Back to SCCU home page     

Updated 31.8.06
OPEN FORUM

Open Forum is your vehicle for comment and discussion, and it is open. Anything goes, within the bounds of courtesy and common sense and the libel laws, provided it's got something to do with chess in the SCCU. Or England. Or anywhere, really. It will be assumed, unless you say otherwise, that contributions may also be published in the printed SCCU Bulletin. To contribute, email Richard Haddrell rjh@sccu.ndo.co.uk. Please say where you're from. [Most people ignore that. Oh, well.]
    Text is best. Avoid tabs and indents.
__________________


From Colin Walker
30.8.06
Dear Richard
Further to the recent comments on mobile phones, I note the following response from Geurt Gijssen in his Arbiter's Notebook column on the Chess Cafe website:

"It is very difficult to forbid mobiles in the playing hall, as many players do not like to leave them in their hotel room. By announcing that the players have to switch off their mobiles, the arbiter implicitly allows mobiles in the playing hall, as long as they are switched off. And I think you will agree that a mobile set to vibrate mode is not switched off. In 2008, I will propose that if the arbiter notices that a player has a mobile switched on in the playing venue, he will declare the game lost for that player."

This comment, together with widely reported accusations of cheating by means of electronic devices at recent events (see for example http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3292), suggests that FIDE will unfortunately have to adopt even more draconian rules on the subject of mobile phones and other electronic devices.
Colin Walker colinandmariawalker@yahoo.com
Wycombe


From Jeff Goldberg
25.7.06
In order to help clear up all this confusion about mobile phones, I wonder if the ECF might set up a helpline we could call?
Jeff Goldberg noonebutjeff@hotmail.com


From Nick Butland
25.7.06
Mobile Phones
I agree with Ken Norman & Phil Makepeace insofar as any rule must be both simple & applicable. Sadly my employers require me to be available on call in an evening & indeed I had some input on the Bucks rule 35 referred to below [17.7.06]. I would be very sad to have to give up chess.
Nick Butland Nick.Butland@acco.com


From Kevin Thurlow
24.7.06
Dear Richard
Gavin again raises interesting points (letter sent 19.7.07). The FIDE Law does state you are not permitted to bring electronic communications devices into the playing area. This is of course written for "proper" tournaments, e.g. Gausdal, where you play in a hotel and most of the players are staying there. You leave the computer and 'phone in your room then go and play. In evening leagues, players often turn up straight from work, so this Law cannot really apply. Beware of players visiting friends/parents outside the playing area, when the non-player mysteriously has Fritz on the screen....
     You could not reasonably complain if you were defaulted for using a phone during a game. There was an amusing incident in the Surrey League last season, where a player's phone went off early in the game. His opponent was not going to claim the game, until the player answered the phone then carried on a conversation as he left the room. The player and his captain accepted the loss, but then complained afterwards as the same thing had happened to the same player in a match the previous week, and his opponent had let him get away with it! One opponent of Redhill last season actually picked up his phone and made a loud call during the match, but our player decided not to claim the game.
     There was some debate about personal stereos some years ago - a player complained about his opponent listening to such a device; the arbiter looked puzzled and was not interested, so the player said, "Supposing it's a Basman tape on openings?" I guess you would notice if the opponent kept stopping and rewinding the tape! Players have cheated by using earpieces to receive advice from strong players or friends with computers. I would not automatically default a player for listening to an Ipod.
     It was illegal to make use of "written or otherwise recorded information" during a game (so if you are forced to play a computer, you can just claim the game!) Some years ago, I played a junior who wrote a move down, thought about it, put a thin line through it, wrote another move down, etc, until he found one he liked, and then played it - and he frequently referred to what he had written. So that was illegal, and I think that is what the "new" Law is intended to prevent. In practice, if e.g. your opponent goes QxQ+ and the only legal move is KxQ, I doubt anyone will worry if you write your move down before playing it, as you are not benefitting from the action. I played a game last year where my opponent had gone for a walk, so when I played e.g. QxQ+, as there was only one legal reply, I wrote my opponent's move down before he played it. This appears to be legal. Strictly speaking, using a scorebook is not, as the player may refer back to his last Sveshnikov....
     Back to ECF - I quite agree that since Roy Heppinstall arrived, BCF/ECF has improved immeasurably, and if you only have a peripheral interest and/or are inexperienced, you might think everything is wonderful. Those of us who have considerable experience, remember e.g. making a donation to help an English player fight for the world championship, only to discover that the money didn't get there..... This is just one example. Most readers will be aware of this and other incidents. I hope all readers can understand that makes you cautious. ECF does do a lot of good work of course, but didn't David Norwood significantly sponsor the Olympiad team? That should be remembered, and I wonder if ECF will ever make a comment on the series of incidents involving Danny Gormally. Surely, they must say something?
best wishes
Kevin Thurlow Kjt2300@aol.com
Redhill


From Gary Cook
24.7.06
Richard
I have read with interest the talk on mobile phones. In the North Circular League we had a long discussion about this at our last AGM. Finally the members (who the League is designed for) agreed to allowing the mobiles into the playing area, but stating they must be turned off, or with the permission of the captains be switched to silent. Any player whose phone audibly rings loses. This meant making certain amendments to the "official" rules of chess.
     If we had gone down the line of having to use the pure FIDE rule would we also be forced to accept rule 12.5 where they define the playing venue (where mobiles are banned)? This defines the playing venue to include "the refreshment area and area set side for smoking". Since the smoking area in most clubs is outside the building and the refreshment area is in another room, would we also default a player whose phone rings there?
Gary Cook ncclsecretary@yahoo.co.uk
Secretary, North Circular Chess League


From Mike Adams
22.7.06
Following Martin Regan's posting below [five letters down], readers may now be aware that Martin (who is Chairman of Cheshire and N.Wales Chess Association) has since emailed 650 chess officers across England announcing he will be standing with an as yet unannounced 'slate' of 9 candidates to take over the running of the ECF. He says he will be standing for the post of Chief Exec. Democracy is of course a very good thing and as a general principle having a choice of candidates is better than not having a choice. Martin says the slate will include candidates from across the Federation chosen on the basis of their abilities. I will look forward with interest to seeing whether they really are from across the Federation, and what track record they have of contributing to and supporting the work of the ECF. Within SCCU, Counties will then need to make decisions as to which candidates to support at the ECF AGM. This could be an even more interesting election than the recent Fide elections - I hear Bessel Kok has a second hand website and campaign slogans going cheap.
Mike Adams mike@wood-street.fsnet.co.uk
Surrey CCA Rep to ECF
rjh: What will a unified slate imply? Yes, it could be an interesting October meeting. I wonder who else is lining themselves up for CEO.


From John Philpott
22.7.06
Richard
What on earth is going on at the ECF? I have this morning received my 2006 grade by e-mail, and find that it is correct, thereby meaning that I have no reason to write in and complain. Much more of this and Open Forum will become redundant.
John john@johnphilpott.freeserve.co.uk


From Ken Norman
21.7.06
Richard,
If I could made one further contribution. The correspondence about mobile phones has demonstrated the confusion that currently exists. Roger de Coverly drew attention to the rule applied in the Bucks League. This is different from the rule in the London League. The Berks League has a third version. The Surrey/Hampshire border League a fourth. So we have a situation with multiple interpretations of the law on Mobile Phones. If you are playing in the 4NCL or County Matches (unless you play against Warwickwickshire) the Fide RULE applies. One ring and you have lost the game. At the other end of the spectrum the Berkshire League allows unrestricted access to your mobile phone with no penalty if it rings during play. I'm a bright guy having been a semi-finalist on Brain of Britain a few year ago but I am unable to remember all these different premutations of the rule on mobile phones.
     We need one rule for all competitions. My suggestion is an ECF regulation stating that the FIDE rule on mobile phones must apply in all league matches. Games played under any other rule are not eligible for grading.
Ken Norman knorman@trl.co.uk



From Ken Norman
20.7.06
Richard
Regarding Richard Almond's email to open forum. His recollection of events at the start of the Warwickshire v Sussex match is not correct. My board was very near to the two captains and I could clearly hear every word that was spoken during the pre match announcements and I heard the Warwickshire match captain state that there would be NO penalty if a Mobile Phone range during the match. After the end of his remarks there was an exchange between myself and the Warwickshire match captain when I stated that if my opponents mobile phone rang I would be claiming the game and I got a very unsatisfactory reply from the Warwickshire Captain.
     It seems to me that the Sussex Match Captaining duo of Richard Almond and Paul Selby fell down on the job that day by not challenging the Warwickshire match captains statement immediately it was made.
NOTE FOR NON SUSSEX PLAYERS:
Richard Almond raises the team and informs the players about venues etc. Paul Selby is non playing Match Captain on the day of the match thus allowing Richard to play his game undisturbed.
Ken Norman knorman@trl.co.uk
rjh: - I had not expected this to turn into a disagreement between Sussex people, but so be it. I am sure they will resolve it in private.


From Gavin Strachan
19.7.07
Hi Richard,
What happens if you have your phone on vibrate (no one notices), go out and answer it? Can your opponent claim a win or arbiter decide you lose for chatting on phone? I vaguely remember a huge tournament happening in Minnesota (i think) last year where the prize money was exceptionally high even in the lowest grading section that they had to do all sorts of measures to stop cheating (which a few players did try). I also remember a couple of juniors listening to walkmans whilst playing in a tournament (this was years ago, if it was recent I would say ipod); is that illegal now?
     FIDE state that the rule against writing your move down before playing it has always been in place; yet I do feel there is a bigger emphasis on applying this rule in recent times (not that I ever wrote a move down).
Regards
Gavin Strachan webmaster@brentwoodchessclub.org
Brentwood Chess Club


From Martin Regan
19.7.06
For those interested in such matters, the draft legal document concerning [future] ECF membership schemes has, somewhat bizarrely, appeared at http://www.clevelandchess.co.uk, where it is provoking some debate. Bearing in mind that one still can find the odd chessplayer in southern, eastern and western counties, it might have been a liitle more sensible for the board to post them on the ECF site - along with the missing minutes from the council meeting that actually took the decision.
Martin Regan martin.regan@excelpublishing.co.uk
Cheshire
rjh: My thanks to Martin. I hadn't seen the Cleveland document. Perhaps it's a leak. But it is an important document, and if it's a leak it has leaked further. I'd say I was lost for words, if I wasn't commenting further in the Comment page.


