Back to SCCU home page Forum: Mobile Phones & the Laws Forum: Grading
Updated 11.2.09
OPEN FORUM
Open Forum is your vehicle for comment and discussion, and it is open. Anything goes, within the bounds of courtesy and common sense and the libel laws, provided it's got something to do with chess in the SCCU. Or England. Or anywhere, really. It will be assumed, unless you say otherwise, that contributions may also be published in the printed SCCU Bulletin. To contribute, email Richard Haddrell rjh@sccu.ndo.co.uk. Please say where you're from. [Most people ignore that. Oh, well.]
Text is best. Avoid tabs and indents.
From David Lettington
11.2.09
Dear Richard
Re taking photos of children for publication, it is not illegal to take such photos, but good practice would suggest that you get parental permission first before publishing them. On the Information Commissioner's website (www.ico.gov.uk) there is advice for anyone wishing to publish such photos, it's located at http://www.ico.gov.uk/Home/for_organisations/topic_specific_guides/education.aspx.
Many thanks
David Lettington
From Kevin Thurlow
11.2.09
Hi Richard
From your Yearbook review: "the photos too often lack captions, so you can't tell who those junior winners are."
This may be as I'm told it is illegal to print photographs of children and also name them - a child protection issue. The authorities worry that someone will use the information to approach a child and greet him/her by name, then say that they have been told to drive them
home...... (Of course the paedos could just go to a junior tournament and identify players easily!)
But I must say it is irritating to see uncaptioned photos, especially if you are looking at an old magazine.
best wishes
Kevin
rjh: Now I'm worrying about the section of the Yearbook that is full of junior photos with names.
From Cyril Johnson
27.11.08
Richard
I have just read Peter Bayliss posting about punishments for defaulted board in the national Stages. I will implement the following rule in the National Stages, as I have done in previous years.
E15. Should any County, having been nominated by its Union for the Final Stage of any of the Championships and having accepted such nomination in accordance with rule 4, default any game in a match, or any match, it shall be required to reimburse such of its opponent's reasonable expenses which may have been incurred as the Controller may determine; and unless the Controller decides otherwise shall also pay a fine of £5 per game defaulted or £50 (fifty) per match defaulted, such fines being payable to the English Chess Federation.
Regards
Cyril Johnson
Home Director, ECF
From Alasdair MacLeod
14.11.08
Dear Richard,
Firstly, as this is my first posting to this forum, I have to continue with the tradition of complimenting the webmaster on this website which is most informative, so keep up the good work there!
Now on to the point I want to make reading Ian Snape's letter of 08.11.08 where I can sympathise with being the recipient of a default. It is all too common in the club player's life where it has happened to all of us. But it has to be accepted as there is a wide range of reasons for the default.
However, I disagree with his knee-jerk proposed solution of "£50 per defaulted board". If his proposed rule change were applied last season then his own county, Kent, would have to pay £500 in return for the total of 10 defaults made by all Kent teams. I don't think his own county would be too pleased with him for nearly bankrupting them (!) (I have, of course, assumed none of the defaults were prenotified if they are exempt from that rule).
I think that SCCU County Match rules 11(b) is in part a solution that exists: "The defaulting County shall meet the reasonable travelling and other expenses of the opposing team or player. Claims for expenses shall if necessary be approved by the County Match Controller." I don't know if that rule has been applied regularly in practice. I've been fortunate to get a county game every time for the past 3 seasons.
Can I suggest a better alternative to a financial penalty for every defaulted board? I like the London League's rule on defaults where for every 4 defaults made in total, half a match point is deducted. Could this not be applied to SCCU matches? It could well make the difference in qualifying to the National Stages or not.
Of course, there is the separate issue of whether prenotified defaults should be counted in this or not.
Regards,
Alasdair MacLeod
Worcester Park, Surrey
From Ian Snape
[This replaces a summary published earlier by your Webmaster]
10.11.08
Anthony,
My comments [on the Kent-Middx match] were directed at the whole scenario – not you personally. However, there are a couple of points I'd like to make, just to have things clear:
(a) You were wrong to accuse me of inaccuracy. I correctly reported what Chris and I were told by Peter Bayliss. Peter was the only one who spoke to us about what was going on. However, it is clear that some gremlins crept in along the way resulting in a misunderstanding. You will now understand why Chris and I thought that waiving the default time was pertinent - we had been told your players were on their way by public transport.
(b) Neither Chris nor I knew you had offered to pay expenses. The Kent match captain has confirmed it since, with apologies for not telling us at the time. I expect his own game distracted him. The offer is welcome and will be accepted.
Finally, I would like to take forward a proposed change to the rules to include a financial penalty on default at the venue. I look forward to your support and would appreciate Richard's advice on procedure.
