Potential grading submission mix up

[NickFaulks]

Wasn't it FIDE's mistake in the first place? Or am I misunderstanding Sean's 27 November post?

Obviously people in England are programmed to believe that in all cases, and it is true that the changes to the initial rating regulations made reporting league results less straightforward than it should have been for one season. However, I do see all problems as they occur, and for some reason the 4NCL caused far more than any other competition.

Anyway, it appears to be done now.

[NickFaulks]

For the future I believe that the rule of three has been scrapped as more trouble than it's worth.

Your comments would be more useful if you took the trouble to read the regulations before suggesting changes to them.

The rule of three has been scrapped. It was supposed to go in 2013, but the changes to initial ratings were deferred for a year while further statistical analysis was carried out. This left one season where there was a mismatch, requiring special treatment by those reporting league results. In most cases this went through without difficulty, but in a few it did not.

[Roger de Coverly]

It was supposed to go in 2013, but the changes to initial ratings were deferred for a year while further statistical analysis was carried out.

If the "rule of three" was not being scrapped, it would have been sensible not to demand that the 4NCL and other instalment leagues submitted results month by month. As it was, there was a general belief that FIDE were intent on making it more difficult to acquire a rating solely through a league.

[NickFaulks]

As it was, there was a general belief that FIDE were intent on making it more difficult to acquire a rating solely through a league.

Only among those who were determined to disregard both the clearly explained genesis of the problem and the proposed solution, which worked smoothly for most federations. It comes as no surprise that this group was concentrated in England.

This issue came to light at the Tallinn Congress in 2013, and was discussed with most of the affected federations. It obviously didn't help that the ECF had chosen to be represented there by Garry Kasparov, who had little interest in English club players.

[Roger de Coverly]

This issue came to light at the Tallinn Congress in 2013

Surely the rule change pre-dates that Congress? The problem arose when someone in FIDE decided to outlaw the practice of instalment leagues sending in results at the end of the season. Tallinn would have been when those affected were given a chance to complain about it.

The change was effective from 1st July 2013, thus preceding Tallinn by several months.

http://www.arbitriscacchi.com/regolamenti/B02.pdf

Given that 2013 rule change also contains the exclusion from rating of events without licensed arbiters, it all seemed part of a deliberate strategy to reduce the number of rated players and events.

[Stewart Reuben]

Roger does like to see demons where none exist.
When the matter of whether to rate a league, played over several months, all in one go, or every month, it was unclear to me which was best for chess and, in particular, the 4NCL.
So I proposed, and it was agreed, that each league could select one of the two systems, but had to announce its choice in advance. The 4NCL chose a whole season.
After some years the majority of leagues had chosen to have the games rated monthly. With monthly rating lists this made eminent sense. Thus the QC and GA decided that ALL leagues would be rated monthly. Adequate notice of this change was given as Roger himself points out.

The rule of three should have gone at the same time or earlier. But it didn't and this resulted in a small hiccup which has now been corrected.

It is true FIDE have introduced a rule that all arbiters in rated events have to be licensed. This was ill-conceived. If they wanted to rase more money, they should do so by increasing the fees to rate an event, not charge administrators for doing something for which they are often not paid. It was ill-conceived, but it is inconceivable that it was part of a deliberate strategy to reduce the number of rated players and events. When I was first rated there were about 2000 rated players. Now well over 100,000. There are many more events. I think 'they' believe making people pay a fee will result in arbiters that work more professionally.

The ECF ignored my advice and left it to me to represent virtually all English matters in Tallinn. (Nigel Short did not attend the congress). I was also secretary of the Rules and Tournament Regulations Commission, taking also the chairman's role in the forced later absence of Geurt Gijssen. I was also asked to take a substantial role in the Disabled Committee. I couldn't be everywhere at once.

[Sean Hewitt]

..there was a general belief that FIDE were intent on making it more difficult to acquire a rating solely through a league.

A general belief amongst whom? You always interpreted, wrongly, that rating monthly prevented a player from getting a part rating in the 4NCL save for the last weekend. I and others told you that was nonsense.

