ECF elections 2016

[Roger de Coverly]

Not obvious enough? http://www.e2e4.org.uk/sunningdale/Apr2 ... /index.htm

May I remind you that it took the intervention of the ECF in AUGUST to get this posted?

We had 12 entries. We took £510 in entry fees. We paid out £750 in prize money. 1 in 6 entrants received a prize.

That's a risk taken by tournament organisers. If the ECF advertises a total prize fund, should players expect it to be reduced or withdrawn?

I played in a tournament once where 8 out of 10 received (modest) prizes. It was a 5 round 10 player Swiss with prizes on offer of 1st, 2nd, 3rd. The winner made 4.5 (plus 4) with second place on 3.5 (plus 2). Six people made 2.5 and the minus 6 was shared between two players who scored 1 each.

[Sean Hewitt]

Apologies for the delayed response. Been busy paying out a bundle of prizes from Crawley.

We had 12 entries. We took £510 in entry fees. We paid out £750 in prize money. 1 in 6 entrants received a prize.

That's a risk taken by tournament organisers.

Au contraire

Prizes may be amended subject to numbers of entries.

Time to give it a rest. Cheque mate you might say.

[Roger de Coverly]

Au contraire

Prizes may be amended subject to numbers of entries.

That's one of the points.

e2e4 may wish to cultivate a reputation as cutters of prize funds, does the ECF?

The real problem is the secrecy that surrounded the decision to cut the prize fund. Not announcing the winners and their prize money until several months had elapsed is indicative of a desire both to cut the prize fund and not suffer the corresponding reputation damage.

[Sean Hewitt]

Not announcing the winners and their prize money until several months had elapsed is indicative of a desire both to cut the prize fund and not suffer the corresponding reputation damage.

Which bit of "It was announced after Round 2, and published at the venue" did you not understand? Perhaps you'll pay attention next time (at non e2e4 events of course).

I think the fact that we have paid out more than £100,000 in prize money tells folks all they need to know.

[Roger de Coverly]

Which bit of "It was announced after Round 2, and published at the venue" did you not understand?

The two prize winners and that there were only two prize winners was not announced on e2e4 website until August. You aren't denying this surely.

As seen with Gatwick, the normal practice of e2e4 is to announce prize winners within a day of the completion of the event. This was followed for the Sunningdale Easter Open of 2014, but not for the English Seniors. Why not?

[Sean Hewitt]

Which bit of "It was announced after Round 2, and published at the venue" did you not understand?

The two prize winners and that there were only two prize winners was not announced on e2e4 website until August. You aren't denying this surely?

The site was last updated 5th June 2014 according to the server timestamp. Enough already.

[IanCalvert]

For the record, in an "ECF Elections 2016" thread, my view of events, included in Sean Hewitt's post of 10:22 , around his threat to disqualify me at Crawley and the subsequent discussion is very different from his .

i think some of his comments may be libelous and are untrue.

[Roger de Coverly]

The site was last updated 5th June 2014 according to the server timestamp. Enough already.

You are denying then that the results page for the English Seniors didn't appear until August? Specifically after the British and after I raised the issue both on this forum and the ECF's official one. Those that followed the issue have a different memory on this.

[Roger de Coverly]

my view of events, included in Sean Hewitt's post of 10:22 , around his threat to disqualify me at Crawley and the subsequent discussion is very different from his .

Don't let him get away with this. Give your version of events. It's unusual for posts to be deleted from this forum so it can represent a valuable historical record.

After Nigel's griping in the Isle of Man, arbiters have been reluctant in FIDE rated events to re-pair. Normal practice has been to attempt to offer fillers when there's an odd number although some arbiters try harder on this than others. You can return to an even number by persuading someone to take a half point bye.

[Carl Hibbard]

The site was last updated 5th June 2014 according to the server timestamp. Enough already.

You are denying then that the results page for the English Seniors didn't appear until August? Specifically after the British and after I raised the issue both on this forum and the ECF's official one. Those that followed the issue have a different memory on this.

I think we have all 'followed' this issue quite enough we don't need to start a review all over again please.

[Sean Hewitt]

For the record, in an "ECF Elections 2016" thread, my view of events, included in Sean Hewitt's post of 10:22 , around his threat to disqualify me at Crawley and the subsequent discussion is very different from his .

i think some of his comments may be libelous and are untrue.

Then sue us. I stand by everything i have said.

