Resignation Rumours

[John Upham]

I felt some of your post was not appropriate for this forum and so I am sorry to say applied my first moderation


Congratulations! Which forum is it appropriate for? What did you think I was referring to?

I paid a speech pherapist in Southampton £20 for help with my liwsph : phought it was the same young woman as in the video. I didn't work.

[John Upham]

I heard once that if your King gets captured, you can still fight on as long as you have other pieces left. What happens if both Kings get captured though...?

You may joke about this (and why not) but this behaviour has been observed in many junior tournaments.

They play on even after a King or two has been captured : its not worth intervening.

[David Robertson]

You were lucky. If I'd been playing, I'd have demanded a ruling from Stewart Reuben

David Robertson
Atticus CC

[TomChivers]

You can get a flavour at Chesscube

I'd not heard of Chesscube before, but it seems like a really nice site. Thanks for pointing it out.

[RichardPalliser]

I've been following this thread over the past few days – it's at least reminded me how many sensible chess players we have who'd like to see a well-run ECF. Speaking as an ECF international selector (boo, hiss!), I must say how impressed I've been by all the work which both Peter Sowray and Claire Summerscale have done. I don't currently intend to resign myself, if only because the selection for Dresden will be far from easy and because it's important to continue some of Peter's fine work.
One slight concern about this debate is how few contributors I don't know or at least haven't heard of. (This may not, of course, be the same for everyone: many, for instance, may not know Justin – Hadi not Horton – who was once England's strongest U-100 grade!) How exactly should the ECF canvass the views of its average player, assuming it ever decides to? From what I can see, we have:
a) Multiple copies of a questionnaire dispatched to every club in the land;
b) An attempt to build up the ECF email list and then use that alone for questionnaire purposes (smaller but cheaper);
c) Send volunteers along to certain league matches and tournaments with the aim of getting as many views as possible, thereby finding out how, say, 10% of all graded players feel about membership rates and the ECF.
Somebody with a much better business brain than I will no doubt know what's best (possibly option 'd').
I must support Andrew and Harriet too: the ECF certainly gives the impression of not caring an iota about their IMs and GMs (and now we don't, I believe, have any professionals left who make a living solely by playing). Name another European country which makes its players pay for the administrative charges involved in the awarding of such titles! Furthermore, did the English Senior Championship (great concept and venue, though) really need so much money pumping into it – bit of a kick in the teeth for our GMs I would have said.
Tied in with some of Ian Kingston's points and Dai Carpenter's suggestions, I'd certainly like to see the ECF restart the Grand-Prix (sorry, the proper Grand-Prix – the amateur sections are still run, just not the top one). A healthy weekend circuit is vital to our game I feel. It has many benefits, including helping juniors to gain valuable experience, and certainly brings titled players to all parts of the country (helpful if any clubs want to organise a simul for starters). Furthermore, many players are often interested in some of the action from the top boards: for example, in a recent Scarborough congress I can remember being encircled by a large crowd of spectators during some horribly complex and semi-blitz queen ending with Mark Hebden.
The inability of the ECF to find a sponsor for the British, especially considering the superb venue David Robertson has obtained for them, is staggering, but how best can we bring about change, especially when Martin Regan et al found it impossible? If a one man, one vote concept is never going to get passed is there any chance of reforming council? Is it possible, asks he naively, to move to a situation whereby an AGM elects the Board and we don't have Council? Of course, we need people beyond those on the Board, but board members can surely delegate/chair their own committees? Perhaps just one vote for each county association (39 I believe: 37 traditional counties plus Cumbria and Greater Manchester) at the AGM could be brought in or is that just wishful thinking? The latter I guess.
Finally, I wonder just how many graded games both board and council members played between them last year? (I have no idea of the answer, but fear it's woefully low!)

[Charles W. Wood]

Hi Richard

You have a lot of respect from me; as a titled player that played in the Renegade Hotspurs, author, and international selector. As Ernie would say "Devils in the detail".

OMOV is a tricky thing to get right and will need a good bit of research before a structure is put forward, but there are a large number of working models that cover the country which are of minimal or no cost. Unions, netional bodies and voluntry services have been developing way and means for years. The biggest area to worry about would be that we have such an age range technology doesn't help much, but we do have a very good bottom to top structure. That would be a key focus in anything like this.

As for not looking after our top end players, this is something we have to sharpen up on. Sponsorship is very hard to come by especailly as most oganisers aim in (my opinion) the wrong direction and go for industries that are doing well (These organisations that are doing well are the one set of people less likely to sponsor anything, as marketting is for the business that are setting up or struggling). So a better structured approach is needed. (As you all know I run Chess for Schools and are probably sick of me going on about it, but the example it gives is a very strong one. Each of the companies (if not industries) are all on the eco-warriors hated lists, or need to develop stronger ties with schools for business reasons). All are looking to throw money in our direction once "Chess for Schools is completed.

Your grading question is quite interesting, as a council member and manager within the ECF I played 2 graded games over the last year. So your thinking is correct, BUT I arranged for over 400 non graded players (average of 36 games per player) to get grades in rapidplay and 40 in evening league long play (average of 12 games per player). Targets, as discussed last night at the Bradford & DCA AGM are 1500 new rapidplay gradings and 250 new evening league long play gradings all with around the same averages. So I justify my non playing by helping others into the leagues and tournaments.

