Money for old rope...........

[Ben Purton]

On why i didnt play this season, a) Im quite busy these days, I work full time and do my masters.

Secondly I am loyal to two teams, in the form of Drunken Knights and Hayes. So thats all the night chess I need.

Surely if Camberley have anyone to blame why they werent in the title race, its fielding weaker teams in the hope that they were enough to get results against teams considered "easy".

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


Ben

[James Toon]

For the past two seasons, Athenaeum has been fielding a small number of professionals in its London League 1st team. We haven't gone overboard on this because we also have a lot of strong, long-standing club members who want and deserve to play in the 1st division of the League.

Our professionals have not been taking "money for old rope". This season we fielded Gawain Jones on top board for a few games and his opponents averaged an ECF grade of 223 (he scored an impressive 4/4). Matthieu Cornette, Simon Williams and Alexander Cherniaev all faced opposition graded around 200. So they are having to work for their money – there are no easy games.

We believe the financial outlay is justified for a number of reasons. It ensures that we stay competitive in one of the toughest leagues in the UK. It raises the profile of the club and may have helped to increase membership. Our members get the chance to play against a professional (Simon has given a couple of simuls). Looking wider than the club, anything that enables British chess professionals to keep going should be in the interests of British chess as a whole.

I wouldn't say that our limited use of professionals is designed to "buy the league". We'd have to hire a full team of pros to do that, and winning the league without any of our long-standing members would be a hollow triumph.

[David Sedgwick]

I will be keeping a close eye on this.

Fair enough, Carl. But in my opinion you were right to let Simon Williams have his say.

John Upham has taken the sword not infrequently. On this occasion he's perished with the sword.

[John Upham]

John Upham has taken the sword not infrequently. On this occasion he's perished with the sword.

As you might imagine, there is very much more to this situation than has been revealed so far.

I await the outcome of both the Berkshire League and Surrey Border League AGMs with interest : there is much to discuss.

For the record, I very much welcome titled players (professionals and amateurs) playing in appropriate divisions of local leagues.

I will leave it at that.

John

[Matthew Turner]

So let's just be clear, a couple of days ago John Upham said

"I'm sure it was worth the cash for Peter and Simon in this epic encounter....

I can hear the "Kerr Ching" of the cash register from here!"

and now he is saying

"For the record, I very much welcome titled players (professionals and amateurs) playing in appropriate divisions of local leagues."

I find it quite hard to reconcile these two statements. Perhaps he could clarify a couple of points that will help us understand his position

1. Why did Nick Pert avoid your original 'criticism'?

2. When the leagues have there AGM's will you be hoping that Bracknell are (heavily) penalised for defaulting 3 boards

[Ben Purton]

I feel sorry for Bracknell...I remember the good old days with 150 Berkshire stalwarts like John Lloyd playing there!.

So I dont think they should be punished, they are a nice side.

Ben

[Ben Purton]

I mean I think Camberley are jealous that Sandhurst kicked there arse. Newbury are the team to back.... Great racecourse, Great chess team

[Richard Bates]

So let's just be clear, a couple of days ago John Upham said

"I'm sure it was worth the cash for Peter and Simon in this epic encounter....

I can hear the "Kerr Ching" of the cash register from here!"

and now he is saying

"For the record, I very much welcome titled players (professionals and amateurs) playing in appropriate divisions of local leagues."

I find it quite hard to reconcile these two statements.

Presumably Sandhurst are using some weakness in the rules to pay professionals for their second or third teams?

2. When the leagues have there AGM's will you be hoping that Bracknell are (heavily) penalised for defaulting 3 boards

Unlikely i think. It might open a can of worms...

http://www.borderleague.org.uk/match_ca ... n=20082009

http://www.borderleague.org.uk/match_ca ... n=20082009

[John Upham]

Presumably Sandhurst are using some weakness in the rules to pay professionals for their second or third teams?

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

[Carl Hibbard]

Presumably Sandhurst are using some weakness in the rules to pay professionals for their second or third teams?

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

This should really be passing validation John, well in my opinion...

http://validator.w3.org/

[Roger de Coverly]

Presumably Sandhurst are using some weakness in the rules to pay professionals for their second or third teams?

We (Berks AGM ) did (partially) close that loophole.

(g) Unless nominated under (B) 2 (b), no player with a grade of 200 ECF or higher shall
play for a club’s B team and no player graded above 175 ECF shall play for a club’s
C or lower team.

So it's still OK to put (seriously) strong players in the B team as long as they are declared at the start of the season. It's been common practice in the Berks league for many years that clubs with two teams in the first division split their nominations so that perhaps the A team has players ranked 1,3,5,6,7,8 and the B team has 2,4,9,10,11,12. Camberley this season for example had a similar structure.