Game Fee      Chess as a Sport      Sex      SCCU Championship      Juniors      County matches      home
Updated 21.7.99
OPEN FORUM


From Jeff Goldberg
On "Sexual Harassment in Chess", in the Club & County Page
I would really question the arbiter's decision [in this case], simply on the grounds that I do not believe a draw can be imposed by an arbiter unless he rules a draw actually happened or should have happened. To rule the game a draw as a means of effectively voiding the game is not supported, as far as I know, by the rules of chess. If it was impossible to continue the game, and the arbiter could not be sure which party was at fault, then the only correct decision is to void the game. I would appreciate the views of more experienced arbiters than myself on this legal point.
Rgds
Jeff Goldberg towerbridgetravel@cwcom.net
15.7.99


From David Sedgwick
Dear Richard,
You may be interested in the story surrounding the National Club Handicap Rapidplay Plate semi-final between Mushrooms, my club, and Poulton le Fylde.
     I was unable to play, and hence not present, but I understand that both captains neglected to take a Rapidplay grading list. In the circumstances, all that could be done was to record the Standard Play grades on the result sheet and proceed with the match. At the end, both teams left believing that they had lost: Poulton le Fylde because the score of 5½-2½ to Mushrooms would have been sufficient on the recorded grades; Mushrooms because they suspected that the Rapidplay grades would tell a different story. Both teams subsequently checked and found that on the basis of the Rapidplay grades Mushrooms would have needed a 6½-1½ victory.
     At this stage the Controller came into the picture, ruling, on the basis of a precedent, that the details recorded on the result sheet at the time of the match had to stand unless both teams agreed otherwise. The Mushrooms captain, quite rightly in my opinion, waived any such entitlement and allowed Poulton le Fylde to go through. However, it seems odd to me that Mushrooms could apparently have insisted on profiting from a situation for which both sides were equally at fault: the failure to take Rapidplay grading lists to the match in the first place.
Yours sincerely,
David Sedgwick
Croydon     6th June 1999
rjh: Didn't the captains agree what they were doing before the match started?



Dear Richard,
     As one of the SCCU and the BCF's leading technophobes, I see the SCCU website only rarely. However, that hasn't stopped me learning how good it is. These days I often hear people mention the SCCU site as an example of the kind of standard that the BCF and others should strive to emulate. We've been trying for years to enhance the stature of the SCCU and we seem to have finally managed it. Well done, Richard. Of course the high quality is due also to the efforts of John Philpott and others in supplying you promptly with relevant material.
     The Bulletin should also benefit as the existence of the site enables an exchange of correspondence to take place rapidly and to be published in full in the next following Bulletin rather then be spread over several issues.
     However, I do wonder whether we technophobes aren't sometimes going to be missing out when we shouldn't. Take the Redbus Knockout at Southend. The material on the Website, kindly sent to me by a wellwisher, contains some fascinating background material on the sponsors - exactly the kind of gossip for which the Bulletin has always been justly famous. It doesn't appear in the January issue. Are you really telling me that in the old days before the Net it wouldn't have found its way into the Bulletin somehow? I rather feel that it would have.

I should like to turn my attention to Howell v Lutton ("An unusual can't-win-by-normal-means claim"). The Bulletin and the other members of the Rules and Appeals Sub-Committee appear to have decided that in fairness to Sussex, and indeed to the two arbiters who were press ganged into service, the agreement and decision reached on the day must stand. I concur absolutely. However, I don't agree with the view expressed in your editorial, and by your correspondents Kevin Thurlow [in the Bulletin] and Ian Hunnable, that the procedure adopted on the day contravened the rules. I have reread carefully the relevant parts of the SCCU County Match Rules, the FIDE Laws of Chess, and the Chess Arbiters' Association's Guidance Notes. I cannot find anything which prohibits the appointment of arbiters to deal with the matter at the time when a draw claim is made in a quickplay finish. On the contrary, I would have thought that the reference "where no arbiter is present in the venue" carries with it the implication "and no arbiter able and willing to act can be found". I would, however, accept that the appointment of arbiters only at the time of a claim being made would have to be explicitly accepted by both players and could not be imposed. If arbiters had been appointed by the captains earlier, as suggested in your editorial, the players would have to abide by such appointment at the time of a subsequent claim.
     Hence I see nothing irregular about the procedures adopted in the Howell v Lutton case. The desirability thereof is another matter. When I go to a match as a player, a player is what I wish to be. From time to time when present as a player, I get asked to give my opinion on some problem or other that has arisen, usually in an adjacent match. I help as best I can, indeed I regard it as my duty as a BCF Senior Arbiter to do so, but I don't particularly like it. Where there's a dispute of some kind, I always try to be careful to establish that all parties want me to handle things, and are prepared to abide by any ruling I make, before I seek to ascertain any details. This is particularly important if one is, or might be perceived to be, connected with one of the parties in some way. Hence, while I can see the benefits of avoiding the need for a subsequent reference to an independent arbiter, I'm a bit doubtful as to whether your alternative is fair upon those who would have to perform the duties on the day. This applies especially when the only people available are players who, however strong they may be, have no arbiter training or experience.
     Prior to 1998-99, I cannot recall a season in which there has been more than one quickplay finish draw claim in all the SCCU county matches. In the current competition there have been three so far, the most recent having arisen after publication of the January Bulletin. Perhaps this is a tentative indication that such claims are becoming a little more frequent. If this is indeed the case, others besides ourselves may need to review their procedures. I don't think that we should take any action on the above issues entirely on our own. Quite coincidentally, the latest issue of Arbiting Matters, the newsletter of the Chess Arbiters' Association, contains an article about an instance that occurred in a local league, I believe in the North. This has served to draw attention to the somewhat limited availability and distribution of the CAA Guidance Notes. I will send you copies and I would suggest that they could be published on the website. If the SCCU feels the need to consider these topics further, I would suggest seeking the guidance of the CAA at first instance.
     I agree that ten weeks is too long to have to wait for a decision in a quickplay finish draw claim. However, the situation nowadays is far, far better than when we had adjudications, or than in competitions where these still exist. I certainly can't necessarily expect to get the results of adjudications in my games in less than ten weeks. In the old days up to 1992 when we had adjudications in SCCU county matches, I seem to remember that none of the play-offs due to take plece under the then Rules were ever actually held. We never knew which teams were supposed to be in them. Neither did we know which counties to nominate for the BCF stages; we had to guess. Let's keep our current problems in perspective.
Yours sincerely,
David Sedgwick
Croydon      26.2.99
Copies to Messrs JA Philpott and D Smith



