Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begins

[Mike Truran]

Greg, that excerpt is from the FAQs section rather than the rules. I confess to having overlooked the need to update that part of the page in amidst all the other pre-season stuff that needed to be done.

[Stewart Reuben]

Roger >Have FIDE rule changes made it very difficult to gain a rating playing exclusively in a league like the 4NCL? If so why haven't the 4NCL and the ECF publicised this to warn players not to expect to be able to get FIDE ratings by playing in leagues?<

Had I remained a member of the QC, I would have made a proposal for the change in the regulations which would have overcome this problem. But I was sacked, against the statutes, by the Chairman Ignatius Leong.

It might have been something like: B.02

6.41 In a Swiss or team tournament played within 14 days: For an unrated player’s first performance to count, he must play at least 3 games against rated opponents; score at least 1 point; and the rating based on the tournament result at its conclusion must be at least 1000.
6.42 In a team tournament where games are played over several months, an unrated player’s results are collated until he has played at least 3 games against rated opponents; then proceed as in 6.41. But if the player has played at least 9 games, scored at least one point at a level 1000+, then his rating shall be published in the next list.

This may be what they do anyway, but it isn't explained in the regulations. It overcomes the problem that possibly the player has played 7 rated games in the 4NCL, 2 in an e2e4 event and now has 9 games at 1500. Then the new list will show this 1500 before the last weekend.

I'll send a note to Nick Faulks, the QC secretary. Isn't that better than moaning about how badly things are done?

[Roger de Coverly]

Had I remained a member of the QC, I would have made a proposal for the change in the regulations which would have overcome this problem.

So do I have this correct? If you have a league in which no more than 2 games are scheduled to be played in any month, it is impossible under FIDE's current rating rules for a player without a rating to gain one if this is the only rated competition in which they participate? This presumably affects not just the 4NCL, but also other European Federations with similar whole season league competitions. In the case of France and Germany, the national league extends down to regional and county equivalent competitions.

Or has the FIDE rating system been tweaked to amalgamate results for players without ratings taking part in leagues where results are submitted by instalments?

As far as ECF grading is concerned, I don't think it is treated any differently from any other league. So provided results are submitted prior to the cut-off date, the first weekend will be included in the grades to be published in January 2014.

[Stewart Reuben]

We will have to await Nick's response. It is not a new problem as most leagues, other than the 4NCL, rated the games monthly when FIDE moved to monthly lists. At the time, I didn't know which was best for chess, so I proposed, and it was agreed, the league should have the option and had to announce it in advance.

[Roger de Coverly]

I'll send a note to Nick Faulks, the QC secretary. Isn't that better than moaning about how badly things are done?

If the ECF Home Director is making statements to the effect that you can no longer easily gain a rating in the 4NCL, that needs to be made widely public if true, and challenged if false.

If members of the FIDE establishment want to know why they are not popular amongst amateur players, they need look no further than their own decisions.

[Stewart Reuben]

Nick tells me he has been trying to get the QC to address this particular issue.
The ECF is now considering steps to address the issue to which I have frequently referred, that it does not pull its weight in FIDE commissions.
FIDE is mainly a non-professional organisation. To make things better, make constructive comments -don't whinge.

[Roger de Coverly]

Nick tells me he has been trying to get the QC to address this particular issue.

The simplest solution, given that the ratings computer has all the data, is that the rule is:-

You get a rating if
(a) you have played at least 9 games against rated opposition
(b) you have scored at least 1 point since your first game
(c) the calculated rating is at least 1000.

There is no minimum number of games for a single event.

If you don't satisfy (b) or (c) you have to play more games until the threshold is crossed.

I half suspect it almost works that way anyway, regardless of the theoretical regulations, as otherwise the French, German and similar leagues would no longer generate any new rated players.

There's no need to stipulate a minimum number of games in an event for a part rating and it makes it more complex because you have to program the ratings computer to ignore some of the results.

[Stewart Reuben]

That is one solution. I didn't favour it because it meant that a player who started off very badly wouldn't be able to discard his old results. So juniors would enter into the rating pool even lower rated than currently.
David Howell played in the Major Open and started terribly. He was advised by Leonard Barden to withdraw before cementing his result with three games against rated opponents.
There is a growing body of opinion that no results should ever be discarded and that a player should get a rating after just 5 games. All that works better if a Glicko type system is used.
The FIDE system's main weakness is probably that, in Swisses, where a rated player meets and unrated one, the game only counts for the latter. That was agreed by the QC, but the PB, in its wisdom, unlawfully overturned that decision

[NickFaulks]

Previously you could get your 3 games over the whole season, but not now.

