ENG FIDE Ratings must be ECF Members

[Christopher Kreuzer]

It's a mystery to me. Why don't people realise it costs a certain amount of time and money to administer the relationship between the English players who play international chess and the international chess community? Why should this be an unfair burden on those people who do not play internationally? Maxim Devereux is a good example. Over his chess career he has received benefit. Some years more than others. Everybody who has a FIDE Rating has benefited from ECF Officers who have given their time, usually with no recompense. It is the wish of some of us that those English players should make a contribution.

Agreed. But let's not use titled and fairly active players as examples. Since the rating floor is now very low, there will be lots of FIDE rated players who may drop in and out of activity, with only a few FIDE rated games over several years (I know the number of rated tournaments available is increasing, but put that to one side for the moment as players of all ratings may go inactive for a few years for reasons unrelated to chess).

So my questions still stand (and have received no answer): What happens if someone, whether planned or not, plays no chess for a few years? Do they have to pay their ECF membership every year without fail to maintain their FIDE rating, or can they stop paying for a few years and then resume?

The one reply on this I got from Adam Raoof was: "Reinstatement would follow if outstanding and current membership fees were fully paid up." I don't think people will be happy to pay outstanding membership fees if they played no chess in the period in question.

If, on the other hand, the requirement is only (after a lapse in membership) to pay outstanding membership fees for years where rated chess was played, that makes perfect sense. But no-one has confirmed whether this is what was meant or not.

[Alex Holowczak]

Why should this be an unfair burden on those people who do not play internationally?

Currently the ECF whether by Game Fee or cost of membership makes no distinction between international players and the rest. So the current pricing structures impose the unfair burden with no public proposals to change this.

The measure is a direct charge on ex-pats like Max and Harry Lamb* who are not in a position to walk away from the ECF because of FIDE transfer fees. Do any other federations treat their overseas based players in the same way? There will be the same issue with English players moving to Wales or Scotland and wishing or needing to become WCU or Chess Scotland members.

* I don't think he's really an ex-pat but plays often enough in France to be equivalent.

You've missed one famous English ex-pat. I wonder what Nigel Short thinks of this?

[Alex Holowczak]

Assuming that I have understood this correctly.
I pay the ECF £25 to become a direct member.
This entitles me to play in the 4NCL and have my games ECF and FIDE rated.
But when I play a match in the local league I pay another 54p to have the game ECF Rated.
Is this really the current situation?

Yes. This will continue to be the current situation (presumably) if we don't get 75% of Council to vote in favour of the proposed changes to the articles (i.e. a membership scheme). This happens for anything that is called a League, so it includes county chess.

[Roger de Coverly]

This entitles me to play in the 4NCL and have my games ECF and FIDE rated.

Direct member "rights" only apply in Congresses and the 4NCL. Think of League Game Fee as equivalent to a league only membership and Direct Membership as a Congress / 4NCL membership ,as a season ticket to get you Congress discounts, or as an expense cap if you play dozens of Congress games.

You've missed one famous English ex-pat. I wonder what Nigel Short thinks of this

I don't think I've ever seen reports of him playing in Greek leagues. Most years, he plays in England anyway.

[Alex Holowczak]

This actual situation in this area is of course even more complicated by the Northern Counties membership scheme.
So assuming I have paid my £25
For games in the Chester league I pay the ECF nothing
For games in the Stockport League I pay 54p

Oh yes, the Manchester Chess Federation always falls foul of this. It's not the MCF's fault; they just generally can't estimate how many MO members they have compared to normal members. The variance in the numbers is high from one year to the next.

Your synopsis is not right. The Chester League (is supposed to) pay Game Fee for you, because you're not a Basic Member. You're a Standard Member.

You've missed a trick though. If you became a member through the NCCU MO, then you could become a member for £12, and you'd pay the ECF £0 via any league you play in, be it Stockport, Chester, London, Portsmouth... Plus you still get to play in the 4NCL and have your games rated.

We await the proposals for the new system from Andrew, but whatever he suggests cannot be worse than the current situation

That sounds like a challenge.

[Alex Holowczak]

But its not true that you pay £0 for other leagues the stockport league pays game fee on all games

No, it doesn't.

The Stockport League pays for any games played by people who aren't Basic members of the ECF.

This means the Stockport League has exactly the same status as every other league in England. It's just that the area around Stockport has far more Basic members than, say, Kent.

[Paul Cooksey]

It's a mystery to me. Why don't people realise it costs a certain amount of time and money to administer the relationship between the English players who play international chess and the international chess community?
(snip)
Everybody who has a FIDE Rating has benefited from ECF Officers who have given their time, usually with no recompense.
Stewart Reuben

I hope Stewart realises his significant contribution to English chess is recognised by the majority of players. But I also hope he will forgive me using his quote to make a point about one of the issues that I think muddies the water:

Whenever we talk about the things which are done by the ECF that players value, it seems they are done by volunteers. Or for easily justifiable cost (Grading, British, Womens Chess, etc). So I think some people are arguing - "that's all great, thanks very much, please continue. But why are we also paying for an expensive office?"

