English Chess Forum

Greetings! I would be pleased to answer questions about my candidacy and the upcoming election. I’d like to start with a reminder that Council is hiring a team to take the ECF forward. Sir Richard Branson’s advice for business is worth reflection:

http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/arti ... ih-0925-p1
Although his words do not speak specifically to voluntary organisations, Branson’s points are apt. Council should hire a team that works well together. No matter what happens in the election, we should ensure roles for everyone willing to help the Federation succeed.
Please do not expect me to reply quickly on this thread, but I will try to maintain a dialogue this week. I am also available to chat at the 4NCL team rapidplay today.

Hi Phil.

Firstly I've received several comments from people within the groups I represent asking me to compliment you on the work you did as Junior Director.

Secondly, what is your opinion of the game fee aspect of the membership scheme in respect of both adults and juniors? Would you be in favour of retaining it, or fazing it out over time into a pure membership scheme?

Thanks. The idea of phasing out game fees in the long term is worth considering, but that seems too radical for this year, and certainly not without consultation. 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?

At the risk of alienating your votes at Council (10 + proxies of 309 total votes), I’ve got to say that although I voted for the junior game fee reductions you introduced at the April 2012 Council meeting, the consequences of those uncoordinated motions were unhelpful. The budget was no longer viable; but more importantly, subsequent Board discussions exhibited a general distrust when dealing with junior issues. One lesson ought to be that good ideas brought to Council need better preparation, or at least coordination, even if contentious and not supported by the Board. Another lesson is that the junior community was not sufficiently engaged in creation of the membership scheme. Don’t take that as blame directed at the junior community, the former chief executive or the Boards from 2010-11. Junior chess was simply not understood and certainly not a priority. We are coming to grips with this, however. Dave Thomas’ approach to reviewing the membership scheme involves additional consultation and considering data from the initial membership scheme, which is one of Sean Hewitt’s recurring themes. Dave is formulating a Board proposal for Council in April 2014. Some will regard April as premature, but the present Board believes that timing is sufficient for improvements. The other action needed is to ensure the Board appreciates junior chess better, in the mix with the other special interests—seniors, professional players, amateurs, women, commercial chess, and more. As a secondary factor to effective teamwork and the right skills, Council should re-balance the Board.

THE MAIN ISSUES ARE INCOME AND IMAGE. Council’s choice is whether to move beyond old squabbles by trying the new approach Andrew Paulson offers. Tensions among advocates will always exist, but don’t you think chess would be more enjoyable with a realistic prospect of more funding? Think about the familiar disappointments being discussed now in other threads, particularly the lack of adequate funding for our top players in official championships—women’s, clubs, seniors, juniors, amateurs, schools, as well as the only priority we think we can afford, the Opens.

Phil Ehr wrote: don’t you think chess would be more enjoyable with a realistic prospect of more funding?

Surely the point is that Andrew Paulson went to Fide with similar big promises of mega-funding, and in at least one interview implied that he was in advanced negotations with several major companies, yet apparently he failed almost completely. Apart from anything else, that's baggage which would count against him in trying to get more funding for UK chess.
In the good years of the Fischer boom in the 1970s, I personally enlisted several sponsors (including Lloyds Bank who backed English chess for 18 years) and encouraged others through my columns. I don't see the rationale for your word 'realistic' where we are now.
I should also say (again from the viewpoint of having personally dealt with the same problem in the 1970s) that I don't see where you have made progress with elite juniors-certainly not by the criteria stated publicly by the International Director of having more adult players heading for Fide 2680+.

Leonard Barden wrote: Surely the point is that Andrew Paulson went to Fide with similar big promises of mega-funding, and in at least one interview implied that he was in advanced negotations with several major companies, yet apparently he failed almost completely.

As David Sedgwick pointed out, by no means all the voting membership at the AGM follow international chess. But those who do would surely echo Leonard's reservations.

Phil Ehr wrote: 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?

Whenever I open this thread, I get some charlatan's mugshot. Surely Donald Trump would have been a better choice.

Not sure I agree with the above post, as Branson is right for us down south and Trump would only be appropriate for Scotland. Maybe Frederick Forsythe could be considered as an alternative old poster boy. His new book might be of some passing interest to the author of this thread but I doubt he will be reviewing it here.

Gosh, is that Richard Branson? I thought it was Che Guevara ... I am going to have to revise my opinion of Phil ...

