English Chess Forum

This is at http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... t-2012.pdf

While the new arrangements do not achieve Council’s ambition for a membership-only scheme immediately, it is a reasonable expectation that this will be achievable in the not too distant future, if membership take-up reaches a sufficiently high percentage.

What does this mean? Will non-members and this includes Scots, Welsh and others, as well as infrequent players, still be permitted to play in English chess without being members?

If the changes were to lead to a significant reduction in the amount of graded chess being played or the number of graded players – if segments of English chess were to withdraw from the ECF, for instance – this would adversely affect the financial position. I am pleased to report that, at the time of writing, there were no signs of this.

What about the local Yorkshire leagues? The facility for ECF members to play in these leagues and have all their games graded is claimed to have been withdrawn. Admittedly that only really impacts on the number of games graded.

Sounds as if forum debate will be ceased then?

Carl Hibbard wrote:Sounds as if forum debate will be ceased then?

There's a potential proposal that ECF Directors and Officers will only be allowed to comment in "official" media. Taking to its logical conclusion this would mean the ECF's Grading Database Manager would be forbidden from commenting at his own long standing SCCU site.

In term of suppressing debate, which I suppose is what this is about, the ECF made the worst move imaginable by cutting loose this forum. Had it retained some form of ownership, it would have been able by imposing a "Code of Conduct" to remove almost any comment that in any way was critical of the policies, activities or decisions of the ECF or its directors.

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... ndards.pdf

Council may wish to consider the following additional points raised by the two people who responded:
1. That ECF Directors and officials should be required to restrict their public comments to official ECF channels;

3.2 ECF publications (including the ECF website and the ChessMoves newsletter) enjoy a very wide readership, including juniors and potential sponsors. The importance of these publications to the ECF cannot be overstated: to a very large extent they are the public face of the ECF. Thus, publication of material which gratuitously injures the ECF directly or indirectly (including its reputation) in these media may be subject to disciplinary action

Roger de Coverly wrote:What about the local Yorkshire leagues? The facility for ECF members to play in these leagues and have all their games graded is claimed to have been withdrawn. Admittedly that only really impacts on the number of games graded.

I doubt that Yorkshire withdrawing from the ECF would have any material effect on the national body. Most leagues in Yorkshire don't pay game fee anyway, so they don't have much of a ball to take home.

It would be great to have Yorkshire back in the fold. But, for that to happen, Yorkshire have to pay their fair share, and they need to understand that that means paying the same as everyone else in the country, and for the same benefits.

Roger de Coverly wrote:There's a potential proposal that ECF Directors and Officers will only be allowed to comment in "official" media. Taking to its logical conclusion this would mean the ECF's Grading Database Manager would be forbidden from commenting at his own long standing SCCU site.

I assume the proposal refers only to 'official' comments, or comments pertaining to ECF business. I don't see how I could or should be stopped from commenting on e2e4 matters on the e2e4 webisite, facebook page, twitter account or even here for example.

Sean Hewitt wrote: I assume the proposal refers only to 'official' comments, or comments pertaining to ECF business. I don't see how I could or should be stopped from commenting on e2e4 matters on the e2e4 webisite, facebook page, twitter account or even here for example.

I wouldn't count on it. If you are an ECF director or officer and make a statement about chess, that could be interpreted as a comment about the ECF, particularly if it expressed a contrary view to other ECF directors or officers.

Roger de Coverly wrote:I wouldn't count on it. If you are an ECF director or officer and make a statement about chess, that could be interpreted as a comment about the ECF, particularly if it expressed a contrary view to other ECF directors or officers.

Well, that simply would not work given that most people involved with the ECF have other chess hats to wear from time to time.

