County Championship Consultation

[Nick Grey]

ECF need to be careful not to alienate it's members. As far as Union Stages go, we like our local matches, local rivalries and our local celebrations.
The CAMRA analogy is fie too. There are real ales, real lager, and real ciders. And some like other tipples. We just need to avoid alcopops and sugary drinks for juniors.

Keeping the County Championship as the FA Cup and leaving 4NCL as the Premiership is fine by me.

Maybe some tinkering around numbers and/or grading bands may help (not 20 but 25 say).

Some prefer 1 game a weekend at a good time control. And not having to play each weekend. But please be careful of those with a need to keep their Fide rating if you want to encourage top players on the ECF list. I cannot see the need to put some artificial boundaries for children and women. We encourage them

Congratulations to Essex. Maybe our turn next year.

[Michael Flatt]

Shouldn't each stage of the 'consultation' be made available on the ECF website as a permanent record?

I can't find any trace of:

• what the purpose of the consulation was

• What questions were contained in the questionniare

• What the first set of proposals were

• What the reaction was

• What the current status is

Is this forum the only permanent record of the process?

[Carl Hibbard]

The main ECF site still needs a redesign to better organise its content.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"I could understand people rejecting the changes on the balance of pros and cons, but I don't understand dismissing it entirely on the grounds of tradition. I would put "tradition" in the cons column, but there would be points in both columns."

True. Speaking in general, however, the reverse applies too - changing things just for the sake of it is not necessarily a great idea.

I don't play in it any more, but the SCCU competition works pretty well. I suspect the counties would be quite happy to play in that and ignore the national stage if they didn't like any new arrangement.

[NickFaulks]

I don't play in it any more, but the SCCU competition works pretty well. I suspect the counties would be quite happy to play in that and ignore the national stage if they didn't like any new arrangement.

Absolutely. Possibly followed by an unofficial match or matches against whoever comes out top in other regions. For an unofficial title of, you know, county champions.

[Alex Holowczak]

I don't play in it any more, but the SCCU competition works pretty well. I suspect the counties would be quite happy to play in that and ignore the national stage if they didn't like any new arrangement.

Absolutely. Possibly followed by an unofficial match or matches against whoever comes out top in other regions. For an unofficial title of, you know, county champions.

That's all fine and dandy, but it's a very SCCU centric view. Is the NCCU competition working well? Are Greater Manchester well served by the current structure?

[NickFaulks]

Are Greater Manchester well served by the current structure?

I'm tired of hearing that the County Championship has to be turned inside out because of what looks from down here like a silly parochial squabble.

When shall we see the final proposals that will be put to Council? It would be nice to do a bit of consulation with players involved.

[David Sedgwick]

I don't play in it any more, but the SCCU competition works pretty well. I suspect the counties would be quite happy to play in that and ignore the national stage if they didn't like any new arrangement.

Absolutely. Possibly followed by an unofficial match or matches against whoever comes out top in other regions. For an unofficial title of, you know, county champions.

That's all fine and dandy, but it's a very SCCU centric view. Is the NCCU competition working well? Are Greater Manchester well served by the current structure?

I'm tired of hearing that the County Championship has to be turned inside out because of what looks from down here like a silly parochial squabble.

It doesn't, of course.

For 31 years, from 1978 to 2009, successive Directors and Controllers recognised that it was their duty to cope with the Lancashire / Greater Manchester situation, however annoying and inconvenient they found it.

Then Alex came along and the Counties Championships have been in jeopardy ever since. See viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1801&start=120, which I have mentioned previously.

At least matters are now coming to a head.

When shall we see the final proposals that will be put to Council? It would be nice to do a bit of consultation with players involved.

Alex can be blamed for many things, as indeed I have just done, but not for the weather on Friday 2nd March which caused the ECF Board Meeting scheduled for that day to be cancelled.

The meeting has been rearranged for Thursday 22nd March. I look forward to an announcement shortly thereafter.

