March 2012 update now live

General discussions about ratings.
Alex McFarlane
Posts: 1757
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 8:52 pm

Re: March 2012 update now live

Post by Alex McFarlane » Sun Apr 08, 2012 11:27 am

Organisations which have compulsory membership usually offer one of two things which chess doesn't.

1. Significant prizemoney or financial support for grassroots
2. Personal insurance against injury.

Organised chess could survive without a national body with little risk to the organiser (though many halls require £5m insurance before making a let). Taking out insurance, to cover football matches on a game to game basis for example, might be an expensive and troublesome operation.
Chess is a relatively low risk activity and you are unlikely to be injured by an opponent!

The point I am making is that people have to see an advantage in taking out membership. Sofar the ECF has not produced any documentation for either players or congresses to explain and promote the new membership scheme. So far it is a promotional disaster.
I have lost count of the number of players who have approached me regarding the mention of bronze and silver membership on the Scarborough entry form and asking for an explanation.

Can anyone point me to a simple explanation leaflet or page on the ECF website designed to explain it to the ordinary player who doesn't want to know 10 A4 pages of why's and wherefore's just a short document explaining what is involved and why it is necessary AND, more importantly, why the player should join.

The new membership scheme is the most significant change in English chess possibly since the 70s and yet it has been almost unannounced to the grass roots congress player.

Currently content 1/10. Marketing 0/10.

If the Marketing Director is unable to produce a document then surely the Home Director must.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21291
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: March 2012 update now live

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun Apr 08, 2012 12:49 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote: If he had to persuade BCF Council that congresses should be allowed quickplay finishes, and not adjudication, then they could have missed the 1972-boom entirely, and English chess would have been all the worse for it.
Somewhat bizarrely, it was Stewart who introduced adjudications to weekend congresses. If you are trying to fit six rounds into a weekend, you need to be able to complete at least four of the games in four hours or less. Previously Congresses had been one round a day, either over a week or a Bank Holiday weekend, thereby giving scheduling room for adjournments. Stewart's events used 48 moves in 120 minutes and a round up of players with grades over 200 to go round at the end of session dispensing instant adjudications. At move 48, it was mostly just endings. Later came the idea of playing a ten minute game from the final position, and then adding an extra 15 minutes to the clock times as nowadays. You had to get the BCF or the BCF Council to agree to a grade games under these rules, which they did provided a form of 10.2 claim was possible. For reasons best known to itself, the BCF didn't like G/120 for grading even though 40/90 + SD/30 was perfectly acceptable. Once you could run Congresses without needing adjudicators, from about 1975/6 onwards, the number of local Congresses mushroomed.
Last edited by Roger de Coverly on Sun Apr 08, 2012 1:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Mick Norris
Posts: 10310
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester

Re: March 2012 update now live

Post by Mick Norris » Sun Apr 08, 2012 12:53 pm

Alan Burke wrote: Mick - if, as you claim, the player hasn't paid for the grading service, just what is the game fee for ?
Sorry for the delay, been doing more important things, my daughter's birthday and subsequent party in particular

Game Fee pays for the cost of running the ECF - it is not a fee for grading

Is that your suggestion, the player should be refunded the 58p that he hasn't paid, but his club has paid, or have it refunded by the ECF if he is a direct member?
Any postings on here represent my personal views

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21291
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: March 2012 update now live

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun Apr 08, 2012 1:19 pm

Alex McFarlane wrote: If the Marketing Director is unable to produce a document then surely the Home Director must.
Membership schemes and Game Fee rates are the province of the Finance Director, but they agreed the new scheme would be the CEO's responsibility. Last year there was a lot of material produced, basically three different schemes with in some cases contradictory messages. Since then, almost complete silence. I can understand that up to a point, it's the decision of the Finance Council as to what the rates should be, but I would have thought that promotion of the scheme had to start immediately after the October Council, notwithstanding the absence of overwhelming support.

As I see it, Congress players aren't that badly affected as the only change in practice is that the discount for existing ECF members increases to £ 6 although it looks a large difference particularly on rapid-plays. It's leagues and counties where the bigger impact arises. We've already seen that Junior organisations are carefully weighing the extra costs against the merits of national grading. Leagues and counties will or perhaps should do the same.

Alex McFarlane
Posts: 1757
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 8:52 pm

Re: March 2012 update now live

Post by Alex McFarlane » Sun Apr 08, 2012 1:32 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote: I would have thought that promotion of the scheme had to start immediately after the October Council
I agree totally. Do we know why this didn't happen?
Roger de Coverly wrote:Congress players aren't that badly affected as the only change in practice is that the discount for existing ECF members increases to £ 6
I'm not sure I agree here. There was talk of grades being withheld. Is that still the case? Remember I'm involved with Scarborough which is in Yorkshire where there are a large number of people who, from past experience, may not take out Bronze membership. For players like that it is more than just game fee being £6. There are also a significant number of Scottish players (probably Welsh as well) who would accept a £6 grading fee if the reason was explained to them but object to what is seen as a tax on not being an ECF member. What has the ECF done to encourage these players to continue participation? Scarborough and Blackpool are both concerned about this. For congress organisers early in the year, who in the past have accepted that players have joined a membership scheme, there is the fear that the ECF will bill them significant sums.

