Championship Pelton Rush Cup 2018/19

Championship Pelton Rush Cup 2018/19
1 1V12 2V11 3V10 4V9 5V8 6V7 Nov-11
2 12V7 8V6 9V5 10V4 11V3 1V2 Dec-03
3 2V12 3V1 4V11 5V10 6V9 TVS Dec-24
4 12V8 9V7 10V6 11V5 1V4 2V3 Jan-20
5 3V12 4V2 5V1 5v6 7V10 8V9 Feb-10
6 12V9 10V8 11V7 1V6 2V5 3V4 Mar-03
7 4V12 5V3 6V2 7V1 8V11 9V10 Mar-24
8 12V10 11V9 1V8 2V7 3V6 4V5 Apr-14
9 5V12 6V4 7V3 8V2 9V1 lOVll May-05
10 12V11 IVIO 2V9 3V8 4V7 5V6 May-19
11 6V12 7V5 8V4 9V3 10V2 1v11 Jun-02
1 members please note that you need to be a member of the
English Chess Federation and a Full member of the club to
play in this tournament

2 Both players should contact each other. If there are any problems in
arranging or playing your games please contact Rasa. Not playing
games by the play by date without any explanation in advance could
result in a default
3 You must play a minimum of a three-hour session
If a time limit cannot be agreed the default time limit is 40 moves
in 2 hours plus a half hour quick play finish

4 The bottom 2 player in the Chapionship will play in the pelton 2019/20
Top 2 PLAYERS in the pelton will play in the 2019/20 championship
the bottom 2 player in the pelton will play in 2019/20 rush cup

The top 2 player in the rush will play in the 2019/20 pelton

GET THE GAMES GRADED there will be separate page for,
each tournament

Winter Tournments

Championship 2018/19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 B.Cafferty 180
2 J.Sugden 194
3 P.Du Buf 175E
4 H.Tebbs 182
5 D.Lowe 175
6 A.Pickersgill 163
7 N.Varley 214
8 T.Stock 183
9 B.Ruane 169
10 R.Norinkeviciute 191
11 J.Kimber 142
Pelton 2018/19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 J.Hudson 132
2 J.Wheeler 160
3 M.Bryant 131
4 D.Cosens 132
5 M.Woodhams 129
6 P.Tournier 79
7 S.Blewitt 162
8 A.Cload 135
9 M.Fletcher 120e
10 C.Hann 145
11 G.Chandler 81
Rush Cup 2018/19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 D.Hall 60e
2 A.Pontonutti 103
3 S.Oakman 94
4 R.Richardson 62
5 H.Stephens 34
6 K.Hossack 111
7 J.Worsey 70e
8 L.Steuart 0
9 U.Jozwick 82

Paul Buswell R/P

Pos Player Grade 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Pts Games Perf
1 Norinkeviciute, Rasa 183 w11+ b4+ w3+ b2+ w9= b7+ w10+ 6½ 7 214
2 Kelly, Paul J 175 w14+ b9+ w10+ w1- b5- b3+ w4+ 5 7 187
3 Tebbs, Howard L 177 b8+ w5+ b1- w13+ b4= w2- w9+ 4½ 7 177
4 Wheeler, James M 173 b12+ w1- b7+ w10+ w3= b9+ b2- 4½ 7 184
5 Lowe, Daniel e164 w15+ b3- w8+ b9- w2+ b11- w13+ 4 7 162
6 Blewitt, Steve 160 w16+ b10= w9- b7- w11= b14+ w15+ 4 7 157
7 Sugden, John N 193 b10- b11+ w4- w6+ b13+ w1- b16+ 4 7 169
8 Willson, Gary 129 w3- b14+ b5- w15+ b10- w16+ b11+ 4 7 147
9 Du Buf, Paul e169 b13+ w2- b6+ w5+ b1= w4- b3- 3½ 7 167
10 Elliston, Robert V 156 w7+ w6= b2- b4- w8+ w12+ b1- 3½ 7 161
11 Ruane, Brendan J 154 b1- w7- w14+ b12+ b6= w5+ w8- 3½ 7 151
12 Jozwiak, Umberto 59 w4- b15+ b13- w11- w16+ b10- w14+ 3 7 80
13 Cload, Adrian 140 w9- b16+ w12+ b3- w7- b15= b5- 2½ 7 133
14 Buswell, Paul 108 b2- w8- b11- b16+ w15+ w6- b12- 2 7 100
15 Bryant, Marc A 138 b5- w12- w16+ b8- b14- w13= b6- 1½ 7 100
16 Steuart, Lona 12 b6- w13- b15- w14- b12- b8- w7- 0 7 2


