Ilyumzhinov wins FIDE Presidential elections 95 to 55

Source: Chess Vives

Kirsan Ilyumzhinov will remain FIDE President for at least four more years. He just won the vote for FIDE President in Khanty-Maniysk with 95 votes, to 55 for Karpov, and 3 abstentions.

According to our source in Khanty-Mansiysk, Ilyumzhinov immediately invited Anatoly Karpov to become Vice-President, to which his opponent hasn’t responded yet. In case of a close result, the Karpov team might have considered taking legal action against the irregular proceedings. However, with such a devastating loss, similar to the result of the presidential elections in 2006 won by Ilyumzhinov against Bessel Kok, they will most probably refrain from this.

Source: The Week in Chess

http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/chessnews/politics/fide-presidential-elections-2010/fide-presidential-elections-vote

Daily Chess News and Games. Weekly digest for download. By Mark Crowther.

Kirsan Ilyumzhinov re-elected as FIDE President

Mark Crowther - Wednesday 29th September 2010

FIDE President Kirsan Ilyumznhinov was re-elected as FIDE President on the first day of the 81st FIDE Congress by a margin of 95 votes to 55 votes. He was challenged by former World Chess Champion Anatoly Karpov who was supported by former champion Garry Kasparov. The voting on the final day was delayed by 4 hours when Garry Kasparov complained about the voting proceedures. Later on Kasparov appeared to concede they had no chance of winning. As an organisation FIDE and its delegates seems quite separated from most of the rest of the chess world where Ilyumzhinov is regarded, at best, as a joke. The Karpov campaign site says he will fight on to " continue this battle to restore and transform the chess world."

An angry Kasparov tries to get proceedings adjourned. Photo © | http://www.europe-echecs.com

The Delegates. Photo © 2010 Albran.

The result of all the campaigning the Kasparov and Karpov did over the last few months is that they gained one vote over the 96-54 loss of Bessel Kok in the FIDE elections in Torino, Italy in 2006. There seems a block vote within FIDE that is practically impossible to dislodge. It is quite plausible to see Ilyumzhinov stay in power another 15 years and beyond. I don't believe this represents the view of chess players throughout the World. If this is the case then players need to start being active in their own national associations and replacing the FIDE delegates that voted for Ilyumzhinov. In this regard Karpov's campaign probably started two years too late.
This voting block has meant that essentially there hasn't been a change in power within FIDE since 1982, with Ilyumzhinov taking over from Florencio Campomanes (and his still Vice-President Giorgos Makropoulos) who sent the organisation bankrupt in 1995.

The winner Kirsan Ilyumzhinov. Photo © 2010 Albran.

Let me make clear why I was so opposed to his re-election. Any investigation of Kirsan Ilyumzhinov's background shows that he was prepared to do business with anyone, including both Saddam and his even more vile son Uday Hussein. There are just too many stories of the dubious origin of his money. His record as ruler in Kalmykia was just dreadful. He was in power for 15 years in which time the population fell significantly and the economic indicators put it right at the very bottom of all the Republics in Russia. At the same time the opposition local press was harrassed by Ilyumzhinov officials and one reporter was murdered. In this regard support from people in the Russian Government through Arkady Dvorkovich is absolutely incredible. I believe his leadership of FIDE has followed the same pattern of low achievement being trumpeted as a triumph. One thing is clear, Ilyumzhinov is a formidable political operator, and no-one in his class has challenged him for the Presidency.
Right from the start today it was clear that Karpov was going to lose. A picture of Kasparov complaining (source the Europe-Echecs report on the Congress and Round 8. Photo used with permission) said all that needed to be said. Also see ChessVibes story on the Election.

Richard Conn Jr., Karpov and a stone-faced Kasparov in the foreground. Kirsan Ilyumzhinov and Nigel Freeman on the stage in the background. Photo © 2010 Europe-Echecs.

Kasparov's complaints surrounded the use of proxy votes.
http://www.sovsport.ru/news/text-item/410694 reported FIDE Vice-President Giorgos Makropoulos saying.

I'm tired of repeatedly having to prove that the elections are fair. - accusations repeatedly made by the Karpov Team - this is nonsense, and their accusations are baseless. Everything is open, the eyes of the delegates, in the presence of Russian and foreign press. For six months Kasparov and Karpov have conducted a dirty game, trying to tarnish Ilyumzhinov. They understand that the position and program of Kirsan is stronger, that they will never win this election. That's why they are trying to blow up a scandal out of nothing.

I'm quite tired of a man who should have been disbarred from holding office after being intimately involved in the bankrupcy of FIDE still being there 15 years later but there you go.

There were compaints about the Congress Building. Photo © 2010 Albran.

