Adjudication: an appeal to holders of congress votes at ECF

[Roger de Coverly]

We also understood that Alex had secured support from the individuals on Council with the largest numbers of votes before tabling the motion.

This is one of the least satisfactory aspects of the ECF's Governance. Were the represented organisations consulted before supporting this attempt to extend the ECF powers of diktat? Unlikely I would have thought.

[benedgell]

I am addressing this particularly to the holders of congress votes at Council because I understand that some of you have “been lined up” to support Alex Holowczak’s motion which is attempting to eradicate the practice of adjudication from ECF graded chess. As this issue does not affect congress chess, I am suggesting that you abstain.

Coming back to this. Was it really true that some votes were 'lined up' and given that the motion was defeated 85-138 (as reported in the AGM thread), should it be presumed that this appeal from Mike had an effect? It would be nice to know who voted and how, but was it a secret ballot or is some of the voting public in the sense that some delegates were instructed to vote a particular way. and that is public knowledge?

I've no issue revealing how I voted.

I voted in favour with: Royal Beacon Senior, Teignmouth Rapid, Devon, East Devon Congress, Torbay, Bristol, Somerset (15 votes)

I abstained with: Cornwall, Dorset, Bournemouth, WECU, Gloucs, North Gloucs League, Wiltshire, Wiltshire Juniors (14 votes)

We also understood that Alex had secured support from the individuals on Council with the largest numbers of votes before tabling the motion.

This is one of the least satisfactory aspects of the ECF's Governance. Were the represented organisations consulted before supporting this attempt to extend the ECF powers of diktat? Unlikely I would have thought.

I called for the card vote, had 29 votes, which was more then the required 20, and so a card vote came. As you can see from the above I respected the wishes of the organisations I was representing, and where I hadn't received specific guidance abstained.

Bar one vote- holder for whom the proxy came very late, every club/ league/ congress secretary of every organisation I represented was contacted by me and invited to give their views.

The reason I called for the card vote is that several of the largest vote- holders were in favour, and I felt the hand- vote didn't properly represent the views of all of the organisations.

[Sean Hewitt]

However, those individuals with the largest numbers of votes also happen to be people who derive most of their votes from their congress activity - hence my OP which I (still) think is a valid point.

I don't know who Mike is referring to here, but I get most of my votes from the leagues I represent (Stockport, Leicestershire and Coventry). Alex did approach me in advance to see if I would support such a motion if he put it and, as the leagues mentioned have all abolished adjudication already, I said that I would.

Mike forgets that most congresses used to have adjudication, and still could if they wished. The fact that they have sensibly abstained from this ridiculous practice simply puts them in the same category as the majority of leagues who do not have adjudication.

I thought there was some irony that the supporters of used two main thrusts to their argument

1) That it was none of the ECF's business

and

2) Hardly anyone adjudicates anyway

1 was clearly nonsense, but seemed to hold sway to me. It seemed to be forgotten that the ECF already sets the rules for grading with which leagues, counties and congresses must comply; rules such as using the FIDE laws of chess, and having at least 60 mins per player per game. This would just have been another such rule. I wonder if people would think that it was not the ECFs business if it graded a league which didn't allow castling?!

Point 2 missed the fact that many games are decided at the end of the playing session (not otb) without referral to the adjudicator because of the availability of computer analysis. That fact reduces the number of 'contested' adjudications but doesn't change the fact that a player would have to approach the whole game differently because it was subject to adjudication . No speculative sacrifices should be made, only for the computer to work it all out mid way through, and no need to learn all those tedious endgame things that people talk about. KR -v- KRB? What's that?!

Brian Valentine made a very sensible remark. If we are going to grade games of chess, then let's make sure they are games of chess.

[benedgell]

However, those individuals with the largest numbers of votes also happen to be people who derive most of their votes from their congress activity - hence my OP which I (still) think is a valid point.

Of the organisations I represented:

Torbay, East Devon Congress, Teignmouth, Royal Beacon Seniors, and Wiltshire Juniors are congresses.

The Bristol votes come from a combination of league games and their congresses.

Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, Dorset, Bournemouth, WECU, Gloucs, North Gloucs, and Wiltshire are counties, leagues, or regional organisations.

So I don't believe Mike's comment to be accurate in respect of myself.

[Roger de Coverly]

This would just have been another such rule.

Not in the context in which the ECF was seeking to apply it.