Swale Hastings
1 141 D.Page 1019202L 0.5 0.5 J.Wheeler 160 143359D
2 132 R.Woolacott 264717F 0 1 M.Bryant 131 107571J
3 120 D.Simpson 278083F 1 0 M.Woodhams 129 284709H
4 119 T.Jefferies 113570D 1 0 G.Willson 119 277244K
5 116 V.Gedminas 312876D 1 0 W.Stock 117 103658A
6 113 A.Gillard 214931L 1 0 U.Jozwick 82 287680C
4.5 1.5
741 738
123.5 123

Hastings v Wanstead and Wood ford

Hastings And StLeonard Chess Club WanStead And WoodFord Chess Club
1 N.Varley 0.5 0.5 p.Spearman
2 F.Rayner 1 0 S.Rix
3 H.Tebbs 0 1 a.Chiea-flc
4 I.Calvert 0.5 0.5 L.Marden
5 D.Lowe 1 0 K.Bul
6 B.Ruane 0 1 P.Bancroft
7 P.Kelly 0.5 0.5 D.Rawlings
8 S.Blewitt 1 0 P.Haddock
9 H.Cove 0 1 P.Nickals
10 C.Hann 0 1 B.Harte
11 A.Cload 0.5 0.5 D.Holic
12 W.Stock 0 1 N.White
13 M.Fletcher 0 1 T.Skippen
14 A.Pontonutti 1 0 J.Jestico
15 U.Jozwiak 0 1 R,Rozmus
16 H.Stephens 0 1 V.Galans
17 L.Steurt 0 1 J.Mara
6 11

Maureen Charlesworth Chess Challenge

To celebrate Hastings Week there will be a chess tournament at the White Rock Hotel on Monday 8th 2018, 7:00PM

Aimed at casual players (those without an official chess grade or low grade).

Now in its 9th year, a popular tournament with trophies and cash prizes for juniors (below the age 14) and for seniors.

Each participant will play five games against different opponent with time controls roughly 12 mins each.

Entry fee payable on the night TBD but usually a very modest amount of a few pounds.

Contact 01424 728300 to pre-book or for more information.


Sub renewals

Sub renewals
Please note that the Saabs for the Hastings and St Leonards chess club year 2018 19 now due at the following rates
Full member £80
Associate member £32
Student Junior Child £20
Family membership £40
The Treasurer James Wheeler will be happy to take your subscription those along with any other committee member
Please note that if you do not intend to renew your membership your membership ceased on 30 September if this being the case we are sorry to see you go
Would you please ensure that you return any trophies library books or any other club property to the club at your earliest convenience or by arrangement with the chairman
Marc A Bryant

Rules Changes to Rules 5 and 12 of the SCCU General Rules.

Rules Changes to Rules 5 and 12 of the SCCU General Rules.


A commentary explaining the proposed changes appears below followed by the proposed rule changes.


Rule 5  –  Fees


It was reported at the AGM that the Rules & Appeals Sub-Committee, following their review of the County Match Rules in the light of the 3 appeals of last season, were recommending that going forward an appeal should be accompanied by an appeal fee.  A fee of £30 is envisaged.  Providing a mechanism in the General Rules for levying the fee was also recommended.


