I suggested would return the FIDE rating list to what it used to be in the past, with the lowest published FIDE rating being fairly high. It would be no more difficult for a player to acquire a FIDE rating for the first time than it used to be in the past.

If some federations can't, or don't want to, run a national rating system, FIDE could offer to run a national rating list for them. The national federation could then decide which games should be included in it, and the rules under which the games had to played.

New Game Fee system:

£4 per game if you only want your wins counted.

£1 each for all games counted.

or £1 credit for games you've lost which your opponents want counted.

How high a FIDE approved grade do you want? How much can you afford?

Alternatively, they could do something sensible, like saying that games would only be included in their national rating list if played under acceptable conditions and subject to payment of membership fees, game fees or the like.