Yorkshire vs ECF disparity

General discussions about ratings.
Alan Burke

Re: Yorkshire vs ECF disparity

Post by Alan Burke » Sun Nov 18, 2012 9:06 pm

It is a pity that Sean Hewitt has decided to cease taking part in this discussion as it means he will not be answering a few queries I have with regard to his most recent post regarding previous comments of mine. (It reminds me of the childrens' game of "Knock-a-door, run-away" where the kids make their point and then disappear before anyone can chastise or correct their ways.)

Sean Hewitt says that his previous post of "FFS" stood for "Fictional Face Saving" - and says, it was "obviously" that. I would therefore be interested to know how many forumites have ever heard of that "obvious" phrase or did they think it stood for something which Sean Hewitt now doesn't have the guts to actually admit ?

Of course, if we all misinterpreted what Sean Hewitt meant by his "obvious" posting, wouldn't that be the same situation as those who misinterpreted the "obvious" statements on the ECF website regarding in which events ECF members could play and get their games graded ??? (What is obvious to a writer isn't always obvious to the reader.)

In fact, I suggest that Sean Hewitt never has the guts to listen to anyone's point of view which contradicts his own without reverting to intimidation (including written and verbal) as well as issuing comments in which he attempts to belittle the other person - eg In a previous post Sean Hewitt stated that "If it was 3Cs then presumably Alan Walton wan't there." Many people might wonder just what that particular comment had to do with the discussion at hand as it had no relevance at all - but, I know exactly what Sean Hewitt was trying to insinuate and was an attempt to belittle the fact that I had asked certain members of my local club about the ECF membership system.

Sean Hewitt also refers to my comments as "your many rants." This is again another attempt by Sean Hewitt to belittle anybody's opposition to his own views. Yes, I have issued a passionate plea in favour of ECF members on this subject and have put forward certain points - but do many on here think I have "ranted" ?

Sean Hewiit also claims that I "often tell anyone who bothers to read your posts that this is an internet forum and you are free to post and ask questions."

Again, it is a pity that Sean Hewitt no longer wishes to discuss the subject with me because I would be interested for him to publish all these often occasions and would be willing to leave this forum if he could do so but also challenge him to permanently step down as a director of the ECF if he couldn't !

User avatar
Carl Hibbard
Posts: 6028
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:05 pm
Location: Evesham

Re: Yorkshire vs ECF disparity

Post by Carl Hibbard » Sun Nov 18, 2012 10:37 pm

Alan Burke wrote:Yes, I have issued a passionate plea in favour of ECF members on this subject and have put forward certain points - but do many on here think I have "ranted" ?
Yes :roll:
Cheers
Carl Hibbard

Andrew Zigmond
Posts: 2073
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Harrogate

Re: Yorkshire vs ECF disparity

Post by Andrew Zigmond » Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:27 pm

Sean, thank you for the clarification above.
Roger de Coverly wrote:
michele clack wrote: It does sound from postings on here that some people in Yorkshire would very much like to be part of the ECF with one grading system.
Some of the people no doubt would, but the local league officials have shown next to no sign over the past twenty years of being interested in bringing their leagues in line with the rest of the country in joining and financing the ECF.

At a cost of immense local fighting, the YCA could have decreed that access to the local YCA grading system was also conditional on paying some form of league or individual fee, enough to finance the YCA being able to include local league games in the national system.
Full reconciliation with the ECF is not going to be an overnight process. The local leagues may not be `interested` but perhaps the ECF should be trying new ways of `interesting` them.

At present the ECF (and a lot of people elsewhere in the country) are asking why Yorkshire should be treated as a special case. A lot of people in Yorkshire are asking why they should be bothered with the ECF. Deadlock - and the people feeling the frustration are those in Yorkshire who want reconciliation.

I wish the ECF would appreciate that their hand, at the moment, is not strong.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own

Sean Hewitt
Posts: 2193
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:18 pm
Contact:

Re: Yorkshire vs ECF disparity

Post by Sean Hewitt » Mon Nov 19, 2012 7:15 am

Andrew Zigmond wrote:I wish the ECF would appreciate that their hand, at the moment, is not strong.
Andrew - that depends on how you look at it.

I would say that nationally things look like they are going pretty well, which weakens any possible case for making Yorkshire exceptions.

