British Championship 2017

[Roger de Coverly]

As you're so keen to lecture other people about consultation, perhaps you can fill us in on how the Hertfordshire Congress consults with its players

I seem to recall the Hertfordshire Congress asking for feedback, particularly on a decision to adopt incremental move rates. If it decided to introduce a Friday evening round and reduce the Saturday rounds to two, it might similarly try to establish the views of potential participants.

The British Championship Congress changed its time controls without obvious consultation, so changing the format as a de facto announcement goes along with recent practice.

When Alex McFarlane ran the British, it was one of the better examples of Congresses that consulted regular participants.

[Reg Clucas]

Proposed schedule 2017: http://www.britishchesschampionships.co ... -draft.pdf

I wish they'd move the colour code key down to the bottom of the sheet. I've just spent a few minutes searching for an explanation as to why the Seniors events have been changed to Rapidplay!

[NickFaulks]

the usual suspects prefer to debate whether a director is allowed to do something rather than consider the merits or otherwise of what he wants to do.

But they weren't invited to consider their merits, isn't that the point?

I have never played in the British and have no strong views on the issue. I was drawn into the discussion only by a complaint about directors having to go "cap in hand" to the people whose money they are spending. I believe that wording betrays the wrong attitude.

I sometimes agree with Mike in his disagreements with Roger, but his comment that most Council members do not play in the British was off target. The reply that they are required to speak for those who do was accurate.

[Michael Farthing]

I am far too inebriated to investigate this but perhaps, Nick, you might care to?
How many Board members play in the British? {Just a very impish thought: I have no idea of the answer}

Edit: For clarity, by the British I am meaning any competition at that Congress.

[Mike Truran]

I seem to recall the Hertfordshire Congress asking for feedback, particularly on a decision to adopt incremental move rates.

1. "I seem to recall" isn't really good enough, I'm afraid. But no doubt Michael Flatt can put me right if I'm wrong.

2. If feedback was asked for, I wasn't asked for mine. I've never played in the Hertfordshire Congress, but why does that matter?

The reply that they are required to speak for those who do was accurate.

[/quote]
Not so. Council members speak for those who elect them. Last time I looked there were no Council members elected by British Championship players. What gives Council members (elected by various bodies which have little or nothing to do with the British Championship itself) the right to speak for them on matters to do with the British Championship format?

I am far too inebriated

Probably so am I.

[Jonathan Bryant]

... I would have thought that this is an operational matter. Why should it go to Council ...

That seems like a very reasonable argument to me. However the follow up,

.... most of whose members don't play in the BCC in any event?

is a rather dubious addition - the fact that it has attracted some further interest notwithstanding.


I haven’t played at the British for more than a quarter of a century. I don’t do so because there is no event that is attractive to me. I don’t think that disqualifies me from having an opinion on the format of the British. On the contrary, if the idea is to get more people to go, it strikes me that talking with people who don’t is rather important (which is not to say that you would ignore those that do).

[IM Jack Rudd]

At the 2015 British, of the Board members at the time:

David Openshaw played in one of the events.

David Eustace, Alex Holowczak, David Thomas and Julian Clissold arbited at the tournament.

Traci Whitfield and Bob Kane attended in other capacities. (I think Phil Ehr and John Foley may have done, too.)

[LawrenceCooper]

The irony to this thread is that Alex consults more than any director that I can think of during my involvement with the federation. The 9 round British has been an idea that has been talked about for most of my (considerable) lifetime. Whilst I haven't played in the British for many years the new format would have been far more appealing than the old one when I was in full time employment and I'm sure I would have played a lot more as would many of my friends with the time required off work being not 10 days but 5,6 or 7 depending on when you travel. Away from this thread the majority of the comments I've seen have been favourable. Given that the current board was referred to as the "no change brigade" I find it pleasing how much change is now happening under the new regime.

[Michael Farthing]

Mike,

Allowing for the admissions that we have both made, your comments a couple of posts ago really is disingenuous. (I would have quoted, but when I started this post the intervening ones weren't there - typical John Humphreys interruptors!)

The British Championship is an event that is owned, organised and the responsibility of the ECF. It is part of the Articles of the ECF that this is one of its major functions. The governance of the ECF is ultimately the responsibility of the Council. It delegates authority to its Board. Absolutely the Council has the right to speak on this matter. In this particular regard, I am (sort of) elected by a substantial part of the direct membership that has the right to attend this event and I have a responsibility to speak on their behalf and a duty also to represent those silver members who do actually attend (assuming they tell me what their concerns are). As it happens I have had no feedback on the issue of 9/11 rounds, but I have had feedback (quite a bit) on the increasing FIDE ization of the Congress which many silver members feel is an erosion of the benefits they have as silver members. Are you really saying that I should not express their concerns? I am also a league representative. Are you saying that I should not express the views of my fellow league players, some of whom may attend the British and all of whom could if they wished?

