Sean Hewitt resigns

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
Sean Hewitt
Posts: 2190
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:18 pm
Contact:

Re: Sean Hewitt resigns

Post by Sean Hewitt » Fri Apr 11, 2014 11:37 am

JustinHorton wrote:However, it strikes me that there's a certain irony in people reckoning their critics know nothing when they've gone out of their way to keep their own actions as secret as possible.
That would indeed be ironic, if only it were true. The reality is of course very different; though that won't worry journalists in certain parts of South London.

The reality is that Phil Ehr took on responsibility for this and has singularly failed, every month, to publish the minutes of meetings in a timely fashion. On each and every occasion he has been taken to task by me. Exasperated, the board has taken steps to take Phil out of the loop. This should ensure that information comes out in a much more timely fashion in future.

But I'm sure you won't let the truth get in the way of your ramblings.

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1787
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: Sean Hewitt resigns

Post by Michael Farthing » Fri Apr 11, 2014 12:18 pm

Sean Hewitt wrote:
Horton knows bugger all about the stuff he writes about. He has no idea of the real world, nor of the pragmatic approach that a number of the directors took to this whole affair.

He knows nothing of the length that Phil Ehr is prepared to go to for his mate Andrew Paulson.

He has no idea that Paulson and Ehr met up last week with others and tried to get Paulson back as ECF President. Mind you, neither do half of the board, because the Chief Executive has neglected to mention it.

Personally I don't feel any need to hear more of the details that are being kept secret. It seems to me that a very accurate assessment of the individuals involved can be obtained by just reading this forum and other statements that they issue. And I don't even need to read what they say about each other. They paint themselves far more realistically than anyone else could manage for them.

raycollett
Posts: 207
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:54 pm

Re: Sean Hewitt resigns

Post by raycollett » Fri Apr 11, 2014 12:31 pm

FIDE Laws of Chess: Exceptions
This thread seems to have veered, but to continue this tack, there may be a problem with digital hearing aids, which are certainly electronic devices and may have software programmes. They also make unintended noises, which may be audible to opponents. The MCCU guidance for inter-county matches is:
"The MCCU rules now incorporate a clause concerning mobile phones & other electronic devices. Although these must be switched off or to silent, neither the FIDE law nor the MCCU rule is intended to cover devices that facilitate players with disabilities in playing chess, or devices required due to medical conditions. Thus electronic devices used by partially sighted or blind players, such as those for recording moves; electronic hearing aids & the like are exempted from the off/silent requirement.
To clarify the result of a match where a mobile phone or the like makes a noise, the player concerned loses, his/her opponent wins unless they have a position".
Are arbiters confident that "the FIDE law ... is [not] intended to cover devices that facilitate players with disabilities in playing chess, or devices required due to medical conditions"?

NickFaulks
Posts: 4965
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Sean Hewitt resigns

Post by NickFaulks » Fri Apr 11, 2014 1:04 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote: In my mind it's still muddy whether a "lesser" penalty is no penalty as I think senior arbiters are making contradictory statements on this.
" 11.3.b During play, a player is forbidden to have a mobile phone and/or other electronic means of communication in the playing venue. If it is evident that a player brought such a device into the playing venue, he shall lose the game. The opponent shall win.
The rules of a competition may specify a different, less severe, penalty."

We all thought this was rather clever. It is a clear win for common sense, but the "zero-tolerance" forces did not have their noses rubbed in the fact that they had lost. It was of course quite predictable that the ECF would try to turn this around, and make it another example of FIDE barbarity.

If senior arbiters are confused, they could try asking the people who drafted and oversee the Laws. Oh, I forgot, that would be consorting with the enemy.

Martin Crichton
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 3:25 pm

Re: Sean Hewitt resigns

Post by Martin Crichton » Fri Apr 11, 2014 1:08 pm

Sean Hewitt wrote: Horton knows bugger all about the stuff he writes about. He has no idea of the real world, nor of the pragmatic approach that a number of the directors took to this whole affair.

He knows nothing of the length that Phil Ehr is prepared to go to for his mate Andrew Paulson.

He has no idea that Paulson and Ehr met up last week with others and tried to get Paulson back as ECF President. Mind you, neither do half of the board, because the Chief Executive has neglected to mention it.
So now Phil Ehr is the real bad guy...the truth is unfolding....

Maybe the whole ECF board should resign? :)

Are there any good people left?
Member of "the strongest amateur chess club in London" (Cavendish)

my views are not representative of any clubs or organisations.

NickFaulks
Posts: 4965
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Sean Hewitt resigns

Post by NickFaulks » Fri Apr 11, 2014 1:09 pm

raycollett wrote:
FIDE Laws of Chess: Exceptions
This thread seems to have veered, but to continue this tack, there may be a problem with digital hearing aids, which are certainly electronic devices and may have software programmes. They also make unintended noises, which may be audible to opponents. The MCCU guidance for inter-county matches is:
"The MCCU rules now incorporate a clause concerning mobile phones & other electronic devices. Although these must be switched off or to silent, neither the FIDE law nor the MCCU rule is intended to cover devices that facilitate players with disabilities in playing chess, or devices required due to medical conditions. Thus electronic devices used by partially sighted or blind players, such as those for recording moves; electronic hearing aids & the like are exempted from the off/silent requirement.
To clarify the result of a match where a mobile phone or the like makes a noise, the player concerned loses, his/her opponent wins unless they have a position".
Are arbiters confident that "the FIDE law ... is [not] intended to cover devices that facilitate players with disabilities in playing chess, or devices required due to medical conditions"?
An interesting point, and so far as I know it has not been considered. Stewart, are you back home yet?

Time to move this to a new topic?