An appeal from the Friends of Chess:
Dear Chess Friends,
The Friends of Chess was founded in 1969 with the express objective of restoring Britain to the leading place it had occupied amongst the world's chess nations in the nineteenth century.
     The founding members were CHO'D Alexander, David Anderton, Sir Richard Clarke, Harry Golombek, Ralph Hopton, and Sir Stuart Milner-Barry.
     A yearly subscription was instituted in order to provide funds to aid and initiate such chess enterprises as international tournaments, matches, team events etc, and in addition - perhaps most important of all - to assist British chess players to take part in international tournaments where title norms were available.
     I have no doubt that a large majority of our Grandmasters and International Masters have received financial support from the Friends of Chess during the early part of their chess career.
     The present Committee are keen to follow the example set by our former colleagues. We are facing more requests for financial support than ever before and in order to meet this demand we are looking for your help. Please consider joining us in one of the following categories.
     Friend   £15
     Patron   £40
     Sponsor   £100
I look forward to a response that will enable the Committee to ensure that the next generation of Grandmasters can be afforded the same opportunities as those of previous years.
Best wishes,
Gerry Walsh
Chairman, Friends of Chess
2 Smiths Dock Park Rd, Normanby, Middlesbrough TS6 0JN



Letter to SCCU President:
Dear John,
1999 is under way - the year when the European Team Championships should have taken place in Torquay. It is now some three months since FIDE decided not to allow the BCF to proceed with the event and I am endeavouring to put the acute disappointment behind me.
     However, before closing the book on the failed project, I would like to express my thanks to the SCCU and its officers for their support and encouragement. I was particularly pleased that the Union were intending to field a team in the European Challengers Team Championship and I am sorry that the players in question will not now have this opportunity. The proposed rescheduling of the Union's Annual Council Meeting [rjh: - now re-rescheduled: see Calendar] was also most helpful.
     I am copying this letter to Richard Haddrell with a view to publication.
Yours sincerely,
David Sedgwick     BCF International Director
28.1.99


Top      Game Fee      Chess as Sport      Sex      SCCU Champs      Juniors      County matches      home


Game fee: BCF Council Meeting
From Harry Lamb (Greater Manchester County CA Delegate). Sent to Council delegates for the meeting 24th April, and reproduced here with his permission since it seems to be of general interest.
     I am writing to all council delegates etc listed in the BCF yearbook, to ask for your support in opposing any increase in game fee. My reasons are twofold.
     1. Increasing game fee does not increase the BCF's income.
     2. Increasing game fee reduces the amount of chess played in England.
Startling statements perhaps, but look at the facts.
Year

Game fee pence
Normal play

Game fee pence
Rapid play

Raised

1998-9

27

13.5

£35,000-46,000 (1)

1997-8

25

12.5

£44,000

1996-7

23

7?

£46,000

1995-6

21

6

£44,000

1994-5

20

5

£43,000

1993-4

?

?

£43.000
Notes to table
     (1) The final draft accounts page 9 give an estimate of £46,000. This seems optimistic considering the amounts raised in the first nine months, and remember, the deadline for receiving game fee from leagues was during those nine months. The figure of £35,000 is the actual for 9 months pro rata to 12.
     (?) Means I do not know the figure. I have asked the BCF Office but without reply.

What is clear is that in the four years from 1994-5 game fee increased by 35% for normal play and 170% for rapid play with no increase in the amount raised. This means that over the last four years chess playing under our auspices has dropped by about a third. There is no point paying a penny game fee for our centenary. When it happens in five years time what chess will we have to celebrate?
     We must face up to the economics.
     We must face up to reality.
We must stop destroying chess. We must not increase the game fee.
     It also follows that we must face up to reality and appropriately cut our spending. For the sake of chess in England I ask you to support no increase in game fee.
     If you cannot attend the BCF meeting and support GMCCA please send me your proxy. Finally, I asked the BCF Office to send me a list of delegates so I could circularise them. They have not replied, so I would be grateful if you could pass on the contents of this letter to delegates you may know who are not listed in the yearbook, eg congress organisers. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.
Harry Lamb harrylamb@mcmail.com
16.4.99

