English Chess Forum

I very much appreciated the email. Please send more.

JustinHorton wrote:I very much appreciated the email. Please send more.

Let me have your email address and I'll set a rule to forward to you...

J.

Richard Bates wrote:It takes a particular type of mindset to resent 'having' to join an organisation in part because of a perception/belief that that organisation doesn't do anything for them, and then actually use initiatives designed to tackle that perception as evidence reinforcing that resentment...

Indeed, but it is a mindset that some of us have to deal with

Sean Hewitt ECF DoMM wrote: I am very pleased that I have received a number emails which have said how pleased they are that the ECF is trying to do something positive for them though, of course, you can't please all of the people all of the time.

I echo both those sentiments: it's the sort of thing that ECF should be doing for its members. Early action on opt out is essential, of course, but overall Sean Hewitt ECF DoMM should be congratulated on the initiative.

PB

Richard Bates wrote:It takes a particular type of mindset to resent 'having' to join an organisation in part because of a perception/belief that that organisation doesn't do anything for them, and then actually use initiatives designed to tackle that perception as evidence reinforcing that resentment...

I think the reason that a lot of ordinary club players feel resentment is that they are being forced to pay substantially more for their chess than used to be the case before. I don't think they are really interested in what the organisation does or doesn't do for them; if they thought that there were benefits associated with membership of the ECF then they would probably have joined years ago, before it was imposed on them.

Paul Buswell wrote:Early action on opt out is essential, of course, but overall Sean Hewitt ECF DoMM should be congratulated on the initiative.

I wonder if "opt out" refers to the emails or the ECF itself?

Clive Blackburn wrote: I think the reason that a lot of ordinary club players feel resentment is that they are being forced to pay substantially more for their chess than used to be the case before.

The previous CEO didn't seem to think it mattered or wouldn't accept the simple premise of calculating how much more it would cost in ECF payments to run a self contained league in 2012-13 as against 2011-12.

Here's part of the debate from eighteen months ago
http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... &start=150

It was apparently unfair on players of over forty games a year that they had to pay so much to the ECF. To give them a price break and to raise additional funding, club players ( and juniors) were expected to pay more, in some cases not just a percent rise but a multiplier rise.

Thanks for that link Roger.

Oh well, it's a fait accompli and there is no point in moaning about it.

I have joined the ECF for this year but next year I will give it some very serious consideration and I suspect that I might not bother.

It is certainly no way to attract new players to the game.

Clive Blackburn wrote: It is certainly no way to attract new players to the game.

Not a premise accepted by those now in decision making positions in the ECF. Apparently new players will be attracted by the right to play an unlimited number of games without triggering additional revenue to the ECF.

Roger de Coverly wrote:

Clive Blackburn wrote: It is certainly no way to attract new players to the game.

Not a premise accepted by those now in decision making positions in the ECF. Apparently new players will be attracted by the right to play an unlimited number of games without triggering additional revenue to the ECF.

Well, the new players who've joined our club this season seem happy enough with it.

Clive Blackburn wrote:

Richard Bates wrote:It takes a particular type of mindset to resent 'having' to join an organisation in part because of a perception/belief that that organisation doesn't do anything for them, and then actually use initiatives designed to tackle that perception as evidence reinforcing that resentment...

I think the reason that a lot of ordinary club players feel resentment is that they are being forced to pay substantially more for their chess than used to be the case before. I don't think they are really interested in what the organisation does or doesn't do for them; if they thought that there were benefits associated with membership of the ECF then they would probably have joined years ago, before it was imposed on them.

Considering the minute sums of money involved, "substantially more" is something of a misleading term. It also ignores all the costs usually involved in playing which don't involve the ECF (travel, club fees, food, drink etc). When there is no realistic question of affordability for anyone who attaches any priority to playing the game, it seems to me far more likely that anything other than completely kneejerk financial objections involve what people get in return for their money. Either because they don't think that the ECF is an organisation that they should support in principle, or that it doesn't give them anything in return.

