English Chess Forum

Following on from another thread, I'm looking down a list of how the voting blocks and proxies and whatnot worked at this year's ECF AGM, and I'm going to try and work out, as an ordinary (if fairly active) chess player, which delegates I could legitimately have lobbied about this year's ECF AGM.

The wider point, really, is how delegates representing (supposedly) hundreds of club and league players, arrive at how they vote. I've always thought this was the silliest part of the voting system, but hey.

From looking at the clubs I play for, and pay subs for, and the memberships I have, who are my delegates?

(1) ECF Direct Member payment
(2) Cambridge University 4NCL team subscription
(3) Richmond and Twickenham Chess Club subscription (play in Thames Valley League)
(4) London Deaf Chess Club subscription (play in London League)
(5) Member of the English Deaf Chess Association
(6) Play for Middlesex in the County Championships

Looking at the Word document Alex H linked to in the main AGM thread:

"The Voting Register is based upon The Game Fee Rules which includes results submitted by Member Organisations for the period June 20th 2009 to September 18th 2010. Appropriate adjustments have been made to avoid double-counting of annual or series events."

and

"Organisations receive multiple votes - for use in a poll - on the following basis:- 1 to 1000 Standard Results, 1 vote. 1001 to 2000, 2 votes, 2001 to 3000, 3 votes, and so on per 1000 results"

[This is actually the first I'd heard about this - become a very active chess congress organiser and hey presto, you get some votes! Or one vote at least.]

In theory, I think the delegates that I (and lots and lots of other chess players and members) have links to and could hypothetically contact about such matters, are:

(1) LONDON CHESS LEAGUE - 1 simple vote (6 multiple votes)
(2) SOUTHERN COUNTIES CHESS UNION - 1 simple vote (3 multiple votes)
(3) ENGLISH DEAF CHESS ASSOCIATION - 1 simple vote (1 multiple vote)
(4) MIDDLESEX - 1 simple vote (3 multiple votes)
(5) 4NCL - 1 simple vote (6 multiple votes)
(6) THAMES VALLEY - 1 simple vote (3 multiple votes)
(7) LONDON CHESS CLASSIC - 1 simple vote (1 multiple vote)
(8) E2E4 CHESS - 1 simple vote (4 multiple votes)
(9) FULL MEMBERS - 2 representatives, 2 votes per representative

Though I'm not clear what the difference is between a simple count and a multiple vote.

Being eligible for other counties might mean something, but unless you play for a county, I suppose nothing really counts, though the county thing is an oddity as some don't seem to have any individual subscription scheme, but are presumably funded through clubs or something. I also only paid to watch the London Chess Classic - presumably (as no ECF Game Fees resulted) that doesn't really count? (Yes, I know who organised the London Chess Classic!) Incidentally, looking through the list of chess congresses, I saw many familiar names of congresses that I really should go to again at some point.

Alex H said in another thread that it is possible to look up who the 9-10 delegates are above. I suppose I could contact them and ask them if they attended the AGM and how they voted (it would probably be easier to attend the AGM and note how they voted). But really, how often does that happen and how many delegates, as others have asked, actually canvass opinions among the chess players they (in theory) represent, or even listen to such lobbying?

It would seem simpler to turn up at the AGM and make a speech in support of one position or another (presuming that is allowed). It would likely have more effect.

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:Though I'm not clear what the difference is between a simple count and a multiple vote.

Simple count: Hand vote, everyone gets 1 vote.
Multiple vote: Everyone gets the number of votes they're entitled to with respect to their Game Fee. Most items are so trivial that it's not worth wasting the time with a full card vote.

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:how many delegates, as others have asked, actually canvass opinions among the chess players they (in theory) represent, or even listen to such lobbying?

Me!

Alex Holowczak wrote:

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:how many delegates, as others have asked, actually canvass opinions among the chess players they (in theory) represent, or even listen to such lobbying?

Me!

That's the BUCA vote, right? What would you do if you were a congress or league organiser with thousands of half game fee results contributing to the vote that you were entitled to cast. How would you proceed then? There is a difference between that and organisations that may only have 30-100 members. Some of the votes, I'm not even sure how many people are represented. How many ECF Direct, Junior, Full, etc members are there, for example? My real point here is that the voting system is absurd, as it seems in practice impossible for ordinary chess players to have any effect whatsoever (don't get me wrong, this has been clear for a long time to many people, I'm not saying anything anyone hasn't said before).

