March 2012 update now live

[Adam Raoof]

Seriously though.

I think that qualified arbiters, perhaps through representation by the Chess Arbiters Association, should be more proactive in this regard. I do get enquiries from people who would like to organise a tournament and what to know what it will cost, and I always suggest that they get a qualified arbiter, and that they pay them. I think that an arbiter should be paid a recommended amount for a one day rapidplay (in Alex's case £100 does not seem too much), or a day rate for an international tournament (perhaps £25 a day) - so that tournament organisers can build that figure into their budget. It depends on factors such as whether the arbiter is getting accommodation and food. This is what happens with other Federations, I believe.

Even if that amount is nominal and never gets paid, it sends out a clear signal that arbiters are representatives of a professional body, and should be treated as such. I do realise that many arbiters do what they do entirely voluntarily and would never think of charging for their time, but they shouldn't be embarrassed to ask for payment. Whether they actually get paid is dependent on a number of factors.

Luckily I can run faster than most arbiters.

[Alex Holowczak]

The following extract from the minutes of the 2011 AGM of the Chess Arbiters' Association is germane:

Alex McFarlane reported that he had attended the FIDE Grand Prix in Astrakhan. Russia, and one of the strongest things that had struck him was the very different respect shown to arbiters compared to this country. A discussion on the arbiters’ role in this country in this country then took place. The outcome was that arbiters could rarely charge an appropriate fee for the services they contributed towards the congress scene without damaging it, which was not the outcome anyone wanted. It was also a worry that this lack of recognition was manifesting in less younger arbiters coming forward.

Well, I have at least one amendment to that extract, but that was my recollection of events from the meeting all the same.

[Adam Raoof]

The following extract from the minutes of the 2011 AGM of the Chess Arbiters' Association is germane:

Alex McFarlane reported that he had attended the FIDE Grand Prix in Astrakhan. Russia, and one of the strongest things that had struck him was the very different respect shown to arbiters compared to this country. A discussion on the arbiters’ role in this country in this country then took place. The outcome was that arbiters could rarely charge an appropriate fee for the services they contributed towards the congress scene without damaging it, which was not the outcome anyone wanted. It was also a worry that this lack of recognition was manifesting in less younger arbiters coming forward.

Well, I have at least one amendment to that extract, but that was my recollection of events from the meeting all the same.

fewer!

[Paul Sanders]

lighter?

[Adam Raoof]

lighter?

taller?

[Alan Burke]

Mick Norris ... just point out please where in my post I mentioned anything about the Manchester League ? My query was a general one, not aimed at any particular league or congress.

If clubs are at fault with incorrect scoresheets and don't submit them on time, then yes, pass on the fine to them - but I note that the question you haven't answered is why should an individual player who has paid his game fee be penalised by not receiving the service he has contributed towards ?

Would you not complain if you had paid for something and it did not work correctly - and would you accept an answer from the person who provided it that he had been too busy doing other things and therefore you would have to put up with what you had bought ?

How would you suggest that players who have possibly lost out on grading points due to this oversight be reimbursed (financially or otherwise) - or are they expected to just grin and bear it ?

[Mick Norris]

Alan

I frequently experience very poor service, I deal with insurance companies on a regular basis

The player hasn't paid for the grading service, the whole point is that chess is cheap and run by volunteers who if they charged fairly (or even minimum wage) for their time, would result in big cost increases

Those who volunteer have better things to do - as do you with the good work you do at 3Cs - in my case I would rather spend more time with my daughter, although preferably not at the hospital all afternoon like today

[Ian Thompson]

As players pay a fee to have their games graded, shouldn't some form of punishment (ie a fine) be issued to any League / congress which fails to submit results on time; with that money then being refunded to the players affected ? Alternatively, ensure each player's grade is updated to what it should have been if the matches had been submitted on time and give the fine money to the members of the grading team for their time and effort in dealing with the task.

Where do you think the money would come from for the fine? All leagues I know of are funded by subscriptions from the clubs that take part, and the clubs only source of income is from membership fees from their players. Therefore, the fine that ends up with the players/graders will have come from those same players - a pointless exercise. Alternatively, if you think the officials who haven't done their jobs very well should pay the fine themselves you won't have a league at all. No sensible person would voluntarily give up their time for no reward if they do it well, but the risk of a penalty if they don't.

[Alan Burke]

Mick / Ian .. neither of you have actually answered the question as to why a player should be penalised (ie receive less match points and possibly a lower grade) due to administrative errors which are not the player's fault. Do you actually have any ideas as to how the situation can be solved in a fair manner for the player when such a situation arises ?

My idea of a fine might not be viable - but at least I put forward an idea.

