English Chess Forum

cjdemooi wrote:It's gone very quiet on here since I asked if anyone had any positive suggestions. I've had a couple of people insult me via Facebook then run away but that's hardly constructive either. Has no-one anything he or she would like to offer?

As well as initiatives to obtain TV and other coverage and more local press coverage on the lines of Ernie Lazenby's reporting, I would like to see steps taken to improve the standard of arbiting and playing conditions in tournaments. There is little point in advertising a product if that product is flawed.

Arbiters, who get the most basic things wrong, such as interfering when they see a flag fall in a rapid event as recently stated on this forum and also not intervening when required for example on a flag fall in a LP event or after an external disturbance, should be recognised as poor arbiters and sent for retraining or retired. Some players just wont return to poorly run events. A few more arbiter quizes on the website would assist both arbiters and players to understand the rules.

Regarding improving playing conditions, by that I mean equipment, space available, refreshment areas etc., maybe the ECF could have the equivalent of a kite-mark known as ECF approval which is only given to those Tournaments which met the standards when held the previous year and undertake to meet various criteria at the next event. Using the "ECF approval" on a tournament entry form or website should encourage additional entries. In addition requiring arbiters names to be on entry forms would enable players to select the best tournaments and encourage the rest to improve as players vote with their feet.

I like the idea of the celebrity Master Game type programme...I've passed the format to a production comany to gauge the views.

I also think Michael's suggestion of a 'Kite Mark' is interesting and worthwhile (I think we've all been to tournaments where this would have been desirable) and I'd welcome other's thoughts on this, considering the potential difficulty implementing such a scheme.

I've also had a reply from a member of the Conservative party (discretion at the moment) and will hopefully be meeting at the end of this month.

Before I knew about such things, when I read that an event was "ECF Graded" or part of the "ECF Grand Prix", I assumed that that was due to having those benefits, the event by default had a seal of approval from the ECF. The idea sounds sensible to me, though.

cjdemooi wrote:I also think Michael's suggestion of a 'Kite Mark' is interesting and worthwhile (I think we've all been to tournaments where this would have been desirable) and I'd welcome other's thoughts on this, considering the potential difficulty implementing such a scheme.

I have considered how a kite mark could be implemented but will await the views of others. When there is so much negativity about, a channel such as a kite mark needs to be created to turn negativity into positive improvement.

Regarding a celeb TV program I think the following format might work.

8 programs
8 celebs are coached each by an experienced player, so some training is shown as well a rapid game.

Over 7 episodes an 8 player celeb 30 minute rapid consultation knockout event, with a difference, is played.
The difference would be each player has two GEMS or Jokers to play in each game. At any time they can play their 1st GEM which is a 5 minute timeout to ask their coach general advice as to what approach to adopt and what move to play. During the rest of the game they can take 1 further GEM where their coach plays the next move.

The 8th game is a conventional rapid game between the coaches of the winning celebs.

Alex Holowczak >Before I knew about such things, when I read that an event was "ECF Graded" or part of the "ECF Grand Prix", I assumed that that was due to having those benefits, the event by default had a seal of approval from the ECF. The idea sounds sensible to me, though.<

In a sense it does. The event would not be acceptable for grading or to be part of the Grand Prix, as was, if it were known to be unsatisfactory.
The problem is with new events. How would the London Chess Classic get recognition in advance of it ever existing? For FIDE that is partially solved that an event now has to have FIDE Arbiter in charge if it is to count for title norm purposes. But the top tournament there is 'only' FIDE Rated and thus the arbiter could have no title. Anyway, that is only arbiting.
When I first organised the Islington Open in 1965 it didn't even occur to me to contact the BCF.
FIDE have an International Organizer title which was introduced at my behest. Adam, Sean and I hold that title. I suggested there be a BCF Organiser (or director) title many years ago. The Board didn't like the idea. I was very pleased when Cyril Johnson came up with the same idea and the ECF Board nodded it through. Cyril went no further. But I would be unable to design an exam. Anyway it would require work experience, just as with an arbiter.
There would be a substantial cost if a personal of status were to visit an event in order to provide a seal of approval. Would people pay for this privilege? Would they not be scared of failing to meet the required level?

I am sure all these hurdles could be solved, they just need to be considered.

Stewart Reuben

Sounds a bit bureaucratic to me. I think it might stifle innovation.

Michelle >Sounds a bit bureaucratic to me. I think it might stifle innovation.<

Precisely. I believe the ECF is at its best when it provides an umbrella for independent activity, but I also feel the same way about the government.
I would not wish to stifle suggestions. I just pointed out, in this particular case of a seal of approval, that it isn't easy.

