ENG FIDE Ratings must be ECF Members

[Roger de Coverly]

Stewart Reuben often says that a strength of English chess is that people have free rein to run their own events, but this seems to me to be to the detriment of the ECF.

VAT is one very good reason why the ECF doesn't run very much and would usually seek to structure new events as being distinct from it.

I'm sure you know the story of how Stewart took the Islington weekend congress from about 50 players in its first year to over 1200 within five or six years. Ok, RJF helped a bit.

He didn't need the BCF's permission to do this, or demand BCF membership of the players. The BCF would most likely have denied him permission to run the events, had they been able to do so. A similar story may apply to the Lloyds Bank Masters which was one of the earliest events which was both a Swiss and could offer Norm chances.

[Leonard Barden]

The BCF ran junior competitions. Then in the late 80s/early 90s, things like Junior Squad came along.

Historically quite false.

[harrylamb]

I guess ultimately the measure of effectiveness of a chess body is the number of members it has.

For a national chess body don't you mean number of players?

I would agree with that, but throughout the post I was trying to give numeric measures you that cannot argue over. Number of players you can have an argument about. Number of people paying money to be members is more definite. In any case I believe the two are related.

[Alex Holowczak]

The BCF ran junior competitions. Then in the late 80s/early 90s, things like Junior Squad came along.

Historically quite false.

Well, what I'm getting at is:
(1) The BCF ran junior events; if only the British Junior Championship, as part of the main British Championship.
(2) The myriad of other junior organisations (e.g. UKCC, Junior Squad, EPSCA, NYCA) all came along after the establishment of the original events the BCF ran.

I don't know the exact dates, but that's the thrust of what I'm getting at.

[David Pardoe]

Harry, your story is very interesting.
Chess clubs in country villages with 1000 members. How does that work. What makes it tic...?
Every model is different in each country, with differing history, and cultures are different.
Are you really suggesting that the ECF should be main organisors of chess..leagues, congresses, etc..
It does run the county events, which are reasonably supported, despite various problems...and has a hand in many activities, not least, the international scene, which is way off my radar.
You mentioned the success of various events in this country, including 4NCL...yet I do remember you criticising 4NCL Northern league, saying it costs too much. Yet they strive to offer very good chess in top grade venues & top grade playing conditions...you dont get ought for nought. Yet you apparently think nothing of trecking all the way to France to play. I guess there are other reasons for these trips....great wine, weather, and other french attractions....
And many UK clubs are very basic...because apparently UK players dont like spending money..or something.
I bet the French dont have anything like our County, Union, National structure, which incorporates a high level of autonomy within each group. So the ECF acts as an umbrella group (in my view), trying to bring `national focus`.
I agree your points about promoting chess, and maybe someone can formulate some framework that could operate better.
You`ll see that David Robertson on another related thread is trying to do just that.

[harrylamb]

Suppose an equivalent to the Junior Squad came along in France, and started to run trips and things. Would they have free rein to do so? You may reply that people don't feel the need to - fine - but what if they did?

It would not happen like that. It is one of the points I am trying to make. In France if you want to run an event you go to the FFE and it helps and supports you. In England you do not because the ECF is institutionally incapable of promoting chess. It is only interested in making money. It thinks money will solve its problems. But it does not. It got nearly half a million pounds from John Robinson. But what problems did it solve with that?

[Roger de Coverly]

In France if you want to run an event you go to the FFE and it helps and supports you.

As far as I understand it the FFE carries a rather large stick. In order to be both French and a chess player, you need a "Licence to play chess". You need this to enter tournaments and you get the licence by being a club member. Of course the FFE then have the power to take the licence away. We saw this in the Feller case. So clubs are given a monopoly.

The other comparison you need is the amount of money the French Government and its local agencies gives to chess, both nationally and locally. There's also the sponsorship of the FFE by the Paribas Bank which has been going for several years.

[Alex Holowczak]

In France if you want to run an event you go to the FFE and it helps and supports you.

As far as I understand it the FFE carries a rather large stick. In order to be both French and a chess player, you need a "Licence to play chess". You need this to enter tournaments and you get the licence by being a club member. Of course the FFE then have the power to take the licence away. We saw this in the Feller case. So clubs are given a monopoly.

The other comparison you need is the amount of money the French Government and its local agencies gives to chess, both nationally and locally. There's also the sponsorship of the FFE by the Paribas Bank which has been going for several years.

This is definitely true.

I've heard the story of a player who withdrew from an event, and had his membership revoked for x months. He was effectively banned. This meant there would be serious financial penalties for any event that let the player play in it.

It's a bit like the Pakistani no-balling cricketer who turned out in a Surrey League game. His ban was global, and even included that. The Surrey League probably has no direct connection to the ICC at all, but the ICC ban still ruled over it; probably using the ECB as an intermediate.

Most sports rule with an iron fist, but the ECF adopts a much leaner approach.

[David Robertson]

Harry's description of the FFE arrangements is indeed interesting; his diagnosis of ECF in comparison to the FFE reflects my own elsewhere.

Of specific interest to my proposals is the way the FFE relates to the playing community. The French conventionally favour a more centralised way of organising their affairs: it's the Bonapartist tradition. Hence it's no great surprise to see the FFE as the dominant organising force in French chess.

