Editorial in CHESS Magazine

[John Upham]

What are your thoughts on Malcolm's editorial in the June 2008 edition of Chess magazine?

John

[Carl Hibbard]

What are your thoughts on Malcolm's editorial in the June 2008 edition of Chess magazine?

John

Not seen it, can "we" get some details?

[John Upham]

I'm not going to quote the article for copyright reasons but maybe MP would like that honour?

Let us just say that the wider public of the great chess unwashed has now been exposed to opinion they might have been sheltered from.

I hope that the July edition will contain the URL for this forum and that the ECF can really start to engage with its membership.

In the same way, all ECF publications should promote this forum.

Unfortunately, the value of both this and the Atticus forum have taken a blow from recent bouts of message deletion and censorship : this would not have happened in Roman times. I guess that is progress for you!

I trust you feel the same way?

John

[David Robertson]

the value of both this and the Atticus forum have taken a blow from recent bouts of message deletion and censorship

Unfair, John, I feel - speaking of the Atticus forum anyway. Full public explanations have been provided in both cases where intervention has been necessary to stabilise discussions and maintain Forum quality. That is more than this ECF Forum can say, having censored an important post of mine without explanation. On the Atticus Forum, we remain wholly committed to 'light touch' moderation and minimal intervention in arguments and debates between responsible adults. We even face down the occasional threat of legal action, or in recent days, of physical violence too The show goes on. Nothing relevant to ECF matters has yet required intervention.

As for this month's 'Chess', I can't wait...

David
Atticus CC

[Chris Majer]

David wrote:

That is more than this ECF Forum can say, having censored an important post of mine without explanation.

I removed your material, when it was drawn to my attention, because I considered that it breached the rules of this forum regarding postings. You might care to reread them. I'm not sure that I can explain further publicly without going into the substance of what was written.
John wrote

What are your thoughts on Malcolm's editorial in the June 2008 edition of Chess magazine?

Plainly written by someone who has only heard one side of the story. There will be a response from the ECF in next month's Chess. I think I will leave things at that so as promote sales of Chess Magazine.

[Sean Hewitt]

Lets remember Pein was (is?!) a Reganista, so he's hardly likely to produce a piece of balanced journalism now, is he?!

[Matthew Turner]

Sean, I do not know what your comments were so I am not directing this posting at you, it is just my general feeling. There are a number of postings on this forum which I feel are inappropriate, they are personal attacks and really don't substantiate any points. Given that this is the ECF site and is clearly seen by sponsors, as is shown by Fergus Christie's postings then the CEO has every right (perhaps obligation) to censor comments which are damaging to the broader interests of chess.
I contrast this with the Atticus Forum where the fact that someone had given away a free chess set was deemed too detrimental to the debate for us to read about. Yes it's true that this may have been for commercial reasons, but so what, you can explain this in a perfectly reasoned way without deleting the original comment. When we start talking about 'stabilising the debate' it all looks a bit Orwellian to me.

[David Robertson]

That's a thorough misrepresentation of the facts, Matthew. You only need to read the explanation offered to know it isn't true. Orwellian indeed! How silly.

As for Chris Majer's explanation, none of it bears scrutiny. The paragraph that was censored contained four statements: three were statements of fact, two of them matters of record; the fourth was a reasonable inference based on evidence. None of them merited deletion. Were the matter to be revisited, I'd repeat the lot on the Atticus forum. The suspicion remains that ECF was 'leaned on', and the Acting CEO caved in. How surprising is that? It's worth noting that the regular moderator saw no need to act: the text remained unchallenged for some time.

I've yet to read MP's editorial. But I can imagine what it might say. Manifestly the ECF is in colossal crisis. Anyone professionally familiar with organisations can see that. Only by the standards obtaining in 'chess world' can the crisis be denied. One imagines the ECF's right of reply will be akin to Ceaucescu's final appearance on his palatial balcony

David Robertson
Atticus CC

[John Saunders]

There will be a response from the ECF in next month's Chess. I think I will leave things at that so as promote sales of Chess Magazine.

The second sentence is ungrammatical. Are the words "not to" missing? I do hope the CEO of ECF is not saying that he is trying to promote sales of Chess Magazine...

In the interests of balance, I should point out that the recent ECF directorial resignations are also the main subject of my editorial in the June issue of BCM.

[Sean Hewitt]

In the interests of balance, I should point out that the recent ECF directorial resignations are also the main subject of my editorial in the June issue of BCM.

I'll look forward to reading that. We'll certainly get a balanced view of the situation from someone without an axe to grind.

[RichardPalliser]

Excellent work by both our magazines! It's good to hear that even many clubplayers who have virtually zero interest in the ECF will at least now know about some of its current woes. I wonder if just a few might be stirred into action?! Actually, I rather think it will be the forthcoming grading corrections which may produce something of a stirring in the ranks.

[Gavin Strachan]

Hmm, this posting is quite frustrating as I would like to know more about the June 2008 edition of "chess" article. Since the the original posting I have been waiting with baited breath to find out some more detail about it. Looks like buying the magazine is the only option in finding out what is about as no-one seems to be able to say a great deal about the content here (due to legal reasons or it just being deleted through censorship). Buying the magazine is a challenge for me unless I travel to a congress/London to find a copy.

[Tim Spanton]

Excellent work by both our magazines! It's good to hear that even many clubplayers who have virtually zero interest in the ECF will at least now know about some of its current woes. I wonder if just a few might be stirred into action?! Actually, I rather think it will be the forthcoming grading corrections which may produce something of a stirring in the ranks.

I suspect you're right, but my conclusions from this would be:
a) Most chess players have no problems with the ECF and would be pleased to retain the status quo;
b) A lot of players will be annoyed at what many will see as artificial, unjustified meddling with grades.

[TomChivers]

Actually, I rather think it will be the forthcoming grading corrections which may produce something of a stirring in the ranks.

I feel my rank stirring, so to speak!

What forthcoming grading corrections?

[Roger de Coverly]

What forthcoming grading corrections?

If you've got the patience, start here.
http://forum.bcfservices.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=22

By warned that this thread wanders off into irrelevance pretty quickly.

The plan is to publish both a normal grade and a "corrected/meddled" grade this July. I suppose if the outcry is loud enough against the "corrected" grade, then perhaps it will be dropped. The current ongoing plan is to continue with the "corrected" grade.

The ECF year book contains a more detailed article.