What have the ECF ever done for us!

[NickFaulks]

The ECF rating policy is that either the whole event is submitted for rating or that no results are submitted.

Thanks, Brian. That is what I had always assumed and I was disturbed to see people ( I think ) suggesting otherwise.

[E Michael White]

The ECF rating policy is that either the whole event is submitted for rating or that no results are submitted.

Thanks, Brian. That is what I had always assumed and I was disturbed to see people ( I think ) suggesting otherwise.

It seems to me, if the ECF 's policy is not followed, that deflationary effects will emerge again possibly combined with compression at the top end.

[Paul Habershon]

The ECF rating policy is that either the whole event is submitted for rating or that no results are submitted.

Thanks, Brian. That is what I had always assumed and I was disturbed to see people ( I think ) suggesting otherwise.

I welcome the unequivocal statement of ECF rating policy on submitting results from internal club tournaments. I also believe it is right for clubs to support the ECF by thus encouraging members to join it. However, it is difficult for a club to cater for new, inexperienced prospective members who turn up wanting to play just casual social chess. My club has had several such over the years and they rarely last more than a couple of weeks. They enter a largely silent environment and find they are much weaker than even our lowest rated member. Yes, we are friendly and encouraging and will ensure they get a game, but it is so difficult for them to make progress. They cannot be informally taught without making too much noise and there are not enough of them to form a viable and comfortable group.

I am more than ever convinced that it's the old story of the ideal club needing two rooms. The social, chatty room would be appreciated by the tournament players for analysis as well as by the social players. Interaction between the two types would no doubt occur and be beneficial. I suspect such clubs are a minority.

[Tim Spanton]

The ECF rating policy is that either the whole event is submitted for rating or that no results are submitted.

Thanks, Brian. That is what I had always assumed and I was disturbed to see people ( I think ) suggesting otherwise.

I welcome the unequivocal statement of ECF rating policy on submitting results from internal club tournaments. I also believe it is right for clubs to support the ECF by thus encouraging members to join it. However, it is difficult for a club to cater for new, inexperienced prospective members who turn up wanting to play just casual social chess. My club has had several such over the years and they rarely last more than a couple of weeks. They enter a largely silent environment and find they are much weaker than even our lowest rated member. Yes, we are friendly and encouraging and will ensure they get a game, but it is so difficult for them to make progress. They cannot be informally taught without making too much noise and there are not enough of them to form a viable and comfortable group.

I am more than ever convinced that it's the old story of the ideal club needing two rooms. The social, chatty room would be appreciated by the tournament players for analysis as well as by the social players. Interaction between the two types would no doubt occur and be beneficial. I suspect such clubs are a minority.

Battersea comes close to this in that it is possible to have matches on one side of the hall and social chess on the other side without the latter unduly affecting the former

[Paul Cooksey]

Does Battersea have many members below 1250?

(sorry for the arbitrary cut-off if you are below that, feel free to call me an elitist. About the level where I think people get involved in matches than anything else)

I've always played at clubs with good facilities. Partly because I choose to. But even so, difficult to retain weaker members, particularly adults who are not likely to improve significantly. I've often wondered whether is about the size of the club, if it is big enough for a cohort to form. I think Battersea is bigger than most so interested in their experience.

[Thomas Rendle]

Battersea comes close to this in that it is possible to have matches on one side of the hall and social chess on the other side without the latter unduly affecting the former

Battersea is a great club, but on the nights I've played serious matches there it has been noisier than any other club in the London League!

[Tim Spanton]

Battersea comes close to this in that it is possible to have matches on one side of the hall and social chess on the other side without the latter unduly affecting the former

Battersea is a great club, but on the nights I've played serious matches there it has been noisier than any other club in the London League!

It's certainly not quiet, but I guess it comes down to what one finds distracting. For me two people whispering close to my board is more distracting than a low hubbub of noise further away.

[Mike Gunn]

The ECF rating policy is that either the whole event is submitted for rating or that no results are submitted.

Thanks, Brian. That is what I had always assumed and I was disturbed to see people ( I think ) suggesting otherwise.

I welcome the unequivocal statement of ECF rating policy on submitting results from internal club tournaments. I also believe it is right for clubs to support the ECF by thus encouraging members to join it. However, it is difficult for a club to cater for new, inexperienced prospective members who turn up wanting to play just casual social chess. My club has had several such over the years and they rarely last more than a couple of weeks. They enter a largely silent environment and find they are much weaker than even our lowest rated member. Yes, we are friendly and encouraging and will ensure they get a game, but it is so difficult for them to make progress. They cannot be informally taught without making too much noise and there are not enough of them to form a viable and comfortable group.

I am more than ever convinced that it's the old story of the ideal club needing two rooms. The social, chatty room would be appreciated by the tournament players for analysis as well as by the social players. Interaction between the two types would no doubt occur and be beneficial. I suspect such clubs are a minority.

Guildford Chess Club ran its first ever (in living memory of the last 3 decades) beginners' class yesterday evening. We had 5 women attendees. The first half hour was spent on how the pieces move and the rules (which four of them knew). The 2nd half did general principles of play (phases of play, opening principles, values of the pieces, thinking technique before you move), how to win material with simple tactics and simple checkmates (back rank, lawnmower, mate with Q+K, mate with R+K, mate with K and 2B). I did Paul Morphy vs Duke of Brunswick and Count Isouard as an interlude - the students were all enthusiastic and say they want to come back for more (we intend more practice on tactics + playing recorded games which are then analysed ).

As mentioned above there are issues of space/ cost. We hired a 3rd room for this class (1st contained club internal tournament, 2nd an improvers class with Andrew Martin). All this activity has only been possible with the encouragement and support of club president Nigel Povah.

[Roger de Coverly]

They enter a largely silent environment and find they are much weaker than even our lowest rated member.

You might think that with online chess, they can improve to a sufficient standard to hold their own against at least the lowest club standard. It doesn't always seem the case. I think that minimum club standard has risen over the years as the players gain age and experience. Age might send them the other way of course.

[Joey Stewart]

I've been saying for many years now that the barrier to entry to any sort of 'organised' chess is too high for a beginner to possibly hope to crack by trying to learn the game on the job - fortunately in recent months there have been such a big influx of such players into the game that it has allowed them to be paired off and able to play the kind of chess they were looking for.

They aren't always weak and useless either, I've seen some really good players appear from the online realms and transfer their skills very quickly over the board.