Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 84
  1. #46
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,543
    Yes when organisers/arbiters ask me to register a tournament they need to ensure they inform me of all arbiters.
    If after a tournament is registered and the arbiters need to be changed then they need to do so ASAP but certainly no later than when they send me the results for FIDE rating.

    That said there is cleary a responsibility on the part of the norm seeking arbiter to check the FIDE website to ensure their name appears in the tournament registration at some stage (the earlier the better) before the tournament ends.
    The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.

  2. #47
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,385
    IA application submitted for FA Brian Jones.

  3. #48
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,385
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    IA application submitted for FA Brian Jones.
    One norm rejected so not yet.

  4. #49
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    897
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    One norm rejected so not yet.
    Kevin,

    What norm was rejected? Everything seems ok to me.

    lost

  5. #50
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,385
    Quote Originally Posted by lost View Post
    Kevin,

    What norm was rejected? Everything seems ok to me.

    lost
    Guam International. I assume they deemed it to be not a national championship or equivalent. I was rather dubious about whether they would accept it myself.
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 17-09-2015 at 08:25 AM.

  6. #51
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    897
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    Guam International. I assume they deemed it to be not a national championship or equivalent. I was rather dubious about whether they would accept it myself.
    Norm would have been rejected on the basis there was not enough titled players for norm chances and/or National Championship.

    lost

  7. #52
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,385
    Quote Originally Posted by lost View Post
    Norm would have been rejected on the basis there was not enough titled players for norm chances and/or National Championship.
    Yes I am not clear on what kind of National Championship, if any, Guam actually has, and therefore whether the Guam International is effectively a "championship" or not. Some time after the event, FIDE brought in (or were bringing in) a requirement that a box be checked in event registration to say which events held this status.

  8. #53
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    897
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    Yes I am not clear on what kind of National Championship, if any, Guam actually has, and therefore whether the Guam International is effectively a "championship" or not. Some time after the event, FIDE brought in (or were bringing in) a requirement that a box be checked in event registration to say which events held this status.
    Kevin,

    This is the case. For such tournaments they should just be listed as the National Championship. This saves a lot of work for the rating officer and also the organiser when having to give norms for arbiters. That's why it is important for organisers to give as much information as possible to the rating officer.

    I think I stressed this enough in my email to you. Also, the arbiters have been registered on the FIDE website as per the email as well.

    lost

  9. #54
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,073
    In regards to the Guam International for National Championship criteria is that Guam is not a country, but is an organised, unincorporated territory of the United States. Therefore, similar to other islands with similar status and issues, I would imagine that fide have ruled that the event is not a national championship as per the IA regulations, which state the a) The final of the National Individual (adult) Championship (maximum two norms). The final in this case, I would imagine, would be the US Championship.

    Also, for National Championship status, the event would have to have lengthy history, with previous winners and prestige, not just a one off type event.

    So, if fide have ruled in this manner, then it would need to fall into the more standard criteria for fide title events.

  10. #55
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,385
    Quote Originally Posted by Garvinator View Post
    In regards to the Guam International for National Championship criteria is that Guam is not a country, but is an organised, unincorporated territory of the United States. Therefore, similar to other islands with similar status and issues, I would imagine that fide have ruled that the event is not a national championship as per the IA regulations, which state the a) The final of the National Individual (adult) Championship (maximum two norms). The final in this case, I would imagine, would be the US Championship.
    Thankyou, that would very likely explain it! The very obvious fact that a FIDE federation isn't necessarily also a nation (so a federation's championship doesn't automatically qualify) never occurred to me as an issue here - if it did I wouldn't have bothered submitting that norm.

    Also, for National Championship status, the event would have to have lengthy history, with previous winners and prestige, not just a one off type event.
    I don't think that's actually a requirement so long as the federation registers something with the box ticked for National Champs. There may have been norms from inaugural national championships in the past. (Also the Guam event has now been held twice.)

  11. #56
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,073
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    Thankyou, that would very likely explain it! The very obvious fact that a FIDE federation isn't necessarily also a nation (so a federation's championship doesn't automatically qualify) never occurred to me as an issue here - if it did I wouldn't have bothered submitting that norm.

    I don't think that's actually a requirement so long as the federation registers something with the box ticked for National Champs. There may have been norms from inaugural national championships in the past. (Also the Guam event has now been held twice.)
    Looking at the regulations and the field for the US Championship, it was a 12 player round robin, so there was no place for any special qualifiers, such as Guam or other island winners. Therefore, there was no opportunity for this event to be a qualification event to the final event as I stated earlier.

