English Chess Forum

In periods of uncertainty or even crisis, when the "normal" activity of an organisation becomes questioned, listening to the noise that is created begins to sound like random babble. It lacks coherence, argument, purpose and structure. The "noise" around the ECF Board at the moment must appear to outsiders as crisis-ridden, shrill and directionless. Trivia become points of absoloute principal and important issues are brushed over. Personalities and feelings move ahead of strategies and principles.
It is at times like this that organisations have to ask themselves what they are about, what sort of identity they want to project and where they want to go to. The long debate on the pages of the forum that contrasts a "Radical Paulsen" and a "Stabilising Edwards", without ever asking what are their strategies, priorities and targets seems to underline the suggestion that the ECF has turned its internal divisions and distinctions into its main business. There are other examples that could be quoted.

So this thread is an invitation to start again by putting down some rather crude markers about what the ECF should be about and where it should want to go to. I do not pretend that those markers are the finished article. They are meant to be the start of a different journey.

The ECF should have the boldness and ambition to talk on behalf of chess in England - not just chess in the ECF. It is the national voice for chess. (Most of what we hear coming out of the ECF is its own offering). If it was speaking for chess,that would neccessitate it having a dialogue with a range of organisations that populate the chess world and it acts in unison with them. (Where does the ECF talk to other chess organisation?)
The ECF need not be first and foremost a deliverer, it is the intellectual and emotional heart of chess in England and the factor of cohesion that ensures that chess is high quality, run efficently, and responds to the chess needs of the total chess public, whoever delivers it. When the ECF runs a website it should be a chess website not an ECF website, its grading system should be for chess players, not ECF chess players, and when it runs a calendar it should be for the chess world not paid up members of the ECF.
That cannot be done in a financial vacuum or with disregard for balancing the books, but finance should not lead the character and purposes of the ECF. (It seems to at the moment).
The ECF should understand that the English Chess world is a complex set of relations that include people who use it for relaxation, people who are driven competitively to play and people who want to make a living out of it. These and other competing interests are the starting point for the ECF adopting a clear identity in which it represents all of these (and other) interests. (Sometimes the ECF looks as if it is promoting chess for IMs and GMs at the expense of the bulk of chess players).
Finally the ECF would not have a strategic plan and targets for the ECF it would build a consensus amongst all the chess organisations about what sort of chess world is needed.
I welcome comment.

JulianClissold wrote: The ECF should understand that the English Chess world is a complex set of relations that include people who use it for relaxation, people who are driven competitively to play and people who want to make a living out of it. These and other competing interests are the starting point for the ECF adopting a clear identity in which it represents all of these (and other) interests.

In no way disagreeing with this, but the ECF appears to have been captured by those who believe a closed shop membership only policy is the answer to every problem.

JulianClissold wrote:The ECF should have the boldness and ambition to talk on behalf of chess in England - not just chess in the ECF. It is the national voice for chess. (Most of what we hear coming out of the ECF is its own offering). If it was speaking for chess,that would neccessitate it having a dialogue with a range of organisations that populate the chess world and it acts in unison with them. (Where does the ECF talk to other chess organisation?)

Er, how do you propose to have this happen? Most of the chess organizations I have dealings with in England want to talk on their own behalf, not have the ECF talk for them, even if their purposes happen to be aligned. And given the wide range of organizations we have in the country, there are bound to be cases where their views conflict.

Jack Rud:Er, how do you propose to have this happen? Most of the chess organizations I have dealings with in England want to talk on their own behalf, not have the ECF talk for them, even if their purposes happen to be aligned. And given the wide range of organizations we have in the country, there are bound to be cases where their views conflict.

I don't want ECF to talk on anybody's behalf. I do want it to listen to what other areas in the chess world are trying to do/say and to engage with that when it is deciding how to move forward. The Calendar debacle was the ECF at its worst - dictat from the centre, no converstaion with anybody, no attempt to understand what the calendar meant for chess as a whole.

Thirty years ago there was just the ECF and it could behave as the sole voice of chess; but it is a different world now; chess players have set up their own organisations and got on with what they want to do (often I suspect despite the ECF). The ECF has to get back to a position where it is thought of as the legitimate voice of chess. It will only do that if it listens to what others are trying to do.

There's a list of 'objects' in the ECF's Memorandum of Association (at the start) which, I think, make a good initial answer to the question posed by the thread title.

The list begins:
3.1. To encourage the study and practice of chess in England and for the purpose of these objects England shall be deemed to include such part of North Wales as is within the jurisdiction of the Cheshire & North Wales Chess Association for so long as it shall so remain.
3.2. To institute and maintain British Chess Championships.
3.3. To promote national and international chess tournaments in England ...

