Home Chess 2009-2010 and the future

[Adam Raoof]

Dear All

Here's my brief report for this year; there are a lot of areas under Home Chess! If I get returned to office, what can I do to help the Congress scene? If you run a tournament, how can I help you - with advice or publicity? Hard cash? If you run a club or are thinking of starting one - what can the ECF do for you?

Home Chess Director’s Report, 2009-2010

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. We have achieved a great deal as a team.

The British Championships, Canterbury (see David Welch’s report)
We have new ECF / British Championship Facebook and Twitter pages, an emailing list which we employed and which no doubt contributed to a very healthy entry.
Contributions to publicity from David Gilbert
There was experimental but very successful live video of Andrew Martin’s commentary from Dave Clayton, and a webcam.
We were grateful for sponsorship from Stagecoach.

ECF Grading and FIDE Rating (see Dave Thomas’s report)
Howard Grist replaced Ray Ryan Foster as IRO in August.

Dave Thomas is now standing down from the post of Manager of Grading and Rating after a number of years. I should like to thank him for all his hard work and effort during that period, particularly in connection with the major revision of ECF grades which came into effect in 2009.

Counties Championships
After a tricky start, the Counties Championships were steered to a safe harbour by Cyril and Julie Johnson and their team (David Welch, Adrian Elwin, John Shaw, John Wickham, Peter Cresswell for their work as an arbiting team) at Moat College in Leicestershire. It was a successful event, with 58 entries over 7 sections.

Adrian Elwin has been appointed as the National Controller for 2010-2011.

National Club Championships
Julie Johnson ran the NCC efficiently as usual, and received the ECF President’s award this year. Julie has been reappointed Controller for the 2010-2011 event.
Thanks are also due to Guy Greenland & Mike McNaughton as section controllers in the Intermediate & Minor sections respectively. Brian Smith for organising the London end. There were six matches at the finals, and we hope to increase the number of entries this year.

County & District Correspondence Chess Championships
In the Ward-Higgs, the championship event, Sussex with 16/22 took the title for the first time in a decade by ½ point from Essex and defending champions Yorkshire. John Philpott is the controller

Counties Rapidplay and Handicap Championships
The SCCU successfully staged this event, with five teams competing, at Wanstead on 18th September. Essex I were the winners of the main event.

Winton Capital British Problem Solving Championships
The 31st Final of the British Chess Solving Championship, and the 7th sponsored by Winton Capital Management, took place at Oakham School on Saturday, 20th February 2010. Jonathan Mestel, scoring 57.75 out of a possible 65, won his seventeenth title, ahead of David Friedgood in second place, and Colin McNab in third place. The Open Championship, held alongside the closed British Championship and with the same problems to solve, was won by Piotr Mudzia of Poland (the current World Chess Solving Champion). Second place went to Dolf Wissmann of the Netherlands and well-known British junior player Ankush Khandelwal came third.

Adjudications Service
There was a long overdue rise in the cost of adjudications and consequently the amount paid to adjudicators for their work.

BUCA
We provided modest financial support for players to compete in the World Universities Team Championships in Switzerland.

Manager of Chess in Prisons
Sarah Mirawolski was appointed to this post late in the year.

Manager of Women’s Chess
We appointed Ljubica Lazarevic to this post, and she immediately arranged financial support for two girls in the World Universities. She has been actively supporting International Director Lawrence Cooper’s efforts to organise women’s events in Uxbridge and as part of the London Classic.

Other Developments
Facebook, Twitter pages, and increasing use of email
The ECF Grand Prix continued with the sponsorship of CCF Mindgames, and we placed and enhanced list on the website in response to demand.
Introduced the National Master title to the Master Points Scheme and a sponsor, ChessWorld.
We’ve rewritten several important documents

CONCLUSION
I am happy to stand for Home Chess again, and I support the team standing for the board.

AIMS for 2010-2011 should I be elected include;

* supporting weekend congresses around the country in any way I can. This has been a tough year for chess tournaments, but it can be a positive.
* develop enhancements to your grading services
* support great enterprises such as the 4NCL and e2-e4
* promote and develop the National Club Championships and Counties events
* supporting the Chief Executive

Adam Raoof

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Thanks for posting this, Adam, and thanks for the work you and your team do. I hope you don't mind a few questions! It's mainly asking for a bit more detail if you have any figures to hand. I'm not after exact figures, but just a rough idea of numbers.