I do have the difficulty that the two groups might possibly (indeed probably) reach different conclusions and therefore force me into the Ben Edgell solution of putting my hand up for both 'yes' and 'no' - but that's my problem.

[Michael Farthing]

At the 2015 British, of the Board members at the time:

David Openshaw played in one of the events.

David Eustace, Alex Holowczak, David Thomas and Julian Clissold arbited at the tournament.

Traci Whitfield and Bob Kane attended in other capacities. (I think Phil Ehr and John Foley may have done, too.)

So the answer to the question asked is one.

[Mike Truran]

Michael

I don't think it's a governance issue on which Council should opine. I do think it's an operational issue on which Council has no need to opine, as it's within the remit of the directors whom Council elects.

In the "real" world shareholders let the directors get on with running the operations of a company, and if they don't like the way they do it they get rid of them at the AGM. I don't see much difference here. Jonathan and Simon at least (among others, no doubt) understand the distinction between governance matters and operational matters.

[Alex Holowczak]

The irony to this thread is that Alex consults more than any director that I can think of during my involvement with the federation.

Since the 2015 ECF AGM, I have written the following ECF-related consultation papers/questionnaires:
- The format of the British, which was sent to 2200-2400 rated players at Division 1 of the 4NCL. We wanted to know why they play in (say) the 4NCL, or continental tournaments, but not the British. This was one of the reasons why. Comments were invited via Ask the Director, and I received a number of comments, from people I don't recall ever previously coming across, who were in favour of the changes.
- A consultation about the League Management Software and about the format of their local leagues, written in conjunction with the grading team, sent to all league and county secretaries about a month ago. I'm aware of approximately 20 responses to that, mostly positive; more positive than I expected, to be honest. [I expect my posting this will lead to people saying they should have received it but haven't. ]
- I'm on the cusp of publishing something to do with changes to the structure of the domestic arbiter titles, but that's maybe a few weeks away. It'll be sent to all arbiters and to the CAA to distribute to its members when it's ready. It has been compiled with the help of some CAA persons and some ECF persons already.

**

With respect to the British, there are some outstanding points to tidy up in a questionnaire that has already been written for the 2016 event. It isn't published yet in case we think of something else to add to it in the meantime.
- Whether the Under 8s should be standardplay or rapidplay; in particular whether the parents of this year's Under 8s feel they are able to write down the moves. Standardplay is the Junior Director's preference, but we'll see whether that's viable.
- Whether the junior tournaments should be "open", or there should be a separate Girls tournament played separately. I don't think we have a strong feeling here, but the views of the parents of the girls who play are important here.
- What is the optimum way of organising the Senior tournaments: 7 rounds as now, and if so, which 7 days; or 9 rounds?

No doubt the list will grow by the time we get to Bournemouth.

Examples of recent changes made as a result of player consultation to the British:
- Changing the time limit to the 5-hour FIDE session (in spite of Roger's assertion to the contrary)
- Introducing separate 50+ and 65+ Championships
- Re-introducing the Under 15 Championship
- Moving from 4 FIDE-rated tournaments in 2012 to an overwhelming majority of tournaments being FIDE-rated in 2016

Anyway, I think I've made the case that I do consult people.

Proposed schedule 2017: http://www.britishchesschampionships.co ... -draft.pdf

I wish they'd move the colour code key down to the bottom of the sheet. I've just spent a few minutes searching for an explanation as to why the Seniors events have been changed to Rapidplay!

You're not the only one to make that comment, so it's probably something that I need to show more clearly. I'll add it to the to-do list...

[Michael Farthing]

Mike,

We are not talking about warfare. It is sad if you really think that Council (or, indeed, Council members) should not express opinions (should not opine) on operational matters. I don't really believe that you think that anymore than you think that members of the chess community should not send Emails or respond through 'Ask the Director' with their comments. These are examples of 'soft democracy' and the listening to such views is surely something that distinguishes successful leadership from unsuccessful leadership. On the particular matters that the Two Great Sages are concerned with I would be quite amazed if either the general membership or the Council membership were not clearly behind the Board. In which circumstance, Council opining might be quite useful for the Board. Contrariwise, Council opining against the Board might also be quite useful for the Board.

"If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you
Yet make allowance for their doubting too"

[Roger de Coverly]

Examples of recent changes made as a result of player consultation to the British:
- Changing the time limit to the 5-hour FIDE session (in spite of Roger's assertion to the contrary)

The evidence in favour of this is where exactly?

[Alex Holowczak]

Examples of recent changes made as a result of player consultation to the British:
- Changing the time limit to the 5-hour FIDE session (in spite of Roger's assertion to the contrary)

The evidence in favour of this is where exactly?

On the several hundred questionnaires that were filled in at Torquay and online, that I saw and processed.