Rapid play event

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Rapid play event

Post by Roger de Coverly » Wed Feb 08, 2012 5:32 pm

A well known rapid play series has announced that some of its sections will be FIDE rated and now says on its website
**You have to be a member of the English Chess Federation to play in the Open or Major at Golders Green, and indeed any FIDE rated event in England. Ring 01424 775222 to join or visit http://www.englishchess.org.uk/**
Isn't that being economical with the truth, since if you have a FIDE code under a federation which is not ENG, you don't need to be an ECF member to be given permission to play? Or do you?

Later you note that the entry fee is £ 15 if you enter in advance. Nowhere on the website, does it caution you that the minimum adult price for joining the ECF is £ 27. In others words nearly twice as much again as the entry fee.

Nick Burrows
Posts: 1705
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 12:15 pm

Re: Rapid play event

Post by Nick Burrows » Thu Feb 09, 2012 1:06 pm

How the hell does this popularise chess?

There are many players who play in just 1 or 2 events per year. There are many curious players who are considering trying a congress. This puts a large firm barrier in their way.

" 6 games of chess please "
" That will be £42 young man"
" I think i'll just play online thanks "

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Rapid play event

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Feb 09, 2012 3:39 pm

The ECF website now says
Later this year it will become compulsory to belong to the ECF to play in any graded competition, league or congress, so you might as well join now!
This is not what 70% of the ECF Council thought they were voting for. The approved scheme allowed you to be able to play in a tournament not internationally rated at a fee of £ 6 per head per tournament. Also you would be able to play in a league at a cost to the league of £ 1 or £ 2 per head per game.

In addition, the current rate is £ 27, whereas from September, for leagues only it's a proposed £ 12 and for leagues and domestic Congresses a proposed £ 18.

The retiring ECF CEO has been at pains to claim that his scheme is universal rather than compulsory and has been challenged on this. See for instance the comments in the blog at http://englishchess.org.uk/farthing/?p=123#comments

John Townsend
Posts: 830
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:26 pm

Re: Rapid play event

Post by John Townsend » Thu Feb 09, 2012 5:27 pm

It should be a priority, in my view, for chess organisers to do all they can to stimulate chess at the grass roots level. That is where our future grandmasters will come from, but we can't tell who they will be until they start to excel. Having a healthy grass roots level is, surely, how we came by Howard Staunton, the only British player so far who has had a claim to have been the best in the world (although in modern times Nigel Short has been a challenger). Staunton himself became a strenuous and obstinate advocate of the promotion of chess at the entry level.

As far as I can see, the requirement to join the E.C.F. is likely to have a negative influence on the entry level. The extra cost may inhibit new players. It could easily make the difference between someone taking up the game at his local club and deciding it is just too expensive. The cost of admission to congresses is also an issue. Until now chess has been accessible to all pockets. We should aim to keep it that way. Great social advances in chess were made in Staunton's day, as is reflected in a witty and eloquent speech by Sir George Stephens at Manchester in 1853:

“He [the speaker] thought he had long perceived a tendency in chess to raise our own people to their proper position in the social scale, and to raise them also to honour and respectability. If one feature of this beautiful game were more excellent than another, it was that it had in many instances brought into association, community of feeling, and reciprocity of affection, the poor and the rich, the low and the high. The gentleman on his right (Mr. Staunton), whom they all knew and admired, and whom he could not mention without expressing what all felt (applause), had told him recently that he had received two or three communications illustrating this tendency. The St. George's Chess Club (of which he, Sir George, was a member), he understood from Mr. Staunton, had come to a resolution, in remodelling its form, that there should be no exclusiveness of caste; that the respectability of candidates for admission to the club, and their ability to play the game, should be considered quite sufficient testimonials to warrant their election; and when we knew that that club enumerated among its members some of the highest branches of society, we might fairly quote that as proof that this levelling principle in the right direction was one essential element of chess play. Mr. Staunton also told him, as a proof of how deep and widely-spread was the feeling for chess, that on the same morning he had received two communications of a very different character. One was from St. Petersburgh, to the effect that a club had been there for the first time formed in the palace of one of their Nobles, under the Imperial sanction, enumerating among its members some of the most conspicuous of the Russian nobility; and by a singular coincidence, the same post brought to him a letter from the secretary of a chess club formed in the mines of Dumfriesshire, Scotland (Hear, hear). Thus chess had at once the deepest foundation that earth affords (laughter), and at the same time raised its superstructure among the palaces of earth's sovereigns; and as the one assured us that the game would never be uprooted, so the other might symbolise the promise that the standard of chess should float on high, and never be lowered from the pinnacles of power (Loud cheers).”

