ECF National Secondary Schools Co-ordinator

[Andrew Zigmond]

A better description might be Sean asking why his events hadn't been rated and wanting some explanation from the relevant officer and director. A situation where eight events aren't submitted to FIDE in time for the next rating list because of a dispute over one is clearly unacceptable. It seems far more logical for the International Rating Officer to report to the International than Home Director so I think the change was long overdue.

I wasn't insisting on direct comparisons between the two, except frustration at hard work being derailed by a beaurocratic decision from above.

[Rob Thompson]

I may have missed this, but I'm not sure why it's such a big deal if these events simply go ungraded?

[Andrew Zigmond]

I may have missed this, but I'm not sure why it's such a big deal if these events simply go ungraded?

In one of Neill Cooper's early posts he stated that he had been grading games in his events and the players concerned were very excited about getting a grade. That aside, I think that if these events went ungraded they would have to go outside of the ECF banner. There would be no promotion or support from the ECF and it would obviously be incompatible with Neill's position as an ECF officer. Put more simply - they would become another `renegade` event the ECF would need to bring to heel in order to pursue their own agenda.

[Roger de Coverly]

I may have missed this, but I'm not sure why it's such a big deal if these events simply go ungraded?

It's by no means obvious that deal is even on the table. Those promoting these particular secondary school events believe that giving access to the grading system is of benefit to the objectives behind holding them, which in its broadest form is promotion of chess to the 11-18 age range via secondary schools.

Elsewhere, it's believed junior organisers have removed events from grading rather than have their organisations incur the ECF's new fees and rules for inclusion.

[Angus French]

I may have missed this, but I'm not sure why it's such a big deal if these events simply go ungraded?

Presumably a better option would be to grade and pay game fee - at 50p per non-member per game?

[Roger de Coverly]

Presumably a better option would be to grade and pay game fee - at 50p per non-member per game?

I have no doubt various ways of doing this could be arranged. There are a couple of problems. The first being that the ECF like the BCF before it gave itself a special deal whereby it doesn't pay Game Fee on its own events. The second is that it doesn't want to explore that solution.

The same reasoning, that the ECF doesn't pay Game Fee, is being used to demand compulsory membership of all participants in the Counties final stages. As pointed out earlier, the ECF didn't abolish Game Fee and the associated regulations, it just set the amount of most of them to £ zero.

[Andrew Zigmond]

I wasn't insisting on direct comparisons between the two, except frustration at hard work being derailed by a beaurocratic decision from above.

Try to keep up Andrew. We've established this is not the result of rampant beaurocracy, it is a clash of priorities.

I never said rampant. I suppose I meant beaurocracy in that it tends to imply rules and regulations getting in the way of progress. It can often be a `clash of priorities`. I agree with much of what you subsequently say so I'd rather not get involved in too much nitpicking over poor wording.

My point is this. Neill Cooper was trying to move English chess forwards and felt he was making progress, until a board decision was made that he felt derailed a lot of his hard work. I don't doubt that those members of the board who voted for the decision felt they were doing the right thing.

Likewise Sean Hewitt had his work establishing an extremely successful series of tournaments almost derailed by the actions of the then International Ratings Officer. Sean was trying (and succeeding) to do something different for English Chess. I am sure Howard Grist felt he was doing the right thing. Sean however - quite rightly - stood his ground.

[Andrew Zigmond]

since annoyance at the way Andrew and others were presenting the issue ...

But when people suggest the ECF is always wrong whatever it does, it annoys me.

Please specify exactly where I have said that. The ECF gets some things right and some things wrong. On this issue I choose to think the ECF has got it quite badly wrong. There has been a fallout from this (an officer has resigned) and I think the ECF needs to take a step back and see if a compromise can be found.

[IanDavis]

The ECF strategy on this is very clear, so the decision should be unsurprising. I'm astonished that this number of posts have been generated by what is such an obvious step. Did those involved really not see it coming?

[Roger de Coverly]

The ECF strategy on this is very clear, so the decision should be unsurprising. I'm astonished that this number of posts have been generated by what is such an obvious step. Did those involved really not see it coming?

The ECF had to make a number of concessions to even get 70% support in favour of its membership plans. As the advocates of membership just don't give up, it's unsurprising that they still follow their objective of 100% membership. Make no mistake about it, the objective is that it is necessary to be an ECF member to play any game of competitive chess in England without exception. Furthermore if you dodge this by playing in unofficial events, you will banned from the official ones.

