The value of the ECF Calendar

[Richard Bates]

But isn't the point that you (Sean) are seeing the "valuable resource" solely as being valuable to organisers looking to promote/advertise their events? Whereas it is quite clear from Neill's posts that the "value" he is talking about is for organisers of other events (often graded "ECF supporting" ones) who are seeking to avoid clashing dates. It seems the entire approach is based on an assumption that these rebel organisers will pay up. If they don't see the imperative to so do, then it will be organisers supporting the ECF who lose out.

Are you going to answer the question about the other events - Simuls/blitz/coaching weekends etc etc?

[Sean Hewitt]

But isn't the point that you (Sean) are seeing the "valuable resource" solely as being valuable to organisers looking to promote/advertise their events?

I don't think that is the point, nor is it what I am saying. The calendar is clearly valuable to a number of different stakeholders some of whom support the ECF, and some of whom do not. In the event of a clash between listed and non listed events, I believe that it's the non listed ones that will lose out.

It seems the entire approach is based on an assumption that these rebel organisers will pay up.

I don't think that that has been stated by anyone, so it seems to me that that this is an assumption, and an incorrect one at that. The board does not know what non member organisations might choose to do. I'd hope that these events might decide to fully support the ECF and become graded. If that doesn't happen then it's reasonable that they pay a fee. If that doesn't happen either, then they simply won't be listed, but that is entirely their choice.

Are you going to answer the question about the other events - Simuls/blitz/coaching weekends etc etc?

I wasn't aware I'd been asked a question. I don't believe that such events were ever intended to be in the ECF calendar but, as there is no game fee for such events I see no problem with them being listed where they are organised by a fully paid up ECF member organisation or individual member.

No sensible national governing body would freely advertise events that chose not to support that governing body. It seems madness to me to suggest that they should even contemplate it.

[Neill Cooper]

No sensible national governing body would freely advertise events that chose not to support that governing body.

Progress - we are now getting close to the underlying policy that resulted in the specific decision. Can we get a clear statement of the objectives of the ECF?

The website says: "The ECF is the governing body for chess in England and its mission is to promote the game of chess, in all its forms, as an attractive means of cultural and personal advancement, to foster the highest level of achievement in the game, to make the Federation’s services and membership available to all, without restriction, and to promote equal opportunities in a positive manner".

[Sean Hewitt]

Progress - we are now getting close to the underlying policy that resulted in the specific decision. Can we get a clear statement of the objectives of the ECF?

Sure. How about this

The ECF is the governing body for chess in England and its mission is to promote the game of chess, in all its forms, as an attractive means of cultural and personal advancement, to foster the highest level of achievement in the game, to make the Federation’s services and membership available to all, without restriction, and to promote equal opportunities in a positive manner.

There isn't a line which says "free of charge to members and non-members alike" for a very good reason.

[Roger de Coverly]

No sensible national governing body would freely advertise events that chose not to support that governing body. It seems madness to me to suggest that they should even contemplate it.

This is why there's a view that national governing bodies can actually be a menace to the sport or pastime that they purport to promote. The subtle shift is from promotion of chess to promotion of chess but only when run by organisations who are members of the national body or insist on all participants being individual members.

The Junior organisations now have an uneasy relationship with the ECF. The intent of the Farthing membership scheme was to replace a scheme where the ECF raised money by memberships and Game Fee at about a 50:50 spilt, with one where the spilt was moved to around 90:10. What they didn't check was whether the mix between amounts raised from adults and junior organisations remained approximately the same. The effect of the membership proposals being to withdraw most or all of the cut price rates for junior events, thereby applying a disproportionate cost increase. Actually I don't know that it wasn't checked, but it was evidently dismissed as of no consequence until the revolt at the April Council meeting.

It's not unknown for events to be deliberately structured as ungraded or unrated even when run by an organisation that is a voting member of the ECF. Still the phrase "voting member" is significant, those Junior organisations remaining members of the ECF have powers not available to individuals to bring motions to ECF meetings requiring the directors to change ECF policies or at the very least reconsider them.

[David Shepherd]

As I see it

1) The ECF has a duty to promote the game
2) To provide extra services to its members over and above those it offers to everyone

It seems to me the change is negative in terms of both the above.

However it isn't quite that simple as the listing doesn't just appear - there is a cost in putting it on the calendar. Also any non graded tournaments are to some extent competing with graded ones and I guess from an organisers/promoters point of view why should those who give nothing directly receive the same support as those who don't.

