OPEN FORUM

Updated 31.8.05
OPEN FORUM

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

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

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

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

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

From Stewart Reuben
25.4.05
The En Passant was a centre of activity for poker as well as chess. It forms a central part of my forthcoming book, 'Poker 24/7: 35 years as a poker pro.' This is an undisguised plug, but you can contact me direct about the chess side.
Stewart Reuben Stewartreuben@aol.com
Twickenham

From Mike Gunn
3.4.05
Chris, Richard,
There is a 5 page article on the En Passant chess café in the July 1995 issue of Chess (then Chess Monthly).
Mike G mike@wxyz7.fsnet.co.uk

From Chris Rice [but nothing to do with the below!]
1.4.05
Richard
I am collecting some background research on the En Passant Chess Café in London which was a thriving den of chess low lifes in the 1960s. There is nothing on the Internet and I can't find many records. Did anyone ever go there and play any five minute chess or know any interesting stories about it?
Chris Rice chris.rice@fsa.gov.uk

From Chris Rice
23.3.05
Richard
Further to my earlier emails I've been informed that the annual Roses match between Lancashire and Yorkshire was played on Sunday 20th February at the Latvian Club Bradford and it was played over 16 boards, not 12 as in some years, although there is no match sheet posted yet on the BCF, Lancashire or Yorkshire web sites, I've checked this morning to confirm this. Not that I have any problem here I might add, the NCCU are entitled to nominate a County even if no match was played and yes they are a nice bunch of blokes.
     I also see from the web sites that the draw is unchanged with Greater Manchester being (1) and Warks (2), is this going to stand then Cyril? [rjh: see below]
     This Greater Manchester-Lancashire-NCCU dispute is interesting isn't it? I had no idea this all happened 31 years ago. I've had loads of minutes and versions of what went on sent to me but that was a battle fought long ago so I'm not sure I would want to stir it up again. Indeed, Greater Manchester's participation in the Counties Championship has been going on so long now I think it would be unfair to question their existence now, especially since participation in the Counties Championship is declining and they are one of the few really competitive teams. However, there are some things that are crystal clear, that they are not a County in the traditional sense otherwise why not let in Birmingham, Leeds, Southampton etc and turn it into another version of the 4NCL? (Not such a bad idea really.)
     Is there any truth in the rumour that the real reason that Greater Manchester joined the MCCU was because the traffic across the Pennines was so bad and the only reason they now want to join the NCCU is that the M6 is a nightmare?
Chris Rice chris.rice@fsa.gov.uk
rjh note. The draw is unchanged on the BCF site (updated today). But the MCCU tournament controller has confirmed that M1 is now Warwicks and M2 is Gtr Manchester.

From Cyril Johnson
20.3.05
Richard
About the MCCU Open nominations.
     This year it was intimated to Neil Beasley (the MCCU Controller) that Warwicks v Gtr Manchester could not be played until after the deadline, so Neil made the decision [in accordance with MCCU rules] that MCCU1 would be Gtr Manchester [as the best scorers in the semi-finals]. But a Final match was [subsequently] arranged for March 19th, from which Gtr Manchester withdrew because of precipitate withdrawal of drivers. Bad luck, but it happens.
     With reference to the Gtr Manchester/Lancs question. One of the reason why so many players who could qualify for Gtr Manchester play for Lancs is that Gtr Manchester only runs teams at Open and U150. If you are rated U117, there is no chance of county chess unless you can qualify to play for Lancs.
     Gtr Manchester were welcomed into the MCCU to allow them to have a home when the NCCU felt itself unable to accept them, 31 years ago. The NCCU management have changed completely in that time. I have always found them very reasonable to deal with.
     Any county can accept or reject a request to join them, as they are autonomous bodies as regards the chess played in their area. Their conduct of county championship qualifying tournaments is also their own business.
Cyril Johnson cyriljohnson@yahoo.co.uk
BCF Home Director
rjh: I have inserted two or three phrases in square brackets, in Cyril's first paragraph, in order to clarify his meaning, and I hope I have done it right. I think I have. I had no idea the 19th-March Final had been called off. The MCCU site is still listing it, and Neil Graham two days ago didn't say a word.
     But the bombshell came in what Cyril told me afterwards on the phone. Gtr Manchester did not just postpone the 19th-March Final for want of drivers, they defaulted it. So MCCU's first nominee is Warwicks and their second is Gtr Manchester. Cyril said this explicitly. The MCCU and BCF websites are still saying otherwise, and Cyril presumably spoke with a Controller's hat on and not an MCCU one. But he was very clear about it, and I'd think he was in a position to know. Formal confirmation cannot come from the SCCU Website.

