Some myths exploded ...

[Mike Gunn]

Myth 1: "The ECF is responsible for the decline of English Chess"

The rise and decline of English Chess is due to wider societal factors: what is happening in schools; how people spend their leisure time; how people perceive chess because of the images they receive from the media. Do people really think that the BCF was responsible for the English chess explosion of the 70s and 80s? Of course not, it was due to a variety of factors including Bobby Fischer, the Master Game on TV, and the appearance on the scene of some gifted players. Individuals associated with the ECF helped provide some opportunities for our strongest players (and juniors), but this just helped at the margins. Perhaps the ECF could have done things differently over recent years, but just suppose that Matthew Sadler had been given £1000 (or whatever the going rate is) for playing in the British and there was one big sponsored international tournament in England ... would this have affected Matthew's decision to abandon top level chess for a conventional career? I think not.

Myth 2: "You can't make progress unless the ECF board is united"

Although it may be true in business that everyone has to follow the lead of the CEO, this will never be the case in the ECF. The ECF is a national sporting federation (which has adopted a company structure for legal reasons), not a commercial company selling a product to the masses. Of course some business practices may be useful to us, but the structure and practices of the ECF can not (and should not) follow that of a commercial company. In a company you can fire people who don't follow company policy and that is a way of keeping employees in line with a single policy. In a body like the ECF, you can't just bark out orders from the top, you have to win over people to your point of view by reasoned argument.

Myth 3: "OMOV will energise the membership of the ECF"

I belong to two bodies which have OMOV. One is the National Trust (with millions of members) and the other is a professional association (with about 50,000 members). Neither body is distinguished by high levels of democratic participation. The real change you would get with a OMOV elected board is that there would be an (almost) completely different set of elected directors. On the whole they would be people who are known on the national chess scene (probably mostly IMs and GMs). This could be an improvement in some respects, but (on the other hand) the focus of these directors could be quite narrow. There is an unfortunate tendency among (some) stronger players to write off "patzers", who (let's face it) make up the majority of those in the grading book. A OMOV elected board would take its decisions in relative isolation and just one decision (e.g. outlawing adjourned games) could close down divisions of several leagues at the stroke of a pen. OMOV has the advantages of transparency, but the current federal structure does promote the discussion of issues amongst active player/organisers.

[Laurie Roberts]

Myth 1: "The ECF is responsible for the decline of English Chess"

Myth 3: "OMOV will energise the membership of the ECF"

The real change you would get with a OMOV elected board is that there would be an (almost) completely different set of elected directors. On the whole they would be people who are known on the national chess scene (probably mostly IMs and GMs). This could be an improvement in some respects, but (on the other hand) the focus of these directors could be quite narrow. There is an unfortunate tendency among (some) stronger players to write off "patzers", who (let's face it) make up the majority of those in the grading book. A OMOV elected board would take its decisions in relative isolation and just one decision (e.g. outlawing adjourned games) could close down divisions of several leagues at the stroke of a pen. OMOV has the advantages of transparency, but the current federal structure does promote the discussion of issues amongst active player/organisers.

OMOV is democratic. Democracy is the least worst system humanity has come up with for governance.

If the IMs and GMs were elected and they did ignore the majority of lower rated players (I doubt they would actually - look at Susan Polgar for instance), then they would simply be voted off by the majority of lower rated players next time! Surely a much more likely scenario is that candidates would put forward manifestos; some would appeal more to pros, some would appeal more to club players (although I expect all candidates to try and appeal to both!), the board would have an appropriate mix and the policies would be accordingly appropriate. A perfect board is one in which there is constructive challenge. An imperfect one is where that leads to deadlock. But if issues are deadlocked then members could be consulted.

[David Robertson]

Mike Gunn exploded!

Your three 'myths' are exactly that: three claims no one has ever made! The most fallacious of debating devices is to set up 'straw man' statements, and then demolish them.

I'm a trenchant critic of ECF. But I have never read anyone claiming that ECF is responsible for the decline of chess. Critics argue that ECF has not addressed that decline adequately or intelligently - a very different matter.

I've read no one authoritatively claiming the ECF Board must be united for it to be successful. That may be desirable but not essential. However, it is absolutely essential the Board should not be divided - again, an altogether different matter.

And so on....

David Robertson
Atticus CC

[Mike Gunn]

For OMOV democracy to flourish you need an active and informed electorate. This (more or less) works at the level of national politics because of the discussion/coverage of the issues that takes place in he media. Where this type of discussion is limited then the election is decided not on issues but popularity/ who you have heard of. I haven't voted in the elections to the council (=board) of my professional association for years because all you get is brief biographical and policy statements from each candidate that are so bland/anodyne (presumably on the basis of least annoyance) that it is impossible to distinguish between them. When I did vote I just voted for the people I had met/ heard of on the basis that they seemed OK and not because of their views. That isn't really democracy (in my opinion).

With the federal structure we basically have "activists' democracy". It's the people who turn up at county/league meetings who get to have a say. Of course they may not be representative of the majority of players (who knows?) and manipulation of the system is possible, but at least something approximating to democracy can go on (discussing the issues and mandating delegates). I think a pre-cursor to having a OMOV system must be signing people up to (cheapish) membership and establishing lines of communication with them. If you devise a system of universal membership (and a OMOV voting system) and a minority of the current players sign up then you have a disaster. It would be back to the drawing board and meanwhile you are saddled with a non-working structure. For this reason I think you have to sign up the membership first and (if it is what the majority want) introduce OMOV as stage two.

[Mike Gunn]

In response to David R:

1. I have been reading statements for the last two weeks on several fora that the decline of English Chess is down to (i) Gerry Walsh; (ii) the ECF collectively. I'll substantiate this by producing a few quotes in the next day or so, but meanwhile I have got other things to do this afternoon.

