2011 AGM: October 15th

[Mick Norris]

I was told that Blackpool had complaints from the GMs about losing rating points

Same GMs play at e2e4, so there could be a simple explanation i.e. appearance fees

[harrylamb]

Sean's e2e4 events in the north-west were not as well supported as their southern brothers. The 4NCL Northern League has only 6 entries. Lancashire can conjure up some FIDE-rated chess at Leyland. Did the Manchester Autumn Congress had a FIDE-rated Open?

I can confirm that the Manchester Congress was not FIDE rated. I was congress director.

It was not FIDE rated because I am convinced that FIDE Rating a tournament in general costs entries. The Blackpool congress organisers, the Scarborough Congress organisers and Alex McF clearly support my view. There is always room for a niche market. So yes e2e2 can run successful FIDE rated congresses.

My own actions support my belief. I will not put my FIDE rating on the line at weekend congresses. So my FIDE rated chess is played in France where I can play most of the event at a round a day. And here is a nice quote from a grandmaster.

Every year I went to Blackpool. Every year I lost 40 rating points and came back with a hangover. I cured both problems. I stopped playing at Blackpool.

Actually I think the most important factor for getting good congress numbers is a good venue. That is one thing the organisers of Blackpool Scarborough and e2e4 have in common. It is also the reason I believe that our Manchester congress numbers were up by 25% this year. Last year we moved to an excellent playing hall surrounded by gardens. Because last years experience was enjoyable to players word got round and this year our entries zoomed up

Blackpool and Scarborough are freakish congresses. They get their massive fields because of the social side of the event.

What a strange comment. Blackpool and Scarborough are by far the biggest most successful weekend congresses in Britain. Maybe even in the world. Hundreds of players and their families turn up enjoy themselves and enjoy the social life yet they get condemned as freakish because they turn up to enjoy themselves and not to participate in dour battles for FIDE rating points.

PS Mick Norris has just posted while I have been writing this so his post appears before mine. In response to his may I comment that the Manchester area is well known for its friendly discussions over the best way to organise chess so yes Mick and I disagree on this. But in a very friendly way!

[Alex Holowczak]

Blackpool and Scarborough are freakish congresses. They get their massive fields because of the social side of the event.

What a strange comment. Blackpool and Scarborough are by far the biggest most successful weekend congresses in Britain. Maybe even in the world. Hundreds of players and their families turn up enjoy themselves and enjoy the social life yet they get condemned as freakish because they turn up to enjoy themselves and not to participate in dour battles for FIDE rating points.

PS Mick Norris has just posted while I have been writing this so his post appears before mine. In response to his may I comment that the Manchester area is well known for its friendly discussions over the best way to organise chess so yes Mick and I disagree on this. But in a very friendly way!

I'm not calling the players freakish. I mean that the congresses themselves are freakish things. They get so many more entries than the vast majority of other congresses. Few congresses can even hope to aspire to that level.

[David Shepherd]

Do you think FIDE rating the major would gain or cost entries? I am not aware of any events where the open is not FIDE rated but the major is, but I do not see why it could not be done. This would give the slightly lower players a chance to get a rating, which might be attractive to them.

[Alex Holowczak]

I was told that Blackpool had complaints from the GMs about losing rating points

Same GMs play at e2e4, so there could be a simple explanation i.e. appearance fees

GMs will tend not play FIDE-rated chess that costs them rating points without appearance fees. They don't play that many non-rated congresses, either. They'll play at Blackpool because it's Blackpool, and I guess has far higher prize money than most events. Again, this is because it has 300 entries, so can have such high prizes.

I guess Sean's system with e2e4 is that having FIDE-rated chess makes his events more popular with the players who are rated lower down. He gets a lot of juniors who are anxious to play FIDE-rated chess compared to other congresses. His event at Uxbridge last year in the October half-term had almost half the field as juniors.

It's just different types of people. Sean subscribes to the view (presumably) that people want to play FIDE-rated chess, and they are in the majority. I'm the opposite to Harry, and agree with Sean. I wouldn't play in a congress that required an overnight halt if it wasn't FIDE-rated. The only exception to this is the British Championship, and that's because it's the British Championship.

[Alex McFarlane]

Just to clarify my position.

