2013 Final Stage

[Sean Hewitt]

I have also asked this before but still await an answer. A player has Silver membership. This allows him to take part in FIDE rated Blitz games. Has FIDE agreed to publish his Blitz rating but not his standard play rating which would require GOLD membership? Or is it the case that the ECF will only ask FIDE to remove players if they have no membership or Bronze membership?

I look forward to Mike, Sean, Alex H or Jack giving an answer.

The ECF will ask FIDE to delist any non-Gold member who plays FIDE rated standard play chess (apart from those who play in exempt events such as 4NCL wildcard or as a filler).

[Sean Hewitt]

Or is it the case that the ECF will only ask FIDE to remove players if they have no membership or Bronze membership?

The ECF appear to be ignoring the concession that you can play one 4NCL weekend without Gold membership.

Wrong. No such concession exists.

[Sean Hewitt]

I am genuinely confused by ECF membership.

A league player can apply for Bronze membership at any point in the season and it applies retrospectively. However, if the same situation occurs in a County match the retrospective nature of the membership does not apply. Am I correct in this assumption?

If I am correct can any of the Board members explain why this apparent anomaly was allowed to happen?

I'm not a Board member, but I don't have any problems in understanding or explaining that one.

In a league, you don't have to be a member in order to play. The league is liable for £2 Game Fee per game if you are not a member and don't become one subsequently, with the effect being retrospective if you do.

In the National Stages of the Counties Championships you have to be a member in order to play and you can't join retrospectively. One of the suggestions made up thread is that you should be allowed to do so.

You beat me to it, but that's exactly right.

[Roger de Coverly]

Wrong. No such concession exists.

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... -paper.pdf

4NCL Wild Cards
The requirement for ENG players to be Gold members is waived in respect of players playing
as a Wild Card.

As far as I am aware that concession was approved by the April Council meeting.

In the case of the former British Champion (and I think sometime sponsor), the 4NCL result doesn't show him as a Wild Card. Should not the ECF have refused to rate that match because of the presence of a player without the requisite license?

[Alex McFarlane]

The ECF will ask FIDE to delist any non-Gold member who plays FIDE rated standard play chess (apart from those who play in exempt events such as 4NCL wildcard or as a filler).

So an ENG who is a Silver Member but plays a FIDE rated game (perhaps as a filler) will not have their Rapid or Blitz ratings showing on the FIDE list. This is not stated anywhere that I can see in ECF documentation.

From the ECF website

RAPID PLAY EVENTS

At the time of writing (August 2012), FIDE was accepting Rapid Play events for rating on a trial basis, free of charge. In view of this, the ECF is not enforcing its policy requiring Gold or Platinum membership for English-registered players in these events.

Instead, the events will be treated in the same way as graded Rapid Play events.

Shouldn't this document mention that you may not actually be able know what your Rapid or Blitz rating is even if a Silver member? Certainly the wording only says that you can take part but surely getting an appropriate rating is implied as a condition of participation?

[Alex Holowczak]

The Kent captain was aware that he had to look for expiring memberships because of his own membership expiring, but overlooked it for Scholes.

This is nonsense. The Kent captain’s membership did not expire mid-season as Mr Scholes’s did. He was a Bronze member at the start of the season, expiry 31st August 2013, and, unsurprisingly, still is.

Then it's nonsense that came from his mouth when I spoke to him on the phone. I expressed surprise at this point, and asked him to questioned him about it to make sure I hadn't misunderstood.

[Sean Hewitt]

Or is it the case that the ECF will only ask FIDE to remove players if they have no membership or Bronze membership?

The ECF appear to be ignoring the concession that you can play one 4NCL weekend without Gold membership.

Wrong. No such concession exists.

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... -paper.pdf

4NCL Wild Cards
The requirement for ENG players to be Gold members is waived in respect of players playing
as a Wild Card.

As far as I am aware that concession was approved by the April Council meeting.

The concession you quote (4NCL wild cards) does not extend to non-wild cards who play one 4NCL weekend so thanks for confirming your earlier mistake.

In the case of the former British Champion (and I think sometime sponsor), the 4NCL result doesn't show him as a Wild Card. Should not the ECF have refused to rate that match because of the presence of a player without the requisite license?

No. The ECF does not operate a licensing scheme.

[Roger de Coverly]

So an ENG who is a Silver Member but plays a FIDE rated game (perhaps as a filler)

The ECF now has an official exemption for fillers. The 4NCL scenario is more likely. A squad includes a player who isn't a Gold member but who isn't really expected to play. He or she plays just once. The 4NCL will allow the result to stand and ECF will process the game for international rating . From the player's point of view they either have to pay the upgrade fee for the one game or see their standard rating be expunged and with it their rapid play and blitz ratings.

[Sean Hewitt]

The ECF will ask FIDE to delist any non-Gold member who plays FIDE rated standard play chess (apart from those who play in exempt events such as 4NCL wildcard or as a filler).

