Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2

[Andy Howie]

Phew I am glad I did not read it correctly

[IMarks]

To ensure fair play the remote player will be supervised by an independent observer such as an arbiter, fellow chess club member etc.

Given the requirement that arbiters for FIDE-rated events meet the criteria required by FIDE for the event to be rated (remember the discussion on the Richardson a while back?), let alone have a random club member 'officiate', in terms of FIDE-rated events the motion is dead in the water. Unless, of course, the Edinburgh Premier, SNCL div. 1 and Scottish become non-FIDE-rated, thus reducing the already meagre number of such tournaments in our country to nil (and having implications for selection purposes, especially amongst improving juniors).

You would end up with a situation where, to accommodate one 'remote' player, 30-40 others would be denied the chance to play for, or improve, a FIDE rating, a very small tail wagging a very large dog. Cui bono!?

And there still hasn't been anything approaching a suggestion as to who would cover an arbiter's expenses for a weekend in the remote location. The player? His/her club? CS? Increased entry fees?

[George Murphy]

[quote="IMarks"][quote]

'You would end up with ... a very small tail wagging a very large dog. Cui bono!?'

Aahhh ... Lovely pun! Very witty. (With apologies to Cicero!) But, a serious point.

George

[StevieHilton]

Ian,
I think this motion does have potential to allow players who have difficulty in reaching venues. In regards to FIDE, there is a precedent for this, Fischer played a Cuban event in 1966 I think by relaying his moves by Telex from New York.
I also think that it might well be a solution to problems with disabled players where a venue might not be suitable for access by disabled players. FIDE guidelines make it very clear that you cannot exclude a player on the grounds of his/her disability. This motion may be a solution to that problem.

[IMarks]

Ian,
I think this motion does have potential to allow players who have difficulty in reaching venues. In regards to FIDE, there is a precedent for this, Fischer played a Cuban event in 1966 I think by relaying his moves by Telex from New York.
I also think that it might well be a solution to problems with disabled players where a venue might not be suitable for access by disabled players. FIDE guidelines make it very clear that you cannot exclude a player on the grounds of his/her disability. This motion may be a solution to that problem.

Steve,

I agree it has potential, and, as I said at the outset, it is a laudable proposal, but at what expense (not necessarily financial)? That will be something for the commission to consider if it is adopted.

Re Fischer - 1965 Capablanca Memorial. RJF competed by cable from the Marshall CC in NYC. That was in the days before ratings were even thought of. Things/rules & regs have changed since then.

Re the FIDE guidelines - I would interpret that as meaning that organisers are required to make suitable provision for disabled players at the venue, but perhaps you'll be more au fait with them than I am. Offhand, I can't think of a current venue on the congress circuit that can't cater for disabled access*, so in those terms, the motion on the table wouldn't make much difference; it's the remoteness that's the main factor.

*Edinburgh CC isn't on the regular circuit.

[IMarks]

'You would end up with ... a very small tail wagging a very large dog. Cui bono!?'

Aahhh ... Lovely pun! Very witty. (With apologies to Cicero!) But, a serious point.

George

George -

Cui Bonio?

[Alex McFarlane]

In 1966 you could pretty much do anything and FIDE would accept it.

I did consider the problem of having a FIDE licenced arbiter at the 'venue' - and that IS now a requirement - but didn't raise it because the idea might still have legs for non-FIDE rated events.

Perhaps Steve can get FIDE to make exceptions.

[StevieHilton]

I would be happy to help, just send me a message and I will make the necessary enquiries on CS behalf

[Phil Thomas]

Good to see this thread returning to its original purpose. That is debate ahead of putting the issue out to committee. Yes, I am aware that I am assuming that motion 1.2 will be discussed and passed but I can't see any logical reason for rejection.

The debate on here should include input from all those who think that they can make an input. Great to see that Alex and Steve have combined forces to get some input from FIDE. An inspiration idea from left field. One that could easily be missed by a committee working in isolation.

More input though is needed. There are precious few CS members contributing and this is a matter than is likely to affect all active chess players in Scotland.

Bearing all that in mind I invite all notice board members who are not CS members to express their views. In doing so you will not be breaking any rules contained within either the Chess Scotland constitution or the rules of the notice board.

[Patrick McGovern]

more than 2/3rds of board members post rarely or not at all; of the other 1/3 only a few post regularly. not the ingredients for good debate or getting the views of the majority. fortunately for those that think they can make an input will contribute, as they have done in the past.