The margin of victory probably means that the proxy votes didn't make a difference. although it may have done because there were 56 of them, but probably not all would have broken for Karpov in any event. But the protestations from the Ilyumzhinov campaign that they fought fair and Karpov brought a disgrace to the campaign are simply not true. Ilyumzhinov fought at least as viciously as the Karpov campaign but he did it more behind the scenes and apparently more effectively too. Being the incumbent seems to be such a huge advantage with the knowledge of what it takes to get a vote from someone and with more to offer.
The vote was supposed to take place as 12:00pm but eventually got under way at 4pm local time.
According to Soviet Sport - There was uproar at the start of the vote.

"The meeting began with a roll call. According to the rules here should be attended by representatives of all countries, under the wing of the FIDE. Some delegates could not arrive at Khanty-Mansiysk, but sent an official letter of attorney, which gave his voice for that particular candidate. At the time of roll call, with strong statements made by the 13-time world champion Garry Kasparov (representing the team Karpov), there was shouting about the illegality of the vote and a demand for the adjournment of the meeting.

The abuse of proxy votes of delegates not present has long been a source of complaint and Karpov in his final speach made reference to this being an outdated practice, open to corruption, and no longer allowed by for instance the IOC. Former President Florencio Campomanes was notorious in his abuse of these votes and indeed was caught using votes he was not entitled to.
In TWIC59 I reported on the overthrow of Campomanes. There was a report about his behaviour in the 1994 Moscow FIDE elections.

Also Kurt Jungwirth presented a "devastating" (according to one observer) report about election irregularities during the 1994 Moscow Olympiad. In one particularly glaring case Campomanes used the Philippine vote himself voted and the Brunei proxy (which was given to the Philippine delegate not Campomanes) he was not entitled to do either of these things. This, of course was enough for him to get through the crucial vote allowing him to stand.

However the abuse of these proxies has continued over the years and in some ways has practically guaranteed Kirsan Ilyumznhinov's re-election. For many years Campomanes remained on FIDE's payroll. His knowledge of the election process and contacts was probably the main reason.

Kasparov intervenes at the start of roll-call. Photo © 2010 Europe-Echecs.

Just prior to the results being announced the Ilyumzhinov team claimed 102 supporters and in one Russian article Kasparov just about conceded defeat.

"We have many things in life apart from FIDE. But Ilyumzhinov has something to lose. Moreover, apart from the presidency he has nothing left. Delegates are intimidated almost all dance to the tune of Ilyumzhinov. We're trying everything possible, but apparently it's useless.

http://www.ukrinform.ua/rus/order/?id=974338 talked more about the unsatisfactory election process.
Where the long time opposition to Kirsan Ilyumzhinov and the current leadership goes from here is anyone's guess. What I don't want to see is any of this "Gens Una Sumas" nonsense. Anatoly Karpov should not accept any position within FIDE, things haven't changed now, Ilyumzhinov is as unacceptable as he always was. It does say a lot about FIDE itself. If an organisation is prepared to elect by such a margin a man of dubious character and associates as Ilyumznhinov then there is something very broken within it. Either the delegates know but don't care about Ilyumzhinov's background and sources of money, or they don't care to know about his background. I don't know which is worse. I just find it incomprehensible 95 countries find it possible to vote for him.

Anatoly Karpov vows to fight on in some way. Photo © 2010 Albran.

It seems that the fight will continue if a post-election message from the Karpov Campaign site is to be believed.

http://www.karpov2010.org/2010/09/the-election-is-over-the-fight-goes-on/
In an election that confirmed the worst of our fears about the integrity of the process, Kirsan Ilyumzhinov was reelected in Khanty-Mansiysk by the count of 95-55. Considering the rampant abuses that took place there, especially with the abhorrently corrupt proxy system, it is difficult, if not impossible, to consider this a legitimate election.
No matter how Anatoly Karpov decides to continue this battle to restore and transform the chess world, he wishes to express his thanks to everyone who joined us in this effort. We promoted chess worldwide to an unprecedented degree during this campaign. We proved beyond any doubt that a vast majority of the world’s chessplayers support our agenda and our vision for the future of chess as a 21st century sport and of FIDE as a modern organization. This election also showed how it has become impossible to effect this change from within FIDE, which has long ceased to represent the federations or the chess players.
A full statement from Anatoly Karpov and the campaign will soon follow.

http://www.chess.at/meldungen/fide-wahlen.html is the Austrian photo report.
As a minor post-election challenge. There must be those of you out there with copies of Soviet era chess magazines. Can anyone find out who the senior champion of Kalymkia was in 1976? (Has to be a contemporary checkable source for this, not an Ilyumzhinov interview) Or slightly harder, find any soviet era list that rates Ilyumzhinov as a Candidate Master? (I think their ratings, from memory, were things like 1a, 1b, 2a etc, almost certainly harder because it is hard to prove what I believe to be a negative)

Garry Kasparov. Will he run next time? Photo © 2010 Albran.

