Guest Players in League Matches

[Adam Raoof]

OK, here's the topic for today. Take a league like Middlesex, who leave the definition of a genuine club 'member' to the clubs concerned, and let the clubs deal with it internally.

Should chess clubs allow 'guest' / 'honorary' / players to play in their matches? By that I mean titled players who might otherwise not have any connection with the club, who don't attend the club and may even have their memberships paid by others or be paid an appearance fee to play for a team?

[Matthew Turner]

YES.

Professional players have to earn a living somehow and having one play in the local league just adds additional interest.

[IM Jack Rudd]

I'd say it depends a lot on the situation.

My local club, Barnstaple, does it for the simple reason that it is a small club and sometimes cannot raise four regular Barnstaple members for a Devon League match; on more than one occasion, we have called on the services of Ben Edgell, who lives in Bridgwater and does not normally attend club nights.

[Adam Raoof]

What about the argument that having a player in a team who does not pay a membership might deprive genuine members of a place in the squad? Not as a filler in an emergency situation, but as a policy decision in order to do better in a League?

[Sean Hewitt]

It's a matter purely for that club's players/members IMO.

[Matthew Turner]

If a titled player comes in and a 'regular' loses their place then that is a matter for the club. If the regulars are unhappy then they should change the captain, it is not an issue for the league rules (in my opinion).

[Adam Raoof]

If a titled player comes in and a 'regular' loses their place then that is a matter for the club. If the regulars are unhappy then they should change the captain, it is not an issue for the league rules (in my opinion).

No, I quite agree - I was careful to make the point that the League definitely does not interfere in club business. But if you were handling it internally, would you have it in your constitution? I can find several London clubs who already do, and there may be more that I can't access on the net.

[Matthew Turner]

Does it really need to written into the constitution? Can't we just be pragmatic and leave it to captains to organise their teams as they see best?

[David Sedgwick]

As is normal with many debates on this forum, the issues ...... have arisen before.

In this instance a previous thread may be found at:

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... 6&start=15

Admittedly that thread was not one of this Forum's more edifying ones.

In 1996 there was a big row in the ECF about whether or not it should be permissible to make payments to players in National Club Open teams. The decision was to continue to allow it, essentially for the reasons put forward by Matthew.

Fourteen years on, the 4NCL has grown enormously, whilst the National Club Open has shrunk to just three teams. One of these is a professional team which always wipes the floor with the other two.

There's a much stronger case now than there was then for reforming the National Club to make it more of an amateur event. One way of doing this might be to exclude players rated 2350 or above, the level at which they're automatically qualified for the British Championship.

[matt_ward]

Hi, I play for a club with the likes of probably five or six titled players and I personally find it beneficial in my own performance; however the argument I guess is its a amateur league and therefore should professionals be paid £30-50 a game, also I guess people think it's a privilege for those to play club players, whereas it should be a privilege to play a titled player without knowing they are being paid.

I personally find it beneficial and think it raises the standards of chess in the local leagues. Besides titled players being paid they would not do it for free and I do not blame them as most of them its their profession.

Matt.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Hi, I play for a club with the likes of probably five or six titled players and I personally find it beneficial in my own performance however the argument I guess is its a amateur league and therefore should professionals be paid £30-50 a game also I guess people think it's a privilege for those to play club players whereas it should be a privilege to play a titled player without knowing they are being paid.

This sentence is almost unreadable. Would it be too much of an imposition to ask you to include some intermediate punctuation?

[matt_ward]

I have edited it twice I now hope it's readable.

Matt.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Thanks, that's much better.

[James Pratt]

In the Basingstoke League guests are permitted for the first half of the season, when the return matches are played - usually after Christmas - they can only be fielded if both match captains agree.

[Simon Spivack]

If a titled player comes in and a 'regular' loses their place then that is a matter for the club. If the regulars are unhappy then they should change the captain, it is not an issue for the league rules (in my opinion).

Ladies and men,

When it comes to the determination of who plays for which team, I don't see how the use of semi-professionals is any different to when anyone joins a club. The rule of thumb I used was to have roughly one and a half times as many players as boards for the bottom team.

Consider a not entirely random example. As I recall, Hendon has two teams, each of eight boards, in the Middlesex League. To support this there should be, at least 8 + ( 1½ * 8 ) = 20 players who want to play. If Hendon have at least 28 members who want to compete, the club should be looking to field a third team. The key thing to watch out for is to have an extra captain. It is not healthy for one person to run too much.

I have little sympathy for those who refuse to play for any team, other than the first. They should learn to play better, if it is so important to them. In both the London and Middlesex leagues clubs are permitted to field more than one team in a division, subject to the usual relegation and promotion rules.

I like playing against players who, by common consent, are better than me. One digs one's heels in. Don't overlook that a major advantage of a semi-professional is largely absent from evening chess, he probably won't be able to prepare. It is particularly satisfying to be a part of a team of duffers who downs one's betters. It can, and has been, done.

p.s. My one grouch about Hendon is the length of the session. Two and a half hours is too short.