Only The Strong

[Joey Stewart]

I thought to myself, it might be interesting to see how well I compared to the other players on these forums and it is strange that almost everyone else is a strong player and, yet, such players are supposed to be in the minority on the grand scheme of things.

It made me conclude that perhaps it is only the best players who really care enough about the game to want to discuss and improve on it and most of the rest just take it casually and want to turn up, play a game, and then forget it ever existed.

Has anyone else noticed this strange phenomenon, and have any views of their own?

[Roger de Coverly]

Has anyone else noticed this strange phenomenon, and have any views of their own?

For many years the BCF/ECF Council and boards were dominated by those who had either retired from playing or who struggled to exceed the median grade. At least in part the "stronger" players had better things to do than attend tiresome meetings. Forums balance this up somewhat and give the "stronger" players a platform.

[TomChivers]

Maybe this forum is good for your chess?

[Sean Hewitt]

Maybe this forum is good for your chess?

No wonder the ECF banned it

[David Lettington]

perhaps it is only the best players who really care enough about the game to want to discuss and improve on it

At least in part the "stronger" players had better things to do than attend tiresome meetings. Forums balance this up somewhat and give the "stronger" players a platform

I think these views are pretty demeaning to weaker players like myself who love the game and follow it keenly. Just because someone doesn't reach a particular rating should not imply that their views are not worth considering. Indeed the weaker players make up the bulk of the chess-playing community.

The ability to play chess well is a very particular kind of intelligence and just because someone doesn't play very well it doesn't make them any less intelligent in general terms or less able to contribute to the administration of the game. Indeed, there are plenty of cases of extremely strong players who show an inability to transfer their skills to any other area of life.

As someone who has other "transferable skills" gained in my working life and on various public bodies then I think that I can make some contribution to the game by organising events. You don't have to be a strong player to have an opinion and make a contribution.

[Roger de Coverly]

less able to contribute to the administration of the game.

Many/Most of the contributors to this forum would like to see adjudications and adjournments either abolished or phased out so that finishing in one session becomes the default. Where we have put this view to local rules committees or AGMs, it is usually ( the BCM editor excepted) the lower rated players who wish to retain the older rules.


The original question was why the top half of playing strength seemed over represented on this forum. The parallel question is why the bottom half is over represented on county and league committees (if it is). I have my theories on this.

[J T Melsom]

Roger

It would be temendously helpful if you could spell out your theories rather than just allude to them. Some of us suspect there may be some unsound thinking involved.

It is after all a common refrain of many your posts to challenge the playing strength of those advocating a certain position and then to challenge the extent of their playing activity. These might have relevance in respect of some chess based decsions, but the vast majority of decisions are administrative/business ones. Moreover many policy proposals fail, not because of the merits of the policy or the strengths of the players, but because the process of change is handled badly or insensitively.

Perhaps by way of you could identify some of the high graded chess players who do provide competent services to local and national chess. There are I am sure plenty of low ranked players who would happily step aside for you.

[David Lettington]

it is usually ( the BCM editor excepted) the lower rated players who wish to retain the older rules.

I don't see any evidence for this in my area (Kent). I would like to get rid of adjournments and adjudications and I'm graded 122, virtually everyone at my club agrees. Those is Kent who wish to keep the old rules seem to be those who play for a club whose venue is only available for short periods of time and have a strict locking up time; it doesn't seem to be anything to do with their playing strength. Anyway, I don't see how this is relevant to the original point that was being made.

[quote="Roger de Coverly]The original question was why the top half of playing strength seemed over represented on this forum. The parallel question is why the bottom half is over represented on county and league committees (if it is). I have my theories on this.[/quote]

....and your theories are?

[Alex Holowczak]

I think it's quite interesting that only 1 person who lives in modern Birmingham & the Black Country uses this. Stretching into Staffs, Worcs and Warks and numbers increase, but the second city is vastly under-represented. This is despite me getting the League webmaster to put a link to this on the League website. By comparison, London and Manchester are represented here in droves.

Not sure what conclusion to draw from that, but I doubt its a positive one.

[Roger de Coverly]

It would be temendously helpful if you could spell out your theories rather than just allude to them

As a former member of the BCF council, can you not think of those who connection to chess seemed little more than attendance at BCF meetings?

These might have relevance in respect of some chess based decsions, but the vast majority of decisions are administrative/business ones.

Particularly at local level, I'm not so sure. As it currently stands in Bucks, the league controller and webmaster are the only internationally rated players on the league committee and possibly also the only ones with much experience of digital clocks and incremental move rates.

Edit - forget about the webmaster

[Jonathan Bryant]

Not sure what conclusion to draw from that, but I doubt its a positive one.

That depends on whether you live in London or Birmingham I suppose.

[David Sedgwick]

As a former member of the BCF council, can you not think of those who connection to chess seemed little more than attendance at BCF meetings?

As a current member of the ECF Council, I can't actually.

However, I can think of a fair number of people who don't much like playing and/or are weak players, but who nevertheless make a very important contribution in various administrative capacities. The late John Robinson is perhaps the most outstanding example.

I'm an arbiter who also plays at a decreasing but still reasonable standard and I find that being an active player is an advantage. However, it's by no means essential.