(Chess Player’s Chronicle, Vol. 14, 1853, p. 185).

I think we may now be in danger of moving backwards from those sentiments. How will we ever come by a British world champion if we don't stimulate chess at the grass roots level?

John Townsend

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire

Re: Rapid play event

Post by Alex Holowczak » Thu Feb 09, 2012 6:57 pm

Nick Burrows wrote:How the hell does this popularise chess?

There are many players who play in just 1 or 2 events per year. There are many curious players who are considering trying a congress. This puts a large firm barrier in their way.

" 6 games of chess please "
" That will be £42 young man"
" I think i'll just play online thanks "
Does it?

People who play in the Open and Major - the only ones requiring Membership - are likely to be ECF members already, because they'd probably play in something like the 4NCL or e2e4 congresses. The Open section of the BDCL Rapidplay is FIDE-rated, so has the same restriction. I worked out that if that if we imposed the membership restriction in October, we'd have lost 1 of our 16 entries, assuming he didn't "pay up". It's also far more likely that "many curious players who are considering trying a congress" are not going to be playing in the Open/Major, but in the lower sections. It's also far more likely that these people will be paying £20 or so per year to be a member of a chess website of their choice anyway. So it's no different.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire

Re: Rapid play event

Post by Alex Holowczak » Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:07 pm

John Townsend wrote:As far as I can see, the requirement to join the E.C.F. is likely to have a negative influence on the entry level.
e2e4 congresses have the same rules, but their 5-round weekend Opens get 50+ players, which is probably double most Opens in the country. Of course, e2e4 offer FIDE-rated chess and high-quality playing conditions, which are undoubtedly selling points. What this means though, is that the requirement to join the ECF is only of minority importance to things like playing conditions.
John Townsend wrote:The extra cost may inhibit new players. It could easily make the difference between someone taking up the game at his local club and deciding it is just too expensive. The cost of admission to congresses is also an issue. Until now chess has been accessible to all pockets.
It is true that, if you choose not to become a member to play in congresses and instead go for the £6 pay-to-play route, the entry fee for your congress could rocket by about £2-4, on a typical entry fee of £25 or so.
John Townsend wrote:How will we ever come by a British world champion if we don't stimulate chess at the grass roots level?
The grassroots are more than happy to become members. I run a team of juniors, and I'm sure none of them (or their parents) would object to a proposed maximum of £22/year to be an ECF member. It's just not a big deal in the grand scheme of their yearly expenditure; even their yearly chess expenditure. Indeed, most expect to be a member, and seem surprised when I explain that, at the moment, they don't need to be members.

John McKenna

Re: Rapid play event

Post by John McKenna » Thu Feb 09, 2012 8:04 pm

If 6 games of chess cost £42 that's £7 per game. If 2-4 hrs. is the average of elapsed time of those games it compares favourably with a visit to the cinema, which is passive entertainment, whereas chess is an active process of creation and, sometimes, self-destruction - unfortunately.

John Townsend
Posts: 830
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:26 pm

Re: Rapid play event

Post by John Townsend » Thu Feb 09, 2012 8:10 pm

I don't understand Alex's remarks about playing conditions, but I think he may have misunderstood my phrase "entry level", by which I meant to convey grass roots level.
It is true that, if you choose not to become a member to play in congresses and instead go for the £6 pay-to-play route, the entry fee for your congress could rocket by about £2-4, on a typical entry fee of £25 or so.
I don't understand this either, but from my own experience I know that I have stopped playing in the Berks. & Bucks. Congress, which I supported for a number of years, because of the need to join the E.C.F. for the kind of section I like to enter. I made this decision on principle because I used to pay about £25 (including small donation) and was then faced with E.C.F. membership effectively doubling my outlay (based on Roger's figure of £27). A doubling of cost seems an odd scenario considering the economic situation these days.
The grassroots are more than happy to become members. I run a team of juniors, and I'm sure none of them (or their parents) would object to a proposed maximum of £22/year to be an ECF member. It's just not a big deal in the grand scheme of their yearly expenditure; even their yearly chess expenditure. Indeed, most expect to be a member, and seem surprised when I explain that, at the moment, they don't need to be members.
I suspect that some of those juniors are already committed players. Largely I had in mind potential new entrants to the game, who have just dipped a very tentative toe into the water and who I suspect in some cases will turn away from the game on cost grounds. We need to keep these people in the game.

