Re: County Championship Consultation
Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 1:28 pm
The consultation has now ended. Results are awaited.
The independent home for discussions on the English Chess scene.
https://www.ecforum.org.uk/
I would expect there to be further consultation regarding any options or proposals for change that might result from analysis of the responses from the initial questionaire.
The proposals are now in a consultation paper here :- http://www.englishchess.org.uk/county-c ... ond-stage/.Michael Flatt wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 2:45 pmI would expect there to be further consultation regarding any options or proposals for change that might result from analysis of the responses from the initial questionaire.
The Unions, who currently nominate counties for the ECF competitions, would obviously like to have an involvement in the decision making process.
It's all very well copying elements of the 4NCL in having some team places restricted. What makes it work in the 4NCL is that there are no restrictions on recruitment. That's quite different in county chess. The consultation is completely silent on whether eligibility rules would be relaxed, but assuming they aren't, they represent an excellent excuse for counties to say "can't be bothered" in terms of organising teams.Neil Graham wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2017 9:08 pm
However let us deal very quickly with Proposal 4A which is one that should be firmly chucked into the long grass
In the Open section, the 16-player teams must include the following:
- At least 1 female player
- At least 1 Under 18 boy
- At least 1 Under 18 girl
- At least 1 Under 11 player
Briefly I am sure that I will agree with David's sentiments above once I have thoroughly read and digested the document. Unfortunately as I will be off-line for a few days I didn't have time to construct a full rundown of all the proposals presented in the consultation paper. I anticipate there will be plenty of comment whilst I'm away. In respect of proposal 4A which I opened with; it's the easiest one to refute.David Sedgwick wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2017 12:11 amImportant as the above discussion is, the paper contains even more damaging proposals.
One of the key reasons for the formation of the BCF in 1904 was to facilitate competition amongst the Champion Counties of each Union. The resulting model - Union Championships serving as qualifying competitions for National Stages - has served the BCF / ECF extremely well for 114 years.
I didn't take part in the initial consultation, as I always suspected that its purpose was to provide a fig leaf for a predetermined agenda, that agenda being the abandonment of that model and the destruction of the Union Championships.
This paper confirms my worst fears.
The ECF Council of a decade ago would have thrown these proposals out resoundingly. Whether that still happens will be an acid test of the Council of today.
The Union Championships will survive anyway, of course. It will be the ECF Counties Championships which will end up being destroyed if these proposals are adopted.
There is one important respect in which even the rejection of the proposals must not be the end of the matter. The whole episode demonstrates the need to transfer responsibility for the National Stages away from the Director of Home Chess and into the hands of a Committee of the five Unions.
That's all very well, but it's in the context of obsolete eligibility requirements where the resources and notional player availability to individual counties is by no means equal.Brendan O'Gorman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2017 12:22 amFinally, suppose you had a national federation committed to increasing participation, particularly among women. Surely, it wouldn’t be too surprising if the national federation sought to reform county chess along the lines being suggested.
Well, Council has a few choices, such as voting down (all or some of) the proposals, or voting Alex out of his job as DoHC, but (re)electing him and complaining when he comes up with new ideas doesn't necessarily seem sensibleDavid Sedgwick wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2017 12:11 amThe ECF Council of a decade ago would have thrown these proposals out resoundingly. Whether that still happens will be an acid test of the Council of today.
The Union Championships will survive anyway, of course. It will be the ECF Counties Championships which will end up being destroyed if these proposals are adopted.
There is one important respect in which even the rejection of the proposals must not be the end of the matter. The whole episode demonstrates the need to transfer responsibility for the National Stages away from the Director of Home Chess and into the hands of a Committee of the five Unions.
England lags significantly behind other countries with regard to women's chess and junior chess. We expect to be behind eastern Europe, and countries with large amounts of government support. But we also lag significantly behind countries with whom we have the resources to compete with. This suggests we are not doing enough in these areas, and we need ways to improve that. The proposals in 4 are my best shot at doing something to address that problem, based on formulas that are used in other countries to increase participation in these areas. If you disagree with them, then that's fine. Those who are clearly against it - what are your alternative proposals to deal with the fundamental problem English chess has of female participation and juniors remaining involved in adult chess?Brendan O'Gorman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2017 12:22 amSuppose it were the case that only a tiny proportion of adult chess players were women. Suppose, too, that there was a worrying shortage of young adults of either sex playing the game. Suppose further that you suspected county chess captains were mostly old blokes picking their teams from a contact list of mostly old blokes and no women. Finally, suppose you had a national federation committed to increasing participation, particularly among women. Surely, it wouldn’t be too surprising if the national federation sought to reform county chess along the lines being suggested.
They aren't playing at the moment, so it isn't a case of pulling them from a lower-graded team. They're just not playing in the event at all. But they play in the 4NCL when asked. So I think the problem is that they're just not asked. So why not have a rule that encourages captains to ask the question?NickFaulks wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:25 pmIn any case, what is the point? By promoting a player to the Open team, for which they would not otherwise qualify, aren't you jist taking them out of the grading restricted team for which they would?
Has it, though? The numbers of teams participating, at least outside the SCCU, has been declining. One of the reasons for this, which came through in the results, was the distance to travel. In the SCCU, that's no problem. But Worcestershire v Lincolnshire? Greater Manchester v Wawickshire? Devon v Gloucestershire? If there were smaller regional units, even if they cut across Union lines, would that help solve the problem? I don't know. That's why we've asked.David Sedgwick wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2017 12:11 amOne of the key reasons for the formation of the BCF in 1904 was to facilitate competition amongst the Champion Counties of each Union. The resulting model - Union Championships serving as qualifying competitions for National Stages - has served the BCF / ECF extremely well for 114 years.
I'm all too acutely aware that I have the perception of having a pre-determined agenda, so I went to great lengths not to be perceived to do that this time. Many of the proposals in this paper aren't even mine, and I am actually against a few of them myself. I worked very closely with Mike Truran and others. I ran the initial questionnaire past some vocal county captains to make sure we were asking the right things, and updated it as a result.David Sedgwick wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2017 12:11 amI didn't take part in the initial consultation, as I always suspected that its purpose was to provide a fig leaf for a predetermined agenda, that agenda being the abandonment of that model and the destruction of the Union Championships.
This paper confirms my worst fears.
There are many inaccuracies in this post, which I will try to talk about here.Michael Flatt wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2017 11:42 amAs David has pointed no member of the ECF board nor any of its officers have any authority over the organisation and running of the individual Union Championships - that doesn't seem to have been taken into account by the current review of the National Championships.
The current committee overseeing the 'consultation', as far as I am aware, only has a single member - that might be very efficient in terms of decision making but it does exclude the possibility of reasoned debate.
A better process might be to delegate the task to a properly constituted working party to discuss the results of the poll, determine what needs to change (if anything) and make recommendations.
Or call a motion of no confidence in me, I suppose. I first thought about the wisdom of Council electing someone who comes up with ideas and then insulting me for coming up with them when it happened back in 2014, and not much has changed since.Mick Norris wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2017 11:52 amWell, Council has a few choices, such as voting down (all or some of) the proposals, or voting Alex out of his job as DoHC, but (re)electing him and complaining when he comes up with new ideas doesn't necessarily seem sensible
It's not really the point of this thread, but the DoJC Directorship is much, much bigger. It's done by someone in full-time employment who has even less time than me. Yet no one has ever suggested that should be split up.Mick Norris wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2017 11:52 amCouncil might think that DoHC is too big a remit for 1 person to do properly, and either reallocate part of the job to others, or require more managers appointed for specific tasks