ICCF CONGRESS, RIMINI, ITALY,
23rd to 29th SEPTEMBER 2001

The ICCF Jubilee Year Congress, in conjunction with meetings of the Presidium and Commissioners, took place in the Hotel Continental E dei Congressi, Rimini, Italy from 23rd to 29th September 2001.

The Congress was arranged by the'Associazione Scacchistica Italiana Giacatori per Corrispondenza (ASIGC). 

The participants of the Congress, and accompanying families and friends, were offered a programme of events including excursions to Urbino and San Marino.  There was also the traditional ICCF Blitz Tournament and a simultaneous chess exhibition given by GM Igor Efimov.
Congress participants
Sultan Muhamad Al-Kuwari (QTR) as delegate
José de Amorim Neto (BRS) as delegation member
Giorgio Baiocchi (ITA)
Rubens Battistini (ITA)
Dr. Fritz Baumbach (GER) as delegate with proxy for Hungary
Roald Berthelsen (NOR) as Honorary Member, as delegate and as member of the Tournaments Commission
Witold Bielecki (POL) as delegate with proxy for New Zealand, and as member of the Tournaments Commission and of the Guidelines Working Group 
Ing. Dario Biella Bianchi (PER) as delegate and as member of the Tournament Rules Commission.
Gerhard Binder (GER) as delegation member, as ICCF Ratings Commissioner, as Chairman of the Rating Rules Commission and as member of the Tournaments and Tournament Rules Commissions
Raymond Boger (NOR)
Alan P. Borwell (SCO) as delegation member, as ICCF President and as member of the Tournaments Commission
Egbert Bösenberg (GER) as delegation member and as ICCF Zonal Director (Europe) and as member of the Tournament Rules Commission
Dr. Guido Bresadola (ITA) as delegate
Heikki Brusila (FIN) as delegate
Dr. Ted Bullockus (USA)
Dr. Jaromír Canibal (CZE) as delegate with proxy for Australia and as member of the Tournament Rules Commission.
Marco Caressa (ITA) as delegation member
Alfonso Carolei (ITA)
Angelo Carrettoni (ITA)
Duncan Chambers (ENG) as delegate with proxy for Portugal and Singapore
Pietro Cimmino (ITA) as delegation member
Carlos Cranbourne (ARG) as ICCF Zonal Director (Latin America)
Libor Danek (CZE) as delegation member
Massimo De Blasio (ITA)
Valer-Eugen Demian (CAN)
Ruth Ann Fay (USA) as delegation member
José Daniel Finkelstein (ARG)
Carlos Flores Gutiérrez (ESP) as delegate, as ICCF Treasurer, and as member of the Guidelines Working Group
Maria Angela Fonio (ITA)
Artis Gaujens (LAT) as delegate
Sergey Grodzensky (RUS) as delegate and as member of the Tournament Rules Commission
Olavi Halme (FIN) as delegation member
Timothy Harding (IRL) as delegate with proxy for Canada, and as member of the Playing Rules Commission
Pedro F. Hegoburu (ARG) as ICCF Marketing Director, as Project Leader for the ICCF 2000 Publication, as Chairman of the Marketing Commission and as member of the Tournaments Commission
Dr. Renato Incelli (ITA) as delegation member
Evgeny Karelin (RUS) as delegation member
Aivars Kazoks (LAT) as delegation member
Martin Kevický (SLK) as delegate
Prof. Warner Bruce Kover (BRS) as delegate with proxy for Uruguay 
Alfonsino Lannaioli (ITA) as delegation member
Ervin Liebert (EST) as delegate
Chris Lüers (GER) as delegation member, as ICCF Email Tournament Commissioner and as member of the Tournaments and Tournament Rules Commissions
Eckhard Lüers (GER) as delegation member, as ICCF Deputy President (Tournaments), as Chairman of the Tournaments Commission and as member of the Playing Rules and Tournament Rules Commissions
Dmitry Lybin (BLS) as delegate
Ralph P. Marconi (CAN) as ICCF Zonal Director (North America/Pacific)
Ing. Josef Mrkvička (CZE) as delegation member, as ICCF Title Tournaments Commissioner and as member of the Tournaments Commission
Esko Nuutilainen (FIN) as delegation member
Victor V. Palciauskas (USA)
Søren Peschardt (DEN) as delegate with proxy for South Africa and as ICCF Webmaster
George D. Pyrich (SCO) as delegate with proxy for Kenya, as ICCF Qualifications Commissioner and as member of the Tournaments, Tournament Rules and Rating Rules Commissions
Evelin Radosztics (OST) as delegation member
Gerhard Radosztics (OST) as delegate with proxy for Croatia and Slovenia, and as member of the Appeals Commission
Abraham Raúl Ramírez (ARG)
Nol van 't Riet (NLD) as delegate with proxy for Bulgaria, and as member of the Tournament Rules and Rating Rules Commissions
Horst Rittner (GER) as Honorary Member
François Riva (LUX) as delegate
Merike Rõtova (EST) as delegation member
Éric Ruch (FRA) as delegate with proxy for Argentina
Ing. Pablo Salcedo Mederos (CUB) as delegate
Maurizio Sampieri (ITA) as delegation member
Ing. Mohammed Samraoui (ALG) as ICCF Zonal Director (Africa/Asia)
H.J. Samtani (IND) as delegate
Grigory K. Sanakoyev (RUS)
Hendrik B. Sarink (NLD) as delegation member and as ICCF Auditor
Per Söderberg (SVE) as delegate with proxy for Israel
Gian-Maria Tani (ITA) as delegation member, and as ICCF World Tournaments Commissioner
Mikhail R. Terteryants (RUS) as delegation member
Luz Marina Tinjaca' Ramírez (ITA) as delegation member
Guillermo F. Toro Solis de Ovando (CHI) as delegate with proxies for Guatemala and Nicaragua
Ing. Juraj Václav (SLK) as delegation member
George Walker (SWZ) as delegate
Ragnar Wikman (FIN) as Honorary Member, as ICCF Deputy President (Rules), as Chairman of the Tournament Rules Commission and as member of the Tournaments and Rating Rules Commissions
Prof. Max Zavanelli (USA) as delegate with proxies for Hong Kong and Lithuania, and as member of the Tournaments and Tournament Rules Commissions
A most welcome visitor during Congress was Mr. Alvise Zichichi, President of the Italian Chess Federation.

Opening the Congress, ICCF President, Alan Borwell (SCO), referred to recent events in the United States of America, which so tragically had affected the lives of so many fellow citizens throughout the World, and also to the sad sudden death of the wife of Italian delegate, Gianni Mastrojeni, only a few days before the Congress began.  He paid tribute to the late Dr. Martin Christoffel, ICCF Assistant Treasurer, who had died in March, and other CC players and officials who had died since the last meeting.  Congress then stood in silence for two minutes, to the “memory of all departed friends and fellow citizens of the World”.
 
Before expressing delight that both ASIGC and ICCF could celebrate their 50th Jubilees together in Rimini, the  ICCF President remarked on the rich Italian chess heritage: great players, success in team events, the many active international organisers, and made a special mention of ASIGC 'Presidente Onorario', Dr. Renato Incelli.

He greeted new delegates, with a special welcome to India's first ever delegate to Congress, and the many old friends who had attended previous ICCF Congresses. 

He then reflected briefly on the Presidential themes of recent Congresses, before introducing the theme for the 2001 Congress.  He spoke of the major focus of Congress being the need for achievement of our visions and delivery of our plans.  He stressed the need for ICCF to make the best possible use of all the voluntary talent that was available, and to effectively use all available resources, in order to meet fully the needs and aspirations of the correspondence chess world.   
1.	 Approval of Minutes of 2000 Congress
Minutes of the ICCF Congress 2000, held in the USA, had been published at the ICCF web site and circulated to delegates and officials.  There were no more corrections, and the Minutes were formally adopted and signed.
2.	 Matters Arising from previous Congress
There were no matters arising.
3.	Membership matters
The ICCF Congress in Florida had delegated power to the General Secretary to grant provisional membership of ICCF, in appropriate circumstances.  Accordingly, the General Secretary had granted such membership to the Ukraine Correspondence Chess Federation, a new body that was representative of all correspondence chess interests in Ukraine and which had settled all outstanding debts to ICCF.  After the ICCF President had further explained the background, Congress voted unanimously to admit UCCF as ICCF member for Ukraine.
After discussions with the respective Zonal Directors, it had been agreed to accept Mexico’s request to be transferred to the North America/Pacific Zone (NAPZ) - from the Latin America Zone, with immediate effect.

The General Secretary reported that although there had been limited contact with other prospective members, entries for the Jubilee Opens showed a good level of demand for correspondence chess, especially played by Email, from players residing in many non-member countries.    Efforts would be intensified in the next year to try to attract many more countries as ICCF members, especially those who were already members of FIDE.  

