Arbiters (jobs for) proposal.

[Michael Flatt]

On principal, the vast majority of leagues will have at least 2 qualified arbiters therefore most dispute committes will remain as is today. For those league structures who don't currently have and arbiter may either bus one in from their county association (likely every county has a couple) or somebody further afield

If that's the case then we don't need to wait until 2021 to implement the proposal. Unfortunately, I don't believe that all leagues and congresses are as well served as your own.

If the ECF want to go this route they really ought to explore the implications of introducing the proposal.

4. How many ECF level 2 Arbiters have been appointed in the last year and last five years?

[Roger de Coverly]

I thought I had answered the question.

Alex H has already confirmed to me separately that with regard to local league chess there is absolutely no intention to "not grade games if phones are allowed switched off in a jacket or pocket".

For the benefit of those who don't read every post on this forum, or who aren't on Alex H's email list, will there be a statement to that effect on the ECF website alongside the supposed rules?

[Alan Walton]

If that's the case then we don't need to wait until 2021 to implement the proposal. Unfortunately, I don't believe that all leagues and congresses are as well served as your own.

Michael, as numerous people keep mentioning that you seem to ignore, is that you only need an arbiter on your dispute committee; I suspect that they never meet in person (email or Skype), therefore I don't think you need to worry too much as you can ask any arbiter to volunteer to become a standing member, and in the event of a dispute you bring them in (if anything have an arbiter from outside the local league is better anyway with total impartiality)

If a congress hasn't a qualified arbiter then it shouldn't be graded now, never mind the future

[Michael Flatt]

If a congress hasn't a qualified arbiter then it shouldn't be graded now, never mind the future

That's news to me. Where is that stated in the current regulations?

[Alan Walton]

If a congress hasn't a qualified arbiter then it shouldn't be graded now, never mind the future

That's news to me. Where is that stated in the current regulations?

That is my personal view, if I am paying an entry fee I want the congress to be correctly governed

[Michael Flatt]

If a congress hasn't a qualified arbiter then it shouldn't be graded now, never mind the future

That's news to me. Where is that stated in the current regulations?

That is my personal view, if I am paying an entry fee I want the congress to be correctly governed

Now that's clarified, perhaps, we can consider whether there are sufficient ECF Arbiters to introduce such a requirement?

The ECF needs to recognise that not all areas have as many qualified Arbiters as Oxfordshire.

Just out of curiosity, how many qualified Arbiters are you able to call on locally and do they demand a fee?

[David Williams]

In my youth I played for one of those late-lamented works teams. We paid whatever subs we were asked for. Then some previous incarnation of the ECF threatened not to grade games of non-members. The reaction of most of us was that if we didn't have to be members, and the only benefit to us was to have our games graded, perhaps we'd been wasting our money all those years.

[Michael Flatt]

Just out of curiosity, how many qualified Arbiters are you able to call on locally and ... ?

Taking the current list of Level 2 (50 listed) & Level 3 Arbiters (13 listed) as published on the ECF website and combining them with club/county affiliations listed on the ECF Grading database, I have arrived at the list below:

Of course, not all Arbiters will necessarily be active but it does give a rough estimate of the coverage across the country.

Geographic Area, Number of Level 2/3 Arbiters
Bedfordshire, 1
Berkshire, 1
Bristol, 2
Cambridgeshire, 1
Derbyshire, 1
Devon, 3
Essex, 2
Gloucestershire, 2
Greater Manchester, 4
Hampshire, 1
Hertfordshire, 1
Lancashire, 1
Leicestershire, 1
London, 7
Merseyside, 3
Norfolk, 1
Northumberland, 3
Nottinghamshire, 2
Oxfordshire, 2
Scotland, 1
Somerset, 1
Staffordshire, 4
Surrey, 8
Sussex, 1
unknown, 1
Warwickshire, 1
West Midlands, 3
Yorkshire, 4
Total= 63

[Ian Thompson]

If a congress hasn't a qualified arbiter then it shouldn't be graded now, never mind the future

That's news to me. Where is that stated in the current regulations?

Nowhere, as far as I'm aware. However, the Arbiter Regulations Proposal document says:

"The ECF will continue its policy that at least one Level 1 Arbiter must be present at a Congress in order for it to be ECF-graded."

This is news to me, and I'd be interested to know where this requirement is stated.