We have new ECF / British Championship Facebook and Twitter pages

Are there any figures for how many people followed these pages?

There was experimental but very successful live video of Andrew Martin’s commentary from Dave Clayton, and a webcam.

How many hits did that get? I tried it, but it seemed a bit slow.

We were grateful for sponsorship from Stagecoach.

Is it possible to ask how much this was?

County & District Correspondence Chess Championships
In the Ward-Higgs, the championship event, Sussex with 16/22 took the title for the first time in a decade by ½ point from Essex and defending champions Yorkshire. John Philpott is the controller

I'd never heard of this before! I had been under the impression that correspondence chess had its own separate administration.

Adjudications Service
There was a long overdue rise in the cost of adjudications and consequently the amount paid to adjudicators for their work.

Is it possible to have the figures for this, or at least an idea of where to look it up?

BUCA
We provided modest financial support for players to compete in the World Universities Team Championships in Switzerland.

Is it possible to have a figure for this, or will that have to wait for the accounts?

Introduced the National Master title to the Master Points Scheme and a sponsor, ChessWorld.

I saw some objections to this in the thread I read on this. Something about the "British Master" title. Did those concerns get addressed or discussed following that thread?

Could I also ask what areas you weren't happy with and that you'd like to see improved this year? In particular, you say "This has been a tough year for chess tournaments". Can you put any numbers to that (e.g. how many chess tournaments were held this year compared to previous years) and expand on that at all? I presume the economic climate is to blame, or is it more than that?

[Alex Holowczak]

Adjudications Service
There was a long overdue rise in the cost of adjudications and consequently the amount paid to adjudicators for their work.

Is it possible to have the figures for this, or at least an idea of where to look it up?

It rose from £5 to £15 for adjudication, and then from £10 to £30 for appeals. This information is on the ECF website somewhere.

BUCA
We provided modest financial support for players to compete in the World Universities Team Championships in Switzerland.

Is it possible to have a figure for this, or will that have to wait for the accounts?

At the moment, £0. The players had to do fulfil certain tasks for their funding (I think a report + annotated games), which as far as I know hasn't been done yet.

[Roger de Coverly]

It (adjudication cost) rose from £5 to £15 for adjudication, and then from £10 to £30 for appeals. This information is on the ECF website somewhere.

I wonder what the volumes are these days. The continued need for an adjudication service was queried a while back - apparently correspondence players still use it.

[John Philpott]

Roger de Coverly wrote

I wonder what the volumes are these days. The continued need for an adjudication service was queried a while back - apparently correspondence players still use it.

Adjudication is necessary for correspondence chess to avoid one year's event running into the next. For the CDCCC (sorry Christopher - County & District Correspondence Chess Championships) the adjudications are carried out by my own adjudicator rather than the Adjudications Service, although I have used the latter for a couple of appeals.


For this year's CDCCC there were just 3 adjudications despite a shorter than usual playing period.

Christopher Kreuzer wrote

I'd never heard of this before! I had been under the impression that correspondence chess had its own separate administration.

There are bodies dealing specifically with correspondence chess such as the BFCC (British Federation for Correspondence Chess) which is affiliated to the ECF as an Other Organisation and which is represented at Council meetings by Keith Escott. As a result an agreement entered into some decades before I became controller, the ECF runs the County team championship but the BFCC organises the individual British championship.

[Sean Hewitt]

AIMS for 2010-2011 should I be elected include;

....
* support great enterprises such as the 4NCL and e2-e4
....

Adam Raoof

Adam, could you expand what you mean by that? Up to now I've seen no help at all (quite the opposite in fact) and I suspect that is the case for the 4NCL too.

[John Upham]

Dear All


Adjudications Service
There was a long overdue rise in the cost of adjudications and consequently the amount paid to adjudicators for their work.

Adam Raoof

How many uses were made of this service from yesteryear?

Did Deep Rybka receive a payment also?