The ICCF President, on behalf of the Presidium, proposed that ICCF Honorary Membership be awarded to :- 

Nol van 't Riet (NLD)
Abraham Raúl Ramirez (ARG)
Dr. Renato Incelli (ITA)

in recognition of their substantial contributions to ICCF and to international correspondence chess over a period of more than 20 years.  Each of these proposals was carried unanimously, and with acclamation, by Congress.
4.	Bertl von Massow Awards
The ICCF President spoke of the origin of these awards, established in 1983 by Hans-Werner von Massow in memory of his late wife, who had defined the criteria for these awards as follows:

"These medals in Gold and Silver will be awarded respectively for 15 and 10 years of faithful service to ICCF as the Delegate of a National federation, as a member of the Presidium or the Commissions, the European Organizing Committee, or as Tournament Secretary, as well as the Team Captain of a winning or highly placed team in CC Olympiads or Continental Team Tournaments."   In view of structural developments since 1983, it had been agreed that service in all ICCF Zonal Tournament Offices was deemed to be included in the criteria.

The President announced the names of those who would receive 2001 awards, and each recipient (or their respective delegate) came forward to receive their medal and certificate, with the acclamation of Congress.

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

Olavi Halme (FIN)
Ralph P. Marconi (CAN)

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

Gianni Mastrojeni (ITA)

The ICCF President reminded all member federations that delegates should contact the General Secretary, if they considered that any of their officials could be eligible for such awards in future years.
5.	Presidium issues
The ICCF President reported on the discussions which had taken place in the Presidium and Commissioner’s meetings, preceding the Congress.  These had considered the arrangement of duties following the appointment of Title Tournaments Commissioner and Rules Commissioner, especially concerning the positions and duties of the two ICCF Deputy Presidents.   He indicated that both Deputy Presidents had indicated a willingness to agree to re-arrangement of duties and, indeed, they would welcome changes.   However, as the President’s Commission would be proposing changes to ICCF’s organizational structure, it was not considered advisable to make changes to Presidium titles in 2001.

The ICCF President was pleased to report that recent problems had been resolved amicably and duties would be re-arranged appropriately during and after Congress and “Outline Duties” agreed and issued thereafter. 

The President outlined arrangements for Working Groups, to consider “internet and technology issues” and “tournament plans and services”, which would meet in the afternoon session and, thereafter report to Congress. 

In the absence of the General Secretary, Josef Mrkvička (CZE) had kindly agreed to deputise for the Congress.
6.	Treasurer's proposals
The Treasurer reported that income had exceeded expenditure, for the period to 31/12/2000, by CHF19.531,70 but that several items of expenditure could not be included, because some significant member federations had not provided the necessary information, thereby not fulfilling their financial responsibilities under the Statutes.   Some federations had also been very late in settling their fees and one of the consequences of such late payment could be the unnecessary sale of investments, to provide liquidity.  The new system of “direct entries” had been a success and he thanked John Knudsen and the ICCF Webmaster for their excellent assistance.

He expressed sincere gratitude for the valuable work and advice of Dr. Martin Christoffel, Assistant Treasurer, who had sadly died in March 2001, and he thanked George Walker (SWZ) for agreeing to take responsibility, as Assistant Treasurer, for looking after ICCF’s Central Bank Account and Investment Portfolio in Switzerland.

A question was raised about the reimbursement of expenses for TDs responsible for Email tournaments and it was confirmed that reasonable expenses were paid – arrangements should be made with the ICCF Treasurer. 

A proposal was submitted concerning late payment of fees by member federations and, after discussion, this was agreed, to come into effect for fees due to 31/12/2001, and annually thereafter (as detailed in Appendix A).
7.	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 31.12.2000, had been represented correctly.  

He again emphasised the difficulties caused to the Treasurer and Auditor by the late submission of information.

The ICCF Congress accepted the Auditor's Report unanimously, and thanked the Auditor for his valuable work.

The Audited Accounts for the financial year 2000, were then formally and unanimously adopted by Congress.
8.	Financial Plans
The ICCF President introduced the updated Financial Plan to Congress, covering the 3-year period 1.1.2001 to 31.12.2003 and referred to the actual figures for Year 2000, which were shown alongside the estimated figures.

There was a variance of some CHF 12.500 in the forecasted surplus and the notes in the introduction to the updated Financial Plan explained some of the reasons for the variance – particularly the missing World Cup expenses – but the overall surplus revealed was “better than forecast”.   However, with several large items of expenditure, including World Cup expenses, new supply of medals and increased Congress allowances arising from more eligible Commissioners, it was expected the deficit for Year 2001 could be significantly greater than forecast.  He suggested it would be best not to change forecasts at present, but to await actual figures for 2001. Despite increases in fee levels from 1/1/2001, he thought the forecasts for 2002 and 2003, would be less favourable - figures for these years should be revised and 2004 forecasts added, before the 2002 Congress 
9.	Playing Rules
In his Report, the Deputy President (Rules) referred to the discussions generated by last year's revision of all Playing Rules and he indicated that the priority, since then, had been to produce the web-based guidelines. 

He stressed that the work on the guidelines was a continuous process, with authority delegated to the Rules Commissioner so, in the future, more frequent updates could be expected, and also between Congresses. Naturally, the next Congress would have the final word on whether to accept, reject or change such updates.

The Rules Commissioner had presented an excellent Report, with proposals for a first set of guidelines, for Congress.   After long discussions, some changes were decided by Congress.  The only fundamental change concerned the interpretation of "time of receipt" for an Email message in an Email tournament, where it was decided that it will always be acceptable to consider a message as having arrived the following day (recipient's local time).   The updated wording of the Playing Rules Guidelines is attached as Appendix B to these Minutes

10.	Tournament Rules
In his Report, the Deputy President (Rules) indicated the ICCF “tournament portfolio” was in an evolutionary phase, with the imminent integration of postal and Email World CC Championship cycles and other revisions to World and Zonal tournaments.   However, it had been proposed by the Title Tournaments Commissioner and agreed in the Tournaments Working Group on the first day of Congress, that the Title Tournaments Commissioner would work with the Rules Commissioner, other Tournament Office Commissioners and Zonal Directors and other members of the Rules Commission, in drafting the new Tournament Rules (hitherto known as “rules of play”) for consideration by the 2002 ICCF Congress.  Congress enthusiastically approved this proposal and the ICCF President expressed his thanks to the Title Tournaments Commissioner for his initiative in this issue.
11.	Other Rules proposals
There was a discussion about the operation of the Appeals Commission and it was agreed that it needed to be strengthened and that improvements were needed both in terms of speed and quality, especially for Email CC.

The Commission Chairman, Janko Bohak (SLO) had intimated his wish to stand down as Chairman of the Appeals Commission and Congress was very pleased to accept the offer of Gerhard Radosztics (OST) to be its new Chairman.   Congress expressed its thanks to Mr. Bohak for his excellent work with the Commission.

One of the first tasks of the new Chairman would be to review Commission membership and to strengthen its representation, drawing on the expertise available throughout all ICCF Zones.

Josef Mrkvička (CZE) was approved as member of the Tournament Rules Commission.
12.	Rating proposals
The ICCF Ratings Commissioner reported that his work in producing the new Rating List, effective 1/10/01, had been more difficult because the collection and processing of results had involved a great deal of manual effort.  He expressed hope that collection and processing of results could soon be more automated, to help in his work. 

He referred to innovations introduced in the last two years, which seemed to have been welcomed by players. 

Although the new Rating List was not quite ready for Congress, he expected that the final necessary checks could be carried out very soon and he hoped to have the List ready for the Webmaster immediately after the Congress so that it could be made available for downloading from “iccf.com” at the beginning of October.

The ICCF President referred to the tremendous work and service which Gerhard Binder had given to ICCF over many years, to the innovations introduced and the professional manner in which he carried out his duties. He set a fine example to others for  “achievement” and Congress gave him a well deserved standing ovation.   

13.	Qualifications proposals
The Qualifications Commissioner reported that several title applications had not been submitted in sufficient time by federations but, after enquiries both during and immediately after the Congress, relevant titles could be confirmed and have been included under Title Awards, as listed below.   All of these new titles were agreed by Congress, with the requisite voting majorities.

In his report, the Qualification Commissioner had listed title norms for new individual, team, zonal and invitation tournaments, together with changes to norms which had previously been established. These were noted by Congress, without amendment, and can be found in Appendix C to these Minutes.

He indicated that his Report has been condensed, but that details of title-holders, players with title norms etc. were posted on “iccf.com”, and would be updated each year.