Sean Hewitt wrote: Well, that simply would not work given that most people involved with the ECF have other chess hats to wear from time to time.

from
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... ations.pdf

On the Code of Conduct, one response centred on the issue of ECF officials engaging with “unofficial media” (e.g. English Chess Forum), proposing that the Code should state that ECF officials should be banned from such use of such unofficial channels and should limit their comments to official channels such as the ECF website

So someone thinks its a good idea. It's somewhat Soviet as a solution. The retiring CEO doesn't feel able to reject it out of hand.

The ECF could open up the "official" website to comments by ECF Directors and Officials, but even there you have the potential for conflict, to say nothing of the possible expense of employing a moderator.

Sean Hewitt wrote:

Roger de Coverly wrote:I wouldn't count on it. If you are an ECF director or officer and make a statement about chess, that could be interpreted as a comment about the ECF, particularly if it expressed a contrary view to other ECF directors or officers.

Well, that simply would not work given that most people involved with the ECF have other chess hats to wear from time to time.

It would make more sense to strongly recommend that ECF Directors and Officials using such media use the standard disclaimers to make clear they are not speaking on behalf of the ECF or in their ECF capacity. Banning them from using such media simply would not work, as others have noted. And there may be times when they would need to use such media in an official capacity. The key is to be able to distinguish the two, and to avoid confusion, and to avoid situations where potential conflicts can arise.

EDIT: A bit more worrying is the lack of responses to the consultation through official channels. Ironically, more responses to some of the issues are found on this forum. Some serious consideration should be given to summarising the responses given here (to various issues) and transmitting them officially.

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: And there may be times when they would need to use such media in an official capacity. The key is to be able to distinguish the two, and to avoid confusion, and to avoid situations where potential conflicts can arise.

More often than not, the postings here were made in an official capacity. The problem for the ECF posters was that their statements were challenged in some cases on grounds of veracity, so they got involved in extensive debates trying to justify their positions. As your [edit] suggests, postings here may reach a wider audience than the ECF website. If you want to comment on material on the ECF website, how do you do it?

Sean Hewitt wrote:

Roger de Coverly wrote:I wouldn't count on it. If you are an ECF director or officer and make a statement about chess, that could be interpreted as a comment about the ECF, particularly if it expressed a contrary view to other ECF directors or officers.

Well, that simply would not work given that most people involved with the ECF have other chess hats to wear from time to time.

Like this one??

Sean Hewitt wrote:

Roger de Coverly wrote:What about the local Yorkshire leagues? The facility for ECF members to play in these leagues and have all their games graded is claimed to have been withdrawn. Admittedly that only really impacts on the number of games graded.

I doubt that Yorkshire withdrawing from the ECF would have any material effect on the national body. Most leagues in Yorkshire don't pay game fee anyway, so they don't have much of a ball to take home.

It would be great to have Yorkshire back in the fold. But, for that to happen, Yorkshire have to pay their fair share, and they need to understand that that means paying the same as everyone else in the country, and for the same benefits.

At the YCA AGM Yorkshire were given quite a stark choice by the ECF - accept the new membership and game fee structure for the Yorkshire League or else disafilliate altogether. There was a surprisingly large majority who argued that they were sick of schism with the national body and voted to accept the new scheme.

The problem now is matters have reached a stalemate with the eight satellite leagues which are all constituted seperately (a situation unique to Yorkshire). There is no easy way to impose the scheme on players who play solely in these leagues and nowhere else. Taking the Harrogate League (the smallest) as an example there are six teams playing each other once so five games. With the best will in the world you cannot expect a player who plays in no other league or event to pay £2 per game or £12 bronze membership; this is where it does become the chess `tax` opponents of the scheme like to criticise. Even if the Yorkshire grading scheme was scrapped it would be easier for leagues to simply go ungraded rather than become ECF game fee registered.

Before somebody points it out I fully accept that there is no reason Yorkshire should get something for free that other leagues have to pay for. However there is a feeling that pro ECF Yorkshire players feel they are being penalised for a flaw in the system they did not create and cannot easily put right.