I believe there was a draft ECF document prepared for congresses but I have yet to see the final version on display anywhere. What has happened to this?

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21291
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: March 2012 update now live

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun Apr 08, 2012 1:53 pm

Alex McFarlane wrote: I'm not sure I agree here. There was talk of grades being withheld.
There were three different versions of the scheme. In the first, there was a £ 6 Game Fee for non-members. In the second, the concession only applied to Welsh, Scottish, Irish and Foreign. In the third, it was everybody again, basically because whilst you can define British by an external test ( has or could have a UK passport), the distinctions between English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish are to some extent self certified.

It might however be logical for events to run sections, if there's demand, where no membership is required. If these sections don't pay £ 6 per head, they won't be graded. But Yorkshire has a one-sided scheme where results only count for national grading if one of the players is a member, and then only for the player who is a member. On the face of it, that scheme has been withdrawn, but whether anyone formally told Yorkshire is another matter.

Members of the ECF Council will assert that the schemes were thoroughly discussed at local level. If that's the case then all the local attendees will be fully conversant with the details and can no doubt explain them.

Jonathan Bryant
Posts: 3452
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: March 2012 update now live

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Sun Apr 08, 2012 2:49 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Alex Holowczak wrote: If he had to persuade BCF Council that congresses should be allowed quickplay finishes, and not adjudication, then they could have missed the 1972-boom entirely, and English chess would have been all the worse for it.
You had to get the BCF or the BCF Council to agree to a grade games under these rules, which they did provided a form of 10.2 claim was possible.
Alex would perhaps be amused to read the letter in CHESS (sometime in the early/mid 70s if memory serves) which argued in rather robust fashion that games played to a finish under what was referred to as the "ten minute rule" should NOT be graded.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21291
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: March 2012 update now live

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun Apr 08, 2012 3:04 pm

Jonathan Bryant wrote: that games played to a finish under what was referred to as the "ten minute rule" should NOT be graded.
The ten minute rule was a provision that you started a blitz game with ten minutes each from the position on the board that would otherwise be adjudicated. The notion of adding 15, 20 or 30 minutes to the existing clock times rapidly superseded it. Congress time limits were often 48 in two hours in the days before addition of time became normal.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: March 2012 update now live

Post by Alex Holowczak » Sun Apr 08, 2012 4:16 pm

Jonathan Bryant wrote:
Roger de Coverly wrote:
Alex Holowczak wrote: If he had to persuade BCF Council that congresses should be allowed quickplay finishes, and not adjudication, then they could have missed the 1972-boom entirely, and English chess would have been all the worse for it.
You had to get the BCF or the BCF Council to agree to a grade games under these rules, which they did provided a form of 10.2 claim was possible.
Alex would perhaps be amused to read the letter in CHESS (sometime in the early/mid 70s if memory serves) which argued in rather robust fashion that games played to a finish under what was referred to as the "ten minute rule" should NOT be graded.
This doesn't surprise me at all, to be honest. Someone in chess tried to do something new, and people moaned about it. As true in 1970whateveritwas as it is in 2012. :roll:

Alan Burke

Re: March 2012 update now live

Post by Alan Burke » Sun Apr 08, 2012 9:15 pm

Mick Norris .. here is an extract from the ECF website regarding game fees ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Game Fees 2011 / 2012
Following the Council Meeting of April 2011, the Council voted to increase the rate of game fees to take effect from 1st September 2011 as follows

Congresses and Leagues
Standard Play – 58p per result
Rapidplay – 29p per result

For Internal Club Matches
Standard Play – 20p per result
Rapidplay – 10p per result

Junior Events
Standard Play – 29p per result
Rapidplay – 15p per result

Junior Internal Club Matches
Standard Play – 10p per result
Rapidplay – 5p per result

A discount of 2.5% is allowable if the game fees are paid within 30 days of the event.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

So, if, as you claim, the Game Fees are not for grading purposes, then just why do the ECF specify a charge for the results of matches ?

I also note you ask me a question about reimbursing a player a fee if his grade is not included in the grading list, yet you still fail to answer the question I originally asked about if you think it is right for a player to lose match points and possibly grading points due to this oversight and what you suggest should be done to reimburse the player.

So, until I get a reasonable answer to my question, I see no reason to have to give a response to yours.

