ICCF CONGRESS 2003
Ostrava, Czech Republic
11th to 18th October 2003

The ICCF Congress 2003, in conjunction with meetings of the ICCF Presidium, Commissioners, and Executive Board, took place in the Hotel Atom, Ostrava, Czech Republic from 11th to 18th October 2003.

The Congress was arranged and hosted by the Czech Correspondence Chess Association.

Participants of the Congress, and accompanying families and friends, were offered an excellent programme of events, including an excursion to the town of Olomouc and a special visit to Krakow, in Poland.  There was also a programme for ladies and families provided by the hosts.

There was the traditional ICCF Blitz Tournament, a Simultaneous exhibition by GM M. Vokac and an OTB chess match against players from Chess Club Jäkl Karviná.

Congress participants (memberships of Commissions are listed in Appendix A)

N.R. Anil Kumar (IND) as delegate
Farit G. Balabaev (KAZ)
Dr. Fritz Baumbach (GER) as delegate
Witold Bielecki (POL) as delegate with proxy for Croatia and New Zealand
Gerhard Binder (GER) as ICCF Ratings Commissioner
Raymond Boger (NOR)
Alan P. Borwell (SCO) as Honorary Member, as delegation member and as ICCF President
Matej Botta (SVK) as delegation member
Iván Bottlik (HUN) as delegate
Heikki Brusila (FIN) as delegate
Osvaldo Buraschi (ARG)
Dr. Jaromír Canibal (CZE) as delegate
Santiago Cardoso Contreras (MEX) as delegate
Carlos Cranbourne (ARG) as ICCF Zonal Director (Latin America)
Jonas Dahlgren (SWE) as delegation member
Libor Daněk (CZE) as delegation member
Svatopluk Doubek (CZE) as delegation member
Ruth Ann Fay (USA) as delegation member and as deputy for ICCF Zonal Director (North America / Pacific)
Donato Guerrini (ITA) as delegation member
Carlos Flores Gutiérrez (ESP) as delegation member and as ICCF Treasurer
Artis Gaujens (LAT) as delegate
Sergey Grodzensky (RUS) as delegate
Olavi Halme (FIN) as delegation member
Timothy D. Harding (IRL) as delegate with proxy for Japan
Pedro F. Hegoburu (ARG) as ICCF Marketing Director and as Acting ICCF General Secretary
Grayling V. Hill (USA) as ICCF Executive Officer
Ilja Hristov (BUL) as delegate
Vladislav Hýbl (CZE) as delegation member
Evgeny Karelin (RUS) as delegation member
Martin Kevický (SVK) as delegation member
Everdinand Knol (RSA) as delegate
Alfonsas Kupsys (LTU) as delegation member
Ervin Liebert (EST) as delegate
Morten Lilleøren (NOR)
Patrizia Limoli (ITA) as delegation member
Chris Lüers (GER) as delegation member and as ICCF Email Tournament Commissioner
Dmitry Lybin (BLR) as delegate
Iain Mackintosh (SCO) as delegation member
Peter Marczell (SVK) as delegation member
Gianni Mastrojeni (ITA) as delegate
Vladimir Matsukevich (BLR) as delegation member
Josep Mercadal Benejam (ESP) as delegate with proxy for Nicaragua
Miroslav Michálek (CZE) as delegation member
Ing. Josef Mrkvička (CZE) as delegation member and as ICCF Title Tournaments Commissioner
Adil Murzaliev (KAZ) as delegate
Zdenek Nývlt (CZE) as delegation member
Davide Orsenigo (ITA) as delegation member
Armando Pérez Pérez (CUB) as delegate with proxy for Venezuela and Ecuador
Søren Peschardt (DEN) as delegate with proxy for Norway
Pavol Polakovič (SVK) as delegate with proxy for Turkey
George D. Pyrich (SCO) as delegate and as ICCF Qualifications Commissioner
Evelin Radosztics (AUT) as delegation member and as ICCF Webmaster
Gerhard Radosztics (AUT) as delegate with proxy for Slovenia
Alan J.C. Rawlings (ENG) as delegate with proxy for Portugal and Canada
Nol van 't Riet (NED) as Honorary Member and delegate
Francois Riva (LUX) as delegate
Andrew Robertshaw (ENG) as delegation member
Marijonas Rocius (LTU) as delegate
Merike Rõtova (EST) as delegation member
Éric Ruch (FRA) as delegate
Maurizio Sampieri (ITA) as delegation member
Mohamed Samraoui (ALG) as ICCF Zonal Director (Africa/Asia)
Hendrik B. Sarink (NED) as delegation member and as ICCF Auditor
Fedir Savchur (UKR) as delegate
Stanislav Škerlík (SVK) as delegation member
Per Söderberg (SWE) as delegate with proxy for Israel and Iceland
Achim Soltau (GER) as delegation member
Gian-Maria Tani (ITA) as delegation member and as ICCF World Tournament Office Commissioner
Luz Marina Tinjaca' Ramírez (ITA) as delegation member and as ICCF Assistant Webmaster (web tables)
Héctor R. Tepper (ARG) as delegate with proxy for Uruguay
Guillermo F. Toro Solis de Ovando (CHI) as delegate with proxy for Brazil and Guatemala
Georg Walker (SUI) as delegate and as ICCF Assistant Treasurer
Ragnar Wikman (FIN) as Honorary Member, as delegation member and as ICCF Deputy President (Rules)
Prof. Max Zavanelli (USA) as delegate with proxy for Hong Kong and Australia

Opening the Congress, ICCF President, Alan P. Borwell (SCO) referred to the only previous occasion when an ICCF meeting had been held in the Czech Republic in 1966, when the ICCF Presidium met in Prague (then Czechoslovakia).  At that time, the ICCF General Secretary was Dr. Bohuslav Lukáš (CZE), who served ICCF in that important position for nearly 30 years.

He also informed Congress that in 1973, a rather special tradition had been started with meetings in Poland at 10 year intervals and he was delighted that the hosts had arranged a special visit to Krakow (POL), during the 2003 ICCF Congress.

Since its origins in the 1880s, there had been many fine performances by Czech players and teams in ICCF title tournaments and the President highlighted both individual and team achievements, in his address to Congress.

The President paid tribute to the memories of all CC friends who had died since the Seixal 2002 Congress, including Haresh Samtani, ICCF delegate for India (AICCF) and former Ukraine delegate, Ms. Elena Salnikova.

Delegates stood in silence to the memory of all departed CC friends.

The ICCF President provided some further background to his decision to retire, expressing the hope that all the important developments currently in progress, would be brought to early and successful conclusions.

He then focused on some key issues, which he considered required urgent attention:-

1. ICCF delegates should try to look at the ”bigger picture” of correspondence chess, rather than taking narrow national, commercial or personal perspectives.  A real vision was required to look beyond existing horizons. Relationships between member federations and ICCF needed review, particularly financial/entry fee arrangements.

2. ICCF should be prepared to consider partnerships with other organisations which have compatible objectives and which could not undermine ICCF’s relationships with international CC players and member Federations or countries or erode its unique position as the World authority for official CC titles, ratings, etc. ICCF must always have effective control of its tournaments, systems and databases.

3. ICCF should always endeavour to provide opportunities for players of all standards, to participate in individual and team events, according to their personal choice of postal, Email or webserver, methods of transmission.  The arrangements for future events, including title tournaments, required harmonisation of all three methods of play.

4. Much more urgency and all year round activity was required by ICCF Commissions, especially for issues such as rules or guidelines reviewing, where problems had been identified.  Well considered proposals were required by each ICCF Congress, to facilitate good decision making and appropriate timing of implementation of changes or improvements.

5. Because of the unexpected retirement and/or inactivity by some elected/appointed officers, there had been too many tasks which had needed to be completed by Senior ICCF Officers, beyond their own defined duties.  It had caused an ”overload” situation, was not in the best interests of ICCF, and a full review of ICCF Statutes and operating arrangements should be initiated, prior to the 2004 Congress, for decisions to be taken next year.

In conclusion, Mr. Borwell expressed his sincere thanks to delegates and officials for the support they had given him during his period in office and said that it had been a wonderful experience and privilege to serve as ICCF President, especially through the ICCF 50th Anniversary. He paid tribute to his wife Moira for her support to him and ICCF during the 20 years he had served as a member of the ICCF Presidium.

He intimated that, after election of his successor and the new Executive Board, he would leave office so that the new team could continue the Congress meetings and make necessary plans and arrangements, for the future.

Expressing hope that delegates and friends would enjoy Ostrava with ”amici sumus” spirit prevailing throughout, the ICCF President declared the 2003 ICCF Congress, duly opened.

1.	Approval of Minutes of 2002 Congress

Minutes of the ICCF Congress 2002, held in Portugal, had been published at the ICCF web site and circulated to delegates and officials.  After one required correction, the Minutes were formally adopted and signed.

2.	Matters arising from previous Congress

There were no matters arising.

3.	Membership matters

The Acting General Secretary, reported that an application for membership had been received from Ecuador (Federación Ecuatoriana de Ajedrez Postal Internet – FEDAPI) and that a formally constituted body for CC was being formed. Fees had been paid to 31.12.2004. It was unanimously agreed by Congress that Ecuador should be readmitted to ICCF membership.

4.	Bertl von Massow Awards and other awards

The ICCF President presented an engraved plate for the 14th World Championship Final winner T. Õim (EST), and Cups for winners of 8th World Cup Final, H. Staudler (GER) and 9th World Cup Final, Dr. E. Prang (GER).

The ICCF President outlined the background and principles for the Bertl von Massow awards and announced names of officials which the ICCF Presidium considered should receive 2003 awards.  Each recipient (or their respective delegate) then came forward to receive medals and certificates, with the acclamation of Congress.

In Gold, for 15 years meritorious work for ICCF to:-

Evgeny Karelin (RUS)
Michael Müller-Töpler (GER)
Prof. Max E. Zavanelli (USA)

In Silver, for 10 years meritorious work for ICCF to:-

Witold Bielecki (POL)
Gerhard Binder (GER)
Janko Bohak (SLO)
Ervin Liebert (EST)
Milan Manduch (SVK)
Pavol Polakovič (SVK)
Alan J.C. Rawlings (ENG)
Merike Rötova (EST)
Hendrik B. Sarink (NED)

5.	Treasurer's proposals

The Treasurer reported that income had exceeded expenditure for the period to 31.12.2002, by CHF 47,474.00.

Having in mind that losses (expenditure less income) corresponding to previous years, represented a total of CHF 2,095.17, and that European TO income had exceeded expenditure by CHF 7,734,.5, the net balance for ICCF for 2002 showed a profit of CHF 41,834.92.

Investments were recorded, as usual, at their cost of CHF 64,196, but the market value at 31.12.2002 was CHF 72,477 (this was CHF 8,281 in excess of cost, but CHF 28,599 less than the market value at 31.12.2001). The investments had suffered again during the last year due to generally poor results of the Stock market, but in the Treasurer’s opinion they passed the bottom level and were increasing in market value (at 30.6.2003, they were valued CHF 78,922).

Profit & Loss Account and Balance Sheet, for the year ended 31st December 2002, are attached as Appendix B.

The Treasurer thanked all federations who paid their 2002 fees and ICCF Gold book purchases in the early part of 2003, enabling the payment of printing and distribution costs of the publication, without seriously affecting cash flow or liquidity.

The Treasurer thanked John Knudsen and Grayling Hill for their assistance with the Direct Entry payment facility and he expressed appreciation to Georg Walker for his work as Assistant Treasurer in Switzerland in looking after the ICCF Central Bank Account and Investment Portfolio.

Finally, the Treasurer announced he would retire after completing the 2003 Accounts, and that Georg Walker would also retire, after having found a suitable replacement, Mr Stefan Salzmann, in Switzerland to look after ICCF’s Central Bank Account.

In co-operation with Georg Walker, the Executive Board will arrange for necessary changes with regard to the access to the ICCF main account in Switzerland by the end of 2003.

6.	Auditor's proposals

The Auditor confirmed in his Report that he had verified the Accounts and supporting documents provided by the Treasurer, and he considered the financial position of ICCF at 31.12.2002, had been represented correctly.

The ICCF Congress accepted the Auditor's Report unanimously.

The Audited Accounts for the financial year 2002, were then formally and unanimously adopted by Congress.

The ICCF President thanked the Acting General Secretary, Treasurer, Assistant Treasurer and the Auditor for their excellent work throughout the last year.  Congress showed appreciation for the hard work of all of these Officials, with a warm round of applause.

7.	Financial Plans

The ICCF President referred to the Financial Plan, covering the period 1.1.2000 to 31.12.2004 and to the actual figures for Year 2002, which were shown alongside estimated figures. The ”actual” result for 2002 as compared with the estimate, revealed a surplus of CHF 19,302, and items of major variance were identified.

It was decided that an updated Financial Plan for the years 2004/5/6/7 should be produced, after actual figures for 2003 were known, and after review of the tournament and fee structure. The updated Financial Plan should be presented to the Executive Board, to be approved by the 2004 ICCF Congress.

8.	ICCF Elections, Working Groups and Presentations

Sunday afternoon was reserved for ICCF Elections, after which three Working Groups (Rules, Tournaments & Code of Conduct) met to discuss selected important issues which had been identified by the ICCF Presidium and Commissioners.  At the end of the afternoon, there were plenary sessions for presentations of the ICCF Webserver Project, by Iain Mackintosh (SCO) and a paper “ICCF and the Future”, by Nol van’t Riet (NED).

Election of Executive Board Office-Bearers and Auditor

Before the elections began, delegates heard a proposed ICCF Anthem, composed by Dmitry Lybin (BLR).

The Acting General Secretary showed the Ballot Form to be used in the Election procedure, and after appointment of Election authorities, the following candidates were elected to office:

President:	J. Mrkvička (CZE) by unanimous vote
Deputy President & Development Director:	M. Zavanelli (USA) by majority vote
Membership & Services Director:	P.F. Hegoburu (ARG) by substantial majority vote
Finance Director:	G.V. Hill (USA) by substantial majority vote
World Tournament Director:	J-C. Lüers (GER) by substantial majority vote

Congress then approved unanimously the re-appointment of H.B. Sarink (NED) as ICCF Auditor.

Immediately after the elections, the ICCF President A.P. Borwell proposed that the whole Presidium should retire, effectively at midnight October 12th, 2003.  Congress approved this proposal. It was also approved that the newly elected Executive Board should take office as from October 13th, 2003 until December 31st, 2007. Elections of Zonal Directors would be arranged according to ICCF Statutes, with appointments taking effect from 1st January 2004.

Finally, a proposal to co-opt the Treasurer C. Flores Gutiérrez (ESP) until he finished work on the 2003 Accounts and had reported about them to the 2004 Congress was also approved unanimously.

Upon a proposal by the newly elected ICCF President, Congress unanimously elected Mr. Alan P. Borwell as ICCF Honorary President. He humbly and graciously accepted this honour, with thanks and appreciation.

Presentations to Congress

After meetings of Working Groups, there were two presentations made to the full Congress. The first of these (by Iain Mackintosh) was about the ICCF Webserver project and is covered in item 9 of these Minutes.

The second presentation by Nol van 't Riet (NED) was entitled "ICCF and its future" and is included as Appendix H to these Minutes.

Introducing his paper, Mr. van 't Riet reminded delegates of the article which he had written for the ICCF Gold book on this topic and thought that it was appropriate he should update those visions about the future. He emphasised his paper was an expression of his private opinions, but hoped that they would be useful to ICCF and member federations in considering its policies in the years ahead.

The ICCF President thanked Mr. van 't Riet for his presentation and his valuable contribution and asked delegates to think deeply about the concepts contained therein, in their ongoing deliberations.

9.	Technology and Webserver matters

On Monday morning, Congress began discussions with this issue, under the Chair of the newly appointed ICCF President Josef Mrkvička.

Congress delegates had been given a comprehensive presentation by Iain Mackintosh (SCO) on the ICCF dedicated webserver system and the proposed development plan.

He had referred to the conclusions of the Webserver Expert Group, which had been established by the Seixal Congress, whose recommendations had been fully supported by the Steering Committee. These were:-

1.  ICCF should design and build its own web server, to include various databases, services interfaces, etc.
2.  Chess playing engine/software should be obtained from reputable provider who could offer ongoing support.
3.  Hardware needed for web server should be leased/rented much the same as current web space is handled.
4.  ICCF should not partner with any existing web server(s), even on a temporary basis.

In the follow-up discussions, Congress adopted all of the following decisions, unanimously:

Firstly, Congress confirmed its previous approval for the development of an ICCF dedicated Webserver and entrusted the Steering Group to its implementation, according to time schedule and budget in the project plan.

Secondly, the appointment of Iain Mackintosh (SCO) as Project Manager for the ICCF Webserver System.

Thirdly, the ongoing composition of the Steering Group should be as follows: Josef Mrkvička (CZE), Chairman; Alan Borwell (SCO), Pedro Hegoburu (ARG), Nol van ’t Riet (NED), Grayling Hill (USA), Chris Lüers (GER) and Iain Mackintosh (SCO) as Project Manager.

Congress then approved the establishment of a Development Fund, to be used solely for designated projects. The first development project would be the ICCF Webserver system, but other projects would be added later.

Congress was informed about the current values of funds held by ICCF, in its bank accounts and investments, and it was proposed that it would be sensible to use part of the funds in a more practical way for benefit of all.

Accordingly, it was agreed to transfer CHF 75,000 to the Development Account, from the ICCF General Fund.

For ongoing resourcing of the Development Fund, Congress unanimously approved the following sources:
•	allocations from ICCF's current and future income;
•	introduction of individual, group and/or national federation patronage of ICCF, with specific benefits;
•	seeking of donations, legacies and bequests;
•	sponsorship of specific or general ICCF development projects.

Detailed arrangements for such resourcing, should be initiated and progressed by the Steering Group.

Congress agreed links with a renowned chess/technology related company for the ICCF Webserver system, and development of mutually beneficial marketing.  Announcements regarding this would be made separately.

