ECF Tournament Rules

[Paul McKeown]

The ECF has recently updated its Tournament Rules: Tournament-Rules-V03-Nov-2024-1.pdf.

The ECF seems to have maintained its tradition of updating its Tournament Rules without informing Arbiters and Organisers, who might reasonably expect to be kept up to date of what it is expected of them.

That besides, I would like to congratulate the authors of this particular update, Nigel Towers, Adrian Elwin and Alex Hoowczak, for the document's consistency, coherence and easily readability.

[NickFaulks]

The ECF has recently updated its Tournament Rules: Tournament-Rules-V03-Nov-2024-1.pdf

Is there a summary of what has changed?

Yes, I know I could work this out for myself, but I am some combination of busy and lazy.

[Roger Lancaster]

Some local evening leagues (ECF- but not FIDE-rated) relax their rules on mobile phones, sometimes to the extent that a first sound is tolerated with the game forfeited only in the event of a recurrence. I can't immediately see that this is permissible under ECF tournament rules. Comments?

[John Upham]

The ECF seems to have maintained its tradition of updating its Tournament Rules without informing Arbiters and Organisers, who might reasonably expect to be kept up to date of what it is expected of them.

I am sure that the ECF arbiting community (of which I am a member) can look forward to being updated by the ECF Manager of Arbiters, Adrian Elwin, as he has been consistently doing over he past couple of years.

[Ian Thompson]

Some local evening leagues (ECF- but not FIDE-rated) relax their rules on mobile phones, sometimes to the extent that a first sound is tolerated with the game forfeited only in the event of a recurrence. I can't immediately see that this is permissible under ECF tournament rules. Comments?

I very much doubt that the ECF would enforce the condition in their rules that says "The requirements of this document must be complied with in order for an event to be accepted for ECF rating" even if non-compliance was brought to their attention, perhaps by someone trying to avoid having their bad results rated.

[Derrick Walker]

I very much doubt that the ECF would enforce the condition in their rules that says "The requirements of this document must be complied with in order for an event to be accepted for ECF rating" even if non-compliance was brought to their attention, perhaps by someone trying to avoid having their bad results rated.

I am sure you are probably right, but it then begs the question of what is the point of the document - other than helpful for those organising an event for the first time.

[John Upham]

I very much doubt that the ECF would enforce the condition in their rules that says "The requirements of this document must be complied with in order for an event to be accepted for ECF rating" even if non-compliance was brought to their attention, perhaps by someone trying to avoid having their bad results rated.

I am sure you are probably right, but it then begs the question of what is the point of the document - other than helpful for those organising an event for the first time.

Unfortunately the officials who authored the document are subject to an MoD style D notice forbidding them from answering reasonable and useful questions such as those asked this in this very place.

[Brian Valentine]

Some local evening leagues (ECF- but not FIDE-rated) relax their rules on mobile phones, sometimes to the extent that a first sound is tolerated with the game forfeited only in the event of a recurrence. I can't immediately see that this is permissible under ECF tournament rules. Comments?

I very much doubt that the ECF would enforce the condition in their rules that says "The requirements of this document must be complied with in order for an event to be accepted for ECF rating" even if non-compliance was brought to their attention, perhaps by someone trying to avoid having their bad results rated.

As a player, I see these rules as a description of how "proper" chess is played in England. As such I find the statement that "the event will be ECF rated" to be enough to indicate I know the minimum standards will be enforced. Hence no need for small print in each entry conditions.

As the enforcer, these things are very rare, but I have refused to rate events, however since flagrant breaches are for such strange things, I can only follow general rules, which are:
1. We should err on the side of rating even these events
2. We aim to maintain the integrity of all player's ratings
3. We do not arbitrate results, but follow the decisions of the organiser/arbiter
4. We will only rate a complete event, so not exclude a subset of games that are outside regulations (and this may influence a decision under 1 above)

Brian Valentine, Manager ECF Rating

[Roger Lancaster]

I very much doubt that the ECF would enforce the condition in their rules that says "The requirements of this document must be complied with in order for an event to be accepted for ECF rating" even if non-compliance was brought to their attention, perhaps by someone trying to avoid having their bad results rated.

I am sure you are probably right, but it then begs the question of what is the point of the document - other than helpful for those organising an event for the first time.

Unfortunately the officials who authored the document are subject to an MoD style D notice forbidding them from answering reasonable and useful questions such as those asked this in this very place.

Other side of the coin, John, is that ECF officials received verbal abuse in this very place. Some of the worst offenders seem to have departed and I agree it would probably be beneficial if the ban were lifted but that's a matter for the ECF Board. As to the point I raised, it seems to me that there's a serious problem waiting somewhere down the line with the ECF finding itself having to decide between (a) enforcing the tournament rules, in which case much league chess could not be ECF-rated or (b) not enforcing the rules in this particular regard, so offering a "get out of jail free" card to anyone infringing other aspects of those rules. Finally, I should say that I'm not in any sense blaming Alex, Nigel and Adrian as the problem was inherited from predecessor versions of the rules and not introduced by them.

[NickFaulks]

I don't understand this document. In terms of games being ECF rated, presumably only the Compulsory Rules matter, and there aren't many of them. But do they implicitly include a requirement that the FIDE Laws of Chess must be followed? That would be very restrictive.

I seem to remember an earlier list of permitted variations from the FIDE Laws, has that gone?

The Recommended Rules are mostly about electronic devices. By virtue of the fact that they are Recommended rather than Compulsory, I presume that they are intended as examples of cases where the FIDE Laws may be ignored, but that is now more murky than before.

I am fascinated by Compulsory Rule 3. I captain a team in a League where some clubs continue to insist on guillotine finishes and no method of ending the game prematurely is specified. I shall encourage my players to flag their opponent in daft positions, just to see how the inevitable appeal is handled!

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Other side of the coin, John, is that ECF officials received verbal abuse in this very place."

There has been abuse of ECF officials. However, many years ago, I reported accurately that an arbiter had cheated a player and then punched the person he cheated. The BCF response was that I was lucky there was "no such offence as bringing chess into disrepute". I replied that telling the truth did not constitute "disrepute". Still, I knew that they knew they were on very shaky ground if they have to resort to "disrepute" charges, as shown by football, cricket, rugby etc. organizations for many years.

And you cannot complain about abusive behaviour if you do it yourself...

I cannot be the only person on here who immediately gets angry emails if there is any suggestion that BCF/ECF are less than perfect.

Reverting to the main topic, why publish "rules" if they are only advisory?

[John Upham]

Reverting to the main topic, why publish "rules" if they are only advisory?

Indeed.

The Berkshire Chess Association (of which I am Secretary) maintains and publishes both

Guidelines

https://www.berkshirechess.org.uk/local ... elines.pdf

and

Rules

https://www.berkshirechess.org.uk/local/pdf/rules.pdf

Both of the above are distributed at the start of each season to all BCA officials, Club Secretaries and Team Captains. Of course they may sit on them and ignore but at least the BCA had made them aware.

It would appear (therefore) that the ECFs publication of its document is an academic exercise since the officials who worked hard to create it are not permitted to discuss its working and implementation in this place or any publicly accessible forum.

AFAIK, accredited arbiters have not been officially informed of the documents ramifications (if any) which suggests that its existence can be ignored.

In fairness, possibly it has not yet been agreed as to who the intended audience for this document is?

[Kevin Thurlow]

"AFAIK, accredited arbiters have not been officially informed of the documents ramifications (if any) which suggests that its existence can be ignored."

I don't think I have ever been sent info like this. Communications tend to be limited to a bulk email, "There is an event at X on date Y - please contact us if you wish to be an arbiter."