ECF Director elections for 2012/13

[E Michael White]

Do you want to change the other 107863 chess mistakes or the other 34978035 mistakes ?

start with this one

Gerundives dont exist in English

well try explaining the use of swimming pool, chewing gum and starting block without gerundives.

nice one though about the grading system !

[Roger de Coverly]

It did say that a few minutes ago. It doesn't now.

wikipedia is still wrong as to what it says about the International system.

Therefore, the USCF and some chess sites use a formula based on the logistic distribution. Significant statistical anomalies have also been found when using the logistic distribution in chess.[4] FIDE continues to use the normal distribution.

Whilst FIDE uses tables rather than a formula, the tables were calculated using the same formula ("logistic") as used by the USCF. So FIDE has marginally sacrificed theoretical accuracy for ease of calculation, consistency and visibility of the calculations.

[David Pardoe]

Thanks Michael....... PS you`ve `locked` your PM facility so messages cant be sent to you.

Regarding this discussion on Delegates, etc..
I`m wondering how this relates to the role of FIDE representative, ie Jones v Short.
I`d assumed that the role was really about taking instructions from the ECF/board, and communicating those views to FIDE. Partly a messenger...primarily there to argue the corner for ECF....and to actively participate in meetings, where appropriate.
In this context, I`d have thought both these candidates could handle this role satisfactorily.
Do we need this `contest` when we have the CEO role vacant, if Rupert were interested....and members/the board felt he could do a good job...

[LawrenceCooper]

Thanks Michael....... PS you`ve `locked` your PM facility so messages cant be sent to you.

That's odd, I sent him a prviate message about 30 seconds ago

[Roger de Coverly]

I`d assumed that the role was really about taking instructions from the ECF/board, and communicating those views to FIDE.

The concern about appointing a FIDE insider to the post is that the role ends up the other way round where the ECF is told by FIDE what it should do.

[John Philpott]

David Pardoe wrote

I`m wondering how this relates to the role of FIDE representative, ie Jones v Short.

In this case and this case alone the official title of the position actually uses the word "delegate"!

[David Pardoe]

Thanks Michael....... PS you`ve `locked` your PM facility so messages cant be sent to you.

That's odd, I sent him a prviate message about 30 seconds ago

I`ve just tried again and the `red` message shows...

Some users couldn’t be added as they have disabled private message receipt

[David Pardoe]

David Pardoe wrote

I`m wondering how this relates to the role of FIDE representative, ie Jones v Short.

In this case and this case alone the official title of the position actually uses the word "delegate"!

Clearly the ECF must have a person in post who is effectively representing the ECF position, as a key requirement, whatever name you give to the post, I`d have thought. ie, Someone acting in the best interests of Chess UK....!

[John Philpott]

E Michael White wrote

Not for me to explain

I think it is. When a person makes an assertion in support of a point that he is trying to make (the claim that there have been blatant abuses of the county championship rules is a recent example that comes to mind) it is surely up to that person to demonstrate the validity of that assertion rather than for others to have to disprove it.

E Michael White wrote

Firstly legislation in the UK can define a word to mean whatever the writer wishes it to mean for the purpose of the legislation and it often bears no resemblance to the actual common meaning when specially defined eg "civil service".

I have not suggested otherwise. If you look at one of my other posts yesterday evening you will see that I stated

"Appointed representative" is a label attached by FSMA to a person to whom the circumstances defined by section 39 apply, in the context of financial services activity. It cannot have any direct influence on the way the term "representative" is to be interpreted outside this context.

On this matter we agree.

E Michael White wrote

Delegate is derived from de legare and representative is derived from:- to present a second time. Delegates were official Roman deputies of the legates.

So what?