Mick - if, as you claim, the player hasn't paid for the grading service, just what is the game fee for ?

[Alex Holowczak]

As players pay a fee to have their games graded, shouldn't some form of punishment (ie a fine) be issued to any League / congress which fails to submit results on time; with that money then being refunded to the players affected ? Alternatively, ensure each player's grade is updated to what it should have been if the matches had been submitted on time and give the fine money to the members of the grading team for their time and effort in dealing with the task.

Where do you think the money would come from for the fine? All leagues I know of are funded by subscriptions from the clubs that take part, and the clubs only source of income is from membership fees from their players. Therefore, the fine that ends up with the players/graders will have come from those same players - a pointless exercise. Alternatively, if you think the officials who haven't done their jobs very well should pay the fine themselves you won't have a league at all. No sensible person would voluntarily give up their time for no reward if they do it well, but the risk of a penalty if they don't.

I was having a conversation at University the other day from someone who is involved in amateur football. All of the people involved are de facto volunteers.

Suppose a football club defaults a match. They are likely to have to pay a fine, as they do in the 4NCL. This fine is paid for from club funds, which often results in the club's members paying an increased subscription.

Equally, if they breach any FA regulations, then the league has to pay a fine to the FA. This has to come from the clubs, and thus its members.

All these fines floating around has hindered the development of football to the extent that it is the most popular sport in the country, by some considerable distance.

So while siding with the thrust of your argument, I don't accept that issuing fines for this sort of thing would result in the collapse of the league. At least, it hasn't in other sports, so why should it with chess?

I think if people are elected to their roles with the following basis:
(1) They get reasonable remuneration for their efforts
(2) They accept that they are subject to being fined if they breach any regulations

Then you increase the volunteer's accountability and the desire for people to volunteer in the first place.

[Roger de Coverly]

I think if people are elected to their roles with the following basis:
(1) They get reasonable remuneration for their efforts

That's not really being a volunteer, that's marketing a quasi-commercial service.

There's BCF history in this. There have been suspicions that senior officials in the BCF pitched the running of events to possible sponsors and FIDE on condition that they awarded the contracts to run them to themselves. This was regardless of whether the BCF as a whole either wanted, or more critically could afford the financial risk of taking the event on.

As regards football, on balance, do amateur clubs pay to support the FA and the England team or is it the other way round? Thus the FA spends part of its income from TV rights on financial support of amateur clubs. If you have a pot of money, you are in a far better position to dictate terms to the clubs or players at the bottom of the pyramid, than if you have to hold out a begging bowl to them.

[Alex Holowczak]

I think if people are elected to their roles with the following basis:
(1) They get reasonable remuneration for their efforts

That's not really being a volunteer, that's marketing a quasi-commercial service.

You can award someone an honorarium for a critical service, and take the fines out of the honorarium if they're incurred. The ECF awards honorariums to Richard Haddrell, and the IRO, for example.

As regards football, on balance, do amateur clubs pay to support the FA and the England team or is it the other way round? Thus the FA spends part of its income from TV rights on financial support of amateur clubs. If you have a pot of money, you are in a far better position to dictate terms to the clubs or players at the bottom of the pyramid, than if you have to hold out a begging bowl to them.

I don't know enough about the FA's financial model to comment authoritatively, but the impression I got from the conversation was that the league was effectively self-financed.

Fines exist in cricket all the way down, too. In that case you're right - the England team basically funds the counties in England. As a result, they impose a county fixtures list drawn up by Baldrick, all sorts of rules to make it beneficial to take punts on untested youngsters rather than sign experienced players, and relegating county cricket behind England, England Lions, England U19, training camps for all of the above, and many other things. So you end up with an uncomfortable two-way relationship. England relies on the counties to generate players who can play for England. The counties rely on the England team doing well to get the money from the ECB. Without an international team playing too often with huge media contracts, English domestic cricket would collapse.

English chess does not benefit from a touring England team that generates money that can be handed down to the counties/leagues/congresses. Indeed, it could be argued to be burdened with having to fund an international team that costs money to have. The ECB governs cricket in the way that the ECF should be able to govern chess, but I guess it will never be able to so long as the funding system is from player to governing body, rather than the other way around. France, thanks to its sponsorship deal, has this ability, and look at how chess is flourishing there compared to England.

I suspect this topic is drifting wildly off-topic, and that I'm the guilty party...

[Neil Graham]

I think if people are elected to their roles with the following basis:
(1) They get reasonable remuneration for their efforts

That's not really being a volunteer, that's marketing a quasi-commercial service.

