Post
by Edward Dearing » Fri Mar 11, 2011 12:34 pm
If I may interject, I did play for Cambridge in 2000 in the county championship, and it was a bit controversial, as I was registered with Writtle (in Essex) and had always played for Essex in the past (but had not done so that season). That said, I had moved schools for sixth form (new school was in Cambridge), and I was about to start Uni in Cambridge, so I did have some connection with the county. I was a bit worried sceptical myself, but someone checked at the time and confirmed that I was eligible. In any case I doubt it influenced the result.
That said, I think the broader point here is that some players feel that the Cambridge team lack sufficient connection to Cambridgeshire, and in fact went so far as to arrange for the rules to be changed to ensure that Cambridge graduates could not continue to play for their county. I consider this to be a grotesque abuse of position, that put petty competitiveness ahead of the interests of county chess.
The people who petitioned for the change in rules failed to consider two points (or perhaps they were fully aware of these points, but chose to disregard them).
Firstly, they failed to consider why, even years later, graduates continued to turn out for Cambridge. The answer (which is the same as for Cambridge Uni 4NCL team) is that the Cambridge team enjoyed an enormous sense of community. Very few juniors enjoy county chess, but the Cambridge county team was made up of players who all liked and respected each other (socially, as well as in chess terms), and who would also choose to play together in other contexts (Varsity being one context, although note that most of us also played together on the international circuit as teenagers; there is also the 4NCL team). There was no incentive for graduates to continue to play beyond supporting their team, and faced with an outright ban most players simply abandoned county chess. In short, to impose a continuing connection obligation on players completely disregards the significance of a team's sense of community.
Secondly, they failed to consider the implications for county chess generally. The point has been made that Cambridge could turn out a team with the likes of Mestel, Parker, Turner, Harriot Hunt, myself, Karl, Ferguson (the list goes on...). Changing the rules effectively banned these players from participating in county chess, which doesn't benefit county chess at all. A strong junior who is guaranteed a match against a GM or IM would usually choose to play. But faced with a random 170...why bother? Ditto for most IMs and GMs who reside in other counties.
Driving titled players out of county championship has only served to undermine the event and to reinforce the significance of the 4NCL (just compare the coverage that each event enjoys).
Anyway, those are my thoughts on the subject. It's probably too late to reverse the decision; it's just a shame that nobody bothered to ask the Cambridge team before changing the rules and effectively banning us from county chess.
Regards,
Eddie
, Robo was playing for Cambridge so Sharks of course support them.
