Use of Technology at the British Championships

[Roger de Coverly]

If these are issues you want raised at a council meeting, ask your ECF representative to raise them.

With the possible exception of the Gold representatives on Council, I don't have an ECF representative and neither does anyone else. I would regard the two local county representatives and those for the numerous Congresses I play in as representing their organisations. Particularly I wouldn't expect the local county representatives to raise a matter unless it had been put through the local AGM as county policy. Matters relating to the organisation of the British Championships are not really pertinent to county AGMs.

In any event, perhaps deliberately, the changes to the British Championship Congress were announced too late to be part of the discussion at the AGM. They could have been raised at the Finance Council meeting, but aren't really financial and as far as 2015 was concerned, already a done deal.

[abi&timadams]

Unfortunately, because everyone is a volunteer there may be an understandable culture of sustained praise, rather than a dispassionate, detailed analysis of competence in tasks undertaken. In Volunteer organisations that we have been involved in it was always stressed that all work (and it is work) has to be at a professional standard. Volunteer can never mean amateur and is never an excuse for incompetence, however harsh that may seem. When teaching unpaid in schools we have always quite rightly been the more intense focus of the staff; they simply could not afford to have individuals performing under the required standard.

There has to be oversight, there has to be constructive criticism and there has to be accountability.

[Carl Hibbard]

Two weeks at the British would be too much of my limited holiday and you really need that level of experience to assist onsite or at least to add some newer technologies.

[IM Jack Rudd]

In any event, perhaps deliberately, the changes to the British Championship Congress were announced too late to be part of the discussion at the AGM. They could have been raised at the Finance Council meeting, but aren't really financial and as far as 2015 was concerned, already a done deal.

At what Council meeting between the appointment of the Manager of the British Championships and the printing of the entry forms would you like the changes to be discussed?

[Michael Flatt]

There has to be oversight, there has to be constructive criticism and there has to be accountability.

I would suggest that that oversight and accountability rests with the Director of Home Chess and the appointed Tournament Director.

Would there be any benefit in having a Player's representation on the committee?

Shouldn't the membership of the organising committee and their particular roles be better publicised?

[LawrenceCooper]

Unfortunately, because everyone is a volunteer there may be an understandable culture of sustained praise, rather than a dispassionate, detailed analysis of competence in tasks undertaken. In Volunteer organisations that we have been involved in it was always stressed that all work (and it is work) has to be at a professional standard. Volunteer can never mean amateur and is never an excuse for incompetence, however harsh that may seem. When teaching unpaid in schools we have always quite rightly been the more intense focus of the staff; they simply could not afford to have individuals performing under the required standard.

There has to be oversight, there has to be constructive criticism and there has to be accountability.

I don't think that any of the volunteers at the British could be accused of being an amateur or incompetent. I don't think that if they are paid or unpaid would impact on their performance, it certainly doesn't on mine.

The question is more a lack of spending on these key areas, that is more a question for the board. Even the relevant director has his hands largely tied.

[abi&timadams]

I don't think that any of the volunteers at the British could be accused of being an amateur or incompetent.

I wasn't commenting on the volunteers at the British; it was a general statement based in part on my experience working for voluntary organisations and in schools.

[Michael Flatt]

I don't think that any of the volunteers at the British could be accused of being an amateur or incompetent.

That is the problem. Any honest comment or suggestion for change seems to be interpreted as an attack on individual volunteers, which obviously is not intended.

If certain areas require better funding then it for the Director of Home Chess to argue his case, otherwise the event will suffer.

In parallel with funding, some thought needs to be given as how things are done and the need to recruit some new members to join the team.

[LawrenceCooper]

I don't think that any of the volunteers at the British could be accused of being an amateur or incompetent.

That is the problem. Any honest comment or suggestion for change seems to be interpreted as an attack on individual volunteers, which obviously is not intended.

"Volunteer can never mean amateur and is never an excuse for incompetence, however harsh that may seem."

Not your quote but the one I responded to. Had you quoted me in full it would have given a better indication of what I said, the gist of which was don't blame the individuals, look at those eg the board that are responsible for allocating the ECF budget. Whilst the British is required to break even in contrast to (for example) the Olympiad/European Team there is a limit to what can be achieved. As an armchair watcher I would love the live boards to work perfectly but there are limits to what those on site can do with the resources available.

[Roger de Coverly]

At what Council meeting between the appointment of the Manager of the British Championships and the printing of the entry forms would you like the changes to be discussed?

That's the whole point.

If changes were to be proposed and implemented, they should have been announced as potential changes prior to the AGM, which precedes both the formal appointment of the Manager and the printing of the entry forms. It could for example have been in the Home Director's election statement of his ambitions for the forthcoming year. Equally if summaries of Board discussions were made available promptly, it could have been in there, assuming the Board knew about the changes. There was little or nothing in the Aberystwyth questionnaires to indicate that radical changes were contemplated.

[Andrew Zigmond]

I don't think that any of the volunteers at the British could be accused of being an amateur or incompetent.

That is the problem. Any honest comment or suggestion for change seems to be interpreted as an attack on individual volunteers, which obviously is not intended.

