Does money buy success?

[Richard Bates]

How about this one?

http://www.berkshirechess.org.uk/match_ ... n=20102011

I think there is a club in the London League where many of the "regular" players were unhappy with the effect that paying for several strong grandmasters was having on their own opportunities. After an inter-club debate the number of "paid" players has been limited (of course they didn't necessarily want to remove them completely because to do so would probably result in relegation!).

A more interesting question is what the effect of having a team paying a number of strong players has on the overall strength of the league. My impression is that it makes the league more attractive to stronger players in general - who will then be keener to turn out (for nothing) for other clubs and the overall strength will rise. That is I think clearly the experience in the London League - and anecdotally probably what is happening in these Surrey/Berkshire leagues. Overtime this filters down the teams and divisions - so that yes it is harder to get 'first team opportunities' but those opportunities are not necessary to play reasonable opposition.

[Peter Ackley]

I used to be against 'payment' of players. Now, playing far fewer tournaments, I appreciate getting a decent game of chess and, if someone else is 'paying' for it, so be it. I'd take offence if it started affecting my ability to be either selected for the team or getting a decent game - or if I ended up having to subsidise the 'payments'. Maybe it's just a rethink of the team/club/league you play for/in if you feel that strongly? Depends on whether you play for the enjoyment of the game or just to win titles.

NB I use 'payment' as it may not (just) be cash in hand a player receives (eg exemption from subs, free travel etc).

[Alex Holowczak]

Are you able to have more than one team in a division; i.e. via promotion and relegation? If so, you might have two Division One teams, and have your 1st team as an "All-Star" team, and your 2nd team as a team for the regular club players. The teams should find their own level.

[Roger de Coverly]

A more interesting question is what the effect of having a team paying a number of strong players has on the overall strength of the league

Another side to this is that the club in question took the decision to have one team in each of the three divisions. This was in circumstances where they could have had two teams in the top division and two teams in the second, or even three teams in division one. This was agreed to by the AGM. It's normal custom to have some form of league restructure every year.


The AGM might have assumed that teams commensurate with the strength of the opposition would have been fielded. Instead of which, the second division team would have held its own in the top division and the third division team in the second (and with a bit of fortune the first). With the current set up, one sided matches have been frequent.


Here's a couple of examples

http://www.berkshirechess.org.uk/match_ ... n=20102011
http://www.berkshirechess.org.uk/match_ ... n=20102011

[Roger de Coverly]

Are you able to have more than one team in a division; i.e. via promotion and relegation? If so, you might have two Division One teams, and have your 1st team as an "All-Star" team, and your 2nd team as a team for the regular club players. The teams should find their own level.

Certainly that is possible, but the club concerned declined all promotions and withdrew one of their two division one teams.

Personally I think you should run at least one club team where in effect you select from the bottom upwards, so you ensure that everyone who is capable of recording a game and pressing the clock and playing with some sort of minimal competence gets to play in matches. If necessary then, you decline promotion for such a team.

[benedgell]

Not commenting on any specific examples, but a couple of points:

1. Chess professionals have to earn a living the same as anyone else. If someone offers them money to play for a team, why shouldn't they take it? Likewise if someone offers a chess pro. money to play for a team, it's either their money, the teams' money, or a sponsor's money, and in any of the cases is entirely up to them how they choose to spend it.

2. If I turned up for a league match and my opponent was a GM or IM, I'd be pretty chuffed to have the opportunity to play against a really top- level opponent.

[LozCooper]

Hi Matt,

If for arguments sake an ambitious division 2 or 3 team that wanted to get promotion offered to pay you to play for them and you would be guaranteed games against decent opponents, what would your reply be?

[John Upham]

The Berkshire League was traditionally a normal promotion / relegation type league with no formal rating limit for any of the divisions.

If a new club entered the League then it had do what every other club has done before it and get promoted from the lowest division regardless of the strength of its teams and players.

For the 2006 - 2007 a precedent was set which now means a new club (following much telephone call lobbying) can ask to enter in whichever Division they wish and now, some teams choose not to be promoted or not even though they should be.

Some traditions are good to maintain and this was one of them.

I suspect it will reach a point where teams will go into the Division that they wish to in the interests of keeping some people happy.

A couple of my favourite results were :

http://www.berkshirechess.org.uk/match_ ... n=20082009

and

http://www.berkshirechess.org.uk/match_ ... n=20062007

in which an IM was drafted in for this one and only match for a Division Two match to ensure promotion from Division Two.

One of my favourites from the modern era is :

http://www.berkshirechess.org.uk/match_ ... n=20102011

Happy days!

[Ben Purton]

Stupid thread again.

Why is Bracknell defaulting 3 boards a fun results/favourite result for you John?

Hope 4NCL are taking note for when you decide that its "too hard" to get the final weekend sorted that this is your attitude toward such events.

Its well known both of you have personal issues with Sandhurst in various manners. Get a prospective please.

Why is it bad that Wells, Williams , Pert, Rendle get paid, they are pro chess players?


I for one enjoy this , I play board 1 for Reading B for most of the season because i wanted board 1 to play 190+ players.

[John Upham]

Why is it bad that Wells, Williams , Pert, Rendle get paid, they are pro chess players?

I do not have a problem with them (or any other members of the team) being paid.

[Gavin Strachan]

Firstly Matt the amount of money you believe is being paid is completely wrong.

£1000+ if only.

Perts brother lives down the road and Trent in the other direction neither of whom play for an Essex club as A) no one has enough money to pay them B) They probably only will play if pay.

At the end of the day, I do not have an issue with this and it just the same as a golf club having a club pro or cricket clubs hiring in an overseas player. If you are of that strength then you should expect to be paid. Problem they have is that their are not enough paying opportunities and the money in chess is not exactly electrifying unless you are Kasparov, Carlsen or Adams strength. I bet there are a lot of Russian GM's even stronger than those listed who probably get paid less.

Performance related pay.

[Alan Walton]

I have no problems with paying for players in the local leagues if that is what people want to do, though at 3Cs would never pay for somebody to play in the Manchester league (we have only done it in the 4NCL), it seems to me a waste of money, but maybe we as a club are fortunate that we have always had strength in depth to field a competitive side whatever the situation is, and that is including have a couple of GMs playing in the past (no money changed hands)

[Simon Ansell]

Many titled players actually enjoy playing chess and have been known to do so for free on occasion, in league matches or even paying their own way to play a tournament, believe it or not.

It's not really anyone's business other than the player and 'sponsor' what conditions someone might receive, if no rules are being broken.

[Adam Raoof]

On the subject of team selection, if anyone reading this has a legal connection and fancies playing for the Legal team in the Bronowski Trophy, message me!

There is a match tonight

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/ins.chess/bronowski/

[Sean Hewitt]

On the subject of team selection, if anyone reading this has a legal connection and fancies playing for the Legal team in the Bronowski Trophy, message me!

I have a legal connection - I appeared in court once. Does that qualify me?
Before anyone asks, it was as a witness for the prosecution although other chess players may have slighly more dubious "legal connections"!