Back to SCCU home page
Updated 31.8.02
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 give your postal address. We like to know where you are. [Nearly everyone ignores that. Oh, well.]
Text is best. Be wary of MS Office: convert your Word files to rtf. With any WP, avoid tabs and indents and don't expect every nuance preserved. Pictures may be excluded, not that anyone ever sends any.
__________________
From Gary Kenworthy
31.8.02
Eligibility.
Hmmm. More sensible points from Jeff (fresh from the British Open - see point 4) and more useful points from Kevin. About time someone lowered the debate!
(1a) On "Misc Direct Members' results". When George Smith was the International grader I used to send him in the European Club Cup results from abroad. Turns out there was a submissions form for this; he then used to send me spare forms.
(1b) There was some standing instruction at some stage, to the effect of "it is the duty of.." the player playing abroad to submit his results to the International grader for inclusion into the BCF list. It was clearly spelt out it was the player's responsibility and "the BCF shall not be responsible...". This I know was regularly done, especially in pre-direct-member days. Now the results go via the "BCFgrader" as per Mr Keevil's excellent website.
(1c) I have also submitted my results, played abroad, for this year, as a direct member.
(2a) On the top-20-women list, it is worth pointing out that anybody playing in events like the 4NCL is frequently seeing the listed names. So instead of countries you have Guildford, Barbican, Wood Green, Mindsports, Beeson Gregory, and Athenaeum etc. When I was a Barbican official I looked up Ingrid Lauterbach's ELO not under Germany, but England, the country she represented.
(2b) Further, if you are Scottish born and live in Oxford or London then you are not going to be listed. It is about eligibility to play for the BCF ("England"ish). On the opposite foot, Carey was born in Hampshire and previously represented England... I could continue through the list!!
Bruce did omit Christine Flear (nee Du Roy) who is French born and bred and a resident of France, despite living in Oadby (Leicestershire) for a while. As Howard Grist points out, she is listed!
(2c) My wife plays chess but she is Russian and not eligible for anything and treated like an alien refugee in all that we do.
(2d) Meanwhile James Cobb (Aylesbury and Bucks resident), and Howard Williams (Kew in Surrey for some 30 years, I believe) are more Welsh than some born and bred in England representing Ireland and Wales... Well it's nice to play in the Olympiad etc.
(2e) Anybody mentioning Brian Kelly (Limerick and Belfast), struggling to be recognised by the Irish selection committee to represent his home country?
(3a) Eligibility is often affected by the definitions within the rules. Cambridge (University players only) and Cambridgeshire (EACU) are very distinct and are/were defined as NON–INCLUSIVE, i.e. you cannot be a member of both, an SCCU definition in 1983 [Rubbish. - rjh] for the EACU formation. That was madness, which I bitterly opposed at the time because I could see problems of having what was in effect club eligibility in a county eligibility tournament. Bad precedent, bad rule.1
(3b) Another example. I remember the special dispensations within European Chess Federation for the likes of the European Club Cup where the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and West Germany had special exemptions on the rule limiting the number of teams per country. I wrote, and actually got the rules changed!!, pointing out that none of these countries actually exist!...
(4a) Jeff's point about the British Open, on players not eligible for England but being their champion. I assume Ramesh will not be listed with a 212 grade in the top 100??
(4b) Did you know that the British was seriously being looked at to be played in Calais to avoid paying VAT - I kid you not!2 The Commonwealth bit, and a circuit of events, was reinforced by the FIDE definition of playing at least three players from foreign countries in order to qualify for a title norm. That is now all history because of the rule that national championships are exempt from the foreign players rule, so we could go back to getting norms without artificial work-arounds that are no longer applicable.
(4c) The converse was when Brian Russell Eley won the British in 1972 and demanded to play in the BCF team. A debate ensued! The BCF had great pleasure in ruling, and setting a precedent, that winning the title does not allow you to automatically represent your country.
Thus we need a ruling on what is BCF eligible, National Title eligible, yes, it does need sorting. The moral of all this: look out for Russells playing in the Marakesh Open [as mentioned in Kingpin] and then wanting to play for the England Ladies team [Jeff's worry] and be exempt from drug testing?3
Gary Kenworthy Gary.Kenworthy@btopenworld.com
Bletchley, the home of the digital computer
[rjh: Weren't the Babbage/Lovelace ones digital?]
1 We can't possibly say "Rubbish" to a correspondent without saying why. But this whole paragraph is rubbish. The Cambridgeshire team in the SCCU Open competition represents Cambridgeshire. It does now, it did in 1983, and presumably it always did. If they choose to have a University match captain and draw mostly on University players, that's their affair. The eligibility rules are the regular BCF ones, as applied to the county of Cambridgeshire. The SCCU definition saying Cambridgeshire and the University are distinct, and you can't be eligible for both, is a myth.
2 Gary tells us this idea has been quashed.
3 We don't understand this either.
From Kevin Thurlow
25.8.02
Dear Richard
I agree with Jeff Goldberg for his last two posts - I think this is three times in a row I have agreed with him, which is a bit worrying. I think Mike Gunn is right as well on the rating conversions. How many results were used to create the new formula? Also, 150 BCF = 2000 FIDE? Some 150s might have scored over 2000, but what about those who scored less than 2000, and were thus excluded from the FIDE list? You can get any result you want if you exclude results you don't like. Anyway, the method of calculation is entirely different, so I don't believe any simple formula will compare the two systems.
Best wishes
Kevin Thurlow Kjt2300@aol.com
Redhill
From Nick Butland
25.8.02
Richard,
2 points, as briefly as I can:
1. Chess is, for the vast majority of the players in this country, an
amateur "pursuit", or sport, as most of us like to think of it. The same is
true of football, but the game has far more money tied up in it. How many
paid or full-time officials does the BCF have? - compare with the FA,
Premiership, Nationwide League &c. Many of us will have made the
acquaintance of our local grader & know that he or she is a volunteer who
contributes many hours with the aim of doing the best possible job in the
circumstances.
If we want a professional set-up, then there needs to be a radical rethink as to what we pay for the privilege. But unlike the football spectator, Fred & Joe down the club don't want to pay £15 to watch someone else play chess - what they want is the chess equivalent of a kick-about themselves. We get what we pay for, which is not a lot & probably more than we deserve.
2. I, too, am puzzled by the "top 100 players qualified for England", which
includes recent national champion of Wales & European team championship
board one James Cobb. But if anyone knows what the rules on eligibility are, I'm sure we'll all be interested to hear.
Thanks,
Nick Butland nick.butland@ntlworld.com
Aylesbury
From Howard Grist
23.8.02
Richard,
Answers to your questions [two letters down], in reverse order:
The BCF's policy is that games are graded if the results are sent in and Game Fee is paid. Additionally, Direct Members both Full and Standard can have their games included if the event does not pay Game Fee. These rules apply to both the Peruvian Masters and our own SCCU county matches.
I am unable to vouch for the 'Events Graded' in the current list, but neither do I see any reason for the compiler of the list to lie about its contents. I am not aware of any untoward manipulation of this list in recent years, although I am aware of some mistakes. The most significant omission that I noted from this year's events graded was the "Misc Direct Members' results". This would imply that no results submitted by Direct Mambers were included, but I do not actually know whether this is the case or not.
Foreign events included in this list. These are the Bunratty Masters (Ireland), Guernsey, Jersey and the Monarch Assurance on the Isle of Man. Other events slightly off the BCF's patch included were the events at Dyfed, Newport (Gwent), Merthyr, Monmouth, West Wales, and the Welsh Championships (all in South Wales).
Howard howard.grist@btinternet.com
rjh: I had no wish to suggest untruthfulness, but I know oversights occur and I didn't know the policy. I'm sure the BCF have published it somewhere. I'll look for "Misc Foreign Games" next time.
From Jeff Goldberg
23.8.02
Did Howard [below] really use the word "logic" in respect of the Top 20 Women List? Logic is to the BCF what milk is to orange juice. Personally I think we should be grateful that at least the top 20 women are all women (as far as we know of course).
Here's some more BCF Logic. The British Champion is not British and he doesn't reside here either. He's Indian and, I'm sure, proud of it. OK, this is not completely new, but at least when Sultan Khan won the Championship 3 times it was before Indian independence, so in a sense India was British. Now it's just ridiculous.
I don't mind at all that Commonwealth players can play in the tournament, and are eligible for the prize-money (although several British professionals do) but surely they should not be eligible for the title of British Champion. Is it really tenable that our National Champion is not, in any sense, of our Nation but is deemed to qualify by virtue of our colonial past, now more than 50 years ago?
Wake up BCF, this is the 21st century. Sort this anomaly out.
Jeff Goldberg ilfordchessclub@hotmail.com
From Howard Grist
22.8.02
Richard, Bruce,
In reply to Bruce's letter [below] on the exclusion of certain British women from the top 20 in the current grading list:
It should be noted that the BCF's list covers chess in England [rjh: - and Wales and the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, and it's not limited to English players]. The top 100 players list on the previous page states that 'These are the top 100 players qualified for England'. It is not unreasonable to infer that the 'qualified for England' restriction also applies to the other lists. The next question is what does 'qualified for England' mean? Well, one thing to take into consideration is their FIDE country of affiliation. The first 11 players that Bruce mentions can be excluded on this basis. Maria Yurenok is listed under England on the FIDE list, Galina Utyuzhnikova and Ingrid Lauterbach are not listed.
However, it has to be said that this logic does not help explain the presence of Christine Flear who is French, or indeed, the presence of, for example, Frenchman Arnaud Jossien and Welshman Howard Williams in the top 100 list. I would agree that there are some errors in the top 100 and top ladies lists, but they are rather more accurate than Bruce would have us believe.
Howard Grist howard.grist@btinternet.com
rjh: I'd have liked to see the criteria spelt out. On a parallel tack, I'd have appreciated an explanation of what foreign games have been included. Do Joe Bloggs's games in the Peruvian Masters go in (a) always?; (b) if sent in by Joe Bloggs?; (c) never? I don't think "Events Graded" includes anything from outside the UK. Can we take this at face value? What is the BCF's policy?
