Rule for foreign country flags

I disagree - time out should not be encouraged or rewarded. If you believe your opponent is a cheat, don't time out - report it.

If you have real world distractions then set the vacation setting - don't time out.

Having extra flags( more than the rules) should not be encouraged and should be punished.

Rik i see that you being against of a time out of a fair player(fair team) automatically you are in favor  and you are protecting the unfair player
(unfair team that has extra flags, more than the rules admit)

We know your expectations Rik that you want more extraflags in this competition because you have in your team a lot of player with different flag and we know that you are protecting everything it's related with this case. But you go to far being in favor to the team and player that breaks the rules and being against the fair team and player that times out.

The player that times out is not breaking the rules. The player that is the 5th extra flag in the first  10 tables is breaking the rule. SO, according to your opinion we should be in favor of the one who is breaking the rule and against the one who is fair?

I totally disagree.

Everyone who is intested in this problem knows how it is difficult to close a cheater and how reluctantly chess.com acts in connection with cheat reports. 

And I don't mean reporting suspicions, I mean tens of games and hundreds of moves analyzed for each person, all above any human levels - even most flagrant cheats play for months before they are closed. 

I myself currently play - let me count - 13 games vs 8 obvious cheaters and it is only by delaying them as much as possible that I can hope to save some points.

I also don't see why timeouting should be penalized at the level of competition - It is a personal matter of the timeouter and maybe his team - and noone else's.

As Marignon and Adriano81 wrote before, it will be make really difficult the competition if we start to check that all national flags players were born, live, work or have a real connection with the city for which they're playing.

Your idea about foreign flags doesn't obviously represent the real situation of the cities. For example, there are some spanish or italian cities with more Romanians than in Romania; or Berlin it's the 3rd biggest "turkish" city in the world.

Adriano81 commented (post #16):

"if London is mega city with many french people they can choose english flag as the one they are living in, but if they feel they have more connection with the city they born in, for example Marseille they remain with french flag."

It's not so easy as you posted. I come from Spain, play for Spain in WL and EL, that's why I keep my national flag. I live in Berlin for years and playing for this city and now I'm one of the admins of the group; I don't feel me German (that's why I don't change my flag and play for Germany) but Ich bin auch ein Berliner und fühle mich so. (but I'm a Berliner too and feel me like that).

Maybe it can sound contradictory, I know, but it's the truth and I'm not an exception in this situation. There are cities, for example, Madrid (my born town) when you go/stay there, you automatically belong to it.

Anastasakis wrote (post #17):

"(international flag can count for 1/2 flag so 2 international flags can count for 1 foreign flag).

I think that - for the WCL - we can siplify like this: "1 non-national flag for the 10 first tables and no more than 2 for each 10 following tables."

We can make CWC more intresting by this rule: "2 non-national flags per each 10 boards"

I think international flags should be counted as a normal foreign flag anyway. At the end in the praxis, the proposed rule will be practically applied on the same cases as right now, because one player with international flag on 3rd board and another with foreign one on 9th board cannot play together without any penalty (1,5>1). So no sense to create a new article that it doesn't bring anything more.

About the difference between CWC and WCL I disagree too. For many players/admins who don't follow regularly the forums can be confused. So it's better what it will be decided about this rule, to apply for both competitions.

Concerning to the post #20, I agree. Cheat or extra flags penalties cannot be comparable with timeout. It means the player, who was in timeout, should get some points. Both 2 points? I'm not sure, because I think he must have a small penalty too. Maybe he can get just one point, but then the recalculation will be more complicated as Marignon posted. We can discuss how it's better, but this rule should be changed.

About extra flags, I agree with boby. If a team wants to play with more foreign players as the definitive rule says (e.g. as tactic), it's allowed but with some penalty. This team should start the match with -2 points for each extra flag board. Bottom boards then would need to do 2,5 points more than the opponent in order that this tactic works.

There are very rare occasions when time out is unavoidable - but really the points won should be about victory in the game of chess. To win, you need to play.

However this foum is about the flags - this is unrelated to time out.

(In reality I guess I should be encouraging you to field a team of TOuters, then there will be more points for my team?!)

I agree withe this

1 non-national flag for the 10 first tables and no more than 2 for each 10 following tables."

For all leagues. To create separate rules for different competitions is unnecessary complication,makes it harder to follow the rules.

"(international flag can count for 1/2 flag so 2 international flags can count for 1 foreign flag).

I disagree. This complication is unnecessary. 

Now let's make changes and discuss more important things. 

i agree with Marignon in both of the 2 subjects :)))

i am with the existing rule.

the rules must be clear and implemented strictly.

the only question;

what if a player changes flag and plays for another city?

If we are going to retain the rule - then can we have a simple %.

