English Chess Forum

Ernie Lazenby wrote:Some of the points raised in this thread re game fee are currently being debated in a thread on the CNE1 forum (Link via Cleveland CA webb site)
Local issues; funding chess in the CCA a way forward . Some of you may find it interesting.

Its quite clear that the point re the cost to the average chess player playing a small number of games is being recognised.

Martin Regan is correct, nothing is cast in stone yet and it may be that the idea of a universal scheme will be binned however I note that he does not deny such a scheme could mean an annual fee of say £20 or more. So if Mr Average is compelled to join the ECF and pay £20 plus his club fees say for example £10 per annum and he plays 8 games in his local league thats £3.75 per game. £2.50 of which is to have his game graded. I cannot see how that will help attract or keep the players we have got.

As you will see in the CCA discussion the same argument applies to those in an MO scheme. Those playing a small number of games subsidise those playing a lot.

Roger de Coverly wrote:

ECF spokesman wrote:I have to make it clear that this is NOT a firm proposal by the board at this point - merely an instrument to start discussions

So what is the position? I thought that the board of the ECF are proposing that if
(a) you live in England
(b) you want to play competitive chess
(c) you don't want to become a member (shareholder) of the ECF then
something unpleasant would happen to you and the debate was over the nature of the unpleasantness and whether you got a vote or not.

Roger de Coverly wrote:

ECF spokesman wrote:and pays on average only £4.50 per year via game fee to the ECF

This equates to about 10 games - the stats on the SCCU grading page bear this out. In fact there are only about 3500 people who play more than 20 games a year.

Roger de Coverly's 10,000th post wrote:I'll return to my very first post. This was a month or two under six years ago in the run up to what turned out to have been one of the more dramatic Finance Council meetings in recent years, in terms of outcomes at least.

Carl had introduced the topic, by getting wind that the ECF Board wanted to introduce something it called a "Universal Membership Scheme". Precise details were scarce, but I think it was the NE1 forum, or was it Atticus? that got hold of some details.

There wasn't a conflict between the President and the FIDE Delegate as they were the same person, namely Gerry Walsh. The ECF policy towards FIDE at the time was arguably one of appeasement although the then Board had opposed the re-election of Kirsan in 2006. In fact members of the Board trespassed into the domain of the FIDE Delegate, as the then CEO and the International Director wrote in support of Nigel in the "dunderhead" Ethics action by Zurab with or without the agreement of the President.

Roger de Coverly wrote:

ECF spokesman wrote:I have to make it clear that this is NOT a firm proposal by the board at this point - merely an instrument to start discussions

So what is the position? I thought that the board of the ECF are proposing that if
(a) you live in England
(b) you want to play competitive chess
(c) you don't want to become a member (shareholder) of the ECF then
something unpleasant would happen to you and the debate was over the nature of the unpleasantness and whether you got a vote or not.

Six years later, no-one extra has got a vote and the unpleasantness has resolved itself into being banned from playing if you are English, a non-member and want to play in a FIDE rated event, or if you aren't English, have no FIDE identity card and don't want to become English. Also if the event isn't FIDE rated, the organiser will be hit for a charge of £ 2 per game, unless it's the County Championship National Stages when it's £ 10 per game. The previous season, it had been that you defaulted the non-member board. They fell short of demanding a USCF or FFE position that everyone, including visiting foreigners were required to be members as a condition of participation in anything at all. At attempt to force this on schools chess as a condition of being graded was eventually rejected.

An immense amount of denial was created by the very simple proposition that per head charging was more expensive than per Game for average players, yet here it is as part of the initial justification.

Roger de Coverly wrote:

ECF spokesman wrote:and pays on average only £4.50 per year via game fee to the ECF

This equates to about 10 games - the stats on the SCCU grading page bear this out. In fact there are only about 3500 people who play more than 20 games a year.

What we have subsequently found out is that Universal Membership as proposed in 2008 would have meant the scrapping of Universal Grading. So you only got a grade if you were a member. Whether this meant that your game would only be graded if you played another graded member wasn't clarified and an inability of the advocates of Membership schemes to clarify either this or that they intended banning non-members must have contributed to the rejection of such schemes by the 2008 Council.

Whether the Director of Membership has plans for revisions to what ultimately emerged is probably going to take a back seat to the resolution of the major personality clash likely to dominate the next meeting.

ECF COUNCIL MEETING wrote: 26.4.08 in London
"The Board has become convinced that the future of the ECF depends on a Universal Membership Scheme and gives Council notice that it will present such a scheme for consideration to the AGM in October. The Board also believes that such a scheme should carry some element of direct empowerment - ie an element of One Man One Vote."

"Listen, and understand. Roger is out there. He can't be bargained with. He can't be reasoned with. He doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And he will absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead. "