NCCU AGM Minutes 2010

[Alex Holowczak]

The county system in the NCCU is ailing because, simply, all the major towns and cities are within two counties, Lancashire and Yorkshire. If this wasn't the case, presumably Cleveland, Merseyside, and Greater Manchester would have no reason to exist. Perhaps abandoning the zonal structure of the county championship in favour of a Swiss-style event nationally would get rid of this problem? That way Lancashire and Yorkshire would get some competition, and there'd be no need for Greater Manchester, Merseyside or Cleveland to have their own county teams - they could join Lancashire and Yorkshire and make the existing teams stronger, with more chance of winning. Just have county 2nd teams, even 3rd teams, to give more people a game.

[Alan Walton]

So Alex I presuming that you think Chester, Sunderland, Middlesbrough and Newcastle are not major towns or cities, also Cleveland would be in Durham.

Also isn't it good for the chess to have GMan participating as a separate team, if you add in all GMan players into a Lancashire team then this would make it ultra-strong, when GMan won the County Champs a few years ago we had 180 players playing on board 16, and we beat Lancashire quite comfortably

The problem with the current GMan setup is the travelling for the Northern based players going down to the Midlands (it takes myself living the far North-East of Manchester nearly 1 hour just to get to the M6). If we entered the NCCU jamboree in Bradford nobody has more than a 1 hour drive

[Roger de Coverly]

Your suggestion would entail the formation of the (Greater) London County Chess Association, a new body which would seek affiliation to the SCCU and the ECF. Whatever its exact proposed territory, it would inevitably comprise a significant part of the current areas of Essex, Kent, Middlesex and Surrey.

Looking at it from just across the border, I wouldn't have any strong feelings against it. But then I'm mildly against the concept of restricting weekend team chess to territorial counties because of the discrimination against players who are only eligible for a "smaller" county. If the new "county" was to exist purely for the purposes of setting up some additional weekend teams and generating extra matches, the logical solution would be to allow "non-territorial" entries into the weekend competition. Still as the London League in effect already plays in the SCCU competitions under the Middlesex label, there would be no incentive to set up additional teams.

The issue relates to the way the GMCCA was formed - walking out of a Lancs meeting - and animosity between the individuals concerned

On the Lancs side, Jim Tennant-Smith continues to be the main barrier, and his animosity with Harry Lamb in particular is the key

So this long running dispute is "handbags at dawn" between two individuals?

It's worth remembering that the SCCU has had at least three territorial upheavals in the last sixty years, namely the formation of the WECU, the transfer of Hampshire to WECU and the formation of the EACU. None so far as I am aware generated a 35 year old (and counting) legal dispute.

[Alex Holowczak]

So Alex I presuming that you think Chester, Sunderland, Middlesbrough and Newcastle are not major towns or cities, also Cleveland would be in Durham.

OK, Cleveland would be in Durham. Fine.

The populations of those places:
Chester: 77,040
Sunderland: 177,739
Newcastle: 273,600
Middlesbrough: 142,691

Now by comparison,

Lancashire
Liverpool: 434,900
Manchester: 464,200

Yorkshire
Leeds: 770,800
Sheffield: 534,500
Bradford: 501,700

Of course, Lancashire and Yorkshire in their traditional sense have far more than just those places. It's reasonable to assume that the vast majority of NCCU chessplayers fall within traditional Lancashire and Yorkshire.

Also isn't it good for the chess to have GMan participating as a separate team, if you add in all GMan players into a Lancashire team then this would make it ultra-strong, when GMan won the County Champs a few years ago we had 180 players playing on board 16, and we beat Lancashire quite comfortably

Would it be good for chess if Russia split up into about 20 parts to give the rest of the world a chance? To be fair, in the early 1990s, it did! Now the Olympiad is dominated by former Soviet teams, making it harder for countries like England to get medals. Has that been good for chess? Well, it may mean more competition for Russia, but so what? Everyone still turns up regardless, knowing they have no chance of winning. The British Virgin Islands still turn up to get drubbed by Russia in the standings.

