Fide ID has vanished due to being out of the UK for too long

[Sean Hewitt]

At least after spending your 250 Euro you'll be supporting a Federation that promotes chess rather than one that spend zero on junior chess

Wrong.

At least after spending your 250 Euro you'll be supporting a Federation that promotes chess rather than one that spend ...$1m on legal fees with the primary purpose of restricting funds for chess in developing nations.

Wrong.

Perhaps you should stick to commenting on the workings of your own federation, as you clearly know very little about the activities of the ECF.

[Roger de Coverly]

Yes, let's make things way more complicated. That's always a good idea. Just look at game fee.

Game Fee was and is a straightforward idea in principle. You raise money for the ECF by charging a fee to organisers of events. It only gets complicated if you change the fee based on whether players are individual members or not. So it was the introduction of MOs with national rights that created unnecessary complexity. Many national chess federations regardless of their individual membership schemes or lack thereof will make a charge to organisers, usually based around access to rating.

[Angus French]

Elsewhere it has been suggested that a new entry-level category of membership is created to allow players to play in junior-only and internal club events without being liable for game fee (with the membership fee set at rate which covers ECF admin and grading costs). Perhaps this might also cover FIDE registration for ENG-registered FIDE-rated players who don't play in ECF-graded events.

Yes, let's make things way more complicated. That's always a good idea. Just look at game fee.

True but the additional complexity isn't great and most of the hit would be taken centrally, by the ECF (rather than players, clubs, events etc.) and could (in theory) be automated away. Ask what the players would want! - and consider whether more people would be inclined to sign up for membership and support the ECF.

(I'm not sure I understand the game fee comparison: game fee was simpler than the new membership scheme wasn't it? Anyhow, I'm not wanting to get into an old game fee vs. new membership scheme discussion. My interest is in making the new membership scheme as fair and efficient as possible.)

[Roger de Coverly]

Wrong.

Instead of just being insulting, you could perhaps explain why Matthew's comments are inexact. The ECF's junior budget mostly comes from parents and the John Robinson Trust. You may recall the near revolt by Junior Organisers when the membership scheme demanded much more from their events than Game Fee ever did. So I would think the Junior Organisations are now helping to finance the generality of the ECF expenses, which means Office and International.

The spending money on legal fees is completely correct, except it was Kasparov's money and the ECF CEO and directors "forgot" to tell two consecutive Council meeting about it. I'd be inclined to dispute the bit about developing nations, it was rather more to reduce the funds available to Kirsan for patronage and electoral support.

[John Townsend]

The ECF should have expected that the legal action would cost FIDE a packet. How could the damage be limited to the "funds available to Kirsan for patronage and electoral support"? Surely, chess in developing nations was hurt in the process? The thought of that did not deter the ECF board from proceeding. In fact, as I recall, they voted almost overwhelmingly in favour, which causes me concern. The ECF had every right to take legal action, but as a chess player I will never be part of such an organisation. It is hard to see what has been achieved by it.

[MJMcCready]

If you are not too worried about your current rating you could also just enter an event listing your federation as something other than England. Try to get a new rating and start again.

That sounds a little risky, surely there would be repercussions if it became clear I was one and the same person, however, I will look into it and/or pay a fee to change federation.

[Matthew Turner]

I don't think so. There are numerous players for whom there are two FIDE codes. Here is an example who everyone and I mean everyone would regard as completely honest.

http://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=412562

http://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=417203

So having two codes is not a problem. You can establish a new rating with another federation, I think you will find that Chess Scotland is very good. They seek to promote junior chess and don't spend $1m on legal fees with the primary purpose of restricting funds for chess in developing nations.

[MJMcCready]

Ok, well thanks for that. I will look into this further and seek advice. I don't really care about my F.I.D.E rating providing its constant, its a bit silly to have one if its going to vanish as it has done, and as mentioned, I wouldn't have any qualms about paying a membership fee if I were in the uk but being abroad and with no intention to return seems unfair. Could someone link me to all this content regarding $1m on legal fees 'with the primary purpose of restricting funds for chess in developing nations.' It's the first I've heard of it, and naturally, I'm curious to know what it's about.

