tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-461666380265364189.post3509617550694302639..comments2023-08-31T18:05:53.836+01:00Comments on John Saunders' Chess Blog: Mike Truran - Open Letter, 8 May 2008John Saundershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03533087091700425575noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-461666380265364189.post-43068835480146703422008-05-09T14:11:00.000+01:002008-05-09T14:11:00.000+01:00AmenDavidAtticus CCAmen<br><br>David<br>Atticus CCDavidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-461666380265364189.post-76192530459685332372008-05-09T14:30:00.000+01:002008-05-09T14:30:00.000+01:00I've written elsewhere that I am very sorry to...I've written elsewhere that I am very sorry to see the resignees go and I stick to that: I think they all were (and still can be, in whatever capacity) a force for improvement in English chess. But I don't necessarily agree with all that Mike says or with the approach that he takes here. I'll presumably expand on this as we go, but briefly:<br><br>1. I do not think it is right or reasonable to paint the ECF in the colours that he does: because people disagree with Mike or with Martin Regan doesn't necessarily mean they're self-serving or parchially-minded. No doubt there are people who <i>would</i> fit that description.<br><br>2. I don't think the decline of English chess is the fault of the ECF and at very least there should be recognition of the wider factors involved before anybody tries to pin it on that organisation.<br><br>3. I have to say that even now, after all the discussion, I find myself unsure what the exact cause of the controversy <i>was</i> and I find it odd - as an ECF member - that such a crisis should occur over an issue of which I wasn't even aware.<br><br>I've suggested elsewhere that it might have been better if the proposals had been advertised and discussed more widely. This might seem like a time-consuming process: I can very much understand that people don't want to have a debate lasting months or years before they make every little change. Of course. But when you're new and people don't really know you or understand what you're trying to do, it can be useful or even necessary. When you've established your credentials and people are with you - <i>that</i> is when you can have all the leeway you want to get things done at the speed you want.<br><br>Sometimes you need to win arguments before proceeding - and if you can't win them with some people you can win them with the wider public. If you can't win them with the wider public then well, you can't really act on their behalf whether that public is right or wrong.<br><br>I think this crisis may possibly have the virtue of making people think more deeply about what should be (and indeed can be) done about English chess. In the short term we're more likely to have rows and recriminations, but in the longer term, possibly a way forward can be found. It may well involve restructuring - it may well involve a lot else besides. And if Mike thinks contemplating the decline of English chess distresses him, he wants to have tried supporting Oxford United for the last twenty years.ejhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-461666380265364189.post-85928060682986065192008-05-09T14:56:00.000+01:002008-05-09T14:56:00.000+01:00Martin Regan writes: Although, I would say that so...<i>Martin Regan writes:</i> Although, I would say that some of Mike's views about Council are a tad on the harsh side - his views in every other respect - are absolutely correct.<br> <br>Every chess player who cares for the state of English Chess - and many do not - should read his letter.<br> <br>As should every Council member tempted to give their proxy votes to those whose purpose appears to be to run an ECF solely for the purpose of having a federation and being an officer within it.<br> <br>Martin Regan<br><br><i>(n.b. Martin Regan asked me to post this comment here on his behalf. JS)</i>John Saundersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-461666380265364189.post-15990245262888739212008-05-09T15:28:00.000+01:002008-05-09T15:28:00.000+01:00Thanks for that Mike - backs up what we already kn...Thanks for that Mike - backs up what we already knew!<br><br>Steve HendersonStevenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-461666380265364189.post-86366909448809129502008-05-09T15:41:00.000+01:002008-05-09T15:41:00.000+01:00We really didn’t care whether membership was pitch...<b>We really didn’t care whether membership was pitched at £2 or £50</b><br><br>Down at the bottom it makes an immense difference and the board really should try to understand these things. You can price a rapidplay tournament to have an entry fee in the £10-15 range. You might even attract some newcomers to competition chess. That even includes a payment to the ECF of game fee. At £50, it's difficult to believe that you would get new players and you would probably have cut down the English chess population from around 12000 down to a core of about 3000 with the effect that there wouldn't have been a tournament at all.<br><br>RdCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-461666380265364189.post-46612998635845152032008-05-09T16:23:00.000+01:002008-05-09T16:23:00.000+01:00I can see why people would want to give their time...I can see why people would want to give their time and energy to serving on the Board of the ECF. I can't see why anyone would want to be on the Council. As chair of a charity (unpaid) and chief executive (paid) of another charity (both far larger than the ECF in financial terms, but insignificant in profile) I know how much work it is to run an organisation with an unwieldy and unworkable decision-making structure.