14.	Title Awards
The following title awards were made to the recipients or the respective delegates and proxy holders.

Correspondence Chess Grandmaster

V. Andriulaitis (LIT) 
J.A. Barlow (RSA)
M. De Blasio (ITA)
A. Bachmann (GER)
J.G. Brookes (ENG)
J. Klovans (LAT)
J. Neumann (GER)
A. Nickel (GER)
V. Piccardo (ITA)
T. Raupp (GER)
A. Vinje (NOR)
J. Vitomskis (LAT)

Correspondence Chess Senior International Master

F. Atakisi (TRK)
H-G. Barsch (GER)
R. Barten (GER)
H. Behling (GER)
H. Bellman (GER)
G.F. Benz (ARG)
P. Berclaz (SWZ)
H. Berglöf (GER)
M. Bergmann (GER)
B. Boissel (FRA)
A. Brenke (GER)
H. Broß (GER)
F. Calandri (ITA)
G. Calzolari (ITA)
P.L. Coleman (ENG)
M.J. Conroy (ENG)
A. Constantinou (CYP)
T.J. Craig (SCO)
R.J. Crespo (ARG)
C. Cruzado Dueñas (ESP)
T. Cuno (GER)
Y. Dothan (ISL)
H-P. Fecht (GER)
L. Forslöf (SVE)
V. Gefenas (LIT)
Dr. H. Geist (GER)
F. Gerhardt (GER)
S. Goerlinger (FRA)
C-P.Th. Gouw (NLD)
W. Grohde (GER)
Dr. K-U. Groth (GER)
A. Haugen (NOR)
V. Hefka (SLK)
G. Hesse (FIN)
A. Hotting (NLD)
L Jacot (SWZ)
M. Jedrzejowski (POL)
N. João (BRS)
A.N. Kashlyak (RUS)
A. Kazoks (LAT)
M. Kolcák (SLK)
V. Krivonosovs (LAT)
S- Å. Kronberg (SVE)
G. Kühnel (GER)
Dr. F. Kunzelmann (GER)
Dr. B. Kuperman (ISL)
H. Lachmann (GER)
N. Lauritsen (DEN)
B. Leiber (GER)
M. Mädler (GER)
A.A. Makarov (RUS)
A.P. Mascarenhas (BRS)
J. Matlak (POL)
A. Matt (GER)
S.K. Matyukhin (RUS)
G. Melson (GER)
C. Menghi (LUX)
E. Miciak (SLK)
C-P. Mokrys (GER)
D. Nightingale (IRL)
J. Nilsson (SVE)
W. Nitsche (GER)
M.B. de Oliveira (BRS)
N.E. Pedersen (USA)
J.L.M. Peres (POR)
M. Pichler (OST)
S.U. Pinkovetsky (RUS)
J. Pletánek (CZE)
A. Qwint (SVE)
B. Rädeker (GER)
E.G. Rodin (RUS)
J. Saksis  (LAT)
M. Sampieri (ITA)
G. Sapundjiev (BLG)
W. Sauermann (GER)
F. Schlösser (GER)
T. Schmidt (GER)
I. Schrancz (HUN)
K. Schreiber (GER)
C. Sender (GER)
F.Seres (NOR)
Dr. A. Serner (GER)
R. Sielaff (GER)
W. Siewert (GER)
J.P. Soberano (POR)
K-H. Söntges (GER)
H. Staudler (GER)
Dr. W. Stern (GER)
V. Strautins (LAT)
N. Stull (LUX)
A.V. Sychev (RUS)
Ing. M. Tochácek (CZE)
T. Tiits (EST)
Z. Tímár (HUN)
J.C. Timm (USA)
G. Valerio (ENG)
S.D. Verducci Silvelo (ARG)
S. Vinot (FRA)
K. Wallner (OST)
J-M. Weber (LUX) 
H. Weisenburger (GER)
Dr. H.R. Zabala (ARG)
L. Žlebčík (CZE)

Correspondence Chess International Master

Prof. Mgr. K. Adamus (CZE)
M.N. Adriano (CAN)
L. Åhman (SVE)
M. Aleksandrowicz (POL)
V.V. Aleshnya (RUS)
A.L. Alpert (RUS)
H.N. Álvarez Villar (ARG)
N.R. Anil Kumar (IND)
G. Armani (ITA)
Dr. J.E.C. Asquith (ENG)
G. Baiocchi (ITA)
V.P. Baklanov (RUS)
P.R.L. Bastos (BRS)
W. Bauer (GER)
Z. Bernardino (BRS)
B. Berriot (FRA)
T. Betzelt (GER)
R.E.Binelli (ARG)
V. Birarov (ISL)
D. Blau (GER)
R. Boger (NOR)
E. Borroni (ITA)
J. Brückner (GER)
H. Buczinski (POL)
J.A. Castro Torres (ARG)
I. Cavajda (SLK)
R. Cerqueira Filho (BRS)
D. Chambers (ENG)
G.L. Chrestani (BRS)
T. Christiansen (DEN)
A. Cillóniz Razzeto (PER)
P. Cimmino (ITA)
A.R.C. Cipolli (BRS) 
F. Cleto (POR)
F. Colombo Berra (ARG)
M. Dabija (ROM)
R. Degerhammar (SVE)
V-E. Demian (CAN)
S.M.F. Dias (BRS)
Dr. M.J. Donnelly (ENG)
M. Drtina (SLK)
J. Dufek (CZE)
E. Duliba (USA)
A. Dzieniszewski (POL)
N.Y. Ernazarov (KAZ)
C.A. Espíndola (ARG)
G.A. Etchechoury (ARG)
A.P. Fedukin (RUS)
G.F. Figlio (PER)
W. Fischer (GER)
R. Freydl (SWZ)
R.M. Fuzishawa (BRS)
P.A. Gaprindashvili (GEO)
Dr. E.J. Gibney (IRL)
G. Giese (GER)
A.U. Gilimshin (RUS)
A. Gmür (SWZ)
Dr. C.J. Gonçalves (ARG)
Dr. J.A.S. Gonçalves (BRS)
G.A. Govashelishvili (RUS)
V.B. Grigoryev (RUS)
K-F. Grimm (GER)
R.O. Grosso (ARG)
E.T. Gullaksen (NOR)
D. Gutsche (GER)
H. Hage (†) (NLD)
D.G. Hamilton (AUS)
B.E. Hammar (SVE)
J. Hampel (GER)
A. Hanauer (GER)
G. Hervet (FRA)
F. Huybrecht (BEL)
P. Ilyes (NOR)
S.L. Jones (USA)
P. Karjalainen (FIN)
S.I. Khromov (RUS)
T. Klauner (LUX)
J.C. Knudsen (USA)
M.Y. Kozlov (RUS)
J. Kracht (GER)
Dr. M. Kribben (GER)
D. Krivic (CRO)
H.A.T. Kunzmann (ARG)
L.R. Lamarche Rodríguez (CUB)
N.C. A. Leone (BRS)
J. Leroy (BEL)
Ing. L. Ljubicic (CRO)
D.H. Lozano Kafure (COL)
J-C. Lüers (GER)
Alfredo Lupo (ITA)
A. Magallón Minguez (ESP)
M. Malác (SLK)
J. Martín Clemente (ESP)
L. Mauro (ITA)
W. Mehlhorn (GER)
D. Menéndez (ARG)
M. Ménétrier (FRA)
M. Mertens (LUX)
K. Miettinen (USA)
N. Morihama (BRS)
M. Möschinger (SWZ)
J. Mousessian (USA)
I. Muschalek (GER)
C. Musitani (PER)
U. Norevall (SVE)
J. Novak (SLO) 
R. Ogiewka (POL)
L.S. Olsson (SVE)
H. Onoda (JPN)
J. Ortiz Elias (PER)
J. Oskulski (POL)
P.A. Parnenzini (ARG)
Dr. G. Peli (ISL)
I.V. Perevertkina (RUS)
F.B. Piccoli (BRS)
R. Pierzak (POL)
M. Pukkila (FIN)
L.G. Raykin (RUS)
V. Rezzuti (ITA)
S. Richter (GER)
H.D. Rocca (ARG)
M. Rocius (LIT)
D. Rozenberg (ISL)
P. Rubinas (LIT)
E. Ruch (FRA)
S.V. Sabaev (RUS)
Me. Samraoui (ALG)
J.J. Sánchez (ARG)
K.T. Sandum  (NOR)
F. Schilling (GER)
T. Schmelz (GER)
E. Schreiber (ISL)
M.J.P.G. Schroeder (NLD)
F.A.B. da Silva (BRS)
G. Siviero (ITA)
E. Slekys (LIT)
A. Sonzogno (ITA)
E.C. Sowden (ENG)
G.R. Sprott (SCO)
B. Striepens (GER)
D.O. Taiana (ARG)
J. Tay (SIP)
S. Terada (JPN)
P. Tkaczyk (POL)
T. Tomizawa (JPN)
R.R. Tosti (ARG)
G. Tóth (HUN)
T. Traut (GER)
M. Tuominen (FIN)
V.S. Turkov (RUS)
R. Tustanowski (POL)
P. Veselý (SLK)
B. Volaks (LAT)
A.B. Voll (RUS)
H. Walsh (ARG)
M. Weinmann-Musset (GER)
P. Weirich (FRA)
K-G. Wilhelm (GER)
M. Zavanelli (USA)
A. Zawadka (POL)
L. Zier (GER)
V.F. Zikharev (RUS)

Correspondence Chess Lady International Master

M. Bazantová (CZE)
S. Bengtsson (SVE)
V. Dambrauskaite (LIT)
M. Siewert (GER)
L.M. Tinjaca'  Ramirez (ITA)
N.V. Yatsenko (RUS)
K. Zpeváková (CZE)

Correspondence Chess International Arbiter

R.H. Almeida (ARG)		
D. Chambers (ENG)
M.Caressa (ITA)
A. Fernández Kessel (CUB)
C.D. Gallimore (ENG) 
B. Hanison (ENG)
E. Huguet Nicolini (PER)
L.R. Lamarche Rodríguez (CUB)
G. Ruben (CAN)
I. Sneddon (SCO)
C. Svensson (SVE)
C.A. van Wieringen (NLD)
J.A. Wharrier (ENG)

15.	North America/Pacific Zone
The Zonal Director (North America/Pacific) had reported on tournament activity in the zone.  He had noted that the new zonal champion was René DuCret (USA), with Jeffrey Tilghman (USA) as runner-up.  The 8th North American Invitational CCC had been won by Jon Edwards (USA), with Paul Thompson (USA) in second place. 

