Repercussions / Fallout from FIDE Elections?

The very latest International round up of English news.
Mick Norris
Posts: 8134
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester

Re: Repercussions / Fallout from FIDE Elections?

Post by Mick Norris » Tue Nov 26, 2019 2:45 pm

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
Tue Nov 26, 2019 1:41 pm
Any views on this interview by GM Peter Heine Nielsen at lichess?
I had read that; interesting, but would like to hear Nigel's view of it
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

NickFaulks
Posts: 5829
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Repercussions / Fallout from FIDE Elections?

Post by NickFaulks » Tue Nov 26, 2019 4:04 pm

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
Tue Nov 26, 2019 1:41 pm
Any views on this interview by GM Peter Heine Nielsen at lichess?
Nothing of much interest, to be honest. Of course Trainers' titles, like those of Arbiters, are primarily a tax. The idea that Olympiad team captains have to be Trainers is just about defensible, but Heads of Delegation? That is ludicrous.

David Sedgwick
Posts: 3964
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: Repercussions / Fallout from FIDE Elections?

Post by David Sedgwick » Tue Nov 26, 2019 4:38 pm

NickFaulks wrote:
Tue Nov 26, 2019 4:04 pm
Of course Trainers' titles, like those of Arbiters, are primarily a tax.
I won't comment about Trainers, but your remark is quite unjustified in the case of Arbiters.

FIDE would increase its revenue significantly if it allowed everyone who sat the FIDE Arbiters' Examination to pass it.

NickFaulks
Posts: 5829
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Repercussions / Fallout from FIDE Elections?

Post by NickFaulks » Tue Nov 26, 2019 5:04 pm

David Sedgwick wrote:
Tue Nov 26, 2019 4:38 pm
I won't comment about Trainers, but your remark is quite unjustified in the case of Arbiters.
I accept that Arbiters have retained their standards. I am still in no doubt that the new rules were introduced primarily for financial reasons. I got this impression from people who emerged, with steam coming from their ears, from the meeting where they were enacted.

David Sedgwick
Posts: 3964
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: Repercussions / Fallout from FIDE Elections?

Post by David Sedgwick » Tue Nov 26, 2019 5:32 pm

NickFaulks wrote:
Tue Nov 26, 2019 5:04 pm
David Sedgwick wrote:
Tue Nov 26, 2019 4:38 pm
I won't comment about Trainers, but your remark is quite unjustified in the case of Arbiters.
I accept that Arbiters have retained their standards. I am still in no doubt that the new rules were introduced primarily for financial reasons. I got this impression from people who emerged, with steam coming from their ears, from the meeting where they were enacted.
If you are talking about the Arbiters Licence Fee Scheme, then what you say is undoubtedly true.

However, that is surely distinct from Arbiter Titles.

J T Melsom
Posts: 786
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 11:12 pm

Re: Repercussions / Fallout from FIDE Elections?

Post by J T Melsom » Wed Aug 05, 2020 1:23 pm

John Foley wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:15 pm
J T Melsom wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:19 pm
I'm left with the view that you are simply not a reliable or credible witness.
Troll Warning
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument
John Foley and I have agreed in private correspondence seen by Carl Hibbard that these statements are both unfair and should be regarded as withdrawn by both parties.

Post Reply