SO WHO'S GOING TO SHEFFIELD? I AM!

[Krishna Shiatis]

Mhm- hundreds of British players declared an interest in having Commonwealth players banned yet it still took the then BCF years to do anything about it. Maybe they should go chasing the Indians for some membership fees to make up for the prizes they took away?

Mark,

I do feel that these kind of comments are highly inappropriate and unnecessarily racist.

Unless you have not noticed and I suspect you may well have, most of our top juniors in the UK are of Indian or mixed Indian origin. It is their parents who pretty much fund junior chess and keep chess alive in this country. They will be the next generation of top British GMs/IMs.

The Indians are commited, smart and value the game. If they do well, then it is good for chess the world over, just as it is for any nation. How do you know that the Indians doing well over here did not inspire a whole generation in the UK?

The rules were already there when they came over and won. They did nothing wrong. Anybody could have done the same.

[Mark Howitt]

Nope- I'm afraid there you are showing blatant leftist views without actually understanding what I wrote.

I'm not being 'racist' (leftist term originally btw... look it up)- I'm not saying anything about the Indians 'not being good enough to play chess' or that they shouldn't be allowed to play chess in their own country. I'm saying that they shouldn't have the right to play in the British championship, which is for British people. I don't see the Indians opening the door to let people of other nationalities play in their championship.... and shock horror... nobody seems to be suggesting that! Maybe it would be a 'racist' view, as it would be depriving them of their national identity...

(It seems OK in the UK to call white people 'racist', but not the other way round. Funny...)


"It is their parents who pretty much fund junior chess and keep chess alive in this country." LOL...

Oh man.

Well if they are 'funding junior chess' and 'keeping chess alive in this country' they're not doing a very good job of it are they...

Maybe because they are not actually 'funding junior chess'. Where are the people of Indian origin plowing money into the game? Nowhere. They're doing nothing towards 'keeping chess alive in this country', that's not the Indian parents' aim. There are plenty of good junior players around of Indian origin- but it's interesting that there is not one active GM of Indian or even fully Asian origin in the UK. Probably because a lot of strong Asian juniors view chess as something as a nice hobby, maybe looking good on the UCAS form, but they can get more money and social esteem elsewhere.

(This is coming from someone who has beaten strong Asian juniors, at least one who's represented England, not too long ago).

Smart move overall, and a lot of British juniors think exactly the same.

[IM Jack Rudd]

{Moderator hat on}
Both of you, remain civil please. I don't want to have to edit your comments, or move them to the Not Chess! section.
{/Moderator hat on}

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I'm not saying anything about the Indians 'not being good enough to play chess' or that they shouldn't be allowed to play chess in their own country.

To be honest, I find your use of the phrase "in their own country" a bit troubling. Chess should be something that crosses borders, not being restricted to being played in one's own country, whatever that means anyway. Possibly the phrase that should be used here is xenophobia, not racism. Not that I really want to get into a debate on what the difference is between those terms.

[Jonathan Bryant]

... Unless you have not noticed and I suspect you may well have ....

Very possibly not, actually. Our defender of all things British - that's 'British' as he defines it - doesn't actually play much chess. Not enough to trouble the graders for a few years anyway.

If he played in tournaments or club matches a bit more often perhaps his views would be better informed?

[Alex Holowczak]

I'm saying that they shouldn't have the right to play in the British championship, which is for British people. I don't see the Indians opening the door to let people of other nationalities play in their championship.... and shock horror... nobody seems to be suggesting that! Maybe it would be a 'racist' view, as it would be depriving them of their national identity...

I think you're missing a whole heap of historical context, here.

When the British Championship was founded back in 190whateveritwas, "British" meant something very different from what it does now. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland only became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1922. This is why all Irish players are entitled to play to this day; it became the Championship of the "British Isles".

Similarly, India was effectively governed by the UK until 1947. The "British Raj" included India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, amongst other countries. Places like Australia never really became fully independent. Their Head of State is still the Queen. So you could have used the word "British" to refer to places like India and Australia until 1942, when the Statute of Westminster was retroactively applied dating back to the start of the war.

Indeed, it would have hung around in various bodies for some time afterwards. For example, the 1950 Commonwealth Games was the 1950 British Empire Games. The name changed to British Empire & Commonwealth Games, then British Commonwealth Games, and only finally became the Commonwealth Games in 1978. In Speedway, the British Final was won many times by Ivan Mauger and Barry Briggs, both New Zealanders. It was last open to Commonwealth riders in 1974.

The other issue that muddies the waters is the concept of British citizenship, which applies to far more countries than just the UK.

So yes, in modern times, "British" means either Great Britain, UK or the British Isles. This hasn't always been true, though. Indians playing in our Championship is perfectly natural based on this history, whereas British people playing in the Indian Championship isn't. It certainly isn't double standards.

[Richard Bates]

The survey question(s) on this issue were very badly designed IMO because they didn't make it at all clear what was being suggested (and also phrased it as "would you play?", rather than "are you in favour/anti?".

There was one question suggesting that for one year only the British revert to the old Commonwealth eligibility rules - I don't the grounds for this simply on the basis that it is the "100th championship".

