REGULATIONS ON REGISTRATION & LICENSING OF PLAYERS

[Dragoljub Sudar]

There's a very distinctive 3rd set of player: Those, probably the majority of us, who don't give a stuff about FIDE ratings.

I didn't enter e2e4 Nottingham Major because it was a FIDE rated event, but despite it being one. I entered because it was a local tournament and I fancied playing and meeting up with friends for a few beers. I reluctantly accepted that I had to pay to upgrade from Silver to Gold.

[Angus French]

If ECF is challenging the edict, it might be wise to announce it, partly to inform the membership, and partly to save everybody's time, viz.

1) FIDE issues edict
2) ECF announces this and questions FIDE about it
3) People grumble about edict and blame ECF
4) ECF get annoyed that people are grumbling
5) Huge amount of mudslinging ensues on forum
6) Rest of us lose will to live, stop organising tournaments, and take up Settlers of Catan instead

It stops at point 2 if ECF says "this is new FIDE edict, and you must comply, but we're asking them if they're completely insane, and questioning the legality of the ruling".

Only an idiot would blame the ECF for this. Which doesn't mean that there aren't some people out there who will of course!

So... is the ECF challenging the edict - and if it is, will it make an announcement to that effect? (Sorry if this has already been covered but I couldn't see anything.)

[Paolo Casaschi]

There's a very distinctive 3rd set of player: Those, probably the majority of us, who don't give a stuff about FIDE ratings.

Why would that be?
Because you don't care about any rating/grading or for what other reason?

[Roger de Coverly]

So... is the ECF challenging the edict - and if it is, will it make an announcement to that effect? (Sorry if this has already been covered but I couldn't see anything.)

I don't think it is. Challenging rating rules which could have the effect of debarring players from participation would set a dangerous precedent for ECF competitions that do the same.

[IM Jack Rudd]

So... is the ECF challenging the edict - and if it is, will it make an announcement to that effect? (Sorry if this has already been covered but I couldn't see anything.)

I don't think it is. Challenging rating rules which could have the effect of debarring players from participation would set a dangerous precedent for ECF competitions that do the same.

Oh, give it a rest. Not every thread has to be about the same topic, however fascinating you may find it.

[Jonathan Bryant]

Even those that are more evenly split have sundry issues like Jonathan's.

For the record, from rating list of September 2012 onwards I've played:

24 games in FIDE rated tournaments (South Wales International 2012, South Wales International 2013, Hampstead 2013)
6 games that were both FIDE rated and graded (Twyford 2012)
18 unrated games (St Albans 2013, 1 County Game, 13 Club games)


Of those 30 elo rated games 7 were against unrated opponents so don't count. From those games I scored +5 =2 -0.


If the problem with elo ratings of people in my rating bracket was that we tend to play too few games, wouldn't there be plenty of guys who were absurdly over-rated based on an unrepresentative small sample? I never meet those guys.


More typical, it seems to me, is our own RdC - active more than the average chesser with an elo rating barely above 2000 and yet an ECF of 189.

[Roger de Coverly]

Not every thread has to be about the same topic, however fascinating you may find it.

A previous Board perhaps, but the ECF board had great enthusiasm for challenging FIDE on the Vice-Presidents issue, which is not something of interest to any British player or organiser. Why the supine acceptance of the latest FIDE edict, which arguably is of interest, not least for the precedent it sets in terms of further hostile FIDE action such as demands for annual licence fees as a condition of retaining a rating?

[harrylamb]

Jack

I thought Roger had a point even though he did not put it in the most tactful of ways. I think that your response of being unpleasant to Roger without commenting on the message Roger sent showed that you have no answer to his criticism

[Sean Hewitt]

Not every thread has to be about the same topic, however fascinating you may find it.

A previous Board perhaps, but the ECF board had great enthusiasm for challenging FIDE on the Vice-Presidents issue, which is not something of interest to any British player or organiser. Why the supine acceptance of the latest FIDE edict, which arguably is of interest, not least for the precedent it sets in terms of further hostile FIDE action such as demands for annual licence fees as a condition of retaining a rating?

Who said that the ECF have accepted the latest FIDE edict, supinely or otherwise?

I note that you have not yet answered the question that I put to you previously

...what would you have the ECF do?

a - Tell organisers what is happening so that they can ensure events continue to be rated

or

b - Keep quiet, and hope no-one notices when FIDE won't accept non-compliant rating files?

I'm genuinely interested in the answer.

[Sean Hewitt]

Jack

I think that your response of being unpleasant to Roger without commenting on the message Roger sent showed that you have no answer to his criticism

That's utter tosh!