    So things might not be as clear as they seemed 24 hours ago. Guam is not a country and is regarded as part of the United States, but the winner of their 'championship' can not enter the US Championship, then should that not mean that the event that is held is regarded as the 'final' and so would be the final championship for that island, since the organising federation is not allowing entry to the highest placed local US player.

    Is it possible that as the event was held on US soil, so to speak, that the event, and norms (player and arbiter) must be registered through the United States, rather than through Australia?

    I take it no official reason has been given for the declining of the IA norm? Which seems strange.

  12. #57
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,385
    Quote Originally Posted by Garvinator View Post
    Is it possible that as the event was held on US soil, so to speak, that the event, and norms (player and arbiter) must be registered through the United States, rather than through Australia?

    I take it no official reason has been given for the declining of the IA norm? Which seems strange.
    No, they just said it wasn't valid for a norm and didn't say why.

    Norms don't have to be registered through any particular federation and I've found FIDE isn't fussed whether forms are authenticated by the federation where the event took place or by the federation of the applicant.

    As for the other bit I assume that if there was a very strong player in Guam they could gain entry to the US Champs via some method other than being champion of Guam.

  13. #58
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,073
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    No, they just said it wasn't valid for a norm and didn't say why.
    Norms don't have to be registered through any particular federation and I've found FIDE isn't fussed whether forms are authenticated by the federation where the event took place or by the federation of the applicant.
    As for the other bit I assume that if there was a very strong player in Guam they could gain entry to the US Champs via some method other than being champion of Guam.
    Having just seen the field: http://chess-results.com/tnr180968.aspx?lan=1 I can see why this was rejected. I do think it is a mis-management of process though that when an arbiter title norm is rejected, no explanation is offered. Nothing is learnt by not offering an explanation, and how can someone appeal if they do not know the reasons for why it was rejected.

    We have assumed it was rejected because of condition A, but also it does not meet two other minimum criteria either:
    c) International tournaments where FIDE title norms for players are possible.
    d) International FIDE rated chess events with at least 100 players, at least 30% FIDE rated players, and at least seven rounds (maximum one norm).

  14. #59
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,385
    Quote Originally Posted by Garvinator View Post
    Having just seen the field: http://chess-results.com/tnr180968.aspx?lan=1 I can see why this was rejected.
    The norm was for the 2013 Guam event not 2015, but the 2013 event was weaker. Field strength isn't an issue: if something is a National Champs then it is eligible.

    I do think it is a mis-management of process though that when an arbiter title norm is rejected, no explanation is offered. Nothing is learnt by not offering an explanation, and how can someone appeal if they do not know the reasons for why it was rejected.
    I could easily ask and get an explanation. However, I think it is up to the applicant to make sure if they are submitting an unusual event as a norm, that it is eligible. So I don't intend doing so. In any case I think it is obvious: they decided it was not a National Champs therefore it did not meet any criterion.

    Sometimes the explanations are in the minutes too.

    We have assumed it was rejected because of condition A, but also it does not meet two other minimum criteria either:
    c) International tournaments where FIDE title norms for players are possible.
    d) International FIDE rated chess events with at least 100 players, at least 30% FIDE rated players, and at least seven rounds (maximum one norm).
    An event only needs to meet one of those criteria. It was completely obvious it did not meet c and d and therefore A was the only way it could have been accepted.

  15. #60
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,385
    Note for those applying for Arbiter titles for the next FIDE Congress PB Meeting that I will not be able to process any applications between Feb 1-8 and Feb 15-20 so please send applications before the end of Feb or between Feb 9-14 if possible.

    In general Arbiter title applications should be sent to me as soon as the arbiter has completed all their norms as this reduces the risk of the ACF being billed for submitting an application less than 60 days prior to a PB meeting.

    FA application submitted for Chris Zuccala.
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 26-01-2016 at 09:52 PM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 42
    Last Post: 23-12-2017, 06:21 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 19-10-2015, 01:13 PM
  3. Applying 6.10
    By Oepty in forum Arbiters' Corner
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 11-09-2006, 05:45 PM
  4. Amended registration date
    By News Bot in forum 2006 ACF Chess Grand Prix
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 31-10-2005, 02:01 PM
  5. New regulations for Arbiter titles
    By Oepty in forum Arbiters' Corner
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 14-04-2005, 06:07 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •