Phil Ehr - Candidacy for ECF Chief Executive

[Phil Ehr]

Thanks to Messrs Sedgwick, Norris and Barden for clarifying FIDE facts. My point remains. An appropriately talented individual committed to chess volunteers offers to help correct our chronic shortfalls—income and image—in a role fit for the job.

What is our response?

My response is to accept the offer and ensure appropriate leadership and stewardship—to the extent I can with your help—in the attempt.

Where do you stand with respect to the goal from Paulson' program of seeking government recognition as a sport?

I am happy for him to give it a go in coordination with Malcolm Pein’s work, supporting where necessary. Success in this goal may not be formal designation as a ‘sport’. Success may be another form of recognition that enables a share of the public purse. Casual Forum readers might like to see these links:

http://www.sportengland.org/our-work/na ... recognise/
and
http://www.bmfa.org/

Charity status and business sponsorship are the more likely roads to results.

[Roger de Coverly]

http://www.sportengland.org/our-work/na ... recognise/

The problem is that the Sport England link states

When deciding whether to recognise a sport, the sports councils look to see if it meets the Council of Europe’s European Sports Charter 1993 definition of sport

Looking up that definition comes up with (as a for example)
http://www.efds.co.uk/inclusive_fitness ... l_activity

in which

Sport means all forms of physical activity which, through casual or organised participation aim at expressing or improving physical fitness and mental well-being forming social relationships or obtaining results in competition at all levels.'

This definition allows Rambling to be a sport but not Chess, Bridge, Backgammon, Poker etc. It being accepted that moving a piece on a board is not regarded as a physical activity.

What might be worth research is why other members of the EU are able to classify their chess bodies as sporting ones. Presumably they set aside or pre-date the 1993 European Sports Charter.

There's also the Act of Parliament from 1937 or 1938 identified by the late Tony Banks when he was Sport and Culture Minister. This gave a UK legal definition of "sport".

[David Robertson]

In view of present standings in Budva, I expect you will be soon be writing more in The Guardian about Akshaya, and maybe Matthew and Ravi!

Let's hope so.

But this is what Andrew Martin, on the ground in Budva, has just said:

"It is impossible not to notice how far we are behind our Eastern European counterparts. We have the talent, but the cultural aversion to games (sports) like chess in Great Britain means that we are continually struggling to keep up. It is like trying to square a circle."

[Michele Clack]

Well if Andrew Martin is correct that puts what Phil Ehr has achieved so far in an even better light. I for one think it's great that so many of our young players are now getting these opportunities. They can only improve by playing these good players and some will be inspired to go that little bit harder knowing what is needed.
Things being difficult is no excuse for giving up!

[Mike Gunn]

>What might be worth research is why other members of the EU are able to classify their chess bodies as sporting ones. Presumably they set aside or pre-date the 1993 European Sports Charter.<

The point is that this is essentially a political decision, not one that is determined by definitions or rules.

At the time of the BCF's previous campaign to make chess a sport I happened to know a member of the Sports Council (as it was then). She (a retired Olympic athlete) said "We would have no problem with your lot [i.e. Chess], Mike, but if we let you in the darts players and all the others, too". It is the sporting establishment that stands in the way of chess being declared a sport in the U.K. But as it is the politicians that give the sports people their money, they could insist that chess is recognised. Unfotunately the few politicians that supported us in the past were just insufficient/ lacked the power to insist.

[David Gilbert]

>What might be worth research is why other members of the EU are able to classify their chess bodies as sporting ones. Presumably they set aside or pre-date the 1993 European Sports Charter.<

The point is that this is essentially a political decision, not one that is determined by definitions or rules.

At the time of the BCF's previous campaign to make chess a sport I happened to know a member of the Sports Council (as it was then). She (a retired Olympic athlete) said "We would have no problem with your lot [i.e. Chess], Mike, but if we let you in the darts players and all the others, too". It is the sporting establishment that stands in the way of chess being declared a sport in the U.K. But as it is the politicians that give the sports people their money, they could insist that chess is recognised. Unfotunately the few politicians that supported us in the past were just insufficient/ lacked the power to insist.