Ian
rjh: OK. It must go to a General Meeting of the SCCU, if we are talking about SCCU County matches only, and in practice this means the AGM in June or July 2009. Any County or NCM can propose it, giving due notice. Notice should be accompanied by a precise draft of the rule changes proposed. I think you'd have to include provision for defaults that are genuinely unavoidable.
From Peter Bayliss
10.11.08
Dear Richard,
Having read all the correspondence relating to Saturday's Open match between Kent and Middlesex on your website, I feel that I should comment as (emergency) arbiter.
All concerned in the defaults at the venue on Saturday conducted themselves entirely properly and sensibly. The agreement between the two captains that their mobile phones could remain switched on without penalty while they were awaiting the arrival of missing players was entirely sensible and practical, and was announced by me to both teams at the start of the match. I agree with Laurence Ball's suggestion that this should be in the rules and recommend that the SCCU/ECF should rectify this.
Some defaults are unavoidable. Leaving a broken down car where it is standing rather than awaiting breakdown or repair services may not be an option. The captains and opponents still need to be kept aware of the situation, and the rules should facilitate this.
On the other hand, I am sure that we have all come across plenty of defaults that were avoidable (the phone call at the start to which the response is: Oh! Is it today?) and it is up to the sport's authorities to have proper regulations in place to deal with these and other foreseeable situations that occur. All defaults are disappointing - for the opponents, for team-mates, for those who could have substituted. For the opponents, the cost in terms of travelling cost and waste of time in a local or regional fixture pales into relative insignificance against a default at national level, e.g. County finals where a 400-mile round trip may have been involved. Regulations with teeth against those individuals and teams who default deliberately or negligently or persistently should be in place at the ECF and SCCU. Reimbursement of costs (repeatedly) is in itself not sufficient in such cases.
All major sports authorities have rules and regulatory powers in place to deal with breaches. This is an essential part of a sport acquiring status. The absence of effective regulatory powers at the ECF and SCCU is a major reason why the sport has failed to achieve recognition from government. Too often the response of authorities to players is "Why don't you put up a rule change?" What is needed from the authorities' executives is rather for them to take the initiative in this regard. This would be vastly beneficial in the long-term to the sport and all its huge number of players.
Best wishes
Peter Bayliss
Kent
[rjh: This letter has been shortened, with Peter's permission.]
From Laurence Ball
9.11.08
Hello everybody
I also understand that it must be enormously frustrating to go to the time and effort of being at a game only to not have your opponent arrive.
Perhaps Ian has a point in that a team should be fined for a no-show if it has been indicated that players are expected to arrive. If this did occur there would have to be an avenue of appeal for genuine cases of understandable mishap. Of course it is no fault of the team captain if a player or players do not arrive when they have indicated that they will arrive for a match.
Laurence
Kent I match captain
From Anthony Fulton
9.11.08
Dear Richard,
I am responding to the comment Ian Snape made regarding the players who failed to turn up to the Kent v Middlesex Open match on 8/11/08. The reason why I reply is I am unsure whether the 'real' subject of his comment is the need to tighten up the default rule. Alternatively is the 'real' subject the way I as Middlesex Captain handled the defaults. I am presuming the latter, as there is no need to give a blow by blow account of what happened in the match. It would be sufficient to say, 'After receiving yet another default I feel it time that the SCCU looked at what to do about defaults on the day of the match', or words to that effect.
Ian states 'Chris and I were told that our opponents' car had broken down and they were coming by public transport.' The first part of the statement is true, I was notified at around 1.00pm that my player's car had broken down and this would impact on the person he was giving a lift to. The latter part of the statement is inaccurate and it is with this in mind that I am writing.
In order to avoid unnecessary defaults once it was confirmed that it would not be possible for them to get a lift from anyone else the designated driver and the passenger were advised by me that it would be reasonable for them to consider using public transport. This was reasonable as default time at 3pm, it was only 1.30pm and trains from Charing Cross to Dartford are frequent. I did provide an incentive by stating that being an emergency that their travel expenses could be reimbursed from Middlesex - single fare as it was possible for them to get a lift back to London. Now this is the crux - the option was given and they advised me they would consider it. I could not impel them to travel consequently I could not give any assurance to Kent that they will be turning up. Thus for Ian to say, 'they were coming by public transport' is to overstate the case. I could only wait to see if they would or would not attend and take it from there. Due to the fact that we were in danger of wasting our opponents time I stated that any expenses incurred by the Kent players concerned should be claimed from Middlesex. You will have to discuss with Kent Chess Association / Kent Captain whether the offer will be taken up. [rjh: - I will?]