Finally, Congress supported the idea of arranging at least one large open tournament, with good money prizes, preferably in two or three stages, to be started in 2004, with the details to be decided by the Steering Group. It would be included in the early scheduling of tournaments to be available to ICCF and Member Federations.

The Project Manager was given the necessary autonomy to complete the membership of the Project team and several delegates and officials offered assistance with key resourcing requirements in the Project Plan.

10.	ICCF Archives, including games scores databases

Alan Borwell (SCO) informed Congress that negotiations to locate a permanent ICCF Archive in Germany had not been successful, and that new options would have to be considered.

Once again there was a special request for National Federations and TDs to submit completed games scores from all ICCF tournaments to ICCF Archivists, Wes Green (USA) for Email events, and Laurent Tinture (FRA) for postal events, in order for ICCF to fulfil commitments with sponsors and for download via the ICCF Website.

All TDs/TOs should send games scores regularly, preferably as PGN files, to the above mentioned officials.

11.	Webmaster and Internet matters

The ICCF Webmaster reported on the development of the “iccf.com” website, informing that in February 2003 the Website had been moved to a new hosting provider, which ensured not only some new features (e.g. more hosting space; POP3 addresses; a better news system based on an SQL Database and a PHP content management system, among others), but it also entailed a significant decrease of fees (around 40%).

The ICCF President stressed the necessity to create as soon as possible a project of the ICCF Webmagazine. He indicated that Alan Borwell (SCO) and his wife Moira had declared their willingness to be involved in this project. He also encouraged Delegates to propose names of further potential collaborators for this project, including an Editor-in-Chief.

The ICCF Webmaster Evelin Radosztics (AUT) and her team of collaborators were warmly thanked for their initiatives and work.

12.	Marketing and Publications matters

The Marketing Director made reference to his written Report to Congress. The final draft of the ICCF Brochure was presented, and work would be immediately undertaken by the newly appointed Deputy President & Development Director to print it and arrange distribution as needed. Congress approved the text submitted, subject to minor update changes.

Additionally, it was reported on the successful Marketing action done in conjunction with New In Chess. It was planned to arrange for the publication of several CC articles in New In Chess magazines, dealing with their sponsorship of the first two World Email Chess Championships and about CC in general.

There was a brief report on the successful publication of the ICCF Gold book, which had made a small profit for ICCF, and Congress thanked Pedro Hegoburu, Alan and Moira Borwell (SCO) and Iván Bottlik (HUN), for their work in producing and distributing ICCF Gold and for a job well done.

Congress approved an idea to publish a new book on World CC Champions and entrusted the M&SD to appoint a Managing Editor and to create an editorial team for this purpose, with a deadline for its publication in 2005.

Furthermore, Congress considered and approved the Marketing Portfolio for potential ICCF sponsors.

Finally, Congress appreciated the concept of the Tournament Flowchart as very useful and helpful to players. The work on this document should continue, with the aim to distribute it to member federations and to publish it on the ICCF Website, as soon as possible.

13.	Qualifications, including qualification rules proposals

The Qualifications Commissioner George Pyrich (SCO) informed that relevant titles mentioned in his report could be confirmed and have been included under Title Awards, as listed in item 14 below. He had listed title norms for new individual, team, zonal and invitation tournaments, together with changes to norms which had been established previously. These were noted by Congress, without amendment, and can be found in Appendix C to these Minutes.

Upon completion of his last QC report since he began in 1995, Mr. Pyrich was given a standing ovation for his accurate and time-consuming job, which had been always performed to complete satisfaction.

Congress then approved the appointment of Eric Ruch (FRA) as new Qualifications Commissioner, effective immediately after Congress. The requests for new Titles should in future be addressed to him.

14.	Title Awards

The following title awards were made to the recipients or the respective delegates and proxy holders:

Correspondence Chess Grandmaster (GM)

F.G. Balabaev (KAZ)
C. A. Blanco Gramajo (GUA)
R. Boger (NOR)
S. Homce de Cresce (BRA)
G.F. Echeguren (ARG)
D. Elyakim (ISR)
F. Gerhardt (GER)
Dr. J.A.S. Gonçalves (BRA)
C-P. Th. Gouw (NED)
Dr. H-J. Hofstetter (GER)
N.M. Kalinichenko (RUS)
R. Knobel (SUI)
D. Lybin (BLR)
A.A. Makarov (RUS)
S.K. Matyukhin (RUS)
S.U. Pinkovetsky (RUS)
L. Rydholm (SWE)
S.V. Sabaev (RUS)
N. Stull (LUX)
M. Voss (GER)
W. Zugrav (AUT)

Correspondence Chess Senior International Master (SIM)

A. Acevedo Villalba (PER)
L.V. Alves (BRA)
Dr. J.E.C. Asquith (ENG)
T. Balabaev (KAZ)
Z. Bernardino (BRA)
J.M. Bertorello (ARG)
D. Blau (GER)
Prof. M.M. Boccia (ITA)
Dr. J. Bokar (USA)
E. Borroni (ITA)
O. Buraschi (ARG)
O. Büßing (GER)
P.E.T. Chacon (BRA)
A.R.C. Cipolli (BRA)
F.A.C. Cleto (POR)
R. Degerhammar (SWE)
A.E.R. Demétrio (POR)
H. Edelmann (GER)
J. Edwards (USA)
W. Fademrecht (GER)
N.C. Ferreira (BRA)
I. Firnhaber (GER)
F. Fleischanderl (AUT)
J. M. de Souza Flores (POR)
M.R. Freeman (NZL)
A. González Freixas (ESP)
H. Fröberg (FIN)
R.M. Fuzishawa (BRA)
P.A. Gaprindashvili (GEO)
P. García Corada (ESP)
A. Gmür (SUI)
Dr. H. Grabner (AUT)
O. Harald (FIN)
W. Hase (GER)
T. Hedlund (SWE)
G. Hervet (FRA)
D.A. van der Hoeven (NED)
A. Hoffman (GER)
F. Kahl (GER)
A. Kangur (EST)
E. Knol (RSA)
J.C. Knudsen (USA)
K. Kögler (GER)
L. Kovacs (AUT)
W-D. Krabbe (GER)
Dr. Z. Krečak (CRO)
L.D. Kristol (ISR)
N. Latronico (ITA)
V. Lexa (CZE)
A. Linna (FIN)
M. Marotta Moraes (URU)
Dr. M. Michálek (CZE)
S.A. Mikeshin (RUS)
J. Miraglia (BRA)
L. Mrazík (SVK)
J. Muller (FRA)
Y.A. Muzyka (RUS)
V.A. Napalkov (RUS)
J. Nejstadt (ISR)
O. Neuvonen (FIN)
L.F. Nicolau (†) (BRA)
Z. Nývlt (CZE)
J. Parkkinen (FIN)
C. Pauwels (BEL)
V.V. Perevertkin (RUS)
R. Pfretzschner (GER)
I.M. Pheby (ENG)
H. Pigg (FIN)
Dr. E. Prang (GER)
J. Pugh (ENG)
M. Pukkila (FIN)
L.G. Raykin (RUS)
H. Rhode (GER)
C. Rich (ENG)
M.B. Rinesi (ITA)
G. Ruggeri Laderchi (ITA)
M. Rümmele (GER)
T.E. Runting (AUS)
M. Rybák (CZE)
K. Sakai (JPN)
Mohamed Samraoui (ALG)
F. Savchur (UKR)
W. Schön (GER)
F. Schröder (GER)
M.J.P.G. Schroeder (NED)
B. Scheuermann (GER)
J. Schuster (EST)
P. Schuster (GER)
A.V. Shikalov (RUS)
F.A. B. da Silva (BRA)
R. Smith (USA)
I.L. Snape (ENG)
A. Sonzogno (ITA)
K. Sperhake (GER)
C. Spitz (FRA)
D. Szczepankiewicz (POL)
J. Tay (SIP)
P. Tombette (FRA)
F. Tosi (ITA)
M. Träger (HUN)
V.S. Turkov (RUS)
H. van Unen (NED)
J. Urban (CZE)
Dkfm. P Valent (AUT)
P. Veselý (SVK)
J. Vošahlík (CZE)
G. Waldhauser (AUT)
H. Walsh (ARG)
J. Weisskohl (USA)
Y. Yefremov (ISR)
M. Zavanelli (USA)

Correspondence Chess International Master (IM)

R. Albrecht (GER)
G.S. Amorim (BRA)
J. Anderson (ENG)
M. Avotins (LAT)
U. Baumgartner (SUI)
J. Bennborn (SWE)
G.S. Benson (AUS)
J. Bex (BEL)
G. Boonet (BEL)
B. Boschma (NED)
W. Boucher (USA)
Dr. R. Brachtel (GER)
W.T. Brandhorst (USA)
H. Brusila (FIN)
D. Buse (GER)
T.E. Carlsen (BRA)
G. Castillo (VEN)
D. Cenic (YUG)
G. Chrobák (HUN)
H-H. Clever (GER)
V.L. Cordeiro (POR)
L. van Damme (BEL)
J. de Lagontrie (FRA)
G. Delfs (GER)
G. De Lorenzo (ITA)
A. Del Vecchio (FRA)
K. Dietrich (GER)
A.S. Dronov (RUS)
S. Dubuc (CAN)
J. Fischer (GER)
F. Geider (FRA)
G.D. Gómez (ARG)
M. Góngora Reyes (CUB)
F.J. Guevara (GUA)
O. Halme (FIN)
M. Huuskonen (FIN)
J. Ilczuk (POL)
V.D. Iotov (BUL)
R.J. Jacquin (ARG)
R. Jankowicz (POL)
J. János (SVK)
J. Jensen (BRA)
K.H. Johnsen (DEN)
V. Ketola (FIN)
A.A. Kharitonov (RUS)
H. Knoll (AUT)
B.N. Kovernikov (RUS)
A. Kucukali (TUR)
S. Kudela (CZE)
P. Laurenc (CZE)
A. Lelenko (SVK)
T. Lew (POL)
M. Lilleøren (NOR)
G.W.G. Livie (SCO)
Ø. Lorentzen (NOR)
R. Lutzenberger (GER)
Dr. N.H. Luzuriaga (ARG)
V.B. Lyukmanov (RUS)
S. Marth (GER)
A.L. Milher (ARG)
M. Millstone (USA)
W.F. Montag (GER)
J.A.M. Moreira (POR)
S. Nordal (NOR)
S. Ohtake (JPN)
H-P. Ollmann (GER)
S. Olsen (NOR)
A.A. Perez Perez (CUB)
S. Pietruske (GER)
P. Polakovič (SVK)
F.J.V. Porto (BRA)
S. Pröttel (GER)
R.E. Rain (BRA)
J. Rehor (AUT)
J.D. Rhodes (ENG)
Z. Ristic (YUG)
E. Roblek (SLO)
K.A. Rodriguez (USA)
E.S. de Sá (BRA)
Ing. P. Salcedo Mederos (CUB)
J.L. Salvador Marques (POR)
C.Schakel (USA)
G. Schulz (GER)
M.I. Shablinsky (BLR)
P.A. Shishkov (RUS)
B. Simon (LUX)
J. B. Skeels (USA)
P. Sopanen (FIN)
P.J. Sowray (ENG)
J. Soza (CHI)
Dr. J. Stephan (GER)
U. Stephan (GER)
H.N. Sunna (USA)
A. Surroca Collazo (CUB)
S. Tatlow (†) (ENG)
H.J.A. Tazelaar (NED)
K. Thomsen (DEN)
S.V. Toldaev (BLR)
G. Traut (GER)
W. Trumpf (SUI)
V.A. Vayser (RUS)
J. Wengler (GER)
R. Wojtkowiak (POL)
Dr. H-D. Wunderlich (GER)
G. Ziese (GER)
H. Zimmer (GER)

Correspondence Chess Lady Grand Master (LGM)

A.Rývová (CZE)
M. Plass-Caravan (ROM)

Correspondence Chess Lady International Master (ILM)

S.A. Khlusevich (RUS)
A.Burghoff (GER) 
R. Flügel (GER)
A. Schmidt (GER)
O.M. Sukhareva (RUS)

Correspondence Chess International Arbiter (IA)

H.N. Álvarez Villar (ARG)
G.V. Hill (USA)
S.K. Matyukhin (RUS)

15.	Title Tournaments

In his very comprehensive and detailed report, the Title Tournaments Commissioner presented a summary and statistics of all presently running ICCF title tournaments.

These title tournaments include:

•	WCCC Semifinals, Candidates’ tournaments (¾-Finals) and Finals, played by regular mail and/or by Email
•	CC Olympiads, Preliminaries and Finals, played by regular mail and/or by Email
•	Ladies WCCC, Semifinals and Finals
•	Ladies CC Olympiads, Preliminaries and Finals

The Title Tournament Commissioner emphasised that the progressive World Championship Semifinal number 28 and Candidates’ tournaments number 24 would be started from 1st January, 2004. The entries which were submitted by the National Federations in the year 2003 and for various reasons could not be included into the sections started in this year would be forwarded to the next year and would be considered as priority ones. If these entries corresponded to Member Federation nominations, the quota of these nominations for the year 2004 would not be reduced.

Furthermore, he stressed that a proper organisation of the progressively starting tournaments required, accordingly, a progressive input of entries. Therefore, the Member Federation nominations should not be submitted in “batches” in the second half of the year, as in this case, it would be very difficult to ensure a reasonable spread of countries in the particular sections, as well as a reasonable rating average. In spite of that, the Title Tournaments Commissioner managed to start all Semifinal sections as category 7 tournaments.

The Title Tournaments Commissioner presented a list of the title tournaments which should/could be started in late 2003 and 2004:

(a)	ICCF Olympiads and Ladies Olympiads

•	Olympiad 13 Final (Postal)

The tournament was planned to be started in late 2003. However, the Preliminaries 13 progressed more slowly than expected, and because of the unclear situation in Section 4 -where still 4 teams have a chance to qualify- the start of this Final must be postponed until the first half of 2004. TD Roald Berthelsen (NOR).

Congress decided that in case that any qualified country for this Final were not be able, for whatever reason, to line up its team for this tournament, no substitution would be made and the place would remain vacant.

•	Olympiad 16 Preliminaries (Postal)

Based on the recommendation of the Tournaments discussion group, Congress decided that the preliminaries of the postal Olympiad 16 would be started on the condition that a minimum participation of 27 teams was secured. A time spread between the start of the Olympiad 13 Final and Olympiad 16 Preliminaries should be at least 6 months and the Final 13 would be started first. Additionally, Congress approved by majority of votes the proposal to reduce from 6 to 4 the number of boards in all future postal Olympiad cycles (not for Final 13). Therefore, each team in Olympiad 16 Preliminaries (and future postal Preliminaries / Finals) will consist of 4 players only. TD still to be decided.

•	Ladies’ Olympiad 7 Preliminaries (way of transmission to be decided)

As the Final of Ladies’ Olympiad 6 has been running since 01.03.2003 and the Semifinal of the Ladies’ World Championship 8 would start in December 2003, the Title Tournaments Commissioner decided to postpone the start of these preliminaries until mid-2004. TD Karel Glaser (CZE).

(b)	ICCF World Championships

•	1st Email World CC Championship Final (Final 19), sponsored by NIC

12 players have qualified for this Final so far. Start early 2004, as soon as all qualifiers are decided. TD Ian Brooks (ENG).

•	World CC Championship – Final 20 (Postal)

The Title Tournament Commissioner reported to Congress on his enquiry distributed to the players qualified for this tournament. Start date 1.9.2004, TD still to be decided. 9 players are interested to play in a postal Final, no feedback came from 7 players, others prefer or require Email play.

Congress entrusted the Title Tournaments Commissioner to continue negotiating with qualified players with the aim to start this Final as soon as possible in 2004. Furthermore, Congress decided that for this postal Final, even a 13 player tournament would be acceptable.

•	World CC Championship – Candidates’ Tournament 23 (Email) – the Candidates’ Tournament of the 2nd Email WCCC, sponsored by NIC

38 players qualified for this tournament, out of them 10 have already used their qualifications in other tournaments. Planned start date 1.4.2004, TD to be decided.

•	World Championship – Semifinal 28 (Postal & Email)

A progressive tournament. The general announcement to be published before 01.01.2004.

•	World Championship – Candidates’ 24 (Postal & Email)

A progressive tournament. The general announcement to be published before 01.01.2004.

Finally, Congress entrusted the World Tournament Director to a revision of the current system of ICCF tournaments, as presented in the valid Tournament Rules, and asked the World Tournament Director to submit proposals for possible changes to the 2004 Congress in Mumbai. These proposals should take into account the future implementation of the ICCF webserver tournaments.

At the same time, Congress emphasized that the World Championship Finals should continue to be the culmination of a qualification cycle open to all players and designed to identify the best players in the world through qualification tournaments.

Congress unanimously approved the appointment of Søren Peschardt (DEN) for the new Title Tournaments Commissioner, with immediate effect. Warm thanks were expressed to Josef Mrkvička (CZE) for his excellent work as the Title Tournaments Commissioner in the past year.

16.	World Tournaments, including thematics

The World Tournaments Commissioner reported that the decrease in entries for world postal tournaments was lower in 2002 than in 2001, and that this trend continued in 2003. In 2002, 342 players started a postal world tournament. More and more players are attracted by Email tournaments, therefore the waiting time to start a tournament is longer and longer. This may be one of the reasons why many players prefer to play domestic or continental tournaments.

Furthermore, he emphasised a very low interest in postal Grand Master Norm tournaments where only two sections with 11 players each could be started since 2001. If there were no improvement in entries, he would intend to propose to 2004 Congress to abolish postal GMN tournaments.

The preliminary round of the Open Postal Jubilee Tournament should have been closed on 30.06.2003, but too many games were still running. Therefore, the closing date had been postponed to 30.06.2004 and the second round would be started in late 2004.

