Living in the Past: The Chiltern League

[John Upham]

We are all used to hearing examples of practises that could be labelled as "living in the past" and we are forced to accept that some persons will never, ever modernise their ways even as officials of leagues.

(As individuals they can of course do what they wish but I am concerned with chess administrators and officials).

At the the recent Berkshire Chess Association AGM (I am League Secretary) it was reported that the Chiltern League (a Pseudo County competition) submitted results for rating purposes maybe only annually or twice a year and certainly not what most in this place would describe as in a timely fashion.

This may be contrasted to BCA matches results which are mostly submitted within 24 hours to the ECF LMS from being played.

Many years ago I had generally regarded the Chiltern League as somewhat of a Mickey Mouse affair when I learnt that they limited the grading of county teams to 180 and I therefore lobbied the somewhat ineffectual committee to remove this cap which then happened.

So, should in 2023 the results of matches still be submitted to the ECF on a timescale more suitable for ten years or should they modernise or does it not matter one iota?

[Roger de Coverly]

So, should in 2023 the results of matches still be submitted to the ECF on a timescale more suitable for ten years or should they modernise or does it not matter one iota?

Other organisations including the ECF running county matches seem to get the results reported within a few hours of the games finishing. In some cases I think they report even before the whole match has finished.

It's two critical points that are needed.
The first is that match captains or those deputising should report results promptly, The second is that reported results feed directly into the grading system, whether using the ECF LMS or otherwise.

[John Townsend]

The result of the Berkshire v Hampshire match has been published on the Hampshire Chess History website:

https://hampshirechesshistory.co.uk/chi ... s-2023-24/

I don't know what has to happen before it is graded, but, clearly, there has been no delay so far, as the match was only played yesterday. Congratulations to Hampshire on their 13-7 victory. They mustered a good team.

The longstanding tradition of playing on Saturday afternoon is very popular with many, allowing a time limit of all moves in two hours. It is a more relaxed atmosphere than in the somewhat rushed evening league matches.

This was a friendly and sporting event, enjoyed by representatives of both sexes and all age groups. Long live the Chiltern League. I do not recognize John Upham's description of it as "a Pseudo County competition" and "somewhat of a Mickey Mouse affair", and I would have thought that any delays in the grading can be resolved without too much difficulty.

[John Upham]

This was a friendly and sporting event, enjoyed by representatives of both sexes and all age groups. Long live the Chiltern League. I do not recognize John Upham's description of it as "a Pseudo County competition" and "somewhat of a Mickey Mouse affair", and I would have thought that any delays in the grading can be resolved without too much difficulty.

When I first became aware of the CL and created an LMS for them, I noticed that the top division was not open and players over 180 BCF were unwelcome.

I asked Dennis the Menace about this and he told that he did not know any strong players from Berkshire.

I managed to convince the committee to make the top division Open and lo and behold players over 180 started playing in the Chiltern League for all of the counties: Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Hampshire and Oxfordshire.

I also manage to convince counties to replace BHB analogue timers with DGT timers. I recall being supported by the county captains who told me that they had been banging their heads against brick walls when dealing with DtM who ruled with an iron first not recognising a concept called democracy.

I shall be reporting elsewhere on DtM and EPSCA following a meeting on October 1st that he does not wish to attend.

[John Upham]

I don't know what has to happen before it is graded, but, clearly, there has been no delay so far, as the match was only played yesterday. Congratulations to Hampshire on their 13-7 victory. They mustered a good team.

The most recent result reported to the ECF rating database was, appropriately enough, April 1st 2023.

Shall we have a John Wager on when the match from September 23rd will get reported?

I'm guessing that the event code will be

https://www.ecfrating.org.uk/v2/new/lis ... ction_no=1

I'll go for Christmas 2023.

The blockage appears to be down to Peter Hemmings (The CL Rating Officer) who believes (I am told) that results should be reported at most biannually. This was reported at the Berkshire Chess Association AGM by BCA County Captain, Gareth Ward following a question from Roger de Coverly. The meeting tasked Gareth to bring this matter up with Peter Hemmings and this was minuted accordingly.

[John Townsend]

Can't the grading be done using the result card which has been published? What other information is needed?

[Paul Cooksey]

As I remember the AGM discussion, not much more. An agreement for captains to update the ECF LMS might be enough, which our captain agreed to suggest.

[John Upham]

Can't the grading be done using the result card which has been published? What other information is needed?

The ECF LMS is configured to accept inputs from the authorised rating officer which is Peter Hemmings and no-one else. Obviously an ECF admin person could submit the data but why should they?

I'd happily do it but am not authorised and ECF persons are not officially permitted to post to this place in any case.