From Richard Almond
19.7.06
Dear Richard
A recent letter by Ken Norman has set off a chain of several contributions about the Sussex v Warwickshire match. My recollection of pre-match events is different from that of Ken. As Sussex Match Secretary I was the only person from Sussex in contact with Warwickshire in the build up to the match. So I can confirm absolutely that no agreement was made between the two counties to set aside the FIDE rule that stipulates the loss of the game if a mobile phone rings. There is no discrepancy in the rules for this competition and FIDE Laws of Chess, as it is also specifically stated in the ECF County Championship Rules.
     My recollection is that our Match Captain made the technical announcements before play began. My memory is that to do this he once again quoted from the notes provided to SCCU Match Captains at the start of the season to remind players of the FIDE law changes of July 2005. Firstly if a mobile rings it is loss of the game and then going on to remind that you aren't allowed to write your move before playing it. Finishing that point by saying that there wasn't a specific penalty given in the laws. Which is perfectly true and as per the mentioned SCCU notes. So from my recollection I think the confusion has arisen because our Captain said there was no penalty on the scoring matter. There is no reason for me to think our Captain said there wasn’t any penalty for a ringing mobile even if my memory might be inaccurate. I think the Warwickshire Captain’s remarks revolved around the playing arrangements, such as encouraging all to tuck into the excellent spread of refreshments he had laid on.
     One thing I can be certain of, is that had my opponent had a mobile phone that rang during the game, I personally fully believed at the time I would get the point.
     I hope Ken is not offended that I am offering my differing recollection. However I felt I should considering from whom comment has been attracted in this forum and also that it has been reported on to David Welch.
Best Regards
Richard Almond richardalmond141@hotmail.com
Sussex Match Secretary


From Scott Freeman
18.7.06
I have just "bulk-read" a lot of the recent emails on the site and find myself agreeing with many of the points raised.
     (1) Central Venues. At the end of the day, views will be polarised and everyone will have their preference, so I am not sure the matter will ever get laid to rest. As a football fan who likes a "Wembley" final (if we ever get them again!), I like the concept because it makes a day out of what the ECF seeks to establish as one of its big events. It's Cup Final Day in the chess world. Maybe travelling is not such an issue to me because I did once drive everywhere following Chelsea, thus a trip to Syston is a short hop up the road compared to Newcastle, Sunderland and Middlesbrough. But it is, after all, the National Club finals. [rjh: - I thought we were talking about Counties Championship Finals, but am happy to change the subject.] With the new average grades as limitations for the competitions, it threatens to make it impractical to have the finals even on the same day, let alone at the same venue. Maidstone managed to reach three finals this year; two were in the Barbican venue where I was arbiting and the other team had to travel north. They had sacrificed the strength of one team to have a go at the other two events because they simply didn't have the players to fill all the teams competitively at the same time (although the "sacrificed" team did brilliantly). After all, the earlier rounds would have been arranged not to clash, but they had no choice with the finals.
     (2) Supporting the ECF. My club CCF is a corporate vice-president. Personally, I have been a member in the past, but because I only play when I have to now, I haven't been an individual member for a while. I have done little things like arbit the National Club Finals and use my talents that way. But I am very much a supporter of the view that regular players should be a member of the ECF. What Mike Adams says is correct; you support them because they are the ECF and not because of what they do or don't do (what is it John F Kennedy said about asking what you can do for your country rather than what your country can do for you?). We can all have gripes about various individuals that we do not get on with but at the end of the day, ECF officers are all volunteers and the majority do the best they can do in their spare time, often at the expense of their families. Maybe if everyone was a member of the ECF, we would have the funding to pay a few full time chess organisers who could start to do the jobs everyone moans never get done or should be done.
     (3) Mobile Phones. If the same flexibility were shown to the touch piece move rule as is apparently shown to the mobile phone rule, our competitions would be a shambles. I have had to default two players at Coulsdon in the last year because of phones going off (one whose Mum phoned him to check he had arrived safely at the venue and another thanks to his opponent coming up to me and telling me that it was his opponent who was guilty (I was trying to work it out) but he wasn't asking me to default him......?) and had a third (rather amusing) scenario which I will come to in a minute. Either it's in the laws or it isn't. As has been pointed out, you technically cannot bring such equipment onto the premises of an event without the permission of the arbiter. This wording, no doubt, is to give the arbiter absolute clout if they feel someone is abusing the presence of a phone or computer. Surrey (as the arbiter for SCCA team events) has allowed phones on silent mode as common sense must prevail in the scenario of team members running late or being lost, etc. But they do not allow them to ring out loud. It seems some people think we should come up with some sort of official scheme that allows it in some circumstances and not others? Maybe we should give people two options to touch pieces and then move another before we enforce that rule. Personally, I like Kevin Thurlow's previously stated view that EXTRA penalties should be given to anyone whose phone rings out loud with the Crazy Frog ring-tone.

In concluding, I would appeal to arbiters everywhere not to do what I managed at the Coulsdon "Premiership" International of 2005. An un-named player (sorry!) walks in half an hour late and in a flap because he has lost his mobile phone. He has searched everywhere and has a logical theory. If his phone is at home, it will ring because he has it switched on. If his phone is stolen, it will be off so it cannot be traced. Please can the arbiter phone his mobile and let him know the outcome as he needed to get to his board. No problem.......except that I didn't get round to it for another 20 minutes and the outcome of it was such that I didn't have to go and tell him where it was. All I shall say is that I must be the first arbiter, since the rule came into force, to be directly responsible for a mobile phone going off in the playing area.......
Scott Freeman chess@ccfworld.com
rjh: - How does the phone know if it's been stolen?
sgf: - It dowsn't, but the thief would switch it off to avoid being traced.


From Jonathan Melsom
18.7.06
Richard
This seems to be turning into the Bucks League chess forum! I am pleased that Phil Makepeace anticipates becoming a match captain shortly.
     As Roger de Coverly points out the issue of mobile phones is mentioned in the Bucks constitution, and the FIDE rules modified for local purposes. However the constitution does not indicate what action should be taken. I was not at the county AGM where this part of the constitution was added but if an incident arose and the matter came to me as League Controller I would expect a penalty (game forfeiture) to be applied, since it is a distraction to the opponent. In the absence of match captains being allowed to act as arbiters - I would be expect players to adhere to the FIDE rules (as modified) when playing a game. Roger will also know that I am unhappy with match captains having no clear role in respect of disputes, but my view on this and other issues rarely holds much support at county AGMs.
     On the merits of FIDE requirements - I've never used a scorebook during a game or written my move down before playing it, but both could be construed as consulting written information. There is value in these rules therefore, but the main reason for application at a local level must be to ensure consistency amongst players. With 4NCL etc bringing chess under FIDE rules to a much broader base of player it is reasonable to encourage correct practice amongst all players unless there are strong reasons to depart. However, the language in which a game is recorded should be regarded as a matter for a degree of subsidiarity, so I would be very unhappy if anybody suffered rebuke or penalty for recording in descriptive notation.
Jonathan Melsom jonathan.melsom@tiscali.co.uk
Bucks League Controller
Wycombe & Hazlemere


From Paul Buswell
18.7.06
Richard,
Roger de Coverly comments inter alia that for evening chess leagues there is a FIDE rule which would not permit descriptive notation.
     Not so: the FIDE text reads: "FIDE recognizes for its own tournaments and matches only one system of notation, the Algebraic System...". Descriptive notation is fine for non-FIDE events.
Paul Buswell PBusw13724@aol.com


From Joffrey Lebon
29.6.06 but received by us from ECF 17.7.06
Hello,
I plan to propose with my chess club (I play for Fournes en Weppes in the north of France) a twinning with a foreign club. Are there clubs of your federation which would be interested? I thank you in advance for the assistance that you will bring to me...
Cordially,
Joffrey Lebon joffrey.lebon@caramail.com


From Roger de Coverly
17.7.06
In response to Phil Makepeace, I would regard the Bucks position on mobile phones to be as stated in the constitution at http://www.buckschess.uk.eu.org/BCCA_Constitution_July_2004.htm.
     Match Environment
35. Mobile Phones should be switched off during play. Those with jobs who are needed "on call" may leave the phones in silent mode. Match captains may need to contact late arrivals: this should be done outside the playing area away from earshot of the players.
     This is one of four issues where I believe it is appropriate for an evening chess league to depart from strict compliance with the current Fide rules. The other three being
(a) writing the moves down before you play them
(b) using a scorebook as distinct from a scoresheet
(c) using descriptive notation.
     I am sometimes a match captain in the Bucks League. If a mobile phone rang I would expect the player to turn it off asap. I wouldn't anticipate a penalty. (There's no arbiter present to enforce one! - in the Bucks League match captains are not substitute arbiters.)
Roger de Coverly rdc@rdc200.fsnet.co.uk


From Phil Makepeace
17.7.06
Dear Richard,
I'd like to express my own dissatisfaction with the confusion regarding the mobile phone rules. I play in the Bucks League and while there have been discussions at the last couple of Bucks AGMs about this issue, I cannot say I know what would happen if a player's mobile phone did ring. Given I could be a match captain very shortly, this is clearly not acceptable.
     Focusing more on the ECF, I played in an ECF junior tournament last year where it was stated beforehand that a ringing mobile results in the loss of the game. However, in the two instances where this happened, no action was taken. While I sympathise with the arbiters - it must be difficult to enforce forfeiture for such an offence, especially with a junior - rules are rules and I was not impressed. Indeed, neither player whose mobile had rung went on to lose their game.
Regards,
Phil Makepeace phil_makepeace@btinternet.com
Wycombe & Hazlemere


