NCCU and the MCF

[MartinCarpenter]

That's people for you I apparently had a great grandmother who still wouldn't talk to anyone called Campbell....

Knowing the history does help appreciate where people are coming from and can help avoid this sort of horrible mess to start with. Which is a good idea!

[harrylamb]

The first notice I had of the Greater Manchester intentions was at 10.00pm on the Friday before the AGM

I would suggest that this was not the fault of the GMCCA. In 1975 GMCCA formally applied to the NCCU to become members. We gave all the necessary notice and consequently it must have been an NCCU agenda item. We were invited to send a representative to put our case. GMCCA then had a meeting at least a week beforehand to decide who went to the MCCU meeting and who went to the NCCU meeting. We decided to send Richard Furness to the NCCU meeting and send me to the MCCU meeting. We met all the NCCU requirements for due notice. We must have done. Without due notice the Lancashire representatives would have had our application rejected without discussion. I know Richard presented our case. I know there was a discussion. I know we lost on a vote.

[Paul Bielby]

Correct, Harry - it was an agenda item and you were invited to put your case at the NCCU meeting. What I was unaware of until the Friday evening was the fact that you were also applying to the MCCU. And to the rest of the delegates not until the meeting itself. Nor had the information come from yourselves, but from Roy Woodcock, an MCCU VP. (i think I've got his name right - memory not what it was)

[Alex Holowczak]

Correct, Harry - it was an agenda item and you were invited to put your case at the NCCU meeting. What I was unaware of until the Friday evening was the fact that you were also applying to the MCCU. And to the rest of the delegates not until the meeting itself. Nor had the information come from yourselves, but from Roy Woodcock, an MCCU VP. (i think I've got his name right - memory not what it was)

If you mean someone from Warwickshire, then yes, his name is Roy Woodcock.

Jim Tennant-Smith was, I gather, a rather frequent uninvited visitor to Woodcock's house in his last years. All connected with this dispute.

[David Pardoe]

Indeed Alex. I was there when Roy spoke about this at his last MCCU AGM appearance a few years ago, and told us what a distressing experience it had been.
It was a truely brave and inspired (and jinxed....?) move to join the MCCU and has provided much excellent county chess fayre since. The thing that many overlooked was that this `split`(creating new counties) actually increased the potential opportunities for players to play county chess in the north.
As has been said, it had its potential downsides, possibly weakening some counties (teams) in northern quarters.
It demonstrates what is possible when parties put there heads together and co-operate positively in the interests of chess folk...so the MCCU experience has generally proved positive.
There is a distinct feeling that certain elements were never going to agree anything in that original period....and Manchester could not just sit waiting on the fence. A minority element seemed to hold court over matters for many years in the LCA, behind closed doors.
However...that was then.
As I have said...this is merely about drawing lines in the sand...families, friends, and chess communities
continue in harmony and mutual respect.
There are various senarios for taking things forward, so hopefully those involved will don there positive hats and close this episode in the near future.

[Roger de Coverly]

A minority element seemed to hold court over matters for many years in the LCA, behind closed doors.

On the basis of what's been made public, it still applies now.

I still don't really know the grounds on which Lancashire vetoed the establishment of GMCCA as an NCCU county, but I can see why GMCCA applied simultaneously to the NCCU and MCCU. Their bottom line was presumably to get a new team up and running. A six month or whatever consultation period would have thwarted that.

(edit) Apparently it is spelled with two Cs (/edit)

[Alan Walton]

Roger, who are the GMCA, I was always under the impression GMCCA

[Mick Norris]

Jim Tennant-Smith was, I gather, a rather frequent uninvited visitor to Woodcock's house in his last years. All connected with this dispute.

What is it about chess players and administrators that puts up with this type of behaviour? Do you not all look in the mirror and see that in normal life, you would involve the police or go to a solicitor?

[MartinCarpenter]

It isn't how/why they did it, but basically there's three potential fully viable counties in the NCCU so adding one of them just to have the other walk out would hardly be helpful.

I was thinking last night that things could actually be much worse on the ground - at least the Manchester league is happily ticking along with a mixture of Manchester/Lancashire affiliated clubs. You could easily imagine a scenario where that had fallen apart amid disputes about which clubs belonged where, trying to force allegiance etc.