Any further comments made by Ian are based on the premise that the 'players will be turning up' hence the offer to waive default. Again an incorrect supposition. By 2pm I had still not heard from my players and as travel to Charing Cross will involve using the London Underground it was no surprise when I got no reply to my calls. Prior to the start of the match the Kent captain and I, as ratified by Peter Bayliss, agreed only our mobile phones would be left on in case of players advising of emergencies. My players would not have known this. In fact due to the Rule about Mobile phones - I believe there has been and continues to be lengthy discourse about this matter - it would be reasonable for my players to conclude that once match has started they would not call as I or others could end up defaulting their game. So instead of two defaults there are at least three. Based on the fact that Ian needs to comment yesterday's events this quite possibly would make him even more irate. Once 3pm had rolled around I attempted to contact both players concerned with no luck hence the defaults. The main reason for the conceding the defaults is that even allowing for 'missed train' the journey from Charing Cross is approximately 30mins so it would be reasonable to conclude that within 90mins they could have arrived before the default time.
Having provided clarification of why the games were conceded, it must be asked: Why I am impelled to write? Why am I taking Ian's comments to heart? I know that I seem to be taking this personally but let's face it Ian's comment is at the very least an indirect attack on me. I am conscious that Middlesex have been prone to defaulting in the past however this was in times past. Ian seems to imply that counties and by extension Middlesex are all too willing to have defaults on the day rather than pre-notify. I cannot speak for other counties or other Middlesex captains but certainly in my time as both u175 and Open captain I have a solid track record in ensuring I have a full XVI. Since taking up u175 captaincy in 2006 and Open team captaincy in 2007, I believe when including the current season I have defaulted a total of 5 games. If Ian had the courtesy to check these facts he will realise that it is with a sad heart that I give defaults. Yesterday is the first time either of my teams has conceded a default since the Open match against Surrey in December 2007. In fact on balance Middlesex have been 'sinned against rather than sinned' when considering defaults from SCCU Counties. I am sorry to say Kent's Open team was one of them however I did not feel the need to express my dissatisfaction else as my response shows you get into a 'tit-for-tat' situation which does no-one any good.
In short although I understand Ian's disappointment, frustration and dare I say anger I must state that as the above shows every attempt was made to ensure that defaults were avoided however no guarantees could be given. Further there was an acknowledgment that time and money could be wasted if the defaults had to be effected and certainly the money if not the time could be compensated. If Ian wishes to receive an apology, I am more than happy to provide a public apology via this site:
Ian and Chris, I am sorry that you had a wasted afternoon however it was not without trying. I hope you can accept this apology in the grace in that it was offered and that it puts the matter to bed.
I will end this reply on a positive note, Ian does have my support though if he wishes to move a motion to review what is to be done about defaults on the day.
With regards
Anthony Fulton
Middlesex Open and u175 Captain
From Chris Torrero
8.11.08
In your report on the SCCU Executive Committee Meeting on 3 October you state: "(10) ECF Elections. The Executive had no difficulty deciding which way to cast the Union's vote in the contested election."
Is there any reason why you cannot state the name of the lucky recipient of the vote? Surely those who ultimately fund the SCCU (ie players affiliated to the Member Counties and Non-County Members) have a right to know what is being done in their name.
Chris Torrero
[rjh: - My public reports are not the only source of SCCU information. The Counties and NCMs are represented on the Executive.]
From Ian Snape
8.11.08
Kent v Middlesex (Open), 2 pm today
Richard,
I have just returned from the above. The opponents for Chris Howell and I didn't turn up and were defaulted.
Chris and I were told that our opponents' car had broken down and they were coming by public transport. At 2.45 pm (15 minutes before the official default time) I said to Peter Bayliss (the arbiter) that I would be happy to waive the default time as I was there to play chess. Chris Howell agreed. Peter then put this to the Middlesex captain who immediately said we would be given defaults at 3 pm. The opponents weren't coming after all.
I find this disgraceful and all too prevalent - I think this is the fourth time in the last 2 years an opponent hasn't turned up. Whilst prenotification of defaults before travel is acceptable (just), messing people around by defaulting at the venue isn't.
A financial penalty needs to be applied. I suggest a minimum of £50 per defaulted board (increasing where there is significant travel - National Stages etc) to be paid by the team (in this case Middlesex) who would presumably recover it from the player, if that is where the blame lay.
Ian Snape
Kent
From Chris Majer
29.9.08
Richard,
Responding to points you have raised [see Council preview] regarding the forthcoming ECF Council Meeting. My comments in red.
Regards
Chris
CEO, ECF
(1) "According to the papers of the BCF Council meeting 23.4.05 which set the whole thing up, 'Preliminary soundings... carried out by Melville Rodrigues have established that we could not expect on any basis to secure charitable status with a Board of 20 or so and the recommended figure is under 10.' Perhaps things have changed, but we're a bit surprised to see no mention of the point now."
We have had different advice; which advice is correct, time will tell. In due course the charity commissioners will tell us what changes are necessary for the ECF to obtain charitable status and we will make them even if that means going from ten to nine directors. That is a future problem. The problem that we have today is that we have the largest project ever undertaken by the ECF and it needs someone to take it on now.
(3) "Stewart Reuben's report to Council as ECF Congress Manager includes the following.
