Nigel Short wishes Gerry Walsh 'Merry Xmas & Begone!'

[Paul McKeown]

1. President has usually been a figurehead role, so local knowledge hasn't usually been an issue. GW seems to have reinterpreted the role however. If you're not interested, fine.
2. Fine. I agree. I think everyone else on this forum does too - with perhaps a few Mr. Magoo type exceptions.
3. Very reasonable. Think the spectators are getting bored of the enormous Swiss event the British has become. Try explaining to anyone outside of chess why someone graded 150 - 200 should be competing for the championship... I don't think I'm the only one who thinks the current formula has had its day. I think the only reason for it is that Stewart Reuben likes conning players under 200 out of £200 or so for the privilege of being the tournament clowns.

[Paul McKeown]

Dear Grandmaster,
It strikes me that rather than us agreeing violently, it might be perhaps useful if you would outline your program, should you become the ECF's FIDE delegate. It would help the readers of this forum to persuade their league AGM's to instruct their ECF Council delegates to vote for ND Short.
Regards,
Paul McKeown.

[John Cox]

This strikes me as a futile debate. Nigel is correct; no-one who cares about English international chess thinks that GW is anything other than an embarrassment in his present position.

However, GW has demonstrated many times his determination to cling on to his position, so there is no point in calling on him to resign. A more interesting question would be how he might be removed.

As to personal abuse on this thread, it strikes me that far, far worse than anything than has been said about GW's mother is the observations about Ingrid Lauterbach's attractiveness or otherwise. Why men think they are entitled to post this sort of thing on forums is beyond me, but I suggest the censor stop worrying about GW's reluctance to say exactly who pays for his mother, remove the posts in question and ban the relevant posters.

[Carl Hibbard]

As to personal abuse on this thread, it strikes me that far, far worse than anything than has been said about GW's mother is the observations about Ingrid Lauterbach's attractiveness or otherwise. Why men think they are entitled to post this sort of thing on forums is beyond me, but I suggest the censor stop worrying about GW's reluctance to say exactly who pays for his mother, remove the posts in question and ban the relevant posters.

I have not seen anything that would justify that action yet but continue to monitor

[Nigel Short]

Again to Paul McKeown:

There were an awful lot of important changes to FIDE regulations passed at the Dresden Olympiad. A thoughtful appraisal of these decisions was given by Nick Faulks, of Bermuda, on chessbase.com (http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5111)
To focus on just one item: the sudden doubling of the "K factor" coefficient of Elo ratings, after decades of acceptance, has enormous implications for anyone who competes in international tournament chess, but most especially for professionals. Earnings are very strongly correlated to Elo ratings. Indeed, appearance fees at major events like Corus, in which both Michael Adams and myself will participate again this January, are explicity given on a sliding scale. A very poor year, like the one I suffered in 2007, could lead to financial ruination the next. Of course the converse is also true, but who knows where this will lead? The issue is mathematically complex. As Nick Faulks mentioned, it would have been wise to undertake a historical investigation, underpinned by solid statistical analysis, before any decision was taken. One suspects that the issue was too arcane to be grasped by the vast majority of Delegates and they simply didn't want the trouble of having to deal with it again. Did the ECF representative consult with any of the people whose livelihood he was directly affecting? Do we have any idea how he voted? Well, of course not...

[Peter Sowray]

As to personal abuse on this thread, it strikes me that far, far worse than anything than has been said about GW's mother is the observations about Ingrid Lauterbach's attractiveness or otherwise. Why men think they are entitled to post this sort of thing on forums is beyond me, but I suggest the censor stop worrying about GW's reluctance to say exactly who pays for his mother, remove the posts in question and ban the relevant posters.

Well said, John.

[John Upham]

Did the ECF representative consult with any of the people whose livelihood he was directly affecting? Do we have any idea how he voted? Well, of course not...

Nigel,
The issue of so-called representatives not representing the views of those who they should be appears to be widespread and endemic. It is not clear to me that, nearer to home, ECF delegates to ECF council adhere to this practise. However, this is an issue for the Director of Home Chess to resolve if he or she believes it to be a problem.

Whereas, as far as the ECF FIDE delegate is concerned :
Would it be feasible to assemble a panel of active English professional players with whom the ECF FIDE delegate would consult and be mandated by? Would this be a worthwhile development? Who would you like to see on this panel?

I assume that our current globe trotting FIDE delegate should and does consult widely before either voting or offering his much sought after views and opinions. Does anyone know if this is reality or merely my naive hope?

