New service for ECF members?

For ECF members and chess fans alike.
Roger de Coverly
Posts: 16816
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: New service for ECF members?

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Aug 05, 2014 10:40 am

Richard Bates wrote:Did Roger go on a free transfer?
Using the official forum managed to flush out an admission that the prize fund in the English Seniors, had been reduced to first and second prizes only despite advertising a third prize and grading prizes. I can only speak for myself but no contact or apology has been made. It's rare but not unknown for prizes to be reduced, usually the announcement is rather earlier than three months after the event has been completed.

There are a handful of events were there are English or British titles at stake, but where the events are organised by third parties. If the ECF wants to avoid reputational damage when something like this happens, it needs to look to how it contracts out its events. Equally perhaps organisers should seek ECF guarantees or agreements as to what should happen if an ECF titled event fails to attract the required numbers to justify the prize fund.

MSoszynski
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 4:43 pm

Re: New service for ECF members?

Post by MSoszynski » Tue Aug 05, 2014 3:07 pm

It would be interesting to see a breakdown of costs for running the Seniors considering that the entry fee was £70 (£80 for latecomers).

Ian Thompson
Posts: 1859
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Fleet, Hampshire

Re: New service for ECF members?

Post by Ian Thompson » Tue Aug 05, 2014 7:06 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:There are a handful of events were there are English or British titles at stake, but where the events are organised by third parties. If the ECF wants to avoid reputational damage when something like this happens, it needs to look to how it contracts out its events. Equally perhaps organisers should seek ECF guarantees or agreements as to what should happen if an ECF titled event fails to attract the required numbers to justify the prize fund.
I think the approach often used in America has much to be said for it. Events there are commonly advertised with a guaranteed minimum prize fund and a projected prize fund. Minimum prizes are based on the entry not exceeding a stated number. Projected prizes are based on the entry the organiser expects to get. There's a formula to determine the actual prize fund when entries exceed the minimum level.

There are three obvious benefits to this approach:

1. Organisers can set a very low guaranteed prize fund if they want, so they don't risk losing a lot of money.
2. Players can make an informed decision on what prize money they're realistically likely to be playing for before entering.
3. Organisers who currently have sweeping terms saying they can change the prize fund from what they advertised to anything they like can change that, which would be good for them because such terms are almost certainly unfair and therefore unenforceable.

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1571
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: New service for ECF members?

Post by Michael Farthing » Tue Aug 05, 2014 7:41 pm

A question of interest (to me, anyway, at this particular moment of idleness).

Do players take much account of the prize fund when entering?

My decision tends to be based on such issues as, 'Can I commute?' 'Is the time control better than I get in league matches?' Is there a sensible section where I can have challenging games but hope to get at least some points?' 'Are my mates going?' 'Can I get it past the wife?'

Now the prize fund comes into the last. She's bound to ask, "Will you win any money?" Trouble is, she doesn't think I will anyway, so it's only part of the jockeying with me over the number of choirs she can join and whether I'll do any decorating in payment.

Some of my mates do always seem to finish up in sections where they are at the top and in line to win. But it doesn't seem to make them reject congresses with low prizes. Maybe they just want to come away feeling good rather than miserable?

And own up Roger! Would you not have entered that Seniors competition if you'd known what the actual prizes were going to be? [Which is not to suggest that the way it was handled was proper - haven't enough facts to comment on that].

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 16816
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: New service for ECF members?

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Aug 05, 2014 8:00 pm

Michael Farthing wrote: And own up Roger! Would you not have entered that Seniors competition if you'd known what the actual prizes were going to be? [Which is not to suggest that the way it was handled was proper - haven't enough facts to comment on that].
It was fairly obvious that the entry was going to struggle to reach reasonable numbers. I was reminded recently that the entry fee was around double what you might expect these days for an Open. It wasn't a total surprise that the prize fund was cut, which was probably why I didn't pursue the matter until marginally arm twisted by the fellow non-prize winners to raise it.