From David Sedgwick
17.7.06
Dear Richard,
I was very surprised to learn from Ken Norman's letter that the FIDE Law regarding mobile phones was not applied at the recent County Match between Sussex and Warwickshire. I've always found that David Welch (ECF Manager of Congress Chess and Chief Arbiter) takes a very firm line on this issue. For example, the Law was applied strictly at the 2006 Gibtelecom Chess Festival, an event at which Ken was present. It was also applied at the 2005 Smith & Williamson British Championships in Douglas and I would certainly expect the same to be the case at Swansea.
     I'm copying this letter to David Welch to inform him about my comments and about Sussex v Warwickshire. I should make clear that the Counties Championships do not fall within David's area of responsibility.
Yours sincerely,
David Sedgwick david.sedgwick@amserve.com
23 Tierney Court, Canning Road, Croydon CR0 6QA


From Neill Cooper
16.7.06
Richard
At various EPSCA (English Primary Schools) team events I've been to, the FIDE rule have been applied - if your phone rings then you lose the game. And if a team manager's phone rings then the team lose a point. I'm not aware of a phone ever ringing. As with the Prom concerts, it is diplomatic to warn players before the start of the event.
     Note that the FIDE rule (http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE101 ) is that "It is strictly forbidden to bring mobile phones or other electronic means of communication, not authorised by the arbiter, into the playing venue." However the only penalty specified is that "If a player's mobile phone rings in the playing venue during play, that player shall lose the game." I think this rule should be the one that is used.
     Similarly you should not record your move before you play it. Some juniors are finding this a tough change, and Tony Miles' watch must be spinning in his grave.
Yours
Neill Cooper nsc@cplusc.co.uk


From Neil Graham
16.7.06
Richard,
Thank you for running the Open Forum section on the SCCU Website. Surely the ECF ought to open a discussion website (properly moderated and with identities known) so we don't have to carry on debate of ECF matters here.
      May I comment on two of the county championship matters doing the rounds here. Firstly in respect of central venues. I make no comment on dates. I am firmly in favour of central venues and have spoken out in favour of them - if we are to run national competitions let's make them like national competitions. A proper well-organised Finals Day with presentation of trophies with every county taking part; no extra charge for sandwiches etc. I remember some excellent events held in Birmingham that fitted the bill. Whether some recent venues match the standards I'd like is another matter; however my team felt part of a event when we contested the Final last year.
     I have also played finals when the venue was arranged at an intermediate venue. There were arguments about the date, arguments about where constituted an intermediate venue and arguments as no controller was present to settle them. The venue itself was a village hall that could only be described as in the middle of nowhere. There was no car parking, the tables were of vastly differing sizes, the chairs the same and some required a balancing act to actually sit on them. The ECF has (virtually) no sponsors. It has no likelihood of ever getting sponsors if its flagship events are shunted away to five different times/places.
     As regards phone penalties I have no idea why the Sussex/Warwicks match decided there was no penalty - perhaps the captains decided that. Certainly Notts had to concede a board in the quarter-finals when after four hours play, a junior's phone went off after it had become unintentionally activated in his pocket. From an arbiter's point of view, I advise all players before play to switch off their phones before play starts - however at the Nottingham Congress it was decided to invoke a time penalty on a first offence, then a loss on a second offence. Players pay substantial sums to enter congresses and play chess; we feel sometimes a little leeway is acceptable.
Neil neil.graham@ntlworld.com


From Sean Hewitt
16.7.06
Richard,
In response to Stephen Hart's comments on the finals day I agree that central venues for finals offer little merit, save perhaps the opportunity to make “an occasion” of the day. But the fact is that the council voted only a couple of years ago to keep the finals at one central venue. The ECF may get many things wrong, but it’s hard to criticise them for applying the rules that we vote for!!
     However, it is clear that the reason for Cambridgeshire’s lack of available players was the clash with the football rather than the choice of venue. Personally I realised there was a clash about a week before the event (and living round the corner, I decided to take a TV along for those early finishers to watch the game!) but if Stephen realised it was so obvious that he “knew back in December that England were likely to playing at 4pm that same afternoon” I’m surprised that he didn’t point it out to the ECF. It’s easy to be wise after the event, not so easy to do so beforehand.
     That’s said, I notice that Yorkshire didn’t seem to have the same availability problem!!
Sean sean.hewitt@virgin.net


From Mike Adams
16.7.06
Regarding the benefits of ECF direct membership ( Kevin Thurlow 14.7.06 ) I can respond here more fully as SCCA ECF rep than I did at the time of an already very long Surrey AGM when I was reporting back on other ECF matters. Direct membership does indeed support the ECF, as well as providing discount on most congress entries, Chess Moves magazine and allowing entry to British Championship events. In addition, Full rather than Standard membership provides a free copy of the excellent ECF Yearbook and entitles members to a free print out of their full grading results and an ECF diary, amongst other benefits. All this info is readily available on the ECF site/membership.
     But the main point for me at least is to support the ECF, run by volunteers on a small budget for the benefit of national chess. Without the ECF there would be no recognised national chess organisation to lobby the government ( and receive and spend the current DCMS annual grant of £65,000 ), alone organise the British Championships, the county championships, run the grading, organise and sponsor teams for Olympiads, maintain a national chess events calendar, provide sponsorship for youth chess, promote women's chess, obtain sponsorship and legacies, run the Grand Prix etc etc. And without national federations there would in turn be no Fide. It is perhaps unfortunate there are a minority of vociferous individuals who are rather more keen to snipe from the sidelines rather than being prepared to actively support the ECF and what it aims to achieve. The ECF is itself a democratic federation of its membership. If anyone believes they personally can improve or add to the activities of the ECF, including by making constructive criticism, suggestions and offers of help, there is no shortage of opportunities to do so. A full list of ECF directors, together with their posts and contact details, appears on the ECF site.
Mike Adams mike@wood-street.fsnet.co.uk
Surrey CCA ECF rep


From Ken Norman
15.7.06
Richard,
Mobile Phones
In England we seem to be making a complete mess of applying the law on mobile phones.
     My friends in the Netherlands tell me that in the Amsterdam leagues they apply the FIDE rules. If your phone rings you lose. The SCCU applies the FIDE rule in its county matches. We had an example last season in the Surrey v Sussex match. The mobile phone of a Surrey player rang and he lost the game.
     However when Sussex played Warwickshire in the ECF stage of the Counties Championship it was announced before the start of play that there would be no penalty applied if a mobile phone rang. Apparently the ECF does not believe in applying FIDE rules to its own competitions. I shall be interested to see what rule is applied at the ECF Congress in Swansea. Will it be the FIDE rule or ECF rule?
     I have done a very unscientific survey of a few leagues. London League allows the mobile phone to ring once without penalty, if it rings a second time you lose the game. The Surrey/Hants Border League is more generous and allows the mobile phone to ring on two occasions. You lose the game if it rings a third time. Two other leagues had no mention of mobile phones in their rules. If there is no specific reference to mobile phones in the rules of a league does that mean the FIDE rule applies?
     The current situation is very unsatisfactory. It is very confusing for players and can be the cause of animosity between opponents. Am I the only person who believes we should have only one law about mobile phones and that law should apply without exception throughout England?
Regards
Ken Norman dandkn1066@virgin.net


From Stephen Hart
14.7.06
Finals Day
Seven out of twenty-one Cambs players graded 125+ who had taken part in earlier matches declined to participate in the U150 Final v Yorkshire on Saturday, 1st July. This indicates that the proportion of players who are against central venues is one third, in our case not so much because of the location but because of the unwise scheduling. I remember back in 2000 the venue was switched from Spondon to Beeston at very short notice, only a week or two before the match (because the refreshments cost too much), so considering that the organisers knew back in December that England were likely to playing at 4pm that same afternoon, they had plenty of time to rearrange either the date or the start time - they elected to do neither. It was just stubbornness on their part. I suspect that in other counties such as Devon (maybe Essex and Kent too?) which are much further away the proportion would be at least half in favour of separate finals. An arbiter could be present (if they have to be) at each final to oversee the match and present the trophies. Why not? The ECF's self-importance won't allow it of course.
Stephen Hart Harts565@aol.com
Cambridgeshire


From Kevin Thurlow
14.7.06
Richard
Thanks to Chris and Sean for clarification, although it proves my other point! Gavin makes reasonable points, but it is easy to justify club fees, as members can judge what they get in return. Members of my club get a splendid venue, (the best in Surrey!), three teams in the league, plus many internal competitions. Measuring a return from ECF is less easy. (Despite the spin, a lot of people don't care about gradings.) One ECF delegate at a county AGM was asked about the benefits of ECF membership. He replied without any sense of irony (or perhaps without any sense) that it gave more money to ECF! One county member then asked about the benefits for members.....
     I am a member of ECF to maintain my FIDE rating, which I have attempted to defend (or even increase) in Guernsey, Poland and Norway in the last year. I don't have a problem with that. (The membership fee is insignificant compared with the cost of finding a decent tournament.) But club members who do not play international events might not be so happy.
     ECF (BCF) has a long history of treating its members with contempt. Talk to us. Tell us what you're doing. My illustrious predecessor as Redhill supremo, Leonard P Rees, started FIDE (and the Olympiads) and was very important in BCF. His spirit must be shaking its head in disbelief at what is happening.
best wishes
Kevin Thurlow Kjt2300@aol.com
Redhill
rjh: - Sic transit. I googled Mr Rees, and looked in the chess literature I have, and was little the wiser. But it appears he was a co-founder of FIDE in 1924.