The 9th NAICCC had begun during 2000, and the 1st NAPZ Email Championship Final had started just before Congress.  Also, Email only versions of the NAPZ class events would be introduced sometime in 2002, as a response to decreasing entries in postal sections.  Finally he mentioned that the 4th NAPZ Championship and 2nd NAPZ Email Championship, hopefully, would start sometime in 2002.

He thanked all his team of helpers, with a special mention to Tom Dougherty (USA), who had retired as a TD after many years service.

Following discussions after the 2000 Congress, the federation of Mexico had indicated its wish to transfer to the North America/Pacific Zone, and this had been formally agreed by Congress under “Membership matters”. 

The work of the Zonal Director and Deputy Director, Ruth Ann Fay (USA), was duly appreciated by Congress. 
16.	Africa/Asia Zone
The Zonal Director (Africa/Asia) stated that the last year had not brought any new member countries, though interest in correspondence chess was certainly present in many non-member countries.  Regrettably, Malawi had been lost as an ICCF member and some communications problems had occurred with Qatar.  To help to identify and recruit new member federations, he had selected a number of potential new Zonal Assistants, but only Dr Krishna Prabhakar (IND), had proved enthusiastic in this work.   He indicated that, in conjunction with the ICCF President and General Secretary, more attention would be given to this important task in the forthcoming year.

He referred to continuing tournament activity, and congratulated N.R. Anil Kumar (IND) on his victory in the 2nd Afro-Asian Email Championship. The last year had seen the start of the 3rd Afro-Asian Email Championship, and the 4th Final would start in a few months.   His pioneering work in this Zone was applauded by Congress.
17.	Europe Zone
In his Report, the Zonal Director (Europe) had noted a continuing decrease in zonal activity, which he attributed to a decline in demand for postal play.  He congratulated two new European Champions in the old style: Paata A. Gaprindashvili (GEO) – EU/FSM 61, and Ettore d'Adamo (ITA) – EU/FSM 62. The semi-final stage of EU/FSM 64 had started on 31st December 2000, with more than 100 players. He thanked his team of Tournament Directors, especially Vladimir Houdek (CZE), whose work was now complete.

Looking to the future, he intended to introduce Email groups in all classes of European promotion tournaments, a plan which had been backed by a considerable majority of European federations.  He also envisaged that, in the next European Championships semi-finals, there would be Email-only groups as well as postal groups, and outlined some probable changes to the qualification rules, for both semi-finals and final.  

These developments in the ICCF European Zone, were enthusiastically welcomed by Congress and the work of the Zonal Director (Europe) was warmly acknowledged by Congress.
18.	Latin America Zone
The Zonal Director (Latin America) had reported that the Zonal Secretary, Alberto P. Mascarenhas (BRS) had resigned, and thanked him for his excellent work during the last five years. His successor was Luis Ángelo Marques Noronha (BRS). The great efforts of the Brazil federation CXEB had been notable, in particular, the number of entries for the Jubilee Email Open from Brazil of 284, had been quite remarkable (well ahead of Germany (221) and the USA (206), as the only other countries having more than 100 entries !). 

The CADAP Game score Archivist, GM Guillermo Toro Solis de Ovando (CHI), had done an excellent job collecting games and cross tables for CADAP tournaments and his work had been used in the ICCF Telechess articles for ChessBase Magazine.

The Zonal Director outlined the very healthy state of tournament activity in the zone and he highlighted the tournaments marking the 30th Anniversary of APA Magazine, the main Latin American Zonal publication. 

The work of the Zonal Director and his excellent team of officials, was generously acknowledged by Congress.
19.	Jubilee Tournaments
The Tournament Director of the ICCF 50 Years World Champions Jubilee Tournament, Nol van ‘t Riet (NLD), reported on this unique Email tournament, which had  started on 1/7/2001.  The recent success of Gert Jan Timmerman in becoming XVth World CC Champion, meant the tournament now included all nine living World CC Champions.  As soon as games had reached a different board situation, the games in progress would appear on “iccf.com”.  The event was being generously sponsored by the Max Euwe Association, Monaco, with very attractive prizes. 

Nol van ‘t Riet, as Tournament Organiser, for the ICCF Jubilee Officials Tournaments, generously sponsored by the Dr. Werner Bayer Stiftung (Foundation), indicated that they would start on 1/11/2001, with 90 international CC organizers playing in 6 groups of 15 players, with 2 GM norm groups and four IM norm groups.  The allocation of players to 6 groups was made and lists were provided to participants attending the Congress.

The Email Tournament Office Commissioner reported that play in the Free ICCF Jubilee Email Open had started on 1.9.2001 in 202 groups with 2,222 players. Many had had to be replaced, but there were still enough interested 'reserves' to start a number of extra groups starting 15.10.2001 (probably around 215 groups). Because of the level of entries the tournament would be played in four stages, namely, Preliminaries, Quaterfinals, Semifinals and Final.  There were 35 TDs from many different countries, including some new TDs to international competitions, which was greatly welcomed.  He particularly thanked Alan Rawlings (ENG) and Daniel Finkelstein (ARG) for valuable assistance in processing entries, setting up the groups, crosstables etc.  

The World Tournament Office Commissioner stated that play in the Free ICCF Jubilee Postal Open would start 15.11.2001.  728 players would play in 7 preliminary groups organised using the "Silli System" of pairings, with some 115 players qualifying from these to the Final, using the same system.

Both Free Jubilee Open Tournaments were being generously sponsored by ChessBase GmbH.  The details of players in the FREE tournaments would soon be provided to respective national member federations.
20.	World Tournaments
In his very comprehensive and detailed report, the Title Tournaments Commissioner presented a summary of all presently valid qualification provisions for and/or from all stages of the ICCF title tournaments. 

These title tournaments include:
-	WCCC Semifinals, 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

He emphasized that the main source of the qualification criteria – the ICCF “Rules of Play” did not match the real situation any more and requested its urgent revision. This proposal was approved by Congress, under item 10 of these Minutes (Tournament Rules).

Simultaneously, the Title Tournaments Commissioner presented a complete overview of all ICCF tournaments, which currently provide qualifications for the title tournament stages, particularly for the WCCC Semifinals, ¾-Finals and Finals. Congress appreciated his pioneering work on this field.  It was agreed that eligibility rules for WCCC qualifications from Zonal tournaments, should be discussed by the Title Tournaments Commissioner, with the respective Zonal Directors.

Furthermore, the Title Tournaments Commissioner reported on the present status of the ICCF Database of Qualifiers, which will serve as a main source of information for the member countries about their players who are eligible to play in the next WCCC Semifinals, ¾-Finals and Finals.  This database is continuously updated (on at least monthly basis) and offers a possibility to create various lists of qualified players sorted by various search criteria.  Before the start of each WCCC stage, member federations will receive a “List of Qualifiers” as an aid for their entries. 

The Title Tournaments Commissioner asked all delegates for their co-operation in double-checking these lists.  In order to minimize the risk of lost or forgotten entries, the Title Tournaments Commissioner intends in future to publish lists of received and acknowledged entries, on “iccf.com”.

As the next step, a publication of the “Lists of Qualifiers”, or even of the complete Database of Qualifiers, will be discussed with the new ICCF Technical Commissioner and ICCF Webmaster.

The ICCF President expressed his cordial thanks to Eckhard Lüers, for his assistance given to the Title Tournaments Commissioner in the production of this database, and the Congress appreciated this excellent work by a generous ovation.

The Title Tournaments Commissioner informed Congress that Roald Berthelsen, long serving TD for CC Olympiads, had decided to stand down as TD for future Olympiads, his last tournament would be the Final of Olympiad 13.  The ICCF President expressed his warm thanks to Roald Berthelsen for his excellent TD work and Congress appreciated his work by a prolonged ovation.  Consequently, the Title Tournaments Commissioner informed Congress that José Amorim Neto (BRS) had offered his long TD experience as a possible successor of Roald Berthelsen.   Subject to approval by CXEB, the Brazilian Federation, it was agreed that José Amorim Neto be designated as TD for other future CC Olympiads.

