How are they going to enforce this?

[Reg Clucas]

Apologies if this has been covered in one of the other membership threads, but I haven't time to read them all.

From the ECF website -

It has come to the Board’s attention that some parts of the ECF intend to only submit the results of ECF members’ games from their league, in order to avoid Game Fee liability.
The Board wishes to clarify that the ECF will not grade any grading files from any organisation where results are selectively submitted for grading. All of the results from the league must be submitted in order for the event to be graded.

This might be enforceable for League matches where there are a predetermined number of games. But what about Congresses? And internal Club competitions? How will they know that all games have been submitted?

And a related question - is Steve Giddins' view on the moral side of this issue a fair comment?

[Roger de Coverly]

And a related question - is Steve Giddins' view on the moral side of this issue a fair comment?

It's not usually presented as such, but ever since the first introduction of grading getting on for sixty years ago, the ECF and BCF before it, pursued the notion of a compulsory grading scheme. In other words every game was graded, not because you, as a player, wanted a grade, but because other players and organisers wanted to know how good you were. This underpins grade restricted leagues and tournaments, seeding Swiss pairing systems, match board orders etc.

A Clarke style system as used by the ECF and BCF differs from an Elo style system as it attempts to include every game regardless of whether either of the players has a current grade. By contrast, an Elo style system usually works on the basis that only games against players with ratings will count and you only get a rating by playing the required number of players already having ratings.

[Roger de Coverly]

But what about Congresses? And internal Club competitions? How will they know that all games have been submitted?

If Congresses had players participating who were not in on the secret, they could complain about games missing from their grading record. I don't see the ECF could take any action against a Congress that had an ungraded section reserved for non members.

If your internal competition was a Swiss, it might be difficult to mask the removal of games by non-members. It wouldn't be as difficult in an all play all or "play who you like" format, you just have an internal rule that the official event is ECF members only, but games with non-members can still take place under normal time controls.

[John Townsend]

One important question is whether ECF membership is value for money. I would suggest that for many people it is not, since all they get out of it is grading. In a recent I thread I remarked, "Some people may expect value for money and see no benefit beyond grading."

Sean Hewitt replied:

Grading is probably the only tangible benefit that the average player gets - or wants. There are of course other things, such as junior chess, international chess etc that the ECF spends money on - but the majority of those funding the ECF don't derive any direct benefit from those activities.

[Andrew Zigmond]

I suppose it depends what the percentage of members vs non members is in a given event. If a handful of results are withheld then you may get away with it.

As usual Steve Giddins has a point. However it does come back to the Catch 22 situation we have with the ECF, namely that it may not do its job very well but no other organisation is doing it. If the ECF were to collapse there's no guarantee it would be replaced with anything better. It is sad that the ECF has allowed itself to be reduced to a level where game fee is almost its sole source of income. Whether we like it or not a lot of the revenue goes towards financing international activities such as the Olympiad team and if England was suddenly unable to send players to these events from lack of funds I'm sure Steve Giddins would pass acerbic comment on this.

I personally wish the ECF could stop squabbling for long enough to find some more pro-active way of making funds. Most of the positive things that have happened in English chess in recent years (the UK Chess Challenge, the 4NCL and the London Chess Classic) have all come about because somebody spotted a gap in the market. I'd be surprised if any of these run on a loss.

[Roger de Coverly]

Whether we like it or not a lot of the revenue goes towards financing international activities such as the Olympiad team

Financing International activities requires revenue in the absence of sufficient sponsorship, donations or patronage, but much of the ECF's revenue goes on paying for its staffed office. The previous CEO did give some details, but didn't indicate to which areas of the ECF's activity you could allocate office costs.

[Roger de Coverly]

This might be enforceable for League matches where there are a predetermined number of games.

This may answer the question

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/?p=22095

The ECF announce the exclusion of games in the following leagues or counties from the grading system:-
Bradford League | Calderdale League | Cumbria Chess Association | Doncaster League | Harrogate League | Huddersfield League | Hull League | Sheffield League | York League

[Carl Hibbard]

The ECF announce the exclusion of games in the following leagues or counties from the grading system:-

Bradford League | Calderdale League | Cumbria Chess Association | Doncaster League | Harrogate League | Huddersfield League | Hull League | Sheffield League | York League

What a mess

[Sean Hewitt]

The ECF announce the exclusion of games in the following leagues or counties from the grading system:-

Bradford League | Calderdale League | Cumbria Chess Association | Doncaster League | Harrogate League | Huddersfield League | Hull League | Sheffield League | York League

What a mess

In what way Carl?

[IM Jack Rudd]

Yorkshire, Yorkshire, Cumbria, Yorkshire, Yorkshire, Yorkshire, Yorkshire, Yorkshire, Yorkshire. What an expletiveing surprise.

[Martin Regan]

For the life of me I can't see what the ECF hope to gain by this policy.

It is wrong on every level: practical, political and moral.

[John Hickman]

Yorkshire, Yorkshire, Cumbria, Yorkshire, Yorkshire, Yorkshire, Yorkshire, Yorkshire, Yorkshire. What an expletiveing surprise.

"Bloody Vikings!"

[Roger de Coverly]

For the life of me I can't see what the ECF hope to gain by this policy.

The answer quite obviously is money. If you allow "optional" grading, you both destroy the principle of compulsory grading and risk not collecting enough to meet the costs of collection.

[Martin Regan]

The answer quite obviously is money.

Well yes to the first part. The oft-repeated ECF mistake. Look for what you need and charge the players accordingly, rather than give the players a good service and (apart from a handful of oddballs) they will support it and pay for it.

A strange thing to launch a new membership scheme - the big selling point of which is a grade - and then to withold a grade from your own members.

[Roger de Coverly]

A strange thing to launch a new membership scheme - the big selling point of which is a grade - and then to withold a grade from your own members.

Under the old membership scheme, chess organisations were the members of the ECF and paid the membership costs. So anyone playing in events organised by ECF members got a grade if they played enough games. Quite simple really. Organisations would recoup costs from participants using a method of their choice.