I myself, occasionally permitted myself some optimism things might change, but was generally sceptical of the chances for success of the Karpov campaign (and within reason the opposition could have been anyone). It seems I was more or less right that Karpov's campaign was dead in the water from almost the start. I wonder if anyone will be prepared to challenge in four years in what increasingly looks like a fools errand.
Now we will have to see what happens. This is especially true of the deal with Chess Lane a completely mysterious organisation based in the British Virgin Islands. I am not at all optimistic.
There were other elections and Silvio Danailov won the European Chess Union presidential elections.
After the last election I virtually stopped reporting FIDE affairs for a long time. Too depressing. So it is probably time to return to reporting on what I do enjoy. Players playing actual chess.
Alexei Orlov, new President of Kalmykia and apparently friend of Ilyumzhinov. Photo © 2010 Albran

Macieja: the FIDE General Assembly must decide

Source: ChessBase,com - Chess News 30.04.2009 – "Using the FIDE Laws of Chess terminology, the move has been made, and no takeback is any longer possible." Polish GM Bartlomiej Macieja is insisting that the decision to increase the K-factor in rating calculations is not just necessary and good in the current tournament situation, it is in fact irrevocable and can only be legally changed by the body that passed it. Open letter.

Reply to FIDE' reaction on the K-factor

By GM Bartlomiej Macieja

Dear Mr Leong Dear Mr Makropoulos

Thank you very much for your immediate answer.

I am fully aware that the Presidential Board is sometimes entitled not only to delay implementation, but even to take important decisions. I find it very reasonable, especially if they are controversial and they were not tabled in advance, thus came as a surprise for delegates. The same regards proposals which might have financial implications. I am also aware that sometimes the General Assembly cannot come to a common conclusion and gives the Presidential Board the right to decide. It is also a reasonable step, as it is much easier to discuss complicated problems in a smaller and better prepared group. For instance, during the General Assembly 2008, Mr Makropoulos proposed to postpone a decision regarding the problem of coming late for a game for the Presidential Board meeting. Nobody objected, his proposal was accepted.

The case of the K-factor is, however, completely different. It was widely discussed during the FIDE Congress 2008, first at the Titles and Ratings Committee meeting, then at the Qualification Commission meeting, eventually the proposal of change was approved by the General Assembly, with no single voice of objection (including no single voice of objection of any member of the Presidential Board). It means, that contrary to the problem of coming late for a game, the General Assembly decided to take the decision and not to postpone it for the Presidential Board meeting. As so and as the General Assembly is the highest authority of FIDE, the decision has to be followed now and only further General Assemblies are entitled to change it.

Well, I am even not mentioning that the recent FIDE announcement was not a conclusion of the Presidential Board meeting, but a result of "the ten-day working visit of Deputy President Georgios Makropoulos in Singapore with General Secretary Ignatius Leong". It is clearly not sufficient to challenge decisions taken by the General Assembly.

As I was present during the General Assembly 2008, I would like to stress, that contrary to the information included in your letter, the change of the value of the K-factor was not only written in a report of the Qualification Commission, but also orally announced by the chairman Mr Mikko Markkula. The chairman even added that he had made "all the calculations", they were on his computer, and everybody wishing so could see them at any moment. Thus, even all sugestions that the delegates could not be aware what they were accepting are baseless.

Concluding, using the FIDE Laws of Chess terminology, the move (the decision) has been made and no claim or takeback is any longer possible.

I fully agree that players should be much better informed about the reasons standing behind the increase of the K-factor. The main concept is that the higher frequency of publishing rating lists reduces the effective value of the K-factor, thus the value of the K-factor needs to be increased in order not to make significant changes in the whole rating system. With one rating list published yearly, as originally done by professor Elo, the K-factor equal 10 played its role. With six rating lists published yearly, the value of the K-factor needs to be increased. With the frequency of one rating list published every two years, the value of the K-factor would need to be decreased.

I have already done the job of publishing two articles on the ACP Website regarding the topic. They were also published on other commonly visited websites, so chess players could get known about the change and understand that it was not a political decision, but a statistical necessity. I sincerely hope FIDE can also join the efforts. Five months have already passed since the FIDE Congress in Dresden, fortunately two more months are still left before the 1st of July.

As you have correctly mentioned, ratings play a very important role nowadays. Based on them players are directly nominated for major FIDE events, also for national championships, they are invited (or not) for various tournaments with different conditions. And that is exactly why it is so important to have a proper rating system. This time, after a week of work, FIDE has clearly made the right move.