From Sean Hewitt
12.7.06
Richard,
In response to both Gavin Strachan and Kevin Thurlow it is worth remembering that the ECF membership scheme that was passed at the EGM is optional thanks to an amendment tabled at that meeting. Consequently, the infrequent player is not affected as his games simply attract game fee, as they do now.
     Kevin is however absolutely correct that the ECF is terrible at communicating what it has done and is doing. Perhaps it is time for them to publish on their website minutes of all meetings held?
Regards
Sean sean.hewitt@virgin.net


From Chris Majer
12.7.06
Dear Richard
Some comments on the recent debates on the SCCU forum
1) Central Venues (responding to Peter Farr)
Three years ago, the SCCU put forward a proposal to the BCF Council (i.e. the representatives of the Unions, Counties, Leagues and Congresses, and other such chess bodies) to dispense with central venues. That proposal was defeated by a large margin as I remember it. I think anyone wishing to make a second attempt to change the rules will need to bring something new to the debate.
     I'm sure that the drafting of the rules can be improved, it's even on my to-do list. However, the intent of "central venues" is well understood. Especially, given the fact that the venue is booked a year in advance.
2 Membership (responding to Kevin Thurlow, Gavin Strachan & Sean Hewitt)
     If you want a scheme that caters for people that only play a few games then that scheme is Game Fee because both the cost and the administration are low. The administration for membership is much higher (especially now the ECF is a company limited by guarantee) and we are probably charging about the minimum that is practical for such a scheme.
     In the local membership schemes the possibility of waivers for people playing just one game had been envisaged, although the scheme endorsed by Council allows for a mixture of Game Fee and membership which makes this unnecessary.
regards
Chris CEMAJER@aol.com
ECF Home Director. Chris does not mention that he wears this hat, and he has told us he will not wear it next year.


From Gavin Strachan
11.7.06
Dear Richard,
I think the membership scheme could accommodate people who do not play that frequently. Players who play only 5 games in the season should pay nothing or a discounted rate. Players who play more pay the whopping £10 a season. If a player goes over the 5 then ask for the rest of the money owed. That’s one permutation. I’m sure there are many others that could accommodate players who play very few games. I remember at our last AGM when we were bold and put our membership fee up from £10 to £15. I have paid membership fees for other sports clubs that are over £100 and they have shorter seasons than chess. It seems a bit tight to not pay £10 when you get so much for the money.
Gavin Strachan Chess@strax.efhmail.com
rjh: - I believe Gavin's club is Brentwood.


From Kevin Thurlow
10.7.06
Dear Richard
A major drawback with a membership scheme is that people who play infrequently will not welcome it. A team is a player short for a match, and the only person available is not an ECF member. At present, you can just ask this person to play as a reserve, and they may well agree, but I doubt you would get agreement if the request for help were accompanied by a demand for £10.... But it is easier to collect than Game Fee. The Membership scheme would be confusing for those players who appear in several leagues.
     ECF should be publishing news of meetings. Their silence on this (and other matters) makes it look as if they have something to hide, even when they probably haven't.
Kevin Thurlow Kjt2300@aol.com
Redhill


From Gary Cook
7.7.06
Richard
I was unable to attend the [ECF Extraordinary] meeting - and from the reports I think I'm glad about that. However what concerns me is that we have to rely on an "unofficial" site to get any news of what happened at the meeting and the possible implications to the member leagues and associations. Why is it that the ECF website has made no mention of the meeting or its outcome?
Gary Cook ncclsecretary@yahoo.co.uk
Secretary, North Circular Chess League


From Sean Hewitt
6.7.06
Richard,
I agree with both yours and Jonathan Melsom’s accounts of the goings on at council recently. The meeting was far from satisfactory, although I believe the outcome was. Game Fee is a tax on playing chess (the more you play, the more you pay). Whilst this may be intrinsically ‘fair’ it hardly encourages people to play more often!
     A membership scheme has a number of advantages. Firstly, it is easy to administer, financially speaking (£10 per member rather than 90p per game). Secondly, it encourages people to play as often as they like. Most clubs in my county have a club championship, but only one of them is graded due to game fee. That, I’m sure will change. Thirdly, it gives the Federation more kudos when (or should that be if?) dealing with potential sponsors or government. A body boasting 10000+ members sounds a damn sight more impressive than one with 1500.
     I support the logic of a regional scheme. Recruitment will come at local level, and by making the scheme local it will encourage regional officials to recruit into their scheme. If we learn nothing else from the NCCU trial we should learn that much of its success was down to the work of its organiser Bill O’Rourke. The other advantage of regional schemes is that it should reduce rather than increase the burden on the office, as they will be collators rather than administrators.
     I just hope that Unions, Counties and players now support the initiative and that chess activity goes through the roof.
Sean sean.hewitt@virgin.net


From Peter Farr
6.7.06
Richard,
To respond in brief to Sean Hewitt’s “annual whinge” comment,
1) It was my understanding that the SCCU had previously asked the BCF/ECF to allow neighbouring counties to play finals at a more convenient location, but got no joy; I gather that more efforts may be made.
2) Actually I think the rule on a central venue for finals is not entirely clear – it specifies a central venue for ‘each championship’ which, given that the word ‘central’ is not defined could perhaps be taken to mean central in respect of the individual competing counties in each match (OK maybe this is a bit cheeky).
3) I can’t claim to have the willpower or energy to understand the Byzantine workings of chess administration, and actually it seems to me to be a good use of ‘open forum’ to debate views (or whinge if you like) before motions for rule changes are made to the ECF – open debate is a good way of promoting a democratic process; for all I know there may be a majority of SCCU players in favour of a central venue.
4) I would like to say that I have every respect for Cyril Johnson and his team’s organisational ability and am extremely grateful for the hard work they put into running the counties finals smoothly last weekend – I just disagree with the central venue idea, and am not enamoured with Ratcliffe College as an easy location to get to (though the college itself is a pleasant venue for a chess tournament).
5) Devon were 2 players short in the u-175 final, which ruined the match as a contest … apparently due to travel problems; I don’t know the details, but maybe a shorter journey would have helped?
Kind regards
Peter Farr Peter.Farr@axa-insurance.co.uk


From Jonathan Melsom
5.7.06
Richard
I enjoyed your report on the ECF Council meeting rather more than the meeting itself. It wasn't just the clash with my birthday that prompted the decision to go early - I had simply lost the will to spend any more time waiting for the paint to dry. As your report makes clear the meeting was difficult, but that really doesn't excuse those (including individuals outside the NCCU) who see such meetings as a chance to demonstrate their own cleverness by constantly interrupting with procedural points rather than making progress. David Anderton - who was after all merely trying to give proper legal advice - was right to observe the comic/farcical level to which the meeting sunk, and it was disappointing to see his advice challenged so routinely.
     We wasted yet more time on a re-count of one of the motions. Clearly tellers shouldn't announce a result until they are reasonably sure of the outcome, and so far as I can see if one teller admits to being unable to count then they should desist from telling in the remainder of the meeting. And tellers should remain largely unheard in the rest of the meeting.
     Some of us actually remain in favour of Game Fee rather than the mixture of membership schemes and game fee which the ECF now offers. If the NCCU experience demonstrates anything - it is probably that funding schemes should be transparent and easy to adminster. If we are to have lots of small membership schemes (as opposed to a national one ) then it is to be hoped that the revenue raised will more than offset the extra adminstrative burden on the ECF office and officers.
     And whether or not a deal was on the table to save the NCCU scheme, it was surely a dangerous principle if anybody on behalf of ECF actually offered to ringfence or hypothecate surplus funds raised in the North for expenditure in the North. Hypothecation is a very double-edged way to handle resources, and in my view a national body should not go down this path, nor should members press it to do so. It would be better for ECF to spend money across its constituent units to develop chess and perhaps it would be better spent in areas of relatively low chess activity , rather than areas of growth.
Jonathan Melsom jonathan.melsom@tiscali.co.uk


From Sean Hewitt
2.7.06
Richard,
In answer to the various thorny questions raised re venues for the ECF Counties Finals, the reason for a central venue is simple – the ECF rules require it! If anyone thinks that intermediate venues should be used instead, all they have to do is propose a rule change. Surely a better course of action that the annual whinge on here?
     And to answer your own question asked of Gavin Strachan [rjh: if it was a question, it was implicit] re the flaws in the ECF grading system, I’ll point out just two such flaws as examples. Firstly, the 40 point rule rewards players for beating players that, statistically speaking, they are expected to score 100% against anyway. For example, a 150 player plays 30 games against a player graded 30. He wins them all, as he is expected to. His new grade will be 160, yet he has not shown any demonstrable improvement whatsoever. I understand why this rule was introduced but it is a statistical flaw nonetheless.
     The second flaw is ungraded players. If a player plays only 3 games let's say, then the small number of games played makes any attempt at assigning a grade meaningless. Quite rightly, the ECF recognises such grades as statistically unreliable and so does not publish grades for such players. But what if such a player plays a graded player? Yep, the ECF use the grading that it knows to be statistically unreliable in calculating the new grade of the graded player.
I could go on, but I won’t!
Regards
Sean sean.hewitt@virgin.net
rjh: I am no statistician, but I doubt if any system can be reliable at and beyond the 100% and 0% marks. You're not supposed to play opponents graded 120 points below you. In practice few do. On Sean's other point, the ECF grading system will not use a 3-game "grade" regardless when it does the calculations for the following season. It will update it in the light of results for that player in the new (and current) season. But if all it has is the three games, it will use them.


From Chris Majer
2.7.06
Dear Richard
Responding to Chris Torrero's last comment:
The Grading list can be downloaded the night before a chess event so an internet connection is not necessary. The availability of the grading list on local and national websites is why, contrary to Chris's claim, grading list sales have slumped (from about 700 a few years ago to 150 last year).
regards
Chris CEMAJER@aol.com


From Chris Torrero
26.6.06
[in reply to our footnote]
Richard,
Whilst we have web sites nowadays, when I need to look up gradings (generally at chess events) there is generally no PC with internet access to hand. Hence the popularity of printed grading lists.
Chris Torrero spam@torrero.demon.co.uk


From Chris Torrero
25.6.06
Richard,
I won't respond to Jonathan Rogers. I never play county chess, one of the reasons being absurd situations like that described by Peter Farr. I will however take up Gavin Strachan's question.
     When I played in Wales, the Welsh Chess Union issued a booklet to each registered player through his club containing a grading list, a list of results in the various county leagues, contact details of club and county officials and other useful information. Similar I suppose to the BCF Yearbook, but not published on fancy paper and free to members. Scoresheets I seem to recall were also free and paid for by advertising.
     It's ten years since I played there and doubtless things have changed (including I hope some of the venues), but if such a publication is possible in Wales, why could it not be tried in England?
Chris Torrero spam@torrero.demon.co.uk
rjh: Because we have websites now. It's one of the things that have changed. I will not say whether all of them do what they're supposed to.


