How interested are you in seeing your grading details?

[Alan Walton]

I don't think people are against paying for membership to the ECF in general

But over the past few years it has become so convoluted (MO schemes, game fee, and Standard/Direct Membership), I don't know if by paying standard membership is the best for my needs (its a bit like the mis-selling of PPI in banks)

It used to be nice and easy under the old levy system, a one-off payment and I can just get on with playing chess

[Paul Douglass]

I suppose I'm asking why do we need to fund the national organisation? Why should I be bothered about the ECFs activities?

Do you want:
a) England to send teams to the Olympiad and other international competitions
b) English juniors to play abroad in international competitions
c) England to send delegates to FIDE, and hence be represented on the panel where the laws of the game are decided?
d) English players to have the opportunity to have a FIDE rating, and become IMs and GMs?

If yes, how do you propose the ECF pays for the things to make this happen?

Not particular bothered to any of the points a) to d).

If a player who wants to make a profession out of chess it should come out of their own pocket (or a generous benefactor). University students have to pay tuition fees in the likely (or unlikely in the employment climate) event to forge a career. I don't see any difference with chess players.

[Adam Raoof]

I personally think the Yorkshire "bashing" is quite harsh.

I suppose I'm asking why do we need to fund the national organisation? Why should I be bothered about the ECFs activities?

I agree. Andrew; how many players are there in the BDCL?

Paul - you have a point. But trust me, whatever and wherever you play chess, the national governing body has a role to play. They may not have done much to win your support in the past, but I hope we will do so in the future. What would you like to see the ECF doing for you?

As an active player and organiser, what I expect from my governing body is that they raise money fairly, spend it wisely, and keep me informed about how it spent. As a Director of the ECF I have kept that in mind throughout the past year. As Home Chess Director I am required to undertake the following duties, amongst others;

"Promotes and encourages participation in the Game Fee Scheme and develops appropriate strategies with the Director of Finance. Works with the Director of Finance and ECF Office staff in resolving any problems that may arise in connection with the collection of Game Fee."

I will have more time to devote to that this year. If I'm elected. Bear that in mind when you vote

[Paul Douglass]

Hi Adam,

Thanks for your reply. I am certainly not in the anti-ECF camp whatsoever. In fact, I'm greatly encouraged by the general direction and productivity of the ECF - yourself, Andrew Farthing and CJ are such examples of the refreshing approach.

I was being quite flippant with Alex (in my most recent reply) for a reason and that was to draw out of the conversation, exactly what the ECF is really for. A lot of grass-roots player I'm in conversation with during the chess season don't have any idea what the ECF does for the normal player. I reply back "asking what should it do?" and the only reply is grading. Its akin in some ways to the large state government or small state government ideology. How much influence should the ECF have on a normal player? Bearing in mind the DCMS grant is really meant for the top Juniors or Adults, most of the ECF activities will be based on the elite aspect of chess in this country, and not improving the grass-roots level. I.E. Those with a grade of 165 and not 230-240+

[Howard Grist]

That’s funny. The ECF graded all those events as well, and my figures for number of players are quite different. They are unlikely to be wrong, since the raw data came from the Yorkshire grader. I have inserted my figures below, together with the number of ECF Members.

Richard,

Your figures are unklikely to be wrong but, as Andrew says, they are open to interpretation. The number of players' figures that you are quoting is actually the number of records in the result file's player list, and the a single person may have multiple entries in this list. I have thus updated your table with the figures of different ECF player codes that have taken part in this event.

Sheffield League - 284 players ........ 388 players, 44 DMs .... Actually 346 players
Bradford League - 200 players ........ 326 players, 57 DMs .... Actually 213 players
Leeds League - 156 .................... 208 players, 144 DMs .... Actually 160 players
Hull League - 118 ....................... 173 players, 7 DMs .... Actually 133 Players
York League - 108 ...................... 133 players, 32 DMs .... Actually 124 players
Huddersfield League - 108 ............ 138 players, 19 DMs .... Actually 113 Players
Calderdale League - 91 ................ 137 players, 12 DMs .... Actually 97 players
Doncaster League - 66 .................. 60 players, 12 DMs .... Actually 60 players
Harrogate League - 44 .................. 36 players, 10 DMs .... Actually 36 Players
Humber League - 40 ..................... 31 players, 1 DM .... Actually 31 players

As previously, Andrew's figures are on the left, Richard's in the middle and mine on the right.

