Yorkshire vs ECF disparity

[Roger de Coverly]

- what is the difference between graded chess and rated chess? I thought they were synonymous.

You can use the term "graded chess" to mean games included in the ECF grading system and the term "rated chess" to mean games included in the International FIDE Elo based rating system. Some games are both graded and rated.

[Roger de Coverly]

however, anyone of them could enter a congress at anytime (and in fact may have already done so) without realising that their games might not be graded.

I don't think that's anything new as it's always been possible for Congresses, particularly rapid-play ones to decline to be graded. You look for tell tale signs on the entry form or on-line equivalent such as the ECF's Game Fee logo and references to membership requirements or discounts for ECF members. It's very easy for a Congress not to be graded, all it has to do is nothing. In other words it doesn't send results to the ECF. The old concession for MOs, basically Yorkshire, was that the local grader could send all results to the ECF, who would then filter them and only include in calculations games played in non Game Fee events where at least one player was an ECF member. As far as on-line reporting is concerned, everything was included. Presumably this will disappear as well.

[Mick Norris]

How many of these players currently play in unaffiliated leagues?

Guessing that the club concerned is 3Cs and browsing a handful of their more active players, rather more than a club elsewhere in the country. Some members of 3Cs play across the border in the Yorkshire local leagues. Alternatively as 3Cs is something of a training centre, it attracts players based in Yorkshire.

3Cs play in the Bury & Rochdale League, which has never been ECF graded - most clubs, including my own at Bury, use it as a "lowest" team to introduce weaker/younger players, although the A division has some strong players in it

Over the years, it has been a source of frustration for new players trying to obtain a proper grade, but the league entry fee has been very low (maybe even nil at times)

[Sean Hewitt]

I thought changing the information was something of an admission, but okay, I was wrong there then.

Indeed you were. I was very clear here http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... 95#p105396 when I said

I've already said (twice) that we will make amendments to the website to make it even clearer, even to those who only want to read some of the information. It does not mean that we think there is anything wrong with the information that is there already.

That's the problem with selective quoting (or selective reading) - you miss (or ignore) the important bits.

"These changes come into effect on 1ST SEPTEMBER 2012 and will affect everyone who plays or organises graded or rated chess in England." - what is the difference between graded chess and rated chess? I thought they were synonymous.

You thought wrong. The ECF provides gradings and so grades chess. FIDE provides ratings, and so rates chess.

[Sean Hewitt]

However, it should also be noted that in that posting regarding unaffiliated events, Alex H does state "Players in these events may not be aware of this, and this notice is designed to bring their attention to this."

Therefore, if that notice on 5 November was to bring players' attention to the situation, it would appear that he knew that many members would not be aware of the facts - and if it had taken until 5 November to inform those players then are their games at least until that date going to be graded ? Furthermore, what are those players supposed to do for the remainder of the season having already committed themselves to playing for a certain team in a particular league in 2012-13 ?

FFS. The reason that some people may not have been aware was that some (e.g. Cumbria CA website) were incorrectly stating that members games would be graded. The ECF took positive action as soon as it became aware of this to put people straight - both writing to leagues and puting the notice on the ECF website.

[Sean Hewitt]

How many of these players currently play in unaffiliated leagues?

Guessing that the club concerned is 3Cs and browsing a handful of their more active players, rather more than a club elsewhere in the country. Some members of 3Cs play across the border in the Yorkshire local leagues. Alternatively as 3Cs is something of a training centre, it attracts players based in Yorkshire.

If it was 3Cs then presumably Alan Walton wan't there.

[Alan Burke]

Earlier in this thread, Sean Hewitt stated that as he was an ECF director and therefore undertook to answer in that capacity - could he therefore explain what his posting of "FFS" meant in reply to one of my posts ? (I am sure that, being a director of the ECF, he would not stoop to using anything other than appropriate and decent language when discussing chess-related matters - but if it is not, do the ECF condone any such language in their communications from one of their officials ?)

However, I also note that he has only partly re-copied my previous post and has ignored the part where I stated that I would prefer Alex H. to answer the questions as he was the one who submitted the article to the website and is the ECF Director of Home Chess - so much for the beloved and often-quoted phrase of "selective reading" !

[Sean Hewitt]

could he therefore explain what his posting of "FFS" meant in reply to one of my posts ?

Certainly, it means Fictional Face Saving (obviously). Any similarity to any other abbreviation is purely coincidental.
I say this about your post because anyone who chooses to infer

it would appear that he knew that many members would not be aware of the facts

from

Players in these events may not be aware of this

is clearly only interested in twisting things to suit his own interpretation.

However, I also note that he has only partly re-copied my previous post and has ignored the part where I stated that I would prefer Alex H. to answer the questions as he was the one who submitted the article to the website and is the ECF Director of Home Chess - so much for the beloved and often-quoted phrase of "selective reading" !

You often tell anyone who bothers to read your posts that this is an internet forum and you are free to post and ask questions. That's true, but it works both ways. It means I am free to address your points if I wish. Sombody answering your question does not preclude Alex H from also answering it if he wishes.

However, as you like it. I'll keep out of this discussion from now on and let you make as many incorrect assumptions and assertions as you like.

You clearly don't want the truth to get in the way of your many rants!

[Martyn Harris]

The various bodies responsible for submitting results for grading will have received information about the new arrangements. These make it clear that the grading of competitions will be on an all or nothing basis regardless of the ECF membership status of the participants. Consequently the District Associations who run the local leagues have the information to know whether or not their competitions will be graded.