[Roger de Coverly]

This is news to me, and I'd be interested to know where this requirement is stated.

The grading page has

GAME ELIGIBILITY FOR GRADING

Games can only be graded if they are played under acceptable conditions, with clocks. Lightning and Correspondence games are excluded.

It is required that:
a. The FIDE Laws of Chess are used, as modified by the ECF Competition Rules.
b. One of the following rates of play is complied with:

1. Rapidplay
Each player must have at least 10 minutes, and less than 60 minutes, for all moves. This includes both the initial time control and any subsequent time controls or quickplay finish. When Fischer (cumulative) mode is used, the time available for each player is calculated on the assumption that the duration of the game is 60 moves.

2. Standardplay
Each player has more time than the maximum defined above for Rapidplay.

Of course events must conform with the ECF's Membership and payment requirements. Results are graded as reported by the organisers; they are not accepted from individual players. There is one exception to this: results can be accepted from individual Direct Members in otherwise ungraded events which are played outside England.

So what/where are the ECF Competition Rules as of now?

[John Swain]

This is news to me, and I'd be interested to know where this requirement is stated.

The grading page has

GAME ELIGIBILITY FOR GRADING

Games can only be graded if they are played under acceptable conditions, with clocks. Lightning and Correspondence games are excluded.

It is required that:
a. The FIDE Laws of Chess are used, as modified by the ECF Competition Rules.
b. One of the following rates of play is complied with:

1. Rapidplay
Each player must have at least 10 minutes, and less than 60 minutes, for all moves. This includes both the initial time control and any subsequent time controls or quickplay finish. When Fischer (cumulative) mode is used, the time available for each player is calculated on the assumption that the duration of the game is 60 moves.

2. Standardplay
Each player has more time than the maximum defined above for Rapidplay.

Of course events must conform with the ECF's Membership and payment requirements. Results are graded as reported by the organisers; they are not accepted from individual players. There is one exception to this: results can be accepted from individual Direct Members in otherwise ungraded events which are played outside England.

So what/where are the ECF Competition Rules as of now?

Another valid question to ask is when was this apparent policy introduced, covertly or overtly, of requiring congresses to have an ECF Arbiter as one of its control team in order for games to be graded?

I suspect that there are several congresses which have been run successfully for years by the same experienced control team but without the services of an ECF Arbiter; is this correct? Has the ECF refused to grade such events?

[Brian Valentine]

The ECF competition rules can be found on the ECF website under the grading tab.

You will see that they are only effective on 1st September. For years the games qualified by conforming to " the FIDE laws of chess". However Council recently confirmed it was happy with at least one deviation -adjudications- so an alternative was required. I am grateful to the Arbiters for picking this up and publishing something, albeit for different reasons.

The Grading team wish to capture as many results of English games of chess as possible to make grades more reliable. However it is also necessary for competitions to meet minimum standards so we are measuring performance under reasonable circumstances.

Brian Valentine
Manager of ECF grading

[Roger de Coverly]

The ECF competition rules can be found on the ECF website under the grading tab.
You will see that they are only effective on 1st September.

That's 1st September 2016, so the rules formulation isn't yet effective. The question being asked is how many stealth changes are being pushed through. The notion that mobile phones have to be placed in bags in the manner of the 4NCL has been clarified, but what of the assertion that every Congress has to have an appointed Arbiter who is approved/licensed by the CAA/ECF?

[Mike Truran]

How exactly does the statement "the ECF is inviting responses from arbiters, players, and other interested parties" suggest to you that "stealth changes are being pushed through"?

[John Swain]

I quote from the consultation document:

"The ECF will continue its policy that at least one Level 1 Arbiter must be present at a Congress in order for it to be ECF-graded."

(It then proposes changes in five years' time:

"From 1st September, 2021, for an event to be graded, at least one Listed Level 2 Arbiter or higher must be:
(a) Responsible for making decisions at an individual Congress, whether present or otherwise
(b) Responsible for making decisions in an evening league normally conducted in arbiterless conditions; for example, serving on a Committee of any organisation that handles disputes or appeals.")

This seems to be stating that the policy is already in existence of having a Level 1 ECF Arbiter "present" (on the control team presumably or merely as a player or spectator??) as a pre-condition of ECF grading. To repeat earlier questions, where was this stated and when was it formulated? Has this policy been enforced?