Commission for the Modernisation of FIDE

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Paul McKeown
Posts: 3500
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)
Contact:

Re: Commission for the Modernisation of FIDE

Post by Paul McKeown » Mon Aug 08, 2011 3:25 pm

Bonkers - orders straight from the flying saucer.

Would the ECF, alongside Chess Scotland, the German, French, Dutch, Spanish, etc. chess federations not have to secede from FIDE, as it no longer was organising chess but a bizarre variant thereto?

Can't someone tell Ignatius Leong that if admires Shogi so much, he should join the Shogi Federation, and stop plaguing chess players?
"Liberty without equality is of noble sound but squalid meaning" - LT Hobhouse

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19271
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Commission for the Modernisation of FIDE

Post by Roger de Coverly » Mon Aug 08, 2011 3:35 pm

Paul McKeown wrote: Would the ECF, alongside Chess Scotland, the German, French, Dutch, Spanish, etc. chess federations not have to seceed from FIDE, as it no longer was organising chess but a bizarre variant thereto?
If FIDE was no longer organising world chess (as traditionally defined) there would seem a perfectly good case for building a new international body. The same would apply if the ECF decided to adopt a no-draws rule, that county associations wishing to continue to play chess might have to set up a new national body.

That said though, these rules are already present in the Laws of Chess except that the current wording places the onus on organisers to adopt a no draws or no draws before move x policy as part of the specific regulations for a tournament. So FIDE could have imposed a no agreed draws rule on the Kazan Candidates matches without changing the Laws of Chess for everyone.

User avatar
Sebastian Stone
Posts: 153
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 4:21 pm

Re: Commission for the Modernisation of FIDE

Post by Sebastian Stone » Mon Aug 08, 2011 3:43 pm

It's typical of morons.

You do something that everyone knows will be a complete mess.

Create a candidates tournament for the classical world championship where the format means games can be decided in blitz games.

Then when this leads to problems, instead of realising how stupid you are blame something else entirely and decide to make things even worse.
AKA Scott Stone

"Give a man fire and he's warm for a day, set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life."

That's Mr Stone to you, f**kface.

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3500
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)
Contact:

Re: Commission for the Modernisation of FIDE

Post by Paul McKeown » Mon Aug 08, 2011 4:04 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:That said though, these rules are already present in the Laws of Chess except that the current wording places the onus on organisers to adopt a no draws or no draws before move x policy as part of the specific regulations for a tournament. So FIDE could have imposed a no agreed draws rule on the Kazan Candidates matches without changing the Laws of Chess for everyone.
My point of view is that FIDE are already going too far. The rules of chess which concern the move and the result ought to be invariant whether one is playing in the bottom division of the Hillingdon League or playing in the World Championship. Otherwise you might as well burn theory books, as they all recognise the possibility of a draw and consequentially struggle for it on behalf of the weaker placed party and against it for the stronger placed party. I know next to nothing about Shogi, I've heard it is very interesting to play, but I also know from long playing experience that the fact that chess is so finely balanced is one of the reasons for its inexhaustible interest. Remove the draw, I'll take White. So will everyone else.

Paul Cooksey

Re: Commission for the Modernisation of FIDE

Post by Paul Cooksey » Mon Aug 08, 2011 6:40 pm

I thought Shipov's tie-break suggestion was slightly less mad than Kasimdzhanov's. But that is to damn it with faint praise.

I don't think draws are in themselves responsible for the lack of chess sponsors. The issue is its lack of visual appeal to the uninitiated. There is one significant exception to this rule. A particular influential country has a problem with draws. They have a problem with soccer for this reason too. But if chess was as popular as football, we would all be happy.

I think there is value in Sofia rules, and similar, for professional events. If the LCC wants to sell me a ticket, or get web sponsorship, guaranteeing there is something to watch is important.


PS I was unaware Shipov's solution is used in Romania. I don't necessarily see this as a recommendation. The answer to Adam Raoof's zen like query, "If nobody is watching a game, does it even take place?", is "Was it in Romania?"

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 4228
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Commission for the Modernisation of FIDE

Post by Stewart Reuben » Mon Aug 08, 2011 7:04 pm

Roger >Whether these schemes are attractive to spectators remains to be seen. I would think almost any system of compulsory replays is unattractive to (amateur) players. So what are the aims of such reforms? Are they to discourage participation and encourage spectating instead?<

As Roger very well knows I have always been against people playing chess. It would be so much easier to run chess events if there were not those pesky players.
There are different ways in which to organise chess. First settle on your objectives and it is likely you will comed to one of the best conclusions.
Stewart Reuben

Post Reply