From Jonathan Rogers
22.6.06
Dear Richard
In answer to Chris Torrero, one needs to specify what one means by "Kent" and "Essex". I have no doubt that virtually all players in both sides would prefer an intermediate venue, but the decision is for their captains. I can think of several reasons why they might not be as keen. They may feel embarrassed at being seen to be dictated to by their team, or mbarassed at raising the issue so late in the day after all the work has been put in for the national venue. Or they may not want to resemble Kasparov and Short, or they may simply feel that the issue should rather be decided in one of those endless ECF meetings. And so on.
     Having been a 4NCL captain for ten years, I would certainly not ask the Essex captain to take such a course of action. Presumably others feel the same way, even if only through the standard chess player`s fear that if he pushes his captain too hard, he may be asked to take over the job himself.
     That said, if the captains were minded to find their own convenient venue, I would be very happy. To return to the dodgy analogy with Kasparov and Short, I would like to see the ECF trying to persuade the losing semi-finalists Sussex and Yorkshire (just about the only other counties who even showed the slightest interest in winning the Open this year) to put together teams at a week`s notice, after it has recently become clear that England would play its quarter-final in the World Cup on the same day.
Jonathan Rogers uctljwr@ucl.ac.uk


From Gavin Strachan
19.6.06
Essex and Kent could play on a boat on the Thames, the losers walk the plank.
     I read earlier about the game fee. ECF are very generous by offering a discount if you hand your money in early (2.5% wow). Final point. To quote the Life of Brian: instead of Romans: "What does the ECF do for us?". For me I can say they have a dodgy grading system that is mathematically flawed (like my spelling!). All the congresses, league games and other chess events have been organised by chess organisers who deserve better and are independent of the ECF. I think the amount of chess events [the ECF] organise can be listed on one hand.
     Open Question "What should the ECF do for us?" and please suggest any improvements.
Gavin Strachan gavin@strax.efhmail.com
Essex
rjh: - I know a dodgy ECF officer who spends much time on the grading system and gets rather provoked when you baldly assert that it is flawed, without any attempt at justification.


From Chris Torrero
17.6.06
Jeff Goldberg says that he has decided not to write to the forum to complain about Essex playing Kent in Leicestershire. If Essex and Kent decide not to play each other in Leicestershire the problem will be solved.
Chris Torrero spam@torrero.demon.co.uk
Surrey


From Jeff Goldberg
16.6.06
Re the ECF Counties Final: - to those of you who are waiting for me to write to the forum complaining about Essex playing Kent in Leicestershire (again), I have decided not to. What's the use?
Jeff Goldberg noonebutjeff@hotmail.com


From Peter Farr
14.6.06
Dear Richard,
I know this is an old chestnut, but looking at the draw for the Counties Finals (venue Ratcliffe College, Leicestershire) we have the following:
     Open - Essex v Kent;
     Minor Counties - Surrey v Norfolk;
     U175 - Devon v Sussex or Essex;
     U100 - Kent v Norfolk.
Rather than rehearse the obvious arguments, which everybody can guess, I would like to put forward a little arithmetical example. Say for the sake of argument that Sussex U175 by some miracle overcome Essex in the semi-final, and say that the average Sussex player comes from Brighton and the average Devon player comes from Exeter (we could do something similar for, say Colchester to Exeter, but I’m an optimist).
     Exeter to Brighton is 180 miles.
     Exeter to Syston is 200 miles.
     Brighton to Syston is 170 miles.
(I’m assuming road use – rail use doesn’t change the argument much).
If a neutral venue on a straight line between Exeter and Brighton were chosen, the total distance travelled on the day by any 2 opponents would be approx 2 x 180 = 360 miles. With Ratcliffe College as the venue, the total distance travelled by any 2 opponents would be (2 x 200) + (2 x 170) = 740 miles, a difference of 380 miles per game. The match is 16 a-side: 16 x 380 = 6,080 excess miles travelled in total.
     This is just for the u-175 match – this may be the worst case, but the excess miles for the other matches I’ve mentioned will also be pretty substantial – overall I would guess that the “unnecessary” mileage would add up to 18-20,000. How do we value this? Let's assume that everybody travels at an average of 50 mph, and we have 400 wasted hours, or let's say travel costs are 30p a mile, and we have £6,000 wasted; or let's talk about the environmental cost…
     There are no doubt some benefits to having a central location – but do they stack up against this?
Kind regards
Peter Farr Peter.Farr@axa-insurance.co.uk


From John Cannon
22.5.06
A Sorry Tale.
     There is one aspect of county competition in which Sussex county sides excel, and that is in losing 16-board National Stage matches on board count! In recent years five have been lost and none won, the gory details being: 1999 U150 SF v Warwicks; 2002 U175 Final v Essex; 2005 U175 QF v Lancs; 2006 U125 Preliminary Round v Notts; and 2006 U150 QF v Notts - the last two being just three weeks apart and against the same county.
     Moreover, in the 2005-06 SCCU group matches, Sussex U125 tied, unbeaten, with Middx on 4 match points, and scored half a game point more, but the initial rule to decide which county took first place in the group was based, not on game points, but on the result of the match between the tying counties, and this had itself been an 8-8 tie. In this situation the next criterion to break the deadlock, one which placed Sussex U125 in second place, was – you’ve guessed it – board count in their individual match! It was this “misfortune” that took Sussex U125, unbeaten throughout the season(!), to their Preliminary Round board count doom against Notts, and contributed to Sussex teams being on the wrong side of board counts three times in the short space of ten weeks. Dame Fortune was having a field-day, and all bets are void for this year’s Sussex U175 and Sussex Open National SF teams!
John Cannon cannon149@tiscali.co.uk
Horsham (Sussex)


From Kevin Thurlow
16.5.06
Hi Richard
OK I'll bite. If people are playing in "Adult" events, then surely the game fee should be the same for everybody? Not just for convenience, but in the interests of fairness and honesty, although I hesitate to raise the spectre of the latter two in a discussion on chess organisation.
     Do we really want different game fees for men, women, juniors, ethnic minorities, differently abled people, gays/lesbians ... etc? But I agree we should discuss it in the pub.
Kevin Thurlow Kjt2300@aol.com
Redhill


From Sean Hewitt
16.5.06
Richard,
I know you declared a moratorium, but I feel there is one (last, I promise) point to be made!!
     I am obviously not suggesting that junior chess players will go to the pub, but they will (and indeed do) play on the internet, or in non-game fee events. For them this is already normal chess activity.
     The evidence? Well, there are 30,000 active players currently listed in the ECF database of whom 10,800 are juniors. Hands up anyone who has seen a local league or congress where 1/3 of the players are juniors. I rest my case!
Regards,
Sean Hewitt sean.hewitt@virgin.net


From Jeff Goldberg
15.5.06
Richard
In Sean's 08 May letter, is he actually suggesting that junior chessplayers will cease normal chess activity because of the difference in cost between the full game fee and the junior game fee, and will instead go down the pub on a Friday night because it's cheaper? I find that argument less than compelling.
Jeff Goldberg noonebutjeff@hotmail.com


From Sean Hewitt
8.5.06
Richard,
Administrative convenience?? We should be encouraging kids to play chess and doing everything possible to facilitate this – not hiding behind such feeble excuses!
     In answer to Jeff's question of why does playing chess cost money – well it didn’t cost me anything to play in the pub on Friday night! And flippant though that may sound that, together with the internet, is what we need to compete against. But perhaps the real question should be why does playing chess cost so much money? The answer perhaps lies in the £100,000 + (31.6% of total income in 2003) we spend on maintaining the office?
Regards,
Sean Hewitt sean.hewitt@virgin.net


From Jeff Goldberg
7.5.06
Richard
In reply to Sean Hewitt, administrative convenience. Sean's letter should be filed under the "Why does playing chess cost money?" category.
Jeff Goldberg noonebutjeff@hotmail.com


From Sean Hewitt
3.5.06
Richard,
Can someone wiser than I tell me why the ECF levy their chess prevention tax (aka game fee) at half rate for juniors playing in junior events whilst they charge the full rate for juniors playing in adult events – even when they play other juniors!!?
     It makes it extremely difficult for congresses to offer juniors concessionary entry fees, and of course means that club members need to subsidise their junior brethren if clubs are to do the same.
Regards,
Sean Hewitt sean.hewitt@virgin.net


