Poll: Is the ECF doing a good job?

[Paolo Casaschi]

The situation is that, for example, the latest FIDE rating list (if I did the pivot table right) has 2923 players for ENG, 19439 for FRA and 22897 for GER. You certainly can try to find issues and excuses for that

That is an extremely simple one to answer - the ECF has taxed FIDE rated chess almost out of existence. They have treated it as a cash cow and have killed the golden ( membership ) goose.

That still does not explain the numbers. For example, the membership list on the ECF website lists 10262 members. This is about half of the French and German FIDE rated players. Even if all ECF members gained a FIDE ratings, still England would be far behind.

If you want to compare membership numbers the French federation claims 57414 members (6x the ECF) and the German federation claims 89000 (9x the ECF). Starting from a comparable population (England pop is about 2/3 of Germany and 80% of France), how would you explain they have A LOT more members?

Don't you think the French and German federation deserve some credit for their achievements in comparison to the ECF?

[IM Jack Rudd]

The other number you can work with is the 15323 people on the ECF grading list. Again, much smaller than comparable FRA and GER numbers.

What I'm not sure is what the ECF could do about it.

[Roger de Coverly]

the more FIDE-rated events there are, the more other encouragement other events have to becoming rated.

There's the effect of competition. For some events, being able to offer a qualification place to the British Championship was an incentive, an incentive that the ECF is diluting to near invisibility. It's only tournaments with a 1-2-2 format or longer and four hour sessions or longer that can introduce FIDE rating.

[NickFaulks]

It's only tournaments with a 1-2-2 format or longer and four hour sessions or longer that can introduce FIDE rating.

What?

[Roger de Coverly]

What?

There's a four hour minimum playing session for FIDE rating unless you exclude higher rated players. As playing for 12 hours or longer is longer acceptable because of the early starts and late finishes, you have to schedule the tournament with one round on Sunday, two on Saturday and two on Sunday if using four hour sessions. A 1-2-2 format.

[Michael Farthing]

Like what we Northerners do all the time.. What on Earth is the problem with it?

[NickFaulks]

The difference between England and France is that in France, a FIDE rated game is defined as any ratable game of chess. In England it is defined as any game where the organisers have not managed to find any excuse not to rate it. Gold membership is of course one reasonable excuse.

Has anyone read the Rating Regulations which will will come into force from 1.7.17 ( having been stalled for over six months while waiting for completely unnecessary PB confirmation )?

[Michael Farthing]

Nick,

I do not honestly think this is a Board conspiracy to keep us graded but unrated. Alex in particular seems pretty keen (almost determined) to up the ratings. BUT there seems a total lack of recognition that the price discimination mechanism for membership is impeding any progress. I keep on telling Alex this both privately and publicly. I'm not against membership price discrimination (ie different levels of membership to extract more money from keener players). It's very sensible. A lot of keener players would be the first to admit it. (you can make it sound much more pc and acceptable by saying it the other way round - cheaper membership levels to encourage in new and less committed members). BUT you shouldn't make expensive something that you want to persuade people to do. That's silly. Respond Alex!! What have you to say?

[IM Jack Rudd]

BUT there seems a total lack of recognition that the price discimination mechanism for membership is impeding any progress.

Lack of recognition, or lack of agreement? The two are not the same.

[Paul Cooksey]

I'd been hoping for an answer from Paul as he started the poll...

I'll probably comment when it closes, but decided not to try to influence people.

[Carl Hibbard]

A reasonable job yes but accountability not so much.

[Carl Hibbard]

I also am not convinced that Johns plan was that Malcolm could spend cash however he decided best.

[Roger de Coverly]

Has anyone read the Rating Regulations which will will come into force from 1.7.17 ( having been stalled for over six months while waiting for completely unnecessary PB confirmation )?

No.

Would you care to give a precis or a link?

[IM Jack Rudd]

Has anyone read the Rating Regulations which will will come into force from 1.7.17 ( having been stalled for over six months while waiting for completely unnecessary PB confirmation )?

No.

Would you care to give a precis or a link?

http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/ ... ew=article

[Roger de Coverly]

http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/ ... ew=article

So what's new? It's still a minimum session length of four hours unless you exclude players over 2200.

1.1


For a game to be rated each player must have the following minimum periods in which to complete all the moves, assuming the game lasts 60 moves.
Where at least one of the players in the game has a rating 2200 or higher, each player must have a minimum of 120 minutes.
Where at least one of the players in the game has a rating 1600 or higher, each player must have a minimum of 90 minutes.
Where both of the players in the game are rated below 1600, each player must have a minimum of 60 minutes