Proposed British Chess Championship Qualifying Regulations

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
David Sedgwick
Posts: 5249
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: Proposed British Chess Championship Qualifying Regulations

Post by David Sedgwick » Mon Feb 20, 2017 4:10 am

NickFaulks wrote: The only FIDE requirement is that you pay 25 euros, so it's entirely in the gift of the ECF.

I repeat my question - why do you need to be level 3 for a tournament that is FIDE rated, but not for one that isn't? Is it, like Gold membership, just an effort to deter FIDE rated events?

edit : I may be out of my depth here. I'm just talking about Licenced Arbiters - why is it so difficult to become one? In other European federations it seems to be much easier.
You are out of your depth, I think.

You don't need to be Level 3 to be FIDE licensed. On request, and on payment of the relevant fee, the ECF will apply for a licence for anyone who is Level 1.

I would need a lot of convincing that it is more difficult to obtain a FIDE Arbiters' Licence in England than is typically the case in other European Federations. If it were, I would spend somewhat less time dealing with applications than I actually do.

You do need to have a Level 3 Arbiter present at a FIDE Title Tournament. As you will know, but others may not, that is a FIDE requirement.

The new ECF Arbiter Regulations were designed inter alia to bring the practice in England more into line with other European countries, in particular by specifying that the National Arbiter title (Level 2) must be obtained before progressing to the FA and IA titles.

Time will tell whether this was a wise move. I was strongly opposed to the adoption of the new Regulations and I haven't changed my mind. On the contrary, this thread has served to strengthen my opinion.

Mick Norris
Posts: 10329
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester

Re: Proposed British Chess Championship Qualifying Regulations

Post by Mick Norris » Mon Feb 20, 2017 8:27 am

David Sedgwick wrote:
NickFaulks wrote: The only FIDE requirement is that you pay 25 euros, so it's entirely in the gift of the ECF.

I repeat my question - why do you need to be level 3 for a tournament that is FIDE rated, but not for one that isn't? Is it, like Gold membership, just an effort to deter FIDE rated events?

edit : I may be out of my depth here. I'm just talking about Licenced Arbiters - why is it so difficult to become one? In other European federations it seems to be much easier.
You are out of your depth, I think.
:lol:
Any postings on here represent my personal views

NickFaulks
Posts: 8453
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Proposed British Chess Championship Qualifying Regulations

Post by NickFaulks » Mon Feb 20, 2017 10:05 am

David Sedgwick wrote:On request, and on payment of the relevant fee, the ECF will apply for a licence for anyone who is Level 1.
Thanks, that is precisely what I needed to be told. It sounds quite satisfactory, although it leaves me puzzled by other comments I have heard.

Am I right that the following is still a problem? FIDE requires all arbiters, even trainees performing lesser duties under supervision, to have purchased a licence. The ECF will not allow any arbiter who is not already Level 1 to be licenced. This makes workplace training difficult. How do federations where all serious chess is FIDE rated work around this?
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire

Re: Proposed British Chess Championship Qualifying Regulations

Post by Alex Holowczak » Mon Feb 20, 2017 10:12 am

NickFaulks wrote:Am I right that the following is still a problem? FIDE requires all arbiters, even trainees performing lesser duties under supervision, to have purchased a licence. The ECF will not allow any arbiter who is not already Level 1 to be licenced. This makes workplace training difficult. How do federations where all serious chess is FIDE rated work around this?
In my opinion, there isn't a problem with this.

To be a Level 1 arbiter, you need to pass a test. So you need to learn the laws and pass a test in them before you can be licenced in a FIDE-rated tournament where you are making decisions based on the laws. I don't accept that that is an unreasonable approach on the Federation's part.

This is a much stronger basis for awarding a licence than the previous system, where it was basically left up to David's subjective opinion whether or not someone was licenced. Then there was the Southend incident, which resulted in significant unpleasantness: Pairing systems were changed half way through because one arbiter could use the software and another, who arrived later, couldn't, and 10.2 claims - which are always controversial at the best of times. It didn't help when the inevitable enquiry into the arbiter's status happened, and everyone could see that the arbiter had no formal qualifications.

I don't know how other federations work, but I suspect they work on a "pass the test first, get the practical training afterwards" basis.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Proposed British Chess Championship Qualifying Regulations

Post by Roger de Coverly » Mon Feb 20, 2017 10:54 am

Alex Holowczak wrote: So you need to learn the laws and pass a test in them before you can be licenced in a FIDE-rated tournament where you are making decisions based on the laws. I don't accept that that is an unreasonable approach on the Federation's part.
If the basic skill is using computer software effectively and that's the job at a tournament, where is anyone doing this making decisions based on the laws? For that matter if a tournament is run using pairing software and increments, where do any supposedly specialist arbiter skills come into play?