As always, the FIDE regulations are ambiguously worded, but they talk of interim reporting for leagues spanning a season.

FIDE are notorious for the introduction of rules designed to discourage players and organisers, but I don't think ruling out leagues as a means of obtaining a first rating was actually a desired consequence. If it was, it just adds to the long list of indictments against the current FIDE leadership.

First of all, Roger is stretching his understandable wariness of the FIDE leadership much too far here. The idea that they have cynically planned this as an attempt to deprive a few players of one or two rated games is absurd. This is a technical glitch which everyone missed.

For years, two of my mild obsessions have been as follows.

1. Federations were permitted to delay the submission of the results of season long leagues until after they ended. I never saw the point of monthly lists if games played in November did not appear until June. This was finally changed wef 1.7.13, and broadly speaking, weekends must now be reported individually.

2. For unrated players, only events where they face at least three rated opponents counted towards an initial rating. This made sense when games were not reported individually, but only in terms of performance ratings, since then none at all. This was weakened a few years ago, but retained, as a "compromise" which I never understood, for the first such result.

I expected that this would also be sorted out in the overhaul which took place wef 1.7.13, but all changes to initial ratings were deferred for a year, pending further statistical analysis by Jeff Sonas - which was excellent, by the way, and should be published soon. The initial ratings method from 1.7.14 will solve this problem.

I failed to notice that this combination of events would leave leagues slightly in the lurch for the 2013/14 season only. The question is now being addressed.

[Stewart Reuben]

Nick >This is a technical glitch which everyone missed.<

I did notice it, but was ignored.

[Roger de Coverly]

The idea that they have cynically planned this as an attempt to deprive a few players of one or two rated games is absurd. This is a technical glitch which everyone missed.

It's not conspiracy but it does show FIDE decision makers out of touch. Were zero time defaults and demanding money for arbiters technical glitches as well?

[NickFaulks]

The idea that they have cynically planned this as an attempt to deprive a few players of one or two rated games is absurd. This is a technical glitch which everyone missed.

It's not conspiracy but it does show FIDE decision makers out of touch. Were zero time defaults and demanding money for arbiters technical glitches as well?

No, this particular case ( unlike others ) shows nothing of the sort. I really don't want the PB to get involved in the minutiae of the rating regulations, and nor should you.

I do not remember Stewart raising this exact point with me until this week. His preferred regulations would no doubt have eliminated the problem, and so would mine, which are different. As so often, it was the compromise which left a gaping hole. I do accept that if Stewart had been on the QC this year, as he should have been, this would most likely have been avoided.

[Roger de Coverly]

I really don't want the PB to get involved in the minutiae of the rating regulations, and nor should you.

If the PB or for that matter National Federations have any interest whatsoever in the growth of internationally rated amateur chess, then the detail of how players play in their first events and gain their first rating is of fundamental importance. In fact as we have seen with compulsory FINs, new players are an inconvenience to the smooth running of a rating system and therefore have barriers placed in their way.

[NickFaulks]

I really don't want the PB to get involved in the minutiae of the rating regulations, and nor should you.

If the PB or for that matter National Federations have any interest whatsoever in the growth of internationally rated amateur chess, then the detail of how players play in their first events and gain their first rating is of fundamental importance. In fact as we have seen with compulsory FINs, new players are an inconvenience to the smooth running of a rating system and therefore have barriers placed in their way.

Just be careful what you wish for!

[Stewart Reuben]

Roger is taking a very British-centric view of matters - as do so many other people in this area. There was a major problem for FIDE, identifying players and not giving them two different numbers when they played in two different events, possibly in two different federations. Their solution is to make players have a FIN before getting a rating. It isn't a perfect solution.

By and large England have not had this problem because most of our International Rating Officers have been more efficient.

In 1977 I was rated in the top 1500 in the world. The ratings now go down to 1000 and there are over 150,000 rated players. That was at my suggestion in 1999 and there was no discussion. That does not seem to me like an organisation uninterested in the growth of internationally rated amateur chess.