Andrew Zigmond wrote: With the best will in the world you cannot expect a player who plays in no other league or event to pay £2 per game or £12 bronze membership; this is where it does become the chess `tax` opponents of the scheme like to criticise.

That is exactly the proposition put to members of many of the leagues in the country. If the ECF have got away with it, it's because of a general desire to stay inside National grading and because the increase from around £ 6 to £ 12 isn't seen as a show stopper. The pay as you go option at £ 2 a game helps acceptance.

That's adult leagues of course, junior events asked for, and got, an opt-out.

But if Yorkshire local leagues didn't want to be corporate ECF members at around £ 36 for a six board team, they aren't going to want to be members at £ 72 a team or more either.

Andrew Zigmond wrote: The problem now is matters have reached a stalemate with the eight satellite leagues which are all constituted seperately (a situation unique to Yorkshire).

It's by no means unique. Leagues which are independent of county organisations are very common, particularly in major urban areas. The solution from 1993 onwards was that the Leagues became members of the ECF through the Game Fee scheme, so for a player or the BCF it mattered little whether they played in a county league or an independent one because the cost of being included in national grading and the membership charges raised by the BCF were always on the same formula.

Andrew Zigmond wrote:

Sean Hewitt wrote:It would be great to have Yorkshire back in the fold. But, for that to happen, Yorkshire have to pay their fair share, and they need to understand that that means paying the same as everyone else in the country, and for the same benefits.

At the YCA AGM Yorkshire were given quite a stark choice by the ECF - accept the new membership and game fee structure for the Yorkshire League or else disafilliate altogether. There was a surprisingly large majority who argued that they were sick of schism with the national body and voted to accept the new scheme.

That is a really positive step forward, it seems to me.

Andrew Zigmond wrote:The problem now is matters have reached a stalemate with the eight satellite leagues which are all constituted seperately (a situation unique to Yorkshire). There is no easy way to impose the scheme on players who play solely in these leagues and nowhere else.

The hope must be that a significant number join the ECF to play 4NCL, congresses etc and that a critical mass pushes one or more of these leagues into joining the fold. If that happened, others may well follow suit. If not, Yorkshire players may well end up isolated which I don't think would be good for anyone. I can imagine lots of non-Yorkshire players would stay away from Yorkshire congresses if they were not graded for example.

Andrew Zigmond wrote:There is no easy way to impose the scheme on players who play solely in these leagues and nowhere else. Taking the Harrogate League (the smallest) as an example there are six teams playing each other once so five games. With the best will in the world you cannot expect a player who plays in no other league or event to pay £2 per game or £12 bronze membership.

I suspect that's a red herring. Last year, it would have cost each player in that league just £3 to have all of their games graded but they weren't prepared to do so. That leads me to believe it's not about the money.

In Yorkshire whilst the Woodhouse Cup might be graded, it's unlikely that the town and city leagues will sign up to the ECF. Whilst Yorkshire has it's own Grading List, they will carry on blithely ignoring the remainder of the country.

It's unfortunate that the stereotypical Yorkshireman as personified by Arkwright in "Open all Hours" is still very much alive in God's own county.
I remember a Yorkshire Tyke mug we used to have in our house emblazoned "Eat all, sup all, pay nowt; Hear all, see all, say nowt and if thou does owt for nowt, do it for thisen." The BCF and following that the ECF have tried to solve this isolationism but have failed to the extent that I can recall an ex-BCF President who took up an invite to a Yorkshire AGM being given four minutes to speak during which he reported he was continuously heckled by those present.

If there was a solution, the intervening years have widened the gap to such a extent that a financial solution is almost impossible. In Nottinghamshire our clubs paid £50 per team to play in the local league (this was for 2011/12 - it will now be less as we are signed up to the ECF Membership scheme for 2012/3 and will ensure all players are at least ECF Bronze members). The fee per team in the Sheffield & District League has doubled this year from £4 to £8 a team; I assume that they would have to increase their fees by a factor of x10 to actually get their members to this level. It just won't happen.