From Bruce Birchall
22.8.02
Richard
BCF GRADING LIST
The published top 20 women list omits 14 women above 150 who are resident in these isles, ie:
Scottish: Elaine Rutherford, Heather Lang, Helen Milligan and Carey Willman
Welsh: Debbie Evans-Quek, Abigail Cast, Annie Powell
Irish: Suzanne Connolly
Former Soviet Union: Ketevan Arakhamia-Grant, Meri Grigorian, Zhanna Lazhevskaya, Galina Utyuzhnikova, Maria Yurenok
German: Ingrid Lauterbach
Yet Jana Bellin (Czech originally) is in there. So the list's xenophobia, if that is what it is, is inconsistent. Does Jana get in because she is a naturalised UK citizen perhaps?
Maybe it wants to just list the top 20 who live in England. Then it should say so. [But some of these do live in England! - rjh] It would seem reasonable to omit Irina Krush and others who live abroad and only play occasional tournaments here, but to omit 14 who actually live here does not present a true picture of who the top women are. Ingrid has more than once played as a representative of the BCF and yet she is, to read the list, not one our top 20 women! Weird!
Bruce bhbirchall@hotmail.com
From Per Lea
21.8.02
Today Kevin Thurlow referred me to this very interesting discussion forum
(BTW: I am one of the 10 players he needs to score 13 points against in the
ICCF email Jubilee. But then I need to score about 3 points in my only
remaining game - against Kevin - to be promoted to the next stage. CC is
for the fighters....).
The discussion on World Cup venues has ended a long time ago, but Jeff Goldberg's tongue-in-cheek entry 21 Feb reminded me of an incident involving Bobby Fischer. In a tournament in Yugoslavia, he was scheduled to play one of the local heroes on the same night the two top football clubs were set to play an important league game. How to avoid the clash: reschedule the football game - which was promptly done! The YFA realised that with such an important chess game on the agenda, nobody would attend the football game anyway.
I can't give any more details about this incident, I do not even remember where I heard or read about it. Maybe there is something to be found in that treasure of chess anecdotes - The even more complete chess addict? Or maybe someone else can fill me in?
Best wishes,
Per Lea per.lea@matforsk.no
Måltrostveien 6B, N-1430 Ås NORWAY
From Jeff Goldberg
19.8.02
Re recent correspondence:
Could I suggest that Kevin's new ICCF grade might be better calculated by asking Carol to take one from the top row, two from the middle and the rest from the bottom?
Jeff Goldberg ilfordchessclub@hotmail.com
From Mike Gunn
16.8.02
Richard,
Doesn't the new ELO/BCF conversion formula [See Grading page: for players below 216, BCF x 5 + 1250 = FIDE] indicate that there is an inconsistency between the two systems? Fundamental to the two systems is the idea of 200 Elo points (or 25 BCF points) representing a difference of one class in terms of chess strength (a player exactly one class above another scores 75% in a series of games).
Now consider the case of a BCF player graded 150 who plays 30 games in a season and scores 75% against a field of players with an average grade of 150. In the BCF system his grade next year would be 175 (increase of 25). Under the ELO system the method of calculation is not as straightforward, but consulting the table in Stewart Reuben's book (for
example) one finds that a percentage score of 76% corresponds to a
rating difference of 202 points. Thus if sufficient games are played at
this level, one would expect the player's rating to go up about 200 ELO
points. On the other hand, the new conversion formula would suggest
an increase of only 125 points.
Perhaps I need to borrow Trevor Jones's copy of Elo's book (or just stop worrying about this sort of thing).
Mike Gunn mike@wxyz.demon.co.uk
From Gary Kenworthy
12.8.02
Huh. Kevin [below] has only to get 13/10 (!?) to maintain his grade. Take a thought for winning the British, look at the results of the winner from the BCF website.
RAMESH,R.B.... 150 d
w47+ b10= w26= b78+ w32+ b11- w9= b4+ w7+ w24+ b8+ 8½ 11 2330 212
Of course the fault is normal if you get a shadow grade of 150, and therefore you get a 212 result.
Had the same problem many times. Four years ago I scored 100% in four competitions. My best performance on my detailed printout was to gain one BCF point, the other competitions my grade went down(!). I strongly believe it was a case sometimes of ..huumm... he must be a strong player, call it 200.. which then took me down.
Made the mistake of getting 100% in too many events last year, so I knew there was a chance my grade would fall - but, it has already been agreed that it will be corrected.
Least it is improving, there is a lot of very hard volunteer work done; when done by hand twenty years ago 1000 BCF points disappeared off my total, taking me down from 217 to 194.
I prefer the everybody-has-membership (G Walsh) approach, with an apportioned amount for payment for grading and the grades are free on-line.
regards
Gary Kenworthy gkenworthy@4thenet.co.uk
Bletchley, MK
rjh: Can that Ramesh performance of 212 be official? No self-respecting computer program would allow you to have a shadow grade of 150 if you scored 76% against opponents graded 223 on average. (Graded more than 223, if you do justice to the other "150" among them.)
Perhaps they did it by hand. Perhaps they did Gary's tournaments by hand.
From Kevin Thurlow
11.8.02
About Grading
Dear Richard
The exciting new BCF grading list is out! The unpaid “results officers” have doubtless worked hard, and now they will have to field all the complaints when it’s probably not their fault. Last season I played 63 games at an average of 189, so the published figure of 1871 is about as close as you would expect. (Results from Surrey and Civil Service were correct.) There has been speculation as to why grading list sales are down, with “bootleg” lists getting the blame. I used to buy the list eagerly every year, but after BCF needed four attempts to get it 90% right the other year I gave up. My published grade has reflected the submitted results once in the last 20 years, so what’s the point? I pay “Game Fee” solely to get the games graded - there is no other reason. Some people might think the BCF has a cheek demanding payment again, to see the published list, and yet again for you to publish a local list, but “copyright” does apply, as with any other work of fiction. However, there might be a loophole. Book reviewers are allowed to publish extracts of the books they are reviewing, so if you produce a document stating that “the grading list is available, but just look at the figures they have produced for my club members…”, you might avoid the copyright argument. Alternatively, you could just report the BCF to Trading Standards, saying the list is not of “merchantable quality”. However, look on the bright side, the International Correspondence Chess Federation (ICCF) rating list makes the BCF efforts look positively brilliant.
I never realised that some British events were rated by ICCF, but in 1998 I was given a rating of 2300 based on 12 games. Without playing again, I dropped to 2299! I then scored 2/2 and was slightly puzzled to drop to 2275. Round about this time, I entered an ICCF email event, and made a reasonable start. I calculated I needed 8.5/10 to retain the rating. When the next list appeared, I had scored 5/6, (including a win over a 2350), and the new rating was 2228. Now I was really puzzled. Study of the regulations revealed that you needed to play 30 games for a “fixed” rating. But here was the really interesting thing. Until you play 30 games, you are treated as a new player. So every time you play more games, they start from scratch and calculate your expected score against the average of your opponents. So, when I won one more game, against an 1800, my new rating would be…. 2223! This seemed crazy. What made it worse was that ICCF treat unrated players as 1800, and the games count for rating. Now for an email event, it is reasonable to suppose players might have chess software, and it has to be said that even if you just believe Fritz, you will do better than 1800! Since then, I have drawn with an “1800” (with a US rating of 2200), so the rating will plummet. What makes it worse is that every time they recalculate the rating, they use the games I first played back in 1988. I emailed ICCF to express some concern, they ignored me, so I emailed again. This time I got a reply from Gerhard Binder (head of rating) saying that his English was not good enough to explain, so I should contact somebody else. So I sent a third email, just under a month ago, and guess what? No reply. So ICCF equals BCF in that respect. Meanwhile, I have recalculated my required score in the ICCF event. I need 13/10 to keep my rating, but that drawn game seems to have messed that up. One of the 1800s has 8/8 so far...
Kevin Thurlow Kjt2300@aol.com
Redhill
1 We risk the BCF's wrath by copying this.
From Jeff Goldberg
3.7.02
Is Tim Spanton [two letters down: footnote] innumerate? Surely it should be 14 days.
Jeff ilfordchessclub@hotmail.com
From Stewart Reuben
27.6.02
About Bruce Birchall's letter [15.5.02 below] on disabled players.
When I was editing ChessMoves it was available in an audiotape version via TNAUK. I hope that is still true.
One of the main ways organisers could help attract disabled players to their events is offering reduced entry fees for such players. An opportunity for the SCCU to be pioneers in the field. Many already offer discounts for juniors, seniors and BCF members.
Stewart Reuben StewartReuben@aol.com
TW1 2TS
From Mick Norris
27.6.02
Richard,
If central venues are so good, why is the British Championship played at places like Torquay & Scarborough?
Regards,
Mick Norris mick@pcfp.co.uk
Vice Chairman, Bury Chess Club
Tim Spanton tim.spanton@the-sun.co.uk gives the answer 28.6.02: Because the British lasts for two weeks, which is 13 days longer than most people would want to spend in Leicester.
From Ken Norman
[rjh: Ken has written a couple of times, on the central-venue theme, and I've put him off because the correspondence was closed. But his points are new, to be fair, and should have an outing.]
23.6.02
Richard,
I agree with your view [expressed privately] that complaining at this stage is rather late in the day and match captains should take it up at the beginning of the season. Probably most people adopt the "it won't happen to me" attitude.
But I have put on my anorak and produced the following statistics for Union teams at Finals Day over the five years up to and including 2000-1.
[rjh 27.6.02: Stephen Hart of Cambs has pointed out a mistake in Ken's figures as published yesterday. He had erroneously counted Cambs U150 and U125 (3 Finals between them) as SCCU. These teams have always been EACU. It is true they both played in the SCCU competitions in 1999-2000, and one of them reached the Final. But they played in EACU as well, and qualified with that hat on.
I have amended the table, and I think it's now right. I've also amended some figures in Ken's commentary to reflect the changes.]
| |
SCCU |
NCCU |
MCCU |
EACU |
WECU |
|
Open |
9 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
Minor Counties |
7 |
|
|
3 |
|
|
U175 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
|
1 |
|
U150 |
2 |
1 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
|
U125 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
|
U100 |
4 |
5 |
1 |
|
|
| |
28 |
13 |
9 |
6 |
4 |
| |
47% |
21% |
15% |
10% |
7% |
So over a five year period we have 30 matches involving 60 teams, 28 of which came from the Southern counties. If we look further, 23 out of the 30 matches involved SCCU teams i.e. 77%.