Queried some points, and the response 17.4.99 was this:
     I did not go into details as I wanted to keep my circular short and to the point for maximum impact, but here are some. With regard to rapidplay. I believe rapidplay chess under the BCF has been virtually wiped out. In 1997-98 we received £2695 in rapidplay game fee. The nine months actual in 1997-8 is £1147 so I believe a realistic actual for the year is 1147 x 12/9=£1529 and the figure in the BCF forecast for 1998/9 of £3200 and the budget for 1999/2000 of £4000 are pie in the sky. I believe the explanation is simple. We massively increased the rapidplay game fee in 1997. There is a time lag because it does not come into effect until September and perhaps also congresses pay the first year before realising its impact. Then something like three quarters of our congresses just stop paying the game fee. Work it out from the figures. That's what we must have lost. It is not a question of an entrant paying a few pence more. It is a question of a Congress folding if it has to pay £50 more for running a one day quickplay. [rjh: Don't think we're talking about a 2p increase here. A 2p increase might cost the average Rapidplay a tenner.]
     The other effect is on leagues. I speak from my own experience here. The Manchester League has lost two divisions, say 20 teams, over the last two years. It has lost them because clubs find the escalating game fee too much to pay and as a result they move teams out of the Manchester League into other local leagues which do not pay the game fee. One day to save the Manchester League I may have to recommend that we come out of the game fee scheme.
     This is not scaremongering. I know of a big Northen League, which tells me if the rise goes through it will be paying over £1000 in game fee. The committee of that league is now considering whether or not to leave the game fee scheme and instead spend some of the money saved on promoting chess locally. Who is to disagree with them? They support the BCF but there are limits to the financial support they can give. I believe that it is not so much the level of game fee but that there seems no end to increases double or treble the rate of inflation with no benefits going to the ones who pay the money. I believe the BCF is in serious financial trouble yet it does not seem to be aware of this problem.
Cheers
Harry Lamb

Top      Game Fee      Chess as Sport      Sex      SCCU Champs      Juniors      County matches      home

Dear Richard,
The press has been full of reports over the last few weeks showing that many important and influential people are in the process of getting the game of chess recognised as a sport. This process is under way in order that grants from the National Lottery Fund can be used to subsidise our game. Every report I have seen is in favour of this. But why? Whilst I am sure that any funds received will be spent very wisely, I think that people who play chess should be prepared to pay for it. This as far as I am concerned should be the same for every pastime, sport, art or other leisure occupation.
     The only things that should be subsidised are those things that absolutely need to be; such as the destitute and the starving of this world. We should all remember that every penny of any grant given to our sport is one not given to such needy causes. Certainly Mr Kasparov and all of us are not poor. We can afford to pay and should be prepared to pay for our sport, even if it means a substantial increase in the game fee.
     Perhaps I am the only chess player to think so, but I do not consider that we should join the rest of the hogs in getting our snouts in the trough at the expense of the many more deserving causes that there are in this country and in the rest of the world.
Yours sincerely,
David Shipp
Whitstable     25.3.99


Dear Richard,
I was interested to read David Shipp's letter regarding the "chess as a sport" issue. I am of course deeply shocked that he should not regard English chess professionals as amongst the destitute and deserving of the world. Perhaps one Sunday he should visit a typical one-day quickplay event in a run-down church hall in darkest London; I am sure that the harrowing sight of legions of young unemployed/unemployable IMs and GMs flogging their brains out in the desperate quest for a £50 first prize will soften even his flint-like heart.
     Seriously, though, it does seem to me that thought of lottery funding beyond the dreams of avarice may be blinding the chess world to the full implications of chess as a sport. In particular, there is the Sports Council's tyrannical approach to drug-testing. Some years ago they threatened to expel snooker from their ranks, unless draconian drug-testing procedures were introduced. Are we to see chessplayers peeing into plastic bottles at the end of every county match? Is every BCF Direct Member to live in dread of that knock on the door, signifying that the SCCU drugbusters team has descended on him for a random out-of-competition dope test? If this is to be the shape of the brave new chess world, it may be time for us all to take up Go.
     Keep up the excellent work!
Steve Giddins 29.3.99


Stewart Reuben writes:
NOW'S THE TIME
I have been waging a war for the past 18 years to get chess recognised as a sport. I have not been alone. 14 March was my sixtieth birthday and the following day the government clearly decided I should have a birthday present.
     The Adjournment Debate in the House of Commons was on the issue of future funding and support for chess in the UK. Dr Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon) supported by Charlotte Atkins (Staffordshire, Moorlands) led the discussion, cogently explaining the reasons for greater support for chess.
     Tony Banks (The Minister for Sport) then replied. He said that he fully agreed with the speakers and then dropped the bomb-shell that the government indeed proposed to enable chess to access further funding. In order to achieve this, it would be necessary:
  1. to amend the Physical Training and Recreation Act 1937 so that chess would fall within the meaning of these words.
  2. to amend the Royal Charters governing the Sports Councils, which action would have to be promulgated by the Councils themselves.
  3. Either to amend the National Lottery Act 1993, or to change the definition of sport.
Legislative time is now being sought for these actions within a new cultural framework Bill. At a private meeting two days later, Tony Banks made it perfectly clear that such time will not be gained easily. Decisions regarding time-tabling will be made in April.
     This is your opportunity to make your views known to your Member of Parliament. S/he can then put pressure at the highest level to ensure that time is made available. Charlotte Atkins has made it clear 20 letters to an MP would be regarded as strong support. These should be personal and not form letters. They can even be hand-written if sufficiently legible.
     This is your opportunity so that, in November 2000, when the Queen finally signs legislation making chess a sport, you will be able to say "I played my part in that piece of history".
Stewart Reuben
Chairman of the British Chess Federation
18.3.99

Top      Game Fee      Chess as Sport      Sex      SCCU Champs      Juniors      County matches      home

