English Chess Strategy Discussion

[Michael Farthing]

Well the ECF Board is having a stategy meeting so why not have one here?

It strikes me that a lot of objectives for English Chess are put forward and often nodded to by everyone - after all it can all be paid for by the Magical Sponsor that anyone standing for high office assures us will appear under their custodianship.

But if we unrealistically consider the possibility that this sponsor might nor appear what should priorities be?

Running the BCF congress. Should it pay for itself?
Running other chess events, perhaps with associated champion status?
Grading and membership arguments?
Sending out international teams?
Building a professional game?
Sponsoring our leading players?
Supporting juniors - in which case what is the balance between basic encouragement and star creation?
Senior chess?
Women's chess?
Greater publicity for the game?
Chess academies?
Providing a central authority on the way the game is played?

So what would our forum members select and what would they do to further their aims? How would they pay for it?

[Roger de Coverly]

what should priorities be?

Running the BCF congress. Should it pay for itself?
Running other chess events, perhaps with associated champion status?
Grading and membership arguments?
Sending out international teams?
Building a professional game?
Sponsoring our leading players?
Supporting juniors - in which case what is the balance between basic encouragement and star creation?
Senior chess?
Women's chess?
Greater publicity for the game?
Chess academies?
Providing a central authority on the way the game is played?

Most of these are necessary functions for a national chess organisation. If the ECF intends to maintain this monopoly status, it's not so much of question of "what to do", but "how to do it".

If it's looking at three year plans, there are basics it should rule in or rule out. The first is whether there's an intent to cut the British Championship down to nine rounds. If not, this should be ruled out within the lifetime of "the plan". The second is whether there's an intent to convert to an Elo style system of rating. Again within the lifetime of "the plan". The third is whether there's an intent to make it compulsory to have some form of membership or licence to be permitted to play graded or rated chess in England. Again if that's not the intent, then rule it out. If it is, then decide how to live with the consequences for promoting the game and the probable defections.

[David Pardoe]

Nothing too much wrong with the present grading system really....
Maybe some tweeks could be applied.....give junior grading some greater continuity, with greater numbers included..
Maybe add some functionality so that players are grouped in 20 point bands...certainly those in the U170 down to zero group...

ie, could make 170 - 150 group A, 149 - 130 as group B, etc....for the purposes of playing team events... This might add extra flexibilty for captains when picking team order, to allow for performance variations or `form` that might fluctuate easily by 10 - 20 grading points in any given period.

Provide some additional options for the Membership, so that those who play minimal amounts of games can do so for under a tenner. Maybe also allow internal club competitions to be graded cheaply, say each event for £25...effectively allowing non members a chance to jump on the grading wagon very easily....and maybe encouraging more internal club competitions, certainly for those `casual/non experts` graded say U100 down to zero.....
We need to promote all our main events on the UK chess scene....and attract Joe public into our clubs..etc.
And, including our county competitions...more participation in these across our various Unions would be good.
I`m not just talking abourt the top `Open` events...these competitions cater for teams right down the spectrum of grades, so most counties should be able to muster at least one team...
In that context, some review of rules and event structures, to encourage greater uptake might not go amiss..

I`d say another key requirement is for some form of `balanced` OMOV......

For international teams, I`d say there is a key need to address costs, and to give lower ranking players a chance to play at the top level...
Sponsorship, in various formats, to help encourage our top gun players would be good....
We need to find some format for TV coverage of some of our top events...Hastings, London, British, 4NCL Finals, Internationals, etc...even if its just a 30 min highlights programme...on Channel 4.
Maybe we could set up a fund that ordinary players can contribute to, whereby our top say 30 active players can have access to some limited assistance towards tournament costs...
But surely we could sign up several high level sponsors who might donate modest amounts of say 20k towards our top gun events and players...certainly our top 20 most active tournament/International players.
Yes...by all means help the juniors...but theres a fine line to be drawn between sending kids off on rather expensive foriegn trips, playing more `local` events in the UK, and getting assistance from parents and maybe clubs/others..
Also, can we unlock some funds, like the Robinson fund, to provide a little extra help for our juniors.
There needs to be an unwritten rule that parents are encouraged to give there kids a good level of support.
We also need to find ways to integrate our organisations, so that the ECF is not just percieved as some remote body that we send delegates to, once a year, with the message...`just vote as you see fit, ...we dont give two monkies..` which is how some leagues and other bodies play it.

[John Townsend]

I think the real priority - not on Michael's list - should be getting more people at the "grass roots" level to play. David said, "attract Joe public into our clubs", which I agree with, but we should also think of reviving chess in cafés and pubs and other public places, which has withered away. Unfortunately, I don't see this finding favour with the ECF because I suspect it would find it harder to make money.

