Rapid play event

[JustinHorton]

What did he wear?

[David Sedgwick]

What did he wear?

Nothing that particularly caught my attention.

[John Townsend]

So Golders Green and Bristol have accepted the E.C.F. charges? Warwick not
dissenting? As recently as 24 Nov. 2011, Alex Mcfarlane expressed a few
concerns about another part of the country:

We have no idea what the uptake on membership will be. Yorkshire has proved
to be a particularly impoverished area in terms of ECF membership. Is that
likely to change? If there is a boycott of tournaments (and recent events
have indicated that may be more likely than I had previously thought) due to
enforced membership it is more likely to happen in Yorkshire. Even a £1
increase could trigger such a reaction. Talking to several Scottish players,
for example, a £3 levy would have been acceptable but £6 is seen as too
much, others, of course, say it won't matter but if we lose 20 entries
that's £600 down.

I'm not sure what the present position is. Would it be fair to say that enthusiasm for the new charges is a trifle patchy?

John

[Roger de Coverly]

I'm not sure what the present position is. Would it be fair to say that enthusiasm for the new charges is a trifle patchy?

As far as tournaments are concerned, the proposed costs for next September are that if the event is internationally rated, individuals who are ENG are expected to have joined the ECF at a current cost of £ 27, but if you are WLS, SCO or from anywhere else, the ECF won't ask you for anything. If on the other hand, the tournament isn't internationally rated, the ECF will demand from the Congress £ 6 per head for every non-member playing. Congress organisers can handle this as they please, but the likelihood is that they will have two levels of entry fees, six pounds apart. Rapid-play events might elect not to be graded. Some are like this already. Long-play tournaments might elect not to be graded as well, some Yorkshire tournaments have a deal with the ECF that only ECF members will have games graded. I don't know whether these deals will continue beyond September.

Many leagues and counties have yet to determine their rules. Their choices are in essence
(a) to pay £ 1 or £ 2 per game per non-member. You don't know which until the end of the season.
(b) to remove their competitions wholly or partly from grading
(c) to ban or restrict the participation of non-members.

In the league context, being WLS or SCO etc is no help.

[Alex Holowczak]

I'm not sure what the present position is. Would it be fair to say that enthusiasm for the new charges is a trifle patchy?

I don't think anyone's "enthusiastic". "Yay, let's spend money!" is not a thought that runs through anyone's mind, let alone chessplayers.

Yorkshire is not enthusiastic about any funding model. You'd have to speak to them about why.

70% of Council voted for membership. 30% didn't. Patchy, yes. The minority, yes.

[John Townsend]

Thinking of our little example of the Berks. & Bucks. Congress, it is hard to see the benefit of the extra cost. I wouldn't value having a FIDE rating. One year it costs about £25, then next year it is about £52. It seems too sudden, with no perceived advantage. As far as I know, the congress would have been similar to previous years, just twice as expensive for me to play.

John

[Alex Holowczak]

Thinking of our little example of the Berks. & Bucks. Congress, it is hard to see the benefit of the extra cost. I wouldn't value having a FIDE rating. One year it costs about £25, then next year it is about £52. It seems too sudden, with no perceived advantage. As far as I know, the congress would have been similar to previous years, just twice as expensive for me to play.

If you don't value a FIDE rating, why do you want to play in a FIDE-rated congress at all, regardless of the associated cost of entry?

[John Townsend]

Well, Alex, I didn't especially want to play in a FIDE-rated congress. It is just that I was in the habit of supporting the Berks. & Bucks. Congress, when suddenly E.C.F. membership became compulsory, and I couldn't see the benefit in my case.

John

[Alex Holowczak]

Well, Alex, I didn't especially want to play in a FIDE-rated congress. It is just that I was in the habit of supporting the Berks. & Bucks. Congress, when suddenly E.C.F. membership became compulsory, and I couldn't see the benefit in my case.

In that case, why does it matter? The congress has decided to target a specific market: Those who want to play FIDE-rated chess. This is a larger market than those who want to support their local event. So the organiser(s) presumably took the decision to do this, knowing it would alienate people of the same opinion as you, but decided it was worth it for the greater good of the event.