[David Pardoe]

Sean...I was interested in your comments regarding e2-e4 & 4NCL.
Both these events seem to be progressing quite well..I dont know how the recent Runcorn event turned out. Hopefully numbers were OK...but you had the clash with a popular Congress at Bradford to contend with, which is always a problem for organisors.
What support would you like to see offered to this & the 4NCL event, and other major Congresses/events...?
One thing that might be helpful is an ECF directory of the major active regional chess websites...maybe even a league table showing `ratings` for such sites, with comment on main features. Publicity strikes me as the key feature...and that includes some good pre & post Congress notices in the major regional Press publications. There is a clear need to bring these events to the attention of players and potential new players in the various regions. ie, Joe Public...
This might give Congress organisors more points of contact for publicity...I certainly find browsing some of these websites quite interesting, with lots of useful contact information. I`d also like to see more use made of the Counties Competitions networks...with mailshots to relevant county captains to ask if they could circulate there respective team player pools, local clubs/ other email chess contacts.

ie, For the Bradford event...it would be good to get some publicity in papers like The Yorkshire Post, along with some follow-up match reports, games, & tables. Im sure that some initiatives already apply....and some local Press does give coverage...?
Another key factor which I think Congresses need to focus on, is events for novice & lower graded players...maybe running a one-day Rapidplay event alongside the main events, as a way of introducing players to w/e Congress chess. A Saturday Morning `Simultaineous` (or Saturday Evening), might also help attract more interest.... if a suitable willing local `Master` can be found. Alongside this, I`d like to see these Congresses do more to promote local club chess in there respective areas...ie, local clubs to submit posters for display at local congresses to help attract new members.
The recent 4NCL initiative to establish a new 4NCL Northern League seems to have received a fairly positive and encouraging start. Hopefully this will go well, and get some good publicity coverage for chess in the North.
Regarding Adams report & aspirations. One area I`d like to see addressed in the Counties events is some `focused` rule changes.
Two areas I have in mind....
(a) To address the question of eligability, particularly to encourage more genuine `local` participation....and reduce `bussing-in` of outside players with remote (current/active) connections. To achieve this, Id like to see a 2-tier system of eligability. Level 1 would be those active players who either live or work in a particular area AND are active in that areas local chess/leagues.
Level-2 would include other categories of eligable players, such as those living and playing `away` from the county. For the latter category, I`d like to see such players given a 0.25pt per game handicap. ie, if such players scored a win, they would only be credited with 0.75pts for that game.

(b) My next area of concern is Mobile Phones (+other electronic devices).
Again, Im keen on a 2-tier system. Level 1 for International & major National events & Congresses, where the current FIDE rule should apply.....but I`d still prefer to see a 5-min penalty applied in many cases where an innocent `phone-left-on` occured.
Level 2 would apply to all other events...for these I`d prefer to see the application of a 5-min penalty for all (innocent) infringements. In many cases a simple initial `warning` would problably suffice. At the very minimum an initial `warning` should be issued.
We need to remember that the major cause of `breaches` is not `deliberate cheating` (which is what the rule actually sought to address), but the quite innocent oversight of individuals in leaving there `mobiles` switched on..just through `habit`, ...so those rule changes which simply allow mobiles in `silent mode` will not in any way address the current issues.
The point about this `directive` is to set a uniform accepted standard that would give clear guidance to our leagues and other events. But the more important point is to try to ensure fairness, and particularly to have `penalties` that are relevant to any percieved `crimes` committed. This would have the beneficial effect of showing that the `chess world` is reasonable with regards to rules, and does listen to the voices of its membership.
Many leagues have already moved to more minor penalties for mobile infringements.
With regards to the level 2 penalties, you need to take account of playing conditions, and the fact that it is targetted at events which dont award major cash prizes/honours.
The venues for such matches are often Pubs with many background noises present...including TV Football, where the punters in the Bar downstairs can often be heard cheering goals, etc. ..or singing to Karioki...
In this context, the sound of the occasional `mobile` or other minor (innocent) `Electronic noise` is not going to be an earth shattering disturbance. Other noises, such as passing traffic, doors banging, people chatting...at such matches, is not uncommon. In short, the level of noise & distraction is normally rather higher than at major Congress events.

Hopefully those in charge of our chess scene (various bodies), will take these points on board...which have been made in other places on this Forum. I would stress that I dont like the sound of those horrible ring-tones any more than anyone else.

