Nominations 2021

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
User avatar
John Upham
Posts: 7162
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Contact:

Re: Nominations 2021

Post by John Upham » Fri Sep 17, 2021 1:11 pm

Paul Heaton wrote:
Thu Sep 16, 2021 10:56 pm
My Mother always said people down south didn’t know the difference between Lancashire and Yorkshire. She never mentioned Durham and Northumberland though……..
Some years ago I agreed to meet some friends at Donnington for a "Monsters of Rock" concert featuring Deep Purple and the Scorpions.

With hair down to my shoulders and denim clothing this seemed appropriate.

Eventually I reached Castle Donnington in a very ropey mark 3 Ford Cortina (the Coke bottle shape).

Our friends meanwhile reached Donnington Castle near Newbury. How we laughed!
British Chess News : britishchessnews.com
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess :D

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3732
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)

Re: Nominations 2021

Post by Paul McKeown » Fri Sep 17, 2021 1:34 pm

Chris Goodall wrote:
Fri Sep 17, 2021 10:14 am
Paul McKeown wrote:
Fri Sep 17, 2021 12:47 am
I think I would prefer to keep out out of local disputes in the North East.
That is a very gracious offer of a draw in a lost position :)
A typically graceful comment from the fool who claimed that I worked for CSC for 12 years and that that had biased my posting.

User avatar
John Upham
Posts: 7162
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Contact:

Re: Nominations 2021

Post by John Upham » Fri Sep 17, 2021 2:37 pm

Paul McKeown wrote:
Fri Sep 17, 2021 1:34 pm
A typically graceful comment from the fool who claimed that I worked for CSC for 12 years and that that had biased my posting.
There has been a recent spate of postings from some in this place who are obsessed with labelling everyone as to which "camp" they belong to regards the candidates for the contested CEO election.

Part of their alleged reasoning process is that if someone has had anything to do with CSC then automagically they are pro MBP and anti MCT.

So, if you have been associated with CSC you will therefore be biased according to this logic.

All very childish and condescending quite frankly.
British Chess News : britishchessnews.com
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess :D

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 10364
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Nominations 2021

Post by JustinHorton » Fri Sep 17, 2021 2:43 pm

Do give over, John. Nobody's saying it's automatic, but everybody can see that if the likes of Chris Fegan and Tim Wall make belligerent attacks on Mike Truran just before an election then it's not likely to be a coincidence. Factionalism exists in English chess politics, we all understand this and you definitely understand it even if you pretend not to.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

User avatar
John Upham
Posts: 7162
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Contact:

Re: Nominations 2021

Post by John Upham » Fri Sep 17, 2021 3:15 pm

JustinHorton wrote:
Fri Sep 17, 2021 2:43 pm
we all understand this and you definitely understand it even if you pretend not to.
I agree that a subset of members of this place are heavily interested in chess politics and this may well be the case for the bulk of the regular posters.

What might this number be? 50 or so?

Would you say that majority of members of this place are interested in chess but not chess politics?

What I object to is the almost automatic labelling of forum members. It seems to be a lazy approach without rigour.

Perhaps we need further anti MBP comments to balance things up a little? Who wishes to kick off?
British Chess News : britishchessnews.com
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess :D

Paul Cooksey
Posts: 1519
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:15 pm

Re: Nominations 2021

Post by Paul Cooksey » Fri Sep 17, 2021 4:02 pm

Happy to oblige...

It is a peculiar aspect of ECF politics that people are offended to be allocated to factions, everyone wanting be considered entirely independent. But we have people who have known each other for decades and belong to similar organisations. It is not a coincidence they see decisions the same way. If you attend a physical Council notable how peers interact to check whether they are voting with their fellows.

Of course these nexuses tend to shift and overlap, with most people being members of several. Arbiters is probably a useful example, partly because it is one of the groups that is proud of its identity so easy to identify. If the arbiters see a strong reason why one candidate is preferable, a fairly significant block of votes will coalesce. But if the case marginal, the other dimensions of the candidates will be more important. That seems likely to me in this set of elections, although not a group I am close to.

