British Championship 2017

[Roger de Coverly]

It is quite possible to believe both that OMOV is not needed (in its extreme form at least) and that Council is insufficiently representative.

The Pearce report rejected OMOV on the grounds that Council was sufficiently representative. If it is now believed that Council isn't sufficiently representative, that gets one road block out of the way.

Talking of surveys, when 4NCL division 1 and 2 players were asked why they didn't play in the British Championship, what format would have been assumed?

[Michael Flatt]

As you're so keen to lecture other people about consultation, perhaps you can fill us in on how the Hertfordshire Congress consults with its players (or, as the Sage of Bourne End is so keen to label them, "tax payers") as regards how the congress is organised.

If the Sage of Bourne End actually organised anything worthwhile himself I would of course ask him the same question.

Apologies for the delay in responding but I am happy to reproduce a response and link provided by a competitor in the event.

1. "I seem to recall" isn't really good enough, I'm afraid.

http://www.hertschesscongress.com/index ... dback-2015

A couple of points I was able to make.

If it's possible to put pairings online during the event, organisers should do so. The British Championship Congress is good for that, although less so at trusting the software thus making pairings available timely.

If prizes based on grade are available, wall charts should indicate who is eligible. It's a downside of running the event relying on printouts that such background information can be lost.

I am pleased to confirm dates for the 65th Hertfordshire Congress: Saturday 12th & Sunday 13th November 2016
Fischer timings will again be used:

Normal games: All moves in 90 minutes plus 10 seconds/move from first move.
Re-paired games: All moves in 75 minutes plus 10 seconds/move from first move.

My principal role at the congress is webmaster although I will put my hand to anything that needs to be done.

[Roger de Coverly]

Fischer timings will again be used

Did you use 10 seconds last year? Other Congresses have used 15. I wouldn't know which is better. For some reason the morning events in the British Championship Congress switched from using 10 seconds to using the standard FIDE 30 seconds. I thought that change undesirable as the knock on effect was a later start to afternoon sessions and a faster time rate in them.

[Mike Truran]

Michael

Thank you for that - and for putting me right!

Two (linked) thoughts occur:

1. It may be more useful to ask people who don't play rather than those who do, as the survey results may be in the nature of self-fulfilling prophecy. No doubt Alex's survey was carried out with that point in mind.

2. Surveying the people who do play, even if it may be a second best option (see above), still seems to me to be a better option than surveying Council members. I believe this is what Alex will be doing at this year's BCC (although I the point made by Caesar "alea iacta est").

[Mike Truran]

The Pearce report rejected OMOV on the grounds that Council was sufficiently representative.

I think if you (re)read section 5.3 of the Pearce report you will find that exactly the opposite is said.

In our view a good case can be made for reform of the way in which voting rights are
distributed between Council members...... While we believe a good theoretical case can be made for some sort of reform of
Council, we have grave concerns that debate among ECF Officials and Council
Members about it, in the absence of any consensus, will distract the ECF from the
pressing need for the reforms which we have identified above. In our view the
resources of the Board and Council should be applied first in improving the day-today
workings of the Board, its relationship with Council and the conduct of Council
meetings.

[Michael Flatt]

Fischer timings will again be used

Did you use 10 seconds last year? Other Congresses have used 15. I wouldn't know which is better. For some reason the morning events in the British Championship Congress switched from using 10 seconds to using the standard FIDE 30 seconds. I thought that change undesirable as the knock on effect was a later start to afternoon sessions and a faster time rate in them.

You are correct we have revised the time rate but not the round times. It was G75+20sec (G60+20sec for repaired games).

The difficulty we have is to fit 3 games on Saturday and be sure we start each round on time. Last year was our first experience with Fischer timings and we plan to tweak them this year to give a longer core time and reduced increment.

We don't have the option of playing on Friday night since the venue is not available. The playing hall is located in the restaurant of the Headquaters of Hertfordshire County Council. We are very fortunate to use such a prestigious venue.

[Roger de Coverly]

I think if you (re)read section 5.3 of the Pearce report you will find that exactly the opposite is said.

I would rely on Section 5.2 as being the "No to OMOV" recommendation.

While we understand the concern, we see little current sign of Direct Members who wish to be involved in chess administration being disenfranchised. At present most Direct
Members' chess activities revolve around their local clubs, which are affiliated to
counties or to independent leagues, all of which are Member Organisations with votes
on Council. Direct Members can raise concerns through the clubs or leagues to which
they belong and they can also raise them with the relevant Direct Members'
Representative.

Accordingly, we recommend that the ECF should not replace Council by OMOV in any form.

[Michael Flatt]

Michael

Thank you for that - and for putting me right!

Two (linked) thoughts occur:

1. It may be more useful to ask people who don't play rather than those who do, as the survey results may be in the nature of self-fulfilling prophecy. No doubt Alex's survey was carried out with that point in mind.

2. Surveying the people who do play, even if it may be a second best option (see above), still seems to me to be a better option than surveying Council members. I believe this is what Alex will be doing at this year's BCC (although I the point made by Caesar "alea iacta est").

My thought is that those supporting the event by playing in it provide the most useful pool of respondents since they are the people I would not want to upset. Attracting new players to the event is a different task.

Given that the event extends over many days some thought might be given to convening an Open Forum during the event to discuss future plans.

There might also be some merit in inviting players representatives to sit on the organising committee, if such a committee exists.

Council members don't necessarily want to be party to deciding the details of the event but I am sure that they would appreciate forewarning about changes to the length of the event and an invitation to comment on proposed changes.

Lee Bullock's idea of doubling up the early rounds rather than compressing the later rounds seems worth pursuing. It is in the nature of Swiss Events that results in the later rounds are more critical in determining the prizewinners.

Also, it does seem unfair to the players to not give them sufficient time to prepare for the play-offs.

[Roger de Coverly]

You are correct we have revised the time rate but not the round times. It was G75+20sec (G60+20sec for repaired games).

I think the switch to G90 + 10 will lead to "average" games lasting longer as players will have 15 minutes more before having to rely on the increment. What it should also do is speed up any really long endgame fights, or even prevent them if the player with an advantage finds 10 seconds not enough to press it home. These are the ones that cause scheduling difficulties.

[Mike Truran]

I would rely on Section 5.2 as being the "No to OMOV" recommendation.

Well, I suggest you rely on section 5.2, and I'll rely on section 5.3.

[Roger de Coverly]

Well, I suggest you rely on section 5.2, and I'll rely on section 5.3.

5.2 says

we recommend that the ECF should not replace Council by OMOV in any form.

That's a clear statement is it not that "the Pearce Report rules out OMOV", the implication being that the current Council is deemed sufficient representation.

[David Shepherd]

I think one improvement might be to have a members only area of the ECF website where members log in. That area of the website can then be used for member consultation/surveys amongst other things.

[Mike Truran]

It's possibly (although not necessarily) inconsistent with 5.3. That's hardly the fault of the ECF Board. Of course if Council wishes 5.2 to be the final position, that is Council's right. My own view (and I am confident that I speak for the ECF Board on the matter) is that Council should prefer the 5.3 option.

[Roger de Coverly]

That area of the website can then be used for member consultation/surveys amongst other things.

Using forum software perhaps. But we've been there in a manner of speaking and abolished it.

[JustinHorton]

Lee Bullock's idea of doubling up the early rounds rather than compressing the later rounds seems worth pursuing. It is in the nature of Swiss Events that results in the later rounds are more critical in determining the prizewinners.

In general yes, but aren't the number of rounds and contestants pretty large factors here?

(This is not at all to dismiss the idea.)