This requires an amendment of the General Rules in order to raise the fee.  The fee itself would appear in the relevant competition rules and be set by the Executive.  Rule 5 appears to be the appropriate place to provide for this as well as (for consistency) the fee for determination of quick play finish draw claims (currently set at zero by the Executive and noted as such in the County Match Rules).  The appeal fee is analogous to the QPF determination fee (the latter not appearing in the General Rules, but should).


Rule 5 currently only covers the non-payment of affiliation fees.   It would seem prudent to extend this to cover unpaid Game Fee given the penal rate at which it has been set by the ECF.  The recoupment of Game Fee is currently limited to just county matches (see commentary on Rule 12 below).


The proposed amendment to Rule 5 is for this to become a Fees Rule to provide for non-payment of affiliation fees and Game Fees fees and to introduce the new right to raise an appeal fee.


Rule 12  Grading and Game Fee


This Rule has become outdated by the creation of the ECF direct memberships (giving members the right to have their games graded free of charge) leaving Game Fee to be levied in respect of graded games of non-ECF members (who do not benefit from the concession for very occasional players) currently set at a rate equivalent to the cost of a Bronze membership (but not conferring membership).   The original rule reflected the SCCU policy of  submitting results from all of its competitions for ECF grading.


As game fee does not apply to the submitted results of ECF direct members this is now an ineffective way of providing for the grading of SCCU competitions.  Rule 12 (and Rule 5) of the General Rules and the County Match rules are silent as to the current practice of recouping Game Fee charged by the ECF from the organisations of participating teams that incurred the charge by playing a non-ECF member (who is not exempt).


The current practice for our Junior only competitions is not to pass on Game Fee but this is under review as the Union wished to see what effect the new penal Game Fee charges for non-members  has had on the cost to the Union of these competitions.  The Treasurer should be able to report on this in respect of invoices levied by the ECF for the 2017-18 season, noting however that there were no U18 or U14 Jamborees.  Given that an organisation’s events will be cumulated for the purposes of the exemption (which is organisation rather than event specific) the true effect may not be known for another year.


The proposed amendment to Rule 12 provides for games played in all SCCU competitions to be submitted for ECF grading (as currently is the case) and provides a basis in the Rules for recouping any ECF Game Fee levied in respect of ECF non-members, leaving it to the rules of particular competitions and/or the Executive to determine whether Game Fee should be passed on to the participating organisations.  This would give flexibility for this and next season in particular.


For the avoidance of doubt this amendment does not mean that it will apply to Junior Competitions for next season but simply provides the mechanism for recoupment enabling decisions to be made on a competition by competition basis either in their Rules or by a decision of the Executive.  The rules for the Junior competitions are currently under review by the Junior Organiser.  There will be an item on the agenda for the Executive Meeting immediately following the SGM to address Game Fee in our junior competitions for 2018/19.


The text of the proposed amendments appears below with changes shown in red/underlined.  Deleted words from the existing rules have been struck though.



  1. Fees

Member Counties and Non-County Members shall pay an annual fee decided upon from time to time by the Council and payable on the 31st October of each year. The fee for a Non-County Member shall be half that for a Member County. A Member more than 3 months in arrears with all or part of this payment and/or any charge under Rule 12 below shall have no voting rights; and a Member 6 months in arrears with all or part shall be deemed to have resigned.

Fees for appeals and determination of  Quick Play Finish Claims in any SCCU competition shall be set out in the applicable competition rules at such rates as may be determined by the Executive.


  1. All events organised by, or under the auspices of, the Union shall, if appropriate register with the game fee scheme of the ECF be submitted to the ECF for grading. Any Game Fee levied by the ECF in respect of a player who was not an ECF member shall be charged to and paid by the organisation(s) whose team the player appeared in unless stated otherwise in the rules of the competition or the Executive decides otherwise.


26th August 2018

Mark Murrell, SCCU President


County Match Rules.Changes to Rules 2, 5(c)(2)(i), 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the SCCU

Rules Changes to Rules 2, 5(c)(2)(i), 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the SCCU County Match Rules.


A commentary explaining the proposed changes appears below followed by the proposed rule changes.  References below to Sub-Committee are to the Rules & Appeals Sub-Committee (comprising the 2017/18 elected members and the County Match Controller).


