Page 4 of 15

Re: ECF elections 2016

Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 9:16 am
by Mike Truran
A counter-argument might be that organisers should be represented because they do the work of organising, and therefore should have no particular need to consult - not least because most members are already represented by their league/county etc rep.

Re: ECF elections 2016

Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 9:20 am
by Roger de Coverly
Mike Truran wrote: - not least because most members are already represented by their league/county etc rep.
Voting rights though. Leagues and Counties may support policies opposed by Congresses. Notoriously some Congresses had an approach to the paying of Game Fee similar to that of UKCC and VAT.

Re: ECF elections 2016

Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 9:27 am
by Mike Truran
What's wrong with leagues and congresses having different views?

Spanish practices by a handful of congresses (even if true) doesn't really justify disenfranchising all congress organisers.

Re: ECF elections 2016

Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 9:32 am
by IanCalvert
"Then sue us. I stand by everything i have said."

I had hoped to avoid further escalation. I will now consider legal action. The account below was sent yesterday to Kevin Thurlow and John Upham who independently asked about the "unhappy event".

"Cutting a long story short , having been given a bye after a bad four round start I strongly communicated to Sean that I wanted to play some chess game in round 5.

He responded that the pairings were in accordance with FIDE rules making no acknowledgement of my request : I thought he was not listening and later told him so. After a very short (a minute or so) reflection I tried again, saying that getting a game was a relevant factor in my (and others) choice of congress. He then said he felt threatened by my behaviour and that he would disqualify me if I didn't go away: which I did.

Forty five minutes later, when there was no possibility of a repairing, we spoke amicably for twenty minutes or so. He was then more conciliatory but mentioned he had already communicated via email to the Director of Home Chess, "Alex", (and others) via email on the matter without mentioning my name. Since I was the only player without a pairing, I objected that I was clearly identifiable. He then showed me one such email."

Re: ECF elections 2016

Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 9:49 am
by Roger de Coverly
IanCalvert wrote:saying that getting a game was a relevant factor in my (and others) choice of congress.
The annual Herts Congress used to advertise that no full point byes were ever given. This was back in the days of Glyn Jones who had his own eccentricities regarding pairings. If they didn't cross pair across sections, they had several assistant organisers who would be put in as a substitute player.

FIDE rules might inhibit this, not allowing a named arbiter to play in their own tournament.

Unlike the British Championship where in the past there may have been unwritten rules about not pairing the Perts, e2e4 pairings will follow the book, or rather the computer pairing engine.

Re: ECF elections 2016

Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 9:59 am
by IM Jack Rudd
Roger de Coverly wrote:FIDE rules might inhibit this, not allowing a named arbiter to play in their own tournament.
That's only the case for title-norm tournaments.

Re: ECF elections 2016, Voting Power

Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 10:31 am
by NickFaulks
Sean Hewitt wrote: Been busy paying out a bundle of prizes from Crawley.
Whatever the merits of this long-running row, publicly rubbing Roger's nose in the fact that others are getting paid out while he wasn't doesn't seem likely to calm it down.

Re: ECF elections 2016

Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 10:33 am
by Jonathan Bryant
Mike Truran wrote: ... most members are already represented by their league/county etc rep.

That’s a rather thin argument Mike. They 'represent' us but we can be ignored since we have to pay anyway.

I take your point that there are competing interests in chess - congress organisers, leagues, players (i.e. the funders of the ECF) - but it seems clear to me that any system that requires members to pay without meaningful direct representation is a nonsense.

For the record I’d be quite happy for Sean to represent me - or Adam Raoof for that matter who runs my other regular tournaments - but that doesn’t mean I’m happy that I get no choice on the matter.

Re: ECF elections 2016

Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 10:40 am
by John Upham
Mike Truran wrote: not least because most members are already represented by their league/county etc rep.

Does this include those alleged representatives who blatantly refuse to accept and act on the mandate of those they claim to be representing?

Making things worse is that this person holds a whole tranche of votes from various organisations he "represents".

Re: ECF elections 2016, Voting Power

Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 11:13 am
by Roger de Coverly
NickFaulks wrote: that others are getting paid out
There's reason to believe that there was a delay before even the two prizewinners at the 2014 English Seniors were paid. That was what was highly unusual. Whilst it was and is normal for e2e4 to announce and pay prizes the day after the tournament, this didn't happen in the English Seniors even though the parallel events were completed on the usual timetables.

It's not the removal of the prize fund that's my gripe. It's the refusal to admit that it happened. Organisers who cancel prize funds get a reputation for cancelling prize funds, a reputation that the ECF now has.

Re: ECF elections 2016, Voting Power

Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 11:18 am
by Carl Hibbard
NickFaulks wrote:
Sean Hewitt wrote: Been busy paying out a bundle of prizes from Crawley.
Whatever the merits of this long-running row, publicly rubbing Roger's nose in the fact that others are getting paid out while he wasn't doesn't seem likely to calm it down.
I have asked that we all try to move on from this one but it doesn't seem to be happening do I just need to chop people off?

Re: ECF elections 2016

Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 11:23 am
by Mick Norris
Mike Truran wrote:What's wrong with leagues and congresses having different views?
Nothing, but I don't think you would really argue that the current system of allocation of Council votes is fair

I completely accept that most ECF members don't care, but the minority that do would like to see the promised change made, even if they can't agree exactly what that change should be :roll:

Re: ECF elections 2016, Voting Power

Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 11:37 am
by Roger de Coverly
Carl Hibbard wrote: I have asked that we all try to move on from this one but it doesn't seem to be happening do I just need to chop people off?
The subject has moved on to be about unaccountable Congress organisers and threats to players who are critical of aspects of their Congress organisation.

On the technical matter of whether players can be forced to take a bye, Sean is in the right according to the principles of Swiss pairings as outlined by FIDE. Why a player querying this should be reported to the Home Director isn't so obvious.

Re: ECF elections 2016, Voting Power

Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 3:47 pm
by IM Jack Rudd
Roger de Coverly wrote:Why a player querying this should be reported to the Home Director isn't so obvious.
He wasn't "reported to the Home Director", it was a friendly discussion on Facebook.

Re: ECF elections 2016, Voting Power

Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 3:54 pm
by Andrew Zigmond
IM Jack Rudd wrote:
Roger de Coverly wrote:Why a player querying this should be reported to the Home Director isn't so obvious.
He wasn't "reported to the Home Director", it was a friendly discussion on Facebook.
And choosing my words carefully I'm not sure what Mr Calvert expects to have been done differently. There was an odd number and somebody has to take a bye, as I assume happened to players in previous rounds. It happened to me at Huddersfield. Sometimes a repairing is possible, sometimes it isn't. Otherwise there is nothing contradictory in either account that cannot be attributed to the Rashomon effect.