The Title Tournaments Commissioner presented a list of the title tournaments which should / could be started in 2002:

-	World CC Championship 17 Final – planned start 1.3.2002, played by regular mail, TD Witold Bielecki (POL), 17 participants.  In case of more entries (26 qualified players available before the start of the Congress), the “older” qualifications to be preferred.  Until 31.10.2001, the list of qualified players to be published on “iccf.com” and delegates from countries involved will be asked to arrange entries;

-	World CC Championship 21 ¾-Final – planned start 1.3.2002, but likely to be postponed until after 1.4.2002.  To be played for the first time in separate postal and Email sections; this concept of “combined tournaments” to apply for all follow-up Semifinals and ¾-Finals. TD(s) still to be designated.

-	World CC Championship 26 Semifinal – planned start 1.9.2002, a combined tournament, TD(s) still to be designated.

-	CC Olympiad 13 Final – planned start 1.11.2002, played by regular mail, TD Roald Berthelsen (NOR)

-	CC Olympiad 14 Final – planned start 1.9.2002, played by Email, TD José Amorim Neto (BRS).

-	CC Olympiad 16 Preliminaries – planned start 1.9.2002, by Email, TD José Amorim Neto (BRS).

-	Ladies WCCC 7 Final – planned start 1.6.2002, played by regular mail, TD Gianni Mastrojeni (ITA).

-	Ladies CC Olympiad 6 Final – planned start 15.10.2002, by regular mail, TD Karel Glaser (CZE).

The Preliminaries of the CC Olympiad 15 (played by regular mail), which were originally planned to be started on 1.11.2002, will probably have to be postponed to 2003 as due to the decreasing number of players who are willing to play by regular mail.  Some member federations could face serious problems to line-up two teams for two Olympiad stages, starting concurrently.

Finally, the Title Tournaments Commissioner advised Congress that all planned start dates might have to be slightly changed, depending on the numbers of entered qualifiers etc.

The World Tournament Office Commissioner’s report revealed a continuing fall in entry numbers. He thought this would continue, and was sure it was a result of more and more players switching partly or totally to email play. He commented that this decline was leading to an increase in waiting time, and noted that less than 10% of the entries came from outside Europe.

The Thematic Tournament Office Controller had reported a decrease in entry numbers. This was attributed, not so much to the choice of themes, but more to the general lessening of demand for postal play. For 2002, in addition to the usual 15 new themes for postal play, he intended to offer 5-6 themes for email play, chosen so as not to compete too directly with the postal themes.   There was a discussion about the possibility of rating of thematic games, but there a strong consensus that most players regarded these events as “experimental” and that rating would not be appropriate for games in which some, or many, moves were prescribed beforehand.  
21.	Email Tournaments
The Email Tournament Office Commissioner had reported that valid entries to the regular tournaments had increased by nearly 20%, despite great competition from the Jubilee Email Open. In Higher Class and the Master Norm tournaments demand had increased even more. The direct entry program continued to operate efficiently, generating a steady flow of entries and sincere gratitude was expressed to John Knudsen, for his valuable assistance in providing facilities for acceptance of direct entries and fees.

As an experiment, 'rapid tournaments' had been offered in the promotion tournaments.  Demand had been low but steady, but administratively these tournaments had proved to be very time-consuming and he proposed their discontinuance.   After discussion, Congress agreed that the rate of play for all future Email events should be 10 moves in 60 days.

The Email Tournament Office Commissioner expressed his thanks to his team of fine Tournament Directors, and offered special thanks to Daniel Finkelstein (ARG) for his excellent work in providing regular results services via email mailing lists.
22.	Tournament arrangements
The General Secretary reported that many international invitational tournaments had been approved under the delegated powers agreed by the 1999 Congress.   He made it clear, however, that in line with the views of the 2000 Congress, these powers would not be used to approve tournament requests from any federation which was not meeting its obligations to players, in terms of timely payment of prizes etc. 

After discussion, Congress agreed the following additions to the "Guidelines for International Invitational and Open Tournaments, with immediate effect:-

1.  All applications for ICCF recognition and approval of such tournaments must be sent in the first instance, to the ICCF General Secretary (and NOT directly to  Congress etc.)   The General Secretary should report to the next Congress on all applications which he has approved, for formal ratification and inclusion in the Minutes.  

2.  Applications should not be sent more than 18 months before the intended start date of any tournament(s) and all approvals granted will lapse if a tournament has not been started within 6 months of the reported start date.  In such a situation, a renewed application will be a prerequisite and invitations should not be issued, until renewed approval has been granted.

3.  Approvals of applications for multiple tournaments/groups from any federation may be subject to a prior referral to the Congress, if the General Secretary considers it to be necessary.

4.  Approvals granted by the General Secretary and by Congress will be published on the ICCF Website and member  federations should check "approval" has been granted for the tournament, before forwarding any invitations to their players.

5.  Approved invitational and open tournaments will be included in the new "Calendar of ICCF approved tournaments" (see item 23 ) to be published and regularly updated on the official "iccf.com" website.

Congress confirmed  the following tournaments, as already approved under the delegated powers :-

Africa-Asia Challenger (ICCF Zonal Director)
	Email, 15 players, cat. XII-XIII, late 2001
CCCA-80 (CAN)
Email, 15 players, cat. V, start 15/10/2001
1st NAPZ Email Invitational (ICCF Zonal Director) 
	Email, 15 players, cat. V, start 1/11/2001
Aleksei Mikhailov Memorial (RUS)
Email, 13-15 players, cat. IX-XI, start early 2002
Petr Yashelin Memorial (RUS)
Postal 15 players, cat. IX-XI, start early 2002
Koshnitsky Memorial A (AUS)
Postal, 15 players, cat. XI, start early 2002
Koshnitsky Memorial B (AUS)
Postal, 15 players, cat. VII, start early 2002
Christoffel-Memorial A (SWZ)
Email, 15 players, cat. XII-XIII, start Spring 2002
Christoffel-Memorial B (SWZ)
Email, 15 players, cat. IX-X, start Spring 2002
BFCC-40 A (ENG)
Postal, 15 players, cat. VII, start 5/2002
BFCC-40 B (ENG)
Email, 15 players, cat. VII, start 5/2002
XXX LIPEAP Anniversary A (PER)
Email, 15 players, cat. IX, start 7/2002
XXX LIPEAP Anniversary B (PER)
Email, 15 players, cat. V-VI, start 7/2002
Memorial Gileno de Exalto Araújo A (BRS)
Email, 15 players, cat. VIII-IX, start 15/7/2002
Memorial Gileno de Exalto Araújo B (BRS)
Email, 15 players, cat. VIII-IX, start 15/8/2002

The General Secretary suggested a reduction in the minimum interval between the start dates for sequential  invitational team tournaments.   Congress agreed there should be at least four years between the start dates.  

In the Tournaments Working Group on the first day of Congress, the Central Tournament Leader of the ICCF World Cup 12, Josef Mrkvička reported on the progress of this tournament. The World Cup 12 started on 1.10.2000 with 57 postal and 38 email sections. After less than 1 year of play, many email sections have already seen their winners, while the play in most postal sections progresses quite slowly. It is obvious that the winners of email sections would have to wait very long for their colleagues from the postal sections till the combined Semifinal sections could be set up and started.

To avoid this inconvenience, the Czech CCA who is the organizer of the World Cup 12 proposed to split this tournament into two independent and separate tournaments – World Cup 12 Postal and World Cup 12 Email. This proposal was considered as reasonable in the Tournaments Working Group and it was approved by  Congress.   Detailed conditions and exact time schedule will be elaborated and announced by the Czech CCA.

At the same session of the Tournament Working Group, the Austrian CC Federation presented its readiness to organize the ICCF World Cup 13 to be started in 2002. This event should be organized as two separate tournaments played by regular mail and Email.   Congress thankfully accepted this proposal from Austria.
23.	Other Tournament proposals
There had been many requests for a further Open Email Team event, and the Email Tournament Office Commissioner presented to Congress a discussion paper for a "Champions League for Email Teams".

ICCF Champions League :-

General regulations:
-	teams with 4 players each
-	each team must have a Team Captain
-	no obligation for team members to be from one and the same country
-	a player can participate only in one team
-	the name of the team must be related to CC or chess in general

Qualification modus:
-	first cycle will be played in one stage in several groups with 7 team each
-	the 1st team in every group promoted to CL “A”
-	the teams on places 2-3 promoted to CL “B”
-	the teams on places 4-6 promoted to CL “C”
-	the teams on place 7 starting in CL “D”
-	
Afterwards, the actual Champions League will start its premier cycle, with regular promotions and demotions.

