What is the ECF for?

[Roger de Coverly]

If it actually means "spends too much on International Chess" then it should say so.

That was how I read it. After all the ECF doesn't even reward titled players with free lifetime membership. (Didn't new Indian title holders once get a house?)

There's some horror stories recorded in old NCCU minutes. For example from
http://www.nccu.org.uk/nccu/mins/docs/MN080602.DOC

Dave Cole reported that the BCF grading fee had been increased to 32p. Mike O’Hara said that this had been violently objected to by NCCU delegates, especially since the game fee increase was linked to sponsoring the British Olympiad team.

You might have supposed the then BCF President who was present would have objected but

Mike also raised the concern that a coup d’etat had been staged by the BCF CEO and Finance Officer, in that the Chairman Gerry Walsh was being side-lined. Gerry confirmed this was his belief as well – he was not being invited to meetings. The secretary commentated that internecine wars such as this damaged further the BCF’s standing in the eyes of NCCU members, to which the politics were irrelevant for the vast majority of chess players. This seemed to be the consensus of the meeting. The secretary asked that Gerry take note of this and report these feelings back to the BCF management board, to which Gerry agreed. MO’H made a plea for all NCCU counties to supply proxy votes if the issue came to one of no-confidence in the CEO and Finance officer. Over and above this, the meeting agreed that the gathering of all NCCU county votes together was necessary in order that the voice of the NCCU could be clearly heard. Mike agreed to pull together a note to all NCCU leagues, congresses and rapidplays requesting such a proxy gathering. The secretary agreed to circulate this note when made available.

[PeterFarr]

Good grief.

[David Robertson]

Roger repeatedly wheels out this claptrap as a distinguishing feature of 'the North'. In fact, it is little more than a distinguishing feature of a small group of patzers clustered within the burned-out shell of the NCCU. For a time, they generated enough cackle to win a 'special deal' from the weak-kneed ECF. And embolded by this, would hint at secession from time to time.

But at no point, never, did this bunch speak for the bulk of committed players in the North. I have never heard anything from the wider region's players that would be dissimilar to the views of players elsewhere in the country. Indeed, whenever the NCCU shower have appealed for general popular support for their anti-ECF or UDI fantasies, the players have rejected them. Completely. The NCCU does not speak in our name.

[Roger de Coverly]

But at no point, never, did this bunch speak for the bulk of committed players in the North.

The committed players in the North never turned up at local meetings and attempted to dismiss them from office or at least pass motions opposing their views.

For a time, they generated enough cackle to win a 'special deal' from the weak-kneed ECF.

They were demanding a membership scheme for years. Eventually they got one and then forced it nationally.

[David Robertson]

Desperate stuff, Roger. The NCCU people only had any purchase on ECF because ECF relies on a thoroughly undemocratic unrepresentative structure of hollowed-out and largely obsolete regional and county bodies populated by blokes who'd be more useful if they remained in their potting sheds. No sane person would trudge miles to debate the virtues of the u-100 regional club championship and its ilk.

And 'membership' was not what NCCU wanted. They sought an MO, a collective membership arrangement at a discount. But people like myself - vociferously myself on the Atticus forum - called for a membership scheme of a kind that has finally emerged. Indeed, I was the first, in 2007, to set out proposals for a tiered membership scheme - an arrangement not accepted, wrongly, by the Regan board. And I'm a longstanding advocate of scrapping intermediate obsolescent bodies in favour of the club as the basic unit of association with ECF.

[Paul Dargan]

I guess the question must be - if the ECF helps develop, nurture and coach players in order to achieve 1 titled player a year, etc. - is it then reasonable for the best of those players to expect to be paid fees to represent their federation at the Olympiad, etc. My opinion is that our leading players should want to play for their country in the Olympiad and we certainly shouldn't be paying fees for their participation.

Of course if some of those players feel they got to where they are without significant support from their federation, then they are of course entitled to a different opinion. Otherwise send a development team who dont need to be paid to represent their country.

Paul

[Roger de Coverly]

And 'membership' was not what NCCU wanted. They sought an MO, a collective membership arrangement at a discount.

The characteristic feature of which was that you paid a fixed sum regardless of how many games you played. I see no difference between that and current Bronze membership, except that it's now a higher price if you play in Congresses or the 4NCL. Without the retention of the £ 2 concession, a single League game would cost £ 12.

