ECF Council Meeting 12 April 2014

[PeterFarr]

Ok that's interesting, though if the presence of a local arbiter isn't actually reported to FIDE, and if it isn't explicit in the FIDE regulations, then it looks as though you could run a FIDE rated league with just a single, remote, competition arbiter:- there is no reason for FIDE to refuse to rate it, because there is no requirement to report it (from what Nick said). Or, by analogy with discussions previously on another rules issue, you could have a league rule that a local arbiter should be present, but have a zero or nominal penalty if the rule isn't followed.

[Andy Howie]

Morning everyone.

Thanks Alex for posting that for me. Was getting Internet upgraded and it took longer to be activated. Life without the www!

Sorry for the confusion yesterday. It was only when Lara texted me that I realised I had written QC. I have no idea where that came from as he is arbiters. Please accept my apologies for that.

As Alex mentioned, the reason we asked there was this is where FIDE directed us to when we initially raised this question!

Personally I agree with Sean and Nick about this or at least that's how it should be. Why bother with the licensing scheme if you can register someone who is not trained as an arbiter as a national arbiter to get round this daft rule?

[LawrenceCooper]

They've already increased rating fees for round robin events sufficiently to convince me to stop organising them and scrapping the rule allowing you to have 2 GMs instead of 3 IMs or 2 IMs/WGMs instead of 3 WIMs was the final straw

I don't think we've increased rating fees for round robins, but they have been unreasonably high for some time and we have not reduced them as promised. In Istanbul this was derailed by QC chaos, then I really thought it was going to happen in Tallinn, but it turns out that you can't change financial regulations in the year before an election because it looks bad. I can only say sorry.

I take some responsibilty for your second complaint. I have seen an awful lot of title norms featuring only two players with higher titles, and too many of them are seriously sub-par. I realise they made organising norm events a lot easier, but at some point you have to maintain standards.

I don't see how facing 3 low rated (W)IMs instead of 2 (W)GMs and a player motivated to play for a norm is lowering standards, all it seems to have accomplished is denying an eighth player a norm opportunity and priced organisers out of running events by requiring them to receive one less entry fee and have to pay for one more titled player.

[Roger de Coverly]

My guess is that the FFE would probably check after the match, from the details on the match card, that the arbiter provided was suitably qualified and there would be penalties for the home team if that wasn't the case.

From FIDE's viewpoint, "suitably qualified" just means that the FFE had paid the necessary fee to register them as a National Arbiter. No chess knowledge whatsoever required if the national federation doesn't impose its own standards.

If the whole scheme is nothing whatsoever to do with technical standards, but everything to do with raising money, then remote arbiters aren't going to be permitted.

[NickFaulks]

If the whole scheme is nothing whatsoever to do with technical standards, but everything to do with raising money, then remote arbiters aren't going to be permitted.

I expect that one day they won't be. My guess is 2014 if Kasparov Leong win, 2017 if they don't. They are permitted now.

[Stewart Reuben]

I agree with Nick that Leong is a menace. It was not ever thus.
But he is optimistic if he expects the Rating Regulations to have to wait change until 2017. Ignatius believes, if a change is desirable, it should be made right away, no matter what the statutes state.
It is from now to early August that concessions can be obtained from both sides. Kasparov is an able man. Persuade him that certain initiatives will be vote losers and he will drop them from his platform. It is true, if elected, he would later be able to reneg on his promises. But that isn't new in politics.

[NickFaulks]

But he is optimistic if he expects the Rating Regulations to have to wait change until 2017. Ignatius believes, if a change is desirable, it should be made right away, no matter what the statutes state.

Please read what I said. That was precisely my point.

[NickFaulks]

I've run into another roadblock. I was intending to register myself as Licensed Arbiter for Bermuda's next internal competition, which will be FIDE rated. However, because I am competent to do the job ( I am an FA ) the Arbiters Commission will extort €80 for this. The alternative is to license my neighbour, who does not play chess. That is perfectly acceptable, and will cost €20. What should I do?