The other suggestion was that the British be "incorporated into the Commonwealth Championship". This could be taken to mean that the British titles and prize money are only open to British Championship eligible players (similar to the way as the English Championship currently operates within the British), with some other large source of funds being introduced to fund the Commonwealth titles. I'm not sure that many professionals would have a major objection to that, although IMO it would have the effect of downgrading the British Championship. The other interpretation is that the British Championship prize money is used for the purposes of funding (part of?) the Commonwealth prize fund - which is effectively the proposal in the first question dressed up differently. Although one would assume that the John Robinson contribution could not be used for this.

[Richard Bates]

I'm saying that they shouldn't have the right to play in the British championship, which is for British people. I don't see the Indians opening the door to let people of other nationalities play in their championship.... and shock horror... nobody seems to be suggesting that! Maybe it would be a 'racist' view, as it would be depriving them of their national identity...

I think you're missing a whole heap of historical context, here.

When the British Championship was founded back in 190whateveritwas, "British" meant something very different from what it does now. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland only became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1922. This is why all Irish players are entitled to play to this day; it became the Championship of the "British Isles".

I don't think this is true - Stewart Reuben suggested elsewhere that the Irish only became eligible relatively recently.

Anyway, in general the historical context is irrelevant to what happens with the Championship today. There is a British Championship and there is a Commonwealth championship. Whilst some in the ECF may see some financial attractiveness in recreating old eligibility rules it is difficult to see any other valid justification. And if you are going down the financial route you might as well just do as some other national championships do and just make the tournament an open with British titles going to British players. Although that usually happens i think with smaller countries who are looking to boost the titled player quotient for norm purposes.

[Alex Holowczak]

I don't think this is true - Stewart Reuben suggested elsewhere that the Irish only became eligible relatively recently.

I thought Stewart said they were eligible until Ireland left the Commonwealth in the late 1940s, then became re-eligible relatively recently again?

[Stewart Reuben]

Number of people who showed up and play at the British Chess Championships in Sheffield 951.
The reason for putting it that way is that there were about 17 people who entered and withdrew, some of whom donated their entry fee to the congress.

My idea for 2013 was that the Commonwealth players be allowed to play in the Championship events for that year only, being the 100th. The non-British Isles players would not be able to win the British titles. The UK players (not the Southern Irish) would be able to win the Commonwealth titles as well. If there were no more money, the prize money would be reduced and the money thus saved would be put into start money for the British Isles players, all of whom are currently English. This might result in about 100 extra players coming, perhaps 70 of them paying entry fees. The reason so many Indian children came to the British was that it was commercially valuable for a child to gain a national title. A major sponsor is being sought. If international, that might make the event more attractive to them.
I realise this idea is contentious and would not be in favour unless a substantial majority voted for it.

The reason that the Southern Irish again became eligible to play in British Championships in 1988 was because they requested it and the BCF Board agreed on the recommendation of David Jarrett (then President) and me. There is no logic to it. We just felt it would do no harm and would be good for developing the chess of our neighbours.
Stewart Reuben

[Paul McKeown]

(This is coming from someone who has beaten strong Asian juniors, at least one who's represented England, not too long ago).

The ECForum Plonker of the Month Award goes to ...

Mark Howitt

... for the most bitter, racially tinted postings in a long time. Can't think who these "strong Asian juniors" are that he has beaten, who apparently represented England, given Howitt's last grade, from 2005, was all of 109.

[Alex Holowczak]

The ECForum Plonker of the Month Award goes to ...

Oooh!

Mark Howitt

Oh

... for the most bitter, racially tinted postings in a long time. Can't think who these "strong Asian juniors" are that he has beaten, who apparently represented England, given Howitt's last grade, from 2005, was all of 109.

That doesn't necessarily tell the whole story, because he's from Yorkshire. His last Yorkshire grade was 141 in 2009/10.

[Mark Howitt]

Getting boring replying to posts of people who jump on a bandwagon.

I'm fully aware of the history of the British Empire. That was then, this is now. The countries that left the British Empire did so of their own choosing, so shouldn't be allowed to cherry pick benefits- they already recieve more than enough in foreign aid payments. If people think that it's OK for an Indian to play in the British Championship then logically it should be OK for a Britain to play in the Indian Championship- neither are OK.

I've been a chess player since I was four years old. Even though I don't play much OTB chess now, I still follow chess news daily. My chess novel is still selling six years after publication. My real 'highest' grade was a YCA grade of 129 before the grading got readjusted upwards- seems very low now, but Yorkshire gradings are underrated (and mine was messed up as well), there's not a lot of strong opposition around in the Huddersfield area, and I used to be scared of playing higher rated players, lol.

It's interesting that plenty of people are happy to slag me off, but few are actually engaging in the argument of whether it's positive for non British players to play in the British Championship. Another point- it wasn't just the 'main event' that non British participants entered. They won many of the junior prizes, denying British youngsters important first successes.

[IM Jack Rudd]

If people think that it's OK for an Indian to play in the British Championship then logically it should be OK for a Britain to play in the Indian Championship- neither are OK.

Hang on just a second. Why is it that "logically it should be OK"? There are plenty of axioms you could put into the system such that a non-reciprocal agreement would be a logical consequence.

[Mark Howitt]

Oh god.