From Jack Rudd
19.3.05
Just to clarify a point mentioned by Chris Rice: the reason WECU have six teams but only one place in the Open quarter-finals is that only one team applies for the place in the Open quarter-finals. Wiltshire, Gloucestershire and Hampshire prefer to ply their trade in the Minor Counties Championship, Devon decline to enter either, preferring to have a team in the U-175 championship, and Cornwall do not participate in the national stages at all. That means our nomination has gone through unopposed in the last three seasons.
Jack Rudd JackKelshallRudd@aol.com
Bideford
Somerset captain

From Paul Buswell
19.3.05
Richard:
In answer to a question by Mick Norris:
     I can't quote you chapter and verse and dates, but players with a county championships qualification arising from a geographical locus in that part of the 'traditional' county of Lancashire which lay in the area of the 1974 Greater Manchester metropolitan county were specifically given the right to opt for EITHER Greater Manchester or Lancashire; (mutatis mutandis this applied to Cheshire players too). This right was given to players both with a qualification in 1974 and also to players whose qualification only arose after 1974. This was a specific decision of the BCF General Meeting (Council) in, I guess, the late 1970s. It was part of a compromise reached at that time having regard to the contentious and emotional nature of feelings on this issue - I don't recall to what extent the compromise was acceptable to the counties concerned but it was laid down by the BCF's highest authority.
     Conversely, when the Merseyside Chess Association affiliated to the BCF the right of dual qualification was extended only to players whose geographical qualification arose prior to Merseyside's affilation; those gaining a qualification in that area at a later date could only qualify for Merseyside. The difference with Merseyside was that their affilation had the blessing of NCCU and of the counties affected.
     The above is the best of my recollection and may be wrong in minor detail but not in the gist.
PB PBusw13724@aol.com

From Neil Graham
18.3.05
Dear Richard
I could add plenty of material to the Greater Manchester/Lancashire debate that seems to have taken over your forum at present. However to return to the original point, if Chris Rice had read the MCCU rules on their website he would have noted:-
     "The winners of the MCCU Final, if played by the BCF entry deadline, be MCCU 1."
[rjh: This is exactly the rule I quoted, giving the MCCU website as my source, except that I put the missing word in. Chris's remarks make it quite obvious he's read it. The rule is clear, and it determines the nomination. Neil goes on to quote the next sentence:]
     "If the Final match has not been played, the winners of the MCCU Semi-finals with the best score be [sic] MCCU 1."
[rjh: I did not quote this because it doesn't apply. 19th March (the scheduled date for the Final) is before the BCF entry deadline.]
     Absolutely crystal clear why Greater Manchester is MCCU I now?
Neil neil.graham@ntlworld.com
[rjh: No. I'm amazed.]

From Mick Norris
18.3.05
Richard
Would you permit another non SCCU comment?
     I believe Paul Buswell is correct. What he may not be aware of, is that Greater Manchester have made approaches to the NCCU in the last few years, but our entry is so strongly opposed by Lancashire for the reasons that Paul mentions, that it was blocked.
     I am led to believe that the Greater Manchester Open team wish to remain in the MCCU, as this will give them more matches than the NCCU. Some of the U150 team, including me, would like to cut down on our travel by leaving the MCCU and joining the NCCU, even though in our division that would give us less games. It is pretty obvious that the north of our county belongs in the NCCU, but the south feel an affinity to the MCCU.
     The real question is, why are Lancs allowed to select players based on the pre-1974 boundaries, even if those players are born after 1974. I did not get a good answer from the BCF arbiter to whom I addressed that question during the 2004 BCF U150 semi-final between Lancs and Greater Manchester - which was played in Oldham, which on your map is in our county, but Lancs don't agree...
     The GMCCA no longer exists, having being subsumed into the MCF.
Regards,
Mick Norris mick@pcfp.co.uk
Chairman, Bury Chess Club
Greater Manchester

From Paul Buswell
18.3.05
Small historical point:
The Greater Manchester County Chess Association was formed round about late 1974 in the wake of the establishment of a Greater Manchester metropolitan county as part of local government re-organisation. They applied to join the NCCU, but their application was not accepted - I surmise that the assertion of the Lancashire Chess Association, that it was still the representative chess county for much of the new metropolitan county's area, was a major factor in the NCCU decision. The GMCCA application to join the MCCU was however accepted, and as a result they became affiliated to the BCF. This caused much offence to a number of individual players, who felt that such affiliation was improper. Legal action was taken against the BCF, which took a number of years to resolve.
PB PBusw13724@aol.com

From Chris Rice
18.3.05
Richard
I note what Graham says but I would add that if you reach the BCF stages you have to be prepared to travel long distances anyway. Three times in two months last year Kent had to go to villages in Leicestershire to play Lancashire, Yorkshire and Greater Manchester. My main argument was not so much the travelling distances but that there were inconsistencies in the way the competition is organised. From what I gather, any County can potentially join any Union and if we're all agreed on that then there is no problem as far as I'm concerned but how do you allocate the qualifying places? This year the NCCU got one place, not that there is a trace of any game being played by Lancashire to get it. In the SCCU there were five teams and three qualifying places. In the MCCU eight teams, three qualifying places and the WECU six teams but just one qualifying place. Not much consistency there it would seem. Perhaps we should forget all this qualifying stuff and move to a FA Cup style knockout. Wouldn't that be more exciting?
Chris chris.rice@fsa.gov.uk

