How many players have defected since the membership change?

[Nick Burrows]

I noted that GM Matthew Turner joined the Scotland Federation. Today I noticed that IM's Max Devereux and Houska are representing Norway. Are there any more?

Also do we have any idea yet if the ECF membership has increased? I know it is the first time I have ever joined...

[IM Jack Rudd]

I noted that GM Matthew Turner joined the Scotland Federation. Today I noticed that IM's Max Devereux and Houska are representing Norway. Are there any more?

I just checked the FIDE rating list; there are five players called Houska - three registered with the Czech Republic and two with England.

[Roger de Coverly]

Also do we have any idea yet if the ECF membership has increased? I know it is the first time I have ever joined...

There are more ECF members than ever before. That's not because they want to be, but because they have to be in order to play in graded chess events. The key test will be whether the normal number of new or returning players shows up on the grading list to replace retiring players.

If you mean membership as a loose term to include all players on the grading list, at this stage of a season, you wouldn't be able to tell.

Although married to a Norwegian, Jovanka remains ENG as far as anyone is aware. GM Tony Kosten defected to France around ten years ago or more. According to what he wrote at the time in Kingpin, this was because he objected to the BCF's "your money or your rating" demand for individual membership.

(edit) There are players at slightly lower levels who have defected to Wales or Scotland. It had the advantage for 4NCL players of not having to pay £ 27 a year to take part, although they now get caught by £ 2 per game, Bronze, Silver or £ 6 per Congress if they take to the board in any non-FIDE event in England. (/edit)

[Nick Burrows]

I noted that GM Matthew Turner joined the Scotland Federation. Today I noticed that IM's Max Devereux and Houska are representing Norway. Are there any more?

I just checked the FIDE rating list; there are five players called Houska - three registered with the Czech Republic and two with England.

Oh. I was going off this http://www.bergensjakk.no/oslointernational/ Maybe it's just the club she represents in Norway?

[Sean Hewitt]

According to what he wrote at the time in Kingpin, this was because he objected to the BCF's "your money or your rating" demand for individual membership.

LOL. The irony of the French having compulsory membership!

There are players at slightly lower levels who have defected to Wales or Scotland. It had the advantage for 4NCL players of not having to pay £ 27 a year to take part, although they now get caught by £ 2 per game, Bronze, Silver or £ 6 per Congress if they take to the board in any non-FIDE event in England.

It also has the 'advantage' of having to fork out a €250 transfer fee.

[Roger de Coverly]

LOL. The irony of the French having compulsory membership!

I suppose from the GM point of view, it was the French club who were paying, as part of the cost of having him play for them.

It was in part the tone of the BCF's position he objected to. It wasn't simply that he wouldn't be allowed to play in the UK, but that they would take away his rating (and title) so he wouldn't be able to play anywhere. Of course for many years that was an empty threat until Adam Raoof decided to implement it.

[David Robertson]

There are more ECF members than ever before

Inconvenient Fact No. 1

That's not because they want to be

Arrogant Opinion No. 1

...but because they have to be in order to play in graded chess events

Just Like It Was Under Game Fee No. 1

[Roger de Coverly]

Just Like It Was Under Game Fee No. 1

Sorry to point this out, but under Game Fee, it was the organisations who had to become the members of the ECF not the players. This enabled organisations to pay in bulk for the existence of the ECF and got them grading and other services for a price independent of the number of local participants. I'm aware of the argument that it's the players who paid Game Fee. I reject it for a couple of reasons. First it's an economic rather than a legal position, the liability was that of the organisation. Secondly organisations can have other sources of financing, so the organisation's Game Fee didn't have to be met exclusively by players.

As to being more ECF members, there's the point that the list isn't trustworthy as it contains names with expiry dates in the past. But with more relevance, if you are offered a choice between paying £ 12, more than £ 12, or not playing chess at all isn't it reasonably obvious that players will choose to pay £12 if they want to continue to play chess? Experience of how the issue is handled by clubs is that they can reduce the amounts needed from individuals by up to about £ 6 to reflect savings in league costs. This will benefit those who are already members of the ECF and demands more from those who weren't by virtue of them having to pay for ECF membership as well. This presumably was the experience of clubs in the NCCU area when MOs were first introduced.

[David Robertson]

...under Game Fee, it was the organisations who had to become the members of the ECF not the players

Finally (sigh), after a zillion posts and endless tedious objections, we arrive at the truth. You'd far prefer a system where organisations are members to one where players are members. Jesus wept!

[Warren Kingston]

...under Game Fee, it was the organisations who had to become the members of the ECF not the players

Finally (sigh), after a zillion posts and endless tedious objections, we arrive at the truth. You'd far prefer a system where organisations are members to one where players are members. Jesus wept!

A zillion posts, are you sure David, I have been counting for the last three nights and I am up to 308,457,900 posts?
Only joking Roger.

[Roger de Coverly]

Finally (sigh), after a zillion posts and endless tedious objections, we arrive at the truth. You'd far prefer a system where organisations are members to one where players are members.

Why is that a problem? Demanding membership as a condition of playing chess is a barrier to participation. The French call it a license, usually licensing is used as a means of restriction such as driving licenses for use of motor vehicles or premises licenses for sale of alcohol or tobacco.

Equally why is it a problem that Congresses, particularly those sponsored should pay some of the costs of the ECF?

It's should be quite possible to have both individuals and organisations represented in the decision making process of the national chess body. That doesn't or shouldn't require every chess player to become a member of said national body.

[Nick Burrows]

For what it's worth, I feel happy to be a member. Without being prompted I may never have done so, and seeing as like many players it is my main pastime I guess it is my responsibility to help fund it's organisation. All this strategic thinking probably makes us a tad more frugal than is necessary!

Times change, and if the government won't fund us, we quite simply have to do it ourselves.

[Sean Hewitt]

Equally why is it a problem that Congresses, particularly those sponsored should pay some of the costs of the ECF?

Why do you believe it is a problem for those that derive most benefit from the ECF, i.e. players, to pay for it?

[Andy McCulloch]

Sean, please specify the benefits that players get from the ECF.

[Roger de Coverly]

Why do you believe it is a problem for those that derive most benefit from the ECF, i.e. players, to pay for it?

It seems to me that organisers, particularly Congresses derive benefit from the ECF's existence. It would hardly be possible to run Congresses in their current form without a reliable grading list.

Historically in the 1970s, the English chess scene expanded very rapidly through Congresses. It was an advantage that there were no membership requirements applicable to Congresses standing in the way, but a disadvantage that members of chess clubs who were part of county associations were expected to carry the burden of financing the BCF. This didn't matter a great deal because of sponsorship and grants until the late 1980s and early 1990s when the BCF was hit with double trouble of both loss of sponsorship and the fall out from the losses of the 1986 KvK match. For that matter the Hastings office started to expand as well. It was therefore a relief to clubs and counties when the BCF expanded its revenue base with the introduction of Game Fee which meant that independent leagues and Congresses were also helping to fund the BCF.