[Andrew Zigmond]

Then Alex came along and the Counties Championships have been in jeopardy ever since. See viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1801&start=120, which I have mentioned previously.

Then Alex stood for the position of Director of Home Chess in 2012, was elected and has been re-elected every year since. That of course includes the year when a candidate from the SCCU contested the election and ran a deeply personal campaign during which Alex was lambasted as the status quo candidate.

edited for clarification

[David Sedgwick]

Then Alex came along and the Counties Championships have been in jeopardy ever since. See viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1801&start=120, which I have mentioned previously.

Then Alex stood for the position of Director of Home Chess in 2012, was elected and has been re-elected every year since. That of course includes the year when a SCCU candidate contested the election and ran a deeply personal campaign during which Alex was lambasted as the status quo candidate.

Alex's opponent was an individual from the SCCU area, not "a SCCU candidate". The challenge was not supported by the SCCU and I was strongly opposed to it.

Alex has been a big asset to the ECF and to English chess in a great many ways. His approach to the Counties Championships is not one of them.

[Michael Flatt]

... That of course includes the year when a SCCU candidate contested the election and ran a deeply personal campaign during which Alex was lambasted as the status quo candidate.

No. He was not an SCCU candidate. He was a non executive member of the ECF Board and, as I understand things, he had been cajoled by certain members of the Board to stand in opposition to Alex in the election of Director of Home Chess. At that time the ECF Board was split and utterly disfunctional.

[Andrew Zigmond]

Firstly and following the posts from David Sedgwick and Michael Flatt I have clarified what I meant. My point was that Alex's opponent who ran on a (supposed) `change` ticket is from one of the Southern Counties that will presumably oppose any changes to the current structure.

Unfortunately we do keep coming back to the fact that SCCU players seem opposed to change, at least in part, because it would damage the prestige of their own internal competition. Which may indeed be the case (although and albeit from the other end of the country) I don't see why. It is not quite the same thing as saying it would damage the national championships. I would also point out (as is evident from the 2010 thread) that there are those who want to see change. Alex is seeking to find the best solution for the majority, he is not changing things on a personal whim.

Finally it's worth noting that under the current structure counties do NOT qualify for the national stages. They are nominated by the county unions which is a clean different thing. I believe that the rules even state that unions are under no obligation to hold a qualifying competition although in practice all do. Neither are they obliged to nominate in any specific order.

[Neil Graham]

Since the original proposals were circulated, I have been careful not to comment via this forum on them (with the exception of the proposal of let's include a junior, female, U11 etc). If and when the Council papers are circulated I'll return to them then.

In respect of all the comments at the moment I return to a subject I regularly refer to in this forum. No-one wants the jobs - that goes for the Director of Home Chess, the Counties Championship Controller, various other ECF posts marked Vacancy, County captains, club officials and so on. Are there people queuing up to step into Alex's shoes - of course not. Problems at every level of chess are due in large to the lack of willing volunteers, competent officials and general apathy of the players towards organisation.

[Mick Norris]

I don't play in it any more, but the SCCU competition works pretty well. I suspect the counties would be quite happy to play in that and ignore the national stage if they didn't like any new arrangement.

Absolutely. Possibly followed by an unofficial match or matches against whoever comes out top in other regions. For an unofficial title of, you know, county champions.

That's all fine and dandy, but it's a very SCCU centric view. Is the NCCU competition working well? Are Greater Manchester well served by the current structure?

My personal viewpoint is that G Man are not well served by proposed changes to the current structure, however well intentioned they may be

There is an easy solution to increasing competition in the NCCU

Ultimately, chess players decide where they want to play; they may well have come to a different conclusion in the south than the north, and the east/west than the midlands

[NickFaulks]

Firstly and following the posts from David Sedgwick and Michael Flatt I have clarified what I meant.

I do not know what your post said before you changed it, but by describing Alex's 2012 opponent as "a candidate from the SCCU" you have managed to leave a bad smell while walking away from it.

That campaign was indeed personal and unpleasant, but it got little support from the Southern counties. As I recall, it got little support from anywhere.