No he's not, he's talking about FIDE. Hence the comments about duplication and countries giving up their own ELO systems etc. BTW FIDE rating is not just about time controls. FIDE games are also supposed to be played in a minimum standard of conditions. Most players see their FIDE rating in a different way to ECF grading. Generally they are far more sensitive about their FIDE rating (certainly for stronger players). It is not something you want to put at stake when tired (and sometimes emotional) after a long day at work at 7.30 in the evening.Adam Raoof wrote:Paolo is, I think, talking about using Elo, not FIDE. You can adopt Elo methodology and do what you like with the time limits, as FIDE have done with the addition of Blitz and Rapid rating lists.Roger de Coverly wrote:The "only if" key point for the UK is that games lasting no more than a total of 180 minutes can be included. I know we could do it tomorrow by banning higher rated players, but that is unlikely. Congresses able to schedule four hour or longer sessions can go FIDE rated and some already have. But if you have to schedule three games in a day, making each game last a maximum of three and a half hours makes for a later start and earlier finish.Paolo Casaschi wrote: I'm convinced the same will eventually happen to national ratings, like the ECF grading.
Anyway the ECF's approach to change control with ECF grading is a model of excellence IMO compared to the mess that FIDE are making with their rating system in the rush to make it available to all. The other advantage of ECF is that it self corrects far quicker. Any misguided changes can be reversed within a couple of grading lists. If any ELO system is messed about with too much it can take years to correct.