Motions for ICU agm: reorganising the Armstrong?

Tim Harding

The ICU have announced the date of the agm in September and called for motions and nominations which must reach the Secretary not later than 15 August. See:

https://www.icu.ie/articles/784

In the hope of avoiding the kind of chaos which nearly ruined last season's Armstrong and O'Hanlon competitions, I believe that ICU should move towards taking control of the top divisions of the Leinster Leagues. Of course the LCU has some autonomy but at present the Armstrong, Heidenfeld and Ennis are FIDE-rated, and this is done through the ICU.

So there should be some way to achieve leverage, maybe through a motion that ICU will not submit results for FIDE rating unless the competitions conform (in practice as well as theory) with FIDE regulations. Or at least that ICU set up a working group to come up with proposals for how the leagues should be run which will then be negotiated with the LCU in time to make desirable changes for 2019/20 onwards.

I refer here to FIDE rating regulations which are at https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=197&view=article

The relevant clauses are
0.3 All arbiters of a FIDE rated tournament shall be licensed otherwise the tournament shall not
4.Duration of the Tournament:
4.11
Leagues may be rated which last for a period greater than 90 days.
4.13
For tournaments lasting more than 90 days, interim results must be reported on a monthly basis.

This surely means that:
a) All matches should be controlled by an arbiter (IA, FA or national arbiter of which we should soon have several more) who is present during play; so far as I can see no matches conform to this. Only the last rounds are played together at one venue but even then there is no qualified arbiter.

b) All results must be submitted to the ICU rating officer in a timely manner so that they can be reported to FIDE on schedule (which didn't happen last season on several occasions).

Ideally I think we should be moving towards making the Armstrong a national club competition played at set venues on weekends like most major leagues in Europe are nowadays. The Armstrong is after all one of the very oldest leagues in the world (started in the 1880s) and should not be a Mickey-Mouse affair where games are played in advance or postponed randomly, where matches almost never start at the scheduled time, and where all kinds of abuses of FIDE laws of chess may go uncorrected.

Moreover, where even the winners and runners-up of divisions are put in doubt by idiosyncratic interpretations of league rules by an individual who frankly should no longer be in office after the "Luke Scott affair" last April.

Clearly we are not going to see any major changes made for the 2018/19 season but I would like to see some debate here, and a motion set down for the agm, which would work towards the ICU taking control at least of the Armstrong for the 2019/20 season, and also to have better arrangements for any other divisions that are to be FIDE rated.

Will others please now pick up this ball and run with it?

sodacat11

I have already submitted the following motion.
That the Irish Championship be strictly limited to players with published ratings of 1900 or more on either the ICU or FIDE lists in any preceding month of the same calendar year as the Championship.
That gives players seven months preceding the championship in which to reach a 1900 rating.If a player can't even do that then they have no business asking to play in the championship.
I hope that my proposal will get some support.

cdeb

I don't see that the Armstrong comes under the remit of the ICU, who have enough on their plate.

At the LCU AGM, it was suggested that the FIDE-rating of the leagues may no longer be practicable, which would resolve the issues there.

My understanding on the Luke Scott affair is that Trinity hardly covered themselves in glory in their appeal either. I think all parties need to take something away from it - the LCU have elected a committee to read through the rules and, in particular, draft wordings which would help negate the ambiguities which caused issues last season. This is, I think, better than simply passing motions proposed by clubs because often they'll be well-meant but badly-phrased, or which may cause unnoticed contradictions in other rules.

But clubs need to cop onto themselves too.

sodacat - I think that motion is quite clear, and I would support it. But - and this comes back to the contradictions issue I just noted! - I think it's meaningless while the wild cards option is still there. I voted for the wild cards at the time, as did many others on either side of the 1900 barrier, but I think to get the full effect of what you want, you should put in an addendum to remove that option. Let's discuss it at least.

Retd.LoyolaCpt

sodacat11 wrote: »

I have already submitted the following motion.
That the Irish Championship be strictly limited to players with published ratings of 1900 or more on either the ICU or FIDE lists in any preceding month of the same calendar year as the Championship.
That gives players seven months preceding the championship in which to reach a 1900 rating.If a player can't even do that then they have no business asking to play in the championship.
I hope that my proposal will get some support.

I'd probably support something like this - may want to include a line proposing that this trumps all other motions on Irish Championship player eligibility in the past. Unless you think former champions should also be included - which I believe you also support.

sodacat11

No problem with former champions getting in. If my motion was passed I presume it would make the wild card rule obsolete.

Tim Harding

I am broadly in agreement with sodacat's proposal.

cdeb - thanks for comments.
The best solution I think would be to have an ICU-run national Armstrong played on weekends, including the Ulster and Munster champion clubs, but the main issue apart from a suitable venue(s) could be finding weekends that don't clash with other events.

