Representation on Council and Funding the ECF

[Brian Towers]

In the clubs is where all the meaningful chess is played.

That's not the case in the UK and hasn't been since the 1970s when weekend Congresses got going. I think it's extremely unlikely that England could have got from nowhere internationally in 1970 to second in the Olympiads in 1986 without the stimulus of an exceedingly competitive weekend circuit.

Since when, of course, English chess has kicked on. Seven years on from that Olympiad 2nd place Nigel Short played Kasparov for the World Championship. He lost, but in the following 20 odd years English chess continued its steady improvement until it dominated world chess the way the Polgar sisters dominated women's chess.

Oh wait ...

Roger a couple of home truths for you.

The weekend congress circuit was built on the success of the clubs. No clubs means no weekend congress circuit.

If the congresses disappeared tomorrow the clubs would continue barely affected.

So, I'll say it again -

In the clubs is where all the meaningful chess is played.

[Mike Truran]

Brian

I'm sorry to take issue with you again so quickly, but whether or not the club scene would continue should congresses cease to exist certainly does not mean that the only place where meaningful chess is played is in clubs. The two things have nothing to do with each other.

Mike

[Roger de Coverly]

but whether or not the club scene would continue should congresses cease to exist certainly does not mean that the only place where meaningful chess is played is in clubs. The two things have nothing to do with each other.

Not quite congresses, but had a National League been left for clubs to organise, we would still be arguing about eligibility. Witness the National Club next weekend, where in a format that might be called 4NCL-lite, teams are being turned away for not meeting the ECF's marginally arbitrary definition of what constitutes a club.

[Roger de Coverly]

The weekend congress circuit was built on the success of the clubs. No clubs means no weekend congress circuit

As someone who does not live in the UK, how would you possibly know? From what I remember of Stewart Reuben's monster Islington of 1972, at the "novice" level, I would have thought most of the players found out about the event through the media publicity for chess in general and that tournament in particular. This gave those running adult clubs a chance to do some recruiting. If anything it was those now rare institutions of secondary school and university clubs that had created the background of skilled players outside the conventional club setup.

[Mike Truran]

Brian, we've looked at Germany and Italy, with the jury still out on the former and Paolo's comments (to be fair not yet supported by documentary evidence) on the latter. How do things work in Israel?

[Brian Towers]

As someone who does not live in the UK, how would you possibly know?

As somebody who left the UK in 1991, 5 years after the end of what you suggested was England's golden period (1970 - 1986) I think I know very well.

Round about 1979-80 when I was a poor maths teacher in London who had lost his school grading thanks to the non-affiliation of the Oxford colleges I played in several minors. It was more for money than fun. 3 coffee-fueled games a day was hard work where a loss or 2 draws meant the end of your chances. I think I managed one second place, worth about £50 (equivalent to about 1/2 week's wages for me) out of 3 attempts. After round 3 all my opponents were "ungraded" like me. In a chess career spanning about 45 years (albeit with several long breaks) those were the only congresses I've ever played in.

For fun during that period I played hexagonal chess. No money in it whatsoever but I did get a free trip to Poland to play for GB v Poland and was 6th in the 1980 Europeans. It was pure "boys own" with the initial phone call going like this:
Bill Edmunds [secretary of BHCF]: I understand you play hexagonal chess at your school?
Me [thoroughly bemused]: Yes
BE: We're playing the British Championships next weekend and the current British champion is giving a simul on the Friday. Could you send some boys along?
Me: Sure, no problem. Give me the details.

I immediately trotted along to ask one of the first team what it was all about. "Ah yes, Mr X [previous chess master] was really keen. I think we've got a book and a set in library that he got hold of". Since that Friday was school prize giving all my stars were getting prizes and I ended up getting 2 or 3 second teamers (and me) out of lessons on Thursday afternoon and Friday, and Thursday afternoon we repaired to the library where we settled down with the book and set to teach ourselves how to play.