[Adam Raoof]

A lot of grass-roots player I'm in conversation with during the chess season don't have any idea what the ECF does for the normal player. I reply back "asking what should it do?" and the only reply is grading. Its akin in some ways to the large state government or small state government ideology. How much influence should the ECF have on a normal player? Bearing in mind the DCMS grant is really meant for the top Juniors or Adults, most of the ECF activities will be based on the elite aspect of chess in this country, and not improving the grass-roots level. I.E. Those with a grade of 165 and not 230-240+

Yes, there is definitely a need to communicate better with players, both at grass roots level and elite level. This is getting better - the website is a fundamental means of achieving this, and sites like Facebook and Twitter.

If I had been asked what the ECF does a few years ago, I would probably have given the same answer. Grading is the top level service that the ECF provides. I pay £700+ a year in game fee, and until recently (when I did some grading for the first time) didn't really appreciate how much work it was! The online grading database is very comprehensive, and as an organiser gives me all I need to know to run events.

Being elected to this post has opened my eyes to all the other things the ECF does - for better and for worse. Those things we do well, like County chess, we intend to keep on doing. Those things we do badly or don't do at all we have been trying to address, but it does take more time to change things than I realised. One year is not sufficient.

Have a read of http://www.englishchess.org.uk/?page_id=900 Regulations #2 (roles and responsibilities of Directors) to get a flavour of all the areas that the ECF is involved in.

I have noticed a worrying trend - congresses folding or cancelling. To my mind they are the life blood of chess in this country, and I think I need to do more to support them. I need ideas from congress organisers as to how that can be achieved. Given that we can't afford to give them financial support, what we can do is award them British Championship Qualifying places to encourage participation. We can promote the ECF Calendar of events by email so that players know where they can play any given weekend. We can give advice on how to run events, and how to start a club, and how to coach juniors. All of these ensure that we will get more new players into the system, and once they start they will play chess pretty much forever.

[Alan Walton]

I have noticed a worrying trend - congresses folding or cancelling. To my mind they are the life blood of chess in this country, and I think I need to do more to support them. I need ideas from congress organisers as to how that can be achieved. Given that we can't afford to give them financial support, what we can do is award them British Championship Qualifying places to encourage participation. We can promote the ECF Calendar of events by email so that players know where they can play any given weekend. We can give advice on how to run events, and how to start a club, and how to coach juniors. All of these ensure that we will get more new players into the system, and once they start they will play chess pretty much forever.

Rather than handing out qualifying places to tournaments to encourage participation, as I mentioned on the Qualification thread, why not go for a norm driven qualification system.

Say you require three 2250/200 ECF performances to qualify, you can get these norms from playing ANY open congress (including International APAs).

This means players interested in qualifying for the British have to play at least 3 weekenders to qualify, now that should stimulate participation, throughout the country (only if people actually want to qualify for the British)

[Adam Raoof]

Rather than handing out qualifying places to tournaments to encourage participation, as I mentioned on the Qualification thread, why not go for a norm driven qualification system.

Say you require three 2250/200 ECF performances to qualify, you can get these norms from playing ANY open congress (including International APAs).

This means players interested in qualifying for the British have to play at least 3 weekenders to qualify, now that should stimulate participation, throughout the country (only if people actually want to qualify for the British)

I saw your post Alan, and I really liked the idea, but I thought I heard Alex McFarlane's voice at my shoulder crying 'who will do the administration?' Does 'Open' mean Open? Who would calculate the norms? Who would submit them to the ECF? Who would do the paperwork at the other end, and what paperwork would be required?