I really don't have the time to count through every 10 tables, remove a few players with the "wrong" flags only for players ratings to change and some from the next 10 tables to move up or down and then not be in compliance with this crazy complicated rule.

25% in the whole match should be fine - so no more than 2 in top 8 tables.

i don't agree with Rik. I am with the existing rule. No more than 1 in the first 10 tables and no more than 2 in each of the next 10 tables.

Why are the top 10 tables / players so important?

If Anand and Carlsen move to London I would have an Indian flag and Norwegian flag in my top 10 - why should 1 of them be penalised if they both want to play?

Why not have 20% - so 2 in top 10, 2 in next 10 tables and no more than 6 in the top 30 tables etc etc

So far only 1 match has been shown to be a problem because of the foreign flags - so this rule is guarding against a problem which doesn't exist...

If you say the rule against the foreign flags is for a problem which doesn.t exist why are you insisting with your proposal? I say that we didn.t have problems until now because of the existence of the rules.

1 - why have rules that serve no purpose

2 - if a purpose can be demonstrated, can the rule be formulated more simply instead of most complex / time consuming to administer and in the present case mutually contradictory clauses!

3 - why have a rule which restricts participation and penalises cosmopolitan / global cities in favour of mono-cultural ones

4 - the rule in no way stops the packing of a city with everyone from that nation pretending that they live there - for example everyone with the England could sign up for London and 'pretend' they live here. [Just for the record we don't recruit that way!]. I am pretty sure other cities do do that and that seems to be condoned in general and in fact encouraged by this rule. Exception of course for the Vatican, Singapore, San Marino and a few other states where the city is the country!

rikldn The rule is not "crazy complicated" - all boards in a match are numbered and seing if you fit within the limit is much easier than counting the %. 

Team Moscow also has several high-rated people with foreign flags and only one of them can play in each WCL match - and I consider that it is fair. 

However I admit that "1 per 1st 10 boards and 2 per each next 10" is a complication. 

I'd stick with "1 per each 10". You suggest "2 per each 10", which is also good.  

Great comments everybody and a lively discussion!

Can I suggest a new wording:

1) Every team should play each match with the majority of their players flying the flag of the country where the city is located. Foreign flagged players are permitted but no more than 2 foreign flagged players for every 10 tables in the match.

2) If there are more foreign flags, all of extra matches will be declared as not played if the player won them and lost if they lost or drew.

3) In the situation where the opponent's account is closed or times out then neither player receives any points.

Looking back at the comments:

Part 1 - supported by Rasht, Berlin, Moscow, London and Istanbul with Bucharest against

Part 2 - is it fair to say we all support this part as it is no change from the existing rule?

Part 3 - supported by London and Istanbul with Moscow against.

Have I interpreted comments correctly?

Feel free to comment further...

Against all points is team Bucharest.

in first point i expressed my desire before.

in the second point also i exprressed my desire before: If there are more foreign flags all of extra matches will have to  be declared lost by the unfair team and winned by the fair team(in all cases:win, lost or draw of the extra flag)

in the third point which have a lot in common with the 2nd point i am against.  If the extra flag player's account is closed or times outthe fair player of the fair team should win the points.

@bobi - I appreciate your position, but I think we are at either extreme and we will need to compromise to get any changes through.

Can I just ask - have any of Bucharest's opponents actually had players with foreign flags? Otherwise your version of part 2 is quite draconian when we are all (most!) supposed to be in the EU and moving around to different countries...

Yes we have opponents with foreign flags.

Moving around to different countries everybody is doing. And maybe some of that people will play also for the city where they travel. But they can play in the unofficial games.

I have one question for you Rik? If you will travel Bucharest you will play for team Bucharest? If you would have to choose between London and Bucharest what city you will represent, knowing that only for one country you can play in the official competitions?

Your kind of compromises that you propose make some teams have less chances.

London is a very big city, just if you count just the british citizens. London i think is one of the biggest city from this competition. Having this advantage is not enough for you? Besides this you also want more, having also the players that visit or love London?

I think Rik, to be honest, you should be thankfull with what you have, which is a lot comparing with a lot of the cities from this competition.

My advice is looking to recruit between the english citizens from London which are a lot. Be fair-play. Play with  sportsmanship. Look ahead finding the fair ways to play in this competition.

I have a lot of foreign friends that visited Bucharest and they love it and if i ask them they will play for team Bucharest, but not even once i thought at this matter.

The soul of this competition is in the name of the competition: City- World Cities League. This is a competition between cities not between a city against more countries.

Kind regards,

A message for all admins of the countries and for the organizers of this competition:  The more extra flags you decide to be in the competition rules, the more unfair this competition will be.

I think as it is now, the extra flags rule is ok, being at it's maximum limit. 1 extra flag from first 10 tables, and 2 for each  next 10 tables are more than ok. Having 5 extra flags from 30 tables is more than ok.