Agenda for the Annual General Meeting of the Sheffield & District Chess
Association, to be held on Monday 5th September 2011 at Woodseats Social Club, Woodseats Road, Sheffield S8 0PQ commencing 7.30 p.m.
1. Apologies for absence
2. Minutes of the 2010 Annual General Meeting
3. Matters arising
4. Treasurer's Report
5. Secretaries' Reports
6. Presentation of Trophies
7. Election of Officers, Auditors & Match Captains
8. Election of Chairman of the Executive
9. Election of members to serve on the Executive
10. Proposed amendments to the Constitution & Rules
11. Approval of Clubs seeking membership to the league
12. Fixing of fees and subscriptions
13. Organisation of teams into Divisions
14. Report: YCA AGM (app 1)
15. Proposals from the ECF for discussion. (app 2)
14. Any Other Business*
PROPOSALS ACCEPTED UNDER (10) ABOVE:
A. In recent seasons we have witnessed several undesirable but avoidable situations:
- Arguments over players accused of beginning their move before their opponents move is complete.
- Delays and disagreements about the accuracy of clocks reset after 30 moves.
- Questions over the accuracy of clocks with some clocks ‘seeming’ to be running slowly
- Players misjudging the amount of time left on their clocks because they are hard to read, and consequently losing on time.
- Players in a hopelessly lost position playing on with no hope of winning except on time, often refusing a draw offer.
All these problems would be avoided with the use of ‘Fischer Clocks’.
Digital clocks are easy to read and do not need resetting in the middle of a game. Any questions of accuracy can be easily verified. Furthermore, using Fischer Clocks, where both players are given an increment to their time on completing every move, will eradicate disputes over beginning moves before an opponent���s move has been completed as well as seriously disadvantaging a player playing on in a hopeless position in the hope of a victory on time.
By setting a time control of 1 hour plus an increment of 15 seconds a move, players would be given more control over managing their own time without allowing matches to ‘drag on’.
It may be objected that a disadvantage of Fischer Clocks is that no finite finish time can be established. However by putting a reasonable limit on the increment, prolonged matches can be avoided.
With the proposed time limits for example players would have:
- a total of an hour and ten minutes to make 40 moves
- an hour and 15 minutes to make 60 moves.
- Only in extremely long games would the current maximum match length be exceeded. For example to make 100 moves a player would have total time of an hour and 25 minutes.
We recognise not all clubs will have Fischer Clocks available. Also, that some players may feel disadvantaged in using a timing control that lacks familiarity, or may just prefer analogue clocks. Therefore we are proposing a rule change that does not force the use of Fisher Clocks on any match but makes their use permissible only where both captains are in agreement.
We propose the following amendment to rule 20 (b)
20(b) All games in a match will be played using the same time control.
If analogue clocks are to be used then each player shall have 60 minutes, in which to make 30 moves. If the game has not been completed by black's 30th move, each player shall be granted a further 15 minutes in which to complete the game."
If Fischer clocks are available and their use is acceptable to both captains, then players start the game with one hour on their clocks, with increments of 15 seconds added for every move.
B:
Existing rules 25 to 28 to be renumbered as 26 to 29.
New rule 25
|
25. |
Summer League. |
Rule modified |
|
|
Normal Evening League rules will apply except as follows: |
|
a) |
All divisions of the Summer League except possibly the lowest shall consist of six teams, each of which shall play two matches (home and away) with each other team. |
14 (b) |
|
b) |
The lowest division of the Summer League shall be arranged to accommodate the varying number of teams from year to year; and shall consist of a minimum of five teams, and a maximum of ten teams. |
14 (c) |
|
c) |
A team shall consist of 4 boards (or more if mutually agreed by both captains). |
14 (e), 14 (f) |
|
d) |
Applications for election to the Summer League must be made to the General Secretary by 15 April in each year. Clubs with teams competing in different divisions shall register with the Association the names of the two strongest regular players for each team, except the team or teams in the lowest division. |
15 (b), 17 (a) |
|
e) |
League matches shall take place from May to September inclusive. |
16 (b) |
|
f) |
When a club has teams competing in the same division, the league matches between them must be completed by July 16th. |
16 (d) |
|
g) |
If the lowest division comprises more than ten matches, the teams may by mutual consent agree to play one match for double points in place of home and away matches. |
16 (g) |
|
h) |
Except as provided under Rule 17(c) and 25 (i), registration of players shall be subject to approval by the Executive. If the Executive is not scheduled to meet, the approval shall be by consultation between the Chair of Executive, General Secretary and the Summer League Secretary/Secretaries. |
17 (b) |
|
i) |
Any player who plays two or more matches on either of the top two boards of any team shall be automatically registered for that team. |
17 (d) |
|
j) |
Once a player has represented a club in the Summer League s/he is ineligible to represent another club in the Summer League in the same season unless officially transferred by the Executive. A player may however represent one club during the Summer season and a different club during the Winter season. |
18 (c) |
|
k) |
In each division the team placed first shall hold the appropriate trophy until the end of the following season, and shall be entitled to promotion in the following season, to the next higher division, unless disqualified under Rule 15(e). |
23 (b) |
|
l) |
The team finishing in the bottom position in each division shall be relegated in the following season to the next lower division unless there is a vacancy in their present division, in which case they may be considered for re-election.