I think this is probably right. The Physical Training and Recreation Act 1937 (as amended) is a bit of a red herring. That Act set up what came to be known as the National Fitness Council, the first attempt to establish a Sports Council. It did not attempt to define sport, which appears to be poorly defined in English law, but the title of National Fitness Council would have excluded chess from right from the start. The problem is that the ECF is not a member the Sports Council, because allowing chess in would open the floodgates for other skill games, and it is the Sports Council that distributes funds from the national lottery. The Government is unlikely to tell the Sports Council how sport should be defined, rather they would take advice from the Sports Council on the definition of sport. So it is political within the sports community, but not a matter for Government to legislate upon.

[Paolo Casaschi]

http://www.sportengland.org/our-work/na ... recognise/

The problem is that the Sport England link states

When deciding whether to recognise a sport, the sports councils look to see if it meets the Council of Europe’s European Sports Charter 1993 definition of sport

Looking up that definition comes up with (as a for example)
http://www.efds.co.uk/inclusive_fitness ... l_activity

in which

Sport means all forms of physical activity which, through casual or organised participation aim at expressing or improving physical fitness and mental well-being forming social relationships or obtaining results in competition at all levels.'

This does not seem to stop other European countries like Italy that have chess recognized (and subsidized) as sport.

[Roger de Coverly]

This does not seem to stop other European countries like Italy that have chess recognized (and subsidized) as sport.

Agreed, so how do the Italians do it? Do they also regard any other board and card games as sports?

It's suggested earlier in this thread that the Government is unlikely to tell the Sports Council how to define "sport", and in the UK it's the Sports Council who appear to hold the decision making power.

[Paolo Casaschi]

This does not seem to stop other European countries like Italy that have chess recognized (and subsidized) as sport.

Agreed, so how do the Italians do it? Do they also regard any other board and card games as sports?

I'm not an expert, so the following might not be fully accurate.

In Italy sport activities are managed by CONI ( = Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano = Italian National Olympic Committee). Each individual Italian sport organization (like Athletics, Football, Chess or Bridge) is then a member of CONI.
This is where I'm not 100% sure of the details: certain sport organization are classified as "full member"; I'm not sure what the qualification criteria are for full member but I believe all organizations representing Olympic sports (as defined by IOC) are full members; there might be also other criteria and historical exceptions. For instance, motor sports and flying sports are full members.
Next to full members then you have the "associated members": those are organization representing other sports and not (or not yet) qualifying for full membership. For new applicants aiming to full member status, I believe the "associated member" status is the entry level status into CONI.

I'm not sure what are the implications of being full member as opposed to an associated member; there are certainly differences in the amount of funding available.

As for your question, here is a list of the current associated members:
http://www.coni.it/home/discipline-spor ... ciate.html
It's in Italian, but you have indoor climbing, billiards, bowling, bridge, "tiro dinamico" (some kind of shooting sport), cricket (don't shoot the messenger), checkers, "traditional sports" (a collection of traditional sports originally played in some Italian region), orienteering, "tamburello" (an old Italian game, like volleyball, but played in a larger play field, hitting a smaller ball with a racket), chess, "canottaggio sedile fisso" (a rowing specialty), kung-fu, kickboxing, baton twirling, "turismo equestre trec - ante" (an equestrian sport), rafting, american football.
For the record, the current president of the Italian Chess Federation is also the representative of associated members within CONI board (or something like that).

[Phil Ehr]

Pure membership sounds simple, but two practical impediments spring to mind. Can we afford the information technology needed to ease the burden on congress organisers and the ECF office? How do welcome foreign players into English congresses?

You could add the ECF demanding an annual membership fee as a pre-condition of playing a single game of graded chess. Various people think I am alarmist in raising this, but is this not where the ECF are heading?

A previous CEO was convinced that universal membership was cheaper that the alternatives. Was he correct?

Dave Thomas' review will shape my opinion on membership issues, so I'd like to defer now. I have not formed an opinion on relative costs resulting from radical changes from Council decisions in October 2011 and April 2012. I support the principle of universal membership.

I’ve read enough of your Forum contributions to recognise that the prospect of a tyrannical ECF is a recurring theme. That caution resonates with me as a theoretical point. I would like to meet and speak with you at some point to understand your vision of the ideal ECF, because I don’t quite get it! Much of your other writings also resonate with me. I also appreciate your style--brushing off the ad hominem comments and sticking with the substance of your case. Thanks for that. Forum readers will appreciate that style sometimes creates a substance of its own--good and bad.