MartinCarpenter
Posts: 3044
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: Yorkshire vs ECF disparity

Post by MartinCarpenter » Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:00 am

michele clack wrote:Have you consulted the rank and file in Yorkshire Roger? It does sound from postings on here that some people in Yorkshire would very much like to be part of the ECF with one grading system.
Some yes, even some of the leadership. The overall mass of members though? Apathetic at best it seems. Only 30 per cent membership at most in those leagues. A little over fifty per cent in the ECF graded ones.
Any competitive activity needs rules and procedures, so why use language like
A body seeking to dictate the terms on which competitive chess takes place perhaps.
It's this sort of attitude that causes problems in the first place.
Not so much this time - the 2 pounds/game for non members charge is very relevant in context. Given the very low membership levels that Yorkshire currently has that basically means it isn't even possible to currently see how the local leagues could conceivably even really try to go ECF graded.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Yorkshire vs ECF disparity

Post by Roger de Coverly » Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:12 am

MartinCarpenter wrote:Given the very low membership levels that Yorkshire currently has that basically means it isn't even possible to currently see how the local leagues could conceivably even really try to go ECF graded.
They just have to tell every club that the cost of playing graded league chess is £ 12 per head with a discount for those playing under six games. That's what the ECF have done to the rest of the country.

MartinCarpenter
Posts: 3044
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: Yorkshire vs ECF disparity

Post by MartinCarpenter » Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:14 am

Nationally things do seem to be going well enough, which I am happy about.

Still it is the ECF which has more to lose directly here. If the Yorkshire league say goes non ECF graded then you'll lose both a bunch of income from direct memberships and that from the other fees.

Long term its more serious than that as it'll basically destroy the membership base. In consequence to that it'll pretty well force the Yorkshire congresses to go non ECF graded simply to survive financially. At that point anyone playing chess purely within Yorkshire has essentially no motivation at all to be an ECF member, so membership levels would fall so low as to make it incredibly hard to try to get any of these competitions back into ECF grading.

You'd have a much stronger, longer lasting (because its based on money not just silly politics!) split than the situation we've had over the past few decades. Not a remotely clever situation to get into.

No obviously direct impact on Yorkshire chess though - I think all of these competitions would survive happily enough. The congresses might I suppose take a small hit.

MartinCarpenter
Posts: 3044
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: Yorkshire vs ECF disparity

Post by MartinCarpenter » Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:21 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:
MartinCarpenter wrote:Given the very low membership levels that Yorkshire currently has that basically means it isn't even possible to currently see how the local leagues could conceivably even really try to go ECF graded.
They just have to tell every club that the cost of playing graded league chess is £ 12 per head with a discount for those playing under six games. That's what the ECF have done to the rest of the country.
Well indeed. At the moment mind the Yorkshire league say has about 80 regular players who aren't ECF members. Several clubs with ~30 per cent membership or lower. Are they really likely to pay? Its not like we're drowning in enough players to ditch all of these folk.

In fact the low base membership levels are big problem financially anyway due to none of the reserves being ECF graded. Even if everyone playing 6 games upwards signed up as members there will still be a residual bill of ~800 pounds for the Yorkshire league. The Sheffield league is bigger in terms of games played so would be looking at a bigger bill than that.

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

Re: Yorkshire vs ECF disparity

Post by Alex McFarlane » Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:23 am

Sean Hewitt wrote:I would say that nationally things look like they are going pretty well, which weakens any possible case for making Yorkshire exceptions.
Why? Surely this strengthens the case for making exceptions. The ECF is on target to meet its financial requirements so is in a much stronger position to make a gesture which might help to bring more into the fold and improve the future situation for all members.

I accept that there should not be a permanent exception for Yorkshire but it seems to me that there is more of a movement for full integration of Yorkshire than there has been for a large number of years. Shouldn't the ECF be trying to build on that by holding out some sort of olive branch?

To give the impression that everything is fine elsewhere so nothing needs to be done for Yorkshire could be seen to be sending out the wrong message.

I certainly get the impression that those in the area who have been campaigning for ECF membership feel let down. Whether true or not, there is a strong feeling that the previous ECF leadership mislead them. The current administration could be doing more to show that there is a desire for Yorkshire to be an integral part of the ECF.

Supermarkets have 'loss leaders' to encourage customers in. Could the ECF do likewise?

