Do Arbiters Know The Rules Of Chess?

[Stewart Reuben]

You might like to know some facts. The following federations are among those that have NEVER had their own rating system:
Soviet Union or now the ex Soviet States inclduding Russia.
China
India tried one, but gave it up.

It was at my suggestion the ratings go down to 1000 gradually. It was at a substantial meeting in Germany.
It has helped develop chess worldwide.
It has led to one of the reasons for inflation disappearing. e.g. I was rated about 2220. I had a bad result and dropped below 2200, perhaps 2190 I was no longer in the rating list nd my loss of 30 points had vanished. The gain of 30 points among my opponents wass still there.

[NickFaulks]

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?

It was a clear policy from at least 1996 ( I think, Stewart? ) that it was intended to take the rating floor down to 1000. If there were federations which would have preferred to keep the FIDE list reserved for top players, they were not heard from. It is possible that a few did feel that way and for reasons of their own were boycotting the process.

It is presumed within FIDE that federations pass on such information to their members, such as yourself. Some are better than others in this regard, and I would like to see more direct communication with those who would welcome it.

The only discussion has concerned the speed at which the floor could safely be reduced without distortion at the bottom level and, more importantly, knock-on effects higher up. My feeling has always been that the floor was lowered dangerously fast, but early indications suggest that these fears were exaggerated. I certainly feel that we now need a breather of a decade, but I don't hear much disagreement with that.

[Paolo Casaschi]

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.

If I guessed right, the problem with the "other sizeable federation" (US?) is they went far beyond the rating and wrote their own rulebook entirely.

I might be wrong, but the only reason the FIDE Elo was initially limited to top player was the inability to collect and compute a larger amount of data. This also propagated downward: for example the Italian rating system also had a cut at the bottom, leading to "local" rating systems; the first club I joined had a club rating system. As soon as the prevailing systems spread out the club, then the regional and now the national ratings disappeared.

As Nick points out, some countries have more inertia in moving, but the globalization of rating is eventually bound to happen.

[Clive Blackburn]

Not sure how we got from the rules of chess to comparative rating systems.

Perhaps a new thread is needed?

[Brian Towers]

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.

Could you define what you mean by an "international event"?
Would the recent European Individual Championships in Jerusalem count as being an international event?
Here is a link to the chess-results.com list of players who took part - http://chess-results.com/tnr157274.aspx ... ilen=99999.

As you can see there were 5 players who started the tournament with no FIDE rating, 3 Israeli players with FIDE ratings round about the 1600 mark, one Belgium player rated about 1650, etc., etc.

[Stewart Reuben]

Paolo >I might be wrong, but the only reason the FIDE Elo was initially limited to top player was the inability to collect and compute a larger amount of data.<
I think you are wrong. If you were starting out a rating system in any sport, the natural thing to do is to create a system whereby there can be confidence in the ratings of the leading players. Certainly that is what I did in snooker. Elo in the US, Ingo in Germany and Clarke in England consulted each other. They produced somewhat different systems.
Ingo and Clarke were basically the same system. Eventually Ingo died out in favour of Elo. Clarke's of course modified still exists. It isn't inferior to the FIDE System.
You can explain the ECF System to an intelligent 10 yar old who is interested.
FIDE perhaps at 16.
USCF is very difficult to understand and very hard to calculate, actualy impossible without statistical data available online. Is it that much better? I don't know, but there is no doubt Gllicko systems fail the comprehension test.

Brian Towers asked for the definition of an 'international' event in FIDE, As far as I am concerned, it is one that is FIDE Rated.

Returning to Mike's question. The FIDE General Assembly, or possibly the Executive Board Meeting at which federations are well-represented, decided they wanted FIDE to head in a Commercial Direction. That must have been after 1996 because Kirsan nominated a Russian, Tarasov, in charge. Armed with that I made my proposal to the meeting that the ratings go down to 1000 gradually. Kevin O'Connell chaired the meeting as chairman of the QC and wanted it to go very rapidly. Proceeding to 1000 was then later agreed by the FIDE General Assembly. FIDE can be very democratic. Attend the Congress in Abu Dhabi and the commission meetings to observe that. Of courxse you have to know how to work the system.

Clive Blackburn is absolutely correct, the thread has moved completely off course.

The Rules Commission Councillors Meeting in Yerevan has now concluded. I travel home tomorrow. All 5 people there are very experienced international arbiters.

[NickFaulks]

All 5 people there are very experienced international arbiters.

Indeed they are. I've always felt it would be nice if the views of players were represented.

