2011 AGM: October 15th

[Alex Holowczak]

The viewpoint of Blackpool and Scarborough is that part of their market is Scottish players and these are being discouraged. Like Alex H, I tend to think of this as a logical outcome of a membership scheme.

Um, what? At which point did I say anything of the sort?

Under Game Fee, Scottish player would pay about £4 to the ECF. The proposed change is an increase to £6.

If the organisers of Blackpool and Scarborough think that Scottish players will be deterred by an increase of £2 to their costs in terms of an entry fee, when they are paying for two nights' accommodation, travel expenses (100+ miles to Scotland?), then I'm afraid they're wrong.

[Sean Hewitt]

Subsequent to that vote, the county's league has seen an increase in teams entering. We believe this is because we have been able to reduce the marginal cost of club's running additional teams.

I do struggle with the underlying logic. If perhaps I presume that an additional team will play 10 matches over 6 boards, the usual rule of thumb is that you need 8 extra players.

This rule of thumb is where you've gone awry. What actually seems to happen in Leicestershire under game fee is that a club might have say 20 players and run three teams. Each player gets to play for one team, with a couple of spare players to fill in where required when players are not available. Such as

Team 1 : Player A, B, C, D, E, F
Team 2 : Player G, H, J, K, L, M
Team 3 : Player N, P, Q, R, S, T
Spare : Player V, W

Under membership, there is no marginal cost to running an extra team. So, provided players are up for playing more than a game per month on average (and in our experience, they are) the club runs four teams with it's 20 players. The line ups look something like

Team 1 : Player A, B, C, D, E, F
Team 2 : Player E, F, G, H, J, K
Team 3 : Player J, K, L, M, N, P
Team 4 : Player Q, R, S, T, V, W

And immediately you have a situation where everyone benefits. How come?

The ECF raises the same revenue than it did under game fee as the additional team would not have been created under game fee.

The cost per game for the players goes down thus giving them better value for money - more bang for their buck.

Chess benefits because these players are statistically less likely to quit playing as the grading list tells us that the more a player plays, the less likely he is to stop playing the following season.

Players benefit because if fewer players quit playing, the ECF will not need to increase it's fees massively year on year as it does now (game fee typically increases 10% year on year).

Win, win, win, win.

[Alex McFarlane]

Under the proposals, both Poles must pay the £6 for domestic congresses, but not the Gold membership rate for international events. I think this is a fair solution. If you're playing in domestic events, then I think you'd expect to pay the national body. If you're playing in international events, then I think you'd expect to pay the international body, or your own Federation, not another national Federation.

But the International events are also graded locally!! It is inconsistent to let a Polish, Scottish, Welsh or Irish player play at no additional cost in an event which is ECF graded under one set of circumstances but not under another. I repeat most Scots would be willing to pay a reasonable grading fee even if the games are not graded but would be happier not to pay and not to have them graded which seems to me to be the option for international events.

Why is this a fair solution. In the international case as a non English you pay less and get more than you would in a weekender (assuming same entry fee for both)!!

[Roger de Coverly]

Team 1 : Player A, B, C, D, E, F
Team 2 : Player G, H, J, K, L, M
Team 3 : Player N, P, Q, R, S, T
Spare : Player V, W

Under membership, there is no marginal cost to running an extra team. So, provided players are up for playing more than a game per month on average (and in our experience, they are) the club runs four teams with it's 20 players. The line ups look something like

Team 1 : Player A, B, C, D, E, F
Team 2 : Player E, F, G, H, J, K
Team 3 : Player J, K, L, M, N, P
Team 4 : Player Q, R, S, T, V, W

And immediately you have a situation where everyone benefits. How come?

That has nothing to do with membership. If you run a league which regards itself as an Open with multiple divisions, then for sporting reasons, you need rules which say that team 1 has to be A,B,C,D,E,F and team 2 has to be distinct, namely G,H,J,K,L,M. You then have rules about whether A,B,C,D,E,F can ever play in team 2 and the maximum number of times each member of team 2 can play in team 1.

If you then restructure so that you have graded limited independent divisions, then provided the players want more games , you can have overlapping teams where you have nominally more boards than players willing to play in them.