Was it really desired by membership enthusiasts that the ECF would end up having to tell schools chess administrators that their inter-school matches cannot be graded unless every single player including the last minute reserves are ECF members?

My opinion is that our leading players should want to play for their country in the Olympiad and we certainly shouldn't be paying fees for their participation

.

Paul is a Northern player I believe and quite a strong one at that.

The ECF have rejected that attitude, indeed it was put to the vote at the April Council meeting. If you did adopt such a policy, the strongest team you could hope for would look something like the top ENG boards of Barbican 1.

[Paul Dargan]

Roger - please don't selectively quote me ... I hold the view on the basis that the BCF/ECF provided those players with opportunities to develop, support, trips to World/European Youths Ch, coaching, etc. ... Having invested in an infrastructure to produce top players it seems a bit much to then fund these people to represent their federation - it's not like there's much else happening in the chess world at the time of the Olympiad, so it's not as if they can claim they're losing other revenue opportunities?

Paul

[Roger de Coverly]

Having invested in an infrastructure to produce top players it seems a bit much to then fund these people to represent their federation -

Professional players have the attitude that they should be paid for their appearances. They apply it just as much to the British Championships as to team events. In the context of the Olympiad, there can be events elsewhere going on. There was one year when one player, thinking that his fee wouldn't be met, agreed to play somewhere else. When he could in fact be afforded, he came in for the second half of the event. I think it was his worst score for many appearances.

Whilst the British Championships have been rescheduled to avoid the clash, I cannot believe that the world of summer chess tournaments will take a two week hiatus at the start of August 2014.

I hold the view on the basis that the BCF/ECF provided those players with opportunities to develop, support, trips to World/European Youths Ch, coaching, etc. -

In the context of a journey from IM to super GM, I'd imagine that the BCF/ECF contributes little more than a benign environment.

[Martin Regan]

Indeed, I was the first, in 2007, to set out proposals for a tiered membership scheme - an arrangement not accepted, wrongly, by the Regan board.

Ah David, I fear the memory is playing tricks. As I recall, that idea was mooted by you on this forum but never formally discussed by the board. For what it’s worth, I thought the idea had merit.

[David Robertson]

Indeed, as the years pass by, Martin, the memory does play tricks, not least deep into variations of the Moscow Gambit and the like. But not here; nor in my ability to recite Shakespeare's Sonnets. My proposals were indeed repeated here in this place a year or so back, modified and amplified to embrace 'political rights'. To no avail, of course. But the original proposal, and the debate thereon, was published to the Atticus forum in 2007. You may have had sympathy with the idea, as with much we discussed. But 'your' Board opted for a single-tier, flat-rate, solution. Unworkable; and wrong. Alas.

Meanwhile, your question of 2008: what is it the ECF should do? - remains unanswered.

[JulianClissold]

Jack Rudd thinks that the discussion about the NED post is just General Waffle and wants to know what EPSCA is doing.

What are EPSCA trying to do?

Are you succeeding in doing that?

What would you say the intrinsic value of your aims is to the rest of English chess?

The question is a fair one and I will try and respond based on our AGM this weekend. We want to promote chess for juniors; we want to promote chess in schools, in clubs and in county associations. We want to promote it for children who may only play occasionally and we want to promote it for children who are more ambitious. We do this through the National Schools Tournament, through the England Squad; through the Associations competitions and through events like the Junior Rapidplay.
Every year hundreds of schools and their children take part in competitive chess because of EPSCA.
We want their experience to be positive and of high quality. To do this we work closely with schools all over the country. Many of EPSCA's people are teachers or chess coaches. This takes hard work, commitment and also a very hard headed approach to our finances. In the last twelve months we have had to confront a number of problems and challenges with our National Schools Tournament, but I am pleased to note that we were able to report that this year it has maintained its size, improved its format and showed the same financial return
We still have more to do, there are areas of the country we do not get to as well as we would like; we are working on that. Next year we hope to have a South West Tournament. We don't work as closely as we would like with our partners and colleagues, but I am pleased to say that our collaboration with the ECF Junior Sqaud (Phil Ehr, Andrew Martin and others) over the last twelve months has been growing steadily.
I am not complacent about the organisation; but I am clear that it has a clear identity and sense of its position in the chess world. I am equally sure that it has the desire to collaborate with other organsiations. I was very pleased, in Manchster and Bolton, to be able to collaborate with Malcom Pein and introduce new Bolton schools to Chess in Schools and Communities. Manchester Junior Chess (affiliated to EPSACA) is responding by giving preferential entry to CSC children in all our junior congresses, and seeking to engage them in our Manchester Representative Teams. At a National Level EPSCA received a request from CSC in Newham to enter our National Associations Competition. We hope to be able to help them do just that.
So not generalised waffle, but a clear purpose and a clear direction with real gains for chess. I would want to bring that approach to acting as Non-Executive Director at the ECF.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Thank you for answering my questions, Julian. I wish your South West tournament good luck, and hope it translates into increased numbers of young players joining chess clubs in the region.

