Home Chess 2009-2010 and the future

[Sean Hewitt]

Am I getting this right: no more e2e4 events? There are several forthcoming events mentioned on Sean Hewitt's profile.

To be clear events we were already committed to will be held as normal and are unaffected. They are

Uxbridge Premier (Oct 2010)
Uxbridge Young Masters (Oct 2010)
Brighton Congress (Nov 2010)

Future events have been cancelled. They are

Uxbridge International (Feb 2011)
Uxbridge Congress (Mar 2011)
Warrington Congress (May 2011)
Sunningdale Congress (May 2011)

These have been removed from the ECF Calendar, the e2e4 Calendar and my own signature

It is regrettable that we have been forced by the ECF, and Adam Raoof in particular, into this position. However, I am not prepared to compromise on the product that we offer to our customers (players).

The ECF and Adam Raoof's stance changed with respect to FIDE rating our events on 13th September, without prior notice. Without going into details here I have been trying since then to resolve it for a month by email, with the outcome being

1. Andrew Farthing has tried to resolve the issue but tells me that there is nothing within his power that he can do other than refer the matter to Adam Raoof, which he did.

2. Adam Raoof has not replied to the emails that I have sent him on the matter. It is in that context that I have asked three times on the Home Chess thread what Adams plans to do to deliver on his statement that he intends to "support great enterprises such as the 4NCL and e2-e4" again without any reply.

3. Laurence Cooper has lobbied Adam Raoof on our behalf, pointing out the amount of chess played in our events, how much the ECF makes in profit from our payment of FIDE rating fees and game fees from our events and how many players are ECF members solely to play in our events but seemingly without success.

My thanks go to Laurence and Andrew for their efforts but it appears that Adam and his FIDE rating 'staff' are intransigent. I must also publicly thank Stewart Reuben as it was his initiative to encourage FIDE rated events that got e2e4 off the ground, David Sedgwick for his invaluable, and almost always correct, advice and Gawain Jones who allowed me to bounce loads of ideas off of him.

I hope that the irony of the ECF closing down their own Congress of the Year that contributes over £1500 to the coffers is not lost on it's Directors.

[IM Jack Rudd]

The ECF and Adam Raoof's stance changed with respect to FIDE rating our events on 13th September, without prior notice.

Yow. In what way?

[Jon D'Souza-Eva]

Is it related to the 25% increase in fees for rating FIDE event?
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/?page_id=19

[Sean Hewitt]

Is it related to the 25% increase in fees for rating FIDE event?
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/?page_id=19

Nope.

Actually, that's a different issue on which the ECF have already accepted that they have no grounds for such an increase and have rescinded plans to impose it. In fact, we have identified that the ECF have been double charging FIDE rated swiss and team events for the last three years. But they have promised to investigate the over-charging, a position that we are quite content with.

I'm not going to go into details because their's is such a riduclously stupid stance I don't want to embarrass Adam Raoof or the ECF. But it's the latest in a series of such stupidity and it's the proverbial straw that breaks that camels back.

[Jon D'Souza-Eva]

I don't want to embarrass Adam Raoof or the ECF.

I don't think I've ever used a smiley before, but if ever one were needed, it's here!

[David Sedgwick]

I was going to give some details, but I'll respect Sean's decision not to do so.

Let me just say that, had I been responsible for the relevant policy either at the ECF or at e2e4 chess, the issue is not one over which I would have chosen to man the barricades.

Sean has demonstrated that there's a market for the sort of events he has been staging. I hope that in the fullness of time another organiser will emerge to fill the gap.

Sean, thank you for your kind remarks.

[Roger de Coverly]

Is it related to the 25% increase in fees for rating FIDE event?

Never mind the increase , look at the absolute values

Swiss events – £2 per player. I'm not sure whether this is before or after the 25% increase, but if it's before then it increases the cost to £ 2.50 - so almost the same as Game Fee for a 5 round tournament.

If you go to the FIDE site http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html? ... w=category, you find that FIDE's charges are

9.2
Annual rating fees are 1 Euro per player with a maximum each year of 1,500 Euros.

That's one Euro for every ENG active player on the FIDE list

As the ECF insist in effect on individual membership for every ENG active player on the FIDE list, you would think that the one Euro should be priced in on the direct membership cost rather than recouped from congress organisers.

and

12.2
The registration fee is calculated on the following basis:
Swiss Tournaments: Number of players multiplied by 1 Euro

So that's one Euro (80-90p) per player which is somewhat less than £2 or £ 2.50 per player.


