Casual Chess cafe

[benedgell]

There isn't much in the paper about how the money would be used if council approved this. The paper as a whole seems lacking in details.

I understand there may be a presentation on the day, but that's not helpful for me when I need to ask people/ organisations ahead of time for how they'd like me to vote.

[Hok Yin Stephen Chiu]

There isn't much in the paper about how the money would be used if council approved this. The paper as a whole seems lacking in details.

I understand there may be a presentation on the day, but that's not helpful for me when I need to ask people/ organisations ahead of time for how they'd like me to vote.

After some digging, I'm gleaned upon the pinned post of the Casual Chess Club group, which might be of interest to fellow delegates, as follows https://www.facebook.com/groups/3935481 ... 237974636/

For those unfamiliar, I understand the "5,000 unique visits" to refer to Facebook reach, not visits in person to the club. Due to the ambiguous use of the word 'reach' earlier and the offering of 'one free class per month for women', we will have to ascertain at Council exactly how many classes have been run and whether five hundred women have been taught at the chess lessons run by Casual Chess.

Any club that has brought in five hundred new members - regardless of gender - in under 12 months is a thumping success story. I say this as the former President of the largest University Chess society in the country, and neither myself or my successors would be able to draw 500 new members to our own Beginners course. As it stands, this is a matter that deserves the time of Council.

One of the issues with the proposals is that I would've appreciated a comprehensive and meaningful breakdown on what exactly £6,000 goes to. Because, as a delegate, my constituent League deserves to be informed beforehand in advance of me exercising my judgement for the vote.

[Michael Farthing]

The more I think about this the more my view is that it should not be on the agenda. Proposals of this sort should go to the Board for proper scrutiny and come from there to Council with a Board recommendation. As it is, it will be taking up time in Council where we will be unable to give proper scrutiny - time that could be better used otherwise.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"The more I think about this the more my view is that it should not be on the agenda. Proposals of this sort should go to the Board for proper scrutiny and come from there to Council with a Board recommendation. As it is, it will be taking up time in Council where we will be unable to give proper scrutiny - time that could be better used otherwise."

Agreed - perhaps it fits in the description of "Any Other Business" that ECF uses. This would allow a general discussion rather than a discussion requiring a concrete decision. Perhaps the proposer will rapidly produce a detailed document for consideration...

[Mike Truran]

Amanda has (again) deliberately bypassed the Board and gone straight to Council. I suppose that is her right, but she can hardly then expect the Board, having been deliberately excluded from the process, to be sympathetic to the suggestion that it should incur time and effort in reviewing her proposal in detail and reporting back to Council.

[Michael Farthing]

Can someone tell me who "Amanda" is? Does she have a surname? What was this previous bypass of the Board?

[IM Jack Rudd]

Amanda Ross. The Casual Chess Cafe, which she runs, has a Facebook group here.

[David Sedgwick]

Amanda has (again) deliberately bypassed the Board and gone straight to Council. I suppose that is her right ...

It's not her right at all.

As I have pointed out, her organisation is not affiliated to the ECF. If it were, she could put a resolution on the agenda if she had the necessary support from other requisitionists.

Instead she has persuaded Mike Gunn, Chairman of Council, to put the item on the agenda. That is his right, but Mike appreciates that he should exercise it with discretion.

Clearly Mike thinks that the paper which has been submitted by Amanda justifies his having done so on this occasion. I agree with Mike on most matters of chess administration. This is an exception.

[Paul Cooksey]

Interestingly nobody seems to have commented on the most interesting proposal on the Finance Council agenda, namely the request from the Casual Chess cafe, London for a donation of £6,000.

Going back to the first sentence, the last few posts show why, at least for someone like me. You can tell you are only seeing a small part of the picture so seems a bit pointless commenting until someone explains what is going on. Similar to the regular hypothetical scenarios threads, which turn out not to be hypothetical. Or the "I was just wondering about" threads, from people who know information not in the public domain.

I have never been to Casual Chess, although occasionally considered it. Seems a good initiative. But I can't believe they are so naive as to think the Council is less of an old boys club than the board. So difficult to understand their motivation.

[Angus French]

I share some of the concerns expressed above but:

1. The agenda refers to *two* accompanying papers in support of the proposal. So far only one paper has been published so maybe there's a second paper to come and this will give details of how the requested funding would be spent.
2. I think initiatives to support promotion of chess to women, young adults and other demographic groups not currently well represented in competitive chess in England should be looked on favorably (though not uncritically).
3. I've visited Casual Chess a couple of times and it seems to me that Amanda and others are doing good work and putting in a lot of effort.