C:
Whilst attempting to put together a new rule to formalise the Summer League (still ongoing), I spotted an error in an existing rule.
It looks like when rule 15 (e) was changed to allow clubs to have more than two teams in the lowest division, it was neglected to amend 16 (d).
16 (d) currently reads:
When a club has two teams competing in the same division, the league matches between them must be completed by 31st December.
The proposal is therefore to delete "two". |
23 (c) |
Appendix 1
Report for Sheffield & District Chess Association on Yorkshire Chess Association AGM 18th June 2011
The detailed minutes of the YCA AGM are (or will be) on the YCA website. For the time being, here is information about discussion and decisions that I think are relevant for S&DCA. Note that the following individuals associated with the Sheffield and District league were present at the meeting: myself, Phil Beckett, Steve Mann, Alan McIntosh, Alan Coupe, Jim Burnett and Peter Shaw.
1. Grading matters
The issue of YCA / ECF grading has raised its head. This is because:
- In particular county championship competitions (eg <100s, <120s), it has proved difficult and time-consuming to get Yorkshire players without ECF grades accepted as eligible;
- Players in Yorkshire are raising the issue of the unsatisfactory fact that only some of their games are being graded (ie whether by ECF or YCA);
- The ECF has lost substantial funding and are becoming aware that a significant amount of income is lost because the majority of leagues in Yorkshire are not affiliated to the ECF (and the great majority of Yorkshire players are not ECF members);
- I think the success of Chessnuts has also been a factor: players in Yorkshire are wanting to talk about this outstanding experiment, and there is also considerable interest further afield.
Discussion is going on (initially internally within Yorkshire) both about the specific issue of gradings for county championship competitions (will ECF accept YCA gradings?) and about the broader issue of the desirability of all games by Yorkshire players being graded. This is likely to result in the YCA doing more to persuade local Associations (eg S&DCA, Bradford, York, Hull) to communicate the benefits of basic ECF membership to their members – there is an existing scheme via YCA to obtain cheap ECF membership, but it hasn’t been actively promoted.
A firm decision yesterday was that YCA would negotiate with ECF on grading issues. Related to this, the meeting agreed to modify affiliation fees to YCA (ie from affiliated local leagues in respect of Yorkshire League participation) – henceforth, the calculation will be that there is no charge for members of ECF, and that the charge for non-ECF members will rise from £5 to £6.
As far as developments with Chessnuts are concerned, Jon Griffith (the YCA grader) indicated that over the next few months:
- In addition to data displayed currently, monthly grades will be introduced;
- Captains of teams involved in the Yorkshire League will be able to post results directly onto the website (the current reporting system is slow).
2. Junior chess
As Hon Secretary for Junior Chess, Alan Coupe presented a report about the 2010-11 season. He described the season as frustrating: as a result of illness, the start of year plans to organise a number of congresses for juniors to increase participation (and feed into the Grand Prix series run by John Hipshon) did not materialise. At the higher level, the fact of having strong <8s and <10 squads bodes well for the future. The UK Chess Challenge continues to unearth new talent with over 5,000 young people playing in schools and 300+ playing in the South and North Yorkshire finals.
On the basis of discussion at the meeting, however, there continue to be difficulties with moving junior chess forward in Yorkshire, particularly when it comes to encouraging more school-based activity. The contribution of David Levens in Nottinghamshire in introducing chess as part of the curriculum of 6 individual schools was referred to as being very interesting, and undoubtedly connected to that county’s outstanding success in junior competition nationally.
3. Rule changes
The following proposals were accepted – that:
- In Yorkshire League matches, away teams will have White on odd-numbered boards;
- Re-arranged matches will be completed before the end of the season;
- An additional scheduled date will be identified in the publicised calendar, to allow for re-arranged matches – connected to this, the season will start slightly earlier.
4. Support for Sheffield congress 2012
Historically, YCA has nominated one congress taking place in Yorkshire to serve as the Yorkshire Championship – ie the winner of that congress is deemed as Yorkshire champion. There is recognition that the congress taking on this role effectively receives additional support, given the status among stronger players of the Yorkshire championship. In practice, a rota is agreed by YCA to identify the particular congresses, advertised in advance. As far as 2012 is concerned, the congress previously nominated in this rota was Huddersfield – but Huddersfield are no longer organising an annual congress. There was therefore discussion about which congress would take on the championship – and Jon Griffith generously proposed Sheffield: this was accepted by the meeting.
5. Sheffield F team?
As soon as possible, S&DCA need to inform Stuart Johnson (YCA Competitions Controller) about whether we are entering Sheffield F in the Yorkshire League for the 2011-12 season.
