English Chess Forum

I have just sent the following email to both candidates:

Thank you both for your responses to my email. Each of you said that you could not reasonably consider my proposals fully in the short time before the Council Meeting, but undertook to do so if elected.

I am grateful to both of you for treating me with rather more respect than the outgoing Director who, in a post on the English Chess Forum at viewtopic.php?f=25&t=9839&start=30, dismissed my suggestions out of hand on the grounds that they came from me.

Maybe an open forum isnt the best place for your private game of...chess?

David Sedgwick wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:26 pm

I am grateful to both of you for treating me with rather more respect than the outgoing Director who, in a post on the English Chess Forum at viewtopic.php?f=25&t=9839&start=30, dismissed my suggestions out of hand on the grounds that they came from me.

Was using language like "damaging consequences", amongst other examples, respectful?

Was I wrong when I said "Several of them are just a list of changes I made that David didn't like, and he wants to know how many of them the new Director will change back to the way he likes it"?

David

Don't you feel that your decision to inform this place of your private correspondence with the candidates on matters of import to yourself but relatively few others was a touch unnecessary and discourteous? Hardly surprising that you got a gentle rebuke from Alex. If you don't like it stop playing silly games

What opportunities exist to challenge ECF decisions, other than the now triennial elections?

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:34 pm

What opportunities exist to challenge ECF decisions, other than the now triennial elections?

The requisitionists can put any motion they like on the agenda for council if they want to stop an ECF decision in its tracks. I've also heard a rumour that there is an unofficial forum where questions can be raised and constructive discussions (occasionally) take place.

David Sedgwick wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:36 pm

Reverting to the original rationale for this thread, I have just emailed the following questions to the two candidates in the election for ECF Director of Home Chess:

If you are elected as ECF Director of Home Chess, will you:

1. Restore the ECF Senior Arbiter title.

2. Revert to the previous arrangements for holding FIDE Arbiters' Seminars in England. I fail to discern any actual or potential benefit to the changes which Alex H made.

3. Abolish the misconceived ECF Master Points Scheme.

4. Publish the current BICC Agreement immediately.

5. Clarify where the right to award "British" events is vested and the status of the British Rapidplay Championships.

6. Modify the new British Championship Qualifying Regulations to remove damaging consequences and introduce beneficial ones. In particular it would be helpful if seven round events had a BCQ place, as more such events would increase the opportunities for arbiters to qualify for the FIDE Arbiter title.

I have just replied to David Sedgwick by email. This is what I wrote:

Hi David,

Thanks for the questions once again.

Here are my replies:

1 Should we restore the ECF Senior Arbiter title? A title to recognize the contribution of the more experienced English Arbiters is certainly worth considering.

2 Arbiter Seminars. The important thing here, I think, is close coordination between the Manager of Arbiters and the Chess Arbiters Association. Initiatives to organise seminars in various parts of the country should be encouraged, with the support of the ECF. We also need more Arbiter Assessors, and I would work closely with the CAA to facilitate that.

3 ECF Master Points system. I would review this scheme to see how much enthusiasm there is to continue.

4 BICC agreement - (British Isles federations). Yes, I would be in favour of publishing the agreement and increasing cooperation between the various national federations.

5 'British' events & the British Rapidplay Championships. The British Rapidplay was at one point a great event, and I would work to restore this situation. Likewise with other events seeking the 'British' title, they should be well funded, with a good central venue, to attract a strong field. Each 'British' event should be strong enough to deserve the accolade.

6 I am all in favour of more 7-round FIDE rated events as a further part of the British Championships qualification process.

I hope these quick replies are useful. If I am elected, I would seek to consult widely on these issues.

Best regards,
Tim

J T Melsom wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:47 pm

David

Don't you feel that your decision to inform this place of your private correspondence with the candidates on matters of import to yourself but relatively few others was a touch unnecessary and discourteous? Hardly surprising that you got a gentle rebuke from Alex. If you don't like it stop playing silly games

Tim Wall said that he welcomed discussion on the issues on this Forum, so I repeated my proposals on here. I haven't divulged either his or Adrian Elwin's private replies to me, but Tim himself has just posted a considered response. (Thanks, Tim.)

Regarding my allegedly disrepectful reference to some "damaging consequences" of the new British Championship Qualifying Regulations, I was asked two years ago to submit constructive amendments to the Regulations. I did so and was ignored (not by Alex).

If putting forward suggestions which in my opinion would benefit the operation of the Home Chess Directorate is playing silly games, then I plead guilty to playing silly games.

However, it would clearly be futile to go on playing them, so I am now bowing out of this thread.

You choose less than 24 hours before the election of a new Home Director to post for public debate, your wish-list for his potential successors. It could have been done earlier. To do so at this time and without any post acknowledging Alex's achievements lacks a certain generosity of spirit towards the outgoing officer. You don't have to agree with Alex's contribution in its entirety, but I regard posting and its tone at this time as a crass misjudgement. It is very much an example of why people don't volunteer. You should know better.

J T Melsom wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:01 am

To do so at this time and without any post acknowledging Alex's achievements lacks a certain generosity of spirit towards the outgoing officer.

So now it is unacceptable to comment on the election for the new Home Director without prefacing this with a standardised paean of praise for their predecessor? What is this, the Soviet Central Committee?

Nick, you are aware that posts are supposed to be read in context and with allowance for exaggeration, emphasis for effect etc? I'm clearly not alone in finding the intervention a bit crass but I don't expect everybody to see the posts as a problem because nobody ever does and many just won't care.

"and strategy should help set priorities"

Yes - but I think you need more than strategy. There are certain routine tasks that continue.

I say that mildly, I am not going into rant mode as someone disagrees with me.

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:14 am

J T Melsom wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:01 am

To do so at this time and without any post acknowledging Alex's achievements lacks a certain generosity of spirit towards the outgoing officer.

So now it is unacceptable to comment on the election for the new Home Director without prefacing this with a standardised paean of praise for their predecessor? What is this, the Soviet Central Committee?

I would have thought that in Soviet days it might have been more common to denounce the recently-departed official

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:14 am

J T Melsom wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:01 am

To do so at this time and without any post acknowledging Alex's achievements lacks a certain generosity of spirit towards the outgoing officer.

So now it is unacceptable to comment on the election for the new Home Director without prefacing this with a standardised paean of praise for their predecessor? What is this, the Soviet Central Committee?

Shades of Jeremy Hunt, there

It seems to me rather churlish not to acknowledge the amount of unpaid work done by Alex over the years, resulting in many new events, and just to speak about possible error and misjudgements along the way. I hope indeed that his successor does pay some sort of tribute.