MCCU Proposal to reduce number of Boards in County Matches

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Sean Hewitt

Post by Sean Hewitt » Sat Apr 28, 2007 7:13 pm

Chris Majer wrote:
So its not misleading at all, its just that it is from a peak. At least you now appear to accept (by implication) that it is the number of active players that is the key stat, not the number of half games played - as you had claimed earlier. One Nil to the good guys!
Indeed 1-0 to the good guys and an own goal by Sean. I have been publishing the number of active players in the ECF/BCF Strategic Planning documents for several years. I chose to use the number of games played for this theme because I have to hand nearly twenty years of data. I only have to hand about seven years of data on the number of active players.
Sounds about right. You use the wrong measure, not because its appropriate but because its all you have. You wouldn't know strategic planning if it came and bit you in the *** :oops:
Chris Majer wrote: The debate is about the MCCU proposal to reduce the number of boards in county matches. Therefore to use a peak to justify the proposal is inappropriate, after all we had 16 boards in county matches pre the Short boom.
The fact is that player numbers are down 30% from the 'peak' and 20% from the average. Chris is fiddling whilst Rome burns.
Chris Majer wrote:
County Chess is in terminal decline at the moment
The number of county teams in the SCCU increased last year. :P
Ah well, thats ok then. :oops: Those of us North of Watford can clearly bugger off.

Sean Hewitt

Post by Sean Hewitt » Mon Apr 30, 2007 11:54 am

Martin Regan wrote:For information:

The resolution was rejected at Council by a large margin
I heard it was circa 140-40 which is certainly a large margin! That said, 40 votes in favour suggests significant minority support. As I said before, democracy in action which must be a good thing. I understand that Chris Majer did agree to undertake a review of the whole County Championship structure, so thats good too.

Unfortunately, given his record on grading, we might expect to see that sometime around 2012 :lol:

User avatar
Administrator
Site Admin
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 7:45 pm
Location: Evesham
Contact:

Post by Administrator » Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:47 pm

I would prefer it if both Sean and Chris kept to the point on this debate, yes it's a forum but I am not keen on any form of personal attack or name calling!

Keep it to the point and count this as a very mild warning...

Cheers
Carl

David Pardoe
Posts: 1221
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:29 pm
Location: NORTH WEST

Post by David Pardoe » Tue May 08, 2007 12:51 pm

Whilst I agree with the concept of politeness...a little lite banter can add some fun to proceedings.
Its worth seeing how other bb`s operate for a broader view...Stifflng the debate is not what we should be about......just like very short statements can hide the underlying realities.....at times.
Have a look at some of the Financial sites, eg, http://www.iii.co.uk or Football sites...to see what happens...but I must say that some of these are way OTT, both in what they allow...and what they sensor...

However...some observations....Firstly..this debate came about because of the premise that chess is in decline.......??
So maybe any actions should look at that aspect...ie, what can be done to encourage chess more generally.
If chess is in decline....
Then, as I understand it...Junior chess thrives, 4NCL chess is thriving....and chess on the net is apparently thriving.......so its not all bad out there. Have we some lessons to learn.....

Looking at the various stats put about...it appears that there are about 8000 - 10000 graded players....from those notes about chess bands,etc....
yet...note the following headline ...`Under BCF website`....
However, the British Chess Federation (BCF), which represents Britain's 60000 regular tournament players, is now set to play its killer move. ...which appeared only two years ago! .....when we still had that fine body (with all the potential it embodied.

If we have 60,000 such players...thats 12k per Union on average...surely we should not be struggling as we seem to be, to attract players.....but why are so many clearly not playing graded games....?
Can we bring more of these into the fold......
BRING BACK THE BCF

Sean Hewitt

Post by Sean Hewitt » Tue May 08, 2007 1:14 pm

David Pardoe wrote: If we have 60,000 such players...thats 12k per Union on average...surely we should not be struggling as we seem to be, to attract players.....but why are so many clearly not playing graded games....?
Can we bring more of these into the fold......
Sadly David, I suspect the answer is that you should not believe all that you read! There is no way we had "60,000 regular tournament players" 2 years ago.

Post Reply