I don't think people understand that if you have a closed border championship, there will be different population pools for each county to draw from. Therefore, some counties will be stronger than others. In our sense, it will mean Lancashire and Yorkshire will inevitably be very strong. So what? If you continually devolve the counties into smaller and smaller elements to make the population bases roughly even, and give everyone an equal chance, then the concept of a closed-border championship has been removed, and you have an equivalent to the 4NCL, but with worse playing conditions, less prestige and less prize money. What would be the appeal? At the moment, the appeal is playing for your county against other counties. In my case, playing for Sandwell against Dudley (both have roughly 300,000 people) would hold zero prestige, and I wouldn't bother playing.

[Roger de Coverly]

you have an equivalent to the 4NCL, but with worse playing conditions, less prestige and less prize money. What would be the appeal?

Only one round per weekend. Much shorter travelling. The opportunity to play on a low board for strong team instead of a high board for a weak one.

[Roger de Coverly]

Now the Olympiad is dominated by former Soviet teams, making it harder for countries like England to get medals. Has that been good for chess? Well, it may mean more competition for Russia, but so what? Everyone still turns up regardless, knowing they have no chance of winning. The British Virgin Islands still turn up to get drubbed by Russia in the standings.

The Olympiad is a poor example because accommodation is free even for the weakest teams. Better to compare it to the European Championships where Federations have to pay their own expenses. The likes of Guernsey, Jersey, San Marino, Andorra etc. rarely play in the Euros. Scotland and Wales are usually the amateur whipping boys at the foot of the table.

[Alex Holowczak]

you have an equivalent to the 4NCL, but with worse playing conditions, less prestige and less prize money. What would be the appeal?

Only one round per weekend. Much shorter travelling. The opportunity to play on a low board for strong team instead of a high board for a weak one.

You're from the SCCU, which is quite cosy.

This year, I've played three games for Worcestershire:
1) Lincolnshire home, played in Syston, Leicestershire
2) Shropshire away, played in a sports hall in Shifnal, Shropshire
3) Leicestershire away, played in a church somewhere in Leicestershire

Shifnal was an hour away, the other two were about two hours.

Shifnal excepting, these journeys were far longer for me than the 4NCL would be; two rounds in Hinckley is an hour on the train, two rounds in Daventry is an hour on the train. Sunningdale was a bit more of a pain.

[Alex Holowczak]

Now the Olympiad is dominated by former Soviet teams, making it harder for countries like England to get medals. Has that been good for chess? Well, it may mean more competition for Russia, but so what? Everyone still turns up regardless, knowing they have no chance of winning. The British Virgin Islands still turn up to get drubbed by Russia in the standings.

The Olympiad is a poor example because accommodation is free even for the weakest teams. Better to compare it to the European Championships where Federations have to pay their own expenses. The likes of Guernsey, Jersey, San Marino, Andorra etc. rarely play in the Euros. Scotland and Wales are usually the amateur whipping boys at the foot of the table.

But the concept remains the same. They aren't playing in the Euros because they don't have enough players, it'll be because their national chess federations probably can't afford it. All things being equal financially, they'd be there. Money is the problem, not enthusiasm.

Andorra, San Marino etc. don't complain that the competition is unfair for them because they have so few players, and they'll always lose. Similarly, Russia don't complain that they always win - in fact, they don't! Armenia won the last two Olympiads, and I think Azerbaijan won the Euros. By that extension, I don't know if any smaller counties complain about having too few players. Obviously if you can't raise a team of 16, you can't enter. The solution then is to have smaller team sizes, not devolve existing counties into smaller chunks to give worthy opposition. Does this mean that some people who want to play can't, because they might not make a team? It might do. It is not beyond a county captain to rotate his players around to give everyone a game, as happens at club level. Another element of closed border competition is that sometimes, you might not be good enough to make the team. E.g. if my grade is 141 this year, I probably won't make the Worcestershire Open team, and I'd be too high for the U140s. This doesn't bother me, because it happens. If you want to do something about it, run an U160 team, or a 2nd team in the Open. That way, you retain closed borders (which for me is the point of the competition), and you don't need to split up big counties to make it fairer for the little ones; perhaps the 2nd or even 3rd team might provide closer opposition?

