Adjudication: an appeal to holders of congress votes at ECF

[Marcus Misson]

As someone who has posted on this thread against adjudications, the main reason why people voted against the motion was that it was seen as too draconian affecting ALL games in the league, not just adjudicated ones.
As the delegate for Derbyshire commented 'Live and let live'. The delegate for Cambridgeshire replied 'No kill adjudications but humanely'.

[benedgell]

Well yes, Ben, but why?

Quite.

FWIW, I asked not because I thought there was anybody up to no good, but on general grounds. On principle, it seems to me, votes should be recorded (and I’m not just talking about chess/the ECF here) unless there’s a particular reason not to. After a few seconds thought I couldn't think of one in this case, so I put it out there for others to enlighten me.

I don't think there's any real appetite for recording individual votes. I think most people are happy to take their own delegates on trust that they cast the votes correctly, and I don't think a great number of people care about how delegates from across the country cast their votes, just the totals.

For what its worth, I'll put how I voted in full:

Organisations I represented: Cornwall, Royal Beacon Seniors' Congress, Teignmouth Rapid, East Devon Congress, Torbay, Devon, Dorset, Bournemouth, WECU, Bristol, Gloucs, North. Gloucs League, Somerset, Wiltshire, Wiltshire Junior Congress (29 votes)

President: 29 in favour
Chief Exec.: 29 in favour
Director of Finance: 29 in favour
Two Non- Exec. Directors:
Laurence Ball (26): Cornwall, Royal Beacon Seniors, Teignmouth, East Devon Congress, Devon, Torbay, Dorset, Bournemouth, WECU, Bristol, Gloucs, North. Gloucs Somerset
Julian Clissold (29): all of the above + Wiltshire, Wiltshire Juniors
John Foley (3): Wiltshire, Wiltshire Juniors
* I should mention all 3 candidates were excellent, and it was a very tough choice between them.
Director of Home Chess: 29 in favour
Director of Junior Chess:
Traci Whitfield: (27): Cornwall, Royal Beacon Seniors, Teignmouth, East Devon Congress, Devon, Torbay, Dorset, Bournemouth, WECU, Bristol, Gloucs, North. Gloucs, Wiltshire, Wiltshire Juniors.
None of the above: (2): Somerset
* The only feedback I received from Somerset on this was disapproval of both candidates.
Director of International Chess: 29 in favour.
Director of Membership: 29 in favour.
Commercial Director: 29 in favour.
FIDE Delegate:
Malcolm Pein: (28): Cornwall, Teignmouth, East Devon Congress, Devon, Torbay, Dorset, Bournemouth, WECU, Bristol, Gloucs, North Gloucs., Somerset, Wiltshire, Wiltshire Juniors
Stewart Reuben: (1): Royal Beacon Seniors
Standing Committee/ Governance Members/ Auditor: 29 in favour of all.
Adjudication Proposal:
In favour: (15): Royal Beacon Senior, Teignmouth Rapid, Devon, East Devon Congress, Torbay, Bristol, Somerset
Abstain: (14): Cornwall, Dorset, Bournemouth, WECU, Gloucs, North Gloucs League, Wiltshire, Wiltshire Juniors

[Matt Mackenzie]

I think that there is a middle way between the leagues who wish to keep adjudication as an option and the players who would like to finish their games in one evening session:
The leagues make quick play finish the default, but if both players agree to adjudication or adjournment then they are allowed to do so.
(I think this is already the arrangement in some leagues.)

I agree adjournment might be kept as an option, but (I have said this before, I admit) there is *no* good case for adjudications. Bin them.

[Stewart Reuben]

When voting for candidates for posts there is an obvious reason why votes might be secret. Somebody might not want one of their friends to know how they voted.
Voting for candidates in FIDE is done by secret ballot because it is felt that this makes it less likely there will be bribery.

In the case of technical votes, such as the adjudication one, there is no good reason. That is just the way it is done and it is very rare. I thought the show of hands was adequate, but Ben wasn't certain, so there was a card vote.
If we had an electronic means of voting, any system could be used. Then people will say, people will be able to access the results and thus bribe the voters.

I thought the system worked well at the ECF Council Meeting yesterday. The chairman and tellers are to be congratulated. I have been told there will be a report on the meeting published within about a week.

[Roger de Coverly]

there is *no* good case for adjudications.

Rural leagues like mid-Sussex make the very valid case that transport distances and difficulties can make adjournments difficult, particularly if they are compulsory. But the argument against finishing on the night, whether by quickplay, modest increment or even adjudication at a really high number of moves seems to come down to "it's beneath their dignity to play quickly". Even FIDE will rate games scheduled to be finished in three hours, provided the players are under 2200.

[Jonathan Bryant]

When voting for candidates for posts there is an obvious reason why votes might be secret. Somebody might not want one of their friends to know how they voted.

Well, yes. Although I’m not sure that’s a good enough reason really. I’m not sure I’m grasping the 'prevents corruption' argument either, to be honest.

"Nobody cares" is a good reason though. Especially when combined with the hassle factor.


Thanks to Ben for taking the trouble to make out his list, by the way.

[Roger de Coverly]

I’m not sure I’m grasping the 'prevents corruption' argument either, to be honest.

There were allegations at the Turin Olympiad in the voting for the FIDE President, of Delegates taking a photo of the ballot paper with their vote indicated. This was so that they would be seen to have been loyal when the prizes were handed out. If all the votes were public they wouldn't need to bother.

It cuts both ways. There have also been accusations of intimidation against Delegates not voting as instructed which can only be enforced if the voting isn't secret. (Hence the power of Whips over MPs)

[Michael Farthing]

I've never understood the logic of Board members having votes at all. They're chosen by Council to do a job and report back to Council, seeking its approval for what they have done and what they propose. What's the logic of them being able to vote themselves in that situation?