Jeremy Hamm
June 2011
Appendix 2
From: Andrew Farthing, Chief Executive
To: All ECF Member Organisations
AN UPDATE ON ECF FUNDING PROPOSALS
Introduction
Earlier this year, I published a paper,
The Funding of the English Chess Federation, setting out the ECF’s financial situation following the ending of the Government grant for chess in April of this year. The ECF Board identified and implemented cost savings of about £40,000, but these alone are not sufficient to offset the full impact of the loss of the £60,000 grant.
My paper included proposals for changes to the funding of the ECF, based on two options: (1) A Membership Scheme at a flat rate of £18 for adults and £12 for juniors; (2) A modified version of the current combination of Game Fee and optional Membership, which would see the base rate of Game Fee rise to 70p.
On 16
th April, the ECF Finance Council met to discuss the proposals. Following considerable discussion, the results of the members’ vote was as follows:
Option 1 (Membership Scheme) - 91 votes (54%)
Option 2 (Game Fee + Membership) - 71 votes (42%)
Neither of the above - 7 votes (4%)
In accordance with the results of the vote, I was mandated to prepare detailed proposals for implementing a Membership Scheme for consideration by Council at its AGM on 15
th October 2011.
To implement a Membership Scheme, it will be necessary to make significant changes to the Articles of the ECF, which requires a 75% majority vote.
The Purpose of this Note
A number of points emerged from the discussion of my original paper, and it is important that the final proposals should reflect these as far as possible. Pleasing everyone will be impossible, but I am seeking to develop a framework which satisfies the wishes and addresses the concerns of the large majority.
In writing to you now, I am seeking to:
1. Update all organisations which are ECF members on the latest thinking on how the Membership Scheme proposals are taking shape;
2. Inform Member Organisations of the current plans for the formation of a charity to take over the bulk of the ECF’s activities;
3. Give Member Organisations an opportunity to debate the issues in good time for the AGM;
4. Ensure that Member Organisations have a voice in shaping the final proposals by inviting their views.
PLEASE NOTE: These are not the final proposals and are subject to refinement and change. The formal proposals will be published at least one month in advance of the AGM.
MEMBERSHIP SCHEME
As well as supporting (and in many cases benefiting from) the activities of the Federation in chess at every level, ECF members will be entitled to a published grade twice a year, details of their graded game results and online access to the bimonthly newsletter
ChessMoves. Those areas with membership schemes currently stress the benefit of being able to play an unlimited number of graded games for one annual membership fee and argue that this encourages more graded competitions.
As a result of the comments received on my original outline proposals, I am considering a number of refinements:
1) Tiered membership structure
In my original paper, I described a membership scheme based on a flat rate of £18 for adults, £12 for juniors, irrespective of the amount of chess played. The view was expressed by many that this was unfair on less active players, who were paying a relatively high amount for a few games.
The current thinking, therefore, is to establish different tiers of membership as follows:
BRONZE – Eligibility for all graded events except congresses and FIDE-rated events;
SILVER – Eligibility for all graded events except FIDE-rated events;
GOLD – Eligibility for all graded and rated events.
Players who only compete in graded league, club and county competitions would be covered by Bronze membership. Silver would cover those who play in congresses as well, but not FIDE-rated events. Gold would cover all types of event. As is currently the case, all English-registered players with an active FIDE rating will be required to be ECF members in order to retain their "active" status on the FIDE rating list.
Preliminary analysis of past activity suggests that 62% of adults (29% of juniors) would need Bronze membership only. Silver would apply to 28% of adults (67% of juniors). The comparable figures for Gold would be 10% (4%) respectively.
Preliminary analysis again suggests pricing for adults in the order of: Bronze £13; Silver £19; Gold £25. Junior membership fees would be about a third lower in each case. In other words, those who play in non-FIDE-rated congresses would pay £1 more than in the original £18 flat rate proposal; those who play only in league and club competitions – the group which caused most concern in the response to the original paper – would pay £5 less than envisaged.
|
It is also envisaged that there would be a PLATINUM membership tier, at a higher price, for those who wished to support the Federation as a patron. A note about Game Fee
Given the vote at Council in April, my brief is to prepare detailed proposals for a membership scheme. If these do not obtain the necessary support in October, it is likely that some form of Game Fee would remain. As you will be aware, Game Fee is currently paid on all graded games, except for those played by ECF direct members in congresses and all games played by those who are part of a Membership Organisation (Basic and Basic Junior members).
Outside Membership Organisations, players generally pay Game Fee through their league or match fees or through congress entry fees. In view of the need to close the budget gap created by the loss of the Government grant, Game Fee would have to increase further, which would have a knock-on effect on league fees, etc.
It should be stressed that, under a Membership scheme, no Game Fee will be payable, so league fees should be significantly reduced or even eliminated entirely, depending on local circumstances. Similarly, congress organisers will no longer need to include an element in their entry fees to cover Game Fee (i.e. about £3 for a typical weekend congress).
I appreciate that this is likely to be well understood, but it is important to be clear that, while a membership scheme will, on average, increase what individuals pay towards the ECF, this is also true of the alternative. |