I usually consider Union an important dimension. I suspect a candidate from SCCU would not get many votes from NCCU up against an NCCU candidate, because the NCCU is an important dimension. SCCU is less so, not symmetrical. Perhaps not particularly important in this election, although Mike will be claiming Oxford is in the midlands and Malcom will be reminding people he is from Liverpool.

Where I think we can see a difference is in the types of organisations supporting candidates. Typically entirely voluntary on one side and more professional on the other. Of course CSC is a charity but it employs people and would want to describe itself as professional. I could probably allocate quite a lot of organisations votes using this criteria. Rob Willmoth, for example, I would expect to see supporting Malcolm on most issues. Not because I believe he is beholden to CSC in any direct way. But because he comes from the more professional end of the chess organisations, so the things Malcolm wants to do help his organisations too.

What to do with BCF money seems a really good issue to focus on. Partly because it is a relatively large amount of money for a chess organisation and so inherently important. Giving it to the Chess Trust could be useful for both voluntary and professional groups, but giving it to the ECF definitely more useful to the professional groups. They want to use it for some things outside the Chess Trust remit. Roger recalled the family silver argument from 20 years ago, which I think is relevant, but only in the sense it shows how things have moved on. At that time there was a very traditionalist group that wanted to ring fence assets, but there aren’t many of those people voting now. We are discussing the different ways to use BCF assets.

Characterising this as a dispute between grassroots and elites not useful either. I don’t think those issues really separate the candidates. Nor from my point of view is whether they want the ECF to enabling or leading. They seem to both be towards the centre, with a hybrid model. No one is proposing a centralised model for English chess of the type France has. Mike is not really “just” an enabler in the way that, for example, I am. Mike is willing to get into fights to protect the ECF Academy. I would not want the ECF to have an FIDE Academy at all. I would want other organisations to run Academies, but give endorsements and use selection policy to favour the ones that share ECF objectives. So I don’t really have a dog in the fight.

I am hoping that the election is not entirely determined by which faction has more votes. I think there is and should be a place for both types of organisation in a federation like the ECF. But unclear to me which of Mike and Malcolm is more capable of finding a way to support all organisations. Honestly the nature of Malcolm’s campaign to date puts me off, and I am unwilling to dissociate him from it, given the nature of the FIDE campaign he was involved in. I think this is how he does politics and it is divisive. But I respect many of his other attributes, so not in itself enough for me to make up my mind who I would prefer to win.

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 10364
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Nominations 2021

Post by JustinHorton » Fri Sep 17, 2021 4:11 pm

Paul Cooksey wrote:
Fri Sep 17, 2021 4:02 pm
Honestly the nature of Malcolm’s campaign to date puts me off, and I am unwilling to dissociate him from it, given the nature of the FIDE campaign he was involved in. I think this is how he does politics and it is divisive.
Well yes, this obviously, and also the important point that regardless of who it is, it's really not desirable for one person to have so much influence and power over an organisation like ours. If we're going to talk about governance issues then this is one that's been very obvious for quite a long time and yet we haven't really been talking about it.

But even if we overlooked that, Malcolm likes to have sidekicks, and those sidekicks behave in a horrendous manner, and that on its own leads me to think it imperative that he shouldn't lead the ECF. I don't really care what his policies are as such, I might even agree with them if I did. ButI don't want fight-picking, feuding and bullying to be what characterises ECF leadership.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Nick Ivell
Posts: 1138
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 6:33 pm

Re: Nominations 2021

Post by Nick Ivell » Fri Sep 17, 2021 5:02 pm

Six years ago, there was a memorable post from Professor Robertson. It was a plea for good governance.

I repeat those sentiments now. Only, mine is not a paean of praise for Phil Ehr. It is praise for Mike Truran - the model professional!