In his written report, the Thematics Tournament Office Controller reported to Congress about the success of the Email theme tournaments and a low interest in postal theme tournaments. After Congress, the Fischer Random tournaments would be started. They would be organised as permanently open series of tournaments (postal and Email). The tournament would begin as soon as 5 players are available. 2 games against every opponent would be played, like in any thematic tournament. 20 games would be played in every tournament, starting from 20 different positions generated with the help of a special software.

The Thematics Tournament Office Controller proposed Congress a liberation from the tournament fees for Fischer Random tournaments in the first year of their existence, and a very low fee in the follow-up years. Congress approved by a majority vote the first part of the proposal, i.e. the liberation of the tournament fees for the first year. It was recommended to consider the level of the tournament fees at the Congress 2004.

The ICCF President expressed sincere thanks to the World Tournaments Commissioner Gian-Maria Tani, and TT Office Controller, Leonardo Madonia, and all other officials and TDs working with the World Tournament Office and the Thematic Tournament Office.

17.	Email Tournaments

The Email Tournaments Commissioner, Chris Lüers (GER) indicated that the ICCF Email Tournaments held on to their level of popularity on which they have been for the recent years. Although in the past 12 months we could not watch another improvement, the service for all Email tournaments had significantly improved: regarding the promotion classes and the norm tournaments, the Email TO now offers an extremely fast administration of entries.

In his written report, he emphasised that the reasons for the stagnancy of entry numbers could be seen not only in the ongoing inner competition by special tournaments like the Champions League and the Open E-Mail Jubilee Tournament (OEJT), but also in the existing confusion and uncertainty of players regarding general discussions in and about ICCF: the time itself with a number of unclear matters like some important rule questions, tournament structure problems and last but not least the handling of the ICCF webserver issue (plus the connected competition from outside in this field) make it difficult for players to clearly declare their belief and support for ICCF.

The Email Tournament Office had seen an important change in the last months when the former Reports Officer Daniel Finkelstein took over as new TO Controller. Mr Finkelstein had again proven his outstanding work not only in the perfect tournament start, administration and general work for all new Email promotion class and norm tournaments since April, but also in his ongoing work as Reports Officer. The waiting time at ICCF for new promotion class tournaments is less than a month as Mr Finkelstein starts tournaments not only once a month, but as soon as the number of players is sufficient.

The Champions League is well advanced and the current qualification stage would last for another 9 months. The 22 groups are controlled by 4 Tournament Directors: Frank Geider, Wes Underwood, Thomas Schmelz, Gino Figlio and Tom Mirbach, while Frank Geider is also the chief officer for the event. The start date of the first regular season would be shortly after 15th October 2004 with start lists being sent out about one month before.

The Open Email Jubilee tournament started with 2233 players in 203 groups of 11 players on 1st September 2001. On 30th June all games which affected qualification places were stopped and 20 adjudicators (SIM title and ELO 2500+ on the current rating list at least) made the final decisions in about 50 games. Right after Congress, the 39 groups of the quarterfinals would start in sections with 13 players each. The Ratings Commissioner had kindly agreed to assign an arbitrary rating of 2200 to all those players who still had less than 12 games in their rating (these are not more than 60 players).

The play in the quarterfinals would last two years: in October 2005 all those games which would affect qualification to the semifinals would be stopped and adjudicated. The top two players of each of the 39 quarterfinal groups would qualify for the semifinals; in the quarterfinals and all further stages the Sonneborn-Berger would be used for qualification. The Tournament Directors for the quarterfinals would be: Roberto Davide, Vladislav Dubko, Cecilio Hernáez Fernandez, Istvan Laczay, Søren M. Larsen, Luis A.M. Noronha, Keith Rodriguez, George Stibal, German Castillo, and Gino Figlio.

The best two of each semifinal group plus the best player in third place would then qualify for the ICCF Open Email Jubilee Final. The winner of the final gets a place in an ICCF World Championship Final.

The ICCF President thanked Chris Lüers and his excellent team of Email officials and Tournament Directors, for their fine work and wished him best success in his new important ICCF position.

18.	Other Tournament proposals / arrangements

The World Tournament Director, Chris Lüers (GER) reported to Congress on the proposed new administration of the structure of ICCF tournaments. This new structure was discussed and recommended by the Tournaments discussion group on Sunday afternoon.

The scheme of the new administration of ICCF tournaments was unanimously approved by Congress and is attached as Appendix D.

The Membership & Services Director, Pedro F. Hegoburu (ARG) provided a schedule of tournaments which he had approved under delegated powers to the Acting General Secretary since the last Congress and these were confirmed by Congress, as follows:-

Friendship of the Americas (CUBA, USA & CADAP)
E-mail, 15 players, category VII, started 5.7.2003

TCCMB 5 Years, Group A (USA)
E-mail, 13-15 players, GM Level, category VII-IX, start late 2003

TCCMB 5 Years, Group B (USA)
E-mail, 13-15 players, IM Level, category III-V, start late 2003

Cecil Purdy Jubilee Tournament, Section A (AUS)
E-mail, 15 players, GM Level, category XII, expected start date December 2003

Cecil Purdy Jubilee Tournament, Section B (AUS)
E-mail, 15 players, IM Level, category VIII, expected start date December 2003

Cecil Purdy Jubilee Tournament, Section C (AUS)
Postal, 15 players, category IV, expected start date December 2003

Cecil Purdy Jubilee Tournament, Section D (AUS)
Postal (national AUS only) – no titles but rated by ICCF, expected start date December 2003

Alvise Zichichi Memorial (ITA)
E-mail, 13-15 players, GM Level, start in April/May 2004

Igor Kopylov Memorial (RUS)
E-mail, 13-15 players, category XI+, start early 2004

Oleg Moiseyev Memorial (RUS)
E-mail, 15 players, category IX-X, start early 2004

John Jordan Memorial A (ENG)
E-mail, 15 players, target category IX, no prizes, start 4.3.2004 (1st anniversary of his death). Two places to be offered to AJEC in view of John's connections with France.

John Jordan Memorial B (ENG)
Postal, 15 players, target category IX, no prizes, start 4.3.2002. Two places to be offered to AJEC.

John Jordan Memorial E-mail Open (ENG)
To be played by E-mail in two stages, with preliminary section winners qualifying for a final. Both stages to be rated, but only the final to be eligible for title norms. Limit 225 players, multiple entries barred. A "stars barred" tournament - players rated > 2250 in any 2003 international rating list (ICCF, FIDE, IECC, IECG), and players rated > 2450 in any previous ICCF rating list will be ineligible. Entry fee £12.00 by cheque or USD 20.00 by credit card online. Minimum 50% of entry fees to be paid to finalists as cash prizes, subject to satisfactory completion of all games.
(Near-maximum prize fund of £1350 could give 1st £350, 2nd £200, 3rd £150, 4th £100, 5th - 15th £50)

Stephen Tatlow Memorial (ENG)
E-mail, 15 players, target category VI-VII, no prizes, start 22.4.2004 (1st anniversary of his death)

Peter Wason Memorial (ENG)
Postal, 15 players, target category III, no prizes, start 22.4.2004 (80th anniversary of his birth)

NPSF 60 years GM tournament (NOR)
Email, 15 players, ratings 2400+, category VII-VIII, Norwegian IA, start 1.1.2005

CXEB 35 Years section A (BRA)
E-mail, 15 players, GM Level, category IX, start 14.2.2004

CXEB 35 Years section B (BRA)
E-mail, 15 players, GM Level, category VII, start 14.2.2004

Carlos Ros Miró Memorial "World" (ESP)
Email, 15 players, category XI-XII, start in April/May 2004

Carlos Ros Miró Memorial "Europe" (ESP)
Email, 15 players, category VII-VIII, start in April/May 2004

Carlos Ros Miró Memorial "America" (ESP)
Email, 15 players, category VII-VIII, start in April/May 2004

Douglas M. Livie Memorial tournament (SCO)
Email, 13 players, category IV, start May 2004

FECAP 15 years section A (CUB)
Email, 15 players, category VII+, start in October 2004

FECAP 15 years section B (CUB)
Email, 13-15 players, category IV+, start in October 2004

FECAP 15 years section C (CUB)
Email, 13-15 players, category IV+, start in October 2004

Itzhak Veinger Memorial II (ISR)
To honour an anniversary of the GMs death or birth (to be decided)
Email, 13-15 players, to start after the current ongoing memorials end.

Joel Adler Memorial (ARG/NED)
Email, 13-15 players, category X/XI, start in September 2004

Cayetano Rebizzo Memorial (ARG)
Email, 13-15 players, category VI/VII, start in September 2004

The Zonal Director for Africa/Asia and the Membership & Services Director asked Congress delegates and Tournament organisers to invite players from the Africa/Asia zone to some of these events, in order to help develop this zone with potentially strong players.

It was noted that under the new structure, the prior approval of Invitational Events under delegated powers would return to its natural scope under the World Tournaments Director.

The Finance Director, Grayling V. Hill (USA) presented two proposals to Congress:-

•	That tournament fees payable to ICCF for invitational tournaments should be increased by CHF 1 on each level, effective from 1.1.2004.

This proposal was voted down by Congress by majority vote.

•	That with immediate effect, all fees related to the invitational tournaments and/or open tournaments should be paid within the statement of account following to the date of formal approval under delegated powers.

This proposal was approved by Congress by majority vote.

The World Tournament Director suggested assigning of the organization of the World Cup 14 (played by post and by Email) to the CCLA, Australia, under the overall supervision of the soon-to-be-appointed Non-Title Tournaments Commissioner. The tournament would be started in 2004 and the Central Tournament Leader would be George Stibal (AUS). Congress approved unanimously this proposal.

19.	Africa/Asia Zone

The Zonal Director (Africa/Asia) Med Samraoui (ALG) reported to Congress that in 2003, the following Zonal tournaments had started:
-	6th Email Afro-Asian, preliminaries;
-	5th Email Afro-Asian championship Final;
-	3rd Asian championship;
-	AA/E 05.

Turkmenistan joined ICCF in 2003 and was admitted to participate in the ICCF Olympiad 15 Preliminaries. An agreement was expected to be reached soon with Malaysia and Tunisia which should become ICCF member federations in 2004 at the latest. On the other side, no evident success had been achieved with several African federations (Nigeria, Senegal, Mali).

The zonal bulletin was sent quarterly to all zonal federations and to all players participating in our competitions.

The Zonal Director expressed his disappointment at the unsatisfactory results of discussions with FIDE officials and/or delegates. On the other side, he stressed his entire satisfaction with the co-operation with the Indian CC Federation and thanked them i.a. for their fantastic job to assure the venue of the ICCF congress in 2004.

Finally, he declared his intention to stand for the ZD elections for the next period 2004-2007. However, he emphasised that this would be his last period as ZD. Dinand Knol (RSA) would be his deputy if he was elected.

The ICCF President warmly thanked Med Samraoui for his devoted work in the last year.

20.	Europe Zone

The ICCF President stressed that this item would be a problematic issue to handle. Congress had not received a written report from the Zonal Director and neither Zonal Director nor a deputy was present at Congress. He emphasised that an improvisation is definitely no good for the most numerous Zone which provided the highest number of players for the ICCF tournaments.

He informed Congress that on the forthcoming meeting of the new Executive Board, he would intend to propose that every Zonal Director would be obliged to nominate their deputies not only for cases of their absence, but immediately after their elections. These deputies should be known to everybody in the Zone and able to cover for the ZD in all cases when the ZDs, for whatever reason, wouldn’t be able to fulfil their tasks according to the Outline Duties. Consequently, they would have to be aware of all running and planned events in the Zone throughout the whole four years period.

The same would have to be arranged for all Commissioners’ positions, and of course also for all other Management Committee positions.

The World Tournament Director informed about the discussions in the Tournaments discussion group regarding European tournaments. According to the message from the Zonal Director (Europe) Egbert Bösenberg, the European Team Championship would not be started in 2004 and therefore can’t overlap with the planned preliminaries of the 16th postal Olympiad. Furthermore, the World Tournament Director informed Congress that Egbert Bösenberg would not stand for the ZD elections for the next period.

The ICCF Treasurer Carlos Flores (ESP) proposed to abolish the united administration of ICCF and Zone 1, effective from 1st January, 2004. This traditional, but now just obsolete united administration had been creating an unequal position of Zones. From 2004, the European Zone should have its own administration, tournament office and financial management, as the other Zones have.

This proposal was approved by Congress by a majority vote.

Based on the result of this voting, Nol van ‘t Riet (NED) invited European delegates to a discussion about the new arrangements in the European Zone at a special meeting of European delegates. It was agreed to hold this meeting on Wednesday evening.

21.	Latin America Zone

The Zonal Director (Latin America), Carlos Cranbourne (ARG) had presented a comprehensive written report referring to many CADAP tournaments which had ended or begun since last Congress. It also provided details of new tournaments planned for 2004 and described events and team matches which were taking place. He also gave a comprehensive overview of CC activities within member federations in the Latin American Zone.

CADAP welcomed two new countries that have been reinstated to ICCF, Venezuela and Ecuador. The Zonal Director warmly thanked the ICCF Delegates from both countries, Germán Castillo (VEN) and Diego F. Moncayo (ECU) for their preparatory work they had been doing from the very beginning.

He also informed Congress that there is a real possibility to reinstate Costa Rica as an ICCF member federation thanks to the efforts done by Mr. Diego Redondo, who had manifested great interest and a serious commitment of adhesion.

Furthermore, he warmly thanked Pedro F. Hegoburu (ARG) for representing CADAP in the ICCF Presidium / Executive Board, and Guillermo Toro Solís de Ovando (CHI) for his excellent work as CADAP game archivist.

Finally, the Zonal Director declared his retirement from the ZD position as of 31.12.2003 and expressed his cordial thanks to the ICCF Officers for their support and assistance during his work.

The ICCF President warmly thanked Carlos Cranbourne for his excellent and devoted work for ICCF and expressed his persuasion that Mr. Cranbourne would help his successor to get started, and that he would be willing to further assist ICCF. Congress appreciated Mr Cranbourne’s work by standing ovation.

22.	North America/Pacific Zone

As the Zonal Director (North America/Pacific) could not attend Congress, his report was presented by his deputy, Ruth Ann Fay (USA).

She reported on tournament activity in the zone. The 4th NAPZ Championship Final was started on May 15, 2002 as a category 8 event, with 15 participants.

Reports were included on all NAPZ Class events as was also news of events organised by member federations throughout the Zone. Information was given on proposed tournaments.

The Zonal Director expressed his thanks to all NAPZ officials and TDs for their great work and strong support.

The work of the Zonal Director and Deputy Director, Ruth Ann Fay (USA), was warmly appreciated by Congress.

23.	Other General Secretary proposals

The Acting General Secretary Pedro Hegoburu (ARG) made reference to some of the issues addressed in his written report distributed prior to Congress. He especially mentioned the introduction of a new feature in the ICCF Website, in the form of the “Calendar of Events”. This was a simple document which enumerated all ICCF, Zonal and Invitational events, with their details (number of players, category, starting date, etc.) being updated every 2-3 months. It was hoped that the information would help CC players plan ahead their tournament schedule.

Another work undertaken by the Acting General Secretary as soon as he took office was the modification of the 3-letter Country Code list. The final list had been circulated early in 2003 and was published on the ICCF Website and included as an Annex to the Seixal 2002 Congress Minutes.

Many thanks were given to Messrs. Radosztics, Rawlings, Harding, Borwell and Binder, who had helped Mr. Hegoburu in completing this task.

Finally, Mr. Hegoburu made special reference to a problematic issue: that of “Accepted/Unaccepted Withdrawals”, and the maintenance of the so-called “Penalty/Sanctions List”.

The Seixal 2002 Congress had entrusted the GS with the record and maintenance of the so-called “Penalty/Sanctions List” to keep track of Silent and Accepted withdrawals, and the period during which a withdrawing player could not enter new ICCF events. Due to several reasons, this had been problematic. First of all, because not all people were aware of the changes introduced by Appendix E in last year’s Congress Minutes (Addition to Playing Rules Guidelines - new clarification to paragraph 9). The rule whereby in an accepted withdrawal “if 10 or more moves have been played in any of the withdrawing player's games, or if any of his games have already been finished, all his open games shall be adjudicated, otherwise all his games shall be cancelled” caused many claims from players and TDs alike. The most common arguments were that “11-move games” or games still in theoretical paths could not be adjudicated. TDs complained that they could not find adjudicators to evaluate these theoretical lines.

Another problem arose when some players died, and their games were automatically scored as losses. The GS had to contact the TDs and delegates and inform them that “death” was considered an accepted withdrawal, and therefore the above-mentioned clarification had to be applied to their unfinished games.

Additionally, it was mentioned that several other issues needed improvement in order to have a smooth procedure, for example, the communication with all TDs who have the withdrawing player in one of their events. Given that a withdrawal in one event automatically means the player concerned must withdraw from all ongoing events, it is vital that the GS can communicate the news to all TDs concerned.

Another important task to produce in the near future was an “Adjudication Guideline”, detailing how adjudications are to be handled by players, TDs and adjudicators alike.

It was agreed that the record and maintenance of the “Penalty/Sanctions List” be transferred to the World Tournament Director.

24.	Tournament Rules matters

In his report, the Deputy President (Rules) noted that the past year had seen little activity in the rules area, mainly due to the fact that the Tournament Rules went through a major revision at the previous Congress, while the next revision of the Playing Rules was scheduled for the following Congress.

He noted that despite this the Playing Rules Commission had reviewed some key issues in the Playing Rules Guidelines, which would be put forward to Congress.

In addition he noted that rules-related work also had been done in the Arbiter Review Commission, and in the further development of the ICCF Code of Conduct.

Concerning the Playing Rules Guidelines, the Playing Rules Commission had suggested that in cases where the issue itself was clear, but the wording might give rise to misunderstandings it should be possible to update the wording immediately, without waiting for Congress ratification. This suggestion was accepted unanimously by Congress.

