FIDE Law Suit

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
Simon Brown
Posts: 697
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:38 pm
Location: Sevenoaks, Kent, if not in Costa Calida, Spain

Re: FIDE Law Suit

Post by Simon Brown » Fri Dec 02, 2011 5:32 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:
Simon Brown wrote:Did the ECF really send in fraudulent results for rating? Why don't I remember?
This is before my time, but I was told that a previous FIDE-rating Officer was making up results and submitting them. He was swiftly removed from post, by all accounts.
How exciting. Probably explains my inflated rating.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 8518
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: FIDE Law Suit

Post by Alex Holowczak » Fri Dec 02, 2011 5:36 pm

Simon Brown wrote:
Alex Holowczak wrote:
Simon Brown wrote:Did the ECF really send in fraudulent results for rating? Why don't I remember?
This is before my time, but I was told that a previous FIDE-rating Officer was making up results and submitting them. He was swiftly removed from post, by all accounts.
How exciting. Probably explains my inflated rating.
I should probably have said "was alleged to have made up results"... I've no idea. Just reporting hearsay. :)

NickFaulks
Posts: 4469
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: FIDE Law Suit

Post by NickFaulks » Fri Dec 02, 2011 5:38 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
If the ECF delegate voted in favour in 2008, that's news, but he was thrown out of office not long after.
Indeed, but this does not support your claim that it was the small federations who pushed it through. I expect that, like almost everyone else, he just went with the flow.

As to nonsense like G/75, if that comes up I believe that it can be fought off. However, I do not expect to get a shred of help from Western Europe or, even less, from the USCF.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 17319
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: FIDE Law Suit

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Dec 02, 2011 5:39 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote: I hadn't realised the FIDE President has said this.
You didn't pick up that he'd like to abolish classical chess. The 90 30 move rate was only a stepping stone in that direction and he would have preferred something even faster. The current 40 moves in 90 minutes plus 30 minutes with 30 second increments is something clawed back by those such as arbiters as rather more suitable for one round a day chess. We'll see how it works starting tomorrow in the London Classic Open. For many British players it will be their first experience of that exact move rate. My initial thoughts are that up to move 40 it's the same as the British Championships, Hastings or the 4NCL except that you started 10 minutes late. Beyond move 40, you only have the extra half hour plus increments, so you have to speed up a bit.

NickFaulks
Posts: 4469
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: FIDE Law Suit

Post by NickFaulks » Fri Dec 02, 2011 5:42 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:
Simon Brown wrote:Did the ECF really send in fraudulent results for rating? Why don't I remember?
This is before my time, but I was told that a previous FIDE-rating Officer was making up results and submitting them. He was swiftly removed from post, by all accounts.
I'm not sure about the "swiftly". Was this never a forum topic? It should have been.

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 5611
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: FIDE Law Suit

Post by JustinHorton » Fri Dec 02, 2011 5:48 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:To my mind, it is simply wrong that Bermuda gets as many votes on the General Assembly as Russia
There are all sorts of reasonable objections to it, but it's the way that international sporting bodies, and for that matter international bodies per se, are normally organised. In the United Nations General Assembly, China has one vote, as does Ireland. (Or Tunisia, or Uruguay, or Honduras.) It's nothing specific to FIDE.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 17319
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: FIDE Law Suit

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Dec 02, 2011 5:48 pm

NickFaulks wrote:Indeed, but this does not support your claim that it was the small federations who pushed it through.
The claim is that small federations voted for a President who was strongly in favour. It was only the intervention of one of the other board members that prevented the General Assembly voting for it to become part of the Laws of Chess there and then.

Speculation of course, but if it had been known that the then Delegate was in favour of zero time default as a compulsory Law of Chess, I wonder whether he would have got more than a handful of votes in the 2009 election.
NickFaulks wrote: As to nonsense like G/75, if that comes up I believe that it can be fought off. However, I do not expect to get a shred of help from Western Europe or, even less, from the USCF.
G/75 is a perfectly valid rate and suitable for evening league chess, weekend Congresses and events for younger players. It's somewhat pointless to use it in events with one round a day or where the players would prefer a longer playing session. As to whether it should be eligible for international rating, that's another question. It would extend the number of events that could be rated, at the cost, presumably, of the quality of play.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 17319
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: FIDE Law Suit

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Dec 02, 2011 5:52 pm

JustinHorton wrote: There are all sorts of reasonable objections to it, but it's the way that international sporting bodies, and for that matter international bodies per se, are normally organised..
Are you sure about that? To take two high profile examples, don't both the IOC and FIFA have rather fewer voting members than they have national members. That in itself creates problems with potential corruption.

