Yorkshire vs ECF disparity

[Andrew Zigmond]

(b) it puts the onus on the ECF to promote itself. Expressed another way, it forces the ECF to sign up players rather than have someone compel them to become members to take part in organised chess.

This is the crux of the problem. In a perfect world the ECF should not have to promote itself. Unfortunately we don't live in that perfect world and it is not clear to many players what the ECF does.

[Angus French]

If Yorkshire leagues were allowed to do this [submit only the results of games played between members for grading] then the same would have to apply to every other league in the country.

Yes, sure. But is that a problem? I would guess that the take up would be very low as:
1) Members will want the results of their games played against non-members to be graded;
2) Leagues will want to send as complete a set of results as possible; and
3) Leagues will already have made a decision to submit all results (and pay game fee for results which involve a non-member).

Does the ECF Board or anyone else know different?

[John Upham]

it is not clear to many players what the ECF does.

When I was active in motorsport those who bought a clubman's licence used to say that they weren't clear what the RACMSA (then MSA) did for them. They needed to buy a licence to compete.
However, they bought the licence and got on with it. I held an FIA International B licence also in order to compete on international status rallies and other events.

Whilst I am active in table-tennis club players say that they are not clear what the ETTA did or does for them. They need to buy a licence to compete. They could play informal table-tennis anywhere they like. No-one in any of the clubs I play for has stopped playing because they are required to buy a licence.

I suspect we can generalise with the following:

"It is not clear to many of X what the Y does for them"

Where X = a sport
and Y = the NGB (National Governing Body) for that sport.

is this a fair generalisation?

No doubt, RDdC will claim that this state of affairs is peculiar to chess and for the following tedious reasons...

[Roger de Coverly]

Does the ECF Board or anyone else know different?

The draft budget has around £ 25,000 of Game Fee income. That's presumably net of VAT. The budget has a built in optimism factor that if membership falls short, then the ECF makes up the revenue difference by £2 Game Fee and £ 6 Congress Fee. What it doesn't do is consider scenarios where the games just don't get played or don't get graded. So instead of investigating what happens when x% of players become members, consider what happens when y% of games are either not played or not graded.

As to what happens when you scrap compulsory grading, you perhaps get the effects seen when the threshold for inclusion in grading lists used to be much higher, namely that you had a good deal more players with unpublished grades taking part in club chess. In those days, graders still had to estimate strength so that graded players had every game counted. But that's one of the options for a scheme which made grading members only, namely that member v non-member still counts. The hard line approach would be that it didn't.

Congresses could take a hard line that players without grades aren't eligible for grade restricted sections. That isn't in their interests if it has the effect of reducing entries.

[Matthew Turner]

John,
There is a difference

It is not clear what the RACMSA does for them
It is not clear what the ETTA does for them

It is not clear what the ECF does.

I don't think people mind a national body not doing anything for them, but when it doesn't do anything for anybody then really what is the point of it?

[Roger de Coverly]

They needed to buy a licence to compete.

That is where I fear ECF membership is taking us, namely that you need to purchase a licence to be allowed to take part in a graded chess competition.

I don't support this, does John?

[John Upham]

I don't think people mind a national body not doing anything for them

How large (as a proportion) is the group we have labelled as "them"?

Is "them" 90, 10 or somewhere in between percentage of the membership?

I assume none of us would be in the set of them? Where is John Venn when you need him?

[Matthew Turner]

John,
I would say 90+% of people and a similar percentage of 'us' defined as forum users.

[Mike Truran]

Us and Them
And after all we're only ordinary men
Me and You
God only knows it's not what we would choose to do

[David Gilbert]

Us and Them
And after all we're only ordinary men
Me and You
God only knows it's not what we would choose to do

It continues.....

Listen son, said the man with the gun
There's room for you inside

[Alan Burke]

I do find it odd that nobody has yet countered my earlier proposal that those ECF members in Yorkshire be allowed to continue to have their matches graded for this season whilst the whole subject is fully debated.

My reasoning for this is that there must be many players who have joined the ECF this season but who are totally unaware that some of their games may not be graded due to the league in which they compete.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, anyone going onto the ECF website to make themselves a member online would be able to do so without being informed that certain leagues may not be covered for grading purposes even though the player has paid up to £60 for a year's membership; as follows:

ECF website
Toolbar at top of home page - Click on "Membership"
Drop-down box - Click on "Online membership"
Online Memrship System - Click on "here"
What do I get for my membership ? - "Free grading of results (unlimited) in ....

Nowhere can I see that it mentions anything about grading of members being restricted to certain leagues.

[Roger de Coverly]

I do find it odd that nobody has yet countered my earlier proposal that those ECF members in Yorkshire be allowed to continue to have their matches graded for this season whilst the whole subject is fully debated.

Why should Yorkshire have a special deal?

[MartinCarpenter]

Well it seems sensible to me The problem is the one noted by Roger - it doesn't seem fair to people outwith Yorkshire.

The most sensible response to that unless Yorkshire membership levels can go up notably from the current ~50 per cent then the whole policy is heading for a total financial train wreck in Yorkshire. Everything in relation to it has to be designed to help get the intrinsic membership base up, as opposed to annoying large chunks of it.
(I'm not personally affected at all.).

[Alan Burke]

I am not advocating a special deal for Yorkshire - but I feel it is wrong for those who have become members of the ECF to be discriminated in such a way by not having their games graded. In fact, I believe it is right for everyone who plays in an ECF-organised event to become a member, but, as I have pointed out in my previous post, there is nothing in the current advert for ECF membership which states that grading for members will be limited to events sanctioned by the governing body.

Therefore, if they don't allow "unlimited" grading, the ECF advert is a misrepresentation of what they are actually providing for people who pay a membership fee.

All I am suggesting is that such unlimited grading be allowed for the current season to give an opportunity for all parties to try and come to a solution.

[Roger de Coverly]

In fact, I believe it is right for everyone who plays in an ECF-organised event to become a member

The ECF only organises a handful of events and most leagues, counties and Congresses run without any direct ECF involvement in their organisation. Where such bodies, such as the Yorkshire county association, have a constitution which invites them to promote chess, turning players away for not being ECF members would be unconstitutional.

Therefore, if they don't allow "unlimited" grading, the ECF advert is a misrepresentation of what they are actually providing for people who pay a membership fee.

The ECF remains a federation of chess bodies who have most of the voting power. Having just taken another look at the sign up web page, it doesn't state, as it should, that all the "unlimited" and "free" benefits are in fact restricted to events that are run, or at least graded, by non-individual voting members of the ECF. It's a practical issue in Yorkshire, Lancashire, junior events and perhaps cross border events such as Welsh Congresses. The Guernsey Congress, which is held outside of England in another FIDE member, continues to be ECF graded. I don't know on what financial basis.