Would you also have a norm driven system to determine qualification to the Major Open? I suspect the MO will do a lot better if we flag up the fact that GMs and IMs from any nation can participate, and then it might be eligible for norms.

[Brian Valentine]

I saw your post Alan, and I really liked the idea, but I thought I heard Alex McFarlane's voice at my shoulder crying 'who will do the administration?' Does 'Open' mean Open? Who would calculate the norms? Who would submit them to the ECF? Who would do the paperwork at the other end, and what paperwork would be required?

Paperwork and administration? Couldn't this (almost) fall out of a grading system updated regularly (hence congress results submitted quickly as part of the norms process) with members auditing their own results (where this thread started). Paperwork would not work, but a web-based syatem might.

[Ian Thompson]

I saw your post Alan, and I really liked the idea, but I thought I heard Alex McFarlane's voice at my shoulder crying 'who will do the administration?' Does 'Open' mean Open? Who would calculate the norms? Who would submit them to the ECF? Who would do the paperwork at the other end, and what paperwork would be required?

This doesn't look much more complicated to administer to me than the existing qualification method of an international tournament performance over 2400 Elo, which puts the onus on the player to claim his qualification and provide evidence to prove it. The only difference is that the ECF administrator has to count the number of qualifying performances.

If you had something like this, which I think is a good idea, the question would be at what level the qualifying performances should be at, to be consistent with other methods. Is 3 performances at 2250 comparable to one performance at 2400. Are either comparable to a published rating of 2350?

[Andrew Farthing]

I was being quite flippant with Alex (in my most recent reply) for a reason and that was to draw out of the conversation, exactly what the ECF is really for. A lot of grass-roots player I'm in conversation with during the chess season don't have any idea what the ECF does for the normal player. I reply back "asking what should it do?" and the only reply is grading. Its akin in some ways to the large state government or small state government ideology. How much influence should the ECF have on a normal player? Bearing in mind the DCMS grant is really meant for the top Juniors or Adults, most of the ECF activities will be based on the elite aspect of chess in this country, and not improving the grass-roots level. I.E. Those with a grade of 165 and not 230-240+

I don't think the federation has helped itself in the way it communicates what it does, but that's only part of the story.

For me, it's not a case of focusing on one segment of the chess-playing population over another. I'd expect the ECF to spend its resources across the whole spectrum, but it wouldn't be realistic to expect that the expenditure will be evenly spread. Some people will get more out of the ECF than others. That said, it's hard to pin down exactly what the benefit for each individual (or group of individuals) is. Success at the top level generates interest and enthusiasm at every level - does anyone really doubt that Carlsen's stellar performances will have done wonders for chess as a whole in his country? At the same time, a thriving amateur chess scene helps to create a climate more likely to produce top-level players. In financial terms, both can support the other - top-level success attracts the interest of sponsors; an increase in the number of amateur players generates more money, which can be fed back into the game. If we think of this as an either/or issue, we'll never get it right.

The question, "What does the ECF do for me?" is perfectly reasonable. Realistically, however, there will always be some people who think that the value received from the ECF isn't enough. The same is true at other organisational levels. I can think of a couple of people at my club who have no interest in playing league matches (or graded games at all, really) and just want a place to meet for a few friendly games of chess. They could just as easily ask what their county association does for them as question the value of the ECF. As it is, they don't argue for a reduced club subscription so that they don't pay their share of the league fees because they're happy to accept that the league is a good thing in itself, and it's their choice not to benefit from it.

The real challenge is to generate enthusiasm for the ECF's goals so that people want to support them even if the direct personal benefit isn't obvious.

[Matthew Turner]

Well said Andrew

[Adam Raoof]

The real challenge is to generate enthusiasm for the ECF's goals so that people want to support them even if the direct personal benefit isn't obvious.

Aye, aye, Captain!

More chess, across the board.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

What does the little cross next to the options mean? Is that the vote you cast yourself (I can't remember!)

[Carl Hibbard]

What does the little cross next to the options mean? Is that the vote you cast yourself (I can't remember!)

It is yes