Paul Cooksey
Posts: 1519
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:15 pm

Re: Nominations 2021

Post by Paul Cooksey » Fri Sep 17, 2021 5:14 pm

Nick Ivell wrote:
Fri Sep 17, 2021 5:02 pm
Six years ago, there was a memorable post from Professor Robertson. It was a plea for good governance.
This one? viewtopic.php?f=25&t=7670&p=166079#p166079

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21291
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Nominations 2021

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Sep 17, 2021 5:17 pm

Paul Cooksey wrote:
Fri Sep 17, 2021 4:02 pm
Mike is willing to get into fights to protect the ECF Academy. I would not want the ECF to have an FIDE Academy at all. I would want other organisations to run Academies, but give endorsements and use selection policy to favour the ones that share ECF objectives.
FIDE Academies does seem something of a contentious issue, given that Phil Ehr got the ECF involved in a row over them six years ago or more and a new row seems to have developed in recent months. I don't recall the ECF Council ever being explicitly asked what ECF policy should be on these or to endorse a proposed approach. Should the ECF try to maintain a monopoly or leave it to the open market with the result that there might be multiple Academies?

Nick Ivell
Posts: 1138
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 6:33 pm

Re: Nominations 2021

Post by Nick Ivell » Fri Sep 17, 2021 5:22 pm

That's the one! Thank you Paul; thanks for your thoughtful post also.

Nick Burrows
Posts: 1704
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 12:15 pm

Re: Nominations 2021

Post by Nick Burrows » Fri Sep 17, 2021 5:43 pm

David Robertson wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2015 11:49 pm
Hardly a comment passes without being whipped into a froth of self-referential and self-righteous indignation. Stir in the axe-grinders, the vengeance-seekers, the slighted, the clueless, and the bombastic. You end up with a rancorous serpentine swamp called the ECF and its online communities.
This should be the be the foum's tagline to replace "The independent home for discussions on the English Chess scene." :lol:

User avatar
Chris Goodall
Posts: 1057
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 6:40 pm
Contact:

Re: Nominations 2021

Post by Chris Goodall » Fri Sep 17, 2021 5:59 pm

Paul Cooksey wrote:
Fri Sep 17, 2021 4:02 pm
Where I think we can see a difference is in the types of organisations supporting candidates. Typically entirely voluntary on one side and more professional on the other. Of course CSC is a charity but it employs people and would want to describe itself as professional. I could probably allocate quite a lot of organisations votes using this criteria. Rob Willmoth, for example, I would expect to see supporting Malcolm on most issues. Not because I believe he is beholden to CSC in any direct way. But because he comes from the more professional end of the chess organisations, so the things Malcolm wants to do help his organisations too.
I find that "professional" in a chess context can have at least three meanings. 1 - paid. 2 - otherwise unemployed. 3 - better than the amateurs.

None of the three imply the others. Despite this, it's common to hear arguments in favour of professionalism that take one of two forms:

- I am 1, therefore I am 3, therefore listen to me
- I am 2, therefore I am 3, therefore I really ought to be 1
John Upham wrote:
Fri Sep 17, 2021 3:15 pm
What I object to is the almost automatic labelling of forum members. It seems to be a lazy approach without rigour.
Ah, but it's not automatic. It's the Golden Rule of Lobbies. You want to know if someone's part of the lobby? Ask them!

If they say "no, I'm not part of the lobby", then they're not part of the lobby.

If they say "Lobby? What lobby? I don't see any lobby here? How lazy, childish and condescending of you!", then they're part of the lobby.
John Upham wrote:
Fri Sep 17, 2021 2:37 pm
Part of their alleged reasoning process is that if someone has had anything to do with CSC then automagically they are pro MBP and anti MCT.

So, if you have been associated with CSC you will therefore be biased according to this logic.
The danger isn't that people support the CSC candidates out of bias; everyone is biased. The danger is patronage. If Malcolm wins he will get to appoint an International Director, two Development Officers and possibly a FIDE Delegate. Is there a whelk's chance in a supernova that Malcolm gives those plum roles to people he hasn't already vetted for political reliability, and who might object to him running the ECF as an annexe of CSC?

It may be worth noting, in that context, the respective contributions of the ECF (£650) and of CSC (£4,000) towards the £5,250 prize fund at the Northumbria Masters. Or it may not. Who knows.
Donate to Sabrina's fundraiser at https://gofund.me/aeae42c7 to support victims of sexual abuse in the chess world.