Rule 2  –  Interaction with the FIDE Laws


It was felt by the Sub-Committee that the role of the Match Captains in resolving disputes on the day needed greater prominence at the start of the Rules.


The Rule has also been expanded to identify where the match captains are expected to and should exercise certain functions reserved to arbiters under the FIDE Laws giving effect to the widely adopted pragmatic practices that have become the norm among match captains in SCCU County matches, which do not have arbiters present.


This underpins the similarly updated Guidance to Match Captains for the 2018/19 season and with a view to giving new captains (perhaps not aware of customs) greater assistance in their role.


With the increased focus on anti-cheating provisions there is a greater need for any derogation from the FIDE Laws to be clear in competition rules and for customary practice, arisen through pragmatic expediency to be set out in those rules.


Rule 5(c)(2)(i) – Ungraded players and seeking permission to play


The Sub-Committee recognised the unease of the County Match Controller in not being able to consider applications for clearance to play when made before the start of the match but where no-one was available to give clearance of a player that would otherwise have been cleared to play.


The proposed change to the rule allows for retrospective consideration and clearance by the County Match Controller but only where a request was made prior to the match.  Players who are too strong for their section will still be excluded and deemed ineligible.


Rule 19  – Permitted exemptions (with applicable sanctions) to Articles 11 and 12 of the FIDE Laws


The existing Rule 19 provided a limited exemption for a mobile to be turned on (but not used) in the playing area and a variation to the penalty of loss of the game in to apply only where a second sound was made following a first offence warning. This was considered to be consistent with Articles 11 and 12.


The Sub-Committee noted that the operation of Articles 11 and 12 in certain circumstances allowed an arbiter to authorise derogation from these Laws in certain circumstances.  It recognised that Match Captains themselves in order to fulfil their role required dispensation from the operation of these Laws and that there could well be circumstances where Match Captains might be called upon to grant special permission to derogate from a particular Law.   To give clarity for players and captains alike the Sub-Committee considered appropriate exceptions to the Laws should be set out in the County Match Rules together with applicable penalties for breach.


Accordingly Rule 19 has been expanded to achieve this with the old Rule 19 retained at subclause d).  The Executive has revised the draft with the support of the members of the Sub-Committee.


Rule 20 – Quick Play Finishes where incremental time controls are not in use


The Quick Play Finish provisions within this Rule have been updated to provide within the competition rules the express statement as required by Guideline III.2 as to the application of the Guidelines and to make it clear that the III.6 procedure (no arbiter) will apply (but not III.4 or III.5).


Rule 22 – Game Fee charges for players who are not ECF members


This rule addition derives from the amendments to Rules 5 and 12 of the General Rules.  It provides for this competition the authority for recoupment as well as reminding participating match captains and their entering County Associations that Game Fee charged by the ECF in respect of a player who was not an ECF member (and did not qualify for an exemption) will be recouped from the County Association.  It reflects existing practice.


Rule 23  Disputes Procedure – procedural enhancements


The wording has been strengthened to emphasise the importance of the first stage of the disputes procedure namely involving the Match Captains at the time of the match.


Where this did not result in resolution, the Sub-Committee considered there should be a greater focus on the merits of a dispute/appeal and on setting out the substance of the dispute in less heated exchanges.  It recommended proforma for both raising the dispute with the County Match Controller and for appealing that decision.


The Sub-Committee considered that action was required to discourage unmeritorious appeals and has recommended two changes:


  1. a) the introduction of an appeal fee (returnable if successful or if the appeal was considered to have raised a matter of importance); and


  1. b) for County Associations to be responsible for appeal submissions by requiring submission by an executive officer and for disputes to the County Match Controller to be submitted through the Match Captain concerned.


The proformas form part of the issued updated Guidance to match captains.  The Sub-Committee has recommended to the Executive an appeal fee of £30.  The setting of the fee will be for the Executive to determine under this rule.


The proposed amendments are intended to give effect to these recommendations within the Rule 23 disputes and appeals procedures.




