Proposed county championship changes

[Roger de Coverly]

I`m sure there must be other ways of raising the ECF membership numbers...

I might be wrong, but I see little prospect in selling ECF membership to non chess players. So before you can sell a membership, you need to have them interested in playing serious competitive chess. The problem with a membership scheme expressed in terms of an amount per head per year is that it will potentially ask for a high fee for a single game, thereby making it more difficult to run promotional events aimed at attracting new players.

So perhaps the ECF should be thinking about the more fundamental problem of getting more people playing competitive chess. I think it plain enough that the proposition that numbers would flood in if only the horrid Game Fee was abolished has been demonstrated to be a fantasy.

[benedgell]

I've copied a few of the comments across to the ECF's Forum so that the ECF Officials can comment. It would be much, much easier if they just posted here, of course, but I'd say that's pretty unlikely. I was hoping to discuss the ECF's forum (and indeed their communication issues in a number of areas) at the meeting, but it got put off to any other business and then the meeting ran out of time before it got to it.

[Carl Hibbard]

I've copied a few of the comments across to the ECF's Forum so that the ECF Officials can comment. It would be much, much easier if they just posted here, of course, but I'd say that's pretty unlikely. I was hoping to discuss the ECF's forum at the meeting, but it got put off to any other business and then the meeting ran out of time before it got to it.

It used to be a 'first over there' policy but it is possible people have been barred now I suppose

[Carl Hibbard]

I've copied a few of the comments across to the ECF's Forum so that the ECF Officials can comment.

I would say copying over entire threads is perhaps not the best as you may be even quoting people who are not members over there.

Farce.

[David Pardoe]

Roger,
We are not talking about non chess players. If you start from the simple notion of someone who just knows the basic moves..
Your idea of free events that might bring players flooding in...I like. Its called `on-line chess`, or that's as near as it gets..
Maybe some of our top GMs giving public Simuls in a local shopping precinct can also help boost local interest..
But seriously, maybe our local chess bodies need to look at ways of reaching out to joe public, who are often frightened off activities such as chess because they think you have to be some kind of super intelligent being in order to participate. We need to break down these barriers, put out by some media pundits, and inform joe public that chess really is `the people`s game`, which really can provide hours of entertainment and challenge to players of all standards and ages...including, dare I say it, the ladies.

Question is, can we divert some of these players towards OTB chess....
My membership concepts are of an offering that is certainly not expensive.. ie, for just a few quid, you can sign up.. ie, about the cost of a night out down the local, swigging a few pints of Tetleys best bitter...
It costs me a tenner to go and watch Stockport County play football.. double it, and hey presto, your watching a super charged Man United... or some of us are..!
So, our leisure activities don't need to cost a mint....and we get hours of `challenge` ..loosely called entertainment.
There`s no such thing as a free lunch...but I`m all in favour of any initiatives that can boost membership and support British chess...
Yes, there is no magic answers to solve the many issues that serve to challenge us...a good steady influx of new blood, supported by volunteers to keep the wheels turning, and your organisation has legs...

[Richard Bates]

I've copied a few of the comments across to the ECF's Forum so that the ECF Officials can comment.

I would say copying over entire threads is perhaps not the best as you may be even quoting people who are not members over there.

Farce.

If people wanted to comment, in their own name, over there, they would comment, in their own name, over there. It is not for others to do so for the convenience of the ECF board as far as i'm concerned

[Carl Hibbard]

I've copied a few of the comments across to the ECF's Forum so that the ECF Officials can comment.

I would say copying over entire threads is perhaps not the best as you may be even quoting people who are not members over there.

Farce.

If people wanted to comment, in their own name, over there, they would comment, in their own name, over there. It is not for others to do so for the convenience of the ECF board as far as i'm concerned

Now a reply from Alex is over there and this is starting to annoy me.

[Roger de Coverly]

Now a reply from Alex is over there

There's a new idea as well, not floated in the original document. This new idea is that when you enter the Open, you also enter the Minor Counties. The competition you actually play in for the knock out being determined by the first round result. So winners are playing with the heavyweights and losers with the Minors. It being suggested that the rule of average grade being under 180 is removed if these became the rules.

As with all Cup and Plate setups, it means at least two matches, provided teams don't just default unattractive matches.

[Carl Hibbard]

Alex does an excellent job I was complaining about this silly pasting back and forth to be clear.

[Richard Bates]

The reason why the SCCU (Open) championship would potentially suffer if it wasn't a qualification event is because the latter is useful for ensuring that Counties are motivated to try and put out their strongest teams for every round of the competition. It is rare that a team is out of contention for qualification come the final rounds of matches. If the competition were only about the Trophy then the Championship outcome would be more likely to be skewed by the order of the draw.

That's my only further contribution to the cross forum postings that shouldn't be happening.

[MartinCarpenter]

Maybe We've kept at Lancs - Yorkshire OK, but a bit of history there

Oh (reading a reply on the other forum) I know our league scheduler might be doing the county champs too now, but he can't magic spare weekends out of nowhere! Imagine he wishes he could.....

[Carl Hibbard]

The ECF has started, through its officers, a consultation on the ECF County Championships and the ECF Forum is being used to help in this process. This is excellent example of ECF direct communication with its members in action and it is what you and others would I understand want to see. I would have thought such a positive and welcome development and interaction with ECF members should be congratulated rather than criticised. Discussion belongs on the official ECF Forum and is taking place there and the ECF officers are proactively engaging in debate with members in real time.

Again lost for words.

[Richard Bates]

The ECF forum still continues to have an official purpose of which the Board are still unwilling to make apparent. It apparently has (breachable) "terms of use" which they refuse to disclose. And it is practicably incompatible for use with modern technology (smartphones etc).

But obviously all discussion "belongs" there.

[benedgell]

I've copied a few of the comments across to the ECF's Forum so that the ECF Officials can comment.

I would say copying over entire threads is perhaps not the best as you may be even quoting people who are not members over there.

Farce.

If people wanted to comment, in their own name, over there, they would comment, in their own name, over there. It is not for others to do so for the convenience of the ECF board as far as i'm concerned

Fair enough. I thought a number of points raised here were worth inviting Alex/ Andrew to comment, and as their hands are tied in respect of posting here I copied them across. But I should've asked first and I apologise. Its an immensely frustrating/ silly situation...

[IM Jack Rudd]

I had a quick look at the WECU match results this season. Somerset's record turnout of 180+ players was 9, Devon's was 7 (both in the same match), Hampshire's and Gloucestershire's 4, Cornwall's 1. That's the principal reason we don't have an internal U-180 section; there aren't enough 180+ players to make it meaningfully different from the Open.