BCF Direct Membership

Last Edited: Friday October 11, 2002 0:52 AM
 

Latest News (3 May): the BCF Council meeting of 27 April passed a Management Board proposal to make BCF Direct Membership compulsory for English FIDE-rated players. See the SCCU website report on http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/bcf.htm

In the April BCM News In Brief (BCM, page 214), we reported the British Chess Federation’s (BCF) plans to make direct membership of the federation compulsory for its rated players. At least one reader was surprised to read this. Ronald Pearce, of Swindon, wrote in to say that he was “taken aback to read your note on this subject. It had really never occurred to me before that membership of the BCF was not normal for our titled players and so I wondered if your mention of some resistance to the proposal could be correct.”

It is indeed correct and what follows is a record of an interesting debate which has taken place via email over the past few weeks. It began on 13 March when the BCF International Director, Stewart Reuben, sent out the following message to some English rated players “and those interested in international chess”, via an email distribution list: “At the BCF Council Meeting 27 April the following will be proposed: that, from September, all players whose names appear on the World Chess Federation (FIDE) Rating List as from England shall be required to be members of the British Chess Federation. There is little doubt this proposal will be passed. This seems to me to be perfectly reasonable. The cost to the BCF of trying to ensure players are rated accurately is considerable. Some of you, from personal experience, know this to be a battle which, though valiantly fought, is often unsuccessful through no fault of yours or ours. The BCF provides the means by which title norm applications are made. We also represent your interests.” He then went on to explain the various benefits of direct BCF membership (which may be read in detail at the BCF website at www.bcf.org.uk/products/membership.htm).

Grandmaster Nigel Davies stepped into the debate and responded as follows: “I guess you sent this email to gauge opinion about this prior to the meeting. I will therefore provide you with some feedback. There are almost no international tournaments in the UK, and those that there are have very little in the way of prizes. The situation is certainly better in some other countries (Iceland, Spain, Italy, Greece, etc) where there are far more events and grandmasters have been known to receive honoraria from their federations simply for being grandmasters and representing the country as such. When this is the case it dignifies the status of the international title system and chess in general, making a statement that this aspect of human culture is valid and worthwhile.” “A requirement for grandmasters to pay for their FIDE ratings, on the other hand, does not dignify anything. It just looks like the BCF, having been unable to obtain sponsorship for chess, is now struggling for its own survival. Having hunted round for something to charge for, it has come up with this. No doubt someone has decided that the ‘professional elite’ is making money from chess and should therefore be paying for this ‘service’. In my view this should not be what a chess federation is about. It is a sign of either pure desperation (failure to raise money from other sources) or complete ignorance of the history, culture and meaning of chess, and the financial status of full-time ‘professionals’.” “Fortunately I am not in their situation and have little need of a FIDE rating. I could easily afford the membership fee and would not have cancelled my membership (a couple of years ago now) had the BCF achieved more in the past decade. But as things stand I will not be paying a penny, and if this proposal is passed it will ensure that I never will. Yours sincerely, Nigel Davies (International Grandmaster).”

Another very distinguished grandmaster, Dr. John Nunn, responded to Stewart Reuben’s email, thus:

“This proposal is exceptionally far-reaching in its implications, since it completely changes the relationship between ordinary players and the BCF. In addition, it has a host of practical implications. I would have thought that such a proposal deserves a wide debate, yet so far as I can tell it has not been publicized. Casting my eye over recent issues of ChessMoves reveals no mention of this proposal. Given that the BCF has such an outlet available, it seems extraordinary that no attempt has been made to invite a debate on this controversial proposal, especially amongst the players and organisers who will be affected by it. Indeed the way in which you put it (‘There is little doubt this proposal will be passed.’) suggests that it is a fait accompli.”

“Key to the proposal is the implicit threat that those who do not become members of the BCF will be struck off the FIDE rating list (otherwise membership would be voluntary, and the proposal would not change the current situation). This raises a large number of questions: ”

