English Chess Forum

What are forumites' views on this proposal? I suggest that it is far too sweeping to apply the same bureaucracy to both international tournaments and to local club internal competitions.

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... e-laws.pdf

PB

Seems perfectly reasonable for leagues and congresses

The references in the document to FIDE's requirements for rated events are not accurate. I refer the ECF to section 0.2 of the Rating Regulations from 1.7.2013.

http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html? ... ew=article

Mick Norris wrote:Seems perfectly reasonable for leagues and congresses

I agree.

NickFaulks wrote:The references in the document to FIDE's requirements for rated events are not accurate. I refer the ECF to section 0.2 of the Rating Regulations from 1.7.2013.

http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html? ... ew=article

To be fair, my document was written in December, so it reflects the rules as they stand now, and not the rules that FIDE plan to introduce on 1st July. It will probably have to be amended on the back of this revelation.

Have FIDE contacted its members to direct us to these changes?

Some questions....
What happens if someone organises an event at late notice. They may not have meaningful facts and figures to support a registration.
Organising events is largely in the hands of groups or individuals, who are independant of the ECF in some cases, who use there initiative and enthusiasm to promote chess. Nothing should discourage this...
And the ECF is essentially `piggy backing` off these bodies, and gaining revenue as a result of there initiatives.
Hopefully, any innocent breaches of these rules will not result in players losing out on gradings. I can see no reason why players should potentially suffer, having paid there gold or silver plated fees.
Apart from that, anything that genuinely helps the smooth running of our chess should be supported.
Finally, if the goal posts have moved, should there be fresh consultations with the membership..?

David Pardoe wrote:Some questions....
What happens if someone organises an event at late notice. They may not have meaningful facts and figures to support a registration.?

I raised the issue of new events with Alex Holowczak when the document first appeared for consultation. He gave the reassuring response:
"The point is taken, but the Board will be very lenient when it comes to new events, particularly leagues. Particularly in the first years."

I think the timings are a bit suspect. The Beds League does not hold its AGM till mid September. At that meeting the Controller is elected and decisions over number of Divisions are settled. Doing something for 1st September means two reports need to be made. The rules on leagues should respect these situations. The ECF should be able to accept some continuity of event and allow some delay for updating data.

Sean Hewitt wrote:

Mick Norris wrote:Seems perfectly reasonable for leagues and congresses

I agree.

Probably so: but the proposal before Council is explicit that it covers all gradimg submissions (my emphasis), and I suggest that one size does not fit all.

PB

In the Northumbria Junior Chess Association we normally run 2 or 3 Junior Rapidplay 'Congresses' per term, often organised by a particular school at 2 or 3 weeks notice. Now when the games have been graded in the past they have come under the umbrella heading of 'Northumbria Junior Events'. Will the ECF be prepared to accept a registration as 'Northumbria Junior Events' for grading purposes or will each event have to be separately spelled out in detail?

In an ideal world I rather agree with the new proposals, but I hope it will allow for the usual NJCA inefficiency. Our local grading officer seems quite happy to accept the results without prior notice.

The children really do like to see their gradings and, as a coach, I like any system that helps encourage them. These congresses do produce 60-70 junior silver members for the ECF. It would be a shame if the new system made it more difficult for them.

Paul Buswell wrote:What are forumites' views on this proposal? I suggest that it is far too sweeping to apply the same bureaucracy to both international tournaments and to local club internal competitions.

We had a go in this thread

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=5168

That thread also considered the issue of Registration of players.

Probably like the Complaints and Standards procedures, the proposal will be waved through without much discussion only for the drawbacks to become apparent.

The underlying principle of establishing that an event is going to be rated before it starts is a good one, but an extended period of notice is just handing power to ECF officials for the sake of it.

Paul Bielby wrote:In the Northumbria Junior Chess Association we normally run 2 or 3 Junior Rapidplay 'Congresses' per term, often organised by a particular school at 2 or 3 weeks notice. Now when the games have been graded in the past they have come under the umbrella heading of 'Northumbria Junior Events'. Will the ECF be prepared to accept a registration as 'Northumbria Junior Events' for grading purposes or will each event have to be separately spelled out in detail?

