andyburnett Wrote:Let's say the Winter Festival advertises 6 months in advance that their tournament in Alva Street will run as a FIDE-rated event. 3 weeks before the event a disabled player enters who cannot access Edinburgh CC. Where do they play if not in Alva Street?
Motion Point 4 Wrote:4. A circular shall be sent out when announcing the competition. This circular shall
contain an entry form with the usual points and questions. It shall ask whether any potential competitor has an impairment that will require special circumstances. The competitor has to inform the organisers about the special circumstances as soon as possible before the start of the event. The less advance notice given to the organiser, the less the competitor can expect cooperation.
Critical part in bold Andy B.
Good post from John, whose essence I gather is to re-affirm the point that it is the law of the land that is paramount - not FIDE rules/recommendations/guidelines. But, we cannot ignore the latter any more than we can the former. The issue therefore is how to reconcile the two.
Well, I cannot believe that organisers at present act outside the law. The FIDE rules/recommendations/guidelines are not commandments/edicts that have the force of law. It is a requirement that we implement them in order to continue to enjoy our grades to be FIDE rated and - hopefully - earn international titles or stage events like the recent Commonwealth Chess Championships. But, these guidelines are not confined to Scotland but have to be applied globally. Some degree of compromise is inescapable if the guidelines are to be adapted to local conditions, including compliance with the law.
I assume that the real area of concern is associated with access, especially wheelchair access. Public buildings are already required to comply - I believe. Private estate is not - unless a licence is needed? For instance, if a commercial venture is being operated: B & B, guest-house, say, may not be permitted to refuse clients on religious or ‘cultural’ grounds. I don’t see how there can be any difficulties with access to premises that are publicly owned/operated such as schools or municipal buildings. Scottish Championships are one-off events that take place in a different venue each year but always one that affords wheelchair access. Some venues that are private can also be used but always with wheelchair access; a large tennis or other sports club, for instance. Cost could be a factor but not in this context, which is oriented to FIDE rules/guidelines? Perhaps, but how about affordability or availability of premises?
Edinburgh Chess Club? Consider this. Until quite recently, the Melville Bridge Club was located in Grosvenor Crescent, Edinburgh. A lovely area that is part of the New Town. It has now relocated to near the Edinburgh Zoo and has renamed itself the New Melville Bridge Club. Why? For the simple reason that the committee knew it was sitting on a ‘goldmine’. Even before I moved away from Edinburgh 15 years ago, the committee was considering and planning whether it should realise the wealth inherent in its property and move to cheaper premises. But, unlike the Edinburgh CC, the MBC owned its premises from ‘roof to basement’. Most premises in that street have been sub-divided into flats, but the MBC remained intact So, it did have the flexibility and wherewithal to move.
I doubt that applies to Edinburgh CC. First, there is the history. Anyone who has been there will appreciate that. No one, I imagine, would want to lose its associations with the past. (It could even be a ‘tourist attraction’ for visiting chess players on Open Doors Day!) Second, the value/wealth inherent in the property may not be comparable with the BMC. Under these circumstances why should the Edinburgh CC want to move? To comply with these new FIDE guidelines? Questionable. Could Edinburgh CC install a lift? A ramp? Well, there could be planning issues. Alva Street is also in the New Town. Would Edinburgh City Council allow a ramp to be built? (The New Town is a conservation area?) Would other owners in ‘the stair’ agree (i) to such measures, or (ii) share the costs? Perhaps Edinburgh CC could plead a special case and be allowed to comply with the new FIDE guidelines insofar as is practicable. Personally, I don’t see a problem with that. I repeat, the new FIDE guidelines are not compulsory.
Surely, similar consideration apply to disabled players? Yes, it’s right to enable their participation, but do the FIDE guidelines go so far as to give the right to dictate the facilities on offer? A human right? Questionable.
So, I’m afraid that I do not see ‘the threat’ to Chess in Scotland in quite the same light as some do. Surely, FIDE’s intention is to instil the spirit rather than the letter of its guidelines, if this would mean driving organisers away from chess . Such an outcome would be self-defeating and contrary to FIDE principles, which are to popularise, not persecute.
PS Good to hear from you, John!
Sorry, I didn’t see the other posts that have since appeared before drafting this.
G
"The problem here is that organisers often plan up to a year in advance Stevie. Players tend to enter about a day in advance!
Let's say the Winter Festival advertises 6 months in advance that their tournament in Alva Street will run as a FIDE-rated event. 3 weeks before the event a disabled player enters who cannot access Edinburgh CC. Where do they play if not in Alva Street?
Organisers therefore have to plan as though there would be 1 or more disabled entrants whose requirements must be met (within reason) in order for the event to be FIDE-rated. And if this can't be done satisfactorily? What then?"
