NickFaulks wrote:Which events are you talking about. So far as I know, FIDE only specify time controls for World Championships, Olympiads and some junior events. Anyway, FIDE certainly has no grip on the Chess Classic!
Roger de Coverly wrote:I know that the high profile elections such as the award of the World Cup are the Executive. This contrasts with FIDE where the award of the Olympiad is determined by the GA.
Roger de Coverly wrote:JustinHorton wrote:I don't think so (at least as regards FIFA, which I've just looked up). Of course the Executive, which manages FIFA's bribe-taking activities day-to-day, includes just a few of the member associations, but the Congress, I think, includes all of them on an equal basis.
Who elects the president of FIFA?
NickFaulks wrote: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.
David Anderton in 2001 wrote:I regret to say that I cannot agree with your interpretation of the situation.
I am completely clear about the fact that the FIDE Presidential Board was empowered to make changes to the World Championship Regulations and that this would include decisions about time limits for that event.
I am equally clear about the fact that no mandate was given or asked for in respect of time limits for other events which would obviously involve amendments to other Regulations.
NickFaulks wrote: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.
Roger de Coverly wrote: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?
Roger de Coverly wrote:NickFaulks wrote:I'm not sure about the "swiftly". Was this never a forum topic? It should have been.
It pre-dates the forum by several years. It's probably mentioned on the SCCU site http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk, but a quick browse failed to find it.
From memory, there were issues raised with some of the ratings in the 4NCL and the international grader was then replaced. I don't think it ranked very high on the scale of international sporting scandals. There was an issue with a USA tournament report in which results were reported in an order which enabled a player to reach one of the title rating thresholds. Again this was discovered and rapidly corrected.
NickFaulks wrote:Roger de Coverly wrote:I know that the high profile elections such as the award of the World Cup are the Executive. This contrasts with FIDE where the award of the Olympiad is determined by the GA.
In fact the Olympiad choice seems like an occasion when one federation one vote does seem perfectly fair. We send one team each.
NickFaulks wrote: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.
Jonathan Rogers wrote: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?
Users browsing this forum: John Foley and 1 guest