16-08-2016, 01:13 AM
Hi Douglas
Thanks for the post and link. What is the value of a FIDE rating to players without realistic norm or FM chances though?
It would be useful to see any past polls if you have them, I couldn’t find them myself. Expansion can be for many reasons after all tournament organizers have that specific aim. I expect players will flock to Largs this year (as I will) but for other reasons than the FIDE rating. Members having to bring motions to force CS to take notice of their concerns is, well, like a last resort
“There is no value in CS directors trying to impose decisions which players do not want. Directors are here to promote the game and assist organisers.”
Leaderships often have different priorities from members, that’s why the quality of democracy is often strained
A couple more general points (I take the point that it’s not just CS tournaments of course..)
Any player might naturally want a FIDE rating too, but these come with increasing FIDE entanglements. Is anyone assessing those? IMO the least that should be done before this kind of collective commitment is made is to try to establish whether people do actually want the main benefit.
Steve’s viewpoint could be interpreted more widely as what about the danger of weakening the brand by slackening the conditions under which games are FIDE rated.
I’ll read any response but I’ll probably leave it there for the greater good
Cheers
Thanks for the post and link. What is the value of a FIDE rating to players without realistic norm or FM chances though?
It would be useful to see any past polls if you have them, I couldn’t find them myself. Expansion can be for many reasons after all tournament organizers have that specific aim. I expect players will flock to Largs this year (as I will) but for other reasons than the FIDE rating. Members having to bring motions to force CS to take notice of their concerns is, well, like a last resort
“There is no value in CS directors trying to impose decisions which players do not want. Directors are here to promote the game and assist organisers.”
Leaderships often have different priorities from members, that’s why the quality of democracy is often strained
A couple more general points (I take the point that it’s not just CS tournaments of course..)
Any player might naturally want a FIDE rating too, but these come with increasing FIDE entanglements. Is anyone assessing those? IMO the least that should be done before this kind of collective commitment is made is to try to establish whether people do actually want the main benefit.
Steve’s viewpoint could be interpreted more widely as what about the danger of weakening the brand by slackening the conditions under which games are FIDE rated.
I’ll read any response but I’ll probably leave it there for the greater good
Cheers