ECF Council Meeting 12 April 2014

[IM Jack Rudd]

About my council representative, I really have no clue who that might be. The "gold members representative" names are probably listed on the ECF website but when I tried to contact them before the elections last October I got no reply whatsoever.

Well, according to the ECF Grading Database, you're a member of a club in Middlesex and a club in Essex, so you should try contacting the representatives of those counties.

[Roger de Coverly]

This just as an example to counter the claim of the ECF "fighting" with FIDE and being very influential.

There are examples within the lengthy tenancy of the current FIDE President of the BCF (as the ECF's predecessor) having to write "I wish to register a complaint" letters to FIDE.

Here's one from 2001
http://web.archive.org/web/200104072152 ... 020201.htm

The context of this was that the FIDE President and Board had announced a diktat that all competitions should use the 90 30 move rate, or possibly a watered down version that Norms would only be valid with that move rate. This arose because Kirsan had or probably still has some obsession that chess needed to be faster to get television coverage.

Faced with the protests, FIDE backed down or claimed a misunderstanding, at least for events it didn't run itself.

[John Philpott]

John McKenna wrote

A budget announcement calculated to show that the ECF's hand is in its increasingly-bulging pocket and its golden heart is in the right place when it comes to the international stage? Or the start of a deficit-spending regime?

The vote by Council to support the International Director's request to be able to utilise up to £5,500 towards the Olympiad teams out a forecast surplus of £21,324 for 2013/14 could hardly be described as deficit spending.

[Paul Buswell]

and fights vigorously for English players within FIDE - we should trust him to get on with it and consult with those affected.

There are a number of FIDE related issues affecting down to the club players, for example the fact that the FIDE rating regulations exclude the vast majority of chess games played in England. You might want to get evening league games rated for FIDE or not, but it would certainly nice to have the option, as they have in other European countries for their similar league games; probably their FIDE delegate/representative has been more successful in adapting the FIDE rating requirements to the local needs, resulting in countries like Germany and Spain having ten times more FIDE rated players than the UK. This is an issue that I would expect the English FIDE delegate to "fight vigorously for".

For what very little it's worth can I say that I myself have not the slightest interest in obtaining a FIDE rating and regard the recent driving down of the floor for FIDE ratings as devaluing what cachet it has. Do others share these views?

PB

[NickFaulks]

This just as an example to counter the claim of the ECF "fighting" with FIDE and being very influential.

There are examples within the lengthy tenancy of the current FIDE President of the BCF (as the ECF's predecessor) having to write "I wish to register a complaint" letters to FIDE.

Here's one from 2001
http://web.archive.org/web/200104072152 ... 020201.htm

The context of this was that the FIDE President and Board had announced a diktat that all competitions should use the 90 30 move rate, or possibly a watered down version that Norms would only be valid with that move rate. This arose because Kirsan had or probably still has some obsession that chess needed to be faster to get television coverage.

Faced with the protests, FIDE backed down or claimed a misunderstanding, at least for events it didn't run itself.

Yes, a good example from the days when the BCF punched its weight. It was probably pushing on an open door, since I believe this was another of those crazy ideas that a small group manage to ram through but are never actually going to happen, but even so it was a good letter. The "poll taken at the World Championships" to which Anderton referred was of course a joke. I hope he knew that.

To be clear, it wasn't just the big federations. At that time Bermuda hosted high quality events at which dozens of GM and IM norms were earned over the years. I announced that we would maintain a proper time control, and if that meant no norms, then so be it. If that meant no tournaments, then same story.

I believe that zero tolerance at Olympiads could have been killed off if the big federations had put up a similar effort eight years later. Either they had lost their fighting spirit or, as appeared to be the case, their representatives actually didn't oppose it at all.

[Roger de Coverly]

Do others share these views?

