English Chess Forum

Alongside FIDE wanting to introduce registration for players, the ECF wants to do it for events. In a way it's a welcome development, if far too late, as it would have made the administration of the Game Fee scheme before 2012 much simpler.

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/?p=23784

There is at least one potentially undesirable consequence, namely that it appears to make it impossible to organise an event at short notice and get it graded. With instant electronic communication, long prior notification periods have to be justified.

The other comment is that those organising leagues, the work for which is arranging fixtures, collating results and dealing with the occasional dispute or rule query would not like being referred to as a Chief Arbiter. Equally the treasurer is the person who handles payments to the ECF, not the league controller.

Well, it is a consultation paper, so anyone can provide feedback if they wish (although I would guess most prefer the usual route of not providing a response and then moaning when it is introduced )

FIDE regulations are that you need to give 35 days notice - seems excessive, but if you want this changing (good luck) you need to lobby our FIDE delegate (who has more important issues to deal with at the moment)

Do the ECF need to follow the FIDE model of requiring 35 days notice? No, but it does save confusion for events that are also FIDE rated

Contact Alex, he'll no doubt be happy to hear views

Bob Clark wrote:Just needs an extra question to determine if you can eat your own sandwiches at the venue!

Very good!

Mick Norris wrote: FIDE regulations are that you need to give 35 days notice - seems excessive, but if you want this changing (good luck) you need to lobby our FIDE delegate (who has more important issues to deal with at the moment)

From 1st July this comes down to one week, as has been announced. I argued for one day, but this is not a bad compromise. I am not aware that the ECF delegate expressed a view. I hope that the sanction for registering less than one week in advance will be no more than a manageable fine / admin fee. It is, however, important that all rated events should be registered before they start.

For tournaments offering title norms the requirement remains 30 days. This is necessary in general to maintain their integrity, and special cases will be considered.

I am unhappy at the way in which this seems to extend down to Club internal events. It may be that it's not intended to but that is not clear.

I have to say, overall it seems a cumbersome way to address a problem which I am not persuaded is a substantial one. I think it will prove difficult to administrate - outwardly the ECF office does not seem well resourced for core administration at the moment - and will just add an extra chore for mainly volunteer organisers.

On the face of it an unnecessary measure poorly advocated and likely to generate negative sentiments towards the ECF

By the way, does anyone know if event organisers have been circulated direct about this?

PB

I have some feedback for the paper and idea from FIDE but if I did say it Carl would ban me from the forum.

Paul Buswell wrote:I am unhappy at the way in which this seems to extend down to Club internal events. It may be that it's not intended to but that is not clear.

It would help to clarify the issue as to corporate membership of the ECF. Events are being asked to state whether they are or intend to become voting ECF members or whether their event is being submitted through an existing ECF voting member. Beyond that, there's little merit in tying notice times to FIDE's 30 days, particularly if FIDE are changing theirs. Also any attempt by the ECF to collect photos and passport numbers of players is presumably going to be met by a wholesale withdrawal from rating of events that are FIDE rated because they can be.

As I understand the current system, local graders are given discretion as to whether to accept results for grading whether or not the nominal approval rules have been followed.

Ben Purton wrote: "I have some feedback for the paper and idea from FIDE but if I did say it Carl would ban me from the forum."

Speak frankly. "We are no tyrant, but a Christian king ..."

FIDE's licencing system has been shelved for further review. Internal lobbying can work!

NickFaulks wrote:FIDE's licencing system has been shelved for further review. Internal lobbying can work!

Was it that, or the threat of a mass walkout of players?

It doesn't improve the credibility of the Presidential Board and the QC for that matter that they didn't spot potential problems and veto the proposals.

Roger de Coverly wrote:

NickFaulks wrote:FIDE's licencing system has been shelved for further review. Internal lobbying can work!

Was it that, or the threat of a mass walkout of players?

It doesn't improve the credibility of the Presidential Board and the QC for that matter that they didn't spot potential problems and veto the proposals.

Why do you talk about the QC? It was nothing to do with us, we found out about it at the same time as everyone else. There were complaints, and comments from outside sources no doubt helped. Thanks to all who took up the cause.

Certainly the PB should not have waved this proposal through without proper consideration, but at least they have recognised their error and retracted it. Would the ECF have done the same?

NickFaulks wrote:Certainly the PB should not have waved this proposal through without proper consideration, but at least they have recognised their error and retracted it. Would the ECF have done the same?

Well, to drag this thread back on topic (the FIDE Player Registration scheme is nothing to do with the subject of the thread), I am properly consulting in the first place with respect to ECF event registration. It has been on our website for weeks, and should have been e-mailed to leagues and congresses for whom we have contact information. I've received several comments for the next version of the proposals, which mostly involve clarifying language and expectations. I've also contacted several people on Council directly, to see what Council support is like.

Furthermore, some ideas are so bad that the people on the PB should realise this before sticking their arms in the air, whether rushing it through without consultation or otherwise.

NickFaulks wrote:Why do you talk about the QC? It was nothing to do with us, we found out about it at the same time as everyone else.

The measure was announced as a proposal by the QC, even if the chairman acted unilaterally.

ECF Directors from time to time introduce measures without consultation. Event registration would not be one of them.

The measure was announced as a proposal by the QC, even if the chairman acted unilaterally.

I've heard other people say that, but didn't see it myself. What did I miss?

NickFaulks wrote: I've heard other people say that, but didn't see it myself. What did I miss?

FIDE announced the measure in
http://www.fide.com/component/content/a ... tions.html

Note the signatory to the Press Release and the titles employed.

The regulations themselves have "QC" in the url

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

The average chess player might reasonably conclude that these proposals had the imprint of the QC notwithstanding the point that they aren't mentioned in the material made public about the QC's deliberations in Istanbul. This contrasts with the relaxation to the time controls allowed for Norms which had been discussed.

It might also be recalled that these Licensing Regulations were a subset of those previously drafted and withdrawn after objections from the KNSB and others. I wonder which Vice President put up the previous proposals?