From Graham Stuart
18.3.05
Richard,
I am sure the WECU committee would have something to say about Surrey joining the WECU - and I would be interested in seeing how many Surrey players would travel to play Cornwall away!
     One of the reasons Hampshire joined the WECU in the seventies was due to SCCU teams not being keen to travel to Hampshire to play the matches, but wanting to play them all in London!
Regards
Graham Stuart www.HampshireChess.co.uk
rjh: I nearly said. As far as I'm concerned Gtr Manchester can play in any Union that will have them, and the same goes for Surrey. MCCU must have said yes to Gtr Manchester at some point. We'll find out what WECU say to Surrey when they apply.
     Oh. We don't play everything in London these days. Hampshire Juniors do play in the SCCU, and we go to Basingstoke for our away matches!

From Chris Rice
17.3.05
Richard
The comments you append to the quarter final draw in the County Open [see BCF-Stage page] are interesting. As you suggest, how can MCCU by its own rules nominate Greater Manchester to be their No 1 County? The final of the MCCU competition is not due till the 19 March so are we to assume it's been fixed? Or perhaps it's so obvious Greater Manchester are going to win and as they are the reigning County Champions they should rightfully be the No 1 anyway? Before anyone even thinks it, this does not affect Kent as both Warks and Gtr Manchester are in the other half of the draw but you can see how such a system that the MCCU are operating could be open to abuse. OK, I don't think there is any dispute that Gtr Manchester are the No 1 MCCU County but it's a bit like the draw for the Champions League being done and then the Premier League deciding whether Arsenal or Man U would be facing AC Milan or Bayern Munich.
     I wonder also whether Gtr Manchester should be playing in the MCCU at all as they are a "Northern County" and this year we only have one NCCU representative County, Lancashire in the quarter-finals when I know chess is still thriving up north as I played Blackpool only last weekend. I believe Gtr Manchester left the NCCU because of some dispute which is fair enough but by joining the MCCU they not only cause the NCCU problems but they also take away a qualifying place from a real Midlands County. If this is seen as OK then why can't Surrey join the WECU for instance? Would they need to have a legitimate reason or could they just say that it would be easier to qualify that way? I have to say I wouldn't be totally averse to this reasoning as it might encourage other Counties like Berks, Bucks, Cheshire, Cumbria or whoever to come back in to the competition.
Chris Rice chris.rice@fsa.gov.uk
Kent Open Team Captain

From Bernard Cafferty
16.2.05
Richard,
Trevor Jones has a point, and I sympathise with his comments, but there have been changes in perceived correct behaviour over the decades.
     When I first played at clubs and BCF congesses, it was the norm that you offered to fetch a hot drink for the opponent when getting one of your own, but it was perceived after a while, especially when chess became more competitive (more open events and then the Fischer boom years) that this could be a distraction to you both, especially if a conversation over tea or coffee, one sugar or two etc .... broke out.
     The distraction could affect others, and I recall that the likes of Penrose did not accept such offers, and the demeanour of the stronger players like him made it clear that they did not welcome such conversation during play. Quite correct!
     Best practice is for the organiser/match captain to announce the nature of the facilities available and leave it up to the individual player to decide when to fetch a drink, with its potential for loss of thinking time. Essex, for example, where I played last, have a tea bar down one flight from the playing room, with someone in charge who issues the drink and biscuits/cake free to visitors, throughout the playing session. The lady in charge at Wanstead told me that some visitors had had two or three drinks free, when I offered to pay her for my second one!
     Bronstein once told me that when he first played Botvinnik in the 1940s, the Soviet 'patriarch' had expressed strong distaste for eating and drinking at the board, but, in his later matches, MMB was known for bringing his own flask of preferred fruit drink.
Bernard Cafferty bernardcafferty@tiscali.co.uk
Hastings
PS I prefer to make my own drink, if possible, to get the coffee's strength and amount of milk right to suit my taste.

