ECF Membership - a (summary) reply to the Proposal

[Paul Cooksey]

Yet the Farthing proposals, as they stand, do indeed impose a non-elective 'permission to play' on chess players. Why are we remotely imagining that this will not lead to one almighty breakdown in relations between players, leagues/congresses, and the ECF?

Elective membership decoupled from chess playing itself is, I've argued, the most promising and principled way forward

Very interesting argument, hope you don't get discouraged by the off topic replies

Indeed. but I have not seen a convincing argument that the vast majority of players will not elect for the lowest tier. Or worse, follow my path to a much diminished ECF.

[Roger de Coverly]

I have no issue with the licencing concept. But in any case, tournaments have always required you pay upfront.

You pay an entry fee which is the same for everyone, regardless of how many byes are being taken. Some congresses offer ECF direct members discounted entry, again without regard to the number of byes. Others don't bother and retain any profits they might make from a lower Game Fee on ECF members. At 54p a game, no-one is, or should be, that bothered.

The first version of the Farthing proposal was more sensible than the second. In the first, the entry fee was £ x for members and £ x + 6 for non-members with £ 5 per non-member being paid to the ECF. Whether this £ 5 gave grading rights wasn't clear. You now have this concept that you must be a member but only if you are English. For FIDE events, you could do this, because it is a pertinent question as to your sporting nationality.

What message does the ECF expects Congresses to give out?
Is it -
if you are not a member, we don't think you should be allowed to play (if English). But if you are Scots or Welsh (or other) you can play and have an English grade for an extra £ 6 per tournament.
or
Anybody can play but only members will have an official published grade as a result of playing.

As a contrast to the French Licence approach, here's what the Dutch do in an event with some similarities to the British and Major Open.
http://www.schaakbond.nl/wedstrijdschaa ... 11/open-nk
http://onk.schaakbond.nl/toernooien/reservegroep-a

from which the entry fee is stated as

Inschrijfgeld
€ 55,- aan de zaal: € 60,-

Voor Nederlandse deelnemers die geen lid zijn van de KNSB wordt het inschrijfgeld verhoogd met € 10,-.

which Google reckons means

Entry fee
€ 55, - to the audience: € 60, -

For Dutch participants who are not members of the KNSB, the fee increased by € 10, -.

[Roger de Coverly]

Indeed. but I have not seen a convincing argument that the vast majority of players will not elect for the lowest tier. Or worse, follow my path to a much diminished ECF.

As it stands at present, the ECF has three arguably four membership schemes running in parallel namely
(a) a membership scheme for leagues, counties and Congresses aka the Game Fee regulations. Make no mistake about it, this is a membership scheme, all the bodies falling under Game Fee are required to nominate an individual to sign the white form as a guarantor member of a Company limited by guarantee.
(b) a membership scheme for individuals
(c) a hybrid between county membership and individual membership, namely the MOs
(d) vice presidency where a club becomes a member of the ECF, presumably under guarantor terms. A couple of examples being Hastings and CCF

If you make the scheme for leagues, counties and Congresses free, you are taking a gamble that you can sign up enough people under (b) and (c) to make up the financial shortfall.

As regards the notion that you should pay more for a seat on Council, in practice those who attend Council meetings are doing so at their own expense, so the paying for influence condition is already satisfied.

[Mick Norris]

Indeed. but I have not seen a convincing argument that the vast majority of players will not elect for the lowest tier. Or worse, follow my path to a much diminished ECF.

Paul, you may be right

I think that most chess players will opt for the lowest level, but we do have some experience here with the option to join the NMS or the ECF - some opt for the former on cost grounds despite having to "join" a "foreign" county, but some opt to join the ECF

[David Robertson]

Very interesting argument, hope you don't get discouraged by the off topic replies

I could and do get discouraged - less by the off-topic intrusions which are an ill-mannered fact of life in forums like this - but by the reluctance/refusal of many posters to engage in constructive critical dialogue. They prefer instead to grandstand their own 'bee in the bonnet' rather than work with others towards a viable solution. And of course, they drag things off-topic

[Roger de Coverly]

Elective membership decoupled from chess playing itself is, I've argued, the most promising and principled way forward

The basic problem is that elective membership is not, of itself, going to raise enough money to keep the ECF, in particular the Battle office, in the style to which it has become accustomed. Many of those who would support elective membership are not especially bothered by the notion that the elective payments should at least in part be proportionate to chess activity.

[Sean Hewitt]

Elective membership decoupled from chess playing itself is, I've argued, the most promising and principled way forward

It may be the most principled way forward but it is far from being the most promising way. It would result in near certain bankruptcy for the ECF as the vast majority who join opt for the basic membership, whilst a significant number walk away as the rate would be significantly higher than the current proposed bronze level.

Principles are all well and good, but not much use when economic reality is rearing it's ugly head.

[David Robertson]

The basic problem is that elective membership is not, of itself, going to raise enough money to keep the ECF, in particular the Battle office, in the style to which it has become accustomed

How do you know? At the simplest level, it would depend on where the membership fee was pitched. So it cannot be a logical or necessary outcome of my proposal. I regard your comment as propaganda, not argument

Many of those who would support elective membership are not especially bothered by the notion that the elective payments should at least in part be proportionate to chess activity

Why on earth, if we had a choice, would we want to charge for chess by volume played? In economic terms, chess is an entirely non-rivalrous good. Its consumption by one person does not limit the consumption of another. Unlike most sports and kindred activities, chess is not limited by the availability of fields, pools, courts. We can pretty much generate as much of it as we like. Charging by volume under such circumstances is quite perverse.

One normally charges by volume where rivalry obtains, hence where rationing is required. So one charges by the hour for use of a court or swimming pool or snooker table because one person's use does prevent others' access.

