Outcome of membership scheme

[Roger de Coverly]

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/?p=22395

The membership scheme continues to increase the ECF's administrative burden. Allowing individuals to input their own data is a great idea, but to make it work, you need either strong validation on the input, or a data sweeper to clean the resulting mess. It appears the system of producing the Grand Prix tables has been broken by data quality issues and presumably the same will apply to Congress and League "pay to play" and Game Fee invoices. You might claim that all adult Congress players are "silver" anyway, but that isn't going to apply in Junior events where there is the additional problem of new player identification.

[Brendan O'Gorman]

2) Do we really really need hand written laminated membership cards?

If you are one of the several hundred who play at Blackpool, the answer would appear to be yes.

In http://www.blackpoolchess.org.uk/images ... y-form.pdf, I note the following

ECF Silver Members or above may claim a £6.00 (£4.00 for juniors) refund on
production of their current membership card at the event from the treasurer

You have to hope they have plenty of five pound notes and one pound coins at their disposal.

Apologies to the Blackpool organisers, if I'm maligning them, but I suspect congresses use this device to increase revenue as many players forget to claim the refund. If there were no laminated cards, they'd have to find another wheeze.

[Sean Hewitt]

Apologies to the Blackpool organisers, if I'm maligning them, but I suspect congresses use this device to increase revenue as many players forget to claim the refund. If there were no laminated cards, they'd have to find another wheeze.

There are no cards for those joining through an MO. They can easily verify members online of course.

[Alex McFarlane]

Hi Brendan,

Having spoken with some of the Blackpool organisers I do not think they are trying to profit from this. They have adopted a "belt and braces" approach.

If everyone pays the extra £6 then they see it as easier to repay all those with memberships at the correct level than to chase after those who sent the wrong entry fee. By this method they cannot (or should not) face a greater bill from the ECF than they were expecting. It also means that any player whose membership is in dispute will have to seek a refund from the ECF rather than from the congress (should any such cases arise).

The Membership list may be a way of checking things for Blackpool but it certainly wasn't for Northumbria or Scarborough. I'm not sure the fees for either of those events have been agreed yet. Certainly the £240 bill for the former was not accurate due to people joining through MOs. However, I don't think either of these events are considering the Blackpool approach for future years.

[Brendan O'Gorman]

Hi Alex,

I accept their intentions are honourable.

[Michele Clack]

Membership numbers now up to 8797 so very close to target!

[Angus French]

Membership numbers now up to 8797 so very close to target!

Maybe, from an income perspective.

It could also be said that the take up so far is on the low side. Some stats:

- Players with at least one graded game played in the 13 months to end June 2012 – 15,751 (source: grading list released on 24 December 2012).
- Number of the above who were members at 8 Jan (using Grade Ref to link grading list entries to membership list entries) – 7,367.
- Take-up rate - 46.8%.

- Players with between 1 and 30 graded games played in the 13 months to end June 2012 – 12,848 (source: grading list released on 24 December 2012).
- Number of the above who were members at 8 Jan (using Grade Ref to link grading list entries to membership list entries) – 4,916.
- Take-up rate - 38.3%.

When the January grades come out, towards the end of the month, it’ll be possible to compare player counts with those of a year ago. I hope they won't have declined.

[David Pardoe]

Interesting post on the Stats regarding take-up on Membership numbers...
If I read this correctly, it appears to show that a fair number of players who play small numbers of games are not joining, which would not be a surprise I guess...
I suppose that many of these may actually be on `pay as you go`...ie, they pay the £2 to play the odd rated game...so I suppose that those playing say less than 8 graded games per season might as well do this... And of course, there will be a fair number of players who just turn up for one or two congresses per season, and will be happy to pay the £6 charge each time...
Thats probably fine, as far as it goes...
However, the ECF needs to make greater inroads and particularly to be pro-active in boosting new membership numbers...
I see three ways this might be achieved..
1. To offer bulk discount membership at cheap rates to certain groups of players...the obvious group being juniors.
2. Maybe to offer special deals to certain counties or other chess bodies...lets say offering £10 per head membership to groups/counties/organisations who can raise say 800 members minimum...but offering these groups a mixture of categories, say 450 Bronze members, 200 silver, and 150 Gold, with a pro-rata increase if the numbers subscribing are increased. These, I`d see as self administering schemes, where monies are raised and collected by the individual groups, to be handed over to the ECF at an agreed time.
3. A new mixed membership category, aimed specifically at those playing less than say 10 rated games per season. For this group, you might allow any number/combination of games (up to a limit of 10 games), either Bronze, Silver, and or Gold..for a flat rate of say £10...
This would add flexibility to the membership options, and might attract more new players into the fold.....I`d like to see a drive to boost membership to between 20 - 30,000 over the coming years...

