Having to depend on the FIDE organization is the "scary" part I mentioned but is there a point to have a national duplicate for the sake of it? and keep it just in case FIDE fails to deliver at some point? You should talk with your peers at the Italian federation, they are phasing out national rating (easier for them to do a gradual phase-out since the national system is Elo based as well).Adam Raoof wrote:I agree with you in principle. However if you take a closer look at FIDE you may see why it makes sense to have control over your own domestic grading system. Once you pull the plug on that voluntary infrastructure it is very difficult to reassemble it if there are problems within FIDE. Nevertheless there are arguments for using Elo ratings, as opposed to FIDE ratings. Also, administrating FIDE rating costs money, which we would have to collect and administer, and our income would have to come from elsewhere.Paolo Casaschi wrote:As scary as it looks at first sight, the option of leaving the national rating behind makes sense if you make the FIDE rating more accessible.
About the voluntary infrastructure, I agree that is a great asset, but in an environment with so much limited resources you might want to keep those people busy (and motivated) with something more relevant.
Personally, I don't see the point in switching from ECF to Elo for a national rating. I might be wrong (I am so often, especially at chess , but the more I think about it, the more my gut feeling is that national ratings will eventually be irrelevant; as such it's probably not a good idea to spend lot of effort to switch form ECF to Elo.