ECF meeting reports

[NickFaulks]

Am I right in thinking that the typical rated restricted congress that I may enter (I am 1550 rated) will now be FIDE rated as well as ECF rated.

We shall have to wait and see, but at least one of the obstacles will have been removed.

[John Swain]

The draft AGM minutes are available:

https://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-cont ... of-AGM.pdf

There are also minutes for Board meeting 157 held on 26 October:

https://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-cont ... h-2023.pdf

[Roger de Coverly]

Am I right in thinking that the typical rated restricted congress that I may enter (I am 1550 rated) will now be FIDE rated as well as ECF rated.

Those that have notional four hour sessions, the 90 30 move rate for instance, may well choose to do so. Those with shorter sessions, say 75 30, 90 15 and variations on that theme may well not do so.

If they did want to go FIDE rated, they have a choice to make.
They can adopt a 90 30 move rate which makes for a very long day if they have three rounds on the Saturday.
They can cease to be Open by banning players FIDE rated above 2400
They can tell players that games where one player is rated above 2400 will not be FIDE rated.
They can adopt different playing sessions and move rates for the Open and the rest.

[Roger de Coverly]

There are also minutes for Board meeting 156 held on 26 October:

These reveal that the Director of Events has resigned and her responsibilities allocated elsewhere. The spare Director's slot has been filled by appointing another non-Exec, the narrowly defeated candidate in the October election.

[NickFaulks]

Am I right in thinking that the typical rated restricted congress that I may enter (I am 1550 rated) will now be FIDE rated as well as ECF rated.

They can cease to be Open by banning players FIDE rated above 2400

Given that the question related specifically to rating restricted congresses, that would seem the obvious solution.

[David Blower]

Am I right in thinking that the typical rated restricted congress that I may enter (I am 1550 rated) will now be FIDE rated as well as ECF rated.

Those that have notional four hour sessions, the 90 30 move rate for instance, may well choose to do so. Those with shorter sessions, say 75 30, 90 15 and variations on that theme may well not do so.

If they did want to go FIDE rated, they have a choice to make.
They can adopt a 90 30 move rate which makes for a very long day if they have three rounds on the Saturday.
They can cease to be Open by banning players FIDE rated above 2400
They can tell players that games where one player is rated above 2400 will not be FIDE rated.
They can adopt different playing sessions and move rates for the Open and the rest.

Sorry for asking what may seem like obvious questions, but

1) What is the significance of a 4 hour playing session?
2) What is the significance of a 2400 rating?

[IM Jack Rudd]

A game in which at least one player is rated 2400 or over can only be FIDE standardplay-rated if the time allowed to reach move 60 is at least two hours per player.

[Roger de Coverly]

Given that the question related specifically to rating restricted congresses, that would seem the obvious solution.

The ECF has or had a rule about qualification for the British Championship that it ran a Grand Prix whereby potential qualifiers had to score points in "Open" tournaments, where Open meant an absence of rating restrictions. Pubilicity for this is scarce, so what the rule is for qualification for the 2024 British isn't known. Or if it is, I haven't come across it. That doesn't affect under 1600 tournaments which is what the OP was asking, but quite sensibly organisers are adverse to starting times varying between sections.

[John Swain]

Draft minutes for Board Meeting No. 158, conducted via Zoom on Wednesday 13 December 2023, may be found at:
https://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-cont ... r-2023.pdf

[Kevin Thurlow]

AL had a lot to say for someone that appears not to have benn there...

[Andrew Zigmond]

Of interest is the proposal for clubs of a certain (unspecified) size to apply for membership of council. I'll look forward to hearing more about this one as it could have a significant impact on the composition of council.

[NickFaulks]

I'll look forward to hearing more about this one as it could have a significant impact on the composition of council.

Which could in turn have a significant impact on... what?

[Roger de Coverly]

Which could in turn have a significant impact on... what?

From time to time, the ECF Council are allowed to vote on the direction of the ECF. Sometimes that takes the form of a contested election for directors, even when the opposition candidate is "none of the above". On other issues I suspect they are more likely to get a meaningful vote when the Board is divided.


If clubs were giving voting rights at the expense of counties and leagues, it only makes a marginal difference. If club votes are in addition to those of counties and leagues, that would appear to take relative voting power away from Congress organisers.

[Andrew Zigmond]

I'll look forward to hearing more about this one as it could have a significant impact on the composition of council.

Which could in turn have a significant impact on... what?

Clubs tend to have more direct democracy than leagues and county associations and often more turnover of officers. This will in turn potentially see more delegates going to council with different ideas and perspectives.

A lot will depend on what the bar is for a club joining (I'm guessing it will be based on rated games in internal competitions although there are other ways it could be measured) and how the size of council increases as a result. If every club of a reasonable size can join they would surely become the largest interest bloc overnight.

[Roger de Coverly]

This will in turn potentially see more delegates going to council with different ideas and perspectives.

Would it not be just as likely that the collectors of proxies would have a field day?