2022 FIDE Congress, Presidency and Presidential Election

[Lighty]

I'm a bit ambivalent about this one. The effects of the bye are generally not on the score of the player who gets it but the player who plays them, especially in a small tournament. For instance in an event of, say, 17 players a player seeded around 4 starts off against number 12 and then (assuming they win) gets number 17, thereby potentially going to 2/2 without raising much of a sweat. Eliminating that effect is good, but on the other hand a player who unexpectedly drops to the bottom is denied a game to start catching up and given only a half-point in lieu.

Also there is maybe a philosophical issue that a player whose opponent fails to appear gets a full point for a forfeit whereas one who isn't given an opponent gets only a half-point in what is functionally the same circumstance.

I always justified the full point bye in that they were denied the chance to play for a full point, so it was a compensatory measure; I still maintain this position. I also don't believe a forfeit win is the same btw, as one player does receive 0 points to balance out the forfeit win.

I do get the half point deal, especially in light of the expected score data... just conflicted I guess.

[MichaelBaron]

Cheripov ticket has withdrawn from the presidential election citing health reasons. Of the other three only Dvorkovich is campaigning actively and visibly at the Congress to this point.

and our African friend who was the first one to stand against Dvorkovich is now happy citing that he supports Dvorkovich . What a gameshow.

[Kevin Bonham]

Eliminating that effect is good, but on the other hand a player who unexpectedly drops to the bottom is denied a game to start catching up and given only a half-point in lieu.

That said if the player is strong enough to catch up and accurately rated, it is unlikely they will drop to the bottom (at least not while still in contention for a decent result.) On the other hand a player who is actually top half strength but unrated and seeded at the bottom could well be disadvantaged.

[Kevin Bonham]

Qualification Commission yesterday saw a lot of objections to the new rule that title norms must include one from a Swiss with at least 40 players and an average rating of 2000+. The rule will be reviewed (I suggested drop 40 to 30).

Concerning the problem of outdated rapid/blitz ratings that are too low, it looks like QC will implement a system where if a player's rapid/blitz rating is more than 100 points below their standard, it is moved up to 100 points below. QC are not enthused about this change but have been told to take action on the issue. There was also support from the floor for setting a player's blitz and rapid ratings to their classic ratings if they have no rapid or blitz games, rather than calling them unrated

It looks like from Jan 2023 FIDE may bring in expiring free direct junior titles for junior events. The title would expire at age 21.

QC was marred by (I) QC officials having to keep leaving for the venue (90 minutes away) (ii) very long-winded microphone-hogging contributions from a few speakers raising issues they have raised a lot before.

[Kevin Bonham]

A few interesting discussions about possible future changes in Rules commission:

* It seems Rules is in favour of limiting draw offers such that a player cannot offer a draw more than twice without their opponent having offered a draw in the meantime.

* There is currently a discussion about whether a player whose flag falls when the position is such that following the touchmove rule will lead to a position where the opponent cannot checkmate them should get a draw but it looks like the room is against it (and so is the arbiters commission)

* There is support for changing the illegal move penalty for Rapid to one minute.

[Craig_Hall]

Qualification Commission yesterday saw a lot of objections to the new rule that title norms must include one from a Swiss with at least 40 players and an average rating of 2000+. The rule will be reviewed (I suggested drop 40 to 30).

A sensible suggestion I think. I've done some analysis on this for NZ after the rule was published, and NZ would struggle to regularly organise Swiss tournaments with 40 players averaging 2000+ (even NZ Congress), but we could manage 30+.

[Craig_Hall]

A few interesting discussions about possible future changes in Rules commission:

* It seems Rules is in favour of limiting draw offers such that a player cannot offer a draw more than twice without their opponent having offered a draw in the meantime.

* There is currently a discussion about whether a player whose flag falls when the position is such that following the touchmove rule will lead to a position where the opponent cannot checkmate them should get a draw but it looks like the room is against it (and so is the arbiters commission)

* There is support for changing the illegal move penalty for Rapid to one minute.