From Jonathan Rogers
22.3.06
Dear Richard
I am curious by the latest changes to the pairings in the national stages of the Open counties championship. Apparently the SCCU teams were unhappy with the "first revised" pairings, though the reasons for this have escaped Open Forum. Allow me to offer my thoughts from an ignorant standpoint (by which I mean that I don`t know what is going on any more than anyone else, and that my views are not necessarily shared by anyone else in Essex).
     First, the new draw is indeed very favourable for SCCU teams. It is fair to say that Sussex and Essex both find themselves in the easier half of the draw and there can be few complaints if neither of us makes the Final. For their part, Kent have the bye which apparently they had originally expected, though whether that is such an advantage will be best judged when the result of their semi-final is known: as things stand, they will play the semi-final without recent match practice against the winner of Yorkshire v Manchester, who will just have knocked out a very plausible contender. Still, if they are happy with their bye, then so be it.
     But on what grounds did the SCCU teams argue for these changes? I don`t see that Kent had any legitimate expectation to a bye. Perhaps they were given it when there were only six teams in the hat, but they must have known that this was provisional, that the controller would be encouraging other suitable sides to enter, and that their bye was liable to be withdrawn in that eventuality. No doubt they had thought they would be the most suitable team to receive the one remaining bye, but that is not quite the same thing. Presumably it was Warwickshire (who were given the remaining bye in the "first revision") who, as M2, would normally have played the "missing" team. Was the error of the controller (if any, because I doubt that the allocation of a bye is the subject of any specific rule) really so serious as to necessitate further revision of the pairings?
     Moreover, I am wary of the complaint that Kent v Manchester (who turned out to be M3) was a premature pairing. Was that the real reason for the call for further revision? If so, then that was surely a bad reason. All knockouts throw up premature pairings, and we tolerate them so long as they comply with the rules (as this pairing, S1 v M3, presumably would have done). For example, Yorkshire and Essex played three times in the quarter-finals (1999, 2001, and 2002) when both teams were plausible contenders for the Championship - indeed they both reached the Final in the one intervening year (2000) when it so happened that they were in opposite halves of the draw.
     Of course, I do not argue that the pairings should be changed yet again, but it seems to me that this business merits some discussion on your site. By all means, correct me if I have made any mistakes of fact.
best wishes
Jonathan Rogers uctljwr@ucl.ac.uk
     {rjh: Jonathan knows I don't agree with him, and I can't with integrity say that without saying why. I will, but not here. - Second thoughts 26.3.06. I've said enough already in other pages.]


From Mark Attree
26.2.06
Richard
Statistically speaking, I think there's little in it between ELO and the ECF system. What the ELO system appears to allow in addition is a recalculation of your grade after each event, or even each game. Of course you can do that with ECF grades too, it's the rather arbitrary 'k factor' that needs to be considered. Recalculation of the ECF grades quarterly would entail a lot of administrative work and also require events to be submitted promptly. One only has to read the ragbag section to see how unreliable this might be, and what about competitions that run through-out the year?
     The more thorny issue for me is the problem with converting from ECF to ELO. Is it 8 times plus 600 (which seems to undervalue lower graded (ie below 200) players) or is it 5 times plus 1250 as used in the 4NCL. This seems to work better at those levels. A one off recalibration would allow a National (ECF) grade to be calculated, roughly equivalent to ELO, the ECF grading system and software can carry on merrily as it is, with a simple tweak to the co-efficients (and perhaps run more often) and the issue of low or negative grades would be addressed, ie eliminated. Players with no grade and in their first year could simply see it as an opportunity to operate as a bandit, not terribly moral, or work out their own grade and be honest about it once they've played a few games.
     Old ground no doubt. Comments?
Regards
Mark Attree MCAttree@aol.com


From Sean Hewitt
17.2.06
Richard,
I was discussing two broadly related topics with a colleague the other day and would be interested in what your learned readership thought on those subjects.
     i) Why do the BCF (now ECF) persist in using their grading system when practically everywhere else in the world uses the ELO method – a method which it seems to me is clearly of greater statistical merit.
     ii) Would more frequent publication of grading / rating information (ideally quarterly) lead to more chess activity? I can well imagine many – older players and juniors alike - who may play more chess to move their rating up that quarter.
     In these internet enlightened times new players that arrive at our club are already familiar with the Elo rating system via ICC, PlayChess or some other server – but are baffled by out antiquated grades. They also cannot understand why they have to wait a year to get one!!
Regards,
Sean Hewitt sean.hewitt@virgin.net
Leicestershire


From Gavin Strachan
4.12.05
Hello,
Short thought on rudeness and mobile phones. I have been to many congresses and found it quite amusing when a 20+ stone chess player kept putting his opponent in check. Everybody in the playing hall knew that the youngster (probably 10 years old) was going through a series of checks because his opponent kept shouting "Check!". Having recited this story to my chess club, we now adopt this same attitude of shouting check out (usually after several pints).
     I was at the Civil Service congress when a player's mobile went off. Fortunately for him, even though he was elderly and it took him several minutes to locate the phone and turn it off, the arbiter had left the room. I thought it would be great fun if someone had changed their ringtone on their phone so instead of doing an annoying tune it recited the opening moves of the Ruy Lopez or French defence. Or "Check!!!".
regards,
Gavin Strachan gavin@strax.efhmail.com
Secretary of Brentwood Chess Club, Essex
rjh: - Nice to see someone getting their own back on the 10 year olds!


From Adrian Matthews
3.12.05
Hi Richard
I recently played in a Herts league game which was adjourned. My position was clearly won, & I sealed the best move. My opponent said he would phone me to say whether it was worth him travelling... I was obviously happy to adjudicate. My opponent never phoned me & then claimed a win under the Herts league rule 6.6.2. I have copied the rule down below. For the continuance of the game I would be the "host".
"The players then have 7 days in which to agree a resumption date and both players (or their representatives) shall inform the League Secretary within 10 days of the initial session.
     "Within 7 days of the first session the host player shall offer the guest player a minimum of three dates for the resumption which fall within 35 days of the date of the match. The dates should be Monday to Friday and at least one of them should be the club night of one of the players. These offered dates must avoid the guest player's scheduled HCA matches. These are defined as those matches for the opponent’s nominated team, periods allocated to HCA Closed Competition Events, the Christmas period and other bank holidays. Failure to offer three dates within the deadline without valid reason will result in an automatic default."
As well as claiming the win by default, he is also after the associated grading points...
     I was always under the impression that defaulted games were never counted for grading? For grading purposes, doesn't the game have to be decided over the board?
     What are your thoughts & those of your readers please.
Many thanks
Adrian Matthews ady@stokehammond.fsnet.co.uk
rjh: - I guess the outcome of this game could be sub judice, and Hertfordshire CA will know more about it than me and the average reader. Send your thoughts on it if you wish, but I won't publish any until I know it's resolved. (Someone would have to tell me.)
     The grading aspect's not under embargo. It's come up two or three times lately. My response: no, games do not have to be decided over the board. In general, and without reference to this case, I think normal practice would be to grade any game defaulted, while in progress, through breach of rules. It would be too easy otherwise. "I'm losing. I'll break a rule of some sort, lose on a technicality, and safeguard my grade."
     You might make exceptions in special cases, and forgetting to switch your mobile off wouldn't be one. Of course the players can agree on a different course. A case came up two letters down.


From Jonathan Melsom
28.11.05
Re player rudeness:
Unfortunately I can't explain why the visiting player [see two letters down] didn't play as he didn't stop to explain himself in detail, but the extended journey times were a factor. Whilst I agree with Gary Kenworthy that we musn't jump to conclusions and must observe natural justice and respect human rights, I can't help feeling that rudeness is one of those areas where those picking teams should do more and not depend on complaints / formal sanctions to be imposed by league authorities. There is one local player who is consistently beyond the boundaries of what I regard as courteous behaviour and has featured in almost every dispute which I have witnessed in the Bucks League over the last ten years but it is tiresome to collate all the evidence and his club do absolutely nothing. Rudeness and poor behaviour have a cumulative effect and it is rare for one incident to warrant specific penalty. I have reluctantly concluded that I will pair myself against this player to spare others the experience.
Jonathan Melsom jonathan.melsom@tiscali.co.uk


From Richard Almond
27.11.05
Arising out of Surrey - Sussex (Open) 26.11.05:
Small query.  I won on board 13 after half a dozen moves due to my opponent’s mobile phone ringing.  Although claiming the win for the team I made the offer to play on as a graded friendly. (Having a round trip of 5 hours travelling by train the day otherwise is completely wasted.)  I won the game by normal means.  However had the result been different I would of course have been willing to honour my word for the game to be graded accordingly.  However does a player have the discretion to make such an offer? Or can and must the game only be graded as a win by virtue of the mobile phone?
Richard Almond richardalmond141@hotmail.com
rjh: No rule says the players can't make such an agreement. As a grader I'd have no hesitation in complying with their wishes and grading the friendly instead of the mobile-default result.


From Paul Buswell
26.11.05
Richard:
What is missing from Jonathan Melsom's note, unless I'm missing something, is any indication of why the visiting player would not play. Although I am inclined to Kevin Thurlow's draconian punishment, I have to say that there is one player against whom I will not play at all, and another to whom I will not show courtesy - those are deliberate responses to past offence given away from the chessboard. But in a team event I would warn my captain beforehand of such a risk.
Paul Buswell PBusw13724@aol.com


From Gary Kenworthy
21.11.05
Hello Richard
About players behaving badly [see below]. You have to be careful to understand the facts before judgement. I know nothing of the case cited by Jonathan Melsom, but I have known cases where domestic or other problems have led to quite uncharacteristic behaviour.
Signed, as per Bernard Cafferty’s letter:
Gary Kenworthy gary.kenworthy@btopenworld.com
Bletchley: a retired tea maker
[rjh: - This is very much a summary of Gary's letter.]


From Kevin Thurlow
20.11.05
Hi Richard
Jonathan Melsom [15.11.05 two letters down] is right to be annoyed. If this happened in a league I was running, I would recommend the player be banned for a month or two. If the visiting club offered a suitably grovelling apology beforehand, a more lenient approach might be appropriate. It is alarming how many players behave in an unacceptable manner and their clubs turn a blind eye. String 'em up I say, it's the only language they understand.
best wishes
Kevin Thurlow Kjt2300@aol.com
Redhill


From Bernard Cafferty
16.11.05
Richard,
Captains/clocks
I see that some contributions have now come in on this topic. Really, there are two intertwined topics:- 1) The role of captains; 2) Adjusting time on a replacement clock.

1) I served under senior arbiter William Ritson Morry in the 1970s on the Rules committee of the B'ham & District League. Ritson always held that the two captains, acting jointly, or their designated deputies, were the arbiter for a league/county match, otherwise even minor disputes would always have to go for a ruling to higher authority, which might not come for weeks, possibly dragging on into an appeal. This view was also held by Harry Baines, for whom WRM had long acted as mentor.
     Alas, this clarity has been undermined in recent times. The FIDE arbiter G Gijssen has even stated in his ChessCafe column that it should not be hard to find an impartial person to act as arbiter at matches. There, in my opinion, goes a man who is in grave need of a reality check, at least with regard to conditions in the UK!

