2013 Final Stage

Discussion about all aspects of the ECF County Championships.
Richard Haddrell

Re: 2013 Final Stage

Post by Richard Haddrell » Mon Jun 24, 2013 8:30 am

JUST FOR THE RECORD

When the ECF published the committee’s ruling on Kent’s appeal, I was surprised by its representation of Kent’s case. It was an odd mixture of direct quotation, paraphrase, and omission. The paraphrasing introduced a factual error which was not Kent’s, and the omissions included a couple of sentences which Kent had thought quite important.

I mention it only now because I’ve been in correspondence with the ECF and was hoping for correction on their website. Two of the committee have agreed to this, but it waits on the agreement of the third and things went quiet several days ago. So I’m doing what I should have done in the first place.
Kent’s appeal 12.6.13 wrote: The Controller 10.6.13 ruled Kent’s bd 12, James E Scholes, ineligible because not an ECF Member at the time of the match. Mr Scholes’s renewal subscription, due on 2nd May, had not been paid. Kent appeals on two grounds.

(1)
It was surprising to hear of the Controller’s penalty, in view of an email received from him on the evening of the match. At that time he had cleared the team on a point of board order and congratulated us on our victory. This was, perhaps, impolitic if he had not yet checked the players’ Membership status. However, we accept that the captain erred. He had overlooked the possibility of a Membership expiring mid-season. The penalty was harsh in the circumstances, but this is scarcely grounds for appeal when a Controller is known to apply the rules strictly.

We then became aware that the Controller had, on the same day, applied retrospective penalties for non-Membership in a number of quarter final matches played three weeks earlier. Why he did so only then is not clear to us. None of the retrospective penalties affected the overall outcome of a match. But it happens that one of them was applied to the Kent Open team, in a case similar to that of James Scholes: a Gold Member whose subscription had lately lapsed.
This changes things. Had the Controller applied the quarter-final penalty at the correct time, the Kent captain would have been alerted to the possibility of mid-season expiries and would surely have avoided the second offence. As it is, the Controller has allowed him to offend twice before intervening - and the second offence has cost him dear.

It is hardly overstating things to say that the Controller’s inconsistency has contributed to Kent’s offence. We call for Kent’s reinstatement in the competition, and we think our case is strong.


That is our "moral" case. Here is our legal one.


(2)
Mr Scholes was an ECF Member. We refer to Article 4.4 of the Company:
A member shall cease to be a member:
… in any case, if any subscription or membership fee due to the Company remains outstanding for more than three months unless the Board otherwise determines
That this clause includes Direct Members is clear. The Direct Members Bye Laws specifically refer back to it. Thus Mr Scholes, whose subscription was well short of three months overdue, had not ceased to be a member.

It is always possible - we do not know - that the Board has "otherwise determined", modifying the effect of 4.4 in such a way that Mr Scholes’s Membership had lapsed. If it can be shown that it has done so, and has clearly and prominently announced the fact, our point (2) must fall. Otherwise it is hard to see how rejecting this appeal can be consistent with the Articles of the Company.
Please be clear that this post is what its heading says it is. Nothing more.

Richard Haddrell
Secretary, Kent CCA

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 17014
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: 2013 Final Stage

Post by Roger de Coverly » Mon Jun 24, 2013 8:55 am

Richard Haddrell (ECF Articles) wrote: A member shall cease to be a member:
… in any case, if any subscription or membership fee due to the Company remains outstanding for more than three months unless the Board otherwise determines

The ECF's presumed custom had been to remove benefits of membership on non-payment of renewals. But has it been operating on a lack of formal authority to do this for all those that it required to sign the white form? What conditions will retain or cease white form membership?

Not charging Game Fee to organisations was and still is only an indirect benefit to individual members. The individual benefits only if the organisation not being charged Game Fee passes on the cost saving.

Angus French
Posts: 1461
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Contact:

Re: 2013 Final Stage

Post by Angus French » Sat Jul 13, 2013 8:32 pm

Er... Surrey beat Middlesex 8.5 - 7.5 in the Open and Essex won three of the other sections. (Sorry, that's all I recall.)

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 8395
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: 2013 Final Stage

Post by Alex Holowczak » Sat Jul 13, 2013 8:38 pm

Angus French wrote:Er... Surrey beat Middlesex 8.5 - 7.5 in the Open and Essex won three of the other sections. (Sorry, that's all I recall.)
In a bid to join Angus's wade into the bounds of enthusiasm shown for the Finals of the County Championship today on this Forum, the results of the finals can be seen online here: http://www.englishchess.org.uk/county-c ... -20122013/

All games in all sections, plus photos, will hopefully appear on Monday morning.

The winners were:
Open - Surrey
Minor - Essex
U180 - Lancashire
U160 - Essex
U140 - Shropshire
U120 - Staffordshire
U100 - Essex

Simon Brown
Posts: 679
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:38 pm
Location: Sevenoaks, Kent, if not in Costa Calida, Spain

Re: 2013 Final Stage

Post by Simon Brown » Sat Jul 13, 2013 10:10 pm

Why does the ECF site say Middlesex won when they appear to have lost if you add up the points. Typo or more indiscriminate defaults?

Graham Borrowdale

Re: 2013 Final Stage

Post by Graham Borrowdale » Sat Jul 13, 2013 10:30 pm

Who knows - probably a technical fault or perhaps the controller has a sense of humour. The Middlesex players I spoke to thought they lost. The site also says that Beds won the Minor but it was definitely Essex!