The Commission had considered the most urgent problem to be the guideline to para. 2 in the Email rules, where the Commission felt that the "phantom day" introduced by the last sentence in the guideline to para. 2 g not only caused a lot of frustration among the players, but actually contradicted paras. 2 g and 6 c in the Playing Rules themselves. The Commission's proposal to remove the last sentence of the guideline - and hence also the "phantom day" was, however, rejected by Congress by majority vote.

Recognising the vagueness of para. 3 - especially 3 b - in the Email rules, a guideline towards a more uniform dealing with these kinds of problems was proposed, and unanimously accepted by Congress.

Similarly, a stricter guideline for para. 8 - concerning Special Leave – was proposed. This was accepted by Congress by majority vote.

The full text of the revised Guidelines is available in Appendix F.

In connection with the introduction of two new Appeals Commissions also a few changes to the instruction for the former Appeals Commission - now Appeals Commission (Playing Rules) - were suggested and unanimously approved by Congress.

The full text of the revised instruction is available in Appendix E.

The retiring Deputy President (Rules) finally observed that this was the end of a 16-year long period during which he had continuously served on the ICCF Presidium in several functions. He expressed his warm thanks to everybody for their support during those years.

The ICCF President warmly thanked Ragnar Wikman for his excellent and devoted long-year work for ICCF and expressed his wishes that even after his retirement from the top level ICCF positions, Mr Wikman would  remain active in ICCF and assist as an experienced adviser to the work of various ICCF Commissions. Congress appreciated Mr Wikman’s work by standing ovation.

25.	Ratings, including rules proposals

In his short verbal report, the ICCF Ratings Commissioner reported on the successful conclusion of the new rating list valid from 1.10.2003. No changes in the valid Rating rules were proposed.

Congress highly appreciated that this rating list was finished and published almost one month before its validity.

Finally, the Ratings Commissioner expressed his wish and willingness to continue his work in the next period. The ICCF President expressed a very warm thanks to the Ratings Commissioner for his devotion - despite the stressful and extremely time-consuming work involved in producing each new rating list the result is always excellent and delivered on time. Congress appreciated Mr Binder’s work by standing ovation.

26.	Other Rules matters, including Code of Conduct, Appeals, and Arbiter Review Commission proposals

a) Appeals Commission

The Chairman of the Appeals Commission reported on the work of the Appeals Commission since last Congress, dealing with 78 appeals in total. Out of these appeals, 8 were rejected for formal mistakes. In 57 cases, the TD decision was confirmed, in 13 cases the Appeals Commission changed the original TD decision.

He proposed some changes in the Playing Rules / Guidelines which were discussed in the rules working group on Sunday afternoon and partly implemented in the changes of the ICCF Playing Rules Guidelines under item 24. Moreover, he stressed the necessity that Tournament Directors should be better informed about the decisions made by Congresses.

Finally, Mr Radosztics announced his retirement as Chairman of the Appeals Commission and thanked all members of this Commission for their assistance. The ICCF President warmly thanked Mr Radosztics for his work and proposed Ragnar Wikman (FIN) as the new Chairman of the Appeals Commission (Playing Rules). Congress approved unanimously and enthusiastically this proposal.

It was also proposed to Congress the creation of two additional Commissions: the Appeals Commission (other ICCF Rules), to deal with cases concerning the application of Tournament Rules, Code of Conduct and any other rules matters, not covered elsewhere; and the Arbitration Commission, for the consideration of any appeal/complaint which does not come under the "terms and reference" or jurisdiction of the AC (Playing Rules) or the AC (other ICCF Rules), e.g. an appeal against the conduct of an ICCF Official, Tournament Office, Tournament Director, etc.

It was noted that these new Commission would not be “higher stages” for additional appeals: all three Commissions (AC Playing Rules; AC other ICCF Rules, and Arbitration Commission) are complementary in scope and act on the same level.

Congress voted unanimously for the creation of these two additional Commissions.

Furthermore, the ICCF President proposed Congress to approve the appointment of George Pyrich (SCO) as the Chairman of the new Appeals Commission (Other ICCF Rules), proposal which was unanimously approved by Congress.
The chairmanship and membership of the Arbitration Commission would be decided upon later.

b) Arbiter Review Commission

The Chairman of the Arbiter Review Commission Chris Lüers (GER) reported on the progress achieved by this Commission that was established by the ICCF Congress in Seixal 2002. Its terms of reference were to examine all aspects of arbiter work within ICCF, including quality assessment and recognition via titles.

The recommendations are:

-	to establish an Arbiter Council to supervise the work of all ICCF arbiters,
-	to strengthen the requirements for the IA title; the award of this title should be based on both quantity (length of service, number of tournaments directed) and quality of work as a Tournament Director (TD),
-	to set basic requirements / standards for all TDs leading ICCF tournaments and provide training where necessary to ensure that all TDs meet these requirements / standards,
-	to assign a “tutor” to all new ICCF TDs,
-	to establish an informal forum open to all ICCF TDs (preferably in the form of a moderated mailing list),
-	to list all TDs duties in a comprehensive document, for ease of reference.

On the other side, the Arbiter Review Commission was unable to reach a consensus on the need for a higher title for the most senior and experienced TDs.

Consequently, a reference was made to the draft document “ICCF Arbiter Rules” presented in writing to Congress. The Chairman of the Arbiter Review Commission emphasised that the work on this document had not yet been finished and encouraged Delegates / Officers to participate in this important task.

With satisfaction, Congress took his report into account and asked the Arbiter Review Commission to continue its commendable work, with the aim to present the final draft documents to be approved by the ICCF Congress 2004 in India.

With regard to the adjudication procedure, Congress approved by majority vote the proposal that the adjudicators’ names should not be revealed to the players involved, unless the adjudicators would agree to it.

As single parts of the present draft document are already finished in themselves and as some of them might be very useful for the arbiter work already now, congress authorised the World Tournament Director to make use of those paragraphs and guidelines which are not problematic and give them to TDs for use immediately.

c) Code of Conduct

The Membership and Services Director Pedro Hegoburu informed Congress about the discussions in the Code of Conduct working group on Sunday afternoon.

Besides making changes to the circulated draft text, it was noted that a caveat regarding the prohibition to take ICCF to civil, criminal or any other Court of Law should be studied for inclusion in the comprehensive review of the ICCF Statutes that would take place before the 2004 Congress. This would be in line with other Sports organisations, which specifically ban any and all lawsuits in any Court of Law, in lieu of the corresponding organisational appeal instances or in excess of these once they have acted and decided upon an appeal or penalty.

The adoption of the Code of Conduct Guidelines was unanimously approved, with several changes to the draft text circulated prior to Congress. The final version is included as Appendix G to these Minutes.

27. 	External matters

The ICCF President made a reference to Alan Borwell’s letter to FIDE (Annex 1 to the Report of the General Secretary), summing up the ICCF activities in the year 2002 and expressing his best wishes for a continuous fruitful co-operation between ICCF and FIDE. It was emphasised that the contact with FIDE was very important for the recruitment of new ICCF member federations.

A friendly contact had been maintained with other organisations; however, there were no specific discussions being held currently.

The delegate for Lithuania, Marijonas Ročius reminded Congress on the decision from Daytona Beach, 2000 regarding the proposed ICCF membership of GAISF – General Association of International Sports Federations. In Daytona Beach, it was agreed that the ICCF Presidium should take this proposal forward but no steps had been done so far. Congress agreed to re-consider this issue in the Executive Board.

28.	Internal matters

The Acting General Secretary informed Congress delegates that the announcement regarding schedule for the Zonal elections would be distributed after Congress. After discussion, several changes and corrections were made to the proposed draft announcement. It was envisaged that elections would take place at the beginning of December, so that the newly appointed Zonal Directors would start working as from 1.1.2004.

The Irish Delegate Tim Harding made reference to the disqualification of Mrs. Mia Poppe (BEL) in the Final of the 6th Ladies World Championship. He regretted that the issue had not been properly explained by the former Presidium, and expressed his desire for the issue to be clarified.

Congress heard a greeting letter by the Mexican CC players, handed over by the Mexican delegate Santiago Cardoso Contreras and translated by the ICCF President.

On request of the delegate for England, Alan Rawlings, the discussion on the document “Player Eligibility” (Annex 3 to the Report of the Acting General Secretary) was adjourned to the next Congress.

The delegate for Kazakhstan, Adil Murzaliev, addressed Congress with his speech in Russian which was translated into English by the delegate for Latvia, Artis Gaujens. Mr. Murzaliev argued that ICCF should not recognise titles achieved in the Email tournaments as they were obviously achieved with the aid of computers. Furthermore, he proposed that all countries participating in the Email Olympiads should obligatorily nominate their teams for postal Olympiads. Finally, he asked Congress to support postal chess as the only real way of correspondence chess.  In his brief reply, ICCF President emphasised that ICCF never intended to abolish postal chess and would support it as well as other progressive ways of transmission of moves. Moreover, he stressed that there was no other way for the CC players but to adapt themselves to the development of technology.

The delegate for USA and the Deputy President & Development Director, Max Zavanelli informed Congress that USA would propose to levy fees for appeals, in order to decrease the number of unjustified and unfounded appeals. Such fees would be reimbursed to the appellant in case his appeal was decided in his favour.

The delegate for the Netherlands, Nol van ’t Riet, expressed his thoughts about the new status of the European zone (discussed and approved under item 20 of the Agenda). Especially, he remarked the necessary independency and separation of the finances from the ICCF budget.

Once again, the ICCF President asked delegates to recruit volunteers in their countries for the Webserver and Web Magazine projects.

29.	Future meetings

The delegate for the Indian Federation, AICCF, N. R. Anil Kumar, provided Congress with more detailed information about the arrangements for the 2004 Congress to be held in Mumbai, India, from 31st October until 5th November 2004 (arrivals on 30.10; departures on 6.11). The ICCF President appreciated the enthusiasm of the Indian AICCF and warmly thanked Indian chess friends for their efforts to arrange the very first ICCF Congress in Asia. As usual, other negotiations would be held between the ICCF President / Membership & Services Director and AICCF, with the aim to distribute the official invitation papers by 30th April, 2004.

The ICCF President emphasised that for the follow-up years, no official offers had been made so far by possible hosts. However, negotiations had already been started with Sweden as possible host for 2006 Congress, and France as possible host for 2007 Congress. Other offers as possible hosts for future years Congresses would be welcomed by ICCF President / Membership & Services Director. Normally, the venues for 2005, 2006 and 2007 would be in Europe, whilst the next Congress to be organised outside Europe would be expected to take place in 2008.

30.	Any other matters

Donato Guerrini (ITA) addressed Congress in order to propose that each ICCF affiliated federation “adopt” a FIDE federation not yet affiliated to ICCF. The objective of this action would be to relieve / distribute work done to attract more CC Federations between National Federations and ICCF, keeping close links with the existing OTB federations throughout the process of information and admission into ICCF.

The Russian Delegate, Sergey Grodzensky, announced the organisation of the CC friendly match “Russia vs. Rest of the World”, to be played over 50 boards. Mr. Gaujens (LAT) would be Team Captain for “Rest of the World”, and the Russian Team Captain would be Mr. Grodzensky himself.

In closing the ICCF Congress 2003, the ICCF President thanked all ICCF officials for their Reports to Congress and for their tremendous work on behalf of ICCF throughout the past year.  He appreciated the way in which everyone had participated in the demanding work of the Congress throughout the week and thanked Delegates for their contributions that made easier his first role as Chairman of Congress.

On behalf of delegates, Ragnar Wikman (FIN) appreciated the performance of the new President during the Congress sessions and thanked him for the smooth progress of sessions.

In declaring the Congress closed, the ICCF President expressed a hope that all would meet again in India in 2004.

Josef Mrkvička								Pedro F. Hegoburu
ICCF President								Membership & Services Director

APPENDIX A
ICCF Commissions (from 18/10/2003)

Tournaments Commission
Chris Lüers (GER), (Chairman), Roald Berthelsen (NOR), Witold Bielecki (POL), Gerhard Binder (GER), Egbert Bösenberg (GER), Pedro Hegoburu (ARG), Leonardo Madonia (ITA), George Pyrich (SCO), Gian-Maria Tani (ITA), Max Zavanelli (USA)

Tournament Rules Commission
…… (to be decided), (Chairman), Witold Bielecki (POL), Dario Biella-Bianchi (PER), Gerhard Binder (GER), Egbert Bösenberg (GER), Carlos Cranbourne (ARG), Sergey Grodzensky (RUS), Tim Harding (IRL), Chris Lüers (GER), Leonardo Madonia (ITA), Ralph Marconi (CAN), George Pyrich (SCO), Mohammed Samraoui (ALG), Max Zavanelli (USA), Josep Mercadal Benejam (ESP)

Playing Rules Commission
Gerhard Radosztics (AUT), (Chairman), José Amorim Neto (BRA), Roald Berthelsen (NOR), Dario Biella-Bianchi (PER), Witold Bielecki (POL), Tim Harding (IRL), Leo Lahdenmäki (FIN), Nikolay Poleshchuk (RUS), Per Söderberg (SWE), Ragnar Wikman (FIN), Kristo Miettinen (USA), Josep Mercadal Benejam (ESP)

Rating Rules Commission
Gerhard Binder (GER), (Chairman), George Pyrich (SCO), Nol van 't Riet (NED), Jo Wharrier (ENG), Ragnar Wikman (FIN)

Appeals Commission (Playing Rules)
Ragnar Wikman (FIN), (Chairman), José Amorim Neto (BRA), Roald Berthelsen (NOR), Ian Brooks (ENG), Evgeny Karelin (RUS), Leo Lahdenmäki (FIN), Jörgen Axel Nielsen (DEN), Mohamed Samraoui (ALG)

Appeals Commission (Other ICCF Rules)
George Pyrich (SCO), (Chairman), the other members to be decided.

Arbitration Commission
Chairman and members to be decided.

Marketing Commission
Pedro Hegoburu (ARG), (Chairman), Tobias Habermehl (GER), Georg Walker (SUI)

Arbiter Review Commission
Chris Lüers (GER), (Chairman), Ian Brooks (ENG), Duncan Chambers (ENG), Pedro Hegoburu (ARG), Ralph Marconi (CAN), Gerhard Radosztics (AUT)

President’s Commission
Josef Mrkvička (CZE), (Chairman), Alan Borwell (SCO), Jose Amorim Neto (BRA), Pedro Hegoburu (ARG), Chris Lüers (GER), Gerhard Radosztics (AUT), Nol van't Riet (NED), Med Samraoui (ALG), Ragnar Wikman (FIN).

(Note: the ICCF President, Membership & Services Director, and ICCF Honorary President are ex-officio members of above ICCF Commissions, except for Appeals Commissions).

APPENDIX B

 
ICCF Congress 2003 – Ostrava, Czech Republic

ICCF  Congress 2003 – Ostrava – Czech Republic

APPENDIX C

TITLE NORMS FOR CURRENTLY RUNNING TOURNAMENTS

Event	Start Date	No. of Games	Ave. ELO	Cat.	No. of GM's	No. of SIM's	GM Norm	SIM Norm	IM Norm	LGM Norm	ILM Norm	Notes	
World Championship Events													
WC16f	30/06/99	16	2581	14	14		8.5					GMT 1st-3rd	
WC17f	08/03/02	16	2574	13	9	4	9.5	7.0	6.0			GMT 1st-3rd	
WC18f	01/06/03	15	2614	15	9	5	7.0	5.0	4.5	3.0	1.5	GMT 1st-3rd	
WC19tqf2	01/06/99	16	2503	11	2	4	10.5		7.0				
WC19tqf3	01/06/99	16	2502	11	2	1	10.5		7.0				
WC19tqf5	01/06/99	16	2503	11	3	1	10.5		7.0				
WC19tqf6	01/06/99	16	2496	10	2	4	11.0		7.5				
WC20tqf1	02/07/01	12	2524	11	3	5	8.0	6.0	5.5				
WC20tqf2	02/07/01	12	2521	11	5	3	8.0	6.0	5.5				
WC20tqf3	02/07/01	12	2519	11	3	6	8.0	6.0	5.5				
WC20tqf4	02/07/01	12	2516	11	3	3	8.0	6.0	5.5				
WC20tqf6	02/07/01	12	2519	11	3	4	8.0	6.0	5.5				
WC21tqf1	02/06/02	12	2531	12	4	4	7.5	6.0	5.0				
WC21tqf2	02/06/02	12	2527	12	5	5	7.5	6.0	5.0				
WC21tqf3	02/06/02	11	2498	10	3	6	7.5	6.0	5.5				
WC21tqf4	02/06/02	11	2498	10	3	5	7.0	5.5	5.0			1 withdrawal	
WC21tqf5	02/06/02	12	2500	10	3	5	7.0	5.5	5.0			1 withdrawal	
WC22tqf1	01/05/03	12	2476	10	4	3	8.0	6.5	6.0				
WC22tqf2	01/08/03	12	2507	11	4	2	8.0	6.0	5.5				
WC24sf2	30/03/00	10	2402	7	0	0	8.0		6.0				
WC24sf4	30/03/00	10	2431	8	0	0	7.5		5.5				
WC24sf5	30/03/00	10	2454	9	0	0	7.0		5.0				
WC24sf6	30/03/00	10	2402	7	0	0	8.0		6.0				
WC24sf9	30/03/00	10	2403	7	0	0	8.0		6.0				
WC24sf10	30/03/00	10	2442	8	1	0	7.5		5.5				
WC24sf12	30/03/00	10	2401	7	0	0	8.0		6.0				
WC24sf13	31/10/00	10	2410	7	0	0	8.0	6.5	6.0				
WC25sf1	01/08/01	11	2401	7	0	1	8.0	6.5	6.0				
WC25sf2	01/08/01	11	2401	7	1	0	8.0	6.5	6.0				
WC25sf6	01/08/01	11	2402	7	0	1	8.0	6.5	6.0				
WC25sf10	01/08/01	11	2402	7	0	1	8.0	6.5	6.0				
WC25sf12	01/08/01	11	2402	7	0	1	8.0	6.5	6.0				
WC25sf14	01/08/01	11	2401	7	0	2	8.0	6.5	6.0				
WC25sf16	01/08/01	11	2402	7	0	2	8.0	6.5	6.0				
WC25sf18	01/08/01	11	2376	6				7.0	6.0	4.0			
WC25sf19	01/08/01	11	2379	6				7.0	6.0				
WC25sf20	01/08/01	11	2383	6				7.0	6.0				
WC26sf1	01/09/02	12	2414	7	0	1	9.5	8.0	7.0				
WC26sf2	01/09/02	12	2413	7	0	2	9.5	8.0	7.0				
WC26sf3	01/09/02	12	2414	7	0	2	9.5	8.0	7.0				
WC26sf4	01/09/02	12	2414	7	0	2	9.5	8.0	7.0				
WC26sf5	01/09/02	12	2405	7	0	2	9.5	8.0	7.0				
WC26sf6	01/09/02	12	2405	7	0	2	9.5	8.0	7.0				
WC26sf7	01/09/02	12	2405	7	0	3	9.5	8.0	7.0				
WC26sf8	01/09/02	12	2405	7	1	2	9.5	8.0	7.0				
WC26sf9	01/09/02	12	2405	7	0	4	9.5	8.0	7.0				
WC26sf10	01/09/02	12	2405	7	0	2	9.5	8.0	7.0				
WC26sf11	01/09/02	12	2405	7	0	2	9.5	8.0	7.0				
WC26sf12	01/09/02	12	2405	7	0	3	9.5	8.0	7.0				
WC26sf13	01/09/02	12	2401	7	0	3	9.5	8.0	7.0				
WC26sf14	01/09/02	12	2405	7	0	2	9.5	8.0	7.0				
WC27sf1	01/03/03	12	2402	7	0	5	9.5	8.0	7.0				
WC27sf2	15/04/03	12	2420	7	0	2	9.5	8.0	7.0				
WC27sf3	02/05/03	12	2402	7	0	1	9.5	8.0	7.0				
WC27sf4	01/06/03	12	2404	7	0	2	9.5	8.0	7.0				
WC27sf5	07/07/03	12	2402	7	0	3	9.5	8.0	7.0				
WC27sf6	07/07/03	12	2407	7	1	1	9.5	8.0	7.0	4.5	3.0		
WC27sf7	01/09/03	12	2402	7	0	5	9.5	8.0	7.0				
WC27sf8	13/09/03	12	2402	7	0	5	9.5	8.0	7.0				
WC27sf9	16/10/03	12	2409	7	0	1	9.5	8.0	7.0				
LWC6final	01/03/00	12	2256	13	3				1st /9.5	7  /1st - 3rd	4.5		
LWC7final	01/06/02	12	2290	14					1st /9.0	6.5  /1st - 3rd	4.0		
LWC7sf1	30/06/98	13	2010	2							9.5		
LWC7sf2	30/06/98	13	2013	2							9.5		
LWC7sf3	30/06/98	12	2010	2							9.0		
													