And as Jack implies - I'm sure the reaction of the vast majority will be pleasant surprise that the ECF are not just taking their money because they can, but are actually demonstrably making an effort to create some genuine member benefits in return.

Richard Bates wrote: Considering the minute sums of money involved, "substantially more" is something of a misleading term.

Whilst this seems relatively obvious, it doesn't explain the amount of screaming and shouting that used to come from some quarters, particularly in the North when the ECF's desire for more money to spend on itself caused Game Fee to increase by a few pence a game every year. Nor does it explain the attitude that having to charge an entry fee of £ 2 to £ 3 per board was an absolute discouragement to a league or county seeking to establish a new competition.

Those wishing to run events designed primarily to appeal to new players have commented that additional up front costs and requirements are a disincentive to have such events included in national grading or even run at all. The ECF have made no public statements on FIDE's Licensing plans. Demanding membership as a condition of participation and imposing financial penalties on organisers allowing non-members differs only in degree from FIDE's demands for a photograph and passport data as a condition as well.

I'm scratching my head along with most on this thread (and no doubt the vast majority of people outside it). These offers are a start in the right direction, aren't they - what else can possibly be said, other than things which have been said a thousand times already?!

Given the, er, performance (?!), of past holders of this post, the danger for Sean personally, if he carries on actually achieving things, is that he is going to end up holding the post for the next twenty years.

Yes, the pricing structure for Membership could be improved, and the addition of various membership categories would certainly help, including `bulk membership` initiatives...as has been mentioned in previous threads....
Until some significant additions are made in this direction, the membership scheme will remain a fairly mediocre scheme.
As for the ECF promoting itself...this is to be applauded...posters proclaiming the work they do are to be welcomed. Stewart Reuben wrote a very articulate piece about the various work that the ECF does, and explains where monies are spent. Maybe an extract of this could appear on a poster, that could be displayed in Libraries, Information Centres, and club/school notice boards....with an added note welcoming players of all standards to our clubs..with local contact details. Something to draw attention to the ECF for `joe public` I`m sure would be helpful. Remember, Chess is the game of the `people`, its not just some minority `Geek` freek thing.... Millions play on `the web` every day.....for casual entertainment, and serious chess...with no money changing hands...
Another key point..... Chess needs volunteers. Yes, many club players just want to play chess, and dont care about the Admin side.....
But without that Admin, the wheels would soon come rolling off... So players must consider carefully the obverse arguement.. ie, consider not what the organisation does for you ...but more about what YOU can do for the organisation. Club, league and county AGMs will be starting soon, so I`d urge players to look out for details, contact club officers, and check websites for details....and go along to these to make your voice heard, hear the discussions, and volunteer to serve. Many posts just require a willing pair of hands....and much advice and support is available.
In that way, we might move away from `dead pan` committtees that run agendas of convenience and self interest, and might actually get active groups that seek to drive forward the real interests of our players....and British chess... sodd the `little england` concept...
As an aid to this...OMOV is an absolute `must have` to add some much needed democracy. As I`ve said in previous threads, I see this as a proportional feature...ie, ONOV would run along side the current `delegate system` and should help provide vital balance. It might also encourage more active interest from the `grass roots` who feel alienated by current processes.
I`d be happy to elaborate on this, and I`m sure others have positive views also to contribute.

The ECF have negotiated a 20% discount for members who want to go to an important chess event. I'm sure a lot of people will be taking advantage of that. If I'd booked for it then found out about the discount later I would have been very disappointed that the ECF hadn't made sure I knew about it when I'd taken the trouble to give them my e-mail address.

They've done exactly the right thing. Sean has volunteered to develop an opt out button for those people who don't want e-mails, presumably except about the mechanics of joining, after comments here. This is terrific customer service.

I bought a gold membership and it cost me less than the cost of playing in one weekend tournament. I'm getting 40 or 50 games graded, participation in the County Championships, the right to enter an event at the British Championships and now even the possibility of discounts. Keep up the good work I say. Things are definitely moving in the right direction.