English Chess Forum player of the year

[JustinHorton]

In all seriousness, I would like to nominate whoever is the lowest-ranked regular player in England.

[IM Jack Rudd]

In all seriousness, I would like to nominate whoever is the lowest-ranked regular player in England.

That depends on your definition, but David C. Wood of Bury St Edmunds probably fits the criteria: he's the lowest-graded player with an A grade.

[David Robertson]

Don L'Epine is worth a shout, by the same token. Seemed a nice bloke when we met last year. Utterly hopeless at chess, of course

[Jonathan Bryant]

None of the above will win I guess. Don't care. At least I get to nominate them!

In my eyes this is exactly the point.


Having checked Hakwins’ grading rise I admit it is much closer to Webb’s than I’d thought. 'Just' the 30 points from 180ish in two years, though, as opposed to 50.

[MartinCarpenter]

Old style grades when Hawkins improved which I suspect makes a non trivial difference. I guess one thing is that Hawkins did actually go fairly steadily up while Webb definitely stuck at 180-185 for a few years before shooting up.

All incredibly impressive of course

[Andrew Zigmond]

In all seriousness, I would like to nominate whoever is the lowest-ranked regular player in England.

That depends on your definition, but David C. Wood of Bury St Edmunds probably fits the criteria: he's the lowest-graded player with an A grade.

This is getting a bit close to home but one of my best friends plays with a very low grade. There is a bit more to him than meets the eye but his chess playing ability isn't it. That said, I've asked him more than once if he actually enjoys playing in a congress and losing every game and he assures me does (in that he enjoys the congress atmosphere). Believe it or not his Yorkshire grade is actually in the minuses.

[Neil Graham]

In all seriousness, I would like to nominate whoever is the lowest-ranked regular player in England.

That depends on your definition, but David C. Wood of Bury St Edmunds probably fits the criteria: he's the lowest-graded player with an A grade.

David's grade is based on P40 W2 D5 L33 - all credit to him!

[Jonathan Rogers]

This thread is one of the most bizarre I have seen on this forum (no small feat, of course). It is one thing to bemoan the lack of diversity in English chess (all true enough), and even to confuse "player of the year" with "personality of the year" (that is done outside chess too) but it is very much an "only on this forum" moment that some people seem to be preparing to nominate the worst players in the country for "player of the year" ...

[Chris Rice]

This thread is one of the most bizarre I have seen on this forum (no small feat, of course). It is one thing to bemoan the lack of diversity in English chess (all true enough), and even to confuse "player of the year" with "personality of the year" (that is done outside chess too) but it is very much an "only on this forum" moment that some people seem to be preparing to nominate the worst players in the country for "player of the year" ...

I thought it was rather a good thread. The issue as I understand it started with the ECF in an attempt to stop joke candidates being put forward put out a limited list of nominations presumably once again in the "members best interests" without bothering to ask them if this was ok. The gnashing of teeth that followed could easily have been avoided if they had put out that list but said "if there's anyone members feel have been left out you've got until such and such a date to put them forward explaining why you feel they should deserve to be nominated". Someone could have then easily decided what deserving extra candidates could have been added to this list and which could have been discarded. Think that would have done the trick and I would have happily voted for David Howell (results at British/Gibraltar/Dubai/4ncl difficult to argue with) but that's not what happened.

In response Jack starts an EC Forum thread asking for nominations, not people that would necessarily win. Suggestions were then made as to who could have logically been included as you say including on a personality basis. Justin's suggestion took the definition to the extreme but I think it was a great idea. Some of these players get no recognition, admittedly some are not very good, but a lot of them turn up week after week despite getting slaughtered on a regular basis, simply because they love the game. I was reminded of an incident a few years ago when I was playing at Hastings. I was casually spectating when Fred Coombes (who played somewhere every week of the year at the time, literally hundreds of games, most of which I presume he lost given his grade) came up to me. He was really excited. "Chris, I think I'm going to win this tournament!" I told Fred that was brilliant and I was really happy for him. He then went on with I think something along the lines of "its only an U-100 tournament, its pathetic really, I'm nearly 90 years old and I'm getting excited about winning what really is a beginners tournament".

Thought this was really inspiring and what the ECF should be all about ie age is no barrier and if Fred had been nominated for ECF player of the year at the time who can say he wouldn't have merited it?

Finally, I want to add Meri Grigoryan to the list of nominations for this year. http://en.chessbase.com/post/chess-and-charity

[Jonathan Bryant]

The issue as I understand it started with the ECF in an attempt to stop joke candidates being put forward put out a limited list of nominations presumably once again in the "members best interests" without bothering to ask them if this was ok.

Agree with your post almost entirely Chris, but do we actually know it was an "attempt to stop joke candidates" that motivated the switch of system? I know several people have suggested that this is a good reason to change, but I’ve yet to hear/see anything that makes it clear this was the ECF’s thinking.

I must admit, I don’t really understand the other Jonathan’s point. I consider it a good thing that we can choose our 'Player of the Year' on a range of criteria and not just absolute playing strength or results.

Brendan O’G, for example. I’m sure he would acknowledge himself that he is not the best chess player in England. I doubt there are many who can top him for enthusiasm though. So why shouldn’t be be Player of the Year on that basis?

[Chris Rice]

Agree with your post almost entirely Chris, but do we actually know it was an "attempt to stop joke candidates" that motivated the switch of system? I know several people have suggested that this is a good reason to change, but I’ve yet to hear/see anything that makes it clear this was the ECF’s thinking.

It wasn't anything official Jon. I was referencing a speculative comment from Andrew Zigmond on the ECF forum which I happened to think was a logical conclusion. The only official comment so far from the ECF as far as I can see is the helpful "We are trying a new system".

[John Upham]

As a protest at the interesting nature of the official ECF Player of the Year nominations, I'm setting up my own competition. You may nominate anyone you like; nominations close at the end of May. After that, I shall set up voting.

Could you add Stewart Reuben to the list on the grounds that he regularly informs us he is frequently consulted on many chess matters?

[Chris Rice]

As a protest at the interesting nature of the official ECF Player of the Year nominations, I'm setting up my own competition. You may nominate anyone you like; nominations close at the end of May. After that, I shall set up voting.

Could you add Stewart Reuben to the list on the grounds that he regularly informs us he is frequently consulted on many chess matters?

If you had consulted Stewart earlier John you would have realised that he cannot be nominated on the grounds that he is the Manager of the Awards System http://www.englishchess.org.uk/ and thus ineligible.

[IM Jack Rudd]

He might be ineligible for the ECF Awards, but he's eligible for the EC Forum awards. (But, by the same token, I'm going to declare myself ineligible for the EC Forum award on the grounds that I'm running it.)

[NickFaulks]

I'm a bit puzzled that Mickey Adams' name doesn't feature. Not a special year by his own standards, but we were reminded yet again in Tromso that, while other English players sometimes produce good results, without him we really haven't got a team.