[Michael Farthing]

Just for the avoidance of doubt, absence or presence on my list should not be construed as an indication of my views - I just threw out the first things that came into my head. I have purposely avoided making any value judgements of my own.

[And for the further avoidance of doubt I did not take any offence at John's comment]

[Stewart Reuben]

David Pardoe >Maybe we could set up a fund that ordinary players can contribute to, whereby our top say 30 active players can have access to some limited assistance towards tournament costs...<

You mean 'The Friends of Chess' except its remit is somewhat wider. As a long-time officer of both the ECF and the FOC, it has seemed to me better that they have been separate bodies.

Encouraging more congress chess both of a local and international nature.
Adult chess education
Chess for the disabled
Chess in prisons
Closer constructive relationship with other international chess bodies.

[Michael Farthing]

Sorry Stewart, this is precisely what I was saying is unrealistic. My original list was not a wish list, but a shortlist! No reason not to add to it, but all these things can not be done.

Perhaps I should rephrase the question:

"You have been appointed to a five year term as Dictator of Chess. You gave £200,000 to spend each year (from which you must maintain the administrative structure as well) but this obviously does not include money you can raise by extra charges and anything you might be able to make use of from existing extra income (eg John Robinson trust). You cannot rely on any money from mythical sponsors. How would you spend the money?"

I've guessed the £200,000 on the basis of a guessed 10,000 members x £20, cos I haven't time to look up better figures: I suspect that's probably an overestimate. I'm prepared to amend the £200,000 if someone says something else is more realistic.

Any takers to my challenge?

[Stewart Reuben]

Michael. I was just adding to your list. At times I have been in the position you postulate, though sadly not for such large sums. One of the biggest problems is getting competent peope to run with each initiative. I remember sitting down with people where we postulated a sum of money for a task and listing how we would spend it. But the prime resource available is more realistically able administrators, not money. So add to the list.

Encouraging more able people to take on administrative tasks. Indeed some competent people have been discouraged from undertaking roles.

[Michael Farthing]

One thing that strikes me is that there is not a very creative use of modern technology. For example, various elected internet committees never meet and probably never Skype. Discussions take place on a private forum. This is obviously very cheap (maybe even costless), avoids having to get everyone together at the same time, allows time for people to think before posting, enables rapid decision making if needed, automatically logs everything that happens and maybe even does a better job of bonding the committee. It depends, of course, on disciplined use of the medium and the will of the committee to make it work (wouldn't work here, would it!)

[Michael Farthing]

Michael. I was just adding to your list.

Oh right. Sorry.

[Alex McFarlane]

From the other place

Re: Andrew Whiteley Memorial Blitz, 8 November 2014

Postby Robert Kane » 14 Nov 2014, 23:21
Fantastic event ,in a fantastic cause Andrew Whiteley was a true gent of chess , I remember playing him over the board in the 80s ,london league div 2.. in our post mortem he chuffed on his pipe and suggested alternatives .

It was great fun playing... plus .. the World championship was on the TV in the Kings head bar

A chess heaven for a few hours ..

thanks to Mr Nogood and the organisers

Have I missed something? Who is Mr Nogood. The sponsor of the event was David Norwood. Is this some kind of in joke? Surely the ECF Director responsible for promoting the Federation would not make such an unfortunate error?

[Carl Hibbard]

Surely the ECF Director responsible for promoting the Federation would not make such an unfortunate error?

The commercial side promoted by the other place isn't really working out so well is it

[Carl Hibbard]

Is superchessplayer99 not anonyomus then?

[Jonathan Bryant]

Is superchessplayer99 not anonyomus then?

An early account - if memory serves it was the second to sign up, joining before Mike Truran, John Philpott, Chris Fegan, Phil Ehr - was a sock puppet most likely operated by somebody within the ECF.

Given that, is is surprising the 'no anonymity' thing is not being rigorously enforced?

[Richard Bates]

From the other place

Re: Andrew Whiteley Memorial Blitz, 8 November 2014

Postby Robert Kane » 14 Nov 2014, 23:21
Fantastic event ,in a fantastic cause Andrew Whiteley was a true gent of chess , I remember playing him over the board in the 80s ,london league div 2.. in our post mortem he chuffed on his pipe and suggested alternatives .

It was great fun playing... plus .. the World championship was on the TV in the Kings head bar

A chess heaven for a few hours ..

thanks to Mr Nogood and the organisers

Have I missed something? Who is Mr Nogood. The sponsor of the event was David Norwood. Is this some kind of in joke?

Don't know if it's an error, but it's certainly an "in joke"...

http://www6.chessclub.com/finger/DaveNogood