2) My claim on the day that there should be a time adjustment was based on a vague memory of precedents. In this regard, having checked sources, I can now quote the views of Botvinnik and the Yugoslav arbiter Kazic.
     The former in the second volume of the Baturinsky compilation on MMB's career quoted two instances. One was a game with Capablanca at AVRO 1938. Botvinnik suddenly realised that C's clock had not moved on over a period of twenty minutes. He drew the attention of the arbiter Hans Kmoch to the fault. Kmoch informed Capablanca he was proposing to add the 20 minutes to Capa's time on the replacement clock. The Cuban flared up, and asked why it could not be the case that ten minutes had been lost on each side. Botvinnik was annoyed, but asked Kmoch to inform Senor Capablanca that he was agreeable to any suggestion C might make to regularise the position. Hearing this, C threw his hands in the air and conceded that Kmoch's original decision should apply.
     In a game Botvinnik vs Smyslov in the world title match of 1954, the game demonstrator drew attention to the fact that Smyslov's clock had not moved on for 15 minutes. Smyslov was still thinking and the Czech arbiter K. Opocensky replaced the clock, saying nothing to Smyslov, but failed to make any adjustment, arguing that he could find nothing about the situation in the match regulations! MMB accepted the decision, but writes that he thought it was wrong. A later edition of the handbook for Soviet arbiters severely criticised Opocensky's decision, saying that he had chickened out of making the right decision. The Czech was not invited to officiate in Moscow again!
     Kazic in his "The Chess Competitor's Handbook" (Batsford 1980) deals with adjusting times on a replacement clock on pages 163-5. He gives the guidance that any adjustment should not leave a player with less than one minute a move to the time control. This guideline, I see, was incorporated in the FIDE laws passed at the 1984 FIDE Congress. Unfortunately, later revisions of the laws by FIDE have left the position rather more vague, presumably because FIDE, from the 1990s onwards, was envisaging events at a high level where digital clocks are standard equipment.

I hope this background proves helpful.
Bernard Cafferty bernardcafferty@tiscali.co.uk
Hastings


From Jonathan Melsom
15.11.05
Richard
Standards of chess etiquette continue to decline and set a poor example to junior players. Last night I witnessed a member of a visiting club arrive ten or so minutes late, complain about the congestion on the roads unduly extending his journey, and then decline to play his opponent without affording the basic courtesy of an apology to anybody at the host club, let alone his opponent. Do club match captains ever take a stance against people who believe they are more important than the game itself? Or is it the case that with falling club membership clubs are less discriminating about who they select?
Jonathan Melsom jonathan.melsom@tiscali.co.uk


From Jeff Goldberg
15.11.05
I've read Chris Rice's comments of 1.11.05 with interest and I'd like to express my opinion.
     Chris, you seem confused by this. You are not at any stage an arbiter, because you have no power of decision. Rather than feeling obliged to resolve this problem, as you write, you should assist the players to resolve the problem, preferably with the assistance of the other match captain, because although match captains can try to be fair they can never be truly neutral. One useful way you could have helped would have been to have provided a copy of the FIDE Laws of Chess for the players to consult for guidance. Failing that, you were able to talk through the matter with both players in the hope of them reaching an agreement. Through no fault of your own this did not resolve the difficulty. Ultimately, if the players cannot agree on a resolution then the matter should be referred for decision to the appropriate absent body.
     Note that should you replace the clock and adjust the times, after the players have reached an agreement, you are not acting as an arbiter at all, merely someone carrying out the decision of the players. On the other hand, if the players have not agreed how the clock should be reset, you have no business resetting it. I also share Mike Adams' frustration that we still continue to use clocks whose main claim to regularity is the frequency with which they malfunction. Chess organisations should try to encourage more accurate clocks to be used for everyone's sake.
Jeff Goldberg noonebutjeff@hotmail.com


From Mike Adams
5.11.05
The answer to avoiding the all too frequent clock problems such as described by Bernard Cafferty is to use the DGT FIDE-approved digital clocks instead. (In order to hasten the move to reliable clocks, and to raise funds for my club, I can supply DGT's to clubs at very low prices.)
Mike Adams mike@guildfordchess.fsnet.co.uk


From Chris Rice
1.11.05
Richard
This is with reference to Bernard Cafferty's email [two or three screenfuls down] of 2 October.
     I was one of the match captains that Bernard consulted and the issue brought up some interesting points, particularly the role of match captain. At the start of the match I read out a missive from the SCCU match controller to both teams regarding the use of mobile phones, recording of moves, quickplay finish claims and the role of the match captain. This advice stated that "the SCCU Executive had taken note of a recent ruling from the Arbiters' Association that the role of match captain was purely an administrative one. However, it is felt that this is not the whole story and further clarification is being sought".
     Now when Bernard brought the clock dispute to my attention my first reaction was to wonder what exactly an administrative role was. I had assumed it meant making the tea which I had been doing fairly successfully in combination with being a substitute player on bottom board. However, when it was obvious that this was not going to go away and it started causing a commotion I felt I had no real alternative but to try and resolve the problem as best I could.
     Now I don't really dispute anything that Bernard says except that I don't remember being asked to change the clock and I had two in reserve including a very precise digital clock. The real issue though was that both players agreed that 12 minutes had been lost, whether by clock defect or when the clocks were rewound who knows, but they definitely did agree on that.
     Now Bernard felt that his opponent should really have got 12 minutes added on his time, while naturally his opponent, a very experienced player clearly did not. In a spirit of compromise Bernard felt that as nothing could be proven that both players should add six minutes on to their time and he thought this was backed up by FIDE rules. I decided to ask my player whether he was agreeable to this, he said it was too late, he only had a half and hour left (bit of a time trouble addict) and another six minutes added on would be more detrimental to him rather than Bernard who had about an hour left if memory serves.
     Now I didn't have a copy of the FIDE rules on me so I relied on the SCCU County Match rules which state that "any question or dispute, on a matter not provided for by Rules 1-21, shall be referred to the County Match Controller within 14 days". Bernard therefore decided that he would not finish the game because of the possibility of a late quick play finish which he describes in his email. His opponent then offered a draw which Bernard accepted but obviously this does not really answer the question of what should have happened.
     Checking the FIDE Rules I found the only thing that refers to this incident is under the Competition Rules Article 6 which states "6.11 every indication given by the clocks is considered to be conclusive in the absence of any evident defect. A chess clock with an evident defect shall be replaced. The arbiter shall replace the clock and use his best judgement when determining the times to be shown on the replacement chess clock."
     OK, even armed with this knowledge I would have been hard pressed to know what to do. For example, was there an evident defect with the clock? I'm not sure this was proven but even so what to do about those 12 minutes that had been lost? I could have just accepted that there was a defect with the clock and replaced it but what about "the arbiter shall…use his best judgement when determining the times…? Does my tea-making administrative role qualify me as an Arbiter? I'm not sure my player would have even accepted your creative pragmatic suggestion of reducing the time for the quick play finish and why should I insist that he does? After all my duty as match captain has to be to first and foremost look after the interests of my players in the absence of clear guidelines and I'm sure any match captain would admit that. Having said that I could see that Bernard had a point and why he was insistent that he should not play on. That's the real problem in not defining the role of match captain, we're expected to act as unofficial arbiters and as long as everyone gets along and accepts our suggestions its fine, otherwise we get into this grey area. Bernard has certainly made me learn a lesson here as I think in future I'll take a copy of the latest FIDE rules and pin them on the wall somewhere. Indeed, perhaps the SCCU can insist that this be done or something similar.
Chris Rice chris.rice@fsa.gov.uk
rjh: - Would it help? If this problem arises in a FIDE event, you shoot the Arbiter. Arbiters do not allow a clock to get 12 minutes out of sync with all the others. This says nothing about Arbiter-free SCCU County matches.
     You will have gathered that it was Bernard's game. He was Black. He did not say this and had no reason to, but I don't think he'll mind Chris saying it.


From Kevin Thurlow
13.10.05
Dear Richard
In answer to Geoff Marchant, Surrey CCA decided not to implement the complete banning of mobile phones, giving automatic loss only if your phone "rings" audibly during play. The game would be graded. (If a player had the "Crazy Frog" ringtone, I hope there would be further punishment.)
     We did say that phones in silent mode were ok, e.g. a captain might be receiving news of players who had not yet arrived. However, anyone using a phone during play risked losing the game under the distraction or advice Laws. One of the reasons the law was introduced was that some players in the last Olympiad telephoned their trainers during play to seek advice!
     All this appears in the Surrey CCA Yearbook.
     Bear in mind that the loss, like a loss on time, is automatic, some people think it unfair if you "claim" such a win. There is no need to "claim" it, just state the fact it has happened.
     As for Bernard's question, why didn't they adjust the clocks when they first had the problem? That might have solved the problem, but maybe one or other side was running slowly anyway? Why are they taking about an hour over 14 moves? Was there an exciting TN we should know about?
best wishes
Kevin Thurlow Kevin.Thurlow@lgc.co.uk
Surrey Inter-Club Tournament Secretary


From Geoff Marchant
12.10.05
Hello Richard,
My opinion on Bernard Cafferty's clock dilemma is that the compromise suggestion of adding six minutes to each clock should have been enforced, had the players continued. And they should have continued with another clock which was known to work, of course!
     I have a couple of (probably naive) questions on the new ruling regarding mobile phone use. Alas I wasn't able to attend David Sedgwick's Q&A session for Surrey captains earlier in the season. Firstly, does the rule apply to audible ring-tones only? Is, for example, a vibrating phone in one's pocket allowed? Also, are text message alert beeps (or for that matter pager bleeps) also sufficient to forfeit the game? Secondly, does a game won/lost by mobile phone default get sent for grading? To me it doesn't seem right that it should, since the game wasn't won by chess means. However, an unscrupulous player wanting to keep his grade up need only get his phone to beep before he's about to lose and he won't lose any grading points!
     I'm sure these points have already been mulled over somewhere but I for one don't know the answers. Please can you point me in the right direction?
Kind regards,
Geoff Marchant geoff.marchant@landg.com
Wallington, Surrey
rjh: - I think I'd have reduced the time added for the quickplay finish.
     The SCCU has ruled that mobiles are allowed in silent mode. Text alerts and pagers were not discussed. I don't know of a direction to point in. Grading a mobile-forfeited game would be normal practice, I think.