We discuss this locally from time to time. The reason we don't do it has little to do with costs and everything to do with sporting reasons and whether there is any demand for additional games. It's only the Surrey Border league of the local leagues that is structured in this grading limited manner.

Bottom line on additional teams, in my view, is the number of games people want to play in a season. So you add up the number of boards you have to fill and check whether you have enough willingness to play to fill them.

We aren't discussing the same thing. I'm asking the costs if x new players come along and form a team.

Even in an Open with multiple divisions, you can always go double round to get the additional games.

[Roger de Coverly]

Why is this a fair solution. In the international case as a non English you pay less and get more than you would in a weekender (assuming same entry fee for both)!!

In days gone by, you may have noticed that even International events gave discounts for ECF members.

The ECF got itself in a tangle by demanding that all ENG players in international events became ECF members, thereby triggering the possibility of differential entry fees. Some organisers, Hastings in particular, thought this wrong, and charged all entrants the same. They then lobbied the ECF to remove the domestic rating fee (or the ECF did it of its own accord). As a consequence, the rule is that international events get domestic grading for nothing, a facility which is also extended to Scots, Welsh, Irish, Poles etc and accounts for the appearance of some famous names on the ECF list (because they play in Gibraltar)

What trips up the ECF is the interpretation it made of the FIDE statue, that to have an international rating requires a player to be a member of a domestic membership scheme. This interpretation was not correct, as the Scots established that membership of Chess Scotland was not mandatory for participation in the Scottish NCL. So players, not ENG, can have international ratings without being part of their home federation's membership scheme, even it even has one.

[Alex Holowczak]

But the International events are also graded locally!!

Yes, but it doesn't matter that they're graded locally. That's not the reason you're playing in the event.

It is inconsistent to let a Polish, Scottish, Welsh or Irish player play at no additional cost in an event which is ECF graded under one set of circumstances but not under another. I repeat most Scots would be willing to pay a reasonable grading fee even if the games are not graded but would be happier not to pay and not to have them graded which seems to me to be the option for international events.

The reason that the dispensation was given for international events, I understand, is that norm-seeking All-Play-Alls need overseas-registered players. For that reason, the cheaper rate is justified, because the overseas players are providing a benefit to English chess by giving English players norm opportunities. None of this is true in domestic events; overseas players would be getting a free ride with no benefit to English players. Indeed, English players would be subsidising the appearance of the overseas players, because they'd be paying their fees.

I agree that it's inconsistent, and in my opinion, so it should be. The cases are distinct.

Why is this a fair solution. In the international case as a non English you pay less and get more than you would in a weekender (assuming same entry fee for both)!!

Because they're needed for norm events. The fact that they can also play FIDE-rated weekenders is a necessary concession for the overall good they can give for the norm events.

In short: overseas provide a benefit to English chess in FIDE-rated events. They don't provide a benefit on the same scale in non-rated events.

[Roger de Coverly]

The reason that the dispensation was given for international events, I understand, is that norm-seeking All-Play-Alls need overseas-registered players. For that reason, the cheaper rate is justified, because the overseas players are providing a benefit to English chess by giving English players norm opportunities. None of this is true in domestic events; overseas players would be getting a free ride with no benefit to English players. Indeed, English players would be subsidising the appearance of the overseas players, because they'd be paying their fees.

All play alls - yes. Nine rounders plus like Hastings, Gibraltar, London Classic yes. But norm chances aren't an issue in five rounders like Blackpool, Scarborough and e2e4 events.

At the cost of FIDE rating fees, Scotsmen could be exempted from ECF fees, by making Blackpool and Scarborough FIDE rated. In the case of Blackpool, restoring its status as a rated event.

[Alex McFarlane]

Alex H - A few years ago Scarborough did a survey asking if the players wanted FIDE rating. There was an overwhelming rejection. Blackpool seems to have rejected FIDE rating for similar reasons. Better players don't like risking their FIDE ratings in weekenders. That is a statement of fact.

YET the ECF are saying that you either go for that option or risk the viability of your event by being seen to penalise 'foreign' players. And by going for FIDE rating you risk losing English players. Is it fair that the ECF asks its two largest weekend events to have to make that decision?

