ECF Council Meeting 12 April 2014

[Mike Truran]

So if I understand this right:

(a) Sean tells us that the ECF apparently has a communication from FIDE confirming that licensed arbiters are not required to be present at non-norm FIDE rated events. Nick has also confirmed that licensed arbiters are not required to be present.

(b) Andy, in the best traditions of UK goldplating, goes back to FIDE and gets a different answer.

How has this helped anyone apart from the Arbiters Job Creation scheme? Most FIDE rated events would have been perfectly content with the answer that Sean and Nick gave.

[MartinCarpenter]

Only content up to the point where some random person from FIDE (perhaps) noticed and started complaining. If a bureaucracy is set on being internally inconsistent its best to be very cautious about things (Or to get things very explicit.).

[Mike Truran]

Well, I'm not sure what could be more explicit than a letter from FIDE to the ECF confirming the position.

[Andy Howie]

So if I understand this right:

(a) Sean tells us that the ECF apparently has a communication from FIDE confirming that licensed arbiters are not required to be present at non-norm FIDE rated events. Nick has also confirmed that licensed arbiters are not required to be present.

(b) Andy, in the best traditions of UK goldplating, goes back to FIDE and gets a different answer.

How has this helped anyone apart from the Arbiters Job Creation scheme? Most FIDE rated events would have been perfectly content with the answer that Sean and Nick gave.

Not quite Mike,

We contacted FIDE about this about a year ago and were given the same response. Hence we didn't FIDE rate one of our tournaments. This is what we brought in up north.

With Sean and Nick commenting, we checked it out again as we are looking to find a way to FIDE rate this tournament...

Now if someone complains that was at one of the tournaments where a Licenced arbiter was not present, presumably that tournament will be unrated!

In the best FIDE traditions confusion reigns.

[Roger de Coverly]

How has this helped anyone apart from the Arbiters Job Creation scheme?

I suppose like many large organisations, different parts of FIDE have conflicting objectives. One part of FIDE wants to increase the number of rated games, whilst another part of FIDE wants to increase the world headcount of arbiters, or possibly just their remuneration.

[Mike Truran]

I suppose like many large organisations, different parts of FIDE have conflicting objectives. One part of FIDE wants to increase the number of rated games, whilst another part of FIDE wants to increase the world headcount of arbiters, or possibly just their remuneration.

I'm sure you're right. In the meantime I suppose we shall just have to continue to pay £25+ per round in travel costs to get an arbiter to attend the Oxfordshire Sunday League so that he can sit in front of a PC for several hours twiddling his thumbs, input ten or so games at the end of play and go home again.

Other than filling the coffers of the public transport system, I'm not quite sure whom this is intended to benefit. The only issue we have ever had is when someone's mobile phone went off. We could have sorted that out just as easily without an arbiter as with one - particularly as our rules explicitly cover the situation.

[E Michael White]

From the FIDE Title Regulations:..... etc

Yes I read those documents too. Now let's sort this. I was only enquiring about Norm events.

Is your point that if a Tournament is not an official FIDE event the FIDE Tournament Rules can be amended whether or not it's a norm event? So that all paragraphs of the FIDE Tournament rules could be deleted and not apply in any norm event such as the British or the 4NCL ? If so what is the point of having the statement you quote in the Title regulations ?

[David Sedgwick]

From the FIDE Title Regulations:..... etc

Yes I read those documents too. Now let's sort this. I was only enquiring about Norm events.

"Is your point that if a Tournament is not an official FIDE event the FIDE Tournament Rules can be amended whether or not it's a norm event?"
Yes

"So that all paragraphs of the FIDE Tournament rules could be deleted and not apply in any norm event such as the British or the 4NCL?"
If all paragraphs were deleted, then it could scarcely be said that the event was governed by the Tournament Regulations.

"If so what is the point of having the statement you quote in the Title regulations?"
See my preceding comment.

That said, I hope that the statement will be made more explicit in 2016, one way or the other. Different Commissions and different individuals say different things, as is apparent from the "Does an arbiter have to be present?" issue.

[Stewart Reuben]

The FIDE Tournament Rules are in the process of being revised to take effect from 1 July 2015. Hopefully they will be finalised in Tromso, although often the English has needed cleaning up. The next meeting of the RTRC is 4-6 June in Athens.
I hope people will make constructive comments before finalisation instead of reserving their destructive criticisms until after it is too late for 4 years.

