Outcome of membership scheme

[Alex Holowczak]

In particular I feel that insisting on SILVER membership for all junior tournaments is wrong. Surely BRONZE is supposed to be the introductory level. In an area where there is no other graded junior chess there is no point in having a BRONZE junior membership at all. All our members have to be SILVER or GOLD. However the amounts involved in the difference between BRONZE and SILVER are so small that it hasn't affected our membership. The AGM this year has again accepted the idea of all our players becoming ECF members.

A few points to counter that are:
(1) Bronze junior membership covers any league chess they play. Several players for my club have this membership. If the players aren't of sufficient standard to be able to compete at the same standard as the weakest adults in league chess, then I'd wonder whether there's any merit in grading the event at all.
(2) Silver junior membership is the same as bronze adult membership in terms of price, but you get the additional benefit of playing in any congresses (let-alone junior congresses) for that price.
(3) They don't have to become members at all. They can just pay £4 per graded tournament, or whatever other rules were voted in. If they play more than 3 such tournaments, then they can become silver members at the outset.

[Alex McFarlane]

Alex,

Isn't the point many junior organisers are making is that for adults entry level chess is league chess but for juniors entry level chess is a one day rapidplay. This difference was not taken into consideration when the fees were being drawn up. For juniors it makes more sense if Bronze membership covered one day events and Silver covered League and Congress chess. Any junior playing competitive chess outwith a school's league will probably take part in a one day event before playing in an adult league.

[Alex Holowczak]

Alex,

Isn't the point many junior organisers are making is that for adults entry level chess is league chess but for juniors entry level chess is a one day rapidplay. This difference was not taken into consideration when the fees were being drawn up. For juniors it makes more sense if Bronze membership covered one day events and Silver covered League and Congress chess. Any junior playing competitive chess outwith a school's league will probably take part in a one day event before playing in an adult league.

If the entry point is a one-day Rapidplay rather than league chess, then fine. They pay £4 under the Pay to Play, rather than taking out a membership. This is still cheaper than any of the membership options.

[Paul Bielby]

Thanks, Alex M. That's just the point I was trying to make, but you put it much better!

Up here in the NE we miss out on a lot the chess available to children. Membership makes the kids feel part of the national organisation; and indeed can lead to those with more ability and parental support being prepared to travel the long distances that many top junior events involve.

[Roger de Coverly]

If the entry point is a one-day Rapidplay rather than league chess, then fine. They pay £4 under the Pay to Play, rather than taking out a membership. This is still cheaper than any of the membership options.

Didn't they get it down to 25p per game (up from 10p in 2011-12) for rapidplays if purely a Junior event?

from
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... nisers.doc

JS Silver ECF members or higher: FREE or Others: Game Fee per result (half-game) of 50p Standard Play and 25p Rapid Play

Non FIDE rated: Junior-only Congress JS JS

Unless like Ernie, you can convince the ECF that your local rapid-play event is exclusively for local Bronze members, there is little point to the Bronze Junior category (edit) for non members of adult clubs(/edit) unless there's a school team league or county matches to play in.

[Roger de Coverly]

But are we saying if Bronze membership included rapidplay up to G60, it would solve the junior pricing issue?

Not entirely. It is still a big jump from 10p per game to even £8 per year and would still be from 25p per game to £ 8 per year for that matter.

The price jump in the North East didn't matter so much because they were already charging something like £ 6 per year under the previous MO scheme.

[John Philpott]

John Upham wrote yesterday

Today's download contains 6,738 records.

An important benchmark will be reached on 31 October 2012 as this is the deadline for payments by organisations signing framework agreements to be made if these are to benefit from the £1 per head rebate. The current download does not include the 232 memberships that have just been submitted under the Essex framework agreement (2 gold, 1 silver, 1 junior silver, 211 bronze and 17 junior bronze), and it is possible that others may come through shortly before the deadline.

[Neill Cooper]

Could Junior chess jettison itself from the ECF and create its own structures, maybe through the CCF, or using the CCF model? From what Neill and Krishna are reporting there could be support for that, indeed it may already be happening if, as Krishna points out, more Junior events are thinking about coming under the CCF umbrella for grading purposes. Juniors playing in ECF rated events would still need to meet the same conditions as adults, but the ECF would receive zero income from purely Junior chess, which they would offset by no longer having any locus for funding it. Is that a viable option the Junior chess world would find attractive?

Much junior chess has already jettisoned itself from the ECF/BCF over the past 30 years, and has no direct links with the ECF:

A lot of U11 chess, both between school and inter-county, is run by EPSCA (English Primary School Chess Association), which is an autonomous body and grades very few games.

NYCA (National Youth Chess Association) runs national U18, U16, U14, U12 inter county events every year - again autonomous and ungraded

NCJS (National Chess Junior Squad) organises England youth teams and plays in Europe - again autonomous but with games graded

UK Chess Challenge - 70,000 juniors - again autonomous, only the final rounds graded.

Edit:
[Text deleted]
I would prefer it if we tried to keep as much Junior chess within the ECF as possible.

[Alex Holowczak]

A few comments:

A lot of U11 chess, both between school and inter-county, is run by EPSCA (English Primary School Chess Association), which is an autonomous body and grades very few games.