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: My real point here is that the voting system is absurd, as it seems in practice impossible for ordinary chess players to have any effect whatsoever (don't get me wrong, this has been clear for a long time to many people, I'm not saying anything anyone hasn't said before).

It's basically one organisation one vote, but weighted by the size of the organisation. Most of the time, individual players have no real interest in weighty matters like whether one file or two should be submitted for international rating. In practice though, one or two aside, delegates also have no great interest in consulting their constituency. Last year's contested elections showed that in practice delegates were reluctant to listen to the views of members of the organisations they represented.

Roger de Coverly wrote:

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: My real point here is that the voting system is absurd, as it seems in practice impossible for ordinary chess players to have any effect whatsoever (don't get me wrong, this has been clear for a long time to many people, I'm not saying anything anyone hasn't said before).

It's basically one organisation one vote, but weighted by the size of the organisation. Most of the time, individual players have no real interest in weighty matters like whether one file or two should be submitted for international rating. In practice though, one or two aside, delegates also have no great interest in consulting their constituency. Last year's contested elections showed that in practice delegates were reluctant to listen to the views of members of the organisations they represented.

Yeah. I do wish the delegates were a little less faceless, though. It feels like layer upon layer of bureaucracy (probably because it is). By the way, who is entitled to attend the AGM, and can people address the meeting from the floor?

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
That's the BUCA vote, right? What would you do if you were a congress or league organiser with thousands of half game fee results contributing to the vote that you were entitled to cast. How would you proceed then?.

Leagues (and counties) usually have a management committee and hold an AGM. The ECF delegate is voted by the AGM or appointed by the committee so at least on paper there's some form of oversight and accountability.

Congresses are usually run by a handful of people. Under Game Fee, they are being taxed by the ECF, so it's reasonable that they have some sort of say in how the ECF is run. I don't think it's practical for there ever to be much elective oversight. The nearest you might get is that the event(s) are run by a Congress Committee who are joined by an elected players representative. The Hastings Congress and the 4NCL vaguely work this way but I doubt whether policy towards the ECF is ever discussed.

Roger de Coverly wrote:

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
That's the BUCA vote, right? What would you do if you were a congress or league organiser with thousands of half game fee results contributing to the vote that you were entitled to cast. How would you proceed then?.

Leagues (and counties) usually have a management committee and hold an AGM. The ECF delegate is voted by the AGM or appointed by the committee so at least on paper there's some form of oversight and accountability.

Congresses are usually run by a handful of people. Under Game Fee, they are being taxed by the ECF, so it's reasonable that they have some sort of say in how the ECF is run. I don't think it's practical for there ever to be much elective oversight. The nearest you might get is that the event(s) are run by a Congress Committee who are joined by an elected players representative. The Hastings Congress and the 4NCL vaguely work this way but I doubt whether policy towards the ECF is ever discussed.

That makes things clearer, thanks. I had forgotten that some congresses (Paignton as well, I think) are run by committees. Looking again at the list of voting units, it is interesting the range of organisations affiliated to the ECF (or at least those with voting rights). Among the more obscure voting units I noticed were the following under the "other" designation:

BRAILLE CHESS ASSOCIATION
BRITISH CHESS PROBLEM SOCIETY
BRITISH WOMEN'S CHESS ASSOCIATION
BRITISH FEDERATION FOR CORRESPONDENCE CHESS
CHESSPOINT SERVICES
CHESS ARBITERS' ASSOCIATION
CHESS ENDGAME STUDY CIRCLE
ENGLISH DEAF CHESS ASSOCIATION
ENGLISH PRIMARY SCHOOLS' CHESS ASSOCIATION
NATIONAL YOUTH CHESS ASSOCIATION
THE FRIENDS OF CHESS

It did get me thinking, though, about which "chess interests" are missing from this list, and I realised that there are no English organisations (or at least not ones affiliated to the ECF) covering the interests of chess journalists, chess authors, chess businesses, or chess historians. If Arbiters have their own association, what about congress organisers? Or player organisations, such as the Grandmaster "unions" that someone tried to form internationally. Have the British Grandmasters never thought of organising some sort of union or umbrella organisation (you could include IMs as well!)? And I had never heard of Chesspoint Services before.

http://www.connect2northamptonshire.com ... fault.aspx

Still not sure what it is about. It has got me wondering what characteristics determine when an organisation is entitled to be affiliated to the ECF, and moreover get voting rights? It seems to be Northamptonshire-based, and I see that Northamptonshire are also listed among the new member counties subject to ratification. I presume all the new organisations listed were ratified at this AGM?

