ENG FIDE Ratings must be ECF Members

[Roger de Coverly]

If someone wants to change the rules, then I am open-minded about alternatives.

The rules are set by the Directors of the ECF. Council have always been told that individual membership is a FIDE diktat, therefore impossible to question.

Two examples which demonstrate this isn't so
(a) many Federations don't have individual membership schemes
(b) the Karpov attempt to disqualify Kirsan or his supporters failed because the Court in Lausanne ruled that membership in a FIDE context by custom meant anything you wanted it to mean.

So it would be quite possible to define "membership" as competing in an event registered under Game Fee with the English Chess Federation, or competing in a rated event organised by any chess Federation.

This would please Ben Purton and other match captains because even if the 4NCL entry fee went up to finance Game Fee, they would save on having to ask players for an extra £25 payable to the ECF. At 70p for 11 rounds for 8 boards, Game Fee would cost £ 61.60 which over a 16 player squad would be £ 3.85 each if you apportion it that way.

[Simon Brown]

There is no point in us having a rule about membership if we are not prepared to, at some point, enforce it.

Adam, if the rule puts many people off from supporting the organisation, you should at least question whether the rule is sensible.

[Alex Holowczak]

The rule was written for FIDE specifically and deliberately to protect the ECF and its income from the problems that would occur when FIDE finally got around to rating players to 1200 and below.

The ECF grade would therefore be weakened and Game Fee less attractive.

It would also, most importantly, allow the longterm introduction of ECF compulsory membership for those wanting grades(which I agree with)

You only need to ask: who was the man who wrote that section of the FIDE rulebook?

If you're referring to Stewart Reuben, that's not right. Stewart frequently comments that he hates that particular FIDE rule, because there's no way that FIDE can enforce it.

[Roger de Coverly]

If you're referring to Stewart Reuben, that's not right. Stewart frequently comments that he hates that particular FIDE rule, because there's no way that FIDE can enforce it.

Not Stewart but someone from your neck of the woods.

From http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/0001/bcf.htm

It was agreed that a new lower cost tier of Direct Membership Scheme (with less benefits) would be brought before Council in April. It is hoped that the new scheme will prove an incentive to the many players who, under a new FIDE rule, must be a member of a National Federation in order to have a FIDE rating.

So the FIDE rule was used as a reason for extension of membership schemes without, on the face of it, any discussion as to whether alternatives were possible.

I'd also forgotten that the mark 1 version of the extension, didn't give Game Fee rebates (see the table at the top of the link).

[Roger de Coverly]

David Anderton wrote that paticular rule. With deliberate and quite astonishing forward planning.

It was also spotted what was going on.

From http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/0001/let.htm

8.4.01
The website's brief summary of membership schemes [BCF page 6.4.01] caught my eye.
I could wonder whether this scheme is a stalking horse for some form of compulsory membership. This would take us back to the position before game fee (registered players). A couple of thoughts:
A trial run for the "popularity" of compulsory memberships would be to introduce them for the BCF congress -- too late this year since the entry forms are already out.
If an objective is to boost membership numbers to increase credibility with outside bodies, then the simplest scheme would be to offer free membership (no benefits) to all players who had played x rated games over a period of y. This would tie in with one of the A/B/C/D/E categories in the grading list. That's not totally zero cost to the BCF because of the need to collect details and maintain a membership register. If it got 100% support, then the membership count would correlate with active players.

Various attempts had already been made to propose compulsory membership, all of which had been rejected by the then BCF Council.

[Paul Cooksey]

Various attempts had already been made to propose compulsory membership

why?

all of which had been rejected by the then BCF Council.

why?

(I am interested in the pre-internet history)

[Paolo Casaschi]

The ECF grade would therefore be weakened and Game Fee less attractive.

Provocative quesiton: with the lower threshold for FIDE ratings getting lower and lower, does it still make sense to have an ECF grade? Would'nt it be better to work on getting as many events and leagues as possible graded under FIDE?

Especially if you compare a rating list updated every two months against a list updated once (or twice) a year. In addition, the more games you throw at the FIDE rating list more accurate the rating will be. Lastly, you would increase the number of "ENG" registered players in the FIDE list, that would likely be beneficial by itself.

