ECF Board Meeting, Birmingham 13th March 2010

[Sean Hewitt]

I think the Warwickshire county team must be a figment of everyone's imagination since the ECF yearbook lists only the three local leagues - Birmingham, Coventry and Leamington and no affiliated clubs.

Ah yes, but that's ok isn't it? They can still pick players who were born in the county, live in the county or play for a team based in the county.

[Alex Holowczak]

Other than tradition , what are the arguments in favour of it being based around a "ceremonial county" model rather than some other set up?

The fact that it's called the County Championship. A unitary authority, metropolitan borough, or whatever, are not counties. Not so much an "argument in favour", but a statement of fact.

[John Saunders]

We're talking about the organisation of weekend team chess though, not international sporting events. Other than tradition , what are the arguments in favour of it being based around a "ceremonial county" model rather than some other set up?

A friend of mine was recently chosen to play for a county team. Even though this for a rating-restricted side (what Tony Miles once unkindly referred to as "county chess for the mentally challenged"), he was on cloud nine at being so honoured. And rightly so - it is a significant step for a developing player. Being able to tell your non-chessplaying mates "I've played chess for the county" might actually impress them a bit. Although everyone in the chess world know that there is a Grand Canyon of difference between playing chess for an Under-something county team and (say) batting for Middlesex at Lords, it still confers a degree of status.

Though I am with you on the general issue of eligibility (within reason and subject to certain caveats, I'm in favour of anyone playing for any team in any competition, no matter how bona their county/club fide may be), I'm not sure about the introduction of any team of 16-20 players into what is called the County Championship. At the very least the teams should carry the name of the county that they purport to represent, otherwise all you are really doing is turning the county competition into a new version of the 4NCL. In the example I gave above, it was a matter of some importance that the player played for his county of residence. Had they simply been a random group of 16 players, let's say sponsored by a local business, it would have been somewhat deflating for him to have to answer his friend's follow-up question ("That's great! Which county do you play for?") with a name such as "Surbiton Sausage Shop Checkmaters".

[Alex Holowczak]

If you look up a club on the ECF grading database it tells you which county they are in and in my opinion that is the county that club qualifies you to play for.

I wouldn't rely on the accuracy of that.

Mutual Circle is listed as Warwickshire, but its club base is Moseley, Worcestershire.
Olton is listed as Warwickshire, but its club base is Tyseley, Worcestershire.
South Birmingham is listed as Warwickshire, but its club base is Moseley, Worcestershire.
Westminster is listed as Warwickshire, but its club base is in Acock's Green, Worcestershire.

[Sean Hewitt]

If you look up a club on the ECF grading database it tells you which county they are in and in my opinion that is the county that club qualifies you to play for.

I wouldn't rely on the accuracy of that.

Mutual Circle is listed as Warwickshire, but its club base is Moseley, Worcestershire.
Olton is listed as Warwickshire, but its club base is Tyseley, Worcestershire.
South Birmingham is listed as Warwickshire, but its club base is Moseley, Worcestershire.
Westminster is listed as Warwickshire, but its club base is in Acock's Green, Worcestershire.

I'm sure you're right (maybe clubs move venues or information was inaccurate) but the principal holds.

[Adam Raoof]

I do appreciate that people have strong views about the traditions of this competition. What I would be most concerned with is to ensure that everyone who wanted to play counties chess was eligible for a team and was not excluded.

From my point of view, the 'Counties' Championship might be taken to mean;

'a team competition throughout England in which the teams are selected and fielded by the constituent units of the ECF'

...and then it could be left to the 'Counties' to decide who is, or is not eligible to play in their teams. Most teams within leagues, for instance the Middlesex League, do not attempt to investigate the membership of each individual club within their competition. As long as people do not play for two teams within the same league in a season, and so on.

However, in that case what distinguishes our 'Counties' event from the 4NCL? The ECF stamp of approval? What is the selling point of the Counties Championships if not the competition between Counties, however they are defined?

[Roger de Coverly]

The fact that it's called the County Championship. A unitary authority, metropolitan borough, or whatever, are not counties. Not so much an "argument in favour", but a statement of fact.

The "it" is a regional weekend chess team tournament which historically is competed by chess associations based around the ceremonial counties. Following the 1974 reforms, the new counties of Merseyside, Cleveland and Greater Manchester were also allowed to enter. Elsewhere, for example Avon, West Midlands and Greater London, the traditional structures were maintained. The question is as to whether such a model continues to be appropriate given the competition from more "open" events such as the 4NCL (or congresses for that matter). Although flagged under the county name, both Oxford and Cambridge Universities have competed to all intents as themselves at various times in the past.

[Roger de Coverly]

What is the selling point of the Counties Championships if not the competition between Counties, however they are defined?

In some more rural parts of England, the local club competitions take place on Saturdays because of the travelling. Elsewhere though, the weekend choice is between congresses, 4NCL and inter-county. So it's a regional weekend-based team competition with more players per team than is the norm in club matches.

In practice having "weak" eligibility rules is a good thing, since it best enables supply of team places to meet the demands of players to play. You notice that many counties no longer run "Open" teams. You can speculate as to why this is but 140 v 180 several seasons running isn't much fun for either player. A couple of 180 wild cards playing for the weaker county could even things up a bit.

[Alex Holowczak]

The fact that it's called the County Championship. A unitary authority, metropolitan borough, or whatever, are not counties. Not so much an "argument in favour", but a statement of fact.