Olympiads													
CCOL12fb1	30/05/98	11	2580	14	7		6.0		4.0			GM Title 9.0/1st (6.0 for Neumann, Al-Thani & Vitomskis)	
CCOL13s1b1	30/05/98	11	2496	10					5.5				
CCOL13s2b2	30/05/98	11	2431	8					6.0				
CCOL13s3b1	30/05/98	11	2468	9					5.5				
CCOL13s3b2	30/05/98	11	2456	9					5.5				
CCOL13s3b3	30/05/98	11	2419	7					6.5				
CCOL13s3b4	30/05/98	11	2410	7					6.5				
CCOL13s3b5	30/05/98	11	2342	4					7.5				
CCOL13s3b6	30/05/98	11	2336	4					7.5				
CCOL13s4b1	30/05/98	12	2480	10	4		8.0		6.0				
CCOL13s4b2	30/05/98	12	2441	8					6.5				
CCOL13s4b3	30/05/98	12	2396	6					7.0				
CCOL13s4b4	30/05/98	12	2370	5					7.5				
CCOL13s4b5	30/05/98	12	2365	5					7.5				
CCOL13s4b6	30/05/98	12	2332	4					8.0				
OL14fb1	27/12/02	11	2574	13	9	1	6.5	5.0	4.0				
OL14fb2	27/12/02	11	2537	12	2	7	7.0	5.5	4.5				
OL14fb3	27/12/02	11	2512	11	4	5	7.0	5.5	5.0				
OL14fb4	27/12/02	11	2505	11	1	8	7.0	5.5	5.0				
OL14fb5	27/12/02	11	2501	11	0	5	7.0	5.5	5.0				
OL14fb6	27/12/02	11	2457	9	0	6	8.0	6.5	5.5	4.0	2.5		
OL15s1b1	15/01/03	11	2504	11	2	4	7.0	5.5	5.0				
OL15s1b2	15/01/03	11	2449	8	1	3	8.0	7.0	6.0				
OL15s1b3	15/01/03	11	2413	7	1	2	8.5	7.0	6.5				
OL15s1b4	15/01/03	11	2376	6				7.5	7.0				
OL15s1b5	15/01/03	11	2327	4				8.0	7.5	4.5	3.0		
OL15s1b6	15/01/03	11	2298	2					8.0				
OL15s2b1	15/01/03	10	2500	10	0	5	7.0	5.5	5.0				
OL15s2b2	15/01/03	10	2428	8	0	3	7.5	6.0	5.5				
OL15s2b3	15/01/03	10	2418	7	0	5	8.0	6.5	6.0				
OL15s2b4	15/01/03	10	2350	4				7.5	7.0				
OL15s2b5	15/01/03	10	2309	3				8.0	7.0				
OL15s2b6	15/01/03	10	2314	3				8.0	7.0				
OL15s3b1	15/01/03	10	2485	10	0	3	7.0	5.5	5.0				
OL15s3b2	15/01/03	10	2467	9	0	4	7.0	6.0	5.0				
OL15s3b3	15/01/03	10	2395	6				7.0	6.0				
OL15s3b4	15/01/03	10	2374	5				7.0	6.5				
OL15s3b5	15/01/03	10	2344	4				7.5	7.0				
OL15s3b6	15/01/03	10	2312	3				8.0	7.0				
OL15s4b1	15/01/03	10	2456	9	1	4	7.0	6.0	5.0				
OL15s4b2	15/01/03	10	2408	7	1	4	8.0	6.5	6.0				
OL15s4b3	15/01/03	10	2402	7	0	2	8.0	6.5	6.0				
OL15s4b4	15/01/03	10	2353	5				7.0	6.5				
OL15s4b5	15/01/03	10	2383	6				7.0	6.0				
OL15s4b6	15/01/03	10	2352	5				7.0	6.5				
OL15s5b1	15/01/03	10	2466	9	0	6	7.0	6.0	5.0				
OL15s5b2	15/01/03	10	2439	8	0	4	7.5	6.0	5.5				
OL15s5b3	15/01/03	10	2411	7	0	0	8.0	6.5	6.0				
OL15s5b4	15/01/03	10	2370	5				7.0	6.5				
OL15s5b5	15/01/03	10	2341	4				7.5	7.0				
OL15s5b6	15/01/03	10	2314	3				8.0	7.0				
													
LCCOL6s1b1	31/12/97	7	2095	2							5.5		
LCCOL6s1b2	31/12/97	7	2046	2							5.5		
LCCOL6s1b3	31/12/97	7	1981	1							5.5		
LCCOL6s1b4	31/12/97	7	1900	1							5.5		
LCCOL6s2b1	31/12/97	7	2045	2							5.5		
LCCOL6s2b2	31/12/97	7	2014	2							5.5		
LCCOL6s2b3	31/12/97	7	1954	1							5.5		
LCCOL6s2b4	31/12/97	7	1940	1							5.5		
Ladies OL6fb1	01/03/03	9	2301	15				7.0	6.5	4.5	3.0	LGMT 1st, ILMT 6.0	
Ladies OL6fb1	01/03/03	9	2157	4							6.0		
Ladies OL6fb1	01/03/03	9	2122	3							6.5		
Ladies OL6fb1	01/03/03	9	2011	3							6.5		
													
World Cups													
World Cup 10 F.	08/10/01	14	2493	10	1	2	9.5	7.5	7.0				
World Cup 11sf1	15/03/03	12	2332	4				9.0	8.0				
World Cup 11sf2	15/03/03	12	2326	4				9.0	8.0				
World Cup 11sf3	15/03/03	12	2332	4				9.0	8.0				
World Cup 11sf4	15/03/03	12	2333	4				9.0	8.0				
World Cup 11sf5	15/03/03	12	2342	4				9.0	8.0				
World Cup 11sf6	15/03/03	12	2334	4				9.0	8.0				
World Cup 11sf7	15/03/03	12	2335	4				9.0	8.0				
World Cup 11sf8	15/03/03	12	2353	5				8.5	8.0				
World Cup 11sf9	15/03/03	12	2355	5				8.5	8.0				
World Cup 11sf10	15/03/03	12	2354	5				8.5	8.0				
World Cup 11sf11	15/03/03	12	2361	5				8.5	8.0				
World Cup 11sf12	15/03/03	12	2351	5				8.5	8.0				
World Cup 11sf13	15/03/03	12	2365	5				8.5	8.0				
World Cup 12sf1	01/03/03	10	2343	4				7.5	7.0				
World Cup 12sf2	01/03/03	10	2343	4				7.5	7.0				
World Cup 12sf3	01/03/03	10	2348	4				7.5	7.0				
World Cup 12sf4	01/03/03	10	2343	4				7.5	7.0				
World Cup 12sf5	01/03/03	10	2359	5				7.0	6.5				
													
Master Norm Events													
GMN1	30/04/02	10	2487	10	0	2	7.0	5.5	5.0				
GMN2	30/09/02	10	2512	11	0	2	6.5	5.0	4.5				
													
MN73	15/04/99	10	2354	5					6.5				
MN77	25/08/99	10	2381	6					6.0				
MN80	25/11/99	10	2360	5					6.5				
MN83	28/03/00	10	2365	5					6.5				
MN85	28/03/00	10	2363	5					6.5				
MN86	29/05/00	10	2370	5					6.5				
MN87	29/05/00	10	2355	5					6.5		2.5		
MN88	04/09/00	10	2378	6					6.0				
MN89	04/09/00	10	2362	5					6.5				
MN90	04/09/00	10	2382	6					6.0				
MN91	31/12/00	10	2381	6				7.0	6.0				
MN92	31/12/00	10	2385	6				7.0	6.0				
MN93	31/12/00	10	2388	6				7.0	6.0				
MN94	31/12/00	9	2377	6				6.0	5.5			1 withdrawal	
MN95	31/12/00	10	2377	6				7.0	6.0				
MN97	31/03/01	10	2383	6				7.0	6.0				
MN98	31/03/01	10	2376	6				7.0	6.0				
MN99	23/07/01	10	2362	5				7.0	6.5				
MN100	23/07/01	10	2352	5				7.0	6.5				
MN101	31/12/01	10	2351	5				7.0	6.5				
MN102	31/12/01	10	2356	5				7.0	6.5				
MN103	31/12/01	10	2356	5				7.0	6.5				
MN104	31/12/01	10	2353	5				7.0	6.5				
MN105	18/02/02	10	2353	5				7.0	6.5				
MN106	30/03/02	10	2379	6				7.0	6.0				
MN107	01/07/02	10	2352	5				7.0	6.5				
MN108	01/07/02	10	2362	5				7.0	6.5				
MN109	30/09/02	10	2378	6				7.0	6.0				
MN110	04/04/03	12	2354	5				8.5	8.0				
MN111	04/04/03	12	2352	5				8.5	8.0				
MN112	04/04/03	12	2353	5				8.5	8.0				
MN113	25/09/03	12	2356	5				8.5	8.0	5.5	3.0		
													
EMGMN1	01/03/02	10	2477	10	0	3	7.0	5.5	5.0				
EMGMN3	01/05/02	10	2477	10	0	2	7.0	5.5	5.0				
EMGMN4	25/06/02	10	2503	11	0	3	6.5	5.0	4.5				
EMGMN5	20/11/02	12	2497	10	0	3	8.0	6.5	6.0				
EMGMN6	31/01/03	12	2480	10	0	5	8.0	6.5	6.0				
EMGMN7	01/08/03	12	2493	10	0	3	8.0	6.5	6.0				
													
EMMN32	15/03/01	10	2365	5				6.5	6.0			1 withdrawal	
EMMN34	25/04/01	10	2377	6				7.0	6.0				
EMMN39	25/07/01	10	2383	6				7.0	6.0				
EMMN41	25/10/01	10	2354	5				7.0	6.5		2.5		
EMMN42	25/12/01	10	2352	5				7.0	6.5				
EMMN43	31/12/01	10	2353	5				7.0	6.5				
EMMN44	01/03/02	10	2353	5				7.0	6.5				
EMMN45	01/03/02	10	2354	5				7.0	6.5				
EMMN48	01/05/02	10	2354	5				7.0	6.5				
EMMN50	01/06/02	10	2387	6				7.0	6.0				
EMMN51	25/06/02	10	2352	5				7.0	6.5				
EMMN52	05/08/02	10	2353	5				7.0	6.5				
EMMN53	10/08/02	10	2352	5				7.0	6.5				
EMMN54	20/11/02	12	2370	5				8.0	7.0			1 withdrawal	
EMMN55	20/11/02	12	2366	5				8.5	8.0				
EMMN56	20/11/02	12	2353	5				8.5	8.0				
EMMN57	30/11/02	12	2341	4				9.0	8.0				
EMMN58	25/01/03	12	2355	5				8.5	8.0				
EMMN59	25/01/03	12	2356	5				8.5	8.0				
EMMN60	31/01/03	12	2358	5				8.5	8.0				
EMMN61	31/01/03	12	2362	5				8.5	8.0				
EMMN62	10/05/03	12	2362	5				8.5	8.0	5.5	3.5		
EMMN63	10/05/03	12	2354	5				8.5	8.0	5.5	3.5		
EMMN64	15/06/03	12	2357	5				8.5	8.0				
EMMN65	25/06/03	12	2342	4				9.0	8.0				
EMMN66	01/08/03	12	2329	4				9.0	8.0				
EMMN67	01/09/03	12	2346	4				9.0	8.0	6.0	3.5		
													
Champions League													
Q1 b1	15/06/02	10	2387	6				7.0	6.0				
Q2 b1	15/06/02	10	2325	3				8.0	7.0				
Q3 b1	15/06/02	10	2386	6				7.0	6.0				
Q7 b1	15/06/02	10	2368	5				7.0	6.5				
Q8 b1	15/06/02	10	2393	6				7.0	6.0		2.5		
Q9 b1	15/06/02	10	2329	4				7.5	7.0				
Q10 b1	15/06/02	10	2334	4				7.5	7.0		3.0		
Q11 b1	15/06/02	10	2360	5				7.0	6.5				
Q11 b2	15/06/02	10	2298	2					7.5				
Q12 b1	15/06/02	10	2418	7	0	2	8.0	6.5	6.0		2.5		
Q13 b1	15/06/02	10	2332	4				7.5	7.0				
Q14 b1	15/06/02	10	2342	4				7.5	7.0		3.0		
Q15 b1	15/06/02	10	2344	4				7.5	7.0				
Q16 b1	15/06/02	10	2338	4				7.5	7.0				
Q18 b1	15/06/02	10	2339	4				7.5	7.0				
Q19 b1	15/06/02	10	2344	4				7.5	7.0		3.0		
Q20 b2	15/06/02	10	2315	3				8.0	7.0				
Q22 b1	15/06/02	10	2333	4				7.5	7.0				
													
African/Asian Events													
Asia 3	20/01/03	13	2252	2					9.5				
Africa 3	01/02/00	8	2265	2					6.0				
Africa-Asia EM 4	15/02/02	10	2336	4				7.5	7.0				
Africa-Asia EM 5	01/03/03	8	2325	3				6.5	6.0				
													
European Events													
EUFSM63sf5	04/01/99	14	2405	7	0	0	11.0		8.0				
EUFSM63sf6	04/01/99	14	2404	7	0	2	10.0		7.5			1 withdrawal	
EUSM64sf1	31/12/00	16	2405	7	0	1	12.5	10.5	9.5				
EUSM64sf2	31/12/00	16	2409	7	0	1	12.5	10.5	9.5				
EUSM64sf3	31/12/00	14	2413	7	0	1	11.0	9.0	8.0				
EUSM64sf4	31/12/00	14	2413	7	0	0	11.0	9.0	8.0				
EUSM64sf5	31/12/00	14	2405	7	0	0	11.0	9.0	8.0				
EUSM64sf6	31/12/00	13	2411	7	0	1	10.0	8.5	7.5				
EUSM64sf7	31/12/00	14	2410	7	0	0	11.0	9.0	8.0				
EUFSM65sf1	09/01/03	12	2405	7	0	4	9.5	8.0	7.0				
EUFSM65sf2	09/01/03	12	2401	7	0	4	9.5	8.0	7.0				
EUFSM65sf3	09/01/03	12	2401	7	0	3	9.5	8.0	7.0				
EUFSM65sf4	09/01/03	12	2401	7	0	4	9.5	8.0	7.0				
EUFSM65sf5	09/01/03	12	2401	7	0	4	9.5	8.0	7.0				
EUFSM65sf6	09/01/03	12	2401	7	0	4	9.5	8.0	7.0				
EUFSM65sf7	09/01/03	12	2401	7	0	4	9.5	8.0	7.0				
EUFSM65sf8	09/01/03	12	2402	7	0	4	9.5	8.0	7.0				
EUFSM65sf9	09/01/03	12	2380	6				9.5	8.5				
EUFSM65sf10	09/01/03	12	2381	6				9.5	8.5				
EUFSM65sf11	09/01/03	12	2382	6				9.5	8.5				
EUFSM65sf12	09/01/03	12	2382	6				9.5	8.5	6.0	4.0		
													