2. I fail to detect the difference between "divided" and "not united" that you claim to.

[Laurie Roberts]

For OMOV democracy to flourish you need an active and informed electorate. This (more or less) works at the level of national politics because of the discussion/coverage of the issues that takes place in he media. Where this type of discussion is limited then the election is decided not on issues but popularity/ who you have heard of. I haven't voted in the elections to the council (=board) of my professional association for years because all you get is brief biographical and policy statements from each candidate that are so bland/anodyne (presumably on the basis of least annoyance) that it is impossible to distinguish between them. When I did vote I just voted for the people I had met/ heard of on the basis that they seemed OK and not because of their views. That isn't really democracy (in my opinion)..

The answer to that isn't to abandon OMOV as a principle. As you say, its to increase the information to the electorate first - that's why I put forward my suggestion in the other thread of registering all chess players and then e-mailing them quarterly newsletters - and then introoducing OMOV. A candidate who set out a comprehensive and well thought out manifesto should attract more votes than a bland biography I would have thought. I certainly would read it.

I should add that I am not privy to the disagreements that have existed in Council or Board. And have no axe to grind with anyone. I just want the best outcome for chess in this country.

[Roger de Coverly]

Myth 3: "OMOV will energise the membership of the ECF"

Perhaps Mike G was referring to a comment by Peter Sowray on the Streatham blog

One of the main reasons I championed ‘One Member, One Vote’ was that I hoped it would help to achieve more involvement from chess players in their Federation.

Peter also made similar comments in his website which advocated OMOV. http://www.blog.ecfomov.co.uk/

achieve more involvement and energise the membership have similar meanings surely.

there are far too many people in the ECF who see proxies as nothing more than a chance to exercise power without responsibility.

The whole proxy thing is over the top. Is there a legal or privacy issue which prevents the publication of the list of organisations, their council rep and who the proxy was given to? Presumably the voting itself is confidential.

[Matt Harrison]

About 10 years ago there was a BCF that was dominated by an elderly board of long-retired competitors and blazer-wearers who were presiding over the sad decline of a once great institution. A figurehead was found to stand against the incumbents. He won/lost/resigned/went to court, but eventually they membrship elected someone with a love of the sport and a business background who took the opportunities that were there, promoted the sport, hired the best people, invested in youth and talent and stopped fighting the old battles.

It is now the most successful Olympic sport in this country.

The C in BCF obviously refers to cycling rather than chess - but maybe we could all learn lessons from this example.

[Tim Spanton]

About 10 years ago there was a BCF that was dominated by an elderly board of long-retired competitors and blazer-wearers who were presiding over the sad decline of a once great institution. A figurehead was found to stand against the incumbents. He won/lost/resigned/went to court, but eventually they membrship elected someone with a love of the sport and a business background who took the opportunities that were there, promoted the sport, hired the best people, invested in youth and talent and stopped fighting the old battles.

It is now the most successful Olympic sport in this country.

The C in BCF obviously refers to cycling rather than chess - but maybe we could all learn lessons from this example.

And then again maybe it's of no relevance whatsoever unless your agenda is to make a snide remark and hope for cheap laughs at the expense of the organisers of a game you presumably wish all the best for.

[Matt Harrison]

Point taken TIm - it may be a bit flippant and have no direct relevance - except that what rescued that federation was the election of someone with a clear vision for the future that was shared by the membership. Focusing on young talent and coaching at the expense of the rest of the sport was the priority and it seems to have worked well although it was controversial at the time. I think there are parallels, not just in acronyms. Hopefully the people who have stepped in to cover the gaps - and those I know are good people - will keep things going until October's AGM. It would be nice to hope that the election then will produce a leadership for the ECF that will help the game develop.

[RichardPalliser]

Do we need to go further down the line of 'focusing on young talent and coaching at the expense of the rest of the sport' as cycling clearly has? I'm not sure. It seems to me that there are more primary school children playing than ever and there's also a lot of coaching in schools, and not just in London. Furthermore, recent junior directors, helped by the Robinson trust, have helped our more promising juniors with coaching. However, we surely need to find ways to encourage all juniors to keep playing. Twenty years ago, you could enter a number of weekend congresses and win quite reasonable money, but nowadays... I'm just not sure how useful having too many junior-only events is. I can also say that personally I improved a lot as a junior by playing in some quite tough weekenders (Majors then Opens), but finding such events is much harder today.

[Matt Harrison]

I suppose it all depends on what people want from the ECF. It seems to me that adults who are playing league or congress chess will continue to do so (or drop out) almost regardless of what the ECF do. Some well-run congresses, an efficient and good value grading system and a decent directory of clubs for new adult players are probably all that are needed.

But if (as I think) the role of the ECF is to facilitate the growth and development of chess then new players need to be recruited and retained. There is clearly a large pool of very young chess players picking up the game at primary school (as my son did). His old primary school runs a successful chess club that has survived several changes of parents running it and produced some decent players. But out of probably 50 players over 5 years who played competitive chess, both for the school and individually, only 1 (my son) is still playing. He plays both junior and adult congresses, and he is now playing league chess for an adult club, where he is the only junior. He gets a lot of support and encouragement from the club and is enjoying it - but he is the exception.

The issue for me is how could 5 or 10 or 20 of those lost 50 junior players have been retained? How many of them will pick up chess again in later life? The transition from primary school to secondary school is critical, and the image of chess is not that attractive to teenagers. But my son has gained quite a lot of kudos from travelling abroad to represent his country, and from picking up decent prize money from winning congresses - £200 gets a lot of respect amongst his peers!