ECF Elections 2015

[E Michael White]

The threshold for awarding a win by illegal move is relatively high. The illegal move has to be observed by the arbiter or a valid claim made by the offended player. As with repetitions and 50 move counts, it has to be the offended player to move with the clock running.

I agree the first and second sentences with the proviso that the opponent might also admit the move was illegal but not the third sentence.

The player claiming 3 move repetition does not need to have his own clock running ( ie the opponents move completed); it is only necessary for the opponent to have made their last move on the board. For 50 move claims it is only 9.3.b which requires the players clock to be running.

Of course there is a minor flaw in the FIDE Laws for repetition and 50 move claims, which I will send to the RTRC when I am satisfied that Stewart Reuben correctly communicated the other 3 that I recently sent via this forum.

[JustinHorton]

In passing, I do not for one moment accept the faux anger about "name-calling" from a man who has taken it to an art form on this forum and on various blogs.

In passing, I don't seem to recall seeing or using the term "name-calling", used above in quotation marks. Could you source that for us? Ta.

[Roger de Coverly]

but to me it was one of the most coherent reports that have come out of the ECF in many years - in that it a had a view of the endgame.

That's a dangerous metaphor to use on a board dedicated to chess. What Arkell like insights did it contain?

Perhaps the Board are like a consultation game where you have one group advocating trading off all the pieces and trying to win the endgame and another group suggesting a direct assault on the King.

[Martin Regan]

In passing, I don't seem to recall seeing or using the term "name-calling", used above in quotation marks. Could you source that for us? Ta

The usual shape-shifting Justin.Ta.

[Martin Regan]

That's a dangerous metaphor to use on a board dedicated to chess. What Arkell like insights did it contain?

But not so dangerous on a thread dedicated to ECF elections.

In my view it sought to highlight the nature of the challenges facing the federation both now and in the future and seemed to be proposing a way of meeting them.

[JustinHorton]

Everyone knows what it means when the chief executive brings in an outside advisor - it has been done for decades - David Andersen [sic] being the obvious example.

No they don't, not when his role, both in meetings and on Board correspondence, is unclear. (I'm sure this would cause less grief if he was't so controversial, but they're not the same thing.)

Your search for professionalism does not seem to deter you from urging people to ditch a CEO and other directors despite having no replacement.

"Other directors"? Which ones?

I accept sprawling, but to me it was one of the most coherent reports that have come out of the ECF in many years - in that it a had a view of the endgame.

Incoherent in that several passages are simply that, incoherent.

As for the "endgame" - I didn't see any particularly clear view of where we were going. I did see a lot of attempted score-settling, partly in the form of paraphrases of statements by unnamed individuals, which served no useful purpose. I didn't see any explanation of the failure to do basic things like publish minutes on time, though there was certainly space to justify selective publication of the Boardrom spat. As a report it left, to be generous, a very great deal to be desired.

[JustinHorton]

In passing, I don't seem to recall seeing or using the term "name-calling", used above in quotation marks. Could you source that for us? Ta

The usual shape-shifting Justin.Ta.

Not good enough Martin.

[Martin Regan]

Not good enough Martin.

You have no demands on me Justin.

[JustinHorton]

Not good enough Martin.

You have no demands on me Justin.

Indeed not. I'm happy to leave it as it is, with you having made a claim you can't back up,

[Michael Farthing]

Come to that, Martin, you have no relevant voice here. You have not played graded chess for years and are not a member of the ECF. What I can't understand is why you feel so strongly about an organisation of which you are not a part.

[NickFaulks]

Martin Regan is to be commended on entering the lion's den to defend the indefensible. I disagree with just about everything he says, but most notably his desciption of the CEO's report as coherent. I forced myself to read the whole thing and, even if there may be nuggets of truth in some parts of it, anyone who can describe the full document as coherent is not using the same dictionary as I am.

[Roger de Coverly]

"Other directors"? Which ones?

If you look at the statements of voting intentions that have been published, you might have an expectation that the Commercial Director will have a close run with "none of the above". Quite obviously he offended the arbiter cabal that dominates the voting membership by attempting to get Alex suspended.

In another forum it is hinted that the contested election for International Director has its origins in conflicts within the Board although very little has been made public.

[JustinHorton]

"Other directors"? Which ones?

If you look at the statements of voting intentions that have been published, you might have an expectation that the Commercial Director will have a close run with "none of the above".

Quite possibly, but I don't recall ever writing or saying anything personally on the subject of whether he should remain or otherwise. Let alone, ah, "urging".

[Martin Regan]

MF wrote:

Come to that, Martin, you have no relevant voice here. You have not played graded chess for years and are not a member of the ECF. What I can't understand is why you feel so strongly about an organisation of which you are not a part.

What a silly thing to write. My ECF membership has lapsed simply because I have been to busy to renew this year but renew I shall even though I play - as RDC points out - no graded games, I in effect given a donation, just as I give donations to various other chess events.and until a year ago was still on the board of CNWCA.

All irrelevant of course.

If relevance is being able to sit by a computer and spout nonsense - then I bow to your relevance.

But as a former CEO who knows how the ECF actually works and given that the ECF is now having elections, I actually think I'm more relevant than you

[NickFaulks]

Quite obviously he offended the arbiter cabal

Please use the correct terminology. It's the controller-arbiter nexus.