If you think the ECF has problems ...

[Stewart Reuben]

Alex and others have overlooked another reason for joining the ECF, or their national federation. If Alex is registered for Wales, then it is their rules he should be responding to.
The reason is that this is one way of supporting the national organisation. If you are uninterested in international chess; the developing of all players including: junior, female, senior, disabled, regional; don't care about the umbrella organisation provided; don't care about grading; and don't care about the public image of the game - then the national organisation has virtually nothing to offer. So why support it?
1. It is self-interest. The number of people taking part in your local league or go to your club will continually diminish. In the case of a youngster like Alex, surely that should be a matter of some concern and he should take the long term view.
2. Many of the administrators in chess do support one or more of the objectives mentioned above. You need those people so that you can play competitive chess. They deserve your support.
Whether the ECF or any other voluntary organisation is competent is quite another issue. But it can only be as good as its voluntary officers and professional employees. You have only to compare with our national government to realise that the ECF is reasonably well-served here.
Stewart Reuben

[John Upham]

You have only to compare with our national government to realise that the ECF is reasonably well-served here.
Stewart Reuben

Which body are you complimenting if any Stewart?

[Michele Clack]

If you are uninterested in international chess; the developing of all players including: junior, female, senior, disabled, regional; don't care about the umbrella organisation provided; don't care about grading; and don't care about the public image of the game - then the national organisation has virtually nothing to offer. So why support it?

Most people look at the benefits before they pay for something. I contend that apart from grading the ECF does very little for chess at club level. Personally I am a member of the ECF and I am very grateful to all those people who give up their time to it. However, to flourish the ECF needs to catch the imagination of all chess players of whatever standard. Chess in the Midlands is on a very sticky wicket at the moment and I've got to say that I don't think the existence or otherwise of the ECF makes much difference to that. Even the grading system could probably be replaced in some way. I know Andrew Farthing is asking for suggestions of what sort of things the ECF could do to improve their effectiveness and I intend to give this some thought and hopefully other people will too.

I am very keen for top players to have more opportunities but for this to happen there needs to be a much bigger chessplaying base. Chess in schools needs to be encouraged and the ECF seem to be trying to address this. However, I cannot see any initiatives to help clubs coming from the ECF. Indeed removing the link to this forum from the ECF website seems counterproductive. It can be very informative and I have learned a lot from reading it. Reading posts from people like Stuart has made me more interested in the ECF workings. It is also a good way to communicate with other previously unknown players. We have hopefully recruited a new player for Worcestershire next season through this forum. Without the link on the ECF website fewer people will find it. We live in an electronic age and to attract the club players of the future we need to embrace the power of the internet.

So on balance I think Alex's, I suspect slightly tongue in cheek, comments are perfectly valid.

[Alex Holowczak]

I don't know who I'm registered to at the moment!

I've taught loads of people how to play chess, in all of the subgroups you listed. The umbrella organisation at local league level was zero amongst the juniors, indeed we had to do it ourselves. So, we have to do all of the teaching, all of the organisation, and then pay the ECF to do something that has nothing to do with what I'm doing, which exists independently of the ECF?

I don't care about the grades that much; the other thread has proved that it's virtually impossible to get an accurate system. You'll always get people graded inaccurately, and in July I may make this point in more detail depending on what the new grades are published as. I'd enter just as many tournaments if they were ungraded.

I understand the importance of supporting the ECF, but virtually no one ever comes into contact with it, unless you're a really strong player. It's difficult to pay for something that seems to have no effect.

Two questions:

Suppose Michael Adams and Nigel Short stop paying their fee to be members of the ECF, for whatever reason. They can't take part in the Olympiad, or other FIDE tournaments representing England. Would the ECF let them become members for free, so they can play at things like the Olympiad?

How much is membership of the other FIDE member nations? I think it'd be useful to compare ECF membership to that of nations around the world. E.g. it would be unreasonable to charge £16 to be an ECF member if people in Russia pay £8 to the Russian equivalent of the ECF.

Also, I only stumbled across this on the 4NCL website, and that was by clicking on the wrong link...

[JustinHorton]

How much is membership of the other FIDE member nations? I think it'd be useful to compare ECF membership to that of nations around the world. E.g. it would be unreasonable to charge £16 to be an ECF member if people in Russia pay £8 to the Russian equivalent of the ECF

Well not really, Alex, because incomes are much lower in Russia.