This is not for the benefit of English players if such a situation is forced on people.

Approximately 5% of the recent Northumberland congress came from north of the border. This has a significant affect on income and hence the tournament's viability. For Blackpool and Scarborough the percentages can be even higher. The numbers are so significant in these events that some results are sent by the organisers to Chess Scotland for grading.

Please do not be so dismissive of ideas which differ from your own. You mention that norms is a good reason for the difference. Roger has shot you down on that one. I'll go further. English players like meeting different opponents. Having foreign players makes any event more attractive. You are more likely to enter a congress if the chances of playing someone different are high than of playing people you meet in your local league. In addition for Scots you would often play in a weekend event before considering playing in a longer one like Hastings or the British.

Alex, surely if England's two largest weekend events are making the same points the ECF Board should be giving them serious consideration. It should not be saying "I agree that it's inconsistent, and in my opinion, so it should be."
Anything seen to be inconsistent is bad.

[Mick Norris]

Alex H - A few years ago Scarborough did a survey asking if the players wanted FIDE rating. There was an overwhelming rejection. Blackpool seems to have rejected FIDE rating for similar reasons. Better players don't like risking their FIDE ratings in weekenders. That is a statement of fact.

Yet they do so at e2e4 events, (and other players play happily at Leyland and Leek and others - in fact, I played at Leyland to get a FIDE rating, and it was the only commutable such event for me in the North West)

Fact - some players don't like risking their ratings, but some don't mind

[Roger de Coverly]

Fact - some players don't like risking their ratings, but some don't mind

I have to say I was puzzled by the Scarborough vote. In the South, I'd presume the 4NCL means that nearly all the players in an Open would have a FIDE rating and whilst there are chances of losing points, the chances of gaining them by playing well should be just as good. You might feel differently if you were trying to nurse a rating to 2300 for an FM title, or 2400 for an IM title.

Blackpool, previously, and some current North West area tournaments are rated. Is it only in Yorkshire and the North East, that you would have to travel a long way to play an internationally rated game?

[Alex McFarlane]

Several Scottish weekenders have either dropped rating or rejected the idea because of the opinions of the higher rated players. It's not just those chasing titles. Those with titles need to keep a certain minimum standard as well in the hope of invitations.

Certainly below 2100 there is a marked swing in the opposite direction.

[Alex Holowczak]

Alex H - A few years ago Scarborough did a survey asking if the players wanted FIDE rating. There was an overwhelming rejection. Blackpool seems to have rejected FIDE rating for similar reasons. Better players don't like risking their FIDE ratings in weekenders. That is a statement of fact.

No it isn't, at all. As Mick points out, better players are quite happy to play for FIDE-rating points at e2e4 events. The statement of fact is that Scarborough has rejected FIDE-rating, because you only asked the people who played at Scarborough. You didn't ask anyone else their opinion. Take away the rating from e2e4 events, and you'd get fewer entries.

At Sheffield, we were discussing the concept of FIDE-rating more sections of the British Championship. Everyone's impression of that was that would boost entries. However, this seems contradictory to what you've just said above.

YET the ECF are saying that you either go for that option or risk the viability of your event by being seen to penalise 'foreign' players. And by going for FIDE rating you risk losing English players. Is it fair that the ECF asks its two largest weekend events to have to make that decision?

Scarborough and Blackpool attract top players because it's a social event. They're not there to improve their ratings. This is a very different target market from e2e4 events. It's the same way that Bunratty works in Ireland, even though it isn't FIDE-rated.

Please do not be so dismissive of ideas which differ from your own. You mention that norms is a good reason for the difference. Roger has shot you down on that one. I'll go further. English players like meeting different opponents. Having foreign players makes any event more attractive. You are more likely to enter a congress if the chances of playing someone different are high than of playing people you meet in your local league. In addition for Scots you would often play in a weekend event before considering playing in a longer one like Hastings or the British.

I'm not dismissive of ideas that are not my own. I agree with many of other people's ideas. I think Alan Walton first mentioned the idea of tiered membership on here. I agreed with that to the extent that I drew it to Andrew Farthing's attention. This has proven so popular that we now seem to be going down that line. I agreed the principle of Roger's voting structure idea of changing it from per-game to per-head.