If certain areas require better funding then it for the Director of Home Chess to argue his case, otherwise the event will suffer.

In parallel with funding, some thought needs to be given as how things are done and the need to recruit some new members to join the team.

I think a part of the problem is that there is a sizeable minority within chess who come on to forums like this and make strongly worded and at times personal criticism of volunteers, which in turn swings others around to defending them. I think the general consensus that there is an opportunity around the live reporting (and perhaps with the theatre at the event itself - the atmosphere in the playing hall was electric at times but notice boards outside were not always updated with the most recent results). I believe the ECF do advertise for the various roles required to make the event happen, or at least they have done in previous years.

Choosing my words carefully, Michael Flatt is correct that it is the responsibility of the director involved to push for the resources but there is only so far that he can push publicly.

[Alex McFarlane]

The use of technology is a complicated matter. I know very little of what is involved in broadcasting live commentary but I do know a bit about live game broadcasting and computer pairing so will limit my comments to those two areas.

Let me start by considering the setting up of the tournament. At the Scottish, British, Hastings and 4NCL the control team arrives the day (or night before) and starts setting up. At the foreign events being compared to when I have arrived the day before everything is already set up and is being given a final test. That is one vital difference to the quality of early rounds.
Even if we had the desire and manpower in Britain to set up earlier the extra money involved in venue hire and accommodation for those doing it is a significant matter. In an attempt to simplify setting up in Scotland 8 WiFi boards were purchased. I think it is fair to say that the software supplied with these was less than satisfactory and is only now acceptable. The idea of these boards is that they require no hard wiring and can be placed down anywhere. However conflicting WiFi signals can interfere with the quality of signal so a certain level of competence is required.

The equipment used is expensive and some of the boards used are past their sell buy date but it is often a choice between “let’s hope this works” or not broadcasting that board at all.

To improve quality a significant financial outlay is required. It might surprise many to learn that most of the boards being used at British events are privately funded and do not belong to the ECF. As has been said earlier events such as the British have to run on a break even budget. Therefore if there is to be that investment needed the main source is the entry fees. Effectively those paying for the system are those who gain least from it. Attempts to get on-line spectators to pay have all failed miserably.

Perhaps the solution in England is to increase the ECF membership fee by £2 and have that increase earmarked for technical development.

With regard to computer pairing. I admit that I like the challenge of doing a manual pairing but I also like to have a nice evening meal with a pint or two. On many occasions these two things have been mutually exclusive. So why do I persist in being involved with events using manual pairings. Simply because I have concerns with the Dutch system which is the programme one. It has been altered several times over recent years. On each occasion not to get it closer to what most people would expect from a swiss pairing but to make it easier to program so that the FIDE recognised software packages are all consistent. Obviously that is a very desirable aim but consider the following simple example. The pin numbers and the ratings are given
1 (2200) v 4 (1900)
2 (2199) v 5 (1900)
3 (2060) v 6 (1750)
This is the ‘ideal’ pairing but unfortunately 2 and 5 have already met. On the British system (and the Dutch system of 25 years ago) we simply swap 4 and 5 over. The current FIDE system swaps 5 and 6 because it is easier to program!
This may not seem significant to most players but it annoys me considerably that software is being ‘misused’ in this way. The software should be there to aid the arbiter not to change the outcome.

There are other significant differences between the FIDE system and the CAA one but I won’t go in to those in detail other than to say that double colours are more likely under the FIDE system.

Some berate the intransigence of British arbiters but it is that characteristic which has preserved the ½ point bye. Many countries do not have such a thing. Asked for byes are recorded as a 0. Also under the FIDE system a 0 bye does not prevent you from getting another bye. At a recent event someone asked for 2 byes due to work commitments. Having had those the computer then awarded him a third bye!

Anyway, I’ve gone on too long. I’ll finish by saying that I agree being a volunteer should not be a defence when mistakes are made. But nor should it be seen as an explanation for problems that really lie elsewhere.

[Roger de Coverly]

The pin numbers and the ratings are given
1 (2200) v 4 (1900)
2 (2199) v 5 (1900)
3 (2060) v 6 (1750)
This is the ‘ideal’ pairing but unfortunately 2 and 5 have already met. On the British system (and the Dutch system of 25 years ago) we simply swap 4 and 5 over. The current FIDE system swaps 5 and 6 because it is easier to program!

I thought it a feature of the Dutch system, that it's blind to rating and does everything by ranking. So to the program, the initial pairings could equally well have been

1 (2200) v 4 (1900)
2 (2199) v 5 (1750)
3 (2060) v 6 (1750)

Relative ratings not being taken into account.

[Alex McFarlane]

I thought it a feature of the Dutch system, that it's blind to rating and does everything by ranking

It does do it by ranking. The ranking is based on rating, then title, then alphabetically.
So the Dutch system can swap players ignoring their rating. The CAA thinks it better to choose rating as the first priority and whether they're called Brown or Young as a much lower one.

In the Dutch system the pairing achieved can actually be different in an odd or even round despite the players, scores and colours being the same!

[Mick Norris]

I thought Dave Clayton wasn't talking about computerised pairing systems, but presumably Sean Hewitt and Adam Raoof manage to use these successfully