In an ideal world I rather agree with the new proposals, but I hope it will allow for the usual NJCA inefficiency. Our local grading officer seems quite happy to accept the results without prior notice.

The children really do like to see their gradings and, as a coach, I like any system that helps encourage them. These congresses do produce 60-70 junior silver members for the ECF. It would be a shame if the new system made it more difficult for them.

Couldn't the ECF just produce a simple online form that organisers could submit their Congress details on? The information the ECF are wanting doesn't seem too onerous to provide and I don't see that this would cause any delays of any type as long as the ECF are pretty speedy in confirming registrations.

Time to wade into this.

Paul Buswell wrote:Probably so: but the proposal before Council is explicit that it covers all gradimg submissions (my emphasis), and I suggest that one size does not fit all.

I disagree with Paul on this point. However...

I'm quite happy to allow any registered league, county (or anything else, I suppose) to have Club Internal games automatically included as part of a package of its registration. The only caveat with this is that the league or county would then take on the Game Fee liability, if there is any.

For example, if the Warley Quinborne Club Championship wasn't registered for whatever reason. It couldn't be graded independently. However, the Birmingham League would have been registered, and so Warley Quinborne could get the Birmingham League to grade its games for them. If there were any non-members though, the Birmingham League would be liable for the Game Fee invoice. (If WQ registered it themselves, whoever they tell us in the Treasurer would be liable for the Game Fee.) It also means that the Birmingham League inherits those results for the purposes of counting results for the Voting Register. Some counties already benefit from doing that kind of thing.

In practice, this means that Paul could organise his event at the last-minute, and if he hasn't registered it, he could get the Mid-Sussex League to grade it through them as a Club Internal event, without fear of penalty. Mid-Sussex might pick up more votes at Council as a result of this, which may or may not be of interest to them.

Paul Bielby wrote:In an ideal world I rather agree with the new proposals, but I hope it will allow for the usual NJCA inefficiency.

The 35-day requirement for congresses was a one-size fits all, because otherwise, people will confuse deadlines and pick the wrong one. That was when every FIDE event had a 30-day requirement. Now FIDE are happy with a 7-day requirement, we can reduce ours to 14 days, but retain 35 days for FIDE norm events. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that organisers of FIDE norm events won't be doing them at 14 days' notice!

Brian Valentine wrote:The Beds League does not hold its AGM till mid September. At that meeting the Controller is elected and decisions over number of Divisions are settled. Doing something for 1st September means two reports need to be made.

I'm happy to amend it to 1st October if it is thought better. I'm sure someone else made that point, actually, but I forgot about it in the paper. The choice of date is not the important point - it's more the principle of telling us.

Andrew Bak wrote:Couldn't the ECF just produce a simple online form that organisers could submit their Congress details on? The information the ECF are wanting doesn't seem too onerous to provide and I don't see that this would cause any delays of any type as long as the ECF are pretty speedy in confirming registrations.

You mean like this one? http://www.englishchess.org.uk/calendar ... rnament-2/

The idea is to tweak that in two ways:
(1) Put in the fields I mention in the paper.
(2) Get an e-mail confirmation sent with those details. You already get one, in fact, if memory serves me correctly. It just doesn't contain the details you've just entered.

That part is already written in the paper put to Council.

How about informing ECF,

"X Chess Club intends to have its internal games graded in the 2013-2014 season and every subsequent season until ECF is told otherwise. The number of games will be dependent on membership and activity of said membership"

That meets all the deadlines.

Kevin Thurlow wrote:How about informing ECF,

"X Chess Club intends to have its internal games graded in the 2013-2014 season and every subsequent season until ECF is told otherwise. The number of games will be dependent on membership and activity of said membership"

That meets all the deadlines.

I lik that concept and will hold on to it.

PB