<br><br>There is clear debate and difference of opinion about what the role of the ECF should be. Surely the key is for the board (as it seems they were trying to do) to get this debate out in the open and canvass views about the future strategy of the organisation. <br><br>If the clear preference of the membership is for free (or virtually so - given that any subscription system probably costs £5-10 a year per member to administer) then a business plan needs to be written to deliver what can be delivered within that.<br><br>If the preference is for an active ECF, delivering international and junior chess and helping to promote major congresses and leagues, then it will cost money - and the membership fee will need to reflect that.<br><br>I'm a next-to-useless chess player, but the father of a decent junior player. Personally I'd pay £50 per annum for membership to deliver better services for chess.<br><br>I have to say that I was very encouraged by what the board appeared to be doing (eg. the vast improvements in selection methods and numbers of places for international junior representation) and am greatly saddened by the recent developments.Matt Harrisonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-461666380265364189.post-78747771477740230172008-05-12T11:14:00.000+01:002008-05-12T11:14:00.000+01:00I strongly agree with RdC over this. It matters a ...I strongly agree with RdC over this. It matters a great deal at what level membership is priced. Further, charging an exorbitive membership fee seems a very lazy way for the ECF to raise revenue. The average player would - if they coughed up at all - likely see no direct benefits for his or her bucks. While most players wouldn't balk at paying a reasonably priced memebership fee especially if the results were tangible, I can't believe there aren't other more equitable ways to raise money that future (imaginative) directors might dream up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-461666380265364189.post-5191880187028253322008-05-12T12:38:00.000+01:002008-05-12T12:38:00.000+01:00Mike's £2/£50 comment comes across as a bit Ma...Mike's £2/£50 comment comes across as a bit Marie-Antoinette-ish ("let them eat cake") but I don't think he intended it to be taken literally. It was an exaggeration for the sake of effect. The point he is making is that the new members of the board wanted to get Council debating what they thought the ECF ought to be doing, rather than arguing over the details of membership/game fees. Not that the latter details are not important - they are - but the role of the federation has to be discussed and agreed before you can start fixing prices.John Saundersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-461666380265364189.post-88514485107217962008-05-12T13:05:00.000+01:002008-05-12T13:05:00.000+01:00debating what they thought the ECF ought to be doi...<i>debating what they thought the ECF ought to be doing</i><br><br>running a national chess federation.<br><br>next question<br><br>Isn't the April council meeting just supposed to be mostly about rubber stamping the budget? Is it really the right place to start a debate about the direction of the ECF with one hour on the clock? <br><br>RdCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-461666380265364189.post-73429096985996092012008-05-12T14:35:00.000+01:002008-05-12T14:35:00.000+01:00Dear oh dear. I imagine it was just that sort of d...Dear oh dear. I imagine it was just that sort of dismissive reaction which caused the directors to resign. Isn't it perfectly reasonable to debate the scope of the federation? <br><br>If not in April, when? Anyway, you are assuming that the Council meeting was the trigger for the resignations and I don't think this was the case.John Saundersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-461666380265364189.post-47258139705553039312008-05-12T16:09:00.000+01:002008-05-12T16:09:00.000+01:00Isn't it perfectly reasonable to debate the sc...<i>Isn't it perfectly reasonable to debate the scope of the federation? </i><br><br>Of course. But you start the debate by putting some ideas forward in the chess media. Or present a discussion paper to council.<br><br>I believe the board may have had some plan to spend large amounts of money "to invest in English chess". Ok - present this plan - explain that it doubles the ECF's expenditure budget and then make some proposals to raise the funds.<br><br>Perhaps the plan was to merge with Chess & Bridge and the 4NCL to control the national league and attempt to control the magazine, books and equipment market. <br><br>RdCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-461666380265364189.post-13289213674387196162008-05-12T17:52:00.000+01:002008-05-12T17:52:00.000+01:00Anyway, you are assuming that the Council meeting ...<i>Anyway, you are assuming that the Council meeting was the trigger for the resignations and I don't think this was the case.</i><br><br>I think this is what bugs me because it's hard to believe that people just suddenly resigned out of the blue over the outcome and atmosphere of one meeting: yet if they did not, I don't have a clue what <i>in particular</i> happened beforehand.