ECF Council Meeting 12 April 2014

[NickFaulks]

So is there a definitive/agreed FIDE position or not on whether a licenced arbiter does actually need to be present at a FIDE rated event, or whether it's OK for him/her to be at the end of a telephone?

Yes, there is. This requirement does not appear in the Rating Regulations for the simple reason that it does not exist. Furthermore, if the contention of UK arbiters that FIDE insist on one of their number being present at any FIDE rated event which takes place in the UK were correct, then what would Appendix G.6 of the Laws be about?

"G.6 The following shall apply when the competition is not supervised by an arbiter"

[Mike Truran]

Many thanks Nick!

[Sean Hewitt]

So is there a definitive/agreed FIDE position or not on whether a licenced arbiter does actually need to be present at a FIDE rated event, or whether it's OK for him/her to be at the end of a telephone?

As Nick says, the answer is yes if it is a norm event, but no otherwise. The ECF have an email from the Ratings and Qualifications Commission which says exactly that.

Therefore events in England can, have been and will continue to be rated with no arbiter physically present.

[NickFaulks]

You're very welcome, please pass it on.

[Mick Norris]

Basically, I think their is a fundamental difference between congress and non-congress players

Mick, have you been spending too much time with Mr. Pardoe?

Not seen him for ages

Stress high at the moment

[Roger de Coverly]

then what would Appendix G.6 of the Laws be about?

"G.6 The following shall apply when the competition is not supervised by an arbiter"

FIDE Laws of Chess, often slightly modified, also apply to League and County matches which are not FIDE rated. Or any chess, anywhere in the world, outside the scope of International rating and played without an arbiter present.

[Mike Truran]

Not seen him for ages

Stress high at the moment

Because you haven't seen him?

[NickFaulks]

then what would Appendix G.6 of the Laws be about?

"G.6 The following shall apply when the competition is not supervised by an arbiter"

FIDE Laws of Chess, often slightly modified, also apply to League and County matches which are not FIDE rated. Or any chess, anywhere in the world, outside the scope of International rating and played without an arbiter present.

People can use them for whatever they like, but regulations inapplicable to FIDE rated games would not be in there.

[Richard Bates]

The London League was FIDE Rated for two years. The players didn't want it because they think the games lack gravitas. Why is this so?
There is no arbiter present.

I didn't realise that ever actually happened. Pre-2001, I presume.

Do the players really want an arbiter present? In my experience the London League, particularly the higher divisions, gets along perfectly well without. There is generally a stock of highly experienced players present, often including off-duty arbiters, whose comments are respected even without being dignified by the title of Arbiter.

Sounds like an extremely arbiter-centric interpretation to me. Of all the arguments against FIDE rating London League games i don't think that would have been in my top ten! How about: games played at rapid time controls, after a full day at work, probably after/at the same time as a few drinks, in often cramped, noisy and/or poorly lit conditions (the Plough?). That you don't know your opponent and colour until a couple of minutes before the game, adjournments (and decision to resume based as much on the match situation as anything else) ...

Anything else?

Of course some of these arguments are not barriers to FIDE rating the league, but they are substantially reasons why many players are far happier with things as they are.

[David Sedgwick]

If the only stumbling block was the rule that games have to be of at least 4 hours if at least one player is 2200+, that could easily be changed. After all, I found it easy to introduce it!

I can't deny that you also found it easy to block my attempt to change it at Dresden Congress 2008.

At the same Congress you were also the prime mover in introducing the requirement that any first time control in a FIDE rated event had to be after 40 moves.

Prior to 2008 an increasing number of English events were adopting FIDE rating. I did warn you that both the above decisions would reduce or reverse that trend.

David, what was your proposal in Dresden? I was there, but obviously can't remember, and I can't find it in the minutes.

The 40 move rule provokes surprisingly strong feelings on both sides. I'm with you, I think it is not only unnecessarily restrictive but also wrong. To my mind, if a 40/90, SD/30 time control is properly balanced, then 40/105, SD/15 is not.

The minutes published at http://www.fide.com/images/stories/NEWS ... 0_2008.pdf record a second session on 21st November 2008, with Item 3 being "Proposal (sic) for new rating Regulations".