The Midlands have had 9 teams in various finals. The 1997 Under 150 was an all Midlands final between Nottinghamshire and Warwickshire. In the remaining 7 matches the Midlands teams won six out of seven, the only Midlands team to lose being Shropshire! This indicates [suggests? - rjh] that the Midlands teams have an unfair advantage as they are playing "at home".
In the Open, only the 2000 final between Yorkshire and Essex should have been played in the Midlands. The other four matches involved only SCCU teams and should have been played in the south.
The Minor Counties finals contain only teams from SCCU and East Anglia. Again, having a final in the Midlands is just stupid.
Regards
Ken Norman ken.norman1@virgin.net
rjh: Ken has also asked what proportion of English players are from the SCCU. Master-list investigations, not very thorough or scientific, come up with a figure of about 40%. That seems to be true whether we're talking about A-E players or everyone, and excluding Rapidplay makes little difference.
From Kevin Thurlow
22.6.02
Dear Richard
[in reply to Mike Gunn 17.6.02 on the Surrey board-order rule, seven letters down]
I would like to thank Mike for his nice comments, and he is doing a lot to try to sort Surrey out. However, he did say that the Constitution and Rules Subcommittee (CRS) and the Rules and Ethics Subcommittee (RESC) agreed on the interpretation of the rule. This is not altogether surprising. Four members of the RESC met to discuss the problem, and three of them were also members of the CRS! There are an awful lot of Surrey subcommittees (I think I got that the right way round), so it is quite possible he didn't notice that. Two days before the RESC meeting I defeated the 172 comfortably, and she played like a 160 (she did have a bad cough which probably explains it). One member of the two committees was present and looked quite annoyed when I won. Oh well, not everyone is a fan.
I also find myself agreeing with Jeff Goldberg [on central venues: below and earlier].
best wishes
Kevin Thurlow Kjt2300@aol.com
Redhill
From Jeff Goldberg
20.6.02
In response to Carl Tillotson [below]:
I suspect that Kent, Essex & Sussex are quite capable of holding a very nice competition, and even presenting the requisite trophies, at a far more convenient venue than Leicestershire. Having everyone together on the same day is, as I said, grandiosity at the expense of the people who should really count, the players.
We know that some counties do have long journeys, but the trick to understanding this argument is to differentiate between necessary long journeys and unnecessary ones. The Midlands is convenient for Devon v Cleveland but inconvenient for Essex v Kent. This is why the policy of an inflexible central venue is flawed.
Of course the controller does not know who is going to be in the finals until after the semi-finals are played (doh). That's exactly why the system should be flexible. After the semi-finals if the two finalist teams prefer to arrange a more convenient venue at their own expense surely they should be allowed to do this.
As for whingeing, persons of high natural nobility, such as myself, simply do not whinge; we engage in constructive criticism in the hope that it will encourage improvement and thus help make the world a better place for ourselves and for future generations.
Jeff Goldberg ilfordchessclub@hotmail.com
rjh: Remember this is on the agenda for the SCCU AGM in nine days time. If the meeting so decides, the Union will propose a BCF rule change in October. Make sure your County gets both its reps there, if it has strong views on the subject. Or they can appoint proxies.
I suggest we close this correspondence for the moment, unless you've got something really new to say.
From Carl Tillotson
19.6.02
Richard,
This is in response to Jeff Goldberg's email of 17.6.02.
Yes, it does appear to be daft, but I can understand the rationale behind the reason for centralising the finals. It is a BCF event and they want to have everyone there on the same day, nice competition feel and trophies handed out etc.
However, the competition does throw up its quirks! Just as the SCCU are finding out again, two counties from the same Union may end up playing each other in the final. Lancashire & Cleveland had to travel all the way down to Rutland to play the U100 match last year, and at one stage it was possible that the U125 final might have been Lancashire v Merseyside.
Not too sure what the solution is, but before you moan too much do spare a thought that for the likes of Lancashire, Cleveland or Devon when they get to the finals (which they do from time to time). They will inevitably travel a fair distance to get to this so called 'central venue' which is anything but central.
To be fair to Cyril Johnson, he has no idea what teams are going to get to the finals. The venue has to be booked well in advance. Let's also be brutally honest, every captain knows full well at the start of the season that the finals are going to be played in Leicester/Rutland somewhere so why start whingeing and whining now that the final is upon us.
Now that I have lit the fuse, I will run off and hide in my corner again.
Regards
Carl Tillotson ctillotson@ntlworld.com
From Roger de Coverly
18.6.02
Mike Gunn in Open Forum [17.6 02 four letters down]:
"Anyway, I would like to know how other counties/leagues deal with this
issue (board order) in their rules."
I had always assumed that Bucks had a loose rule about board orders in teams being by playing strength. This is what everyone does in practice. There isn't however any rule probably because there hasn't been a dispute about board orders in living memory.
The 4NCL uses the eighty point rule (10 BCF points). This allows match captains to manipulate board orders as they wish provided that no one on a higher board is rated less than 80 points below someone on a lower board. This can be varied by agreement of both captains.
Roger de Coverly rdc@rdc200.fsnet.co.uk
From Richard Haddrell
18.6.02
To answer Mike Gunn on County rules about board order:
Kent uses the same rule as the BCF. Order of known current playing strength. No n-point rule. Personally I think a playing-strength rule is good enough by itself. An n-point rule in addition is not just unnecessary, it's too rigid. It ties a match captain's hands when one of his players really is better than someone that outgrades him by n + 1. Like Roger above, I can't remember when we last had a dispute about board order.
Richard Haddrell rjh@sccu.ndo.co.uk
From Chris Rice
18.6.02
Richard
This is in response to Jeff Goldberg's email of 17.6.02. As one of the
match captains involved he has my whole hearted support. After the semis
against Warwickshire I could not give any kind of answers to my players
about why they had to travel all the way up to Leicestershire for a match
against Essex. Given the time and expense involved and the fact that there
is no prize money one concludes that players only give up their Saturdays
for the love of it. One would have thought in the circumstances the BCF
could have been a little more flexible, but no, there will be no discussion
over it and no reasons given. [rjh: The rules of the competition stipulate it.] I'm sure that the Essex captain and myself could have arranged the venue between us, at no expense to the BCF, as we do all year around by the way. If we had been playing Yorkshire for instance as Essex did in the semis then Northampton or Leicester would have been justified otherwise it's not.
Chris Rice chris.rice@fsa.gov.uk
Kent Open Team Captain
From Jeff Goldberg
17.6.02
The Open Counties Final is Kent v Essex; the U175 Final is Essex v Sussex.
So where are these matches to be played? Well, in the Alice Through The Looking Glass world of the BCF, it's got to be Leicester of course.
Personally I would like all four captains to refuse to put up with this pathetic nonsense and to insist the matches are played in the Southern Counties where they indisputably belong.
Exactly why the BCF should insist it be played at a "central" (haha) venue in the Midlands is beyond logical comprehension and shows a simply staggering contempt for the players and captains involved who, for these two matches alone, must be clocking up around thirteen thousand miles worth of travel, the vast majority of it a quite pointless waste of human energy, physical resources, time and expense which can only serve to satisfy some absurdly misplaced sense of impoverished grandiosity.
Just my personal view of course...
Jeff Goldberg ilfordchessclub@hotmail.com
rjh: This question is on the agenda for the Union's AGM on the 29th June.
From Mike Gunn
17.6.02
Dear Richard,
I am always interested to read Kevin's views [see below] on SCCA matters. He may be interested to learn that the May SGM (which he was unable to attend) abolished itself. Thus, next year, officers will be elected at the AGM (in line with Kevin's suggestion to me last year).
This year the August Council Meeting will take place on Wednesday 14th August at Coulsdon and will consider proposed changes in several areas of our competition rules, including those referred to by Kevin. Kevin can look at the 7 page handout picked up by his club secretary at the May meeting if he wants to know the details.
The board order decision is slightly more complicated than Kevin portrays. The 172 who played below the 166 is consistently performing at 190+ (I am told). Thus she was definitely stronger than her opponent. As to what the rule means, I must admit that I originally shared your (and Kevin's) interpretation of its meaning. However it seems that Surrey's inter-club tournament secretary and all the members
of the Constitution and Rules Subcommittee and the Rules and Ethics
Subcommittee (which heard the appeal) think that key phrase is the first
("team members shall play in decreasing order of playing strength").
If you read the bit after the "and" you will see it says that player
A is stronger than player B if their grade exceeds the other's by more
than 10 or 20. As this doesn't apply, this bit of the rule says nothing
about their respective strengths. (Or does it?)
Surrey being the county that it is, there is no shortage of opinions from experts on the wording of legal and financial documents as to what this rule really means. (Of course these opinions are
equally divided on the matter.) Possibly, the rule is ambiguous.
[rjh: I don't think so, though I'm starting to see how its wording may have led to doubt. I'm not sure I understood Kevin before, when agreeing with him. As I read it, if there had been more than 10 points between the players there'd have been no argument. Since there wasn't, it was a question of whether the 172 was stronger than the 166. I expect that's what the tournament secretary and Subcommittees were saying. I'm glad this is nothing to do with me.]
Anyway, I would like to know how other counties/leagues deal with this issue in their rules. (But, please, no more interpretations of what the Surrey rule means, I already have enough of those to fill a suitcase.) [rjh: whoops!]
Mike Gunn mike@wxyz.demon.co.uk
From Kevin Thurlow
16.6.02
Dear Richard
The amusing Surrey rule proposals [see Club & County News 6.6.02] might make more sense with a bit of background information. Surrey time limits are:-
Quickplay finish 30 moves in 1 hour, back 20 minutes
Adjudication 35 moves in 1h 15min, then 7 moves per 15 minutes
Adjournment 35 moves in 1h 15min, then 28 moves per hour
This is quite a good compromise. The away player offers two ways of finishing the game before the start (thus vetoing one method), then the home player chooses one of the two offers (also having one power of veto). Hardly anyone goes for adjournment. One or two people have got excited because Coulsdon use digital clocks, and tend to set them to 1h 00 min.
The rule proposers have made the laughable suggestion that Coulsdon do this to force people into QP finishes, and want all clocks set to 1h 15 min. They have produced a proposal for the next meeting to this effect. Obviously they think Coulsdon's opponents are incapable of thinking for themselves! I pointed out that setting the clocks to 1h 15 min suggests adjudication, but apparently it doesn't work that way. I also pointed out that it is easier to move digital clocks from 1.00 to 1.15 than the reverse, but that doesn't matter either. I also asked what the penalty was for setting the clocks wrongly, but nobody had thought of that. After all, if you use conventional clocks, then they should be set at 4.45 (to give each player 75 minutes, and finish at 6.00), but they are frequently set at 3.45, 5.45, 9.45, anything but the right setting... This always assumes the clocks are set to anything at all.
