ECF History Website

[Paul Cooksey]

A thread inspired by this comment:

It occurs to me that few of you will even know about the History of the BCF written by John Poole and me and published in the 2004 Yearbook. I will see whether I can get that scanned in and put on the ECF site.

It resonated with me because I think this history is hard to find and it is in the interests of British chess to have an archive before it is lost. I'd like a section on the ECF website for it.

On content, for example:

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Penrose is much less that is deserved. Even I could expand it significantly. But it is probably the only resource readily available to an interested new player.

- Profiles of all our grandmasters would be deserved, and might be useful as promotional material.

- I think an archive of completed events would have value too. I know I am stepping on the yearbook's toes, but still prefer a website since it could grow in size with limited cost implications.

I would like to employ Edward Winter full time to get it going. But not realistic. So maybe a wiki format? Although I would accept a need for moderation.

[Paul McKeown]

I think that would be a great idea. Someone would need to provide the hosting. Someone would need to carry out the usual periodic maintenance. Someone would need to act as moderator. I would love to volunteer our esteemed forum host, but I imagine Carl would demur. Anyone?

[Christopher Kreuzer]

[moved from other thread]

It would be better if any wiki were set up separately as a separate entity. There are plenty of places where that could be done, depending on the sort of material you want to put up. It is best if the official body limit itself to publishing official documentation and sources that are then used "further down the information chain" by other (secondary and tertiary) sources. Actually, what is really needed is for the ECF website to look to creating stable webpages that won't vanish the next time the website is redesigned. I'm still very miffed that lots of the old website was lost to history, possible permanently, unless bits of it ended up on various archive places. And of course, anything really historic should be published in print form and end up in libraries somewhere - hopefully the editors of the Yearbook know that this is part of their role.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

. I'm still very miffed that lots of the old website was lost to history, possible permanently, unless bits of it ended up on various archive places.

Did you know about wayback machine?

For example you can go back to 2006 here http://web.archive.org/web/200602070048 ... ss.org.uk/

Actually I think the look of that version of the website is better than the current one.

Thanks. How would I, er, find the mentions of me on there!

[Colin Patterson]

Quite agree about the loss of material from the ECF website. Old crosstables of British Championships etc. have been available over the years, but frequently either disappear or become very hard to find. It shouldn't be too hard to have a comprehensive archive area accessed from the homepage, should it?

Similarly frustrating - there are authors of wikipedia articles who reference-link to new emerging facts/info at the ECF website only to find the link is dead a week or so later. This means that the source of those facts then becomes untraceable.

A further request - could the English top 10 players (by FIDE rating) be displayed permanently in a box on the ECF's homepage? - I first saw this on the Armenian or Azerbaijani chess federation's website years ago and thought (a) it would be nice for the players that put in the hard work to have this position of pride/recognition acknowledged and (b) it would work as a tool to encourage improvers/juniors from an early age - i.e. these are the guys you need to watch and beat and the ratings that you need to aspire to, then you too will see your name given pride of place. (As an aside, you could then click on the name of a player to access his/her profile, should that ever come to fruition - see discussion above).

[John Upham]

The ECF already pays for hosting with Zen Internet for the main site plus the CoM site.

The hosting has more than enough capacity to accommodate the grading database and a history site.

[John Upham]

Ok, only offering.

The offer is very welcome but since the ECF has paid for capacity it might as well use it.

Also, it would allow the grading database to be brought in house if that was seen a good use of Office resource: maybe it isn't?

[Roger de Coverly]

Also, it would allow the grading database to be brought in house if that was seen a good use of Office resource: maybe it isn't?

The ECF appears determined to use the grading data for political purposes to push through an implied licence to play scheme whilst denying that it is trying to ban players from chess. To do this, it will have to keep data ie grades and grading histories confidential. These means an end to the ability to download the published list containing all players with enough games to qualify.

The Office used to handle grading. As one of the ECF's more visible services, it was taken away from them when staff changes nearly wrecked the system. The point being that the quality of grading depends rather crucially on careful monitoring of the data being input.

[Paul McKeown]

How independent would editorial policy of any history site be if it was hosted by the ECF?

[John Upham]

How independent would editorial policy of any history site be if it was hosted by the ECF?

I'd suggest that the best approach would be use to Wikipedia for a history site and then anyone can contribute content.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Chess_Federation

An archive site would be a different matter and probably ought to be maintained by the ECF.

[Paul McKeown]

How independent would editorial policy of any history site be if it was hosted by the ECF?

I'd suggest that the best approach would be use to Wikipedia for a history site and then anyone can contribute content.

If it was Wikipedia, I really couldn't be bothered. Fairly closed community, hidden to a large degree behind anonymous internet credentials, coupled with a feeling of an establishment protecting what it has produced and is sensitive to critical comment. Undoubtedly I'm completely wrong in my assessment, but I would be much happier to contribute to something where I actually know who is managing the editorial process and who is submitting content and having an idea why they might have something to say about English or British chess. Dealing with wikipedia leaves me with the feeling of dealing with a huge kinetic barrier with little chance of tunnelling.