Yorkshire vs ECF disparity

[Roger de Coverly]

I wanted to be an pedant I could point out that the YCA's dispute was with the BCF.

The YCA have agreed that they want to be part of the ECF. The problem is with the local Yorkshire evening leagues who don't.

[Andrew Zigmond]

I wanted to be an pedant I could point out that the YCA's dispute was with the BCF.

The YCA have agreed that they want to be part of the ECF. The problem is with the local Yorkshire evening leagues who don't.

True. I've drawn a distinction a few times between Yorkshire as a whole and the YCA. I'd say there are now three camps within Yorkshire; the pro ECF lobby who want to put the amnosity with the ECF to bed for once and for all, those who don't see the point of the ECF but are prepared to stump up a bit of extra cash if required and those who have no incentive to join the ECF and couldn't care less.

[John Upham]

Do you think you have support for the ETTA view that participants in "pirate" leagues should be banned from the mainstream?

What assumptions are you now making?
If your (IMHO) tedious views had much support then you would have many supporters.
Offer yourself as Director of Membership to find out.

[Roger de Coverly]

What assumptions are you now making?

I am making no assumptions whatsoever. I am just quoting what ETTA appear to state as facts about their membership scheme. As there seem to be some in the chess community who believe ETTA to be a example to us all, I am asking whether they also support the notion of excluding those who play in unofficial leagues, which is a point of clear relevance to local Yorkshire leagues.

[John Upham]

I am making no assumptions whatsoever.

does not sit with

Do you think you have support

So, for one more time: Stop deciding other peoples opinions without consulting them.

[Roger de Coverly]

So, for one more time: Stop deciding other peoples opinions without consulting them.

It appears to be a fact, not an opinion, that were the ETTA rules applied to chess, it would not be possible to play in both the main YCA league and the local Yorkshire leagues. This is a consequence of the ETTA membership scheme which has been advocated as an example for chess to follow. It's also a principle that the Indian chess association follow. Those opposed to such a principle being introduced into English chess have only to say so, even if it means saying that some aspects of ETTA's scheme are undesirable. Similarly those who believe in a single flat rate of membership have to be assumed in the absence of denials to believe that the same membership fee should apply to a person playing one game as two hundred.

[John Upham]

Roger,

For the hard of thinking (Roger):

You have asked me if I "have support" for something as though I represent the ETTA and their policies. For the record, I am a licensed player (only) and not an official.
I am not involved in ETTA politics nor am I seeking support for any membership related matters from anyone. I am far too busy to waste time in this way.

Your dull impersonation of a broken record suggests that you have understanding issues in what I am writing.

Contact Alex Murdoch by all means: I am sure he will be delighted to hear from you.

[Roger de Coverly]

Your dull impersonation of a broken record suggests that you have understanding issues in what I am writing.

Do I understand that you admire the ETTA membership scheme and consider it a model for the ECF to adopt? If so, does this also include support for the idea that you shouldn't be allowed to play in both an unofficial and official league?

My view is that such measures, which can arise as a consequence of compulsory membership schemes are counter-productive in terms of the general promotion of a game or sport. Do you agree?

[MartinCarpenter]

Its worth noting with relation to the three camps in Yorkshire (which is probably accurate) is that even if the anti ECF percentage is quite small - 10/15 per cent or something - but also active players then they're still a huge problem with relation to the current charging regime.

Compulsion would simply result in people like that leaving the relevant leagues (they've got alternative chess in Yorkshire) and that's far too many players to throw out of a league without really considerable damage. Keeping them in the league is however a rather expensive burden for the rest of the league to fund - if they won't pay for memberships they certainly won't cover the 2 pound/game charges!

Much the easiest overall solution in the Yorkshire context becomes simply stopping ECF grading the entire league. Which really isn't ideal at all.

The evidence actually seems to be that it might well be a bit bigger than 15 per cent, although its very hard to tease apart the results of apathy/not being told from more active dissent against being members. Not that apathy isn't a major challenge too - if the people running clubs don't really care enough to organise to get everyone signed up as members then you can see from Jon's figures how horribly (unsustainably) expensive it can rapidly get.

[John Upham]

Do I understand

It would appear not.

[Andrew Zigmond]

I've made the point before that even if the YCA grading system was removed a lot of Yorkshire leagues (particularly the smaller ones) might well go completely ungraded and vanish underneath the radar. If we adopted ETTA rules I wonder how the ECF would go about hunting down offenders ...

The ECF really needs to establish itself as a dominant force in English chess rather than chasing the tail of new developments all the time. The fact remains (and I've said this before) the 4NCL, the UK Chess Challenge and the London Chess Classic all happened without the ECF's involvement. It's not that long ago since an ECF beaurocrat tried to derail Sean Hewitt's E2-E4 series. Yet somehow the ECF seems to be blind to its own faults an unable to understand why some players may view it with such apathy.

[Roger de Coverly]

I've made the point before that even if the YCA grading system was removed a lot of Yorkshire leagues (particularly the smaller ones) might well go completely ungraded

Yorkshire and Lancashire have an additional complication not present elsewhere in the country. That being the issue of Leagues and Congresses not wishing to become voting members of the ECF. Presumably that's an attitude of their officials rather than necessarily that of the participating clubs or players.

Elsewhere amongst adult events, it's more or less taken as a given that the event will retain ECF voting membership, whatever it decided to do about the tripling of Game Fee and the extension of exemptions to league matches. Junior events may be a different matter, but they got a concession on Game Fee for junior only tournaments.

[Sean Hewitt]

I've made the point before that even if the YCA grading system was removed a lot of Yorkshire leagues (particularly the smaller ones) might well go completely ungraded and vanish underneath the radar. If we adopted ETTA rules I wonder how the ECF would go about hunting down offenders ...

The ECF is not suggesting that this should happen - and I doubt it ever would.

[Michele Clack]

I do wonder if there might not be a compromise solution here of adopting the FIDE system of grading the league but ONLY GRADING THOSE GAMES PLAYED BY TWO MEMBERS. It's hard for players up there to try and change things when they may well be struggling just to find the time to play chess. By grading games between two members only there will still be player pressure on the organisers to have the league fully graded, but people who have shown willing and joined up are more likely to feel part of the "ECF Family".

One of the expected benefits of membership is that of the ECF having an individual relationship with players. It's important not to alienate those people who are keen to be part of the ECF.

[Roger de Coverly]

I do wonder if there might not be a compromise solution here of adopting the FIDE system of grading the league but ONLY GRADING THOSE GAMES PLAYED BY TWO MEMBERS.

That might well be a compromise solution.
Some problems though:-
(a) the ECF board ruled it out as unfair to players paired against non-members.
(b) it puts the onus on the ECF to promote itself. Expressed another way, it forces the ECF to sign up players rather than have someone compel them to become members to take part in organised chess.
(c) there's a long tradition of compulsory grading. In other words the premise that having games graded isn't just for the benefit of the individual player, but for leagues and Congresses as a whole and for the benefit of prospective opponents.

Without the threat of charging £ 2 per game, it's a gamble as to whether enough money is raised to pay for raising the money.

As far as optional grading is concerned, that ties in much better with Elo style rating, where you specifically have to acquire a rating by playing other rated opponents and that games against unrated opponents don't count.