Preface
All international chess competitions shall be played in accordance with the FIDE Laws of Chess. The FIDE Tournament Rules shall be used in conjunction with the Laws of Chess and shall apply to all official FIDE competitions. Said Rules shall also be applied to all FIDE-rated tournaments, amended where appropriate. The organisers, competitors and arbiters involved in any competition are expected to be acquainted with these Rules before the start of the competition.
1. General Remark
Where an event has a problem not covered by internal rules, these Rules shall be considered to be definitive.

If you look on the FIDE Calendar you will find reference to FIDE events. I have tried to get it to refer to Official FIDE events. These include continental championships as well as zonals and World Championship contests.

It is realised that some of the tournament rules are to be aspired to, but may be impossible. For example,
(f) The conditions for both players in a game must be identical. If possible the conditions for all the players should be identical.

In the European Senior Team (an official FIDE event) the second clause was impossible. Not all games were played on electronic boards. This was non-trivial. The sets used for the lower boards were shiny and not Staunton pattern.

Many British events potentially get themselves into trouble by failing to appoint an Appeals Committee. This is required in the Laws, unless specifically stated otherwise as in 11.10.

[NickFaulks]

The offending statement is the following one from the Chairman of the Arbiters' Commission ( who is not in charge of Rating Regulations, but is a respected figure).

"...according to current regulations we cannot accept tournaments with non licensed Arbiters for rating."

Some arbiters in the UK have taken this to mean that there must be an arbiter at the venue and that arbiter must be a Licensed Arbiter. It does not say that. It says that if there is an arbiter at the venue, or overseeing from elsewhere, then that arbiter must be a Licensed Arbiter. Nothing more.

[E Michael White]

"So that all paragraphs of the FIDE Tournament rules could be deleted and not apply in any norm event such as the British or the 4NCL?"If all paragraphs were deleted, then it could scarcely be said that the event was governed by the Tournament Regulations.

You seem to be saying that when a point arises, an arbiter/organiser can say at any Norm event that a particular rule does not apply. I have yet to see any event where a modified FIDE Tournament Ruleset is prepared in advance to show which of those rules apply and which don't. On previous occasions you have said these rules don't apply in ENG

[Richard Haddrell]

…bronze membership is backdated to 1 September, which means retrospectively that league/county games played earlier in the season become free of game fee. This contrasts with silver, which applies only from the day you get it and is not backdated.

The thread has moved on, but still a correction's in order. Silver Membership is backdated to 1st September, for events other than congresses. Membership of all metals is.

[NickFaulks]

I suppose like many large organisations, different parts of FIDE have conflicting objectives. One part of FIDE wants to increase the number of rated games, whilst another part of FIDE wants to increase the world headcount of arbiters, or possibly just their remuneration.

I'm sure you're right. In the meantime I suppose we shall just have to continue to pay £25+ per round in travel costs to get an arbiter to attend the Oxfordshire Sunday League so that he can sit in front of a PC for several hours twiddling his thumbs, input ten or so games at the end of play and go home again.

Other than filling the coffers of the public transport system, I'm not quite sure whom this is intended to benefit. The only issue we have ever had is when someone's mobile phone went off. We could have sorted that out just as easily without an arbiter as with one - particularly as our rules explicitly cover the situation.

There is no need for that. Roger is of course correct about the emphasis on differing objectives within FIDE, which are to be expected, but there has been no conflicting advice on what the position is now. See my comment three posts up.

[Roger de Coverly]

but there has been no conflicting advice on what the position is now.

Chess Scotland think otherwise
http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... 65#p136805

I contacted the Chair of the QC last night on this. His reply (and I have it in writing) is that in order for an event to be FIDE rated then a licensed arbiter must be present, not on the phone or just a name.

I believe this related to their national league or cup competitions which I suppose are played under traditional British club conditions, rather than at central venues like the 4NCL.

[Andrew Zigmond]

Is part of the problem a dearth of properly qualified arbiters? In that case the answer is simple - we need to get more people on the relevant courses and get them qualified. At the time of the 2012 AGM there was much muttering about an apparent arbiter domination of both board and council when neccessity is inevitably the mother of invention - people who run events have to qualify as arbiters themselves to be able to control them.

This whole debated kick started because two people suggested the FIDE delegate wasn't performing his role properly (David Sedgwick has since pointed out this is more the work of representatives on commissions). I'm probably sounding like a stuck record but I keep coming back to this point and nobody has an answer - people are moaning that things aren't being done while expecting somebody else to do the work.