I should imagine there are enough that Leagues and Congresses are not going to go down the long road of trying to lobby for FIDE rule changes . Those who already have four hour session are better placed to adopt FIDE rating, but they then run into the issues of FIDE Identification Numbers, Compulsory Membership and having to use a Licensed Arbiter.

[Adam Raoof]

and fights vigorously for English players within FIDE - we should trust him to get on with it and consult with those affected.

There are a number of FIDE related issues affecting down to the club players, for example the fact that the FIDE rating regulations exclude the vast majority of chess games played in England. You might want to get evening league games rated for FIDE or not, but it would certainly nice to have the option, as they have in other European countries for their similar league games; probably their FIDE delegate/representative has been more successful in adapting the FIDE rating requirements to the local needs, resulting in countries like Germany and Spain having ten times more FIDE rated players than the UK. This is an issue that I would expect the English FIDE delegate to "fight vigorously for".

For what very little it's worth can I say that I myself have not the slightest interest in obtaining a FIDE rating and regard the recent driving down of the floor for FIDE ratings as devaluing what cachet it has. Do others share these views?

PB

One might equally expect visitors to the UK to say that they have no interest in obtaining an ECF grade and asking where the nearest FIDE rated event is taking place!

In my tournaments (obviously a self selecting sample, as all my events are FIDE rated) I often hear players say that 'they don't care about their ECF grade'. I recently met a new player who was not interested in obtaining an ECF grade, but wanted a FIDE rating.

There are more FIDE nations who are switching to FIDE rating, and allowing their national ratings to lapse (Hungary, France). We need a grading system because of the vast number of leagues we have. I would certainly like to see a FIDE rated league, and as others have suggested we might need to lobby FIDE on time controls to enable that to happen.

However I think a G60+30s (3hr) league is doable, and we could certainly do it in London.

We certainly need to lobby FIDE to allow us to rate ALL the games played in a competition, not just a fraction of them, so that all results count for something in the FIDE rating system.

Having said that I have taken Paul's views into account and added an Under 120 ECF graded section to the next Bexhill Congress, to see if we can entice local players to take part in (their first, in some cases) competition.

[Martyn Harris]

I too have no interest in acquiring a FIDE rating, which is not to say that I won't at some future point choose to play a competition that leads to me receiving one.

Given the prevalence of computer and internet chess with their four digit grading systems it wouldn't be surprising if new competitive otb players wanted a "proper" 4 digit grade rather than the 3 digit ECF one, even though there is no reliable connection between otb, computer and internet grades, nor I suspect between lower level otb grades in different countries.

[NickFaulks]

We certainly need to lobby FIDE to allow us to rate ALL the games played in a competition, not just a fraction of them, so that all results count for something in the FIDE rating system.

I'm always delighted to see an active discussion about the rating system, but it is disappointing to see it framed in "us against them" terms. I suppose that is inevitable on an ECF forum, but other federations, including many fervently opposed to Kirsan, do not take the view that any constructive exchange of ideas constitutes collaboration with the Evil Empire.

There is no need to "lobby" for the idea you suggest above, just start by telling us how you think it can be implemented. I have never seen a satisfactory way for Swiss events, and doubt that one exists. We have now attacked the problem in a different way by lowering the barriers to getting an initial rating from 1.7.14, which I think will make a big difference. A great deal of investigation was done on the Glicko system, which handles this even better, but it has been shelved because of its complexity. One feature of the Elo system which players seem to value highly is that they can understand it.

The question of rating three hour games is controversial. My impression is that most >2200 players, in England and elsewhere, do not wish such games to impact their treasured FIDE ratings. I believe that when a primitive poll was taken some years ago by the London League, the general feeling was that strong players preferred quickish games played after a day's work not to be FIDE rated.
I once wrote to the Blackpool Congress, which seemed an ideal case for FIDE rating, to ask why this was not done and was told that when they tried the idea as many players were put off as were enthused.

