The Berkshire / SCCU Situation and Related Matters

Discussion about all aspects of the ECF County Championships.
Neville Belinfante
Posts: 170
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: The Berkshire - SCCU dispute (and other related disputes

Post by Neville Belinfante » Wed Jun 30, 2010 8:55 pm

David - I dont understand your assertion that the Chiltern League is not proper county chess.

Jack - I cannot comment on whether Berkshire would wish to join the WECU. However for EPSCA competitions, both Berkshire and Buckinghamshire have played in the South West Zone which includes all the WECU counties.

Regards

Neville B

Neill Cooper
Posts: 1298
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Cumbria

Re: "Minor" Counties

Post by Neill Cooper » Wed Jun 30, 2010 9:29 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:If for example, the President of University X does not want to be a member of BUCA, and a group of four players from X want to play in a University team in the event, I don't see the problem. There won't be rival entries, I'm just saying that if there is no plan to field an official entry, then an unofficial one won't cause a problem. Of course if there are competing claims, then the official one wins every time. It would be a last resort to let an unofficial team in, but I don't see why a University would be so daft as to cut off their nose to spite their face.
Beware! Universities are not like schools, but that is exactly what happened in East Surrey with the national school's tournament which lead to much more than just the ECF Junior director resigning, as referred to by David Sedgwick.

Neill Cooper
Posts: 1298
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Cumbria

Re: The Berkshire - SCCU dispute (and other related disputes

Post by Neill Cooper » Wed Jun 30, 2010 10:27 pm

By the way, I think this is a unhelpful topic title, raising the spectre of 'dispute' when it is mainly a disagreement within Berkshire, not between Berks and SCCU. How about calling it 'Non-Union county chess'

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: The Berkshire - SCCU dispute (and other related disputes

Post by Roger de Coverly » Wed Jun 30, 2010 10:38 pm

David Sedgwick wrote:The present state of affairs is very tough on Berkshire players who would like to play proper county chess, but it's up to them to persuade (or change) the leadership of their county.
The reason why none of Berks, Bucks or Oxon play in the SCCU competitions is that there are insufficient players or match captains wishing to take part. As "proper" county chess seems to consist of long journeys round the M25 or the North/South Circular to lose to someone rated 20 or 30 points higher, many players prefer either free weekends, the 4NCL, Congresses or the "improper" local competition of the Chiltern Cup.

User avatar
John Upham
Posts: 7179
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.

Re: The Berkshire - SCCU dispute

Post by John Upham » Wed Jun 30, 2010 10:47 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote: Personally I don't miss Sutton, Wansted, Catford etc. (particularly Catford).
The problem is that BCA AGMs are dominated by the views of two persons and the floor of the AGM generally does whatever the long standing person recommends.

The typical scenario is "Person N recommends we all stick our heads in the sand" "Can I have a show of hands please?" the sheep then look around to see how person N votes and then they copy that person. There is no progress.

Prior to the last AGM I sought the views of the committee other than person N. They agreed with me (the President and the Secretary and some others) but I was told "You'll never get person N to agree and the AGM will just agree with him"

What a ludicrous situation!
British Chess News : britishchessnews.com
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess :D

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: The Berkshire - SCCU dispute

Post by Roger de Coverly » Wed Jun 30, 2010 11:16 pm

John Upham wrote:
Prior to the last AGM I sought the views of the committee other than person N. They agreed with me (the President and the Secretary and some others) but I was told "You'll never get person N to agree and the AGM will just agree with him"

What a ludicrous situation!

Feel free to put a name forward for election as an SCCU captain. The conventional wisdom is that there aren't enough players willing to form a team (which was why the team was withdrawn in the first place). The wisdom might be wrong, but I certainly won't be going to Catford and any potential captain would need enough support for the tricky away matches!

User avatar
John Upham
Posts: 7179
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.

Re: The Berkshire - SCCU dispute

Post by John Upham » Wed Jun 30, 2010 11:26 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Feel free to put a name forward for election as an SCCU captain. The conventional wisdom is that there aren't enough players willing to form a team (which was why the team was withdrawn in the first place). The wisdom might be wrong, but I certainly won't be going to Catford and any potential captain would need enough support for the tricky away matches!
Roger,

Do you believe that Berkshire players are special needs (compared with other counties) in that they will not travel?