[Matthew Turner]

Some thoughts on the changes to ratings. Firstly, I am only speculating on the impact the changes may have and I am perfectly happy to be corrected if I have got it wrong - be gentle!
The changes mean that rating will move more rapidly. I think this may well be overdue, since ratings are coming in at lower and lower levels this will allow rapidly improving juniors to find their appropriate level in a shorter period of time. This seems to be generally in the interests of 'fairness'. The changes are certainly in the interests of FIDE since it means players will gain and lose ratings more quickly and it will be easier, with a good tournament performance, to reach rating bands for GM and IM titles. This all means more revenue for FIDE. In principle, I have no problem with this. It might be appropriate to raises the title bands, but in a sense this is another debate.
However, it also strikes me that these changes are against the interests of professional players, by which I mean players over 2650. For instance, it will be more difficult for Mickey Adams to say, I want a big fee because I am a top 10 player, because tournament organisers will know that by the next list he could be number 50 (and I don't think that is an exaggeration). This provide a difficult situation for the ECF's FIDE delegate, whether this is Gerry Walsh, or anybody else. I would be very unsure how I would vote on the changes myself. The failing is really that the changes haven't been discussed and soundings taken. I suspect the changes will come into force and most players will know absolutely nothing about them.

[Sean Hewitt]

Matthew - I think you have summed up the situation well. One additional comment that I would make though is that, with more frequesnt publication of the rating list, the K factor must be increased simply to maintain the status quo. I'm surprised that this wasn't done when the list frequency went from twice a year to four times a year.

[Nigel Short]

To Matthew Turner:

I think your observations are accurate. Indeed I did not say that I was necessarily opposed to a change in the "K factor", only that it would have far-reaching consequences. With an increasing frequency of appearance of rating lists, I fully understand that there is a sound mathematical argument for increasing the K factor - although whether it should it be to 12, 15, 20, or 30 is anybody's guess. It is certainly a complicated issue and I simply don't believe there has been sufficient work done on it.
Incidentally, I was amused by your comment that the changes "are against the interests of professional players, by which I mean players over 2650." I believe your general conclusion and the reasons you give for it are correct, although the figure of 2650 seems to this contributor (rated 2642) a little arbitrary. It means that this week I can be blissfully unconcerned, but next week on the 1st of January, when my rating will rise to 2662, I should be deeply worried

[Ben Purton]

Your welcome to refer to me John

[Paul McKeown]

As to personal abuse on this thread, it strikes me that far, far worse than anything than has been said about GW's mother is the observations about Ingrid Lauterbach's attractiveness or otherwise. Why men think they are entitled to post this sort of thing on forums is beyond me, but I suggest the censor stop worrying about GW's reluctance to say exactly who pays for his mother, remove the posts in question and ban the relevant posters.

John - you are correct - this was not only pointless but demeaning, not only to Ingrid Lauterbach but indeed to all female chess players in England. I hope you don't brush the whole forum with this tar, though.

This strikes me as a futile debate. Nigel is correct; no-one who cares about English international chess thinks that GW is anything other than an embarrassment in his present position.

No one who cares about English national chess, either, finds GW these days anything other than an embarrassment. I maintain, though, that calling him hurtful names in public showed a distinct lack of style and was unfair.

However, GW has demonstrated many times his determination to cling on to his position, so there is no point in calling on him to resign. A more interesting question would be how he might be removed.

Any suggestions? A good suggestion backed by good organisation is what we need... As to futility, that's the problem with these internet fora, too much fluff and a distinct lack of focus - people treat them as entertainment.

[Justin Hadi]

I completely agree with you Paul,

In another thread, Steve Henderson wrote:

Maybe we should go for a proposal and change what ever needs changing so that the Presidents post is just that, a figure head position with no voting rights.

Maybe we should also consider adding that the President can hold no other position.

This suggestion was largely ignored, yet it could be a workable proposal for an EGM. Another option is getting a person or a group of people (similar to the "New ECF") to stand at the next AGM. I imagine they would only succeed if someone ousted GW from the presidency... The question is how to achieve this.

Justin

[Ben Purton]

If we are going to import people at very least make them good to look at to promote the game!

I fail to see where it directly says any name. The name was brought up in a interpretation, which I find amusing , as surely my statement is subjective and there mere thinking I was referring to a given player is perhaps an offence in itself.

Ben

[Paul McKeown]

Ben - go and play with your hula-hoop. This is for grown-ups only.
Thank you.