From Trevor Jones
14.2.05
To The Editor of The SCCU Bulletin
Last Saturday I had a pleasant journey of over 2h by a series of mostly stopping trains for a return fare of £9.55 (with my Network Card) to get to an away club match. Arriving early I asked and was told where on the premises to go to get a nice coffee (in a proper cup and saucer) which cost me only £1 before the start. During early play I noticed one of the home team appear with a plastic cup of tea or coffee, presumably from a nearby machine. But despite the fact that I didn't even get a game, as presumably either there was a misunderstanding with my intended opponent or he had had a last-minute accident and couldn't let anyone know (such things do happen), no one thought to offer me a tea or coffee for my pains in turning up.
     It is something I have just occasionally noticed elsewhere before that a home player on his own premises gets himself a tea or coffee or even a bar-drink without any of the opposition being offered anything. I'm sure no competition has any rule about this, but I do think it is thoughtless and inhospitable. On the other hand there is one club I play against occasionally who don't have tea/coffee-making available on site but nevertheless turn up with a thermos or two to offer visitors a drink, so it can be done. At home matches of clubs I play for, normally either tea/coffee is laid on on a self-service basis or at least the home players are encouraged to offer to buy tea/coffee for their opponent from an adjacent bar.
Yours sincerely
H Trevor Jones htjones@raildev.fsnet.co.uk

From Jonathan Melsom
11.11.04
As I discovered last night one of the problems with the rules on mobile phones are the possible sanctions available. Last night in a club match a player on the opposing side had just finished his game, when his phone went off. I found this distracting but being a member of a club that doesn't like to make a fuss simply asked his match captain to advise the player to turn the phone off. What sanctions should apply in a team event - is the deduction of half a game point per infringement sufficient?
Jonathan Melsom jonathan.melsom@tiscali.co.uk
rjh: Are there any leagues out there which have rules about this sort of thing?

From Kevin Thurlow
5.11.04
Hi Richard
I think Scott's comments were largely tongue in cheek. However, FIDE (like many other sporting bodies) produces its laws to deal with top-level events. A GM tournament would probably be played in a hotel, and the players would just wander downstairs and play. (That is why there was a proposal to default players not present at the start of the game!) Obviously local leagues/clubs/tournaments are different and allowance should be made for that. You are not permitted to distract your opponent; if your phone goes off, it is a distraction to your opponent, and could be viewed as a deliberate one. So loss of game seems reasonable. Cheating is another factor, suppose your opponent is "texting"? He might be inviting a friend to the pub, or saying he'll be home soon as he's playing an idiot, or.... asking a friendly GM what is move 15 in the main line Sveshnikov. I think local leagues are quite entitled to just ban use of phones, rather than follow the entire law. (FIDE has a get-out clause about federations making minor amendments.) There can be benefits to having mobile phones though - if a player is trapped on a train, (s)he can warn their captain they will be late. One player was having trouble finding our venue last year, so a team-mate gave directions over the phone. "You should see a Sainsbury's in front of you, yes, cross the road there...." (He left the venue to do this).
     In a major GM tournament, players could expect to be defaulted for visiting the bookstall during a game. In weekend events, you normally find the bookstall is just outside the playing room, so you can't go for a coffee or go to the toilet without walking past the bookstall.
     The same rationale applies to other electronic devices. It is not totally unknown for players to use Fritz in the analysis room, so you can see why FIDE have shown concern. But we don't need to enforce these laws word for word..... Of course, FIDE might do better to have sensible time limits for their major events.

On an entirely different matter, I was arbiter at Thanet over the weekend, and was particularly impressed with the local players/organisers who worked really hard to ensure the tournament went well. Anyone who makes life pleasant for players and the other organisers has my vote.
Kevin Thurlow Kevin.Thurlow@lgc.co.uk
Redhill

From Ken Norman
5.11.04
Richard,
I read Scott Freeman's letter this morning and found that his thoughts about the proposed new FIDE rule mirrored my own. A law that awards an automatic lose if your mobile phone rings during a game is desirable and in fact long overdue. However the idea of a ban on the possession of a mobile phone in the venue is just nonsense. It has no relevance to the world of club, county and Weekend tournament Chess and should this Law be enacted it will I suspect simply be ignored by the ordinary chessplayer.
Ken Norman knorman@trl.co.uk
rjh: It's been enacted.

