ECF U18 / U13 County Championships 2013

[Roger de Coverly]

But the organisers have the choice if the event is to be graded and thereby if players have to be members.

The organisers are deemed to be the ECF, so that argument goes round in a circle. If the organisers weren't the ECF, they would have the Junior Game Fee option as a means of having the event graded without demanding membership as an implied entry fee.

You would need nil entries to every event demanding membership before at least some now in positions of power and influence in the ECF would admit even the possibility that compulsory membership can discourage participation.

[Andrew Varney]

The original rules were amended inline with communications from the ECF, probably soon after the meeting in March. Membership is only required for the U18 and U13 Major sections which will be graded. Membership is not required for the U13 Minor but will NOT be graded. Please let me know if the membership criteria prevents an entry from your county into the tournament as I can feed that forward to the ECF and to the organisers of next years event.

In the case of Oxfordshire, I think we are still likely to be entering teams, it's just that the make-up of those teams will be different. I know we will lose a few experienced players who are pulling out on principle, but I had also been attracting some year 9+ students who are keen on chess but have not played outside of school chess club since they were in EPSCA U9 or U11 teams. Instead, I'll probably end up adding some of the stronger U13 players to the U18 team. The Oxfordshire U18 team may actually achieve better results because of that, but it's a lost opportunity to encourage more teenagers.

[Sean Hewitt]

That is the problem - if you could play without having your games graded, I don't think it would be an issue. It is the compulsory nature of it which causes concern.

And herein lies the problem with I outlined on the other thread. Junior organisers are not clear what the issue is. There is the option (which has been taken with the U13 minor) for events to be ungraded and not require membership. Neill Cooper said that having his event graded was important and so did not think that was an option. Instead, he resigned.

It would help the debate substantially if junior organisers could agree if grading these events was important or not. Or if it's important for some and not others, highlighting which are which.

It would also help the debate if junior organisers could say why being a member is an issue, and who is it an issue for (parents, players, the organisers themselves?). Ray said earlier that he had players withdraw 'on principle'. Are you able to say precisely what principle this is?

[YogeshJina]

Update 02MAY2013

Entrants to date:
County (Teams per section U18, U13 Open, U13 Minor)

Sussex (1,1,1)
Berkshire (1,0,1)
Kent (1,1,1)
Devon (1,0,0)
Hertfordshire (1,1,1)
Leicestershire (0,0,2)
Lincolnshire (1,0,1)

Additionally the following have been indicated by email that they will be entering, I think they are just finalising their teams before sending in their entry forms:

Middlesex (1,1,0)
Buckinghamshire (1,0,1)
Essex (0,1,1)
Cambridgeshire (0,1,0)
Oxfordshire (1,1,0)

Regards, Yogesh

[Mick Norris]

Greater Manchester are hoping to enter a team in each, but our junior organisers may not be available for the long trip south

[Ray Sayers]

Ray said earlier that he had players withdraw 'on principle'. Are you able to say precisely what principle this is?

I don't think I did say that. If you can show me where I did, I would be very interested (maybe I am losing my memory).

What I did say is parents lose interest in sending their kid to play in a match if they have to stump up £8 for the privilege. That's a bit different from having a principled stance against something.

[Roger de Coverly]

What I did say is parents lose interest in sending their kid to play in a match if they have to stump up £8 for the privilege. That's a bit different from having a principled stance against something.

It's a reluctance to pay an £ 8 fee to participate in the event.

Parallel then to those who thought a £ 3 fee per board for a Summer league of five matches unacceptable, or to the waiving by the ECF of similar charges for participation in the 4NCL, the Oxford FIDE league and fillers in rated tournaments.

[Phil Neatherway]

Am I right in saying it's £8 for a whole year's events, not each event?

[Sean Hewitt]

Ray said earlier that he had players withdraw 'on principle'. Are you able to say precisely what principle this is?

I don't think I did say that. If you can show me where I did, I would be very interested (maybe I am losing my memory).

I thought it a strange claim at the time so f I've misquoted you Ray, I apologise.

[Sean Hewitt]

Am I right in saying it's £8 for a whole year's events, not each event?

You are correct. £8 a year for junior bronze membership..

[Phil Neatherway]

That doesn't seem unreasonable, compared to other activities. I have a friend who runs a gym club. You pay £5 membership plus insurance, then £5 per gym club session. Competition entry fees are typically £5 per discipline. Therefore a committed gymnast's parents will need to find over £200/year. This gym club has over 250 members and a lengthly waiting list.

Is this £8 really such an issue?

[Roger de Coverly]

Is this £8 really such an issue?

The point is that it's for a team event, so it could be a one-off appearance. There's no guarantee of being selected for any other matches.

The ECF has allowed a number of exceptions to the principle of being banned from playing graded chess without being a member. To name another three, Congress entry at £ 6 a tournament and league or county play at £ 2 an appearance. For Juniors, 50p a game if rapid play and £ 1 if not.

The case for a similar exception for inter school or junior team events seems fairly obvious. Whether the event is nominally run by the ECF or an external partner shouldn't make a difference.

[Phil Neatherway]

Why the obsession with one-off appearances? Such players can hardly be the future of English Chess. Surely we are better off targetting our scarce resources at more committed players.

[Roger de Coverly]

Why the obsession with one-off appearances? Such players can hardly be the future of English Chess.

If you accept that a major current weakness of British chess is a lack of participation by those of Secondary School age, then Neill's activities in trying to reboot it are to be applauded. Putting up barriers whether real or imaginary to school or other junior teams is having one part of the ECF pursing an agenda of compulsory membership trying to sabotage another part of the ECF trying to encourage new and returning players.

But those who think compulsory membership is both necessary and desirable, where are they drawing the line? Licenses to play chess, bans for participation in unauthorised events?

Team chess has a slightly different dynamic to individual chess. If you have six potential players for a team of six boards with compulsory membership, as soon as one of the team declines, you no longer have a team.

[Ray Sayers]

Why the obsession with one-off appearances? Such players can hardly be the future of English Chess. Surely we are better off targetting our scarce resources at more committed players.

Chess players start somewhere.