As Home Director of Chess Scotland I encouraged congresses to adopt FIDE rating. This was tried but was not a success for the reasons mentioned. I would not try to pressure events into formats that would cost them money.

My personal preference is for FIDE rating probably I would accept down to 1800. I totally disagree with FIDE ratings of 1000.

I try to persuade people that grades should be seen as a sign of progression. For juniors it is to get a rapidplay grade, as they improve it is to get a proper grade and then the next step up should be to get a FIDE rating.

[David Pardoe]

So the 'lapsed' delegates showed up in April; received votes even though they were 'lapsed'; didn't know they were lapsed; and are now not lapsed? Right?

And you believe this kind of arrangement lends confidence to ECF members who henceforth need not protest their lack of say in ECF affairs? Right? All just a technical glitch? Right?

One day these foolish arrangements, unless radically modified, will lead to secessions from ECF. They are quite incompatible with a universal membership scheme. New financial arrangements are being grafted onto a demonstrably rotten political structure. It cannot be sustained

David makes the very clear case for Membership voting rights here, and elsewhere...as does Martin Ragan..
when he talks about the fundamental discoonect between ECF & the rank & file members.
But expecting various league & county bodies to endorse and support this is like expecting Turkeys to vote for Christmas...hence the current proposal get voted through with no changes at various meetings.
Allowing the Membership to have an effective say might involve listening to alternative views from the membership, which could mean seeding some `control` to the Rank & File? The `party(s)` in control wont want that....
And many of these meetings which `unanimously vote for current proposals`, (which sounds very authorititive), might only be attended by a handful of people...
To be fair to some of these bodies, some of the matters up for discussion can be very complex, and reading these threads shows up a myriad of points that have been endlessly debated.
So instead of the current system, where members are expected to `pay up and shut up`, how about giving these people a real say in matters.
Many players will not wish to exercise these, because they are quite happy so long as `its business as usual`. But many others might welcome the chance to take a more active role.
Allowing the Membership to truely participate in the business of the ECF (by electronic vote) will add considerable `buyin`and if properly weighted, could add valuable checks and balances, and definately add credibility to the organisation.

[Roger de Coverly]

So instead of the current system, where members are expected to `pay up and shut up`, how about giving these people a real say in matters.

I'm not quite sure why you are talking about members, because they currently only number about 3,500 out of 12,000. What the ECF is saying to players, is that they have to become members, possibly at a higher cost, because if they don't they cause their clubs and leagues to pay a lot more in fees to the ECF. In practice clubs and leagues may ban non-members from taking part, or at the very least restrict their playing activity.

The worry for the ECF, and for that matter for clubs and leagues, is that faced with this blackmail, any number of players with a marginal interest in over the board chess will turn either to other leisure activities or to other forms of chess not involving the ECF. If you collect through MOs, then you can disguise the financial impacts by consolidating them into club subs. It's only when you look directly at the costs for new clubs and new leagues, that you see the true effects.

In the south of England, the MO concept doesn't work because of the number of clubs in overlapping leagues and the number of players in overlapping clubs. So the ECF will have to bite the bullet and get players to go to its website and pay it directly. If it fails, then it can try to extract financial revenge on the counties and leagues with dissident players. The outcome in at least some cases would just be bad debts, or possibly an offer to settle at an amount of the same order as previous year's payments.

[Sean Hewitt]

I genuinely cannot understand why it should cost a Scot less to play in a FIDE rated/ECF graded weekender than it would to play in an only ECF graded event.
Yet that is what the proposals are recommending.

I guess the answer to that is simply that you can easily define a foreign player in a FIDE rated event in a way that you cannot in a non-FIDE rated event.

[Alex McFarlane]

I could understand them costing the same. To provide more for less seems crazy!!

[Stewart Reuben]

Alex M >My personal preference is for FIDE rating probably I would accept down to 1800. I totally disagree with FIDE ratings of 1000.
<
That is very interesting. It was I who recommended at a FIDE meeting in 1999 that their ratings go down to 1000. This will start being finalised in July 2012. It was of course partly a commercial decision. Nobody has heretofor said this is wrong and they have had 12 years.
The ECF has a system going from 0+ to about 270. This seems to me to be statistically purer than a system with a cutoff of 50 (or higher). The US I think they go down to 300. Also why eliminate weaker players? It should be remembered that federations such as Russia, Ukraine, Byelorussia, China, India do not have an internal rating system.
Why be elitist and not rate players of playing strength <1800?