So an ENG who is a Silver Member but plays a FIDE rated game (perhaps as a filler) will not have their Rapid or Blitz ratings showing on the FIDE list. This is not stated anywhere that I can see in ECF documentation.

Has everyone been sipping the loopy juice today? Try reading what has been written. A silver member who plays a FIDE rated game as a filler will of course have their Standard, Rapid and Blitz ratings showing on the FIDE list.

[Roger de Coverly]

The ECF does not operate a licensing scheme.

It operates a scheme that has exactly the same effect whenever it demands membership as a condition of participation.

[Alex McFarlane]

Sean,

May I respectfully suggest that you actually read what was written. (Or perhaps you are the one indulging in Loopy Juice or whatever.) I'm glad you clarified him playing as a filler but you did not cover the other possibilities.

Here is a variation on the same question that I hope you will answer. I've tried to make it as explicit as possible to avoid further misunderstanding.

An ENG Silver player plays in a FIDE rated standard event in Scotland. He has played in a Blitz event in England. Under these circumstances will his Blitz rating be available or will the ECF ask for his entire FIDE listing to be removed? If the latter, why has no warning of this been given on the ECF website? There is a clear statement that he will be allowed to participate but no mention that the participation may not allow a rating to be achieved in the public domain.

You have also failed to explain why membership applies retrospectively to some games but not to others. Is there a reason? It seems I am not alone in finding this confusing.

[MartinCarpenter]

For the final point, its because the rules are written that way for the county championship

That and the ECF wouldn't be able to default players for not being members in many of the local leagues, but run the county championships so clearly can.

[Sean Hewitt]

May I respectfully suggest that you actually read what was written. (Or perhaps you are the one indulging in Loopy Juice or whatever.) I'm glad you clarified him playing as a filler but you did not cover the other possibilities.

I did read what you wrote. You did not ask about other possibilities.

An ENG Silver player plays in a FIDE rated standard event in Scotland. He has played in a Blitz event in England. Under these circumstances will his Blitz rating be available or will the ECF ask for his entire FIDE listing to be removed?

The answer has already been given. http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... 45#p116710

You have also failed to explain why membership applies retrospectively to some games but not to others. Is there a reason? It seems I am not alone in finding this confusing.

Wrong. The answer has already been given. http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... 45#p116713

Alex - You continually ask the same questions and I can see no value in engaging with you, so I won't be responding to any more of your posts. Out of courtesy I'm telling you advance so you're not left wondering if I'm ignoring you. You'll know for certain that I am.

[Roger de Coverly]

An ENG Silver player plays in a FIDE rated standard event in Scotland. He has played in a Blitz event in England. Under these circumstances will his Blitz rating be available or will the ECF ask for his entire FIDE listing to be removed?

The ECF would get itself out of a lot of grief and save itself the bother of annoying FIDE with delisting and reinstatement requests if it extended "pay to play" to FIDE rated events. So an extra £ 6 to the ECF for every player unless they were
(a) already rated with a non-ENG federation
or
(b) Gold members of the ECF

That has the likely effect of charging more to tourists without a rating, but Congresses with entry fees set by Stewart Reuben do that anyway.

For leagues, just charge £ 2 per head per game, more if you wanted to reflect the supposedly premium nature of internationally rated chess.

Given the grief that membership causes to match captains, there's no reason why Congress and League organisers should share some of the suffering.

[Roger de Coverly]

That and the ECF wouldn't be able to default players for not being members in many of the local leagues, but run the county championships so clearly can.

I was rereading the proposals of August 2011 and defaulting players for not being members in local leagues is the direction being taken.

The basic principle is that all players in graded county, league and club events
should be ECF members. Two exceptions to this principle are recognised, one temporary, one indefinite:
During the transitional period when time may be required to gain widespread acceptance and implementation of the membership scheme, some allowances will have to be made. The approach to these cases is set out in section (a) above.
It is not intended that the ECF membership requirement should be a barrier to new players or those whose graded chess activity has been so infrequent that they have no grade.
Ungraded players, therefore, will be allowed to play up to 3 games a year in graded league, club or county competition without having to be an ECF member and without counting towards the percentage of non-members applied to calculate the Game Fee payment set out in section (a) above. This notwithstanding, the relevant Game Fee rate of £1 or £2 will be payable for the ungraded non
member’s results.

New and ungraded players would be welcome to join the ECF at the first opportunity, of course, but the above concession allows room for players to gain an introduction to competitive chess without being deterred by the expense of ECF membership.

The supposedly indefinite principle didn't make it to the final version of the scheme. But what of the temporary measure? This was the £ 2 per head retention of Game Fee.

So if you have a basic principle that all players in graded county, league and club events
should be ECF members, that rather implies expecting or requiring local leagues to default or apply similar penalties to non-members participating in the same manner as the ECF are applying to the Counties Championship.

The author of that paper didn't like the accusation that he was trying to prevent chess being played, which is why the abolished concession "gain an introduction to competitive chess without being deterred by the expense of ECF membership" was added.