Arbiters (jobs for) proposal.

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
Andrew Zigmond
Posts: 1691
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Harrogate

Re: Arbiters (jobs for) proposal.

Post by Andrew Zigmond » Sun Jun 05, 2016 8:50 pm

John Swain wrote:
Dragoljub Sudar wrote:
The ECF should trust local leagues (and congresses without FIDE rated sections) to run themselves as they see fit, as they have been doing quite successfully for many years.
I couldn't agree more. The idea that, after 2021, a league which doesn't include the services of an ECF Arbiter for resolution of its disputes should lose the opportunity to have its games ECF graded is completely risible.
The way I read this is that each league will to have to name a qualified arbiter. In any event it should be good practice in any league that the controller, if not qualified themselves, should consult a suitable person where necessary. It has only been necessary for me to so once in three years of running the ECF County Championships, it has never been necessary in four years of running the Yorkshire League. In any case I assume the constitutional procedure for resolving disputes would remain the responsibility of the individual league.

The one problem I can foresee is whether a league could be subject to action from the ECF if an individual complained that a dispute was not referred to the named arbiter - but even then it would have to be proven that the arbiter would have made a different decision in that particular instance.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 17982
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Arbiters (jobs for) proposal.

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun Jun 05, 2016 9:10 pm

Mike Truran wrote:I repeat:
Where was any of this said?
It seems to be implied by the point that the ECF competition Rules contain the modified FIDE ruling. If it's intended that competitions which aren't FIDE rated don't have to follow the 4NCL phone in a bag practice, why not just say so?

Mike Truran
Posts: 2386
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Arbiters (jobs for) proposal.

Post by Mike Truran » Sun Jun 05, 2016 9:54 pm

Do you make this stuff up in the hope that nobody will notice, and then, when challenged, seek to justify your nonsense by claiming that local leagues are included because they are not specifically excluded?

If I understand you right, you have moved from
the ECF is proposing
to
It seems to be implied
Will your next post involve an outright retraction given my earlier confirmation that local leagues are not covered?

Given your track record, somehow I doubt it. As they say, "Never apologise, never explain".

NickFaulks
Posts: 4965
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Arbiters (jobs for) proposal.

Post by NickFaulks » Sun Jun 05, 2016 10:09 pm

Sean Hewitt wrote: If the ECF and other British federations believe CAA pairings are superior to FIDE pairings, then they should propose such changes to the Swiss Pairing commission at FIDE.
I am completely convinced that, for tournaments with players of mixed abilities, CAA pairings are greatly superior to FIDE pairings, to the point that FIDE pairings can be considered unfair. I have little doubt that if a fully reliable program incorporating CAA pairings were submitted, it would gain approval, but therein lies the problem. No such program exists and writing one would be a very considerable task, so it isn't likely to happen.

Michael Flatt
Posts: 1230
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Arbiters (jobs for) proposal.

Post by Michael Flatt » Sun Jun 05, 2016 10:15 pm

Mike Truran wrote:Do you make this stuff up in the hope that nobody will notice, and then, when challenged, seek to justify your nonsense by claiming that local leagues are included because they are not specifically excluded?

If I understand you right, you have moved from
the ECF is proposing
to
It seems to be implied
Will your next post involve an outright retraction given my earlier confirmation that local leagues are not covered?

Given your track record, somehow I doubt it. As they say, "Never apologise, never explain".
Who would have thought that a discussion on Arbiting matters could get so emotive and personal?
It does distract somewhat from the contributions of the many posters on this topic.
When someone starts complaining about another person's alleged attack on their personal integrity I know they've lost the plot and, possibly, the argument.

Nick Grey
Posts: 1130
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:16 am

Re: Arbiters (jobs for) proposal.

Post by Nick Grey » Sun Jun 05, 2016 10:25 pm

Mike & all
Roger missed...The rules of a competition may specify a different, less severe, penalty.

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/grading/ ... tion-rules

Quite simply coming from work to an evening game without a car people are more likely to have a phone present & hosts of the night will not want to be responsible.

I am not sure that ECF want to overrule league rules anyway.

I also think the biggest part of this thread is sensible but having level 2 arbiters - not many on ECF list atm & not sure will want to become arbiters especially if cannot be bothered about pairing systems etc. Any rationale for that for league chess.

I accept very good reasons for wanting to combine the arbiter systems as there do not seem to be a large number. 5 years notice is very nice.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 17982
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Arbiters (jobs for) proposal.