On a slightly different tac...Andrew Farthing put out his brief for the ECF in another thread...I`ve responded to that, pointing out the Fischer factor as a key reason for chess`s booming years in the `seventies`.
...but I`d add one other point. Northern chess should have at least one chess ambassador on the ECF board, not least because I feel the ECF is in danger of being percieved as far too `South Centric`. I`ve suggested that a senior Yorks figure might be a good idea.
We have already blundered in recent years by ditching the potentially `world class` BCF brand name...let us not degenerate further into Semi-detatched little England.
Some meetings of the ECF board in Sheffield, York, or Manchester might not go amiss.
All such bodies as this suffer the problem of trying to recruit good volunteers (able to give of there time)...even FIDE seems to have that problem it would appear. But thats `democracy` for you..perhaps `Democery` would be more appropriate.

Hopefully our `leaders` at the ECF and other chess bodies can do something to address these points.

PS Junior chess...one thing I`m sure would help to boost junior interest would be the establishment of an estimated grading system, where gradings were retained for at least 4 years, and could form the basis for more formal grades. For instance, all juniors getting through to the Mike Basman Giga Finals should be given a basic estimated grade, perhaps related to the average board they play on. Perhaps give all `board 6` players a starting estimate of 50.That might bring several thousand youngsters on to the chess `radar`. If these (ungraded) youngsters were also given some kind of ECF membership for say £2, that might also help (valid for those aged U16...say). Such estimated grades should be amendable by schools who could include the results from school matches, etc, to help refine these numbers.
This could have a knock-on benefit that when they join clubs, they could quote these and maybe start life in the `seniors` with some kind of initial `base` rating from which to build on.

[Roger de Coverly]

(a) To address the question of eligability, particularly to encourage more genuine `local` participation....and reduce `bussing-in` of outside players with remote (current/active) connections

Please explain to us why you think this is a problem.

[John Upham]

(a) To address the question of eligability, particularly to encourage more genuine `local` participation....and reduce `bussing-in` of outside players with remote (current/active) connections

Please explain to us why you think this is a problem.

I guess a chess club with a physical (rather than virtual) premises should be provding local chess for local people. If locals are displaced by others then some might consider that to be unsatisfactory. Then again, some might not care less.

[Alex Holowczak]

I feel the ECF is in danger of being percieved as far too `South Centric`.

How?

[Roger de Coverly]

I guess a chess club with a physical (rather than virtual) premises should be provding local chess for local people. If locals are displaced by others then some might consider that to be unsatisfactory. Then again, some might not care less.

The context of the question was county rather than club chess. The way I see it is that if you want to run a 6 team competition on Saturday afternoons over 16 boards then you need to find somewhere between 100 and 140 people willing to take part and in some cases travel a reasonable distance. If you have eligibility rules which mean that 80 of your potential 140 can only play for one or two of the sponsoring organisations, then you don't have a competition. Look at how many counties don't enter an Open team in the Counties Championship.

[John Upham]

Look at how many counties don't enter an Open team in the Counties Championship.

I wish Berkshire did but some persons on the Executive are less enthusiastic. I wonder who they are?

[Alex Holowczak]

Every county affiliated to the MCCU enters an Open team apart from Herefordshire, I think. That's 9/10. I'd say that was a pretty strong representation!

[David Pardoe]

Roger,
Your 140 est for a team pool for a 16 man squad is a fairly ideal number. Many counties might struggle to find half that number of genuine contenders anyway, ..for any given section..certainly the Open & U180 groupings. But they seem to survive.
In that context, Im not against `mergers` for smaller counties like Northants & Hereforshire, etc...and even perhaps include a `Mid Wales` grouping.
I guess the primary reason for low representation in the Open section is as above (caused by the Pyramid effect)...but also other options like 4NCL, Congresses, etc. will draw on numbers. And some top guns might feel that the `rewards` (incentives), arent there in the Counties scene.
Alex..your right about the MCCU... we`ve managed to beef up support in the last few years...in spite of some `local` difficulties ..issues..etc... I guess despite our somewhat flawed democracy, its not done too badly..... and some are overly keen on the sound of there own voices...whats new..
As regards eligability...I can see some exceptions that should be catered for....so a little flexibility must be allowed, eg, the player who finds himself in a county which doesnt enter a suitable section to cater for his grading.