ECF Vacancies

[Nigel_Davies]

Event-level surcharges aren't really the issue under discussion here, Roger. You can always not enter a particular FIDE-rated event if it's charging you too much to do so. The issue is that a marginal cost of £50 having the right to enter FIDE-rated tournaments would probably be a huge disincentive, compared with the current marginal cost of £10.

Yes I'm sure there wouldn't be a direct transfer of current 'gold' memberships to 'international' memberships and there might be a case for pitching the rate much lower (under £50). The flip side is that those who do actually pay would be getting far more of a say in how the federation is run and would benefit from new international events that might be brought in via sponsorship.

[Andrew Zigmond]

Presumably there is no bar to amateurs paying the membership though? Fifty to a hundred pounds is relatively little to an affluent club player but quite a bit to a student seeking the FM title.

[Nigel_Davies]

Presumably there is no bar to amateurs paying the membership though? Fifty to a hundred pounds is relatively little to an affluent club player but quite a bit to a student seeking the FM title.

An 'international' membership should be open to everyone and they would thereby. Meanwhile your student who wants to be an FM would already be paying far more in books and travel etc and might have to travel less far if there were suitable events closer to home.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

If the, um, transition went horribly wrong, would there be a plan B? Revert back to the old system and ask everyone to pay again? (Those who had got used to free stuff might not be willing to pay any more).

[Roger de Coverly]

Revert back to the old system and ask everyone to pay again?

It would be a fairly straightforward premise that the funds raised by the difference in price between Silver and Gold memberships were used to finance the International teams and to subsidise the participation of titled players in the British Championships.

[Nigel_Davies]

If the, um, transition went horribly wrong, would there be a plan B? Revert back to the old system and ask everyone to pay again? (Those who had got used to free stuff might not be willing to pay any more).

When you look at the age demographic in UK chess there's a clear need for reform to try and reinvigorate the game. Plan B is that the ECF doesn't get to do stuff it's doing at the moment, like funding teams.

[JustinHorton]

The flip side is that those who do actually pay would be getting far more of a say in how the federation is run and would benefit from new international events that might be brought in via sponsorship.

I'm lost here. Why are these "new international events" with their "sponsorship" suddenly happening?

[Paolo Casaschi]

Event-level surcharges aren't really the issue under discussion here, Roger. You can always not enter a particular FIDE-rated event if it's charging you too much to do so. The issue is that a marginal cost of £50 having the right to enter FIDE-rated tournaments would probably be a huge disincentive, compared with the current marginal cost of £10.

Even worse, I think such a policy would have the result of fewer and fewer small tournament deciding to be FIDE rated.
While everywhere else in the world, FIDE and national federations are pushing to extend FIDE ratings to more and more tournament and people.

[Roger de Coverly]

Why are these "new international events" with their "sponsorship" suddenly happening?

They are going to be organised for or by a group of perhaps 20 to 100 professional or semi professional players or by 1000 to 2000 internationally rated players. We're debating fantasy chess organisations really.

[Michael Farthing]

Even the figures show it is ridiculous. As no extra money can be raised by the changes proposed above the ECF would still be run by a load of incompetent amateurs: you're not going to get any different applicants for the job because the job demands too much if unpaid. It is also far from clear what changes this patrician voting group would introduce that are different from current practice? Perhaps Nigel would give concrete examples of what a new ECF would do that isn't done and what it wouldn't do that is done, so that there would be greater health in it?

There's much talk of sponsorship falling out of the sky? Why? What does a professional chess elite have to offer a sponsor?

Matthew
a.k.a Michael Farthing

[JustinHorton]

Well quite. I am not seeing, for instance, what is currently stopping these dynamic people with their knowledge and experience from organising these events, other than that they may not actually exist in the form imagined.

[Martin Regan]

It is one of the attractions of this forum that everybody is given credit for being a sentient human being.

Thus, those who do not have the experience to run a whelk stall can draw up on the back a fag packet in a matter of minutes a blueprint for the future of English chess. And we listen to them howl at the moon, as if they were Mozart.

[Nigel_Davies]

Even the figures show it is ridiculous. As no extra money can be raised by the changes proposed above the ECF would still be run by a load of incompetent amateurs: you're not going to get any different applicants for the job because the job demands too much if unpaid. It is also far from clear what changes this patrician voting group would introduce that are different from current practice? Perhaps Nigel would give concrete examples of what a new ECF would do that isn't done and what it wouldn't do that is done, so that there would be greater health in it?

There's much talk of sponsorship falling out of the sky? Why? What does a professional chess elite have to offer a sponsor?

Matthew
a.k.a Michael Farthing

Taking the emphasis away from chess being run by amateurs for disgruntled amateurs would change things for the better I think. Having stronger and more committed players do the voting would bring forward better board members and this in turn would increase the odds of sponsorship. The ECF board is now stronger than it has been for a while but will it stay that way without progress? Sponsorship can be a feature of UK chess as the London Chess Classic currently shows, but the ECF has been unable to secure any. I don't think I need to repeat why I think this is the case despite the amount of whining on this thread by the 'usual suspects'.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Who is the sponsor of the London Chess Classic?

[Martin Regan]

ND wrote:

Having stronger and more committed players do the voting would bring forward better board members

On what fantastical basis do you make that assertion?

Sponsorship can be a feature of UK chess as the London Chess Classic currently shows, but the ECF has been unable to secure any

Is that meant to be a serious comment? Seriously? Have you not heard of Tradewise?