Rapid play event

[Roger de Coverly]

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.

Remind me again. Why is it that you can "pay to play" if the event is only domestically rated, but you cannot if the event is to be FIDE rated? I don't think Council have ever been asked to vote on whether they accepted that there should be a difference of principle. The extra cost of FIDE rating is a red herring, since most membership costs whether individual or by organisation go straight to financing the Battle office.

We had this debate last year as well. The membership advocates just don't accept that putting barriers in the way of entry, such as demanding ECF membership, has the side effect of discouraging participation.

As regards the Berks & Bucks, with the 4NCL (and e2e4) on our doorstep, most of the stronger local players had already been compelled to become ECF members, if they weren't already. Some took refuge in WLS, SCO or IRL. So the top sections of the local event could naturally be internationally rated, because almost all the players already had ratings. It does have the effect of making quite sure that it's the same faces every year as more marginal players such as John can be discouraged by the additional cost and nuisance of having to join the ECF.

In a way, the membership lobby took the cowards way out. They could have demanded, like the USCF, that absolutely everyone, including foreign players had to become ECF members in order to play in any English event including Congresses. The Golders Green announcement implies this. Instead they picked on the internationally rated players as being more committed and less likely to walk out at the ECF making a nuisance of itself. None of us have votes, so it's not an election issue.

[Alex Holowczak]

Remind me again. Why is it that you can "pay to play" if the event is only domestically rated, but you cannot if the event is to be FIDE rated? I don't think Council have ever been asked to vote on whether they accepted that there should be a difference of principle.

The starting position was that you have to be a member, but Pay-to-Play was put in as a compromise. It wasn't put in for internationally-rated events, on the basis that it isn't there now. So it keeps things the same.

The extra cost of FIDE rating is a red herring, since most membership costs whether individual or by organisation go straight to financing the Battle office.

No it isn't. The money raised from all Memberships/Game Fees is distributed evenly in financing Battle.

We had this debate last year as well. The membership advocates just don't accept that putting barriers in the way of entry, such as demanding ECF membership, has the side effect of discouraging participation.

ECF membership isn't a barrier to entry worth worrying about. New players will accept it, as they will have known no different. I see this all the time at grassroots. It's only a barrier for the sort of people who disagree with any change whatsoever, and start objecting on principle for no other reason than to cause a fuss.

As regards the Berks & Bucks, with the 4NCL (and e2e4) on our doorstep, most of the stronger local players had already been compelled to become ECF members, if they weren't already. Some took refuge in WLS, SCO or IRL. So the top sections of the local event could naturally be internationally rated, because almost all the players already had ratings. It does have the effect of making quite sure that it's the same faces every year as more marginal players such as John can be discouraged by the additional cost and nuisance of having to join the ECF.

So there you go. They were compelled to become members, and they did, without a principled stand against it. I'm pretty sure your event would have the same faces every year regardless of whether it was FIDE-rated or not. Certainly the Warwickshire Championship, which is ECF-graded, tends to have little variance in the players in its Open from one year to the next.

In a way, the membership lobby took the cowards way out. They could have demanded, like the USCF, that absolutely everyone, including foreign players had to become ECF members in order to play in any English event including Congresses. The Golders Green announcement implies this. Instead they picked on the internationally rated players as being more committed and less likely to walk out at the ECF making a nuisance of itself. None of us have votes, so it's not an election issue.

You're right; they could have demanded that.

You'll remember the original proposal was along those lines, with membership at a proposed £18/head for everyone. After your postings on here, the system that Council voted on was proposed by someone as a compromise. I forget who, but I remember Alan Walton wrote something similar. I don't think the original proposal would have succeeded, but the one that was suggested on here did. So in effect, you're chiefly responsible for us having Membership at all, and indeed you played a vital role in shaping the particular system that was adopted. I reckon that if you'd said nothing, the £18/head proposal would have gone to Council, it would have lost, and we'd still have Game Fee from September. So while it may have been cowardly, it got the vote won, so people in favour of Membership went with it.

I suspect that you're right about one thing. There is an element of turkeys voting for Christmas. The members who had the votes were things that hitherto didn't insist on Membership. For example, the Birmingham League has 6 votes, and no membership requirement. There were far more organisations like that than the 4NCL, which had 7 votes. So naturally, the organisations are going to vote to get the Gold members to pay more than the Bronze members. It's in their interest to lower Bronze as much as possible, and raise Gold as much as possible. I refer you to Steve Giddins' blog about the role of Council.

