ECF Council Meeting 12 April 2014

[David Sedgwick]

It's not a necessity for a membership scheme to have per head charging, the EBU finances itself according to the number of sessions of Bridge played, so that obsessives who play several times a week pay more than those who just play once a month.

That's only true in an exact literal sense.

If you play once a month on average, you have to pay £4 a year or so to get full membership benefits.

If you play less than once a month on average, you have to pay over £20 a year to get those benefits.

[Mick Norris]

What would really help me as an event organiser, and help the ECF too, is being able to offer memberships to new players for part-years.

I think the problem is that bronze membership is backdated to 1 September, which means retrospectively that league/county games played earlier in the season become free of game fee

This contrasts with silver, which applies only from the day you get it and is not backdated

I'm not saying that this is wrong, but it does mitigate against what you suggest

I understand. If I represented Silver members I would not be too happy with this. Do you have any suggestions about how we could solve this problem?

Or, look at this another way. I think that the problem may be linked to grading. I've never understood why I have to wait (a year in some cases) to get my league games graded. Now I have graded thousands of games in various tournaments I have a better understanding of the workload, and what can be done to automate it. If grading data were uploaded every month it would probably mean that Bronze memberships need no longer be 'backdated', and the membership requirements could apply to the date when the games are sent for grading. If you are a member, then no game fee. That way you can sell pro-rata Bronze memberships as well.

The experience with the Manchester League is that some players don't join/renew their bronze membership in September, but wait to see how many games they actually play - when it exceeds the break even, either they or their club decide they need to join

Grading a league is different than grading a congress - in our case, our fixtures secretary (or results and registrations secretary) has to make sure all the match cards are entered on the system, and then our grader has to extract the info to submit the grading data to the ECF - it works well on a half-yearly basis because of the cut off that matches finish a few days before Xmas (and we don't have adjournments) and when the season ends, it wouldn't work as well monthly

If a new player comes to my club today, they will be told they don't have to pay anything but they can't play in League matches yet - at the club AGM in June they will then join, and the club will make them ECF members in September

Basically, I think their is a fundamental difference between congress and non-congress players

[Roger de Coverly]

If grading data were uploaded every month it would probably mean that Bronze memberships need no longer be 'backdated', and the membership requirements could apply to the date when the games are sent for grading. If you are a member, then no game fee. That way you can sell pro-rata Bronze memberships as well.

I don't think club captains, treasurers, secretaries and those in similar positions in leagues and counties would thank you for that.

[Sean Hewitt]

I think the problem is that bronze membership is backdated to 1 September, which means retrospectively that league/county games played earlier in the season become free of game fee

This contrasts with silver, which applies only from the day you get it and is not backdated

I understand. If I represented Silver members I would not be too happy with this. Do you have any suggestions about how we could solve this problem?

Before making the membership scheme more complicated, I think it would be best to quantify the problem first before trying to solve it. How much of an issue have you found this to be? My own experience has been that one player has refused to join the ECF when required to do so (and therefore withdrew from the event) whilst everyone else has joined - irrespective of when the congress was held. On that basis, I don't seem to be having the same problem. How big an issue is it for you?

I can't get overly excited about backdating bronze membership either. The only practical effect is that it delays the ECF's ability to bill leagues for game fee. However, this is not an issue as cash flow is not a problem for the ECF now that we have a membership scheme.

The idea that players wait to play 7 games before joining did make me smile. Chess players, eh?

[Adam Raoof]

I think the problem is that bronze membership is backdated to 1 September, which means retrospectively that league/county games played earlier in the season become free of game fee

This contrasts with silver, which applies only from the day you get it and is not backdated

I understand. If I represented Silver members I would not be too happy with this. Do you have any suggestions about how we could solve this problem?

Before making the membership scheme more complicated, I think it would be best to quantify the problem first before trying to solve it. How much of an issue have you found this to be? My own experience has been that one player has refused to join the ECF when required to do so (and therefore withdrew from the event) whilst everyone else has joined - irrespective of when the congress was held. On that basis, I don't seem to be having the same problem. How big an issue is it for you?

I can't get overly excited about backdating bronze membership either. The only practical effect is that it delays the ECF's ability to bill leagues for game fee. However, this is not an issue as cash flow is not a problem for the ECF now that we have a membership scheme.

The idea that players wait to play 7 games before joining did make me smile. Chess players, eh?

It is simple to make things easier for players to join the ECF, so why not?

No other membership scheme I belong to does what the ECF membership scheme does in requiring payment for a full year's membership no matter what time of year I join. There may be examples out there that do, but I couldn't find one around the office I work in.

I couldn't know how many players read the requirements and decide not to play, but occasionally people do contact me and suggest that they feel it's not worth their while to pay to play, or to join the ECF to play in a FIDE event. I had one player just today who decided to come and spectate at Kings Place Rapidplay rather than play.

Of the players who do enter, and pay £6.00, the ECF has the job of chasing me up for the money, when I could take money for a membership and join the player up immediately.