I would have had a share of second prize, if I had won the last round game instead of drawing it.

I doubt that I would have played had it not been little more than half an hour's drive away. The format felt wrong, you always play two rounds a day at Easter.

Ian Thompson
Posts: 1859
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Fleet, Hampshire

Re: New service for ECF members?

Post by Ian Thompson » Tue Aug 05, 2014 8:03 pm

Michael Farthing wrote:Do players take much account of the prize fund when entering?
Probably not, but that's not going to take away the feeling of being cheated if you win one of the advertised prizes and then don't get it.

Disproportionally low prizes in the comparison to the entry fee does put me off entering, even though I wouldn't enter expecting to win one.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 16816
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: New service for ECF members?

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Aug 07, 2014 1:21 am

I'm re-visiting old arguments on the official forum as the contention that the ECF's membership scheme ultimately meant compulsory membership is beginning to be admitted.

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/Forum/vi ... nread#p709

At the risk of giving away a subtle plan, it's also a test of how far moderation will extend.

User avatar
Carl Hibbard
Posts: 5598
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:05 pm
Location: Evesham

Re: New service for ECF members?

Post by Carl Hibbard » Thu Aug 07, 2014 6:03 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:I'm re-visiting old arguments on the official forum as the contention that the ECF's membership scheme ultimately meant compulsory membership is beginning to be admitted.

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/Forum/vi ... nread#p709

At the risk of giving away a subtle plan, it's also a test of how far moderation will extend.
There does not appear to be any and I gave up on my requests for moderation.
Cheers
Carl Hibbard

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1571
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: New service for ECF members?

Post by Michael Farthing » Thu Aug 07, 2014 8:14 am

There are three possible outcomes to the current situation, which I order according to my personal preference:

1. This forum continues to be the main forum for chess debate in this country
2. The ECF forum takes over
3. The chess playing community is either split between the two or everyone has to visit two fora.

At this stage we all have the chance to influence the final outcome and can by our actions support any of the above three.
After a misguided dalliance I have made my decision in an irrevocable way. I think everyone ought to consider what they think best and also make a decision to act accordingly.

Guard that which is precious.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 16816
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: New service for ECF members?

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Aug 07, 2014 10:14 am

Michael Farthing wrote:There are three possible outcomes to the current situation, which I order according to my personal preference:
There's a fourth option seemingly desired by some ECF Directors and magazine proprietors which is that all comment critical of the ECF be suppressed. If we go back to the Chess for Schools fiasco, the ECF's appointed manager was apt to express provocative views on a range of chess-related subjects and got himself drawn into wars of words as a consequence. In addition there was the scepticism that the project was going anywhere. To what extent would an "official" forum have removed his postings, or would they just have removed those critical of the project? There were actually surprisingly few although it should have been obvious that if you wanted to despatch a boxful of sets and boards to every school, consulting those, the chess suppliers, who did it commercially might have saved a lot of grief. It wouldn't have helped as there were only a limited number of sets to start with but it could have given the ECF an insight into how an offer of free manufacturing was only part of the costs involved.

Simon Spivack
Posts: 600
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 4:06 pm

Re: New service for ECF members?

Post by Simon Spivack » Thu Aug 07, 2014 10:31 am

Carl Hibbard wrote:
Roger de Coverly wrote:... test of how far moderation will extend.
There does not appear to be any and I gave up on my requests for moderation.
Carl complained about this post.
Note the words at the bottom of that post: "*This post has been edited by a moderator."

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1571
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: New service for ECF members?

Post by Michael Farthing » Thu Aug 07, 2014 11:27 am

Simon Spivack wrote:
Carl Hibbard wrote:
Roger de Coverly wrote:... test of how far moderation will extend.
There does not appear to be any and I gave up on my requests for moderation.
Carl complained about this post.
Note the words at the bottom of that post: "*This post has been edited by a moderator."
Yes, but Bill Phillips is a moderator: he has almost certainly edited his own post, though not subsequent repetition of his misinformation and still no retraction. But then, he doesn't log on very often! Wonder what the honorarium is?

