01-03-2012, 09:25 PM
Surely any rule for one FIDE member state (and the odd few non-state FIDE members like the UK home countries) should be the same?
As there is no universal FIDE "grandparent" rule, why should Scotland want to have one, thereby creating a non-level playing field?
Is the representative FIDE rule still: by "birth" in a member FIDE country (state or non-state member) OR 3 year residence in that member country?
If so, why change it? ... indeed it seems unlikely that any member state / non-state should or perhaps even legally can depart from that in any way UNLESS with the explicit and prior permission of FIDE.
Before any change, if any, is envisaged, CS should surely discuss the grounds fully with FIDE and clarify that CS has the powers within FIDE rules to go ahead. That strikes me as the only principled course.
If CS tries to adopt representative criteria that are different (and in the case of the "grandparent" rule apparently privileged), won't it run the risk of irritating FIDE and / or other FIDE members (or worse, inviting reprisals, not excluding votes to end separate membership of the UK non-state members by a small number of FIDE state members who, in the past, have long wished to find an excuse to end what they see as an unwarranted UK privilege)?
Puzzled and a little concerned ... happy to be corrected if I've got any facts wrong, of course!
I think, though I'd have to check, that FIDE's "birth" criterion may have been slackly drafted in terms of "citizenship", which of course has no meaning to FIDE's non-state members. But it's fairly clear that Scotland shouldn't attempt to take advantage of slack drafting just because we have no Scottish "citizens". Indeed FIDE might be happy to have their drafting anomaly corrected ... I'm sure "birth" is implied by their use of "citizenship", including in particular for its non-state members.
As there is no universal FIDE "grandparent" rule, why should Scotland want to have one, thereby creating a non-level playing field?
Is the representative FIDE rule still: by "birth" in a member FIDE country (state or non-state member) OR 3 year residence in that member country?
If so, why change it? ... indeed it seems unlikely that any member state / non-state should or perhaps even legally can depart from that in any way UNLESS with the explicit and prior permission of FIDE.
Before any change, if any, is envisaged, CS should surely discuss the grounds fully with FIDE and clarify that CS has the powers within FIDE rules to go ahead. That strikes me as the only principled course.
If CS tries to adopt representative criteria that are different (and in the case of the "grandparent" rule apparently privileged), won't it run the risk of irritating FIDE and / or other FIDE members (or worse, inviting reprisals, not excluding votes to end separate membership of the UK non-state members by a small number of FIDE state members who, in the past, have long wished to find an excuse to end what they see as an unwarranted UK privilege)?
Puzzled and a little concerned ... happy to be corrected if I've got any facts wrong, of course!
I think, though I'd have to check, that FIDE's "birth" criterion may have been slackly drafted in terms of "citizenship", which of course has no meaning to FIDE's non-state members. But it's fairly clear that Scotland shouldn't attempt to take advantage of slack drafting just because we have no Scottish "citizens". Indeed FIDE might be happy to have their drafting anomaly corrected ... I'm sure "birth" is implied by their use of "citizenship", including in particular for its non-state members.