[Stewart Reuben]

Paolo >There are a number of FIDE related issues affecting down to the club players, for example the fact that the FIDE rating regulations exclude the vast majority of chess games played in England. You might want to get evening league games rated for FIDE or not, but it would certainly nice to have the option, as they have in other European countries for their similar league games; probably their FIDE delegate/representative has been more successful in adapting the FIDE rating requirements to the local needs, resulting in countries like Germany and Spain having ten times more FIDE rated players than the UK. This is an issue that I would expect the English FIDE delegate to "fight vigorously for".<

I have only just noticed the metamorphosis of this thread into one about grading/rating. I have not had time to read all the posts.
Chess is much more popular in German, Russian and Spanish speaking countries than English.

FIDE introduced a ludicrous term, 'FIDE National Arbiter'. Of course it should have been 'FIDE Registered Arbiter' (or better still, not at all.) But typically they did not ask a native-born English speaker for advice. Just look at the appalling Arbiters' Manual on the FIDE Arbiters Commission website.

The London League was FIDE Rated for two years. The players didn't want it because they think the games lack gravitas. Why is this so?
There is no arbiter present. That could be solved for the London League or the English Counties. The idea of having a certified arbiter present who plays is a bit odd, but possible. The point about quickplay finishes requiring an arbiter to administer made by somebody is incorrect. There is a FIDE Law about quickplay finish in the absence of an arbiter. It was introduced by the BCF to FIDE precisely for this reason. At Golden Lane there are typically 40 players. Each one paying £1 board fee would result in a sum adequate to have a qualified arbiter.
The sessions for evening events is too short due to the nature of British society.
If the only stumbling block was the rule that games have to be of at least 4 hours if at least one player is 2200+, that could easily be changed. After all, I found it easy to introduce it!

It is not for the FIDE Delegate necessarily to concern himself with the minutiae of regulations. It is for the ECF representatives on commissions. There are far too few of these. The situation was dire in Tallinn in 2013.

[NickFaulks]

The London League was FIDE Rated for two years. The players didn't want it because they think the games lack gravitas. Why is this so?
There is no arbiter present.

I didn't realise that ever actually happened. Pre-2001, I presume.

Do the players really want an arbiter present? In my experience the London League, particularly the higher divisions, gets along perfectly well without. There is generally a stock of highly experienced players present, often including off-duty arbiters, whose comments are respected even without being dignified by the title of Arbiter.

[Andrew Zigmond]

It is not for the FIDE Delegate necessarily to concern himself with the minutiae of regulations. It is for the ECF representatives on commissions. There are far too few of these. The situation was dire in Tallinn in 2013.

So it boils down to the same old thing - are people willing to volunteer or are they just going to chunter about the fact nobody else is willing to do so?

[Dragoljub Sudar]

Basically, I think their is a fundamental difference between congress and non-congress players

Mick, have you been spending too much time with Mr. Pardoe?

[David Sedgwick]

It is not for the FIDE Delegate necessarily to concern himself with the minutiae of regulations. It is for the ECF representatives on commissions. There are far too few of these. The situation was dire in Tallinn in 2013.

So it boils down to the same old thing - are people willing to volunteer or are they just going to chunter about the fact nobody else is willing to do so?

I'm currently trying to compile a list of English people prepared to serve on FIDE Commissions during the period 2014 - 2018. Would anyone interested please let me know.

However, serving on FIDE Commissions isn't only a matter of time; it also costs a considerable amount of money. Only the more senior people get paid. I would have gone to Tallinn myself if my expenses would have been met.

Those who were present at the ECF Council Meeting will have heard me comment on the absence of ECF funding for this purpose.

[David Sedgwick]

If the only stumbling block was the rule that games have to be of at least 4 hours if at least one player is 2200+, that could easily be changed. After all, I found it easy to introduce it!

I can't deny that you also found it easy to block my attempt to change it at Dresden Congress 2008.

At the same Congress you were also the prime mover in introducing the requirement that any first time control in a FIDE rated event had to be after 40 moves.

Prior to 2008 an increasing number of English events were adopting FIDE rating. I did warn you that both the above decisions would reduce or reverse that trend.

[Alex Holowczak]

On another point I believe that if you play in the British this year you can get an 'extended' membership. I was told this very recently.

According to the Director of Membership, there is no such provision in place.

[Neill Cooper]

4. G/60 with a 30" increment is acceptable in events where all players are <2200, which sounds like your target audience when getting people rated. Go for it.

Something similar is very successful at CCF Cousldon. It seems particularly popular with junior players, who made up almost half the 80+ players last night.

[NickFaulks]

If the only stumbling block was the rule that games have to be of at least 4 hours if at least one player is 2200+, that could easily be changed. After all, I found it easy to introduce it!

I can't deny that you also found it easy to block my attempt to change it at Dresden Congress 2008.

At the same Congress you were also the prime mover in introducing the requirement that any first time control in a FIDE rated event had to be after 40 moves.

Prior to 2008 an increasing number of English events were adopting FIDE rating. I did warn you that both the above decisions would reduce or reverse that trend.

David, what was your proposal in Dresden? I was there, but obviously can't remember, and I can't find it in the minutes.

The 40 move rule provokes surprisingly strong feelings on both sides. I'm with you, I think it is not only unnecessarily restrictive but also wrong. To my mind, if a 40/90, SD/30 time control is properly balanced, then 40/105, SD/15 is not.

[Mike Truran]

So is there a definitive/agreed FIDE position or not on whether a licenced arbiter does actually need to be present at a FIDE rated event, or whether it's OK for him/her to be at the end of a telephone?