If they have passed this information on to their members, who then prefer to rely on their interpretation of a line on the ECF website, it is difficult to have sympathy.

If however through malicious intent, laziness, incompetence or oversight the Associations sit on the information or misrepresent it then you have little choice other than to look elsewhere for guidance, and if you misinterpret what you find this is clearly unfortunate. Nevertheless in this case you have not been let down by the ECF, but by the local officials who were elected to look after your interests.

Perhaps you should be chasing your local league for a discount on any player registration fee you have been charged, or be calling an EGM to arrange that the Association conducts its affairs in such a manner that its competition be graded, or at least such divisions that are dominated by ECF members are, or be getting together will like minded colleagues to organise your own graded events.

I confess I am not a fan of the membership scheme, but it is the funding arrangement that we have in place and I think it important that it should work. One of the easiest ways for the scheme to fall into disrepute would be for the ECF to allow various exceptions or exemptions, even if these are made in response to the most heart-wrenching hard luck stories.

[MartinCarpenter]

That is true now and for the remaining years ongoing. There seems to be some dispute about whether it was true for Yorkshire for this year at the stage where they commited to the Yorkshire league being ECF graded and when most of the people would have got memberships. Such things happen with new schemes of course.

The problem with people asking for refunds etc, or more plausibly refusing to join next year, will again come in Yorkshire. If the major Yorkshire competitions want to keep being ECF graded they simply need rather more members than they have at present. This might mean that it instead tips towards being somewhat less which would then inevitably force the currently affiliated events to leave for financial reasons.

So there's definetly a potential case for a specific, short term, measure to get things bedded in. How compelling or not I don't know. I've got no idea how the various relevant people in Yorkshire are in fact reacting/will react in January/the end of this season. If it is badly then hopefully some compromise can be worked out.

There is of course a moderate amount at stake here - if (as is currently being attempted) we can get the Yorkshire league and congresses running happily under the membership scheme and get membership levels for the people playing in them very high then there's a reasonably clear route for at least the top divisions of the local legaues to join in over time.
(Sheffield I really don't know about as its so big in terms of players and games. Some of the others have quite a big Woodhouse overlap.).

On the other hand if the Yorkshire league finds itself having to pull out from being ECF graded I can't image the consequences being entirely pretty. Not terrible of course as life will go on chess wise - I'm very much used to having at least two grades anyway - but certainly some unpleasant politics at the national level.

[Ihor Lewyk]

If however through malicious intent, laziness, incompetence or oversight the Associations sit on the information or misrepresent it then you have little choice other than to look elsewhere for guidance, and if you misinterpret what you find this is clearly unfortunate. Nevertheless in this case you have not been let down by the ECF, but by the local officials who were elected to look after your interests.

Martin, this is simply not the case in the Yorkshire scenario. I should know as I was involved. I think you have not read the whole thread.

To summarise: The ECF CEO attended the Yorkshire AGM in June. He confirmed he was in receipt of a signed Framework Agreement from Yorkshire. He answered a number of questions including the one about games from non-ecf game fee registered games continuing to be graded. He said there was no moves for the ECF Board to change this at the time of our AGM.
1 week before the new membership was to start ie 1 week before Sept 1 Yorkshire were invited to sign a new Framework Agreement that mentioned members would not have games graded from non-ecf game fee registered events.

The Yorkshire committee, of which I am the current President, agreed not to sign a new Framework Agreement but will have the league graded by the ECF.

Andrew Farthing asked me to correct a couple of facts. He claims he phoned our grader to thank him for an e-mail advising him of the Yorkshire AGM decision and apparently Yorkshire were sent a new Framework Agreement to sign on 16 Aug. This hardly gave us enough time to arrange an EGM which was the point I was making.

[Ihor Lewyk]

I should also have mentioned the ECF did not consult with any of the Yorkshire officials about this possible deal breaking development.

Andrew Farthing rang our grader the day after the AGM to find out if the vote went in favour of signing the Framework Agreement.

[Roger de Coverly]

He said there was no moves for the ECF Board to change this at the time of our AGM.

It's one of those economical with the truth statements. Whilst it might be true of the ECF Board, it wasn't true of the voting members at Council or the wider chess community, both of whom presumed the withdrawal or scaling back of Yorkshire concessions. Indeed as soon as knowledge of the statement at the YCA meeting became known, there were those on this forum seeking clarification of the ECF's intentions.

[Ihor Lewyk]

That may be the case Roger. There are many members in Yorkshire who now believe that to be the case.

[Andrew Zigmond]

Just playing devil's advocate, IF the ECF made an exception for the Yorkshire satellite leagues by grading games played by fully paid up ECF members, who would lose out? Yorkshire based ECF members have already paid the maximum expected and non ECF members would still not receive a grade. The ECF may lose a certain amount of revenue by not getting the £2 game fee from non members involved but they were never in danger of getting that anyway.

Before the howls of outrage start this is the critical point. The Yorkshire league has to be part of the membership and game fee structure because Yorkshire would be forced to disaffiliate if the league went ungraded. Andrew Farthing made this quite explicit and it was a big factor in the ultimate decision. Obviously Yorkshire couldn't and shouldn't be treated any differently; so how many leagues would be able to jump at this chance and how many would be kept in line by the disaffiliation threat? My point is that Yorkshire's size may be the reason there are so many satellite leagues and in that respect Yorkshire IS a special case.