100 Year History of the British Chess Federation - 2 Questions

[MJMcCready]

From the following link http://www.englishchess.org.uk/100-year ... eration/3/

'The first BCF Grading List was published in 1954, the brainchild of (Sir) Richard Clarke who worked on this development with Arpad Elo.'

Where can I obtain the first grading list? I don't need the whole list as such, there are only a few players I am searching for.

Although a great deal was achieved as a result of the Development Committee’s initiatives, the Federation’s financial problems remained. By 1951 it became necessary to revert to an honorary secretary with the administrative load being spread over a number of Standing Committees which became responsible for running various activities. H.G.Arnold became honorary secretary and was followed in 1952 by A.F.Stammwitz who did Trojan work in this capacity for 13 years until the volume became too great even for Alan to cope. By that time the Federation’s finances, under the careful control of I.Cohen, who was treasurer from 1951 until 1970, had improved sufficiently to allow once more for a paid professional secretary.

It was recognised at the time that one of the main problems – and this has persisted more or less ever since – was the lack of adequate publicity both within and out of the chess world. Too few people have been aware of the Federation’s achievements and even today, the importance and benefits of such work to every single chess player is not fully appreciated.

Could someone comment on where this information comes from and how I can gain further info on how members of the committee were elected.

ty

[Roger de Coverly]

Where can I obtain the first grading list? I don't need the whole list as such, there are only a few players I am searching for.

The chess magazines of the period, BH Wood's Chess and the BCM, would be the obvious starting point. It's likely that only the handful of players above 200 would be listed and you would need the translation table to convert grades in the sense of 1a, 1b etc back into grading numbers, as they used to be termed.

Could someone comment on where this information comes from and how I can gain further info on how members of the committee were elected.

Personal memory drives at least some of it. The material you quoted looks as if it comes from the articles and histories commissioned to mark the hundredth anniversary of the BCF in 2004. The magazines of the time would intermittently cover the BCF's trials and tribulations and other sources would be the BCF Yearbooks and whatever archives the BCF had of Board and Council meetings of the period. I doubt that many elections took place. Then, as now, it would have been mostly a case of co-opting volunteers.

[MJMcCready]

The chess magazines of the period, BH Wood's Chess and the BCM, would be the obvious starting point. It's likely that only the handful of players above 200 would be listed and you would need the translation table to convert grades in the sense of 1a, 1b etc back into grading numbers, as they used to be termed.



Personal memory drives at least some of it. The material you quoted looks as if it comes from the articles and histories commissioned to mark the hundredth anniversary of the BCF in 2004. The magazines of the time would intermittently cover the BCF's trials and tribulations and other sources would be the BCF Yearbooks and whatever archives the BCF had of Board and Council meetings of the period. I doubt that many elections took place. Then, as now, it would have been mostly a case of co-opting volunteers.

Thanks, I do not have access to any magazines as I am abroad but I will keep looking on line for further info. So most who were elected to the board of the BCF volunteered you think?

[Roger de Coverly]

So most who were elected to the board of the BCF volunteered you think?

I would not be sure the BCF had a Board as such. I would imagine there was always a President ("boss") a Secretary ("dogsbody") and a Treasurer ("money man"), but beyond that there were working groups or committees charged with making things happen such as "development", or more concretely, grading, International selection, Counties and National Club competitions, the annual Congress etc.

[MJMcCready]

You make it sound less glamorous than what the titles bestow but from the link above it sounds like the BCF had a tough time in the early fifties.

[Paul Buswell]

I'm going from memory on this but it was only in the late 1970s that the BCF acquired a 'Board' and 'Directors'. Prior to that (and referring to my 1975/76 Year Book) it was an Executive Committee - @ 30+ oversized (in my view) to ensure wider representation - and a raft of Committees of that Executive Committee: Finance, Development, International, Junior, Congress (i e BCF Congress), Home Chess, Grading. One of the arguments for moving to a Board and Director system was that the Committee structure as practised in the BCF showed many of the weaknesses but few of the strengths of Committees.

PB

[MJMcCready]

Hmmm, well I have reportage from the fifties which states that the head/chairman of the SCCU was made executive at the BCF but it does not say what this entails. I can post the excerpt if necessary. The details aren't so essential however, what I need to be most clear about is how a senior position in the BCF would have been gained at the time. Was it most likely, as Roger suggests, through volunteering or a recognition of hard work? Is it unlikely that a vote would have been taken to bring someone on board at that time?

[Gordon Cadden]

The overall playing strength was weaker in 1953, with only C.H.O'D Alexander, E.L.Klein and D.Yanofsky at 1a
1b. R.J. Broadbent, H.Golombek, P.S.Milner-Barry, J. Penrose, Sir George Thomas
2a. W.A.Fairhurst, I.Fazekas, D.M.Horne, I.Konig, W.Winter, G.Wood.
2b. G.Abrahams, J.M.Aitken, L.W.Barden, A.W.Bowen, J.A.Fuller, D.V.Hooper, H.Israel, P.List, D.V.Mardle, R.H.Newman, O. Penrose, A.Phillips, ARB Thomas, T.H.Tylor, PN Wallis, BH Wood.

