Do Chess Players need a trades union

[Martin Regan]

Rdc:

I seem to recall the snappily named ABC. This stood for Association of British Chess players. I don't know what happened to it, but it didn't survive long enough to get any references that Google can trace.

One faint, faint trace - in an interview with the late comedian Frank Carson

"That was just before I appeared as the guest speaker at the Association of British Chess Players.
"I had a chequered table cloth in front of me - it took me 40 minutes to find the salt."

[David Sedgwick]

Around twenty five years ago in the UK, I seem to recall the snappily named ABC. This stood for Association of British Chess players and Malcolm Pein was involved with it in some way. I don't know what happened to it, but it didn't survive long enough to get any references that Google can trace.

Your excellent memory is not quite up to its usual standard.

You're correct about Malcolm Pein's involvement, but the exact name of the organisation was "Association of British Chessmasters".

Googling that produces a few references, of which this one is the most relevant:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/ches ... union.html

[Roger de Coverly]

You're correct about Malcolm Pein's involvement, but the exact name of the organisation was "Association of British Chessmasters".

Membership was titled players only, but what happened to it?

[David Sedgwick]

You're correct about Malcolm Pein's involvement, but the exact name of the organisation was "Association of British Chessmasters".

Membership was titled players only, but what happened to it?

I believe it folded in the mid-1990s. Malcolm Pein suggests one possible reason in his article.

Another possible reason stems from the maxim "Those who can play do so; those who can't become arbiters and organisers." An association confined to titled players may be short of people in the second group.

[Stewart Reuben]

Roger >The point being that for an event to offer Norm chances, you need a minimum of six players with GM, IM, FM, WGM, WIM or WFM titles. Unless you need to increase the average rating of the tournament, you don't want them particularly strong so that marginal norm seekers don't have too difficult a time.<

I think Roger must have been thinking of something else when he wrote the above as it is incorrect.
To have the possibility of a GM norm in a 9 round tournament you need to meet: 3 GMs, 2 more masters, at least 3 or 4 (depending) players not from the same federation, no more than 2 unrated opponents and an average rating of at last 2380 for the candidate's field.

When putting together a title norm event, it should immediately be clear that a foreign GM has a premium over an English one in an English event such as Hastings. This is particularly true this year where Jonathan Hawkins, to get a GM norm, will have to play his full complement of foreigners. An English GM will be cheaper though because of his lower travelling costs. Naturally one wants to encourage local talent which includes the GMs. If you invite a very high rated GM he will be more expensive than a weaker one. With an average ratings of oppoents at 2380, a score of 7/9 is needed A higher rated field means a lower score is required and the candidates are thus not competing against each other as much for the points in a Swiss. This year in Hastings it is 10 rounds and 8/10 will be needed and 4 GMs. But, it will be possible to get that norm in the first 9 rounds.
One doesn't like always to invite the same players.

Thus inviting professional chessplayers is something of an art, not a science. It does not lend itself to the trades union concept.

Page 35 of the ECF YearBook lists a Players Panel and their contact details.

[Roger de Coverly]

I think Roger must have been thinking of something else when he wrote the above as it is incorrect.

An all play all tournament in fact.

Gatwick A was 1*GM, 2*IM, 3*FM with 5 nationalities in the tournament as a whole
Gatwick B had the same line up.

[LawrenceCooper]

I think Roger must have been thinking of something else when he wrote the above as it is incorrect.

An all play all tournament in fact.

Gatwick A was 1*GM, 2*IM, 3*FM with 5 nationalities in the tournament as a whole
Gatwick B had the same line up.

That would be fine for IM, WGM and WIM norms but not for GM.

[Michael Jones]

But wouldn't it be better if there was a set rate that those on the outside knew about as well? ie a club secretary knows if he invites an IM to do a simul it would cost £x a GM £y.

You can get some idea of that from the rates for entering simuls at the LCC or similar. It cost £40 to play Korchnoi a couple of years ago and I think there were 30 boards, so £1200 total. For Short this year I believe it's £50 (£1500 total assuming it's the same number of boards). That's for two of the biggest names who are likely to do simuls, so no doubt one by a less well-known GM or IM could be arranged for rather less.