[Roger de Coverly]

A general belief amongst whom? You always interpreted, wrongly, that rating monthly prevented a player from getting a part rating in the 4NCL save for the last weekend. I and others told you that was nonsense.

You have now found out that FIDE didn't have a mechanism for doing it reliably and it seems admitted that they changed the regulation about how frequently leagues had to submit results before thinking about the problem that you cannot play a minimum of three games in a two game weekend.

[NickFaulks]

A general belief amongst whom? You always interpreted, wrongly, that rating monthly prevented a player from getting a part rating in the 4NCL save for the last weekend. I and others told you that was nonsense.

You have now found out that FIDE didn't have a mechanism for doing it reliably and it seems admitted that they changed the regulation about how frequently leagues had to submit results before thinking about the problem that you cannot play a minimum of three games in a two game weekend.

Roger, will you please stop this nonsense. The monthly reporting and the abandonment of the minimum three games were part of a well designed package which was supposed to go through in Istanbul 2012 for implementation in July 2013. The rules for initial ratings were viewed ( correctly ) as radical, and Congress asked for them to be set aside for a year to give federations a chance to understand them better. Everyone, including me, failed to notice the knock-on effect of the three game rule on leagues. Sorry. I did notice this when the initial ratings were finalised in Tallinn 2013, before any damage had been done, and the problem was discussed with representatives of most of the affected federations. A fix was worked out, with which they were satisfied and which in most cases worked smoothly. It was unfortunate that the mechanism by which the ECF's representative in Tallinn, Garry Kasparov, reported back to his employers appears to have broken down.

[Roger de Coverly]

Everyone, including me, failed to notice the knock-on effect of the three game rule on leagues.

To my mind it was really quite obvious. The 4NCL had previously had a choice of whether to rate in instalments or whether to rate in one go at the end of the season. For many purposes it makes no difference and they might be a bias towards rating month by month. The one area where it does make a difference and presumably why the 4NCL previously elected for the end season method of rating is that it enables partial ratings, particularly initial partial ratings to be more easily validated and obtained. In that context it was apparent that FIDE's decision had withdrawn that option and adverse comment on this was appearing well before Tallinn, the changes having been announced as effective from 1st July. FIDE has a history of making decisions without thinking about or caring about the consequences of their actions, and this seemed no exception.

[NickFaulks]

I have explained precisely what happened and you choose to ignore the explanation. For me, this discussion is now over.

[Stewart Reuben]

Nick > Everyone, including me, failed to notice the knock-on effect of the three game rule on leagues.<

Not quite everybody.

There is another effect for title norms. An opponent's title and rating (and occasionally federation) now depends on the month when the game was played. This seems to have provided no problems.

[IM Jack Rudd]

There is another effect for title norms. An opponent's title and rating (and occasionally federation) now depends on the month when the game was played. This seems to have provided no problems.

It probably makes titles slightly easier to obtain. Ratings can go up or down, federations can change in any direction, but titles can only go up.

[Sean Hewitt]

A general belief amongst whom? You always interpreted, wrongly, that rating monthly prevented a player from getting a part rating in the 4NCL save for the last weekend. I and others told you that was nonsense.

You have now found out that FIDE didn't have a mechanism for doing it reliably and it seems admitted that they changed the regulation about how frequently leagues had to submit results before thinking about the problem that you cannot play a minimum of three games in a two game weekend.

I haven't found out anything. Nothing has been 'admitted'. We always knew that this was something that FIDE was going to do manually. They did it, but they made a mistake. They've then worked hard to fix that mistake. I appreciate that, even if you don't. I judge them not by the mistake, but how they dealt with it.

[Sean Hewitt]

This issue came to light at the Tallinn Congress in 2013, and was discussed with most of the affected federations. It obviously didn't help that the ECF had chosen to be represented there by Garry Kasparov, who had little interest in English club players.

What should Garry have told us that would have caused the ECF to do something different which would have prevented FIDE from making this mistake?