Comparisons might be useful but they might also be unhelpful, not just for the reasons I mention above, but because systems are different in different places. I'm a registered chessplayer in Spain,, for instance, I have a grading that is different from my FIDE grading, but I've never filled in a form to pay any money directly either to the national or to the regional federation. I think part of their funding may come out of my club subscription, but I don't actually know that and I also think that they may receive state support because chess is considered a sport here. (But I don't actually know that either!)

For what it's worth I just renewed my ECF subscription despite the fact that I live abroad, and that I will probably play no games in the UK in the coming season. (I'm also currently unemployed, as it goes, and therefore not swimming in money.) I pay because I think chess is a cause I want to support and because if I wish to comment on how the federation is performing I think I probably ought to divvy up. I'd hope other people will too.

[Alex Holowczak]

How much is membership of the other FIDE member nations? I think it'd be useful to compare ECF membership to that of nations around the world. E.g. it would be unreasonable to charge £16 to be an ECF member if people in Russia pay £8 to the Russian equivalent of the ECF

Well not really, Alex, because incomes are much lower in Russia.

I just picked a random country, and that was the first one that sprung to mind... You're right.

I'm a registered chessplayer in Spain,, for instance, I have a grading that is different from my FIDE grading, but I've never filled in a form to pay any money directly either to the national or to the regional federation. I think part of their funding may come out of my club subscription, but I don't actually know that and I also think that they may receive state support because chess is considered a sport here. (But I don't actually know that either!)

If Spain can do that then, why can't we?

[Roger de Coverly]

I'm a registered chessplayer in Spain,, for instance, I have a grading that is different from my FIDE grading, but I've never filled in a form to pay any money directly either to the national or to the regional federation. I think part of their funding may come out of my club subscription, but I don't actually know that and I also think that they may receive state support because chess is considered a sport here. (But I don't actually know that either!)

If Spain can do that then, why can't we?

We can and we do (or used to). It's called Game Fee. It's a system whereby payments are made to the ECF on the basis of the number of games played. So it would be paid by leagues and congresses rather than individuals. Some of those involved with the ECF, including directors, are opposed to it.

[Stewart Reuben]

The variation in support from the government from federation to federation is enormous worldwide. Greece, Spain and Turkey receive much greater support than does England. USA receives none at all.
In Spain municipalities are expected to support cultural and sporting events. I believe in Spain chess comes under both headings. That is why they have many longer tournaments around the country.
In the US philanthropic support for worthy activities is muh higher than in England due to the favourable tax regime and also because it is socially more common. In England people are not so generous because the State seeks to provide and thus it is left to the government.
Some very small federations are supported entirely from the pocket of one individual.
Sponsorship used to be an excellent source of finance for England. Alas now it is very low.
chess is not a particularly popular game in English-speaking countries. It is far more popular in Russian, Spanish and German speaking countries and all the previous Iron Curtain countries.

There have been various ways in which financial support has been raised from the players for chess in England. In my opinion both membership and game fee are good and logical ways to raise revenue. Both were originally my proposals. The system is fair and has remained reasonably stable for about 25 years. Sean Hewitt is against game fee because he sees it as a tax on chess activity. I thi nk it is logical that the more you play, the more you pay. Others dislike the membership system. Both have the disadvantage that VAT at 15% has to be levied. Devise a better system and we can change to it.

Both Michel Adams and Nigel Short are members. It would not matter if they did not cough up the small fee. It would simply be deducted from fees they receive when they do represent us.

Stewart Reuben

[Alex Holowczak]

The variation in support from the government from federation to federation is enormous worldwide. Greece, Spain and Turkey receive much greater support than does England. USA receives none at all.
In Spain municipalities are expected to support cultural and sporting events. I believe in Spain chess comes under both headings. That is why they have many longer tournaments around the country.
In the US philanthropic support for worthy activities is muh higher than in England due to the favourable tax regime and also because it is socially more common. In England people are not so generous because the State seeks to provide and thus it is left to the government.
Some very small federations are supported entirely from the pocket of one individual.
Sponsorship used to be an excellent source of finance for England. Alas now it is very low.
chess is not a particularly popular game in English-speaking countries. It is far more popular in Russian, Spanish and German speaking countries and all the previous Iron Curtain countries.

