Arbiters (jobs for) proposal.

[LawrenceCooper]

This does illustrate a great weakness in the ECF organisation in that a single individual is the key policy maker and decision taker in three distinct operational areas:
1. Organisation of the British Championship and ECF domestic competitions
2. Grading
3. Arbiting

Each of these three areas would benefit from having their own working party where matters of policy can be discussed in a meaningful manner.

What makes you think that matters of policy aren't discussed in a meaningful manner?

[Andrew Zigmond]

Those voting on Council might have something to say on that. I don't think the ECF should be given powers of dictatorship in the interests of "strategy". I probably disagree with past, present and future ECF Directors on this.

A bit facetious but have you ever agreed with past, present and future ECF Directors on anything?

Seriously, while I do understand the practical concerns some people have I don't understand the negativity. The main complaint the ECF (and the English chess scene) gets is the lack of a professional front and the fact that a lot of areas (such as arbiter qualifications) need restructuring to deliver a simple streamlined process. Much of this isn't going to happen overnight and in some cases not until 2021. There will be kinks to be ironed out and unfortunately a few individuals and events might be affected, in the same way as would happen when any company has to restructure.

[Michael Flatt]

This does illustrate a great weakness in the ECF organisation in that a single individual is the key policy maker and decision taker in three distinct operational areas:
1. Organisation of the British Championship and ECF domestic competitions
2. Grading
3. Arbiting

Each of these three areas would benefit from having their own working party where matters of policy can be discussed in a meaningful manner.

What makes you think that matters of policy aren't discussed in a meaningful manner?

There is no obvious forum other than here where these issues get discussed in detail. Yet, too often any suggestion posted get rejected out of hand.

Each of these three areas would benefit from having their own working party where matters of policy can be discussed in a meaningful manner.

Rather than decisions being subject too the whims of a single individual it would be better to seek the consensus of a group of experts and other interested parties.

[LawrenceCooper]

This does illustrate a great weakness in the ECF organisation in that a single individual is the key policy maker and decision taker in three distinct operational areas:
1. Organisation of the British Championship and ECF domestic competitions
2. Grading
3. Arbiting

Each of these three areas would benefit from having their own working party where matters of policy can be discussed in a meaningful manner.

What makes you think that matters of policy aren't discussed in a meaningful manner?

There is no obvious forum other than here where these issues get discussed in detail. Yet, too often any suggestion posted get rejected out of hand.

Each of these three areas would benefit from having their own working party where matters of policy can be discussed in a meaningful manner. Rather than decisions being subject too the whims of a single individual it would be better to seek the consensus of a group of experts and other interested parties.

Do you not think it possible/likely that Alex would have consulted with people in the three areas you mention? Unless he's had a complete personality transplant since I was on the board Alex would have done all the things you allege that he hasn't done and far more thoroughly than anyone else I can think of.

[Michael Flatt]

Do you not think it possible/likely that Alex would have consulted with people in the three areas you mention?

I would hope he has but I can't tell to what extent these 'consultations' have influenced his ideas.

I do see the discussion here as a significant part of that process, but we'll have to wait and see what actually transpires.

[John McKenna]

John, I couldn't identify anyone on the list who has an obvious connection with Kent or adjacent London Borough.

Do remember Arbiters that had been appointed by the British Chess Federation (BCF) may not have made it onto the ECF list so Kent may have qualified Arbiters that the ECF refuses to acknowledge. I have never seen a list of BCF Arbiters so I don't know how many have been disregarded.

The current list does illustrates the lack of qualified Arbiters in England and although the ECF have made a proposal for all ECF-graded events to be overseen by ECF level 2/3 Arbiters there doesn't appear to be any coordinated plan to ensure that there are sufficient available by the 2021 deadline.

A small historical reminder that in 1998 Kent had the following BCF arbiters -

Brown, David A (Petts Wood)
Gurr, Lyndon (Maidstone)
Hannan, Peter (Sidcup)
McShane, Rod (Folkestone)
Swift, Tony (Herne Bay)

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Kevin Thurlow of Redhill was the main arbiter at the Broadstairs Kent Championship tournament last year. He had a colleague but I don't recall his name right now."

It was Alan Atkinson, who is qualifying as an ECF arbiter. He certainly knows what he is doing. I also act as arbiter at the Hampshire championships. Redhill does have 3 of Surrey's 8 arbiters.

[John McKenna]

Thanks for the above reminder about Alan Atkinson's part in controlling the Thanet Congress, Kevin.

