Summary of Funding Proposals for AGM

[Alex Holowczak]

I don't like your general idea because the differential in costs from now would be significant. Warwickshire only runs 1 event; a congress which it grades. The Game Fee won't be more than £100. If this became £250, we'd have to double the costs of entry to the congress, which means it wouldn't happen. So we probably wouldn't bother. It's not a case of us not wanting to run more events; there are three leagues within the territory, and lots of other local congresses in other counties.

Smaller counties would be similarly disadvantaged.

OK. If I accept I got the non-voting member rate wrong, and it should be £100, does that change anything?

It changes quite a lot. How much are you now charging for a vote, and does this cover the funding hole of £150k?

Some counties may opt not to pay for a vote, simply because the county can't afford it. So what's to stop those counties who do have a vote putting up the price for the counties who don't have a vote? So counties drop out altogether.

Alternatively, the richest counties can put the price of having a vote up, causing some to drop to the lower tier. This can repeat in sequence until only the most affluent counties can afford to vote.

You'd end up without a chess Federation.

[Paul Cooksey]

Some counties may opt not to pay for a vote, simply because the county can't afford it.

Why should organisations which are not paying their fair share have a vote? I do not see any significant difference between this and the argument that individual membership prices people out.

Of course if the ECF wants to do something self destructive, there is no way to prevent it. You have pointed out a way it could do that now already.

I'm not trying to be provocative, just simplify the the funding of the ECF to the point it is no longer a major activity.

[Simon Dixon]

If you can get the required support to get it on the Agenda at an ECF Meeting, I'd vote for it.

I wouldn't know where to begin, but everyone I have ever met agreed it would be better if we had an ELO system so there may be some hope if you can get the required support, you know how these things work so it should be easy.

[Alex Holowczak]

Some counties may opt not to pay for a vote, simply because the county can't afford it.

Why should organisations which are not paying their fair share have a vote? I do not see any significant difference between this and the argument that individual membership prices people out.

Of course if the ECF wants to do something self destructive, there is no way to prevent it. You have pointed out a way it could do that now already.

I'm not trying to be provocative, just simplify the the funding of the ECF to the point it is no longer a major activity.

Because they might be paying their fair share.

The Warwickshire Chess Association, which runs a congress only, has a different fair share from, say, the Berkshire Chess Association, which runs a league and other events.

What's more, Birmingham, Leamington and Coventry may decide to become Warwickshire Chess Association leagues. So they effectively merge under one organisation, to get around this problem. They'd go from each needing to pay £100 to paying £100 as a mass for the same service. They might now afford a vote!

[Roger de Coverly]

Why should organisations which are not paying their fair share have a vote? I do not see any significant difference between this and the argument that individual membership prices people out.

If you were setting up a national body which by constitution and voting rights was going to be a federation of local and regional bodies, would it seem normal and reasonable to base voting rights and membership costs on the relative sizes of the local bodies? You might particularly want to do this if there was considerable variation in the sizes.

In a chess context you might count the number of players or the number of teams and boards within teams. You might just decide to count the number of games played under the auspices of each local body.

[Alex Holowczak]

If you can get the required support to get it on the Agenda at an ECF Meeting, I'd vote for it.

I wouldn't know where to begin, but everyone I have ever met agreed it would be better if we had an ELO system so there may be some hope if you can get the required support, you know how these things work so it should be easy.

The full level of support is:
(i) any Director; or
(ii) the FIDE Delegate; or
(iii) the Chairman of a Standing Committee; or
(iv) any two Trustees; or
(v) any Representative Member of a Constituent Unit; or
(vi) any two Representative Members of Counties; or
(vii) any two Direct Members’ Representatives; or
(viii) any two of a Trustee, a Representative Member of a County and a Direct Members’ Representative; or
(ix) any five Individual Members or Representative Members.

So you could get the Director of Home Chess to propose it. That's Adam Raoof. You can lobby him on here!

I don't know where you're from, but your Union can propose it on your behalf. Failing that, two Counties is accessible.