There's BCF history in this. There have been suspicions that senior officials in the BCF pitched the running of events to possible sponsors and FIDE on condition that they awarded the contracts to run them to themselves. This was regardless of whether the BCF as a whole either wanted, or more critically could afford the financial risk of taking the event on.

As regards football, on balance, do amateur clubs pay to support the FA and the England team or is it the other way round? Thus the FA spends part of its income from TV rights on financial support of amateur clubs. If you have a pot of money, you are in a far better position to dictate terms to the clubs or players at the bottom of the pyramid, than if you have to hold out a begging bowl to them.

If you step out onto a football pitch in an amateur match, you have to be a registered member of your club and affiliated to the F.A. When I was playing in Division XI of the Mansfield Sunday League eons ago, every member of the team had to be registered before they could play and the requisite fee paid to the Nottinghamshire Football Association. To quote the current website

Clubs that wish to play any form of football (11v11, mini soccer, small sided etc), whether that be in an organised league, or friendly fixtures, MUST be affiliated by the Nottinghamshire FA.

The affiliation includes a fee, an amount for compulsory insurance plus an amount for every player registered to play.

This system is common with every other sport/game/pastime except chess where of course players resent paying anything to the governing body.

[Roger de Coverly]

This system is common with every other sport/game/pastime except chess where of course players resent paying anything to the governing body.

Are you quite sure about that? It isn't required to be a member of CAMRA to drink beer in a pub. Equally you can play a casual game of darts without being required to become a member of anything.

I have a theory that whilst governing bodies can promote their sport, game or pastime, once they get into the mindset that they have monopoly rights, the existence of the national body can be a hindrance rather than an asset to promotion. For example if the BCF or local counties had ever asserted the power to licence Congresses, there would have been many fewer Congresses. In particular, events with new features such as Stewart Reuben's in the 60s and 70s and more recently e2e4 would have been ruled out of order.

[Alex Holowczak]

This system is common with every other sport/game/pastime except chess where of course players resent paying anything to the governing body.

Are you quite sure about that? It isn't required to be a member of CAMRA to drink beer in a pub. Equally you can play a casual game of darts without being required to become a member of anything.

CAMRA isn't a governing body of anything?

Darts isn't a good example either, because there are two governing bodies; the World Darts Federation (WDF) and the Professional Darts Corporation (PDC). However, yes, you can play a casual game in a pub without being a member of anything. I don't know about the BDO/WDF, but to play in a PDC event, membership of the Professional Darts Players' Association (PDPA) is compulsory, except in very rare circumstances. For example, the winner of the BDO World Championship is usually invited to play in the PDC Grand Slam of Darts, but doesn't need to be a PDPA member. This page gives more information: http://www.pdpa.co.uk/about/membership/ - The fee is £400 for most of the players.

I have a theory that whilst governing bodies can promote their sport, game or pastime, once they get into the mindset that they have monopoly rights, the existence of the national body can be a hindrance rather than an asset to promotion. For example if the BCF or local counties had ever asserted the power to licence Congresses, there would have been many fewer Congresses. In particular, events with new features such as Stewart Reuben's in the 60s and 70s and more recently e2e4 would have been ruled out of order.

The National Club/4NCL is the best example of this. I think it's wrong to blame the BCF for not turning the National Club into the 4NCL. While the BCF had the opportunity to turn the National Club into the 4NCL before the 4NCL did it itself, would Council ever have voted for it to happen? I doubt it. So in the end, a new body like the 4NCL creates itself and affiliates. Council seems to be the police force that stops the change, and not the other way around. While this can sometimes be welcome, in other cases it isn't.

There's also the inbuilt disadvantage that the ECF pays VAT, something that e2e4 and 4NCL don't have to worry about because they're below the tax threshold.

Stewart has said that organisers doing their own thing is both a strength and weakness in English chess. Chess seems to work best when its organisers are a benevolent dictatorship, rather than overly democratic. I would class the 4NCL, e2e4, and Stewart's 1970s congresses as an example of that. If he had to persuade BCF Council that congresses should be allowed quickplay finishes, and not adjudication, then they could have missed the 1972-boom entirely, and English chess would have been all the worse for it.

It took me twelve months to persuade the Birmingham Rapidplay Committee that if we run a Rapidplay with computer pairings and an incremental time control, then our lives would be easier. In the end, I became the organiser, and insisted that we do it that way on account of it lowering my workload, and the fact that I wouldn't organise it at all if we didn't do it like that. So they went with it, it was absolutely fine, and they wonder what all the fuss was about.

--

On a related theme, a further conversation with the University student I know reveals that one football club in his League is facing a £50 fine, because one person attended the League's AGM, instead of the required two. A completely different world!