EUMSM5fb1	02/11/99	10	2568	13	5	3	6.0		4.0				
EUMSM5fb2	02/11/99	10	2529	12	5	3	6.0		4.0				
EUMSM5fb3	02/11/99	10	2518	11	2	1	6.5		4.5				
EUMSM5fb4	02/11/99	10	2474	9	0	1	7.0		5.0				
EUMSM5fb5	02/11/99	10	2474	9	0	1	7.0		5.0				
EUMSM5fb6	02/11/99	10	2441	8	0	1	7.5		5.5				
EUMSM5fb7	02/11/99	10	2435	8	0	2	7.5		5.5				
EUMSM5fb8	02/11/99	10	2429	8	0	1	7.5		5.5				
EUMSM5fb9	02/11/99	10	2429	8	0	1	7.5		5.5				
EUMSM5fb10	02/11/99	10	2410	7	0	0	8.0		6.0				
EUMSM5fb11	02/11/99	10	2378	6					6.0				
EUMSM5fb12	02/11/99	10	2325	3					7.0				
													
South American Events													
CADAP13f	31/03/01	14	2444	8	1	2	10.5	8.5	7.5				
CADAP14f	25/09/02	14	2471	9	0	2	10.0	8.0	7.0				
CADAP15f	01/08/02	14	2476	10	0	7	9.5	7.5	7.0				
CADAP16sf1	31/03/02	14	2358	5				10.0	9.0				
CADAP16sf2	31/03/02	14	2369	5				10.0	9.0		4.0		
CADAP16sf3	31/03/02	14	2357	5				10.0	9.0				
CADAP17sf1	14/04/03	14	2323	3				11.0	10.0				
CADAP17sf2	14/04/03	14	2283	2					10.5				
													
North American Events													
NAPZ4	01/05/02	14	2431	8	0	1	10.5	8.5	7.5				
NAPZ1 (EM)	15/09/01	14	2322	3				11.0	10.0				
													
Invitation Events (Individual)													
Africa/Asia "A"	31/12/01	14	2551	13	6	3	8.0	6.0	5.0				
Africa/Asia "B"	31/12/01	14	2501	11	3	6	9.0	7.0	6.0				
Alves Jr. "A"	30/06/03	14	2438	8	0	3	10.5	8.5	7.5				
Alves Jr. "B"	30/06/03	14	2351	5				10.0	9.0				
Amici Sumus "A"	04/10/98	14	2509	11	5		9.0		6.0			GMT 9.0	
Amici Sumus "B"	31/05/98	14	2376	6					8.5				
APA 30 "A"	31/03/01	14	2530	12	5	4	8.5	7.0	6.0				
APA 30 "B"	15/05/01	15	2433	8	0	5	11.0	9.0	8.0				
Araujo "A"	15/08/02	15	2484	10	0	6	9.5	7.5	7.0				
Araujo "B"	15/08/02	15	2453	9	0	4	10.0	8.0	7.0				
ARG Cup "A"	15/09/03	12	2418	7	0	1	9.5	8.0	7.0				
ARG Cup "B"	15/09/03	12	2284	2					9.0				
Batik	15/10/03	14	2593	14	9	5	7.5	6.0	5.0				
BFCC 40 E	31/05/02	14	2428	8	0	2	10.5	8.5	7.5				
BFCC 40 P	31/05/02	14	2407	7	0	3	11.0	9.0	8.0				
Bibas "A"	31/08/00	14	2390	6					8.5	5.0	3.5		
Bibas "B"	31/08/00	14	2395	6					8.5				
Bohatirchuk 110	01/12/02	14	2508	11	2	8	9.0	7.0	6.0				
Botvinnik	01/03/01	14	2461	9	1	5	10.0	8.0	7.0				
Brglez	28/06/99	14	2495	10	5	1	9.0		6.5			1 withdrawal	
Capablanca	20/01/01	14	2393	6				9.5	8.5				
CCCA 80	15/10/01	14	2387	6				9.5	8.5				
Christoffel "Gold"	01/06/02	14	2581	14	6	7	7.5	6.0	5.0				
Christoffel "Red"	01/06/02	14	2506	11	4	6	9.0	7.0	6.0				
Christoffel "Blue"	01/06/02	14	2506	11	3	8	9.0	7.0	6.0				
Cuba 30	15/06/02	14	2413	7	0	0	11.0	9.0	8.0				
Diaconescu "A"	15/01/03	14	2404	7	0	3	11.0	9.0	8.0				
Diaconescu "B"	15/01/03	14	2347	4				10.5	9.5				
Diaconescu "C"	15/01/03	14	2256	1					11.0				
DEN SU 100 "B"	01/05/03	14	2401	7	0	4	11.0	9.0	8.0				
Dubinin	01/07/99	14	2478	10	2	0	9.5		7.0				
FINJUB 40 P	20/06/01	16	2486	10	3	5	11.0	8.5	7.5				
FINJUB 40 E	20/06/01	12	2453	9	0	0	8.5	7.0	6.0				
Finnish Open EM	15/02/02	14	2350	5				10.0	9.0				
Friendship Americas	05/07/03	14	2413	7	0	0	11.0	9.0	8.0				
Gillman "A"	15/12/99	14	2528	12	5	3	8.0		5.5			1 withdrawal	
Gipslis	15/07/01	16	2454	9	1	2	11.5	9.5	8.0				
Giraudet "A"	15/05/03	12	2320	3				9.5	8.5				
Giraudet "A"	15/05/03	14	2333	4				10.5	9.5				
ter Haar	15/05/03	12	2314	3				9.5	8.5				
ICCF 50 WC	01/07/01	8	2620	15	9	0	4.0						
ICCF 50 Elite GM	15/01/02	14	2675	17	8	0	6.5						
ICCF 50 GM "A"	01/11/01	14	2490	10	1	6	9.5	7.5	7.0				
ICCF 50 GM "B"	01/11/01	14	2490	10	1	5	9.5	7.5	7.0				
Jaudran "A"	15/09/02	12	2505	11	2	10	8.0	6.0	5.5				
Jaudran "B"	15/09/02	14	2402	7	0	3	11.0	9.0	8.0				
Kazic	01/02/98	14	2517	11	5		9.0		6.0			GMT 9.0	
Keres 85	07/01/01	14	2518	11	8	1	9.0	7.0	6.0				
Koatz "A"	20/08/01	14	2385	6				9.5	8.5				
Koatz "B"	20/08/01	14	2379	6				9.5	8.5				
Koshnitsky	30/06/02	14	2429	8	2	2	10.5	8.5	7.5				
Krzyzston	15/07/99	14	2537	12	6	1	8.5		6.0				
Linskens "A"	12/03/01	14	2456	9	0	4	10.0	8.0	7.0				
LIPEAP 30 "A"	05/10/02	16	2499	10	3	6	11.0	8.5	7.5				
LIPEAP 30 "B"	01/08/02	14	2379	6				9.5	8.5				
Mate Post. 25 "A"	01/07/00	14	2532	12	6	2	8.5		6.0				
Mate Post. 25 "B"	01/07/00	14	2410	7	0	0	11.0		8.0				
Mikhailov	15/02/02	14	2480	10	2	3	9.5	7.5	7.0				
Najdorf "A"	12/03/01	14	2526	12	2	5	8.5	7.0	6.0				
Najdorf "B"	14/03/01	14	2401	7	0	3	11.0	9.0	8.0				
Napolitano	01/11/98	14	2470	9	5		9.0		6.5			GMT 9.0                       1 withdrawal	
NAPZ EM	01/11/01	14	2390	6				9.5	8.5	6.0			
NORDBALT Cup 1	01/11/02	12	2473	9	1	4	8.5	7.0	6.0				
Pacini "A"	20/09/99	14	2391	6					8.5				
Pacini "B"	20/09/99	14	2387	6					8.5				
Peru Cup 3 Postal sf "A"	15/10/02	10	2341	4				7.5	7.0				
Peru Cup 3 Postal sf "B"	15/10/02	9	2317	3				6.5	6.0				
Peru Cup 3 Email f	01/07/03	10	2376	6				7.0	6.0				
Petrov	30/09/00	12	2435	8	4	1	9.0		6.5				
Portela "A"	30/09/01	16	2481	10	0	10	11.0	8.5	7.5				
Portela "B"	30/09/01	14	2403	7	0	1	11.0	9.0	8.0				
Rezvyakov	01/03/03	12	2420	7	0	4	9.5	8.0	7.0				
Ricagno	14/03/01	14	2315	3				11.0	10.0				
Roura "A"	30/09/01	16	2452	9	0	6	11.5	9.5	8.0				
Roura "B"	30/09/01	16	2357	5				11.5	10.5				
RUS CCA 10 "A"	01/06/03	12	2565	13	2	8	7.0	5.5	4.5				
RUS CCA 10 "B"	25/04/03	14	2514	11	4	4	9.0	7.0	6.0				
Thorn	15/08/00	14	2363	5					9.0				
Ufimtsev	01/02/01	16	2331	4				12.0	11.0		4.5		
Veinger "A"	01/06/02	14	2563	13	6	3	8.0	6.0	5.0				
Veinger "B"	01/06/02	14	2450	8	3	9	12.0	10.0	8.5				
Yashelin	01/07/02	14	2468	9	2	1	10.0	8.0	7.0				
YU-2000	20/12/00	14	2365	5				8.5	8.0			2 withdrawals	
Zagorovsky	01/10/99	12	2530	12	8	0	7.5		5.0				
Invitation Events (Teams)													
CL6b1	01/02/03	14	2416	7	0	6	11.0	9.0	8.0				
CL6b2	01/02/03	14	2356	5				10.0	9.0				
CL6b3	01/02/03	14	2365	5				10.0	9.0				
CL6b4	01/02/03	14	2352	5				10.0	9.0				
CL6b5	01/02/03	14	2315	3				11.0	10.0				
CL6b6	01/02/03	14	2301	3				11.0	10.0				
CL6b7	01/02/03	14	2258	1					11.0				
CL6b9	01/02/03	14	2184	10(l)						9.5	7.0		
IZT2002b1	15/09/02	8	2603	15	2	6	4.0	3.0	2.5				
IZT2002b2	15/09/02	8	2524	11	0	8	5.5	4.0	3.5				
IZT2002b3	15/09/02	8	2485	10	0	2	5.5	4.5	4.0				
IZT2002b4	15/09/02	8	2441	8	0	2	6.0	5.0	4.5				
IZT2002b5	15/09/02	8	2458	9	0	4	6.0	5.0	4.0				
IZT2002b6	15/09/02	8	2452	9	0	6	6.0	5.0	4.0				
IZT2002b7	15/09/02	8	2431	8	0	4	6.0	5.0	4.5				
IZT2002b8	15/09/02	8	2365	5				6.0	5.5				
Mare Nost. 2 b1	01/12/02	9	2370	5				6.5	6.0				
Mare Nost. 2 b2	01/12/02	9	2335	4				7.0	6.0				
Mare Nost. 2 b3	01/12/02	9	2327	4				7.0	6.0				
NATT5 b1	01/03/01	10	2462	9	0	3	7.0	6.0	5.0				
NATT5 b2	01/03/01	10	2426	8	0	2	7.5	6.0	5.5				
NATT5 b3	01/03/01	10	2380	6				7.0	6.0				
NATT5 b4	01/03/01	10	2365	5				7.0	6.5				
NATT5 b5	01/03/01	10	2352	5				7.0	6.5				
NATT5 b6	01/03/01	10	2331	4				7.5	7.0				
NATT5 b7	01/03/01	10	2328	4				7.5	7.0				
NATT5 b8	01/03/01	10	2305	3				8.0	7.0				
NATT5 b9	01/03/01	10	2295	2					7.5				
NATT5 b10	01/03/01	10	2262	1					8.0				
NSTT2 b1	31/01/03	10	2433	8	0	2	7.5	6.0	5.5				
NSTT2 b2	31/01/03	10	2346	4				7.5	7.0				
NSTT2 b3	31/01/03	10	2322	3				8.0	7.0				
NSTT2 b4	31/01/03	10	2295	2					7.5				
NSTT2 b5	31/01/03	10	2253	1					8.0				
Pacific TT4 b2	09/07/99	10	2346	4					7.0				
Pacific TT4 b3	09/07/99	10	2292	2					7.5				
Pacific TT4 b4	09/07/99	10	2302	3					7.0				
Pacific TT4 b6	09/07/99	10	2252	1					8.0				
PANAM7b1	01/06/00	14	2407	7	1	1	11.0		8.0				
PANAM7b2	01/06/00	14	2373	5					9.0				
PANAM7b3	01/06/00	14	2308	3					10.0				
PANAM7b4	01/06/00	14	2251	1					11.0				
PANAM8b1	31/03/03	14	2416	7	0	2	11.0	9.0	8.0				
PANAM8b2	31/03/03	14	2318	3				11.0	10.0				
PANAM8b3	31/03/03	14	2280	2					10.5				
PANAM8b4	31/03/03	14	2262	2					10.5				
Slav Cup 1 b1	01/09/99	10	2458	9	1	0	7.0		5.0				
Slav Cup 1 b2	01/09/99	10	2354	5					6.5				
Slav Cup 1 b3	01/09/99	10	2348	4					7.0				
Slav Cup 1 b4	01/09/99	10	2330	4					7.0				
Slav Cup 1 b5	01/09/99	10	2329	4					7.0				
Slav Cup 1 b6	01/09/99	10	2283	2					7.5				

APPENDIX D

NEW SCHEME OF ICCF TOURNAMENTS

APPENDIX E

INSTRUCTION FOR THE ICCF APPEALS COMMISSION (PLAYING RULES)
(revised after the ICCF Congress 2004 in Ostrava, changes/amendments highlighted in italics)

1) The Appeals Commission (Playing Rules)

a. ICCF has an Appeals Commission for resolution of appeals concerning ICCF Playing Rules.

b. Members of the Appeals Commission (Playing Rules) must be experienced International Arbiters.

c. One of the members is the chairman of the Appeals Commission (Playing Rules).

d. The members and the chairman are proposed by the Rules Commissioner and appointed by the Executive Board.

e. The ICCF Congress has to give its approval to these nominations.

f. The Appeals Commission (Playing Rules) is independent in its judgements.

2) Appeals procedure

a. Appeals according to §l3C of the Playing Rules should be sent to the chairman of the Appeals Commission (Playing Rules).

b. The chairman informs the Tournament Director involved and the opponent  (in team tournaments through his team captain) about the appeal, meanwhile asking them to send to him the eventual relevant documents within a certain period. He also asks the Tournament Director to check the opponent's address.

c. Depending on the complexity of the appeal, the chairman decides upon the procedure for dealing with the appeal.

d. The decision reached through this procedure is final.

e. The striving will always be that the members of the Appeals Commission (Playing Rules) who will be involved in a certain appeal do not have the same nationality as the Tournament Director and as the players involved.

f. In cases in which the chairman personally could be involved he appoints one of the members as his deputy, for example at the start of a tournament in which the chairman himself is playing.

3) Limits of the Appeals Commission (Playing Rules)

a. Under normal circumstances the Appeals Commission (Playing Rules) only checks if the decision of the Tournament Director has been formally correct.

b. Appeals against the judgement of the Tournament Director are customarily rejected.

4) Relation with other ICCF commissions

a. If the Appeals Commission (Playing Rules) finds a weakness in the Playing Rules then the chairman can send a proposal for a change of these rules to the Playing Rules commission.

b. Based upon the experiences of the Appeals Commission (Playing Rules) the chairman can also send recommendations to the Working Group Guidelines for Tournament Directors.

5) Extent of the Appeals Commission (Playing Rules)

a. The Appeals Commission (Playing Rules) is active for all ICCF tournaments.

b. The Appeals Commission (Playing Rules) is also active for all title tournaments approved by ICCF, unless agreed otherwise during the approval procedure.

c. Upon agreement the Appeals Commission (Playing Rules) can also be active for the tournaments organised by a Zonal Tournament Office.

APPENDIX F

ICCF PLAYING RULES GUIDELINES
(revised after the ICCF Congress 2004 in Ostrava, changes / amendments highlighted in italics)

Important principle for all games of correspondence chess played with ICCF - what is Amici Sumus?

Amici Sumus - we are friends - is the spirit that guides the play of ICCF, its rules and their interpretation.

Amici Sumus is not a cover all excuse for failing to follow the rules nor should it outweigh the rules, rather it is a philosophy. One way to view it is to ask how you would handle a situation if it occurred in an important tournament game against your best friend. You would play hard but within both the letter and the spirit of the rules, neither asking for nor giving quarter. However, if there were a disagreement, you would assume that he
is telling the truth, not automatically assume that he is lying and cheating. It is the Tournament Director's job to make sure that wherever possible games are decided by the skill of the players and not by his rulings, without
of course directly contradicting the rules.

Individual games normally played by post.
  
1a The FIDE rules can be found at http://handbook.fide.com. The most important change during recent years is that there are NO exceptions to the 50 move rule concerning draws.

1b If games are not progressing fast enough, the TD is entitled to request that the game be continued by means of electronic transmission. Failure to observe such a request can cause the refusing player to be defaulted.

2b Players may use two (or more) different notations eg. ICCF numeric and algebraic, provided they explicitly agree upon it at the start of the game.

2g The time starts counting when your opponent’s move is made available to you and ends when you send your reply. In the case of regular mail this is when the card is placed in a mailbox accessible to you.

2j If the postmark is illegible or there is no postmark, the expected postmark date should be accepted.

2k It is required to include the time used and total accumulated time for both players.

2m There is no obligation to finish the game by Email or fax if you decide to switch. If there is good reason to switch back to normal mail it is permissible to do so with the Tournament Directors permission. Repeated switching between Email, fax, and normal mail is discouraged.

Specifically the time control will remain at 10/30 and not switch to 10/60 UNLESS both players and the Tournament Director agree according to rule 6a. Whatever time control is agreed by all parties, one etl is permitted.

