Yorkshire vs ECF disparity

[Alan Burke]

OK then Roger, I also actually believe it is right that the ECF should only grade games of their members and not for those players who have not joined the Federation. However, I also think it is right that EVERY game of a paid-up member should be graded, as currently indicated on the ECF website.

[Ian Thompson]

The ECF only organises a handful of events and most leagues, counties and Congresses run without any direct ECF involvement in their organisation.

Supporting the national federation, so it has the money to do things at a national level, clearly falls with the definition of "promoting chess".

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.

I don't see that as being any more unconstitutional than, for example, turning away players who would like to play, but aren't prepared to pay the local affiliation fee or club membership fee.

[Roger de Coverly]

I also actually believe it is right that the ECF should only grade games of their members and not for those players who have not joined the Federation.

Personally I don't, as I think it necessary to identify sharks. It's why I believe ECF membership and payment thereof should be at the level of the organising body. The problem in Yorkshire is that the local evening leagues, except Leeds, flatly refused to join the ECF in their own name or to allow the YCA to collect the votes to represent them.

However, I also think it is right that EVERY game of a paid-up member should be graded, as currently indicated on the ECF website.

The BCF ran its voluntary individual membership scheme on that basis for a while in the 1990s. It abandoned that principle once it realised that it gave too much scope to sharks to selectively report their results. It survives in cut down form as the right to have "foreign" games graded, although I don't know what level of membership is required for this. There was a rejected proposal at the AGM to abolish even this benefit.

[Andrew Zigmond]

Personally I don't, as I think it necessary to identify sharks. It's why I believe ECF membership and payment thereof should be at the level of the organising body. The problem in Yorkshire is that the local evening leagues, except Leeds, flatly refused to join the ECF in their own name or to allow the YCA to collect the votes to represent them.

Flatly refused twenty years ago. We keep coming back to this same problem; namely that there may have been fault on both sides but unfortunately the ECF needs to accept that the Yorkshire leagues have rattled on quite happily within this time without seeing a need for the ECF. The ECF does NOT have a strong hand to play.

I fully agree that Yorkshire should not expect any special privileges. However the question is whether the ECF wants to be reconciled with the Yorkshire leagues and try and tap the revenue this would bring in. Some imput from Alex H here may be helpful. What is his vision as the newly elected Director of Home Chess? Are there any olive branches available? Is he willing to build bridges with the YCA? I for one would like to know.

[Sean Hewitt]

I fully agree that Yorkshire should not expect any special privileges. However the question is whether the ECF wants to be reconciled with the Yorkshire leagues and try and tap the revenue this would bring in. Some imput from Alex H here may be helpful. What is his vision as the newly elected Director of Home Chess? Are there any olive branches available? Is he willing to build bridges with the YCA? I for one would like to know.

This is really a question for the Director of Marketing and Membership, not the Director of Home Chess. However, since the AGM this position is vacant.

However, as a Director of the ECF I can confirm to you

1) The ECF would like all leagues, including those in Yorkshire, to be full supporters of the ECF. That means having their games graded, applying the membership scheme, and paying game fee for games played by non-members.

2) The ECF will not make any exceptions for Yorkshire leagues that are not available elsewhere in the country as that would be unfair to the rest of the country.

3) Council passed a motion at the AGM rejecting any attempts to re-examine the membership scheme this year, which means that we are where we are for this year.

If YCA officials have a proposal to make for a future structure that is beneficial for the ECF as a whole, the ECF would be more than happy to consider it.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

The above is all very reasonable, but the thought did occur to me whether the current board (or members thereof) are effectively carrying out the functions of CEO and DMM, or will those positions be filled in the near future? i.e. Are things in limbo, or are things being done in those areas anyway, with potential applicants for those posts carrying on from where things are when they arrive in post? Ideally, temporary alternates would have been installed immediately (maybe this has been done?).

[Roger de Coverly]

Ideally, temporary alternates would have been installed immediately (maybe this has been done?).

The vacancies in International and CEO were known prior to the AGM, so the plan was that Sean Hewitt would cover for International and Mike Gunn for CEO.
This is covered in Mike Gunn's summary of AGM decisions.
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/?p=21885#more-21885

The lack of a Marketing and Membership director was unexpected and I don't know how this is covered. The Marketing position has nominal responsibility for the website content, so that at least is a "live" role.

[Alan Burke]

So, do the ECF not agree that they have issued an advertisement on their website which falsely represents the actual benefits which can be obtained by becoming a member ?

ie : Stating members will receive unlimited grading of games whilst not mentioning that certain events will not be included for grading purposes.

Yes, I agree that to treat Yorkshire any different to other parts of the country is unfair, but it is also currently unfair to treat certain of their own members any different to others when it is the ECF's fault that they did not fully explain the benefits (or lack of them) in their advertisement.

That is why I have been suggestion a compromise for this season only - ie fault on both sides, not just one.

[Roger de Coverly]

2) The ECF will not make any exceptions for Yorkshire leagues that are not available elsewhere in the country as that would be unfair to the rest of the country.

There are, I suspect, some special deals elsewhere in the country.

Do Cheshire and North Wales still have the deal that players can be members either of the ECF or the Welsh Chess Union?

The 4NCL have a concession that Gold membership isn't a requirement for the first appearance in a season. Does that carry with it an exemption, not available to any other league, from the £ 2 Game Fee and do both the Gold concession and Game Fee waiver apply to any other FIDE rated league?

