Ernie Lazenby writes:
It seems to me this is something that the ECF should be looking at because sharp practices like this does not help the image of the game.
No names no pack drill as they say but up north
The trouble is that no names/no complaints = no action. I don't think anyone has
formally complained to me about an alleged shark in recent times. I also think that the number of sharks is overstated. I remember looking at the record of one player after a rumour reached me of grade manipulation. When I looked at that player's record, there was no evidence of grade manipulation.
Any congress has the right to refuse entrees or to transfer players to another section provided they put this on their entry forms. So if the congress organisers up north think they know who the Sharks are, why do they need me to do anything? Conversely, I'm not clear what action the ECF can be expected to do. The ECF has no jurisdiction over congresses and so cannot ban players. Hypothetically one could put a shark symbol in the grading list. But I'm not sure the ECF could ever prove it sufficiently to win a lawsuit from a defamed chess player. Finally, the number of games/seasons to be used in calculating someone’s grade has to be based on principles applied consistently to all players and those principles should be derived from the statistics of trying to predict player strength not dealing with alleged sharks.
