Registration with FIDE

[Ian Kingston]

It means that ECF get 40% back.
.

I think it means that Federations who vote for the President get 40% back.

Now the aliens will be coming for Roger.

[David Pardoe]

On a slightly different tac...regarding FIDE registration fees for teams/players.
I note that, for instance, in the 4NCL league..certainly the northern/3rd div...that at least some players who played fairly regularly, didnt actually achieve an official FIDE rating/part rating. I`m not particularly bothered about this because I dont play that much FIDE rated chess, but I wonder if some return of fees should be made for players who have registered but don`t recieve a grade/part grade.....or incriment, from a particular event. Otherwise it would appear that we are paying FIDE fees for nothing in some cases. ie, only charge a full fee when an event actually triggers a rating/part rating change for a particular player.

[Alex Holowczak]

It means that ECF get 40% back.
.

I think it means that Federations who vote for the President get 40% back.

You might, but then you're cynical about just about everything. If your local Council provided you a new wheelie-bin, you'd interpret it in such a way that meant the Council would be planning to cease all refuse collection, and you'd have to dispose of it yourself.

I'd be quite happy to believe that ECF would get the 40% back - until a subsequent meeting where this figure is amended to something other than 40%, and probably lower. There are separate items on the agenda for the meeting about dispersement of FIDE money for smaller nations, pointed out by Ian Kingston. This should satisfy your cynicism!

The problem is, there are several other more fundamental reasons why this proposal should be voted down.

The principle of the organiser paying FIDE and FIDE reimbursing the national federation is something worthy of debate. The problem is that the numbers that Ignatius Leong has put to the proposal are diverting the focus from it. The numbers are clearly ridiculous.

[Alan Walton]

On a slightly different tac...regarding FIDE registration fees for teams/players.
I note that, for instance, in the 4NCL league..certainly the northern/3rd div...that at least some players who played fairly regularly, didnt actually achieve an official FIDE rating/part rating. I`m not particularly bothered about this because I dont play that much FIDE rated chess, but I wonder if some return of fees should be made for players who have registered but don`t recieve a grade/part grade.....or incriment, from a particular event. Otherwise it would appear that we are paying FIDE fees for nothing in some cases. ie, only charge a full fee when an event actually triggers a rating/part rating change for a particular player.

It is a little off topic, but I believe that FIDE rate individual games for a part rating, and not the minimum of three required in each tournament. Therefore once you have played your nine rated opponents you will automatically get a full rating

[Adam Raoof]

As an esteemed colleague has just pointed out to me, if the proposals are ratifies the 4NCL would have the choice of:

(a) increasing entry fees by around £100 a team.

(b) ceasing to be a FIDE rated event, resulting in (i) no requirement to pay FIDE fees (neither the barking mad new proposals nor the existing £1.50/player charge) (ii) no Gold member requirement for individual players.

My, that's a difficult one. Let me think for a moment......

I know you have your tongue firmly in your cheek, but how many people would still play in the 4NCL if it was not FIDE rated? It probably wouldn't make much difference to my participation.

[David Sedgwick]

The ECF Board must now reconsider that. We need to have someone on the spot, able to explain forcefully the disastrous nature of these proposals. If we don't, we'll only have ourselves to blame if they're adopted.

There's a charmingly retro move rate being proposed for some of the competitions. Whilst still popular in the WECU Congress, it was abandoned in the Chiltern league in favour of G/120. Elsewhere FIDE laws have a preference for move 40.

http://www.fide.com/images/stories/NEWS ... itions.pdf

1. These Regulations are applicable to the following FIDE competitions:-
a. World Junior U20 Championships
b. World “Upper” Youth (U14, U16 & U18) Championships
c. World “Lower” Youth (U8, U10 & U12) Championships
d. World Schools (U7, U9, U11, U13, U15 & U17) Championships
e. World Youth U16 Olympiad
f. World Senior (60 & 75) Championships
g. World Amateur (2300 & 2100) Championships

19. The time limit is 90 minutes for 36 moves followed by 30 minutes for the entire game.

The FIDE President is now on record as being against players plodding along at 30 seconds a move. Whether reinstating time scrambles and international 10.2s is a good move is other question. On paper, it would be good for the employment of arbiters, but they would have to work during play.

As the Rating Regulations stand, the proposed time limit doesn't qualify for FIDE Rating.

[David Shepherd]

As the Rating Regulations stand, the proposed time limit doesn't qualify for FIDE Rating.