3a It is necessary to wait 14 days plus the average length of time it takes in the mail to get a move to your opponent and back.

Days when the opponent is on vacation shall not be counted to calculate the time to send a reminder.

3b Games MAY be scored as lost if 4 months pass without a move being played unless the Tournament Director has been informed of the delay. This does not mean that games are automatically forfeited after 4 months without a move, it is up to the Tournament Director to determine the reason for the delay and rule accordingly. Note that it is possible for the game to be forfeited by a player who is silent for more than 4 months, even if he has enough accumulated time not to have exceeded the time control.

4a If different moves are sent when two notations are explicitly agreed upon, the move should be treated as ambiguous and referred back to the sender for clarification.

4e As an example, there is no need to indicate check, nor can a move be considered invalid if check is not indicated.

5a Unless the Tournament Director specifically states that original documents must be sent, it is recommended that copies are made and sent.

5c It is not necessary to notify the Tournament Director of a change in Email address if no games are being played by Email and you do not wish to communicate with the Tournament Director by Email. It is however, highly recommended.

5d It is reasonable to try to sort out minor disputes without getting the Tournament Director involved. As a general guideline if a single exchange of correspondence does not solve the problem, it is time to notify the Tournament Director. Major disputes must be referred to the Tournament Director immediately.

6a This means that no more than 30 days reflection time can be used for the first 10 moves, 60 for the first 20 moves etc. without overstepping the time control.

6b For example, if a player uses 31 days for the first 9 moves, the game is not forfeited, but a new count is started with 30 days to reach the next time control which would be at 19 moves, 60 to make the second time control at 29 moves etc.

6f In a series of conditional moves, the time (for the recipient of conditionals) is in its entirety considered as belonging to the player REPLYING to the last ACCEPTED move.

As an example, assume that after 9 moves both players have used 28 days time. White now offers a conditional with his 10th move. Assume White uses 3 days for this, and Black accepts the conditional and uses 5 days for his reply to White's 11th move.

Then the cumulative times for the moves involved in the conditionals shall be recorded like in this example:

Rec.  Sent  Total Move White Black Rec.  Sent  Total
22/09 23/09 01/28  09. 4152  6857  23/09 23/09 00/28
24/09 27/09 03/31  10. 6141  5878  00000000000000000
00000000000000000  11. 3234  4534  28/09 03/10 05/33

Hence, White did exceed the time limit, since all his time for moves 10-11 is added to move 10, whereas Black did NOT exceed the time limit, since all HIS time for moves 10-11 is added to move 11!

7a It is recommended to claim an etl as soon as it occurs. The claim should include a complete copy of the game with all received and sent dates for both players. Even if a player acknowledges they have overstepped the time control in their correspondence it is still necessary to notify the Tournament Director so that it may be recorded.

7d The game should be continued while the Tournament Director is reviewing the claim and making the decision.

7e This means that players cannot take a large amount of time over a move when they know they have already exceeded the time control. The second time control starts as soon as the player is informed about the claim being made (see 7b).

8a Regular leave may be taken for any reason and in any increments not to exceed 30 days in any calendar year.

Dates given for a leave are inclusive. That is if a player's leave is from 7/7 to 13/7 the player has taken 7 days leave. A move received on 6/7 and replied to on 14/7 has a reflection time of 1 day. A move received on 6/7 and replied to on 13/7 is also 1 day, whereas a move received on 7/7 and replied to on 14/7 is 0 days. The player was not on leave on 6/7, so a move not responded to on 6/7 carries at least a 1 day reflection time, however a response on 14/7 is similar to sending your first move on the date the tournament starts, and thus no time used.

Note that reflection time does not stop during an opponents leave.

8c Special leave is intended to be used primarily for unexpected events such as illnesses, natural disasters and urgent overseas business postings. Recognizing the value of other chess activities special leave may be granted for attendance at ICCF Congress or OTB tournaments away from a player's home. Events planned in advance such as moving house or job are not valid reasons for special leave.

Retroactive special leave is only ever to be given when the player is unable to contact the TD or another player by some means, usually because of sudden hospitalization. Computer failure is NOT an acceptable reason for requesting a special leave in a postal tournament.

9. The tournament organizer may also decide to replace the withdrawing player if the withdrawal happens early in the tournament.

10d Analysis does not necessarily mean possible variations. It could also mean general plans where appropriate.

10e An adjudication is not subject to appeal if neither player submitted analysis.

12a It is not necessary to include the dates in this report. The game score should be sent in PGN or numeric notation. Please note that BOTH players are required to report the result to the Tournament Director.

Individual games normally played by Email.

1a The FIDE rules can be found at http://handbook.fide.com. The most important change during recent years is that there are NO exceptions to the 50 move rule concerning draws.

2b Players may use two (or more) different notations e.g. ICCF numeric and algebraic, provided they explicitly agree upon it at the start of the game.

2e Moves and times for the entire game should be sent in every Email

2g The time starts counting when your opponent’s move is made available to you and ends when you send your reply. In the case of regular mail this is when the card is placed in a mailbox accessible to you. In the case of Email this is when your server makes the message available for you to download. However, it is always permitted to consider the message as having been received the next day (your local time).

2i Except in unusual circumstances this will normally be the same dates the previous move was sent and the current one received. That is the Email took 0 days to be transmitted.

2j The message time stamp is the time that the move was received by the senders server. This time is usually shown in the full headers for the message.

2k It is required to include the time used and total accumulated time for both players.

2l As stated in the guidelines for 2g it is always permitted to consider the message as having been received the following day (your local time). One aim of this ruling is to avoid players complaining to the TD about moves being sent/received shortly before/after midnight.

3a It is necessary to wait 14 days before sending a repeat. If you know you are going to take more than 14 days over a move, please let your opponent know so that unnecessary repeats can be eliminated.

Days when the opponent is on vacation shall not be counted to calculate the time to send a reminder. A too early repeat should be avoided.

When moves are sent by Email, the failure to receive a "message undeliverable" or similar message is NOT proof that it has been delivered successfully. Email messages can and sometimes do simply vanish and in these cases neither player is at fault and neither player should be charged reflection time. However, this is an uncommon occurrence and repeated messages vanishing should be referred to the TD for investigation.

3b Games MAY be scored as lost if 40 days pass without a move being played unless the Tournament Director has been informed of the delay.
This does not mean that games are automatically forfeited after 40 days without a move, it is up to the Tournament Director to determine the reason for the delay and rule accordingly. Note that it is possible for the game to be forfeited by a player who is silent for more than 40 days, even if he has enough accumulated time not to have exceeded the time control.

The TD will normally record a loss against a player who has been silent for over 40 days (discounting leave periods) and who has not notified the TD and the opponent about the delay.

4a If different moves are sent when two notations are explicitly agreed upon, the move should be treated as ambiguous and referred back to the sender for clarification.

4e As an example, there is no need to indicate check, nor can a move be considered invalid if check is not indicated

5a If it is not possible to keep all of the records on the computer, it will be necessary to keep a copy on a floppy disk or failing that, paper.

5d It is reasonable to try to sort out minor disputes without getting the Tournament Director involved. As a general guideline if a single exchange of correspondence does not solve the problem, it is time to notify the Tournament Director. Major disputes must be referred to the Tournament Director immediately.

6a This means that no more than 60 days reflection time can be used for the first 10 moves, 120 for the first 20 moves etc. without overstepping the time control.

6e In a series of conditional moves, the time (for the recipient of conditionals) is in its entirety considered as belonging to the player REPLYING to the last ACCEPTED move.

As an example, assume that after 9 moves both players have used 58 days time. White now offers a conditional with his 10th move. Assume White uses 3 days for this, and Black accepts the conditional and uses 5 days for his reply to White's 11th move.

Then the cumulative times for the moves involved in the conditional shall be recorded like in this example:

Rec.  Sent  Total Move White Black Rec.  Sent  Total
22/09 23/09 01/58  09. 4152  6857  23/09 23/09 00/58
24/09 27/09 03/61  10. 6141  5878  00000000000000000
00000000000000000  11. 3234  4534  28/09 03/10 05/63

Hence, White did exceed the time limit, since all his time for moves 10-11 is added to move 10, whereas Black did NOT exceed the time limit, since all HIS time for moves 10-11 is added to move 11!

7a It is recommended to claim an etl as soon as it occurs. The claim should include a complete copy of the game with all received and sent dates for both players. Even if a player acknowledges they have overstepped the time control in their correspondence it is still necessary to notify the Tournament Director so that the result may be recorded.

7d The game should be suspended while the Tournament Director is reviewing the claim and making the decision.

8a Regular leave may be taken for any reason and in any increments not to exceed 30 days in any calendar year.

Dates given for a leave are inclusive. That is if a player's leave is from 7/7 to 13/7 the player has taken 7 days leave. A move received on 6/7 and replied to on 14/7 has a reflection time of 1 day. A move received on 6/7 and replied to on 13/7 is also 1 day, whereas a move received on 7/7 and replied to on 14/7 is 0 days. The player was not on leave on 6/7, so a move not responded to on 6/7 carries at least a 1 day reflection time, however a response on 14/7 is similar to sending your first move on the date the tournament starts, and thus no time used.

Note that reflection time does not stop during an opponents leave.

8c Special leave is intended to be used primarily for unexpected events such as illnesses, natural disasters and urgent overseas business postings. Recognizing the value of other chess activities special leave may be granted for attendance at ICCF Congress or OTB tournaments away from a player's home. In the event of a computer malfunction a special leave of up to 10 days is permissible, but should only be used once per tournament. Events planned in advance such as moving house or job are not valid reasons for special leave.

Retroactive special leave is only ever to be given when the player is unable to contact the TD or another player by some means, usually because of sudden hospitalization. Computer failure is NOT an acceptable reason for requesting a retroactive special leave.

9. The tournament organizer may also decide to replace the withdrawing player if the withdrawal happens early in the tournament.

10d Analysis does not necessarily mean possible variations. It could also mean general plans where appropriate.

10e An adjudication is not subject to appeal if neither player submitted analysis.

12a It is not necessary to include the dates in this report. Please note that BOTH players are required to report the result to the Tournament Director.

Team games normally played by post.

1a The FIDE rules can be found at http://handbook.fide.com. The most important change during recent years is that there are NO exceptions to the 50 move rule concerning draws

1b If games are not progressing fast enough, the TD is entitled to request that the game be continued by means of electronic transmission. Failure to observe such a request can cause the refusing player to be defaulted.

1c Players should contact their Team Captain instead of the Tournament Director, unless the Team Captain is unavailable in a time dependent situation.

2b Players may use two (or more) different notations e. g. ICCF numeric and algebraic, provided they explicitly agree upon it at the start of the game.

2g The time starts counting when your opponent’s move is made available to you and ends when you send your reply. In the case of regular mail this is when the card is placed in a mailbox accessible to you.

2j If the postmark is illegible or there is no postmark, the expected postmark date should be accepted.

2k It is required to include the time used and total accumulated time for both players.

2m There is no obligation to finish the game by Email or fax if you decide to switch. If there is good reason to switch back to normal mail it is permissible to do so with the Tournament Directors permission. Repeated switching between Email, fax, and normal mail is discouraged.

Specifically the time control will remain at 10/30 and not switch to 10/60 UNLESS both players and the Tournament Director agree according to rule 6a. Whatever time control is agreed by all parties, one etl is permitted.

3a It is necessary to wait 14 days plus the average length of time it takes in the mail to get a move to your opponent and back.

Days when the opponent is on vacation shall not be counted to calculate the time to send a reminder.

3b Games MAY be scored as lost if 4 months pass without a move being played unless the Tournament Director has been informed of the delay. This does not mean that games are automatically forfeited after 4 months without a move, it is up to the Tournament Director to determine the reason for the delay and rule accordingly. Note that it is possible for the game to be forfeited by a player who is silent for more than 4 months, even if he has enough accumulated time not to have exceeded the time control.

4a If different moves are sent when two notations are explicitly agreed upon, the move should be treated as ambiguous and referred back to the sender for clarification.

4e As an example, there is no need to indicate check, nor can a move be considered invalid if check is not indicated.

5a Unless the Tournament Director specifically states that original documents must be sent, it is recommended that copies are made and sent.

5c It is not necessary to notify the Team Captain of a change in Email address if no games are being played by Email and you do not wish to communicate with the Team Captain by Email. It is however, highly recommended.

5d It is reasonable to try to sort out minor disputes without getting the Team Captain involved. As a general guideline if a single exchange of correspondence does not solve the problem, it is time to notify the Team Captain. Major disputes must be referred to the Team Captain immediately.

6a This means that no more than 30 days reflection time can be used for the first 10 moves, 60 for the first 20 moves etc. without overstepping the time control.

6b For example, if a player uses 31 days for the first 9 moves, the game is not forfeited, but a new count is started with 30 days to reach the next time control which would be at 19 moves, 60 to make the second time control at 29 moves etc.

6f In a series of conditional moves, the time (for the recipient of conditionals) is in its entirety considered as belonging to the player REPLYING to the last ACCEPTED move.

As an example, assume that after 9 moves both players have used 28 days time. White now offers a conditional with his 10th move. Assume White uses 3 days for this, and Black accepts the conditional and uses 5 days for his reply to White's 11th move.

Then the cumulative times for the moves involved in the conditional shall be recorded like in this example:

Rec.  Sent  Total Move White Black Rec.  Sent  Total
22/09 23/09 01/28  09. 4152  6857  23/09 23/09 00/28
24/09 27/09 03/31  10. 6141  5878  00000000000000000
00000000000000000  11. 3234  4534  28/09 03/10 05/33

Hence, White did exceed the time limit, since all his time for moves 10-11 is added to move 10, whereas Black did NOT exceed the time limit, since all HIS time for moves 10-11 is added to move 11!

7a It is recommended to claim an etl as soon as it occurs. The claim should include a complete copy of the game with all received and sent dates for both players. Even if a player acknowledges they have overstepped the time control in their correspondence it is still necessary to notify the Tournament Director so that it may be recorded.

7d The game should be continued while the Tournament Director is reviewing the claim and making the decision.

7e This means that players cannot take a large amount of time over a move when they know they have already exceeded the time control. The second time control starts as soon as the player is informed about the claim being made (see 7b).

8a Regular leave may be taken for any reason and in any increments not to exceed 30 days in any calendar year.

Dates given for a leave are inclusive. That is if a player's leave is from 7/7 to 13/7 the player has taken 7 days leave. A move received on 6/7 and replied to on 14/7 has a reflection time of 1 day. A move received on 6/7 and replied to on 13/7 is also 1 day, whereas a move received on 7/7 and replied to on 14/7 is 0 days. The player was not on leave on 6/7, so a move not responded to on 6/7 carries at least a 1 day reflection time, however a response on 14/7 is similar to sending your first move on the date the tournament starts, and thus no time used.

Note that reflection time does not stop during an opponents leave.

8c Special leave is intended to be used primarily for unexpected events such as illnesses, natural disasters and urgent overseas business postings. Recognizing the value of other chess activities special leave may be granted for attendance at ICCF Congress or OTB tournaments away from a player's home. Events planned in advance such as moving house or job are not valid reasons for special leave.

Retroactive special leave is only ever to be given when the player is unable to contact the TD or another player by some means, usually because of sudden hospitalization. Computer failure is NOT an acceptable reason for requesting a special leave in a postal tournament.

9a The replacement player will continue the game from the position reached by the previous player.

10d Analysis does not necessarily mean possible variations. It could also mean general plans where appropriate.

10e An adjudication is not subject to appeal if neither player submitted analysis.

12a It is not necessary to include the dates in this report. The game score should be sent in PGN or numeric notation. Please note that BOTH players are required to report the result to their Team Captain.

Team games normally played by Email.

1a The FIDE rules can be found at http://handbook.fide.com. The most important change during recent years is that there are NO exceptions to the 50 move rule concerning draws

1c Players should contact their Team Captain instead of the Tournament Director, unless the Team Captain is unavailable in a time dependent situation.

2b Players may use two (or more) different notations e. g. ICCF numeric and algebraic, provided they explicitly agree upon it at the start of the game.

2e Moves and times for the entire game should be sent in every Email.

2g The time starts counting when your opponent’s move is made available to you and ends when you send your reply. In the case of regular mail this is when the card is placed in a mailbox accessible to you. In the case of Email this is when your server makes the message available for you to download. However, it is always permitted to consider the message as having been received the next day (your local time).

2i Except in unusual circumstances this will normally be the same dates the previous move was sent and the current one received. That is the Email took 0 days to be transmitted.

2j The message time stamp is the time that the move was received by the senders server. This time is usually shown in the full headers for the message.

2k It is required to include the time used and total accumulated time for both players.

2l As stated in the guidelines for 2g it is always permitted to consider the message as having been received the following day (your local time). One aim of this ruling is to avoid players complaining to the TD about moves being sent/received shortly before/after midnight.

3a It is necessary to wait 14 days before sending a repeat. If you know you are going to take more than 14 days over a move, please let your opponent know so that unnecessary repeats can be eliminated.

Days when the opponent is on vacation shall not be counted to calculate the time to send a reminder. A too early repeat should be avoided.

When moves are sent by Email, the failure to receive a "message undeliverable" or similar message is NOT proof that it has been delivered successfully. Email messages can and sometimes do simply vanish and in these cases neither player is at fault and neither player should be charged reflection time. However, this is an uncommon occurrence and repeated messages vanishing should be referred to the TD for investigation.

3b Games MAY be scored as lost if 40 days pass without a move being played unless the Tournament Director has been informed of the delay. This does not mean that games are automatically forfeited after 40 days without a move, it is up to the Tournament Director to determine the reason for the delay and rule accordingly. Note that it is possible for the game to be forfeited by a player who is silent for more than 40 days, even if he has enough accumulated time not to have exceeded the time control.

The TD will normally record a loss against a player who has been silent for over 40 days (discounting leave periods) and who has not notified the TD and the opponent about the delay.