The objects are often forgotten - for example when the ECF signed up to legal action against FIDE.

Angus thanks for the link - I'm a bit tired but reading the memo quickly it was my first impression that the objects seemed too narrow with no general clause to promote and develop chess within the country (although I guess maybe the first clause re "study and practice" partly does this).

JulianClissold wrote:Thirty years ago there was just the ECF and it could behave as the sole voice of chess; but it is a different world now; chess players have set up their own organisations and got on with what they want to do (often I suspect despite the ECF).

Thirty years ago, it was the BCF. From memory there were then just as many county associations, leagues and Congresses all run independently from the BCF as there are today. What's different now is the proliferation of junior organisations, although I see to recall EPSCA from the late 1960s. Perhaps I'm thinking of a now defunct local Primary Schools organisation that I missed by ten years.

JulianClissold wrote:Thirty years ago there was just the ECF and it could behave as the sole voice of chess; but it is a different world now; chess players have set up their own organisations and got on with what they want to do (often I suspect despite the ECF). The ECF has to get back to a position where it is thought of as the legitimate voice of chess. It will only do that if it listens to what others are trying to do.

What are EPSCA trying to do?

Are you succeeding in doing that?

What would you say the intrinsic value of your aims is to the rest of English chess?

The NED should bring to the table a clear vision of the sort of organisation that ECF should be, and a clear understanding of the way it should operate. I have suggested two dimensions to this: (i) the need to collaborate with those in and around chess; (ii) the need to take a chess-wide perspective rather than an ECF wide perspective. ECF has responsibilities beyond its own membership.
The "intrinsic value" is obvious. If ECF don't take the wider view then there is nobody else who can.

I would suggest another two ideas that need to come to the table: (i) Information-lead decisions with clear data supporting decisions; (ii) Targets for ECF that are communicated, shared, agreed with partners as well as members.
If we wanted to enhance the quality of congress arbitration and control, we should start by understanding what the current level entails (we need data); talk to congress and competition organisers about where they see problems and improvements (consultation); and then suggest some improvements that we look to the whole sector to agree to and embrace. In that way we would impact on the quality of chess as a whole and we would do it in a way that incorporated our major partners.

The NED should bring that way of working to the Board and scrutinise activity in that light.

I'm confused:

JulianClissold wrote: Finally the ECF would not have a strategic plan and targets for the ECF it would build a consensus amongst all the chess organisations about what sort of chess world is needed.

JulianClissold wrote:....I would suggest another two ideas that need to come to the table: (i) Information-lead decisions with clear data supporting decisions; (ii) Targets for ECF that are communicated, shared, agreed with partners as well as members.

So, targets, or not targets?

Also, no doubt in an ideal world a consensus amongst all organisations would be achieved; but then the Council of the ECF is a (more or less) representative group of chess organisations in England is it not? So it's not as if chess organisations don't have a voice. Not to mention that most, if not all, current Board members are active in a range of chess organisations, so have direct contact. If anything it's individual members who lack a voice, through lack of OMOV.

There were some other things in Julian's original post that I found puzzling, for example:

JulianClissold wrote:In periods of uncertainty or even crisis, when the "normal" activity of an organisation becomes questioned, listening to the noise that is created begins to sound like random babble. It lacks coherence, argument, purpose and structure. The "noise" around the ECF Board at the moment must appear to outsiders as crisis-ridden, shrill and directionless.

I had the impression that most people thought the board had at least achieved greater stability after the ructions of previous years. If it's this forum that sounds like "noise" and "random babble", then isn't that just because it's an internet forum? - it's more like an extended pub conversation than an organised meeting. The "noise" now is considerably less than it has been in previous years; it's only the candidacy of Andrew Paulson that has ignited a big debate.

JulianClissold wrote:The long debate on the pages of the forum that contrasts a "Radical Paulsen" and a "Stabilising Edwards", without ever asking what are their strategies, priorities and targets seems to underline the suggestion that the ECF has turned its internal divisions and distinctions into its main business. There are other examples that could be quoted.

This is simply not true. There has been significant discussion here on, amongst other things: relationships with FIDE; recognition of chess as a sport; sponsorship / business model; charity status. Also how does any of this suggest that the ECF has turned its internal divisions into its main business?

JulianClissold wrote:Sometimes the ECF looks as if it is promoting chess for IMs and GMs at the expense of the bulk of chess players

I've not heard this before. Do people agree? Personally, I would prefer to see more support for GMs and IMs, as I think a successful group of GMs and IMs reflects back on the chess community as a whole and provides greater encouragement.

