Annual General Meeting 2013

[Jonathan Rogers]

Unfortunately it reflects just how exasperating and despairing most people found the incumbent, including some board members who are not necessarily part of the Ehr clique. This includes his complete failure to campaign and a two minute (!) speech today.

Last year's result was President - Roger Edwards 111 Not this candidate 101

Are you surprised he lost, or just by the margin of defeat?

Neither! He was an ineffective candidate who was lucky to beat "no one" last year and also failed to campaign this year; and this time he was facing a determined challenger in a forum which had even given Tim Woolgar the benefit of the doubt in the recent past.

Before last Saturday I thought AP would squeak it, but after speaking with various people at the 4NCL Rapidplay last weekend, I guessed that it would not even be close.

[Roger de Coverly]

Are you surprised he lost, or just by the margin of defeat?

There were a lot more votes this time without the level of chess activity having increased. Presumably the AP team went round collecting proxies from organisations that weren't otherwise intending to send an attendee and exercise their vote. Last year's vote was something like 2 to 1 on attendees, it only became close when the big proxy holder or holders forced a card vote. Without a hand vote, you don't know whether it was the proxies dictating matters.

[PeterFarr]

Thanks to Neil and David. I wonder if all the people who donated money for the championships were consulted before the International Director effectively ensured that the women's team would withdraw?

This is an issue we should keep our eye upon. I still wonder how Council reacted to Jovanka's statement today. Even Council itself had expected the Director to support both the Open and women's teams as his priorities in the April resolution, and it ought to have been shocked to know that one of our best women teams for some years was also ready and willing to play less than a month ago, when funds started to be directed away from it.

To answer Simon - my guess is that none of the sponsors were consulted. Though it is a guess, it is based on such matters as

(1) an email exchange earlier today with one of the main sponsors who knew nothing about any of this, though it is always possible that he might have required his money to be spent exclusively on the mens' team in the first place

2) common sense - if several ECF members made extra but relatively small donations when renewing membership, it is inconceivable they would have been consulted if only as a matter of practicality. All the same many might have donated under the belief that they were supporting both teams.

Hit the donation "help " button, and this is what you get:

"ECF International Team Donations

In 2014, England will be fielding teams at both the Olympiad in Norway and the European Championships in Poland. The ECF is working hard to field the strongest teams available and we hope to be challenging for a top placed finish. We often get asked how individuals can help with this. We have therefore set up this facility where members can donate whatever they can afford to help send our best team. Simply click the button to proceed …"

At best it's ambiguous, and of course the Poland date is unaccountably wrong. But I think you could be forgiven for assuming that your money would support "teams" at both events.

Or maybe the quality of misogyny in some English chess circles is so outstanding that this is a terribly naive reading. Perhaps it was supposed to go without saying that a women 's team would only be funded if money happened to be left over from the Open team etc..

[Jonathan Rogers]

This is the first time that I remember us having failed to send a womens' team, so I trust that it did not go without saying for all or even most of the smaller donors.

[Roger de Coverly]

Perhaps it was supposed to go without saying that a women 's team would only be funded if money happened to be left over from the Open team etc..

There's something rather curious in the minutes of the August Board meeting. As everyone will be aware, record numbers entered the 100th British Championship Congress and it is reasonable to expect a surplus.

Indeed the August minutes at http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... cation.pdf contain the following:-

DO’s motion had originally been articulated as :
a) “50% of any surplus over budget (up to a maximum £5,500)
from April 13 to September 13 should be allocated to the International Fund.”
b) If the above motion passed then it needed to be placed before Council. (the sum
requested was reduced to £4,000 so that it was within the Board’s competence)

This does show something of Board fright in putting issues before Council. If the alternative had been stated as not sending a Coach with the Women's team, would Council have vetoed this expenditure? This was the August meeting remember, so that even the inclusion of a related item on the Agenda might have been enough to spark a debate whilst it was still possible to send a team.

[JustinHadi]

Peter, you accepted my view as a point of principle that there shouldn't be an artificial gender divide in chess and when this is applied to funding it becomes mysogny? Looks like misplaced chivalry.

[PeterFarr]

Justin,

No not all, I respect your position; I just happen to disagree with it .

My view is pragmatic and not at all 'chivalrous' - that's a lazy assumption.

It's a simple fact that there are very few women in chess. I think this is very harmful for the future of chess. In a society in which leisure pursuits are increasingly mixed, men only ghettoes look increasingly anachronistic.

My belief is that having separate women's competitions / teams for the right events is helpful in encouraging the women's game ; it helps provide successful role models and realistic targets.

As and when enough women are competitive with the top men, you could envisage that women only competitions would fall away, and I see that as a desirable outcome.