Then I would be happy for LCU to run the lower divisions as non-FIDE rated events but with necessary improvements to rules and common (mal)practices.

mikhail

We already have a national club championships, which is generally poorly attended. If the ICU wants to expand that competition, great, but I don't see how they could co-opt the Armstrong without the LCU clubs voting for it.

Tim Harding

mikhail wrote: »

We already have a national club championships, which is generally poorly attended. If the ICU wants to expand that competition, great, but I don't see how they could co-opt the Armstrong without the LCU clubs voting for it.

The present national club championship is a fairly unrepresentative Swiss, not an all-play-all league which is what I would like to see. Yes, clubs (from the top two divisions anyway) would have to agree to the change, but a national league would be a more appropriate event to decide Irish qualifiers for the European Club Cup.

The Armstrong Cup was first competed for before many years prior to the Leinster Chess Union being created.

Retd.LoyolaCpt

Can't say I get this one, Tim.

The ICU respects the LCU's autonomy first and foremost - they run leagues which account for some 700 ICU members. They have done an excellent job of providing an ever expanding event which is probably the main reason a larger percentage of ICU members have FIDE ratings, and at the other end, have divisions which allow juniors to transition from schools chess to adult events - I would not like to upset that balance.

Second, the ICU would not want to run the Armstrong. Tristan, Gerry and co put in an ungodly amount of hours into running it and the ICU doesn't have the type of resources to take on another event like it. I'm generally all for taking on more work - but this would put me over the edge of sanity.

Third, if you have a problem with decisions made by a committee, you bring it up at the AGM, replace board members, put people into vacancies, vote in new laws etc. Personally, I think the LCU were a little understaffed last year and the new board is improved with new faces who engage eagerly with the leagues - to join the controllers who are similarly engaged but may not sit in on appeals etc. The LCU continues to expand its junior events, have a new charity (ish) wing and had a fairly seamless switch to north/south lower divisions. I don't think its reasonable to expect the ICU to do a better job of something its never done before than the LCU which has done it for years.

Fourth, the LCU should be given a little more time to adapt to new FIDE rules. True, they've had a good while but it is extremely difficult to write laws which change a product which has been working and flourishing for many years. The LCU must consider its members (clubs) and write rules appropriately, not rushed.

Fifth, the NCC has been in a period of expansion to those who say otherwise. This year was held in Connaught per the rules and had a new (possibly joint) record attendance for an NCC held there with 8 teams despite accommodation issues and a change of venue as a result. I suspect there'll be 14-16 teams next year when it will be held in Dublin - and then 8-10 when it goes to Munster in 2020. Stripping out B teams, the maximum number of teams that could possibly qualify for the NCC is only about 30 so having 14-16 is really not bad all things considered. If teams are given no alternative, they MAY be more likely to travel but why would anyone want to take away options for people to play chess on a weekly basis. I certainly prefer a provincial set-up to this proposal.

Sixth, the Armstrong (etc) is generally not in breach of rules 4.11 or 4.13 - results are submitted once they are confirmed by an LCU official. This is a fairly important check as its tricky to change a rated game once submitted to FIDE. This could be quicker but again: volunteers - we do our best.


The onus is probably jointly on the ICU, clubs, MCU and LCU to run more arbiter courses and on members/clubs to do more to get a member or two there who can be the designated arbiter for their home matches. I also don't think that FIDE does nearly enough in this regard - they should have lowered their rates (I was quoted 3k for an offline course within Ireland, and 2k for an online course "within Ireland") and run 10 times the number of online courses for lower cost when they knew these rules were coming in. It is unfair to blame the LCU in this regard when clubs should share some of the burden of meeting these new rules. I will be advertising any English language Internet arbiter courses very loudly if and when they arise over the next few months.

zeitnot

Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »

sodacat11 wrote: »

I have already submitted the following motion.
That the Irish Championship be strictly limited to players with published ratings of 1900 or more on either the ICU or FIDE lists in any preceding month of the same calendar year as the Championship.
That gives players seven months preceding the championship in which to reach a 1900 rating.If a player can't even do that then they have no business asking to play in the championship.
I hope that my proposal will get some support.

I'd probably support something like this - may want to include a line proposing that this trumps all other motions on Irish Championship player eligibility in the past. Unless you think former champions should also be included - which I believe you also support.

Sounds good in principle. But
a. “Published” ratings, so do live ones count?
b. ICU monthly lists have multiple versions, ending in a “final” one. 1900+ on any list OK?
c. Would a UCU rating do?
d. Perhaps one exception to make an even number of players (after entries have otherwise closed, say)?
e. Trumps all prior motions on eligibility *except the IRL-registered one*.
f. Can the ICU set a higher rating, or have an all-play-all? Seems slightly unclear under your wording.

sodacat11

Anyone interested in seconding my motion about the Irish Ch rating floor?

pawntof4

sodacat11 wrote: »

Anyone interested in seconding my motion about the Irish Ch rating floor?

Ill do it

sodacat11

pawntof4 wrote: »

Ill do it

Thanks. Maybe we could have a chat if you are in Stillorgan over the next nine days.