In particular, the follow-up discussion concerned the technical way of payment of the entry fees for the team (especially if the players are form different countries). The prevailing opinion was to entrust the respective Team Captain with the responsibility for collection and payment  of entry fees to the ICCF Treasurer, payments through the direct entry facility or via the national federations, being alternative options. It was also proposed to differentiate the level of entry fees according to the way of payment, with an entry fee of CHF 40 for a team entering via a member federation.  The entry fee via the DE facility to be CHF 80, of which member federation of the residence of the TC will be credited with CHF 20.

The ICCF Congress approved (with two abstentions) the concept of the Champions League and gave the Email Tournaments Commissioner authority to complete and publish detailed tournament rules for the event.

The Email TO Commissioner presented a proposal for an extension of the Master Norm tournaments to cater for those seeking GM norms.   The “Rating Tournaments” would give more chances to players with rating over +2400 to play for a GM norm as existing Master Norm and Master Class Tournaments were generally avoided by the +2400 players, who may be afraid of losing rating points against new 2200 rated players, whose playing strength was much higher.  The suggestion involved the creation of Master Norm groups in four rating ranges.

However, in the lengthy follow-up discussion, it was proposed that only “Grandmaster Norm Tournaments” should be proceeded with and Congress approved the following concept (by two abstentions):

-	GM Norm Tournaments for players with rating > 2450, additional to the existing MN tournaments
-	Entry fee of CHF 50 
-	Groups postal and Email
-	3 GMN/MN tournaments a year in total be allowed as maximum per player (ie 1 postal GMN or MN norm tournament per year and one Email GMN or MN per six month period)

The Email Tournament Office Commissioner to produce detailed regulations for these new style tournaments, in collaboration with the World Tournament Office Commissioner for GMN tournaments for postal players . 

Based on the pre-Congress discussions, the Email Tournaments Commissioner presented a proposal to rename the existing WCCC stages, in order to avoid the use of the apparently misleading title of “3/4-Final”. 

During the follow-up and rather animated discussions, the following options were the main ones considered:-

-	Preliminaries – Semifinal – Final, or
-	Quarterfinal – Semifinal – Final, or
-	Semifinal – Candidates – Final.

Some participants preferred to keep the existing names, as renaming might cause confusion with the players. Moreover, they argued that it would be very difficult to find a right time to implement a change, as there were always some WCCC stages in progress.  Finally, renaming of the running Semifinals to “Quarterfinals” or even ”Preliminaries” could be considered as a depreciation by some players.

Congress voted by a small majority to keep the “status quo”. Therefore existing names of WCCC stages, are retained  i.e. Semifinal – ¾-Final – Final.

The final proposal of the Email Tournaments Commissioner concerned the new structure of Email promotion classes.   It was agreed that there should be greater supervision of initial allocation to classes and to promotion and demotion to/from Higher and Master Class and the Email TOC should be more proactive in such matters. Unless there was clear evidence of a higher standard of achievement, new players should be allocated to the Open Class, when they start playing with ICCF events.   Careful checks should be made with all Direct Entries. 

More time was needed to evaluate the ideas and they should be discussed again by the next Congress in 2002.

In the Tournaments Working Group on the first day of Congress, the Title Tournaments Commissioner proposed the setting up and publishing a complete Calendar of ICCF Tournaments on “iccf.com”  This calendar should be created and updated by the General Secretary, based on the regular information provided by the Title Tournaments Commissioner, other Tournament Offices and Zonal Directors.  

The main aim of this concept would be to provide all users with comprehensive and time-oriented information about all top-level and invitational tournaments and to avoid accumulation of too many important ICCF tournaments, within a short time period. The exact range of tournaments to be included into this Calendar should be agreed by the General Secretary, Title Tournaments Commissioner, Tournament Office Controllers and Zonal Directors. 

Congress approved this proposal with much satisfaction.
24.	Internet and technology matters
The ICCF Webmaster had reported on considerable difficulty in maintaining a complete results service with monthly updates; the workload involved had been too high for his small number of volunteer helpers to handle. Two temporary solutions had seemed attractive, but neither had provided the level of service players deserved and, clearly, the only solution would be a level of greater automation than had been possible so far in practice.

Statistics showed that there had been an increase of more than 30% in the number of visits to the website, and the daily average was now around 900 visits per day.  Since the Florida Congress, the website had been given a new look, the title database had been made available for downloading, the links section had been completed and a “how to play” chapter had been added, along with a numeric notation tutorial for new players to ICCF.  He advised that the webserver had been moved from USA to Germany, giving twice the space for same price.

Søren Peschardt (DEN) explained to Congress that Webmaster duties had become more demanding and he was finding it had become more of a burden rather than an enjoyment, especially as his domestic and other responsibilities had increased.  Therefore, he had decided he should resign from the Webmaster role with immediate effect and had intimated this intention to the Presidium and the Working Group on Sunday PM.

However, he was delighted to inform Congress that three volunteers had come forward at the Working Group, with Evelin Radosztics (OST) offering to become the new Webmaster, with Italian friends, Luz Marina Tinjaca and Marco Caressa, offering to be Assistants, with responsibility for producing and updating all the crosstables.

The ICCF President expressed sincerest thanks to Søren Peschardt for his very considerable efforts as ICCF Webmaster and Congress gave him a prolonged standing ovation !    Congress enthusiastically approved the appointment of Evelin Radosztics as ICCF Webmaster and two Assistants, Luz Marina Tinjaca and Marco Caressa

Søren Peschardt explained a transitional plan, whereby the new rating list would be published soon on “iccf.com”, he would deal with any emergency updates and a goal had been set to publish crosstables of all the Jubilee Tournaments and updated ones for Title Tournaments before the end of October, with the new Webmaster and her Assistants taking over full responsibility thereafter.   It was the objective to have all World Tournament tables  published on “iccf.com” as soon as possible, with a regular updating service.   

Ragnar Wikman then reported on other issues which had been discussed in the Technologies Working Group concerning medium/longer term plans.   It had been concluded that ICCF would be better placed to serve the World CC community if it acquired its own “dedicated ICCF webserver” and that this development would be proceeded with as a matter of urgency.   He was delighted to report that Eckhard Lüers had volunteered to become ICCF’s  “Technical Commissioner” and progress this proposal in close collaboration with all ICCF users, including TOs, TDs, Webmaster, Ratings and Qualifications Commissioners and those currently involved with the STARS project.   Eckhard Lüers then assured the Congress that he would give his commitment to ICCF in achieving this objective, which would include the provision of a fully comprehensive results service.  In the short term, he offered his crosstables to “iccf.com” and he indicated that his private site would be closed. 

The ICCF President expressed appreciation of the deliberations of the Working Group and thanked Mr. Lüers for his strong commitment to the future of ICCF and Congress enthusiastically endorsed all of these proposals.  

The 1999 Congress had instituted a 'Friend of ICCF' award for websites which were substantial supporters and promoters of ICCF and which collaborated well with ICCF in the publication of ICCF news and information.

On behalf of the Presidium, the President proposed one award, which was approved unanimously:
-	the website of the Italian federation ASIGC, www.asigc.it,  (co-ordinating Webmaster, Maurizio Sampieri)
25.	Marketing matters
The Marketing Director referred to his Reports to Congress and emphasized the importance of completing work on the Brochure for new member countries.   He referred to the arrangements which had been made by the ICCF President with ChessBase Magazine for publication of ICCF Telechess Articles in CBM publications and that the second of these had been sent to CBM recently.  The third Article would be produced before the end of 2001, and then four monthly thereafter. Volunteers were needed to help the ICCF President with these Articles.

Nol van ‘t Riet had kindly offered to communicate with New in Chess about details covering their sponsorship of the First Email World Chess Championship, including book prizes, the Analysis prizes and other aspects – both the Title Tournaments Commissioner and the Email Games Editor were providing good assistance and a Panel had been formed for judging Analysis prizes comprised of  three GMs :- Victor Palciauskas, Dr. Fritz Baumbach and Álvaro Pereira.

It was agreed that a database should be created of the background/occupations etc. of the leading players and officials, as this could be very useful in contacts with potential sponsors.   An urgent task, to be completed as soon as possible, was the production of the “Sponsorship Portfolio” for use in targeting/attracting new sponsors. A first draft of this portfolio was available for inspection by delegates during the Congress and its final version would be discussed by the Commission, with the objective of making it available for the beginning of next year.

The Marketing Director referred to plans for Advertising in Chess Life and he intended to arrange for the first Advert to appear in January 2002 – it was agreed to transfer the “budget” of CHF 3000, already approved for 2001, to next year, to pay for advertisements.  Other adverts would be considered, but needed to be “targeted”.

It was apparent that some members of the Marketing Commission were inactive and should be deleted and replaced by volunteers, who would be more participative and productive – the Marketing Director to so arrange.

