Summary of Funding Proposals for AGM

[Simon Brown]

If I were entering a congress, I wouldn't care remotely how the organiser votes. In fact, despite having been playing in congresses for over 40 years, I don't think I even knew congresses had votes until I read it here a few minutes ago.

I used to play in congresses to play chess, not to influence BCF/ECF matters.

[Paul Cooksey]

If I were entering a congress, I wouldn't care remotely how the organiser votes. In fact, despite having been playing in congresses for over 40 years, I don't think I even knew congresses had votes until I read it here a few minutes ago.

I used to play in congresses to play chess, not to influence BCF/ECF matters.

Quite, my entry was never contingent on the reply I got. I suppose it might if we had an Ilyumzhinov running for office.

Roger and I indulging ourselves in something of a private joke here, the Berkshire AGM was this week. We have both known the relevant ECF rep for Berks, Berks+ Bucks, Chiltern and a few others, for several decades.

[Roger de Coverly]

Shouldn't it be put to a vote and listed in the ECF rule book for it to be valid?

Here's some old material from the period of its introduction.

http://web.archive.org/web/200206040123 ... ectmem.htm

[Paul Cooksey]

Shouldn't it be put to a vote and listed in the ECF rule book for it to be valid?

Here's some old material from the period of its introduction.

http://web.archive.org/web/200206040123 ... ectmem.htm

Interesting. Although Nunn's faultless argument is undermined by:
1. We pretty much all paid (except the Welshman)
2. We have now establish £100 000 membership is not enough

[Roger de Coverly]

Interesting. Although Nunn's faultless argument is undermined by:
1. We pretty much all paid (except the Welshman)
2. We have now establish £100 000 membership is not enough

Nigel Davies took the precaution of becoming inactive, but he's paid up until 31st May 2014.

Even in 2000 there weren't 25000 active players.

The material at the time is fuzzy as to whether the scheme was a mandatory FIDE requirement or not. It was later that the BCF and ECF websites headlined it as a FIDE diktat. From 2006 for instance
http://web.archive.org/web/200606141748 ... _jun06.htm

[Paul Cooksey]

The material at the time is fuzzy as to whether the scheme was a mandatory FIDE requirement or not. It was later that the BCF and ECF websites headlined it as a FIDE diktat. From 2006 for instance
http://web.archive.org/web/200606141748 ... _jun06.htm

Even then there is no suggestion that the ECF/ BCF was going to give FIDE the money. Requirements for membership, and charging for membership are two separate things. Even if the first was obfuscated, the second was clear.

[Roger de Coverly]

Even then there is no suggestion that the ECF/ BCF was going to give FIDE the money.

I don't think that was ever suggested or even inferred. Rather it was like the introduction in July 2005 of the rule that you couldn't write down the move before playing it, or the introduction in July 2009 of the possibility of zero time defaults. The presentation was that FIDE had spoken and the ECF had complied.

[Simon Dixon]

I thought I would add a couple of quotes from GM's on the subject. It suggests there has been some skulduggery by the ECF.

I could easily afford the membership fee and would not have cancelled my membership (a couple of years ago now) had the BCF achieved more in the past decade. But as things stand I will not be paying a penny, and if this proposal is passed it will ensure that I never will. Yours sincerely, Nigel Davies (International Grandmaster).”

Another very distinguished grandmaster, Dr. John Nunn, responded to Stewart Reuben’s email, thus:

“This proposal is exceptionally far-reaching in its implications, since it completely changes the relationship between ordinary players and the BCF. In addition, it has a host of practical implications. I would have thought that such a proposal deserves a wide debate, yet so far as I can tell it has not been publicized. Casting my eye over recent issues of ChessMoves reveals no mention of this proposal. Given that the BCF has such an outlet available, it seems extraordinary that no attempt has been made to invite a debate on this controversial proposal, especially amongst the players and organisers who will be affected by it. Indeed the way in which you put it (‘There is little doubt this proposal will be passed.’) suggests that it is a fait accompli.”

“Key to the proposal is the implicit threat that those who do not become members of the BCF will be struck off the FIDE rating list (otherwise membership would be voluntary, and the proposal would not change the current situation). This raises a large number of questions: ”

* Why does the BCF think it has the power to have players struck off the FIDE list, which is after all administered by a body independent of the BCF? Is there any agreement between the BCF and FIDE regarding the striking off of English players from the FIDE list? I note that FIDE have found it very difficult to strike players off their own list, even in cases involving flagrant manipulation of the rating system - doubtless they are wary of the legal implications of doing so.

[Simon Dixon]

If I were entering a congress, I wouldn't care remotely how the organiser votes.

There is an easy way to find out how organisers vote, try entering a FIDE rated tournament in England and see if they ask for your ECF membership No.

[IM Jack Rudd]

If I were entering a congress, I wouldn't care remotely how the organiser votes.

There is an easy way to find out how organisers vote, try entering a FIDE rated tournament in England and see if they ask for your ECF membership No.

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

[Alex Holowczak]

If I were entering a congress, I wouldn't care remotely how the organiser votes.

There is an easy way to find out how organisers vote, try entering a FIDE rated tournament in England and see if they ask for your ECF membership No.

Why? The membership list can be downloaded off the ECF website. All you need is a grading reference, and you can see if they're members.

[Paul Cooksey]

In fairness to GMs Davies and Nunn, I suppose we should acknowledge these are old comments. I don't know if they still hold these views.

Honestly reading GM Davies comments made me want to launch into a rant about the devaluation of GM title that would make Dr Short proud. I'll save it for another thread.

A least the ECF are making some attempt to address Nunn's concerns. Less secretative this time.

[Simon Dixon]

If I were entering a congress, I wouldn't care remotely how the organiser votes.

There is an easy way to find out how organisers vote, try entering a FIDE rated tournament in England and see if they ask for your ECF membership No.

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

Could I enter one of your FIDE rated tournaments without ECF membership? Pleeease

[Paul Cooksey]

In a Game Fee costed environment, the more games an individual plays, the more he contributes to the ECF.

Completely unfairly, because it doesn't cost the ECF anything to supply a game of chess to the players.

[Roger de Coverly]

Completely unfairly, because it doesn't cost the ECF anything to supply a game of chess to the players.

So why should the ECF expect to receive payments in any circumstances?

If you don't play chess, you aren't required to be an ECF member. If you play even one game of chess,they want or demand that you become a member. What are they supplying?

The ECF could claim, perhaps rightly, that it supplies the environment in which the game takes place, pairing rules, arbiters, publicity, grading etc. As it has a mission to promote chess, I don't see it as wrong that it should be rewarded when it succeeds. Success being measured by the number of games played as well as heads counted.

It's chicken and egg. You have a chess structure so you create a national chess body. But if you don't have a chess structure you need a national chess body to create a structure.