ECF membership & clubs' internal games.

[John Townsend]

It can’t be right for the payment of fees/charges to become so important that people are discouraged from playing chess. I think the ECF has its priorities wrong. Too many of the discussions in the “ECF Matters” section are about paying money or grading, and too few are about playing chess. There is a danger that chess will become restricted to a small and diminishing élite. I would like to see a national organisation whose top priority is to support the playing of chess at all levels. That would be a much healthier situation.

[Roger de Coverly]

All Roger's examples have come under the assumption that players just play internal club tournaments,

If you go back to Paul Buswell's original question, the scenario he was describing is the position at Hastings where he says they have members who only take part in internal competitions and it will cost them more once their Vice Presidency runs out.

In general the cost of running a graded internal club competition has been reduced from 20p a game to nil a game for players now being coerced to become ECF members. Let's not forget that the cost of becoming a member is £ 12 or £ 13 a year, whilst club subs aren't being reduced anywhere near that amount.

[IM Jack Rudd]

being able to run internal congresses totally free of charge is a good barrier to break and get more players playing competitive chess

How does requiring £2 minimum per graded game or £12 for ECF membership for "internal congresses totally free of charge" instead of the club paying 20p(?) game fee "get more players playing competitive chess"?

Because Alan is looking at it from the point of view of a club that is already active as an entity in local league chess, but doesn't have existing internal competitions.

[Alan Walton]

being able to run internal congresses totally free of charge is a good barrier to break and get more players playing competitive chess

How does requiring £2 minimum per graded game or £12 for ECF membership for "internal congresses totally free of charge" instead of the club paying 20p(?) game fee "get more players playing competitive chess"?

Because I am under the impression that they volume of players who just play internal club competitions only is very miniscule, therefore these players will unlikely to be interested in having a grade

If their main aim is to get a grade then in reality they would have to play some league chess and become a bronze member (or congresses but you have to be silver), once players are members @ £12 which is highly recommended in the majority of leagues, then internal congresses are free to run

One question Bill, how many players in your club only play in your internal club competition and don't play anywhere else?

[IM Jack Rudd]

I would like to see a national organisation whose top priority is to support the playing of chess at all levels.

In what way? This sentence is so vague as to be effectively meaningless unless you put something actually specific into it.

[Alan Walton]

All Roger's examples have come under the assumption that players just play internal club tournaments,

whilst club subs aren't being reduced anywhere near that amount.

Then this looks like something to take up with your individual clubs, to me it looks like they are taking advantage of the players

[Roger de Coverly]

Because I am under the impression that they volume of players who just play internal club competitions only is very miniscule, therefore these players will unlikely to be interested in having a grade

I might have thought so as well, but the evidence of a club like Hastings is that there are players who are unable or unwilling to travel for reasons of age or health. Presumably there's also the example of a club like Barnstable which is geographically isolated. There's also the Coulsdon (CCF) model where you have a chess centre in an urban area open nearly all the time which offers varied internal competitions for all standards in preference to running a dozen or more league teams. The concept of always playing in the same place has precedent in the London area because of the London League.

Being able to run internal competitions at £ nil per game instead of 20p might encourage more internal games by league players, although the saving is not great. If you charge £ 2 per game or £ 12 to enter, that would seem to be a disincentive to new or marginal players and a higher cost than needed last season.

[Mick Norris]

It's based on a fundamental change to the ECF funding model, from a per game basis to a per head basis.

The effect of which is to increase disproportionately the amounts paid to the ECF for some players particularly for players only taking part in internal club competitions. Is that point now accepted by all ?