Mick Norris
Posts: 10310
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester

Re: March 2012 update now live

Post by Mick Norris » Sun Apr 08, 2012 9:31 pm

Alan

It is possible that you have missed the extensive threads on the forum about membership and game fee, but it isn't a claim, it is a fact, it is not a charge for grading, it is a per game fee for raising money to run the ECF

As the service is not being paid for, then no, I don't think a refund is due in the circumstances - simply, if you haven't paid for a service, you are not entitled to a financial reimbursement

What should the players do? Volunteer to help run chess, the more volunteers, the more the work is spread, the more chance that mistakes are rectified quickly

A mistake was made, it was found out, and it was rectified - it has been happening for years, yet only recently have volunteers doing the new grading site allowed players the opportunity to spot the mistakes
Any postings on here represent my personal views

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: March 2012 update now live

Post by Alex Holowczak » Sun Apr 08, 2012 9:38 pm

Alan Burke wrote:So, if, as you claim, the Game Fees are not for grading purposes, then just why do the ECF specify a charge for the results of matches ?
I'm not Mick Norris, but:

The starting point is: How does the ECF fund itself from players? There are many ways it can do this. For example:
(1) Charge per game
(2) Charge per player
(3) Charge per tournament
(4) Various other things I haven't thought of, or can't be bothered to list

At the moment, the ECF does (1) by default, with a bit of (2) thrown in just to confuse everything.

From September, we'll be doing (2) by default, with a bit of (1) thrown in to make sure (2) happens more smoothly.

FIDE does (3) for things like APAs.

Whichever system the ECF chooses to adopt, it doesn't matter. The thrust is that when you pay your Game Fee, you're not paying solely for grading. You're paying for every activity that the ECF engages in.

Alan Burke

Re: March 2012 update now live

Post by Alan Burke » Mon Apr 09, 2012 12:39 am

OK, the game fee might not solely be for grading, but that still means that part of the payment is for that to be done - therefore if a player's result is not graded then he is still not receiving the full service he has contributed towards.

Again, I repeat, I am still awaiting for anyone to explain why it should be right for any player not to be compensated in some way for when some games are not graded at the proper time and which could therefore ultimately affect their grade ? By compensation, I don't necessarily mean in a financial way, but by having their grade recalculated to its proper outcome.

Also, why should any matches played in a previous grading period now be calculated at the players' current grade and not the one when the match actually took place ? (What if a match from 3 years ago is suddenly found to be missing and is now calculated into the system, yet the player in question has dropped 30+ points; why should his opponent at the time be penalised those points for the late addition into the system ?)

Yes, many people are volunteers for a vast number of tasks, but why should those people not be questioned if they do not the provide the service for which they have willingly decided to take control of ?

Mick - I am sure you will confirm that after many events you have helped organise and at which I have been present, I have always made a point at the end of coming to thank each arbiter/organiser individually for the work they have done. ie I did so at the recent Manchester Rapidplay, yet when I thanked you, you willingly accepted that praise without any comment such as "I don't want any thanks for the work I do." Therefore, if praise is willingly accepted then so should comments which are not so favourable.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21291
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: March 2012 update now live

Post by Roger de Coverly » Mon Apr 09, 2012 3:04 am

Alex McFarlane wrote: Remember I'm involved with Scarborough which is in Yorkshire where there are a large number of people who, from past experience, may not take out Bronze membership. For players like that it is more than just game fee being £6. There are also a significant number of Scottish players (probably Welsh as well) who would accept a £6 grading fee if the reason was explained to them but object to what is seen as a tax on not being an ECF member.
The wording on the Scarborough entry form says:-
At the time of producing this entry form it seems likely that the ECF will be introducing a new membership scheme. The congress will be levied £6 per entrant by the ECF for those who do not have suitable ECF membership. Non ECF members or those with only Bronze membership will be required to pay this additional £6. Bronze members will then be upgraded to Silver.
I expect you are correct that only those who have followed the debates on this forum or attended County and League AGMs that discussed the proposals as voted will be aware that appears to be a statement of fact as of March 2012. For others, reading the Scarborough form will probably be their first indication that something is changing. It's up to the advocates of the scheme in the ECF to come up with a positive message but "a tax on not being an ECF member" sums it up. It says something for the power of Congress organisers that the ECF didn't feel confident to attempt to propose a USCF style system of complete exclusion for non-members, or an extension of the system it applies to internationally rated ENG players of exclusion from either the event or the international rating list.

I cannot help feeling that a Scottish style system, which the ECF never properly considered, would have worked better. In a Scottish style system, the national body collects a fee from the Congress for grading and other services which is proportionate to the number of players. The fee level is reduced when the Congress offers discounted entry fees to national members. It doesn't matter if none take part, it's the thought that counts.

Post Reply