• Why does the BCF think it has the power to have players struck off the FIDE list, which is after all administered by a body independent of the BCF? Is there any agreement between the BCF and FIDE regarding the striking off of English players from the FIDE list? I note that FIDE have found it very difficult to strike players off their own list, even in cases involving flagrant manipulation of the rating system - doubtless they are wary of the legal implications of doing so.
• It seems to me that the BCF’s involvement in the FIDE rating list is minimal. Tournament directors send the results to FIDE, who process the results and issue the list. In some cases queries may arise, but even in these cases the BCF acts as a little more than a conduit for information which could in fact go directly to FIDE. By contrast, the BCF runs its own national list which is a considerable administrative burden and which has caused a fair number of headaches in the past few years. Can you therefore explain the logic by which those on the FIDE list (which involves the BCF with very little work) have to pay a special levy while those on the national list (which involves the BCF with a great deal of work) do not? Moreover, as you have said, FIDE intends to extend its list down to include essentially all active players. In this case there would be no need for the BCF to run its own system. Perhaps you could explain why the BCF should seek to obtain a great deal of extra money as a result of a change which will additionally allow the BCF to make large savings on administration and expense?
• Under this proposal, membership fees would within a few years become the BCF’s largest source of income. There is absolutely no mention as to why the BCF should need this extra money, or what it intends to do with it if it arrives. Over the past decade, the BCF has presided over a considerable decline in chess activity in England. Many sponsors have disappeared and tournament attendances have dropped. The main positive innovation, the 4NCL, had nothing to do with the BCF – indeed, in its early days the BCF did its best to kill it off, fearing a threat to its own National Club Championship. This definitely happened – I attended a BCF meeting at which you, Stewart, were also present, in which the first topic for discussion was ‘How can we kill off or take over the 4NCL?’. Under such circumstances it would hardly be surprising if players felt that their money might not be well spent.”
• If a player does not become a member, or ceases to be a member, when will he be struck off? Will a warning be issued? If so, how long will a player have to comply with the warning? If a player is to be struck off, will this occur immediately, or at the next rating list (bear in mind that ratings are issued monthly for some players)? If a player is selected for a national team, but is struck off before the event itself, will he still be eligible to play?
• Will struck off players continue to have their games rated or not? If I play someone, how will I know whether he has been struck off? If I play a struck off player, will the game count for my rating? If a player is struck off, but then reinstated, will he return at the same rating as when he was struck off, or will the games he has played in the interim be counted? What happens if he is struck off in the middle of a tournament? Each of these possibilities has its own set of implications, but I will await your clarification before considering the matter in more detail.
• Now we have to look at the proposal from the point of view of tournament organisers. I could organise a tournament, then a few days before it actually takes place one of the players could be struck off. Clearly this might invalidate ratings and norm possibilities for the tournament yet I, as organiser, would have no control over this. Heaven knows, tournament organisers have enough problems at the moment without the possibility that the BCF might wreck their tournament by having a player struck off at any moment. Indeed, if I were organising a tournament I would feel bound to warn the sponsor that the event might be invalidated without warning as a result of action by the BCF.

“In the current climate, it is hard enough for British players to be invited to overseas events. This problem will only become more severe if overseas organisers fear that any British players they might invite could suddenly be struck off, damaging their tournament. These points all seem quite important, and I hope that you will be able to give me the answers without too much trouble. Best wishes, John Nunn.”

It is worth noting that news of this initiative had appeared on the web on 11 March, at Richard Haddrell’s excellent Southern Counties’ Chess Union (SCCU) website (www.sccu.ndo.co.uk). He had scooped the BCF website by several days and posted David Smith’s account of the BCF Management Board meeting of 9 March. Smith reported that BCF proposal as stated above, and that this was one of the reasons it had launched its new, cheaper, membership structure (£12 being the lowest adult cost of membership). The federation had already decided to write to all rated players inviting them to join but this has not been done yet, and the board agreed to ask the April Council meeting to ratify the decision to do it. Anyone not joining by September would be removed from the FIDE list. The website published some feedback from readers who were also less concerned about the £12 fee than the principle behind (and timing of) the BCF proposal.

Many questions, but as yet no answers. Stewart Reuben responded at the BCF website on 20 March:

“The following will be proposed at the BCF Council Meeting in Leeds on 27 April. From September 2002 all players listed on the FIDE Rating List under England will be required to become members of the British Chess Federation. I circulated all the English players for whom I have email addresses. There were few replies, but even so a number of interesting points were raised.”

"16.1 of the FIDE Rating Regulations has stated for some years: To be included in the FIDE Rating List a player must be a member of a national chess federation. In my view this is completely unworkable without the co-operation of the federations. Also, the BCF could simply state that all rated players are members. Six weeks’ advance notice is adequate. It had been suggested that a similar proposal agreed at Council last year was sufficient, but I was adamant that this had not been adequately circulated.”

Then, after the reiteration of the benefits of membership and enumeration of future projects:

“One argument is that this is a waste of time, there being only 500 FIDE-rated players. The FIDE List will go down to 1801 from 1 July. This should lead to a 20% increase. FIDE hope eventually to go down to 1001, which is equivalent to BCF 50. That would be about 25,000 people. Even if they fail, it is being proposed eventually that the BCF itself require all players who play in graded events be members. If that is successful, it may lead to a large increase in income. Congresses could save about £20,000 per year if everybody received ChessMoves monthly and it had more detailed information on forthcoming events. Starting off with the FIDE-rated players is a relatively easy step. The people who gain most from the BCF are active, strong and junior players. For a very small sum, the international players can encourage a big leap forward.”

“I quite agree that all grandmasters and woman grandmasters should be entitled to free membership, as should international arbiters and directors. However, I think this is politically impossible. For those of you who coach it is becoming essential to join a national register and for checks to be made on your background. It is a less expensive process under the umbrella of the BCF. It is very likely this will be agreed in April. It is mostly organisers who vote and they will not be disadvantaged.”

