2011 AGM: October 15th

[Roger de Coverly]

If Scarborough had been rated via the ECF, then the Scottish players' membership status was an issue for Chess Scotland, not ECF.

Hastings 2010-2011 said

All English entrants are required to be members of the English Chess Federation and must quote their membership number when entering. Other entrants are required to be members of a national federation affiliated to FIDE.

I agree that could mean anything you want it to mean in the context of the FIDE interpretation of membership as national affiliation. You could however interpret that as an entry condition that Scottish players were required to be Chess Scotland members. The London Chess Classic implies similar.

I'm suggesting you should apply the £6 universally.

It would be entirely consistent with the principle of a universal membership scheme to demand an annual membership fee of £ 18 as the price of being allowed to enter an English tournament. In practice the ECF propose to dilute the full requirement by allowing single tournaments for non-members at a third of the annual price. It's an issue with a national membership scheme as to the extent to which you apply it, if at all, to non residents and resident non-nationals.

[Stewart Reuben]

Some years ago the London League was FIDE Rated. After two years this was dropped because the players didn't favour it. One reason for that is that players thought the playing conditions were inadequate for the purpose.

[E Michael White]

Under OMOV, I suppose individual members would elect the board by postal (or online?) ballot.

Apart from this what role would there be for the existing constituent units/ counties/ leagues/ congresses (if any)? Would there be a role for some sort of representative body to check up on what the board is up to? What powers would such a body have and how would it be composed/ elected?

If we are going to go down the road of OMOV in the near future, these questions need to be answered.

I suspect the original 1904 federated constitution was a product of cost practicalities of meeting attendance and the cheapest solution in the absence of cars was to send a local representative to the meetings. We need no longer be restrained to a federated model.

As communications are now better, particularly e:mail, OMOV could be brought in and operate smoothly. I expect the way it might work is that members would grant others their proxy votes to attend meetings. A local representative might attend with say 150 proxy votes. This being the likely course the existing voting method could be realigned to get closer to this as an intermediate step.

For example if all single votes in council become worth 30 votes local leagues could, after a local AGM, instruct their representative to vote say 74 for and 46 against to reflect their members wishes. The ECF is really a collection of unincorporated associations so this voting method sits more comfortably with that concept. The ECF bit at the top is a CLBG to prevent directors being sued and is otherwise unhelpful in determining the most appropriate voting method.

[Sean Hewitt]

Better players don't like risking their FIDE ratings in weekenders. That is a statement of fact.

Oh no it isn't!

At our last event (for example) we had 55 players in the Open. Of these, nearly half (24) were rated 2100 or above and 10 were titled. In fact, many players tell me that the reason they play e2e4 events is

a) They are FIDE rated
b) They are strong
c) The playing conditions are excellent

The only factual statement that you can make about the survey that you refer to is that players who currently play at Scarborough do not want the event to be FIDE rated. What you don't know (and it would be difficult to measure) is how many players don't play Scarborough because it is not FIDE rated?

[Alex McFarlane]

No, I can point to Scottish events where the attendance went down when FIDE rating was introduced. I can produce statements from titled players stating that they are not playing because an event was FIDE rated.

There are obviously more titled and strong players in the south. A few refusing to play in the north makes a considerable difference to the event. Not only do these players avoid the event but others hoping to meet them also then avoid the event.

There is a culture difference that doesn't seem to be fully understood.

[Alex Holowczak]

The only factual statement that you can make about the survey that you refer to is that players who currently play at Scarborough do not want the event to be FIDE rated. What you don't know (and it would be difficult to measure) is how many players don't play Scarborough because it is not FIDE rated?

This is roughly what I said here:

The statement of fact is that Scarborough has rejected FIDE-rating, because you only asked the people who played at Scarborough. You didn't ask anyone else their opinion.

Great minds think alike? Fools seldom differ?

[Alex Holowczak]

No, I can point to Scottish events where the attendance went down when FIDE rating was introduced. I can produce statements from titled players stating that they are not playing because an event was FIDE rated.

As I said, you're not FIDE-rating an event to encourage titled players to play. You're FIDE-rating an event to encourage the players lower down who want to improve their ratings. Titled players will only play in congresses usually if you give them free entry or conditions. These conditions may increase if their FIDE-rating is on the line. Perhaps in Scotland, the conditions may be £0 if it's not FIDE-rated. That's a good thing!

If you're not getting enough new players interested by FIDE-rating the event, then naturally, it's not worth it.

Once you've weighed up what the point of your tournament is (e.g. to have titled players play, to encourage the growth of FIDE-rated chess), you can decide which path you want to go down.