For the sake of historical completeness I should say that in 1998 there were approx. 80 BCF arbiters, in addition to one chief arbiter and two Senior arbiters

10 out of the total of about 83 were also FIDE Arbiters..

[Martyn Harris]

Kent are not the only county missing from the list of level2/3 arbiters. Middlesex' omission may be down to it being regarded as part of London, and we must note that one of the arbiters seems to be of no known abode. However the list given earlier also shows no such arbiter in Buckinghamshire, Cheshire, Cleveland, Cornwall, Cumbria, Dorset, Durham, Herefordshire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Shropshire, Suffolk, Wiltshire, or Worcestershire, some of which are home to more than one league.

[Dragoljub Sudar]

I've just read the ECF Competition Rules within the 'Grading' Tab on the ECF website.

Nowhere does it say that any arbiter must be present at a congress. It doesn't even mention the word 'congress'.

Therefore, as far as I can see, there is no such policy, unless someone knows different.

Also, there seems to be an assumption by some that putting an article onto the ECF website means that everyone will read it. Most people do not read the ECF website every day (or week, or month for that matter) and once the article disappears then there's no way of knowing it ever existed. Instead of just putting them on the website and assuming that's sufficient, were the 'competition rules' emailed to all competition organisers to make sure they saw them?

[Angus French]

I've just read the ECF Competition Rules within the 'Grading' Tab on the ECF website.

Nowhere does it say that any arbiter must be present at a congress. It doesn't even mention the word 'congress'.

Therefore, as far as I can see, there is no such policy, unless someone knows different.

Also, there seems to be an assumption by some that putting an article onto the ECF website means that everyone will read it. Most people do not read the ECF website every day (or week, or month for that matter) and once the article disappears then there's no way of knowing it ever existed. Instead of just putting them on the website and assuming that's sufficient, were the 'competition rules' emailed to all competition organisers to make sure they saw them?

Well said, Dragoljob.

News items on the ECF website quickly roll off the home page unless they're pinned (and I doubt they would reach everyone with an interest in any case).

If a proposed change affects leagues - as the current one does - then I think it would be a good idea to consult the leagues directly.

[Carl Hibbard]

Did anything become of the new web site design?

[Sean Hewitt]

I'm only a level 1 arbiter - does that mean I won't be able to run any of my own events come 2021?

I say that because the likelihood of my passing an ECF Arbiters exam is remote - I'm always running events, and I'm exam phobic!

Maybe the ECF can do what FIDE does and have them online.

One of the comments that I've made is that, whilst I understand the need for separate ECF and FIDE exams (there is stuff in the FIDE exam that's irrelevant of you're not doing FIDE rated events), I don't think there is value in requiring the sitting the ECF exam if you've already passed the FIDE one.

[Adam Raoof]

I'm only a level 1 arbiter - does that mean I won't be able to run any of my own events come 2021?

I say that because the likelihood of my passing an ECF Arbiters exam is remote - I'm always running events, and I'm exam phobic!

Maybe the ECF can do what FIDE does and have them online.

One of the comments that I've made is that, whilst I understand the need for separate ECF and FIDE exams (there is stuff in the FIDE exam that's irrelevant of you're not doing FIDE rated events), I don't think there is value in requiring the sitting the ECF exam if you've already passed the FIDE one.

Thanks Sean - Alex H has confirmed that if you hold the IA title you will come in at level 4, so I am greatly reassured by this!

[Michael Flatt]

Do you not think it possible/likely that Alex would have consulted with people in the three areas you mention?

I would hope he has but I can't tell to what extent these 'consultations' have influenced his ideas.

I do see the discussion here as a significant part of that process, but we'll have to wait and see what actually transpires.

Kent are not the only county missing from the list of level2/3 arbiters. Middlesex' omission may be down to it being regarded as part of London, and we must note that one of the arbiters seems to be of no known abode. However the list given earlier also shows no such arbiter in Buckinghamshire, Cheshire, Cleveland, Cornwall, Cumbria, Dorset, Durham, Herefordshire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Shropshire, Suffolk, Wiltshire, or Worcestershire, some of which are home to more than one league.

If a proposed change affects leagues - as the current one does - then I think it would be a good idea to consult the leagues directly.

Yes, these proposals would seem to merit more direct contact with the leagues and congress organisers so they that are not suddenly embarrassed by having their submissions for grading declined, albeit in 2021.

Ensuring that there are sufficient qualified Arbiters available throughout the country might involve a little bit of planning by everyone, except perhaps Redhill and Surrey, who seem to be ahead of the game.