Post
by David Pardoe » Fri Sep 19, 2014 11:29 am
As for Game fee/ Membership...generally I favour this as the `standard` option...but we should recognise the many `flavours` that make up our chess community.
I`m particularly keen that other low cost options should be available to players, to encourage greater participation.
Maybe a `dozen games for a tenner`option would be good to give those who only play a handfull of games a better deal..
And I`d include a `mix and match` option that enabled these players to play a mix of FIDE, Congress, and league games.
On grading, I`d like to see the `online community` brought into the fold, by at least recognising there online grades as `indicative` ECF grades.... you`d need to construct a rough conversion rule...but this need only be an approximation to get them started and recognised in the ECF regime.
eg, on Gameknot.com the grades range from around 2750 at the top end to about 750 at the tail end...
Those in the 1700 - 2700 range could be given roughly parallel FIDE/ECF equivalents, but based on a reasonable history of rated games...
Such players could be signed up as `ECF Members` for a tenner, and officially recognised, with grading category of say `O`...as opposed to `A`, `B`, `C` ..etc
And talking of gradings... I`ve long suspected that grades should be regarded as for guidance only...ie, a grade should be treated as (+ or - 20 points) for the purposes of team order and selection...particularly those graded under say 170...
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..
We need to change the way juniors are rated..particularly those who are fast tracking up the ladders....
eg, I played a junior graded 113 at a recent Congress.... he ended the tournament with a tournament rating of 147, having drawn with 3 players graded 140 - 150, and beaten another in that range...
As for Adjudication/adjournments...yes these must continue to be rated, and I`d say they are a vital part of our chess scene.. I`m not a great fan of the new brand of `high speed` digital/incremental chess...
However, it might be worth having a speed play finish before adjudications, instead of the current QPF...
eg lets say the league plays 35 moves in 75 mins...you might then insist on a min of 15 moves in 15 mins before any game goes for adjudication.. That at least gives one party a 50 move window to prove they are winning or drawing..
On the subject of unified boards...the elections produce a random selection of candidates, many thrown up by the `party system`...so a fair degree of randomness and individuallity is bound to occur, and makes for a healthy variety of views... One of my concerns is that the `President` role has now become a beauty contest, to see who might have the biggest pulling power and connections, etc...and maybe a fat wallet/source of funding, by which they can magically increase the ECFs purse. I`d like to see candidates who clearly have the ECFs interests at heart, but may not be coated in a cloth of gold, given a fair crack of the whip..
Remember the very boring Mr Hodgson...currently Englands football manager...
He my be boring and dull and not inspirational for the media...but he has injected a slice of stability and order into the England camp...and I`m delighted that he keeps out of the media glare and doesnt get turned into another media circus victim like so many others have..
BRING BACK THE BCF