From Scott Freeman
4.11.04
Hi Richard
I have read the new rules on mobile phones with some agreement, some concern and some amusement. I should add that I am making these comments having read your summary on the SCCU web site and not having read or found the exact wording of this new rule. Does anyone know if it exists anywhere? [rjh: see footnote!]
     Although the rules already allowed an arbiter with a brutal enough outlook on the subject to take action against anyone whose mobile phone went off in the playing hall, it is fair to argue that a specific rule may have been needed to emphasise to arbiters that, perhaps, they should take a firmer line. Me included. FIDE's response? A hammer to crack a nut.
     Are we now going to have to use compulsory body searching at the door of our events to ensure that no-one gets through with any communications equipment? If so, I have a business oportunity there. I am trained as and work as a senior football crowd control steward. There can't be many of us in the chess world, so think I could earn a fortune by offering a service there.
     From July 2005, mobile phones cannot be brought into a venue, not just the playing hall, even if switched off. THE WHOLE VENUE! But the penalty of a loss only applies if it goes off during play. Surely you should also punish someone who is seen with one that doesn't go off, if you follow the strictness of the new ruling.
     Mind you, the other extreme is that if a loss applied to anyone bringing a mobile phone on site, I suspect that 90% of club players might as well give up chess as of next summer. Many come straight from work and rely on their phone for work. So do these phones now have to be lined up along the pavement outside every venue to prevent FIDE from imposing the strictest of penalties? What are players meant to do with them?
     I think Howard Curtis, Daniel Gliddon and myself will have the biggest problem of all when we play. We work at the Coulsdon chess venue, which is primarily a church and contains the church (Howard's) office as well as the chess office. Our mobile phones are vital sources of communication for our jobs. Do we now all have to take them offsite and then return before we can then legally play in our own venue??? And what about the nights I don't personally play but am there just as an arbiter or club organiser? Do I, as the arbiter, have an obligation to discipline myself for not taking my mobile off site before arbiting? I don't have time to.
     The area of "others" as opposed to players is another big problem. We have already heard the arguments about how you can't punish spectators at a tournament when their phones go off. All you can do is kick them out; nothing different there. And what about members of the CCF church who are nothing to do with chess and happen to be attending personal meetings with Howard in the church office whilst the club or an event is on? Does FIDE now have to introduce a rule to state that all venues can be used only for chess tournaments and nothing else at the time events are in progress? Is this legally workable? No way.
     And a very serious point. What about clubs that meet upstairs in pubs. I can only assume that the club secretary will be obliged to go downstairs and confiscate mobile phones off all of the drinkers who are nothing to do with chess...... Easy!
     I applaud the idea of a rule and fully agree with the reasons for it. However, I feel the application, if I have read it right, must be more or less unworkable. Let's have a draconian rule in the playing area and for players whose games are still in progress. But the whole venue??? Parents of young players working whilst their child is playing? Captains needing to hear from players running late? People running book stalls? Catering staff at venues where they are not employed by the congress? Teenagers who walk to club and have a phone for their own safety? I think you get the idea.
      I have come to the following conclusion. Richard Haddrell, as I recall, failed miserably in his role as SCCU Webmaster in providing us with a suitable April Fools Joke this year. At the time, I had built myself up not to get caught out by anything and looked eagerly on the web site on 1st April to see his annual gem. NOTHING. And he hasn't even been disciplined for it! But now I understand. His joke is 7 months and 2 days late.
Scott Freeman chess@ccfworld.com
rjh footnote Of course the text exists, I wouldn't have commented on it otherwise. I apologise for my failure to do a 2004 April Fool, but this wasn't it.
     My copy came from Stewart Reuben, who I believe has distributed it quite widely. I'll send it on by email to anyone who asks, and I hereby deem Scott to have asked. I'm not aware that FIDE have published it, and I'm pretty sure the BCF haven't.
     I think Scott has taken the mobile-phone rule more seriously than I did.

From Cyril Johnson
1.11.04
Richard
With reference to Chris Rice's email [22.7.04 below] about Hinckley. The room was set out for us by the venue staff, who apologised when I pointed out that I would have preferred to have been consulted. The venue was as hot as the weather, but I saw no score sheets being blown up into the air, be that as it may.
     I did see many chess players enjoying the excellent cafeteria on the first floor, where hot and cold drinks, sandwiches, warm food etc was available at reasonable prices. I had a team of helpers present who would have been very pleased to have steered Chris in the right direction, as would the centre staff. I am always very visible but he was busy.
     Having experienced the delights of the Masonic Lodge in Birmingham, it was an excellent venue, but I will announce the venue for this year later.

With reference to the company limited by guarantee [see BCF page lately, with special reference to the October Council meeting]. I am not prepared to put my assets at risk because of any possible litigation. There are and have been other organisations which have adopted this structure with no loss of democratic rights. What I was amused to hear was a company described as a "capitalist" organisation. The Co-operative movement used companies as vehicles for their protection for many years.
Cyril Johnson cyriljohnson@yahoo.co.uk
[rjh: Cyril's "capitalist" allusion passes me by but I'm sure someone's said it somewhere. I heard from an organisation this morning which has gone the way Cyril and the MB advocate, for exactly the same reasons.]

From Paul Buswell
25.10.04
Richard:
Your report on the BCF Council....
What particularly concerns me [about BCF becoming a company limited by guarantee] is that the current sovereignty of Council will not be directly preserved, but only mirrored through nominees, as almost all chess organisations are unincorporated bodies who cannot in their own right be members of companies. The people at the AGM will not be direct representatives or delegates of the SCCU, but rather individuals nominated by the SCCU. It may very well be that there is no alternative, and no greater problem of accountability than at present, but I did not think that the matter had been sufficiently addressed in the paper before Council, which is why I sought to have the matter referred back for that issue to be brought firmly into the spotlight before Council took the matter further.
     Another issue not touched on on Saturday, so far as I am aware, would be the position of the SCCU delegate on the Management Board. At the moment that delegate owes their primary duty to the SCCU, always within the Union's broad duty to further the aims of the BCF. However, in a Company situation, any Company Director, even if nominated by the SCCU, will have a legal duty to the Company and to all its shareholders, their duty will not be to the SCCU. Again, it may be that that is unavoidable but in my opinion it would have been far preferable to take such fundamental changes rather more slowly.
regards
Paul Buswell PBusw13724@aol.com
expressing an entirely personal opinion and welcoming correction by those legally qualified

