ECF may join with English Bridge Union in Judicial Review

[Carl Hibbard]

The ECF membership was informed last Friday by direct email that the Board is attempting to join the EBU’s judicial review challenge. Expect an information paper presented to Council for the AGM.

The Board’s decision occurred in a meeting on 20 July. The Board designated an ad hoc committee of John Foley, David Eustace and myself to make the final decision. This committee was necessary due to discussions pending with solicitors and the Court’s application deadline. I would rather not publish the Board’s cost constraint ahead of further consultation with the legal team. Public disclosure will occur; it’s simply a matter of time and place. ECF Finance Committee Chairman Mike Truran, who asked the question above, is now aware.

[Carl Hibbard]

Phil is over 'there' but he is posting to himself mainly so your attention is drawn to the other place for additional discussion sadly.

[Carl Hibbard]

Or of course Phil is happy to post anonymously for you

[Roger de Coverly]

Perhaps going off at a tangent, the other thread points to an article at the Sport and Recreation website.
http://www.sportandrecreation.org.uk/bl ... tion-sport

It was also posted in paper form on one of the several noticeboards in Warwick, that had pairings, if you knew where to look, but not cross tables.

There were a number of points in the article which I would regard as disputed, just untrue or completely exaggerated.

This one for example

Six million people play chess in England each year according to pollsters YouGov.

I would contrast that with the 15,000 or so on the ECF grading lists and the headcount of the Basman chess challenge and other junior initiatives. You can throw in the numbers on the on-line servers not having an OTB presence as well. How far that and the junior headcount will take you, I'm not sure, but at a generous estimate, that leaves 5,700,000 to 5,800,000 chess players unaccounted for and invisible.

But I'd believe it, if it was clarified that it included people who perhaps spent once a year, either playing a friend or firing up a computer game. It's an extrapolation from data that wasn't really collected to measure the amount of chess being played. Microsoft's Minesweeper could claim equally massive numbers by much the same analysis.

You might make such claims as propaganda, but don't fall into the trap of believing it and basing Business Plans on it.

[JustinHorton]

Perhaps going off at a tangent, the other thread points to an article at the Sport and Recreation website.
http://www.sportandrecreation.org.uk/bl ... tion-sport

It was also posted in paper form on one of the several noticeboards in Warwick, that had pairings, if you knew where to look, but not cross tables.

There were a number of points in the article which I would regard as disputed, just untrue or completely exaggerated.

For instance:

The first book printed in English by William Caxton was on chess.

It wasn't.

[JustinHorton]

The sport England annual report shows more than £300,000,000 a year of money being distributed among recognized sport organizations and approved projects.

Unless I miss something, at the moment precisely £0 of those £300,000,000 is allocated to chess.

Being recognized as sport might open the door for the ECF and other chess organizations and projects to argue for public financing. Getting access to public financing might also make it easier to attract private corporate sponsors.

Back to your question: being recognized as sport gives you nothing just by itself, but might open the door to new financing opportunities..

I'm not at all poorly disposed to this argument: I live in a country where chess is classified as a sport and benefits hugely from that status, and I've always regarded chess as a sport (and obviously so).

But:

(a) I still would like to know how much we're in for and on what conditions ;
(b) I am sceptical of the chances of this particular approach.

[Brian Towers]

Perhaps going off at a tangent, the other thread points to an article at the Sport and Recreation website.
http://www.sportandrecreation.org.uk/bl ... tion-sport

It was also posted in paper form on one of the several noticeboards in Warwick, that had pairings, if you knew where to look, but not cross tables.

There were a number of points in the article which I would regard as disputed, just untrue or completely exaggerated.

This one for example

Six million people play chess in England each year according to pollsters YouGov.

I would contrast that with the 15,000 or so on the ECF grading lists and the headcount of the Basman chess challenge and other junior initiatives. You can throw in the numbers on the on-line servers not having an OTB presence as well. How far that and the junior headcount will take you, I'm not sure, but at a generous estimate, that leaves 5,700,000 to 5,800,000 chess players unaccounted for and invisible.

But I'd believe it, if it was clarified that it included people who perhaps spent once a year, either playing a friend or firing up a computer game. It's an extrapolation from data that wasn't really collected to measure the amount of chess being played. Microsoft's Minesweeper could claim equally massive numbers by much the same analysis.

You might make such claims as propaganda, but don't fall into the trap of believing it and basing Business Plans on it.

Having another "angry old man" day, Roger? I know. I have them too, from time to time. It's the age, you know?

The claim in the poll seems perfectly reasonable to me. I'm the only one in my extended family that it is registered with a national chess federation yet, if they were all asked in a poll "Do you play chess?" probably 90% of them would say "Yes". Only one of them, me, would say "Yes" to the question "Are you an active member of a chess club?" let alone the question "Are you a paid up member of a national chess federation?".