EDIT: I've just remembered that I had heard of Chesspoint Services before, somewhere else on this forum! The more I look at the details of it, the more interesting it sounds. It reminds me somewhat of some of the things discussed in the chess cafe thread.

With respect, much of this thread is academic until chess players are prepared to get up and attend their Club or League or County AGMs and ensure that they are represented by those whom they trust. (Which of course may be the case already)

So far as Clubs Leagues or Counties are concerned players get the representation they deserve and any implied criticism of ECF delegates is implied criticism of their membership.

PB

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:

Alex Holowczak wrote:

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:how many delegates, as others have asked, actually canvass opinions among the chess players they (in theory) represent, or even listen to such lobbying?

Me!

That's the BUCA vote, right? What would you do if you were a congress or league organiser with thousands of half game fee results contributing to the vote that you were entitled to cast. How would you proceed then? There is a difference between that and organisations that may only have 30-100 members. Some of the votes, I'm not even sure how many people are represented. How many ECF Direct, Junior, Full, etc members are there, for example? My real point here is that the voting system is absurd, as it seems in practice impossible for ordinary chess players to have any effect whatsoever (don't get me wrong, this has been clear for a long time to many people, I'm not saying anything anyone hasn't said before).

Correct, the BUCA vote.

If I ran a league, I'd e-mail all the clubs in that league. I don't know what I'd do if I ran a congress, but I'd probably give my vote to the County delegate that the event was a part of (assuming he was attending!).

The voting system is typical of any federation-style body. You need to know how we arrived at this stage: The BCF just used to let counties and constituent units vote. The latter had places on the Board. The ECF allowed member congresses and leagues, presumably because quite a few didn't affiliate to their county association. This complicated things. There was a One Member, One Vote campaign, where each ECF Direct Member had a vote, but there wasn't enough support for it, apparently.

Alex Holowczak wrote:The BCF just used to let counties and constituent units vote. The latter had places on the Board. The ECF allowed member congresses and leagues, presumably because quite a few didn't affiliate to their county association.

That's not quite historically accurate. The BCF gave voting rights to congresses and leagues at least as far back as the introduction of Game Fee. This was a quid pro quo for widening the financing base of the BCF away from expecting territorial organisations to supply all the member related financing. Following the replacement of the BCF as the national chess body for England, the BCF membership base was simplified back to just the territorial associations. Presumably it's cheaper that way, less work keeping documentation on BCF membership certainly.

Alex Holowczak wrote:There was a One Member, One Vote campaign, where each ECF Direct Member had a vote, but there wasn't enough support for it, apparently.

That campaign never really managed to describe how you would reform the current structure to achieve this. I'd suspect you'd find the constitution so difficult to reword that you might do better scrapping the existing one, winding up the ECF in its current form and starting a mark 2. It might yet happen if the ECF so runs out of money that it's forced into liquidation.

Roger de Coverly wrote:

Alex Holowczak wrote:The BCF just used to let counties and constituent units vote. The latter had places on the Board. The ECF allowed member congresses and leagues, presumably because quite a few didn't affiliate to their county association.

That's not quite historically accurate. The BCF gave voting rights to congresses and leagues at least as far back as the introduction of Game Fee. This was a quid pro quo for widening the financing base of the BCF away from expecting territorial organisations to supply all the member related financing. Following the replacement of the BCF as the national chess body for England, the BCF membership base was simplified back to just the territorial associations. Presumably it's cheaper that way, less work keeping documentation on BCF membership certainly.

Ah, fair enough.

Paul Buswell wrote:With respect, much of this thread is academic until chess players are prepared to get up and attend their Club or League or County AGMs and ensure that they are represented by those whom they trust. (Which of course may be the case already)

On a matter of practicality, though, using the list I gave above as an example again, I could attend 5 different AGMs that I think, in theory, elect an ECF delegate, and two club AGMs that in theory send representation to the AGMs of the wider organisations they are involved with that elect an ECF delegate. It still all feels terribly dispersed, though, and in all cases it feels like those who bother to turn up have disproportionate influence. It would be far simpler to be able to directly use a single vote as a member of the ECF. But as you say, that campaign ran into difficulties.

Chris, all new organisations were ratified at the AGM. It was explained that there seemed to be no conflict of interest between Northamptonshire CA and ChessPoint Services.

