NickFaulks wrote:John McKenna wrote:
Then in order to avoid confusion shouldn't such local events refrain from mentioning FIDE rules & regulations in their terms & conditions unless they make their scope and limitations crystal clear? If not, shouldn't FIDE direct them - the organisers and their home federation - to cease to use the FIDE name in vain?
An interesting point, but I don't think that I agree.
To me "following FIDE rules & regulations" is just shorthand for a certain set of words which ( hopefully ) are understood by all. I don't believe that this implies any promise that FIDE will intervene in the event of a dispute.
It has been mentioned recently that Durham has an unusual rule regarding the recording of moves. If an event in Somerset announced that it would be following Durham rules and then proceeded to enforce something different, I think that Durham would be well advised to stay clear of the ensuing fight.
I've the strong impression that you have returned in hope, but to a land of lost causes. That's the FIDE spirit!
Michael Farthing wrote:
What's the fuss about here? The FIDE rules make it clear in a number of places that there are aspects that can be overwritten by local circumstances and the rules provide an excellent starting point for a set of congress rules. Where local modification occurs it is stated as a variant from the FIDE standard and I have never found anything confusing about that. It is accepted practice and is apparently accepted as such by FIDE itself.
The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions. Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations which are regulated in the Laws. The Laws assume that arbiters have the necessary competence, sound judgement and absolute objectivity. Too detailed a rule might deprive the arbiter of his freedom of judgement and thus prevent him from finding a solution to a problem dictated by fairness, logic and special factors. FIDE appeals to all chess players and federations to accept this view.
A necessary condition for a game to be rated by FIDE is that it shall be played according to the FIDE Laws of Chess.
It is recommended that competitive games not rated by FIDE be played according to the FIDE Laws of Chess.
Member federations may ask FIDE to give a ruling on matters relating to the Laws of Chess.
9.1 a The rules of a competition may specify that...
10.1 Unless the rules of a competition specify otherwise...
11.10 Unless the rules of the competition specify otherwise...
12.8 Unless authorised by the arbiter...
A.5 The Rules for a competition shall specify whether...
B.5 The Rules for a competition shall specify whether...
D.1 The organiser, after consulting the arbiter, shall have the power to adapt the following rules according to local circumstances.
[Edit: my underlining]
What's the fuss... ? A Nelson touch!
Above, you quote what is - to the majority of hapless players - covert FIDE chapter and verse on an arcane chess forum.
Fuss arises because there is confusion during events (particularly at the lower levels) not only about what the overt and covert rules & regulations are, but also about exactly what modified version it is that they are being subject to at the time.
Even at the highest levels there are recent examples of confusion and the fuss it leads to - Carlsen and Koneru losing on time due to misunderstanding the rules of specific events that both the organisers of the separate prestigious events admitted could and should have been better presented and explained to the exalted pros.
Look at the fuss on this forum about the pairing system that was being used in the main event at the British Championships in this and preceding years. Some claim that it is superior in certain respects to the standard FIDE one, but the problem is that it is still not reproducible with computer software and therefore its full validity comes into question.
In this particular case I find it rather ironic that your reference to the FIDE laws ends thus -
D.1 The organiser, after consulting the arbiter, shall have the power to adapt the following rules according to local circumstances.
The specific point is that the word 'consulting' was usurped by the word 'overruling' during the event in question.
(When push to comes shove even arbiters have to suffer the arbitrary decisions of officialdom.)
And, shouldn't that really be only before the competition, not also during and even after it?
Roger Lancaster wrote:Roger, you're right in saying that the original dispute centred around whether an illegal move had been played. But my understanding is that the floor arbiter's finding was not, strictly speaking, that "no such illegal move was made" but rather that it was impossible to determine (these were rapidplay games without moves being recorded) whether an illegal move was made or not. That being so, the floor arbiter made the conventional decision to order the players to play on. I believe it's fair to say that that much is beyond dispute and no-one is questioning the correctness of the floor arbiter - only what happened later.