[Roger de Coverly]

If the problem with elo ratings of people in my rating bracket was that we tend to play too few games, wouldn't there be plenty of guys who were absurdly over-rated based on an unrepresentative small sample? I never meet those guys.

They did use to exist, some of them even were juniors. It used to be possible to do this even with a decent, but not outstanding score because the guys who counted for rating were 2000+ and the guys who didn't were 2000-. These days, tournaments where 2000 is "average" will have 90% to 95% of players with ratings, so the chance of having a modest British performance and a decent FIDE one are much diminished.

There's a player who has played in the British Championships at least twice, but whose highest grade since 1994 has been no more than 168 and that's playing enough games to be A or X status. Admittedly he has now dropped below 1900, but his initial rating was within sight of the CM title just under 2200.

[Richard Bates]

Jack

I think that your response of being unpleasant to Roger without commenting on the message Roger sent showed that you have no answer to his criticism

That's utter tosh!

I would think that most people who comment on these threads have at some point or another produced an answer to Roger's 'criticism'/conspiracy theories. Just because Roger says the same thing over and over and over again, it doesn't follow that every failure to respond over and over and over again constitutes 'no answer'...

[Roger de Coverly]

b - Keep quiet, and hope no-one notices when FIDE won't accept non-compliant rating files? I'm genuinely interested in the answer.

You will have to tell us what the previous practice had been. I recall that e2e4 successfully challenged the ECF's rule that everyone had to be a member of a foreign federation if not English, so players without FIDE identification codes who were not ENG must have previously been submitted. e2e4 also challenged the ECF when they refused to accept consolidated tournaments and APA/Swiss hybrids for rating, even forcing the resignation of the IRO.

FIDE have not actually made their edict public, so at what level has it been signed off? If it's at a low level, you challenge the boss of those signing it off. Given that this issue appears as an Agenda item for the forthcoming FIDE Board meeting, it is perhaps strange that it is being implemented prior to being approved.

[Sean Hewitt]

You will have to tell us what the previous practice had been. I recall that e2e4 successfully challenged the ECF's rule that everyone had to be a member of a foreign federation if not English, so players without FIDE identification codes who were not ENG must have previously been submitted. e2e4 also challenged the ECF when they refused to accept consolidated tournaments and APA/Swiss hybrids for rating, even forcing the resignation of the IRO.

All FIDE rating reports are submitted online to the FIDE Rating Server by the IRO of the host federation uploading the rating report via a web page.

Previously, rating reports were accepted as long as the player had either a FIDE ID No. [FIN] or a Federation and DOB. In the latter case, the federations IRO received a notification in their FIDE Rating Server account to create a FIDE ID. I thought the process worked well.

Now, FIDE have said that they won't accept a rating report if a foreign player does not have a FIN in the rating report. Not only have they said it, they've done it. It is not physically impossible to submit a report to the rating server if there is a foreign player without a FIN.

In the light of that, what could the ECF do but inform organisers? Informing organisers was the pragmatic decision. It does not mean that the ECF cannot challenge what has been done. It does mean that the ECF can discuss whether to challenge the decision and then, if it wishes, challenge it in the right manner, without running the risk that events do not get rated in the meantime.

FIDE have not actually made their edict public, so at what level has it been signed off? If it's at a low level, you challenge the boss of those signing it off. Given that this issue appears as an Agenda item for the forthcoming FIDE Board meeting, it is perhaps strange that it is being implemented prior to being approved.

The notification of the decision came from Ignatius Leong in his role as Chairman of the FIDE Qualifications Commission (which is responsible for FIDE rating).

[Roger de Coverly]

The notification of the decision came from Ignatius Leong in his role as Chairman of the FIDE Qualifications Commission (which is responsible for FIDE rating).

That figures. Of the people of influence in FIDE, he's perhaps the most chess hostile of the lot. He's already tried to sneak through a harder line version of Licensing and Registration.

But the practical position, that the ECF haven't indicated that they will reject or seek to modify is this:-

For all players not English, the organiser tries to establish a FIDE ID. That's best practice even if they only have a part rating.

If they don't have that ID, the tournament organiser has to take one of three actions
(a) decline the entry until such time as the player produces a FIDE Id
or
(b) accept the entry and undertake to do all the necessary chasing to get an IRO somewhere in the world to set up an Id.
or
(c) set them up as ENG warning them that the ECF will want £ 27 a year for life to keep the rating active or FIDE €250 to change it from ENG.

If rating is marginal rather than essential, the simple solution is to abandon it.