Update from Shallow Throat

[Martin Regan]

LC:

I've no idea what my name is doing on this list, I have no votes on Council and I'm not an arbiter.

Indeed, not - as is the case with some of the others. You make the list for your impressively energetic campaign to support the nexus - not , as I've said before, that I believe a formal one exists.

[JustinHorton]

Bob Kane definitely did lose, but it may be decided that me must continue in post so he may return.
I’m minded to consider this not the ECF’s finest hour.

I suspect BK would best return as a Manager rather than as a Director and then report to the The President. Since there is no CEO (right now but two are in the frame) or Commericial Director BK would report to a member of The Sensible Party. This should ensure continuance of the Tradewise contract.

Thoughts of a member of the Pearce Commission on this matter are illuminating.

Any chance of expanding on this here, or is it going to feature in BCM?

It would be a serious breach with tradition if anything illuminating appeared in that magazine.

[Andrew Zigmond]

The question was primarily directed at John Upham but I'm grateful to Martin for his reply. At least he actually answers indirect questions as opposed to some people who can't answer direct ones.

I'm rather flattered to find myself in such company but if there is a suggestion that those named on the non exhaustive list work in concert within council I am happy to clarify that while I have corresponded with a few names on the list (mainly on county championship matters) it is only Alex Holowczak and Rupert Jones (and to an extent Alex McFarlane) who I can claim to know personally.

[Andrew Zigmond]

It would be a serious breach with tradition if anything illuminating appeared in that magazine.

Dare I also note that the editors of the two largest chess publications in this country are both ECF officials and have been since the 2014 AGM. Both have connections to those who council chose not to elect (or resigned from a non elected post in one case). One appears to be keeping his own counsel in the interests of stability, the other ...

[John Upham]

It would be a serious breach with tradition if anything illuminating appeared in that magazine.

I would like to see them discussed. The editor wishes to steer clear of ECF politics as do the owners. I don't agree but respect their choices.

[Roger de Coverly]

You make the list for your impressively energetic campaign to support the nexus

There are several interest groups in English or British chess whose views could reasonably be taken into account and to a greater or lesser extent are reflected by the voting membership at ECF AGMs and Council meetings.

Arguably you have professional players, amateur players, organisers, arbiters, parents of younger players, trainers/coaches, specialist journalists/authors and spectators aka fans. Outside of those categories, should anyone really care?

If the attendees at ECF AGMs don't want to be bound by the arbitrary rules of the SRA, does it matter?

There's a more local political objective to which reformers should address their attention. Namely that in every League game it should be the right of a player to insist that the game be finished on the day or night it is played. Many Leagues and Counties enacted this reform, in many cases to remove not completing the game on the night even as an option, over fifteen years ago, if not twenty.

[NickFaulks]

There's a more local political objective to which reformers should address their attention. Namely that in every League game it should be the right of a player to insist that the game be finished on the day or night it is played. Many Leagues and Counties enacted this reform, in many cases to remove not completing the game on the night even as an option, over fifteen years ago, if not twenty.

Does adjournment or quickplay finish produce a more satisfactory game of chess? ( I don't want to talk about adjudication ). It seems to me that there are two legitimate views.

When I ask team members which they prefer for an evening game of 2 1/2 or 3 hours, most express a clear preference. There is a correlation between age and fondness for adjournment, but it is far from 100%. I, for instance, am quite old but like to get the game over with on the night.

I think you are designating quickplay finishes as a "reform", and then using the argument that by definition reform is always a good thing. In chess as in life, you can also reform things by making them worse.

Please note that I am not arguing for adjournments, just saying that one view should not be thrown out on the spurious grounds that it is old-fashioned.

[Roger de Coverly]

When I ask team members which they prefer for an evening game of 2 1/2 or 3 hours, most express a clear preference.

In many parts of the country, the choice is between increment or otherwise. The reform that I am suggesting for the Thames Valley league and others is that if you decide to play an evening league game, you accept that it's going to be determined that same night should your opponent insist on this. If a game is to be spread over two sessions, agree the when and where before the game even starts.

[John Upham]

Carl,

Could you relocate the last two posts about time controls to a more relevant thread please?

Thanks!

[NickFaulks]

Could you relocate the last two posts about time controls to a more relevant thread please?

Is that correct? I wonder whether the outlawing of adjournments is indeed one of the central aims of the Sensible Party. How would we know?

[Andrew Zigmond]

Going back on topic I note with interest that my question raised earlier has not been answered by the person it was addressed to. Martin Regan gave a list of names that he considers to be the nexus, would John Upham list the same names (and I noticed one interested omission)? Why are these people somehow not sensible (and by implication unfit to run English chess)?

I would also ask whether it is appropriate for an ECF Manager to be leaking potentially sensitive information and undermining the work of the board? Is this not a breach of the code of conduct that certain people were happy to use when it suited them? Whatever the rights and wrongs of what happened in Euston it arose due to an inability to work together. Less than three weeks later it might be nice to think that we've learnt from our mistakes.

[Andrew Zigmond]

It would be a serious breach with tradition if anything illuminating appeared in that magazine.

Dare I also note that the editors of the two largest chess publications in this country are both ECF officials and have been since the 2014 AGM. Both have connections to those who council chose not to elect (or resigned from a non elected post in one case). One appears to be keeping his own counsel in the interests of stability, the other ...

Just to follow up on this post; I was under the impression that John Upham was the editor of BCM. I am now aware that is not the case and I apologise to John Upham for the error.

[LawrenceCooper]

LC:

I've no idea what my name is doing on this list, I have no votes on Council and I'm not an arbiter.

Indeed, not - as is the case with some of the others. You make the list for your impressively energetic campaign to support the nexus - not , as I've said before, that I believe a formal one exists.

Thanks, that makes perfect sense now you've explained it

[LawrenceCooper]

I would also ask whether it is appropriate for an ECF Manager to be leaking potentially sensitive information and undermining the work of the board?

I thought that was the role of the strategy advisor

[Andrew Zigmond]

The most recent strategy advisor made a strongly worded post on the other forum accusing Chris Majer and other `co conspiritors` of a `plot` to oust certain ex members of the board. When I asked him to name these conspiritors he went quiet and to the best of my knowledge has made no public comment since. So this thread isn't the first example of somebody going quiet when asked to substantiate vague accusations.

Is it too much to ask for the current board to be allowed to do their jobs, to be held to account when necessary and then judged at the next AGM on their record?