Would you continue not to play for Berkshire and continue to play for Buckinghamshire? Maybe Bucks players are not worried by Catford?

I find it interesting that you speak on behalf of a county that you would not play for : can you enlighten the rest of us on the basis for this wisdom? Maybe I should speak on behalf of Kent or Cornwall?

Also, I recommended that the top division of the Chiltern League be Open so as to offer opportunities to more players. Needless to say person N said "No" and told the sheep to agree with him, which of course they did. Another ludicrous decision limiting the top division to 200ECF or less.
British Chess News : britishchessnews.com
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess :D

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: The Berkshire - SCCU dispute (and other related disputes

Post by Roger de Coverly » Wed Jun 30, 2010 11:44 pm

John Upham wrote:Do you believe that Berkshire players are special needs (compared with other counties) in that they will not travel?

Would you continue not to play for Berkshire and continue to play for Buckinghamshire? Maybe Bucks players are not worried by Catford?
Both Bucks and Berks withdrew from the SCCU competitions between 7 and 10 years ago because neither had sufficient players to field reasonable teams. If a prospective match captain came to the Bucks AGM with the plan of entering the SCCU Open or rated competitions, the questions would be whether there was enough support to get teams to places like Catford. If the issue of entering a Berks team in the SCCU is going to be raised at the Berks AGM , it's a very sensible question as to what support there is. In particular given the absence of Bucks and Oxon teams in the SCCU competitions, whether a Berks team could attract cross-border support from those with dual eligibility. As one of the players with dual eligibility I can happily live without SCCU county matches. Others may differ - any potential captain has to find out.

So the benefits of a county being a member of the SCCU are:-

(1) the right to enter SCCU competitions - for which you need a captain and a team
(2) rights to some junior and adult individual titles
(3) .....

Neill Cooper
Posts: 1298
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Cumbria

Re: The Berkshire - SCCU dispute (and other related disputes

Post by Neill Cooper » Thu Jul 01, 2010 6:39 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:So the benefits of a county being a member of the SCCU are:-

(1) the right to enter SCCU competitions - for which you need a captain and a team
(2) rights to some junior and adult individual titles
(3) .....
(1) Includes not just the Open event but also the U180, U160 etc (for which many players will not be grossly out graded), and the U14 grade limited competition which is played in regional zones (and from which I thought Berks withdrew because they only ever played Oxon and Bucks). Also U18 Jamboree.
(3) includes schools in the county being nominated by SCCU for BCET awards
(4) Supporting the regional union. (A bit like discussions elsewhere about whether membership of the ECF is worthwhile). A very recent case in point is that I offered to run this year's ECF U18 Inter County Jamboree based on my experience, as SCCU Junior Organiser, of running the SCCU U18 Jamboree. Berkshire U18 won the event, I think the first time Berkshire have ever won a national chess tournament. Now if there had been no SCCU, I would not have gained experience running Jamborees and when I discovered the ECF had no venue or organiser I would have been unlikely to offer both.

David Sedgwick
Posts: 5249
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: The Berkshire - SCCU dispute

Post by David Sedgwick » Thu Jul 01, 2010 8:15 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:Bucks by contrast are happy to live with the membership for titles issue.
For the record, Roger, that's no longer the case. Buckinghamshire failed to pay the 2009-10 affiliation fee and your membership of the SCCU has now lapsed. If you would like to re-affiliate, we'd be delighted to have you back.

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 5821
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: The Berkshire - SCCU dispute (and other related disputes

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Thu Jul 01, 2010 8:31 am

"The problem is that BCA AGMs are dominated by the views of two persons and the floor of the AGM generally does whatever the long standing person recommends.

The typical scenario is "Person N recommends we all stick our heads in the sand" "Can I have a show of hands please?" the sheep then look around to see how person N votes and then they copy that person. There is no progress.

Prior to the last AGM I sought the views of the committee other than person N. They agreed with me (the President and the Secretary and some others) but I was told "You'll never get person N to agree and the AGM will just agree with him" "

That's exactly how Surrey used to operate. A highlight was when QP finishes were proposed and the President (that is Chairman) said, "We discussed this last year. Next business." Two of us protested, so he grudgingly allowed discussion, but the vote was lost (as above), so he said that nobody would be allowed to make a similar proposal for two years. A few more protested this time... And gradually things improved.