Northumberland webmaster, Jesmond CC something-or-other. Views mine. Definitely below the Goodall Line.

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3732
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)

Re: Nominations 2021

Post by Paul McKeown » Fri Sep 24, 2021 11:02 am

Chris Goodall wrote:
Fri Sep 17, 2021 2:04 pm
Paul McKeown wrote:
Fri Sep 17, 2021 1:34 pm


A typically graceful comment from the fool who claimed that I worked for CSC for 12 years and that that had biased my posting.
For for 5 years, with for the other 7.
I have had no connection with CSC whatsoever for the past seven years.

For five years and two months I travelled to several (mostly primary) schools a week - up to nine or so a week at the peak - most of them deprived inner city schools. It was tough emotionally at times; some of the kids were in wretched straits. I certainly would never otherwise have came across a ten year old who dropped out as it later transpired that he had attempted to kill himself in school. Nevertheless, despite the emotional challenges, it was also rewarding, as you could see the joy that chess can bring to - in my case many hundreds or perhaps one or two thousands - of children.

In the past seven years, however I have not worked in a single school or in any other capacity paid or unpaid for CSC, not received any income, nor expenses from CSC, nor have I donated to CSC, either, for that matter.

I have not been in receipt of regular communications from CSC, either, until during the pandemic when MP started his online collaboration with chesskids, whose emails I do receive, like a huge number of others. Again, though, I am not part of that scheme, nor do I derive income from that scheme, nor do I give funding to that scheme. I may have advertised it to the RJCC mailing list, not sure. But then I advertise many things to that list, none of which are anything to do with CSC.

I believe that during the past seven years, I may have sent a couple of schools to speak to CSC who wanted a chess club, but couldn't afford to pay for it.

Oh. I suppose I should declare that I regularly purchase equipment from Malcolm's emporium on Baker Street. Like thousands of others, but at a much higher volume than the average.

That is it.

Any further connection ("for", "with" or using any other preposition of your choice) that you state is either your delusion or your intentional defamation.

I corrected your idiotic mistake once - idiotic as it was easy to check. You have now chosen to ignore the correction and continue with the statement that I am beholden to CSC as its servant for the past twelve years. That is no longer a mistake. As you KNOW that it is wrong, and insist on regaling the world with this mistake, it is now a lie.

You're a motivated liar, and shameless about it. Or daft.

You can tell me which it is, if you like. But I'm really not interested, either. Apart from your lies, you hold no interest for me.

Jonathan Bryant
Posts: 3452
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Nominations 2021

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Fri Sep 24, 2021 1:09 pm

Paul McKeown wrote:
Fri Sep 24, 2021 11:02 am
Chris Goodall wrote:
Fri Sep 17, 2021 2:04 pm
For for 5 years, with for the other 7.
I have had no connection with CSC whatsoever for the past seven years.
Simply making stuff up about people - based on something you've found on the internet and misunderstood or for any other reason - and then calling people dishonest when they point out you are wrong is really no way not an acceptable way to behave.

I can't speak for the last three and a half years but I can for the three and a half before that. Paul had no connection with CSC during this time. Since I was responsible for managing the CSC programmes in schools in London at the time (except for Newham), I would have known.

It is common knowledge that Paul was running Richmond Junior Chess club during the period in question. As far as I know he still is but then again I wouldn't know if he wasn't.



On the wider point of connections to CSC, of course it's not the case that merely being employed by CSC, or having some kind of connection with them past, present (or imaginary) automatically makes a person Malcolm's fawning lickspittle.

Equally, direct employment isn't an essential requirement before one can engage in lickspittling. Plenty of people are willing to play Smithers to somebody else's Mr Burns for free. These folks are not at all rare to come across. In chess or other areas of life.






UPDATE:
I would have reported the original post from Chris Goodall but the system won't allow me to on the grounds that it already has been. I'm all for freedom of expression but I don't believe that should be allowed to extend to being free to invent and spread non-truths.

Post Reply