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Yorkshire vs ECF disparity

Post by Roger de Coverly » Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:28 am

MartinCarpenter wrote: In consequence to that it'll pretty well force the Yorkshire congresses to go non ECF graded simply to survive financially.
It has always been presumed that Congresses in Yorkshire, Scarborough being the most obvious example, rely on support from the rest of the country and even Scotland for their viability. So when the Yorkshire local leagues refused ECF membership twenty years ago, the Congresses felt obliged to sign up as exclusion from national grading would reduce or remove the attraction of playing from players outside Yorkshire. The Hull Congress has done this for some years, so there is a practical example, although it would only have been this year that existing ECF members would not have had their Hull games graded.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Yorkshire vs ECF disparity

Post by Roger de Coverly » Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:33 am

MartinCarpenter wrote: Well indeed. At the moment mind the Yorkshire league say has about 80 regular players who aren't ECF members. Several clubs with ~30 per cent membership or lower. Are they really likely to pay? Its not like we're drowning in enough players to ditch all of these folk.
These are amongst the arguments used by the 30% of the ECF voting members who didn't support the ECF's membership scheme. According to supporters, membership increases both the number of players and the amount of chess they play. The ECF will call the scheme a success if it has a high percentage of active players signed as members. It won't care if both the absolute number of graded participants and the number of games graded are reduced.

Sean Hewitt
Posts: 2193
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:18 pm
Contact:

Re: Yorkshire vs ECF disparity

Post by Sean Hewitt » Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:42 am

Alex McFarlane wrote:Why? Surely this strengthens the case for making exceptions. The ECF is on target to meet its financial requirements so is in a much stronger position to make a gesture which might help to bring more into the fold and improve the future situation for all members.
I think it is highly desirable (as I've said before) that Yorkshire and it's players fully participate in the ECF - including paying their fair share - but I don't think the ECF needs Yorkshire. Because of that, I believe that the case for making an exception for Yorkshire is weak. That said, if the majority of council felt differently then of course an exception could be made.

The real question (I think) is what would the ECF gain by giving a temporary exception. Say the ECF agreed to grade independent leagues this year for ECF members. What would happen next season? Would we be having this same discussion then, or would something have changed so that those leagues all became graded in the same way as the vast majority of leagues have up and down the country? If those leagues would not become graded next season, why grant an exception this season?

Have the YCA made a proposal as to what they would like to see happen?

MartinCarpenter
Posts: 3044
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: Yorkshire vs ECF disparity

Post by MartinCarpenter » Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:47 am

The difference for the congresses this time is that 2 pounds/game charge. Yes they do get players in from elsewhere, but the bulk of the players are obviously always local. So if essentially no Yorkshire players are members they've got massive problems and probably they simply wouldn't be able to afford to get their games ECF graded. Sticking up entries fees by 10/head for non ECF members hardly likely to work too well :)

Just maybe the residual membership from 4NCL and competitions outside Yorkshire would ensure that the opens could stay ECF graded.

For me the critical thing for unity is trying to keep the Yorkshire league ECF graded. If that needs temporary action for a few years it'd be worth it and might eventually lead to some of the local leagues signing up. If the attempt to have it ECF graded falls apart financially after just one year its hardly calculated to inspire followers!
(Quite what that might need, or what the risk to it is, I don't know.).

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Yorkshire vs ECF disparity

Post by Roger de Coverly » Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:55 am

Sean Hewitt wrote: The real question (I think) is what would the ECF gain by giving a temporary exception. Say the ECF agreed to grade independent leagues this year for ECF members. What would happen next season?
It could trial the type of membership scheme as advocated by Martin Regan and others. Namely that Gold and Platinum members have the right to have their games graded in independent leagues, probably only against other Gold members. The management of those leagues then have the option to save money for the "local only" players by removing them from national grading.

Sean Hewitt
Posts: 2193
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:18 pm
Contact:

Re: Yorkshire vs ECF disparity

Post by Sean Hewitt » Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:03 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Sean Hewitt wrote: The real question (I think) is what would the ECF gain by giving a temporary exception. Say the ECF agreed to grade independent leagues this year for ECF members. What would happen next season?
It could trial the type of membership scheme as advocated by Martin Regan and others. Namely that Gold and Platinum members have the right to have their games graded in independent leagues, probably only against other Gold members. The management of those leagues then have the option to save money for the "local only" players by removing them from national grading.
Two problems with this.

Firstly, I don't think this is what ECF supporters in Yorkshire are looking for. I believe they are looking for bronze members to have their games graded.

Secondly, a trial would be meaningless as it would only tell you what the take would be in Yorkshire - an area which we know is not representative of chess players nationally.

Post Reply