There have been various ways in which financial support has been raised from the players for chess in England. In my opinion both membership and game fee are good and logical ways to raise revenue. Both were originally my proposals. The system is fair and has remained reasonably stable for about 25 years. Sean Hewitt is against game fee because he sees it as a tax on chess activity. I thi nk it is logical that the more you play, the more you pay. Others dislike the membership system. Both have the disadvantage that VAT at 15% has to be levied. Devise a better system and we can change to it.

Both Michel Adams and Nigel Short are members. It would not matter if they did not cough up the small fee. It would simply be deducted from fees they receive when they do represent us.

Stewart Reuben

Fees they receive when they represent us? So you have to pay them to play for England in things like the Olympiad? Or do their fees just cover their expenses? If so, when we can we expect to read said expenses in full on the ECF website?

As for the Game Fee, I agree that it is the logical way to raise money (if it has to be raised at all), it certainly makes more sense than a blanket rise for everyone.

Do the ECF plan to put pressure on the Government with a view to increasing the funding of chess in the UK? With the supposed educational benefits, there is a "selling point" that they might like to listen to.

[Roger de Coverly]

Fees they receive when they represent us? So you have to pay them to play for England in things like the Olympiad? Or do their fees just cover their expenses? If so, when we can we expect to read said expenses in full on the ECF website?

Top players are "professional" in that they have no other source of earnings other than chess playing and other chess related activities. As a consequence it has long been established that the ECF usually pays a fee in representative events which goes beyond just payment of expenses. The exact amounts to individual players are not disclosed but except to the extent they are covered by external sponsorship and government grants, the amounts spent on "International" are a considerable drain on the ECF's resources and can be seen in the ECF accounts. In perspective though, the amounts involved are less than some footballers earn in a week.

It would be possible to send an "amateur" team to such events - In the past budgets for the Euro championships have sometimes resulted in the team being selected on the basis of "the strongest possible for the money available". In practice such teams tend to struggle to finish above "insert name of chess minnow". The Scots only get (government) money for their Olympiad teams so they are usually at full strength. Their Euro teams have to be mostly paid for by the players themselves, so they are restricted to IMs and FMs well off enough to be chess tourists.

[Sean Hewitt]

Sean Hewitt is against game fee because he sees it as a tax on chess activity. I thi nk it is logical that the more you play, the more you pay.

That's partly correct. I also dislike the Chess Prevention Tax because it's a stealth tax (most players don't even realise that they are paying it, let alone how much it is) and because it disenfranchises players. Membership would bring benefits to the ECF that Game Fee simply cannot - such as an increased numbers of members (obviously) and a sense of belonging to the Federation. Of course, that does mean that the Federation must be something that players would want to belong to, but membership would force the Federation to change and be something that the players actually wanted and valued. With game fee there is no need to worry what the customer thinks!

As for the Game Fee, I agree that it is the logical way to raise money (if it has to be raised at all), it certainly makes more sense than a blanket rise for everyone.

See what I mean? Stealth Tax in Operation!

Alex, game fee has been rising at significantly more than 5% per year for the last 6 years that I know of. Everyone has to pay it if they play in an event that's graded so game fee gives you a "blanket rise for everyone" that is above inflation every year that you really have little choice but to pay, or play less chess. And the numbers suggest that people play less chess year on year.

With membership it's true that players can vote with their wallets. But give them something that they want and value at a price below what they think it's worth and you are onto a winner.

We do this in Leicestershire with ECF membership via our MO. We have made it entirely optional for a player to join the ECF, but we now run a number of additional events that we couldn't have afforded to under game fee regime. Members don't have to pay to play in these events (non-members can play too, but they have to pay a fee equivalent to game fee. Hardly any do). The vast majority of Leicestershire players now choose to join the ECF (locally, membership has increased by over 500%) and we have increased chess playing activity by 25%. Our payments to the ECF are slightly higher than they would be under game fee too.

Now that's what I call a win win, and that's why I believe that Game Fee should be scrapped.

[Ian Thompson]

Alex, game fee has been rising at significantly more than 5% per year for the last 6 years that I know of. Everyone has to pay it if they play in an event that's graded so game fee gives you a "blanket rise for everyone" that is above inflation every year that you really have little choice but to pay, or play less chess. And the numbers suggest that people play less chess year on year.

I'm curious to know which 6 years you know about. In September 2004 game fees were 44p. Since then, they have increased by 1p or 2p per year, all of which are less than 5% per year.

