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.