<br><br>I don't necessarily agree with all that RdC says but I think I <i>do</i> agree with the first paragraph of his last posting. I stand to be corrected but it does seem to me to have been less well-prepared than it might and should have been, and I don't really understand why. None of the resignees are organisationally inept.ejhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-461666380265364189.post-69651263324857792422008-05-12T18:15:00.000+01:002008-05-12T18:15:00.000+01:00RdC and Ejh both make interesting points. I'll...RdC and Ejh both make interesting points. I'll ask Mike Truran if he has anything to say on the matter.John Saundersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-461666380265364189.post-51280933724928777252008-05-12T19:24:00.000+01:002008-05-12T19:24:00.000+01:00Yes, we could have prepared the ground better - an...Yes, we could have prepared the ground better - and had we had our time again we may well have done just that. Would it have made any difference? I don't think so. I hope my letter got over the sense that it wasn't just one meeting. It was the culmination of a long series of confrontations, discussions about trivia, refusal to address the issues etc etc. I think it's instructive that despite the lack of briefing material supporting the discussion point we wanted to air (what is your vision for what your federation should be delivering and what are you willing to pay to deliver that vision?) the subject was immediately shouted down by the minority I referred to in my letter - without, I'm afraid to say, any significant push-back from the majority of Council members who, I still believe, at heart wished the Board well and wanted them to succeed. Had the opposition been based on properly argued objections to previously published briefing papers I could have understood that - but in fact it seemed to me that the opposition was in fact based on a deeply held, emotional and almost visceral antipathy to the idea of change which no amount of pre-briefing was going to change. <br><br>So yes - we could have prepared the ground better. And no - I am convinced that the outcome would have been the same. Waiting until October to have a more clearly defined proposal rejected would have been a waste of time. Our take-away from the Council meeting was that there was such hostility to any suggestion of significant change that it really wasn't worth going on. <br><br>However, until the chess world is ready to front up to the key issue of what it wants English chess to look like and what it's prepared to pay to deliver it, any debate will continue be conducted under the wrong terms of reference. If people want a £2 service, that's OK, and if they want to pay more for a better service that's OK as well. What they should not do is delude themselves that they can get something for nothing. That was really the only question we wanted discussed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-461666380265364189.post-43339708626342055062008-05-12T21:38:00.000+01:002008-05-12T21:38:00.000+01:00I have been to many BCF council meetings, but not ...I have been to many BCF council meetings, but not any more, and I quite understand why people don't go.... The problem at all levels of chess from county (or similar) upwards is that a lot of the people at meetings are only there to further their own ends, or to attack people they hate. Hatred is frequently based on jealousy. Last county meeting I attended, one individual said that a club should be expelled from the county, because they had religious posters at their venue! The rather supine chair of the meeting (who turned up for a change), as somnolent as a very tired person working as a mogadon tester, took no notice (as usual). If you have people like that involved you are doomed really. Other officers privately wrote off the person who commented on the religious posters as "stupid" or "mentally ill", but did not want to take action. And he is the delegate to the ECF!<br>Of course, there are decent people out there, but all too often, they get sick of the attitude of others and resign. This has always happened, and it will still happen. Losing people like Mike is really sad.Nemesishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00275664333098417743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-461666380265364189.post-3602610443327902172008-05-13T22:57:00.000+01:002008-05-13T22:57:00.000+01:00I realise that this information is presumably read...I realise that this information is presumably readily available, but would anyone care to post and explain to me (i) who the members of the council are, and (ii) who elected them? I seem to recall voting for the present board, and I don't recall voting for the council. That being so, I don't understand why it's sensible for the board to have to go back to the council and seek the council's approval to carry out the policies on which they were voted in.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-461666380265364189.post-34641753843779261342008-05-15T01:34:00.000+01:002008-05-15T01:34:00.000+01:00Egad. This seems to be the answer to my question.T...Egad. This seems to be the answer to my question.<br><br>There are 46 Leagues who have a total of 87 votes between them. For example, the 4NCL has 6 votes and the Hammersmith & District League has 1.<br><br>There are 38 Counties with a total of 82 votes. The range is 4 votes for big counties like Surrey, to 1 vote for tiddlers like Warwickshire.