Everything has to pay either:
a) Deemed game fee. Basically, you calculate the amount of Game Fee they have to pay. If this is more than the threshold, £52 for Organisations, but it differs slightly for other affiliated bodies, then you pay that.
b) The threshold limit.

With a), you might still pay less than £52. E.g. if my Congress generated £60 of Game Fee, but after you deduct the Game Fee you don't have to pay for Members, you might have to pay, say, £40.

This means that most bodies can affiliate trivially, because they pay Game Fee in excess of that amount. The Other Organisations are an exception. Things like the Chess Arbiters' Association don't generate Game Fee, obviously. The only exception is BUCA. The NYCA used to, but don't grade their games now for some reason. I find this strange, they could in effect grade £52 worth of games for free (because they're paying for affiliation anyway). The same is true of EPSCA - I believe they don't get their games graded (but could be wrong).

I think there are 2 problems with ECF delegates, in my experience:

1. A delegate's responsibility is to communicate ECF issues to the people they represent, ensure that the people they represent are able to give their opinions, and then vote according to the majority. From my experience, no delegates do that.

2. A lot of chess players frankly don't care one iota about the ECF. Even if delegates did make an effort to communicate with the people they represent, I imagine a great number of them would express no real opinion as they fail to see much relevance to themselves at grassroots level. Again it should be a delegate's responsibility to convince people of the relevance of the issues to be voted on, and drum up some enthusiasm, but certainly saying that is a lot easier then making it happen.

Alex Holowczak wrote:This means that most bodies can affiliate trivially, because they pay Game Fee in excess of that amount. The Other Organisations are an exception. Things like the Chess Arbiters' Association don't generate Game Fee, obviously. The only exception is BUCA. The NYCA used to, but don't grade their games now for some reason. I find this strange, they could in effect grade £52 worth of games for free (because they're paying for affiliation anyway). The same is true of EPSCA - I believe they don't get their games graded (but could be wrong).

Thanks, Alex. That is most helpful. I do still wonder about interests that aren't represented. I'll requote what I said before and see if anyone has any thoughts on it:

It did get me thinking, though, about which "chess interests" are missing from this list, and I realised that there are no English organisations (or at least not ones affiliated to the ECF) covering the interests of chess journalists, chess authors, chess businesses, or chess historians. If Arbiters have their own association, what about congress organisers? Or player organisations, such as the Grandmaster "unions" that someone tried to form internationally. Have the British Grandmasters never thought of organising some sort of union or umbrella organisation (you could include IMs as well!)?

I've now realised that I missed "chess publishers" off that list. This would include the various chess publishers based in England. I'm not saying that any of these entities necessarily want representation at the ECF level (businesses tend to be quite happy just making a profit) and some are international or part of international book publishers, but they struck me as an example of something that could be considered part of the chess "scene" that doesn't really get represented. This all probably derives from the history of the BCF and ECF being based in the county and league chess "grassroots", and the amateur chess and charity designation and all that.

I think chess "philanthropists" are kind of covered already under "Friends of Chess". Probably chess collectors could be lumped in with chess historians, though both might blanch at the prospect (and neither seem to really be represented). I'm not really trying to propose that umpteen new organisations form and affiliate with the ECF, but I'm just trying to think of the possibilities and wondering why some areas of the chess scene never seemed to have organised in this way. You might say that chess businesses (I include bookstalls here) are competitors and may struggle to make ends meet anyway, but seeing as some supply chess sets to congresses, it might make sense for some umbrella-like organisation to exist. I suppose there are "small business" associations that already provide services. Similarly, I suppose the chess authors, publishers and journalists and magazine editors probably have industry bodies within their professions that they can turn to already.

Has there ever been an attempt, though, to have a UK-wide body relating to chess congresses? Or for the major chess congresses that have been going for ages to form a body to represent their interests? I would suspect they have enough clout to do that.

And I'm sure there has been some attempt before to form a chess players union for professional chess players. Maybe one already exists and I've just not heard of it! I suppose what I'm asking is whether there is an English equivalent or subgroup of the Association of Chess Professionals?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associatio ... fessionals

Or indeed any other chess organisations related to the professional side of things, as opposed to the amateur chess playing and charity side of things, as it has always struck me that amateur/non-profit and professional/for-profit chess activities have always co-existed rather than integrated, though there is a lot of overlap and the two designations don't quite match up as chess historians are unlikely to be motivated by profit, but professional (academic) standards are important there. I wonder if other countries have different organisational structures and how the major international tournaments, congresses, and businesses fit into the structure of their national federations, or whether they are largely independent from the national federations?