To be blunt, it is a completely pointless rule and I find it incredible that any sane human being would want to waste time discussing it at a meeting. Not surprisingly, it has spawned some humorous counter-proposals. Some of us would prefer to see the current rules applied correctly before any new ones are introduced.
Apparently, Surrey acquired a new Secretary at the recent SGM (it is entirely "normal" for Surrey to elect Officers at SGMs). Unfortunately, clubs were only given a few days notice of the meeting, so the meeting was unconstitutional. However, we welcome David Bryant as "Acting Secretary".
On an entirely different matter, Bruce Birchall made some very valuable points in his recent letter [15.5.02 below], but surely the BCF MB will just "talk out" his proposals at the Council meeting?
Yours sincerely
Kevin Thurlow Kjt2300@aol.com
Redhill
PS: see Surrey rule below about board order
"In club competitions team members shall play in descending order of playing strength, and for graded players, a player whose grade (Standard or Rapidplay as appropriate for the competition) exceeds that of another by more than 10 points (20 points if either player be a junior) shall be treated as the stronger. A stronger player playing on a lower board than a weaker player shall be ineligible, but this shall not apply in respect of bona fide substitutes added to the team after the commencement of play."
One team was recently punished for playing a 172 below a 166. This was because the first line outweighs the bit about 10 or 20 points, which was the "intention" when the rule was written. Strangely, I thought the written rule was important, not some secret intention...
[rjh: If the rule and the facts are as stated, Kevin is simply right. But far be it from me...]
From Elaine Roe
5.6.02
Richard,
The former friends of David E Thomas, a keen chess player, who worked at
the London Chamber of Commerce in 1959, are wondering what has happened to
him. He lived in Hampstead and played there, also somewhere in The Strand I think - but it's a long time ago!
If you have any news of him, or if you are out there David, please contact me.
Elaine Roe elaine.roe@btinternet.com
rjh: "The Strand" might mean Simpsons, or perhaps the Bride Institute, or maybe both. My chronology fails. Help, anyone?
Ken Norman ken.norman1@virgin.net 8.6.02 suggests that the likeliest place, in the late 50s and early 60s, would be the En Passant chess rooms. "Located over a shop in the Strand. Very squalid and noted for the playing of Chess and Poker."
From Roger de Coverly
28.5.02
Richard
A recent dispute in the Berks League prompted me to check what the laws of
chess say about players who are unable to move the pieces or press the clock
without assistance.
There's a long established set of rules and conventions for visually handicapped players which for example details that German is the recommended international language for announcing moves. I thought there was something similar for disabled players but there doesn't appear to be.
The only indirect reference to disabled or handicapped players is the rule allowing a third party to press the clock.
Something for BB to review!
Roger de Coverly rdc@rdc200.fsnet.co.uk
rjh: There's also something about players unable to keep score. I know Bruce has had some response to his letter [below], though it wasn't sent for publication.
From Bruce Birchall
15.5.02
Dear RJH
I learn from Cynthia Gurney that I was recently elected unopposed as the
Disabled Members' Representative on BCF Council. This is a new post
(reflecting the recent introduction of a Disabled Member category amongst
the burgeoning number of Direct Membership options) and I am the first
incumbent. A pioneering role with innovative opportunities, therefore.
In that capacity I will be raising at October council (hopefully with SCCU support: I have tabled a motion for discussion at the SCCU AGM) the question of the accessibility of venues chosen for club and congress chess and for meetings. This seems the right place to start, though there are other issues, such as a British Sign Language interpreter being present at the British Championships and BCF Council meetings nd congress leaflets and ChessMoves being available in alternative formats, such as large print, audiotape or braille.
As regards accessible venues, though: one wants to commend good practice as well as suggest areas for improvement, and I am thinking of suggesting that the BCF award an "On The Level" mark rather like a 5-star hotel would get for congresses whose venues:
(a) are near public transport and are approached safely by well-lit streets
(b) have no steps to the front door from street level
(c) have the playing area, toilets, analysis rooms, refreshments and
bookstall all on the one level of the building, with no internal steps
between them
(d) have all facilities on a level that is ground floor if there is no lift
(e) have disabled toilets
(f) have aisles wide enough in the playing area to accommodate wheelchair
users and people on crutches.
I wondered from that perspective how congress organisers reading this feel
their venues measure up? Have you considered these questions when choosing
a venue? What other considerations would anyone suggest be added to the
above list? Comments from congress-goers as to which venues would score well on a Five-Star to One-Star rating system are equally welcome. My contact details are below, if you wish to respond.
What I am working towards is the BCF producing guidelines for congress organisers as to how to encourage and facilitate participation by disabled chess players. As there is a wide variety of disabilities, each with its own access needs to be considered, I welcome input from players with different disabilities to mine (Charcot's Neuroarthropathy, a rare complication of diabetes).
Bruce Birchall BHBirchall@hotmail.com
020 7792 8031
From Carl Tillotson
14.5.02
Richard,
To put your mind at rest!
[rjh: This relates to my footnote to Mick Norris 29.4.02. Carl has already answered Mick's letter itself.]
I am sure that the Controller will confirm the exact details, indeed would it not have been better to have received confirmation from the Controller before placing your comments on the website?
Although it was true that Yorkshire had a walk-over for their second match this was due to the other team simply not turning up on the day. The match had been arranged, all the Yorkshire players had turned up. Seems that Yorkshire did fulfill its obligations, even if their opponents had not.
Can't profess to understand the rules, but it seems unfair to penalise Yorkshire simply because their opponents had not turned up on the day?
Carl ctillotson@ntlworld.com
rjh: I said I didn't know the circumstances. If that was the reason NCCU got two nominations, I'm not sure it was a good one. I can understand how Yorkshire felt, though.
From Carl Tillotson
11.5.02
In reply to Mick Norris [two letters down]
Whilst I don't profess to understand the mechanics of the draw, surely
the point is you play the board in front of you. Yorkshire beat Gt
Manchester OTB - what's so barmy about that? Mind you, at the moment, us
Yorkshire folk have to take our victories when we can since we are
getting pasted on the Cricket field this year.
Carl ctillotson@ntlworld.com
(a biased Yorkshireman doing missionary work in Lancashire)
From John Philpott
29.4.02
Richard
It was noticeable at Saturday's BCF Finance Council meeting [for report, see the BCF page] that some of the later agenda items were either rushed or not taken at all. I was particularly disappointed not to hear Peter Turner's presentation on Junior Chess.
The problem may be that the time allowance for such meetings (a fixed length of time plus an additional half an hour to complete the agenda if the procedural motion is passed) is too close in concept to the conventional time-control-plus-quickplay-finish approach to chess matches. What might work better going forward is a Fischer mode, whereby the basic time allowed for the meeting is restricted to 2 hours, but there is an incremental 10 minutes for each agenda item that is actually completed.
John Philpott john@johnphilpott.freeserve.co.uk
50 Cranston Gardens, Chingford, London E4 9BQ
From Mick Norris
29.4.02
Richard,
Yesterday Yorks beat G Man in the BCF preliminary round (U 150). We (G Man) had won 4 games to qualify, they had lost one and won one on default.
The system is barmy!
Regards,
Mick Norris mick@pcfp.co.uk
Congress Director, Bury Chess Club
rjh: I don't know why NCCU had two nominees at U150. It appears they did not have three teams completing their fixtures. In this case they were entitled to one nominee, and on the face of it N2 (Yorks) shouldn't have been there. But I don't know the circumstances.
From Trevor Jones
4.4.02
Dear Richard
I don't think "get a taxi" [see John Cannon 10.3.02 below] is an acceptable instruction for how to get to a county match. Quite apart from the cost which might bother some people, there is the practical point (as noted in John Cannon's letter and as experienced by me in Maidstone and Newbury) that you often can't "just get a taxi" at a moment's notice on a Saturday afternoon when there's a waiting time of an hour if you phone for one. If a county can't find a venue within a mile of a railway station or on a regular bus route, ideally they should arrange transport from a station, but failing that at least supply local taxi phone numbers so that people can book one in advance (even from your mobile whilst on the train!). Presumably there would be players to give you a lift back to civilisation afterwards.
By the way, to make best use of streetmap.co.uk or multimap.com, you need to be given either the postcode or the National Grid Reference of the venue (as well as the venue name and street name).
H.Trevor JONES htjones@raildev.fsnet.co.uk
67 Guildford Park Avenue, Guildford GU2 7NH 01483 565319
From Angus French
20.3.02
Richard,
Regarding the proposal to be put to the BCF Council meeting in May that
all players listed with a FIDE rating under England be required to become
members of the BCF (first reported by David Smith on 10 March in his summary
of the recent BCF Management Board Meeting and then flagged by Tim Spanton
in the Open Forum on 17 March):
(1) This strikes me as important given that FIDE Ratings will soon start at 1800 with the intention, later, to start them at 1000.
(2) Stewart Reuben has now posted comments on the proposal on the BCF site at http://www.bcf.ndirect.co.uk/information/ratingplans2002.htm.
(3) Why, exactly, is it a FIDE requirement for rated players to be a member of their national chess federation? Are other national federations compliant? What would happen if the BCF remained non-compliant?
(4) I note that the minimum annual cost of BCF membership is £12 (£10 for juniors). What are current membership numbers? What increases in membership would the BCF anticipate now and in the future (given that rating limits are likely to extend with more players rated) and will they be able to cope with the increases? Might the BCF consider a less expensive membership option? What would the BCF spend their extra income on (after costs are deducted)?
(5) It has previously been suggested that BCF grades be replaced with FIDE ratings. Would the proposal be a step towards making that happen? If yes, then I would be concerned about closer affiliation with and reliance on FIDE.
Regards,
Angus French Angus.French@icl.com
From Bruce Birchall
20.3.02
Dear fellow cartographers
I would agree that showing the way is one of the principal points of the
map. That does not of itself argue for a sketch map, which removes all but
essentials. People can get lost, e.g. miss a side road and sail on by
looking for it. Having the names of the wrong roads to see where you went
wrong actually helps therefore.