With the exception of the Rule 23 proposals which add additional requirements, the proposed amendments are ones of clarification.  Accordingly, and to more effectively underpin the updated Guidance to Match Captains, the Sub-Committee recommended that they be adopted for the 2018-19 season, should there be time to do so.


Rule Changes


The text of the proposed amendments appears below with changes shown in red/underlined.  Deleted words from the existing rules have been struck though.

  1. Except as otherwise provided by these rules, play in all matches shall be governed by the Laws of Chess as published from time to time by FIDE. The match captains may jointly exercise the discretion of an arbiter under Articles 11.2.3, 11.3.2 and 12.8 of the FIDE Laws of Chess pursuant to Rule 19 below and have a duty under Rule 23 below to jointly assist players in resolving questions or disputes. Players who are unable to resolve disputes between themselves should seek the assistance of the match captains particularly in respect of the application of the FIDE Laws of Chess and the County Match Rules.  Disputes should be resolved at the match if possible.

5(c)(2) Players without published grade at start of season

(i) A player with no published grade at the start of the season may play in the grading-limited Competitions only with the prior clearance of the County Match Controller. The team captain must, before applying for permission, satisfy himself that the player is not of such strength as to breach the limit set for the Competition in question, and must submit evidence, where available, from the local grader or master list or other source. Application to the Controller must be made prior to the match.  If granted, clearance shall be considered to have been granted at the time it was requested. The Controller will declare such a player ineligible (or no longer eligible) if he is not (or has ceased to be) entirely convinced that the player’s current playing strength is below the relevant grading limit.

  1. Concessions during play and penalties for breach

(a)  A player may leave the playing venue during play only with the prior permission of the opposing match Captain, who shall notify both players concerned. 

 (b) Mobile phones must not be used during play unless the opposing match captain has given prior permission, who shall notify both players concerned.

(c) Mobile Phones and other electronic devices are permitted in the playing venue provided they are switched off and stored either in full view on the playing table or under the playing table in a bag (unless permission for them to be on has been obtained in which event they must be on silent mode).

The penalty for violation of these concessions shall be the loss of the game by the offending player.

(d) Mobile phones are allowed in the laying area. However they must be either switched off or switched to silent mode for the duration of play. Match captains must remind players of this requirement. If a player’s phone makes any sound during his game, then: On the first occurrence he will receive a warning.  For a second offence by the same player in the same game, the penalty is loss of the game.

  1. Rates of Play

(a) Mechanical clocks

The rate of play will normally be 35 moves in 1¾ hours and then 30 minutes extra for each player for the remainder of the game. Appendix Guidelines III to the FIDE Laws applies but excluding  parts III.4 and III.5.  For any match, the captains may agree to vary the number of moves to the time control, the time allowed to the time control, and the length of the quickplay finish provided that:

(i) there is a quickplay finish; and

(ii) games remain eligible for Standard-Play grading.


  1. For every match, each captain shall provide a match result sheet which must reach the County Match Controller within seven days of the match. In the event that the ECF levies Game Fee in respect of a player who is not an ECF member, that fee shall be charged to and paid by the player’s County Association.


  1. In accordance with Rule 2, the captains of County teams shall jointly use reasonable endeavours to resolve any questions or disputes between their teams on the day of a match. The remainder of this rule deals with the circumstances where the captains have been unable to resolve such matters between them.

Any question or dispute, on a matter not provided for by Rules 1-22, shall be submitted to the County Match Controller within 3 days on the prescribed form, which shall be signed by the match captain. The County Match Controller shall forward the documentation received ………

Any appeal against a ruling of the County Match Controller shall be notified to him within 3 days of notification of the ruling. Notice of the appeal shall at the same time be given to any other interested party. The appellant shall submit within 10 days after notification of the ruling his written appeal on the prescribed form, which shall be signed by an Officer of the County Association within 10 days after notification of the ruling, together with whatever fee2 may have been determined by the Executive Committee.


