English Chess Forum

J T Melsom wrote: ↑

Sun May 19, 2019 8:53 pm

I think you can see conservatism on all sides, but the low taxation lobby are the more dangerous in my view.

I would have no objection to being described as in that lobby. Not because I believe in low taxes in all contexts, but because I do not see much that the ECF can do to encourage a new adult chess player more effective than making it £20 a year cheaper.

I'm not comfortable with the Boards position we have to take a leap of faith, I'd like to see see some likelihood of success first. But of course Jon is in the majority.

Ah not sure we are any clearer - I think there are conservative forces across the board in terms of defending the status quo, as well as those who are low tax conservatives. There is some overlap but its not clear cut except where an aversion to innovation coincides with a resistance to spend. It is however hard to see how the ECF at national level can be expected to be leading innovation if member bodies deny it the funds.

I think Andrew's remarks about Yorkshire are about the innate conservatism that stifles innovation and progress. The proposals he has referred to have little or no financial impact, but still face opposition.

[Written at the same time as Paul Cooksey's latest post accepting his preference for low taxation but not as a response to it]

There seem to be three potential pinch points for chess organizations - lack of money, lack of labour, or lack of enterprise - and which is most important is a big variable. (The reason we don't have all that many title-norm tournaments in this country, for example, looks mostly like a lack of money issue, whereas the declining fortunes of many clubs are probably a lack of enterprise issue - the trouble there lies not in funding an activity or getting people to do it so much as working out what needs to happen.)

Paul Cooksey wrote: ↑

Sun May 19, 2019 8:58 pm

I edited the word conservative before Andrew replied because I thought it might cause confusion in the sense fiscal conservative.

I do not understand the relevance of Andrew's comments on Yorkshire chess.

My point was that the majority of club/ league stalwarts want things to stay as they have always been, even though some structures haven't changed since the 1970s and are not fit for purpose now. I gave a example of current issues within Yorkshire because that's where I'm based but I strongly suspect that there is a similar pattern in most county associations.

Andrew Zigmond wrote: ↑

Sun May 19, 2019 9:26 pm

My point was that the majority of club/ league stalwarts want things to stay as they have always been, even though some structures haven't changed since the 1970s and are not fit for purpose now.

Part of the problem, of course, is defining your purpose. One of the issues is that these structures often are fit for the purpose of providing the existing members of the club/league with regular chess, but they aren't fit for the purpose of attracting and keeping new players.

IM Jack Rudd wrote: ↑

Sun May 19, 2019 9:31 pm

Part of the problem, of course, is defining your purpose. One of the issues is that these structures often are fit for the purpose of providing the existing members of the club/league with regular chess, but they aren't fit for the purpose of attracting and keeping new players.

I think you'd expect a balanced strategy including invest, divest and sustain activities. But the ECF does not work in that way.

IM Jack Rudd wrote: ↑

Sun May 19, 2019 9:24 pm

The reason we don't have all that many title-norm tournaments in this country, for example, looks mostly like a lack of money issue

It hasn't really been explained why this is a priority. Given the choice between spending ten days in Majorca and ten days in Birmingham ( city chosen at random, no offence intended ) most norm seekers seem quite happy to head for the sun. Perhaps norm events in the UK are considered to bring prestige to the ECF, but do club players around the country want to pay for that?

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Sun May 19, 2019 10:12 pm

IM Jack Rudd wrote: ↑

Sun May 19, 2019 9:24 pm

The reason we don't have all that many title-norm tournaments in this country, for example, looks mostly like a lack of money issue

Given the choice between spending ten days in Majorca and ten days in Birmingham ( city chosen at random, no offence intended ) most norm seekers seem quite happy to head for the sun.

Such players may also be considering the risk of them performing at the required level, but not getting the required mix of opponents to achieve a norm. Going abroad may not much affect the risk of getting too many opponents from one federation, but it should pretty well eliminate the risk of getting too many opponents from England.

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Sun May 19, 2019 10:12 pm

Given the choice between spending ten days in Majorca and ten days in Birmingham ( city chosen at random, no offence intended ) most norm seekers seem quite happy to head for the sun.

This made me smile as I once spent some time wandering around Birmingham looking at potential venues before abandoning the idea

Hmmm? Didn't I play in a GM norm tournament you organised in Stoke on Trent?
Birmingham - luxury

Matthew Turner wrote: ↑

Mon May 20, 2019 12:00 pm

Hmmm? Didn't I play in a GM norm tournament you organised in Stoke on Trent?
Birmingham - luxury

I didn't organise that one but I do remember the majority of the players crashing at my place on the Saturday night

David Sedgwick wrote: ↑

Sun May 19, 2019 12:45 pm

Andrew Zigmond wrote: ↑

Sun May 19, 2019 12:08 pm

From the minutes of the most recent board meeting, which was held prior to the finance council meeting.

It was noted that comments had been made on the ECF forum …

Sic!

ECF Board howler, not Andrew's.

Andrew Zigmond wrote: ↑

Sun May 19, 2019 1:08 pm

Well spotted. I simply copied and pasted from the minutes themselves.

The error has now been corrected.

LawrenceCooper wrote: ↑

Mon May 20, 2019 2:40 pm

Matthew Turner wrote: ↑

Mon May 20, 2019 12:00 pm

Hmmm? Didn't I play in a GM norm tournament you organised in Stoke on Trent?
Birmingham - luxury

I didn't organise that one but I do remember the majority of the players crashing at my place on the Saturday night

I vaguely remember a story about you having a few drinks that night... Also recall any hope of Stoke offering anything to do on a Sunday being wiped out by an accident in a Paris tunnel.

Michael Farthing wrote: ↑

Sun May 19, 2019 12:43 pm

Paul Cooksey wrote: ↑

Sun May 19, 2019 12:29 pm

To frame this as a disagreement between Council and Board overlooks that the biggest block vote in Council is the Board members. There is no evidence to suggest this is a disagreement between traditionalists and innovators. It is a disagreement between those who want more centralisation, and higher fees to fund it, and those that do not.

This is the most insightful post of the thread.

Perhaps, we could put an amendment to the next Council meeting, restricting Council members (Directors, Members Reps included) from representing more than two constituencies (proxies included). This may put the impetus onto local leagues/associations to elected their own delegates, in turn that would make Council larger and widen the representation of chess opinions across the country?

I doubt we can revolutionize local chess in one fair swoop, but, how about start by widening the reach and voices at Council?

Hok Yin Stephen Chiu wrote: ↑

Thu May 23, 2019 11:33 pm

Perhaps, we could put an amendment to the next Council meeting, restricting Council members (Directors, Members Reps included) from representing more than two constituencies (proxies included). This may put the impetus onto local leagues/associations to elected their own delegates, in turn that would make Council larger and widen the representation of chess opinions across the country?

I don't think Council has the capacity to impose that rule.