To R Haddrell [extract from longer letter]
"Sex" (see Ragbag) - I am impressed that the Surrey Girls Chess League has a newsletter. [And a website - rjh.] Maybe the Surrey League will have one soon. However, players are players, the gradings should not identify the sex of players. It would be more to the point to get the gradings right in the first place!
Kevin Thurlow
Redhill
5.1.99


Dear Richard,
I feel I must take issue with KJ Thurlow. His simplistic argument against differentiation of female players would, if followed to its logical conclusion, result in no differentiation for juniors either. Organisers of junior tournaments quite naturally want to see what potential players there are and where they are. The same, of course, applies to organisers of women's or girls' tournaments. I hope Mr Thurlow will not be too upset when he receives his "February" grading list and sees the information it gives.
Neil Clifton
Secretary, Surrey Girls Chess League
18.2.99
rjh: NC obviously wrote before the BCF had notified cancellation of the half-year grading list.


dear richard
i am surprised that neil clifton feels that junior girls should have their sex indicated in the grading list. what is the point? why not have a symbol for black grandmasters and maybe a symbol for the disabled players? where does the man's logic end? as the north circular match captain i can assure the gentleman in question that when selecting a team i am not interested in a symbol indicating their sex, age, colour or disability. i am looking for keen reliable players who will hopefully win their games.
     men like mr clifton give chess a very bad image showing a viewpoint that is antiquated and mysogynistic. hopefully sanity will prevail and he will be ignored. any steps to indicate that a player is female should be answered with all women players adopting male names, then watch the bureaucratic confusion.
louise s sinclair gary@cernunos.globalnet.co.uk
north circular league match captain
8.4.99
rjh: I have assumed that Ms Sinclair's shift key isn't actually broken, it's just her email style. Must admit I prefer it to ALLCAPS.


Dear Editor,
One reason why it is useful to be able to identify the gender of a girl player in the grading list is so that the list at the front of the book, saying who the top 20 girls in the country are, can at last be accurate. There are usually three or four omissions of 120+ strength players from it.
     Another, more important reason, for females of all ages, is so that a running eye can be kept on the very small percentage of active female players amongst the club and congress population. In bridge, the number of adult women playing the game can be between 30%-40%. In chess it rarely rises above 1%-2%.
     Now if anyone thinks that is not a problem, they are living in cloud cuckoo land. As we approach the threshold of funding as a sport, Sport England1 is going to be rather concerned to learn what we are doing about that huge imbalance to correct it and encourage more women and girls to play, to become organisers, coaches, and arbiters and to have equal chances of playing for England in international events abroad.
     If you didn't know, Sport England has a Sport for All policy as does the Government, and is going to be equally interested in what we are or are not doing for disabled people, ethnic minorities, the unemployed and other disadvantaged groups who do not enjoy equal access to the game. Those sports with no equal opportunities policies and a head-in-the-sand attitude, whether physical or mind sports, are just not going to get much cash. So attitudes need to change and rapidly.
     When Charlotte Atkins MP sticks her head above the parapets in the House of Commons on the 15th of March and asserts that the level of organisation of female chess is "appalling" (her daughter Emma plays so she knows what she is talking about), I think the chess world should regard that as a warning shot across the bows to get its house in order. Support from MPs for chess to be classified as a sport is not unconditional. It would be naive to think it would be otherwise.
     So: are Mr Thurlow and Ms Sinclair part of the problem or part of the solution?
Bruce Birchall
29.5.99
1 rjh to bhb. "What is Sport England?"
bhb to rjh. "Sport England is the new name of the Sports Council for England (as opposed to the UK)."
That's all right, then. If it's got a new name it must be up to date.


Top      Game Fee      Chess as Sport      Sex      SCCU Champs      Juniors      County matches      home

ON SCCU CHAMPIONSHIP

Dear Richard,
Past SCCU Championship Bulletins?

Many years ago, (1962) I took part in the SCCU Championships which was combined with the Stevenson Memorial Tournament held in the Rex Ballrooms, Bognor Regis with the tournament being won by IM N Karaklaic - I myself tied with David Sherman for the SCCU title that year.

The purpose behind this e-mail is to ask if you (or anyone else in the SCCU) know of the whereabouts of any bulletins / record of games of that particular tournament (plus others around that time) - I managed to lose mine! Any information at all would be much appreciated!

Many thanks
Arthur Brameld afb@wessex0.demon.co.uk    
Fareham Hants 19.12.98

rjh: - I have no relevant tournament bulletins. Anyone oblige?
     I know it wasn't the question, but there should be an issue of the SCCU Bulletin with at least the names of the leading scorers in. I have issues going back to number 1 (October 1958), with the odd gap here and there. Quick search hasn't turned up anything on the 1962 Championship.
     I hope, in due course, to post lists of all past Champions on the site. Junior included. A starting point, for the Championship itself, would be what's engraved on the trophy.
     Bognor in the sixties comes up again further down (On Juniors: SCCU Titles).


Top      Game Fee      Chess as Sport      Sex      SCCU Champs      Juniors      County matches      home

ON JUNIORS

From Magne Tvedt
Dear Richard Haddrell
For OPEN FORUM
Here in Norway we were wondering why you have never given on your site the results of the Finals of the English Counties Girls competiton that was started this year. We believe these Finals should already have occurred and if they did not, why is this, and if they did, where are the results to be found?
     We are very interested because here in Norway we may try a similar competition as our English friends which has been I think successful?
from Magne Tvedt mtved@online.no
21.7.99
rjh: Sorry, I've not been on the ball and I've had a bit of difficulty getting at these results anyway. The events have been played, and you should find the results on Neil Clifton's site http://www.sgcl.clara.net/sgc_home.htm.