Stewart Reuben

[David Pardoe]

So instead of the current system, where members are expected to `pay up and shut up`, how about giving these people a real say in matters.

I'm not quite sure why you are talking about members, because they currently only number about 3,500 out of 12,000. What the ECF is saying to players, is that they have to become members, possibly at a higher cost, because if they don't they cause their clubs and leagues to pay a lot more in fees to the ECF. In practice clubs and leagues may ban non-members from taking part, or at the very least restrict their playing activity.

Roger, you have not quite grasped my points, I think.
I`m not talking about members...actually its more specifically about `Membership voting rights`, which is sadly missing from the current proposals. See my full post `just above` for details.
As I`ve said, it looks like they just want people to `pay up and shut up`...not really the basis for a good democratic system. So they are failing to address the key issue regarding the fundamental disconnect between member and the ECF. Thus the apathy and disinterest of the rank & file will remain and the same `banana republic` level of disharmony and accountability will remain. Some have said that the ECF downward spiral in this Federal circus will also continue.
I only hope that the ECF will address this, so that the general membership/rank & file does not continue to see them as an irrelevance.
The actual funding scheme might work ok (in a loose financial sense)..although I believe that the categories should be restructured to include `Temporary Membership`.
On a different tac Harry Lamb mentioned the success of the recent Manchester Congress, which he puts down to an improved venue. True, the venue is pleasant, and good to see numbers rising.
I visited on the saturday morning and there was a vibrant `chessy buzz`..and good to see more good local support, as well as frpm further afield....
Other factors could also be adding to the positive tone...not least the after glow from the recent `British` event at Sheffield...
It would be good if the 4NCL Northern league (FIDE rated....) could share in this...
Meanwhile, a comment about `friendly arguements` masks thin sugar coated veil. I recollect a previous MCF President warning clubs and officials to be more certeous to each other...

[Alex McFarlane]

That is very interesting. It was I who recommended at a FIDE meeting in 1999 that their ratings go down to 1000. This will start being finalised in July 2012. It was of course partly a commercial decision. Nobody has heretofor said this is wrong and they have had 12 years.
The ECF has a system going from 0+ to about 270. This seems to me to be statistically purer than a system with a cutoff of 50 (or higher). The US I think they go down to 300. Also why eliminate weaker players? It should be remembered that federations such as Russia, Ukraine, Byelorussia, China, India do not have an internal rating system.
Why be elitist and not rate players of playing strength <1800?

For exactly the reason that FIDE ratings should be elitist. It is my feeling that they should be something to aspire to. Juniors will pop up at just over 100 and take years to reach their true level. Indeed some may be discouraged from continuing because of the lag in their FIDE rating compared to their national grade.
For norm chasers an unrated player counting as 1000 would be death to any chances and FIDE only allow one. Meet two unrated 2000 graded players and you may as well give up.

Have you lost me email address? If so you could pm me your appology.

[Paul Sanders]

Why be elitist and not rate players of playing strength <1800?

For exactly the reason that FIDE ratings should be elitist. It is my feeling that they should be something to aspire to. Juniors will pop up at just over 100 and take years to reach their true level. Indeed some may be discouraged from continuing because of the lag in their FIDE rating compared to their national grade.

They shouldn't be discouraged as it is if anything a small advantage to be underrated in a tournament. Not only do you come out on the right side of the draw more often (I think), but you clearly have better chances at rating prizes.

Aspiring to a 2000 rating is quite motivating, as are titles. The fact that a child might have an 1850 rating doesn't make 2000 any less of an achievement.

[Alex McFarlane]

Paul I agree, initially a rating will help a junior but because of the k factor it will do medium term damage. And the medium term is usually the stage where a player considers giving up. It is much more difficult to get to 2000 from 1000 than it is from unrated if that makes sense. Stewart himself has been trying with limited success to get the k factor (designed for 2 lists a year) changed to accommodate monthly lists.