[Chris Goodall]

2. I think initiatives to support promotion of chess to women, young adults and other demographic groups not currently well represented in competitive chess in England should be looked on favorably (though not uncritically).

Of course. Anyone who believes, in 2018, that we shouldn't be doing anything to address chess's old white man problem, should retire immediately. If Scrabble can do it, so can we.

However, the London urban area is less than a fifth of England's population. There are slightly more people in the area covered by the NCCU than in the London urban area. There is casual chess and female-friendly chess in the NCCU area too. Can we have £6,000 a year to set up a fund and make it better?

[Andrew Zigmond]

Many member organisations have supported the ECF / BCF loyally for years and in some cases decades. I imagine that quite a number of them could make good use of a grant of this kind.

But would they use the money to create initiatives that will bring new players to the game? Or as I suggested earlier would they just use it for a larger prize at an existing event?

Interestingly nobody seems to have commented on the most interesting proposal on the Finance Council agenda, namely the request from the Casual Chess cafe, London for a donation of £6,000.

Going back to the first sentence, the last few posts show why, at least for someone like me. You can tell you are only seeing a small part of the picture so seems a bit pointless commenting until someone explains what is going on. Similar to the regular hypothetical scenarios threads, which turn out not to be hypothetical. Or the "I was just wondering about" threads, from people who know information not in the public domain.

I have never been to Casual Chess, although occasionally considered it. Seems a good initiative. But I can't believe they are so naive as to think the Council is less of an old boys club than the board. So difficult to understand their motivation.

I started this thread because I saw the paper in the council documents and was intrigued to find out more, particularly as whatever the merits of this request, it is concerned with promoting chess to players outside of the conventional demographic which is something I am very passionate about.

I agree with those who say that Casual Chess should be dealing with the board, rather than council, if only because the board is generally the more progressive of the two bodies. Amanda Ross' apparent insistence on going straight to council seems similar to the failed attempt of a young chess entrepreneur to win election of the board; done with the right intentions but betraying an ignorance of how the ECF works. Whether that is how the ECF should work is a different matter.

I expect the motion to fail and I expect ECF board and council to be lambasted as dinosaurs stuck in the past. Which has been a fair criticism on occasion but not so much on this one.

[Andrew Zigmond]

2. I think initiatives to support promotion of chess to women, young adults and other demographic groups not currently well represented in competitive chess in England should be looked on favorably (though not uncritically).

Of course. Anyone who believes, in 2018, that we shouldn't be doing anything to address chess's old white man problem, should retire immediately. If Scrabble can do it, so can we.

However, the London urban area is less than a fifth of England's population. There are slightly more people in the area covered by the NCCU than in the London urban area. There is casual chess and female-friendly chess in the NCCU area too. Can we have £6,000 a year to set up a fund and make it better?

Chris took the words right out of my mouth on this occasion. Why just London? Why not the rest of the UK?

[Angus French]

2. I think initiatives to support promotion of chess to women, young adults and other demographic groups not currently well represented in competitive chess in England should be looked on favorably (though not uncritically).

Of course. Anyone who believes, in 2018, that we shouldn't be doing anything to address chess's old white man problem, should retire immediately. If Scrabble can do it, so can we.

However, the London urban area is less than a fifth of England's population. There are slightly more people in the area covered by the NCCU than in the London urban area. There is casual chess and female-friendly chess in the NCCU area too. Can we have £6,000 a year to set up a fund and make it better?

Chris took the words right out of my mouth on this occasion. Why just London? Why not the rest of the UK?

Yes, yes. This has been said before in this very thread. It's why I prefaced my post with 'I share some of the concerns expressed above...'

[Mick Norris]

I'm a little bit reluctant to add this last paragraph as it may count against Casual Chess at the meeting. If a similar proposal was put forward to benefit an initiative in (plucking the most random example I can think of) Wigan, would the request be viewed and treated the same way?

Without wishing to comment on the merits of the proposal as a whole, if money were available for development purposes, then it would make sense for it to be in a large centre of population. London is the largest centre of population. You chose Wigan, but if you were to have chosen a large metro area in the vicinity of Wigan (e.g. Manchester or Liverpool), then I'd like to think it would be.

Noted; there already is a Social Chess Club in Manchester city centre, and a chess club in Liverpool city centre (note, I'm not saying that either are the same as the London Casual Chess), either or both of which might be interested in funding for something like this

Serious question; if this extended to Bristol, Birmingham, Newcastle, Southampton and other metro areas considered to be of sufficient size, where would the ECF get the money?