English Chess Forum

Now we have the nominations the next point of interest will be the publication of the election addresses. With regard to the comments above I agree that how active a candidate is in active play has no relevance to what they can offer at board level; there are many reasons why individuals don't play frequently and some of these may be beyond their control (ie work).

What will be interesting is whether a certain offensive statement which has cast a shadow over this (fairly successful) year will be withdrawn.

I was asking how much and how often they take part in competitive play.

I know you were, and I was asking why you think that's so relevant for an NED.

Andrew Zigmond wrote:I agree that how active a candidate is in active play has no relevance to what they can offer at board level

Not that I have a vote, but I feel reluctant to support candidates who prioritise being members of "Boards of Directors" over playing, organising or arbiting.

Andrew Zigmond wrote: What will be interesting is whether a certain offensive statement which has cast a shadow over this (fairly successful) year will be withdrawn.

Are you thinking of the material presented in support of the aborted bid for a challenge to the Finance Director? I have no view on whether it is correct or otherwise, but it's at least on paper mildly defamatory.

Roger de Coverly wrote:

Andrew Zigmond wrote:I agree that how active a candidate is in active play has no relevance to what they can offer at board level

Not that I have a vote, but I feel reluctant to support candidates who prioritise being members of "Boards of Directors" over playing, organising or arbiting.

Well surely somebody has to prioritise being a board member over these things or every board position would be vacant! As it is, from an earlier post one of the candidates MAY be involved as a parent and in any case we don't know what their background in organisation is. All will become clearer when the addresses are published.

Not that I have a vote, but I feel reluctant to support candidates who prioritise being members of "Boards of Directors" over playing, organising or arbiting.

Well , what a good thing that you don't have a vote if that's the only basis on which you're willing to judge a candidate's capabilities.

Roger de Coverly wrote:

Andrew Zigmond wrote: What will be interesting is whether a certain offensive statement which has cast a shadow over this (fairly successful) year will be withdrawn.

Are you thinking of the material presented in support of the aborted bid for a challenge to the Finance Director? I have no view on whether it is correct or otherwise, but it's at least on paper mildly defamatory.

I haven't seen this so couldn't comment. I was referring to an insulting comment made by one of the candidates for non executive director last year on the now defunct official forum which has been repeated many times since.

EDIT - error corrected

Mike Truran wrote: I know you were, and I was asking why you think that's so relevant for an NED.

It's a suspicion of those who prioritise attendance at meetings over actually playing that they seek to impose requirements over participants that they will never suffer themselves.

It's a theme from the Pearce report, but to what extent if at all, are the most active players in the country represented in any way at all on the ECF Board, or for that matter amongst the voting membership on the ECF Council?

Mike Truran wrote: Well , what a good thing that you don't have a vote if that's the only basis on which you're willing to judge a candidate's capabilities.

I take it you are totally opposed to granting the paying membership any say in the election of Directors?

Your suspicion maybe - but then you always think the worst of people.

No doubt your question is rhetorical. But as I don't believe that being an active player particularly qualifies one for being on the Board (or indeed for anything much other than playing a lot of games), to my mind your question has no particular relevance.

I take it you are totally opposed to granting the paying membership any say in the election of Directors?

Absolutely not - but again, being who you are you're hardly likely to believe me.

On paper I've been the strongest player in my very small club for several years. If I left, the club would carry on without a hitch.

If the guys that run things, but don't play much, or quite so well, leave, then the club will fold.

Who would you rather have?

PeterFarr wrote:If the guys that run things, but don't play much, or quite so well, leave, then the club will fold.

At a local level, the conflict between players and meeting attendees has been played out on the adjudication/adjournment v "on the night" finish issues. Where players, particularly stronger ones have turned up in enough force at meetings, the "on the night" finish option has usually prevailed.

Roger de Coverly wrote: At a local level, the conflict between players and meeting attendees has been played out on the adjudication/adjournment v "on the night" finish issues. Where players, particularly stronger ones have turned up in enough force at meetings, the "on the night" finish option has usually prevailed.

Any organisation, whether it is the board of the national body or the committee of a small town club, can only fill positions with those people who are willing to stand for them. If stronger players feel they should be better represented at all levels there seems to be a fairly obvious solution.

Roger de Coverly wrote:
unknown Durham student (Mate of Alex H?)

Peter Hornsby, nominated by the Cambridgeshire County Chess Association, Middlesex County Chess Association, and Phil Ehr, past Chief Executive.

A mate of Alex H being nominated by Phil Ehr would be an unexpected twist following last year's events

Roger de Coverly wrote:unknown Durham student (Mate of Alex H?)

Not quite unknown to this forum: http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=7927
More recently http://2020chess.com/