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun Jun 05, 2016 10:50 pm

Mike Truran wrote:Do you make this stuff up in the hope that nobody will notice, and then, when challenged, seek to justify your nonsense by claiming that local leagues are included because they are not specifically excluded?.
They aren't specifically excluded, this it's a plausible assumption that their inclusion is intended. It's the ECF that tries to sneak things through in the hope that no-one notices, or not in enough time to object.

I am asking a very simple question. Do the ECF Competition Rules change anything as far as local leagues are concerned? Yes or No? For that matter, do they change anything as far as local Congresses are concerned?

If nothing changes, what is difficult about making a specific announcement to that effect?

Andrew Zigmond
Posts: 1691
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Harrogate

Re: Arbiters (jobs for) proposal.

Post by Andrew Zigmond » Sun Jun 05, 2016 10:51 pm

Michael Flatt wrote: Who would have thought that a discussion on Arbiting matters could get so emotive and personal?
It does distract somewhat from the contributions of the many posters on this topic.
When someone starts complaining about another person's alleged attack on their personal integrity I know they've lost the plot and, possibly, the argument.
In isolation perhaps. However the best part of ten years of negativity and nitpicking can take their toll on somebody's patience. Mike Truran has lost neither plot nor argument in my view.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 17982
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Arbiters (jobs for) proposal.

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun Jun 05, 2016 10:54 pm

Andrew Zigmond wrote: Mike Truran has lost neither plot nor argument in my view.

He prefers insults to answering the question. Always has done in my view.

Andrew Zigmond
Posts: 1691
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Harrogate

Re: Arbiters (jobs for) proposal.

Post by Andrew Zigmond » Sun Jun 05, 2016 11:04 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Andrew Zigmond wrote: Mike Truran has lost neither plot nor argument in my view.

He prefers insults to answering the question. Always has done in my view.
A view you are entitled to. I suspect many more will beg to differ.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own

Mike Truran
Posts: 2386
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Arbiters (jobs for) proposal.

Post by Mike Truran » Sun Jun 05, 2016 11:35 pm

He prefers insults to answering the question
I thought I had answered the question.
Alex H has already confirmed to me separately that with regard to local league chess there is absolutely no intention to "not grade games if phones are allowed switched off in a jacket or pocket".

They aren't specifically excluded, this it's a plausible assumption that their inclusion is intended. It's the ECF that tries to sneak things through in the hope that no-one notices, or not in enough time to object.
Paranoid or what?

In my view.

Michael Flatt
Posts: 1230
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Arbiters (jobs for) proposal.

Post by Michael Flatt » Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am

1. Let's assume that each competition (league and congress) that wished to submit its results to the ECF for grading had to identify an ECF level 2 Arbiter as being responsible for ensuring that the FIDE Laws and local competition rules had been properly observed, how many Arbiters would be needed and are there currently sufficient to satisfy the demand?

2. How well does the geographic distribution of Arbiters match the demand for their services and in which regions is there an obvious shortage?

3. Does the ECF have a strategy for identifying suitable candidates and ensuring that there will be sufficient to satisfy the proposed regulations?

4. How many ECF level 2 Arbiters have been appointed in the last year and last five years?

Alan Walton
Posts: 1247
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
Location: Oldham

Re: Arbiters (jobs for) proposal.

Post by Alan Walton » Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:59 am

Michael,

On principal, the vast majority of leagues will have at least 2 qualified arbiters therefore most dispute committes will remain as is today. For those league structures who don't currently have and arbiter may either bus one in from their county association (likely every county has a couple) or somebody further afield

Disputes committees rarely convened anyway, and the majority of the time the disputes are not associated with the laws of chess, normally they are about league rules (eg. noise at venues etc.); also disputes can be convened by email or even Skype nowadays so being there in person isn't really necessary

Mick Norris
Posts: 7403
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: Arbiters (jobs for) proposal.

Post by Mick Norris » Mon Jun 06, 2016 9:06 am

Michael Flatt wrote:2. How well does the geographic distribution of Arbiters match the demand for their services and in which regions is there an obvious shortage?
As has been said repeatedly now, there is no need for a physical meeting, so the Arbiter could be anywhere in England (or further afield)
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

Mick Norris
Posts: 7403
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: Arbiters (jobs for) proposal.

Post by Mick Norris » Mon Jun 06, 2016 9:10 am

Michael Flatt wrote:1. Let's assume that each competition (league and congress) that wished to submit its results to the ECF for grading had to identify an ECF level 2 Arbiter as being responsible for ensuring that the FIDE Laws and local competition rules had been properly observed, how many Arbiters would be needed and are there currently sufficient to satisfy the demand?
ECF arbiters maybe 63 at Level 2 or above :roll:
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

Post Reply