But another is that you want to give confidence to the players that the event "looks well organised". Accordingly I typeset the date, times of play, numbers of rounds, time controls, name and address of the venue, who the teams are, and what the competition is and paste these on the map, obscuring minor streets not likely to be reached by the errant drivcer, as I do so. (How often have you set out with the wrong map in your pocket because it was unlabelled as to which event it referred to?)
Station, venue, motorway junctions are similarly labelled with a pointing hand, index-finger extended, directing the eye as to where to look. Yellow highlighter pen is used to indicate the way and draw attention to landmarks to look out for. Blue highlighter pen can indicate a river which may not be obvious in a black-and-white photocopy.
I try and elicit from the opposing captain a physical description of the building (eg double-fronted, archtitectural style, sign over the entry, colour of the brickwork or masonry, number of storeys, set back from the road, detached or semi-detached) so people know what they are looking for. A sign on the door, window or gate saying "chess in here" does not go amiss either.
And crucially I choose which part and how much of the surrounding area I show in the rest of the map and the scale thereof so its location vis-a-vis the approach is obvious. None of the website maps I have been directed to, ever do that. Clear indication of where north and south are on the map is also helpful. Any map that does not have north at the top really ought to say so.
And finally people don't realise the remark "five minutes walk" needs translating for those of us with mobility problems. My Blackpool B&B was said to be 7 minutes from the Winter Gardens. On crutches on dry streets that was 22 minutes. On wet, slippery streets, 30 minutes. All part of making chess accessible to the disabled!
Bruce Birchall bhbirchall@hotmail.com
From Tim Dickinson
20.3.02
Richard,
Not wishing to add to the maps correspondence ... but did you try zooming out on the streetmap that Jeremy gave? If you do that a couple of times you'll get a high-level map and STILL with the magic arrow in place.
Who's the first-worst navigator in the world?
Tim t.dickinson@btinternet.com
rjh: He thinks I am. Needless to say I didn't notice you could zoom out. I've tried it now, and the A road changed colour! (I still couldn't tell how far along it I was.) My search for Hertford station was all too successful. I found two.
From Jeremy Fraser-Mitchell
19.3.02
Regarding the comment that you can't get lines, arrows etc on website maps -
you can! On the streetmap uk website, you can click anywhere on a map and an
arrow pops up where you clicked. This is stored in the URL so that when
somebody else accesses the map, the arrow is still there. See for example
http://www.streetmap.co.uk/streetmap.dll?grid2map?x=532250&y=211750&zoom=1&isp=187&ism=500&arrow=y?143,26 which gives the location for the SCCU U180 / U135 jamboree on 14th April (plug, plug!)
Jeremy Fraser-Mitchell MitchellFJ@bre.co.uk
Herts Chess Association
rjh: I've looked at this. It's a bit of Hertford, beautifully clear and on a large scale, with an arrow pointing at County Hall. (No lines or etceteras, I'm afraid.) Nothing tells you whereabouts in Hertford it is, or how to get to it. You can see a railway line, but no station's obvious. There is a numbered A road at the top, with a roundabout you have to turn off at, but no way of telling how far along the A road you are, or which particular roundabout it is. (The road you turn into is clearly named on the map, but who knows whether it will be admitting its name when you get to the roundabout?)
Far better, in my opinion, would be a sketch map showing the way. The essentials and nothing but, with an explanation in words saying how you get to the venue from (a) the station and (b) main roads outside the town.
Sorry. But, as the world's second-worst navigator, I think I'm entitled to an opinion on this one.
From Graham Stuart
18.3.02
Richard,
Although not part of the SCCU, playing for Hampshire for my sins I've
followed the map comments with interest. Our captain normally sends a map
image with his e-mail directions (pcx image - 110kb) which helps no end.
I also use the same site that he gets this from, to get directions and different scale maps and it is most useful. The main page is: www.multimap.com/home.html but the relevant page is: www.multimap.com/map/places.cgi?client=europe&db=ap&overviewmap=ap which allows you to put the address in, to get the map. Your members may find this useful.
I suppose we almost count as part of the SCCU, as it's only 30 years since we left!
Regards
Graham Stuart g.b.stuart@btinternet.com
Website www.HampshireChess.co.uk
From Chris Rice
18.3.02
Richard
In reply to Angus French's point. We played Oxfordshire in a new venue
(Magdalen College School) on March 9th. For the travel directions Tim
Dickinson the Oxfordshire captain did exactly what Angus is suggesting re
www.streetmap.co.uk plus sending me an email with written directions for when you were nearing the venue. It worked perfectly. By the way, I hope Oxfordshire keep their new venue as it has excellent playing conditions as opposed to the out of the way hell hole that they used to play at.
Chris Rice chris.rice@fsa.gov.uk
Kent Open Team Captain
From Angus French
18.3.02
Richard,
I also think it would be a good idea if venue details (including travel facilities) for County matches were published on the SCCU web site... Several counties, including my own, which is Surrey, play at several different venues... It is possible to plug-in a venue's postcode (or road name and town) into www.streetmap.co.uk and have produced a map with an arrow pointing to the location. (No need to reproduce maps on the SCCU site, just for a pointer to the streetmap site and some guidance.)
Regards,
Angus French ajfx@ajfx.screaming.net
From Tim Spanton
18.3.02
Richard,
In reply to Mike [below]: what I objected to about the direct membership scheme was the deceptive way that, in my opinion, it was set up. There was lots of guff about how wonderful it would be to join, little - or none - of which turned out to be true. We were promised great bargains on books, but they turned out to be discounts on books I could buy far cheaper in remaindered shops in Charing Cross Road (the book of BCM excerpts was a particularly flagrant example). Direct members also get a discount on grading lists, but what's the point of that when the lists are late and inaccurate? Buying the annual grading list used to be a (maybe sad) highlight of my year - flicking through it to see how friends/club-colleagues/opponents had gone up or down. But when a list contains hundreds of errors ...
Tim tim.spanton@the-sun.co.uk
From Mike Gunn
17.3.02
Dear Richard,
To combine two recent correspondence themes, the Gadebridge community centre would make an excellent venue for BCF counties semi-finals, as the pub next door (the Goose and Gade) has one of those large TV screens for watching football. There is a bus stop outside the community centre, but as we saw no
buses at all during our time in Herts, perhaps this is a relic of a previous civilisation.
What is Tim Spanton on about (aversion to joining the BCF)? I daresay the BCF has some defects (not least its inappropriate name) but it is the internationally recognised local body for
administering chess. Surely its overall effect on the chess scene is beneficial? If Tim doesn't think so, perhaps he could explain why.
Mike mike@wxyz.demon.co.uk
From Tim Spanton
17.3.02
Richard,
Have you seen this from Stewart Reuben's BCF-site notes of the management board meeting of March 9?
"4. The April Council Meeting will be asked to ratify the proposal that FIDE Rated players whose names appear under England will be required to be BCF Members from September 2002."
[Yes, and I saw it in David Smith's report in our own BCF page 6 days ago, with extra information from Stewart as a bonus. But this idea's been around a long time.]
What I'd like to know is what happens to those of us who have an aversion to becoming BCF members. Will we be banned from playing in FIDE events or from having a rating? Or will we be allowed to register with another country, and if so, how? I've just remembered I'm a member of the US Chess Federation. Would that count?
I realise this is not a strictly SCCU matter, but it will affect SCCU players.
Tim tim.spanton@the-sun.co.uk
Tim adds, later:
David Smith's wording makes the proposal seem much more reasonable.
Either way I will no doubt end up forking out (and probably saving money into the bargain from reduced game fees - it's just the principle of the matter that gets me).
From Mark Finch
16.3.02
(Mark had some problems with a map this weekend)
Richard,
The task of county team captains is already fairly burdensome and I'm sure that any way to reduce this burden would be welcomed by all. If each captain could provide the Website with a copy of the map for their venues perhaps these could be scanned in (or perhaps even provided to you electronically) and put on the website for printing as necessary. All captains need therefore do before matches is to confirm the venue with the opposing captain and notify their team members, who can then just access the site and print the relevant map. Of course, it would still be necessary to circulate maps to those without internet access but the time and cost savings would still be beneficial.
Regards
Mark markfinch@lineone.net
Kent U175 match captain
rjh: I'm not keen on storing the odd dozen maps or two at half a Meg a go. (The entire site is a bit over 4½ Meg at the moment.) I expect there's a way of reducing a usable map to manageable proportions, but I don't know it. Any experts out there?
And anyway. There are websites dedicated to this sort of thing. Well, I suppose they wouldn't have all your little crosses and arrows and hieroglyphics written on them.
Roger de Coverly 17.3.02 mentions the website www.streetmap.co.uk, which is probably the one I had in mind.
Tim Spanton adds (same date): You want to be very careful about maps. There are copyright problems, especially with printing them out. "Everyone" does it, of course, but to go public with breaches of copyright could prove rather expensive.
rjh again: Perhaps we've been talking about sketch maps. A good sketch map is far more useful than a copyright general-purpose printed one.
From Pat Aarons
16.3.02
Dear Chris [see 13.3.02 below]
Thank you for your kind words regarding my record as junior organizer for
the SCCU.
I resigned because I believed that I could not administer the under 14/90 competition as I believe that the transformation of the Middlesex Girls Chess Assocation ("MGCA") from a girls team to a mixed team with boys on top boards was not what the SCCU Council intended when admitting the MGCA to membership.
Personally, I don't care whether the MGCA fields a girls team, a boys team, a mixed team or a team of monkeys as long as the will of the majority in the SCCU prevails.
Let's make no mistake about this--girls are not soppy! The junior girls really slugged it out at Blackpool; everyone commented on the strength of the junior girls, leaving the boys behind.
For the record, let me say also that Bruce Birchall is a great friend of mine, but I often disagree with him, as I do on this issue; my daughters and son have played for MGCA in the past and hopefully my daughter will do so in the future.
Best regards,
Pat Aarons pataarons@hotmail.com
From Philip Gregory
14.3.02
Richard
In the SCCU Open Forum you have published [see 10th and 11th March below] two messages complaining about the lack of information about how to get to Gadebridge, a Hertfordshire county venue, by public transport. I must confess that, as fixtures secretary, this is an aspect I forgot to look into on this occasion. The venue is my own club venue, regularly used for Hertfordshire league fixtures without any problem where most people come by car.