I find it difficult to believe that the cost of game fees is a significant factor in people's decisions on how much chess they play. The total game fees I pay in a year is small compared to the total cost of club membership fees, tournament entry fees, hotel bills, restaurant meals and travel expenses - definitely less than 5% of the total cost of playing.

[Roger de Coverly]

We have made it entirely optional for a player to join the ECF

Now that's what I call a win win, and that's why I believe that Game Fee should be scrapped.

But could you do both? "entirely optional and scrap game fee"

You could however turn Game Fee into "membership" at the stroke of a pen.

Players in congresses have the option of "tournament membership", priced at perhaps £2.50 for a 5 round tournament.

Leagues and county associations are corporate members of the ECF anyway. Their (variable) membership fee includes the right to x graded games or y people paying a per head charge for grading.

You might have to avoid the "m" word for "tournament membership" to avoid any notion that congress players were members in the sense of being responsible for the ECF's debts.

I've never really seen the supposed metaphysical advantages of "membership". All the "average" player sees is the ECF taking money and spending it on an office in Battle, on international chess and international junior chess. We've seen that the 4NCL gave Alex H a weekend's play without becoming an ECF member. If he wanted or was invited to come back for more, then he would have been required to jump through the odd hoop to become a "member" of either the Welsh federation or the ECF. On the scale of whether this is an incentive to play, I'd mark it up as a disincentive.

[Roger de Coverly]

I find it difficult to believe that the cost of game fees is a significant factor in people's decisions on how much chess they play.

Attitudes seem to change as you head towards the midlands or the north. If, for example, the Border league or the Berks league were to consider an additional summer event, I think the order of decisions in the go/no go tree would be something like

(1) will enough players have the time or inclination to play?
(2) do we have someone to run it?
(3) do we have venues and how much will they cost?
(4) what do we charge for entry and how much do we give back as prize-money?

Once you have venue expenses and prize money, you need entry fees anyway, so an extra 2.50 shouldn't be a major issue.

[Alex Holowczak]

Fees they receive when they represent us? So you have to pay them to play for England in things like the Olympiad? Or do their fees just cover their expenses? If so, when we can we expect to read said expenses in full on the ECF website?

Top players are "professional" in that they have no other source of earnings other than chess playing and other chess related activities. As a consequence it has long been established that the ECF usually pays a fee in representative events which goes beyond just payment of expenses. The exact amounts to individual players are not disclosed but except to the extent they are covered by external sponsorship and government grants, the amounts spent on "International" are a considerable drain on the ECF's resources and can be seen in the ECF accounts. In perspective though, the amounts involved are less than some footballers earn in a week.

Not thrilled about paying them to play for England. Given Short and Adams are probably millionaires in terms of career prize money, I don't see why they would want money to motivate them to play for their country in the most prestigious team event in chess. But maybe it's just me...

You could however turn Game Fee into "membership" at the stroke of a pen.

I suppose the tournament discount that members get go some way to reducing the effect of having to pay the Game Fee. If members didn't have the Game Fee, I'd have no objection to becoming a member. It probably wouldn't be cheaper, but there wouldn't be much difference.

We've seen that the 4NCL gave Alex H a weekend's play without becoming an ECF member. If he wanted or was invited to come back for more, then he would have been required to jump through the odd hoop to become a "member" of either the Welsh federation or the ECF. On the scale of whether this is an incentive to play, I'd mark it up as a disincentive.

I was informed that because the tournament wasn't run by FIDE, I didn't have to be a member of one of the nations' federations. Just the fee to register me had to be paid, because I was registered after the cutoff point at the start of the season.

I find it difficult to believe that the cost of game fees is a significant factor in people's decisions on how much chess they play. The total game fees I pay in a year is small compared to the total cost of club membership fees, tournament entry fees, hotel bills, restaurant meals and travel expenses - definitely less than 5% of the total cost of playing.

It's important to note that most players don't travel all over the country playing chess. The vast majority of people will play for a club and that's about it. Any tournaments they enter will be local, and they'll commute to it on the day of the event. Attending a tournament is simply the entry fee + the price of petrol to get there. I have a pass to get around the Midlands anyway, and use it to go to chess tournaments. So for me, if it costs £20 to enter a 5-round congress, suddenly 50p Game Fee for 5-rounds is 12.5% of the weekend's expenditure.