[GrahamStuart]

I was noticeable last season that games were not rated that quickly, but maybe this is something which the CL will consider changing, although the ins and outs of this is not something I have ever been involved in. The results were sent to me by the HCA Match Captain and as I list all the County Results on my website I have added these - the same will happen on the HCA website shortly as well.

I have to admit when seeing the original Micky Mouse and Pseudo County competition comments I thought this was a bit disrespectful to the competition (but I am sure it was a little bit tongue in cheek). I know Hampshire joined in 2000, and I think it was originally held in 1975/76? as a competition for the Berkshire, Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire 2nd teams and the Hertfordshire 3rd team.

This was the original reason for the U170, U180 and U200 limits as this was a time when County chess was more popular (before 4NCL). Hampshire originally joined in 2000 (in the U125 section) to allow players who were not strong enough to play in the WECU to play County Chess. The competition moving slowly from U170 to Open was one of the reasons for Hampshire slowly moving away from playing in the WECU, as it was a challenge to enter both competitions. One of the reasons were entered was that the U170 limit would not hamper the WECU team too much at that time, this changed when the limit moved, as a number of players chose the CL over the WECU. The WECU Captain moving and us not having a replacement also had a factor in this though...

That said, as per the match yesterday the CL venues are excellent (the ones I have played in), lots of space, a 4 hour playing session and have proved very enjoyable to the players who represent their counties. Many strong players have represented counties in the past in the CL (Harry Grieve and Stephen Jones for Hampshire are two examples of a future British Champion and this year's runner up).

I certainly used an Analogue clock yesterday, not sure if this was the case on all boards, but if these were introduced previously, this is not the case now? Although Hampshire do have a plan to replace all clocks with DGT ones (we bought 8 this year) but this will take a few years unless anyone wishes to make a donation to the HCA to bring this forward!.

[David Clayton]

Can't the grading be done using the result card which has been published? What other information is needed?

The ECF LMS is configured to accept inputs from the authorised rating officer which is Peter Hemmings and no-one else. Obviously an ECF admin person could submit the data but why should they?

I'd happily do it but am not authorised and ECF persons are not officially permitted to post to this place in any case.

I don't understand this post at all. On our version of the ECF LMS software, it is the team captain, or other nominated person, who inputs the team list into the software.

Where does 'authorised rating officer' and 'ECF admin person' fit into the process of adding player names into the teams?

[John Upham]

I don't understand this post at all. On our version of the ECF LMS software, it is the team captain, or other nominated person, who inputs the team list into the software.

Where does 'authorised rating officer' and 'ECF admin person' fit into the process of adding player names into the teams?

I've scanned https://ecflms.org.uk/lms/node/2 for a mention of the Chiltern League but have failed miserably.

Can you help?

Peter Hemmings admins the Chiltern League in terms of submitting rating data.

I am not aware of anyone else who has been authorised. Please correct me....

[Ian Jamieson]

I don't understand this post at all. On our version of the ECF LMS software, it is the team captain, or other nominated person, who inputs the team list into the software.

Where does 'authorised rating officer' and 'ECF admin person' fit into the process of adding player names into the teams?

I've scanned https://ecflms.org.uk/lms/node/2 for a mention of the Chiltern League but have failed miserably.

Can you help?

Peter Hemmings admins the Chiltern League in terms of submitting rating data.

I am not aware of anyone else who has been authorised. Please correct me....

Why can’t the Chiltern League just elect someone who is prepared to report results more frequently?

Or is no-one else prepared to do it?

Or do the league only want their results submitted twice a year? Not everyone is in favour of monthly lists.

[John Upham]

Or do the league only want their results submitted twice a year? Not everyone is in favour of monthly lists.

One of the factors at play is the nature of perhaps the majority who take part in the CL. I have a strong suspicion that this majority are not tournament players and see little or no value in having an "up-to-date" rating.

Of course some of the stronger CL players are active players and it was one of those (our very own Roger) who raised this matter with the Berkshire team captain.

It was in the time that the CL had a 180 rating cap that a FIDE Master in the Basingstoke area referred to the CL as "Mickey Mouse" since he was banned from representing his home county of Hampshire so not so much of a tongue-in-cheek comment but was based on anecdotal evidence.

[NickFaulks]

Or do the league only want their results submitted twice a year? Not everyone is in favour of monthly lists.

Not their decision. The rating system is based on monthly reporting and organisations unwilling to do that should opt out altogether.

[Ian Jamieson]

Or do the league only want their results submitted twice a year? Not everyone is in favour of monthly lists.

Not their decision. The rating system is based on monthly reporting and organisations unwilling to do that should opt out altogether.

It may not be their decision but it does seem to be what they are doing. Maybe ECF needs to give them an ultimatum.