English Chess Forum

"then appointing a man ahead of two qualified female candidates"

That's interesting. Who were they?

Stewart Reuben wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:33 am

This requirement that, a female captain of the English women's team, be female, shows a misunderstanding of the objectives.

It's also possible Stewart that you misunderstand why a consistent pattern of overlooking women in favour of men might get on some women's nerves. (Or indeed why some women might doubt the good faith of the organisation that keeps doing this, especially given that it manages to overlook that it has a top-performing misogynist as its president.)

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:59 pm

"then appointing a man ahead of two qualified female candidates"

Yes, I too wondered who they might be. Then I went on to wonder how the ladies behind Casual Chess knew this (with all due respect, they don't seem to be too well clued up in other areas) and in what respect - other, of course, than being female - were they "qualified"?

All proper questions, and not ones we presently have enough information to answer.

My conversations with Amanda Ross suggest that one of the candidates was a woman put forward for the role by Amanda (but not Amanda herself).

Given that all previous attempts to encourage more women to play chess have met with very limited success, it seems to me that the Amanda Ross/ Casual Chess approach may have something going for it, just on the basis that their approach is different.

I think it is rather unfair to criticise Amanda for her lack of knowledge of the ECF and its workings, she just sees the issues in a different way to most people involved in the ECF. I advised her on how to approach the ECF and (although she didn't follow all of my advice, e.g. affiliating Casual Chess to the ECF) so I must bear at least some of the blame for how things have turned out. Personally, I think it's a pity that the ECF can't act as an umbrella to all sorts of organisations trying to promote chess, even those which are a bit different in their approaches.

Anyway, good luck to Chris Fegan in his new role!

IM Jack Rudd wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 21, 2018 2:36 pm

My conversations with Amanda Ross suggest that one of the candidates was a woman put forward for the role by Amanda (but not Amanda herself).

That looks like a guarded statement...

In any event, it has always seemed to me, as to all of us, I think, that there were only two candidates, not three; and the Casual Chess statement in general terms does little overall to promote its cause.

None of which is to celebrate the appointment of Chris. Alas, I think it to be an error that he should be appointed rather than elected. The Board could do worse than to make it a working rule not to fill any vacancy with a candidate whom it has reason to believe might not be regarded by Council as electable, even if it takes a different views of the candidate's own merits. (Though I would actually be rather surprised if that is what has happened here. Further evidence, I also think, that Malcolm has disproportionate influence on the Board).

Jonathan Rogers wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:35 pm

Further evidence, I also think, that Malcolm has disproportionate influence on the Board.

Have the ECF suggested their preferred FIDE candidate yet?

Mike Gunn wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 21, 2018 5:42 pm

I think it is rather unfair to criticise Amanda for her lack of knowledge of the ECF and its workings, she just sees the issues in a different way to most people involved in the ECF. I advised her on how to approach the ECF and (although she didn't follow all of my advice, e.g. affiliating Casual Chess to the ECF) so I must bear at least some of the blame for how things have turned out. Personally, I think it's a pity that the ECF can't act as an umbrella to all sorts of organisations trying to promote chess, even those which are a bit different in their approaches.

I think the problem most of us have with Casual Chess is their blithe assumption that the ECF a) has a bottomless pit of reserves and b) that they should be first in the queue to get a slice. Also, while I am personally in favour of any initiative that attracts new players to the game (particularly outside of the standard demographic) as a Northerner I have a big problem with money going to London to benefit only London. That said, reports of the finance council meeting suggest that Casual Chess wanted to expand outside of London, in which case why can't they engage and tell us that.

Something I've been a bit reluctant to throw into the mix but I will now say it. I'm all for increased female participation in chess and have shouted down casual misogyny myself. At the same time I coach ten lads aged between 12-14 locally (girls are very welcome but I've yet to have any interest) and the absence of age appropriate events open to them is shocking. So if there was money available from the ECF for chess development I'd like to think that males were not excluded.

Andrew Zigmond wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:05 pm

I think the problem most of us have with Casual Chess is their blithe assumption that the ECF a) has a bottomless pit of reserves and b) that they should be first in the queue to get a slice.

Could you source this assumption, and explain "first in the queue"?

My recollections of the Council Meeting and the application from Casual Chess.

It started off with a request for £6k per year. This was changed to a one off of £6k. This figure, at some point, was halved but it was still presented as all or nothing.
When it was indicated that a detailed budget would be required in an application for such an amount of money then some 'back of a matchbook' figures were given.

There is little doubt that what is happening is worthwhile but the method used to request money was sadly lacking. Personally the wording of some of their rules was a cause for unease. I have doubts that there is a constitution which is needed to open a bank account.

From the presentation given I too assumed that Casual Chess believed that the ECF had sufficient funds to give £6000 without a properly submitted request. It may simply be that the presenter was naive in the way such things work.
I have no doubt that had she presented a similar submission to a charitable funder or National Lottery it would not have been given the consideration that it was by Council.

Andrew Zigmond wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:05 pm

At the same time I coach ten lads aged between 12-14 locally (girls are very welcome but I've yet to have any interest) and the absence of age appropriate events open to them is shocking. So if there was money available from the ECF for chess development I'd like to think that males were not excluded.

I may have misunderstood, but why does the ECF need to spend money on that?

I organise maybe 4 or 5 junior tournaments around Warwickshire each year. They're just 5-round graded Rapidplays over an afternoon, £10 entry fee. Why couldn't Yorkshire do that? The limiting factors initially were: (1) Finding someone who wanted to put the effort in to organise them (2) Online entry/website, setting up a system for people to enter online, and (3) Finding schools who are in the business of renting out their facilities to external bookings with available space.

The tournaments break even, and help to subsidise the rest of the county's junior activity (e.g. entry fees for things like Junior 4NCL and the EPSCA events).

Yorkshire could easily do the same sort of thing if it could find a way of overcoming (1), (2) and (3) above.

Alex McFarlane wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 22, 2018 8:53 am

I have no doubt that had she presented a similar submission to a charitable funder or National Lottery it would not have been given the consideration that it was by Council.

She was probably ten years too late in making the application. When the ECF had the DCMS grant at its disposal, there would have been a case of sorts for spending it on such initiatives. As it is now, she was requesting funding from a body, the ECF Council, representing chess organisations who themselves could put a spare thousand or two to use and were also concious that the money would have to be raised from the individuals they also supposedly represented.

Precisely, Roger.

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 22, 2018 7:47 am

Andrew Zigmond wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:05 pm

I think the problem most of us have with Casual Chess is their blithe assumption that the ECF a) has a bottomless pit of reserves and b) that they should be first in the queue to get a slice.

Could you source this assumption, and explain "first in the queue"?

I suppose the actual phrasing may involve several small leaps on my part. Certainly the funding requests from Casual Chess suggest that they assume the ECF can easily afford it. They certainly seem to think that they should get priority over other groups.

Ah yes, the Internet Seem