English Chess Forum

The remit of ECF is to the FIDE governing body for all chess players who play under the English flag.

The question is : Does it adequately meet the requirements of professional chess players or is there a need for an additional organisation?

For example, does the ECF FIDE delegate consult and represent the views of professional players?

My definition of professional players also includes those who main source of income may not derive from playing but from chess related activities and revenue streams and did at one point play professionally.

John, Turning the question around: Can you name some occasions when the ECF didn't represent or assist English professionals as well as it might have? Were there situations when it should have consulted professional players but didn't? Also, what do English professionals give back to English chess?

My question is here to be answered by professional players : please do!

Correct me if I'm wrong on this one, but the only 2 professional chess players who use this forum are Keith Arkell and Nigel Short? I'd imagine they would be the only people who would be able to properly answer your question. I think we all know Nigel's view on this one Just as a slight aside, does anyone know how many professional chess players there are registered to the ECF?

benedgell wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong on this one, but the only 2 professional chess players who use this forum are Keith Arkell and Nigel Short?

There are a few more, Hebden (the silent one...) plus a couple of others

It depends what you count as a "professional player". Chess is not an activity with a strictly-defined barrier between professional and amateur, and there are many places you can put the boundary. At one extreme, you can class Luke McShane as an amateur, because he has a job outside chess. At the other extreme, you can class the likes of Arthur Meaton and Alan Fraser as professional players, because they have been paid appearance fees for playing in tournaments.

Was just about to make the same point that Jack has, but I was going to say that there should be a distinction between professional and semi-professional. McShane would count as semi-professional, due to his job outside chess. I don't know the employment status of Meaton & Fraser, but that would be all-important on where they end up in the amateur v professional debate.

My definitions would be:

Professional: Someone who has no other employment outside of the field of chess (teaching chess to others and publishing chessbooks/videos for a fee counts as professional). The player would have to be paid an appearance fee to play in things like the 4NCL, British Championship. E.g. Nigel Short.

Semi-professional: Someone who would count as being professional, but also has other forms of employment outside of chess, as a supplement to chess-related earnings. E.g. Luke McShane.

Amateur: Someone who has other employment outside of chess, and is not paid to participate in things like the 4NCL; indeed, they must pay their own way to participate in events and club matches. I.e. the regular congress-goers and club-player masses.

The reason that I will not play at the European Team Championship later this month is not that I am "unavailable" (I declared my availability to the ECF in June, if not earlier) but that there is not money for both Michael Adams and myself. As Michael had declared his availability before me, Stewart Reuben took the decision of selecting him. I don't blame him, but it shows that there is something seriously wrong with English chess: the European team Championship is a very important event. I will now go with David Howell to Argentina. It is also an important job and I will do my best to help David. However quite honestly I would rather be playing for England.
As ECF Delegate, Gerry Walsh has taken countless decsions that directly affect the livelihood of the the few professional players in England. However he has never once consulted me on any of them. He also didn't oppose FIDE's adverse mid-cycle changes that led to Michael Adams (and Magnus Carlsen) withdrawing from the World Cup. That is why Michael Adams is supporting me strongly. Gerry Walsh is deeply hazardous to professional chess in England. Perhaps he would be happier if we all gave up - like Matthew Sadler, Julian Hodgson and the rest.

Just to correct Alex Holowczak: I have never received an appearance fee to play in the British Championship. This might help explain why I have only played three times in the last 25 years (1984,1987 and 1998 - incidentally winning all three).

Nigel Short wrote:Just to correct Alex Holowczak: I have never received an appearance fee to play in the British Championship. This might help explain why I have only played three times in the last 25 years (1984,1987 and 1998 - incidentally winning all three).

Well, OK, I was aiming for the point that if you were to appear in the British Championship on a regular basis, you would require an appearance fee.

I would, but I won't get it. Your point is purely hypothetical.

It's possible that when he first used the phrase "appearance fee" Alex meant to include bare expenses, for hotel and food etc. After all the prize fund was rather substantial in those particular years.

It does seem a shame that the ECF cannot afford to pay both of our top two players to play for England. Some on this forum have questioned the ECF's use of its budget, e.g spending money on maintaining its office at Battle instead.

But going back to the original thread - the ECF is obviously an amateur organisation, something which may be said in a proud or derogatory way, depending on one's perspective. If there are only a few people who make a living from actually playing chess from some thousands of members, it does seem hard to suggest that the ECF Delegate should necessarily be primarily concerned with the welfare of those players - though naturally I would agree with Nigel Short that he should not be neglecting them either(!) and should be supporting them when there is no conflict with other English interests (e.g regarding the World Cup, which only possibly concerns the very top players)

So there does seem to be a need for an organisation exclusively for professional players. An English one, with about ten members, would hardly have much influence. Presumably that is why the ACP exists, for professionals worldwide. But one doesn't hear very much about their activities either.

Jonathan Rogers said:
"It's possible that when he first used the phrase "appearance fee" Alex meant to include bare expenses, for hotel and food etc."
Sorry - I have never received a penny for playing in the British Championship, not even bare expenses. Starting off at minus-whatever pounds always has made the event a considerable gamble. That is why I don't play, full-stop.

Nigel Short wrote:Jonathan Rogers said:
"It's possible that when he first used the phrase "appearance fee" Alex meant to include bare expenses, for hotel and food etc."
Sorry - I have never received a penny for playing in the British Championship, not even bare expenses. Starting off at minus-whatever pounds always has made the event a considerable gamble. That is why I don't play, full-stop.

I was under the impression that some players have received some expenses, even fees in recent years. In fact i recall there was a "debate" this year about the fact that non-English players were excluded from access to this.

The question is: do you really believe English Chess would be better off if Michael Adams and the other tiny handful of chess professionals in England became accountants, lawyers, lumberjacks etc. ? If you do, and you think that these miserable, overpaid (ha-ha), whinging bastards ought to shut up, get proper jobs and stop complaining, and you are quite happy for England to finish 80th in the Olympiads next to Botswana, Papua New Guinea etc. then Gerry Walsh is your man. It will probably make life a lot easier.
To refer to an earlier post: I want Andrew Flintoff to win the Ashes, not to "put something back into the game". That IS putting something back into the game as far as I am concerned. Or am I completely wrong?