No - at my club, the cost of the winter and summer championships has always been nil, because they haven't been graded

There are 2 options - continue as before, in which case no change, or grade them as all the club members have become ECF members (paid for by the club, without increase to club subs)

The second option begs the question of what to do about potential new members walking through the door - but, there has always been the issue of getting them to join the club before admitting them into club competitions (which as the club membership fee is £35 or more, is an issue)

[Angus French]

Yes I am confident that Andrew was right. For every club that thinks like Roger's example I suspect there will be a multiple of clubs who will now be able to have their club competitions graded who couldn't afford it before. A club in the position of having a lot of players who don't play League Chess but want to play in the Club competition could simply run their competition ungraded. After all if the players are not playing League chess then they don't really need a grade.

My own club – Streatham & Brixton CC - is different.

Last year we ran three Rapidplay tournaments each of 6 rounds and around 15 players. The tournaments were graded (at 10p/half game).

This year we’ll run the same tournaments but it’s very likely that two won’t be graded and I expect the third – the club championship – won’t be either.

This is because many of the participants are members of the local library chess group and not sufficiently committed to become members of the ECF, making it too expensive for the tournaments to be graded (at £1/half game for each non-ECF member). It’s a shame because we try to encourage the library players into competitive chess – by assisting them with the running of their club, by allowing them to enter our tournaments (free of charge) – a route which has enabled several players to obtain their first grade - and by providing a concessionary (half price) first year subscription to our club.

[Roger de Coverly]

Then this looks like something to take up with your individual clubs, to me it looks like they are taking advantage of the players

Well no, think it through. A league nominally offering 10 games would have been charging around £ 6 per board per year. A club cannot give back in membership sub reductions more than it is saving on league fees. You have to hold something back for £ 2 per head fees if you are going to allow match captains the odd wild card.

[John Townsend]

Jack Rudd said:

In what way? This sentence is so vague as to be effectively meaningless unless you put something actually specific into it.

What part of it didn't you understand? Not much pointing in my elaborating if you only want to snipe. The ECF seems to have other priorities which conflict with the broad one which I suggested, especially with regard to chess at the grass roots level.

[Sean Hewitt]

This is because many of the participants are members of the local library chess group and not sufficiently committed to become members of the ECF, making it too expensive for the tournaments to be graded (at £1/half game for each non-ECF member). It’s a shame because we try to encourage the library players into competitive chess – by assisting them with the running of their club, by allowing them to enter our tournaments (free of charge) – a route which has enabled several players to obtain their first grade - and by providing a concessionary (half price) first year subscription to our club.

You mean {horror} that you allowed non-Streatham & Brixton players to play in these events and yet paid game fee as if the event was an internal Streatham & Brixton event (i.e. restircted to Streatham & Brixton CC members)?

[Sean Hewitt]

There is a danger that chess will become restricted to a small and diminishing élite.

I do not believe, for one minute, that charging £12 per year will prevent anyone who wants to play chess, from playing chess on cost grounds.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Jack Rudd said:

In what way? This sentence is so vague as to be effectively meaningless unless you put something actually specific into it.

What part of it didn't you understand? Not much pointing in my elaborating if you only want to snipe. The ECF seems to have other priorities which conflict with the broad one which I suggested, especially with regard to chess at the grass roots level.

The point is that it is too broad. "To support the playing of chess at all levels" could be the ECF's rationale for just about anything it does.

[Angus French]

This is because many of the participants are members of the local library chess group and not sufficiently committed to become members of the ECF, making it too expensive for the tournaments to be graded (at £1/half game for each non-ECF member). It’s a shame because we try to encourage the library players into competitive chess – by assisting them with the running of their club, by allowing them to enter our tournaments (free of charge) – a route which has enabled several players to obtain their first grade - and by providing a concessionary (half price) first year subscription to our club.

You mean {horror} that you allowed non-Streatham & Brixton players to play in these events and yet paid game fee as if the event was an internal Streatham & Brixton event (i.e. restircted to Streatham & Brixton CC members)?

Yes! Although maybe I considered them to be honorary members - they certainly weren't members of any other league club and the ECF received income it wouldn't otherwise have... Anyhow, my point was that, to some extent, it won't be so easy to enfranchise these players.