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 8395
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: 2013 Final Stage

Post by Alex Holowczak » Sat Jul 13, 2013 10:58 pm

Simon Brown wrote:Why does the ECF site say Middlesex won when they appear to have lost if you add up the points. Typo or more indiscriminate defaults?
The results were updated throughout the day, and you need to indicate a winner for it to accept the result. I'd selected the first named team for that purpose when I put the teams in and the scores were 0-0.

The grade-restricted sections were changed, but the Open and the Minor hadn't been. This is entirely the fault of the Organiser, who hadn't told the person inputting the results to the software for those sections that that was something he needed to change.

Richard Bates
Posts: 2693
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: 2013 Final Stage

Post by Richard Bates » Sun Jul 14, 2013 6:48 am

A much nicer venue, in general, so well done, although if it is used again I would like to assure the organisers that the Open and Minor teams are not too proud to slum it with the hoi polloi in the air-conditioned main room... :shock:

John Hodgson
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 10:13 am

Re: 2013 Final Stage

Post by John Hodgson » Sun Jul 14, 2013 8:06 am

Richard Bates wrote:A much nicer venue, in general, so well done, although if it is used again I would like to assure the organisers that the Open and Minor teams are not too proud to slum it with the hoi polloi in the air-conditioned main room... :shock:
In many ways the venue was very good.

The problem was that the Open and Minor sections were played in small rooms that trapped hot air such that they became a furnace, whereas the other sections were played in a perfect air-conditioned environment.

Some players I spoke to coped with the heat quite well; others - mostly the older ones - hated it.

The organisers had obviously made the decision to play the two stronger tournaments in the heat, and give the lower sections the best conditions. Is it elitist to complain? I would have thought the Open boards would have attracted the most interest and should have been played in the main hall. In addition I think the games in the lowest sections were finished, on average, earlier than those in the higher sections.

Of course it was pleasing to play for a county that won three events yesterday, but the playing conditions were the worst I have played in for years, and my overall memory will be one of an unpleasant experience that I will not want to repeat. A shame, because it could have been an outstanding venue.

Mick Norris
Posts: 6870
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: 2013 Final Stage

Post by Mick Norris » Sun Jul 14, 2013 8:27 am

Alex Holowczak wrote:
Angus French wrote:Er... Surrey beat Middlesex 8.5 - 7.5 in the Open and Essex won three of the other sections. (Sorry, that's all I recall.)
In a bid to join Angus's wade into the bounds of enthusiasm shown for the Finals of the County Championship today on this Forum, the results of the finals can be seen online here: http://www.englishchess.org.uk/county-c ... -20122013/

All games in all sections, plus photos, will hopefully appear on Monday morning.

The winners were:
Open - Surrey
Minor - Essex
U180 - Lancashire
U160 - Essex
U140 - Shropshire
U120 - Staffordshire
U100 - Essex
Bit surprised to see some board defaults, were there traffic problems or was the venue hard to find?
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

Liam Rabbitte
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 9:20 pm

Re: 2013 Final Stage

Post by Liam Rabbitte » Sun Jul 14, 2013 9:25 am

My brother was stuck on the M6 for 5 hours so not the best of days for anyone travelling that way. (I think he should be down as a default rather than a loss because he never made it to the venue :? )

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... elays.html

I think some of the other Lancashire players were also late having been caught up on the M6, so they did well to win the match.

Congratulations to the finalists, it can't have been easy to play chess in the heat.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 8395
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: 2013 Final Stage

Post by Alex Holowczak » Sun Jul 14, 2013 9:44 am

Richard Bates wrote:A much nicer venue, in general, so well done, although if it is used again I would like to assure the organisers that the Open and Minor teams are not too proud to slum it with the hoi polloi in the air-conditioned main room... :shock:
We had previously used the venue in March, where the classrooms were absolutely fine. Of course, it is now not March... We had fans, but they were clearly inadequate. It was probably made worse in the Open match by virtue of having the heat from the electronics of the live boards, and the fact that we were on the top floor of the building, and hot air rises.

The intention was to keep the Open/Minor out of the way of the grade-restricted sections, on the basis that the playing conditions would probably be much quieter - certainly at times, the main hall suffered from noise (and people wandering around with mobiles).

The criticism about the heat in those rooms is justified.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 8395
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: 2013 Final Stage

Post by Alex Holowczak » Sun Jul 14, 2013 9:50 am

Liam Rabbitte wrote:I think some of the other Lancashire players were also late having been caught up on the M6, so they did well to win the match.
Dave Welch counted over 20 players who were absent soon after the start of play. A minibus from Essex was also delayed; this was quite disconnected from the M6 problems of course.

Indeed, we were lucky that Dave arrived about an hour earlier than he planned; otherwise he would have been caught up in the queues from the same accident.

Richard James
Posts: 937
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 7:34 pm
Location: Twickenham
Contact:

Re: 2013 Final Stage

Post by Richard James » Sun Jul 14, 2013 10:08 am

Alex Holowczak wrote:We had fans, but they were clearly inadequate.
The ECF has fans?!

Perhaps they need the Barmy Army. I'm sure they'd have been more than adequate, but I believe they're otherwise engaged at the moment.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 8395
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: 2013 Final Stage

Post by Alex Holowczak » Sun Jul 14, 2013 10:12 am

Richard James wrote:
Alex Holowczak wrote:We had fans, but they were clearly inadequate.
The ECF has fans?!

Perhaps they need the Barmy Army. I'm sure they'd have been more than adequate, but I believe they're otherwise engaged at the moment.
:lol:

I thought the trumpeter was banned from Trent Bridge? Maybe we could have had him instead...

Post Reply