From David Smith
14.10.04
Richard
I was interested to see the recently reported comment on the Website [see U150 page 2.10.04] re a mobile phone which went off when its owner was away from the board (and possibly the venue too, as he had completed his game?). Surely if this was causing prolonged annoyance the bag could have been removed from the playing room to somewhere out of earshot. I would also be interested to hear whether a reminder to turn off mobile phones was made by the home Match Captain prior to the start of play?
David Smith davidandjanesmith@boltblue.com
County Match Controller

From Mike Gunn
12.10.04
To answer Geoff Marchant's point about the Surrey League: if Wimbledon 2 went into division 1 and Wimbledon 1 went into division 2 then the league's nomination rules would come into play: "... Players nominated for a team and any stronger players shall be ineligble to play for any lower team." As Wimbledon 1 would now be the lower team and Wimbledon 2 the higher team they would (more or less) have to exchange their memberships. Of course, it might also make sense to exchange their names to bring us back to where we were.
     In the Border league (gradings limited divisions) Guildford B often takes match points off Guildford A. The club has discussed (but rejected) the idea that Guildford A should contain all the stronger players to improve title chances. When I started playing at Guildford I recall that we had 4 teams in division 1 of the Border League (but there were only two divisions then). The main reason for the BL going to gradings limited divisions was to create more opportunities for games (several players play in 2 adjacent divisions).
Mike Gunn mike@wxyz7.fsnet.co.uk

From Geoff Marchant
11.10.04
Hello Richard,
I write without much experience but regarding Jonathan's letter 4.10.04 I am quite surprised that members of other teams in his club don't relish the opportunity to 'have a go' at the first team, when it comes along. As Scott in his reply mentioned, quite often teams band together within clubs and there may be more rivalry within the club than without. Of course if there is a huge mis-match in grade (for which read 'chess ability'), then no team relishes a perennial thrashing at the hands of folk who will be hanging around the same club all season! If that be the case then maybe the club should seriously consider pooling the three teams so that there's a fair mix of chess ability in each? I suppose that also depends on the strength of opposition from other clubs in the league and the club's desire to get a team promoted. Those sort of issues could be thrashed out at the club's pre-season AGM.
     On a related subject (I think), the possibility almost arose within the Surrey League this season that a second team could have chosen to usurp the place of its first team in division one (Wimbledon being the club in question). It is an option for a club finishing second in division two to request to be promoted at the expense of the team finishing second bottom of division one. I suspect that automatic replacement of a first team by a second team (or third and fourth team and so on) has happened many times before in years and leagues gone by, but I wonder whether any club, actually given the option itself, has allowed its second or third team to replace its first team thus? Would Wimbledon have done so?
     Kind regards and compliments to your fine website,
Geoff Marchant geoff.marchant@landg.com
Wallington Chess Club

From Richard Haddrell
7.10.04
I'll have a go at Jonathan Melsom's question (two letters down).
     I assume Wycombe & Hazlemere's situation is a result of promotion and relegation. Their first team was in Division 1 last year. I don't know how many SCCU leagues operate promotion and relegation. Info, anyone?
     But I've a feeling that when you do, it's not unusual to limit the number of teams a club can have in one division. I'm not sure it's a solution. Kent used to, when it had promotion and relegation. No club could have more than two teams in any division. Two up two down, but you couldn't be promoted if the higher division already contained two teams from your club. I forget whether there was a symmetrical rule for relegation. It didn't work very well. Sometimes the top three or four teams in a division were all ineligible for promotion, and the honour went to middle-ranking teams which went up kicking and screaming. I think sometimes there was undignified competition among the middle-rankers to avoid promotion. I seem to recall an occasion - in Kent or elsewhere - when a team that got promoted was below a team that got relegated. I expect they had the symmetrical rule.
     Kent doesn't have promotion and relegation now. Just grading-limited divisions, and you enter your teams where you think they belong. If other clubs disagree with your choice they say so at the fixtures meeting and you argue about it. There was an argument, once. The SCCU itself used to have promotion and relegation - and complicated rules to go with it - but has gone the same way as Kent. It seems a better way to me.
Richard Haddrell rjh@sccu.ndo.co.uk
Tunbridge Wells

