English Chess Forum

Sean Hewitt wrote:

Steve Rooney wrote:

Sean Hewitt wrote:Any idea why they don't hold the Northern and Southern events on the same day? The pools of players are mutually exclusive and it would help avoid clashes such as the one that Neil outlines.

As far as I know, there is only one Mike Basman.

Sure, though he doesn't attend all events in previous rounds personally.

Mike always organises the Surrey Megafinals and everything from the Gigafinals on himself.

Does he have a grudge against county chess? These chess challenge things seem to clash with county matches every year.

No... As Alex has said, its difficult to fit in all the various events without having some clashes.
But it might be worth looking to see if any adjustments could be made to the scheduling of these events.
On the counties side, I`d just urge county captains to try to create good sizrd pools of potential players for there teams....and to scout diligently for players, using the web sites.....league, county and congress, to build and establish a strong contact list. Keeping these things uptodate is another matter, but I do think that there are players out there who would willingly turn out, even just for an occasional match, if only they received a callup.....and sometimes an encouraging `can you help us`...type call...
On the other side, I`d urge our players of all grades to support your local county sides....these are great chess team events, and even an occasional appearance can be most appreciated.
Union and county bodies also need to be pro active in ensuring good support and promotion of these events, and particularly the Union officers, when it comes to organising these events, to ensure the maximum encouragement/support for potential county teams to step forward and participate.

David Pardoe wrote: but I do think that there are players out there who would willingly turn out, even just for an occasional match, if only they received a callup.....and sometimes an encouraging `can you help us`...type call...

You might be right, but if they are so inactive as to not take part in Congresses or evening club chess, there's either a price tag attached , or else it wouldn't be worth them turning up as they would be defaulted and penalty pointed.

Yes, I agree that some additional flexibility needs to be injected into the Membership scheme to encourage greater takeup.
A `low cost, pick & mix` option might be useful, along with various `bulk membership` options, that could be self administered...... as previously mentioned on other threads.
I think a detailed discussion paper needs to be produced by the ECF and circulated for feedback to Union & county bodies, delegates, and others to comment. There is definately scope for developing this Membership scheme and its offerings....
If the ECF could attract upwards of 25,000 members, its then starting to look like a more heavyweight organisation, which might attract more support and sponsorship..given time.

David Pardoe wrote: Yes, I agree that some additional flexibility needs to be injected into the Membership scheme to encourage greater takeup.

The most flexible form of membership would be NOT to require it at the individual player level, so organisations pay a fee to be corporate members of the ECF and in return, the games played in events they run and in matches they play are graded by the ECF without quibbling. If this requires the fee to be proportionate to the number of games played, then so be it.

David Pardoe wrote: If the ECF could attract upwards of 25,000 members, its then starting to look like a more heavyweight organisation, which might attract more support and sponsorship..given time.

Never mind members, wouldn't 25,000 players playing at least one graded game be a good thing? Excluding activities like the UK Chess Challenge that's nearly double the current count.