We'll be having to start a new page for Junior Statistics at this rate. Leonard Barden sends some facts and figures.

THE YOUNGEST BRITISH CHAMPIONSHIP QUALIFIERS

Name

Year

How qualified

Age at qualification

Cecil de Vere

1866

Entry

21.3

Frank Parr

1936

Selection

17.5

Jonathan Penrose

1949

Selection

15.7

Jonathan Mestel

1972

Manchester Zonal?

15.2

Nigel Short

1977

Lancashire Zonal

11.11

Luke McShane

1995

Suffolk Open, Ipswich

11.3*

Simon Buckley

1996

Somerset Open, Frome

11.3*

Thirumurugan Thiruchelvam

1999

Fulprint York Open

10yr 29 days

Note: qualification by entry or selection is assumed to be three months before the championship unless known more precisely. *Either McShane or Buckley can be adjudged younger, depending on different interpretations of the dates when other qualified players withdrew. At the time of the championships, McShane was 11.6 and Buckley 11.4

THE YOUNGEST NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP QUALIFIERS

Paul Morphy US

1857

Entry/Selection

20.1

Jose Raoul Capablanca Cuba

1901

Corzo match

13.0

Arturo Pomar Spain

1943

Balearic Islands Championship

11.9

Luke McShane England

1995

Suffolk Open, Ipswich

11.3

Simon Buckley England

1996

Somerset Open, Frome

11.3

Thirumurugan Thiruchelvam England

1999

Fulprint York Open

10yr 29 days
Data checked by Ken Whyld of the Oxford Companion to Chess



Happened to mention that "Times" entries were very much down in Kent. Response:
Dear Richard,
Yes, we are very down on numbers... The zone I have run before (Birmingham and district) was apparently too small to keep going this year, too. I don't know why this is the case. Are some schools fed up of the same ones winning the zone every year? We've won ours six out of the last seven years (it's often been MCS v Abingdon in the final in our zone): it wouldn't surprise me if schools didn't enter after a few years of this. Perhaps the competition needs re-jigging so that teams play each other in pools, guaranteeing all schools three or four games rather than the quick KO.
All the best,
John Place
Teacher i/c chess, Magdalen College School Oxford
12.1.99



For Open Forum:
HOW MANY GIRLS DID OTHER COUNTRIES ENTER?
By Bruce Birchall
As you will be aware, there has been growing criticism of the BCF Junior Selection policy, particularly with regard to the World and European Junior Championships and the marked reluctance to consider some very strong candidates for the Boys' U-10 and the Girls' U-10 and U-12 sections at these events.
     This criticism has been focused and sharpened by 11 year old Jessie Gilbert's winning of the Women's World Amateur Champion title at Hastings, the youngest person ever to take a world adult title. But not good enough, according to the selectors, to be entered into the World Girls' U-12 Championship in Spain or the World Girls' U-12 Rapidplay Championships in France.
     DO OTHER COUNTRIES TREAT THEIR BEST YOUNG PLAYERS AS SHABBILY?
I have been looking at the numbers of girls that OTHER countries sent to Austria and Spain. I did this by downloading the final tables from the Austrian and Spanish websites and extracting totals from this. It makes revealing reading, and I thought Open Forum browsers might like to see it.

WORLD JUNIOR CHAMPIONSHIPS, SPAIN
There follows an analysis of the entries to the World Girls' Championships in Spain. England on a par with Haiti and Columbia. Impressive stuff. I am indebted to Adam Raoof for supplying the countries that matched some pf the more obscure FIDE 3-letter country codes. This is the top ten:

Country

U10

U12

U14

U16

U18

Total

Spain

5

5

5

7

2

24

Hungary

5

3

3

5

4

20

Georgia

3

2

3

2

1

12

Argentina

2

2

3

2

2

11

Austria

2

3

2

2

1

10

Poland

2

3

2

2

1

10

Slovakia

3

2

2

2

1

10

Azerbaijan

3

2

1

2

1

  9

France

2

4

1

1

1

  9

Yugoslavia**

2

2

3

1

1

  9

The 15 medals went to Russia (5 m, 8p), Georgia (2m, 12 p) India (2m, 6p), China (1m, 7p) Hungary (1m, 20p) Latvia (1m, 6p) Moldova (1m, 6p) Ukraine (1m, 6p) and England (1m, 4p). England was the only medal-winner with a squad smaller than 6. With 4 players, England were 38th-46th = as regards squad size out of 73 entrants.

Countries with 8: Brazil, Russia (2)
Countries with 7: Canada, China, Kazakhstan, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia (6)
Countries with 6: Australia, Croatia, Germany, India, Latvia, Mexico, Moldova, Ukraine, U.S.A., Vietnam (10)
Countries with 5: Algeria*, Belgium, Belo-Russia, Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, Sweden, Turkey (9)
Countries with 4: Bosnia-Herzogovena, Columbia, Czech Republic, Denmark, England, Estonia, Haiti ***, Switzerland, Uzbekistan (9)
Countries with 3: Armenia, Iceland, Israel, Mozambique, Philippines, South Africa, Turkmenistan (7)
Countries with 2: Ecuador, Finland, Iran, Kirgizstan, Malaysia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Norway, Venezuela, Wales (10)
Countries with 1: Albania, Andorra, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dutch Antilles, Libya, Macedonia, Nigeria, Scotland (10)
* Only 1 of the 5 Algerians turned up, but at least they entered a girl in each section!
** As Croatia, Bosnia-Herzogovena and Slovenia all entered we may take it Yugoslavia is Serbia or "Greater Serbia" --- the rump of "former Yugoslavia"
*** None of the 4 Haiti girls turned up

Comments: If a poor, war-torn, Third World country like Mozambique can send 3 players, and the tiny republics of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania can send 4, 6 and 5 each, if Argentina, Brazil, Australia can send 25 players between them, half-way round the world, it makes England's efforts look rather half-hearted in sending a quartet of girls to metaphorically pop next door, wouldn't you say?