This is good, the players are mostly not good enough to get grades. I attended a Birmingham area event, and at least 1 board in a 5-board match would be Scholar's Mate.

NYCA (National Youth Chess Association) runs national U18, U16, U14, U12 inter county events every year - again autonomous and ungraded

I proposed two years ago they should be graded; using the argument that they pay £54 for affiliation, so they'd get quite a bit of grading done for free. Someone said that if they could find someone prepared to do the work, then they could do it. I volunteered. Having found a volunteer, I was then told that it was "quite nice" to have something that's ungraded, so we shouldn't bother with it. Someone else agreed, and I gave up trying.

NCJS (National Chess Junior Squad) organises England youth teams and plays in Europe - again autonomous but with games graded

This used to be done by the BCF. I understand that Council decided to jettison it after some squad events lost money.

UK Chess Challenge - 70,000 juniors - again autonomous, only the final rounds graded.

Again, it's good that only the final rounds are graded. We don't want the school level Under 7s, a significant proportion of which don't move the pieces correctly some of the time, to be on the grading list. The games are clockless mostly, so they've no place being graded. Some older sections at Megafinals are graded by their organisers, which is acceptable, because a decent chunk of them tend to have grades.

[Neill Cooper]

A few comments:

You give the impression that even though the players, parent's and organisers would like to have games ECF graded you would prefer it if junior games were not ECF graded because some of the players are too weak. Is that the view of Alex Holowczak or the ECF?

A lot of U11 chess, both between school and inter-county, is run by EPSCA (English Primary School Chess Association), which is an autonomous body and grades very few games.

This is good, the players are mostly not good enough to get grades. I attended a Birmingham area event, and at least 1 board in a 5-board match would be Scholar's Mate.

Just to correct the impression you have given of EPSCA. Some of the EPSCA school zones games, particularly U9, will involve weaker players. But the EPSCA school U11 and U9 semi-finals (100+ teams), national finals and EPSCA inter-county events(which involve 100s of children) involve stronger players who play quite respectable games of chess.

[Alex Holowczak]

Not able to reply in detail at the moment, but when I say they're too weak, I mean there will be a chunk of players whose grades will be 0. Coulsdon discovered this with the English Chess Challenge.

[Neill Cooper]

Not able to reply in detail at the moment, but when I say they're too weak, I mean there will be a chunk of players whose grades will be 0. Coulsdon discovered this with the English Chess Challenge.

Thank for your clarification, Alex.

I should also make clear that I was not suggesting that all EPSCA games should be graded. I was responding to David Gilbert's question "Could Junior chess jettison itself from the ECF?" by pointing out much of it was already outside the ECF. I now realise that mentioning grading confused my point.

I think your suggestion of tournaments would be too weak for grading if lots of players get a grade of 0 is clearer and more realistic than your earlier "If the players aren't of sufficient standard to be able to compete at the same standard as the weakest adults in league chess, then I'd wonder whether there's any merit in grading the event at all."

Looking at Kent and Sussex juniors, both have about 200 graded players of whom only a dozen or so have a zero grade. I don't think that is too many. What is more in both counties some leading players started with grade of zero a few years ago. Compared to much junior chess both organisations also keep a reasonable fraction of juniors still playing when teenagers.

So if you agree it is suitable for Kent/Sussex to grade their games then would it not be appropriate to discuss with them (and a few other junior organisations including Wilts Juniors) what would be a pricing structure both the ECF and they were happy with?

[Sean Hewitt]

So if you agree it is suitable for Kent/Sussex to grade their games then would it not be appropriate to discuss with them (and a few other junior organisations including Wilts Juniors) what would be a pricing structure both the ECF and they were happy with?

The problem with such discussions is that in a membership world, the key question is what membership cost would parents be willing to pay - not counties. There also needs to be a recognition that the ECF needs to raise more money after the loss of the DCMS grant.

My suspicion is that the answer to the question posed above is more than junior organisers might well believe. That said, consultation with the right people (i.e. parents and junior organisers) would be a good thing.

[Neill Cooper]

So if you agree it is suitable for Kent/Sussex to grade their games then would it not be appropriate to discuss with them (and a few other junior organisations including Wilts Juniors) what would be a pricing structure both the ECF and they were happy with?

The problem with such discussions is that in a membership world, the key question is what membership cost would parents be willing to pay - not counties. There also needs to be a recognition that the ECF needs to raise more money after the loss of the DCMS grant.

My suspicion is that the answer to the question posed above is more than junior organisers might well believe. That said, consultation with the right people (i.e. parents and junior organisers) would be a good thing.

Good points, Sean. As Paul Bielby has reported, at Northumbria JCA the costs have not been a big problem, but they were already used to ECF membership.

[Alex Holowczak]

Looking at Kent and Sussex juniors, both have about 200 graded players of whom only a dozen or so have a zero grade. I don't think that is too many. What is more in both counties some leading players started with grade of zero a few years ago. Compared to much junior chess both organisations also keep a reasonable fraction of juniors still playing when teenagers.

I'm not sure the two are cause and effect. I don't think Birmingham loses juniors aged 11+ because so few of them had grades pre-11. We lose them usually for external reasons, nothing to do with chess.

Richard James speaks frequently about the hazards of throwing juniors into competitive chess before they're ready to play competitive chess. If they're coming out with grades of 0, then it could be argued that this is happening.