Papers for ECF Council meeting 12th April 2014

[David Pardoe]

Roger DC writes
Perhaps it was coincidence, but the decline of English chess became apparent under the long Presidency of Nigel's FIDE Delegate predecessor.

This might be true, and maybe the entire chess community is responsible, collectively, due to its failure to adopt a more welcoming approach to prospective new players, particularly at the `beginner level`. Yes, their are many other issues, that require some careful reflection and broader consultation.
.
We`ve had these endless discussions about the merits of various dubious East European pundits, who aspire to head up the FIDE regime, which has rocked the UK chess apparatus, in spite of the fact that the UK is a very small cog in the FIDE chess scene.

Returning to our domestic chess scene, one question is about how we/they intend to take things forward.
Now that AP has stepped down as ECF President, what is the game plan?
Are they intending to appoint someone to head up the ECF Board, or are they intending to run `rudderless`?
Their doesn't appear to be anything specific on the ECF Council meeting Agenda regarding this matter

[Stewart Reuben]

In the 1980s, or thereabouts, England became immensely strong internationally at the top (second only to the USSR). The game is not that popular in our country and the peak could not possibly be maintained. If you go back to the 1950s, you will see a great leap forward (the English chess explosion) followed by a slow decline. There are other social reasons for the decline beyond the control of English chess administrators. You note I did not say just the ECF or previously BCF. Much of the best work is often done outside the actual federation. Has there been a decline in the number of active players? Roger could perhaps tell us. I thought it had remained roughly constant at 10,000 in the past 60 years. The increase in the number of seniors playing is remarkable.
Some reasons for decline (no doubt you can think of others) include: lack of TV programmes; loss of the government grant; the inability of minority sports to attract business sponsors; spiralling cost of venues; competition from online chess. There is also the problem of attracting able administrators to our sport. Is it any wonder that few are interested, if all they get is carping criticism?

[Carl Hibbard]

Anyone live reporting from the meeting?

John?

Should be an interesting one.

[Matthew Turner]

At the time of the last ECF elections in October things were looking pretty dire in English junior chess. The National Schools' Championships had not started and there was little evidence of when it was going to start; Andrew Martin's excellent Girls' initiative seemed in doubt and Neill Cooper had resigned. Things have improved! In large part that is due to Phil Ehr becoming CEO. You will see that there are attempts to undermine and remove Phil, so Council has a choice of whether to go back to where we were, or move forward.
I hope Council will focus on what is important and what is best for English junior chess and not get distracted. I hope Council can see the bigger picture - the decision is whether to back the CEO or lose him. I personally think English chess is much stronger with Phil as CEO and if, as I believe, the majority of Council does too, it is up to them to support him.

[Roger de Coverly]

The National Schools' Championships had not started and there was little evidence of when it was going to start

What was the final outcome of that row? Are schools allowed to field in all the stages of the competition without penalties, financial or otherwise, players who aren't ECF members ?

I'm not sure I really buy this "Team Ehr" v "Team Hewitt" stuff, but the wide support by individuals at the AGM for the SCCU's motion on Junior membership and grading was a loss for "Team Hewitt", if such a concept exists.

The Council meeting will be voting on membership costs for 2014-15. Will that include £ nil
for new Junior players?

[John Swain]

The National Schools' Championships had not started and there was little evidence of when it was going to start

What was the final outcome of that row? Are schools allowed to field in all the stages of the competition without penalties, financial or otherwise, players who aren't ECF members ?

I'm not sure I really buy this "Team Ehr" v "Team Hewitt" stuff, but the wide support by individuals at the AGM for the SCCU's motion on Junior membership and grading was a loss for "Team Hewitt", if such a concept exists.

The Council meeting will be voting on membership costs for 2014-15. Will that include £ nil
for new Junior players?

The ECF U19 National Schools Championship got going a bit late in November with just 102 entries, down from 135 the previous year. This was in no way the fault of Richard Haddrell, the Chief Conductor; matters obviously had to be resolved at the mid-October ECF meeting first.

ECF membership is not required, but all matches from the Zone Finals onwards are ECF graded (and earlier matches if both sides request it; there is a box to indicate on the results sheet whether the match has been played under Standard or Rapidplay conditions).

So commonsense prevailed and the competition seems to be running smoothly and is on time to finish at Uppingham in early July as usual. For details, see http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/schoolschamps.htm

[Sean Hewitt]

At the time of the last ECF elections in October things were looking pretty dire in English junior chess. The National Schools' Championships had not started and there was little evidence of when it was going to start; Andrew Martin's excellent Girls' initiative seemed in doubt and Neill Cooper had resigned. Things have improved! In large part that is due to Phil Ehr becoming CEO.

