7. 2013-I Expand Section 1 (Bond/Craver) - commentary only

That the following be added as the first paragraph of Section 1:

Quote:

---

Unless specified elsewhere in this Handbook, the regulations surrounding the play of chess in Canada are governed by the FIDE Handbook (http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html). These include, but are not limited to:

• The Laws of Chess (http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.ht...&view=category)
• Notation (see Laws of Chess)
• Blind Players (http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.ht...&view=category)
• Rapid (Active) and Blitz (Speed) Chess (see Laws of Chess Appendices)
• Pairing Rules for Swiss (http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.ht...&view=category)
• Pairing Rules for Round Robin (http://www.fide.com/component/handbo...&view=category) - Article 5
• Requirements and Guidelines for Important Events (http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.ht...&view=category)
• Rules of Play for Computer Chess (http://www.fide.com/component/handbo...&view=category)

As an exception to the above, the play of correspondence chess in Canada is governed by the Canadian Correspondence Chess Association (http://www.correspondencechess.com/ccca/).

---

There are also rules regarding eligibility of events for CFC rating in chapter 7 of the handbook:

All events rated Standard/Regular should:

1. use chess clocks
2. require both players to record moves
3. have time set for no less than game in 60 minutes per player (may include increments based on 60 moves) (CFC Handbook article 711)
4. have time controls and round times advertised in pre-event advertising and posted on organizer's website (CFC Handbook article 711)
5. have no more than 4 games per day
6. include the exact time control with the rating submission to the CFC


Also, there are CFC rating rules in the Handbook regarding games played on the internet - not intended to usurp "correspondence chess".

These items may or may not be important enough to be mentioned in your proposal, just thought I'd mention them.

There are CFC tournament Rules and the CFC Code of Ethics. Both belongs to the same section as the playing rules. Before the rewrite, the Tournaments Rules were mixed with the Laws of Chess. Nowadays, they are a separate document.

Is there a seconder to move an amendment to put the CFC Tournament Rules and the CFC Code of Ethics in the same section of the Handbook as the Laws of Chess and to put those two items in the table of contents?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pierre Dénommée

Is there a seconder to move an amendment to put the CFC Tournament Rules and the CFC Code of Ethics in the same section of the Handbook as the Laws of Chess and to put those two items in the table of contents?

---

I don't currently note a seconder for Pierre's proposal.

I'll be happy to second Pierre's proposal in January but do not wish to hold up consideration of this proposal.

What is the rationale for putting this in Section 1?

Section 1 has absolutely nothing to do with playing. Neither does Section 2, really.

This seems like something that could just be put in the table of contents (which doesn't require Governor vote I don't believe).

Just to makes thing clearer, the FIDE Laws of Chess states that

A member federation is free to introduce more detailed rules provided they:

• do not conflict in any way with the official FIDE Laws of Chess, and
• are limited to the territory of the federation concerned, and
• are not valid for any FIDE match, championship or qualifying event, or for a FIDE title or rating tournament.

The CFC Assembly of Governors did approve two sets of extra rules that applies to all CFC rated games which are not also FIDE rated.

The first extra rules are the CFC Tournament Rules. In theory, every arbiter in Canada must know them, but they are nowhere on the web site.

The second set of rules is the CFC Code of Ethics.

Why do we want to wait for trouble before making those documents accessible? The obligation to have a CFC membership for the CYCC vanished from the Handbook and we got in trouble. The members should have no difficulty finding all existing rules. Otherwise, we are just giving them an excuse to disregard the rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pierre Dénommée

There are CFC tournament Rules and the CFC Code of Ethics. Both belongs to the same section as the playing rules. Before the rewrite, the Tournaments Rules were mixed with the Laws of Chess. Nowadays, they are a separate document.

Is there a seconder to move an amendment to put the CFC Tournament Rules and the CFC Code of Ethics in the same section of the Handbook as the Laws of Chess and to put those two items in the table of contents?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Christopher Mallon

What is the rationale for putting this in Section 1?

---

The main interest in placing the text in Section 1 was to give it first billing. "General Information" doesn't seem to preclude the concept of including reference to the rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael von Keitz

The main interest in placing the text in Section 1 was to give it first billing. "General Information" doesn't seem to preclude the concept of including reference to the rules.

---

Perhaps not, but it's not consistent, plus it reads as being actual rules - stating the same thing in different places in the handbook could eventually lead to more out-of-sync rules.

All of the section structure will have to change soon anyway, so it's a little bit like that old deck chairs comment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Christopher Mallon

Perhaps not, but it's not consistent, plus it reads as being actual rules - stating the same thing in different places in the handbook could eventually lead to more out-of-sync rules.

---

I think the intent of the motion is contrary to what you're suggesting. In combination with 2013-L and its companion motions, the idea is to eliminate all content already covered in the FIDE Handbook, thereby eliminating redundancies in our own. The only reference to these rules would now be in Section 1, where the related sections of the Handbook currently in place would be eliminated. Not spreading the rules throughout the Handbook, but, instead, providing a compact statement at the beginning pointing the reader to the source materials. Future revisions of the Handbook as a whole are needed, yes, but this is meant as a first step.