[David Pardoe]

Reading through the latest comments, it looks like some determined hard liners don't want the MCF in the NCCU.
What's new there? Nothing. ....
It demonstrates what can happen when `radicals` take over at the asylum. It is far too easy for these extreme elements and cowboys to seize control of our major chess bodies and simply exploit them for there own agendas/purposes. Significant potential conflicts of interest are not hard to find....
Dazzle the Plebs with a few `carrots` and off you go...you know the routine, I`m sure.
They can turn the whole show into a pantomime ....and hide behind a veneer of democracy and razzmatazz to wreak havoc.
But the news is not all bad. Firstly, the MCF is well placed in the MCCU, and the counties events there have proved good value over many years, thanks to the devoted efforts of various officers. The MCCU top brass went to considerable trouble to ensure that the MCF had a place in the `counties` scene, despite being bullied by certain thuggish elements from the LCA, whose behaviour was absolutely disgraceful.

So, to those getting agitated by all this...stay cool, and don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Restructuring various Union groups may well have much to commend it....not least, to reduce potential travel problems.
There have been various ideas outlined on a number of threads here (over past years), that might well offer excellent opportunities to take county/Union chess forward. Getting people to accept change is not easy, particularly when so many regard these as `power tokens` by which they can weald influence at the top tables.
For the north-west, one potentially elegant `solution` might be to treat it as `3 Ridings`, i.e., Central Lancs, Merseyside, and the MCF, each operating as a separate entity for chess purposes, but retaining its many long standing associations..

The MCCU have approached this fairly sensibly and found compromises that ensure reasonable travel for most counties.
The real issue is about having `stable` bodies that can work together in the best interests of chess, as opposed to engaging in self interest battles, feuds & the resulting chaos.. That it would be highly desirable for the MCF to work closely with counterparts in the NCCU, regardless of which Union they belong to, goes without saying. May this continue and strengthen to the benefit of our chess communities.
We are in the business of promoting chess, and should not be inhibited by historic boundaries. They are simply lines drawn in the sand.

The SCCU are equally guilty, as other are, of falling into this trap (ie, self interest first). Certain elements there seem unwilling to engage in `change` when it doesn't suit, even though there might be demonstratable benefits for others. They play there `controlling cards` and appear to adopt an attitude of `we`re alright Jack`, which can block many constructive initiatives.
So, with a bit of flexibility we might just see some steady progress which might lead to better days ahead.

To return to the main thrust of this thread..
Julian rightly asks an interesting and reasonable question.....i.e., What the ECF is for?
Yet another interesting question is `who is the ENGLISH Chess Federation for...? . Who should be trusted to oversee our crown jewels...?? And who might benefit if these were to be split up, with the `treasures` all going in one `commercial` pot and the rump `rank and file` consigned to obscurity and oblivion.?
Charity status has some potentially dangerous bear traps...the ECF needs to think through the implications of this very carefully. Dont press the self destruct button.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Yet another interesting question is `who is the ENGLISH Chess Federation for...? . Who should be trusted to oversee our crown jewels...?? And who might benefit if these were to be split up, with the `treasures` all going in one `commercial` pot and the rump `rank and file` consigned to obscurity and oblivion.?
Charity status has some potentially dangerous bear traps...the ECF needs to think through the implications of this very carefully. Dont press the self destruct button.

I'm probably going to regret asking this question, but what potentially dangerous bear traps are you thinking of?