[Roger de Coverly]

I`d like to see a drive to boost membership to between 20 - 30,000 over the coming years...

30,000 people playing graded chess would be a good thing and double the current numbers. Why does it matter whether they are members of the ECF or otherwise?

[David Pardoe]

I guess it depends whether or not you feel that having a strong national body matters....
Yes, encouraging more graded chess is certainly desirable...and achieving this at an attractive cost also matters...
I`d like to see more FIDE rated games, and a broader (more encompassing) method of grading that allows more players to get this rating.. ie, to auto rate all ECF players who have an ECF rating greater than say 140 and are also Category `A` or `B` players might be a useful step forward...but thats a different tac.

[Roger de Coverly]

I guess it depends whether or not you feel that having a strong national body matters....

Why does the number of deemed individual members make any difference? You could offer free membership to anyone playing a graded games.

I`d like to see more FIDE rated games, and a broader (more encompassing) method of grading that allows more players to get this rating.. ie, to auto rate all ECF players who have an ECF rating greater than say 140 and are also Category `A` or `B` players might be a useful step forward.

You might want to see it, but the time to do that was forty years ago when the International Elo system was still being established. For Norm purposes, I think FIDE did that anyway in the 1970s on selected national ratings. If we understand the feedback from those like Stewart Reuben who take part in relevant FIDE meetings, there is unlikely to be a weakening of FIDE's standard of a minimum four hour session which rules out quite a bit of domestic British chess. The best you might hope for is a weakening of the entry standard of at least 1 from at least 3 against other rated opposition, in the sense that as in APAs where only 4 from 10 need ratings, something similar can be established for a Swiss.

[Stewart Reuben]

In th Gambia in February play is being FIDE Rated at all in 90 + 10 seconds per move from the first. That can be done, provided everybody is under 2200. I chose that in order for there to be 3 games per day. I chose just one time control as I have no evidence as to how competent the local players are at keeping score.
The point of requiring a player to score at least one point is that otherwise, in a Swiss, a player with zero would be gifted half a point in the last round by a player with nothing to play for. I wanted there to be iteration in Swisses, as in round robins, but there is simply too much antipathy towards the idea. Were there iteration, I would agree to half a point being enough.
Israel want to drop their own rating system and rely on FIDE. The problem is that they want players who have only played locally to be included. It is proving difficult to relate ICF Ratings to FIDE ones.
England could do the same. If the price of getting 6000 extra players in the FIDE rating list was allowing 3 hour sessions for all, FIDE's resolve about 4 hour sessions would be weakened.

[Dragoljub Sudar]

Apologies to the Blackpool organisers, if I'm maligning them, but I suspect congresses use this device to increase revenue as many players forget to claim the refund. If there were no laminated cards, they'd have to find another wheeze.

There are no cards for those joining through an MO. They can easily verify members online of course.

Nor if you enter online. I never received one.

Was there a box I should have clicked to request one?

[Roger de Coverly]

Was there a box I should have clicked to request one?

If you log into your account, you can print your own.

https://www.paysubsonline.com/SubsMemberMyDetails.aspx

[David Gilbert]

Membership numbers now up to 8797 so very close to target!

Michele's figure combines the old and new membership schemes, and includes some expired members and those awarded honorary membership.

Numbers for the new scheme broke through the 8000 mark today. 8005 people have now signed-up against a target of 8870. So far 57% have chosen to be Bronze members, higher than expected, but the number of Silver members is only half of predicted levels. Adults choosing Gold membership is pretty much in line with forecast, but getting on for fives times the forecast number of Juniors have also picked Gold. The ECF's income has been boosted by £6480 raised from 108 good people who opted to pay £60 for Platinum membership. Some figures beneath. The first is the Board's predicted figure, the second the actual figure.

Adults

Gold 1200 1043 (87%)
Silver 3000 1558 (52%)
Bronze 2750 4160 (151%)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total 6950 6761 (97%)

Juniors

Gold 70 324 (463%)
Silver 1350 416 (31%)
Bronze 500 396 (79%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1920 1136 (59%)

Platinum 0 108

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall 8870 8005 (90%)