[Roger de Coverly]

The starting position was that you have to be a member, but Pay-to-Play was put in as a compromise. It wasn't put in for internationally-rated events, on the basis that it isn't there now. So it keeps things the same.

The membership requirement was introduced under a premise that FIDE no longer supports, so it could be abolished.

No it isn't. The money raised from all Memberships/Game Fees is distributed evenly in financing Battle.

That's my point. The extra amounts raised on international events, more than cover the extra costs. You are trying to justify a premium of £ 9 a year, £ 27 in total for the right to play international events and the non availability of the £ 6 per event charge. The ECF is prepared to allow a player to play in one event a year at the cost of £ 6. If the event becomes internationally rated, the cost for the individual goes up to £ 27. I don't see the extra £ 21 as anything other than an extra profit.

ECF membership isn't a barrier to entry worth worrying about.

You won't listen even when people say that they would not become ECF members for the sake of a single Congress. If enough have that attitude, you don't have the necessary entrants to member only events. I'm not sure what the few remaining schools leagues will decide to do, but they are among the worst affected financially when they contain players for whom it's their only graded chess.

. They were compelled to become members, and they did, without a principled stand against it.

It pre-dated forums so the mechanisms for kicking up a fuss didn't really exist. I only started when the Regan board seemed to think compulsory membership was the best thing since sliced bread and wanted to introduce it in six months time. Had I cast a critical eye over the NMS, I would have commented that the central premise that you became a member to save your club or league Game Fee, failed to disclose that for many players the membership cost exceeded the Game Fee saved.

[quote=""Alex Holowczak""]
You'll remember the original proposal was along those lines, with membership at a proposed £18/head for everyone. After your postings on here, the system that Council voted on was proposed by someone as a compromise.[/quote]

What Council voted for last April was quite different from the October proposals. You may also recall that I suggested the ECF wouldn't raise anything like the amount of money it was expecting, basically because it had to make deep inroads into converting the "under 10 games a year" people into members in order to subsidise the reductions in cost for the most active. So whilst you might be able to balance the costs on the £ 12 tariff for 10,000 to 12,000 sign ups, if you only get 5,000 to 6,000, you need a £ 24 tariff. Whoever draws up the budget for the comment and approval at the Finance Council meeting will have to wrestle with this issue. The ECF will be foregoing a major source of near guaranteed revenue in favour of a somewhat uncertain source based on individual decisions.


The fact remains that leagues are going to have to choose between what in my opinion are three unpleasant options, or even some combination thereof.

Option 1. Carry on as before and find some way of raising £ 1 or £ 2 per head per game per non-member
Option 2. Remove the competition wholly or partly from grading
Option 3. Enact rules which prevent or discourage non-members from taking part in league chess.

So what options are leagues likely to select? Get it wrong and it will be Option 4. Closure.

[Alex Holowczak]

I sense I've been drawn into a Roger v Alex, Game Fee v Membership debate.

The starting position was that you have to be a member, but Pay-to-Play was put in as a compromise. It wasn't put in for internationally-rated events, on the basis that it isn't there now. So it keeps things the same.

The membership requirement was introduced under a premise that FIDE no longer supports, so it could be abolished.

It could be, but Council voted for it. So it won't.

No it isn't. The money raised from all Memberships/Game Fees is distributed evenly in financing Battle.

That's my point. The extra amounts raised on international events, more than cover the extra costs. You are trying to justify a premium of £ 9 a year, £ 27 in total for the right to play international events and the non availability of the £ 6 per event charge. The ECF is prepared to allow a player to play in one event a year at the cost of £ 6. If the event becomes internationally rated, the cost for the individual goes up to £ 27. I don't see the extra £ 21 as anything other than an extra profit.

I'm not trying to justify it at all. I think £27 for Membership and 58p for Game Fee is disproportionate. Game Fee should be higher, and Membership lower. I held 1 vote at that Council meeting though, out of 250+. So it's not my fault!

ECF membership isn't a barrier to entry worth worrying about.

You won't listen even when people say that they would not become ECF members for the sake of a single Congress. If enough have that attitude, you don't have the necessary entrants to member only events. I'm not sure what the few remaining schools leagues will decide to do, but they are among the worst affected financially when they contain players for whom it's their only graded chess.