At present events with 3 hour games may be rated provided they contain no player rated 2200. With games rated individually, it would be possible, with a change of regulations, to rate all games played between <2200 players. It would be nice to know whether there is general enthusiasm for this - personally I think it's a good idea, but some don't.

Please let us have your ideas. In Tallinn we passed an amendment known as the "Sean Hewitt proposal", so it can be done.

[Alex Holowczak]

The question of rating three hour games is controversial. My impression is that most >2200 players, in England and elsewhere, do not wish such games to impact their treasured FIDE ratings. I believe that when a primitive poll was taken some years ago by the London League, the general feeling was that strong players preferred quickish games played after a day's work not to be FIDE rated.
I once wrote to the Blackpool Congress, which seemed an ideal case for FIDE rating, to ask why this was not done and was told that when they tried the idea as many players were put off as were enthused.

I think that FIDE should FIDE-rate any game played according to the Laws of Chess in the standardplay list. It seems odd to me to have a Standardplay game but not eligible for Standardplay rating.

This then gives organisers the option of running FIDE-rated events at Game/60 time controls. If people don't want to put their rating at risk, then they won't enter. The event won't be repeated if it isn't popular. We don't know until organisers try, at present we're just guessing, or relying on our own perceived impressions.

[Richard Bates]

The question of rating three hour games is controversial. My impression is that most >2200 players, in England and elsewhere, do not wish such games to impact their treasured FIDE ratings. I believe that when a primitive poll was taken some years ago by the London League, the general feeling was that strong players preferred quickish games played after a day's work not to be FIDE rated.
I once wrote to the Blackpool Congress, which seemed an ideal case for FIDE rating, to ask why this was not done and was told that when they tried the idea as many players were put off as were enthused.

I think that FIDE should FIDE-rate any game played according to the Laws of Chess in the standardplay list. It seems odd to me to have a Standardplay game but not eligible for Standardplay rating.

This then gives organisers the option of running FIDE-rated events at Game/60 time controls. If people don't want to put their rating at risk, then they won't enter. The event won't be repeated if it isn't popular. We don't know until organisers try, at present we're just guessing, or relying on our own perceived impressions.

That's all very well, but at some point you might consider stopping and asking yourself what is the purpose of a rating list. Ultimately it is intended as a measure of chess strength, but the more variety you introduce into the type of games that are eligible for rating the more you fundamentally distort and undermine this purpose. Whilst it is true that in general a stronger player at "classical" time controls will be a stronger player at faster ones, the more you stretch this the more variance you introduce. The logic leads inexorably to rating everything under the same list all the way down to blitz games. Personally i already think it has gone too far, but accept that maybe a compromise has had to be reached given the demand for 2 game a day tournaments. But there should be limits.

It should be noted that even the ECF list is not that inconsistent on this point - whilst it rates games all the way down to G60, this can be seen in the context of the vast majority of games being played at significantly faster rates than would be the norm for FIDE rated chess. The difference between G60 and 30 in 75+15 is not that signficant.

[Adam Raoof]

We certainly need to lobby FIDE to allow us to rate ALL the games played in a competition, not just a fraction of them, so that all results count for something in the FIDE rating system.

I'm always delighted to see an active discussion about the rating system, but it is disappointing to see it framed in "us against them" terms. I suppose that is inevitable on an ECF forum, but other federations, including many fervently opposed to Kirsan, do not take the view that any constructive exchange of ideas constitutes collaboration with the Evil Empire.

There is no need to "lobby" for the idea you suggest above, just start by telling us how you think it can be implemented. I have never seen a satisfactory way for Swiss events, and doubt that one exists. We have now attacked the problem in a different way by lowering the barriers to getting an initial rating from 1.7.14, which I think will make a big difference. A great deal of investigation was done on the Glicko system, which handles this even better, but it has been shelved because of its complexity. One feature of the Elo system which players seem to value highly is that they can understand it.