[Stewart Reuben]

Nick,
You are an arbiter. Thus you do not need to pose this ethics question.
Moreover it is highly likely use will be made of your title in the future.
We know FIDE is very irritating about this matter.
You qualified as an FA. Probably you paid your fee. The title is for life. Now FIDE are asking for €80 to be able to use that title. Moreover, if you become inactive, then you have to pay again to resume activity. At least I didn't need pay the fee when I became an IA. I got in just before they introduced fees.

[NickFaulks]

Why is it an ethical problem? If a local "arbiter" sits in a corner of the room reading a book and does not interfere with the games, that sounds like a perfectly good arrangement to me.

In any case, I shall probably resign my FA title. The idea that what I earned and paid for was a title for life has been revealed as a cynical lie, and the FIDE Arbiters' trade union is a Teamsters style organisation of which I am ashamed to be considered a member.

More generally, I have felt for some time that the real division within FIDE is not between the Kirsan side and the other side. How can it be, with key figures flitting effortlessly between the two? It is between the arbiters and the players, and the arbiters are winning.

[David Sedgwick]

I've run into another roadblock. I was intending to register myself as Licensed Arbiter for Bermuda's next internal competition, which will be FIDE rated. However, because I am competent to do the job (I am an FA) the Arbiters Commission will extort €80 for this. The alternative is to license my neighbour, who does not play chess. That is perfectly acceptable, and will cost €20. What should I do?

I do not find your proposed course of action "perfectly acceptable". You should pay the €80, or get the Bermuda Chess Federation to do so.

In any case, I shall probably resign my FA title. The idea that what I earned and paid for was a title for life has been revealed as a cynical lie, and the FIDE Arbiters' trade union is a Teamsters style organisation of which I am ashamed to be considered a member.

You've complained often enough about the alleged failure of the ECF to oppose zero default times and other matters.

When the ECF and others objected to this scheme in 2011, where exactly were you?

When I submitted detailed proposals in 2012 to remedy the worst iniquities of the scheme by integrating the Title Fees and the Licence Fees, where exactly were you?

[Stewart Reuben]

The best arbiters appear to do nothing.

Nick > It is between the arbiters and the players, and the arbiters are winning.<
What about organisers, commentators, writers, coaches, press people, web staff, etc.? It is odd that arbiters are treated more respectively than organisers. Without the latter, the former would have nothing to do.
It is also odd that the arbiters have lobbied successfully for their having to pay increased fees. What a union!

[NickFaulks]

It is also odd that the arbiters have lobbied successfully for their having to pay increased fees. What a union!

It is the mass of arbiters who pay the fees and the top arbiters, the ones who decide AC policy, who get the benefits. They're not the first trade union to use this model. Low level arbiters work without a hope of getting a realistic fee and still have to pay their dues.

[Stewart Reuben]

I have just received this email from Werner Stubenwohl; Chairman of the Qualification Commission which is in charge of titles and ratings.
Dear Stewart,
In Rating Regulations as well as in Title Regulations we don't have any supervision of games. For titles an IA or FA has to be present in the tournament venue all the time during the round. For rating the tournament has to be conducted by a licensed arbiter. There is no definition how long an arbiter has to be present, but for sure any remote supervision is not allowed. In case an arbiter is absent for one day he has to be replaced by another licensed arbiter. If rounds are played without an arbiter present the tournament should not be rated.

Best regards
Werner

[NickFaulks]

I have just received this email from Werner Stubenwohl; Chairman of the Qualification Commission which is in charge of titles and ratings.
Dear Stewart,
In Rating Regulations as well as in Title Regulations we don't have any supervision of games. For titles an IA or FA has to be present in the tournament venue all the time during the round. For rating the tournament has to be conducted by a licensed arbiter. There is no definition how long an arbiter has to be present, but for sure any remote supervision is not allowed. In case an arbiter is absent for one day he has to be replaced by another licensed arbiter. If rounds are played without an arbiter present the tournament should not be rated.

Best regards
Werner

Oops, I wish I been had warned this was coming. I have replied to it, and no doubt Stewart and I will both be able to report further discussion.