Australian format weekend chess

[Alex Holowczak]

As I have said several times previously on here, the FIDE Qualification Commission needs to get its own house in order if it wants more English events to be FIDE rated.

Frankly, I no longer care. I am tired of being reminded that there are 187 other federations, including my own, nearly all of whom oppose the changes demanded in England, which appear to include allowing performances in three ( two? ) hour games to affect qualification for Candidates tournaments.

In any case, I have little doubt that even if England's demands were satisfied, some other barrier to FIDE rating would rear its head. That is the Gold Membership mentality.

I've no problem at all with games of standardplay chess contributing towards the FIDE rating list. If the problem is that the Laws of Chess define standardplay as being too short for people's tastes, then OK. What I don't like is the black hole where games can't be rated under any list for certain players above Rapidplay and below the 4-hour limit.

The reason that Gold membership exists conceptually is because the ECF has various payments to make to FIDE, such as FIDE rating fees and arbiter licencing fees. If they didn't exist, then perhaps the argument for having it goes away.

On a related note, entries for the London Chess Classic - where every section requires ENG players to be Gold members this year - are up in all sections this year at the Early Bird deadline. (OK, the Open is about the same as last year, but that difference can be explained by the conditions players being in the equivalent list 12 months ago but not this list.) Gold membership doesn't seem to be putting Londoners off.

[David Sedgwick]

I am tired of being reminded that there are 187 other federations, including my own, nearly all of whom oppose the changes demanded in England, which appear to include allowing performances in three ( two? ) hour games to affect qualification for Candidates tournaments.

In any case, I have little doubt that even if England's demands were satisfied, some other barrier to FIDE rating would rear its head. That is the Gold Membership mentality.

It was Veselin Topalov who suggested that three hour games should be the basic format for Classical chess.

I hope that you recall that I suggested raising the 2200 limit to 2400 as a compromise.

Frankly, I no longer care.

Fine. In that case please stop complaining about England not submitting more tournaments for FIDE rating. Frankly, I doubt whether anyone except you cares much about that.

[Roger de Coverly]

The reason that Gold membership exists conceptually is because the ECF has various payments to make to FIDE, such as FIDE rating fees and arbiter licencing fees. If they didn't exist, then perhaps the argument for having it goes away.

The differential between Gold and Silver is far higher than justified by the payments to FIDE. It's surely a question of fact that if the logic of compulsory head count based fees was followed through to its logical conclusion, that the resulting payment to the ECF per individual club member or tournament player would be far too high, particularly considering the spending ambitions of ECF Directors. So an attempt was made to tilt the payment towards more active players, the higher rated ones anyway.

There is still a tournament based levy for FIDE rated events. This applies to all players, but the ECF waives charging directly for it on ENG players. It still applies to "foreigners". Most tournaments absorb it, the Bristol series being an exception, much to the annoyance of some Welsh players.

http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/chess/Y ... 1534192996

[Alex Holowczak]

The differential between Gold and Silver is far higher than justified by the payments to FIDE.

Just like the cost of Silver and Bronze membership is more than is justified by the cost of simply grading the games. The principle of Gold membership is the point - there are charges due that aren't due for unrated events, and so there is a rationale for the higher Gold membership to exist.

Frankly, I no longer care.

Fine. In that case please stop complaining about England not submitting more tournaments for FIDE rating. Frankly, I doubt whether anyone except you cares much about that.

I care quite a lot about it. The service is much better (monthly v 6 monthly, so you get more instant feedback), more modern (it looks like an Internet rating, which is where a lot of potential new players are used to playing), amongst other things. It is a much better system than the ECF system; or at least, it would be if far more English results were submitted to it.

[Nick Grey]

The rate of play is fine as far as I'm concerned. Sometimes I want one game a day - sometimes not.
The point is whether ECF and/or FIDE rated it helps if one single entry fee. I can accept on one system if more than 400 difference the game is not rated. Though in ECF it is.
English organisers are brilliant. Charging the same prices for a weekend congress that they were 30 years ago.
In raising the 2200 limit to 2400 it is fine for the bulk of players. Those not chasing IM & GM status.
Anyway I'm looking forward to Friday evening chess in Kingston but am unlikely to go clubbing all night after with a 10am Saturday morning game.

Unlike in the past when we went out all Friday night & got back from clubbing at 7am, a quick shower and breakfast and a 930 am kick-off for Saturday morning football. And occasionally a 2pm County Chess match.

[Roger de Coverly]

I can accept on one system if more than 400 difference the game is not rated. Though in ECF it is.

It is rated in FIDE as well. 0.11 and 0.89 being the magic numbers, so there's 1 Elo point at stake for those with K=10, 2 points for K=20.

The premise rejected by English organisers is that if a player has a rating of 2200 or higher, their games aren't rated, even if the opponent is 2199.

[Nick Grey]

And what for juniors? Those seeking a formal rating. I'm quite happy for the format. I also believe all the participants are.

Less happy about not having much time to play chess mid week. Perhaps I have to get to your age!

Even in football the Premier League believe the next big thing for TV money is Friday night football. So why not Friday night chess!

[Roger de Coverly]

So why not Friday night chess!

Back in the 1960s, when inter-school chess was the norm rather than the exception for academically minded day schools at least, Friday evening was usual.

[Michael Farthing]

In the North we still start our congresses on a Friday (mostly)

[IM Jack Rudd]

Same in the south-west.

[Michael Farthing]

That was speedy Jack! I've never had such a fast endorsement!

[IM Jack Rudd]

The principal reason for the differences between the FIDE and ECF grading systems is that they were designed for different things: FIDE's was designed for tournaments that last for a few days, the ECF's for leagues that go on for most of the year.

[David Sedgwick]

I can accept on one system if more than 400 difference the game is not rated. Though in ECF it is.

It is rated in FIDE as well. 0.11 and 0.89 being the magic numbers, so there's 1 Elo point at stake for those with K=10, 2 points for K=20.

Actually 0.08 and 0.92 are the magic numbers for the current maximum difference of 400 points. 0.11 and 0.89 apply to the old maximum of 350 points.

[Roger de Coverly]

What I don't like is the black hole where games can't be rated under any list for certain players above Rapidplay and below the 4-hour limit.

Unlikely to ever happen, but suppose FIDE introduced a fourth rating system. Call it "National Elo", "Club Elo" or whatever. The idea being to rate games played at limits between G/60 and 90 30.

Decision points on 90 30 though.

(1) remove it from "International" rating, so tournaments at that move rate no longer counted for Norms on nine round tournaments. (Unlikely to be popular, given that FIDE tried this a few years ago . The Norm bit, rather than ratings)

(2) count it for "International" but not for "national"

(3) count it for both.

The direct consequence is that to qualify for an "International" rating, you have to play in "elite" events with longer time controls.
Players with "high" ratings can play in "domestic" events without putting their "international" rating at risk.

[Alex Holowczak]

Players with "high" ratings can play in "domestic" events without putting their "international" rating at risk.

FIDE gets its knickers in a twist about "domestic" and "international" definitions quite a bit, so I'm not sure adding another case where this definition would be required would be helpful.

In the end, FIDE settled on 3 Federations as its definition in many areas (or 2 in some cases), and it would be very rare that one section of a typical English weekend tournament wouldn't meet that. For example, of ongoing weekenders, 4/5 sections at Scarborough meet it, and 2/3 sections at Surrey meet it.