It had been my impression that the ECF policy had been to pass on FIDE rating charges at or below cost. Financial circumstances may well cause this to need to be changed, but I don't think it was announced in the obvious place - namely the April Finance Council. Failing that as it's a policy decision affecting a number of external organisations, you might hope it was a collective board decision rather than by just one or two directors.

[Adam Raoof]

I have publicly and privately supported Sean's excellent events, and I am happy to continue to do so. My support on the Forum and in my candidate's statement is unequivocal. I have publicised them to my emailing list, and recommended them personally to anyone who asked, and many who didn't ask!

As the director responsible for Home Chess I was not copied in to the early correspondence regarding this, and I was on holiday without email when I finally did get copied in. What correspondence I have seen I can comment on.

The facts seem to be;

* Sunningdale has three sections
* Two sections were advertised as FIDE rated, the Open and Major
* Ray Ryan Foster only registered one section
* Under Ray Ryan-Foster the sections were played separately, but rated together in one file. This happened several times.
* Howard asked Sean to submit them as two separate files, as per his understanding of FIDE regulations.
* Sean said he wouldn’t pay the £6 difference in cost which would arise from this.
* Howard insisted that he did pay this cost.
* Sean then said he would cancel all his events until Howard Grist was replaced.

That was it.

As soon as I knew that there was a dispute I asked Howard to rate Sunningdale Open & Major and he agreed; he has rated them as two separate events, but not invoiced e2e4 the £6 difference in cost (the cost to the ECF of both methods is identical), and in future all events will have to submit rating reports as requested by the IRO and FIDE (http://ratings.fide.com/download/Fidexchg.txt) - as separate sections.

There may be a personal history that I do not know of, but I can say that Howard’s emails have been polite and to the point, and if I had received them as an event organiser I would have simply complied with his requests. Sean’s comments about the current IRO in correspondence have been rather personal.

In conclusion I cannot see what this dispute is about, beyond a clash of personalities. Sean has requested that we advertise the post of IRO, and we have now established that this is not necessary. I think Howard has the right to expect that the ECF Board supports his actions.

[IM Jack Rudd]

I take it the £6 difference is the result of three players' playing games in both the Open and the Major? In that case, I apologise for the £2 I myself am responsible for in that regard.

[Carl Hibbard]

So Howard is just correcting a mistake of Ray's then, seems clear?

[John Upham]

* Ray Ryan Foster only registered one section
* Under Ray Ryan-Foster the sections were played separately, but rated together in one file. This happened several times.

Did Ray do this in error or as a means of saving unnecessary fees to FIDE?

I will offer to make a £6 payment personally if it keeps the e2e4 events going.

Does HG has a view on this or is this forum a no-go area for members of the rating team?

I'm not sure what the rules of engagement are between ECF workers and this forum.

[Carl Hibbard]

Does HG has a view on this or is this forum a no-go area for members of the rating team?

I'm not sure what the rules of engagement are between ECF workers and this forum.

I could class myself as a worker and member of the rating team I suppose...

The fact that Howard is covering temporarily for what became a vacant post should also be made clear

[Alex Holowczak]

So Howard is just correcting a mistake of Ray's then, seems clear?

I don't think we can conclude that it's clear until we've seen the relevant law that says Ray was wrong and Howard is right.

I also don't think that Sean's grumble is over the additional £6. It's probably more to do with the fact that by rating the events separately, players missed out on a half-norm, for example.

[IM Jack Rudd]

I also don't think that Sean's grumble is over the additional £6. It's probably more to do with the fact that by rating the events separately, players missed out on a half-norm, for example.

That's always avoidable, isn't it? You just have to make sure that, whenever you do a cross-pairing between a rated and an unrated player, you move the rated player into the unrated player's section and not the other way round.

[Alex Holowczak]

I also don't think that Sean's grumble is over the additional £6. It's probably more to do with the fact that by rating the events separately, players missed out on a half-norm, for example.

That's always avoidable, isn't it? You just have to make sure that, whenever you do a cross-pairing between a rated and an unrated player, you move the rated player into the unrated player's section and not the other way round.

I have absolutely no idea, I'm afraid; I'm not aware of the rules. I meant that it seemed more likely that Sean's objection was on chess grounds, rather than financial grounds.