2 Note: The fee is set at £x.  This note will be amended if at any time a different fee is set.

6th September, Mark Murrell, SCCU President

SCCU Executive Committee Meeting, ECF and BCF AGMs

    ‎26‎ ‎Sep at ‎21‎:‎44
    Dear All,
    This years AGM Council meetings of the ECF and BCF will take place in Birmingham on Saturday 13th October.  The SCCU Executive Committee is meeting this Friday evening (28th September) to determine it’s position with regard to the ECF and BCF meetings.  There will also be a brief SCCU SGM.
    Let’s start with the ECF AGM Council meeting.  The agenda has appeared on the ECF website ( see Council Papers ), but a number of supporting papers are still awaited.  However, from my position on the Board I can add a bit more flesh.
    There’s one big issue with the opening “house-keeping” matters.  This is the Minutes of April’s Finance Council meeting.  As yet, there are none!  For various reasons, including ill health, these have not been produced.  I have very recently been asked if I can cobble something together, which I’ll attempt to do, but it can’t be top of my list of priorities.
    Next, there are reports from the Board and the Chairmen of the Governance and Finance Committee’s.  That of the Chairman of Governance might be paraphrased as “steady as she goes” with no significant issues. The Board Report has been put together by the CEO, Mike Truran, to reflect activities over the past year and I don’t think should be controversial.  The Chairman of the Finance Committee, unlike his Governance counterpart, rarely takes up his standing invitation to attend Board meetings and I have had no insight into what he might report to Council.
    Attention then turns to elections.  Under the reforms introduced a couple of years ago, not all posts are up for election each year.  First up is President, with Dominic Lawson standing for re-election.  Dominic has taken very little part in Board matters, but is generally seen as ideal in this role, being a well-connected person with useful contacts and the ability to open doors occasionally.  I recommend that we support his re-election.
    Next up is CEO, with the incumbent, Mike Truran, standing for re-election.  Coming from a commercial background, Mike seems to get a bit frustrated at times with managing an essentially all-volunteer organisation and would like to see the ECF run much more as a commercial company.  However, he puts the effort in that is needed, is effective, and I have no reason not to continue to support him in this role.
    The Director Junior Chess, Traci Whitfield, has decided not to stand for re-election.  The only candidate to replace her is Alex Holowczak, who is standing down early as Director of Home Chess, as discussed later.  Whilst the Board has functioned in a largely collegiate way over the past 3 years, there has recently been one major area of disagreement involving Traci and another Director.  I have not been involved in this to any real extent, so am not best placed to argue right and wrong, but have sympathies for Traci’s position.  I think there’s a difference of personalities and objectives involved and that Traci has decided it’s not worth the aggravation.  I also understand that her decision to stand down was on the basis that she would be leaving the Junior Directorate in safe hands with Alex agreeing to stand in her stead.  I’m also confident in assurances I’ve had that Alex’s decisions to stand down as Home Director, then stand as Junior Director were separate and independent ones.  My recommendation is to support the election of Alex Holowczak in this position.
    Next we come to the Director of Women’s Chess.  I commented on this in my recent report in Sussex Chess News.  The Board had taken the decision to disestablish this position at director level after Sarah Longson stood down and no other candidate to replace her was found.  Subsequently Chris Fegan volunteered to take on the role and was appointed by the Board.  He is now standing for formal election by Council, for a period of 3 years – although he has indicated that if a suitable female candidate emerges he would consider giving way to her even before the 3 years is up.  Chris has been a bit of a controversial character in the past and there may well be some on Council who are minded to vote for “none of the above”.  I’m content that his appointment was appropriate, so am not minded to add to their numbers.
    Director of Home Chess is the only contested post this year, with 2 candidates to replace Alex Holowczak who is standing down early.  Alex is standing down because he has found that the tasks of Home Director peak during the summer months (e.g. the finals of the County Championships and the British Championships) and clash with other jobs he has – some of which, unlike being an ECF Director, help to pay the bills.  The two candidates to replace him are Tim Wall and Adrian Elwin.  I know little about either of them beyond what each has said in their election statements that are available on the ECF website.  I feel I’m sometimes seen by some ECF colleagues as a bit of a dinosaur!   Whilst fully respecting all the newer opportunities we now have for playing chess, I continue to support the traditional aspects such as club, league and County chess and don’t agree that these should just be allowed to wither away.  I am therefore pleased to see statements by Tim Wall advocating support for clubs and County chess.  If anyone knows more about the attributes of either candidate, please let me know, but at the moment I’m minded to support Tim Wall.
