So who's going to the British Chess Championships?

[Ben Purton]

Well this move proves the selection policy/rules need to be looked at. Ignoring it is an insult

[IM Jack Rudd]

A quick look-up on http://ratings.fide.com shows that the writer hasn't got it wrong; Anya Corke is now indeed registered with England.

The United Kingdom is a thorny issue throughout the world of sport, and chess is no exception. It's one of the few countries that is regularly represented by more than one national team; in the case of chess, there are no less than six federations contributing to the mix.

This leads to thorny issues regarding eligibility. There is, as has been rightly noted, no such thing as an English passport. (I'm happy to describe the UK's passports as "British passports" though - it's clear that the contextual meaning of "Britain" here is "the United Kingdom".) This leads to oddities as regards what federations people who take up British citizenship are eligible to represent.

The international sporting organizations such as FIDE and FIFA tend, in such circumstances, to say (if they allow switching federation at all) that a British passport provides eligibility for any of the UK's nations, and that it's up to those nations to decide what further restrictions they put on eligibility to play for them.

(As an aside, there would be nothing contentious in Corke's entering the British Championship, should she wish to do so. A Scottish father is perfectly reasonable for eligibility purposes.)

[Alex Holowczak]

I take similar issue with the counties. I was informed that if you play in the Birmingham League, you can play for Warwickshire. This means that if you live in, for example, Halesowen, which has been in Worcestershire since the Domesday Book, you are eligible to play for Warwickshire too, so long as you play for a club in the Birmingham League. It's stupid, in my opinion.

I think it's a sensible rule. The consequence of it is that people who play in a county's league can play for that county, and therefore alongside the people they play every week in league chess. (I've made use of it in the past to call up Gillingham & Shaftesbury players for the Somerset team.)

The Birmingham League is just that though. It isn't the Warwickshire League.

The Birmingham League has rules about boundaries and how players are eligible for it. Now, the league can presumably, manipulate these rules when it likes. The jist of them is that any player living within x miles of Stephenson Palace, Birmingham can play in the league, and any club within y miles of Stephenson Place can play in the league. If x and y increase (which can be done easily if they want it to be), then Warwickshire can continually expand its borders in terms of county selection. This will poach players from other counties' talent pools. Warwickshire therefore benefits from having a big city on its border. The comparatively minor local leagues (Dudley and Wolverhampton, in Worcestershire and Staffordshire traditionally), can also do the same thing. So in the end, if you live in certain places of the Midlands, you can play for any of the three local counties without any regard for which county you actually have any connection with.

[Ben Purton]

End of the day, if you have represented another country which you have a strong link to, eg a parent, then you need a stronger link to the country than having a father from the country next door which happens to be in a transnational grouping which links with England to change country.

Its a joke.....but then again its the ECF who are basically a joke.

Ben

[Ben Purton]

End of the day Jack you were declined for T n T on grounds much stronger than this girl has to play for England.

Ben

[andrew martin]

We have now arranged the annual cricket match at the Championships.


The mighty ECF XI will confront local club side Clyst St Mary on Sunday 2nd August at 2pm.

All chess-playing cricketers who would like a game please bring whites to Torquay.


Andrew

[JustinHorton]

The United Kingdom is a thorny issue throughout the world of sport, and chess is no exception. It's one of the few countries that is regularly represented by more than one national team; in the case of chess, there are no less than six federations contributing to the mix.

This leads to thorny issues regarding eligibility. There is, as has been rightly noted, no such thing as an English passport. (I'm happy to describe the UK's passports as "British passports" though - it's clear that the contextual meaning of "Britain" here is "the United Kingdom".) This leads to oddities as regards what federations people who take up British citizenship are eligible to represent.

The international sporting organizations such as FIDE and FIFA tend, in such circumstances, to say (if they allow switching federation at all) that a British passport provides eligibility for any of the UK's nations, and that it's up to those nations to decide what further restrictions they put on eligibility to play for them.

Quite.

It's perfectly sensible for the ECF to welcome, as England players, people who are eligible to play for them. There are few complaints in Spain when Alexei Shirov represents them in Olympiads. It is not as if there is a surfeit of strong and promising players who are being deprived of opportunities.

[IM Jack Rudd]

The United Kingdom is a thorny issue throughout the world of sport, and chess is no exception. It's one of the few countries that is regularly represented by more than one national team; in the case of chess, there are no less than six federations contributing to the mix.

This leads to thorny issues regarding eligibility. There is, as has been rightly noted, no such thing as an English passport. (I'm happy to describe the UK's passports as "British passports" though - it's clear that the contextual meaning of "Britain" here is "the United Kingdom".) This leads to oddities as regards what federations people who take up British citizenship are eligible to represent.

The international sporting organizations such as FIDE and FIFA tend, in such circumstances, to say (if they allow switching federation at all) that a British passport provides eligibility for any of the UK's nations, and that it's up to those nations to decide what further restrictions they put on eligibility to play for them.

Quite.

It's perfectly sensible for the ECF to welcome, as England players, people who are eligible to play for them. There are few complaints in Spain when Alexei Shirov represents them in Olympiads. It is not as if there is a surfeit of strong and promising players who are being deprived of opportunities.

OK, let's examine this. The first thing to note is that chess is first and foremost an individual game. Your opportunities to play in high-level individual events are not normally affected much by the presence of strong imported players, it's just the occasional opportunity to play in high-level team events such as the Olympiad. This being the case, a strong young player can make his or her own case for selection by performing well in high-level individual events. For example, part of the reason Grigoryan was selected for the last England squad was that she had just made an exceptionally good TPR in the British Championship; there weren't any comparable performances from similarly-rated native-born English women at around the same time.