Brian Reilly, the 1953 BCM editor, did not appear to be too concerned about including initials, which for chess historians, are very important. Believe it was R.H.Newman. Please advise if wrong.

[Roger de Coverly]

2b 217 to 224
2a 225 to 232
1b 233 to 240
1a 241 to 248

Numbers had declined by 1968 with the parallel list being
1a Penrose
1b none
2a Kottnauer , Keene, Lee, Whiteley, Hollis
2b Franklin, Hartston, Clarke, Golombek, JE Littlewood, Phillips, Sharpe, Taylor, McDonald-Ross, Milner-Barry, Wood, Hindle

There were 30 in 3a and the piece in the BCM talks of unspecified adjustments to reduce the downward trend of appearances in the "national" list of 3a and above.

[MJMcCready]

The overall playing strength was weaker in 1953, with only Alexander, Klein and Yanofsky at 1a
1b. Broadbent, Golombek, Milner-Barry, J. Penrose, Sir George Thomas
2a. Fairhurst, Fazekas, Horne, Konig, Winter
2b. Abrahams, Aitken, Barden, Bowen, Fuller, Hooper, Israel, List, Mardle, Newman, O. Penrose, Phillips, ARB Thomas, Tylor, PN Wallis, BH Wood.

Thanks Gordon, is Fuller T.E.Fuller?

[Gordon Cadden]

1954 Grading List has just Alexander at 1a.
1b. H. Golombek, J. Penrose, RJA Persitz
2a. G. Abrahams, LW Barden, R,Blow, RJ Broadbent, S. Fazekas, MJ Franklin, PS Milner-Barry, A.Phillips, M.Radoicic, W.Veitch, RG Wade.
2b. JM Aitken, PH Clarke, JA Fuller, AY Green, DV Hooper, N. McKelvie, F.Parr, W.Tabakiernik, ARB Thomas, PN Wallis, BH Wood.

[John McKenna]

Where can I obtain the first grading list? I don't need the whole list as such, there are only a few players I am searching for.

The chess magazines of the period, BH Wood's Chess and the BCM, would be the obvious starting point. It's likely that only the handful of players above 200 would be listed and you would need the translation table to convert grades in the sense of 1a, 1b etc back into grading numbers, as they used to be termed.

"A British Chess Federation Rating System was described in the BCF Yearbook (Clarke 1958). The system uses the formula (below) on a periodic basis, performance ratings being calculated over a two-year period, with a thirty-game minimum required. Ratings are grouped by grades, as follows -

Grade 1a 248-241 1b 240-233 Grade 2a 232-225 etc.

Rp=Rc + 10(P-50)

[Rp is rating performance, Rc rating of opponents and P the percentage score]

The (above) equation may be used to determine ratings on a periodic basis. In rating systems... such as that of the BCF ratings are calculated at finite intervals (BCF uses one year)..." Source: The Rating of Chessplayers, A. Elo 1978

So, sometime between 1958 and 1978 the BCF changed the period from 2 years to 1 year for its grade calculations. The 'formula/equation' also changed at some point, therefore you would not be comparing like-for-like with today's grades.

[Mike Gunn]

There is also an article from Richard Clarke on the ECF grading system in a 1969 copy of BCM (the first year I started buying it). I don't have it to hand at present but if you want to know I will be able to give you the exact reference in a couple of days. I did post (at least part of) this article on this forum in the early days of the forum, but I'm not sure how I could speedily find that now.

It is very likely that the BCF always had an AGM at which it appointed its officers. This is the way most voluntary organisations work and the other chess organisations set up by Leonard Rees (starting with the Surrey CCA then the SCCU followed that pattern). I have a 1948 BCF yearbook at home which I can consult in a couple of days to see if there are any clues as to what was going on around that time. Of course if the incumbent resigned between AGMs there may have been some fall-back procedure to fill the vacancy.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

An advanced search for "Richard Clarke" with "Mike Gunn" as author led to this (part of a discussion from April 2008 titled 'The Arbitrary 40 point Rule'):

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... 1454#p1454

I think that is what Mike is referring to above with "I did post (at least part of) this article on this forum in the early days of the forum".

[Roger de Coverly]

The 'formula/equation' also changed at some point, therefore you would not be comparing like-for-like with today's grades.

In what way do you think it changed as the equation as written makes no sense?

So score 75% against 200 opposition. 75-50 is 25 so you add 25 to 200 making 225 as expected. That only works for those playing more than 30 games, which was all they bothered to publish. I don't know that they ever published how they estimated values for the many ungraded but moderately active players.



There were substantive changes in the mid or late 1960s where a junior increment of 5, later 10 was introduced and also the 40 point rule. You can see why they are needed as without them the grading numbers are liable to decline.