As it is it looks very pragmatic now, even more or less letting people pick which county they prefer to play for via their club. With Chorlton now the closest thing left to a central Manchester based chess club it would of course be seriously hard to separate the two in a sane manner.

[Roger de Coverly]

It isn't how/why they did it, but basically there's three potential fully viable counties in the NCCU so adding one of them just to have the other walk out would hardly be helpful.

Back in 1975, all the Northern counties were capable of raising 20 board Open teams. Excluding GMCCA, today isn't it just Lancs and Yorks who run teams with the occasional Cumbria one?

[MartinCarpenter]

Basically yes, sometimes slightly more people in the lower groups. The NCCU website isn't that great on the history but some stuff here: http://www.nccu.org.uk/county-chess/ .

The Open looks to have been an exclusive club for a while. The U175/180's mostly too, although Cumbria did enter a team to the first jamboree in 9/10 (and got 2.5/12). Not that 9/10 seems to have been healthy overall - just Yorkshire/Lancashire matches and Yorkshire B winning the U140 event Yorkshire could, I think, in principle field two 12 man teams everywhere except the open. Managing that could be hard with so many other events for people to play in.

I don't know when the other teams stopped, or why, but it clearly isn't an ideal situation. Recombining Cleveland/Durham would seem logical to get them more players - the registered players for the NE 4NCL team would look to make a perfectly decent 12 man open team. Or maybe the 4NCL (N) is just more interesting for them now anyway.

[Paul Bielby]

Yes, Roger, back in '75 all the Northern counties did manage to produce 20 board open teams. That was before the BCF introduced the idea of grading limited teams - which idea had the effect of making teams from the smaller Northern Counties unviable.

I myself gave up county chess, I think, in the late '80s, largely due to an abortive bus trip to Chester from Sunderland, when my local opponent failed to turn up. The same thing happened to me later the same season when we had to travel to Lancaster. Enough was enough! For the same amount of travel - a very real problem for those of us in the North - one can play in many congresses with a guarantee of a game of chess!

[MartinCarpenter]

Was it really truly viable before then? I can't imagine that raising what was effectively a 20 man open team to play a full strength Yorkshire/Lancashire team was often hugely rewarding.

You know, the other obstacle is the simple one of fixture space. By the time you've catered for 11 yorkshire league matches, 5 4NCL weekends and all the congresses there just isn't much space left. You certainly physically couldn't have anything like the big SCCU competitions. The (vaguely) likely three man open/U180 competition with strong, large matches probably makes sense.

Then try to get as many viable teams as possible for the lower rungs which can run on 4NCL weekends if need be. Actually, there's an effort to start a lower level competition on the 4NCL weekends - http://yorkshirechess.org/ag-sunderland-cup/. Yes formally Yorkshire league attached, but very new and not at all formal so maybe open to some productive cross boarder raiding?
(of course if that takes off then goodness knows about the chances for even lower level county matches!)

[AustinElliott]

Yes, others here will remember the 70s better than me (as a junior then I wasn't bothered about anything organisational), but I'm pretty sure there were notably less congresses than there are now, as well as (obviously) no 4NCL. So the county games were the main chance to play long-play chess between weekly League games.

[Roger de Coverly]

but I'm pretty sure there were notably less congresses than there are now, as well as (obviously) no 4NCL. So the county games were the main chance to play long-play chess between weekly League games.

In the first half of the decade, many Congresses outside Bank Holidays were mega-sized as pioneered at Islington by Stewart Reuben. Games not finished by the first time control were dealt with by adjudication, but for that size of event you had enough strong players who could be arm-twisted or paid to act as instant adjudicators. A smaller more local event would have found that difficult to organise.

With the acceptance of the quick play finish concept by the BCF and the establishment of rapid-play events came a wider choice of smaller, more local tournaments. An example local to Oxford was the Kidlington Congress of which the 36th was in 2013 thus dating the first one to 1978. There was even an e2e4 prototype by the name of Chess National Promotions running a number of evens which used the cheap room in nice hotel angle.

County matches didn't take up the entire weekend, but Congresses gave more games in exchange for the travelling.