Let me deal with this point by point Andy
1/The problem here is that organisers often plan up to a year in advance Stevie. Players tend to enter about a day in advance! The point about the onus on the disabled player comes into play Andy. The organisers must be given a reasonable amount of time. The guidelines make that clear Andy.
2/ Let's say the Winter Festival advertises 6 months in advance that their tournament in Alva Street will run as a FIDE-rated event. 3 weeks before the event a disabled player enters who cannot access Edinburgh CC. Where do they play if not in Alva Street? That would be a matter for the for the organisers. 3 weeks would be reasonable enough time for arrangements to be made to help the disabled player
3/ Organisers therefore have to plan as though there would be 1 or more disabled entrants whose requirements must be met (within reason) in order for the event to be FIDE-rated. And if this can't be done satisfactorily? What then?" This already happens anyway so organisers already have experience of dealing with disabled entrants. So what's the problem?
" The less advance notice given to the organiser, the less the competitor can expect cooperation."
David Deary's point is most important and is one I agree with.
I have re-read this motion twice today and nowhere in it have I seen anything or even a tenuous link suggesting chess clubs would have to close, that congresses would stop, that CS grading events would stop and to suggest otherwise is scaremongering and perhaps even irresponsible. The two Johns & George have made some very informed posts and I would suggest all read them and actually read the motion. (I'm still not convinced several members on this thread have based on their posts)
As for the wording of the motion it is a carbon copy of FIDE's guidelines for disabled players:
http://www.fide.com/component/content/ar...ayers.html. These have been tailored, tweaked, voted upon and agreed upon by FIDE’s 150+ member federations. For FIDE rated events these guidelines are in effect so organisers of FIDE rated events in Scotland need to work within them.
To reaffirm what Andy Howie presented earlier, there are three options for this motion:
Quote:1. They agree with the guidelines and will enforce for Chess Scotland events
2. They agree with the guidelines and will recommend for Chess Scotland events
3. They reject the guidelines completely with respect to Chess Scotland Event
I could live with options 1 or 2 but option 3 would be a complete disaster for Chess Scotland as an organisation and chess in Scotland more widely. Chess is in the great position where it can cater for people from every walk of life, irrespective of class, ethnicity, gender, disability etc. and that is something we should all be proud of. As the FIDE motto goes
"Gens Una Sumus" : We are one people – don’t forget that ideal.
David deary Wrote:could live with options 1 or 2 but option 3 would be a complete disaster for Chess Scotland as an organisation and chess in Scotland more widely
to paraphrase david I could live with option 2 or 3 but I feel option 1 would be a disaster. Perhaps we could all live with option 2?
I am also differentiating between fide events and non-FIDE CS events. I am sympathetic with all organisers but I am only commenting on non-Fide CS events such as weekend congresses, league tournaments National CS events etc. I gather that FIDE events guidelines have already been ratified and must be followed. I wonder how the SNCL will work with desks 3M apart next year. As the guidelines have already been ratified by FIDE, there is no room for compromise this year or turning a blind eye.
Ian,
The word used is should not must a small but important difference
Ian
I don't agree that the Guidelines have to applied letter by letter. That would be dogmatic and much too restrictive. The 'three metres' is to be taken with a pinch of salt. How many organisers could afford such spaciousness and remain economic/affordable?
What we do need is an agreed, consolidated list of what constitute Chess Scotland events under which the new FIDE guidelines would be 'enforceable'.
Ianbrownlee Wrote:As the guidelines have already been ratified by FIDE, there is no room for compromise this year or turning a blind eye.
I don't agree with that. It smacks of 'defeatism'. Not a quality I would ascribe to you!!
George
George Murphy Wrote:What we do need is an agreed, consolidated list of what constitute Chess Scotland events under which the new FIDE guidelines would be 'enforceable'.
I think the CS events are the Nancy Elder, Spens, Scottish, MacIsaac etc I don't think the Scottish is FIDE rated in any section but I could be wrong. Regional leagues and most congresses are neither FIDE nor CS apart from the ones already mentioned. As I've said before it's only the CS events that I think are up for discussion- FIDE events are a done deal, and at the moment regional leagues and non-FIDE local congresses are not affected at all. The tricky one is the SNCL which is not CS although Division 1 is FIDE rated which in turn makes the entire venue subject to FIDE rules and guidelines
George Murphy Wrote:I don't agree with that. It smacks of 'defeatism'. Not a quality I would ascribe to you!!
you're right George. If I was defeatist I would have given up long ago
I've re-read this entire thread, and the 'guidelines' from FIDE and our CS motion from Stevie and Andy H, and am still none the wiser as to what is best :-\ Does anyone fancy summarising the pros and cons? :-o
David D,
As you say this motion is a carbon copy of Fide.
On page 2 of this thread, Stevie Hilton wrote....
"In regards to FIDE rated events, if a disabled player was to enter such an event, and they could not provide alternative accommodation in the case of the original venue being unsuitable, then that event cannot be rated by FIDE,"