<br><br>There are 53 Congresses wielding 66 votes. Golders Green carries a mighty 4.<br><br>There are 7 Constituent Units - these include the London Chess League, the Northern Counties Chess Union and the like. 19 Votes.<br><br>There are 10 Other Organisations (basically not fitting into other categories) - Braille Chess Association, British Federation for Correspondence Chess, to name but two. They have one vote each so - 10 votes.<br><br>Then there are 16 votes going to various individuals - one each - people like the President, the Board (that’s where I get my one vote as International Director), Trustees, Past Chief Executive.<br><br>And last, but not least, there are the Representatives of Direct Members (remember them) - who are 8 individuals each with a single vote = 8 votes -"<br><br>So that's 288 people entitled to attend council meetings and vote.<br><br>Can anyone seriously doubt that Mike Truran is right? This is absolutely, completely and utterly bonkers. <br><br>Isn't it? Or have I misunderstood?<br><br>As far as I can see the surprise is not that Peter et al have resigned but that anyone was ever prepared to take the jobs.<br><br>John CoxAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-461666380265364189.post-63650077632058609482008-05-16T13:48:00.000+01:002008-05-16T13:48:00.000+01:00Can anyone seriously doubt that Mike Truran is rig...<i>Can anyone seriously doubt that Mike Truran is right? This is absolutely, completely and utterly bonkers. </i><br><br>Well, the point is surely that if you want to have representative bodies then you need to have representatives. Often this results in organisations being unwieldy, but is there an yreason to think that English chess is paricularly problematic in that regard? It may be, but I'd want that demonstrated rather than asserted.<br><br>I'm not (remotely) saying that a better arrangment, quite likely a much better one, could not be come to, but I am, perhaps, saying that first, I very much doubt that the decline of English chess is particuarly linked to the organisational structure of English chess - and second, that one has to work within and understand the structures that already exist, or if one thinks they should be changed, put the case for change and have a debate about it. I think a lot of ECF members would welcome that discussion and I think I'd be one of them: but the trouble is that we seem to be having the discussion too late in the day.ejhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-461666380265364189.post-76349190857077254142008-05-17T19:32:00.000+01:002008-05-17T19:32:00.000+01:00As someone who has followed British Chess through ...As someone who has followed British Chess through playing relatives, for 50 or 60 years, I do not understand any of this.. I still cannot quite understand whether the real problem is more than extreme personality clashes between the Board and the Council. My chess playing relative is full of praise and respect for the members who have resigned for the efforts they have made and is sad that they have gone. <br>I would like to know WHY England is so low down the international chess league now.. can anyone tell me? Why a professional GM has to work as a builder's labourer or any other casual work between competitions in this country whilst on meeting players from other countries he can only marvel at their conditions and support. What is needed? Can anyone actually say? Do we need genius marketing and promotion to acquire more funds? Can anyone suggest what is needed... surely it must be tempting to really good chess players to try to change nationality so they can survive economically!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-461666380265364189.post-22965560948211933212008-05-18T09:57:00.000+01:002008-05-18T09:57:00.000+01:00There's some discussion of some of the issues ...There's some discussion of some of the issues involved <a href="http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.com/2008/04/ecf-folk-quit.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.com/2007/07/ten-and-half-questions-about-decline-of.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> if it's any help.ejhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-461666380265364189.post-45973068904413902832008-05-23T22:30:00.000+01:002008-05-23T22:30:00.000+01:00It's incredibly tough to become a super GM in ...It's incredibly tough to become a super GM in England. The problem is you work hard to reach 2500, then realise there is no money, so spend the majority of time doing other jobs to get money, thus neglecting your game at a time when it needs most work. When you improve at a lower level, just playing chess is the most important factor. A little coaching certainly doesn't hurt too. As you reach a stronger level you really need to work at chess. Top players should be studying openings, top games, endings etc for 5-6 hours a day, ideally as part of a team. In England that never happens. 1) We need to make money. 2) Anyone we study with is likely to be a main rival for what little money there is, so it's hard to be too open when it comes to openings in particular!<br><br>Lack of money is the main problem, and it doesn't matter how you look at it, it always comes back to the same thing. I guess it's the ECF's job to get that money, I know it's not easy, but i'm sure they could make more effort to contact tv channels / newspapers / radio stations or just a bit of fundraising. Even a charity box at every tournament would be a good start, so people can chip in a couple of quid if they feel like it!