ACP Grand Survey 2016

[NickFaulks]

http://www.chessprofessionals.org/conte ... urvey-2016

While they naturally want to know the opinions of their members, others are invited to take part.

This may be a useful exercise, I wish the multiple choices were not so limited. I was particularly hoping for input about the time controls acceptable for rated games, a highly topical issue, but found only Q 19.

"Which of the following time controls would you prefer to be used in tournaments other than official FIDE events with 2 rounds a day?
(90’/40+30’/SD)+30” - 90 minutes for 40 moves, followed by 30 minutes, with an increment of 30 seconds starting from move 1
90’/SD+30” – 90 minutes for entire game, with an increment of 30 seconds starting from move 1"

So you're offered a choice between G/90+30" and a time control that doesn't even work at two rounds a day. Not very helpful.

There are questions about cheating but nothing about false accusations of cheating - perhaps a topic the ACP prefers to avoid.

Q 53 is "Do you think the FIDE Tournament Rules and the Competition Rules of the FIDE Laws of Chess for professional and for amateur events should be the same?" If the answer is no, how can they guess what the respondent thinks the difference should be? Where do you draw the line anyway, eg which side is the 4NCL or the Gibraltar Masters?

The ACP has quite a few English members, but I have never found much interest in the their activities representing their members, positive or negative.

[LawrenceCooper]

There are questions about cheating but nothing about false accusations of cheating - perhaps a topic the ACP prefers to avoid.

Emil Sutovsky was very vocal on Facebook supporting Natalia Zhukova's actions at the Women's European Individual and whilst not quite as rude as Mr Eljanov towards Mihaela Sandu made it clear where his loyalties were. Supporting an ACP member against a non member maybe but not comfortable reading.

[David Sedgwick]

"Which of the following time controls would you prefer to be used in tournaments other than official FIDE events with 2 rounds a day?
(90’/40+30’/SD)+30” - 90 minutes for 40 moves, followed by 30 minutes, with an increment of 30 seconds starting from move 1
90’/SD+30” – 90 minutes for entire game, with an increment of 30 seconds starting from move 1"

So you're offered a choice between G/90+30" and a time control that doesn't even work at two rounds a day. Not very helpful.

Why doesn't it work at two rounds a day? You start the rounds at (say) 1000 and 1600 and have a regulation that a player is entitled to a 30 minute break between rounds.

Tournaments in England have been conducted on this basis.

[Roger de Coverly]

So you're offered a choice between G/90+30" and a time control that doesn't even work at two rounds a day. Not very helpful.

The five hour plus session was used for rounds 2 and 3 at the London Classic FIDE Open. I think the round times were 10:30 am and 4:30 pm. I don't know that you would want an entire 9 round tournament of days that long. For weekend tournaments, the longer five hour sessions have the disadvantage that earlier finishers in three or four hours can have a lengthy wait for the afternoon round.

As David Sedgwick suggests, if the round overruns the break, you offer the late players a delayed start for the following round.

It's not commonplace in the UK, but I've played two rounds in a day with six hour sessions. Admittedly these were in foreign tournaments where starting a potentially six hour game at 7 or 8 in the evening seemed acceptable.

[Sean Hewitt]

"Which of the following time controls would you prefer to be used in tournaments other than official FIDE events with 2 rounds a day?
(90’/40+30’/SD)+30” - 90 minutes for 40 moves, followed by 30 minutes, with an increment of 30 seconds starting from move 1
90’/SD+30” – 90 minutes for entire game, with an increment of 30 seconds starting from move 1"

So you're offered a choice between G/90+30" and a time control that doesn't even work at two rounds a day. Not very helpful.

Why doesn't it work at two rounds a day? You start the rounds at (say) 1000 and 1600 and have a regulation that a player is entitled to a 30 minute break between rounds.

Tournaments in England have been conducted on this basis.

Personally I only did it once, when FIDE outlawed (briefly) 90' + 30" for norm events. Never again!

[NickFaulks]

I don't know that you would want an entire 9 round tournament of days that long.

Nor do I. Even if it can be done, I don't see it as one of only two time controls worthy of consideration.

[NickFaulks]

Personally I only did it once, when FIDE outlawed (briefly) 90' + 30" for norm events.

When was that?