That makes sense they probably want to avoid the fees Can't believe they are getting rid of the increment.

[Sean Hewitt]

On a slightly different tac...regarding FIDE registration fees for teams/players.
I note that, for instance, in the 4NCL league..certainly the northern/3rd div...that at least some players who played fairly regularly, didnt actually achieve an official FIDE rating/part rating. I`m not particularly bothered about this because I dont play that much FIDE rated chess, but I wonder if some return of fees should be made for players who have registered but don`t recieve a grade/part grade.....or incriment, from a particular event. Otherwise it would appear that we are paying FIDE fees for nothing in some cases. ie, only charge a full fee when an event actually triggers a rating/part rating change for a particular player.

David - It can hardly be the fault of the organiser if a player plays, say, 4 FIDE rated and opponents but only scores 0.5/4 (for example) in those games and hence fails to achieve a part rating. Why should the organiser then have to make a refund in that situation?

That said, the FIDE rating fee is actually €1 so does it really matter?

[Mike Truran]

I know you have your tongue firmly in your cheek, but how many people would still play in the 4NCL if it was not FIDE rated? It probably wouldn't make much difference to my participation.

There's a price for everything. Teams may be willing to stump up £100+ for the privilege of being FIDE rated, but I somehow doubt it (although of course we would ask for their views). That then leaves the other reasons for playing in the 4NCL (sensible time controls, decent venues, the social side etc). Hopefully the latter reasons would still give players plenty of incentive to play in the 4NCL. The same no doubt applies to e2e4 events.

If the proposals are passed we will find out one or the other.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I know you have your tongue firmly in your cheek, but how many people would still play in the 4NCL if it was not FIDE rated? It probably wouldn't make much difference to my participation.

FIDE rated, possibly not, but if it was ever not graded by the ECF, then that would make a difference. FWIW, playing in the 4NCL (among other events) helped me get my first FIDE rating or part ratings. That matters less now that more events like that are available, but I suspect the prospect of getting a FIDE rating still attracts those without them.

[David Robertson]

...and of course, if these arrangements are confirmed, and if 4NCL etc were no longer FIDE-rated, a sizeable hole would open up in ECF's budget, exposing the vulnerability (not to say, absurdity) of tying a tiered membership scheme to the nature of chess played

[Mike Truran]

Professor, as so often your logic is incontrovertible (even if there is a touch of 'I told you so' about your post!)

[David Pardoe]

On a slightly different tac...regarding FIDE registration fees for teams/players.
I note that, for instance, in the 4NCL league..certainly the northern/3rd div...that at least some players who played fairly regularly, didnt actually achieve an official FIDE rating/part rating. I`m not particularly bothered about this because I dont play that much FIDE rated chess, but I wonder if some return of fees should be made for players who have registered but don`t recieve a grade/part grade.....or incriment, from a particular event. Otherwise it would appear that we are paying FIDE fees for nothing in some cases. ie, only charge a full fee when an event actually triggers a rating/part rating change for a particular player.

David - It can hardly be the fault of the organiser if a player plays, say, 4 FIDE rated and opponents but only scores 0.5/4 (for example) in those games and hence fails to achieve a part rating. Why should the organiser then have to make a refund in that situation?

That said, the FIDE rating fee is actually €1 so does it really matter?

The £1 doesnt matter.....maybe if they had the option to be excluded from FIDE rating, and not have to be ECF members (under the current regime £26), it might encourage some....and that others can take a `cheaper route` via certain MO membership options.
Finding that over 50% of your games are `FIDE unrated` also doesnt help...

[Alex Holowczak]

Professor, as so often your logic is incontrovertible (even if there is a touch of 'I told you so' about your post!)

But is it?

The Gold membership price effectively covers the cost of any FIDE-rated activity in this country, doesn't it? If there is no FIDE-rated chess activity, the ECF has no costs to FIDE. The only thing that the ECF misses out on is the £70 and £1.50/head, which goes on to FIDE in the form of a 50 Euro and 1 Euro/head charge. So we lose the difference between those two numbers. But equally, it doesn't need an honorarium for an International Rating Officer.

So would there be a difference?

[Mike Truran]

I suspect David's point was that with no FIDE rated chess activity in England, players would only need to sign up for Bronze membership (or Silver once the ECF gets round to treating the 4NCL and e2e4 as congresses) rather than Gold. So the ECF would be losing the difference between the two membership categories.