The Open Forum is a very helpful vehicle for obtaining feedback from users. I shall certainly satisfy myself about public transport before considering Gadebridge for another match. I am most grateful to those who commented.
Philip Gregory philip@grenzel.fsnet.co.uk
Herts Fixtures Secretary
36 The Cornfields, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire HP1 1UA: home 01442 242620: work 020 7679 4259: mobile 07762 380314
From Chris Rice
13.3.02
Richard
What's going on with this cat fighting in the SCCU U14s? In the minutes1 of the SCCU Executive Committee Meeting of 8.3.02 we were informed under item 5 that "Pat Aarons had resigned and her reasons would become apparent as you read on". However, I have read items 5 & 6 several times now and still cannot work out the reason. I think this is a crying shame as Pat was widely respected as a brilliant organiser of junior competitions. I, for one, would like to know why exactly she did resign. Was it the issue of boys playing in the girls team? Or the non-County members issue? Or simply that she was annoyed with Mr Birchall? Or perhaps all of the above?2
I can't really see the problem with the Middlesex Girls Chess Association and neither does the English Girls Chess Association3 either by the looks of it. After the match with the 'official' Middx team they announced on their web site "Middx Girls CA Trounce 'official' Middx team...MGCA fielding a team with 5 girls and 7 boys easily defeated the 'official' Middx team (all boys) by the wide margin of 19½-4½". The boys playing in this team must be congratulated. Not only does it show a mature sense of sexual equality but a lot of bravery as well. If a boy had got caught playing for a girls team when I was at school he would have been assured of getting a right duffing up by his classmates before reaching the safety of the classroom.
Also I can fully understand Essex's objections to the eligibility of the Middx Girls team in their match of the 19th January 2002. It is a well established school rule that girls are soppy. It is a rule of law that losing to a soppy girl in any kind of non-kitchen related activity is simply unacceptable and must be punished by a good duffing up and then being thrown into the school swimming pool. The situation must have been even worse for the other Essex boys who lost. How could they go back to school and explain that not only did they lose to a girls team but they lost to a boy posing as a girl. Those Essex boys must have been terrified of the tortures they were going to receive. Therefore in order to save face (or at least part of their face) and even knowing they had no legitimate grounds on which to appeal must have desperately gone to their mums to do something about it and try and get the result changed or at least the match downgraded to a friendly.
Chris Rice chris.rice@fsa.gov.uk
1 Positively not minutes. The reports of SCCU meetings which appear on this site are your Webmaster's personal accounts, just as the reports of BCF meetings are the SCCU Representative's personal accounts. The formal minutes are different in kind, and in the SCCU's case are not published generally.
2 rjh: You'd have to ask Pat, but I think she was just sick of the constant fighting. What won't have helped is the fact that debate was not, shall we say, uniformly polite and constructive.
3 This is the English Counties Girls Chess Federation. It is not a regulatory body for Girls chess in England.
From Nick Butland
11.3.02
Richard,
Gadebridge [see below] was also the venue for the Open Championship match between Herts & Bucks. Hemel Hempstead was just about ideal for the 2 Aylesbury-based players travelling by car, halving the travelling time as compared with our normal home venue. But 3 of our number travelled independently by train (a fourth having been lost in transit).
I looked at the map & warned them to allow half an hour to walk the rest, but it did require longer. You can't expect students to cough up for taxis - as it was, I was very thankful to Richard Thursby for volunteering to travel out on the train at his own expense. In the event, it was dry (though winds were phenomenal), we picked up one on the way & the other two both made it safely.
One gentleman on my list of possibles is about seventy years of age. He might have survived the journey by public transport, but I don't think he would have been fit to play chess for 4 hours or more. Yet in fairness to the hosts, they were doing most of us a favour in switching the venue from the previously advertised Stevenage, so thanks for trying, guys. I guess I know where we'll be in 2004.
Nick Butland nick.butland@acco-uk.co.uk
Bucks
From John Cannon
10.3.02
Dear Richard,
I am writing to point out that the Herts venue of Gadebridge Community Centre hardly complies with the competition controller's guidelines regarding accessibility to players using public transport. On March 9th, after two and in one case three train journeys, 3 of our Sx U150 team arrived at Hemel Hempstead station, having been given advice to take a taxi to the venue, but no actual indication as to how far away it was or whether it was on a bus route. No taxis were available, and whilst we could doubtless have obtained one in due course, we decided to walk, and were surprised to discover that it took 45 minutes. I found it easy to conjure up a vision of smoke coming out of Trevor Jones's ears, had he been there!
Defaults have long been a problem in county matches, and the two Herts defaults in this match brought the total that Sussex have received in two U150 matches each against Herts and Surrey this season to 16. - The equivalent of one whole match, and one in four pairings. The Sx "victims" on this occasion were 12 and 14-year olds, and to add insult to injury, the 14-year old also received a default against Surrey at Coulsdon in the previous match. Surely it should be possible for teams (especially home ones) to be so organised that named players attend, except in exceptional circumstances on the day, and known defaults are routinely, rather than sometimes, conceded the night before matches, to avoid opponent-less players unnecessarily travelling long distances at considerable expense, and wasting their time.
Yours sincerely,
John Cannon cannon149@tesco.net
Horsham
rjh: Now all we need is for someone to send the result of the match. Later: Got it.
From Trevor Jones
(Well, this one at least wasn't going to be about football)
2.3.02
to SCCU Bulletin Editor
Dear Richard
I played away for Surrey U175 v Sussex at Hassocks today, always an
enjoyable fixture in good weather (as it was) for a nice sunny walk up on
the South Downs past Jack & Jill windmills before the match. At the match
the ever efficient Sussex captain already had team lists (both sides)
printed in colour, in blocks of 4 boards with different colours each, to
post up for all to see. This made me think: wouldn't county chess be more
competitively interesting if the 4 blocks were separate sub-teams, each
playing for a separate match point toward a total of 4 match points per
16-board match. I think it would make better team spirit as mortals like me
could, as in a club match, keep some sort of eye on 3 other games in their
own sub-team and act accordingly (i.e. decide whether to go for a safe draw
or risky win according to the situation, or whether or not agree a draw).
As it is, the actual match is little more than a good civilised-rate game of
chess as keeping an eye on 15 others is too much for me. What do other
readers think?
PS. Richard O'Brien very enterprisingly (and presumably with permission) had set up a chess book display to one side of the playing room, which I'm sure was much appreciated by the three or four people I saw looking at his books and possibly even buying one. However I suggest that where available (as it was) such a display would be better in a separate analysis room in future.
Anyway my thanks to Sussex as usual for taking me somewhere nice (and convenient for the railway station too) for their home match against Surrey.
H.Trevor Jones htjones@raildev.fsnet.co.uk
67 Guildford Park Avenue, Guildford GU2 7NH 01483 565319
From Cyril Johnson
2.3.02
Richard
I have just consulted the fixture list of the World
Cup.
The only problem which will arise is if England came 2nd in their group, when their game will have a 12.30 pm. ko. I calculate that this will mean the match finishing at 2.40 even with extra time. So the chances of the match involving England is 3-1 and the chance of extra time etc being needed is about 3-1. If a late start is needed, then so be it.
Cyril cyriljohnson@yahoo.co.uk
From John Philpott
2.3.02
I am sorry that you wish to bring the football correspondence to an end [some chance! - rjh] as I have been enjoying it far more than the bulk of the e mail exchanges that I have had to engage in since I first became involved in chess administration. However, it would be unreasonable to draw a line under it with Cyril's letter of yesterday if this is going to leave you as "puzzled of Tunbridge Wells". I would therefore like to add the following points.
(1) I believe that the Director also enjoys his football and it is noticeable that for the last few years the clashes that used to occur between the County Championship quarter finals and the FA Cup final have been avoided.
(2) Had the Director not prescribed an alternative date, the rules would have provided for the default date of the semi-final to be on 8 June, a date which the correspondence to date suggests would have been satisfactory from both a chess (one tournament compared with three according to Mr Norris) and a World Cup point of view.
(3) The date was changed by the director in a commendable attempt to keep everybody happy after I proposed at Council that he exercise his discretion on the matter as it became clear that the debate on the Warwickshire proposal was unlikely to lead to a consensus. The World Cup draw was, of course, not known at the time.
(4) The Warwickshire proposal in question was indeed to make the Counties Team semi-final default weekend be the first weekend in June, but I believe that this was in order to avoid a clash with the MCCU Open rather than an internal Warwickshire event. Regardless of the inherent merits of this proposal (and for some reason this brings Jeff Goldberg's splendid comments about FIDE changing the World Cup dates to mind) this would not have been a sensible solution in the unusual circumstances of 2002 when June 1 falls within the Jubilee Bank Holiday weekend.
(5) The MCCU Open at Kenilworth now appears to be taking place on 21 to 23 June rather 7 to 9 June. If I was the Director, I would be distinctly unimpressed with this particular turn of events.
(6) As has been pointed out in the correspondence, Counties can mutually agree a different date. Should Essex U175s qualify for the semi-final I may well take the matter up with the opposing match captain who (perhaps ironically in the circumstances) happens to be the President of Warwickshire.
John Philpott john@johnphilpott.freeserve.co.uk
From Cyril Johnson
1.3.02
Richard
With reference to the correspondence about the dates for the World Cup and the BCF counties-semi-final. You are correct, I had to furnish the dates for the BCF event by October 14th or be in default of the rules.
My silence on the matter is due to two factors. I buried my father 5 weeks ago. Secondly, I remember there being a precursor to the discussion 4 years ago when the received wisdom was that England would get to the semi-finals which would clash date and time with
the Counties Finals. Dire prognosications were foretold.
England lost in the previous round.
This is a semi-final round. I fixed this date having had representation at the AGM, which those present will remember from Warwicks that their tournament would be on the 1st Saturday, and that I must be told to miss it. Their event is now being held on June 8th I believe, check the calendar.1
Ken Norman was the first out of the blocks with this problem, and I did reply to him. There are too many variants to take everything into account when I draw up the initial dates.
What I would hope is that teams are gracious with each other in coming to arrangements which recognise the interest in the World Cup, and that if anyone wants to speak to me, they contact me on 0116 260 9012 or the usual email addresses.
Julie and I wish to thank those who sent their condolences.