Stewart

I wouldn’t approach an approval mark the way Stewart suggests with Organiser Titles and official visits. Subjective opinion needs to be largely removed. I would approach this more along the lines of 6-8 easily attested key performance indicators depending on the event type, combined with a survey completed by say 5 volunteer competitors, 5 selected competitors and also an organisers statement. Key pointers allow organisers to know what to aim for. For new events I would expect an event to state “ECF approval applied for” which suggests they will be attempting to meet the criteria at the next event when the following event should be approved.

E Michael White wrote:Subjective opinion needs to be largely removed. I would approach this more along the lines of 6-8 easily attested key performance indicators depending on the event type, combined with a survey completed by say 5 volunteer competitors, 5 selected competitors and also an organisers statement.

Why not just write a review ( on this forum)? Treat it like a book review. Personal attitudes to congresses are by their very nature subjective.

Roger de Coverly wrote:Why not just write a review (on this forum)? Treat it like a book review. Personal attitudes to congresses are by their very nature subjective.

The search engine stuff is now working rather well so almost anything relevant you type into Google is going to bring you to here!

Stewart Reuben wrote: FIDE have an International Organizer title which was introduced at my behest. Adam, Sean and I hold that title.

Me too! (Not that I'm getting insecure here you understand! And I recall Chris Dunworth got the title back in the 1990's if I am not mistaken.

I arranged for Con Power to get the first-ever IO title.
Gerry Walsh and Peter Wilson also hold that title. There are probably a disproportionate number of English people with the title as more will have applied for it than from other countries.
I would like to raise its status by requiring that an event of high enough status be organised by somebody who already holds the title, but that is too restrictive. It has been difficult enough applying that to the arbiter of events.
Similarly we have a high percentage of the International Candidate Masters. That one I did arrange to get first.

The reason for going off at a tangent like this is that it demonstrates the problems with attempts at codifying experience. It would however be good to have the equivalent of a Michelin Rating System.

Stewart Reuben

Roger de Coverly wrote:Why not just write a review ( on this forum)? Treat it like a book review. Personal attitudes to congresses are by their very nature subjective.

Well here’s why not.

As you no doubt know a good quality process needs to go through a PDCA cycle, Plan-DO-Check-Act. In most amateur organisations this deteriorates into a RUT cycle of Randomly do-Unstructured feedback-Try to cover up errors. None of which adds much value. By the end of the first cycle custom is lost. Unfortunately unsolicited feedback or a review as you put it tends to be either exaggeratedly good or exaggeratedly bad as in between no one bothers. The doers can be left feeling disconsolate, pessimistic or half empty.

The Plan stage of a PDCA cycle enables quality pointers to be built in at the outset from a quality standard, drawn up by experts, and adds value. At the end of the cycle doers who knew they couldn’t meet all the points this time early on, are left feeling more half full as they know the points needed to achieve the award next time.

The interesting bit is to ask experts for their opinions to draw up the quality points. So in the case of a Weekend Chess Tournament views of organisers from Blackpool and Scarborough should probably be consulted as they must be doing some things right.

Stewart Reuben mentioned a Michelin style award and outwardly this appears to be a visit from an official who delivers a subjective opinion but behind the scenes there are many quality points on experts lists for assessment, which lead to what becomes an objective assessment.

A Michelin style result of an award of the maximum say 3 star approval to a week-end tournament in 2009 would probably help generate some sponsorship for the same event in 2010.

E Michael White wrote:As you no doubt know a good quality process needs to go through a PDCA cycle,

Playing chess is a leisure activity - management theory has no place.

By reviews, I was thinking of practical issues like whether the rounds start on time, whether there is adequate or free parking, whether the clocks are programmed to add time at a move cutoff, or when in a hotel, the attitude of the hotel towards chess players etc. Everyone's scorecard will be balanced differently as to the relative importance of these factors.

Roger de Coverly wrote:Playing chess is a leisure activity - management theory has no place.

Curious view. Chess players are usually good at recognising successful patterns and reproducing them to good effect.

I agree most of your quality points but had not thought of attitude of hotel staff to chess players ( Which hotel are you thinking of ? ). I was thinking more on the lines of whether the organisers give a helpful accommodation list.

What would be your top 8 points in order ? I think I would start with appropriate space available in the playing area, quiet playing area, good and consistent arbiting, analysis room to which players who have finished their games are quickly dispatched, good parking or close to train station, refreshment area. Maybe leave two blank for items forgotten. Top class events should have live games relayed to the analysis room on screens.