In appreciation of John McKenna, Benjamin Franklin’s advice applies: “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?” “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

So, you might ask whether I support OMOV. Yes, where juniors also vote, U15s represented by their parents. (I also think this sort of organisational issue needs to take a back seat to achieving charity status.) Would you support spending volunteer time or ECF money to conduct a non-binding OMOV poll for how our FIDE Delegate should cast the ECF’s vote in the FIDE presidential election? …perhaps at the same time a OMOV poll could resolve a potential impasse to the structure our future charity.

I’m taking a bit of a leap into Nigel Short’s providence, but don’t think he’ll mind. I support Andrew Paulson’s commitment to recuse himself from the ECF position in the FIDE presidential race. Such recusal is a mature position that should be adopted more often, although recusal for all instances of overlapping interests is not practical in our small community. Too few recusals is one reason I wrote in my election address, ‘Adhere to the highest standards of public accountability in financial matters, business awards, overlapping personal interests and conduct’. Those interests are real--whether at the level of earning pocket money from chess employment to business opportunities to ECF selections of players, coaches and arbiters--and effect member perceptions of directors and managers. The present Board registered an intention (although no action) to implement a register of interests as previously introduced by Andrew Farthing. Council members could help with that project as well as the elusive Code of Conduct. For important context, please see the final part of my Junior Director’s report.

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

[Roger de Coverly]

to understand your vision of the ideal ECF, because I don’t quite get it!

It isn't particularly difficult provided you accept that setting pre-conditions is a barrier to participation. Back in the early days of the Internet twenty years ago, the then equivalent of forums would be full of Americans. They would moan then, perhaps as now, of a lack of growth in chess activity. It seemed to me that many of their proposals to encourage growth would always fail because of their requirement for compulsory USCF membership, something the then BCF with its philosophy of collecting fees from organisations didn't suffer from. Evening and weekend leagues as we know them just don't exist in the USA.

So the only membership category would be Platinum level, otherwise collect from organisations running chess events, leaving it free for these organisations to determine whether to defray their costs by a universal Game Fee and thus variable costs per head or a Vice-presidency style of unlimited local games for a fixed local cost per head. The requirement to be a member to play in a FIDE event or be on the FIDE rating list has now been established to be deception by the BCF/ECF, the real requirement, as we are now seeing with FINs, is to be registered with a national Federation. Having a national grading code would seem to satisfy that.

I am reminded that initially the Game Fee scheme had wider support than the initial vote 70:30 for the current hybrid membership. Problems establishing reliable grading data made collection more difficult and it appeared for some years that the BCF directors had lost confidence in the system and were trying to undermine it from within. If in the recent twelve months, the ECF has been forced to revamp its office processes to collect what's left of Game Fee and Pay-to-Play in Congresses, it's improvements that should have been in place ten years ago or more.

[Phil Ehr]

The ECF needs effective leadership and the right blend of innovation and stability to advance our mission to ‘promote chess in all its forms as an attractive means of cultural and personal advancement and to foster the highest level of achievement in the game.’ My life’s journey and service as Director of Junior Chess and Education demonstrate the experience and performance appropriate for senior leadership within the Board, alongside the ECF President.

I helped to nominate Andrew Paulson because he offers leadership, innovative energy and unmatched commercial expertise. His candidacy is a rare opportunity to inject the ECF with the wherewithal to significantly improve and possibly transform English chess. Part of my role as Chief Executive is to help him and every member of the new Board consult, collaborate and perform. In other words, the Chief Executive is meant to ensure effective leadership and delivery of high standards. Principles and priorities that illustrate the balance I aim to achieve:

- Strike a new relationship with FIDE, keeping the ECF part of the Group of Fifteen national federations working to improve transparency and accountability.

- Achieve transition to a registered charity that maintains insoluble bonds and mutual support with professional chess. In advance of charity status, serve schools and the disabled in a way that demonstrates the character of the charity we wish to become.

- Adhere to the highest standards of public accountability in financial matters, business awards, overlapping personal interests and conduct.

Since I have current expertise in junior chess, I intend to work closely with the new Junior Director and his or her officers to ensure continuity, as well as improvement, in essential programmes.

A critical aspect to any organisation’s success is the right match of talent to the tasks at hand. With that in mind, I endorse Andrew Paulson for President, his team, and Claire Summerscale, followed by Kurt Moreby, as Director of Junior Chess and Education.

Carl and Jack - Thank you for tending to this Forum.

Many will have begun their travels by now--some to London, others to congresses. Safe journeys. I look forward to listening to what Council says.