To me though on balance not listing seems wrong. I guess one compromise would be to have two calenders - one available to members listing all tournaments and events and another available to all which just shows graded events. To me though, this feels slightly wrong as many of the ungraded events would be aimed at beginners who would then not be members. Another option would be to list events but with no contact links for anything not graded.

As I have said before I would like a members only part of the website which offers services just for members. What goes on there is for discussion but something should.

[David Shepherd]

Harry Lamb is of course entirely wrong. He is also not as unbiased as he claims to be, being the producer of a grading list for ungraded events in the North West of England. I do find it odd given his statement above that he sells this grading list. You would have thought that he must give it away for free!

Well thats what the ECF do - why for example can non members see the grading list?

[Sean Hewitt]

...To provide extra services to its members over and above those it offers to everyone...non graded tournaments are to some extent competing with graded ones and I guess from an organisers/promoters point of view why should those who give nothing directly receive the same support as those who don't.

I agree with this David. We must not forget that graded events are ECF member organisations in a way that ungraded events are not. I suspect very few graded events (which thankfully are the majority) will be complaining about this policy. I also suspect that ungraded events pay for the other services they receive. It seems that they just don't want to pay the ECF!

As I have said before I would like a members only part of the website which offers services just for members. What goes on there is for discussion but something should.

Agreed. Any suggestions what those things should be?

[Sean Hewitt]

Harry Lamb is of course entirely wrong. He is also not as unbiased as he claims to be, being the producer of a grading list for ungraded events in the North West of England. I do find it odd given his statement above that he sells this grading list. You would have thought that he must give it away for free!

Well thats what the ECF do - why for example can non members see the grading list?

It would be impossible to prevent non-members viewing/discovering grades and it would be wrong to do so as non-members can obtain a grade by playing in events which pay game fee or pay to play fees for their participation.

It might be possible in the future for some of the fancier stuff on the grading site (like game lists etc) to be available to members only but I'm not sure that's fair if they've paid game fee / pay to play.

[Roger de Coverly]

I suspect very few graded events (which thankfully are the majority) will be complaining about this policy.

County associations run or oversee a variety of events, some of which are not graded because they cannot be and others are not graded as a matter of deliberate policy. Pre season friendlies being an example. So what is the policy applicable to a county association regarding listing of non graded events?

[David Shepherd]

Well I guess it depends on how you view the pay to play fee - whether it is just a fee to allow you to play in ECF graded events or to allow you further benefits. Again really I think all open to debate - just what I would like to see is some sort of member only area with some benefit that members get that non members don't.

[Brendan O'Gorman]

I'm probably the biggest fan and user of the ECF calendar. This feels like a retrograde step to me.

[David Shepherd]

As I have said before I would like a members only part of the website which offers services just for members. What goes on there is for discussion but something should.

Agreed. Any suggestions what those things should be?

Not sure - I think maybe a few training resources would be good for beginners e.g. videos, notes or whatever - ok they may be available elsewhere, but by starting to build up some sort of ECF resource it starts to add value to members and encourage non members to join.

Maybe some recent annotated games could go on there, links to discounted tournament entry forms, list of suppliers offering discounts to members, some of the news items. Maybe tournaments in your area could come up on your screen when you log on. Maybe links to live event streaming, possibly a seperate junior calander.Maybe with the grading list non members could get more limited information such as just grade.

Some of the above are probably bad ideas - but I think that once a members only area of the website is set up it would provide a means by which the ECF could provide extra benefit to members compared with non-members. At the moment there is little difference in what members get compared to non-member.

[Roger de Coverly]

As I see it

1) The ECF has a duty to promote the game
2) To provide extra services to its members over and above those it offers to everyone

It seems to me the change is negative in terms of both the above.

There's a governance issue here. The ECF recently announced with year's notice, the closure of the adjudication service. Whilst it remains possible for adjudication loving leagues to raise an objection, the absence of protest on this forum renders such a challenge less likely. Everyone will have an opinion on whether the ECF calendar should be free or comprehensive so it's the type of board decision that should be structured so that it can be challenged or ratified by the voting membership aka Council.

[Alex McFarlane]

The ECF is planning to keep information of some non-graded events from its members unless these events pay a fee. This fee sounds a bit like a ‘chess prevention tax’ to me. Don’t some Board members have a history of being opposed to charges that prevent people playing chess?

Shouldn’t the ECF be doing everything it can to make members aware of the possibilities available to play chess. Such events may even provide opponent’s with a player they might otherwise not encounter!

The British Championships are listed on the Chess Scotland calendar free of charge. Will the ECF attempt to charge Chess Scotland for a similar listing for its event?