[Roger de Coverly]

Why on earth, if we had a choice, would we want to charge for chess by volume played? I

Because it's proportional to the interest in chess.

You should not attempt to charge the last minute substitute for a team the same amount as a dedicated player of over a hundred games a season.

The ECF has costs. You need to spread the costs over players if you have no other sources of finance.

Do you do it
(a) in proportion to the number of games played
or
(b) in proportion to the number of people playing at least one game?
or
(c) some hybrid between the two?

If you want a political analogy,
(a) is the current Council tax (which doesn't cause riots)
and
(b) is the Community Charge ( which did cause riots)

[Roger de Coverly]

How do you know? At the simplest level, it would depend on where the membership fee was pitched. So it cannot be a logical or necessary outcome of my proposal. I regard your comment as propaganda, not argument

Perhaps I'm failing to understand the proposal.

Suppose out of 10000 players you have 5000 who don't value the ECF and don't, given a choice, want to pay any money to it. Are you intending to charge them nothing or would you prefer to exclude them?

That leaves the remaining 5000 who value the ECF to pay all the expenses. It's a very plausible scenario.

[Paul Buswell]

from which the entry fee is stated as

Inschrijfgeld
€ 55,- aan de zaal: € 60,-

Voor Nederlandse deelnemers die geen lid zijn van de KNSB wordt het inschrijfgeld verhoogd met € 10,-.

which Google reckons means

Entry fee
€ 55, - to the audience: € 60, -

For Dutch participants who are not members of the KNSB, the fee increased by € 10, -.

Although I don't speak Dutch, I rather surmise that 'aan de zaal' equates to 'on the day' in this context.

PB

[Andrew Farthing]

The first version of the Farthing proposal was more sensible than the second. In the first, the entry fee was £ x for members and £ x + 6 for non-members with £ 5 per non-member being paid to the ECF. Whether this £ 5 gave grading rights wasn't clear. You now have this concept that you must be a member but only if you are English. For FIDE events, you could do this, because it is a pertinent question as to your sporting nationality.

What message does the ECF expects Congresses to give out?
Is it -
if you are not a member, we don't think you should be allowed to play (if English). But if you are Scots or Welsh (or other) you can play and have an English grade for an extra £ 6 per tournament.
or
Anybody can play but only members will have an official published grade as a result of playing.

Roger is misstating what I have said. In the latest paper, I have NOT said that every English player must be a member to play in non-FIDE-rated congresses. What I did say, in the e-mail quoted by John Charman earlier, was that if you were a Bronze member looking to enter a congress, you would need to pay the £6 difference between Bronze and Silver in order to be upgraded.

Financially, this is identical to the £6 Pay to Play fee for non-English players, with the bonus that it will enable the player to compete in further congresses (until the membership expires) without having to pay an extra £6 each time.

The rationale for this approach should be obvious: As a Bronze member, a player is entitled to a published grade. It would be a nonsense for this grade to be restricted to non-congress games.

If an English player is not a member at all, I have NOT said that he or she cannot play in congresses. What I've said is that the player would not receive a published grade based on the games played at that congress (or anywhere else). I had left open whether the £6 Pay to Play fee would be payable in such cases, but my view is that it should be.

To confirm a point discussed earlier in the thread, any Bronze member who was upgraded mid-season to Silver would be perfectly free to renew at Bronze level upon expiry of the membership, if that was the player's wish.

[Roger de Coverly]

Roger is misstating what I have said. In the latest paper, I have NOT said that every English player must be a member to play in non-FIDE-rated congresses. What I did say, in the e-mail quoted by John Charman earlier, was that if you were a Bronze member looking to enter a congress, you would need to pay the £6 difference between Bronze and Silver in order to be upgraded.

Financially, this is identical to the £6 Pay to Play fee for non-English players, with the bonus that it will enable the player to compete in further congresses (until the membership expires) without having to pay an extra £6 each time.

Would someone like to draft the wording that an entry form for a non-International event should use? In particular how do you define a non-English player? Do I understand correctly that a non-English player (who may well be both a British subject and resident in England) will get a published grade for a £ 6 fee per event, but an English player won't. If the ECF are going to invoice the Congress £ 5/6 per head how will they know who is English and who isn't.

The current membership position is that if a Congress joins the ECF either directly or through an existing member, then every game in that Congress counts for grading.

Is it not possible that a Bronze member will decline to upgrade if they see that they have to pay £ 6 more as the entry fee than a non-member? The organiser can apply various sanctions like restricting prize money for non-members, Is this where the ECF want Congress organisers to go? In the limit, a Congress organiser can restrict entry to grading limited sections to players with a published grade. As well as deterring new players, this also keeps non-members out.

[Adam Raoof]

In the limit, a Congress organiser can restrict entry to grading limited sections to players with a published grade. As well as deterring new players, this also keeps non-members out.

Not necessarily. In the main, new players are just looking for games of chess and to get that first grade, and wouldn't really be put off by a separate section for non-members. This is what they do in the USA.

[Roger de Coverly]

Although I don't speak Dutch, I rather surmise that 'aan de zaal' equates to 'on the day' in this context.
[/quote]

Obviously from the context.

I believe the Dutch approach to membership is that a Dutch resident can play in tournaments for an extra fee, but your games will not be included in the KNSB rating system. This, being an Elo system, is simple enough. For the opponents it has the same effect as playing an unrated opponent in the international system. So if you never have been a member, you will never have had a rating. That leaves open the question of how they handle the rating of foreign players with FIDE ratings and foreign players with national ratings. There's also the question of how ex-members will be handled. Perhaps the rating remains frozen at the level of the last published rating during their membership.