English Chess Forum

I mean you can't just suddenly abstract an issue from a legal framework within which it has previously been determined, declare yourself the sole authority on the matter and ignore what's gone before. Sports federations can make their own rules but they cannot make them just as they choose, either legally or ethically, and deciding "the legal position on this is not to our liking so we will act as if it wasn't so" is improper in every way.

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 17, 2018 5:27 pm

I mean you can't just suddenly abstract an issue from a legal framework within which it has previously been determined, declare yourself the sole authority on the matter and ignore what's gone before.

So it does, in fact, come down to whether we approve of Agon and FIDE as organisations.

(No-one is declaring themselves the sole authority on anything.)

It comes down to whether we recognise the limits of their powers.

Chris Wardle wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 17, 2018 5:52 pm

So it does, in fact, come down to whether we approve of Agon and FIDE as organisations.

Agon is a commercial Company to which FIDE possibly unwisely has "sold" the rights to run World Championships, Candidates and some other elite events.

FIDE is the international chess body of which the ECF is a member and on paper at least has some influence over its decisions. Also on paper at least individual members of the ECF have some power over what the ECF does.

FIDE as a body prefers a Russian ex-politician of dubious provenance as its President to international businessmen and ex World Champions.

Chris Wardle wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 17, 2018 5:52 pm

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 17, 2018 5:27 pm

I mean you can't just suddenly abstract an issue from a legal framework within which it has previously been determined, declare yourself the sole authority on the matter and ignore what's gone before.

So it does, in fact, come down to whether we approve of Agon and FIDE as organisations.

(No-one is declaring themselves the sole authority on anything.)

No, because CAS would ultimately decide; it isn't about approving of, or not, FIDE or AGON, it is about being able to enjoy watching chess and using it to promote the game; what they are suggesting would aid neither

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 17, 2018 6:16 pm

It comes down to whether we recognise the limits of their powers.

That may be an interesting theoretical question, but it is not the one being asked. What FIDE are asking is whether, if they did have these powers, we would welcome their use. So far, clearly expressed opinion here is running neck and neck, with one view each way. Justin, would you care to take a side?

Mick Norris wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 17, 2018 6:34 pm

Chris Wardle wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 17, 2018 5:52 pm

So it does, in fact, come down to whether we approve of Agon and FIDE as organisations.

(No-one is declaring themselves the sole authority on anything.)

No, because CAS would ultimately decide; it isn't about approving of, or not, FIDE or AGON, it is about being able to enjoy watching chess and using it to promote the game; what they are suggesting would aid neither

Chess players like free stuff, granted. But the people who follow the move-by-move commentary of a chess match are the existing hard core fans. The people with the least need to have chess promoted to them.

FIDE promote chess when they hold tournaments that women, LGBT+ players and Israelis don't feel the need to withdraw from for their own safety. That means they need to make tournaments profitable in their own right, so that they don't have to be artificially propped up by petro-dictators seeking a PR victory.

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 17, 2018 6:16 pm

It comes down to whether we recognise the limits of their powers.

Which limits? The legal limits, or the limits we want because we like free stuff?

Chris Wardle wrote:

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 17, 2018 1:54 pm

Do you think they were assisted the fact that Agon's online show was so grotesquely bad?

Not really. Because you'd have had to subscribe to the Agon package in the first place to find out that you preferred chess24's.

Not at all sure about that. I’m reminded of Simon Munnery’s line about a Chris Moyles book:-

You can read it and dismiss it as rubbish if you like. Or you can dismiss it as rubbish without reading it to save time.

Jonathan Bryant wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 17, 2018 10:15 pm

Chris Wardle wrote:

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 17, 2018 1:54 pm

Do you think they were assisted the fact that Agon's online show was so grotesquely bad?

Not really. Because you'd have had to subscribe to the Agon package in the first place to find out that you preferred chess24's.

Not at all sure about that. I’m reminded of Simon Munnery’s line about a Chris Moyles book:-

You can read it and dismiss it as rubbish if you like. Or you can dismiss it as rubbish without reading it to save time.

So Agon should respond to the competition from chess24 by organising a live broadcast that we want to watch, but we should assume Agon's live broadcast is going to be rubbish and not watch it. That seems reasonable.

Chris Wardle wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 17, 2018 7:52 pm

]

Which limits? The legal limits, or the limits we want because we like free stuff?

Well, I've mentioned both ethical and legal issues more than once, but let's concentrate on the legal limits for a moment. As has (also) been said above, FIDE can't just make any rules it likes. (If it could, the Agon cases would never have gone to court in the first place.) So it can't just fine or ban people. It can't just say "we are the authority in chess, therefore we can make any rules we like in chess" and if they think otherwise they are likely to find themselves having the same degree of success in the courts as Agon have.

Chris Wardle wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 17, 2018 7:52 pm

Chess players like free stuff, granted. But the people who follow the move-by-move commentary of a chess match are the existing hard core fans. The people with the least need to have chess promoted to them.

FIDE promote chess when they hold tournaments that women, LGBT+ players and Israelis don't feel the need to withdraw from for their own safety. That means they need to make tournaments profitable in their own right, so that they don't have to be artificially propped up by petro-dictators seeking a PR victory.

Can I add that the idea that we promote chess to a wider audience, by restricting the number of broadcasters, and by charging for it, is laughable. That's a guaranteed way to make sure only the hardcore chess people watch it. You want the casual audience, you need free-to-air.

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 18, 2018 8:20 am

Can I add that the idea that we promote chess to a wider audience, by restricting the number of broadcasters, and by charging for it, is laughable. That's a guaranteed way to make sure only the hardcore chess people watch it. You want the casual audience, you need free-to-air.

As somebody who has spent the last 4-5 years making a living working with a newcomers to chess I can state with 100% certainty that the idea that only established rated chess players watch chess broadcasts is simply factually incorrect.

More generally, the existence of high-quality free material on the web - eg at chess.com and other places - is an unprecedented resource for new chessers. Our challenge is to steer the newcomers away from the junk and direct bthem to the good stuff.

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 18, 2018 8:20 am

Well, I've mentioned both ethical and legal issues more than once, but let's concentrate on the legal limits for a moment. As has (also) been said above, FIDE can't just make any rules it likes. (If it could, the Agon cases would never have gone to court in the first place.) So it can't just fine or ban people.

|I agree FIDE can't enforce rules that apply to everybody, but it can make up whatever rules it likes for its members (assuming it can get its members to agree to the necessary rule changes). So banning someone from playing chess is not possible, but banning them from playing in FIDE organised events, FIDE rated events, or anything else with which FIDE has some involvement is possible.

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 18, 2018 8:20 am

FIDE can't just make any rules it likes.

They know that very well, and are trying to discover whether the chess public would like them to push their rights as far as they will go. I have said no, and so far I am still in a minority of one. That is a position to which I am well used, but I didn't expect it to be the case on this issue and on this forum.

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 18, 2018 12:42 pm

They know that very well, and are trying to discover whether the chess public would like them to push their rights as far as they will go. I have said no, and so far I am still in a minority of one.

The ECF International Director has come out in public in favour of unrestricted distribution and followed this process in events where he has had an influence on the organisation. I don't see the ECF endorsing the FIDE initiative.

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 18, 2018 1:25 pm

The ECF International Director has come out in public in favour of unrestricted distribution ...

Do you happen to know the link?