English Chess Forum

Its pretty clear that there are certain members of this forum who are out to do a hatchet job on the ECF for quite unclear reasons. No matter what is done, a continually negative portrait is being painted.

Or am I getting this wrong?

andrew martin wrote:Its pretty clear that there are certain members of this forum who are out to do a hatchet job on the ECF for quite unclear reasons. No matter what is done, a continually negative portrait is being painted.

Or am I getting this wrong?

Wrong...

I don't see why any item can not be a subject of a free and open debate?

Is Charlie Storey in the forum yet?

I am waiting for Jack to moderate me for daring to raise even the option of debate on a question it appears I dare not ask

Ernie Lazenby wrote:I regret to say that until there is a complete restructuring of the ECF, and no matter how good well intentioned volunteers are, we will lurch from year to year repeating the same old arguments endlessly with no improvement on the horizon to encourage those carrying a hatchet to bury it.

Who is going to actually replace Chris Majer and lead the restructuring from the front is one of the biggest questions that needs to be asked?

The ECF is in a parlous state because its expenditure is greater than its income and has been for some time. The primary reason for this is that expenditure on the Office has been allowed to grow out of all control. This dates back decades. There is some evidence that this is finally being addressed and it appears likely that headcount in the Office is going to fall. This is nothing against the people involved, it is just an economic reality.
In recent times the ECF finances have also being hit because over £40,000 has been spent on the CoM/Right Move - some forumites have some responsibility in this area. These projects should have had tighter financial controls, but you cannot turn the clock back now. I have explained what I think is the best course of action for these projects (scrap the Right Move, make the CoM tests free). I believe that this course of action would allow the CoM to be seen in a very positive light, if we continue on the present course it will not.

I think we need to remember that we rely heavily on the goodwill of a number of volunteers, who are giving up there spare time to help run the ECF. We need to encourage more to come forward.
My question about the ECF Office is whether it should be divided to create a Northern branch, say in Derby, Sheffield, or Chesterfield perhaps. Or maybe Northern chess bodies should create an office.
Criticism is easy...fixing things is not quite so straightforward. It never ceases to amaze me the number of different viewpoints that emerge on some topics. Squaring the circle is an elusive art.
The Schools project. Not sure we need to give away quite so many sets to schools. Maybe this should be initially focused on the poorer Inner City areas. Although Im guessing that the ECF is gambling on spinnoffs giving some return on this investment.
The real key is the encouragement of junior chess...more volunteers, and particularly from parents helping with transport to matches, etc.. But Mike Basmans `Mega Finals` Schools event stands out as a really great initiative to encourage chess development. We need to encourage schools links to local chess clubs...with £10 membership for youngsters of Secondary age. Maybe we need a schools membership where kids can get gradings more easily. Should we have a junior grading scheme, where schools chess can be rated. Certainly we need to rate all players in the Schools Mega Finals, and carry these forward. Maybe have a special schools website grading list, which might encourage more buyin from juniors.
Maybe we need a membership scheme where all registered juniors in an area could be signed up on block for say £100, or entire schools for , say £25. Such juniors that are unrated should get an initial estimate grade of say 25 (min), if they are under 11, and say 35 (min) if over 11, and these should be revised half yearly. Maybe something like this already exists.

Regarding MO`s. I think these should be reviewed and made more accountable/transparent. I worry that the ECF might be being short changed by some discount schemes. The funds raised by such schemes should be clarily identifyable, and an accurate list of membership should be published, and open for scrutiny. If some of these were paying 10 - 20% more to the ECF, this might lower the Game fee that is currently charged. Are ordinary players subsidising others on these `discount` MO schemes, I wonder.
Key thing is that we take on board as much of the constructive comments as we can, and try to progress those that can give clear benefits. Trawling through these threads to sift out useful suggestions would in itself be a major task.
Maybe we need a separate thread that lists key ideas being looked at, and those earmarked for action. Certainly some active monitoring might be useful to suppliment `official agendas`.
All in good time.....

Unfortunately the ECF gives itself a bad reputation among club players by continually holding out a begging bowl for ever increasing sums of money for the privelege of supplying an ECF grade. This is an expensive number for the players and to add insult to injury would not be possible without local league Graders.
What does the grass roots member gain from membership of the ECF?
Louise

Louise Sinclair wrote:What does the grass roots member gain from membership of the ECF?

For those who advocate compulsory membership it would be "permission to play chess". This applies for example in some Northern counties , that you can't play in local competitions without becoming a member of their local organisation.

Roger de Coverly wrote:

Louise Sinclair wrote:What does the grass roots member gain from membership of the ECF?

For those who advocate compulsory membership it would be "permission to play chess". This applies for example in some Northern counties , that you can't play in local competitions without becoming a member of their local organisation.

Huge swathes of the Northern Counties pay nothing at all to the ECF. In Nottinghamshire our annual fee per team (which includes game fee to the ECF) is around the £50 mark; the fee to enter the Sheffield & District League is £4 per team.

A northern office would maybe cost less money than maintaining one in Hastings perhaps?

Also, I think some ordinary members a a bit apathetic towards the ECF (to put it mildly), because they get no say in how it is run or managed, or even what its priorities should be!
I mean, being a member of most non-profit organisations means you get a vote in how it is run, surely?
I mean, look at the Yorkshire grading list here - http://www.chessnuts.org.uk/ny5/
All online, available, and updated with your games (sometimes very quickly after you've played them). I realise this largely depends on how many volunteers you can get / are willing to spend some time inputting results. But as members we don't know if (for example,) the ECF intends to work towards this for ECF grades or if its deemed a bad idea, or what, and have no say in policies in any event!
I just think the structure needs a bit of reforming!

Richard Cowan wrote:lso, I think some ordinary members a a bit apathetic towards the ECF (to put it mildly), because they get no say in how it is run or managed, or even what its priorities should be!
I mean, being a member of most non-profit organisations means you get a vote in how it is run, surely?

Those organisations which pay Game Fee or equivalent to the ECF have a representative on the ECF Council which in theory at least provides a mechanism for an individual player to influence the ECF provided that the local organisation has some form of AGM or other meeting at which the ECF delegate can be questioned. That said though, some delegates are a law unto themselves. We saw that last year when individuals sought to influence voting in the contested elections.

There are representatives of direct members on Council. However with a maximum of about 10 votes they currently have little practical influence on voting.

I don't see the point in "representatives". If two of the people they represent want opposite things - what do they do?
I mean are we seriously saying that every representative knows what every member wants on every issue?
I just don't see how it is practical or workable. Why not have a poll run on the ECF website in which members can vote (from unique IP addresses maybe) with a password given to them direct from the ECF? The council could put forward options and members vote on them - simple.
I've nothing against the organisation as a whole, or the people who devote their time and effort into it at all. I just think the structure is a hinderance to its activities.

Richard Cowan wrote: I just think the structure is a hinderance to its activities.

Essentially it's structured so that the "members" are themselves corporate bodies such as the local county associations. Individual people as members in their own right are something of an afterthought. It's been that way since the BCF was formed in 1904!

From time to time it's worth speculating what would happen if the ECF were to fail - be forced to close for financial reasons. It would have surprisingly little immediate effect as most local events can run quite happily for a while without a national chess body or national chess office. The immediate priorities for a replacement national body would I suppose be grading/rating, national championships and international representation.

True, but I mean everything has to change with the times...
It doesn't have to fail, just change!
I mean, isn't a centuary-old structure bound to be a bit outdated?
Especially with the rise of the internet.