John Townsend

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire

Re: Rapid play event

Post by Alex Holowczak » Thu Feb 09, 2012 8:29 pm

John Townsend wrote:
It is true that, if you choose not to become a member to play in congresses and instead go for the £6 pay-to-play route, the entry fee for your congress could rocket by about £2-4, on a typical entry fee of £25 or so.
I don't understand this either, but from my own experience I know that I have stopped playing in the Berks. & Bucks. Congress, which I supported for a number of years, because of the need to join the E.C.F. for the kind of section I like to enter. I made this decision on principle because I used to pay about £25 (including small donation) and was then faced with E.C.F. membership effectively doubling my outlay (based on Roger's figure of £27). A doubling of cost seems an odd scenario considering the economic situation these days.
But you are a fairly unique soul, in that regard. Most people simply don't have a problem with it. Two major events require membership to play in them - 4NCL and e2e4. The membership requirement has proved such a burden for them, that they now run the country's most premier league and congresses respectively.

In a world where "everyone" is an ECF member - and you may have to be one to play in the Berkshire League, at say, the £12 level. Of course, you're not just becoming a member for the sake of the Berks & Bucks. You're doing so to play in all FIDE-rated events for the duration of your Membership.

Indeed, why has the organiser of the event done this? They believe that their decision will result in them getting more entries. Otherwise an organiser's congress will cease to exist. So if the congress loses you, but gains enough people travelling from further afield because it's FIDE-rated, then the congress would gain more money, and not have to pay Game Fee. (FIDE-rated congresses are exempt from paying Game Fee.)
John Townsend wrote:
The grassroots are more than happy to become members. I run a team of juniors, and I'm sure none of them (or their parents) would object to a proposed maximum of £22/year to be an ECF member. It's just not a big deal in the grand scheme of their yearly expenditure; even their yearly chess expenditure. Indeed, most expect to be a member, and seem surprised when I explain that, at the moment, they don't need to be members.
I suspect that some of those juniors are already committed players. Largely I had in mind potential new entrants to the game, who have just dipped a very tentative toe into the water and who I suspect in some cases will turn away from the game on cost grounds. We need to keep these people in the game.
Most juniors are committed players, but aren't good enough to do themselves justice to take part in a congress. If they suddenly feel one is worth a punt, then their parents will be happy enough to pay £12 silver ECF membership, or the £6 Pay-to-Play, plus the basic level entry fee. Indeed, they're probably more likely to play in more events to get the most of their membership. As I say, the first question I'm asked by such toe-dippers is how much it costs to be an ECF member, or if they need to be one. They expect to have to be members usually, because the organisations they tend to be involved in run the same sort of systems. To not do so in anachronistic.

Junior chess is very price elastic. The entry fee for the British Junior Championships in Sheffield were halved this year, but you wouldn't notice if you looked at the number of entrants.

John Townsend
Posts: 830
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:26 pm

Re: Rapid play event

Post by John Townsend » Thu Feb 09, 2012 8:58 pm

I am amazed that Alex thinks me "a fairly unique soul" because I questioned the effective doubling of cost of entering the congress! - especially in the recent economic climate. So most people don't have a problem with a 100% increase? I didn't realise how affluent everyone had become apart from me. By Alex's reasoning perhaps we should expect Greece to pay back her debts at 150% instead of a 50% haircut!

