Chess Player Strip Searched

[Roger de Coverly]

But someone please put me right if I don't understand them correctly!

You are completely correct. It's also why the current FIDE President has been in office for nineteen years and counting. Think of it as similar to the British political system of the 1830s and earlier where you could have one or just a handful of voters electing 2 MPs, whilst towns and cities with major populations had next to no votes.

[NickFaulks]

It seems a little odd that under FIDE's current voting arrangements (if I understand them correctly) national federations with no significant track record in running FIDE-rated events can have a significant influence over FIDE-rated event rules and regulations.

But someone please put me right if I don't understand them correctly!

In theory you do, but anyone at all familiar with the process can tell you that it doesn't work remotely like that. The GA approves regulations, but lacks the expertise or the organisation to make them. This has nothing to do with large / small federations.

Regulations are written by commissions, which are dominated by people from large federations, for the simple reason that statistically that's where most of the people willing to do the work live. On the QC, I am the only one of thirteen members from a small federation, and it had never occurred to me that this makes me less competent than my colleagues to draft regulations. Where there is interference, it generally comes from the PB, whether or not the Statutes give them that right. They are nearly all from big federations.

When the representatives of most major federations oppose something, it doesn't happen. Whether those people can be relied upon to reflect the wishes of their own players is, as I wrote a few pages back, a different story.

[Roger de Coverly]

The GA approves regulations, but lacks the expertise or the organisation to make them.

It probably lacks the expertise to vote for FIDE's officers , but that doesn't stop them. Given that it is usual that a majority of the GA, in past years at least, has comprised Kirsan supporters, why doesn't that enable his whims to be voted through? Most recently, there was his strong endorsement of the deal with Agon, notwithstanding the lack of progress on the Agon side.

Major Federations are after all outnumbered and increasingly so with every new Federation that is signed up.

If the draft Regulations as written were adopted in full, the 4NCL along with many other FIDE rated events would have a major problem in trying to implement them. On the one hand, a League were games are determined by the lottery of whether a mobile phone is deemed to be on your person is not one that I could imagine players travelling hundreds of miles to participate in. On the other hand if the Regulations are ignored and if the ACC is given arbitrary powers of compliance enforcement, it could suspend arbiters, remove Norms, rating performances and worse.

Mike as 4NCL Director can discuss concerns with the ECF and Nigel, but it will be delegates from Botswana, Papua New Guinea etc. that will potentially determine the fate of the League.

[NickFaulks]

The GA approves regulations, but lacks the expertise or the organisation to make them.

It probably lacks the expertise to vote for FIDE's officers , but that doesn't stop them. Given that it is usual that a majority of the GA, in past years at least, has comprised Kirsan supporters, why doesn't that enable his whims to be voted through? Most recently, there was his strong endorsement of the deal with Agon, notwithstanding the lack of progress on the Agon side.

Major Federations are after all outnumbered and increasingly so with every new Federation that is signed up.

If the draft Regulations as written were adopted in full, the 4NCL along with many other FIDE rated events would have a major problem in trying to implement them. On the one hand, a League were games are determined by the lottery of whether a mobile phone is deemed to be on your person is not one that I could imagine players travelling hundreds of miles to participate in. On the other hand if the Regulations are ignored and if the ACC is given arbitrary powers of compliance enforcement, it could suspend arbiters, remove Norms, rating performances and worse.

Mike as 4NCL Director can discuss concerns with the ECF and Nigel, but it will be delegates from Botswana, Papua New Guinea etc. that will potentially determine the fate of the League.

Please give one example of a policy that has actually gone through in defiance of the wishes of most of the influential federations. I can think of several that I personally spoke against, and wanted them to oppose, but they didn't.

[Roger de Coverly]

Please give one example of a policy that has actually gone through in defiance of the wishes of most of the influential federations.

The obvious example is the perpetual re-election of Kirsan and his cronies.

Perhaps those who attend FIDE meetings get house-trained and are unwilling to be in perpetual opposition to the President and Board. The previous ECF Delegate being a case in point. There have been numerous policies which FIDE have adopted which had the voting been by rated players are unlikely to have been implemented. Abolishing the World Championship cycle and speeding up move rates being but two from the early days of Kirsan's regime.

[NickFaulks]

Please give one example of a policy that has actually gone through in defiance of the wishes of most of the influential federations.

The obvious example is the perpetual re-election of Kirsan and his cronies.

Perhaps those who attend FIDE meetings get house-trained and are unwilling to be in perpetual opposition to the President and Board. The previous ECF Delegate being a case in point. There have been numerous policies which FIDE have adopted which had the voting been by rated players are unlikely to have been implemented. Abolishing the World Championship cycle and speeding up move rates being but two from the early days of Kirsan's regime.

The abolition of the WC cycle was certainly a bad thing, but was primarily the result of lack of money for the old fashioned version, with post-Soviet players quite properly demanding better rewards. You may say that a different President would have found sponsorship dropping into their lap, but that isn't clear.

The speeding up of time controls was one of the issues to which I was referring. Bermuda was ferociously opposed to that, to the point of walking away from holding norm events, but support from the big federations was disappointing. It was the top players themselves, not their federations and not the ACP, who finally banged 90/30 on the head. Of course, by the process which I have described, the nastiest incarnation never happened and, unlike you, I am not troubled by things that never happened.

By the way, I don't think it is obvious that votes for Kirsan will represent a minority of FIDE rated players around the world. I have the impression that you regard all federations outside Western Europe and North America ( not including Mexico of course ) as being a bit smelly, and unworthy of any representation at all. Queen Victoria might have agreed.