So I'm sure that while the organisers would love to have your support, they probably thought it was not required if they made the switch to FIDE-rate the event, because it would generate more entries. I assume they still think this, otherwise they'd switch it to being ECF-graded only again.

[John Townsend]

Alex, it causes me little dismay not to play at the local congress any more and, in fact, it frees up a bank holiday weekend for me. I am surprised at the E.C.F.'s apparent optimism in expecting players, clubs, etc., to put up with the various extra charges - in my case representing a 100% increase, as we have discussed - especially where people recognize little or no benefit in E.C.F. membership. The E.C.F. should not be surprised, in my view, if large droves of players vote with their feet instead of complying.

John

[Nick Burrows]

In that case, why does it matter? The congress has decided to target a specific market: Those who want to play FIDE-rated chess. This is a larger market than those who want to support their local event. So the organiser(s) presumably took the decision to do this, knowing it would alienate people of the same opinion as you, but decided it was worth it for the greater good of the event.

So I'm sure that while the organisers would love to have your support, they probably thought it was not required if they made the switch to FIDE-rate the event, because it would generate more entries. I assume they still think this, otherwise they'd switch it to being ECF-graded only again.

It matters because your quote reveals a disdain for a large number of ordinary chess players, and a willingness to discard them based on an untested hypotheses about what most chess players want.
The ECF may yet switch back, but with a lot of damage done via the process.

[Roger de Coverly]

It matters because your quote reveals a disdain for a large number of ordinary chess players, and a willingness to discard them based on an untested hypotheses about what most chess players want.
The ECF may yet switch back, but with a lot of damage done via the process.

Without wishing to put words into the mouths of the Bucks & Berks organisers, they would be delighted if they could have the tournament(s) internationally rated without the downside of having to demand that everyone was an ECF member. For a player only wishing to play the one event in a year, and they do exist, compulsory membership is a tax at over 100% on the normal cost of entry.

[Alex Holowczak]

Alex, it causes me little dismay not to play at the local congress any more and, in fact, it frees up a bank holiday weekend for me. I am surprised at the E.C.F.'s apparent optimism in expecting players, clubs, etc., to put up with the various extra charges - in my case representing a 100% increase, as we have discussed - especially where people recognize little or no benefit in E.C.F. membership. The E.C.F. should not be surprised, in my view, if large droves of players vote with their feet instead of complying.

Well, I guess we'll see. The experience that the ECF has had with Membership Organisations is that this doesn't happen.

[Alex Holowczak]

Without wishing to put words into the mouths of the Bucks & Berks organisers, they would be delighted if they could have the tournament(s) internationally rated without the downside of having to demand that everyone was an ECF member.

They'd also no doubt be delighted if they didn't have to pay the ECF any money whatsoever. If we want an ECF, the ECF has to have money. If the ECF is going to have money, you need to fund it. Council - which is composed mainly of representatives of bodies who the "ordinary club member" - decided by a two-thirds majority that it wanted to fund it via Membership, rather than Game Fee.

If you don't want an ECF, then vote it out of existence by voting for membership at £0 and Game Fee at 0p.

[Roger de Coverly]

If the ECF is going to have money, you need to fund it. Council - which is composed mainly of representatives of bodies who the "ordinary club member" - decided by a two-thirds majority that it wanted to fund it via Membership, rather than Game Fee.

You are missing my point. That a tournament is FIDE rated shouldn't justify the ECF demand of compulsory membership at £ 27 per head as opposed to optional membership at £ 6 per tournament.


What are MO's doing at the moment about players only playing a handful of games?

Are they
(a) paying for them by Game Fee at 54p/ 58p?
(b) "forgetting" to submit results thereby giving an illusion of high membership percentages
(c) banning or severely restricting non-member participation in their events.

Table tennis is sometimes held up as a comparison. There's a rather chilling statement under membership that whilst you can become a direct member to take part in competitions, as opposed to joining through a club, you are not permitted to take part in an unregistered league

If you don't want an ECF, then vote it out of existence by voting for membership at £0 and Game Fee at 0p.

In my view, compulsory membership and local team chess as we know them aren't compatible.