So the challenge to those in positions of influence and authority is to deny in public that these are their objectives and also to deny that their decisions are steps in these directions.

[Mick Norris]

Sean - I feel I need to reply to some of your points here and in other posts below.

I know this forum isn't representative - that was never my point. I meant that of those who have contributed to this thread you appear to be the only one in favour of the decision. Everybody else seems broadly opposed; this includes some individuals who do not normally see eye to eye on certain issues. In that sense it is a `groundswell` - nobody has come on here to say that they think the ECF was right on this one.

Andrew

Some of us are busy, which is why we have appointed the ECF Board to run the ECF and make decisions

I am not in possession of all the facts, so unlike most on here, I don't feel able to jump to conclusions

i could list all the costs of the activities my 8 year old daughter does - Drama last night, Dancing this morning, Swimming tomorrow, Brownies on Wednesday - but I'll keep it simple - she goes to after school club every school day and it costs me £9 a day (yes, every day of the school year, work it out)

So, £8 a year to join the ECF would be very cheap

It isn't about the money, is it?

Sad to see Neil go, by the way

[Andrew Varney]

I cannot speak for everyone, of course, but here's my perspective in a bit more detail:

* I definitely am NOT anti-membership.
* I definitely AM in support of encouraging junior chess on a wider basis, especially at secondary school level.
* In my view, no, it is not primarily about the money for any individual parent.

The biggest issue is rather about barrier to entry level. This is the case at the individual level to some extent, but far more so when it comes to schools that are not already very active in chess. Neill has written in some detail about the issues. These include having to have teachers involved, transport and insurance, lack of kudos for chess in many schools. The need to be a member to play in these events adds one more barrier. So, you say, maybe one or two will not want to commit to that. The trouble is that in many cases those one or two players will make the difference between a school entering or not. I know from experience these sorts of issues from trying to promote secondary school chess in Oxfordshire, and I could well imagine that in other parts of the country the challenge could be greater still.

It seems to me that there's also quite a bit of disbelief that offering graded games makes a difference. Again, from experience I can say that it certainly makes a difference in levels of enthusiasm and commitment for developing players. And being juniors, almost all of the players are developing players, especially at the entry level. I remember how excited my two children were to receive their first grades. OK, so they were in the primary school age group then, but grades still matter a lot to them, as I observe not just from ECF grades but from on-line ratings, tournament performance indicators, etc. They are now in the target age group and the possibility of getting a FIDE rating may now also be driving them, for instance on a recent weekend to choose a FIDE rated tournament over "just" an ECF graded one where either was a possibility. It does not matter at first how high or low it is, it is getting it and then improving it which counts. I've seen this repeated widely amongst juniors (and indeed with adult improving/developing players). So grading is not essential, but it helps. That's why some of the junior county chess organisations run their own grading systems.

The other issue is how well consultation happens and the decision-making process within the ECF, but I'm not an "insider" on that, so since I do not see the whole picture my observations may not be as valid, I admit.

[Roger de Coverly]

It isn't about the money, is it?

The ECF identified Secondary Schools chess as an area for development. As part of this strategy, it offered to run and grade some events without demanding an entry fee. Demanding £ 8 per head per new player isn't free entry.

I suppose the lack of a Business Plan and CEO are now causing problems with different parts of the ECF following opposing strategies. It's two opposing ideologies. One is that everyone,no matter how young they are and how little they play should pay an annual fee to the ECF if they play even a single game of graded chess. The other is that encouraging participation is what matters with the financing of the ECF a secondary issue and dependent on what the organisers and participants feel comfortable with.

[Neill Cooper]

Lots of interesting comments from both sides of the argument since I last posted. I think that there at least 5 issues, and it would be best if they became separate discussions:
1) The role of ECF National Secondary Schools Co-ordinator - the subject of this thread
2) The National Schools Championships 2013-14
3) ECF Junior membership
4) Junior grading
5) How the ECF make decisions

[John Upham]

5) How the ECF make decisions

Should this be retitled:

"How one Director makes a unilateral decision and non-one else dares to argue in case they resign" ?

Sub-titled: "We do it my way or I'm off!"

It would be interesting to compare the decision making processes of the ECF board with a commercial company.

This reminds me of a recently demised Prime Minister and her cabinet except that she would not resign.