Sorry, people? That was one person. I'm sure there are others, but they're in the minority.

. They were compelled to become members, and they did, without a principled stand against it.

It pre-dated forums so the mechanisms for kicking up a fuss didn't really exist. I only started when the Regan board seemed to think compulsory membership was the best thing since sliced bread and wanted to introduce it in six months time. Had I cast a critical eye over the NMS, I would have commented that the central premise that you became a member to save your club or league Game Fee, failed to disclose that for many players the membership cost exceeded the Game Fee saved.

By "a principled stand", I mean refuse to not become a member. Very few people do this in reality.

[quote=""Alex Holowczak""]
You'll remember the original proposal was along those lines, with membership at a proposed £18/head for everyone. After your postings on here, the system that Council voted on was proposed by someone as a compromise.

What Council voted for last April was quite different from the October proposals. You may also recall that I suggested the ECF wouldn't raise anything like the amount of money it was expecting, basically because it had to make deep inroads into converting the "under 10 games a year" people into members in order to subsidise the reductions in cost for the most active. So whilst you might be able to balance the costs on the £ 12 tariff for 10,000 to 12,000 sign ups, if you only get 5,000 to 6,000, you need a £ 24 tariff. Whoever draws up the budget for the comment and approval at the Finance Council meeting will have to wrestle with this issue. The ECF will be foregoing a major source of near guaranteed revenue in favour of a somewhat uncertain source based on individual decisions.[/quote]

You did suggest that, but Council disagreed with your opinion.

The fact remains that leagues are going to have to choose between what in my opinion are three unpleasant options, or even some combination thereof.

Option 1. Carry on as before and find some way of raising £ 1 or £ 2 per head per game per non-member
Option 2. Remove the competition wholly or partly from grading
Option 3. Enact rules which prevent or discourage non-members from taking part in league chess.

So what options are leagues likely to select? Get it wrong and it will be Option 4. Closure.

Maybe in your neck of the woods. BUCA is probably going to insist on bronze membership. The Dudley and Birmingham Leagues will presumably do the same. It'll be wrapped up in club subscriptions, and no one will really notice.

Anyway, I'm off out for the rest of the day, so this is probably the last reply I'll get chance to write today! (The rest of the forum rejoices...)

[Adam Raoof]

Someone wanted to enter the Golders Green Major yesterday. I said 'you have to be a member of the ECF to play' and gave them the contact details of the ECF office. They sent me their membership number just now. Eventually I will up the entry fee to Golders Green and go down the pay-to-play route (if you aren't a member, you pay more to enter) but that will probably be implemented over the summer when I get news of the increase in rent at the church hall!

[Roger de Coverly]

It could be, but Council voted for it. So it won't.

I'm not aware that Council has been given the option in recent years of removing the requirement for membership to take part in a FIDE rated event. When first introduced, they were told it was a FIDE diktat. Various unofficial reports can be found on the SCCU website.

The Dudley and Birmingham Leagues will presumably do the same (require Bronze membership). It'll be wrapped up in club subscriptions, and no one will really notice.

I think that's option 3. You write a rule which says that a club will default a game if it fields a player who isn't a Bronze member. The consequence of this is probably fewer teams and more board defaults, particularly at the start of the season if you expect membership to be paid in advance of playing.

You can only wrap up the Bronze member charge in club subs if the local organisation becomes an MO or you expect the club treasurer to process all the individual memberships.

[Michael Jones]

If there's going to be a requirement that any player in any graded game must be an ECF member, some clubs are going to have serious problems. When I was at Warwick, we had a few particularly keen players who played congresses, 4NCL etc., and who would have been ECF members even if they'd never played for the club. The majority of the players didn't play any graded games outside the local league - which meant 10-15 in the case of the most regular players, far fewer than that in some cases. None of them would have paid £27 just for a handful of games, which would have meant I'd never have been able to pick anyone who wasn't a regular - and since the number of regular players rarely exceeded the total number in a team, we'd have defaulted even more boards than we actually did.

I played a rapid tournament (not GG) a couple of weeks ago and have subsequently been told that I need to join the ECF in order to get my games from it graded. I will, but I'm slightly irritated at being required to.