4a If different moves are sent when two notations are explicitly agreed upon, the move should be treated as ambiguous and referred back to the sender for clarification.

4e As an example, there is no need to indicate check, nor can a move be considered invalid if check is not indicated.

5a If it is not possible to keep all of the records on the computer, it will be necessary to keep a copy on a floppy disk, with the Team Captain, or failing that, paper.

5d It is reasonable to try to sort out minor disputes without getting the Team Captain involved. As a general guideline if a single exchange of correspondence does not solve the problem, it is time to notify the Team Captain. Major disputes must be referred to the Team Captain immediately.

6a This means that no more than 60 days reflection time can be used for the first 10 moves, 120 for the first 20 moves etc. without overstepping the time control.

6e In a series of conditional moves, the time (for the recipient of conditionals) is in its entirety considered as belonging to the player REPLYING to the last ACCEPTED move.

As an example, assume that after 9 moves both players have used 28 days time. White now offers a conditional with his 10th move. Assume White uses 3 days for this, and Black accepts the conditional and uses 5 days for his reply to White's 11th move.

Then the cumulative times for the moves involved in the conditional shall be recorded like in this example:

Rec.  Sent  Total Move White Black Rec.  Sent  Total
22/09 23/09 01/28  09. 4152  6857  23/09 23/09 00/28
24/09 27/09 03/31  10. 6141  5878  00000000000000000
00000000000000000  11. 3234  4534  28/09 03/10 05/33

Hence, White did exceed the time limit, since all his time for moves 10-11 is added to move 10, whereas Black did NOT exceed the time limit, since all HIS time for moves 10-11 is added to move 11!

7a It is recommended to claim an etl as soon as it occurs. The claim should include a complete copy of the game with all received and sent dates for both players. Even if a player acknowledges they have overstepped the time control in their correspondence it is still necessary to notify the Team Captain so that the result may be recorded.

7d The game should be suspended while the Tournament Director is reviewing the claim and making the decision.

8a Regular leave may be taken for any reason and in any increments not to exceed 30 days in any calendar year.

Dates given for a leave are inclusive. That is if a player's leave is from 7/7 to 13/7 the player has taken 7 days leave. A move received on 6/7 and replied to on 14/7 has a reflection time of 1 day. A move received on 6/7 and replied to on 13/7 is also 1 day, whereas a move received on 7/7 and replied to on 14/7 is 0 days. The player was not on leave on 6/7, so a move not responded to on 6/7 carries at least a 1 day reflection time, however a response on 14/7 is similar to sending your first move on the date the tournament starts, and thus no time used.

Note that reflection time does not stop during an opponents leave.

8c Special leave is intended to be used primarily for unexpected events such as illnesses, natural disasters and urgent overseas business postings.  Recognizing the value of other chess activities special leave may be granted for attendance at ICCF Congress or OTB tournaments away from a player's home. In the event of a computer malfunction a special leave of up to 10 days is permissible, but should only be used once per tournament. Events planned in advance such as moving house or job are not valid reasons for special leave.

Retroactive special leave is only ever to be given when the player is unable to contact the TD or another player by some means, usually because of sudden hospitalization. Computer failure is NOT an acceptable reason for requesting a retroactive special leave.

9a The replacement player will continue the game from the position reached by the previous player.

10d Analysis does not necessarily mean possible variations. It could also mean general plans where appropriate.

10e An adjudication is not subject to appeal if neither player submitted analysis.

12a It is not necessary to include the dates in this report. Please note that BOTH players are required to report the result to the Tournament Director.

APPENDIX G
ICCF Code of Conduct Guidelines

1.	Introduction and General Principles

	ICCF, as the world authority for all forms of correspondence chess, has clearly defined Principles and Aims, which are described in its Statutes.  These include the important concept that “ICCF ….. supports and promotes close international co-operation between chess players, enthusiasts and FIDE, thereby aiming to enhance contact and friendly harmony amongst the peoples on the world” 

	In 1984, ICCF adopted the motto “amici sumus” (we are friends) and this is the underlying philosophy in setting behavioural standards for players, officials and member federations.  This should prevail in all communications between players in a game of CC, between players and tournament directors, officials of ICCF and international contacts of member federations.  Sending an abusive, obscene or objectionable communication is not acceptable, in any circumstances.

	These guidelines are to clarify the kind of behaviour which is expected, and include disciplinary and appeals procedures for dealing with instances where the principles and philosophy may not be evident in practice.

2.	Guidelines for Players/Team Captains

	Whether it be in games with playing partners or with tournament directors, players are expected to be friendly in all communications, bearing in mind that we are playing a game, TDs are all volunteers and are all trying to promote international bonds of friendship and sportsmanship.

	It is recommended that friendly messages are exchanged with playing partners at the start of a game/tournament and that such friendly exchanges continue throughout, until conclusion.  Being generous in defeat and modest in victory are commendable virtues!

It is expected that players will decide the moves for themselves. It is unacceptable behaviour to have someone else play your games. The whole ICCF ratings and titles system relies on the assumption that games are played by the players named in the starting lists (or approved substitutes).

	Players should observe the Playing and Tournament Rules carefully and should take care to write or communicate their moves clearly, to avoid ambiguity.  Each move must be accompanied with the necessary information concerning time utilisation and each player is responsible for ensuring the normal continuity of the game.  Care should be taken to observe rules concerning repetition, advance notification of leave, time exceeding claims etc.

	Any disputes or claims by a player must, in the first instance, be communicated to the official TD of the tournament (except in team events, where the team captain should be the point of contact)  The facts must be clearly reported and a player should avoid creating any unnecessary antagonism towards a partner, even when disputes occur.  Abusive remarks have no place in ICCF philosophy.

	Wherever possible, players should try amicably to resolve any problem quickly with a playing partner, before referring the matter to the TD (or TC).

A Team Captain is responsible for notifying his players, opponent Team Captains, and the Tournament Director when he goes on leave or is otherwise unable to represent his players.

A player or an entire team can lose its games if a Team Captain is unable to meet his responsibilities, especially in the reporting of time complaints.

A Tournament Director may request a federation to replace its Team Captain due to inappropriate behavior or inability to perform his responsibilities.

	Players should read the sections in these guidelines which cover the responsibilities of other officials, the handling of disciplinary matters (and penalties which may be imposed) and the procedures to be followed concerning appeals.

3.	Guidelines for Tournament Offices/Organisers and Tournament Directors

	All ICCF tournaments and ICCF approved tournaments should be organised according to ICCF principles, philosophy and rules, including related guidelines.

	It should always be remembered that “players are our customers” and it is the duty to offer a good quality, fair and prompt service to players and to other officials who are also providing tournament services to players, e.g. ratings, qualifications, etc.

	Tournament Offices/Organisers and Tournament Directors must ensure an efficient and timely service to the ICCF webmaster and games archivists when reporting results and provision of completed games scores, as defined by ICCF and its senior officials.

	Although TDs are expected to exercise their initiative in resolving problems, they should observe all rules and guidelines carefully and seek experienced advice, if they are unsure about the best way to handle a problem.  It is far easier to deal with consequent problems, if a decision has been well thought through before action is taken, rather than trying to sort out a problem resulting from a hasty or ill-considered decision, after it has been made and communicated to players etc.

4.	Guidelines for Member Federations

	ICCF belongs to its member federations and, therefore, any criticism of ICCF is also criticism of member federations and their delegates.  We all have a collective responsibility for ensuring the high reputation and authority of ICCF, and its constituent member federations, is not undermined.

	Of course, there are occasions, especially with more difficult or controversial issues where a decision is reached by the ICCF Congress (the voting delegates) which does not match the view of an individual or his/her national federation.  In such an event, the correct approach is for that delegate/member federation to request that the matter should be discussed again by Congress.

	ICCF is a democratic organisation and major issues are decided by Congress by the proper voting of delegates (ICCF officers do not have any voting rights) and, therefore, decisions of Congress should be accepted and respected by all of its member federations, acting in a responsible manner.

5.	Disciplinary Procedures (and Penalties)

	Every effort should be made to avoid disputes and the initiation of these procedures but, where unavoidable, they should be carefully followed by all ICCF officials and all Zonal Offices and member federations, when dealing with international CC matters.

	Types of disciplinary action available, are as follows:-

	(i)	Formal Written Warning – for breaches in behaviour incompatible with ICCF statutes, principles or rules.  Continuing or repeated misbehaviour will result in (ii) being implemented
	(ii)	Disciplinary Action with Penalty/Sanctions – for serious or recurring breaches in behaviour incompatible with ICCF statutes, principles and/or rules.  Immediate penalties/sanctions should be imposed, the degree of which should be related to the severity of the misdemeanour.

	The following scale of penalties/sanctions should be used:-

	(a)	A serious behavioural issue, e.g. silent/unacceptable withdrawal from a tournament, unacceptable or abusive behaviour to players/officials/ICCF as a first offence – ban from all international CC tournaments and activities for a period of 2 years, from the date of decision..
	(b)	A repeated serious behavioural issue, e.g. repeated silent/unacceptable withdrawal from tournament, repeated abusive behaviour to players/officials/ICCF – ban from all international CC tournaments and activities for a period of 5 years, from the date of the latest decision.
	(c)	Outrageous behaviour or further repeated behavioural issue, e.g. theft, belligerent action towards ICCF or any of its officers, assault, etc. – ban from all international CC tournaments and activities for life duration.  Appeal for remission of sentence is available after 10 years.

	When dealing with disciplinary matters and considering penalties/sanctions, care should be taken to ensure consistency and that penalties are commensurate with the “crime” committed.

	In all cases of disciplinary action, an individual has a basic right to express his/her case, with reasoning, before a decision is taken by an official/tournament director or tournament office, etc.

	When a disciplinary action is taken, the reason must be given in writing (with a copy to the member federation), by the official responsible and any sanction or penalty imposed must be clearly stated, along with the appropriate appeals procedure which is available, should the recipient be unwilling to accept the decision.

	ICCF will maintain a database of all cases which have been the subject of disciplinary action or application of sanctions, and all appeals thereon.  An ICCF officer will be given this responsibility.

6.	Appeals Procedure

	Care should be taken to direct any appeals to the correct ICCF appeals mechanisms, which are:-

•	Appeals Commission (Playing Rules) – Appeals to the Chairman of this Commission, which will deal only with cases concerning the application of ICCF Playing Rules.
•	Appeals Commission (other ICCF Rules) – Appeals to the Chairman of this Commission, which will deal only with cases concerning the application of Tournament Rules, Code of Conduct and any other rules matters, not covered elsewhere.
•	Arbitration Commission - Matters of a wider nature, such as any complaint about the behaviour of an ICCF official, tournament office, etc., should be directed to the Chairman of this Commission, which will deal with it in a small committee.

When appealing a decision of the Appeals Commission (Playing Rules), the player involved will be able to submit the appeal. However, when appealing decision of the Appeals Commission (other ICCF Rules) and/or Arbitration Commission, the player involved should contact his National Federation, and after stating his case, it should be the National Federation (through his appointed Delegate) who should support the claim and submit it to the appropriate Chairman.

	A decision of the respective Appeals Commission will be final. It cannot be subsequently overturned by any action except by at least a 2/3rds majority vote by the ICCF Congress.

7.	Extent of application of these Guidelines

	All international tournaments organised, or approved, by ICCF are subject to these guidelines, including the disciplinary and appeals procedures.  Applications from ICCF Zonal TOs and member federations for approval of tournaments, will imply their acceptance that these guidelines and procedures will apply to such tournaments, without exception.

	However, it is important to recognise that these arrangements are intended for “international” CC matters and are not either “in place of” or related to any sanctions applied my member federations for disciplinary issues concerning domestic tournaments, national membership or their other rules.

	The above guidelines are provided to give a clear framework for the behaviour of players, officials, member federations and ICCF generally.  The “amici sumus” philosophy should permeate throughout ICCF and the activities of all players and officials.

	They have been adopted by the ICCF Congress (Ostrava 2003) but may be refined and developed by the Executive Board, with changes ratified (or otherwise) by the next ICCF Congress to be held, before becoming operational from the next 1st January, following such ratification.

APPENDIX H
ICCF and its future

Nol van ‘t Riet

1.  ICCF

1.1	For some centuries there have been cc (distance chess) players all over the world.
1.2	Historically some (most) of them are organized in a national federation.
1.2.1	In some countries there is an independent national cc federation.
1.2.2	In other countries the cc national federation is part of an overall chess federation.
1.2.3	In some countries there is more than one cc federation, which are a member of a national umbrella cc federation.
1.3	One national cc federation per country is a member federation of ICCF.
1.3.1	ICCF has been started by those national federation.
1.4	ICCF organizes all kind of international tournaments for the players who are a member of a national ICCF member federation.
1.4.1	Among those international tournaments are the World Championships for countries (Olympiads) and for individual players.
1.4.2	ICCF also approves international invitational cc tournaments organized by national ICCF member federations, in which players can participate who are a member of a national ICCF member federation.
1.5	ICCF awards international cc titles.
1.5.1	The titles for the players are based on their performances, which are measured by the use of the ICCF Rating System.
1.6	ICCF is affiliated to the overall world chess organisation FIDE.
1.6.1	FIDE recognises the ICCF World Championships and the ICCF Titles.  

2.  ICCF and money

2.1 In the era of postal chess ICCF was the only organisation which was able to organise
      a wide range of international cc tournaments.
2.2 National ICCF member federations pay a small ICCF memberships fee.
2.2.1	They also pay a rating fee for the rating of their approved international invitational tournaments.
2.3 Players pay an also small entry fee to play in the ICCF tournaments.
2.3.1	Historically this fee was rather small as the players had to spend much more money for their stamps.
2.4 ICCF is a non-profit organisation.
2.4.1	All fees are used for the establishment and the continuity of the ICCF organisation.
2.4.2	All ICCF officials work on an honorary basis.
2.4.2.1	There has always been a kind of a common sense that no-one was allowed to earn
money with international cc.
2.4.2.2	For some decades there has been one exception: the former ICCF President Hans-Werner von Massow, who earned a living as the publisher of Fernschach, the official organ of ICCF.
2.4.3	Only in some international invitational tournaments there is sometimes prize money, 
      	which is provided by sponsors.

3.  ICCF nowadays

3.1 Nowadays the internet has changed the way of communication.
3.1.1	Many cc players still play within ICCF, which has accommodated its tournaments from postal via fax to email tournaments.
3.2 On the internet several other organisations have introduced their own tournaments.
3.2.1	At first this were email tournaments, but nowadays there are also webserver
tournaments.
3.3 Some of these tournaments are free for all, others do have a commercial basis.
3.3.1	Some of these organisations are successful in attracting players.
3.3.2	Some of these players are also members of national ICCF member federations, others
are not.
3.4 At first sight some of these organisations look like competitors of ICCF.
3.4.1	Especially when they have a commercial background, and when they call up the
member players of ICCF national member federations to give up this membership.

4.  ICCF and its Statutes

4.1 The aims of ICCF are to organise, develop and promote the study and practice of
      international cc throughout the world.
4.2 Now that the world has been changed by the internet, ICCF must change its
      foundations.
4.3 Therefore ICCF must recognize all other organisations which organize international
      cc.
4.3.1	All other organisations do have the right to organise whatever they want.
4.3.2	Let players play in whatever organisation and in whatever tournaments they want.
4.4 Let ICCF focus on its own main tournaments.
4.4.1	These tournaments are: the cycles of the World Championships and the qualification
tournaments for those cycles.
4.4.2	Besides those tournaments ICCF will continue to organise its own tournaments for the
member player of the national ICCF member federations, as long as there is sufficient 
interest for those tournaments.
4.4.3	ICCF should also start it’s own webserver tournaments, provided that the continuity of
these tournaments can be paid and can be secured 

4.5 ICCF will approve the tournaments of other organisations as long as they are played
      according to the ICCF Playing Rules and a fee is paid for the rating of the games.

4.5.1	In those tournaments ICCF title norms will also be recognised.
4.5.2	But ICCF titles will only be awarded to those players who are nominated by a national ICCF member federation.
4.5.2.1	This is rather similar to the FIDE behaviour, where private tournaments (like Corus) are also approved.

5.  ICCF and personal membership

5.1	The only problem that has to be solved is that players in an approved private tournament may not be a member of a national ICCF member federation.
5.1.1	ICCF must accept that those players do exist.
5.1.2	ICCF can eventually ask a higher rating fee for the games of those players.     
5.2	ICCF should open the possibility for this kind of players to become a personal
        member of ICCF.
5.2.1	In some national FIDE member federations such a kind of personal membership also exists.
5.3 Personal members of ICCF have the same rights and duties as players who are a
      member of a national ICCF member federation.
5.3.1	Every year the personal members of ICCF appoint one of them as a delegate with voting rights to the ICCF Congress. 

6. ICCF and the unity of the international cc world

6.1 This document tries to make an end to the present controversy within the
      international cc world.
6.2	The consequence is that national ICCF member federations give up the idea of having the complete autonomy over the players of their nationality.
6.2.1	In practice they already don’t have this autonomy any longer, as individual players can go where they want on the internet.
6.2.2	Giving up this autonomy is the only way to survive as a national federation on the long term, as inconsistent as it sounds at first sight.
6.2.3	National federations must focus on national championships and on the benefits for their member players of their ICCF membership.
6.3	Another consequence is that the administration management of ICCF must be brought to a higher level.
6.3.1	This refers to the personal membership of ICCF, and to the processing of the results of the games in the ICCF Rating System.
6.3.2	It might be that ICCF fees must be increased in order to have (semi) professional solutions for a number of administrative tasks.
6.4	ICCF, its national member federations and its officials must be prepared to deliver these required efforts.
6.4.1	This means that ICCF, its national member federations and its officials must be prepared to see these desired changes as a challenge, and not as a threat
6.5	The challenge is to maintain the unity of the cc players in the world and also to secure that ICCF will be the leading organisation on its main objects: World Championships, Titles and Ratings.