EUROPEAN JUNIOR CHAMPIONSHIPS, AUSTRIA
37 countries took part. If we ignore the 4 who only had one player there (Scotland, Wales Denmark & Finland) and Sweden who only had two girls in action, of the other 32, 31 of them had an entrant in the U-18, and all but 5 of those (the five were Bosnia, Spain, England, Germany and Switzerland) had an entrant in the U-10. And all but 1 of those 31 had an entrant in the U-12. Guess which of the five who missed the U10 was the country who also didn't enter the U12 either? Why Intrepid England, of course. Who else? The top 11:

Country

U10

U12

U14

U16

U18

Total

Austria

3

3

4

4

3

17

Georgia

3

4

2

3

1

13

Russia

2

4

3

2

2

13

Belorussia

3

2

2

2

1

10

Hungary

1

2

2

3

1

  9

Lithuania

2

2

1

1

3

  9

Poland

1

2

1

2

3

  9

Slovakia

2

2

2

2

1

  9

Latvia

2

1

1

2

2

  8

Romania

1

2

2

1

2

  8

Ukraine

2

2

2

1

1

  8

Latvia (8p) and the Ukraine (8p) both took home 3 Medals, as did Georgia (13p). Russia (13p) won 2 medals and Austria (17p), France (7p), Hungary (9p) and Poland (9p) one apiece. There is a clear correlation between size of squad and number of medals won. All 15 medals went to girls from the top 14 countries as regards squad size sent. As in Spain, the home country had the biggest squad.
Countries with 7: Croatia, Spain, France (3)
Countries with 6: Azerbaijan, Moldova, Turkey, Yugoslavia (4)
Countries with 5: Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Portugal, Slovenia (8)
Countries with 4: Armenia, Bosnia, Switzerland (3)
Countries with 3: England, Israel, Netherlands (3)
Countries with 2: Sweden (1)
Countries with 1: Albania, Denmark, Finland, Scotland, Wales (5)
The Albanian defaulted 2 games and was withdrawn. Italy were a surprise absentee.
Comment: An even more lamentable English effort than in Spain! 30th-32nd = out of 37 in terms of numbers of entries!
BHB 14.1.99



Richard,
One error in the SCCU website. In one of the county match reports [see League tables] you state that David Howell took the record for the youngest player in an adult county team. This is not true. Jack Rudd (now 19 at Cambridge Uni. grade 201) played for Somerset against another WECU county at the age of six. I don't know the exact date. Also Samuel Buckley (now aged 10; grade 101 and current joint British U9 champion) played for Somerset against Wiltshire in October 1994 less than a month after his sixth birthday.
Yours
Neville Belinfante  NevilleBel@aol.com
21.12.98


And a follow-up:
Richard,
     Another question for the junior records. Who is the youngest to win an adult tournament? It used to be Jack Rudd, who won the Keynsham rapidplay minor at the age of six. I believe it is now Thirumurugan Thiruchelvam, who won the Golders Green rapidplay U120 section also at the age of six.
     All the best for the new year
Neville Belinfante   3.1.99
     (Neville also clears up one mystery. The Ragbag has a story of an U14 section with 5 players run as a 6-rd Swiss. Well, it's what the county newsletter said. In fact they ran it as a 5-rd APA, with a Swiss 6th round tacked on. Another section was 8 players, run as an APA with one round missing, except they played so fast it was possible to fit the other round in after all.)



SCCU TITLES

The story so far: The SCCU is to revive (some of) its individual junior titles, at the LJCC 1998 and the Surrey Congress, Easter 1999.

Dear Richard,

(1) "We seemed to have no junior individual trophies" (July Bulletin, 242:2). I chaired every prizegiving and handed out the trophies for 15 years at the SCCU BCF squad championships, and seem to remember a large and handsome U18 and a smaller U14 cup, both probably dating back to Bognor and Fishlock-Lomax in the 1960s when Keene and Hartston competed. After Lloyds Bank stopped sponsoring the event the SCCU said it would run its own separate championships but didn’t. The names of the last winners should be in the Bulletin or in the BCF Newsflash for around 1989, so the trophies may be traceable.

(2) "SCCU U18 and U14 titles would be awarded at the Surrey Congress 1999" (243:1). Why no U16? We always had an U16 title in 1973-88, and its revival would encourage promising 170+ U16s to enter the Surrey Open.

(3) "U11 would be at the London Junior Championships 1998"(243:1). The LJCC entry form attached speaks only of bookshop vouchers, not an SCCU title. Why the difference? Why abandon the SCCU U12 championship? This is also a historic title dating back probably to Bognor and certainly to 1973 when future GM Julian Hodgson won it.