<br><br>If they can get money, and spend it wisely it will make an enormous difference, otherwise top chess players just can't afford the time to get better. I've just moved to number 4 active chess player in England (including McShane) and I've recently started a fulltime, non chess related job as the future looks bleak as a pro!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-461666380265364189.post-17723131481354741392008-05-24T10:55:00.000+01:002008-05-24T10:55:00.000+01:00Well, I guess it always comes back to the main poi...Well, I guess it always comes back to the main point I was trying to make in my article - what do English chess players want and what are they prepared to pay for it? I would argue that core activity (and I wwould argue that support for potential and existing GMs falls in that category) should be funded by the English chess fraternity. If I were a sponsor I might ask myself why I should put myslef out to fund English chess if the English chess fraternity itself can't be bothered.<br><br>MikeMike Truranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13061491756680822741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-461666380265364189.post-28732309947254684622008-05-24T14:21:00.000+01:002008-05-24T14:21:00.000+01:00Anonymous: I agree with every word you say until y...Anonymous: I agree with every word you say until you "guess it's the ECF's job to get that money". Is it? It's a moot point. The ECF has usually found some money to support team chess, etc, but it has never had the money to pay English pros a living wage on a regular basis. The English chess explosion was masterminded by private individuals who worked together in an adhoc sort of way and it also relied on external factors (e.g. a rotten national economy which meant that graduates couldn't find jobs - so pro chess became an attractive alternative for some). The BCF didn't plough much money into pro chess even when England briefly became world no.2 in team chess. They sometimes liked to take credit for being involved in it - some of which they deserved, but not a lot. Things might get better if some chess-friendly and professional-quality fund-raiser came along to help the cause or the next Magnus Carlsen turned out to be English but we would need to be extraordinarily lucky.<br><br>You are just unlucky to be born in a wealthy country with good job opportunities, health care, etc. If you had been born in some God-forsaken part of Eastern Europe, then a chessplaying career would have made more sense, etc.<br><br>Mike: what you are suggesting ('the English chess fraternity' contributing significantly to the support of pro chess) goes beyond what you were saying in your original posting here. It has never been done before in the UK to any great degree (even during the 'good times')and will be seen as controversial in many people's eyes. I personally doubt it would have wide support, particularly if it meant rank and file members of the ECF having to pay a significantly bigger subscription. Just my twopenny'orth - what do others think? <br><br>Describing it as 'the English chess fraternity' is quite optimistic in its own right. More fratricidal than Cain...John Saundersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-461666380265364189.post-23548504162001533202008-05-24T17:38:00.000+01:002008-05-24T17:38:00.000+01:00John, I absolutely agree with you. The point I sho...John, I absolutely agree with you. The point I should have made more clearly is that whilst it's my own view that the English chess fraternity (as you say, as ill-chosen a phrase as one could think of) should support professionals to some degree, that view will not necessarily be shared more widely. That is absolutely fair enough - what people should not, however, do is delude themselves that they can get something for nothing. Sponsorship is often mentioned as a panacea - but unless people actually get off their bottoms and put in the effort to search for sponsorship in a professional and focused way (compared with the half-a****d way it's done at the moment) it won't happen. Looking for sponsorship properly means time, effort, expertise and (let's not fool ourselves) money - all of which seems to be in short supply.<br><br>I suspect though that you are spot on with your analysis. In the last resort chess is a deeply unattractive commodity for sponsors, we live in a country where chess is not an attractive career option and our chess culture in this country is one which refuses to contribute financially unless a tangible and immediate benefit is delivered.<br><br>All deeply depressing. Then again, the sun is shining outside and I'm off for a glass of wine in the garden. There is a real world beyond chess.Mike Truranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13061491756680822741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-461666380265364189.post-44235163058239689062008-05-24T22:44:00.000+01:002008-05-24T22:44:00.000+01:00As a direct member of the ECF I play most of my ch...As a direct member of the ECF I play most of my chess in congresses and on the internet.<br>The ECF offers me membership to the national organisation enabling my to play abroad. Discounted enries to congresses. And on the occasions I do win any money I have an official rating preventing me from me from being called a cheat.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com