Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 1:15 pm
From the Agenda at the ECF AGM
15 Formation of Working Group on Safe Restarting of ChessTo consider a motion from Cumbria Chess Association and Durham Chess
Association to instruct the ECF Board to form a Working Group:Council resolves:that the ECF Board should convene at the earliest possible opportunity a Working Group comprised of experienced organisers and arbiters, plus qualified medical and health & safety professionals, to encourage and support the safe, socially distanced restart of over-the-board and hybrid (online under arbiter supervision) chess events over the coming year.that the Working Group be available to offer advice to clubs, leagues, congresses and other chess events in completing and publishing Risk Assessments for their venues that comply with government safety guidelines on preventing the transmission of the Covid-19 virus.
I'm not so sure that Over the Board chess will ever restart if it has to be "safe, socially distanced".
In the immediate future, clarity on "Rule of Six" would be necessary, noticing that in this context, more than six English juniors and presumably their parents had been able to assemble in a hotel venue for the recent European Junior online event. Indoor sports such as five a side football have recently been banned, but Chess isn't legally a sport.
The problem for organisers at all levels is accountability. At a basic level; if a pub was found with groups of more than six around a table the persons breaking the rule are at fault but so is the manager/ landlord if he hasn't done anything to challenge them. If it was to happen on a night when the manager wasn't there and a junior member of staff was left in charge then the manager would still ultimately be responsible if that person failed in their duty.
What does that mean for chess? If clubs are meeting in public venues (and complying with the rule of six and any other regulations) then that is an obvious workaround. The question then is what happens if the club meets in a private venue. I initially thought my club could continue along those lines but came around to the view of the wider committee that this was impractical. Ultimately someone at the club has to be responsible for policing it; I'm sure every club will have that one member who has to be reminded every few minutes that he can't wander around the room looking at other games, or an autistic member who doesn't understand the implications.
So the ECF could be advising clubs to meet along those lines. But all it takes is for one club to decide the regulations don't really matter, then the police decide to stick their head in and the response is, `We're following ECF guidelines`. Where does that leave the ECF? So I think the board are right to be very cautious.
A final point. As far as club and league players are concerned the ECF has largely had a `back office` role and if the ECF had tried to assume more direct oversight there would have been considerable hostility towards this. The ECF is, of course, now being criticised for not assuming more direct oversight.