    [As an aside at this stage, there’s also a proposal for the ECF to employ a Development Officer.  A paper on this idea was brought to the Board recently, ostensibly by Malcolm Pein, but I understand Tim Wall was very much involved in its production.  (You may note that it is Malcolm Pein who has nominated Tim Wall for the post of Home Director.)  It’s full of positive ideas about trying to encourage greater participation in chess and might include a degree of payment by results if such a post is created.  It is intended to put the principle to Council at this meeting.  It has yet to appear on the website but it will come up under the Finance topic on the basis of it involving expenditure.  It is currently the Board’s intention to defer further consideration until Council support for the principle is determined.]
    Mike Gunn is standing unopposed for re-election as Chairman of Council.  I propose supporting him.
    Malcolm Pein is standing unopposed for re-election as FIDE Delegate.  Malcolm is also part of the Georgios Makropoulos “ticket” standing for election for a new President of FIDE.  If successful, Malcolm will become Deputy President of FIDE.  That election will be held on 3rd October, so will be known well before our Council meeting.  Some may query how compatible these dual roles will be if “Team Makro” is successful.  I have considered whether there might be seen to be a conflict of interest.  I’m not unduly worried.  It might be likened, albeit in a more significant way, to my remaining as your delegate to Council while also being on the ECF Board.  At times I have to make it clear in which capacity I am speaking, but haven’t found it too much of an issue.  However, in Malcolm’s case, I’m more concerned over whether he will still have time for all his chess roles if he adds FIDE Deputy President to them.  These include being the ECF Director of International Chess.  Consequently, while I have no reason to oppose Malcolm remaining the FIDE Delegate, I’m concerned that something might have to give if he also becomes a leading figure in FIDE itself.
    Finally there’s the unopposed re-elections of the Chairman of Governance and one member of the Finance Committee, and reappointment of the auditors.  All non-controversial in my view.
    Various awards will be announced, some of which may require Council approval.  Nothing controversial that I’m aware of.
    There are two very minor changes to the Articles of Association, as fully spelt out in the agenda.  These are deemed “special resolutions” requiring 75% majorities to pass.  Neither appears controversial.
    Yet again there will be an updated Strategy Statement presented to Council.  Essentially just a few changes to what has been seen before.
    There’s currently a placeholder on the agenda for “Finance”.  This is going to be more extensive than would normally be expected at the autumn Council meeting and is likely to be controversial.  The main arguments being put forward by the Board might be summarised as:
    • A number of the executive directors have good, valid objectives to do more to advance English chess, but can’t finance them so long as we continue to operate the ECF on a shoestring budget
    • There’s a need for increased office support and to keep salaries up to date.  Several years ago, when the government grant was withdrawn, the staffing level was significantly cut back.  The loss of John Philpott a couple of years ago was a substantial blow, given the level of unpaid tasks he undertook.  This has resulted in out-sourcing of some tasks and increased administration costs and workload on the office.
    I’m finding myself torn over these arguments.  On the one hand, I believe that annual membership fees, particularly at the basic Bronze level, are minimal compared to what most other activities cost, amounting to no more than a decent round of drinks in the pub.  Even at the enhanced levels of membership, they’re hardly a king’s ransom.  The ECF has also taken steps to keep down costs to juniors.  Conversely, a significant amount of the requests for further funding always seem to be going towards things like international chess which, although no doubt admirable in supporting England’s standing in the chess world, bring no tangible benefit to the vast majority of the membership.  A sort of Robin Hood in reverse of taking money from the lower echelons to support the upper echelons.  In total, the increased expenditure being sought, over and above that given in the budget that was approved by Council in April, amounts to nearly £45k a year.  Over half of this is proposed to come from within the ECF, with the balance being requested from The Chess Trust / Permanent Invested Funds.  The ECF contribution would need to come from a mix of increases to membership fees and eating into reserves. 