Best regards Bartlomiej Macieja 30th of April 2008

References

• Original FIDE announcement regarding the K-factor
• Comments by GM Bartlomiej Macieja

Source: Association of Chess Professionals Articles

GM Bartlomiej Macieja comments on the recent FIDE announcement regarding the K-factor

ACP Board [Tue Apr 28th, 06:47]

Comments on the recent FIDE announcement regarding the K-factor

The recent FIDE announcement regarding the K-factor came to me as a huge surprise. First of all, during the FIDE Congress in Dresden, the General Assembly decided to increase the value of the K-factor to K=20 (K=30 for players who have never reached 2400). The decision cannot be now challenged neither by the Deputy President nor by the General Secretary, even if the action is approved by the FIDE President, as according to the Article 4.1 of the FIDE Statutes, the General Assembly, being the highest authority of FIDE, exercises the legislative power. Moreover, the increase of the value of the K-factor has been recommended for already many years as a necessary correction to the system. For example, a statistician Jeff Sonas proposed K=24 already in 2002. With 4 rating lists published per year, the increase of the value of the K-factor is essential, as I have proved in my report of and the extended notes on the FIDE Congress 2008. With 6 rating lists published per year, the necessity of the increase is not under any question. Even so conservative FIDE Titles and Ratings Regulations Committee mentioned in Dresden K=25. The Qualification Commission decreased the value to K=20 and passed it through the General Assembly, without any objection. The higher value of the K-factor will make changes of rating quicker, but the effect is far exaggerated by many people. Only for young and very old players (or, to be more precise, for fast improving and fast regressing players) will the change have a serious effect - their ratings will closer correspond to their present level. But, is it bad? For the majority of players, the difference will not be significant in the long term, only fluctuations will increase. Thus, players hoping to easily exceed 2800 may get disappointed - they will still need to increase their level. ;-) The reasons of delay provided by Mr Makropoulos and Mr Leong are far not convincing. Instead of waiting for a year or two in order to show consequences of the change of the value of the K-factor, it is much better and faster to calculate results from last two or even five years using the new value of the K-factor. As tournament reports are in electronic format, it is almost as easy for FIDE to recalculate everything as one click. To judge how serious the argument with organisers and invitations sent in advance is, let's look at tennis. The basic rule of the ATP Ranking System is that players lose ranking points gained more than a year earlier. It means that the organisers encounter much bigger problems than in chess, because an invited leader of the ATP ranking list may be even almost unrated the following year, which is not the case in chess. However, the practice shows that it doesn't effect tennis tournaments, which are organised smoothly. Taking into account the formal reason (decisions taken by GA cannot be challenged) and also that an increase of the K-factor is absolutely neccessary from the statistical point of view, I call the Deputy President and the General Secretary of FIDE to withdraw their announcement and to follow the decision of the GA. Best regards Bartlomiej Macieja 28th of April 2009

Rating Regulations - The K-Factor

Friday, 24 April 2009 09:58

Following the publication of the new Rating Regulations which will come into effect from 1 July 2009, concerns have been raised by several players and organisers. During the 10-day working visit of Deputy President Georgios Makropoulos in Singapore with General Secretary Ignatius Leong, the following points were noted and recommended: 1. That especially for major high-level competitions, organisers normally would have an invitation list of players based on their ratings at the time of consideration and invitation. Organisers normally would have a contract with the invited players sometimes as long as one year in advance. Some players would have agreed to participate based on the ratings of the other invited players. The dynamic K=20 factor could have a major effect on the ratings of the invited players one year later. 2. The rating lists are used to seed players for the world championship cycle -Candidates Tournament, World Cup etc... The radical change in the K-factor is a major concern especially among the top players. It was regretted that parallel lists were not calculated before the decision to adopt the new K-factors. 3. The radical change in the K-factor for players rated under 2400 is also a serious concern as this could lead to an inflation for norm categories and title purposes. The potential inflation among players under 2400 will also cause a ripple effect as more players move upwards and cross the level of 2400. A study and review on the title regulations would be necessary as a result of the new K-factor - the rating scales may have to be increased. 4. Qualification Commission Chairman & FIDE Rating Administrator Mikko Markkula will produce a parallel list which uses the new K-factors (30 & 20) for tournament reports submitted from the rating lists starting 1 April 2008 till 1 July 2009. FIDE will publish 2 lists for 1 July 2009 - the normal list based on the K-factors being unchanged (25, 15 & 10) and a parallel list (known as the K-List) using the K-factors (30 & 20). The K-List will not be used but only as a comparison. 5. Until 1 July 2010, FIDE shall continue to publish 2 lists using the different K-factors. FIDE shall then review the 2 lists after 1 July 2010 - based on the recommendations of the Qualification Commission. FIDE would then decide whether to extend the trials, abort or to adopt the new K-factors with effect from 1 July 2011 as The Rating List.