User avatar
Christopher Kreuzer
Posts: 7252
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
Location: London

Re: Sean Hewitt resigns

Post by Christopher Kreuzer » Fri Apr 11, 2014 1:31 pm

NickFaulks wrote:
raycollett wrote:
FIDE Laws of Chess: Exceptions
This thread seems to have veered, but to continue this tack, there may be a problem with digital hearing aids, which are certainly electronic devices and may have software programmes. They also make unintended noises, which may be audible to opponents. The MCCU guidance for inter-county matches is:
"The MCCU rules now incorporate a clause concerning mobile phones & other electronic devices. Although these must be switched off or to silent, neither the FIDE law nor the MCCU rule is intended to cover devices that facilitate players with disabilities in playing chess, or devices required due to medical conditions. Thus electronic devices used by partially sighted or blind players, such as those for recording moves; electronic hearing aids & the like are exempted from the off/silent requirement.
To clarify the result of a match where a mobile phone or the like makes a noise, the player concerned loses, his/her opponent wins unless they have a position".
Are arbiters confident that "the FIDE law ... is [not] intended to cover devices that facilitate players with disabilities in playing chess, or devices required due to medical conditions"?
An interesting point, and so far as I know it has not been considered. Stewart, are you back home yet?

Time to move this to a new topic?
This was discussed on this forum back in 2012.

Start here:

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... 03#p105564

And also from here (the second page of that thread):

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... 15#p105579

And brief bits on the third page of that thread and in some other threads (search for 'hearing aid' and 'hearing aids').

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 17984
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Sean Hewitt resigns

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Apr 11, 2014 2:04 pm

NickFaulks wrote: We all thought this was rather clever. It is a clear win for common sense, but the "zero-tolerance" forces did not have their noses rubbed in the fact that they had lost. It was of course quite predictable that the ECF would try to turn this around, and make it another example of FIDE barbarity.
It seem to me you are trying to say two contradictory things at once. On the one hand, you are banning phones and on the other hand you aren't. FIDE isn't interested in mass amateur chess anyway, unsurprising given the undue influence of Federations who hardly run any.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 17984
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Sean Hewitt resigns

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Apr 11, 2014 2:26 pm

Michael Farthing wrote: Personally I don't feel any need to hear more of the details that are being kept secret.
The ECF Directors may have taken decisions at recent Board meetings that the assembled voting membership might wish to review and countermand. There's usually a Board meeting on the morning of the wider meeting, that you would expect only a verbal report, but depending on whether there was a meeting mid to end March, that now leaves one and half meetings undocumented.

Last year the Board took a decision at their March meeting, but didn't tell anyone external until after the April wider meeting. The decision was countermanded at the October AGM, but not before it caused uncertainties about the rules for ECF Schools competitions in the 2013-14 season, uncertainties that could have been avoided had they made a timely announcement of their decision.

NickFaulks
Posts: 4965
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Sean Hewitt resigns

Post by NickFaulks » Fri Apr 11, 2014 2:27 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
NickFaulks wrote: We all thought this was rather clever. It is a clear win for common sense, but the "zero-tolerance" forces did not have their noses rubbed in the fact that they had lost. It was of course quite predictable that the ECF would try to turn this around, and make it another example of FIDE barbarity.
It seem to me you are trying to say two contradictory things at once. On the one hand, you are banning phones and on the other hand you aren't. FIDE isn't interested in mass amateur chess anyway, unsurprising given the undue influence of Federations who hardly run any.
Arbiters have the power to ban mobile phones IF THEY WANT TO. For pity's sake, what more do you want?

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 17984
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Sean Hewitt resigns

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Apr 11, 2014 2:44 pm

NickFaulks wrote: Arbiters have the power to ban mobile phones IF THEY WANT TO. For pity's sake, what more do you want?
Clarification that is actually the rule, given that it can and is being equally interpreted THAT THEY HAVE TO and are required to impose a penalty should any be detected.

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 3892
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: Sean Hewitt resigns

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Fri Apr 11, 2014 2:49 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
NickFaulks wrote: Arbiters have the power to ban mobile phones IF THEY WANT TO. For pity's sake, what more do you want?
Clarification that is actually the rule, given that it can and is being equally interpreted THAT THEY HAVE TO and are required to impose a penalty should any be detected.
The "penalty" could, though, be "the opponent of the offender gets one second added on to his clock". There's no requirement for it to be a meaningful penalty.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 17984
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Sean Hewitt resigns

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Apr 11, 2014 2:56 pm

IM Jack Rudd wrote: There's no requirement for it to be a meaningful penalty.
It's still symbolic that there's a penalty. But should there be? Nicks' case appears to be that there isn't, if the arbiter or organiser should decide so.

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 3892
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: Sean Hewitt resigns

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Fri Apr 11, 2014 3:13 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
IM Jack Rudd wrote: There's no requirement for it to be a meaningful penalty.
It's still symbolic that there's a penalty. But should there be? Nicks' case appears to be that there isn't, if the arbiter or organiser should decide so.
For what it's worth, I agree with his interpretation.

Andrew Zigmond
Posts: 1691
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Harrogate

Re: Sean Hewitt resigns

Post by Andrew Zigmond » Fri Apr 11, 2014 3:22 pm

JustinHorton wrote: Or indeed Andrew could have used the Search function to look for "shysters". I trust he will be withdrawing.
Yes I was mistaken. It was not one of the S&B team who introduced the word `shyster` to that thread and I will happily withdraw and apologise. I would add that my wider point, that yet another thread got derailed by a hatchet job on a certain individual still stands.

Justin is quite correct to say that he is entitled to his opinion. Would he agree however that there is a distinction between volunteers who give up their time and occasionally their money to try to make things happen (to be fair the S&B blog haven't slagged off the rank and file although even Andrew Paulson was ultimately a volunteer) and those who contribute nothing but moaning.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own

Post Reply