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.NickFaulks wrote: ↑Fri Oct 26, 2018 11:40 amFrankly, 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.David Sedgwick wrote: ↑Fri Oct 26, 2018 11:24 amAs 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.
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.
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.