I'm quite happy to agree with other people's ideas, when they're worth agreeing with.

Alex, surely if England's two largest weekend events are making the same points the ECF Board should be giving them serious consideration. It should not be saying "I agree that it's inconsistent, and in my opinion, so it should be."
Anything seen to be inconsistent is bad.

There are two very distinct cases, here. You can't treat them both equally.

I'm speaking not as a Board member, but as a Council member who has a vote. I am not an elected member of the Board, so nothing I say on here speaks on behalf of them. I wouldn't dream of doing so. If you want to know what the Board thinkgs, e-mail them.

I note that if I went to Scotland, I'd have to pay more to enter a congress than a Chess Scotland member (at least, according to the entry form on the CS website I downloaded). So what's the difference?

[Alex Holowczak]

Several Scottish weekenders have either dropped rating or rejected the idea because of the opinions of the higher rated players. It's not just those chasing titles. Those with titles need to keep a certain minimum standard as well in the hope of invitations.

The question "What is your tournament trying to achieve?" solves the problem. You're not FIDE-rating your event for the benefit of higher-rated players.

If you want a social tournament where the strongest players' ratings are protected, then you don't rate it. This is what Scarborough does. Bunratty goes down the same lines.

If you want to give players the opportunity to play FIDE-rated chess, and 2200s the chance to improve their ratings, then you can do that too. You have to pay for GMs to play, but that's a necessary condition of making your tournaments work. This is what e2e4 does.

Scottish congresses went for the first approach. So did English congresses until e2e4 came along!

[Roger de Coverly]

I note that if I went to Scotland, I'd have to pay more to enter a congress than a Chess Scotland member (at least, according to the entry form on the CS website I downloaded). So what's the difference?

About four quid I think. Dundee is offering a £ 2 discount for Chess Scotland members. Alex's point is, I think, that a 10% discount (£2 in £ 20) is acceptable whilst a 30% surcharge ( £6 on £ 20) isn't. You could at the cost of ever increasing complexity remove the £ 6 surcharge for Chess Scotland members. If you removed it for Scottish residents, you have to answer why you are imposing it on Scots living in England, or anyone living in England for that matter.

It might not have been a consideration, but according to some interpretations of the ECF rules, had Scarborough been rated then all Scots players would have been required to be Chess Scotland members. It might have been a bridge too far for an English event to demand a condition not required in Scotland itself.

[Alex Holowczak]

I note that if I went to Scotland, I'd have to pay more to enter a congress than a Chess Scotland member (at least, according to the entry form on the CS website I downloaded). So what's the difference?

About four quid I think.

OK, £4. Are we really going to have an argument about £4?

Alex's point is, I think, that a 10% discount (£2 in £ 20) is acceptable whilst a 30% surcharge ( £6 on £ 20) isn't.

It's not a case of discount versus surcharge. You just put on your entry forms:

Scotland: Entry Fee: £25, CS member: £23
England: Entry Fee: £25, ECF silver members (or above): £19

In both cases, it's a discount for the member, rather than a penalty for the non-member. You could write the Scottish version as:

Entry Fee: £23, Non-members must pay a £2 surcharge.

It doesn't affect the numbers or the principle.

You could at the cost of ever increasing complexity remove the £ 6 surcharge for Chess Scotland members. If you removed it for Scottish residents, you have to answer why you are imposing it on Scots living in England, or anyone living in England for that matter.

I'm suggesting you should apply the £6 universally. You couldn't remove it for Chess Scotland members, because then we'd need access to the Chess Scotland membership list. I'm sure we could have access to it, but what're you achieving by doing that?

It might not have been a consideration, but according to some interpretations of the ECF rules, had Scarborough been rated then all Scots players would have been required to be Chess Scotland members. It might have been a bridge too far for an English event to demand a condition not required in Scotland itself.

If Scarborough had been rated via the ECF, then the Scottish players' membership status was an issue for Chess Scotland, not ECF. ECF would keep to its side of the bargain; i.e. English players. The congress organiser pays the £1.50 per player to rate the event. Chess Scotland pays the 1 Euro to FIDE to keep them on the list. So that's up to them.