[Sean Hewitt]

Personally I'd have no problem with having my voting record recorded. It seems to me that the only people whose business it is as to how a representative voted are the members of the body they are representing. The Stockport league and members thereof have a legitimate interest in how the Stockport league vote is cast, but I'm not [yet] convinced that others do.

[Jonathan Bryant]

It seems to me that the only people whose business it is as to how a representative voted are the members of the body they are representing. The Stockport league and members thereof have a legitimate interest in how the Stockport league vote is cast, but I'm not [yet] convinced that others do.

Isn't the point in these cases that everybody has to know for those that need to know to be able to know if they choose to know?

Anyhoo, I think I would start from the notion that you make everything public knowledge unless there’s a reason not to (e.g. that it would be a major hassle so not worth the bother given that nobody really cares anyway) rather than the other way around.

It seems to me that if membership of a governing body is compulsory, it’s not unreasonable to expect to be able to find out the detail of how the decisions of that body are made.

(Not that I’m against a compulsory membership scheme per se).

[Stewart Reuben]

Michael Farthing >I've never understood the logic of Board members having votes at all.<

The idea, rightly or wrongly, might be that they have specialist information and abilities which make their views more valuable.

Try reading the futuristic book by Neville Shute called, I think, 'In the Wet'. I probably read it 55 years ago.
In it, the meritocratic system has people having a different number of votes:
1 basic
1 if a graduate
1 if married with children for a certain number of years
1 if paying a certain level of income tax
1 awarded by the Queen.

It does seem to me rather basic that, if somebody offered me a bribe to vote for them and it was on a show of hands, he would be able to establish that I had done so and pay me off accordingly. FIDE went for a secret ballot in 1994. The statute said something like, 'Voting about elections are to be made by secret ballot.' Of course the English was awful. Campo found an American lawyer to say that it didn't mean votings about elections shall be by secret ballot. The GA actually voted on whether that was what it meant. Campo did point out that, in itself, was a vote about elections. But then how would it all end? So that was by a show of hands. It was very narrowly passed and allegedly somebody had his life threatened because he had voted for a secret ballot. Campo then said, 'Well, it's not the end of the world.' Then they had to create a ballot box. It took more than an hour to explain how you put a cross in the appropriate box. David Jarrett was the first person ever to vote in this manner at the GA. That was because England was alphabetically first in Zone 1A. Nowadays in FIDE there is an enclosed area where you record your vote and you are not allowed to take a mobile phone in with you. Even so there are allegations of bribery.

Even so, 2014 was worse shambles than 1994.

[Michael Farthing]

Michael Farthing >I've never understood the logic of Board members having votes at all.<

The idea, rightly or wrongly, might be that they have specialist information and abilities which make their views more valuable.

I find it hard to believe that any aspect of the voting structure for ECF Council had any idea behind it, rightly or wrongly, other than a fudge to get something up and working! The ECF is living proof of the falsity of "Intelligent Design"!

Light-heartedness over: There might be a slightly better case if votes were allocated to people such as Brian Valentine (who comes to mind) with an obvious expertise. But in truth, such expertise is surely better used if its holders are invited to attend and advise so that the voting membership is then better informed. In the case of the Board what happens is that the Board's preferences can have a head start by board members voting for its own policies even though the Board is appointed by and answerable to Council. A cack-handed (perhaps deliberately cack-handed) attempt to do this explicitly was evident in the Paulson affair.

[Brian Valentine]

I am flattered!

However you may miss my involvement in the adjudication proposal. While Alex consulted widely, as one of his staff I was involved in the "Board" proposal (note the Board did not have a collective position on the issue). As grading manager I wanted council to confirm that for games to be graded that they were within the FIDE Laws of Chess. Having debated this with Alex we found the only (widely used) ECF practice that could not be squeezed into this most tolerant definition was that of adjudication. Various contributors to this forum have disagreed in that it could be squeezed in or that there are other problems (e.g. descriptive notation). I attended council and spoke on the subject. As Bedfordshire delegate I voted for the proposal.

Many other strands of the debate clouded the essence of my problem. My google search was not exhaustive, but as far as I can tell, adjudication in possible in some way or other in only 19 leagues in the British Isles out of 108 surveyed and nowhere else OTB in the rest of the universe. However they are the predominate force in the ECF Council.

[Roger de Coverly]

However they are the predominate force in the ECF Council.

You have that wrong. It was the attempt by the ECF to write rules for local organisations that was defeated. A motion recommending that adjudication be removed or at least made optional, would, I suspect have commanded wide support and little controversy.

You know that the standard adding of time at the time control move count when using analogue clocks is against the FIDE Laws as well.

[Stewart Reuben]

Roger >A motion recommending that adjudication be removed or at least made optional, would, I suspect have commanded wide support and little controversy. <
There would have been little point to that, as basically this is the status quo.

>You know that the standard adding of time at the time control move count when using analogue clocks is against the FIDE Laws as well.<

That is a curious statement. How can you add time to a move count?
Perhaps you mean the standard practice of adding a certain amount of time, perhaps 15 minutes, after the arbiter and players agree the time control has been reached. I don't see why you think that is against the FIDE Laws.
It is recommended practice in FIDE that the extra time only be added when one player's time for the first time control has expired. This is not a Law and is very confusing. It is common practice in England to add the time after both players agree the required number of moves have been made.
The World Youth used the system where the extra time was added after 40 pushes on the clock. This worked well except in one unfortunate case where there were 40 pushes, but only 39 moves had been made. The player of the White pieces then sat and thought until after his flag fell on the 40th move and thus lost on time. His scoresheet showed he knew he had made only 39 moves. Of course the clock should have been corrected, but the arbiter didn't see the problem.