E Michael White wrote

As said before Justice Lawton stated in the appeal court around 1982 Once elected, members of the House of Commons become representative of the constituency for which they have been elected, not delegates of the local constituency associations which may have put them up as candidates

which clearly shows there is a difference

I have not stated that there is no difference, even though there are some dictionaries where the definition of "representative" relies on the word "delegate" and "vice versa". What I am maintaining is that your interpretation of the difference is completely the wrong way round. An analogy with members of the House of Commons does not seem especially helpful to your case, as in my lengthening life no MP for my constituency of any political persuasion has yet sought my views on any matter whatsoever. My own interpretation of Justice Lawton's words would be "Once elected members of the House of Commons become representative of the constituency for which they have been elected (i.e. they must act in the interests of all constituents regardless of their party affiliation, although this will inevitably involve the exercise of judgement as it will never be practical to consult all those constituents), not delegates of the local constituency associations which may have put them up as delegates (i.e. they do not simply vote as their party tells them). On my interpretation, Council members as representatives are fully entitled to exercise their judgement, while the FIDE delegate has to observe the instructions of the Board. What is your counter-analysis?

[E Michael White]

When a person makes an assertion in support of a point that he is trying to make (the claim that there have been blatant abuses of the county championship rules is a recent example that comes to mind

I think you may be a little confused. I dont recall recently commenting on the main county championship or since 1978, other than to decline invitations to play.

[Alan Walton]

When a person makes an assertion in support of a point that he is trying to make (the claim that there have been blatant abuses of the county championship rules is a recent example that comes to mind

I think you may be a little confused. I dont recall recently commenting on the main county championship or since 1978, other than to decline invitations to play.

Because you didn't make it, it was in another thread where this comment about blatant abuses was made, and I and others tried to make the commentor proved his claim (which eventually he couldn't and changed his claim)

[NickFaulks]

wikipedia is still wrong as to what it says about the International system.

Therefore, the USCF and some chess sites use a formula based on the logistic distribution. Significant statistical anomalies have also been found when using the logistic distribution in chess.[4] FIDE continues to use the normal distribution.

Whilst FIDE uses tables rather than a formula, the tables were calculated using the same formula ("logistic") as used by the USCF.

Not so, FIDE's Elo system uses a normal distribution based model.

[Roger de Coverly]

Not so, FIDE's Elo system uses a normal distribution based model.

In the practical range of 0 to 400, the USCF formula and FIDE's tables give almost identical answers. wiki perhaps makes more of the differences than really matters.

[David Pardoe]

When a person makes an assertion in support of a point that he is trying to make (the claim that there have been blatant abuses of the county championship rules is a recent example that comes to mind

I think you may be a little confused. I dont recall recently commenting on the main county championship or since 1978, other than to decline invitations to play.

Because you didn't make it, it was in another thread where this comment about blatant abuses was made, and I and others tried to make the commentor proved his claim (which eventually he couldn't and changed his claim)

Alan,
I was illustrating some points. namely that the rules are open to abuse because they allow too much latitude regarding player selection. These very loose rules mean that certain players get selected (sometimes from well outside an area), which probably means that genuine `local players` dont get selected. Its crackers in my view. Particularly if the players have little current or directly active connection with a county....or fairly flimsy links.
I know that this latitude allows captains more choice, and having been a county captain for a few years myself, I do know that finding players is not easy at times. And theres nothing worse than turning up to a match to find your team has defaulted on one or more boards.
I mentioned other instances to illustrate some of my concerns....but these are actual instances from previous years, and I certainly wouldnt claim that there was numerous such breaches, nor that more than the odd captain might stoop to such trickery..
And it wasnt me who changed my mind, it was you that changed yours.
ie,
in one sentence you clearly stated that a captain would certainly check to see if his players had played for another county that season. Then, in the next breath you say that they might `forget to do this` ...even for a Semi final.
Then you made the ridiculous comment that I should name names.....so that you could personally go and check up?
Yes, quite often things happen, to which `the benefit of the doubt` has to prevail, or its too much hastle to pursue the percieved `offenders.
And there are various abuses that fall outside the rules, which occur from time to time.

[IM Jack Rudd]

in one sentence you clearly stated that a captain would certainly check to see if his players had played for another county that season. Then, in the next breath you say that they might `forget to do this` ...even for a Semi final.
Then you made the ridiculous comment that I should name names.....so that you could personally go and check up?
Yes, quite often things happen, to which `the benefit of the doubt` has to prevail, or its too much hastle to pursue the percieved `offenders.
And there are various abuses that fall outside the rules, which occur from time to time.

Yes, you should name names. It is important for the integrity of the competition that breaches of the rules be reported so that the ECF can deal with the offence.