PeterFarr wrote:

JulianClissold wrote:Sometimes the ECF looks as if it is promoting chess for IMs and GMs at the expense of the bulk of chess players

I've not heard this before. Do people agree? Personally, I would prefer to see more support for GMs and IMs, as I think a successful group of GMs and IMs reflects back on the chess community as a whole and provides greater encouragement.

It's been quite a frequent complaint over the years, particularly from the North. It's true that the ECF promotes chess for IMs and GMs. It's also true that's where the ECF spends a reasonable percent of its budget.

The April Council meeting was asked by the International Director for a specific endorsement that it should be a priority for the ECF to send the strongest possible teams to the Olympiads and European Team Championships. This endorsement was given without dispute. The now discarded strategic plan had as an objective the average of one new titled player a year. I think it was 2 new IMs and a GM every three years. It looks as if David Eggleston is about to become an IM, but the GM contenders are still looking for the final Norm or appropriate rating.

As it stands at the moment,the ECF has something like 10,000 individual members. If you count all the junior events such as the schools stage of the UK Chess Challenge, there might be of the order of 80,000 competitive players using that term very loosely. Some in the ECF act as if it would be better for the English chess scene if none of this activity took place unless the participants were ECF members. So it would be better to have 15,000 players all ECF members than 80,000 players, 70,000 of whom were not ECF members.

But the membership debate isn't really anything to do with supporting / not supporting IM's and GM's as such is it?
The relevant question was whether IM's and GM's are supported excessively at the expense of the membership. You say it's been a frequent complaint, and I bow to your knowledge on that, but I haven't actually noticed it very much. Is it a majority view?

PeterFarr wrote: The relevant question was whether IM's and GM's are supported excessively at the expense of the membership. You say it's been a frequent complaint, and I bow to your knowledge on that, but I haven't actually noticed it very much. Is it a majority view?

If we go back two and a half years to the 2011 Finance Meeting, the following is reported in the unofficial but widely read SCCU report.
http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/1011/bcf.htm

Someone said we could remove the deficit at a stroke by cutting out our International activity for one year. That is, by sending no team to the European Championship. Council did not adopt this suggestion. By 17 votes to 3 it left the budget provision as it was but ruled that no fees should be paid to players out of the budget unless sponsorship could be found enabling us to send the strongest team possible. (This seems to mean that if we manage to field the strongest team possible without getting sponsorship we are not allowed to pay them any fees even if the budget has spare cash in it. Perhaps that scenario is not one we need to concern ourselves with.)

In the official minutes

BAS commented that the ECF spent a sixth of its income on International Chess and questioned the justification for this. LC replied that he sought to do the best that he could with the available funds. SR added that it was a question of marketing, since strong players can provide profile and stimulate the development of the game. The ECF believes that part of its raison d’être was to support English participation and success in international competition. BAS said that cancelling the expenditure for a year would balance the books. SDH reminded the meeting that at this stage it was discussing the 2010/11 forecast outcome, not the budget for the coming year.

BAS returned to the issue of the International budget. SDH said that it was necessary to consider the aim of sending a team. He could support sending the strongest team or a development team (at lower cost). The budget as it stood fell between two stools. LC commented that the strongest team would only be sent if outside financing could be found to top up the budget figure. He noted that over half of the budget is used to cover expenses (travel, accommodation, event fees); the rest is a payment to the professional players themselves. MA proposed that “the International budget should be approved subject to the obtaining of additional finance to allow the strongest team to be sent; if no extra funding could be found, a development team should be sent which required no players’ fees.” This was seconded by SDH and carried on a hand vote by a majority of 17-2.

So there you have it. The Finance Council meeting was unwilling to set membership fees at a level necessary to fully finance the International team, relying instead on private fund raising by the Director involved.

PeterFarr wrote:But the membership debate isn't really anything to do with supporting / not supporting IM's and GM's as such is it?
The relevant question was whether IM's and GM's are supported excessively at the expense of the membership. You say it's been a frequent complaint, and I bow to your knowledge on that, but I haven't actually noticed it very much. Is it a majority view?

It would be surprising since it is surely nonsense? What does this 'support', let alone 'excessive support' consist of? International teams hardly falls into the category of "support for... IMs". So short of arguing that any tournament which the ECF funds which offers free entry to titled players is "support for GMs and IMs" and perhaps one could cite the current Junior selection policy which provides a source of income for accompanying coaches, the claim doesn't make much sense to me.

If it actually means "spends too much on International Chess" then it should say so.

I guess I was assuming international chess was meant. In that respect I can understand immediate budget constraints causing pressure, but in the long term, I would have thought that supporting our international teams could be a virtuous circle,creating more interest in the game etc. of course you have to start somewhere with some investment.... not easy.

Surely free entry for IMs and GMs in things like the British isnt too controversial is it? Certainly hope not.