English Chess Forum

Ok, this is not a serious post, but there has been a lot of negativity on the ECF and so I thought I would look at a couple of things which I think are pretty impressive.

ECF Rating Site
A few players don't take that much interest in their rating, but a large percentage of players do (yes, i am one of them). When I first started playing as an adult in 1989 it took me 18 months to receive a grade. That is a long time!
Now new members can play one game and get a rating. Sure you should only use this once it has moved from P to K but this does not take that long. This is a massive improvement, in addition you have a record of your rating on the site, the players you have played against, colour played, rating point change from the game etc. You can even click on the tournament you played in and check the whole tournament. When this was created it also used previous data and has grades back to 1994. There are numerous other benefits from this site, but I think the above will suffice to say this is an excellent site.

LMS Site
You no longer have to wait a month (or longer) for games to be rated, depending on how quickly the results are submitted and your rating officer can process. Our club moved three tournament to LMS last year and all four this year. The results take minutes to add and are rated within a week. For the stats buffs there is a huge amount of detail included on the tournaments and leagues which use this. As more clubs / leagues use this it may become difficult to maintain, but for now this is an amazing resource.

Membership
I know there are changes coming, but for now with the current fees I thought I would check the members of my club to see the value for money. I have not taken into account the discounts from Chess and Bridge, supporting our Senior and Junior teams but just how much it is costing per game. My club is one which runs all year, with four competitions and last year had 4 teams in the Southampton Chess League.
Last year we had 34 members, 17 Bronze, 11 Silver and 6 Gold (I have include juniors, although they pay less for their membership). With 50% of players being Bronze a number are just club and league players. Some members also joined in the year, but again I have just taken them as paying full fee.

Cost of Games
So on average it worked out under £1 per game and one player paid £0.30 per game. There are numerous things you could compare against this (and people do) but it certainly was not an excessive cost in my opinion.

If possible I would like this this to be a positive post on what the ECF do. I think a lot of other posts are the opposite and maybe if any comments could be on positive things from the ECF this would help. Of course a similar post on the negative could be added by someone else (nothing is perfect).

Finally, apologies to Life of Brian for stealing their line!

Yes the rating site is impressive - it’s just a shame about the calculation / spurious accuracy of the ratings themselves

No criticism but you might perhaps have added the free monthly Chess Moves magazine.

as the movie didn't say; well yes obviously the ratings. the ratings go without saying.

Have you been watching The Life of Brian recently?

Good post, Graham. I am a great believer in national sports/games organisations. Coincidentally, as tournament organiser at my chess club, I was about to ask for opinions on the following situation.

The club championship has successfully run annually since the 1950s, usually with three (rarely two) all-play-all divisions of 8-10 with promotion/relegation, though that is rarely the designated two up two down because of people leaving the club etc.. This contrasts with another club in the county league which meets only for matches. Anyway, entrants need to commit to about one game per month October-June and are expected to keep as far as possible to the round by round pairings.

We are about to have the committee meeting to decide on the divisions for this season. One player, who came late to the game at 80 years old, has notched up no wins and one draw in the bottom division over the last two seasons. He is not demoralised but feels he is not improving, so is wondering whether to re-enter this year. We submit all games for rating, so every adult in the divisions has to pay at least the £18 Bronze ECF fee. A member has suggested that this player would be encouraged by not having his games submitted for rating, thus not being obliged to pay the £18. He will, of course, still be paying the pensioner club subscription of £45 p.a.. My first thought was that this would set a poor precedent and be unfair on the other players, but does the member have a point?

This is where the ecf lose the plot imho. They're s'posed to be encouraging participation, not funding elitism, but division 3 now effectively, as far as (Player A) is concerned, has an £18 entry fee which may discourage him from entering! I think allowing hobby players to play unrated games in the entry level division is a very positive precedent ...

Perhaps it's the club, not the ECF, which should be accused of elitism. It's the old problem of not having enough purely casual players in a club to make up a viable non-rated section.

You can certainly do that if you want. From the ECF grading database's point of view, it's exactly the same as if the tournament had one fewer player to start with.

That is very good point Paul and as Jack says I don't think there is anything stopping someone playing in the tournament with no rating. Our club has a lot of lower rated players (13 between 1000 and 1300 and we have two teams in the bottom division) and therefore most players do manage results.

If the other players don't mind it would ensure the player could play competitive chess without the games being sent for rating.

IM Jack Rudd wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 16, 2023 4:55 pm

You can certainly do that if you want. From the ECF grading database's point of view, it's exactly the same as if the tournament had one fewer player to start with.

Does that mean if my local league opponents agree I can opt out of having my league games rated?

(Most congresses have a condition of entry that results will be sent for grading.)

IM Jack Rudd wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 16, 2023 4:55 pm

You can certainly do that if you want. From the ECF grading database's point of view, it's exactly the same as if the tournament had one fewer player to start with.

Yes, I realise it's possible to withhold results. I was more concerned about the opt-out player's opponents, who have entered expecting all their games to be rated. They have paid their £18 and probably regard rating as the main benefit of the fee. Suppose another couple of players decide to opt out and save money. The benefit of the other players in the division is gradually being eroded. Is it awkward in principle to treat players in the same division differently?

I think there are probably some sports clubs which include an automatic contribution to their national body in their annual subscription - no exceptions made.

The ECF rating policy is that either the whole event is submitted for rating or that no results are submitted.

I guess a club might run parallel events, a rated all play all and one or more matches where players challenge those in the all play all.

I thought the ECF rating site was built by volunteers...

Brian Valentine wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 17, 2023 5:13 pm

The ECF rating policy is that either the whole event is submitted for rating or that no results are submitted.

I wouldn't advocate this, not least for the reason that Paul sets out, that it's liable to be unfair on those who do expect their results to be rated, but it's surely possible to circumvent the ECF rating policy. Given x players who wish their games to be rated and y who don't, one sets up event A consisting of x players where the results count towards event B consisting of (x + y) players. Event B is paired normally (Swiss or APA, depending on type) but only pairings between two members of the x group count towards event A. Only results from event A are submitted for rating. The ECF isn't interested in results from event B.

jholyhead wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 17, 2023 6:30 pm

I thought the ECF rating site was built by volunteers...

AFAIK, a tender document was published allowing persons to bid for that tender.

The winner was awarded financial reimbursement.

I designed my LMS in 2004 and was invited to bid but chose not to.

If the process was more transparent then I could be more sure rather than having an element of doubt.