The Marketing Director reported that Franklin Campbell (USA) had resigned as Press Officer at the start of 2001, but a replacement had not yet been found.   It was emphasized that the Press Office of ICCF required people who had a very good understanding of ICCF activities and “how everything worked” and further consideration would be given to how this might be best structured and organized.  It was also very important to establish good outlets and suggestions were made in Congress which would be followed up by the Marketing Director and Senior Officials.   Some offers of assistance had been gratefully received from the delegates.

The Marketing Director indicated he would be “very productive” in the next year and was thanked for his efforts. 
26.	ICCF Jubilee Book
The Editor-in-Chief, Pedro Hegoburu, referred to his Report and to the revised plans for publishing the book, which would be a celebration of the ICCF 50th Jubilee (and not of the Millennium, as originally envisaged).

All Federations were being given a final opportunity to update their Articles, especially with more recent events and changes to official contacts etc., but revisions must be with Pedro Hegoburu before 30th November 2001. Articles were expected from Cuba, Ukraine, New Zealand and Slovakia and, hopefully, other missing countries.

It was indicated that it was hoped to start a new page for each federation and, therefore,  “page fillers” were needed such as interesting game positions, sketches, anecdotes, amusing stories from Congresses, and so on. Everyone was urged to try to contribute something of this nature for the book and send it to Pedro Hegoburu.

Although many interesting old pictures had been received by the ICCF President, he would welcome more and everyone was encouraged to look back at old photographs/ books and to send them to Alan Borwell very soon – they could be scanned and sent as .tif or .gif or even .bmp file attachments.  Some small “back and white” pictures of national personalities could be inserted into the national federation section, to enhance the Articles.   

It was hoped to keep the retail cost of the book below US $ 20 (and equivalent in other currencies) but this could be dependant on the number of copies ordered by member federations.   Attractive discounts would be offered for larger quantities ordered and federations were asked to “pitch” orders of copies as high as possible.   A questionnaire would be issued soon to all federations for completion/return before end of November 2001.     

Pedro Hegoburu indicated that the revised dates outlined in his Report and Annex must be achieved to see successful completion of the project and for the publication of ICCF's first official book, to celebrate our Jubilee.
27.	ICCF Archives
The General Secretary had reported that there had again been no progress made since the last Congress regarding the archiving of memorabilia and personalia.   Member federations were reminded that they should submit one copy of all their magazines and publications to the ICCF publications archive.   Until notified otherwise, such material should be sent to the General Secretary.  

He had noted in his report that a number of federations were now publishing electronic versions of their journals, and consideration must be given to establishing an electronic archive of these publications.

The ICCF President reported on discussions with the German federation on the establishment of the proposed “von Massow Centre” and invited Dr. Fritz Baumbach to speak to Congress on one possible arrangement.  After discussion, it was considered that it would be desirable to establish the ICCF Archive in a public building in a central location, to ensure continuity, ongoing maintenance and ease of access.   Dr. Baumbach offered to consider other options and he would  pursue these and communicate later with the ICCF President. 

In his report, the General Secretary had announced the appointment of Laurent Tinture (FRA) as Gamescore Archivist (for games played by post) in succession to Pietro Cimmino (ITA). Congress showed its great appreciation of Pietro's work, and confirmed the appointment of his successor.   Arrangements for publication of archived postal games, via the ICCF games downloading facilities, would be discussed with Wes Green.
28.	Internal Matters
Following the question raised under the Treasurer’s proposals, there was a discussion about the extent of subsidies being paid by ICCF to support Presidium members/Commissioners to help them attend Congress 

It was explained that these had been introduced in Latvia to encourage officials, who were not their country’s delegates, to become ICCF senior officials, without too much personal financing of Congress attendance.  This was particularly relevant where there was more that one senior ICCF official from the same country.

It had been noticed in recent years, that some countries had not been nominating officials from their federation as their “delegate”, although they were attending Congress, but had chosen to give a proxy to another country. This had the effect that ICCF was required to subsidise such an official, rather than the member federation.

It was considered that this practice was “not in the spirit” of the original intention and member countries were urged to nominate their own members as delegates, and give them some financial support, rather that expecting another country to carry their proxy.   Countries were encouraged to nominate a delegate who could attend Congress, as it enhanced mutual understanding of international issues, as discussed during Congresses.

The ICCF President expressed regret that the intended Code of Conduct Guidelines had not been progressed since the Florida Congress, but detailed proposals would be prepared for consideration by the next Congress – he gave an outline of the headings which would be included, referring particularly to “black listing” and appeals.

The 2000 Congress had agreed to set up a working group to consider how to attract more women (and young players) to correspondence chess. The General Secretary had reported that group discussions had not yet started but they would do so before the end of 2001.

The ICCF President reported on the work of the President’s Commission which was considering the future structure, organization and operational arrangements for ICCF.  He gave an informal overview of one possible hierarchical structure but emphasized that proposals would be formulated before the 2002 Congress, for full discussion and decisions by Congress.   It was agreed  that José Amorim Neto (BRS) and Chris Lüers (GER) should be added to the membership of the President’s Commission.

The Florida Congress had decided to provide a sponsorship grant to an Asian Federation to facilitate its  attendance in Rimini and the ICCF President expressed great pleasure that the President of the All Indian CC Federation (AICCF) had been able to able to accept the invitation. After discussion, it was agreed that a similar grant and invitation should be made to an African Federation in 2002 and that this should be offered to Kenya.

Congress then considered the situation existing in Argentina, following the decisions made in Florida, last year.

One month before Congress, the ICCF President had asked for a full report from the LADAC President and Delegate for Argentina, on progress made towards unification and reconciliation in Argentina, for international representation of all CC players of Argentina.   A report had arrived almost at the end of Congress, therefore making it impossible to give it any consideration.   However, it had not included any encouraging information.

Assurances had been given to the Florida Congress that LADAC would make every effort towards achievement of the objectives and would ensure, in the meantime, that ALL Argentinean CC players would be able to fully participate in ICCF and Zonal tournaments and activities, without any forms of discrimination.   No significant progress seemed to have been made and there had been much hostility towards the Zonal Director (Latin America) - indeed, instead of improving relationships, the current hierarchy of LADAC appeared to be seeking confrontation, rather than reconciliation.   It was clear that much greater commitment was required by LADAC. 

New ICCF Honorary Member A. Raúl Ramirez made an impassioned plea for unity and friendship amongst his countrymen and received a standing ovation, and delegates/representatives from all Latin American countries at Congress gave their very strong support to the Zonal Director and his excellent team of enthusiastic and dedicated Zonal officials.

Congress decided unanimously to instruct the ICCF President to advise LADAC (together with CAPA and other interested parties) that, unless an internal agreement had been reached by 30/6/2002, for establishing unified international representation for Argentina, then a proposal should be put by the Presidium to the 2002 Congress, for suspension of LADAC’s membership of ICCF, until acceptable arrangements had been agreed. 

In the meantime, unless significant progress towards unification had been reported, no applications for any international tournaments by LADAC (or CAPA), would be approved by the General Secretary, using his delegated powers.

If suspension did occur, then its consequence would be that no federation from Argentina would be a member of ICCF (and CADAP), and therefore no teams, nominations or approvals for invitation tournaments would be acceptable, although players would be able to enter ICCF tournaments, on immediate payment of entry fees - these fees would be collected by CADAP and remitted later to the  ICCF Treasurer.   It was very much hoped that an application from a unified body/organisation for all Argentinean CC players, would be submitted to the General Secretary for ratification and then approval by the next ICCF Congress, for future ICCF membership.

The ICCF President reported he had resumed friendly contact with the President of CAPA, Argentina, Juan Morgado and he hoped this would lead to better relationships and to a unification in Argentina, for the purposes of international representation, in the best interests of all CC players of that country.

It had been noted from the Treasurer’s Report that fees due from CAPA for the period to 31st December 2000 (when additional membership of ICCF ceased) had not yet been paid and it was hoped they would soon be settled.  The situation about late payment of prizes in all ICCF approved invitational tournaments was also discussed by Congress and CAPA was asked to fulfill its financial obligations, particularly if it was hoping to organise future approved invitational tournaments, working in collaboration with the member for Argentina.
29.	External matters
The President reported that, though there had been little contact with FIDE, they had recently appointed FIDE Treasurer, David C. Jarrett (ENG), as the FIDE delegate to ICCF.   It was disappointing that, despite several reminders, that FIDE had not updated the ICCF information on its “affiliated members pages” but it was hoped  the new FIDE delegate to ICCF would arrange  this, and there would be a better working relationship in future.

After considerable discussion, including one proposal for a partnership agreement with another organization, it was decided by a small majority that Congress did not approve of an external partnership with any other organization, at the present time.   However, there should be discussions and proposals from the President’s Commission concerning other categories of membership and future policies covering types of ICCF tournaments, including free Email tournaments, and these proposals should be awaited. 

