18-08-2014, 02:13 PM
Good post from John, whose essence I gather is to re-affirm the point that it is the law of the land that is paramount - not FIDE rules/recommendations/guidelines. But, we cannot ignore the latter any more than we can the former. The issue therefore is how to reconcile the two.
Well, I cannot believe that organisers at present act outside the law. The FIDE rules/recommendations/guidelines are not commandments/edicts that have the force of law. It is a requirement that we implement them in order to continue to enjoy our grades to be FIDE rated and - hopefully - earn international titles or stage events like the recent Commonwealth Chess Championships. But, these guidelines are not confined to Scotland but have to be applied globally. Some degree of compromise is inescapable if the guidelines are to be adapted to local conditions, including compliance with the law.
I assume that the real area of concern is associated with access, especially wheelchair access. Public buildings are already required to comply - I believe. Private estate is not - unless a licence is needed? For instance, if a commercial venture is being operated: B & B, guest-house, say, may not be permitted to refuse clients on religious or ‘cultural’ grounds. I don’t see how there can be any difficulties with access to premises that are publicly owned/operated such as schools or municipal buildings. Scottish Championships are one-off events that take place in a different venue each year but always one that affords wheelchair access. Some venues that are private can also be used but always with wheelchair access; a large tennis or other sports club, for instance. Cost could be a factor but not in this context, which is oriented to FIDE rules/guidelines? Perhaps, but how about affordability or availability of premises?
Edinburgh Chess Club? Consider this. Until quite recently, the Melville Bridge Club was located in Grosvenor Crescent, Edinburgh. A lovely area that is part of the New Town. It has now relocated to near the Edinburgh Zoo and has renamed itself the New Melville Bridge Club. Why? For the simple reason that the committee knew it was sitting on a ‘goldmine’. Even before I moved away from Edinburgh 15 years ago, the committee was considering and planning whether it should realise the wealth inherent in its property and move to cheaper premises. But, unlike the Edinburgh CC, the MBC owned its premises from ‘roof to basement’. Most premises in that street have been sub-divided into flats, but the MBC remained intact So, it did have the flexibility and wherewithal to move.
I doubt that applies to Edinburgh CC. First, there is the history. Anyone who has been there will appreciate that. No one, I imagine, would want to lose its associations with the past. (It could even be a ‘tourist attraction’ for visiting chess players on Open Doors Day!) Second, the value/wealth inherent in the property may not be comparable with the BMC. Under these circumstances why should the Edinburgh CC want to move? To comply with these new FIDE guidelines? Questionable. Could Edinburgh CC install a lift? A ramp? Well, there could be planning issues. Alva Street is also in the New Town. Would Edinburgh City Council allow a ramp to be built? (The New Town is a conservation area?) Would other owners in ‘the stair’ agree (i) to such measures, or (ii) share the costs? Perhaps Edinburgh CC could plead a special case and be allowed to comply with the new FIDE guidelines insofar as is practicable. Personally, I don’t see a problem with that. I repeat, the new FIDE guidelines are not compulsory.
Surely, similar consideration apply to disabled players? Yes, it’s right to enable their participation, but do the FIDE guidelines go so far as to give the right to dictate the facilities on offer? A human right? Questionable.
So, I’m afraid that I do not see ‘the threat’ to Chess in Scotland in quite the same light as some do. Surely, FIDE’s intention is to instil the spirit rather than the letter of its guidelines, if this would mean driving organisers away from chess . Such an outcome would be self-defeating and contrary to FIDE principles, which are to popularise, not persecute.
PS Good to hear from you, John!
Sorry, I didn’t see the other posts that have since appeared before drafting this.
G
Well, I cannot believe that organisers at present act outside the law. The FIDE rules/recommendations/guidelines are not commandments/edicts that have the force of law. It is a requirement that we implement them in order to continue to enjoy our grades to be FIDE rated and - hopefully - earn international titles or stage events like the recent Commonwealth Chess Championships. But, these guidelines are not confined to Scotland but have to be applied globally. Some degree of compromise is inescapable if the guidelines are to be adapted to local conditions, including compliance with the law.
I assume that the real area of concern is associated with access, especially wheelchair access. Public buildings are already required to comply - I believe. Private estate is not - unless a licence is needed? For instance, if a commercial venture is being operated: B & B, guest-house, say, may not be permitted to refuse clients on religious or ‘cultural’ grounds. I don’t see how there can be any difficulties with access to premises that are publicly owned/operated such as schools or municipal buildings. Scottish Championships are one-off events that take place in a different venue each year but always one that affords wheelchair access. Some venues that are private can also be used but always with wheelchair access; a large tennis or other sports club, for instance. Cost could be a factor but not in this context, which is oriented to FIDE rules/guidelines? Perhaps, but how about affordability or availability of premises?
Edinburgh Chess Club? Consider this. Until quite recently, the Melville Bridge Club was located in Grosvenor Crescent, Edinburgh. A lovely area that is part of the New Town. It has now relocated to near the Edinburgh Zoo and has renamed itself the New Melville Bridge Club. Why? For the simple reason that the committee knew it was sitting on a ‘goldmine’. Even before I moved away from Edinburgh 15 years ago, the committee was considering and planning whether it should realise the wealth inherent in its property and move to cheaper premises. But, unlike the Edinburgh CC, the MBC owned its premises from ‘roof to basement’. Most premises in that street have been sub-divided into flats, but the MBC remained intact So, it did have the flexibility and wherewithal to move.
I doubt that applies to Edinburgh CC. First, there is the history. Anyone who has been there will appreciate that. No one, I imagine, would want to lose its associations with the past. (It could even be a ‘tourist attraction’ for visiting chess players on Open Doors Day!) Second, the value/wealth inherent in the property may not be comparable with the BMC. Under these circumstances why should the Edinburgh CC want to move? To comply with these new FIDE guidelines? Questionable. Could Edinburgh CC install a lift? A ramp? Well, there could be planning issues. Alva Street is also in the New Town. Would Edinburgh City Council allow a ramp to be built? (The New Town is a conservation area?) Would other owners in ‘the stair’ agree (i) to such measures, or (ii) share the costs? Perhaps Edinburgh CC could plead a special case and be allowed to comply with the new FIDE guidelines insofar as is practicable. Personally, I don’t see a problem with that. I repeat, the new FIDE guidelines are not compulsory.
Surely, similar consideration apply to disabled players? Yes, it’s right to enable their participation, but do the FIDE guidelines go so far as to give the right to dictate the facilities on offer? A human right? Questionable.
So, I’m afraid that I do not see ‘the threat’ to Chess in Scotland in quite the same light as some do. Surely, FIDE’s intention is to instil the spirit rather than the letter of its guidelines, if this would mean driving organisers away from chess . Such an outcome would be self-defeating and contrary to FIDE principles, which are to popularise, not persecute.
PS Good to hear from you, John!
Sorry, I didn’t see the other posts that have since appeared before drafting this.
G