'Proposal. That the English Grand Prix be discontinued at the end of the current season, which will be 31 May 2009, unless substantial sponsorship is found.' This proposal is not to be found in the Agenda."
Council expressed the view that the Grand Prix should be discontinued about two years ago. Dave Welch kept it going but as a zero budget item. I had told Stewart that since this was a zero budget item, and had been discussed before it didn't need another Council vote. I presume that Stewart in the general rush to meet the Council deadline forgot to amend his paper.
[rjh: - To be precise, the April Council meeting 2007 considered winding up the Grand Prix at the end of that season (so 31.5.07) but voted instead to continue for one more season and then, failing significant sponsorship, to finish at the end of May 2008. At the following October meeting CEM informed Council that sponsorship had been found, in the form of annual individual trophies, so the GP would continue. Council did not demur. If Stewart now wishes to discontinue it on the ground that the "significant" sponsorship is not substantial, I think it needs to go back to Council.]
"When will the ECF drop the idiotic practice of sending Council papers in hard copy to every single rep without even asking if they'd like it by email? What is the cost, per meeting, in printing and postage and envelopes and Office time?"
Any Council delegate can request this (assuming that I've understood the relevant article), but they do have to formally request it. I'm not aware of any that have so far.
[rjh: - I assume Chris refers to Article 78 (look it up). It's well hidden, and scarcely amounts to asking reps if they'd like papers by email.]
From Gary Cook
25.4.08
Dear Richard
I have to agree with Ken Groce about the ECF's poor record on communicating. I remember an announcement in Dec '06 about the appointment of the ECF Liaison Officer and how they would talk to the Counties, Leagues and ECF delegates and act as a bridge between the directors and the wider chess community. Since then I have not heard a word from or about this person.
Gary Cook
Secretary, North Circular Chess League
From David Lettington
25.4.08
Dear Richard
I have been interested to read the recent discussion relating to the funding of the ECF, and I have a couple of comments. Firstly, I think it is vital to have a body that governs chess in England and co-ordinates national tournaments and develops junior coaching and fulfils many other vital roles and I think that to call for its abolition is complete nonsense.
Whilst it is possible to argue with the allocation of ECF funds to various areas, it is always difficult to understand why, when looking at a raw set of figures, they have been allocated in a particular manner. For example, I would argue that £64,237 is a minuscule amount to devote to junior chess; coaching programmes in other successful chess-playing countries must dwarf this amount.
Although it is true that the majority of chess is played by weekend / league players, it does not follow that this activity should receive the majority of funding. I do not hear village football teams argue that they should receive a big chunk of FA funding. I think that it is down to chess clubs to work hard to ensure that numbers of players do not dwindle. How many clubs really encourage juniors to attend or offer coaching, for example? How many clubs try and get local publicity or organise events to attract new members? The club I play for has grown from 6 members four years ago to around 40 active adult and junior players, thanks to our own efforts. It is very easy to criticise the ECF, but we all need to work hard to support chess in the current climate of "anti-intellectualism", and we cannot expect the ECF to do everything for us.
For England to be a successful chess nation, we also need to give our top players more support. The ECF needs more funds for this function, not less. For many years, England punched above its weight internationally, but we do not seem to be able to do so at the moment, and I put this down, at least partially, to a lack of money at the top of the English game.
I hope, and believe, that those running the ECF do so because they have a passion for the game and wish to see chess flourish and they are not there for their own self-aggrandisement.
The ECF needs money to popularise chess and expand its appeal. If chess players themselves are not prepared to give financial support to the game, then who will? I agree that the ECF needs to work hard to find financial backers and long term sponsors, but I don't imagine that there is a lack of effort in this regard, it is simply very difficult to obtain private finance given the limited media coverage of chess.
Perhaps we need to be more positive and work together towards a common aim, rather than snipe from the sidelines?
Many thanks
David Lettington
From Martin Regan
25.4.08
[this is posted simultaneously with Mr Groce's letter below]
Richard,
I must thank John Philpott for illustrating Mr Keevil's dexterity in manipulating figures.
And also for recognising the importance of the forthcoming debate. Everyone, including Mr Keevil and those who share his views, should be encouraged to contribute to this debate. Hopefully, without rancour.
Martin Regan
From Ken Groce
25.4.08
Richard,
The recent spate of letters on the ECF is interesting.
It is a pity that the word "amusing" has been used to put down Paul Keevil. While Paul is incorrect in some of the detail, the broad thrust of his comments has reflected the views of a great many players.
The ECF appears indifferent and is certainly poor at communicating. It is a fact that many clubs have falling membership and are struggling to survive while a number have folded. In my view, the ECF should be open and clear in what it is doing to support the clubs which are the bedrock of its existence. The state of English Chess is not an amusing matter!