Reactions of GM R.Edouard to B.Macieja's report on the FIDE congress

Source: Association of Chess Professionals Articles ACP Board [Sat Feb 07th, 09:33] Due to my disagreement with some of the points quoted in the FIDE congress 2008 report, I decided to express my point of view. Coming late to a game This cannot be punished after the first time(s) for the following reasons: 1 When rounds are played in the morning (which happens quite often: double rounds, last rounds, celebrations, etc), everything can happen. Someone slept badly for any personal reason. Another may arrive slightly late by accident. 2 Not every player can stay in a hotel next to the playing hall, and this for different reasons (e.g. Olympiads in Dresden: big differences between delegations). From this point of view all players cannot be treated the same way. If a delay is allowed by the organizer, this must be chosen depending on the accommodation possibilities. 3 For ANY reason it MAY happen to everyone to come late to a game (big problems on the road or for any other way of transport, any serious personal or health problem, etc). From this point of view being late has to be punished when it becomes a habit, not when accidental. 4 Unless in team matches, the decision has ANYWAY to be taken by the opponent who may be needing a "real win" to make a norm or simply be wishing to play a chess game. Draw offers The draw is a chess result! It cannot be forbidden to make a draw for the following reasons: 1 The draw offer is a very important psychological factor of a chess game. Changing it would be like changing the Knight's way to move! 2 Two players shall be allowed to make a draw during a game if they both feel like it's the logical result depending on the position and environment (especially the tournament situation). 3 All players shall be allowed to take some rest (time) in a very long or stressful tournament (especially tournaments including double rounds). 4 Following point 3, if chess has to be a sport, all players cannot be forced to play "till death" (e.g. in football the matches frequency is much less tough than in chess, plus the possibility of substitute). If an organizer decides to set a Sofia rule or any other restriction about making draws, then tournament schedule must be adapted. 5 Finally, two players wishing to make a draw before a game will NOT be affected by this change. Thank you for hearing my point of view! Romain EDOUARD, 7th of February 2009

FIDE Leyes del Ajedrez 2009

(Traducido al español) (Por: CPA George Pérez-Borrero) Fuente: ACP Noticias [Sábado, 3 de enero, 18:12] Las leyes del ajedrez fueron revisadas en la Asamblea General celebrada en Dresde. Sin embargo, hay dos secciones que necesitarán ser aprobadas en la primera reunión del Consejo Presidencial en 2009. Regla 6.7 y el apéndice para el ajedrez 960. El siguiente enlace puede ver la versión en Ingles de los cambios sometidos. Los cambios de las leyes actuales están en texto en negrilla y aquellas a ser aprobadas por el Consejo Presidencial se destacan en el Texto. FIDE Leyes del Ajedrez 2009 (Versión en Ingles) Fuente: Noticias de la Federación Española de Ajedrez 09 de Enero de 2009 En la sección de información de interés del Comité Técnico de Arbitros de la Federación Española de Ajedrez (FEDA) ha puesto para su descarga la traducción de las Leyes del Ajedrez que fueron modificadas en el Congreso de la Federación Internacional que tuvo lugar en Dresde en noviembre de 2008. Leyes del Ajedrez (Versión en Español) FIDE Laws of Chess 2009 ACP News [Sat Jan 03rd, 18:12] The Laws of Chess were revised at the Dresden General Assembly. However, there are two parts that will need to be approved by the first Presidential Board meeting in 2009. Rule 6.7 and the Appendix for 960 Chess. These are highlighted in the text. However, in order that arbiters can be advised of the new Laws and also for any preliminary translation work to be done, we are forwarding the new Laws for your attention. Any changes made at the Presidential Board meeting will be advised within 7 days of the meeting. Changes from the current Laws are in bold text

Esta regla ha funcionado bien desde hace mucho tiempo. ¿Porqué cambiar esa regla?

Tras leer algunos de los cambios más significativos aceptados por los dirigentes de Fédération Internationale Des Echecs (FIDE) en Dresde, Alemania me han causado un poco de preocupación de lo poco práctico de estos cambios. En el mundo de ajedrez hay miles de cosas para mejorar en el plano económico y organizativo. Bien funcionaba la regla del retraso admisible de una hora.