I assume we need the ECF office, because the other things could not be done without it. Grading is not c.£10k it is c.£10+x% of office, International chess is Volunteers+y% of office, etc. I also assume, the ECF office is funded in line with best practice in the non-profit sector, and that the items with high office expenditure are the same items everyone sees as useful.

But I am taking more on faith than some people would be willing to do.

[Mike Truran]

Paul, I thought Stewart's list of tasks the office carries out was very helpful. Looking at the list, it didn't seem obvious to me that an axe could be taken to the various activities, but as you say maybe we're taking more on faith than others do.

I suggest a starting point which assumes that tasks aren't created for the sake of it is probably a not unreasonable one. On the other hand of course, work does tend to expand to fill a vacuum.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Paul, I thought Stewart's list of tasks the office carries out was very helpful. Looking at the list, it didn't seem obvious to me that an axe could be taken to the various activities, but as you say maybe we're taking more on faith than others do.

I thought a review of the Office activities had already been done?

[Stewart Reuben]

Christophr Kreuzer >What happens if someone, whether planned or not, plays no chess for a few years? Do they have to pay their ECF membership every year without fail to maintain their FIDE rating, or can they stop paying for a few years and then resume?<

If you stop playing international chess after a time your name is transferred to the inactive list, retaining your last FIDE Rating. You would not be a burden on the ECF. If you don't play English graded chess either, then you wouldn't have to pay an ECF membership fee or game fee.
If you then come back into international chess, one of the first things you should do is become an ECF Member again. You do not have to pay any arrears because there is none. As soon as you play internationally your rating is revived.
Thus Jonathan Penrose is a grandmaster. He is inactive. He need pay no fee.
When I was a youngster, there was a life membership possibility. This was got rid of when we had high inflation.

Alex you ask what Nigel Short thinks of the requirement to be a member to have a FIDE Rating under ENG. I am puzzled. You should have seen his view as you get ECF Board papers. Nigel is very much in favour of a required membership, even for those years he does not play in England or Guernsey or represent England in team tournament.

Nobody has mentioned, at least recently, that Howard Grist receives an honorarium. He is the International Rating Officer. Why shouldn't that burden be taken on by the FIDE Rated players?

Stewart Reuben

[Roger de Coverly]

Nobody has mentioned, at least recently, that Howard Grist receives an honorarium. He is the International Rating Officer. Why shouldn't that burden be taken on by the FIDE Rated players?

Sure, why not load the rating fees? If Max only plays in Norway and Greece, that doesn't trigger any work for the English IRO.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

If you stop playing international chess after a time your name is transferred to the inactive list, retaining your last FIDE Rating. You would not be a burden on the ECF. If you don't play English graded chess either, then you wouldn't have to pay an ECF membership fee or game fee. If you then come back into international chess, one of the first things you should do is become an ECF Member again. You do not have to pay any arrears because there is none. As soon as you play internationally your rating is revived.

That makes sense, but isn't quite what was said in the first post in this thread:

"...players with an ENG country code will be de-registered on 1st July if they have not paid their ECF membership..."

I read that as referring to all players with an ENG code, including inactive players, though a later bit in the same post did add the qualifier "active FIDE rating". Thank you for confirming that there are no arrears to be paid for players resuming after a period of inactivity. I hope that only active players who are in arrears with payments will be de-registered, and not those who have not played any rated games in the last year (but are not yet listed as inactive on the FIDE lists).

[Matthew Turner]

Paul Cooksey wrote
"I assume we need the ECF office, because the other things could not be done without it. Grading is not c.£10k it is c.£10+x% of office, International chess is Volunteers+y% of office, etc. I also assume, the ECF office is funded in line with best practice in the non-profit sector, and that the items with high office expenditure are the same items everyone sees as useful."

The Office has had no involvement with grading for a good many years. The role of the Office in the International and Junior arenas can vary significantly with different Directors. I suspect Lawrence Cooper is a very proactive Director and will be taking on a big proportion of the workload himself, so the Office's role will be much reduced. The Office will probably have a bigger role in the admin of the Junior Directorship.

[Sean Hewitt]

Nobody has mentioned, at least recently, that Howard Grist receives an honorarium. He is the International Rating Officer. Why shouldn't that burden be taken on by the FIDE Rated players?

Sure, why not load the rating fees? If Max only plays in Norway and Greece, that doesn't trigger any work for the English IRO.

That's what actually happens. The FIDE rating fees paid by organisers includes an amount to cover Howard Grist's fee.

[Roger de Coverly]

The Office has had no involvement with grading for a good many years.

Although mostly true, I think there's some residual involvement. I'd imagine they have a copy of the data, perhaps the master copy. Also RJH uses the office facilities to send out the grading print-outs by email and post. But I'd agree, if grading became the responsibility of an autonomous third party operation, the effect on the workload of the Office would be limited.

Various functions that used to be mostly external have been brought in house in recent years. The Year Book for instance used to have a named editor who was a volunteer, although not to say that there wasn't a payment involved. ChessMoves has had a number of external editors, some of them GMs. Again it's doubtful they were doing it for nothing.

Collection of entries for the British Championship events has moved the other way. You now send your entry form to one of the Control Team rather than Battle.