New QC Regulations

[LawrenceCooper]

The PB has approved the Rating Regulations and Title Regulations (with new Tables for Direct Titles). The PB also approved the new Regulations on Registration & Licensing of Players. All these 3 sets of regulations shall be effective from 1 July 2013.

Attention is drawn to Rating Regulations Rules 5.2 and 13.2 for players.

On Title Regulations, please note Rules 1.13; 1.13a and 1.13b with regards to time controls and number of rounds per day especially for a GM norm.

Most importantly, Rule 1.55 states that "title norms gained before 1 July 2005 must be registered with FIDE before 1 July 2013 or they will be considered to have expired." Please kindly forward your registration of "old" norms directly to our newly appointed Title Administrator, Mr Michalis Kaloumenos at [email protected] and his special task group will endeavor to help you as much as possible.

Ignatius Leong
QC Chairman & FIDE General Secretary
http://www.fide.com/component/content/a ... tions.html

[Roger de Coverly]

Attention is drawn to Rating Regulations Rules 5.2 and 13.2 for players.

On Title Regulations, please note Rules 1.13; 1.13a and 1.13b with regards to time controls and number of rounds per day especially for a GM norm.

Ignoring the issue as to whether a commission of FIDE has the power to introduce regulation changes with such world wide effect without public discussion, debate or prior announcement, here's what 5.2 and 13.2 actually say:-

5.2 Games played by players without a FIDE ID Number/License shall not count for rating for
themselves. Games played against them by Licensed Players shall be counted.

So a Yorkshire approach as was. Outside of an APA, games against unrated players don't count anyway, unless this is changing.

13.2 It is the responsibility of a player to register for a License with his national federation which will
issue the FIDE ID Number. Regulations of Registration & Licensing of Players apply.

Does the ECF support or oppose this requirement?

FIDE have rather supposed that all Federations have some form of individual membership scheme. Are there not a number of countries where it is the clubs or regional bodies who make up the national body?

[Alex McFarlane]

I don't agree totally with Roger over 5.2. The unlicenced player could have a rating (eg an English player who does not have Gold membership and the ECF has asked to be removed). It is also not like the Yorkshire scheme as was as the tournament will have to pay a €50 fine for every such player. What does seem a bit odd is that any such 'stateless' person will have their rating frozen at pre-licencing levels as no new games will count towards it.

[Roger de Coverly]

It is also not like the Yorkshire scheme as was as the tournament will have to pay a €50 fine for every such player.

Not financially I agree, but it's a novelty in Elo practice to have one-sided rating for the existing rated player. Charging €50 for each non-member is similar in concept if not amount to the ECF charging £ 6 per tournament or £ 2 per game, but in mitigation the ECF wouldn't withhold grading services even if that was one of the ECF's earlier proposals.

Coupled with the arbiter levy, these regulations, if not withdrawn, will presumably lead to a reversal of the trend of an increasing number of events being FIDE rated.

Elsewhere someone commented that for an organisation like a national chess Federation to have access to passport numbers, could be against data protection law. You would certainly expect passport information to be kept under lock and key because of the risks of identity theft. Employers have photographs of employees, but whether that precedent would enable the ECF or Chess Scotland to keep photographs of rated players and export them to Russia is another matter.

[IM Jack Rudd]

I don't agree totally with Roger over 5.2. The unlicenced player could have a rating (eg an English player who does not have Gold membership and the ECF has asked to be removed). It is also not like the Yorkshire scheme as was as the tournament will have to pay a €50 fine for every such player. What does seem a bit odd is that any such 'stateless' person will have their rating frozen at pre-licencing levels as no new games will count towards it.

Muhahahahaha. I spot easy opportunities for rating scams here.

[Roger de Coverly]

Muhahahahaha. I spot easy opportunities for rating scams here.

Perhaps that's the purpose of the €50 levy on the organiser, to put a price on the option.

Other than the usual attempt of ham fisted FIDE officials to discourage people from playing chess, what problem are FIDE trying to solve, by increasing the information they hold on rated players?

The Qualification Commission are nominally responsible for these measures. Would they or any other FIDE insiders care to comment or defend FIDE's proposals?

[Alex McFarlane]

Without coming into any of Rogers categories I belive there are a number of (potential) reasons for having player registration pre-event.

1. There is a large(ish) number of people who appear under the wrong nationality and can sometimes be taken as two different people and subsequently appear twice or are not known to the federation that they are listed under and cause FIDE some work.

2. There is a significant number of federations in arrears. If this affects players they be more likely to pay on time.

3. (And this one is especially for Roger) There is an increasing number of players who are 'suspended' by their own federation. FIDE has a bit of admin work removing and then reinstating such players. Even answering questions about such players when they enter a tournament must require several man-hours per month.

[Roger de Coverly]

. Even answering questions about such players when they enter a tournament must require several man-hours per month.

It all goes to show that players are an inconvenience to the smooth running of FIDE in general and chess tournaments in particular.

There is a choice. If you want to encourage participation, you have to be able to live with the difficulties it can bring. Equally if you are an officer of a national Federation, your presence in terms of chess promotion is counter productive if your role is to ban or suspend players for non compliance with arbitrary rules that you have set.

[John Upham]

It all goes to show that players are an inconvenience to the smooth running of FIDE

Does your assertion have a filter or is it without discrimination?