Esta regla ha funcionado bien desde hace mucho tiempo. ¿Porqué cambiar esa regla? ¿Porqué estresar mas a los jugadores? Si bien es cierto que la tolerancia con el retraso es propia solo del ajedrez y que ofrecer la retransmisión de una partida en línea que no empieza porque un jugador llega tarde no es muy serio. ¿Ahora qué? Tendremos que salir para jugar la partida con media hora de reserva para evitar la pérdida de la partida por un posible retraso a causa del tráfico, una avería del vehículo, un accidente, o alguna otra causa de las que suceden todos los días. Cuando se aplique esta norma en nuestros torneos temo que veremos un aumento de partidas no jugadas. Imagínese llegar a tiempo, pero tu rival no, pues ya no juegas. Básicamente, seas tú o tu rival el que no llega a tiempo, ya se ha perdido esa mañana, tarde o velada. Si, te puedes dedicar a mirar partidas de otros, pero bueno, la mayoría de nosotros somos aficionados vamos a jugar nuestra partida y ver las de otros. Para solo ver partidas, para eso ya tenemos internet, que estamos muy cómodos en casa y podemos ver a los “mejores” del mundo. El quitar el tradicional límite de una hora que siempre hemos tenido, y cambiarlo por un límite de 0 minutos, es un tema preocupante, bastante a menudo, quien no ha llegado tarde por un local que le cuesta encontrar, tráfico, un accidente, una desperfecto mecánico u otra razón; “¿Y qué?”… tendrá uno dar media vuelta y a casita, que se perdido la partida. En todos los torneos no existe duda de que algún jugador llegará con un mínimo de entre 10 y 15 minutos tarde. Si estoy de acuerdo que los jugadores tendríamos que salir antes de casa o del trabajo pero quiero recordar que somos aficionados y tenemos obligaciones familiares que son más importantes que cualquier torneo de ajedrez. También puede afectar a muchos torneos ya que en Puerto Rico se depende de locales de terceros. ¿Cuántas veces se ha dado el caso de que no se puede entrar aún al local, pues le faltaban las llaves? ¿Cómo se aplicaría la regla en este caso, todavía no hayan puesto todos los tableros? ¿Pierden los tableros que no están puestos? Y mucho más absurda parece esa innovación si tener en cuenta que existen miles de cosas y aspectos en el ajedrez para mejorar (búsqueda de patrocinadores, los derechos de autor, el sistema para seleccionar jugadores a participar en la Olimpiadas de forma democrática y deportiva, un mínimo aceptable de premios y condiciones para los torneos y abiertos internacionales, sistema democrática de las condiciones a los participantes, control antidopaje, control "anti computador" , filosofía del papel de ajedrez en la sociedad moderna,... y un sinfín de otras cosas importantes) pero los "sabios" de FIDE pasan olímpicamente de todo eso por alto y deciden a "mejorar", o más bien estropear, lo muy poco que funciona bien. Me interesa saber sus comentarios sobre la aplicación de esta nueva regla en la Federación de Ajedrez de Puerto Rico.

Mas novedades - La Asamblea de la Fédération Internationale Des Echecs (FIDE)

La Asamblea de la Fédération Internationale Des Echecs (FIDE) acaba de aprobar, lo que hasta ahora era solo una recomendación de su dirección. A partir de 1 de julio de 2009 no dar la mano al oponente será sancionado con la perdida de la partida. El árbitro ante la petición del jugador, pedirá al oponente que le de la mano, si este persiste en su actitud, le dará la partida por perdida. La costumbre de dar la mano, está extendida a todas las culturas, aunque algunas tienen otras formas de saludarse. Dar la mano es un gesto de cortesía, pero cuando es obligatorio, puede dejar de tener esta interpretación. Otro cambio importante es que la FIDE acaba de legalizar, lo que de facto estaban ya haciendo algunos torneos, establecer en las reglas la abolición del acuerdo de tablas antes de un determinado número de movimientos o para toda la partida. La llamada regla Sofía, que con variaciones habían utilizado otros torneos como el Ciutat de Barcelona, a partir del 1 de julio de 2009 ya serán plenamente legales, los organizadores de torneos podrán poner en sus bases como se regula el acuerdo de tablas.