[Paolo Casaschi]

By the way, I don't think it is obvious that votes for Kirsan will represent a minority of FIDE rated players around the world. I have the impression that you regard all federations outside Western Europe and North America ( not including Mexico of course ) as being a bit smelly, and unworthy of any representation at all. Queen Victoria might have agreed.

I agree with you. For example, what would be the totals counting the number of registered players for the set of federations supporting the two set of presidential tickets ?

[Mike Truran]

If the draft Regulations as written were adopted in full, the 4NCL along with many other FIDE rated events would have a major problem in trying to implement them. On the one hand, a League where games are determined by the lottery of whether a mobile phone is deemed to be on your person is not one that I could imagine players travelling hundreds of miles to participate in. On the other hand if the Regulations are ignored and if the ACC is given arbitrary powers of compliance enforcement, it could suspend arbiters, remove Norms, rating performances and worse.

Mike as 4NCL Director can discuss concerns with the ECF and Nigel, but it will be delegates from Botswana, Papua New Guinea etc. that will potentially determine the fate of the League.

Dave Welch and I had a long chat on the subject just today about the practical implications for the 4NCL. I don't think I'm misrepresenting Dave's views if I say that he has serious concerns - as do I.

To my mind Roger's comments above are spot on. They also succinctly summarise the substance of Dave's and my conversation.

I should be interested to know what the views of Sean and Kevin (e2e4 supremo and British Championships manager respectively) are.

[Roger de Coverly]

I have the impression that you regard all federations outside Western Europe and North America ( not including Mexico of course ) as being a bit smelly, and unworthy of any representation at all. Queen Victoria might have agreed.

I would feel inclined to follow the standards of cricket and have a minimum standard of both activity level and playing strength to be allowed a say in top level issues. It isn't right that a territory with fewer active players than the average English chess club should have an equivalent voice to Russia, Germany or France as to who is FIDE President and what the playing rules should be.

From conversations I've had, developing Federations can be more interested in holding a rated national championship than in being FIDE members, especially as a Mr Freeman will send them a large bill for membership. It's difficult to achieve the former without the latter. That's where the incentives come in, that your bill will be waived if you turn up at a FIDE Congress and vote the "right" way.

[NickFaulks]

Dave Welch and I had a long chat on the subject just today about the practical implications for the 4NCL. I don't think I'm misrepresenting Dave's views if I say that he has serious concerns - as do I.

Of course, bleat among yourselves about "serious concerns". Why not go the whole hog, and minute a meeting? I have told you what action you would take if you were actually wanted to influence the outcome, but I realise that would be far too commital for the ECF. So much more comfortable just to whinge from the sidelines.

[Roger de Coverly]

So much more comfortable just to whinge from the sidelines.

The ecforum is an unofficial private discussion group. But it appears far ahead of the rest of the media, who have yet to even notice the publication of the ACC proposals, let alone to rubbish them.

The ECF Board after the excitement of the Paulson resignation has gone back into secrecy mode, so it may be discussing things, it may not, spectators are none the wiser.

It's a reasonable assumption to work on the basis that FIDE (and from time to time the ECF) is a malevolent entity unless it demonstrates otherwise.

[NickFaulks]

So much more comfortable just to whinge from the sidelines.

The ecforum is an unofficial private discussion group. But it appears far ahead of the rest of the media, who have yet to even notice the publication of the ACC proposals, let alone to rubbish them.

The ECF Board after the excitement of the Paulson resignation has gone back into secrecy mode, so it may be discussing things, it may not, spectators are none the wiser.

It's a reasonable assumption to work on the basis that FIDE (and from time to time the ECF) is a malevolent entity unless it demonstrates otherwise.

Shaun and I have both told you where you would send your views if you wished them to be taken into serious consideration. I completely understand that you would sooner die than do anything so constructive.

[Roger de Coverly]

I completely understand that you would sooner die than do anything so constructive.

I'm not prepared to indulge in private discussions. If you want to answer the points, do so in public. It's the same answer as I gave to Andrew Paulson. It avoids saying one thing to A and another to B. If you think the notion that you can have a mobile phone in your possession but not in your jacket is acceptible , please justify in public debate how this can possibly work.

[NickFaulks]

I completely understand that you would sooner die than do anything so constructive.

I'm not prepared to indulge in private discussions. If you want to answer the points, do so in public. It's the same answer as I gave to Andrew Paulson. It avoids saying one thing to A and another to B. If you think the notion that you can have a mobile phone in your possession but not in your jacket is acceptible , please justify in public debate how this can possibly work.

Isn't this public? What do you want? I consider that the ACC's proposals ( and I write as supposedly an ACC member ) are in their entirety totally and utterly perverse, ill-considered and wrong. If that isn't clear enough, I apologise. I do not say one thing to A and another to B, I have already said that internally.

I repeat that it would be helpful to chess if you and others here made your comments directly to the ACC, which does contain people who would listen. I believe the reason that you will not do so is that you hope that FIDE will institute some stupid regime about which you can complain, because that it the only thing you are really interested in doing.

[Mike Truran]

Nick, forgive me for saying so, but insulting Roger and me for not going directly to FIDE when neither of us have a mandate to do isn't really very helpful. Of course with my 4NCL hat on I'm raising my concerns with my national federation - that was the purpose of my discussions with Dave Welch as the ECF's chief arbiter.