Home Chess 2009-2010 and the future

[Matthew Turner]

Well having the Championships and Major Open as separate events would seem to incur two lots of 50 Euro registration fees. Why not rate them together and save on FIDE fees?

[Sean Hewitt]

Well having the Championships and Major Open as separate events would seem to incur two lots of 50 Euro registration fees. Why not rate them together and save on FIDE fees?

Because the events are swisses the charge is per player rather than per event so it makes no difference financially.

[andrew martin]

Let's look at this going forward. If the e2e4 events are cancelled how will people view what happened ?


1) The first thought will be: what a terrible shame these events stopped. They were so good, so well run, provided a great service and so many chessplayers enjoyed them.

2) Then.....chessplayers shoot themselves in the foot all the time. They get involved in petty disputes which ruin the bigger picture.

3) Finally......I'm not sure I want to carry on playing chess with so many small-mnded people in the game.


This is not a legacy both the ECF and e2-e4 want to leave is it? All parties have to get a grip and sort this out.

[David Sedgwick]

We seem to have two threads running on this, so I'll take the liberty of posting my final comments in both.

In the case of a Swiss, is there any good reason why the Open and Major sections (or the like) need to be FIDE rated separately rather than en bloc?

If there is such a good reason, the ECF should explain it to e2e4 and e2e4 should accept the situation.

If there is no such good reason, the ECF should accept the wish of e2e4 to have their events rated en bloc.

With this seemingly trivial issue resolved one way or the other, all parties should set aside personality issues and clashes, apologise for any intemperate language used, shake hands and move on.

[Sean Hewitt]

In the case of a Swiss, is there any good reason why the Open and Major sections (or the like) need to be FIDE rated separately rather than en bloc?

If there is such a good reason, the ECF should explain it to e2e4 and e2e4 should accept the situation.

If there is no such good reason, the ECF should accept the wish of e2e4 to have their events rated en bloc.

With this seemingly trivial issue resolved one way or the other, all parties should set aside personality issues and clashes, apologise for any intemperate language used, shake hands and move on.

David is as ever the voice of reason and I agree with everything that he has said.

[Keith Arkell]

In other words,if FIDE rules permit this to be done the way e2e4 would like,then the ECF should show a little flexibility and accomodate it (a small request when compared to how much the Fed benefits from Sean's events).
I don't know Howard Grist personally,but I would have thought that in his temporary capacity as IRO the above common sense solution should be simple for him to adhere to,while,on the other hand,if FIDE rules don't permit it then he should quickly make that clear to Sean.

If Mr.Grist refuses to accomodate e2e4 even though,by showing a little flexibility,he has the option of doing so,then,with so much at stake, a more permanent IRO who is prepared to show this flexibility,such as Jack,ought to be installed ASAP.

[John Upham]

I assume that this matter will be deemed too trivial to discuss at the AGM on Sunday under the report from the Director of Home Chess?

[Alex Holowczak]

I assume that this matter will be deemed too trivial to discuss at the AGM on Sunday under the report from the Director of Home Chess?

I guarantee it won't be discussed at the AGM on Sunday. The AGM is on Saturday.

[Roger de Coverly]

I guarantee it won't be discussed at the AGM on Sunday. The AGM is on Saturday.

The detail of the dispute is such that it could easily spark a long discussion. There are no elections this year so the time might be available.

There are a couple of governance issues though :-

(a) just because a FIDE edict, statement or statute appears to imply a course of action, should the ECF adopt it without challenge?
(b) at what level are ECF policy decisions made or changed? Is it (acting) officer, board member, whole board or ECF Council?

[John Philpott]

Roger de Coverly wrote

There are a couple of governance issues though :-

(a) just because a FIDE edict, statement or statute appears to imply a course of action, should the ECF adopt it without challenge?
(b) at what level are ECF policy decisions made or changed? Is it (acting) officer, board member, whole board or ECF Council?

As it happens, issue (b) was highlighted (although not as a result of the present problem) three weeks ago in the Governance Chairman's report to Council - see http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... report.doc

[Roger de Coverly]

As it happens, issue (b) was highlighted (although not as a result of the present problem) three weeks ago in the Governance Chairman's report to Council - see http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... report.doc

In which

The matter which is probably most concerning me at present is the need for decisions to be taken at the most appropriate level. A given decision might be taken by:
(a) Council.
(b) The Board.
(c) An individual Director.
(d) An Officer appointed by a Director.
(e) The ECF Office Staff.

A possible benchmark is that an issue which, however apparently trivial, will generate several pages of forum postings is one that needs to be resolved at a high level.

[Alex Holowczak]

The detail of the dispute is such that it could easily spark a long discussion. There are no elections this year so the time might be available.

It still won't run into Sunday; the meeting is capped to 4 1/2 hours, or 5 at the discretion of the President (or maybe Chairman now the rules have changed). Leagues with adjournments should probably note that even AGMs opt for quickplay finishes over adjournments these days.

A possible benchmark is that an issue which, however apparently trivial, will generate several pages of forum postings is one that needs to be resolved at a high level.

There is a Board Meeting before the AGM. It could well be mentioned there.

[John Philpott]

Alex Holowczak wrote

It still won't run into Sunday; the meeting is capped to 4 1/2 hours, or 5 at the discretion of the President (or maybe Chairman now the rules have changed).

Not so - if you look at the notice of the meeting you will see that it states that further extensions can be made if Council votes to suspend the Procedural Bye Laws. Should this happen, could somebody give me a call on my mobile, as I would then be able to put in a belated appearance at the meeting on my way home from Molineux.

[Alex Holowczak]

Alex Holowczak wrote

It still won't run into Sunday; the meeting is capped to 4 1/2 hours, or 5 at the discretion of the President (or maybe Chairman now the rules have changed).

Not so - if you look at the notice of the meeting you will see that it states that further extensions can be made if Council votes to suspend the Procedural Bye Laws. Should this happen, could somebody give me a call on my mobile, as I would then be able to put in a belated appearance at the meeting on my way home from Molineux.

Aha, I didn't know that!

Are there other procedural by-laws Council can vote to suspend?

[Roger de Coverly]

Leagues with adjournments should probably note that even AGMs opt for quickplay finishes over adjournments these days

The Berkshire AGM had to be adjourned in 2002 - triggered by the appearance of the caretaker. This was the same venue as where a player once had to seal his move using a nearby car. The unresolved issue - obvious really - introduction of a quick play finish option.