The point is that even my youngest brother who was classified as disabled at the age of 16 because of his mental problems (he can just about read the television listings and I have never seen him write) used to play chess with my mother when she was alive. Does he play chess? Yes, he does, although the last time he played was probably about 20 years ago. Do I ski? Yes, I do, although the last time I skied was 6 years ago. I can imagine myself going on another skiing holiday, so the answer is "Yes". Would paid up members of the Ski Club of Great Britain be outraged that I still call myself a skier? I'm sure they would have more sense.

[JustinHorton]

The claim in the poll seems perfectly reasonable to me. I'm the only one in my extended family that it is registered with a national chess federation yet, if they were all asked in a poll "Do you play chess?" probably 90% of them would say "Yes". Only one of them, me, would say "Yes" to the question "Are you an active member of a chess club?" let alone the question "Are you a paid up member of a national chess federation?".

The point is that even my youngest brother who was classified as disabled at the age of 16 because of his mental problems (he can just about read the television listings and I have never seen him write) used to play chess with my mother when she was alive. Does he play chess? Yes, he does, although the last time he played was probably about 20 years ago.

Right, well as the question was "in the last year" he wouldn't qualify then, would he?

[Roger de Coverly]

The claim in the poll seems perfectly reasonable to me.

When it's a national body pleading for tax concessions on the basis of a total exaggeration of its influence and participation, then I don't think it is. Even worse is when it believes its own propaganda in its business planning. Agon seemed to think there was a vast untapped audience for chess entertainment, but it never materialised.

What metrics do the physical sports use? Does the FA include as active footballers anyone who kicks a ball around, or does it confine its definition to those taking part in formal or semi-formal matches?

[Brian Towers]

There were a number of points in the article which I would regard as disputed, just untrue or completely exaggerated.

For instance:

The first book printed in English by William Caxton was on chess.

It wasn't.

Welcome to the "Angry Old Men" club.

The Game and Playe of Chesse is a book by William Caxton, the first English printer. Published in the 1470s, it was for a time thought to be the first book published in England but that title now goes to Recuyell of the Historyes of Troye, also by Caxton.

Recuyell of the Historyes of Troye or Recueil des Histoires de Troye, a translation of a French courtly romance written by Raoul Lefevre, chaplain to Philip III, Duke of Burgundy, was the first book printed in the English language.

A translation by William Caxton was printed by Caxton, probably with the assistance of Colard Mansion and Johann Veldener in 1473 or 1474 (traditionally "ca. 1475") at Bruges

So, "The Game and Playe of Chesse " was published in the 1470's and "Recuyell of the Historyes of Troye or Recueil des Histoires de Troye" was published in 1473 or 1474 or perhaps 1475.

The moving finger writes and having writ moves on

[Roger de Coverly]

So, "The Game and Playe of Chesse " was published in the 1470's and "Recuyell of the Historyes of Troye or Recueil des Histoires de Troye" was published in 1473 or 1474 or perhaps 1475.

Which means that if you need a reference to the longevity of chess literature, you write "one of the first books ... " which is presumably undisputed.

[JustinHorton]

1473, unless Brian knows better than the British Library.

[Michael Flatt]

There were a number of points in the article which I would regard as disputed, just untrue or completely exaggerated.

This one for example

Six million people play chess in England each year according to pollsters YouGov.

I agree.

To be considered a sporting activity, I would presume that there must be some competitive element and there is no indication that aspect was included in the pollsters' question. It would be interesting to know exactly what question the pollsters asked and within what context.

Had all 6 million competed in known organised competitions or had been registered as club members the figure would have had some meaning.
As it is, it can hardly be considered an accurate assessment of the number individuals playing competitive chess in the England.

[JustinHorton]

There were a number of points in the article which I would regard as disputed, just untrue or completely exaggerated.

This one for example

Six million people play chess in England each year according to pollsters YouGov.

I agree.

To be considered a sporting activity, I would presume that there must be some competitive element and there is no indication that aspect was included in the pollsters' question. It would be interesting to know exactly what question the pollsters asked and within what context.

You can find this out - and much more - here (search for what questions were asked and it's the UK link just above.)

[Roger de Coverly]

It would be interesting to know exactly what question the pollsters asked and within what context.

I believe this is the original poll question and result

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/d ... 170712.pdf

The question being

Which ONE, if any, of the following BEST describes the last time you played chess either against a person or a computer

As far as defining competitive chess is concerned at adult level, at least, it is now dominated in numbers by over 55s in the UK. The survey failed totally to pick this up, although it's been an empirical feature since the 1970s getting ten years older every decade.

To make the count of six million, you are counting "yes" to the "at least once a year" as the reply to how often do you play chess against a person or computer.

If they'd had a category "I play chess in formal competitions at least once a year", would they have had any response at all? Possibly those playing on-line chess might have boosted the numbers. But as a poll response, the conclusion "no adults play chess" could have been plausible. In statistical terms, 10,000 to 15,000 out of the adult population of England, that could be correct.