There was an application from ICSC (federation for deaf players) to participate in the CC Olympiads but it was not considered appropriate to allow this participation as this event was for countries/national CC federations.  The only exception is the ICP (Isolated players team) participating in the Email Olympiad, but this is a team of players from non member countries – with a view of their countries eventually becoming ICCF members – or from those member countries with a very low number of active CC players.  It was suggested that a team(s) from ICSC might be interested in entering the newly designated “Champions League”.
30.	Future meetings
The delegate for the Portuguese Federation, CNXC, Alvaro Pereira, had sent a message on the eve of the Congress describing plans for the Congress to be held in Seixal, Portugal from 5th until 12th October 2002. The ICCF President presented these to Congress, indicating that ICCF was very much looking forward to its first visit to the Iberian Peninsula.  Further details about proposed Congress arrangements were expected soon. 

The 2003 Congress was already confirmed to be held in the Czech Republic and Dr. Jaromír Canibal gave some information about the planned arrangements - the anticipated dates were 4th-11th October 2003. 

The 2004 Congress was already confirmed to be held in Brazil (probably in Rio de Janeiro) with the provisional dates being 18th-25th September 2004 . The delegate for India indicated , in the event of Brazil being unable to host the 2004 Congress, there could be a possibility India would be able to offer to be host country.  
  
Offers as possible hosts for future years Congresses would be welcomed by ICCF President/General Secretary

In closing the ICCF Jubilee Year Congress, 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 work of the Congress throughout the week and for making his role as Chairman relatively easy – he gave special thanks to all the officials who had led the various sessions.

He was very pleased that so many Italian CC friends had attended Congress meetings and events and he thanked ASIGC for providing an excellent location and facilities for what had been a very successful Congress.

In declaring the 2001 Congress closed, he expressed the hope that all would meet again in Portugal next year. 

Alan P. Borwell,
Alan J.C. Rawlings,
Josef Mrkvička,	ICCF General Secretary

ICCF President.	                                    ICCF General Secretary.                        (Acting Secretary - 
                                                                                                                            Rimini Congress)                          

Appendix A

Financial proposal as approved by ICCF Congress – Rimini, Italy 2002

1.  ICCF Statutes specify that it is the duty of member federations to …"remit their membership and other fees promptly within the periods specified by the ICCF Treasurer.     Failure to comply with financial responsibilities … can result in the suspension or cancellation of membership by the ICCF Congress.    Failure of federations to fulfill their financial responsibilities promptly, can result in ICCF having to sell investments unnecessarily, and have an adverse impact on other federations, which do pay fees promptly.   It also results in inaccurate ICCF Accounts and makes the Treasurer’s and Auditor’s work much more difficult.
 
2.  Normally, fees for ICCF tournaments are payable by players, on entry, via their member federations throughout a Calendar Year.  The national federation thereby benefits financially from interest accruing, until the fees become due to be paid to ICCF.

3.   Membership and tournament fees become payable to ICCF at the end of each Calendar Year and should be remitted, with all necessary details required by the ICCF Treasurer, not later than 31st March of the new year.
 
4.  Any fees which have not been paid by 30th June, will be considered to be "overdue" and a "levy" will be charged (in lieu of lost revenue) of 2% per complete month on the outstanding balance, becoming immediately payable eg if a balance is paid in September, a levy of 4% would also be payable. 
 
5.  Any fees which have not been paid by that year’s Congress, will be considered as "unacceptably overdue" and sanctions will be applied with immediate effect, whereby the member federation will lose its team and nomination rights until the outstanding fees, together with the levy, have been fully paid.   During such a period, no international invitation/open tournaments will be approved for that federation.
 
6.  It the outstanding fees have not been paid by the time of the subsequent years Congress, then the federation will be suspended, losing all membership rights, until it has settled all its outstanding fees and the accrued levy (maximum of 30%) to the end of the previous Calendar Year.  Re-admission will be subject to confirmation by the next ICCF Congress.
 
It is sincerely hoped that all member federations which have not been settling fees promptly, nor agreeing  acceptable alternative with the ICCF Treasurer, will make urgent/better arrangements to fulfill their financial responsibilities.  
 
These provisions come into effect for fees due for the period(s) to 31/12/2001, and annually thereafter. 

	Appendix B
ICCF Playing Rules Guidelines

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 opponents 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.

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 they have 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 days, 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.
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. 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.

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 eg. 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 opponents 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.

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 they have 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.
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 days, 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 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.
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. 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.

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 opponents 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.

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 they have 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 days, 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.
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. 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.

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 opponents 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.

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 they have 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.
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 days, 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.
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. 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.

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 C
Title Norms for new Tournaments

			GM	SIM	IM	LGM	ILM	
World tournaments								
World Championship 24 Semi-Final	Postal	section 13	8	6½	6			
World Championship 20 ¾-Final	Email	section 1	8	6	5½			
		section 2	8	6	5½			
		section 3	8	6	5½			
		section 4	8	6	5½			
		section 5	8	6	5½			
		section 6	8	6	5½			
World Championship 25 Semi-Final	Email	section 1	8	6½	6			
		section 2	8	6½	6			
		section 3	8	6½	6			
		section 4	8	6½	6			
		section 5	8	6½	6			
		section 6	8	6½	6			
		section 7	8	6½	6			
		section 8	8	6½	6			
		section 9	8	6½	6			
		section 10	8	6½	6	4		
		section 11	8	6½	6			
		section 12	8	6½	6			
		section 13	8	6½	6			
		section 14	8	6½	6			
		section 15	8	6½	6			
		section 16	8	6½	6			
		section 17	8	6½	6			
		section 18		7	6	4		
		section 19		7	6			
		section 20		7	6			
Master Norm Tournaments	Postal	section 91		7 	6			
		section 92		7 	6			
		section 93		7 	6			
		section 94		7 	6			
		section 95		7 	6			
		section 96		7 	6			
		section 97		7 	6			
		section 98		7 	6			
		section 99		7 	6½			
		section 100		7 	6½			
	Email	section 25		7 	6			
		section 26		7 	6½			
		section 27		7 	6½			
		section 28		7 	6½			
		section 29		7 	6½			
		section 30		7	6½			
		section 31		7	6½		2½	
		section 32		7 	6½			
		section 33		7 	6½			
		section 34		7 	6½			
		section 35		7 	6		2½	
		section 36		7 	6½			
		section 37		7 	6½			
		section 38		7 	6½			
								
		section 40		7 	6½			
								
African tournaments								
3rd Afro-Asian Email Championship, Final	Email			7½				
								
European tournaments								
64th European Championship, Semi-Final	Postal	section 1	12½	10½	9½			
		section 2	12½	10½	9½			
		section 3	11	9	8			
		section 4	11	9	8			
		section 5	11	9	8			
		section 6	10	8½	7½			
		section 7	11	9	8			
								
South American tournaments								
13th CADAP Championship, Final	Postal		10½	8½	7½			
								
7th Pan-American Team Tournament	Postal	board 3			10			
								
North American tournaments								
1st North American-Pacific
Email Championship, Final	Email	11	10					
								
Invitation tournaments								
ICCF 50th Jubilee World Champions Tournament	Email		4					
Rogelio Carlos Linskens Memorial (ARG)	Postal	section A	10	8	7			
		section B		11	8			
YU-2000 Email Tournament (YUG)	Email			10	9			
Paul Keres 85 (EST)	Postal		9	7	6			
José Raoul Capablanca Memorial (CUB)	Email			9½	8½			
Anatoly Ufimtsev memorial (RUS)	Postal			12	11		4½	
Mikhail Moiseevich Botvinnik Memorial (RUS)	Email		10	8	7			
Miguel Najdorf Memorial (ARG)	Email	section A	8½	7	6			
		section B	11	9	8			
Defendente Ricagno Memorial (ARG)	Postal			11	10			
"APA" Magazine 30th Anniversary (CADAP)	Email	section A	8½	7	6			
		section B	11	9	8			
Scottish CCA Bulletin 21st Anniversary (SCO)	Postal			11	10			
FINJUB 40 (FIN)	Postal		11	8½	7½			
	Email		8½	7	6			
Aivars Gipslis Memorial (RUS)	Postal		11½	9½	8			
Marcos Koatz Memorial (BRS)	Postal	section A		9½	8½			
	Email	section B		9½	8½			
3rd Peru Cup, Email semi-final	Email	section 1		7½	7			
		Section 2		7½	7			
								
Invitational team tournaments								
North Atlantic Team Tournament 5	Postal	board 1	7	6	5			
		board 2	7½	6	5½			
		board 3		7	6			
		board 4		7	6½			
		board 5		7	6½			
		board 6		7½	7			
		board 7		7½	7			
		board 8		8	7			
		board 9			7½			
		board 10			8			
								
Changes to previously established norms								
Master Norm 94 (norms count for 10 games)	Postal			6	5½			
Olympiad 14 section 1	Email	board 4 					3	
Interzonal 2000	Email	board 1	5½	4	4			
NAICCC 9 Final (norms count for 14 games)	Postal		9½	7	7			
Coppa Latina Europe America 4	Email	Board 2	----