But hugely interesting (for me if no other) is that the FFE licences players to participate in formal FFE (regional) leagues. No licence; no play in the league. And the annual FFE licence costs €45 per player (c. £40) with minor regional variations. Moreover, the FFE requires that all licenced players be formally registered with an accredited club. It is through affiliated and formally registered clubs that payment for licences is collected annually.

Licences are issued in two main categories: licence sportive for classical chess; and a licence loisir for more 'social chess' including rapidplay.

I can't yet discover how these arrangements translate into democratic participation. It wouldn't surprise me if they don't. The French like to keep a tight grip on things these days, having had quite enough 'democratic participation' 1789-1793 to last them a lifetime.

[Roger de Coverly]

But hugely interesting (for me if no other) is that the FFE licences players to participate in formal FFE (regional) leagues. No licence; no play in the league. And the annual FFE licence costs €45 per player (c. £40) with minor regional variations. Moreover, the FFE requires that all licenced players be formally registered with an accredited club. It is through affiliated and formally registered clubs that payments for licences is collected annually.

A couple of points on this. Payment is through the clubs, which in some cases are heavily sponsored, so individuals may not be paying.

Comparable amounts are payable in English Chess. For example the entry fee to Division 1 of the 4NCL is £ 300 and covers you for 16 players. I make that £ 18.75 a head. On top of that you have £ 25 for ECF membership. So that's £ 43.75 a head which is in the same ballpark as the FFE.

The bigger point is the "Licence to play chess". Is anyone in favour of this? Would this mean that being critical of the Directors of the ECF on a forum or elsewhere could result in points on your licence?

(edit) It's not just the league for which you need a licence, Congresses as well (/edit)

[David Robertson]

Comparable amounts are payable in English Chess. For example the entry fee to Division 1 of the 4NCL is £ 300 and covers you for 16 players. I make that £ 18.75 a head. On top of that you have £ 25 for ECF membership. So that's £ 43.75 a head which is in the same ballpark as the FFE

Maybe. But steady on. The entire population of the 4NCL is only c.500 players (allow 750 over a season). The FFE is issuing some 24,000 annual licences @ £40 if I interpret things correctly.

[harrylamb]

Chess clubs in country villages with 100 members. How does that work. What makes it tic...?

The club is the centre of village life. It organises meals out, barbeques etc. These things that are important to the French. Some of them would not work/happen in the UK. For example its AGM is 10.00am on a Sunday morning. In England no one would turn up. But the AGM is over at 12 and everyone goes into the field outside for a barbeque for 4-6 hours. The food is fantastic and being Burgandy the wine is even better

And many UK clubs are very basic...because apparently UK players dont like spending money..or something.

I do not think that is true in England and it is not true in France. Playing conditions in my French club are very similar to Bolton Chess Club.

[David Pardoe]

I believe that Turkey also operates a licience scheme. Maybe that has caused some to leave mainstream chess and turn to online chess as a cheaper alternative.

As to the UK model, with its historic roots. I wonder if it effectively embraces the auntrepenarial spirit of free enterprise.
Dont wait for big brother when you can get out there and do it yourself...!!
This does work/can work, but it does require a fighting spirit to get out there and fly your colours. ie, volunteers.
Some of our chess bodies are a touch `control freakish`, and not particularly accessable to the rank and file.
Agendas get played out by certain parties......chess comes further down the list. They can therefore create an `anti` feeling, and actuall drive away/alienate the membership.

Events like e2e4 demonstrate `free spirit enterprise` model well.. They fill a gap in the market.
RJF give chess a phenominal boost in the seventies, the like of which we might never see again.
Unfortunately I think this created an aire of complacancy, and chess has declined because organisations have failed to reach out to communities, so new faces havent come along to replace the past generation...at least not in any real numbers, although I think some are starting to grasp that mettle..
We have an absurd situation where local papers report on things like local darts, but you rarely see reports about chess leagues in local press. So we`ve lost (never had) a vital basic connection with joe public, that could play an important role in reminding these people that there really are local chess clubs in there area, and they really would like to see new faces of all standards, beginner to expert. We need to address this fundamental issue, down at grass root club level.
I know Manchester have made good strides forward in trying to grow its leagues and attract more `start-up` players in recent years.

[Roger de Coverly]

The FFE is issuing some 24,000 annual licences @ £40 if I interpret things correctly.

Some of that may effectively be the costs of entry to the regional and national leagues, which is why I mentioned the 4NCL.
The French structure is as if the 4NCL had absorbed county matches in their entirety and switched local leagues to weekends with a certain amount of club consolidation as well. I have heard French players comment that outside of the week-long tournaments which are usually in holiday periods and the regional league weekends, there's nothing going on. This contrasts with England where during the season, there's continual league matches and weekend Congresses.

Having lots of "members" doesn't mean the money will be spent wisely. The German federation, which is even bigger, was unable to afford the fees requested by its first choice team for the last Olympiad. Allegations were that there were so many officials with expense accounts that all the money raised had been spent.

[Paul Cooksey]

I can't yet discover how these arrangements translate into democratic participation.

http://www.echecs.asso.fr/Reglements/111.pdf

You'll have to give my mauvais French and google translate some time to form opinions.

I was tempted to quote the whole of Harry Lamb's first post in this thread, annotated with emoticons. But to save time:

It was revelatory, for me at least.