Appendix G Clock substitutions

[IM Jack Rudd]

I can't speak for other regions, but county matches in WECU have a time control of 40/100' + G/20', which is FIDE-rateable.

[NickFaulks]

I can't speak for other regions, but county matches in WECU have a time control of 40/100' + G/20', which is FIDE-rateable.

That sounds perfectly good to me ( as a player ), and I can see a case for a standard time control in all county matches. I just don't see what it has to do with FIDE or the rating regulations.

[Mick Norris]

I can't speak for other regions, but county matches in WECU have a time control of 40/100' + G/20', which is FIDE-rateable.

The MCCU has the Open/Minor as 40 moves in the first 2 hours, then 30 mins to finish, although captains can vary this I don't think they often do

The grade limited sections use 36 moves in 90 mins, then 30 mins to finish, usually

My recollection of previous discussions generally (not just the MCCU) was about FIDE rating only the Open/Minor, and I thought the players had been asked and rejected this?

[Brian Towers]

We are at present dealing with a rumour circulating in the US that organisers are required to ask players for their birth certificate, and I don't know how that one got started either. It seems to have taken in some people who should have known better.

Republicans?

In answer to your question, the main roadblock is the requirement that the first intermediate time control, if there is one, should be at move 40. I can understand why the players dislike this, and may find it too high a price to pay for getting their games FIDE rated.

What's wrong with something like 90 minutes for the game + 30 seconds increment?

[Mike Truran]

Alex McFarlane wrote:As regards FIDE rating of leagues, FIDE has stated that an arbiter on the end of a phone is acceptable.


I have never heard the idea of an arbiter on the end of a phone even being discussed within FIDE. Where did it originate?

Does anyone have the answer to Nick's question?

[NickFaulks]

What's wrong with something like 90 minutes for the game + 30 seconds increment?

Many players, including myself, find it revolting. In any case, the general question is why events should not be permitted to use the 4 hour time control of their choice.

[Alistair Campbell]

Alex McFarlane wrote:As regards FIDE rating of leagues, FIDE has stated that an arbiter on the end of a phone is acceptable.


I have never heard the idea of an arbiter on the end of a phone even being discussed within FIDE. Where did it originate?

Does anyone have the answer to Nick's question?

There was a lot of chat on this issue hereabouts

[Alex McFarlane]

My comment came as a result of correspondence with FIDE where Chess Scotland was initially told that an arbiter had to be present and that even having one at the end of a phone was not acceptable.

This 'advice' was later changed. I cannot find, nor have the inclination to spend the time for a more thorough check, to locate the original email trail.

If Nick is saying that even having a licenced arbiter 'on the phone' is not needed then I agree with that but if he is actually saying that you have two options an arbiter there or no arbiter then that would not be in agreement with what CS were told.

[NickFaulks]

My comment came as a result of correspondence with FIDE where Chess Scotland was initially told that an arbiter had to be present and that even having one at the end of a phone was not acceptable.

This 'advice' was later changed. I cannot find, nor have the inclination to spend the time for a more thorough check, to locate the original email trail.

If Nick is saying that even having a licenced arbiter 'on the phone' is not needed then I agree with that but if he is actually saying that you have two options an arbiter there or no arbiter then that would not be in agreement with what CS were told.

For a tournament giving norms, an IA or FA must be present at the tournament. That has been made quite clear, and numerous norms have been rejected when it was discovered that this was not the case.

For other tournaments there is no such requirement.

In neither case is the existence of an arbiter on the end of a phone of any relevance at all. Either they are in the tournament hall or they are not.

[Roger de Coverly]

In neither case is the existence of an arbiter on the end of a phone of any relevance at all. Either they are in the tournament hall or they are not.

So let's be quite clear about this; the usual practice in British chess is that club and county matches do not have an arbiter present. As a consequence, unless this changes, there is no prospect of the games in such matches being rated by FIDE and any talk of changing move rates is irrelevant.

[Mike Truran]

For a tournament giving norms, an IA or FA must be present at the tournament. That has been made quite clear, and numerous norms have been rejected when it was discovered that this was not the case.

For other tournaments there is no such requirement.

Roger - perhaps I'm misunderstanding things, but doesn't Nick's comment "For other tournaments ...." suggest the opposite of your interpretation?

[Roger de Coverly]

Roger - perhaps I'm misunderstanding things, but doesn't Nick's comment "For other tournaments ...." suggest the opposite of your interpretation?

There are at least three levels of arbiter and I think Nick was referring to the two higher categories for Norm tournaments. The third category is National Arbiter (NA) for which FIDE's only qualification requirement is that they (FIDE) have been given money through the national federation. For its own part, the ECF won't handle their part of the transaction unless the individual has some arbiting qualifications or experience. So perhaps the reworded question is whether at least a National Arbiter has to be physically present. Rating reports are supposed to be rejected if no fees have been paid to FIDE for the named arbiter. Presumably they would also be rejected if no arbiter was named at all, which brings us back to the original question as you could put a name on a rating report, but what if they aren't there in person?

[NickFaulks]

Roger - perhaps I'm misunderstanding things, but doesn't Nick's comment "For other tournaments ...." suggest the opposite of your interpretation?

There are at least three levels of arbiter and I think Nick was referring to the two higher categories for Norm tournaments. The third category is National Arbiter (NA) for which FIDE's only qualification requirement is that they (FIDE) have been given money through the national federation. For its own part, the ECF won't handle their part of the transaction unless the individual has some arbiting qualifications or experience. So perhaps the reworded question is whether at least a National Arbiter has to be physically present. Rating reports are supposed to be rejected if no fees have been paid to FIDE for the named arbiter. Presumably they would also be rejected if no arbiter was named at all, which brings us back to the original question as you could put a name on a rating report, but what if they aren't there in person?

I thought this was put to bed last time around.

Roger, if you can point to a regulation that says an arbiter has to be present in the tournament hall, please do so. Otherwise, please stop trying to muddy the waters.

Of course, if no Licenced Arbiter can be found who is willing to sign off the event on the word of, for instance, the team captains ( neither of whom wishes to become a Licenced Arbiter, which would be a simple solution ), then you do have a problem.

[Brian Towers]

Of course, if no Licenced Arbiter can be found who is willing to sign off the event on the word of, for instance, the team captains ( neither of whom wishes to become a Licenced Arbiter, which would be a simple solution ), then you do have a problem.

Team captains who also act as arbiters would have to be non-playing team captains. You can't be an arbiter for an event you are playing in.

It really doesn't seem beyond the wit of man to have county matches FIDE rated if that's what the players want. I get the impression here that many don't. Or is that just a vocal minority?

[Roger de Coverly]

We are at present dealing with a rumour circulating in the US that organisers are required to ask players for their birth certificate, and I don't know how that one got started either. It seems to have taken in some people who should have known better.

Not an official FIDE event or even a requirement for FIDE rating, but the entry conditions for the "Millionaire" event require participants to provide evidence of identity.

https://millionairechess.com/tournament-policies

All players must bring a copy of proof of ID to personally present at the tournament registration desk. This should occur before the beginning of the first round but, in any case, must be done during the first day of the tournament. This may be a copy of a driver’s license, passport, student ID or birth certificate (in case of a minor). This record is to assure other players and the staff of the identity of all players.

You would hope officialdom or politicians wouldn't be so stupid, but it would be within the bounds of plausibility that UK or EU Money Laundering Regulations be applied to chess tournaments with large cash prizes.

It would be an anti-cheating measure if parents of entrants to age restricted junior championships were required to supply evidence of age.