[Stewart Reuben]

As evidenced on several occasions, people have been able to have an input into regulations, although not themselves a member of the commission.
All five people are or have been players.
Are you suggesting that each commission has on it a GM? Or at least a playing member of the ACP?
It is not too late to get such a proposal onto the agenda.
I wanted it to be that all new IAs be of rating at least 1800 at some time. I made that proposal and would have accepted 1600. It got nowhere. Remember I was not suggesting such a requirement for FAs. I have always presumed this was not passed because some IAs would not be now eligible for the title. At least one major IA has never played competitively and is a very good arbiter.

[Brian Towers]

Brian Towers asked for the definition of an 'international' event in FIDE, As far as I am concerned, it is one that is FIDE Rated.

Stewart, the FIDE handbook Regulations for the Titles of Arbiters has this to say in section 3.5

Experience as arbiter in at least three (3) FIDE rated events (these can be either national or international)

.

In this context what is the difference between a FIDE rated national event and a FIDE rated international event?

[NickFaulks]

As evidenced on several occasions, people have been able to have an input into regulations, although not themselves a member of the commission.

My jaundiced view dates from the first RTRC meeting I attended as an observer, at Antalya in 2007. The question of how to handle cases where players were caught using an upside-down rook as a queen was discussed. The arbiters ( for they were all arbiters ) spent much time considering the various ways in which such miscreants could be punished. I felt that what I believed was the position of most players should be heard and, as Stewart says, easily obtained permission to speak.

I asked why it was that, if arbiters really had the time to harass the players in this way, they could not have averted the issue altogether by ensuring that a spare queen was within reach when it was required. It was clear that hardly anyone in the room was even able to comprehend my question, which must have seemed heretical to them. With few exceptions, players are from Mars, arbiters are from Venus.

[Roger de Coverly]

The FIDE General Assembly, or possibly the Executive Board Meeting at which federations are well-represented, decided they wanted FIDE to head in a Commercial Direction.

My memory is that like faster time controls and the abolition of matches for the World Championship, that it was a Kirsan initiative which the Board and Assembly were invited to endorse. This was during the long period where there were no challenges to his position as President. As was observed at the launch of Agon, the commercial rights to chess have been "sold" several times, without ever changing anything other than for a limited period.

The particular risk to the International Elo system of having a start rating at near beginner level is whether it can revalue sufficiently quickly when a new player with a beginner rating starts to play at a much higher standard. The K=40 for Juniors may help, but only for those playing lots of games. I'm more thinking about a player who gets a "long play" rating early on, but then improves with unrated Blitz and only plays intermittent tournaments. National rating systems often have a mechanism for discarding previous results and treating such a player as new, but the International one doesn't.

[Brian Towers]

I'm more thinking about a player who gets a "long play" rating early on, but then improves with unrated Blitz and only plays intermittent tournaments.

The reverse situation also applies.

A junior with a standard rating of 1600 plays a rapid tournament and such is the nature of how the FIDE ratings work gets a rapid rating close to 1600. A year later his standard rating has risen to 1800 and he plays another rapid tournament. You draw with him but unfairly his rapid rating is still close to 1600 while his playing strength is closer to 1850.

I suspect this latter example is more representative. I believe the player's rapid play will improve much more with regular standard tournaments than his standard play with regular blitz, unrated or otherwise.

[Stewart Reuben]

Bri\n > Experience as arbiter in at least three (3) FIDE rated events (these can be either national or international)

In this context what is the difference between a FIDE rated national event and a FIDE rated international event?<

I guess international means with competitors from more than one federation.

[Stewart Reuben]

Nick >If there were federations which would have preferred to keep the FIDE list reserved for top players, they were not heard from<

There were those in the US who thought FIDE was tryng to displace their very long-established USCF rating system. Since they were people posting on Sam Sloan's forum, perhpas their views were not too important.
People often prefer to carp afterwards, but not contribute valuably to a discussion before it comes into force.

[Paolo Casaschi]

The particular risk to the International Elo system of having a start rating at near beginner level is whether it can revalue sufficiently quickly when a new player with a beginner rating starts to play at a much higher standard. The K=40 for Juniors may help, but only for those playing lots of games. I'm more thinking about a player who gets a "long play" rating early on, but then improves with unrated Blitz and only plays intermittent tournaments.

The best way to mitigate the issue you are describing is to feed as many games as possible to the rating system. I have no doubt that the impact of the difference in the number of games used for rating/grading by far outweighs the impact of the differences into the calculation methods.
You can not have a system that reacts the quickest to players improvements (or weakening) while at the same time being picky about which games are deemed worth of international rating.
If you compare the international and the national systems in England, you should think what would happen if the ECF grading did use only the games currently FIDE rated: would the ECF grading become more or less accurate and responsive to players changes? Then, forget for a moment the details of the current FIDE rules, and imagine a FIDE rating taking into account all the games used for ECF grading...