Simon Spivack
Posts: 600
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 4:06 pm

Re: New service for ECF members?

Post by Simon Spivack » Thu Aug 07, 2014 12:19 pm

Michael Farthing wrote:Yes, but Bill Phillips is a moderator: he has almost certainly edited his own post, though not subsequent repetition of his misinformation and still no retraction. But then, he doesn't log on very often! Wonder what the honorarium is?
This smearing is a good example of what is wrong with the English Chess Forum.

Bill is not the only moderator acting in that capacity at the English Chess Federation Forum. I am not aware of any publicly available evidence as to which moderator edited the offending post.

It is untrue that there has been no retraction. The words "... my point about the use of aliases on ecforum was wrong ..." can be found here.

As it so happens, I did not claim expenses during the three decades that I acted as an unpaid chess organiser; nonetheless, I wouldn't attack someone for doing this, or asking for an honorarium.

Incidentally, assuming this is the same person, then I do know Bill, but not well. If it is the same chap, I can add that he has been grossly mischaracterised up-thread.

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1571
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: New service for ECF members?

Post by Michael Farthing » Thu Aug 07, 2014 12:57 pm

Simon Spivack wrote:
Michael Farthing wrote:Yes, but Bill Phillips is a moderator: he has almost certainly edited his own post, though not subsequent repetition of his misinformation and still no retraction. But then, he doesn't log on very often! Wonder what the honorarium is?
This smearing is a good example of what is wrong with the English Chess Forum.

Bill is not the only moderator acting in that capacity at the English Chess Federation Forum. I am not aware of any publicly available evidence as to which moderator edited the offending post.

It is untrue that there has been no retraction. The words "... my point about the use of aliases on ecforum was wrong ..." can be found here.

As it so happens, I did not claim expenses during the three decades that I acted as an unpaid chess organiser; nonetheless, I wouldn't attack someone for doing this, or asking for an honorarium.
I am puzzled that you seem to feel my comment 'almost certainly edited his own post' is a criticisim. My point was rather the reverse: that had he edited his own post it might have appeared like this and the fact that he might have edited his own post is surely a positive thing.

However, in the very same post where the words you quote were used he also says, "and the fact that I saw several aliases" has never been retracted despite several requests for this.

The honorarium for moderation was offered in the advertisement for the post and of course there is no reason not to accept it. There is good reason, however, to expect that the job is then done with some attention, and I don't think it unreasonable to raise such an issue. I accept, however, that it would have been better to raise it in a less off-hand manner and I do apologise for that.

[Minor edit to correct a misquotation]

Simon Spivack
Posts: 600
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 4:06 pm

Re: New service for ECF members?

Post by Simon Spivack » Thu Aug 07, 2014 3:00 pm

Michael Farthing wrote:I am puzzled ...
Short term memory loss can cause that.
Michael Farthing wrote:... you seem to feel my comment 'almost certainly edited his own post' is a criticisim.
Michael's actual sentence ran: "Yes, but Bill Phillips is a moderator: he has almost certainly edited his own post, though not subsequent repetition of his misinformation and still no retraction." Having, without evidence (a common failing at the English Chess Forum), suggested that Bill moderated his own post, Michael then castigates Bill for not acting further during his alleged moderation. Whoever did the moderation might well have acted in a hurry and only looked at the one post.

Looking afresh, I see that a second post has also been moderated in that thread, I don't know when that happened.
Michael Farthing wrote:However, in the very same post where the words you quote were used he also says, "and the fact that I saw several aliases" ....
That is, indeed, an inconsistency, one I resolved by assuming he genuinely believed that some of the names were invented. Conspiracy theorists are perfectly entitled to deduce there is more to this. I expect Bill got fed up, in his shoes I probably would have too.

If we are in the business of offering opinions, mine is that there are rather more offered than is sensible. At least back them up with facts.

Locked