From Scott Freeman
5.10.04
In answer to Jonathan Melsom 4.10.04
The problem of multiple teams in county leagues is a difficult one. Coulsdon & Purley once had 10 teams out of the 50 in the Surrey Leagues and had we not set up more internal activities, we would probably now have approximately 18 out of 53, which would have been pointless. We now have 4 out of 39. There came a point when we had to draw the line and do something; we had 2 teams in each of the 5 divisions of the Surrey leagues and rarely defaulted a board. But we were growing. A year before that, we had fewer teams in the Surrey League but had 3 teams in the local Croydon League u110 section. As it was a double round all play all, you can imagine the club for 3 weeks in October and January!
     In the end, CCF set up what we now know as the Super League. It is currently a 4 board league where captains have a total aggregate grade they can use up during the season. It was set up as an internal event but we have very welcome entries from outside adding real spice to the competition. I think the £1,000 prize fund for the main event had been a factor in that; the competition is fierce. The fact is that although you still have team chess beetwen teams from your own club, they are competing all season against each other rather than pulling together for the rest of the matches and that creates to spark of competition, more than the damp squid effect of 1st team having to play 2nd team and everyone just wanting to get the game out of the way. The focus is different and it has allowed "mini-clubs" to form within the wider club. This seems to have been a good thing.
     This Monday, we are starting a new Under 100 league to be played over 5 rounds during the season and we are expecting 10-12 teams (including one from outside) for that. We also have a Friday night rapidplay event that is due to start in a month or so which runs on 5 selected Fridays during the season; 3 rounds per night.
     Had we just pumped more and more teams into the Surrey League, we would have stagnated as a club and the Surrey League would have stagnated as well; that was something one or two Surrey members couldn't grasp and thought we were trying to usurp them by setting up the Super League, but the majority understood why and could see the benefits in what we did. We have ended up providing more and more internal activities, including a comprehensive club championship in which FIDE rating is feeding in from the top end and we are looking at such prizes as free entry to a norm-chasing international as the prize for the winner of the Premiership. With allocated fixture schedules and a maximum 9 matches in the season, it has proved a winner. Many players are hapier to just stay at Coulsdon every Monday and only those who are really keen to go to away matches (for the most part) put their names forward to play inter-club chess.
     I am not sure if there is any sort of ideal other than every chess club in a league having the same amount of teams so all the 1st teams could be in a league, all the 2nd teams and so on. And that's not likely to happen. It's a fact of chess life that if you become successful as a club, you have to evolve internally. Setting up internal leagues has proved to be a winner.
Scott Freeman chess@ccfworld.com

From Jonathan Melsom
4.10.04
Richard
The Bucks League has 3 divisions (Gaul is divided into three parts?). Wycombe and Hazlemere has its three strongest sides in the second division along with three other teams. I've taken the view that the internal fixtures should be as competitive as possible, but I can't stop a boycott of games against the first team by individual players, and the third team at the start of this season have coincidentally gone missing just in time for the first fixture against the first team. What do readers think? Do other leagues cap the number of sides from one club? Are we at a disadvantage given that internal matches very rarely finish 6:0?
Jonathan Melsom jonathan.melsom@tiscali.co.uk
rjh: I believe Wycombe & Hazlemere have four teams, and Bucks have six teams in each division.

From Chris Rice
22.7.04
Richard
In regards to the County Finals I've noticed that my good friend and Chief Executive of the British Chess Federation, Roy Heppinstall, is quoted on the BCF website as saying that "the Hinckley Leisure Centre, which was making its debut as a national venue was excellent", and he hoped that other events would be coming to the town in future. Personally I felt that the conditions were pretty poor, there were too many players crammed into too small a space, just take a look at the photos if you have any doubts: http://www.bcf.org.uk/events/bcfnatteam/county2004/index.htm. There were no refreshments either (I could only find a couple of vending machines and I didn't have time to chat to Cyril Johnson about it on the day). The ventilation was so bad (simply because there were too many people) that a fire exit was opened allowing strong gusts of winds to come through and blow all the score sheets up in the air from time to time. I appreciate that this was not Cyril's first choice of venue and with any new venue there are always teething problems which is why I was hesitant to criticise it before, but to describe it as excellent is way over the top. Of course this is only a personal view and others may have different ones.
Chris Rice chris.rice@fsa.gov.uk
Kent County Captain

From Tim Spanton
8.7.04
Take a tip from newspapers. Never ask lawyers: "Is it legal to do this?" They'll always find a reason why it isn't. Instead ask: "How can I do this legally?" That way they'll see it as a challenge to get something done. Sounds simple, but it works!
Tim Spanton tim.spanton@the-sun.co.uk
London

From Gary Cook
7.7.04
Richard
I have read Chris' update [below] with interest.
A few points I am not too sure of -
     1. There are other countries that have their grades on the website, and one of them is Scotland. Have they been contacted to see how they dealt with the DPA issue?
     2. The written grading list is available to the general public, it is not kept in house and is available in general bookshops, so anyone can pick it up and see the personal information, sorry names.
     3. I have just read the Guidelines on Websites, and mostly this seems to be aimed at websites that collect personal data via the website, and the one part that concerns displaying personal data simply says people have to be made aware that personal information is to be put onto the web and they have the chance to opt out. The example given concerns a change from a club handbook to a website with details of names and addresses, whereas the grading list would be a change of a published book only containing the player's name.
    There may be answers to these questions, but this seems a mountain out of a mole's hill.
Gary Cook louise@cernunos.globalnet.co.uk
NCCL Secretary