[Sean Hewitt]

This year, I've played three games for Worcestershire:
1) Lincolnshire home, played in Syston, Leicestershire
2) Shropshire away, played in a sports hall in Shifnal, Shropshire
3) Leicestershire away, played in a church somewhere in Leicestershire

Shifnal was an hour away, the other two were about two hours.

Shifnal excepting, these journeys were far longer for me than the 4NCL would be; two rounds in Hinckley is an hour on the train, two rounds in Daventry is an hour on the train. Sunningdale was a bit more of a pain.[/

Alex - Are you comparing apples with apples? According to Google Maps Oldbury is an hour by car from Syston and Thurmaston (where the Leics match was played. And it was a school!!) although an hour an three quarters by train. I'd get a team mate to give me a lift if I were you.

Hats off to you for getting to Daventry by train in an hour though, given that there isn't a train station in Daventry and the nearest station is Long Buckby 5 miles away. That takes an hour and three quarters by train, plus a long walk!

[David Pardoe]

Alex...some of your arguements are somewhat `offbeat`, I think. Maybe you should stick to West Midlands matters.
Your concept of `counties` is wrong because many counties include leagues that stretch way into neighbouring counties boundaries...so they are in fact two or more counties. This I believe is grossly unfair, and creates bogus counties that include players from everywhere but the actual `bona fide` home county. This, therefore deprives many genuine local players of a place on that county team...totally wrong in my view. It invalidates your claims about genuine counties...they are in fact codged up botched teams, where those that carry most clout can pull the players they want, leaving other counties with the left-overs. So you end up with a bogus competition mascarading as a counties event, with many counties consigned to the sidelines.

Mick....two points...firstly, at a meeting of the MCF council not long ago several delegates queried the reasons for us joining the NCCU. I think the resolution that you refer to was to authorise the MCF to approach the NCCU with a view to membership, not actually to mandate us to join.
Secondly, I dont see this Bradford Jamboree, with Yorks, Lancs, & Gman as a long term solution. It excludes all the other counties, who will be left on the sidelines. I hope if we do join the NCCU that they can get a formula that will encourage the other counties..like Cumbria, Cheshire, Merseyside, Northumberland, Durham, and Cleveland to actively participate, just like they do with the MCCU. If so, they`d have to have an east-west split to make it work. A match between Northumberland and Cheshire in mid winter or early Spring could be a nightmare trip over the pennine hell road...M62...even worse down the A1 from Berwick?
Nevertheless, Im keen to resolve the present difficulties so that north west chess can be at peace and moving postively forward, instead of being entrenched in a pointless trist between a few old war lords.
I`ll repeat that the MCCU offers our players a much better deal on the counties scene at present, but I except that travel is not easy...although our neutral venues at Newcastle-U-Lyme, etc have proved very helpful. Incidentally, we should really play Staffordshire on a home/away basis, not neutral venues...if Staffs could agree to play at Stoke, or maybe Stafford..rather than dragging us to the edges of Wolverhampton. But I can understand the difficulties both ways.
I know that, by contrast Manchester is most accommodating with regard to venues. Yes, they could be posher...but who`se prepared to pay top whack.
No doubt others have ideas and positive contributions to this debate. Maybe Mr Tennant-Smith or others in the NCCU could offer some thoughts on a way forward. Need need to focus on whats in the best interests of northern chess. Some open dialogue + give & take can surely produce a better result. Can we `port` the Merseyside solution to GMan in a way that allows everyone to join in.

[Alex Holowczak]

Alex - Are you comparing apples with apples? According to Google Maps Oldbury is an hour by car from Syston and Thurmaston (where the Leics match was played. And it was a school!!) although an hour an three quarters by train. I'd get a team mate to give me a lift if I were you.