Cyril Johnson cyriljohnson@yahoo.co.uk
1 rjh: I'm puzzled. There was a Warwicks proposal, heavily defeated, to hold the semi-finals on the 1st June. I've looked for the Warwicks Congress, and I can't even find it on the 8th. I may have looked in the wrong calendar. It was the BCF one.
From Mick Norris
28.2.02
Richard,
Hope you will accept a MCCU submission.
The football date is a very important debate.
According to the BCM & BCF tournament calendars, there are 3 chess tournaments on June 15th & only one on June 8th. Solution - change the BCF semi from June 15 to June 8. England play Argentina June 7th, so there will be no clash on the 8th.
Regards,
Mick mick@pcfp.co.uk
Bury CC
rjh: Only too pleased to accept contributions from the other Unions. Really I can't do better than repeat what I've said in a footnote to the next letter down. The Controller, himself an MCCU person, has not said why he changed the dates. You know who to take it up with.
From Chris Rice
28.2.02
Richard
After John Philpott's point on the World Cup I have checked the FIFA and Sky
Sports web sites. I can hardly believe it but I have to admit he's
absolutely right. This is serious stuff as not only will this cause problems
in raising a team but the traffic on the roads in the lead up to kick off
time is likely to cause some trouble as well.
However this is all based on the assumption that England finish in second place rather than winning the group or not qualifying at all. Should the people who arranged the venue etc be put to all the trouble of rearranging based on this hypothetical situation? Could I perhaps suggest that if England do qualify in second place and play on that day at 12.30 that we should put back the start of the County matches to say 6pm? Obviously this would mean a late finish but at least it's an option. Other than that (and the ideal solution of course) is to move it back to the 8th June which everyone was perfectly happy with.
Chris Rice chris.rice@fsa.gov.uk
Kent Open Team Captain
rjh: I suppose someone must have been unhappy with the 8th. The Controller didn't say why he'd changed the date. I thought it was something to do with the MCCU Championship Congress, but that seems to be the weekend after the 15th. Perhaps they changed it.
I shouldn't think anyone's arranged any venues for the semi-finals yet. Maybe it's now time to close this correspondence and leave it to the match captains who get that far. The 15th June is only the default date after all. They can play earlier if they want, or even on Sunday 16th if hangovers permit.
From John Philpott
27.2.02
(Not sure this was meant for publication, it just came up in an email. But no fact is too small if we are to resolve the football question.)
In respect of Chris Rice's comments, the Soccernet website suggests that the World Cup match on 15 June potentially involving England will kick off at 12.30 BST, which would overlap with a County Match starting at 14.00, particularly if the football went to extra time and penalties.
John Philpott john@johnphilpott.freeserve.co.uk
From Chris Rice
26.2.02
Richard
I believe that the arguments made about the semi-finals of the County
Championships clashing with the football on June 15th (or moving it back to
June 8th or whatever) are missing a rather important factor. Japan and Korea are approximately 8 or 9 hours ahead and unless the County matches have been rescheduled at around breakfast time I don't think there is going to be a problem. In fact I'm looking forward to watching the footy in the morning, playing chess in the afternoon and going for a drinkette or two in the evening. Assuming of course Kent make it that far!
Chris Rice chris.rice@fsa.gov.uk
Kent Open Team Captain
From Jeff Goldberg
21.2.02
Re Ken Norman's suggestions [two letters down] re the potential World Cup Clash, there is one other solution which surprisingly seems to have escaped him, namely that the Controller write to FIFA immediately advising them that their little competition clashes with the BCF Counties Semi-Final day.
I feel sure that, once it is explained to FIDE that literally dozens of would-be football fans will be playing chess instead of watching the game live on TV, FIFA would have little option but to move the possible England match from 15 Jun to a more convenient date.
I think he should also politely suggest that FIFA pay a little more attention to changes in the BCF calendar in order to avoid embarrassing themselves similarly in the future.
Jeff Goldberg Ilfordchessclub@aol.com
From Nick Butland
20.2.02
On grading limits (see John Philpott two letters down)
Things are different in Buckinghamshire, where we don't have the numbers that Essex or Kent can call on, so:
(1) Our "second" team plays in the Chiltern League (U170). In practice, our top board in recent years has been around 150 or less. (I speak from prolonged, painful, experience.)
(2) Despite the captain's best efforts, the strongest team we have put out in the Open this year had an average grading of 174, so no problems in qualifying for Minor Counties once the halcyon run of two years ago vanishes over the horizon.
Dwindling numbers over the last decade mean that only a handful of counties can put out a team in the U175 which would differ significantly from their Open side. Maybe easy access to Birmingham via the M40 is a local factor, but it seems that all those players of decent strength who want extra involvement at a weekend should be able to find a 4NCL team. So I certainly concur with John Philpott, even though it's unlikely to be a factor for this county.
Nick Butland nick.butland@acco-uk.co.uk
Aylesbury, Bucks
P.S. If you are graded 190+ & have a grandmother who once stopped at a tea-shop in Beaconsfield, get in touch...we'll make you eligible somehow.
From Ken Norman
17.2.02
Richard
I noticed that the date for the semi final matches in the Counties Championship has been changed from the 8th June to the 15th June. I see a potential problem for match captains with this change of date.
The world cup begins on the 31st May and many (most?)chessplayers have an interest in football. The original date of the 8th June is not a problem as on that day South Africa play Slovenia, Brazil play China and Italy play Croatia and I suspect that most chessplayers would be prepared to sacrifice watching these games.
However the situation the following weekend is very different. Should England qualify from the "group of death" they will play their next match on either Saturday 15th June or Sunday 16th June and this will not be known until the games England v Nigeria and Sweden v Argentina have been completed on the evening of Thursday 12th June.
It is probable that match captains may have problems raising a team on the 15th and at best be in a situation where players will not confirm their availability until the night of 12th June.
As this is only the end of February there is time to rearrange the date of the semi-final either by returning to the 8th June or if that is not possible to an alternative date. I would suggest Sunday 23rd June as this is a rest day in the World Cup.
Ken Norman ken.norman1@virgin.net
Later (rjh note): Ken missed the changed dates for the BCF Stage when we published them in November. He recognises that the Controller would not have had the World Cup draw available at the time.
From John Philpott
12.2.02
(sent also to Cyril Johnson)
Cyril has posed the question as to whether there are any comments on the
suggestion made by an unspecified source [I believe it was a Northern county - rjh] to raise the County Championship U175 limit to U180. Comments are probably needed more from outside the SCCU area, as we have the paradoxical situation of an event which is flourishing within the SCCU, whereas the MCCU competition has this season dwindled to a state comparable to the NCCU, with a single qualifying match being played entitling the Union concerned to a single nomination for the National Stages.
I very much regret this state of affairs, and the fact that Essex will not have the opportunity to renew its rivalry with Nottinghamshire, Greater Manchester and whichever of Yorkshire and Lancashire do not qualify, as we have enjoyed good matches with all of these Counties in the past. While adjustments to grading limits would be worth considering if they would make a significant difference to the entry outside the SCCU, I feel highly sceptical as to whether the proposed change would, of itself, make that much of a difference. While the rather more drastic action taken in respect of the National Club this season has resulted in a more appropriate number of competitions, it has not succeeded in raising the overall entries, and the total absence of MCCU entries from the Major is particularly striking.
In terms of the SCCU competition in isolation, the proposed change that is not one that I would, on balance, welcome. Had an U180 limit been in operation this season, I would have had the opportunity to strengthen drastically the top boards of the Essex team as Messrs Marden, Winkworth, Saunders, Spink, Moore and Grist would all have been eligible for selection. However, the inclusion of some or all of these would have meant the exclusion from County Chess of players from the lower half of the team who are too highly graded for the U150 team, which is not a development that I would welcome.
One final point. I suspect that as the limits stand at present, it would be exceedingly difficult for a County to mount a realistic challenge in the National Stages for both the Minor Counties (with an average U180 limit) and the U175 championship. The proposed change could only make these difficulties worse.
John Philpott john@johnphilpott.freeserve.co.uk
50 Cranston Gardens, Chingford, London E4 9BQ
From Trevor Jones
8.2.02
Richard
SCCU Bulletin [see also BCF page 26.1.02, item 1]: gradings on web
I suggest have full grading info on the web as per current big fat grading
list, or even as per master-list if it still exists [it does: rjh], but have a smaller cut-down publication to carry to matches. The current big book is too big for me to carry around (to/from work with mile walk on weekday, often to/from my Mother Saturday night). All we need on the day is name,
initials, single main location identifier (county or geographically
meaningful prime club name - in the old SCCU system I used to run it would
be the first two digits of the 4-digit club code), and 3-digit current
normal-play grade. The list could even be cut down to active players with a
higher minimum number of games than in the big fat list. If not everyone in
match is in list, you can interpolate in a team event. I personally
dislike the habit of many players of asking their opponent their grade
before starting. Why not also ask them what opening they play or "how good
are you" in so many words?
H.Trevor Jones htjones@raildev.fsnet.co.uk
67 Guildford Park Avenue, Guildford GU2 7NH 01483 565319
Tim Spanton tim.spanton@the-sun.co.uk remarks 11.2.02: "Don't bother asking them what opening they play. I've tried that. It doesn't work."
From Bruce Birchall
8.2.02
Dear Editor
The bare proposal [see What's New? 6.2.02] for a change from U-175 to U-180 in the Counties Championship, without a reason for it, reads peculiarly. Why this move at this time? I suspect it may be for those minor counties who cannot field a decent Open team to have a competition in which their top few players are not barred. Well if so, a shift of 5 points seems tinkering. Some top players will still be barred. It would be more logical to go for an average grade of U175, to facilitate these players being included. Something similar is now the norm in the National Club Championships [not to mention the Minor Counties: - rjh].
Perhaps Cyril could explain the thinking behind this rather than our being left to guess at it?
Bruce Birchall bhbirchall@hotmail.com
From Kevin Thurlow
7.2.02
Dear Richard
I noted the references to the "Criminal Records Bureau" in your BCF News page. It is essential to have checks on people associated with children in any field of endeavour. And in chess, there have been several accusations of serious sexual assault against a number of individuals. But what of the practicalities?
A local school teacher approached Redhill chess club and asked if someone could teach chess to a young girl. We found a volunteer (himself married to a teacher) and he happily filled in the appropriate forms. Coaching would have taken place at the school with other teachers present at all times. That was September - the forms have been sent to the police and nothing has happened. Why not? Were they totally incompetent? Eventually I remembered to look at the CRB website, where it said it was compulsory to register, but it wouldn't go live until March 1st 2002.
