GM Conquest for President?

[Roger de Coverly]

I'd be inclined to vote for none of the above, to let the board appoint the new candidate. He seems a better candidate. But also I've seen no reassurance from Roger Edwards that he understands the difference between President, which he is standing for, and CEO, which is what he seems to want to be.

If the ECF turns itself into a charity, it has to divorce from professional chess as well. How this ties in with retaining its right to be the English affiliate of FIDE remains to be explained.

There's a draft of the possible changes at
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... status.pdf
The existing voting structures are retained, contrary to previous proposals.

[Andrew Zigmond]

It's not yet been established to what extent Roger Edwards stood as the `not CJ de Mooi` candidate. However he has at least set out his stall, so to speak, so I'd be wary about getting too excited about a candidate who has yet to make an public statement.

It's more worrying that we are no closer to finding a new CEO which is surely the most critical vacancy. It's now pretty obvious that whoever takes on that role will need to be supported by an active and involved President.

[Sean Hewitt]

It's now pretty obvious that whoever takes on that role will need to be supported by an active and involved President.

I would have thought that is far from obvious. A sensible CEO, with sensible policies, may well be put off by an active and involved President who seeks to promote daft policies.

[IanDavis]

Is it really daft to say that the integrity of the rating system is important?

[Andrew Zigmond]

It's now pretty obvious that whoever takes on that role will need to be supported by an active and involved President.

I would have thought that is far from obvious. A sensible CEO, with sensible policies, may well be put off by an active and involved President who seeks to promote daft policies.

By `supported` I mean working constructively together, not against each other. Where would we be now if twelve months ago the President had supported to CEO rather than scurrying off and leaving him to deal with the angry mob?

[Sean Hewitt]

Is it really daft to say that the integrity of the rating system is important?

That's not what Roger Edwards has said. What he has said is

Finally, I have always understood that grades are meant to indicate a player’s strength, not to show that he or
she has been well behaved and played in the right events. Grading should not be used as a political tool and I also
believe that there should be more cooperation between the ECF grader and the Scottish and Welsh graders to make
sure that all a player’s games are included in order that the grade is as accurate as possible.

That is daft, and shows a staggering level of naivety.

[Angus French]

Finally, I have always understood that grades are meant to indicate a player’s strength, not to show that he or
she has been well behaved and played in the right events. Grading should not be used as a political tool and I also
believe that there should be more cooperation between the ECF grader and the Scottish and Welsh graders to make
sure that all a player’s games are included in order that the grade is as accurate as possible.

That is daft, and shows a staggering level of naivety.

Why so? Ideally events played outside of England but with a decent number of English-registered players would be graded, wouldn't they?

[IanDavis]

This is consistent with a previous statement.

On a personal level, I do not agree with this policy. I believe the object of the grading system should be to reflect as accurately as possible a player's strength, not to be used as a political pawn or carrot. There are a number of events, most notably the Spectrum circuit and club championship games, that will not be included this year through not paying game fee

Why do you feel this daft? A rating system is primarily there to measure player's strength. That seems patently true.
Should the rating be removed for bad behaviour? That would be an interesting idea...
Cooperation between graders, likewise, seems very sensible.

What you actually want to say, perhaps, is that only people who pay should get a rating, so that the ECF has enough money. To disagree with this on theoretical grounds can hardly be considered to be daft. It seems dafter to argue, as has been done, that this statement should be interpreted to mean that he wants to tear up the current financial arrangements. Which is obviously not the case.

It seems akin to writing trash like this

Roger J Edwards, a man who was recently described to me by one leading English GM as "the one who wants to abolish international chess" (he doesn't, of course, but that is apparently how he is perceived by the GMs)

[Roger de Coverly]

More effort must yet be made to discover and take notice of the opinions of the ordinary player as well as to have a system which is easier to administer by Congress and League organisers – especially those of the British Championship."

I don't think it's yet clear how the membership scheme applies to the British Championship. The FIDE rated events, perhaps, you have to be a Gold member of the ECF if ENG. But what of the events not FIDE rated. Do you require Silver membership regardless and a £ 6 extra on the entry fee if not? If you don't do this, why should the Championship Congress get special terms not available to other Congresses looking to attract Scottish or Welsh players? If the Championship Congress does have special terms, will the costs of these be reflected in the ECF Budget?

[Warren Kingston]

More effort must yet be made to discover and take notice of the opinions of the ordinary player as well as to have a system which is easier to administer by Congress and League organisers – especially those of the British Championship."

I don't think it's yet clear how the membership scheme applies to the British Championship. The FIDE rated events, perhaps, you have to be a Gold member of the ECF if ENG. But what of the events not FIDE rated. Do you require Silver membership regardless and a £ 6 extra on the entry fee if not? If you don't do this, why should the Championship Congress get special terms not available to other Congresses looking to attract Scottish or Welsh players? If the Championship Congress does have special terms, will the costs of these be reflected in the ECF Budget?

Roger, seems like Closed County Championships are exempt from the Silver Membership as well.

[IanDavis]

All that said, I'm not saying I think Roger is a bad Presidential Candidate. Just that Stuart Conquest seems to me a better one.

All that said, it still remains that he isn't a candidate.

[Roger de Coverly]

Roger, seems like Closed County Championships are exempt from the Silver Membership as well.

It was usually understood that local county championships would fall under the Bronze scheme, particularly when they are of the "play when you like" format. If they take the form of a weekend event, that's a lot more borderline, but wouldn't they come under either
(a) £ 2 per non-member per game
or
(b) £ 6 per person for the whole event?

The Game Fee regulations are binary on this - Either it's a Congress or it isn't.

If non-members are allowed to play, getting it classified as a Congress is a little bit cheaper.

It was an issue for Junior events as well, since many events were hybrids between team events and individual ones. They won themselves concessions by being able to be pay for an event in bulk at a more reasonable price than £ 2 per game or £ 6 per head.

[Roger de Coverly]

All that said, I'm not saying I think Roger is a bad Presidential Candidate. Just that Stuart Conquest seems to me a better one.

There's at least one blogger out there who won't see "endorsed by Ray Keene" as a selling point.

[John Philpott]

I have been giving some thought as to how the election requirements of the Procedural Bye Laws would need to be reworded to enable Stuart Conquest to be a candidate at next month's AGM. This would be possible if the text read:

12.6 Each candidate for a Post must be either:
(a) a retiring Director, the FIDE Delegate or a Chairman of a Standing Committee seeking re-election to the same Post; or
(b) a nominee of the Board for a Post; or
(c) a person proposed with the level of support of the Requisitionists in Article 1.1; or
(d) a person proposed by GM Raymond Keene OBE.

12.7 The names of all candidates duly nominated to the Secretary received by him not later than 37 days before the Annual General Meeting shall appear on the Agenda, indicating the Post for which they are nominated and where applicable the name of their proposers. PROVIDED THAT this requirement shall not apply to candidates falling under paragraph 12.6(d)

Unfortunately, the time limits prescribed by the Articles mean that such a wording, even if it were acceptable to Council, cannot apply to the October 2012 elections.

[Roger de Coverly]

12.7 The names of all candidates duly nominated to the Secretary received by him not later than 37 days before the Annual General Meeting shall appear on the Agenda, indicating the Post for which they are nominated and where applicable the name of their proposers.(

Why 37 days though? With instant communication, isn't there a strong case for reducing this period? Or is it some old Companies Act requirement that Parliament has never got round to modifying?

Shouldn't you have added another option, nominations by bloggers?