Ken Groce
From John Philpott
25.4.08
Richard
We all have slightly different senses of humour, but I am myself unsure whether to laugh or to cry at the misleading use of figures in Paul Keevil's recent response to Martin Regan. Most blatantly:
(1) " ...the £119,742 spent on 'Management Services' ....this figure incidentally almost double the previous year's £68,988". Do you think that maybe, just maybe, this doubling has something to do with the fact that prior to 21 October 2005 the functions of the ECF were undertaken by a different organisation called the British Chess Federation, so that whereas 2006/7 is a full year, the comparative figures in the ECF accounts relate to a period of just over 6 months.
(2) "Perhaps Mr Regan was amused at the £55,266 that was spent on the British Championship when only a fraction of the membership actually takes part in this event". There is a rather important distinction between gross and net expenditure. Offsetting the expenditure relating to the British Championship was income of £61,096, primarily arising from £26,896 entry fees and £31,957 sponsorship, so far from being a financial burden to the Federation the event made a surplus of £5,830. I am struggling to see why such an outcome should be a cause for concern to the members not taking part in the event.
This is all the more regrettable as the debate about what the ECF is for and what its stakeholders want is important and timely.
John
From Paul Keevil
24.4.08
Dear Sir:
I was interested to learn that the ECF CEO, Martin Regan, found my earlier article amusing. I wonder what part he found the most amusing?
Perhaps it was the fact that there are many clubs, up and down the country, who are struggling to survive whilst the ECF accrued an income of over £319,000 - yet still made a loss!!!
Perhaps he might have been laughing at the amount of money obtained from Juniors, the Unemployed and the Elderly to cover the £119,742 spent on “Management Services” from the 1st May 2006 until the 30th April 2007 (Data: Companies House) – this figure incidentally almost double the previous year's £68,988.
On closer scrutiny of the Profit & Loss Account, registered with Companies House, it appears that £17,688 was spent on Grading when this could have been done more cheaply by FIDE? I certainly wasn’t amused by this.
Perhaps Mr Regan was amused at the £55,266 that was spent on the British Championship when only a fraction of the membership actually take part in the event. Or perhaps he was amused at the £27,583 that was spent on International Chess when only £4800 was spent on Weekend Congresses. I am sure most would consider this being a substantial sum when the vast majority of membership only play League Chess.
What about the £64,237 that was spent on Junior Chess alone? I applaud spending money on Junior Chess but is there a need to spend such a large amount. Juniors are only one part of the membership and this is an incredible amount of money for one group – especially when it is being paid by those who perhaps cannot afford it.
Since 2006, the ECF's Expenditure grew by nearly 300% from £108,832 (2006) to £319,726 (2007). The vast majority of this money being spent on “Management Services”. I am sure many will share my thoughts that this is not in the slightest bit funny and to treat a membership with such contempt would normally warrant an individual to consider their position.
Perhaps Mr Regan, you would be kind enough to relay to your membership why you found it so amusing.
Kind Regards
Paul Keevil
From Martin Regan
23.4.08
Richard,
It was amusing to read Mr Keevil's take on the ECF for all manner of reasons.
However, his underlying argument - that players should not fund the national body - is, I am sure, shared by others. Which is precisely why the ECF is embarking on its membership discussion. The Federation has existed for many, many years and perhaps now is the time to ask... What is it for? And what do its various stakeholders wish it to achieve?
Since the Council Agenda was published, I have been handling various queries which almost entirely revolve around cost. Indeed, Roger de Coverly fancies he has seen a plan which would see the introduction of both a membership and a game fee.
There is no such plan. I can give chess players a Federation model to which they pay a membership fee of £2. I can equally give them a membership fee of £25. What will be proposed will depend entirely on what Council, members and Game Fee payers wish the Federation to actually do. Cost, at this stage, is a complete red herring.
The shape of the Federation in the future will be in the hands of its officials, members, Game fee payers and volunteers.
The only point on which I have a view is that future members should have more of a direct say than at present.
Martin Regan
CEO, English Chess Federation
From Paul Keevil
20.4.08
Dear Sir:
I have read, with interest, some of the comments made regarding membership of the ECF and also in respect to the funding of the organisation via the “Game Fee” and am shocked to read that the ECF raised £97,000 through game fee and memberships in 2007.
As many will know I am an individual who believes that chess should be FREE. This £97,000 has come out of the pockets of many to assist the small minority.
So can chess be free and do we need an ECF?
For the vast majority people register with the ECF (either directly or via an association) so that they may achieve a published rating the following year – and boy do they pay through the nose for it. This may sound a strange question, but why do we need the ECF to sort our ratings out when FIDE can do it and publish them for free? Not only that, they will publish them 4 times per year! (providing your rating is above 1400)!
Here is my solution…..
1. To have a FIDE Rating you have to be a member of a National Chess Federation
2. Here is the “rebellious” bit… Each Association breaks away from the ECF and forms a new “Not for Profit” organisation called Chess England (or something similar) where Membership of Chess England is free to all chessplayers.
3. With little or no membership, the ECF will soon become obsolete and Chess England will replace them as being the national Federation of England.