FIDE Congress 2008

Bartlomiej Macieja – Wed Dec 17th, 05:39 From Chess Base News -http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5094 During the recent FIDE Congress in Dresden several important topics have been discussed and several important decisions have been taken. As I had the opportunity to participate in meetings of some committees and commissions, the Executive Board, and the General Assembly, I have decided to prepare this small report with a few comments. Registration of FIDE FIDE Deputy Chairman Georgios Makropoulos officially informed that FIDE had never been registered and promised to "improve" the current situation. Obviously, it was a shocking news. New "Elite Grandmaster" title Several officials proposed to introduce a new title "Elite Grandmaster" (higher that "Grandmaster"), due to the enormous growth of the total number of Grandmasters. According to my statistics, the situation is not as obvious as it may look at the first glance, as the total number of rated players grows even more rapidly. Let's compare the total number of Grandmasters to the total number of rated players, as well as to the total number of players rated over 2200: 1972: 83 / 794 = 0.105 83 / 692 = 0.120 2008: 1158 / 96509 = 0.012 1158 / 21023 = 0.055 Relatively, there is less and less Grandmasters... Frequency of rating lists A decision was taken to publish rating lists every two months. K-factor (development coefficient) Publishing more frequently rating lists leads to an effective decrease of the development coefficient. To understand this effect it is enough to imagine a player rated 2500 playing one tournament a month. With 2 rating lists published yearly, if he wins 10 points in every tournament, his rating after half a year will be 2500+6*10=2560. If rating lists are published 4 times a year, after 3 months his rating becomes 2500+3*10=2530 so it gets more difficult for him to gain more rating points. After 3 more tournaments the player reaches the final rating only about 2500+3*10+3*6=2548. With 6 rating lists published yearly, the final rating of the player is only about 2500+2*10+2*7+2*5=2544. Obviously it is only an approximation, the exact values may slightly differ, however the effect is clear. It looks like FIDE officials "forgot" to increase the K-factor some years ago to compensate the effect of more frequent rating lists. Or they were not fully aware they should have changed the K-factor in order not to change the whole system. The increase of the K-factor is essential not for the reason to make the system more dynamic, but for the reason not to make the system less dynamic! Eventually, it has been decided to increase the value of the K-factor to K=20 + K=30. Rating floor The rating has been decreased from 1400 to 1200. Olympiad 2012 With +95-40 result (and one invalid vote) the organisation of the Chess Olympiad 2012 was granted to Istanbul (Turkey). The only opponent was Budva (Montenegro). Mobile phones According to the new rules it becomes possible to have mobile phones (or other electronic means of communication) in the playing venue, if they are completely switched off. 350-rule According to the present rules, a difference in rating of more than 350 points shall be counted for rating purposes as though it were a difference of 350 points. The rule played a very important role when rating changes were calculated based on the average rating of opponents. Nowadays, when all games are counted separately, it has lost its statistical value. There was a discussion if to leave it as it is or to abolish it completely, eventually a kind of compromise has been agreed and the value of 350 has been substituted by 400. Requirements for title norms The requirements have been basically increased, for instance to achieve a GM norm at least 33% of opponents must be GMs. Standardisation of time controls The following standard has been set for classical games: a) (G-90') + 30" b) (90'/40 + G-30') + 30" c) (100'/40 + 50'/20 + G-15') + 30" d) 120'/40 + G-30' e) 120'/40 + G-60' f) 120'/40 + 60'/20 + G-30' Tournaments, in which other time controls are used, shall not be taken into consideration for title purposes (GM, IM, WGM, WIM norms) starting from the 1st of July 2009. Coming late for a game The Rules and Tournament Regulations Committee proposed to add the following article to the FIDE Laws of Chess: "Any player who arrives at the chessboard after the start of the session shall lose the game, unless the arbiter decides otherwise. Thus the default time is 0 minutes. The rules of a competition may specify a different default time.". The proposal was accepted by the Executive Board and recommended for the General Assembly to be approved. The final decision was however postponed till the Presidential Board Meeting. A draw offer A very emotional discussion regarding a possibility to offer a draw took place during the Rules and Tournament Regulations Committee meeting. Eventually, the Committee decided to propose to add the following point to the FIDE Laws of Chess: "The rules of a competition may specify that players cannot agree to a draw in less than a specified number of moves or at all, without the consent of the arbiter." The majority of changes will come into effect starting from the 1st of July 2009. Best regards Bartlomiej Macieja Comentarios sobre el informe de la ACP sobre el Congreso de la FIDE Por Nick Faulks (Islas Bermudas) de Noticias Chess Base: http://www.chessbase.com/espanola/newsdetail2.asp?id=6694 Siempre sentí que era una vergüenza que la ACP, a la vez que se queja frecuentemente de la gestión del ajedrez de la FIDE (¡No siempre sin motivo!), escogiese no contribuir en los muchos comités en los que se pueden realizar cambios. Por