All this is dependant on two things happening at once:

1. A massive ground swell of new players entering at both Junior and Evening League at the same time.

2. A restructuring process (as suggested by Martin and then fellow board members) to get a unified country aiding the development of all these new people entering the bottom end.

If either doesn't happen the other is a dead loss.

Someone said to me the other day "the ECF changed massively and was about to take a step forward, then stopped. Now it looks like its stood on one leg waiting to see which direction to set off in". This is all dependant on change being wanted. If its not than the status quo stays the same and everything just gets smaller, and smaller. We can only move toward getting the right financial parts in place if we start the process.

I always remembered that the locals here said that once the (then BCF) ECF did something then they would move with them. We have massive projects on the books, big enough to bring about change. We need to be ready because we are not even close.

[andrew martin]

It may also interest you all to know that I have found a new sponsor for the National Schools Championship.

Yateley Manor School will be the sponsors for 2008/9 and beyond, thus the future of this important tournament , run by the ECF, is secure.

[andrew martin]

What I am basically saying is that it is not all bad. I am still working for the federation because I believe passionately that you have to fight the cause WITHIN the body and KEEP fighting.

There are without doubt many problems, but we will not solve them by breakaway unions, mass resignations or constant withering criticism, a lot of which is bordering on ignorance.

I totally accept that change is necessary, but the total annilhation of the Federation and a complete rebuild is to my mind the wrong way to go about it.

Andrew

[RichardPalliser]

I agree with Andrew. His work in finding a sponsor and Charles Wood's within Bradford is also most welcome.

I'm probably not going to be popular for raising this, but what do our Unions do bar run county events (something which could surely be done by the ECF) and supply news (e.g. the excellent SCCU website)? Granted they also play quite a major role politically, but this isn't always good: i.e. the recent NCCU-Cleveland problems. Indeed, I wonder whether we have a choice between powerful unions and a fairly weak ECF or no Unions and a strong ECF. I can't see the Unions voting to remove themselves, but I'm all for having as few bureaucratic levels as possible. Furthermore, ECF - Counties - (Leagues in large or middling counties) - Clubs is quite a decent structure in my view.
Indeed, this is partly why I earlier suggested perhaps having just one vote per county at the ECF AGM. Perhaps as a stepping-stone until OMOV can be implemented. Ideally, this meeting would elect the Board for a year with the only check perhaps being some sort of independent auditor. The Board would be left to get on with running the organisation and if unpopular would be voted out at the following AGM. Such a situation is surely far better than the current haphazard model which appears to combine elements of the 'democracy' of ancient Greece with USSR-style government!
Board members do need to be left to carry out their roles. I can't speak for Peter Sowray, but I did sense that while he was very professional at dealing with our leading players, the selectors and potential sponsors, he became fed up having to spend a large amount of time on more general ECF issues. Elect the board and let them get on with things!

Charles - should be an interesting and important YCA AGM for us in Yorkshire next month!

[andrew martin]

I completely agree with Richard. In a strong ECF we cannot tie the hands of talented officials with what amounts to political muddying of the water. That is why OMOV is essential, but I repeat, people will not get what they want by resigning. That HAS to be understood.

A stomach for the ongoing fight is a prerequisite.

[Charles W. Wood]

It may also interest you all to know that I have found a new sponsor for the National Schools Championship.

Yateley Manor School will be the sponsors for 2008/9 and beyond, thus the future of this important tournament , run by the ECF, is secure.

Fantastic news, well done, I'm sure it took a lot of work and effort. Sponsors are really tricky to pin down. The ECF has just benefitted as that is valuable outlay they will not need to cover and that they now can either keep or direct onto something else.

[Charles W. Wood]

Charles - should be an interesting and important YCA AGM for us in Yorkshire next month!

Why? Never has been before, and I don't think I'm going (So its not some one telling me professionalism is bad). I know the junior front has launched ahead thanks to the great work of Peter Cloudsdale and John Hipshon (to name a few) with charity status and development structures coming.

[Justin Hadi]

Hi Richard,

Been a while! Thanks for the nod - it was a most prestigious title. I'm not sure who the current holder is.

A lot of good things are being achieved, and it is still quite a pleasant experience playing in England, which I guess is the main thing for most club players. The Chesscube site and the sponsorship for the national schools championship are excellent. Great news - I can't think of many free sites as good as Chesscube, and sponsorship at the junior level speaks for itself.

Justin

[Peter Sowray]

Hello,

I am struck by a couple of things in reading this and other threads on the forum.

1) There are clearly a number of people who care passionately about the well-being of English chess. There are some excellent ideas and initiatives, offering hope for the future.

2) There is a great deal of unpleasant personal abuse. I imagine much of this is down to frustration, but I fail to see what good comes out of it.

I wish the new ECF Board every success. They have a tough job.

Peter

[Charles W. Wood]

Hello,

I am struck by a couple of things in reading this and other threads on the forum.

1) There are clearly a number of people who care passionately about the well-being of English chess. There are some excellent ideas and initiatives, offering hope for the future.

2) There is a great deal of unpleasant personal abuse. I imagine much of this is down to frustration, but I fail to see what good comes out of it.

I wish the new ECF Board every success. They have a tough job.

Peter

Well said, I don't really know you, but you did sound as though you know what your on about at the council meeting. I believe that shunning any volunteer is a bad move, because they give up. I hope your passion for chess is just as strong as ever.

I'd love to know what you think should be done? (Your £2.00 or £20.00 speach was great at the council meeting).