    The cost of employing the Development Officer referred to earlier would be intended to be covered out of the funds sought from The Chess Trust / PIF and the additional income accruing from any success in increasing membership.
    While I think the intentions are admirable, and reflect the fact that the Federation – like most of chess – survives on voluntary effort, I suspect some will feel this is just a request for higher fees with nothing coming back to the majority of members.  If I support the proposals in the name of Sussex chess will I be accused of going over to the dark side?  Please take the time to read the paper when it does appear on the website and take an objective view on whether or not the proposals reflect what the ECF should be doing.
    Other than routine agenda items, the BCF AGM will cover only financial matters.  These are the approval of accounts and deciding whether or not the Board should be authorised to transfer PIF No. 1 to The Chess Trust.  A key objective of such a transfer is to allow the BCF to become dormant, existing only in name and with a bank account, but negating the need for annual accounts, audits and tax returns.  There would also be tax advantages in the funds being held by The Chess Trust as it is a charity.  I’m content to agree with the proposals.
    Turning to the SCCU meetings this Friday, this would normally be just an Executive Committee one concerning mainly the positions the Union should take at the forthcoming ECF Council meeting.  However, this time the Executive Committee meeting will be preceded by a Special General Meeting of the Union Council to consider the adoption of a number of rule changes.  These changes affect both the General Rules and the County Match Rules.  The proposed changes to the General Rules are:
    • to permit charging a fee for raising an appeal against an SCCU decision
    • to make it clear that the Union reserves the right to recover any charges levied by the ECF for games submitted for grading and involving a non-ECF Member.
    Whether or not such fees would be charged or recovered would then be set out in the specific rules for a particular competition.
    The proposed changes to the County Match Rules stem in large measure from incidents last season that resulted in disputes and subsequent appeals being raised with Union, together with some minor clarifications.  These are:
    • Expansion of Rule 2 to emphasise the role of captains to try to resolve disputes on the day of a match and to set out those areas where captains might exercise the discretion of an arbiter under certain FIDE Laws.
    • Rule 5(c)(2) to permit the clearance of an ungraded player after a match has been played, provided the clearance was applied for prior to the match.  This is to address the situation of a late need to seek clearance for a player but the County Match Controller not being available to respond immediately.  There will remain a risk to the team involved that if the clearance is not subsequently granted they will be deemed to have fielded an ineligible player.
    • Rule 19 is expanded to set out the circumstances under which permission might be given for the use of a mobile ‘phone to be used during play.
    • Rule 20(a) is expanded for strict compliance with FIDE Guidelines for quick play finishes without an arbiter present.
    • Rule 22 is expanded to state that for County Matches the SCCU will seek to recover any game fee charges levied by the ECF in accordance with the General Rules change discussed above.
    • Rule 23 concerning disputes is expanded to introduce a requirement for disputes raised with the County Match Controller, and any subsequent appeal, to be set out on proforma that will be made available by the Union.  An initial dispute proforma will need to be signed by the team captain, whilst an appeal proforma will need to be signed by a County official.  These aspects are intended to reduce the risk of ill-considered disputes or appeals being submitted.  Finally within this rule will be included the relevant appeal fee in accordance with the proposed change to the General Rules.  If these rule changes are agreed, the specific fee will be determined at the following Executive Committee meeting and is expected to be set at £30.
    The reason for the apparent haste in calling an SGM to consider these rule changes is so that they might be brought in for the 2018 / 19 season.  I attach documents describing and setting out these proposed changes in detail.
    There are a few other matters on the Executive Committee meeting agenda, but I think they are ones on which I can use my discretion on the night and report back any significant outcomes.
    All views or comments on any aspect of any of these meetings are invited.

Est. 1882