The 2012 Rhyl Congress gave a discount both to ECF Direct Members and WCU members. Did that mean it had a Game Fee waiver for WCU members and does this extend to 2013 with the £ 6 fee?.

[Martyn Harris]

So, do the ECF not agree that they have issued an advertisement on their website which falsely represents the actual benefits which can be obtained by becoming a member ?

ie : Stating members will receive unlimited grading of games whilst not mentioning that certain events will not be included for grading purposes.

Don't know what the ECF thinks, but I can't see that they've falsely represented the position. If I have a mate around for coffee and we decide to have a game of chess I'd hardly expect it to be accepted for grading, so I'm not getting unlimited grading of games in the sense you seem to expect. (In fact I read "unlimited" to mean no limit on the number so I wasn't expecting all games regardless of provenance to be included anyway).
A bit extreme as an example perhaps, but it shows that there must be minimum requirements for a game to be eligible for grading, and that it is the organisation doing the grading rather than the individual player who decides what these criteria are. If you've based a decision to join on the basis of your own assumptions about the criteria, that is hardly the ECF's fault.

Your complaint is with the Yorkshire Leagues that are not prepared to fulfil the criteria for the games to be eligible for grading. And I can't imagine Yorkshiremen allowing their leagues to be run by people so incompetent as to be unaware of the consequences of their decisions.

That is why I have been suggestion a compromise for this season only - ie fault on both sides, not just one.

Continuing to treat Yorkshire members as a special case is not a compromise. What do you think it falls part way between?


Despite any private hopes I can't imagine many expected immediate mass participation by Yorkshire players in the ECF membership scheme. In terms of their events becoming ECF graded I would anticipate that at best it is more likely to happen a division at a time rather than a league at a time. For example should the Sheffield First Division be dominated by ECF members they might push a proposal through their AGM that their division be graded, accepting that this means that all the games have to submitted and that the District Association will be billed the £2 session membership, sorry residual game fee, for each game played by a non-member.

I don't know what the cut-off date for having leagues registered for grading this season, but if it has passed I would hope that few would object if a special case was made for the Yorkshire Leagues that enabled them successfully to submit a late registration.

[MartinCarpenter]

That's certainly the only plausible way it can be imagined as happening. At the moment though there's rather more danger of it going the other way than forwards - the figures on the chessnuts site for total membership so far really aren't very high.

Even the top division in the Yorkshire league (plenty of 4NCL players etc) is only running at about 65 per cent by games. The lower divisions are running rather below that and may not prove long term sustainable in terms of ECF grading purely on a cost basis.

The non affiliated leagues are naturally considerably lower again.

[Alan Burke]

I am in no way supporting the Yorkshire stance on this matter, but I am giving my support to those paid-up ECF members who have played games within that region but will find out when the next ECF grading list comes out in January that several of their games have not been included.

That is not just limited to players within Yorkshire, but includes anyone from throughout the country who has played matches in the area. At the recent Hull congress there were players from all over the country who will all fall foul of the ECF's current stance if that event is deemed not covered by the Federation's ruling.

Therefore, I am not just championing the cause of Yorkshire members alone but of anyone in any part of the country who has signed up to be a member of the ECF.

[Roger de Coverly]

At the recent Hull congress there were players from all over the country who will all fall foul of the ECF's current stance if that event is deemed not covered by the Federation's ruling.

Thetford rapidplay as well.

see
http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... 658#p97952

But that's rapidplay which isn't always graded, even though this one had been previously.

[Alan Burke]

In fact, rather than this situation being a special case for Yorkshire, I feel it is more of people in that area having taken advantage of a loophole in the membership rules as stated on the ECF website - and which could equally have been exploited by others throughout the country.

It is surely up to the ECF to close that loophole rather than castigate those that have had the nouse to take advantage of it.

[IanDavis]

I took a look at the page to see what the fuss was about. It does strike me as misleading. If I played in a chess league in England, I would expect my results to be graded. That is what the page says, with my additional qualification about region. It is obviously not the case. So I mostly agree with Alan, I think the wording could easily be improved to more clearly present the actual situation. If somebody says that they couldn't easily improve the wording, I will laugh at them.

So, do the ECF not agree that they have issued an advertisement on their website which falsely represents the actual benefits which can be obtained by becoming a member ?

ie : Stating members will receive unlimited grading of games whilst not mentioning that certain events will not be included for grading purposes.

Don't know what the ECF thinks, but I can't see that they've falsely represented the position. If I have a mate around for coffee and we decide to have a game of chess I'd hardly expect it to be accepted for grading, so I'm not getting unlimited grading of games in the sense you seem to expect. (In fact I read "unlimited" to mean no limit on the number so I wasn't expecting all games regardless of provenance to be included anyway).
A bit extreme as an example perhaps, but it shows that there must be minimum requirements for a game to be eligible for grading, and that it is the organisation doing the grading rather than the individual player who decides what these criteria are. If you've based a decision to join on the basis of your own assumptions about the criteria, that is hardly the ECF's fault.

Your complaint is with the Yorkshire Leagues that are not prepared to fulfil the criteria for the games to be eligible for grading. And I can't imagine Yorkshiremen allowing their leagues to be run by people so incompetent as to be unaware of the consequences of their decisions.