The question of rating three hour games is controversial. My impression is that most >2200 players, in England and elsewhere, do not wish such games to impact their treasured FIDE ratings. I believe that when a primitive poll was taken some years ago by the London League, the general feeling was that strong players preferred quickish games played after a day's work not to be FIDE rated.
I once wrote to the Blackpool Congress, which seemed an ideal case for FIDE rating, to ask why this was not done and was told that when they tried the idea as many players were put off as were enthused.

At present events with 3 hour games may be rated provided they contain no player rated 2200. With games rated individually, it would be possible, with a change of regulations, to rate all games played between <2200 players. It would be nice to know whether there is general enthusiasm for this - personally I think it's a good idea, but some don't.

Please let us have your ideas. In Tallinn we passed an amendment known as the "Sean Hewitt proposal", so it can be done.

For 'lobby', read 'have discussions with'.

In the ECF grading system it is possible to accommodate games against ungraded players in the calculation of a performance over a season, either by allocating the opponent a nominal grade or by retrospectively calculating their grade at the end of a period based on their performance. Surely it is possible to do something similar with FIDE ratings?

Moreover, many players in my events have now achieved blitz and rapidplay FIDE ratings, but not a standard rating. If I play someone with any kind of FIDE rating that could be used as an initial rating, and very soon everyone would have a standard rating too.

What simply does not work is running two systems side by side; experience seems to indicate that ironically FIDE standard rating lags behind ECF grading especially for juniors - they simply don't get enough FIDE rated games.

I wouldn't like to bring rating down to G/60 - but with the increment I would. The only barrier to this seems to be the cost of the equipment, but it's only a matter of time before digital clocks become the norm.

[MartinCarpenter]

I don't think its just 2200+ players who want to keep FIDE grades for relatively 'special' games, it'll be anyone who's thought about what the list actually means in the UK context.

It'll never include remotely as many results as the ECF lists, so simply never going to be a useful measure of generic playing strength. Shouldn't try to pretend otherwise. The current distinction of long play games in half decent conditions is useful/sensible enough and well worth retaining as much as possible.

What is a slight shame is that a fair few competitions that actually meet the criteria of being relatively long, serious games not played just after work can't be FIDE rated for various reasons. County chess of course, or the Yorkshire league (4hr session on Saturdays.). Lack of arbiters in both cases iirc? Very little prospect of being able to fix that.
(Of course trying to force gold membership for the Yorkshire league would be 'interesting'......).

[NickFaulks]

In the ECF grading system it is possible to accommodate games against ungraded players in the calculation of a performance over a season, either by allocating the opponent a nominal grade or by retrospectively calculating their grade at the end of a period based on their performance. Surely it is possible to do something similar with FIDE ratings?

Moreover, many players in my events have now achieved blitz and rapidplay FIDE ratings, but not a standard rating. If I play someone with any kind of FIDE rating that could be used as an initial rating, and very soon everyone would have a standard rating too.

What simply does not work is running two systems side by side; experience seems to indicate that ironically FIDE standard rating lags behind ECF grading especially for juniors - they simply don't get enough FIDE rated games.

I wouldn't like to bring rating down to G/60 - but with the increment I would. The only barrier to this seems to be the cost of the equipment, but it's only a matter of time before digital clocks become the norm.

1. No, what works for a performance based system such as the ECF's does not work for an Elo system, and certainly not with monthly lists.

2. Blitz ratings are not a good guide to standard play ability. The players would certainly have ratings, but they would often be completely wrong.

3. Agreed. Hopefully the new rules will allow many more players to get initial ratings. That is the intention.

4. G/60 with a 30" increment is acceptable in events where all players are <2200, which sounds like your target audience when getting people rated. Go for it.

[IM Jack Rudd]

The Devon League has the same sort of structure as the Yorkshire League. There are plenty of FIDE-rated players in the top division already (although not, possibly surprisingly, Keith Arkell or me at the moment), so it might be a plausible candidate.