English Chess Forum

[quote="Roger de Coverly"] For a brief period around ten years ago, it seemed that if you didn't adopt 90 30, your event couldn't be rated or count for title norms.

I'm sorry, but that is just utter drivel. Bermuda was holding title tounaments throughout that period, and never gave any consideration to 90 30. If your federation chose to present matters in that way, they must have been pursuing an agenda of their own.

There's really quite a long list including loads of European events. Not quite move rates, but I believe the FFE wanted to relax the zero default time for this year's European Individual Championships, but were told they weren't allowed to.

In fact the Olympiad choice seems like an occasion when one federation one vote does seem perfectly fair. We send one team each.

The Congress

_________________
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

[quote="Roger de Coverly"

There's really quite a long list including loads of European events. Not quite move rates, but I believe the FFE wanted to relax the zero default time for this year's European Individual Championships, but were told they weren't allowed to.[/quote]

Yes, zero default is a running sore. Even there, Stewart tells me that it was relaxed in the Euro Seniors, so there is some progress. Let's not give up.

FIDE tried to give the impression that 90 30 was to be mandatory until the Western European federations kicked up a fuss. What's the Anderton letter about, if not that?



I remember it for the potential impact on the 4NCL and other British events. The BCF, rightly, expressed opposition to the plans of the FIDE President. The non-incremental version would have been 40 moves in 90 minutes plus 30. It seemed ridiculous that international ratings and title norms would be available using a move rate faster than some British weekend or Bank Holiday events.

With the current voting and financial structures in FIDE, all attempts to replace the FIDE President are doomed to failure. I fear we are stuck with him for life or until he decides to step down.

Ah, I'm beginning to understand. It would be interesting to see the incoming letter, but given that it came from Omuku it was probably a pack of lies. Equally, it would have had no standing whatsoever.

There were a large number of tournaments with full length games throughout that period. Unfortunately, many arbiters took the enthusiasm for 90 30, which I do not dispute, as an excuse for a shorter working day. We have not yet recovered from that.

Roughly what year was this? I ask because I had an 11-game 2620 performance from one 4NCL season several years ago which isn't a GM norm because the average rating of my opposition was 2380.4 as opposed to 2381 or something similarly ridiculous. I met with the rating officer (can't remember his name) in person before the last round who assured me from his calculations it didn't matter what happened in the last round. So obviously I played 'down' on board 4 as opposed to board 1...

Edit: I also remember he wasn't the rating officer for long afterwards.

I don't wish to derail the thread, feel free to reply by PM.

I wouldn't argue with that, but for other matters relating to players, it does seem unfair.

_________________
February 16-17: 2013 BUCA Team Championship
April 20: 2013 British Blitz Championship
July 27-August 10: 100th British Chess Championships

Interesting to hear Nick's views.

Although the lawsuit itself came as a surprise, I don't think anyone who read Dr Shorts's report or heard him speak at the AGM, would have any doubt how he views the current FIDE leadership. I support him.

But always interesting to have a new perspective. If Nick has time I'd be interested in anything else he had to say about the linked report.

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/C15.7.7.1-FIDE-Delegates-Report.doc

Geurt Gijssen did a write up in his column. It's archived at
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/geurt37.pdf

He says the Presidential Board originally wanted 40 moves in 90 minutes plus 20 minutes with 30 seconds added in the second control. That's a problem because the mark 1 DGTs of the era couldn't handle that.

They then went to 40 in 75 + 15 with the increment from move 1. This must have rapidly become 90 30 as that became a de facto standard. Until e2e4 demonstrated that it could work for a weekend event, no British events used it, despite its advantage in eliminating the potential for 10.2 claims.

(edit) At least one website was sufficiently alarmed to start a petition
http://web.archive.org/web/200102090228 ... ional.html

There's TWIC325 as well
http://web.archive.org/web/200102022052 ... ic325.html (/edit)

If I were a mod trying to emulate Sean, I would be diverting the time limit discussion to another thread! Let's hear more about the law suit ... eg how did you first hear of it, Nick?

I'll get back to that, but first must make an apology to Roger.

I've followed his links, and quite clearly something big was indeed going on, which is now returning to my memory.

"Tehran, 26 December 2000

The Presidential Board of FIDE, chaired by the FIDE President, H.E. Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, met today at the Chess Palace in Tehran, ... with effect from 1 January 2001 ... the new time control to be used in all FIDE events and international title tournaments will be 40 moves in 75 minutes, 15 minutes for the remainder of the game, with an increment of 30 seconds per move from move 1."

That seems fairly explicit, six days isn't much notice.

Clearly I have to retract my comment about drivel. All I can say in my defence is that for some reason I never believed it had any chance of coming into force, which turned out to be right. Rather like the abortive doubling of the k factor in 2008.

Returning to the legal action, the Streatham blog has some thoughts on the issue.

http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.c ... table.html

It occurs to be that the ECF has both a Governance Committee and a Finance Committee, both mostly composed of non-Directors. Whilst I've never been totally sure what these bodies are supposed to do and even whether they meet and do it, you might hope they had been made aware of the legal action.