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.

Very Serious Issue with Doping in Chess

The Doping Affair in Dresden - the missing continuation

ACP Board [Mon Mar 30th, 12:53]

The ACP Board is publishing the recent concern about the Doping affair in Dresden by GM Bartek Macieja.

The "Doping Affair" in Dresden - the missing continuation

Already some time has passed since the Decision of the FIDE Doping Hearing Panel regarding so-called "Ivanchuk case". I expected some obvious (for me) steps would follow that decision, however till now I haven't been able to find any information. I should admit I was very surprised that during the Olympiad in Dresden so much attention was brought to anti-doping tests, while far more important in chess anti-computer control didn't exist, although already in 2005 it was agreed between the ACP and FIDE that metal detectors would be used in all official FIDE events and strong sanctions against proven cheaters would be applied. No doubts the Olympiad is one of the most important official FIDE events. It is not my aim either to criticise or to support the decision of the Panel. There is no reason not to believe they took a correct decision. I can only say that as a player I am very glad I am still able to see and enjoy Vassily's art on a board. The main point of my letter is however different. 4 years earlier, in Calvia, I was an accidental witness of a completely different approach and an opposite verdict in very similar cases. Two players [Shaun Press (2070) from Papua New Guinea and Bobby Miller (unrated) from Bermuda] didn't perform anti-doping tests.

Shaun Press photo from ChessBase archive	Bobby Miller photo from Dresden 2008

The first huge difference is that in the case of Mr Shaun Press and Mr Bobby Miller the hearing took place immediately after the Olympiad, before they left the venue. In the case of GM Ivanchuk, the hearing took place with approximately 2 months delay. GM Ivanchuk was found innocent on the following bases: - procedural error: there was not a designated Doping Control Officer present at USA vs Ukraine match, - GM Ivanchuk failed to understand the instructions. I seriously doubt there were designated Doping Control Officers at Bermuda team match or Papua New Guinea team match in Calvia. It is under as big question if Mr Bobby Miller understood what all those people suddenly wanted from him, as how to beat GM Kramnik in a classical game in the Berlin Defence. Nevertheless, an unrated Mr Miller got a warning and all points he scored were cancelled, while Top-10 GM Ivanchuk was found innocent. Mr Shaun Press case was even more weird, as one member of the panel was a player he defeated earlier in the event! For an understandable only for FIDE reason it was not found to be a procedural error. It is worthy to notice that Mr Roberto Ferrer, who accompanied Mr Shaun Press as a lawyer during the hearing, found an enormous number of other procedural errors. Nevertheless, similarly to Mr Bobby Miller, Mr Shaun Press got a warning and all points he scored were cancelled. In both Calvia cases, the result of the vote among the Hearing Panel Members (Arthur Schuering, Dewperkash Gajadin, Klaus Deventer, Jonathan Speelman, Sergey Dolmatov) was 3:2 in favour of sanctions. You can easily guess yourself how two grandmasters voted and how three FIDE officials, including Mr Shaun Press' opponent. If there was a place for a joke, I would say I discovered a fantastic way for Poland to win the Olympiad - I would get into the right commission and disqualify all of my opponents. Unfortunately, I don't find the situation funny at all - different people in similar cases are treated in different ways. The prestige of FIDE among chess players is very low, mostly due to constant violation of basic rules, including internal FIDE rules. I believe it is a very good occasion to begin the process of rebuilding the trust. It can be achieved by showing that the same rules apply to all. Once GM Ivanchuk was found innocent, all sanctions against Mr Shaun Press and Mr Bobby Miller shall be officially annulled. Injustice done to one is a threat to all. (Montesquieu) There is one more thing which strikes me - the absence of logic. All points scored by Mr Shaun Press and Mr Bobby Miller during the Olympiad in Calvia were cancelled, as they were found guilty. However, the same games, with the unchanged results, were calculated by the same FIDE for ELO rating as nothing would have happened. Mr Bobby Miller even got his first ELO rating based on his result in Calvia. Is it a serious approach? Best regards Bartlomiej Macieja Sent to the ACP Board: 27.03.2009

Very Serious Issue with Doping in Chess

Source:Association of Chess Professionals Articles

Today 2 chess players contacted the ACP Board with similar serious stories about doping control in chess. Please, pay a special attention to the problem, because such stories can happen with any chess player

The ACP-ChessBase questionnaire – preliminary results

Source: ChessBase News

The ACP-ChessBase questionnaire – preliminary results 06.03.2009 – Three weeks ago the Association of Chess Professionals (ACP) and ChessBase sent out a poll to top chess players. Their answers kept coming in, with more expected soon. Full results will be presented soon. However, we have decided to send the following preliminary results to the FIDE Presidential Board, which is meeting in Istanbul from the 6-8th of March 2009. Figures and opinions.