Really though I think it's a question for women players; as far as I can see , most of them want the option of distinct women 's competitions - (though not all, as you pointed out earlier). Its striking that most top women do not seem to object to playing for their national women's teams. - Judith Polgar really is an exception.

[David Robertson]

How many women on the ECF Board today? None

How many women on the outgoing Board? None

Who was the last woman to serve on the ECF Board? Claire Summerscale, briefly, in 2007-08?

How many women have ever served on the ECF Board?

Next tier down: how many ECF 'managers'? One less, or none, since Lara Barnes was driven out.

At a time when FTSE 100 companies, and others, are under pressure to appoint more, many more, women directors, the ECF Board remains dominated by drab, egocentric, aggressive and posturing blokes.

No women's Euro team? Why the surprise? - it's in the above.

[Ian Thompson]

Its striking that most top women do not seem to object to playing for their national women's teams. - Judith Polgar really is an exception.

I don't find it surprising. How many top female players are there who would get in their country's open team other than Judit Polgar. Are there any? I suspect that if you want to find female players good enough to get into an open team you would need to look for a not especially strong player who plays for a very weak open team. So the reality is that women play for the women's team or not at all.

[PeterFarr]

Its striking that most top women do not seem to object to playing for their national women's teams. - Judith Polgar really is an exception.

I don't find it surprising. How many top female players are there who would get in their country's open team other than Judit Polgar. Are there any? I suspect that if you want to find female players good enough to get into an open team you would need to look for a not especially strong player who plays for a very weak open team. So the reality is that women play for the women's team or not at all.

Yes of course; so having women's teams encourages more women to play. That's just my point.

[PeterFarr]

How many women on the ECF Board today? None

How many women on the outgoing Board? None

Who was the last woman to serve on the ECF Board? Claire Summerscale, briefly, in 2007-08?

How many women have ever served on the ECF Board?

Next tier down: how many ECF 'managers'? One less, or none, since Lara Barnes was driven out.

At a time when FTSE 100 companies, and others, are under pressure to appoint more, many more, women directors, the ECF Board remains dominated by drab, egocentric, aggressive and posturing blokes.

No women's Euro team? Why the surprise? - it's in the above.

Quite.

[Roger de Coverly]

How many top female players are there who would get in their country's open team other than Judit Polgar. Are there any?

There's Ketevan for Scotland after she transferred from Georgia. You could at a pinch imagine an English player electing to be Welsh or Irish to play in an Open team if permitted. For the unsubsidised Europeans, the minimum standard for the Welsh and Irish teams is around 2100 to 2200.

[William Metcalfe]

The International manager was how much money it was going to cost to send the full womens team plus coach he gave a figure of £9000 Malcolm Pein then asked how much the ECF were short of sending said team it was £4000.I am appaled that we have not sent a womans team and even more incenced that the decision was taken over £4000.What i really did not understand was this part Jovanka stood down so we could send a coach with the team and somehow we ended up sending no team.
It was a 17 hour day for me to attend todays meeting TYVM eastcoast railways a 1 hour delay getting there then a 2 hour 30 min diversion comming home

[Simon Brown]

Thanks to Neil and David. I wonder if all the people who donated money for the championships were consulted before the International Director effectively ensured that the women's team would withdraw?

This is an issue we should keep our eye upon. I still wonder how Council reacted to Jovanka's statement today. Even Council itself had expected the Director to support both the Open and women's teams as his priorities in the April resolution, and it ought to have been shocked to know that one of our best women teams for some years was also ready and willing to play less than a month ago, when funds started to be directed away from it.

To answer Simon - my guess is that none of the sponsors were consulted.

Thanks. Another question, not rhetorical this time - does the ECF contribute anything to send hordes of mainly no-hopers to the far-flung junior tournaments we hear about quite often, or is that all at the cost of the families?

[Angus French]

Thanks to Neil and David. I wonder if all the people who donated money for the championships were consulted before the International Director effectively ensured that the women's team would withdraw?

This is an issue we should keep our eye upon. I still wonder how Council reacted to Jovanka's statement today. Even Council itself had expected the Director to support both the Open and women's teams as his priorities in the April resolution, and it ought to have been shocked to know that one of our best women teams for some years was also ready and willing to play less than a month ago, when funds started to be directed away from it.

To answer Simon - my guess is that none of the sponsors were consulted.

Thanks. Another question, not rhetorical this time - does the ECF contribute anything to send hordes of mainly no-hopers to the far-flung junior tournaments we hear about quite often, or is that all at the cost of the families?

One of the successes of the ECF is that so many juniors have been able to participate in so many international events at no cost to the ECF (though there have been contributions from the John Robinson Trust) - I think this demonstrates what a fantastic job Phil Ehr and his team have done; of course, the generosity of parents has been essential. (This was mentioned in my election address, FWIW.)