Someone suggested I use Sir Alan Sugar, but I thought Sir Richard was a more fitting icon. He also sports a smarter beard…and he hired Kurt Moreby, who you may recall was my preferred successor as Junior Director. Rest of the story—I had asked Claire Summerscale to stand as a caretaker until Kurt was available. Faced with Lawrence Cooper’s immense popularity as a player, coach, organiser and contributor to the Forum, as well as Kurt’s fondness for Lawrence, we agreed for Claire to stand down. Well done, Claire! If nothing else, her withdrawal saves Council time for other matters. The best news is that Lawrence and Kurt agreed to work together, which I think is a good way to ensure coverage of the full Junior Director’s portfolio. I hope the new Board will enable that partnership.

Leonard Barden wrote:

Phil Ehr wrote: don’t you think chess would be more enjoyable with a realistic prospect of more funding?

Surely the point is that Andrew Paulson went to Fide with similar big promises of mega-funding, and in at least one interview implied that he was in advanced negotations with several major companies, yet apparently he failed almost completely. Apart from anything else, that's baggage which would count against him in trying to get more funding for UK chess.
In the good years of the Fischer boom in the 1970s, I personally enlisted several sponsors (including Lloyds Bank who backed English chess for 18 years) and encouraged others through my columns. I don't see the rationale for your word 'realistic' where we are now.
I should also say (again from the viewpoint of having personally dealt with the same problem in the 1970s) that I don't see where you have made progress with elite juniors-certainly not by the criteria stated publicly by the International Director of having more adult players heading for Fide 2680+.

A dear friend advised to always heed what Leonard Barden says. So, I write this with the greatest respect.

Paulson is not promising mega-funding. He is offering to apply his business acumen and to engage his personal network. The business acumen to which I refer is his entrepreneurial work in Russian social networking plus his personal commitment demonstrated in part by moving the Candidates Tournament from Russia to London. The Wikipedia page on him provides more. I also refer to his attempts with FIDE, which are a work in progress. I agree that disappointment from raised expectations is harmful. We should, of course, keep our expectations grounded in reality without dismissing the reality that creativity fuels success. This is a time for the glass-half-full perspective.

Attracting sponsors when the mega-spectacle of Fischer-Spassky seized the public’s attention must have been rewarding. Our attempt to capture the right sort of public attention drew from that era and the techniques attributed to you, specifically grading lists and recent top performances posted on tournament walls, as well as letters written to promising players with their individual target grades. That personal interaction is crucial. In my term, we achieved a small part of inspiration you established by focusing on grades and grading performance. We established target grades for selection, quantified ‘junior selection norms’ and Grand Prix scoring; but recognise that more Barden-like individual attention is required.

Counting juniors surging toward the International Director’s 2680+ target is not the appropriate current measure for our strategy. Rather than prioritising one, two or even ten juniors, we prioritized building a structure to attract, inspire and nurture all promising juniors for the long haul. We ensured access to official FIDE championships on par with the dominant federations, who often compete with hefty government and business sponsorship to send semi-professional chess children. We also addressed the striking chess drop-out when children enter secondary school, a time when many of Britian’s Cold War GMs and IMs continued their development. My director’s report explains more, including the issue of funding. Since I am standing for Chief Executive on the basis of performance as Junior Director, you are right to question me on results. I would welcome your feedback on the full report:
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... Report.pdf

In the report, I missed the opportunity to highlight:
Yang-Fan Zhou, James Adair – GM norms
Sam Franklin, James Holland, Ezra Kirk, Alan Merry – IM norms
Akshaya Kalaiyalahan – Joint British Woman Champion
Joshua Altman - Bronze medal at European Youth Chess Championships 2012 - U8
Matthew Wadsworth - 5th at World Youth Chess Championships 2012 - U12
Aditya Verman - 8th at World Youth Chess Championships 2012 - U8

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!

Phil Ehr wrote: Paulson is not promising mega-funding. He is offering to apply his business acumen and to engage his personal network. The business acumen to which I refer is his entrepreneurial work in Russian social networking plus his personal commitment demonstrated in part by moving the Candidates Tournament from Russia to London.

There was never any suggestion that the Candidates Tournament 2013 would be in Russia.

I think you're referring to the 1st FIDE Grand Prix event in Autumn 2012, which was originally planned to take place in Chelyabinsk, Russia, but was moved to Simpson's in the Strand.

Andrew Paulson did indeed put a considerable amount of his and/or AGON's money into that event, but I don't think he has ever suggested that the move to London was occasioned by a desire to support English chess.

David Sedgwick wrote:There was never any suggestion that the Candidates Tournament 2013 would be in Russia.

It was to be in Azerbaijan until Aronian objected - it was moved to London but with the wildcard in place

Mick Norris wrote:

David Sedgwick wrote:There was never any suggestion that the Candidates Tournament 2013 would be in Russia.

It was to be in Azerbaijan until Aronian objected - it was moved to London but with the wildcard in place

...and, more important, with the Azerbaijan funding of the tournament also still in place.

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