The ACP-ChessBase questionnaire – preliminary results

By Olena Boytsun, ACP Board Member

On the 13th of February 2009 the Association of Chess Professionals (ACP) and ChessBase announced a poll they were conducting among top chess players. The preliminary results of the poll have been prepared for the attention of the FIDE Presidential Board, whose meeting is taking place in Istanbul on the 6-8th of March 2009. A more detailed report with a deep analysis of the poll results as well as players’ suggestions will be published in the course of this month.

The ACP Board had intended to present the poll results as well as some proposals for the improvement of chess management to the FIDE Presidential Board through the participation of an ACP Board representative in Istanbul. However, FIDE officials warned the ACP Board in writing that active participation in the FIDE PB was only possible under special circumstances. With regret the ACP Board decided not to send a representative to Istanbul to try to take part in the PB meeting. Therefore the following results are provided in written form.

The main aim of the ACP-ChessBase questionnaire was to understand the opinion of top chess players on the most important issues of their professional life. The poll was conducted by email in order to make sure that the answers genuinely came from the players surveyed. Criteria of participation were as follows: players with a rating 2690 or higher (on the January 2009 FIDE list), plus participants of the current cycle, plus some ex-world champions.

The following poll statistics are provided as of 05.03.2009. Poll results have been audited by the ACP Board and representatives of ChessBase simultaneously and independently, in order to assure the correctness of the results.

Despite the time frame (13.02.2009 – 05.03.2009) that was full of chess events, in which most of the chess professionals took part in, 22 players reacted to the questionnaire. 21 (twenty one) respondents sent back the questionnaire with their answers and suggestions. One (one) potential respondent declined in writing the proposition to participate in the poll.

Therefore, the preliminary poll results are based on the answers of 21 top grandmasters.

The questionnaire by itself can be found on ChessBase.com or the ACP web site.

13 respondents (61%) stated that the match is the best format for a World Championship final, while 5 grandmasters (24%) prefer a round robin or double round robin tournaments. 1 player believes that World Championship final should be a knock-out tournament. The respondents also shared their ideas, how the World Championship cycle should be organized. This will be published in the final report.

There is no clear result on what could be the best qualification system for the World Championship final. The majority of respondents (7 people, 33%) think that a round robin tournament is the best option. 6 players (29%) would prefer candidates matches. One should point out that during the evaluation of the answers to Question 2, if a player choose more than one variant and didn’t prefer A, B or C precisely, his answer was marked as D, and his opinion will be provided in a more detailed report. The answer D in most cases contains the variant of a round robin tournament with another supplement event.

Question 3 and Question 4 are about time controls that the respondents think are appropriate for World Championship and chess tournaments in general. 12 respondents (60%) think that the so called “Classical” time control is the most suitable for the World Championship. 1 respondent considered the rapid time control as the most efficient one.

However, unlike the World Championship time control, only 28% (6 people) think that the “classical” time control should be implemented in chess events in general. 10 grandmasters (47%) preferred the FIDE time control. 2 respondents didn’t clearly answer the question, specifying that all controls are possible for chess events. Therefore this answer option was added to the question.

90% of respondents (19 people) think that there should be a time increment starting from move 1. None is against any form of time increment. One respondent thinks that there should be an increment from move 40 and one player provided his opinion on the interdependence of time increment and time control.

The majority (13) of respondents (62%) agreed that “Decent dress” should be made obligatory during World Championship and top tournaments. 5 people pointed out that suit and tie should be obligatory. None was against any dress code.

Only 1 respondent believes that doping controls should be obligatory and comply with the regulations of the IOC. 8 people (38%) don’t see a necessity for doping controls, but would accept them, while other 8 players would accept doping controls if they are adapted specifically for chess. 4 respondents are against any doping controls in chess.

67% of respondents believe that the anti-computer cheating controls should be obligatory and made as tough as possible. 3 respondents (14%) don’t see a necessity in cheating controls, but would accept them. One respondent didn’t give a precise answer to the question and pointed out that a special study on the subject of anti-computer cheating controls should be provided.

Only one respondent believes that the player should automatically forfeit the game, if he is late for a game. 33% of players believe that either a financial or rating penalty should be the punishment for being late; another 33% (7 people) specified other options of punishment. 29% preferred not to have any penalty for being late for a game.

67% of respondents (14 people) believe that the current rating system is fine and there is no need for changes, while 33% suggested some changes in the rating system.

