ECF County Championships 2011

[Roger de Coverly]

There would presumably need to be a FIDE Arbiter at the end of a phone line though.

I don't know how you would do a 10.2 by phone though! Actually that could have been an issue at the National Club finals as well. Increment move rates get you out of 10.2, but then you need both digital clocks and an open-ended venue closing time.

[Alex Holowczak]

There would presumably need to be a FIDE Arbiter at the end of a phone line though.

I don't know how you would do a 10.2 by phone though! Actually that could have been an issue at the National Club finals as well. Increment move rates get you out of 10.2, but then you need both digital clocks and an open-ended venue closing time.

Well, you can have an ECF Arbiter on site. But for FIDE ratings, you need to have a FIDE Arbiter at the end of a phone. They don't have to actually do anything... If you have a FIDE Arbiter on site, then you're sorted.

[Roger de Coverly]

Well, you can have an ECF Arbiter on site.

How practical is that for county matches? Except the finals, they've usually been run on "arbiter not present" rules.

[Alex Holowczak]

Well, you can have an ECF Arbiter on site.

How practical is that for county matches? Except the finals, they've usually been run on "arbiter not present" rules.

Well, yes. Given this was only up for discussion at the national stages, this would reduce the need for an arbiter. But I think you would actually need one.

[Adam Raoof]

Well, you can have an ECF Arbiter on site.

How practical is that for county matches? Except the finals, they've usually been run on "arbiter not present" rules.

Well, yes. Given this was only up for discussion at the national stages, this would reduce the need for an arbiter. But I think you would actually need one.

It would not be difficult to arrange that an arbiter was available on the end of a phone for the national stages.

[Ian Thompson]

But for FIDE ratings, you need to have a FIDE Arbiter at the end of a phone. They don't have to actually do anything...

Really, what makes you think this?

[Adam Raoof]

But for FIDE ratings, you need to have a FIDE Arbiter at the end of a phone. They don't have to actually do anything...

Really, what makes you think this?

That's what most people think Arbiters do. Until they have a dispute

[Sean Hewitt]

But for FIDE ratings, you need to have a FIDE Arbiter at the end of a phone. They don't have to actually do anything...

Really, what makes you think this?

That's what most people think Arbiters do. Until they have a dispute

Which is when most people think the arbiter gets it wrong

[Ian Thompson]

But for FIDE ratings, you need to have a FIDE Arbiter at the end of a phone. They don't have to actually do anything...

Really, what makes you think this?

That's what most people think Arbiters do. Until they have a dispute

It was the "... at the end of a phone" bit I was questioning.

[David Sedgwick]

There would presumably need to be a FIDE Arbiter at the end of a phone line though.

I don't know how you would do a 10.2 by phone though! Actually that could have been an issue at the National Club finals as well. Increment move rates get you out of 10.2, but then you need both digital clocks and an open-ended venue closing time.

There's supposed to be an ECF Arbiter at the end of the phone anyway for matches in the National Stages. I've no idea whether or not this happened in the season that has just ended.

You wouldn't need a FIDE Arbiter purely for FIDE Rating. That's only a requirement for events in which title norms are possible.

The arbiter on the telephone should deal with issues such as what happens if after about ten minutes you discover that a game has started with the wrong colours. However, in the case of a 10.2 claim, I'd have thought you'd apply Appendix D (no arbiter present).

[Adam Raoof]

It was the "... at the end of a phone" bit I was questioning.

Well, strictly speaking, they don't have to do anything until there is a ruling needed. For that purpose, being on the end of a phone is acceptable. Of course, a dispute may not get that far, as many players are also arbiters, and some are also FIDE arbiters. But for a neutral point of view it is obligatory to have a named arbiter for a FIDE event, preferably in attendance. But on the phone will do.

[Ian Thompson]

It was the "... at the end of a phone" bit I was questioning.

... But for a neutral point of view it is obligatory to have a named arbiter for a FIDE event, preferably in attendance. But on the phone will do.

If an arbiter is needed I don't see how being on the end of a phone can possibly do. How, for example, can they fulfil their duties under Rules 13.1, 13.2 and 13.3?

[David Sedgwick]

It was the "... at the end of a phone" bit I was questioning.

... But for a neutral point of view it is obligatory to have a named arbiter for a FIDE event, preferably in attendance. But on the phone will do.

If an arbiter is needed I don't see how being on the end of a phone can possibly do. How, for example, can they fulfil their duties under Rules 13.1, 13.2 and 13.3?

It's not a question of an arbiter being "needed" in the sense that you describe. It's desirable to have someone who can be contacted in the event of a dispute.

Someone has to take overall responsibility for the event and sign the FIDE Rating Report at the end of it. It's not necessary for that person to be a FIDE Arbiter. However, I believe that at present David Welch is the Chief Arbiter for the competition (as well as being the ECF Chief Arbiter). Hence I presume that he would sign off the report.

In my opinion there are several reasons why FIDE Rating of the Counties Championships may not be a particularly good idea. The arbiting aspects are not such a reason. I cannot see that there would be any necessity for the ECF to alter its existing practices in that regard.

About twenty years ago the London League was FIDE Rated for a time. No-one ever suggested that that made it necessary for an arbiter to be present at every match.

[Adam Raoof]

I think in principle this is a good idea, although it has some hurdles (not least the self imposed ECF problem of membership). However, to consider the matter properly we would need to know

1) How many players played this year in the sections that are under consideration for FIDE rating.
2) How many of those players in (1) are already FIDE rated.
3) How many of those players in (1) are already ECF members
4) How many of those players in (1) who are not ECF members are registered to a non ENG federation.

Until we have that information it isn't possible to judge the desirability of the proposal, nor be anything other than subjective rather than objective.

Tony Fulton has sent in the following stats;

Middlesex County Stats.doc

[Howard Grist]

I think in principle this is a good idea, although it has some hurdles (not least the self imposed ECF problem of membership). However, to consider the matter properly we would need to know

1) How many players played this year in the sections that are under consideration for FIDE rating.
2) How many of those players in (1) are already FIDE rated.
3) How many of those players in (1) are already ECF members
4) How many of those players in (1) who are not ECF members are registered to a non ENG federation.

Until we have that information it isn't possible to judge the desirability of the proposal, nor be anything other than subjective rather than objective.

Assuming that the Open, Minor Counties and U180 Sections are to be rated, then the answers are:-

1) 410
2) 190
3) 216
4) 13