Warwick 2015 (British Championships)

[Michael Farthing]

Andrew Zigmond wrote:

Given that Brian Eley is never realistically going to return to competitive chess I think there is a case for removing him from any list of eligible players and if the ECF needs to give a reason then they could say that it was for bringing the game into disrepute. Granted he has never been formally convicted or even charged and retains the right to a fair trial (should he ever wish to take it) but removal of eligibility would be a civil matter.

I think this would be a dangerous precedent. A fundamental principle we have is inclusivity and for inclusivity to have meaning it has to extend to those for whom we have no time at all. Chess players must be judged by their chess playing. Clearly had Brian Eley behaved in a way that disrupted the functioning of chess that is a ground for exclusion, but the incomparably worse things of which he is accused, even if he were to be convicted, is not grounds. To veer from that opens the door banning people from the game for anything generally considered unacceptable behaviour but unconnected with chess. In the past century that could have been jewishness, pacifism, communism, gayness.. By and large chess has always resisted such exclusions, but not all sports have. Would we, for example, still want to bar Eley if he were convicted, served his sentence, and then wanted to resume playing chess? We might find it a challenge how to behave if meeting him over the board, but I firmly believe he should be allowed to compete in such circumstances.

[Declaration of Interest: Brian Eley coached me as a teenager. I don't think that's affecting my judgement here. I never liked him as a person: he revealed some rather nasty aspects of his character (card sharping) though I never saw any sign of sexual impropriety. However, the allegations did not surprise me (though at the risk of sounding facetious, it did make me wonder why I wasn't pretty enough)].

[Jonathan Rogers]

I find this astonishing! If anyone were convicted of a series of sexual offences against children who had been left alone wth him in a positon of trust, there would be obvious concerns about him playing competitive chess, where juniors mix quite freely with adults. Perhaps the risks could be managed in theory but in practice who wants to admit someone to a tournament where you need to have an arbiter or some other person designated to watch him every time he moves from the board?

This is one thing the ECF needs to decide upon, ie whether such players can properly be denied ECF membership altogether, if it is the only way to stop them from entering events up and down the country where their reputation may not be well known. I thought that something was going to be attempted a little while back but as far as I can tell, it seems to have been abandoned/kicked into in the long grass.

[Jonathan Bryant]

Would we, for example, still want to bar Eley if he were convicted, served his sentence, and then wanted to resume playing chess?

Yes. Obviously.

I find this astonishing!

The other Jonathan got in before me.

Yes, astonishing to suggest people convicted of sexually abusing children - let’s use John Walker as the example here, rather than Brian Eley - should be welcomed back into competitive chess. Truly bizarre that you would base this argument on the principle of 'inclusivity'.


Although that a someone can put forward this argument does provide another reason why it’s important to continue to discuss Brian Eley.

[Michael Farthing]

It should be the conditions of parole that determine how a convicted person may be reintegrated on release, not private citizens. What is different in the case of Eley is that he is in the public eye. Take that away and what is implied by your requirement that such players should not be allowed to play chess is that to enforce such a provision all potential members of the ECF would be required to undergo a DBS check. That is quite simply not allowed in law. In any case, denial of ECF membership would prevent active membership of adult based chess activities too - indeed there are a lot of congresses that are fundamentally 'adult' - they have juniors playing but they remain fundamentally adult activities. If banning is considered right there then presumably, Eley should also be banned for life from buses, cinemas, Sainsbury's, Zebra crossings.. Well, maybe so - but that must be a justice decision to sentence him to life imprisonment - not a vigilante enactment.

[Roger de Coverly]

what is implied by your requirement that such players should not be allowed to play chess is that to enforce such a provision all potential members of the ECF would be required to undergo a DBS check. That is quite simply not allowed in law.

Back in 2009, it could have been a legitimate fear that we were heading in that direction. You might recall the suggestion that parents would have to be vetted if they made car sharing arrangements.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -work.html

The Press kicked up a fuss, and it became an election issue of sorts at the 2010 General Election.

Overuse of checks has now of itself been made illegal. That's relatively recent.

[Jonathan Bryant]

.. what is implied by your requirement that such players should not be allowed to play chess is that to enforce such a provision all potential members of the ECF would be required to undergo a DBS check.

No, really it isn’t.

It’s true of course that there will be convicted people out there that we don’t know about. There will also be - almost certainly - more people out there who have committed offences but we don’t know about them because they haven’t been convicted or even arrested.

