Chess Scotland Noticeboard

Adam Raoof · Knight Joined: 06 Jan 2010 Posts: 10

Dear Friends

I'm the Home Chess Director of the English Chess Federation.

I inherited a rule that says that all players who are ENG on the FIDE list have to be members of the English Chess Federation. I actually think rule is fair, and I don't have a problem enforcing it. We don't have a government grant any more, and we need the funding. We have also decided to move towards a compulsory membership scheme in England.

Recently we gave notice that anyone who was not a member could be expected to be deregistered, having had several years to think about it, and as a result many joined the Federation. Some did not realise that membership was compulsory, but they paid even though several of them lived permanently outside the UK.

One or two players had been deliberately ignoring the rule for a few years, and continued to refuse to pay their contribution to the funding of the ECF.

This is despite, I assume, the many years of support and opportunities that the ECF has provided, and the fact that they trade as professional chess players in England as English titleholders, with accreditation from the English Chess Federation to support their work.

Our position is simple - you can't apply the rules to some, and not to all. It simply would not be fair.

Good luck with your discussions. I don't want to stop anyone leaving the ECF, and I don't personally want to ask for more than I feel they owe in ECF back memberships before saying goodbye. On the other hand the Board of the ECF, and your own Board, has to bear in mind all the other implications, too many to list here.

The fact that some players have re-discovered their Scottish ancestry at the precise moment they finally realised that they would have to pay their membership fee to the ECF does not surprise me.

I'm a Gillespie myself.
_________________
Best wishes

Adam Raoof

ECF Director of Home Chess
FIDE International Organiser & Arbiter

Mailing list: send a blank email to adamraoof-subscribe@topica.com

http://www.goldersgreenchess.blogspot.com/

Craig Pritchett · Queen Joined: 19 Mar 2007 Posts: 114

Well said, Adam!

This is indeed a tricky situation and it might perhaps be best if it (the Matthew Turner case) could be solved within ECF circles as chess (everywhere in the UK) faces similar potential or in the ECF's case actual challenges as govt cuts set in. I was interested to hear that Max Devereux (now likely to be living long-term in Norway) - coincidentally along with Matthew Turner a second Barbican 4NCL team mate of mine - is another person caught up in this transitional phase ... as ECF de-registers its non-members for FIDE rating purposes (for those who don't know, Max objects to having to remain but continues to remain a member of the ECF for FIDE rating purposes while now resident in Norway and a full member of the Norwegian Chess Federation). Both Matthew and Max are passionate supporters of chess in the UK (not just England) and not, as I'm quite sure Adam would agree, natural "antis" on almost "anything".

As far as Scotland (CS) is concerned, it seems that we can do either of two things (or a third thing - "nothing"):

1. amend our "national representation" criteria to extend a rightful claim to "SCO" recognition to include "grandparents" rather than simply "parents" as at present required both to represent SCO in FIDE events AND for FIDE rating purposes [NB: my earlier understanding on this point was incorrect - the two are interlinked at the relevant CS web-page]; or

2. enact a new CS criterion for FIDE rating purposes ONLY - this is essentially the drift of Andrew Muir's proposal platformed for discussion at the AGM, assuming I understand it correctly ... although on this point I would probably prefer the adopted justification to be more along the lines outlined in my previous post than Andrew's, viz. justified by recognition of any UK [non-Scottish resident] citizen's right to be recognised for FIDE rating purposes ONLY, if they have been a CS member, for say 2 years (and not a member of another FIDE member federation in that period) and someone who has demonstrably supported / promoted chess in Scotland. Matthew Turner might qualify under something like this change, without touching the grandparent / parent issue.

In my view, I now think that we should do "nothing" at the upcoming AGM but commit to sorting this out within the next year (in discussions with the ECF and FIDE, as it is not in the spirit of FIDE membership to rush into anything that might act to the possible detriment of the promotion of chess in a fellow FIDE member's jurisdiction). This doesn't, of course, mean that CS should willy-nilly toe any ECF "line". Far from it. It simply means that we should not rush into our own, fully considered CS conclusion without proper international consideration, not least with FIDE involved.

I am particularly hesitant about supporting option 1, above, as I don't think that changes on "national representation" covering qualification for Scotland in FIDE events - and not just for FIDE rating purposes - should be seen (or even risk being seen) as driven by the unusual facts of Matthew Turner's case. I feel quite sure that Matthew understands this point. CS should not be "bounced" into such far-reaching decisions - although I recognise that if the CS membership feels as a whole that it wishes to enact option 1, it has the perfect democratic right to do this.

Very tricky ... and I must say that I didn't find the extremely lengthy arguments at the ecf forum on this matter at all easy to follow!!

Hope helpful!!!