There would have been two possible outcomes
(1) Counties and leagues changing their rules because the ECF said so.
(2) Counties and leagues withdrawing their competitions from ECF grading and their players from ECF membership or being expelled from grading if they ignored the ECF and continued to submit results.

So you could have got the schism of Yorkshire local leagues on a wider scale.

The practical outcome would probably have been that leagues where adjudication was an infrequently used optional practice would have become compliant. How the diehards of mid-Sussex, Surrey and elsewhere would have handled it remains untested.

[Ian Thompson]

The practical outcome would probably have been that leagues where adjudication was an infrequently used optional practice would have become compliant. How the diehards of mid-Sussex, Surrey and elsewhere would have handled it remains untested.

I think the motion was badly worded and it would have been easy to comply with the letter of the rules whilst maintaining the spirit of adjudication. If it had been passed rules could have been changed to say something like "If a game is unfinished at the end of the playing session it will be adjourned. Players should agree a resumption date within (say) 2 weeks. If the players are unable to agree a resumption date the game shall be referred to the League Secretary for resolution."

If the League Secretary decides the best thing to do is to put the position into his computer and let the computer play the game to a finish and then declare the result as whatever the computer came up with, that OK. The League Secretary has applied his judgement as required by the Preface to the FIDEE Laws of Chess to find "a solution to a problem dictated by fairness, logic and special factors".

[Neill Cooper]

I think that there is a middle way between the leagues who wish to keep adjudication as an option and the players who would like to finish their games in one evening session:
The leagues make quick play finish the default, but if both players agree to adjudication or adjournment then they are allowed to do so.
(I think this is already the arrangement in some leagues.)

[Roger de Coverly]

The leagues make quick play finish the default, but if both players agree to adjudication or adjournment then they are allowed to do so.

That wouldn't satisfy those diehards who are reluctant under many circumstances to venture into the badlands after about move 40 or who would struggle to play at an average pace of much faster than two minutes a move.

[Jonathan Bryant]

I've no issue revealing how I voted.

Out of interest, is there any particular reason why the question of how people vote is not a matter of public record?

[benedgell]

I don't think the ECF records specifically how each vote-holder votes, just the totals.

[JustinHorton]

I think the question may have been why this was the case, nor whether.

[Michael Farthing]

Well yes, Ben, but why?
Surely the stakeholders, entrusting their votes to others, should know how that responsibility has been exercised.
I would eat my hat if there were ever a whiff of dissatisfaction about your own conduct, but good auditing practice is that you do not rely on people's known honesty - because people change and you do not know what their successors would be like.

This is a quite different situation from say, a general election, where a voter is only answerable to him-or-herself. Here voters are answerable to the organisations they represent who are answerable to their own membership (which may be other organisations with their own members). I would like to be able to detect any Chinese whispers en route from me to Council.

[Jonathan Bryant]

Well yes, Ben, but why?

Quite.

FWIW, I asked not because I thought there was anybody up to no good, but on general grounds. On principle, it seems to me, votes should be recorded (and I’m not just talking about chess/the ECF here) unless there’s a particular reason not to. After a few seconds thought I couldn't think of one in this case, so I put it out there for others to enlighten me.

[Roger de Coverly]

I think the question may have been why this was the case, nor whether.

It sounds as if there could be a constitutional debate as to whether a card vote as opposed to a show of hands, should be secret like a parliamentary election or public, like an MP's voting record. It's obviously more time consuming to collate and publish how people or the organisations they represented voted. Is that information actually collected, or does a Representative with multiple votes just indicate the number to be cast for each candidate or proposition without detailing directly who notionally voted for what? Not all voting members are Representatives. Directors and some others have votes in their own right. They might prefer it not to be disclosed as to their preferences for Board colleagues.

FIDE go for the secret ballot approach.

[Jonathan Bryant]

FIDE go for the secret ballot approach.

I’m reminded of an episode of the Simpsons which began with Bart having to write "The President did it is no excuse" on the blackboard.

As for you other points, the admin/time consumption argument had occurred to me, but would it really take that long to record things in more detail? I imagine those attending council probably feel that meetings are already long enough as it is without introducing a procedure that will make them longer. Presumably there’s already some procedure to ensure that people don’t accidentally vote too many or not enough times, though.

Board members having personal votes? Yes that had occurred to me too. Although I understand they might have good reason to keep things secret, on balance it seems to me that the principle of openness probably trumps privacy.