[LozCooper]

Following on from Ben and Jack's posts I have the following observations:

One problem we appear to have in England is that not only are there fewer high level events relative to other countries of a similar chess playing level but the chance to play in them is often limited to those who have funding. If you can't afford to play then you can't play. Whilst the John Robinson fund helps players under 21 there is nothing thereafter. Once players start work they then have the money to pay entry fees, accommodation and travel costs but often insufficent time to play the required number of games to be considered active by the selectors. I'm thinking of players such as Natasha Regan, Heather Richards, Melanie Buckley, Cathy Warwick, Sophie Tidman and Sabrina Chevannes who for various reasons were/are no longer being selected and are either giving up the game as a result or are unable to satisfy the selection criteria. They are facing increasing competition from the influx of players to England, some of whom are able to play more and as a result have a greater chance of selection.

Lawrence Cooper
Alternate Director of International Chess
English Chess Federation

[Jonathan Rogers]

Lawrence,

Would you please clarify the selection criteria so that we can see why the players you mentioned would not expect to be selected? (I am not saying that there seems to be anything amiss here. I am just curious to know the criteria. There seems to be an activity threshold, but would that apply if Luke were to offer himself for selection to an Olympiad?).

If I read your post correctly, you are saying that many leading English players miss out, in some cases to players who moved here from abroad, because they do not play very much mainly in turn because they have other priorities. I am tempted to think "so be it". Generally people are right to have higher priorities than chess, but at the same time they are surely not surprised if this puts them at a disadvantage against players with comparable ratings. (This is much the same as saying "x would be stronger than y if only x played or studied as much as y" - which is not very useful if the follow-up is, as it usually is, "mind you, I don't suppose he or she ever will").

[LozCooper]

International Selection Procedures

The purpose of this note is to clarify the criteria that are used in
selecting teams to represent England in competitions such as Olympiads,
World Team Championships and European Team Championships and also
individual events where appropriate. It does not apply to Junior events.

1. Teams and players are selected by a Selection Panel comprising
strong players with a good knowledge of the English and International
chess scene, chaired by the Director of International Chess.

2. No person who is a candidate for selection can serve on the Panel in
relationship to a selection which may affect that person.

3. The primary consideration in selecting a team is playing strength as
defined by the FIDE Rating List and an endeavour to secure the highest
score for that team in the event under consideration.

4. A further consideration will be the player’s recent activity. As a
guideline, any player who has played less than 15 FIDE Rated games in
the prior calendar year is likely to be considered inactive by the
Panel. The Panel may also consider the standard of the events that the
player has competed in when assessing activity.

5. Players representing England are expected to conduct themselves
appropriately, to make a positive contribution to the team, and not to
behave in such a way that discredits the reputation of the ECF or
f the
game of chess. The Panel may consider a player's past conduct when
making a selection.

They are the criteria as I understand it.

Some of the players I listed have performed well for England but then lost their place to a player who has recently transferred to England. Clearly we all have different views on what we want from an England team, the highest rated, the most active, a young or old team with or without players who have transferred from other federations.

On the subject of funding, however, I do think it's only fair that English born players are given a chance to prove their worth. Whilst it's easy to shrug our shoulders and not do anything about it I am trying to address this and if it means me organising tournaments that are affordable and accessible to players of all financial backgrounds then I think it would be a step in the right direction. Similarly, if I can help players to find tournaments abroad with some financial assistance then I think it would be time well spent.

I should add that I am not part of the selection commitee and am not passing judgement on them. I am merely saying the more home grown players that are available for selection the better. Regarding Luke he has at least played Bundesliga and 4NCL to a high level so I suspect if available he would be considered.

Lawrence

[JustinHorton]

Clearly we all have different views on what we want from an England team, the highest rated, the most active, a young or old team with or without players who have transferred from other federations.

This is obviously true: personally I wouldn't want to discourage young talent or have a mercenary side, but it's not really my impression that any genuinely international-class talents have found themselves squeezed out of Olympiad teams, let alonje somehow excluded from opportunities to play high-level chess abroad, something which can be done by entering overseas tournaments. (I took part in one myself last week: several young English talents were present.) Moreover there is a very strong argument that it's good to have powerful players about, because their knowledge can rub off on the other players: and it can't be said enough that nobody's entitled to play for England.

But of course there are arguments every which way on the question: the point is to consider those arguments thoughtfully and sympathetically.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Lawrence

Thanks for your reply; I see that activity is relevant to selection but not a sine non qua - which is surely the best approach.

I am somewhat intrigued though by your passage

"Some of the players I listed have performed well for England but then lost their place to a player who has recently transferred to England. Clearly we all have different views on what we want from an England team, the highest rated, the most active, a young or old team with or without players who have transferred from other federations.

On the subject of funding, however...."

I wasn't aware that was the subject! Exactly how close is the issue of funding to the reason why a number of promising women players stop playing for England - as opposed to them simply having other priorities? You seem to suggest that is perhaps the main reason why a number of named English players have not done better (for my part I should have thought that it is a whole collection of individual reasons)

[LozCooper]

If you refer back to my first post you will see that I raised the subject of funding as well as other reasons for non-activity such as work, time available etc I did not suggest it's the main reason but it is an area that is worth looking at and if possible improving. I also mentioned this as a partial answer to Jacks' point about no English ladies showing comparable results to Meri. All I'm saying is lets give them the opportunity to compete and prove they are still capable of playing at the level that they have for England in the past.
I don't think it's unreasonable to show concern as to why so many girls/ladies stop playing and to try and improve things in the future. The points I have raised are based on feedback I've received from some of the ladies involved who remain keen to represent England in the future. I hope this clarifies my concerns to you.

I have to confess that I have no idea what sine non qua means!

Lawrence

[JustinHorton]

Sine qua non, surely?