From Chris Majer
6.7.04
Richard
Given the amount of debate that the legal advice regarding website publication of the grading list has generated, I have decided to compile a list of "frequently asked questions" which hopefully address the points raised by the SCCU website correspondents:

Q Who was advice obtained from?
A Advice was obtained from Croner Consulting. (a company that provides legal advice on employment and health and safety issues for an annual fee). This is the organisation from which the BCF normally seek such advice. The same advice as that proved by Croner was received from the Compliance Section of Data Protection.
Q Why does the list constitute personal information?
A The following is an extract from Guidelines on Website publication: It is more likely that an individual's name will be "personal data" where the name appears together with other information about the named individual such as address, telephone number or information regarding his hobbies.
Q Why is publication in other countries and also by FIDE possible, is the law different?
A What happens in other countries does not seem relevant to the wording of the UK regulations against which we have taken advice. Also relevant is the point identified in the second part of the response to Question 4.
Q Why is it permitted to produce the printed list but not the list on the website?
A There are two differences here. Firstly, the printed list is not made public in the same way. Anyone in the world can access the BCF website. The printed Grading list can only be obtained from the BCF Office or a chess bookseller. Secondly, there is an expectation that a printed BCF grading list will be produced since it has been happening for fifty years. There could be no such expectation for website publication since this is the first time that the BCF had proposed website publication.
Q Why is website publication of other information also not prohibited?
A For the "Yearbook" information the BCF already obtains explicit permission to publish details. Other information is covered by "expectations" as mentioned above. However, we will take advice from the Information Commission on non-grading issues.

Chris Majer chris.majer@mbda.co.uk
BCF Grading Director

From John Hodgson
2.7.04
As a non-lawyer I find it difficult to imagine that it was the intention of the Data Protection Act to cover within its remit statistical data such as a chess rating. How, for example, are chess ratings different to cricket batting and bowling averages which are published electronically? If ratings are deemed to be 'personal data' then can the BCF store the raw data (individual results) electronically (regardless of the means of publication)? Must individual congresses and leagues report results on the internet with the gradings omitted? Perhaps I can give consent for my wins to be stored on the BCF computer, but not my losses? And if, as Keith Selby suggests, other forms of publication are covered then this line of reasoning can be continued, reductio ad absurdum.
     Some mistake, surely?
Regards,
John Hodgson JHHodgson@aol.com

From John Saunders
2.7.04
Dear Richard,
Regarding Keith Selby's letter of 30 June 2004 and Chris Majer's notice about the Grading List on the BCF website: I find it hard to believe that the publication of BCF's Grading List, on the web or in print, could fall within the scope of the Data Protection Act and be deemed to be illegal. It is a journalistic production which is broadly comparable to the publication of tennis ranking lists or cricket's first-class averages; or (given that most of the names in the GL are of amateurs and not professionals) we could analogise with sports stats about amateur sports players in local newspapers.
     The statute has an exemption for the journalistic use of personal data and I can see absolutely no problem or risk in continuing to use such data in reports or referring to people's grades and ratings in magazines, websites etc.
     When people take part in any competitive activity, they are putting themselves in the public eye and implicitly giving permission for their sporting efforts to be reported on. Which they are, on your website and elsewhere. All perfectly legal. And the Grading List is simply a statistical distillation of all those results, so long as it confines itself to core data such as names, clubs and grades. I suspect that the publication of DOBs and/or ages could be another matter, however, and certainly needs looking into.
     Having said all of the above, Chris Majer is sensible to take proper legal advice about this. So long as it really is proper, paid-for legal advice. Is it?
John Saunders johnsaunders@bcmchess.co.uk
Editor, British Chess Magazine

From Keith Selby
30.6.04
Dear Richard,
I read with interest your BCF report 26.6.04, especially about publication of the Grading List on the BCF website. Although the Data Protection Act came about because of the growing use of computers for keeping and processing data it was amended fairly recently (last year I believe) to include all other ways of holding data as well as electronically. If the reason given for non publication on the website holds then it could not be printed either. The printed list is available to non members as well as members. The Ceefax and Teletex pages (available to all) would not be able to indicate the ratings when reporting results.
     Things are soon beginning to get out of hand and if we allow it to continue the whole structure could collapse. One way the BCF could distribute the listing, and make some money from it, is to charge a fee to download a file. It could be in various formats so as to satisfy the end user. Excel would appear to be favourite but some may prefer DBF. If, for example, a transaction of £5 was needed to download the BCF could increase their funds considerably for very little outlay.
Regards,
Keith Selby keith.selby@talk21.com (SCCA editor)