On Friday we all played in the simul and all had winning positions at one stage but the boys let theirs slip. After my win I was approached "One of the players is sick. Would you mind coming along tomorrow and Sunday to make up the numbers in the British?" I did and beat the British champion who hadn't recovered from the effort of playing about 40 people the day before. After finishing joint last on 1/6 the inevitable question came: "We're flying to Poland in July to play some matches against the Poles. We're one short. Could you make up the numbers?" Well, be rude not to, wouldn't it

I started playing club chess again in 1984 when my programming job took me to Wells in Somerset. I never had the inclination to play congresses for what looked to me like hard labour rather than fun. In the unlikely event that I had been able to win prize money it would have been a pittance against what I could earn by working a weekend's overtime as a programmer.

[Brian Towers]

How do things work in Israel?

There are no equivalents of counties or regions in the sense of teams or organization. It is really just clubs and players. Who gets to vote on what is something I've never really bothered myself with as it all seems to run smoothly. When I played in the Somerset and Bristol leagues back in the 80's I was equally ignorant but then the £10 BCF sub was seen purely as a grading tax.

There is a national league with 2 or 3 divisions and a women's national league. They play something like 40 in 90 + 30 to finish with 30 second increment throughout. The women's national league is the only female specific league.

There are two regional leagues below that, one for north and one for south. I think they play 90+30 but I've never really paid attention when I've watched their games.

There are at least 3 county level leagues. I'm using the word "county" loosely as the areas are probably a bit smaller and your club has discretion to put teams in neighbouring "counties". Currently I play in league A and never have to travel more than about 10 miles. In the past I've been put in a team in a league in a neighbouring county and possibly had to travel 30 miles. League A is FIDE rated. Leagues B and C only nationally.

There are also several youth leagues. The top league will be FIDE rated and the players can be very strong and play for both youth and adult sides.

The club I play for is very well organized. It runs 2 club-night 9 round Swisses 3 times a year, basically during the school terms as a fair number of the players will be juniors. One will be nationally rated for players under 1800 and one FIDE rated for over 1800's although stronger juniors and older players with a FIDE rating are encouraged to enter the over 1800. There will typically be about 20 players in the under 1800 and 30 to mid 40's in the over 1800 depending on prize money and clashes with other competitions. For instance, last term care was taken with the schedule to make sure there was no clash with the European individuals so that the half a dozen or so players who wanted to play both could.

Typically there are 3 or 4 GMs on hand to hoover up the prize money although they do occasionally get their comeuppance which, I have to admit, gives us relative patzers much joy. To be fair to them they are usually happy to treat you to a quick postmortem after they've given you a thrashing.

There will also be the occasional blitz, rapid or team rapid (all FIDE rated) as well.

I can't speak for the national league but all other chess dispenses with zero tolerance. You usually have half an hour or sometimes an hour's allowance although then for you the game will be a rapid in which you have to record all the way.

The "sermon on the mobile phone" is delivered before every competition. You can either hand it in or keep it switched off in a bag. If there has been an infringement a longer version of the sermon with extra brimstone will be preached before the next round.

Oh, and it is increments all the way for all competitions here. It makes the arbiters' lives so much easier and club secretaries love it because the clocks get much less abuse . It has also reduced the blood pressure of older players who were previously prone to time trouble. Any time trouble now lasts longer but is much less intense.

I think the ICF has a bulk license for Swiss Master and that is used universally for pairing and recording. Most clubs have somebody who has gone through the cursing and swearing apprenticeship to get the damn thing to accept a manual pairing when, for instance, a couple of players are going to miss the first round night and have to play later. Trying to add late entries after the initial pairing is also a disaster. You're much better off just repairing. If somebody has already started their clock then just give the late entries their money back. You won't regret it.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Appearing to argue against OPOV (go on, humour me - stop calling it OMOV!) "

I thought OMOV stood for "One member one vote"?

[Matt Mackenzie]

It does, but you can understand why many think it is something else.......

[Julie Denning]

Kevin Thurlow wrote:
I thought OMOV stood for "One member one vote"?

I hope most can accept that original comment by me was intended to be somewhat lighthearted.

The primary objective I had in starting this thread was to explore concerns others were making over lack of democracy and representation. I was hoping others would indicate just how they thought things should change and how those changes really would ensure greater / better representation. So far I don't believe this has happened. It was a genuine attempt by me to say I didn't think things were as bad as some seem to suggest, but I'm open to well argued alternative points of view.

[Michael Farthing]

I think at heart many of us perceive problems but have no realistic solution.