4. Chess England will not operate local ratings. Instead every tournament or league will be a FIDE Rated event and individuals ratings will be calculated by FIDE – and published 4 times per year.
5. Cost – This is the important bit. Under FIDE Rule A.03.12.2 the cost of a tournament (Average rating 2300) would be 50 Euros (£30) plus 1 extra Euro (60p) per person taking part. To put it another way a double-round league of 4 divisions of 10 teams with each team having 5 members would cost £30 for the event itself plus 200 euros (£120) for the season - £150 for 3600 games – Or 60p to play competitive chess per person for the season
6. At present, using the above example of 4 divisons of 10 teams of 5 players each, you would have a scenario of 200 players playing 18 games of the course of the season (ie 3600 halfgames) multiplied by 46p = £1656. I am not an expert on the ECF game fee and stand to be corrected, but allowing for errors, I would guess that my suggestion works out cheaper.
Some Questions:
Q. What about players who are rated below 1400?
My experience is that players who are rated below 1400 fall into 2 categories. People who play for fun and don’t really worry about their rating. The 2nd category are Juniors who will soon exceed 1400 and (with 4 rating periods) will move up the ladder more quickly as opposed to waiting 12 months.
Q. What about events such as the 4NCL and British Championships – and other Weekend Congresses?
This will not alter. Event Organisers can still run these events and register them in the normal way. 4NCL and British Champs have always been FIDE Rated. Weekend Congresses will become FIDE Rated and will probably work out cheaper.
Q. This appears a “radical” idea.
Yes it is. But sometimes radical ideas are so simple that they get overlooked.
As a result of some recent good fortune, I have had a lot of time to think about this scenario and really feel it is workable. Why should £97,000 be taken out of the pockets of English Chessplayers? Chess, for most, is an amateur game and it should be free (or as close to as possible). Yes, this is a radical but it is workable, cheap and will provide 4 rating lists as opposed to one!
Regards
Paul Keevil
From Roger de Coverly
18.4.08
John Wheeler reminds us of the days of levy fees and the WECU attempt at nonpublishing grades. Game Fee made things a lot simpler!
We've been discussing Memberships on the basis that the proposal was to replace a per-play fee with a per-head fee. On the face of it, this has to be a high risk strategy since out of about 13000 active players only about 3500 play more than 20 games. If you scrapped game fee you would lose the financial contribution of leagues and county matches arising from the frequent players and would be attempting to replace it by collecting £20 or so a head from the 9500 less active. I call this a high risk strategy because the less frequent players may not oblige by becoming members and might either go unrated (if even allowed to play) or give up competition chess entirely.
Reading the report of the recent board meeting on the ECF site makes me now wonder if the board are looking for both a per-game and a per-head fee. They say "the ECF was not well enough resourced to deliver its agreed budget plan and felt that the move towards a universal membership scheme must happen sooner rather than later". In management speak "resourced" is usually code for money so the ECF directors would like to spend more money. They don't actually say that they propose to scrap the game fee system.
Looking at the grading statistics prompts another observation. The ECF raised about £97,000 (£85,000 after expenditure on direct members) from game fee and memberships in 2007 (ECF yearbook page 7). If you apply the full game fee rate (46p/23p) to the stats for games played on the SCCU grading page you would get an income of about £110,000 a year with any memberships you can sell on top of this. I've long thought that there were too many exemptions in the game fee system and that a simple system may be better where, if your event contains 100 players of 5 rounds, then you just pay £230 to the ECF and that's it. You're also indirectly collecting from the Scots, Welsh and Irish (and Germans, Russians etc.) It could be made compatible with a membership organisation since if you played frequently you could become a voting member for next to nothing. Just imagine it - a federation controlled by the 1900 A-grade players.
Roger de Coverly
From John Wheeler
18.4.08
Richard,
Non-publication of grades for non-payers [see letters below, and preview 27.3.08 of the April Council meeting] was in fact tried by the WECU for one season only, sometime during the 1980s. As an attempt to get players to pay their fees, it was a total failure.
The owners of the *** grades were not in the least inconvenienced, as they soon found out what their grades were.
But their opponents (usually paid-up members) were punished in every match against them, by not knowing the strength of the opposition.
Those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it. I hope this will not be the case with the ECF. Membership schemes could be another example - they remind me of the old levy, when it became almost impossible to collect £1 for the BCF from players. Maybe collecting £10 will make it more acceptable? Or will we have to invent Game fee all over again?
Best wishes,
John Wheeler
Cosham
From Neil Graham
17.4.08
As regards Sean Hewitt's post, as an MCCU Under 150 captain I was made aware of the situation at the start of March. I took up the matter with the relevant MCCU official and was assured that he had contacted the ECF and found that an error had been made. I can see no reason why teams in the MCCU would think that there would be only one Under 150 nominee following this. I fully concur with Sean's other point relating to the "provisional" draw and have said as much on the ECF Forum. I have received some communication from the ECF recently relating to this which I might discuss later.