I wouldn't have even mentioned it here but, as you have, what happened was

You were perfoming poorly in the event and in Round 5 were due the bye.
We published the paitings for round 5 with you having "See Controller"
When I returned to the office from setting up, you were agitated. You said "Let me make my position clear, "See Controller" had better not mean you intend to give me a bye. I've paid for 7 games of chess and it's your responsibility to give me 7 games of chess".
I advised you that the FIDE laws of chess were prescriptive about who received the bye and in this round, it was you. I would try to find you an opponent, but could offer no guarantee.
You told me that if I didn't find you an an opponent, you would not play in e2e4 events again, and 'threatened' to make sure that all the players you knew were told about this.
Believing you to be totally unreasonable, not being appreciative of threats, and knowing that most players would think you were being an idiot, I told you to go ahead. I further advised you that I would make the decision for you and not have you back at future events.
I then left to finish setting up, and you followed me. You were verbally aggressive, and attempted to invade my personal space. You were stood directly in front of me shouting, and incandescent with rage. At this point I warned you that your actions brought the game into disrepute. I told you that if you did not stop, I would have no choice but to disqualify you. This was not an action that I wanted to take but I needed you to stop behaving in this way.
You challenged my ability to do this, and I quoted law 11.1 (bringing the game into disrepute) and 12.9 (allowabe penaties for such offence). I further advised that you should walk away and take 5 minutes to calm down.
You asked whether you would be disqualified if you went away. I said you wouldn't. You walked away.
After the round had started I tried to find you an opponent (as I aways do). None was forthcoming. I advised you of this at 3.15.
At approx 3.30 you came to see me, much calmer. You advised that you had been aggitated because it had taken 10 minutes to find me, and that you had not expected to get the bye, and that you did not believe it was correct that you did get the bye.
I spent 20 minutes explainging, the FIDE pairing rules. I showed the exact wording to you on the FIDE website. I showed you the pairing record of the player you thought should have had the bye. I explained that the fact that he had had a bye already prohibited him from getting the forced bye in this round. You accepted that the pairing was right, though said you believed that the pairing rules should be different so that you didn't get the bye.
You accepted that your language had been "aggressive" and that you had "blown your top". You explained that you use aggressive language to get your own way, and were frustrated when it did not work on this occassion. You apologised for that, I apologised for you not being able to find me and any upset that had caused and we shook hands.
Issue dealt with like grown ups and matter closed. Or so I thought.

So please, go ahead. Do your worst. I always front up to unacceptable behaviour, and erradicate it from e2e4 events wherever I can.

[Mick Norris]

We've had this discussion about direct members vs congress influence at Council many times and no doubt we'll have it many more times in the future. Most people agree that reform is needed but unfortunately it's not something that can be brought in overnight but instead will require a lot of detailed constitutional change.

I disagree with the suggestion that congresses are not accountable. A congress needs entrants to remain viable; individual members wouldn't have much influence within the ECF even if OMOV was brought in but they can influence congresses simply by voting with their feet.

I'm not sure Andrew - congresses need entrants, but you can't satisfy all requirements e.g. in Manchester for every Martin (don't play in summer even if it is local) there are others who want a pre-winter season warm up in an otherwise quiet August - for every "great there is free parking" there's a "wish it was in central Manchester, but imagine the venue hire would be too much" - true, when we had lots of complaints a few years ago about a temporary venue we were given as the previous one was full of flu vaccine, I sourced us the current, improved, venue - but that isn't perfect

Congresses shouldn't have votes on Council IMO

[Mike Truran]

Why shouldn't congress organisers be represented? They do most of the work.

[Roger de Coverly]

I advised you that the FIDE laws of chess were prescriptive about who received the bye and in this round, it was you.

FIDE pairing rules surely, which require a documented system of pairings. British arbiters mostly treat this requirement with a reasonable amount of flexibility.

Checking http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html? ... ew=article doesn't find any references to "Swiss", "pairing" or "bye".

A stringent interpretation of FIDE pairing rules might disallow half point byes, so the rule which says you cannot have two byes would only apply for two full byes,

It's an interesting question of principle as to whether a player, having been absent for the first round and then lost all their games so far should not be eligible for a full point bye.

Swiss pairing rules are http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html? ... w=category with the rule on Byes on the opening page

A player who, for whatever reason, has received any number of points without playing, shall not receive a bye.

The suggestion that half point byes not be awarded is at
http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html? ... ew=article

Players known in advance not to play in a particular round are not paired in that round and score 0 (unless the regulations of the tournament say otherwise).

[Roger de Coverly]

Why shouldn't congress organisers be represented? They do most of the work.

I would have the point was that there are rarely mechanisms at which the voting Council member can be challenged or instructed as to policy. That contrasts with Counties and Leagues who have some form of AGM or Executive meeting.