Essex used to have a person "N", but eventually the meeting did disagree with him, and he walked out never to be seen again. He did mean well, but wanted everything to be done as in the preceding century.
"Kevin was the arbiter and was very patient. " Nick Grey

David Sedgwick
Posts: 5249
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: The Berkshire - SCCU dispute (and other related disputes

Post by David Sedgwick » Thu Jul 01, 2010 8:41 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:
David Sedgwick wrote:The present state of affairs is very tough on Berkshire players who would like to play proper county chess, but it's up to them to persuade (or change) the leadership of their county.
The reason why none of Berks, Bucks or Oxon play in the SCCU competitions is that there are insufficient players or match captains wishing to take part. As "proper" county chess seems to consist of long journeys round the M25 or the North/South Circular to lose to someone rated 20 or 30 points higher, many players prefer either free weekends, the 4NCL, Congresses or the "improper" local competition of the Chiltern Cup.
NevilleBel wrote:David - I dont understand your assertion that the Chiltern League is not proper county chess.
My choice of words was patronising. Sorry.

The "official" Counties Championships comprise Union Qualifying Stages and National Stages. The Chiltern League is an independent competition, outside that structure. As a result players from Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire don't have the opportunity to qualify for, and participate in, the National Stages.

I presume that you (Roger and Neville) are both aware that some years ago the SCCU made a number of overtures to the Chiltern League to see whether the latter's events could become SCCU Divisional Competitions. There would have been guaranteed places in the National Stages for the winners, with the top one being either in the Minor or in the U180 (then U175) and another one in an appropriate Division lower down. This would have dealt with the travelling issue, which of course cuts both ways; I didn't particularly look forward to the treks to Twyford, Marlow and Long Hanborough.

These overtures didn't generate a positive response from the Chiltern counties. As I understand it, that was partly because they didn't want to adjust their grading limits to meet the ECF / SCCU structure and partly beacuse they didn't want to place their competitions under the auspices of the SCCU. The SCCU's door is still open, but I think that any fresh approach would have to come from the Chiltern side.

David Sedgwick
Posts: 5249
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: The Berkshire - SCCU dispute (and other related disputes

Post by David Sedgwick » Thu Jul 01, 2010 8:52 am

Neill Cooper wrote:By the way, I think this is a unhelpful topic title, raising the spectre of 'dispute' when it is mainly a disagreement within Berkshire, not between Berks and SCCU. How about calling it 'Non-Union county chess'
I understand why the original thread has been split, but the new title is indeed most unfortuate. If you want something more specific than Neill's suggestion, how about "The Berkshire / SCCU Situation and Related Matters"?

Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire are not in dispute with the SCCU. To the best of my knowledge none of them stormed out after any kind or argument. They've simply decided that they no longer feel that the benefits of membership, which Neill Cooper has set out well, justify the affiliation fee. (In Buckinghamshire's case this may possibly have been an accident.)

That's a pity in my view, but it's a decision which they're perfectly entitled to make.

As someone who was until recently a Surrey Director, I know a dispute when I see one. This situation which we're discussing doesn't meet the criteria.

User avatar
Joey Stewart
Posts: 1860
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:35 pm
Location: All Of Them

Re: The Berkshire - SCCU dispute (and other related disputes

Post by Joey Stewart » Thu Jul 01, 2010 9:21 am

There are enough of them to start their own little union if they wanted - I expect that some of the other small counties in the area might be tempted to join up as well, if it became popular.

Of course, the real issue here seems not to be that they are barred from playing but more a lack of a captain and a team of reliable players - both are essential to running county teams and, in fact, is really the secret of Staffordshires success this year - they are not a huge county in chess terms but all their top players are very keen and will turn out for more or less every match, plus they have a good captain who leads them well.
Lose one queen and it is a disaster, Lose 1000 queens and it is just a statistic.

User avatar
Carl Hibbard
Posts: 6028
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:05 pm
Location: Evesham

Re: The Berkshire - SCCU dispute (and other related disputes

Post by Carl Hibbard » Thu Jul 01, 2010 9:23 am

David Sedgwick wrote:I understand why the original thread has been split, but the new title is indeed most unfortuate. If you want something more specific than Neill's suggestion, how about "The Berkshire / SCCU Situation and Related Matters"?
I agree so I have changed it after the comments from Neill and David, although the splitting is being sorted by Jack to answer one of the other moderation requests
Cheers
Carl Hibbard