Restricting draw offers in the Laws strikes me as mildly impractical at least some of the time but maybe that solution is better than current state of repeated draw offers having to be shut down by arbiters.

The second point is an interesting discussion. I personally have no problem with it being a draw since the only time that ever happens in practice is if the move being made (but not yet made in terms of the piece being released) will end the game immediately or capture the opponent's last non-King piece, and all possible moves by the touched piece will have one of those results. I think I've seen it in person maybe once or twice in 20+ years as an arbiter (a local club rapid before FIDE rapid ratings existed in which a player started to move a pawn, ran out of time before releasing the pawn, and then the players realised the only legal move with the touched pawn was checkmate - was ruled a draw). On the other hand, there's a reasonable interpretation that a legal move is defined by Art. 3, and touch move is Art. 4, so a legal series of moves only refers to legal in terms of Art. 3. A ruling either way couldn't hurt even if it's just in the Arbiters Manual. Seems like a waste of space to put in the Laws specifically unless it's just a clarification that legal series of moves only refers to Art. 3.

[Kevin Bonham]

A sensible suggestion I think. I've done some analysis on this for NZ after the rule was published, and NZ would struggle to regularly organise Swiss tournaments with 40 players averaging 2000+ (even NZ Congress), but we could manage 30+.

I especially had in mind the Australian Closed Championships (if we ever manage to hold such a tournament again) where to meet this rule we would often have to add a bunch of 2000-ish players who wouldn't otherwise qualify. Hard to see how that would make a norm performance more legitimate - it would just make it harder to achieve. I think a lot of countries with a modest chess presence would be affected. Dodgy norm round robins is mainly a Europe problem; unfortunately the solutions that are adopted are often Eurocentric; this has been a theme in a few meetings.

[MichaelBaron]

I especially had in mind the Australian Closed Championships (if we ever manage to hold such a tournament again) where to meet this rule we would often have to add a bunch of 2000-ish players who wouldn't otherwise qualify. Hard to see how that would make a norm performance more legitimate - it would just make it harder to achieve. I think a lot of countries with a modest chess presence would be affected. Dodgy norm round robins is mainly a Europe problem; unfortunately the solutions that are adopted are often Eurocentric; this has been a theme in a few meetings.

The problem with so these round-robins is not even a format (inviting old GMs who are well beyond their prime) but with the fact that games have been sold in those events left and right.

[Craig_Hall]

Eurocentric solutions to often European problems is unfortunately nothing new.

[Kevin Bonham]

The Oceania Zone presidency election resulted in a 3-3 tie between Jamie Kenmure and Shaun Press. The tie will be resolved at the Asian Continental meeting scheduled for the UAE on, I kid you not, December 25.

Present and voting: Aus, NZ, Fiji, PNG, Guam, Palau. Not present: Solomon Islands and Nauru.

[Bill Gletsos]

Kouatly has withdrawn from the presidential election.
Voting now in progress.

[Kevin Bonham]

After an entertaining presentation including video endorsements for Wilkinson from Usain Bolt and Chris Gayle, Kouatly/Wilkinson withdrew citing insufficient support (Kouatly's decision, Wilkinson still wanted to run). So the vote is Baryshpolets vs Dvorkovich. The Baryshpolets/Nielsen presentation was almost all attacks on Dvorkovich over Ukraine and the Dvorkovich/Anand presentation was almost all this-is-what-we've-done, this-is-what-we'll do type stuff with only a very brief reply re Russia.

[Bill Gletsos]

Dvorkevich wins 157-16.
There was 1 invalid vote and 5 abstentions.

[Patrick Byrom]

Dvorkevich wins 157-16. There was 1 invalid vote and 5 abstentions.

I thought it would have been a lot closer, even though Baryshpolets wasn't a very strong candidate.