I wrote a long article on what was wrong and the impossibility of putting it right, but I've decided it said nothing new and would put the debate no further forward, so I've just got rid of it. The fact that I don't feel able to add anything doesn't mean that I don't think about it.

[Paolo Casaschi]

It was a genuine attempt by me to say I didn't think things were as bad as some seem to suggest, but I'm open to well argued alternative points of view.

What do you mean with "I didn't think things were as bad as some seem to suggest"; do you mean that individual members are in fact represented and have a direct active input in selecting the council representatives that govern the ECF, contrary to the view that individual member have in fact very little leverage towards at least a very large potion of council representatives; or do you mean that while individual members are un-represented you do not see that as a big issue after all?
Before trying to solve a problem we need to agree what the actual problem is; I can see someone sitting in the council might think that individual member representation is not a problem after all.

[Julie Denning]

Paolo, thank you for engaging in the discussion.

Of the 2 suggestions you make, I certainly disagree with the second one (i.e. that individual members are unrepresented and I don't see that as a big issue). Council is made up of representatives of CCAs, Leagues, Congresses etc. Just about every ECF Member (or game fee payer) will participate in such entities to a greater or lesser degree, so they ARE represented. The questions, surely, are how are Council representatives chosen / elected and do they represent their members adequately? A further point I suggested exploring was whether, to the degree that some players might argue there is a lack of democracy, is that due to the ECF or to a lack of democratic participation at a local level?

Should Council exist at all? The only comment I've spotted on that was from Roger de Coverly agreeing that some such body was required at least for certain matters.

A point I wanted to clarify was when people argue for OMOV, how do they perceive that operating and would it achieve better representation? What would we be voting for? Individuals to sit on Council or direct votes on specific proposals from the Board? If the former, would the voting be on a national basis, or organised into constituencies? How would representatives elicit the views of the membership? Indeed, who specifically would an individual Council member be representing?

You ending up saying:

I can see someone sitting in the council might think that individual member representation is not a problem after all

I'm not sure if I was intended to take that as a personal criticism, but I'll sidestep it if it was. I am very aware that I'm on Council to represent participants in the various entities that have nominated me. Whether I do an adequate job is for others to say, but I try to understand and represent my members views and I report back to them on how I used their votes - albeit relying on key individuals to disseminate all of this to their club members etc. as they see fit. While I can be challenged at AGMs, I concede that participation is not as widespread as we might wish. However, I'm far from certain that I would have any wish to remain as a Council representative if I lost this local connection. I see this as something I'm doing on behalf of my local (i.e. County-wide) chess community and have no wish to become some sort of professional Council member. I remain reasonably confident that whatever the flaws there might be in the current system, most of my fellow Council members try at least as well to represent their constituencies.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"I hope most can accept that original comment by me was intended to be somewhat lighthearted."

I can accept that - I just didn't see its relevance.

It is clear enough that many members of leagues don't have a clue what the ECF does or even who the officers are. I have been present at AGMs of leagues and counties and if an ECF issue is raised the delegates just look confused. Of course these delegates sometimes vote against their own club's members' wishes, so that's not surprising.

At a Surrey AGM a few years ago the ECF delegate asked us how to vote on various ECF topics, but in one contested election he said he had to vote one way as one of the candidates was evil etc. I pointed out that he was lying, and that either candidate would do a good job. I did then ask if anyone else knew either of the candidates, I think maybe as many as 5 % of those present had actually met one or other of the candidates. It did seem a bit pointless asking the delegates what their opinions were...

Most people would have an opinion if fees were being increased!

[Adam Raoof]

I think the ICF has a bulk license for Swiss Master and that is used universally for pairing and recording. Most clubs have somebody who has gone through the cursing and swearing apprenticeship to get the damn thing to accept a manual pairing when, for instance, a couple of players are going to miss the first round night and have to play later. Trying to add late entries after the initial pairing is also a disaster. You're much better off just repairing. If somebody has already started their clock then just give the late entries their money back. You won't regret it.

Hi Brian - I haven't had too many problems with (the Dutch Program) SM, and I have to do a lot of re-pairings and add in late entries at rapidplay events! Maybe a separate thread? It's quite a pain to apply half point byes but there is a workaround.