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 4542
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Proposed British Chess Championship Qualifying Regulations

Post by Stewart Reuben » Mon Feb 20, 2017 2:09 pm

The main skill an arbiter requires in chess is in providing an environment where it is most unlikely there will be an argument. Where there is one, a good arbiter defuses the situation. Some arguments otherwise may go on for years.
It is the administrator who does the Swiss Pairings, NOT the computer. For the last round in The Tradewise Giraltar Masters, Suneel Weeramantry, step father of Hikaru Nalamura, commented that the colours looked wrong on Board 1. That game did not involve his son. The leader had had 5 White and 4 blacks. He got White again in Round 10.
Davd Welch and I looked in to the matter, doing the pairings by hand independently. We both arrived at the same answer as the computer. We were then able to explain the apparent anomaly.
Here is a nice simple arbiters' test, made up just now, See if you get the right answer. Computers have not yet been programmed for these answers.

1. white has king and rook v king and bishop. His flag falls. What is the result?
2. Two players both sign the scoresheets 1-0. One minute later they both come up and explain they have made a mistake. It was 0-1. What is the decision?
3,Whiter in a standardplay game pushes a pawn to the eighth rank and puhes his clock, without replacing the pawn. What happens?
4. After 5 minutes you notice that two players have started with the wrong colour in a Swiss. What, if anything, do you do?
5. A player approaches you and asks: He has a rook on a1 and king on e1 and nothing on c2. There are no pieces in between. The White king is not in check. Black has a bishop on d3, attacking b1. The question: Can he castle queens? What is your response?

In my opinion an intelligent, well-meaning, person could be an arbiter in chess. The Laws have been written with that in mind. Occasionally he would have to consult an expert. Bridge is different.
I'll provide the answers tomorrow. Less than 4/5 would be a failure. If you needed to look up the Laws, fair enough.

User avatar
Matthew Webb
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:17 am
Location: London

Re: Proposed British Chess Championship Qualifying Regulations

Post by Matthew Webb » Mon Feb 20, 2017 4:31 pm

Matthew, were you under the impression you were entitlerd to play in rhe British? I don't think so.
I was under no impression, I just wanted clarify my understanding. In summary, my ECF grade is irrelevant with regards to qualifications for the British Championships -- some irony in there somewhere :wink:
If you allowed entry only to people who had a realistic chance of winning the British Championship, that would reduce the numbers to under 10.
Stating the obvious but, this does raise the important question: "What is the objective of the British Championship?" (the main event that is) Is it to host an event with as many players as possible or is it to establish who is the British Chess Champion? I don't think both works as we are witnessing.

I really like what the London Classic has been doing in the British KO, especially introducing qualification spots for the British KO as part of a 4NCL congress event, brilliant idea!!! Daniel Fernandez & Nicholas Pert were worthy candidates who showed some real class in both events. This is, in my opinion, the 'real' event for establishing our British Champion.

Personally, I would have loved to play in the 4NCL qualifying event, I did seriously contemplate it (far more so than I have the British) unfortunately, at the moment I have far too many work commitments so cannot put in the insane amount of work required to prepare for such a prestigious event. On day soon though! :P

David Sedgwick
Posts: 5249
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: Proposed British Chess Championship Qualifying Regulations

Post by David Sedgwick » Mon Feb 20, 2017 4:54 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:This is a much stronger basis for awarding a licence than the previous system, where it was basically left up to David's subjective opinion whether or not someone was licenced. Then there was the Southend incident, which resulted in significant unpleasantness: Pairing systems were changed half way through because one arbiter could use the software and another, who arrived later, couldn't, and 10.2 claims - which are always controversial at the best of times. It didn't help when the inevitable enquiry into the arbiter's status happened, and everyone could see that the arbiter had no formal qualifications.
At the time of the introduction of the FIDE Arbiters' Licence Scheme, a lot of English congresses were controlled by people who had no formal arbiting qualifications but who had been running them satisfactorily for years.

The arrangements which you describe somewhat pejoratively were designed to allow those events to continue without disruption. They were only ever intended to be a temporary measure.

My memory is a bit hazy as to the details of the Southend episode, but I thought at the time that the controller was getting a very bad press. I have seen, or know of, lots of instances of qualified arbiters making worse errors than he did. I have done so myself.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire

Re: Proposed British Chess Championship Qualifying Regulations

Post by Alex Holowczak » Mon Feb 20, 2017 5:01 pm

David Sedgwick wrote:My memory is a bit hazy as to the details of the Southend episode, but I thought at the time that the controller was getting a very bad press. I have seen, or know of, lots of instances of qualified arbiters making worse errors than he did. I have done so myself.
That's precisely the point - the majority of the press was because he wasn't qualified, rather than the severity of the incident.