There are obviously more titled and strong players in the south. A few refusing to play in the north makes a considerable difference to the event. Not only do these players avoid the event but others hoping to meet them also then avoid the event.

There is a culture difference that doesn't seem to be fully understood.

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?

Blackpool and Scarborough are freakish congresses. They get their massive fields because of the social side of the event. People go to those events for the social atmosphere, not for FIDE-rating points. For that reason, FIDE-rating Blackpool or Scarborough would be a bad thing, I think. It wouldn't be in keeping with what the tournament is trying to achieve.

It may well be that FIDE-rating hasn't caught on in the North or in Scotland. That's fair enough.

[Alex McFarlane]

Ah! Right now I understand what you are saying Alex H. The ECF wants to penalise events which have a social atmosphere and promote those which are more serious.

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.

[Roger de Coverly]

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.

Under the proposals it will cost an English League-only player an extra £ 15 to play in a FIDE rated event. That's actually a price cut, this year it would cost £ 27. The same applies to domestically rated events at the British Championships. For that matter an English player with an ENG rating living and playing in Scotland in internationally rated events would be expected to pay £ 27 to the ECF, even for nil games.

If there's a rationale, it's because they can get away with it. The charges don't seem to put off players in the South, Midlands and West from playing in e2e4 events and the 4NCL. When the BCF first introduced the charges for playing in internationally rated events, rated players were almost unrepresented on the BCF Council.

[Alex Holowczak]

Ah! Right now I understand what you are saying Alex H. The ECF wants to penalise events which have a social atmosphere and promote those which are more serious.

No, that isn't what I said. I said that Scarborough and Blackpool are a different model, and that's fine.

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've explained why I think they should. So we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Alex McFarlane]

I saw your explanation - I failed to understand the logic of it as regards weekend events. There is no foreign player rule for rated events only for norm events.

As English players will pay more for the appropriate membership I could understand (just) their paying less to play in FIDE rated events but I don't understand why that should apply to foreign players.

I have to admit that in recent weeks much of the logic shown by the Board eludes me.

[Alex Holowczak]

Theres nothing freakish about either congress's, players go because they are exceptionally well run in nice venues. Yes the location of the venues help but I dont accept we go for the social atmosphere,whatever you think that is, we go because we like the chess!

People go to Scarborough and Blackpool because they are good events, yes, but also because they know 300 other people (give or take) will there. That's their great selling point.

The tournament's are not 'trying' to achieve anything they achieved it long ago!

A tournament has to have an underlying aim, or else it won't run itself properly. FIDE-rating Blackpool and Scarborough wouldn't work. It makes sense for other events, though. Blackpool and Scarborough have a reputation of being well-run, well-attended events held in a nice location, that congress players go to for a weekend break as well as a chess congress. Therefore, you don't need the more "serious" aspect of FIDE-rating it for it to be a success. It's doing something that's completely different - but equally valid - from something like e2e4.

The vast majority of chess players who help fund the ECF are not pro's or remotely interested in FIDE ratings.

Are you sure they're not interested in FIDE-ratings? The vast majority of players over 2000 are very interested in FIDE-ratings. e2e4 has shown this.

Blackpool and Scarborough are very well attended for the reasons I give but also because the prize money does not differeniate between those in the top section and the those in the bottom.The sections have equal prize money- no second class citizens! Rightly so because it is the Major/Intermediate/Minor sections that help fund the events.

The vast majority of congresses follow the same model, and subscribe to the same ideals. It's certainly not unique to Blackpool and Scarborough. I don't think these are reasons that set it apart from the crowd.

[Alex Holowczak]

I saw your explanation - I failed to understand the logic of it as regards weekend events. There is no foreign player rule for rated events only for norm events.

A foreigner racking up in Edinburgh to play in a congress will have to pay more than a Chess Scotland player. The difference is only the amount.

How many, in absolute terms, Scottish players turned up at Scarborough last year? And what was the total entry?

[Mick Norris]

Did the Manchester Autumn Congress had a FIDE-rated Open?

The congress was run by Harry Lamb, who agrees with Alex McF and not me!

[Roger de Coverly]

FIDE-rating Blackpool and Scarborough wouldn't work. .

I don't know about Scarborough, but Blackpool was one of the first, if not the actual first, as a British weekender to take advantage of the relaxation of FIDE rules which enabled weekend events to be rated. They also established a precedent for not just rating the top section. All of this was a year or few before e2e4.

Then they abandoned the practice of having it rated. Was it the expense of FIDE charges, the requirement that players had to be ECF members, or something else? The March 2007 event was rated as was 2008. In 2009, it looks as if they stopped.

2004 looks to have been the first event with the top section rated.