The independent home for discussions on the English Chess scene.
https://ecforum.org.uk/
True. It's most likely an excuse.Roger de Coverly wrote:If the allegation is that posts on the ecforum hindered attempts at sponsorship, then those making the allegations need to identify what views in which posts caused these.
I see it more as Gresham's Law than thermodynamics.David Robertson wrote:The 1st Law applies: stupidity drives out intelligence.
That is an utter non sequitur.Paolo Casaschi wrote:True. It's most likely an excuse.Roger de Coverly wrote:If the allegation is that posts on the ecforum hindered attempts at sponsorship, then those making the allegations need to identify what views in which posts caused these.
Still, remember to ask for details next time someone claims FIDE is missing out on sponsorship because of a corrupted, alien-obsessed, dictator-friendly president.
I'm just saying, I agree with asking for real examples when quoting an excuse for lack of sponsorship. Both from whoever claims this forum damaged the ECF sponsorship chances and from whoever claims the current president damages FIDE sponsorship chances. Without examples, I agree, both look like excuses and propaganda.Paul McKeown wrote:That is an utter non sequitur.Paolo Casaschi wrote:True. It's most likely an excuse.Roger de Coverly wrote:If the allegation is that posts on the ecforum hindered attempts at sponsorship, then those making the allegations need to identify what views in which posts caused these.
Still, remember to ask for details next time someone claims FIDE is missing out on sponsorship because of a corrupted, alien-obsessed, dictator-friendly president.
Kirsan is the President of FIDE. He is extremely visible and the most senior official in world chess.
The ECForum has no official standing and is actually rather unlikely to be of any concern to a sponsor (unless the sponsor is clearly promising what it cannot deliver and is exposed as such here).
At the end of the day while people are entitled to their opinions sponsors will expect a certain amount of gratitude in return for investing their money.Paolo Casaschi wrote: I'm just saying, I agree with asking for real examples when quoting an excuse for lack of sponsorship. Both from whoever claims this forum damaged the ECF sponsorship chances and from whoever claims the current president damages FIDE sponsorship chances. Without examples, I agree, both look like excuses and propaganda.
It's a MySQL issue they are having which is probably on a shared copy so I doubt load or engines as has been suggested has anything to do with it.Roger de Coverly wrote:For what is so far a relatively small forum with a limited number of postings and never a huge number of simultaneous visitors, the new forum does seem to be causing a number of resource knock-on effects to the main ECF server. The British championship and grading pages having been booted off to separate servers to reduce demand.
Is it something they are doing to prevent posts been archived by Google etc. that's causing the excess load?
I very much doubt a real sponsor for the ECF would take any notice of a chess forum.What evidence do you have that a sponsor has looked at this forum and then said i will not sponsor the ECF.Andrew Zigmond wrote: At the end of the day while people are entitled to their opinions sponsors will expect a certain amount of gratitude in return for investing their money.
The origin of all this was the attempted Holloid cover up.Peter D Williams wrote:I very much doubt a real sponsor for the ECF would take any notice of a chess forum.What evidence do you have that a sponsor has looked at this forum and then said i will not sponsor the ECF.Andrew Zigmond wrote: At the end of the day while people are entitled to their opinions sponsors will expect a certain amount of gratitude in return for investing their money.
Trying to blame this forum for lack of sponsorship for the ECF is just plan daft.
I have another speculation. The nature of the Chess Sets for Schools project was that even if the sets were manufactured in bulk, the ECF had to undertake the administration and distribution. As a consequence the manager of the project had to find logistic and distribution support. My suspicion is that assuming he did actually approach relevant Companies, that he told them how big the project was by reference to all the internet discussion about it. It was a problem that rather than confine his attention to the project, he got side-tracked in all sorts of debates around issues of which he knew little. So anyone Googling the project or his names would have got a ringside seat into flame wars. If anything the forum was more tolerant of the ECF wasting moderate to large sums on an abortive project than it should have been.Carl Hibbard wrote: The origin of all this was the attempted Holloid cover up.
I agree with everthing you have just said . This forum was very tolerant over the chess sets for schools.Roger de Coverly wrote:
I have another speculation. The nature of the Chess Sets for Schools project was that even if the sets were manufactured in bulk, the ECF had to undertake the administration and distribution. As a consequence the manager of the project had to find logistic and distribution support. My suspicion is that assuming he did actually approach relevant Companies, that he told them how big the project was by reference to all the internet discussion about it. It was a problem that rather than confine his attention to the project, he got side-tracked in all sorts of debates around issues of which he knew little. So anyone Googling the project or his names would have got a ringside seat into flame wars. If anything the forum was more tolerant of the ECF wasting moderate to large sums on an abortive project than it should have been.