Roger de Coverly wrote:
David Pardoe wrote:
Maybe a `dozen games for a tenner`option would be good to give those who only play a handfull of games a better deal..
Currently it's twelve pounds for an unlimited number of league, county and club games, so not greatly different. Better not to have membership at all, or if you must, have it for the duration of a single game.
David Pardoe wrote:
One glaring failure of the grading system is the way that draws are rated...
ie if a 125 player draws with a 160 player the two players get each others grades..
this is plainly a `nonsense`, in my view...how can the same game, played by two players producing a draw be given two different ratings...maybe a `balancing grade` should be allocated for both players..
A few years ago, we had a very long thread with someone advocating that idea. As I said at the time, the ECF grading method is based on a principle of equal pay for equal work. So if a player draws with a long string of 125 graded players, you work out his performance as being 125 regardless of his previous grade. Similarly a player able to draw with 160s, himself gets a 160 grade.
Juniors, remember, are treated as new players. That means if they perform at 147 for the whole season, that's the figure their opponents will get. A similar estimation process applies to players without grades. You can and would estimate a grade for someone new, but that's for assigning board orders, Congress sections and seedings and doesn't and probably shouldn't affect calculations.
One point of my suggested Membership option is to allow players to play a small number of games in `any category` for just a tenner. Currently, if you play a few games that are FIDE rated, you get screwed for the full £28, which is bonkers...and chances are you wont come out with a FIDE rating anyway.
So my flexible `discount` option does offer those who play few games a chance of membership and participation at a cheaper rate. I dont see any mileage in going for less than a tenner, and I do see this as a fundamentally reasonable way of funding chess/ECF, which is about promoting UK chess.
Your perpetual `ches for free` approach is a non starter in my view, which would make the raising of funds for ECF purposes from rank and file members very difficult.
I would just like to see those who are members given more say in the ECF, without having to belong to various `bodies`, and have a vote and even stand for elections as `free standing `independant` candidates, if they so wish.
ie, you dont have to (or shouldnt have to..), be a signed up member of `the club`(a chess body) to get the right to stand for `office` at the ECF.