Hats off to you for getting to Daventry by train in an hour though, given that there isn't a train station in Daventry and the nearest station is Long Buckby 5 miles away. That takes an hour and three quarters by train, plus a long walk!

It was definitely a church, because I remember our captain complaining about church venues being poorly signposted.

Sandwell & Dudley to Birmingham New Street takes 9 or 12 minutes, depending on whether or not the train calls at Smethwick Galton Bridge or Smethwick Rolfe Street. Birmingham New Street to Long Buckby takes 50 minutes. I was given a lift from the station to the venue, which took about 10 minutes. So that's nearer 1 hour than 2. I can even remember the trains I caught; the 1146 to New Street, which arrived at 1155. I then went to the bank on Corporation Street to cash a cheque and got a Belgian Bun from the Greggs in The Pallasades... Before getting the 1233 train to Northampton (which in reality goes to London Euston) with a friend, and arriving at 1323. We got to the venue at about 1:30. So the total time was near two hours, but about 20 minutes of that time was spent walking to and from the bank and eating cake, rather than travelling. I could have caught a later train to New Street (1202), which arrives at 1214 if I wanted a quicker journey.

I did get lifts for those two matches, and I remember setting off at 11am for one, and arriving at about 12:30pm, with no pitstops for cake inbetween!

[Alex Holowczak]

Alex...some of your arguements are somewhat `offbeat`, I think. Maybe you should stick to West Midlands matters.

You were the one offering the role of GM captain to me!

Your concept of `counties` is wrong because many counties include leagues that stretch way into neighbouring counties boundaries...so they are in fact two or more counties. This I believe is grossly unfair, and creates bogus counties that include players from everywhere but the actual `bona fide` home county. This, therefore deprives many genuine local players of a place on that county team...totally wrong in my view. It invalidates your claims about genuine counties...they are in fact codged up botched teams, where those that carry most clout can pull the players they want, leaving other counties with the left-overs. So you end up with a bogus competition mascarading as a counties event, with many counties consigned to the sidelines.

You're right. The Birmingham League has teams from three counties, Staffordshire, Worcestershire and Warwickshire. What do you suggest, the League gets closed down, in favour of Warwickshire, Worcestershire and Staffordshire Leagues?

I have discovered recently that the county associations actually have competing claims for the areas in which they can pick players. Mike Basman enforces the county boundaries as they should be in his UKCC. While I would prefer those to be used in real-life (politically in fact, not just in county chess), I know from discussions with people that they are grossly unpopular. So I suppose you just have to do the best that you can, since the ECF doesn't enforce county boundaries, and the Associations largely choose which area they want to govern. That's the problem with a bottom-up Federation, rather than a top-down organisation. If it was top-down, the ECF could appoint bodies in each of the counties it sees fit. This way around, it has no power.

[Michele Clack]

If there are enough teams in an MCCU competition they usually split them into 2 sections to cut down on travelling for the first part of the competition and it works well.

I hope the new team at MCF manage to resolve this issue, which is a shame for chess players in the area and does nothing for the image of chess generally.

[Roger de Coverly]

. This way around, it has no power.

In many ways it's been a good thing that the BCF/ECF has limited powers. I suspect in the 1960's, it would have refused permission for the first Islington Congress (prototype of the weekend congress), in the 1970's, the first Lloyds Bank (prototype of the norm international swiss) and in the 1990s it would have shut down the 4NCL in favour of its own rival.

[Ian Thompson]

I have discovered recently that the county associations actually have competing claims for the areas in which they can pick players.... So I suppose you just have to do the best that you can, since the ECF doesn't enforce county boundaries, and the Associations largely choose which area they want to govern.

The ECF could define whatever rules it likes for eligibility at the county championship national stages. There's a reasonable chance that unions would adopt the same rules for consistency. I think it reasonable for the ECF to ask whether it is right that a player who lives in Hampshire is eligible to play for Berkshire because the club he belongs to, which is in Surrey, plays in the Berkshire League.