[Roger de Coverly]

Could someone link me to all this content regarding $1m on legal fees 'with the primary purpose of restricting funds for chess in developing nations.' It's the first I've heard of it, and naturally, I'm curious to know what it's about.

It's the ECF's decision to act as a front for Kasparov in taking a dispute with FIDE to the Court for Arbitration in Sport.

Contemporary discussions at
http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=3735
and
http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=4463

[MJMcCready]

Good lord! Supposed non-profit making organizations shouldn't be throwing money about like that or anyone else for that matter. It seems like a sad waste of resource.

[Roger de Coverly]

Good lord! Supposed non-profit making organizations shouldn't be throwing money about like that or anyone else for that matter. It seems like a sad waste of resource.

There wasn't any direct cost to the ECF. The costs were paid by Kasparov and FIDE. To the extent that national chess federations fund FIDE, there was an indirect cost. Going back to the ECF charging £ 27 a year for the privilege of being on the International rating List, FIDE have considered charging a licence fee for the same thing. If they need an excuse, they can cite their expenditure defending on legal issues.

That said, FIDE are a non-profit organisation as well, so they could have conceded the point, rather than spend money on lawyers. It wasn't even about anything chess related outside of processes and confidence in the FIDE President, being a row about how many Vice-Presidents could be appointed.

[John Townsend]

Why should FIDE have to concede the point? Didn't they win the case?

[Roger de Coverly]

Why should FIDE have to concede the point?

Nigel Short made the very valid observation that had FIDE been prepared to accept that they shouldn't have appointed the additional Vice Presidents without going through some additional box ticking, that their expenditure on lawyers would have been averted. It did start with public letters being written and escalated to the CAS case when the protests were ignored.

The ECF directors were completely wrong to pursue the case in secret. If it was necessary to not disclose the involvement of Kasparov, that would have been an excellent reason not to continue.

I wonder how many ECF members are aware that this was done in their name.

Plenty of non-members know it happened. Those members who read the forum should know. I think it was eventually mentioned in passing on the ECF website, but probably not in ChessMoves. It featured on the Streatham blog.

Information is usually out there waiting to be found, no matter how much the ECF directors would sometimes like it not to be.

The secrecy point was this. As part of the strategy, White & Case didn't want Kasparov's name to be disclosed. If the ECF had announced that it was taking action or proposed to take action against FIDE in CAS, one of the very first questions from this forum and elsewhere would have been to ask the source of funds, it being widely known that the ECF doesn't have any money. So the backers would have to have been disclosed.

[David Gilbert]

Why should FIDE have to concede the point? Didn't they win the case?

The case was lost by the English and Georgian Chess Associations on a legal technicality. The appellants had to pay the costs of the proceedings and 75,000 swiss francs (about £50k) to FIDE as a contribution towards their legal fees. But it was a hollow victory for FIDE. They only received a contribution towards their costs because CAS concluded that FIDE had to some extent brought the claim upon itself by its "awkward disregard for constitutional formalities during the FIDE Congress, which - amongst others creating a level of ambiguity as to the nature of the appointment of the Five Vice Presidents - should have been understood by FIDE as having a potential to create discord and lead to the commencement of claims."

[Sean Hewitt]

I don't think so. There are numerous players for whom there are two FIDE codes. Here is an example who everyone and I mean everyone would regard as completely honest.

http://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=412562

http://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=417203

So having two codes is not a problem. You can establish a new rating with another federation, I think you will find that Chess Scotland is very good.

Organisers sometimes use the wrong code when rating events (especially when players don't quote the right one when entering), but FIDE simply merge the two records when this comes to light as it usually does sooner or later.

I suspect that FIDE may see an innocent error where there is no change in federation differently from a situation where a federation deliberately tries to evade a €250 fee. If you can persuade Chess Scotland (or anyone else) to take the risk though, go ahead. It's entirely up to them.

They...don't spend $1m on legal fees with the primary purpose of restricting funds for chess in developing nations.

Why do you continue lying about this? The then ECF board should not have taken the action that it did but let's be absolutely clear - the ECF did not spend $1m on legal fees. The ECF accounts are in the public domain. Take a look.