If you've not seen this, it may be that you're not a Gold Member of the English Chess Federation, and so you haven't had the letter from our two representatives about the Finance Council Meeting on 28 April. Yes, it sounds exciting, doesn't it?
Anyway, the excerpt above, which is taken from that letter, makes it plain that the proposal under discussion is a Bad Thing ("vague promises", "someone who is not an ECF member") and it should be opposed. Funnily enough, though, it doesn't tell the reader the one thing above all else that they need to know about Casual Chess and the one reason why it might be worth supporting: which is that it's
London's feminist, diverse, central chess cafe, run by female players.How extraordinary, to leave that detail out.
Now for the record, I don't have a view on whether or not the proposal should be accepted, in full or in part. It's the sort of thing of which I approve, but whether it's the right thing, I'm not in a position to say, because I've not seen it. Come to that, I've never been to Casual Chess (though I follow them on Twitter) and I've never met the organiser (though we are friends on Facebook).
But I am in a position to say that the proposal shouldn't have been presented to us in such a way as to prevent the uninformed reader from making any sense of it.
As it is, what we have is "somebody who's not even one of us wants a load of money off us for no apparent reason". It's not just a misleading framing of what Casual Chess consists of, it's a deliberately misleading one.
Now as it goes, elsewhere in the letter I see this
and elsewhere on the internet I read this and I notice no English competitors taking part. If English chess is in a crisis then women's chess in England is in a bigger one. Which, again, is not sufficient reason in itself to support the Casual Chess proposal.
But it's certainly sufficient reason not to obscure what their proposal is actually for. Isn't it?