English Chess Forum

Roger de Coverly wrote: From the point of view of players who are usually IM or GM cannon fodder, they are putting their FIDE rating at risk when paired against someone rated 200 points or more below, but don't have the potential upside when facing the titled players.

I am expecting this attitude to prevail in England. A FIDE rated tournament is judged not by the opportunities it offers to play, and perhaps win, interesting games of chess, but by those of gaming the system to gain a few rating points.

It is particularly unfortunate when juniors are encouraged by their coaches to follow this line ( perhaps because those coaches are judged by the rating progress of their charges? ). I'm sure this is not the biggest reason why English juniors lag so far behind their European peers, but it can't help.

Alex Holowczak wrote:Loz Cooper once told me of the time he couldn't enter the Staffordshire Championship, organised as part of a weekend Congress, because the top section was Under 210. The Staffordshire Congress changed to being an Open as well.

That reminds me of the time that Walsall ran an under 200 rapidplay. I wasn't able to play but Keith Arkell's rapid grade had dropped into the 190s (in 2008?) so, helped by a lift from me, he played and won it.

NickFaulks wrote: A FIDE rated tournament is judged not by the opportunities it offers to play

Where it's an existing tournament that's been running for decades, making it FIDE rated isn't an additional opportunity to play, it's just adding the option to gain or lose rating points.

NickFaulks wrote:but by those of gaming the system to gain a few rating points.

The FIDE system of awarding titles encourages this. The practice of some organisers of excluding players with too low ratings from rating prizes as well. The practice of many organisers of having entry fees structured by rating also.

Alex Holowczak wrote:I am a volunteer, but volunteers can still get reimbursement. By "paid commensurately" I meant in the context similar to the amount of money I receive for doing similar work for other events. I wasn't exactly talking Barbados retirement money...

Alex McFarlane wrote:Oh dear - check this with HMRC. It is legitimate expenses or minimum wage (upwards).

Minimum wage legislation relates to employment, not self employment.

I have just returned from arbiting the Combined Services Championships. I submitted an expenses claim for £X. They kindly gave me a cheque for £Y, a little over twice £X. So my tax return for 2017-2018 will include income of £Y and allowable expenses of £X.

I don't see why that should cause any problem. In my case it never has done up until now.

David Sedgwick wrote:I have just returned from arbiting the Combined Services Championships. I submitted an expenses claim for £X. They kindly gave me a cheque for £Y, a little over twice £X. So my tax return for 2017-2018 will include income of £Y and allowable expenses of £X.

You must be in an unusual position compared to most chess arbiters and organisers. I expect HMRC would regard most people doing these activities to be undertaking a hobby so they wouldn't have to pay tax on any income they received (or be able to claim tax deductions on any expenses they incurred).

David Sedgwick wrote:

Alex Holowczak wrote:I am a volunteer, but volunteers can still get reimbursement. By "paid commensurately" I meant in the context similar to the amount of money I receive for doing similar work for other events. I wasn't exactly talking Barbados retirement money...

Alex McFarlane wrote:Oh dear - check this with HMRC. It is legitimate expenses or minimum wage (upwards).

Minimum wage legislation relates to employment, not self employment.

I have just returned from arbiting the Combined Services Championships. I submitted an expenses claim for £X. They kindly gave me a cheque for £Y, a little over twice £X. So my tax return for 2017-2018 will include income of £Y and allowable expenses of £X.

I don't see why that should cause any problem. In my case it never has done up until now.

That was my understanding too. The only difference will be that declaring a bottle of coke as £Y isn't normally an option provided by the HMRC website when filling it in!

Roger de Coverly wrote:

NickFaulks wrote: A FIDE rated tournament is judged not by the opportunities it offers to play

Where it's an existing tournament that's been running for decades, making it FIDE rated isn't an additional opportunity to play, it's just adding the option to gain or lose rating points.

By quoting only part of a sentence, you remove the meaning of the post. I didn't even say "additional".

To repeat myself, as evidently I must, only in Britain is it routine for potential tournament entrants to consider whether or not the structure might bring an expectation of a small gain or loss of rating points. Apart from anything else, massive historical evidence has should that such effects are very small indeed.

In federations where the tournament will be rated because it is a chess tournament, the new rule will allow 2200+ players to be included where otherwise they would be excluded. That is the point, and the only point.

NickFaulks wrote:but by those of gaming the system to gain a few rating points.

The FIDE system of awarding titles encourages this. The practice of some organisers of excluding players with too low ratings from rating prizes as well. The practice of many organisers of having entry fees structured by rating also.

If you have three IM norms and a 2397 rating, then you may wish to choose your next opponent with care. Ditto if you are 2053 and wish to remain in contention for a >2050 rating prize. Doesn't affect very many people very much.

The poll is running at 21 'yes' to 20 'no' with just over 30 hours to go until it closes. The tension!

(More seriously, how does the ECF itself measure its success, if it does?)

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: ECF itself measure its success, if it does?)

Now that’s a good question.

Jonathan Bryant wrote:

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: ECF itself measure its success, if it does?)

Now that’s a good question.

Here's a snippet about past performance -

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... rmance#p71

There's probably more detail buried in the forum midden. The ECF site used to have links to a set of docs related to their performance targets and measurements. I suspect they disappeared sometime after the DCMS grant. Anybody kept a copy? (It has been pointed out before on the forum that the ECF is not that good at keeping records and archives of its own internal machinations).

How now?

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: (More seriously, how does the ECF itself measure its success, if it does?)

There was a "standard of chess" measure in that in every three year period, there should be one new GM and two new IMs. The ECF might be just about on target for the IMs, admittedly with one (John Pigott) "borrowed" from the past. As far as new GMs are concerned, Hawkins remains the most recent and Howell the youngest.

There must be a few prospective GMs & IMs in the pipeline.

Roger de Coverly wrote:

NickFaulks wrote: A FIDE rated tournament is judged not by the opportunities it offers to play

Where it's an existing tournament that's been running for decades, making it FIDE rated isn't an additional opportunity to play, it's just adding the option to gain or lose rating points.

NickFaulks wrote:but by those of gaming the system to gain a few rating points.

Here's an example of the rating loss/gain game (not sure Tim S was being entirely serious) in the following link -

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... on#p124071

Jonathan Bryant wrote:

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:[How does the] ECF itself measure its success, if it does?

Now that’s a good question.

The Board's report to last October's AGM had this:

The Board's Report to the 2016 AGM wrote:... in line with accepted best practice the Board wishes to develop a set of key performance indicators in order to be able to monitor its performance against its plans; this is a development for 2017.

... though I don’t recall any mention of performance indicators at last month's Finance Council Meeting or in supporting documents. Nor was there a review of the increases in expenditure (on the Junior Academy, on publicity, on international chess, on the league management software and on the British Championships) agreed at the previous Finance Council meeting… Perhaps it wasn’t possible to do these things for the same reason it wasn't possible to produce accounts for 2015/16.

So the poll closes with a `win` for yes, albeit a narrow one. It isn't perhaps a ringing endorsement but obviously there was some discussion as to what the ECF was in the context of the question. I suspect that if the question had specified the ECF board the winning margin would have been greater while a vote on ECF Council would probably have seen a no vote.

Dare I suggest that we consider what result a similar poll conducted in the Gerry Walsh era would have produced, or even the CJ de Mooi era? That shows how much progress the ECF has made in a short time.

Andrew Zigmond wrote:Dare I suggest that we consider what result a similar poll conducted in the Gerry Walsh era would have produced, or even the CJ de Mooi era? That shows how much progress the ECF has made in a short time.

It depends what answer you are expecting to your presumably rhetorical question.