lo tanto fue muy grato ver al GM Macieja acudir a diversas reuniones el mes pasado y plantear con entusiasmo sus puntos de vista y los de sus colegas. ¡La pérdida de la selección polaca fue nuestra ganancia! Leí con gran interés su resumen de lo sucedido en Dresde y me alegró que le diesen tanta importancia. Tengo algunos comentarios sobre eso y espero que quieran publicarlos. Por favor, tengan en cuenta que aunque estos pensamientos están influidos por mi pertenencia al Comité de Elo y Titulaciones, las opiniones que expreso son completamente personales. Nuevo título de "Gran Maestro de Elite" La comparación del número de GMs con la población con Elo superior a 2200 es de bastante poca utilidad. En 1972 la inmensa mayoría de los jugadores con suficiente fuerza de juego para estar entre 2200 y 2400 no tenía Elo sencillamente porque nunca habían jugado en una competición evaluada. Preferiría comparar el número de GMs con el de jugadores de cierta fuerza de juego, llamémosles "expertos". La población de GMs ha aumentado por 14 desde 1972, así que se nos pregunta si creemos que el número de "expertos" se ha incrementado por un factor aún mayor. No hay forma de comprobarlo, pero soy escéptico. Factor K (coeficiente de desarrollo) El GM Macieja está bastante en lo cierto en cuanto a que reducir el tiempo entre clasificaciones tiene el efecto de reducir el factor K, aunque no es él., como parece pensar, el primero que se dio cuenta de ello. No puedo justificar un efecto tan grande como él sugiere sin asumir una media de más de diez partidas evaluadas por mes, lo que parece alto, pero estoy de acuerdo en que, si todo lo demás se mantiene igual, debería garantizarse un incremento del 20% en el factor K en respuesta al cambio de dos listas anuales a cuatro y ahora a seis. Es importante el matiz de que todo lo demás se mantenga igual. El Comité de Titulaciones y Elo mantuvo un largo y creo que bien documentado debate sobre el factor K y se acordó que sería correcto un incremento significativo. Sin embargo, también se acordó que el asunto era complejo y que podía haber consecuencias imprevistas. Por lo tanto, ya que se dispone de los resultados de torneos jugados desde 2005 en un formato fácilmente manejable, la conclusión fue que debía abordarse una investigación histórica, para adoptar una decisión final el próximo año que estuviera cimentada en análisis sólidos. En vez de eso, la Asamblea General eligió aprobar la duplicación del factor. Por supuesto, estaban en su derecho, pero podemos esperar algunos resultados interesantes e imprevistos. Entre otras cosas sugiero que: (1) veremos como muchos jugadores traspasan la barrera de los 2800 y (2) los requisitos de Elo para los títulos de GM y MI serán irrelevantes. No digo que eso sean consecuencias malas, pero ¿son intencionadas o no? ¿Quién lo sabe? Si alguien duda del caos que puede organizarse con cambios radicales y no sometidos a prueba, no necesitan mirar más atrás de la Olimpiada de Dresde y su nuevo y "revolucionario" sistema suizo de emparejamiento. Normalización de los controles de tiempo Me dejó intrigado la conclusión de este debate. En esencia los únicos incrementos permitidos serán 0 o 30", incluso aunque cada uno de ellos tenga inconvenientes. Además, no se permitirá introducir un incremento solo para la fase final de la partida: siempre me dijeron que a los jugadores más destacados les gustaba este sistema, pero que los relojes no podían gestionarlo. Ahora que los nuevos relojes DGT tienen esa opción, ha sido derogada. Los problemas de un incremento cero son bien conocidos: pueden conducir a un sin sentido Rey + Alfil persiguiendo a un Rey + Caballo por todo el tablero hasta que caiga una bandera. Adviertan que ese comportamiento se convertirá en completamente racional si la tendencia a puntuar 3-1-0 se asienta. No obstante, si la FIDE y la ACP están unidas para ver esto como el avance del ajedrez, supongo que mi sitio no está en interponerme en el camino del progreso. El mayor problema con el incremento de 30" es que a pesar de haber sido forzado a jugar con él muchos años, a muchos jugadores aún lo les gusta. En parte puede que sea debido a que, al final de una partida larga, el tema del control de la vejiga puede ser crucial. Por estos motivos siempre he apoyado que debería establecerse la rutina de que la fase de muerte súbita de cualquier partida se jugase con 2" de incremento, pero eso ahora estará prohibido. Llegar tarde a una partida Es de vital importancia. Macieja informa que: "El Comité de Reglas y Normas para Torneos propuso añadir el siguiente artículo a las Leyes del Ajedrez: "Cualquier jugador que llegue tarde al tablero después del inicio de la partida perderá la partida a no ser que el árbitro decida otra cosa. Por lo tanto, el margen de cortesía es de 0 minutos. Las reglas de un torneo pueden determinar otro margen de cortesía". La propuesta fue aceptada por el Comité Ejecutivo y aprobada por la Asamblea General. La decisión final, sin embargo, fue aplazada hasta la reunión de la Junta Directiva" Creo que esa no es toda la historia. No pude estar presente en la Asamblea General, que coincidió con una ronda de la Olimpiada, pero me dijeron que la propuesta que el Consejo presidencial considerará es distinta de la descrita y enormemente controvertida. Sería interesante oír la impresión de alguien que hubiese estado allí. Una oferta de tablas Por supuesto, era necesario cambiar las reglas, ya que los organizadores de torneos han estado actuando como si el cambio ya estuviese hecho. Curiosamente, se observó en dos comités que la Olimpiada de Dresde incumplía claramente las Leyes del Ajedrez de la FIDE tal y como estaban, pero nadie pareció pensar que eso fuese importante.