Gold Member Rep.

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
Brendan O'Gorman
Posts: 544
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: Gold Member Rep.

Post by Brendan O'Gorman » Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:10 pm

Simon Brown wrote:
Roger de Coverly wrote:
Brendan O'Gorman wrote: The simple remedy of imposing a double limit on entries - entrants should be under FIDE x AND under ECF Y - has been rejected by the Home Director. Someone should make Council aware that the garden is not entirely rosy.
He will no doubt respond that it's an operational matter.
Because it is. If there have been grumblings he should and no doubt will listen to them, but do you really want Council to make the rules for the British Championships?
Fair point, but I'm just trying to describe one of the issues that excites the interest of some members. I doubt whether many care about windy strategy documents.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 17254
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Gold Member Rep.

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:44 pm

Simon Brown wrote: but do you really want Council to make the rules for the British Championships?
I think they should be give the right to vote for or against proposed major changes, so yes, up to a point. In particular if there's public disquiet about changes to the rating limits, where should it be voiced?

The practice of having an annual survey of participants was a valuable means of getting feedback. Under the present Home Director, that's been completely dropped.

Andrew Zigmond
Posts: 1565
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Harrogate

Re: Gold Member Rep.

Post by Andrew Zigmond » Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:04 pm

John Reyes wrote:after going to the Lancashire Agm, I have noticed now that some people have their own agenda and it is hard to break into it
The one crumb of comfort is that once you do break in the opposition tends to crumble pretty quickly. Yorkshire used to be the most backwards thinking county in the country but in the past decade new volunteers have come to the fore and the die hard anti ECF brigade have largely withdrawn to the sidelines as far as the county association is concerned. Of course as a Yorkshire officer born in 1981 I often get things that happened in 1993 thrown into my face on this forum but even so ...

By contrast Lancashire seem to have some entrenched individuals who will be around for some years yet.
Last edited by Andrew Zigmond on Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own

Richard Bates
Posts: 2720
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: Gold Member Rep.

Post by Richard Bates » Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:28 pm

Brendan O'Gorman wrote:
Simon Brown wrote:
Roger de Coverly wrote:
He will no doubt respond that it's an operational matter.
Because it is. If there have been grumblings he should and no doubt will listen to them, but do you really want Council to make the rules for the British Championships?
Fair point, but I'm just trying to describe one of the issues that excites the interest of some members. I doubt whether many care about windy strategy documents.
The Home Director seems to have a fetish for FIDE ratings(or perhaps the ELO method)/opposition to ECF grades that is being pursued in a dogmatic way with little obvious regard for the consequences. I think most people recognise that for the vast majority of players (amateurs and juniors particularly) ECF grades currently offer a far better indication of relative strength, especially in the context that most English chess is played.

Even if one took the view that this is in part down to the small percentage of games that are FIDE rated, with the remedy that there should be incentives to encourage FIDE rated chess as much as possible, it doesn't follow that the FIDE rating need to be the main determinant of entry limits and or grading prizes etc. Even in county chess we see silly board orders because of this insistence and the consequences in tournaments are far more serious (the ultimate farce of course being demonstrated in last year's London Classic rapid play where you had super strong Indian child players walking off with U1600rating prizes). The whole thing just seems designed to generate low level grumbling and discontent among amateur players.

Anyway, not totally on topic, but my rant for the day :)

John McKenna
Posts: 3344
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: Gold Member Rep.

Post by John McKenna » Sat Oct 14, 2017 12:28 am

Jonathan Bryant wrote:
Paul Cooksey wrote:Honestly, I have given up. I do not agree with the strategy - I believe in a small rather than a large ECF. But I'm fairly sure nothing I write to Ben will make any difference.

I think the ECF has reverted to its default position - only organisers get a vote and players should shut up and pay up.

Well, yes - except I’m not sure that you can revert to a position that you never really left.


For what it’s worth, although I thought Ben’s attempt to gather views for the meeting was admirable, I didn't respond because I didn’t think I should. (not and not at all because of the 'lack of controversy").

First of all, I don’t really see why I should engage with this joke of one vote for all Gold Members. What’s the point?

Second, it seems to me that this forum - still less those members who reply to this thread - is hardly going to be representative of Gold Members as a whole. I’d much rather, therefore, that Ben speaks and votes as he sees fit on my behalf. I thank him for it.


For the avoidance of any doubt, I’ll repeat that I think Ben’s efforts are admirable. None of the above is intended as a criticism of him.



Perhaps like Paul I’ve given up. Then again, can you give up a position that you never really held?


The acid test will be if the motion to increase the number of votes of the direct-member reps is passed.

Of course, if the ECF were to somehow retreat, retrench and reorganise it might be in better shape to advance in future.

And, I wouldn't begrudge paying the same membership fee, as now, for some more votes and more progress of the third kind.

Thanks, again, to Ben for starting the discussion, here, and for all his posts relating to the ECF on the forum, over time, without which things would be a lot less clear.
To find a for(u)m that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artist now. (Samuel Beckett)

benedgell
Posts: 1244
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: Somerset
Contact:

Re: Gold Member Rep.

Post by benedgell » Sat Oct 14, 2017 7:54 am

Paul Cooksey wrote:
Michael Farthing wrote:The lack of response probably reflects the lack of controversy in the proposals coming before Council..
Honestly, I have given up. I do not agree with the strategy - I believe in a small rather than a large ECF. But I'm fairly sure nothing I write to Ben will make any difference.
Why not write your opinions and see what happens? If you're right and it doesn't make a difference the only cost is the small time its taken to post on here.

Paul Cooksey
Posts: 291
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:15 pm

Re: Gold Member Rep.

Post by Paul Cooksey » Sat Oct 14, 2017 9:48 pm

Einstein, perhaps wrote:The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results
I don't want to criticise everything the ECF does or take active steps to undermine it. But I think Andrew had a moment of clarity up thread, in that if dissent is suppressed inside the organisation, it finds another outlet

benedgell
Posts: 1244
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: Somerset
Contact:

Re: Gold Member Rep.

Post by benedgell » Sat Oct 14, 2017 10:10 pm

Looks like 2 potential candidates have been found for the Gold Members' Reps roles. Myself and someone else. The board will decide whether or not to appoint us to the roles at their next board meeting, in a months time.

John McKenna
Posts: 3344
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: Gold Member Rep.

Post by John McKenna » Sun Oct 15, 2017 9:36 am

Tidings of comfort and joy - from Ben - two such reps with fistfuls of golden votes would make for a very welcome early Christmas present from the ECF to the membership category that I happen to belong to.
To find a for(u)m that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artist now. (Samuel Beckett)

Post Reply