[Roger de Coverly]

I played a rapid tournament (not GG) a couple of weeks ago and have subsequently been told that I need to join the ECF in order to get my games from it graded. I will, but I'm slightly irritated at being required to.

You might want to tell us which one. If it was an internationally rated one, they shouldn't have let you play in the first place. If it's purely a domestic one, there isn't usually an ECF requirement to be a member, because the Congress pays in bulk and will continue to do so at a higher price in the proposed membership rules. Perhaps it was in Yorkshire or Lancashire, where they don't want anything to do with ECF Council so their local leagues and one or two Congresses for the most part don't join the ECF. In consolation, you get a Yorkshire grade.

[Roger de Coverly]

The rapid-play series has clarified one thing.

According to the ECF website

Anyone with an existing FIDE rating other than ENG is not obliged to join.

but also

Ungraded adults will have to enter the event in advance and have their entry verified by the organisers, or if they enter on the day they will have to play in the Open tournament.

Entrants on the day without grades are unlikely to be ECF members, so how do they join the ECF at a weekend?

[John Townsend]

None of them would have paid £27 just for a handful of games, which would have meant I'd never have been able to pick anyone who wasn't a regular - and since the number of regular players rarely exceeded the total number in a team, we'd have defaulted even more boards than we actually did.

So it would seem from Michael's post that not wanting to pay £27 just for a handful of games might be quite a common position, and that I am not "a fairly unique soul", as Alex Holowczak called me. Incidentally, I would be enlightened to know exactly what "fairly unique" means, as I was not previously aware that there are different degrees of uniqueness.

John

[JustinHorton]

That reminds me of a discussion I once had as to whether you could legitimately say "near-infinite".

[Alex Holowczak]

None of them would have paid £27 just for a handful of games, which would have meant I'd never have been able to pick anyone who wasn't a regular - and since the number of regular players rarely exceeded the total number in a team, we'd have defaulted even more boards than we actually did.

So it would seem from Michael's post that not wanting to pay £27 just for a handful of games might be quite a common position, and that I am not "a fairly unique soul", as Alex Holowczak called me. Incidentally, I would be enlightened to know exactly what "fairly unique" means, as I was not previously aware that there are different degrees of uniqueness.

John

I understand that Bristol University - a case similar to Warwick University - are going to go along with membership without any fuss. So I don't see why Warwick should. In fact, in my role as BUCA President, I contacted Warwick University explicitly to ask them how I should vote on the proposal. They were not necessarily excited about it, but they weren't against it either. I.e. they didn't mind either way.

I spoke to Adam Raoof this morning, the day after Golders Green. As a result of imposing the membership "restriction" on his two sections, he reported that it increased the number of entries for these two sections, such that he was ill-prepared for them, and had to lay out more tables. Everyone who had to become a member, did, apparently without fuss.

[Simon Brown]

Alex, are you/Adam saying that imposing membership and making people pay more was directly responsible for the increased number of entries? Like to see you prove that. More likely people who didn't know about the restrictions decided to pay rather than have a wasted journey!

[Alex Holowczak]

Alex, are you/Adam saying that imposing membership and making people pay more was directly responsible for the increased number of entries? Like to see you prove that. More likely people who didn't know about the restrictions decided to pay rather than have a wasted journey!

Adam didn't say anything. He reported to me simply that the number of entries was higher than he thought; and higher than a previous Golders Green. (Presumably the last one.)

What I'm saying is that the correlation between "membership" and "number of entries" isn't one that suggests membership is a restriction.

[David Sedgwick]

I spoke to Adam Raoof this morning, the day after Golders Green. As a result of imposing the membership "restriction" on his two sections, he reported that it increased the number of entries for these two sections, such that he was ill-prepared for them, and had to lay out more tables. Everyone who had to become a member, did, apparently without fuss.

Alex, are you/Adam saying that imposing membership and making people pay more was directly responsible for the increased number of entries? Like to see you prove that. More likely people who didn't know about the restrictions decided to pay rather than have a wasted journey!

As someone who played when I hadn't originally intended to do so, I'd like to give my two pennies worth.

The reason I decided to play was because it was FIDE rated. If I'm in any way typical - and I appreciate I may not be - then the number of ECF members who took advantage of this is greater than the number who didn't play because they would have had to join.

Off topic, but I'd like to mention that CJ de Mooi presented the prizes. This is the third event at which I've seen him since the start of his current term of office.