What you are saying is that, following two years of Phil Ehr fulfilling the role Director of Junior Chess, things were pretty dire. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

However, as you say, the good news is that 6 months after he left that post, things have improved in that area. That is excellent news. Congratulations to the current director Lawrence Cooper and his team for all their great work in dealing with the issues they inherited.

It is a pity that whilst the areas for which Phil was responsible have improved since he left, the areas for which he is now responsible have simultaneously gone backwards.

[Roger de Coverly]

I thought it had remained roughly constant at 10,000 in the past 60 years. The increase in the number of seniors playing is remarkable.

The increase in the number of seniors is the increase in players in the late Sixties and early Seventies. They've always been there, grading reports from more than ten years ago talk of the bulge in over 40s and over 50s


The BCF didn't seem to keep long term records of the numbers of players with grades and the number of graded games. To estimate the number of players, you need to estimate from wherever magazines published numbers and from the size of Congresses, leagues and county competitions. There's also the effect that when grading had to be done manually, you could cut out effort by not grading peripheral games, like primary school competitions, lowest rung of club competitions etc.

By counting the number of pages and the number of names per page, I estimated the first national list in 1988 had more than 15,000 names on it. That's with a more rigorous criterion for being graded and the probable exclusion of players "not good enough to be graded".

Wikipedia claims the entries to the National Schools peaked at around 1000. At twelve players per school, that's 12,000 before you even start counting adults. Not all were totally serious players, but mostly being teenagers it was a population that both clubs and Congresses could recruit from.

The magazines used to print lists of the top players. Whilst this showed diminishing numbers in the 1960s, possibly due to grade deflation, in the 1970s the numbers exploded. Whilst previously players like Michael Franklin and John Littlewood had been in the top ten, there were now dozens of equivalent standard. The problem now, is that if you compare today's top 100 to ten, twenty or even thirty years ago, many of the same names are present. Equally if you try a hypothetical match between top 100 Under 18s and top 100 Over 60s, the rating advantage is to the Seniors.

[NickFaulks]

Equally if you try a hypothetical match between top 100 Under 18s and top 100 Over 60s, the rating advantage is to the Seniors.

At first glance that's a terrible statistic, but I think you might find the same result globally. At present that's not simple to check precisely, although I'm hoping it will be with the next release.

[Roger de Coverly]

At first glance that's a terrible statistic, but I think you might find the same result globally.

I suspect only true of those countries that had a boom in the 1970s. In those like India, France or Turkey with a more recent expansion, you might expect the younger players to predominate.

I think from memory, I used the ECF grading data, since it had a convenient summary by age.

It isn't something the FIDE rating site yet supports, you can search by year of birth, but not by a range of years.

[Stewart Reuben]

When somebody is elected to the ECF Board the members have some responsibility to try to support that person for his term of office. Instead some seem to think it is more in the interests of English chess to seek to undermine them.

Nick and Roger thank you for your valuable points about demographics. The National Schools has indeed diminished drastically from its peak. Roger doesn't mention to the UKSCC which remains a very substantial event. I don't think the rise in the latter has consequentially meant the former has deteriorated. Surely the prime factor in that is the loss of The Times sponsorship. The numbers for the British Championships have remained remarkably robust despite the loss of the sponsor.

[Sean Hewitt]

When somebody is elected to the ECF Board the members have some responsibility to try to support that person for his term of office. Instead some seem to think it is more in the interests of English chess to seek to undermine them.

Absolutely right. It's a real pity that some folk spent most of their time undermining the good work of the very capable executive directors. They seem to have no concept of boundaries to their own responsibilities and instead pursued their own agenda to the detriment of both themselves and the ECF as a whole.

[Matthew Turner]

Before e last ECF elections in October junior chess was in pretty dire straits because Phil Ehr was unable to put his agenda into action. The non-executives Director pushed through policies that would cripple junior chess. Thankfully Sean has now resigned so the ECF can move forward, but it is clear that he intends to undermine the CEO at every possible opportunity. Council needs support Phil, otherwise we will soon be back to square one.

[Sean Hewitt]

The non-executives Director pushed through policies that would cripple junior chess.

Crippling polices such as free membership for Juniors.

...it is clear that he intends to undermine the CEO at every possible opportunity.

He's done that, and continues to do so, all by himself. His once close supporters are now seeing him for what he really is.

[Roger de Coverly]

Crippling polices such as free membership for Juniors.

I imagine Matthew was thinking of the policy of requiring ECF membership to take part in a match or tournament against other schools if the games were to be graded.