If this sort of delay is typical, there are going to be big problems. We now have a child who may well be losing interest, other children may have become interested once the first child had received coaching so we have lost them as well. Our enthusiastic coach may wonder why he bothered to volunteer.
One hopes that once the system is live, speedy decisions will be made, but it seems crazy that people were forced to register 5 months in advance, when there was no intention of doing the check.
More seriously, people might get fed up with waiting for a decision and do without the checks altogether. That will certainly not happen here, but it will somewhere.
It will be very interesting to see how this scheme operates. There is no point having a good idea if you fail to implement it properly.
best wishes
Kevin Thurlow Kevin.Thurlow@lgc.co.uk
Chairman, Redhill Chess Club
From Stephen Hart
6.2.02
I am surprised that Tim Spanton [four letters down] quotes only the first line of Article 12.5. What about the rest of it? "This includes the persistent offer of a draw". In my experience this has been a far more frequent occurrence, and I think a second draw offer should be treated like an illegal move, i.e. an immediate two minute time penalty should be imposed. For a third draw offer this should be repeated, and for a fourth the opponent should be able to claim a win.
Obviously this can only be imposed if the opponent has made no intervening draw offers himself. Maybe the same procedure could be applied to mobile phones? If this were included in the county rules it wouldn't matter if there were no arbiter present.
Stephen Hart HARTS564@aol.com
Cambs
rjh: Tim didn't quote 12.5., Geurt Gijssen did, and I think the reason he didn't quote the rest of it was that no one was talking about draw offers at the time. I'm happy to extend the correspondence to draw offers if readers wish.
From Bernard Cafferty
6.2.02
For Open Forum
FIDE Rules envisage an arbiter being in place to ..."ensure a good environment is maintained and ...players are not disturbed". Scott Freeman's point [below] that arbiters are not normally present at county matches (they were in the 1970s when the likes of Harry Baines were appointed by the BCF to control matches in the final stages) has been considered before.
Two responses may be mentioned:-
(1) The late Ritson Morry always maintained that at league/county matches the role of arbiter devolved upon the two captains jointly. When I served with him and Harry Baines on the B'ham League rules committee, these senior arbiters were always interested not only in the facts of a dispute, but in what action (or possibly inaction) came from the captains.
(2) The Dutch arbiter with the difficult name (Gert Guijsen is it?) recently considered the issue in his Chess cafe column and pointed out that in lower sections of the Dutch League, it is incumbent on the home side to
nominate a club member, not playing in the match, who acts as arbiter.
Presumably, in the higher divisions the assumption is that there is less
likelihood of disputes. One wonders... though I must say that the worst
behaviour on January 26th at Coulsdon came from the third match - a group
of players took part in a verbal post-mortem while other games were
continuing; when I asked them to desist, their looks made it clear that
they thought I was in the wrong and not them!!
In a recent Belgium open tournament, a visiting IM was defaulted immediately his phone rang out - an announcement had been made before the tournament that this was to be the penalty, and his plea that he did not understand the announcement, which had been made in more than one language, was rejected.
Nor should phones be left on in silent mode, think the Belgians. After all, they argue, does not a text message provide a way of cheating?
Bernard Cafferty 101466.453@compuserve.com
Hastings
From Scott Freeman
5.2.02
I fully agree with Angus French's comments on mobile phones. It's one thing
to accidentally forget to switch a phone off when you go into a match and
then look embarrassed when it rings (which must be forgiven), but to then
leave it switched on or deliberately have a conversation at the board is
nothing less than selfish, not only to opposing players, but to their own
players as well. It shows a complete lack of consideration for other
people - they should surely at least leave the room to have the
conversation.
Because of my job, I often have mine switched on during a game, but it sits on the table in front of me with the ringer switched off, so as not to distract anyone when it rings. Unless people withhold their number when they call you, most mobile phones can be used to check back and see who has phoned them if they miss the call, so I really feel that there should be no excuse (except in extreme circumstances) to have the ringers on during play...
Rule 13 allows penalties against such players, but of course, as there is no arbiter present at county matches, this is difficult to enforce. Even with an arbiter present, a warning would be the most likely first penalty, but I would certainly support much stricter penalties against players who fail to switch them off after the first offence... I am not sure whether or not a specific rule should be brought in to cover it, but I can certainly agree that there is an argument there for it!
I remember Steve Boniface commenting to me at the Surrey Congress in 2000 about the number of mobile phones ringing during play. He obtained a nasty-looking window pole and stuck a sign on it saying "Mobile Phone Extractor", and placed it by the Major control desk. I think they stopped after that.
Scott Freeman scott.freeman@btinternet.com
Coulsdon
From Bernard Cafferty
5.2.02
Angus French is well justified in reacting to the repeated disturbance at
Coulsdon on January 26. There were no fewer than three matches in the same
room, leading to overcrowding and various cases of disturbance from
conversation, either in the room itself from players who had finished their
games, or through unclosed doors that led into the refreshment area.
I counted three disturbances from mobile phones during play, twice when
there followed a conversation "behind the hand", and once from a catchy
tune when a player (from a visiting team?) who was late dashed into the
room and did not turn off his mobile until it had played a few bars of
music - was it "Greensleeves"?
A Surrey official did not remonstrate with the mobile user until I had drawn his attention to the disturbance. Perhaps I felt the lack of respect for those still in play more severely than most, since my game was last to finish and I enjoy good hearing. Generally speaking, I find standards of behaviour at formal chess matches are deteriorating as selfish players/spectators ignore the rules with impunity.
Is it not the case that players who have finished their games are
considered to be spectators, and that the arbiter has it within his powers
to expel offenders/spectators from the playing venue? See FIDE Rules 12 and
13: Conduct of the Players and Role of the Arbiter.
Bernard Cafferty 101466.453@compuserve.com
Hastings
From Tim Spanton
5.2.02
Geurt Gijssen in his Arbiter's Notebook column at the Chess cafe website wrote this reply to a query on mobile phones:
"Let me quote the first sentence of Article 12.5: It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever.
"Well, I think everybody will agree with me that a ringing mobile, and for sure if it is your opponent's, is very annoying. And such an infraction shall lead according to Article 12.6 to a penalty. The only question is what kind of penalty. I announce in each tournament that I give an official warning for the first ring and declare the game lost if it happens for the second time in the same game to the same player. And I can assure you that this system works.
"The case is a little bit complicated if a player, for instance a doctor, needs a mobile. In such cases ad hoc decisions must be taken and I like to leave these decisions to the arbiters
involved."
Tim Spanton tim.spanton@the-sun.co.uk
From Angus French
4.2.02
Richard,
The week before last I played for the Surrey U150 team in their match vs.
Sussex. Last Saturday I played in the Surrey vs. Middlesex U175 match.
On the first occasion a player from my own county but playing in another match held two mobile phone conversations at his board during play (and was reprimanded by my captain). On the second occasion a Middlesex player who had finished his game held a mobile phone conversation in the playing hall within feet of games still in progress.
I was astonished at what I perceived as a lack of consideration for other players and wondered: a) whether such an eventuality should be covered specifically in a rule (SCCU or BCF or FIDE) or whether the rules were sufficient as they stood; b) whether I was overreacting.
I would be interested to know the thoughts of others.
regards,
Angus French Angus.French@icl.com (Surrey)
rjh: Is this still going on? How rife is it? Mobiles actually are specifically banned in the BCF Counties Championship Rules, down at the bottom as a September-2000 addition. That's not a rule that applies at the Union stage, and certainly the SCCU hasn't adopted it. Should we come into line? What should the penalty be? I'm sure FIDE have specific rules about it, though not in the Laws, and they're enforced in FIDE events. Can anyone quote them?
__________
No, nothing's missing. Unusually, there was a four-month gap when nobody wrote.
__________
From Chris Bourne
27.9.01
Dear Mr Haddrell,
I am a student looking for volunteers to assist me with my research into different forms of leisure, one of these being chess. I am interested in what motivates people to pursue such hobbies and what they gain from taking part. An email questionnaire will be sent to anyone willing to take part, and full details of the research presented if required. Volunteers will be able to remain anonymous, except for their email addresses, and any information will be confidential to the research and not passed on to anyone else.
I look forward to hearing from anyone who is able to help.
Many Thanks.
Chris Bourne cbourne@ucrysj.ac.uk (after 1st October cbourne@yorksj.ac.uk)
Student Occupational Therapist
University College of Ripon & York St John, England
From Chris Majer
25.9.01
I wonder whether there would be any interest in an SCCU event similar to the current U180 Jamboree but with a lower grade limit (say U135). Given the new NCMs and the wider number of available players, it ought to be a viable and successful event. Perhaps counties and NCMs would like to say whether they would play in such an event?
Chris Majer CEMAJER@aol.com
SCCU President
From Jeff Goldberg
16.9.01
Notwithstanding the fact that the National Club Handicap Rapidplay system is flawed [see Tim Dickinson below] and the Counties Team Rapidplay system is statistically fair, may I congratulate both events for having a system which rewards weaker players and penalises stronger ones.
Indeed, may I suggest that the idea be taken one stage further with the introduction of non-competitive tournaments, where the stronger player is obliged to tell his opponent what the best move is so as to guarantee the stronger player has no advantage over his poor little opponent. Now that would be really fair.
Jeff Goldberg Ilfordchessclub@aol.com
From Tim Dickinson
14.9.01
Hi Richard,
Read with interest your commentary on handicaps. Here's another possible absurdity with the Nat Club handicap system.
Seven teams enter, five with average grade 201, two with average grade 79, forcing a seven-round all-play-all. Well, it's time for the 201-teams to pack up and go home already. Why? Their maximum possible score after handicap is 8 (24-16). One of the minnows, after the inter-minnow match, will be on at least 7 (2+5). Therefore, for a 201-average team to win, they need to score 23.5/24 or better AND hope that the inter-minnow match doesn't finish 3-1 or worse. In fact, the minnows are already assured of at least second and third place BEFORE they even start play!
With the other system (Counties QP) the minnows still have a chance but they would need to play well to win. All the 201's would have an equal chance of victory.
Regards,
Tim T.Dickinson@btinternet.com
Back to top
Back to SCCU home page