Jonathan Rogers
Posts: 4640
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm

Re: Proposed British Chess Championship Qualifying Regulations

Post by Jonathan Rogers » Mon Feb 20, 2017 5:45 pm

Stewart Reuben wrote:....
Here is a nice simple arbiters' test, made up just now, See if you get the right answer. Computers have not yet been programmed for these answers.

1. white has king and rook v king and bishop. His flag falls. What is the result?
2. Two players both sign the scoresheets 1-0. One minute later they both come up and explain they have made a mistake. It was 0-1. What is the decision?
3,Whiter in a standardplay game pushes a pawn to the eighth rank and puhes his clock, without replacing the pawn. What happens?
4. After 5 minutes you notice that two players have started with the wrong colour in a Swiss. What, if anything, do you do?
5. A player approaches you and asks: He has a rook on a1 and king on e1 and nothing on c2. There are no pieces in between. The White king is not in check. Black has a bishop on d3, attacking b1. The question: Can he castle queens? What is your response?

In my opinion an intelligent, well-meaning, person could be an arbiter in chess. The Laws have been written with that in mind. Occasionally he would have to consult an expert. Bridge is different.
I'll provide the answers tomorrow. Less than 4/5 would be a failure. If you needed to look up the Laws, fair enough.
Here's my shot at this. I haven't looked up anything, so shouldn't be spoiling it for others.

1 draw. It is in fact impossible to mate, after all
2 0-1. they agree, don't they?
3 move incomplete, restart clock, possible time penalty
4 nothing if the games have started
5 I'd say "you may 0-0-0. Since Viktor Korchnoi did not know this, you are forgiven, my son."

Jonathan Rogers
Posts: 4640
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm

Re: Proposed British Chess Championship Qualifying Regulations

Post by Jonathan Rogers » Mon Feb 20, 2017 5:52 pm

...and I would not add, in number 5, that someone once played 0-0-0 against me in such a situation and I replied ...Ba3 mate.

Andrew Zigmond
Posts: 2073
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Harrogate

Re: Proposed British Chess Championship Qualifying Regulations

Post by Andrew Zigmond » Tue Feb 21, 2017 8:29 pm

Matthew Webb wrote:
Matthew, were you under the impression you were entitlerd to play in rhe British? I don't think so.
I was under no impression, I just wanted clarify my understanding. In summary, my ECF grade is irrelevant with regards to qualifications for the British Championships -- some irony in there somewhere :wink:
Matty, I already noted in a reply to Stewart upthread that you are perfectly entitled to play in the British; you appear on the list of qualifiers and your congress and county chess results (not least what happened in Blackpool 2015) means you would not be part of any weak tail. So I still don't understand the tone of Stewart's comment.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Proposed British Chess Championship Qualifying Regulations

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:21 pm

Andrew Zigmond wrote: So I still don't understand the tone of Stewart's comment.
The proposed reforms would remove the options of players of Matthew's standard to qualify for the British Championship by winning events such as Blackpool and Scarborough or by getting an extremely high grade by beating all comers in a strong league such as Yorkshire.

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 4542
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Proposed British Chess Championship Qualifying Regulations

Post by Stewart Reuben » Wed Feb 22, 2017 12:24 am

Answers to the quiz:
1. Jonathan is absolutely right. Impossible to win, impossible to lose.
2. 0-1 is indeed the natural, correct result. But an arbiter would be entitled to rule, idiotically, that the original result must stand. It should then be overturned on appeal.
3. An easy question if you know the Laws, but impossible if you don't. White has made an illegal move, so Black get an extra 2 minutes. The pawn must be replaced by a White queen.
In a rapidplay or blitz game White will lose.But what if the queen promotion was mate? Then black cannot win. So the game is scored 0 - 0.5.
You couldn't make that one up.
4. Indeed, the answer is leave the game to continue. BUT, if it is a Swiss, the pairing must be amended to reverse the colours.
5. Indeed, the answer is yes.

I don't remember and cannot find what I replied to Matthew. I am sure it was not in any way intended to be derogatory.

LawrenceCooper
Posts: 7173
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am

Re: Proposed British Chess Championship Qualifying Regulations

Post by LawrenceCooper » Wed Feb 22, 2017 8:22 am

Stewart Reuben wrote:I don't remember and cannot find what I replied to Matthew. I am sure it was not in any way intended to be derogatory.
http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... ew#p195184