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.Want to say a quick "Well Done!" to the ECF for taxing every possible future chessplayer- great!
Louise
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.Want to say a quick "Well Done!" to the ECF for taxing every possible future chessplayer- great!
...because game fee doesn't do thatMark Howitt wrote:Want to say a quick "Well Done!" to the ECF for taxing every possible future chessplayer- great!
Louise Sinclair wrote: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.Want to say a quick "Well Done!" to the ECF for taxing every possible future chessplayer- great!
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!Louise Sinclair wrote: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.Want to say a quick "Well Done!" to the ECF for taxing every possible future chessplayer- great!
Louise
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: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.
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.Gary Cook wrote:3.Ignore the membership scheme and just play chess
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.Roger de Coverly wrote: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.Gary Cook wrote:3.Ignore the membership scheme and just play chess
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.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.
Oh, please.Roger de Coverly wrote:If your understanding of the new scheme is different to this, please inform us.
Sorry no.Alex Holowczak wrote: It's "similar to" and "different from".
How about your opinion on the question asked?"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:"Different to" is fairly common informally in the U.K., but rare in
the U.S.
I don't see how I can advise Buckinghamshire on how to police membership in Buckinghamshire.Roger de Coverly wrote:How about your opinion on the question asked?
Oh no it isnt. Sometimes "different from" is definitely wrong and "different to" is correct. Eg in the sentence:-Alex Holowczak wrote:It's "similar to" and "different from".
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".E Michael White wrote:Oh no it isnt. Sometimes "different from" is definitely wrong and "different to" is correct. Eg in the sentence:-Alex Holowczak wrote:It's "similar to" and "different from".
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
Sigh.E Michael White wrote:...a bit like some of the rules of thumb used by some arbiters.
Excuses excuses. It still follows the word different though.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".
You're joking he thinks the plural of forum is fora.Alex Holowczak wrote:Simon Spivack is usually good on things like this...
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.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.