Tell me where you're from, and I'll tell you who to contact!

[Adam Raoof]

So you could get the Director of Home Chess to propose it. That's Adam Raoof. You can lobby him on here!

I don't know where you're from, but your Union can propose it on your behalf. Failing that, two Counties is accessible.

Tell me where you're from, and I'll tell you who to contact!

What advantages are there to an Elo based system over an ECF grading system?

[Paul Cooksey]

The Warwickshire Chess Association, which runs a congress only, has a different fair share from, say, the Berkshire Chess Association, which runs a league and other events.

I think Warwickshire's fair share of funding is half Berkshire, because Berkshire has 2 votes. But what the ECF gives Berkshire is only those two votes. As David Robertson argues, it makes no sense to make people pay for organising chess.

If an organisation is too small to afford a vote, maybe merging with other organisations is the right approach.

[Paul Cooksey]

If you were setting up a national body which by constitution and voting rights was going to be a federation of local and regional bodies, would it seem normal and reasonable to base voting rights and membership costs on the relative sizes of the local bodies? You might particularly want to do this if there was considerable variation in the sizes.

In a chess context you might count the number of players or the number of teams and boards within teams. You might just decide to count the number of games played under the auspices of each local body.

You could do all these things, but they are relatively complex. Why not let the member itself decide how many votes it wants to pay for? (Ok 75% majority to increase, to avoid people playing silly games, etc).

Again, I am standing behind David Robertson's principle that the ECF gives votes as a benefit not chess. If you want to organise another division, grade the junior games or whatever, I don't see why the ECF has any right to charge for it.

[Alex Holowczak]

So you could get the Director of Home Chess to propose it. That's Adam Raoof. You can lobby him on here!

I don't know where you're from, but your Union can propose it on your behalf. Failing that, two Counties is accessible.

Tell me where you're from, and I'll tell you who to contact!

What advantages are there to an Elo based system over an ECF grading system?

It's statistically better. You've seen the same graphs that I have from Howard. The Elo curve more closely matches reality than the ECF linear approach. Neither are perfect, but I think the Elo curve is a better approximation; at least by eye.

Assuming they're equally good ways statistically - and I think Elo is better but still not perfect - you stop the questions about why we have our rating system when everyone else in the world uses a different one. I'd have thought this was politically desirable.

[Paul Cooksey]

I favour Elo too, maybe if Carl is about he could move to a new thread. It also works better with more regular lists.

[Alex Holowczak]

I've begun receiving replies from Universities. If you ignore that I have four votes in my own right (don't blame me...), it's currently 3 in favour and 0 against. The response hasn't been one of jumping up and down with joy at its creation; more the fact that it's a workable solution that they don't object to. So it looks like I will be mandated to vote for the proposals with the BUCA vote; a change from how I cast it in April.

[Simon Dixon]

So you could get the Director of Home Chess to propose it. That's Adam Raoof. You can lobby him on here!

I don't know where you're from, but your Union can propose it on your behalf. Failing that, two Counties is accessible.

Tell me where you're from, and I'll tell you who to contact!

What advantages are there to an Elo based system over an ECF grading system?

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=249

[Ian Kingston]

I've begun receiving replies from Universities. If you ignore that I have four votes in my own right (don't blame me...), it's currently 3 in favour and 0 against. The response hasn't been one of jumping up and down with joy at its creation; more the fact that it's a workable solution that they don't object to. So it looks like I will be mandated to vote for the proposals with the BUCA vote; a change from how I cast it in April.

This ties in with what I've been hearing around the Midlands. There is an understanding that more money has to be found, and there is very little appetite for leaving the ECF and going it alone. Arguments of principle, such as those put forward by David Robertson and Roger de Coverley (or indeed Sean Hewitt on the other side) don't seem to influence people very much.

[Roger de Coverly]

There is an understanding that more money has to be found,

Have you figured out how your local costs will increase? Did you read the small print about the bill for non-members which will hit you every August?

Do you really want to have to ask the ECF for permission to play league chess?