(4) Where are the girls titles? We always had them 1973-88, when future WGMs and WIMs like Lalic, Forbes and Houska competed. The SCCU now has more girl players than ever before thanks to the efforts of Mike Basman, Neil Clifton and others. Five of the six England women who beat Germany are from the SCCU, as is Harriet Hunt, now the No 2 Western-born player in the world. Perhaps one of the active girls organisations within the Union would like to organise SCCU girls championships for younger age groups.

(5) Finally your Executive doesn’t have a single female member, so I suggest that "representatives of other organisations" could include someone to represent the interests of women and girls. The BWCA Junior Director or her nominee would be an excellent choice.

Yours sincerely,
Leonard Barden
(no email address)
Edgware   21.10.98

Ed: - on (3): I don’t know why the difference, but surmise a breakdown in communication. On (5): No womens organisation has applied for Non-County membership. This membership category ("other organisations") is barely six months old, and it could easily be that they haven’t heard of it.
     On (1): It has been suggested that I could help locate trophies by publishing the names of all past winners of SCCU junior titles. Well, not just at the moment, thank you! The information is there but it would be a two-hour trawl and I don't think it would locate many trophies. I have given the names of the most recent winners to the President, who has made it his responsibility to chase missing trophies.




To Nigel Dennis, SCCU Junior Organiser
Dear Nigel,
Further to our recent telephone conversation, I have spoken to Martin Cath regarding the matter of the SCCU U11 title. Martin has confirmed to me that his understanding is that William Bennett of Cambridgeshire was the highest placed U11 in the relevant event (the London U12 Championship) but was not awarded the SCCU U11 title as players from Cambridgeshire were ruled1 ineligible to receive this. Accordingly the title was awarded to the highest placed player considered eligible, David Howell of Sussex.
     On behalf of Surrey CCA, I would like to request that the matter of Cambridgeshire eligibility for SCCU junior titles be considered at the SCCU Executive Committee meeting on 12th March. This will enable the position to be clear when the U18 and U14 titles fall to be awarded at the Surrey Easter Congress.
     Surrey do not wish to express any view one way or the other on the underlying issue, but my personal opinion is that the decision not to award the U11 title to William Bennett was incorrect. Cambridgeshire are full members of the SCCU and pay their full dues on the same basis as the other nine member counties. By virtue of their also being members of the EACU, they choose not to exercise their right to participate in certain SCCU events. However, this is a matter for them. Where teams or individuals from the county do play in SCCU events, they should in my opinion be treated on exactly the same footing as teams or individuals from elsewhere in the Union.
     It would also be helpful if Surrey could be advised whether any trophies will be available for presentation at the Congress to the new SCCU U18 and U14 champions, and, if so, how the trophies are to be delivered to Surrey.
Yours sincerely,
David Sedgwick
23.2.99
Copies to JA Philpott (President), RJ Haddrell (Secretary), S Essen (Cambridgeshire) and all members of the Surrey Easter Chess Congress Committee

1 rjh: Well, sort of ruled. Nobody was very sure what the rule was, but all concerned felt that Cambridgeshire is not really "SCCU" at U11 level. There was no question of a dispute. Of course someone ought to have thought about it in advance, and of course we need a rule for the future.
     David will have had Leonard Barden's letter in mind when he mentioned trophies. I do not know what the trophy situation is.





AND THE ECGCF
(English Counties Girls Chess Federation)

Richard,

Thank you for the website address... I much appreciate the coverage you have given to girls' events, and in particular the ECGCF. The latter organisation, as you say, does not conform to Union boundaries. This was not a deliberate attempt to be awkward, but was because we wished to get play underway as quickly as possible, and also because the ECGCF only recognises REAL counties, i.e. those that appear on the pre-1974 county map of England. Such monstrosities as Avon, Greater Manchester etc. are referred to by ECGCF as KEG counties, and do not qualify to be members! However, girls who live in these places can of course be part of their Real County team, thus a Manchester girl can play for Lancashire, a Stockport girl for Cheshire, and a Saddleworth girl for Yorkshire!...

Best wishes
Neil Clifton sgcl@clara.net
9.12.98

rjh: - Where's Saddleworth? OK, but why KEG? I've tried to work this out before, and even asked Neil once but he didn't tell me. [Later note: he's told me. It's something to do with the ersatz nature of keg bitter.]


Top      Game Fee      Chess as Sport      Sex      SCCU Champs      Juniors      County matches      home

ON COUNTY MATCHES
AND GETTING TO THEM


From David Sedgwick
Dear Richard,
Since the 4NCL started six years ago, we have sensibly avoided clashes between 4NCL weekends and our Open Division county matches. With the number of teams in the 4NCL expanding to embrace players of lesser strength than hitherto, I wonder whether we should now seek also to avoid clashes between the 4NCL and our U175 Division matches.
     I have raised the subject with County Match Controller David Smith, who was sympathetic but pointed to the difficulties which he already has in fitting in all the fixtures. I imagine that the first objective will continue to be to avoid clashes between the 4NCL and the Open Division. Given this policy, it may well be possible to ensure either that U175 matches do not clash with Open matches, or that they do not clash with the 4NCL, but not both. If this is the choice, what do others think?
David Sedgwick
Croydon     6.6.99