[NickFaulks]

Emil Sutovsky was very vocal on Facebook supporting Natalia Zhukova's actions at the Women's European Individual and whilst not quite as rude as Mr Eljanov towards Mihaela Sandu made it clear where his loyalties were. Supporting an ACP member against a non member maybe but not comfortable reading.

I assume their motto is still "Injustice done to one is a threat to all", but I can't find it on their website any more.

[Sean Hewitt]

Personally I only did it once, when FIDE outlawed (briefly) 90' + 30" for norm events.

When was that?

It was the July 2010 laws. The August 2010 e2e4 event was therefore scheduled for the 5 hour time control. FIDE then announced a delay in the implementation in June 2010 http://www.fide.com/component/content/a ... ntrol.html which was too late for me as I had already published the event details.

[NickFaulks]

http://www.fide.com/component/content/a ... ntrol.html

Of couse, thanks. I remember the Presidential Board changing the title regulations - something they're always particularly keen to do, since the Statutes explicitly forbid it - but had forgotten that they did so with retrospective effect.

[Alex Holowczak]

Q 53 is "Do you think the FIDE Tournament Rules and the Competition Rules of the FIDE Laws of Chess for professional and for amateur events should be the same?" If the answer is no, how can they guess what the respondent thinks the difference should be? Where do you draw the line anyway, eg which side is the 4NCL or the Gibraltar Masters?

I filled in this survey, and made similar responses when prompted to Emil via Facebook that you have here, albeit more generically. I found myself wanting to click "Other" sometimes, even when there was an option available that suited me perfectly, because it allowed me to fill in the resulting textbox in a similar way to the answer to Q53. I assume it needed to be multiple choice for the poor soul who has to compile the results into something meaningful, there needs to be some limit to the open-ended comments. I suggested that one comments box per topic of questions might have been a better compromise.

I think I've concluded that the Laws should be written with the amateur in mind, but allow scope for more professional elements on a tournament-by-tournament basis.

The other thing I've noticed is that there is a blurring over the single unit - is it a game or a tournament? The Laws should cover a single unit. For example, the list of penalties an arbiter can impose include game-based sanctions, and tournament-based sanctions. A chess arbiter can expel a player from the tournament for an indiscretion, whereas a football referee can't, he can just expel a player from a game, and some higher authority decides how much of the rest of the tournament they should be expelled from. On the subject of the ACP, Emil was very vocal in defending So in the US Championship case, in part his argument was formed over the blurring of this distinction.

So maybe there needs to be a Laws of Chess that cover a game of chess with sanctions imposed by an arbiter, Tournament Rules that cover a chess tournament with sanctions imposed by ... the Chief Arbiter?, and the current FIDE Tournament Rules, the point of which is unclear to me, can be incorporated into the two documents where appropriate.

I've not necessarily thought all that through properly, but it seemed interesting to me, and there was no opportunity to muse on these matters in the ACP Survey.

[Roger de Coverly]

The legality of double handed castling got a mention. It would seem to be an American thing. Watch Maurice Ashley do a Nakamura.

http://en.chessbase.com/post/maurice-as ... n-nyc-park

[E Michael White]

The legality of double handed castling got a mention. It would seem to be an American thing. Watch Maurice Ashley do a Nakamura.

The current FIDE law is badly drafted; I might suggest an improvement if I can get around to it. Careful reading of the FIDE Laws shows that, according to what is written in the laws, certain forms of double handed castling are permitted including the Maurice Ashley cinegraphic example.

Most chess players of all playing levels that speak to me would like the laws to be clear that only one hand may be used when playing a castling or any other move. According to Stewart Reuben the Final version of FIDE Laws are normally the work of senior ENG arbiters such as himself and David Welch so they may wish to comment.

[NickFaulks]

Careful reading of the FIDE Laws shows that, according to what is written in the laws, certain forms of double handed castling are permitted

Where does that leave 6.2b?

"A player must press his clock with the same hand with which he made his move"?

[Michael Flatt]

Association of Chess Professionals (ACP)

I am interested to see that the number of Members registered with home Federations are:
ENG (27), SCO (6), IRE (1)

Those figures includes 7 English Arbiters & 1 Scottish Arbiter.

About the ACP: http://www.chessprofessionals.org/about
ACP members: http://www.chessprofessionals.org/members
ACP brochure: http://www.chessprofessionals.org/sites ... e_2015.pdf