I'm a member of the ECF since I started playing in this country, I think that regardless of immediate personal returns it makes sense to support the organization holding chess together in the country. Especially if the annual fee is a reasonable amount (compared to the cost of more popular hobbies).

I'm very surprised of the discussion in this thread focusing so much on game fees and grading. If that is such a burden to manage, why not getting rid of all this and push people on the FIDE rating list? Maybe the ECF should work to get more minor tournaments and leagues (currently graded ECF but not FIDE) on the FIDE rating list.

[Roger de Coverly]

Provocative quesiton: with the lower threshold for FIDE ratings getting lower and lower, does it still make sense to have an ECF grade? Would'nt it be better to work on getting as many events and leagues as possible graded under FIDE?

Simple enough. Minimum standard for FIDE rating is a nominal playing time of four hours or more. Most league and weekend Congress play takes place at a faster rate. So unless FIDE reduce the minimum standard to 75/90/105 minutes, the idea is a non-starter.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Minimum standard for FIDE rating is a nominal playing time of four hours or more. Most league and weekend Congress play takes place at a faster rate.

League play, I agree, but congresses? 4-hour sessions are the norm for congresses in the South-West (the most common time control being 40/100' + G/20').

[Roger de Coverly]

(I am interested in the pre-internet history)

Could I recommend the sccu site at http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/old.htm?

That has news and discussions going back to 1998 with online versions of the paper bulletin to 1994

There was one BCF meeting specifically to discuss this one subject. http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/0304/bcf.htm


As to why the schemes were rejected, surely you are familiar with the arguments against?

[Alex Holowczak]

4-hour sessions are the norm for congresses in the South-West (the most common time control being 40/100' + G/20').

I can't think of a congress in the MCCU that has 4-hour sessions, other than the Atkins Memorial run by Sean. They're virtually all 36/90 + G/15, apart from two which are 35/75 + G/15.

[Paolo Casaschi]

Provocative quesiton: with the lower threshold for FIDE ratings getting lower and lower, does it still make sense to have an ECF grade? Would'nt it be better to work on getting as many events and leagues as possible graded under FIDE?

Simple enough. Minimum standard for FIDE rating is a nominal playing time of four hours or more. Most league and weekend Congress play takes place at a faster rate. So unless FIDE reduce the minimum standard to 75/90/105 minutes, the idea is a non-starter.

Everything is negotiable. I would expect FIDE lowering the requirement for grading while extending the list towards the 1000 mark. I dont see many people worth 1200 Elo FIDE playing in week-long events. To make a list down to 1000 successful you need to make it easier for tournaments to be graded.

Does anyone have statistics about how many games are rated FIDE in England and how many games are graded ECF?

You could also look at what the Italian Chess Federation is doing: they have a national Elo system that started to be phased out few years ago. Basically, once you get on the Fide list you get out of the Italian list. Games between Italian rated players and FIDE rated players are taken into account when updating the Italian rating, of course they are irrelevant for the FIDE list. The goal is to attract people towards the FIDE rating an ultimately phase out the national rating (without a hard-cutoff of the Italian rating at once).

[IM Jack Rudd]

Everything is negotiable. I would expect FIDE lowering the requirement for grading while extending the list towards the 1000 mark. I dont see many people worth 1200 Elo FIDE playing in week-long events. To make a list down to 1000 successful you need to make it easier for tournaments to be graded.

FIDE are ahead of you on this one: if every competitor in a tournament is rated under 2200, the event can be rated with 3-hour sessions; if every competitor is rated under 1600, the event can be rated with 2-hour sessions.

[Roger de Coverly]

but congresses? 4-hour sessions are the norm for congresses in the South-West (the most common time control being 40/100' + G/20').

West of England use the 1,2,2 model for almost all their events, so four hour sessions can be a norm. SCCU events though, with the exception of e2e4 use the 3,2 model and four hour sessions are now a rarity because of the problems of an early start and late finish on the Saturday. Kidlington uses G/105 and some others variations on this with an intermediate time control. Others, including the weekend events at the London Classic use G/90 or equivalents.

1,2,2 events can be a particular problem if you are commuting from home, because the easy journey Saturday and Sunday morning and evening can be a nightmare on a Friday evening.

[IM Jack Rudd]

It seems to be a regional split: looking at the calendar, 1-2-2 is the usual model for both WECU and NCCU.