Phil Thomas · King Joined: 26 Mar 2007 Posts: 758

Adam Raoof · Knight Joined: 06 Jan 2010 Posts: 10

Dear Phil

Many thanks for your post. Bearing in mind that this is a Chess Scotland Noticeboard I'll be brief! I have looked into this and can confirm that your emails were received, together with your application form dated 2 May 2008. Unfortunately it appears that no action was taken at that time, and this is obviously unacceptable. I apologise sincerely for any inconvenience caused, and if there is anything that needs updating or correcting feel free to email me directly at adamraoof@gmail.com in future. Please be aware that as some time has elapsed we may have to ask for a current CRB, and membership of the ECF, but that the situation with former BCF coaches is complicated (i.e. I don't understand all the issues!)
_________________
Best wishes

Adam Raoof

ECF Director of Home Chess
FIDE International Organiser & Arbiter

Mailing list: send a blank email to adamraoof-subscribe@topica.com

http://www.goldersgreenchess.blogspot.com/

Stuart Blyth · King Joined: 11 Sep 2008 Posts: 209

I don't see anything wrong with compulsory membership - so long as membership fees are within the reach of everyone. In this respect, I don't see anything wrong with the position the ECF are adopting. However, I don't know every detail, so it's just a general thought.

Has the new website resulted in a rise in membership, or is it too early to tell? My own gut instinct is that, while the new website is really fantastic, I'm not sure it will generate a significant rise in membership, and that other approaches might be better. I'd stress that I'd be happy to be wrong about this and am asking out of genuine interest and not to 'stir' - here seemed a good point, since I seem to remember that the issue of compulsory membership came up along with website access. (I'm not too concerned if I've remembered incorrectly, as some kind soul will surely put me right! That was a bit of stirring, but not meant unkindly Very Happy

)

DMB · King Joined: 08 Mar 2007 Posts: 267

If you have a couple of weeks to spare you could start going through the ECF website posts to see the issues which pop up with regard to compulsory membership.

What price level, how many games does a new player get before you have to pay up, what happens if you play a graded game but were ineligible, who is responsible for checking membership status prior to a game and so on.

There are many activities where joining is considered natural but it may be difficult when brought in to an organisation where it was not there before. Nobody seems to mention the 1993 AGM when Donald Holmes, the then SCA President, had his idea for compulsion overwhelmingly rejected by members.

The current set up of a mix of grading fee and voluntary membership for extra services was weighed up as the best way to go. There are about 600 members from 2200 players.

By all means that could change if members prefer a different set up - however before you have a massive overhaul like compulsory membership you need well thought out answers to all the trivia which goes with it.

Stuart Blyth · King Joined: 11 Sep 2008 Posts: 209

@DMB sorely tempted as I am by the offer of looking throught the ECF website, I'll maybe decline it!

What you say must, of course, be true. However much something might seem like a good idea in theory, practical considerations might make it difficult to implement (impliment?). It's also true that you have to give a lot of weight to what is said by those already involved in running the existing set up AND consider how and by whom the new changes would be run!

GN · King Joined: 30 Mar 2007 Posts: 415

DMB · King Joined: 08 Mar 2007 Posts: 267

>>> GN: The one thing I don't get, though, is how it is that some events / tournaments manage to FIDE rate their games even when many of the participants are not affiliated to a national body - SNCL is the the one that first comes to mind. Isn't this just a straight breach of FIDE rules?

We had misinterpreted the FIDE regulation which says that players had to be members of a federation - as in card carrying members. FIDE's use of the term membership really means belonging to a federation ie a CS non-member born here is still a member of the Scottish federation.

It should have been obvious the interpretation was wrong since several federations dont have individual domestic membership schemes - notably the Russians.

So now FIDE rating is compiled for all players whether they are CS members or not. However the FIDE fee for SCO registered non CS members is £2 but only £1 for members.

GN · King Joined: 30 Mar 2007 Posts: 415

Phil Thomas · King Joined: 26 Mar 2007 Posts: 758

Adam Raoof · Knight Joined: 06 Jan 2010 Posts: 10

Matthew Turner · Pawn Joined: 07 Jul 2011 Posts: 4

Adam Raoof wrote,
"One or two players had been deliberately ignoring the rule for a few years, and continued to refuse to pay their contribution to the funding of the ECF."

Over the past twenty or so years I have raised tens of thousands of pounds for English Chess, the BCF and the ECF. I created and still administer the Certificate of Excellence that raises a couple of thousand pounds a year to support English Junior Chess. I have never received a penny for this. I am not a 'freeloader'.

Adam Raoof wrote,
"The fact that some players have re-discovered their Scottish ancestry at the precise moment they finally realised that they would have to pay their membership fee to the ECF does not surprise me"

This is simply offensive - I have been a member of Chess Scotland for many years.

Matthew Turner · Pawn Joined: 07 Jul 2011 Posts: 4

I have just received a coiuple of E-mails from Andrew Farthing and Lawrence Cooper confirming that the ECF will not be seeking a compensation fee. I would like to thank Lawrence, Andrew and Adam Raoof for reaching this decision.