That’s an argument for chess clubs who have a junior membership to have adequate child protection procedures (there was a discussion about that on the general forum not so long ago). It’s not an argument for doing nothing about those people that we do know about.



(edited to remove typos)

[Michael Farthing]

If we were discussing this in a pub and could buy each other pints between bouts, and smile occasionally, then some fruitful progress might well be made - but over a forum I fear that further exchanges risk over-heating our computers. So I propose to let matters rest as they are and should we find ourselves at the same chess event I will happily get in the first round. [PS J R can come too].

[Jonathan Rogers]

If we were discussing this in a pub and could buy each other pints between bouts, and smile occasionally, then some fruitful progress might well be made - but over a forum I fear that further exchanges risk over-heating our computers. So I propose to let matters rest as they are and should we find ourselves at the same chess event I will happily get in the first round. [PS J R can come too].

Harder to argue with that, admittedly

[Roger de Coverly]

Returning to the subject of next year's British, the schedule has been announced. Whether by design or accident, it's come just a few days too late to be subject to adverse criticism at the AGM.

http://www.britishchesschampionships.co ... dule-2015/

There are changes which some would consider unwelcome.

The first is the move rate. The British has used seven hour sessions, six for the Seniors ever since the abolition of adjournments. Admittedly it will help unite arbiters with their dinners, but this year the session lengths have been cut to five hours and a bit, by virtue of using the 40 in 90 + 30 format with 30 second increments. It looks as if there's a very late start at 3pm as well.

Second is the split of the Seniors into 50-65 and Over 65 events. Whilst following FIDE could make sense, it doesn't make sporting sense to shorten these already well-subscribed tournaments from seven rounds to six. I would have thought it extremely likely that the best of the 50-65 age group will continue to enter and fight for the Championship proper.

Thirdly, there is no rest day rapidplay in the middle of the tournament. This is bad news for those in the British and Major Open who like to play every day and also for weekend spectators who might combine a day watching on the Saturday with a day playing on the Sunday.

I could be wrong, but it doesn't strike me that any of these changes except the Seniors split were mentioned in the questionnaires put to the participants in Aberystwyth and the wider audience of the website.

[Graham Borrowdale]

Thanks for posting these changes, Roger.

It looks as though large numbers of us will now be eligible to play in the 'junior seniors' - I can see that 50-65 age group becoming very large indeed, and potentially taking some of the tail away from the British itself.

The faster time limit for the British does appear to be a curious step, but as someone who has never played I should not really comment. It does seem to reduce it to a county match plus increments, though.

[LawrenceCooper]

Taking a more positive note, I'm pleased to see an extra British junior championship (U15), four of which are now FIDE rated and there appear to be more FIDE rated events in the adult schedule. I'm quite tempted by the mid tournament blitz too

[Stewart Reuben]

Roger >Overuse of checks has now of itself been made illegal. That's relatively recent.<

So Ignatius Leong has got his way and perpetual check has been banned in chess! Well, anyway 'perpetual check' is a term not included in the Laws.

[Roger de Coverly]

The first is the move rate. The British has used seven hour sessions, six for the Seniors ever since the abolition of adjournments. Admittedly it will help unite arbiters with their dinners, but this year the session lengths have been cut to five hours and a bit, by virtue of using the 40 in 90 + 30 format with 30 second increments. It looks as if there's a very late start at 3pm as well.

This all seems to be a knock on effect from the use of 30 second increments in the morning sessions. In previous years, the increment was 10 seconds. It's known from e2e4 events that games played at 90 30 can overrun the nominal four hours, by in one or two cases, over an hour. So a game starting at 9.30 could potentially still be playing at 2.30pm or later. That would make it difficult to start British Championship games at 2.15pm or 2.30pm. Hence the postponement to a 3.00 pm start and a faster move rate, so as not to separate players and arbiters from their evening meals.

Personally I think it a retrograde step to dumb down the British Championships in this manner for the sake of a different move rate in the morning tournaments.

[MartinCarpenter]

It does remind me a bit of the schedules in bridge tournaments

Those tend to start late in the day then have a long built in break for supper and play really quite late.

[Peter Shaw]

I’m really disappointed to see the change in the time control for the British. Have they really dumbed down the British just to accommodate a 30 second increment in the morning events?

If there’s another reason for doing this, I’d like to see it.