From Bernard Cafferty
2.10.05
Richard,
An interesting incident arose yesterday.
     The role of captains has been in the limelight recently. It was discussed at length, as you know, at the Kent AGM in September, without any guidance being forthcoming for Kent League 2005-06 matches.
     At Kent 1 vs Sussex 1 on 1st October an incident arose. In the early stages of one game White commented that his clock minute hand seemed not to be moving, though the clock was ticking. White duly wound up the clock and play continued. Later, Black noticed that all the clocks in the vicinity showed two hours to have elapsed, but in his game only 108 minutes had been clocked up. White was thinking about his move, so Black informed both captains of the irregularity (an 'evident defect' in terms of the Laws of Chess).
     White's captain consulted his player who felt no adjustment to the times should be made. Black pointed out that if nothing was done, a time scramble 12 minutes long could take place while all other games had finished, players would be milling around, equipment being put away, general hubbub etc. There were two matches in progress in the same room.
     Black made the compromise suggestion of adding six minutes to each clock, even though the earlier need to wind pointed the finger at White's clock as being the faulty one. White, who had only about half an hour left, did not agree. Black said that he did not wish to play on with an unadjusted clock.
     The stalemate was resolved by White offering a draw, and Black accepting - the position looked level and only 14 moves had been made. Yet, what should have happened had either player exercised the option of playing on? The captains may have been inhibited in their actions by the recent guidance from SCCU based on a recommendation of the Arbiters' Association.
Bernard Cafferty bernardcafferty@tiscali.co.uk
Hastings
rjh: - The SCCU has given no guidance, though it has noted (with reservations) the recommendations of the Arbiters' Association. I will not pretend that I don't have opinions about this incident, and you wouldn't believe me if I did. But what do readers think?


From David Pardoe
13.9.05
A call to the BCF Management Board
I call for the BCF to put the Name Change on HOLD, whilst a fuller review is carried out.
I call for the BCF to refer back to individual Unions/Major Constituent bodies, and for each of these 7 main bodies to hold a formal debate and vote, and be given the wider issues/information (on both sides), so that a fair, balanced, and properly representative decision can be reached.
The management board meeting on 17th September 2005 would be an opportunity to raise this, perhaps as an agenda item, or as an "Objection" to what has happened, calling for a review.
David Pardoe pardoed@ntlworld.com
Stockport
rjh: - I cannot promise that the BCF Management Board will see this, or act on it if they do, and the matter is now closed as far as this Website is concerned.


From Paul Buswell
2.9.05
Richard,
On your Ragbag curiosity:
So far as I recall, the BCF Council did vote in 78/79 on a motion of principle that the name should be anglicised. The motion was carried but not by the 2/3 majority that would have been required in due course for formal constitutional change, and so the matter was allowed to rest.
PB PBusw13724@aol.com


From Paul Buswell
1.9.05
Richard,
There was consultation on the [BCF to ECF] name change: at least views were sought from, inter alia, all the 40 counties and 40 odd other Leagues affiliated to the BCF. (If I misremember the exact numbers bear with me, this is an off the cuff response). The number of responses was disappointing but was broadly - but far from unanimously - supportive of the suggested name change. The turn out of delegates at the key BCF Council meeting was similarly disappointing. Those criticising the exercise might do well to check that their County or League (a) responded to the consultation, (b) attended the Council, and expressed their members' views.
Paul Buswell PBusw13724@aol.com

rjh: These things are documented on the SCCU site, if you look in the Archive. The issue was rather comprehensively debated at the BCF Council meeting of September 2003, where it was certainly on the circulated Agenda. There was a further consultation exercise shortly afterwards, on the BCF website and elsewhere. I wouldn't know how many responded, but thousands had the opportunity. The final decision was made by Council, again after due notice, in April 2005.
     Just a curiosity, but there's something in the Ragbag.
Proposed: "That the BCF shall in future be known as the English Chess Federation"
Put to the SCCU AGM 11th June, having been previously agreed in principle by the BCF Executive. Carried 23-7.
Forgot to say. 11th June 1977.


From Tim Spanton
31.8.05
David Pardoe may be a little late with his views but I made similar representations at the time. I suggested the BCF keep its name, being thought of as the body that runs the British Chess Championship but with special responsibility for chess in England and parts of Wales (Cheshire & North Wales Chess Association being a member of the NCCU as well as of the Welsh Chess Union). I believe many people disliked, and still dislike, the way the decision to change the name seemed a fait accompli BEFORE any consultation.
Tim Spanton tim.spanton@the-sun.co.uk


From Mike Gunn
31.8.05
Richard,
I don't follow David's argument. As our national body organises and represents chess players in England, not Britain, the title English Chess Federation seems appropriate to me. At club, league, county and union meetings I cannot recall another person who spoke up for the retention of the title "BCF".
Mike Gunn mike@wxyz7.fsnet.co.uk


From Gary Cook
30.8.05
Richard
Maybe David Pardoe has hit upon the real reason for changing the BCF name to ECF when he said of the British Championship "... we can't produce an `Englishman` good enough to win it......even after kicking out our Commonwealth friends".
     If they change the name, but continue to run the Championship, then isn't it only right that only English players are allowed to enter? One way of getting an English winner!
Gary Cook cernunos@globalnet.co.uk


From David Pardoe
30.8.05
Richard,
I note you have published some brief notes for general consumption on the BCF meeting of 25th June, in your SCCU website, BCF news section.
     I remain concerned about the BCF name change....the manner it was (engineered) through...very little grass roots consultation, from what I gather....almost no formal consultation at Union level (some formal Union level debates and voting at the very least, might be helpful, and add some credibility to events) .....and this despite the specific directive given by the BCF board, that because this was deemed `a momentous move/decision`, then it was important that proper consultation should take place at all levels, including grass roots. I repeat again, this has not happened to any significant satisfactory level, I don't believe.
     The decision to change name, and process by which it has been done, is therefore, at the least highy questionable and dubious, and at worse, a complete sham.......an example of an organisation performing poorly, and producing a decision that has little or no credibility.
     In fact the BCF and other parties went out of their way to express the case `for change`......yet conspicuously failed to give even one single reason why it might be a good idea to retain the BCF name.....saying basically that a change to ECF was needed to reflect the `English` nature of the organisation...again disputable.... (whose major activity is the sponsoring of a BRITISH event....namely `The British Championships`....by a highly noticeable quirk/contradiction).....and we cant produce an `Englishman` good enough to win it......even after kicking out our commonwealth friends.
     So why is the BCF so uncomfortable with remaining PROUDLY, as the BCF. Yet it has been said that......`out of respect to our near neighbours`.namely the Scots, etc...we should change name....no mention of the potential benefits of the dual platform which the BCF could serve FOR THE WHOLE OF THE UK AND BEYOND....including a possible/extended role in Commonwealth matters...if the BCF had any interest in that direction. But to have a clear and recognisable platform for `British Chess`, with a strong INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED brand name (needed if we are to secure serious backing and funding/sponsorships, and other benefits) .....has seemingly been completely ignored.....certainly no mention anywhere in the `name change` debate....which, incidentally, seems singularly lacking on your `forum`......or other forums for that matter, as far as I can see.
     Can I say also that I have taken soundings at Club, County, and further afield, and the signals that I am getting are that the BCF name is very much favoured. At a Union meeting in summer the majority view expressed by those present were in favour of retaining the BCF name. At my clubs` AGM, a similar view prevailed...and the responses to a widely circulated email on the subject (although not overwhelming), again indicated majority support for keeping BCF.
     I have sent at least 3 emails to the BCF and others on this subject, which put my points and concerns in more detail, to which comments have been forthcoming (some quite interesting), but the BCF itself has remained distinctly coy (no formal response)........I sense perhaps a certain embarrassment that they have (or can produce), no real arguments against what I have said. A typical `heads down and ignore it` approach.
     The vote, by a limited number of delegates (only 35 delegates present at that BCF meeting in Sheffield, I believe), with block votes which have questionable merit/approval/validity, ....I do not believe is a true reflection of the general view......the general view having been significantly tarnished/swayed by a one sided PR campaign from the BCF...perhaps influenced from elsewhere. Also by the intrinsic nature of the debate....one club president I heard say.....`I don't care what they call the BCF`.....does it really matter....a typical (and understandable) first reaction to the question.....But, YES, it does matter....
     Shrinking into `little England` (where many counties might still continue to shun the BCF..or its successor(s)), and pandering to a select few...(and maybe a `barmy army` element), is not a sensible approach.
     Some other points....The Daily Telegraph recently conducted a `poll` on `BRITISHNESS`....and 98% said they liked being British...and what it stands for. An extensive survey was done, following the BRITISH success in winning the Olympic bid for 2012. How good it might be to have a British chess team competing in such an event. You will no doubt remember the congratulations the BCF received from around the world, when it celebrated its centenary....by changing its name????
     I feel this subject (BCF Name Change) deserves a proper hearing and review, and maybe your readership on the SCCU Forum would be interested in putting their views....and comments.
Regards
David Pardoe pardoed@ntlworld.com
Stockport
[rjh: I will not say what I think of Mr Pardoe's case, but the time to be making it was eighteen months ago.]


Earlier material (lots of it) is in the Archive.


Back to top      Back to SCCU home page