Neil
From Sean Hewitt
15.4.08
Richard,
Given the ridiculous number of changes to the ECFs "provisional" County Championship draw, I wonder what advantage there is in publishing such a draw before it is finalised.
In the MCCU, one U150 team captain, armed with the knowledge from the ECF website that there was only one MCCU team in the draw, instructed his player to decline a draw offer (that would have drawn the match) and play for a win. The player did as he was told, and subsequently lost (so losing the match 7.5-8.5). Had he accepted the draw, the drawn match would have given his team 2nd place in the MCCU event and they would have qualified for the 2nd place that was missing in the draw.
Sean Hewitt
MCCU Events Director
From Tim Spanton
28.3.08
Roger says a Universal Membership Scheme is the way it's done in France. I don't know about that, but it's certainly the way it is in the US. Indeed, foreigners have to join the USCF to play there, at least in major tournaments (but then a year's membership is relatively cheap and includes a subscription to a quality glossy mag).
I guess it all boils down to how we pay for the ECF. A game fee seems fair since you pay per game whereas a membership scheme is a sort of poll tax. Then again, at present I as a player in Fide-rated tournaments have the privilege of paying both the game fee and the poll tax. And I think they're both a bargain!
Tim Spanton
London
From Roger de Coverly
28.3.08
Quote [see preview 27.3.08 of the April Council meeting]: "The Board has become convinced that the future of the ECF depends on a Universal Membership Scheme"
Doesn't this mean that you would need to be a member of the ECF to have permission to play competition chess? It's that way in France - if French you need to be a member of a "chess club" to play in French tournaments.
I've long thought that certain elements in the ECF think that there are far too many unruly chess players and would like to use every endeavour to discourage new and infreqent participation. It's a concern that some of the board of the ECF hardly play any competition chess - therefore don't have any personal stake in ensuring its continuation.
Whether I would personally retire if such a scheme was adopted is unlikely - but I would have every sympathy with a league or congress which closed or went ungraded because it refused to insist on ECF membership for every player.
Quote [same place]: "Our private information is that it means grades are calculated for everyone, but the grades of non-Members are replaced by *** in the published grading list"
I cannot see that refusing to publish the grades of non-members is any sort of compromise. If the grades didn't leak you could not run swiss pairings or a graded restricted competition.
Roger de Coverly
From Stewart Reuben
26.12.07
To make it absolutely clear to David Shepherd. Richard is quite correct, it is 10.2d to which I object, not 10. I introduced quickplay finishes to the world in 1973. This meant that adjudications were no longer necessary, and many of you already know they are an absolute anathema to me. (That is being polite.)
It would be better still, with today's equipment, to use the cumulative mode. It may be because of lack of equipment, the organisers have insufficient digital clocks to use this mode on all boards. But they could introduce such a clock late in the game and have an add-on of 5 seconds per move. As far as I know, this is only done in the US. Then there is no need for a quickplay finish. If a player cannot defend a position with 5 seconds per move, he does not deserve a draw. It is nonsense to claim that it is too expensive to buy one digital clock for every 10 games.
Stewart Reuben
Twickenham
rjh: May I expand on one of Stewart's remarks? I think he has answered, in one sentence, a number of David's reservations about Item 10.
"If a player cannot defend a position with 5 seconds per move, he does not deserve a draw."
Even without added time, this comes close to being a definition of "impossible to win by normal means". You get your draw if the arbiter thinks you can draw it at will more or less without thinking. The moment it's hard enough to require serious thought, your claim fails. Never mind if it's a theoretical draw. Never mind if you're winning, for that matter. Neither is sufficient if it requires serious thought.
I can't think Stewart would disagree with this.
From David Shepherd
10.12.07
Thanks Stewart. Your comments were very helpful.
The main problem I see with the rule is that for any given position the arbiter must interpret "win by normal means" - suppose for example a bishop and pawn is added to the rook in your example - at what point does the possibility of a win by normal means become available - I guess there can never be any set answer to that and hence the problem with the rule.
The rule also seems unfair to me as it may give protection against losing on time to a player who is slightly ahead but used their time badly, but no protection against losing on time to a player who is slightly behind.
Also I would question "normal means" under what time scale - how often have blunders been made, even by the best players, when they only have about 20 seconds left on the clock. What are the odds of a player blundering in a given position when he is ahead but has 20 seconds left compared to an opponent who is behind but has 5 minutes left?
Anyway I guess the clear problems in implementing the rule are part of the reason that you were against its introduction.
Best wishes
David
rjh: I think what Stewart opposed was the introduction of (d), taking away the right of appeal.
From Stewart Reuben
9.12.07
David Shepherd asked a question regarding 10.2 of the Laws concerning Quickplay finishes. Let us take a specific example. White has King and Queen and Black has King and Rook. The claimant always has less than 2 minutes left on his clock.