From John Philpott
Dear Richard
In his letter of 6 June, David Sedgwick has raised the question of whether it is more important to avoid clashes between U175 matches and 4NCL fixtures than it is to continue to avoid clashes between U175 matches and Open matches. I believe that I am correct in stating that there was only one clash between a 4NCL weekend and a round of U175 matches in the season just completed, so there does not appear to be too much of a problem at present. However, the arrangement of fixtures would be trickier if, as I very much hope, Kent were to re-enter the U175 Division and boost the competition to five teams, and as I recognise that a number of potential Kent U175 players are involved with Invicta Knights 2 it is entirely appropriate that this issue is being raised now.
     The relative importance of the 4NCL and the Open Division in terms of the players available to an U175 captain is likely to vary from County to County, and we should obtain views from all the relevant match captains before seeking to reach a conclusion. However, speaking as the Essex U175 match captain, I have an extremely strong preference for continuing to avoid clashes between the U175 and the Open. I cannot recollect a single occasion in my three years as captain when an Essex player has cited a 4NCL commitment as a reason for missing a match. In contrast, the Open team has had to draw on players eligible for the U175 side in ALL of its matches this season, the number concerned on a match by match basis in the Union qualifying competition being 6, 8, 5, 9, 7,10, 4 and 6. Although we might get away with it occasionally (as the quarter finals of the National Stages demonstrated) it would be extremely difficult for Essex to do itself justice on a regular basis in both of the competitions if the fixtures at the Union stage clashed, and I seriously doubt whether I would feel inclined to continue as the U175 match captain if this was the route that we went down.
Yours sincerely
John Philpott     9.6.99


Dear Richard,
I've been browsing your website and noticed there was some discussion of the SCCU U11 prize awarded at the 1998 LJCC. As William Bennet's father I would at least like to see his name spelt correctly... He appears 3 times in the current grading book, and tournament organisers everywhere "correct" Bennet 113A to Bennett 108D when they make up the cards...
     But the reason I was browsing your pages is that I ended up playing for the Cambs team last Saturday and was wondering if I'm the lowest (genuine BCF) graded player to actually take part. What happened was that (exhibiting the flair for organisation for which University sports teams are justly legendary) the Cambs team found itself on Friday a few players short and without a driver for a match in Newbury. Somebody (Patrick Ribbands, I expect) had the bright idea of pulling William from the (EACU!) u150 team, putting him in the (SCCU) 1st team and asking me to drive the bus. We agreed to do this but on the Saturday morning William wasn't well enough to travel and so, despite my best efforts to get the bottom board conceded, I ended up playing black against someone graded 90 above me (another possible record?). Of course this story would only really be interesting if I'd somehow avoided defeat, but alas not.
Yours
Ian Farquharson I.Farquharson@dpmms.cam.ac.uk
Cambridge 2.3.99
rjh: Anyone beat grade 70 for an Open match?


Richard,
Many thanks for the great work on the SCCU website.
     Most amused to hear of reluctant driver/1st team player. Two years ago, my wife Julie completed an unusual double. She ran the U100 team in Leicestershire, but did not play. Lincs came to Syston near Leicester for their MCCU Minor Semi against Worcs, one player short. After their captain asked if there were any locals who could play to give someone a game, it was pointed out that Julie actually lived in Lincs for 18 years, and was not a Leicestershire player this season.      She played on Bd 16 and lost, with an exalted grading of 78.
Thanks and best wishes.
Cyril Johnson cyriljohnson@yahoo.co.uk 7.3.99


Dear Richard,
As you know, I was recently called upon unusually to play for Surrey I, away against Berks. The venue was fine when you got there BUT it was totally inaccessible by public transport (apart possibly from a very occasional bus, surely at the wrong time, along the country lane concerned). Furthermore it was a narrow busy B-road with plenty of traffic, quite unsuitable for walking. My captain had agreed to divert to pick me up at Newbury Station but didn't have time. There was no taxi rank of taxis. A mobile phone call to another Kent player on his mobile was going to get me a lift until, fortuitously, a taxi appeared. After checking it was free and making another mobile phone call, I got an immediate ride to the match for £6 on top of my basic Network-discounted return train fare from Guildford of only just over £6. But does the SCCU expect youngsters or old people who can't afford or are unable to drive to have to go through this for their chess? (Thanks to the kindness of my opponent, I was at least spared another taxi back; but had I needed one and hadn't got a mobile, would there have been a phone available to call one? - and on a Saturday afternoon I've found before now you can't always even get a taxi very quickly when you want it.)
     Could we not expect counties providing such a venue to arrange transport from the nearest railway station or frequent bus route, at least on advance request?
Yours sincerely,
H Trevor Jones
Guildford      6.12.98


Hi Richard,
Just browsing through your nice SCCU site. Got a small quibble about the Bucks - Essex match, where you mention that you think that was Syringa's first match win. Wrong. I've been waiting for some 14 months myself for a match win - 11 match losses in a row is now my personal tally as captain of Oxfordshire. That being the case, Bucks must have beaten us last time, and a quick check in my back records reveals Oxon 4.5-11.5 Bucks on 28 February 1998.
     Perhaps Syringa means 'Got a major county scalp !' - it is notoriously difficult for minor counties to take the full 2 points off a major county, these days. We almost managed it last year against Kent, 7.5-7.5 went the wrong way on the last board. They punished us for our impudence this year with 15-1 !! (Another slight inaccuracy, btw - Harakis 1-0 Millin was actually Harakis 1-0 def. The car containing Millin/Denger/Hastings/Starkie, boards 10/14/13/3 respectively, got stuck in traffic in London, didn't make the venue until 3:30. Board 16 was defaulted anyhow.)
Tim Dickinson T.Dickinson@btinternet.com
9.12.98

rjh: - Didn't anyone warn them we have traffic in Kent? Message also from Lester Millin 10.12.98! Match page says default now instead of Millin.

Top      Game Fee      Chess as Sport      Sex      SCCU Champs      Juniors      County matches      home