Since the question is important for the FIDE Presidential Board decisions, the more detailed overview is given to the Question 11.

47% of respondents clearly objected to any changes made to the current cycle. Some respondents already expressed their position and objected in public. For example, GM Boris Gelfand fully supported the views of GM Levon Aronian that the later expressed in his open letter (http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5059), published on the 6th of December 2008.

The opinion of GM Maxime Vachier-Lagrave is the following: "A WCC cycle should keep on until its end. Changes during a cycle are basically unfair for its participants, as it may change their conditions to qualify for the final of the WCC. Only in case a WCC cycle may collapse some changes may happen, but only after all the participants of the current cycle and FIDE have a meeting to decide exactly which changes."

GM Ernesto Inarkiev: “I believe that if we are going to have a long cycle with big sporting privileges for the Champion, than the question about changes will be raise all the time. Strong players who left the cycle will not want to go through a long qualification events in order to finally play the Champion, who can be on the same level as them. As a result, it will lead to lobbying for changes in the cycle. Not to make changes in the cycle in this case means to exclude a real challenger from the cycle for a long period of time, as well as the to refuse financial inflows. At the same time, the constant implementation of changes will not allow to build a normal stable system for the World Championship cycle. In my opinion, both variants are bad, and one has to choose the lesser of two evils.”

"Полагаю, что пока у нас будет длинный цикл с большими спортивными привилегиями для Чемпиона, то вопрос об изменениях будет возникать постоянно. Сильные игроки, выбывшие из цикла, не будут хотеть проходить длительный отбор, чтобы затем сыграть с Чемпионом, который по уровню игры вполне сопоставим с ними. В результате, будут лоббироваться изменения в цикле. Не вносить изменения в цикл в этом случае означает выключить реального претендента из борьбы на длительный срок, и отказ от финансовых вливаний, а постоянное внесение изменений не позволит создать нормальную стабильную систему розыгрыша первенства мира. На мой взгляд, оба варианта плохи, и приходится выбирать меньшее из зол."

29% of respondents (6 grandmasters) provided their view on the abrupt changes to the current cycle, having chose an open “other” option, therefore their answers are cited below.

GM Alexei Shirov pointed out that “changes are needed because the Grand Prix is on its way to collapsing”. GM Shirov suggested the optimal system of the World Championship cycle, which will be provided in detail in the final report to follow.

GM Rustam Kasimdzhanov expressed his opinion as the following: “I find any changes made during the cycle generally wrong; but in order to make any judgments upon a current situation one would have to see the whole picture (link to financial crisis , for instance) , and I do not think I have any sufficient knowledge to do so at the moment.“

GM Vladimir Kramnik beleived that: “I think that the new system, which includes candidates tournament, is a better one, because it serves the main goal of a qualification, which is to define the strongest challenger for the title. But, of course, it should have been done before the beginning of the cycle. In general ,the whole plan of the WC cycle must be well thought out in advance.”

GM Vugar Gashimov stressed that: “There should be only one format of WCC for a long time - not change it every year”.

GM Etienne Bacrot pointed out that: “The current system is way too complicated anyway, so that changes may be generally welcome. But of course, FIDE should never have changed rules during the cycle, as they did in Dresden.”

GM Michael Adams expressed the following opinion: “It is never acceptable to make changes to a cycle in progress. In recent times, the formats have also been changed extremely regularly which is also not very desirable. The best way to resolve the situation is to come up with a fixed format which can be used for several cycles. I am opposed to privileges and seedings for players in general and would either avoid these completely or keep them to an absolute minimum (only for the World Champion).”

5 players would accept the changes to the current cycle, if they lead to increasing of the overall prize fund of the cycle.

12 players are comfortable with the condition to play the tournament in a soundproof glass cabin in a public square. One grandmaster rejected the idea, while 19% are uncomfortable with the idea, but would accept it, if it benefits chess. The answer variant “Other” was added to the answer options, since 4 respondents gave their extended view on the question.

The ACP and ChessBase thank all the respondents for their participation and hope that this first project will be a perfect base for future improvement and increased efficiency of the chess management system. A more detailed report on the ACP-ChessBase questionnaire with a deeper analysis of the poll results will be published on the website of the partners during the month of March 2009.

05.03.2009

---

2009 © the Association of Chess Professionals | www.chess-players.org

2009 © ChessBase GmbH | www.chessbase.com

For any questions concerning the ACP-Chessbase questionnaire, please, don’t hesitate to contact Olena Boytsun at strategical.development@gmail.com.

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 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.