John

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire

Re: Rapid play event

Post by Alex Holowczak » Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:07 pm

John Townsend wrote:I am amazed that Alex thinks me "a fairly unique soul" because I questioned the effective doubling of cost of entering the congress! - especially in the recent economic climate. So most people don't have a problem with a 100% increase? I didn't realise how affluent everyone had become apart from me. By Alex's reasoning perhaps we should expect Greece to pay back her debts at 150% instead of a 50% haircut!
But this is where your understanding breaks down. The cost of entering the congress has not doubled. The cost of entering the congress has remained exactly the same. I'm sure if Berks & Bucks doubled their entry fee, and didn't require you to be a member, there would be disapproval. The cost of becoming an ECF member is £27. The benefit of becoming an ECF member is not restricted to playing in the Berks & Bucks congress. You can subsequently play in a series of other events which are FIDE-rated as part of the same benefit. For example, e2e4 run events at Sunningdale, which is presumably your neck of the woods. You could play in those. You could venture into London to take part in their many FIDE-rated Rapidplays. By not being a member, these events are closed to you. Having access to them is your benefit.

John Townsend
Posts: 830
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:26 pm

Re: Rapid play event

Post by John Townsend » Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:22 pm

But this is where your understanding breaks down.
No, my understanding hasn't broken down at all. I don't want to play in these other congresses which you mention, so, as I said, the cost would have been, in effect, doubled.

John

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire

Re: Rapid play event

Post by Alex Holowczak » Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:27 pm

John Townsend wrote:
But this is where your understanding breaks down.
No, my understanding hasn't broken down at all. I don't want to play in these other congresses which you mention, so, as I said, the cost would have been, in effect, doubled.
So let's look at this from various points of view:

The organiser loses 1 entry, but believes he gains entries by FIDE-rating the event.

The ECF loses 58p*number of games in Game Fee from your non-playing if it were ECF graded (less VAT), but it gains in that more people are playing in the event. If the ECF is aiming to get more people playing in congresses, then this is a positive, because the organiser is doing something to get more entries playing.

You lose the opportunity to play in the event at all.

The organiser believes he's gaining, the loss to the ECF is about £2-3 in Game Fee, and you're losing the opportunity to play in an event you'd otherwise play in. It seems to me that of the three major parties involved, you're the one who's losing out most.

Bill Porter
Posts: 147
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:20 pm

Re: Rapid play event

Post by Bill Porter » Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:50 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote: The organiser believes he's gaining, the loss to the ECF is about £2-3 in Game Fee, and you're losing the opportunity to play in an event you'd otherwise play in. It seems to me that of the three major parties involved, you're the one who's losing out most.
So if John Townsend doesn't pay £27 (?) for ECF membership to be eligible to enter the congress the ECF loses £2-3 in Game Fee?

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire

Re: Rapid play event

Post by Alex Holowczak » Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:00 pm

Bill Porter wrote:
Alex Holowczak wrote: The organiser believes he's gaining, the loss to the ECF is about £2-3 in Game Fee, and you're losing the opportunity to play in an event you'd otherwise play in. It seems to me that of the three major parties involved, you're the one who's losing out most.
So if John Townsend doesn't pay £27 (?) for ECF membership to be eligible to enter the congress the ECF loses £2-3 in Game Fee?
No. The ECF gains £27 for him being a member. If the event were not FIDE-rated, and he played, the ECF would gain £2-3 from his playing. (I don't know how many rounds it is. If 5 rounds, then £2.90.) Of course, if he's a frequent player of FIDE-rated chess, then the Game Fee he accumulates from those is also lost by the ECF.

Even then, it's not quite as simple as that.

By playing in a FIDE-rated event, the ECF has additional costs. It has to pay 1 Euro per year for you to be on the FIDE-rating list, assuming you have one. It also increases the workload for the International Rating Officer, who receives an annual honorarium. I don't believe this is proportional to rated players/events, but if his workload increases substantially, then an increased honorarium wouldn't seem unreasonable to me.

When I first came on the scene two years ago, Game Fee was 50p and membership was £16. So that's equivalent to 32 games. Now it's 58p and £27. So that's 46.5 games. Council has voted continually to put the price of membership up disproportionately to the price of Game Fee. In fact, Council voted both up in April, even though the Board proposed keeping them the same.

Why has Council voted up the price of both disproportionately? I suggest these reasons:
(1) The majority of vote-holders are Game Fee organisations, not Membership organisations. "Turkeys voting for Christmas."
(2) I guess people feared a backlash from said Game Fee organisations if they put it up too much.

Historically, it was considered that your Direct Membership was intended as a donation to the ECF. To a large extent, that is still reflected in the price of the membership today.