FIDE Laws of Chess on the CFC web site

[Aris Marghetis]

In terms of man-hours the quickest solution would be to remove the obsolete laws from the CFC Handbook and provide a link to the current ones at the FIDE site (http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook?id=124&view=article); with just a little more work the FIDE laws could be cut and pasted into the CFC Handbook. It also wouldn't be a bad idea to have the major changes pointed out on the CFC site or in the Newsletter, e.g.

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/geurt129.pdf or
http://chess.bc.ca/Bulletins/BCCFBulletin166.pdf

I believe Stephen has incisively cut to what seems to be the best solution :

Simply exclude laws from the CFC Handbook, and link to laws at FIDE.com!

The only problem with cut-and-pasting into the CFC Handbook is we could just find ourselves in the same situation the next time the rules change!

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Aris:

Today I have written V-P Stijn de Kerpel on this issue as follows:

Hi Stijn:

I’m not sure who to write on this, since I don’t know who on the executive is responsible for the updating of the Handbook – I do know Maurice has told me he will report directly to Eric on his Handbook updating. But you are dealing with office matters, and so I’ll try you first.

An issue has arisen on the CFC Chess Forum – apparently the Laws of Chess on the CFC website are out of date ( you can go to the Board to see the posts ). There was a motion a few years ago as follows:

Motion 2005-26: Moved by Pierre Dénommée / Michael Barron:
That the CFC Handbook be amended to replace, on July 1st 2005, the actual Laws of Chess by the new Laws of Chess that have been adopted at the FIDE AGM and that will come in force on July 1st 2005.

Votes Yes (10)
Votes No (2)
Abstentions (3)

I don’t know if the rules have been out of date since that motion. I don’t know if it was ever amended as set out by the motion.

Now I do know that national federations can adapt the FIDE Laws of Chess, so long as they aren’t used in FIDE rated tournaments. And I believe in the past, CFC has changed some of the rules for here in Canada. But the suggestion has been made, that CFC, instead of updating the rules, simply deletes the rules and puts a link to the FIDE Laws of Chess site (http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook?id=124&view=article) . I do not know if this is a good idea or not – I am not an arbiter and don’t know if Canada wants some rules to be different for here in Canada.

But the issue is who will take charge of this file, and get someone to look into it and come up with an answer as to what should be done on the CFC website, and then determine who will do it.

Do you have any thoughts on this, and how it should be handled?

Bob

[Stephen Wright]

FYI: the FIDE Laws currently in the CFC Handbook are the 2005 ones, so yes, motion 2005-26 was fulfilled. It used to be that Canadian interpretations and options were included in the Handbook, but they are not currently - what is there now is just the 2005 FIDE laws. So the main thing that needs to happen is an update/link to the 2009 FIDE laws (they are allowed to change only every four years) which came into effect last July 1st. If we wish to add Canadian options, that can always be done at a later date.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Stephen:

Thanks for answering a couple of my outstanding questions. We'll see how Stijn wants to handle the updating of the Handbook. I like your suggestion of a simple link to FIDE. As you say, Canadian options can always be added subsequently.

I'd be interested in knowing what " Canadian options " might be wanted, if anyone has any in mind.

Bob

Bob

[Kerry Liles]

Hi Stephen:

Thanks for answering a couple of my outstanding questions. We'll see how Stijn wants to handle the updating of the Handbook. I like your suggestion of a simple link to FIDE. As you say, Canadian options can always be added subsequently.

I'd be interested in knowing what " Canadian options " might be wanted, if anyone has any in mind.

Bob

Bob

One useful "Canadian" option would be to ignore the rule that defaults a player if they arrive 1 nanosecond* late. Starting the clock at the appointed game start time has always been good: a variable time penalty for being
tardy.

*I'm astounded no one who was forfeited has challenged the accuracy of the determination of the actual 'start of play' time... according to what time reference? Who has access to that time reference - ie: how can a player who is running late, check the chief arbiter's watch for example?

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

One useful "Canadian" option would be to ignore the rule that defaults a player if they arrive 1 nanosecond* late.

This "late" rule is not absolute. The TD can announce in advance what will be the "norm" (1 hour, 15 min, etc.)

[Aris Marghetis]

This "late" rule is not absolute. The TD can announce in advance what will be the "norm" (1 hour, 15 min, etc.)

I agree with Kerry's intent, but I would prefer absolutely no special Canadian conditions, as then we sign ourselves for documentation maintenance in the future. Aside from the start time thing, is there anything else we could need?

And for the start time thing, I believe Egidijus is on the right track, just let the TD control that. He/she could choose zero time, 60 minutes, or other.

My personal preference is to have no late time whatsoever, start the clock, and when the person runs out of time, it's over like any other loss on time!

[Steve Douglas]

I agree with Kerry's intent, but I would prefer absolutely no special Canadian conditions, as then we sign ourselves for documentation maintenance in the future. Aside from the start time thing, is there anything else we could need?

And for the start time thing, I believe Egidijus is on the right track, just let the TD control that. He/she could choose zero time, 60 minutes, or other.

My personal preference is to have no late time whatsoever, start the clock, and when the person runs out of time, it's over like any other loss on time!

I strongly disagree in several areas. You previously made reference to players "learning the rules" via consulting the CFC rules or the FIDE rules. That's nonsense. TD's may learn the specifics of the rules that way, but not players. Players usually learn about this sort of thing from TD's making rulings they don't like at the time.

The issue of the 1-nanosecond forfeit rule is a very good case in point as to why there should be a separate set of "Canadian" rules or interpretations. Why should it be necessary for every Tournament Director to announce that what was standard, is still standard, even though it's now non-standard?

Simply providing a link allows the CFC to abdicate its role with respect to governing chess in Canada. It allows the ostrich to dig its head even further into the sand and then when some whacko rule arrives at the FIDE level it is automatically in place in Canadian chess.

Steve

[Pierre Dénommée]

FYI: the FIDE Laws currently in the CFC Handbook are the 2005 ones, so yes, motion 2005-26 was fulfilled. It used to be that Canadian interpretations and options were included in the Handbook, but they are not currently - what is there now is just the 2005 FIDE laws. So the main thing that needs to happen is an update/link to the 2009 FIDE laws (they are allowed to change only every four years) which came into effect last July 1st. If we wish to add Canadian options, that can always be done at a later date.

Canadian interpretations have been brought inline with the FIDE 2005 Laws. If they are not in the CFC web site, the Montreal Chess League still has the French translation inherited from the FQSÉ : http://echecsmontreal.org/spip/spip.php?article56 .

[Pierre Dénommée]

One useful "Canadian" option would be to ignore the rule that defaults a player if they arrive 1 nanosecond* late.

It is still at 1h in the CFC Tournament rules, with a reference to the FIDE Laws that is no longer valid. France has chosen 30 minutes as the default forfeit loss time and the CFC is free to use whatever it wants.