My recollection is that a number of ideas were discussed. It looks to me as though only the ones which found favour were recorded in the minutes.

My proposal was to reduce the minimum session length for FIDE rating to three hours, which is the rule which currently applies where all the players are rated below 2200.

[Stewart Reuben]

David S >At the same Congress you were also the prime mover in introducing the requirement that any first time control in a FIDE rated event had to be after 40 moves.
Prior to 2008 an increasing number of English events were adopting FIDE rating. I did warn you that both the above decisions would reduce or reverse that trend.<

If you could demonstrate unequivocally that allowing 3 hour games for players rated 2200+ would increase the amount of FIDE Rated chess significantly, you might well get it through. Ignatius Leong tried, but received no support. He might have done better if he had opposed the introduction of 3 hour games! But see Richard Bates' view above.

Many English events have a first time control at 36 moves or thereabouts. It just takes a tweaking of the local rules to make it 40. Not to do so is just obstinacy. Having a first time control at a number of moves other than the standard is a much bigger switch than the actual amount of time allotted. Thus 40 moves, 100 minutes, 2 hours or 2.5 hours is little different. The Lloyds Bank Masters originally had more than 40 moves for the first time control. It was horrible because there were so many time scrambles. In Vegas when I last played I think it was 45. I found that very difficult to cope with. Of course an increment changes everything, usually for the better. That is why people found it so easy to adapt to 40/90, all in 30 add on 30 seconds from the first.
Thus, having a time control earlier or later than 40 moves, disadvantages English players when they play internationally.

The Laws of Chess are not written solely for FIDE Rated Chess. They must be used if the games are to be FIDE Rated. The 1 July 2014 Laws clarify this. The USCF Rules are different and they have been allowed to get away with this for many years. This has been to the disadvantage of US players.
There is very little in the 1 July Laws that would cause there to be a local rule saying, 'contrary to the FIDE Laws...' The local mobile phone rule may have to be specified, but it is most unlikely that it will be contrary to the FIDE Law. Of course any event with adjudication must be contrary as that is not concluding the game with over the board chess.

Indeed there is a fundamental difference between congress and team play. Many people play both and get used to the two variants. I am always somewhat puzzled that team chess is so popular consider the game is quintessentially an individual one. But it is not the players between whom there is a fundamental difference. It is the play.

[Roger de Coverly]

There is very little in the 1 July Laws that would cause there to be a local rule saying, 'contrary to the FIDE Laws...' The local mobile phone rule may have to be specified, but it is most unlikely that it will be contrary to the FIDE Law.

Is it not still muddy whether you can have a mobile phone or other electronic computing device in your possession, switched off naturally, without incurring a penalty?

[NickFaulks]

On another thread, Chris Rice offers the following comment from the Dubai Open.

"However, in this tournament and at this particular time of the night there is a 10-15 minute prayer break. The routine is to stop the clocks and the people that want to go and pray do so while everyone else gathers outside and usually full scale chatting ensues till the praying is over"

Is there any way to squeeze this into the Laws?

[Roger de Coverly]

Many English events have a first time control at 36 moves or thereabouts.

For various reasons, one local league uses both 36/90 + 30 and G/120. It can be noticeable that the 36/90 games are played at a faster pace than the G/120 ones, so 40/90 + 30 would be even faster. It's debatable whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. With digital clocks programmed not to use counters, short add-ons like fifteen minutes are a menace to competitors because of the ease with which you can miss the extra time being added.

Thirty six in ninety or thirty in seventy five use the traditional club speed of 6 in a quarter after which tradition would have the game adjudicated and a later modified tradition have it adjourned.

[David Sedgwick]

Many English events have a first time control at 36 moves or thereabouts. It just takes a tweaking of the local rules to make it 40. Not to do so is just obstinacy.

[snip]

Thus, having a time control earlier or later than 40 moves, disadvantages English players when they play internationally.

The 40 move rule provokes surprisingly strong feelings on both sides.

Yes, I see what you mean.

The time limit in the SCCU Counties Championships is 35 moves in 105 minutes, followed by all the moves in 30 minutes. I hadn't appreciated that allowing the competition to be FIDE rated would have terrible consequences.