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 5611
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: FIDE Law Suit

Post by JustinHorton » Fri Dec 02, 2011 5:56 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
JustinHorton wrote: There are all sorts of reasonable objections to it, but it's the way that international sporting bodies, and for that matter international bodies per se, are normally organised..
Are you sure about that? To take two high profile examples, don't both the IOC and FIFA have rather fewer voting members than they have national members. That in itself creates problems with potential corruption.
I don't think so (at least as regards FIFA, which I've just looked up). Of course the Executive, which manages FIFA's bribe-taking activities day-to-day, includes just a few of the member associations, but the Congress, I think, includes all of them on an equal basis.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

NickFaulks
Posts: 4469
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: FIDE Law Suit

Post by NickFaulks » Fri Dec 02, 2011 6:01 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Alex Holowczak wrote: I hadn't realised the FIDE President has said this.
The current 40 moves in 90 minutes plus 30 minutes with 30 second increments is something clawed back by those such as arbiters as rather more suitable for one round a day chess.
Clawed back by the arbiters? They could have a proper time control like the 4NCL if they wanted it, and from what I'm told most of the top players would like that. However, this doesn't suit the organisers, or the venue, or the arbiters, who knows? It's usually something to do with dinner.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 8518
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: FIDE Law Suit

Post by Alex Holowczak » Fri Dec 02, 2011 6:07 pm

NickFaulks wrote:
Roger de Coverly wrote:
Alex Holowczak wrote: I hadn't realised the FIDE President has said this.
The current 40 moves in 90 minutes plus 30 minutes with 30 second increments is something clawed back by those such as arbiters as rather more suitable for one round a day chess.
Clawed back by the arbiters? They could have a proper time control like the 4NCL if they wanted it, and from what I'm told most of the top players would like that. However, this doesn't suit the organisers, or the venue, or the arbiters, who knows? It's usually something to do with dinner.
When an organisation - which may not be a national federation necessarily - bids to host an event, the time control comes as part of the package they inherit. They may want to have 7-hour games, but they're not allowed to vary from the 5-hour time control in the Handbook. So I'm not sure it's anything to do with any of the team who bid to host the event. There's not a lot they can do about it.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 17319
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: FIDE Law Suit

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Dec 02, 2011 6:20 pm

NickFaulks wrote: I'm not sure about the "swiftly". Was this never a forum topic? It should have been.
It pre-dates the forum by several years. It's probably mentioned on the SCCU site http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk, but a quick browse failed to find it.

From memory, there were issues raised with some of the ratings in the 4NCL and the international grader was then replaced. I don't think it ranked very high on the scale of international sporting scandals. There was an issue with a USA tournament report in which results were reported in an order which enabled a player to reach one of the title rating thresholds. Again this was discovered and rapidly corrected.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 17319
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: FIDE Law Suit

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Dec 02, 2011 6:30 pm

NickFaulks wrote: Clawed back by the arbiters?
Kirsan wanted the Olympiad, world championships and other events at 90 30 or even faster. Others in FIDE didn't and managed to get the 40 in 90 plus 30 with 30 second increments as an agreed compromise. I had the idea it was Stewart Reuben amongst others who was opposed to faster move rates for title events. Hence the comment about arbiters. The five hour session now seems to be generally accepted apart from events like Hastings, 4NCL and the British Championships which never adopted 90 30 in the first place. For a brief period around ten years ago, it seemed that if you didn't adopt 90 30, your event couldn't be rated or count for title norms.

Here's a snooty letter from David Anderton for example
http://web.archive.org/web/200104072152 ... 020201.htm

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 17319
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: FIDE Law Suit

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Dec 02, 2011 6:33 pm

JustinHorton wrote: I don't think so (at least as regards FIFA, which I've just looked up). Of course the Executive, which manages FIFA's bribe-taking activities day-to-day, includes just a few of the member associations, but the Congress, I think, includes all of them on an equal basis.
Who elects the president of FIFA?

I know that the high profile elections such as the award of the World Cup are the Executive. This contrasts with FIDE where the award of the Olympiad is determined by the GA.

NickFaulks
Posts: 4469
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: FIDE Law Suit

Post by NickFaulks » Fri Dec 02, 2011 6:34 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote: When an organisation - which may not be a national federation necessarily - bids to host an event, the time control comes as part of the package they inherit. They may want to have 7-hour games, but they're not allowed to vary from the 5-hour time control in the Handbook. So I'm not sure it's anything to do with any of the team who bid to host the event. There's not a lot they can do about it.
Which events are you talking about. So far as I know, FIDE only specify time controls for World Championships, Olympiads and some junior events. Anyway, FIDE certainly has no grip on the Chess Classic!

Post Reply