English Chess Forum

Want to say a quick "Well Done!" to the ECF for taxing every possible future chessplayer- great!

Yes everyone wants a piece of the action these days. At least with the rake on the poker site you have a chance of winning the pot lol.
Louise

Mark Howitt wrote:Want to say a quick "Well Done!" to the ECF for taxing every possible future chessplayer- great!

...because game fee doesn't do that

Louise Sinclair wrote:

Want to say a quick "Well Done!" to the ECF for taxing every possible future chessplayer- great!

Yes everyone wants a piece of the action these days. At least with the rake on the poker site you have a chance of winning the pot lol.
Louise

As a quick aside, it still amazes me that people don't realise that you can get over half of your online poker rake back - in cash, straight into your account. I won't say more other than that this is perfectly legal, safe and above board and can turn most people of average intelligence into a winning players online (you'd be amazed how much goes of the table in rake). Anyone interested PM me.

Paul

Louise Sinclair wrote:

Want to say a quick "Well Done!" to the ECF for taxing every possible future chessplayer- great!

Yes everyone wants a piece of the action these days. At least with the rake on the poker site you have a chance of winning the pot lol.
Louise

If any poker site charged an 'annual membership fee' in order to subsidise foreign players playing for a national team how long do you think it would last? Suprisingly, I don't think any have tried this novel approach yet!

Roger de Coverly wrote: Leagues are going to have to consider the extent to which they frame rules which ban non-members from playing for financial reasons. A three game concession makes a difference to how stringent the rules need to be.

Speaking as a League Secretary of a relatively small independent league, I run the league for the clubs to play chess, not to subsidise the ECF, therefore it will be the clubs themselves that decide the rules. I think I can see three ways this will go:

1. Clubs go along with the membership scheme wholeheartedly and agree rules that ban non-members;
2. Clubs go along with the membership scheme in principle but do not ban non-members and agree to pay the new Game Fee costs for those players that aren't members; or
3.Ignore the membership scheme and just play chess

At this moment I don't know which way they will go

Gary

Gary Cook wrote:3.Ignore the membership scheme and just play chess

The problem with this option is that the ECF are likely to send your league a rather large bill in July 2013, something like three to four times what you are paying now.

Roger de Coverly wrote:

Gary Cook wrote:3.Ignore the membership scheme and just play chess

The problem with this option is that the ECF are likely to send your league a rather large bill in July 2013, something like three to four times what you are paying now.

Is this prediction as likely to be as true as the one offered at the 2011 BCA AGM which was more or less "There is no point voting for the MO option since very few others will" I can't recall the exact words but it was along those lines.

John Upham wrote: Is this prediction as likely to be as true as the one offered at the 2011 BCA AGM which was more or less "There is no point voting for the MO option since very few others will" I can't recall the exact words but it was along those lines.

If you ignore the ECF's new scheme and continue to submit results for grading, it is my understanding that the Game Fee due in July 2013 will be £ 2 (or whatever Finance Council sets in April 2012) multiplied by the number of half games played by non-members. If your understanding of the new scheme is different to this, please inform us.

Roger de Coverly wrote:If your understanding of the new scheme is different to this, please inform us.

Oh, please.

It's "similar to" and "different from".

Alex Holowczak wrote: It's "similar to" and "different from".

Sorry no.

from http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxdiffer.html

"Different to" is fairly common informally in the U.K., but rare in
the U.S.

How about your opinion on the question asked?

Roger de Coverly wrote:

"Different to" is fairly common informally in the U.K., but rare in
the U.S.

It might be common informally, but it's wrong in the same way that "less apples" is wrong. Anyway...

Roger de Coverly wrote:How about your opinion on the question asked?

I don't see how I can advise Buckinghamshire on how to police membership in Buckinghamshire.

I have a horrible feeling that you're going to have a big Game Fee bill because you've no clear plan on how you're going to enforce/implement it locally. In particular, you still seem to have the mindset that membership is optional (you've said that you'll "direct people to the website"), when the point of the proposal - which was Council mandated - was that it'd have an element of compulsion to it.

Some clubs in Birmingham will wrap it up in subs. For example, everyone pays their subscription, from which a pot of money is put aside. The club then takes out any memberships that are necessary. So it might not be that a player pays £12 to be an ECF member. A player might pay a lesser share than someone else if he pays a reduced subscription. E.g. if an OAP pays £20 and someone else pays £40, the £40-payer might make more of a contribution to the membership pot than the £20-payer.

We haven't formally discussed league rules yet, but there are meetings between now and next September to work those out.

As the Organiser of the Birmingham Rapidplay - a BDCL event - I plan to charge entry at £14 for ECF Silver members or above, and £20 for everyone else.

Alex Holowczak wrote:It's "similar to" and "different from".

Oh no it isnt. Sometimes "different from" is definitely wrong and "different to" is correct. Eg in the sentence:-

It is different to play in a Radpidplay every now and again.

Only a languoblank would say :-

It is different from play in a Rapidplay every now and again.

Many of these rules of thumb are often wrong a bit like some of the rules of thumb used by some arbiters.

E Michael White wrote:

Alex Holowczak wrote:It's "similar to" and "different from".

Oh no it isnt. Sometimes "different from" is definitely wrong and "different to" is correct. Eg in the sentence:-

It is different to play in a Radpidplay every now and again. Only a languoblank would say :-

It is different from play in a Rapidplay every now and again.

Many of these rules of thumb are often wrong

I think you've made a mistake there. In your example, the "to" goes with the verb "play" as a sort of infinitive - I'm not sure that's the correct term - and not with the adjective "different".

Simon Spivack is usually good on things like this...

E Michael White wrote:...a bit like some of the rules of thumb used by some arbiters.

Sigh.

Alex Holowczak wrote:I think you've made a mistake there. In your example, the "to" goes with the verb "play" as a sort of infinitive - I'm not sure that's the correct term - and not with the adjective "different".

Excuses excuses. It still follows the word different though.

Alex Holowczak wrote:Simon Spivack is usually good on things like this...

You're joking he thinks the plural of forum is fora.

Alex Holowczak wrote:In particular, you still seem to have the mindset that membership is optional (you've said that you'll "direct people to the website"), when the point of the proposal - which was Council mandated - was that it'd have an element of compulsion to it.

Well thank you for clarifying that. As a leisure activity, playing league chess, any form of chess, is always optional. The fourth option to add to Gary's three is that the league goes wholly or partly ungraded. In areas with no mandate for compulsory membership, that will always be on the table as a possible option.

So am I justified in accusing Andrew Farthing of trying to introduce a scheme where you need a paid for licence from the ECF to play league chess? He denied it a few months back.