(1) Black claims a draw when first entering into this endgame. It is rejected and White receives an extra 2 minutes.
(2) After some time, the arbiter has been observing the play. Black claims and there is some justification that White has not been trying to win, just moving aimlessly. The most likely decision is to play on, award no penalty and, if later you believe White is indeed making no effort, award the draw.
(3) White is very short of time and claims the draw. Award it immediately. Black certainly has mating material, but it is very unlikely he can win by normal means. Why not play on? Because then White can play to win without risk of losing.
Are these answers absolute? Indeed not. Another arbiter might rule differently and uniquely there is no right of appeal. Geurt Gijssen the Chaiman and I, the Secretary, of the Rules and Tournament Regulations Committee, disagreed with 10.2d, but that's democracy for you.
Stewart Reuben
From David Shepherd
23.11.07
Richard
Were any conclusions reached on the two minute rule?1 - it seem to me that it is there to stop player A running player B out of time in a drawn position.
However suppose player A has 2 seconds left with queen rook and 2 pawns, player B has 1 minute left with queen rook and 2 pawns and then blunders a rook in the time scramble. Assuming the position is clearly won for player A but he has no time to win it can he claim a draw on the two minute rule as player A cannot win by "normal means"? What is normal means?
If the answer is no would it be different if the position on the board were such that player B's king could not escape from repeated checks from player A.
I believe the rule is meant to avoid wins in drawn positions, but my question essentially is - can it be used to avoid losses on time in won positions. If it cannot what is to stop the winning player giving up his pieces to obtain a drawn position - what would that say for the game. Is it fair that a player who has used their time resource badly has the get out of a draw if they are winning but would otherwise lose on time?
Best wishes
David Shepherd
Ashtead
1 This is a good way down the page, starting somewhere round here.
From Paul Buswell
27.10.07
Player B wins, surely? Player A had resigned without accepting the draw. I'm not sure Player B is under any obligation to ensure that the opponent 'hears' the draw offer.
Paul Buswell PBusw13724@aol.com
(though not an experienced arbiter)
By the way, Richard, what is wrong with adjournments if both players, and the event, are happy?
rjh: Nothing. I just don't like them. Mind you I'm not sure how often both players are happy.
To answer the other one, since no one else has, I don't see what an arbiter or anyone else could do except treat these accidents as "evident defects of the clock" (Laws, 6.11) and do what the players did.
From Martin Benjamin
24.10.07
In recent club matches, the following two events have occurred. I would be interested to hear if the first in particular had been experienced by anyone else. How best should these be resolved?
Playing with digital clocks:
In one match recently, after about 45 minutes play, a player inadvertently pressed the “mode” button and thereby inadvertently reset the clock completely. In another recent match, in a time scramble with both players down to two minutes or less, the clock display died and then, on inspection when lifted up, came back on as though it had just been switched on (we think the batteries must have become dislodged when one player accidentally moved the clock slightly). In both cases, all the players behaved in sporting fashion and reset the clocks to what they though to be the correct time remaining for each player. However, with less sporting players, this could present a real problem. How should this be solved in most “normal” games (i.e. with no arbiter present)? Even with an arbiter present, in most weekend tournaments, an arbiter could not possibly the follow the time progress of each and every game anyway.
Adjournment communication:
Player A adjourned a pawn down with a worse position to boot against player B. Rather than facing another evening out and a journey to play on a game he was likely to lose after a couple of hours, Player A later left a message on Player B’s mobile phone to say that he was resigning. However, the match result was no longer in doubt following other adjournments, so rather than “facing another evening out and a journey to grind out a win etc,” as above, Player B sent an offer of a draw to Player A. Shortly afterwards, Player B checked his messages and found his opponent’s resignation! Any views from experienced arbiters? Loss or draw?
Martin Benjamin
London
rjh: loss for both sides, for having an adjournment?
From Kevin Thurlow
17.10.07
Dear Richard
Some people may have been puzzled by the reference to Surrey and Silverstone in today's SCCU report. This year's final was the same day as qualfiying for the British Grand Prix. Despite the fact that qualifying would have been well underway by the time we drove past Silverstone on the M1, and all the spectators would already be there, some Surrey players decided to take a rather circuituous route to avoid the "traffic". They then found traffic on the other route (as announced on the radio) and we had a hatful of defaults, and duly lost both finals. Lancashire and Middlesex all turned up unfortunately. There is a school of thought in some parts of Surrey that the defaults were somehow caused by the ECF. This seems harsh - it may not be sensible for Surrey and Middlesex to go all the way to Leicester to play, but both sides have roughly the same journey. Obviously, anyone can get stuck in traffic and default - it has happened to me, but I didn't try to blame someone else!
best wishes
Kevin Thurlow Kjt2300@aol.com
Earlier material (lots of it) is in the Archive.
Back to top
Back to SCCU home page