English Chess Forum

all well and good apart from a large club locally being given a few days notice to quit with matches still outstanding and was a venue for summer individual tournaments until then. I hope my association has picked this up.

Who looking forward to the meeting?

i'm looking forward to forum members going to provide 'live coverage' and those going not to have any transport delays.

Nick Grey wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:03 pm

i'm looking forward to forum members going to provide 'live coverage' and those going not to have any transport delays.

What happened?

The board got its membership rises and budget through without any significant difficulties.

The only close vote was on Chris Fegan's county championship proposal, which was entirely redrafted but narrowly lost anyway.

I'd describe the meeting as fractious. Another depressing ECF meeting for me, other than being compared to Richard Haddrell by the chair.

"Another depressing ECF meeting for me, other than being compared to Richard Haddrell by the chair."

Who was the chair?

Kevin Thurlow wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:13 pm

Who was the chair?

I wasn't there, but it was your old sparring partner Mike Gunn.

"I wasn't there, but it was your old sparring partner Mike Gunn."

Thanks David - I thought it might be, he received some rather terse messages from Richard relating to late submission of grading results. I doubt they were the best of friends!

It was a light-hearted comment based on Richard's habit of asking for the result of votes to be repeated, and in fairness everyone was amused (we could not tell if Mike was saying 119 or 190 at the back)

As it happens I had friendly relations with Richard over a period of about 15 years! With possibly a couple of exceptions I was always able to meet the ECF deallines for grading submissions.

"With possibly a couple of exceptions I was always able to meet the ECF deallines for grading submissions."

That's not what he said in an email to you, which he blind copied to me. I'll see if I can find it. Having said that, he did go into rant mode for no reason occasionally!

Paul Cooksey wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:03 pm

The only close vote was on Chris Fegan's county championship proposal, which was entirely redrafted but narrowly lost anyway.

According to the report by the Gold members' representative, the proposal became that a county fielding a female player got an extra board point. Nothing about whether the female player had to satisfy the same eligibility requirement as the male players.

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:37 pm

Paul Cooksey wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:03 pm

The only close vote was on Chris Fegan's county championship proposal, which was entirely redrafted but narrowly lost anyway.

According to the report by the Gold members' representative, the proposal became that a county fielding a female player got an extra board point. Nothing about whether the female player had to satisfy the same eligibility requirement as the male players.

Having seen the same report the way I read it was that any team fielding a female player got an extra bonus point. There is some logic in that as it might encourage teams to field an eligible female player irregardless of strength on the grounds that the point's start would negate that player losing (which obviously they might not do). Of course it gives an unfair advantage to those teams who have a female player strong enough to qualify but works better than the deterrent of a loss for not fielding a female player.

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:37 pm

According to the report by the Gold members' representative, the proposal became that a county fielding a female player got an extra board point. Nothing about whether the female player had to satisfy the same eligibility requirement as the male players.

My impression was that the eligibility requirement remained. I wasn't entirely clear on the details of the new proposal, just knew enough not to like it.

On a more general point, I was surprised that the pre-announced motion could be replaced without any warning by one to which it bore no resemblance. I suspect the Director of Women's Chess saw each of them as a proxy for "do you support women's chess or are you a dinosaur?". I opposed both because I believe they would be damaging to women's chess - as well as, obviously, to the County Championship.

Andrew Zigmond wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:50 pm

it might encourage teams to field an eligible female player irregardless of strength on the grounds that the point's start would negate that player losing (which obviously they might not do).

It might, but is there any reason to think that female players would wish to play on this basis if they're likely to be facing an opponent much stronger than themselves, and, perhaps, if they are the only female player in the team.