“There will be considerable technical problems. Non-publication of players who are rated but not members, can only commence with the 1 October 2002 list. Players, organisers and FIDE will have to be given adequate warning. Contact with some inactive players will be difficult. Clearly if you play against a de-listed player, the game will not count for rating of either player. This is not new. This year all Russian players were temporarily de-listed.”

Nigel Davies and Stewart Reuben had discussed various related points in a series of emails. Nigel has copied his comments to us and kindly allowed BCM to quote from them: “In order to be a grandmaster requires a lot of work: in fact most grandmasters devote their lives to this. When I got my title it was from competition against grandmasters who were being paid for their efforts and skills. What are the rewards for being a grandmaster now? Well, in these days of ‘no prize’ tournaments, not very much. There seems to be an expectation that we will participate in the title/rating system as fodder for aspiring players, but with no reward for doing so. And now it looks like we’re being expected to pay to be fodder. I personally have had enough of it, and this rating proposal just confirmed in my mind that it’s better to do something else. I’ve got my title and I enjoy chess in the few games I’m currently playing, but I’m not the one that needs me to have an FIDE rating. I look forward to spoiling people’s rating/norm chances (as an unrated) in the 4NCL and other events.”

The debate between Davies and Reuben was amiable and constructive. It was clear that Nigel Davies was concerned not so much with the requirement to pay for a rating as the manner of its implementation: he feels that it was “deeply insulting to those who have given their lives to chess and dictatorial in its manner (the lack of debate is mentioned in John Nunn’s well-argued letter)”. Nigel’s outlook for the future is pessimistic: “The likely prognosis seems to me to be that the current downward spiral will continue and national federations and FIDE will become increasingly irrelevant. Chess will continue to be played, of course, probably within a variety of new, looser organisations (the Internet Chess Club, for example). And I’m not sure it’s possible to say that this will be a good or a bad thing.”

On 30 March John Nunn wrote again to Stewart Reuben (copied to a large number of top-rated English players and journalists):

“I have waited a couple of weeks before commenting further on this matter in order to allow discussion to develop, but in fact there seems to be hardly any interest in the matter. I thank the handful of people who did respond (basically supporting my point of view), but in view of the general level of apathy surrounding this controversial proposal, it hardly seems worthwhile taking any further action. However, I would just like to make a few final points.”

“Perhaps there is little interest in the BCF’s proposal as it is perceived as affecting just a small group of top players. There are now 808 English players on the rating list, but some of these are inactive and I would guess that only about 500 are actually active. Thus the proposal would bring in a maximum of £6,000 per year at the moment. If one makes the reasonable assumption that about one-third of the 25,000 players on the BCF grading list with ratings above 50 will eventually be caught by the BCF’s new chess tax, this adds up to £100,000 per annum for the BCF (assuming the £12 figure does not rise, of course).”

“This is a very large sum of money for an organisation the size of the BCF, and almost all of it will come from ordinary club players. By the time the FIDE list extends down to BCF 50, one may anticipate that the BCF’s own rating list will wither away, so paying the membership fee will be the only way to get rated. There are of course other countries which have a compulsory membership scheme, but the BCF has in addition a game fee scheme, whereby it receives 30p per competitive game played (about to be raised to 33p per game: there is a lower fee for rapidplay games). At the time the game fee scheme was introduced, there was a discussion as to whether to have an individual membership scheme or the game fee scheme, with the latter being adopted. Now the BCF wants to have its cake and eat it, by introducing double taxation for English chess. For a grandmaster such as myself, the £12 is completely irrelevant (except for the principle involved), but it seems extraordinary that so little interest has been raised by a scheme which could extract £100,000 per year from ordinary club players.”

“My detailed queries regarding the operation of the scheme have been almost entirely ignored, so I cannot comment further on this aspect of the proposed scheme. Perhaps the main points are:”

• Why should the BCF receive up to £100,000 per annum extra money from English club players in return for a service which is administered by a completely different organisation? Nobody has attempted to defend the logic of this.
• Why does the BCF need this money and what will it do with it if it receives it? Possibilities which spring to mind are the organisation of some more sub-committees or perhaps a few extra meetings. Then again, maybe it will be used to try to sabotage worthwhile developments such as the 4NCL. Such thoughts arise naturally because no explanation has been provided as to why this extra money is needed. Organisations which raise extra money normally provide detailed business plans with performance targets on which the directors stake their reputations, but I dare say that the idea of performance targets is not one which will find much favour within the precincts of the BCF.

“Stewart Reuben has repeatedly emphasised that, due to the incompetent administration of the FIDE rating list, it is considerable work for the BCF to try to ensure that players end up with correct FIDE ratings. If this is really true, then it seems folly to send lists of players to FIDE to be struck off or reinstated in the hope that these instructions will be followed to the letter. I would suggest that it is only a matter of time before a grandmaster gets struck off because a similarly-named player hasn’t paid his £12. In this case it might well be that the BCF would be liable for the grandmaster’s resulting losses, since they have entrusted his playing career to the hands of people which they themselves believe to be incompetent. Best wishes, John Nunn.”

©2002 British Chess Magazine. Not to be used without permission.