The "it" is a regional weekend chess team tournament which historically is competed by chess associations based around the ceremonial counties. Following the 1974 reforms, the new counties of Merseyside, Cleveland and Greater Manchester were also allowed to enter. Elsewhere, for example Avon, West Midlands and Greater London, the traditional structures were maintained. The question is as to whether such a model continues to be appropriate given the competition from more "open" events such as the 4NCL (or congresses for that matter). Although flagged under the county name, both Oxford and Cambridge Universities have competed to all intents as themselves at various times in the past.

We already have a national team championship, the 4NCL. If the County Championship abandoned all ties to a County structure, it'd be meaningless. Oxford University and Cambridge University playing for Oxfordshire and Cambridgeshire is fine, surely? The model is either fine, or it isn't. If it isn't, then it may as well be shut down altogether - there is no need for another team event.

There's absolutely no reason why the traditional structure can't be maintained. I don't see how people will lose games, just field more teams. In the case of Lancashire and Yorkshire, have a 2nd team instead, that can only qualify for the Minor Open, rather than the Major Open. If Cumbria/Durham/Cheshire/Northumberland can't beat them, then so be it. One of them would still qualify for the Major Open national stages though, because they'd get 3 representatives.

[William Metcalfe]

Ok time to clear up a few things Lancashire and Yorkshire are not unbeatable i captained the Durham under 125 team for 3 years we qualified for the national stage once depriving Yorkshire of a place that year.We played middlesex lossing 8.5 7.5 and i had to concede 3 boards as 3 players dropped out on the morning of the match.
The real problem for other counties in the NCCU is getting players Durham,Cleveland ect have such small player pools then add on all the travelling to play 1 game people have limited free time these days they are not willing to five up a whole sat or sun to play 1 game off chess.
I resigned as captain after 3 years because i got sick of working my ass off only for players to drop out the day before the match or worse still on the morning off the match.

Also the few times cleveland has run county teams they have been NCCU champs they also won the whole event 1 year

[David Sedgwick]

From my point of view, the 'Counties' Championship might be taken to mean;

'a team competition throughout England in which the teams are selected and fielded by the constituent units of the ECF'

Err, do you really mean only the seven "constituent units"? (The constituent units are the five Unions, the London Chess League and the Manchester Chess Federation.)

I think you must mean either "member organisations" generally or "county associations", but I'm afraid it's not clear to me which of the two you intended.

[David Pardoe]

Hello William,
I recognise your problems as a county captain. These are typical for most counties.
It could be that the way forward might be to `zone` your qualifier events into `East` & `West` sections. That might reduce travel issues. Alternatively, maybe consider a Jamboree style format, at a suitable `central` venue.
Manchester suppliment there county games with `friendlies` against neighbouring counties in the NCCU. Thus we get the benefits of playing in two Unions!! Its ideal, because we are on the borders of both Unions. A couple of seasons ago, for example, we celebrated the Sheffield leagues 60th birthday with a 30-board graded match, evenly spread across the grading bands. It was really excellent.
Regarding counties with small pools of players. Maybe they need to combine, say Clevedon & Durham and have a joint team. Maybe they need to do some recruiting of new players, combined with more publicity.
One idea I suggest is to use local Congresses & Rapidplays to promote local chess clubs, to see if membership numbers can be increased. I`d like to see more Press publicity for local clubs and leagues, with some league tables, commentories/games, etc, and contact details for joe public to get in touch. Its most important to get the message out to joe public that players of all standards are welcome (from beginner to expert). We`ve seen a decline over the years in league chess, but in Manchester we have worked very hard to try to turn things round. Our `Council` meets about 4 times a year to discuss issues and try to promote chess in the north west.
What is also vital, as you will know, is volunteers. Its coming towards AGM season, and many clubs, leagues, county bodies will be meeting over the summer, and will be most keen to get new blood on board...to keep the wheels turning. What is needed are players who can offer a pair of hands, and some of there spare time to get involved and do something. Most jobs are not rocket science.
Incidentally, players and delegates need to consider what proposals they would like to see put forward, and ensure these are formulated and discussed in good time for such meetings. One of my frustrations is the difficulty of getting changes through the `system`, which almost seems designed to stop change, at times.
Now that we have the `web`, I wonder if we might consider having some `e-meetings`, involving exchanges of emails, and a decision process with votes where needed. Such dialogues could be sheduled over say a one week period...with agreements listed for ratification. Lets make use of the web. Maybe we could also run `web tournaments`. Certainly our Manchester website has proved very useful, and attracted great interest.
The arguement about `only one game` has been raised before. I like to regard it as a day out, and chance to meet new faces. Also, its good to actually be able to play a real endgame. The time limits in county chess make this possible..its not like that `speed chess` they play so often these days in the leagues.
Yes, time and travel are always tricky issues. Our Gtr Man teams overcome much of this by using neutral venues. We`ve managed to find some quite reasonable venues.
My comments about Yorks & Lancs mainly refer to the higher teams in the Open, U175, U150 sections, (as they used to be). And, I do believe that the `Ridings` are still regarded as `counties`, so Yorks could technically have 3. I certainly think `2` would be worth considering, but its not my call.

[Alex Holowczak]

And, I do believe that the `Ridings` are still regarded as `counties`, so Yorks could technically have 3. I certainly think `2` would be worth considering, but its not my call.

They're not - the only reason Yorkshire had its three Ridings was for administrative purposes.

[Roger de Coverly]

There's absolutely no reason why the traditional structure can't be maintained. I don't see how people will lose games,

You may have noticed that a number of counties either don't run teams or only run teams in particular eligibility groups. If you have players who are only eligible for a single county and that county doesn't run a team in which they can play, then they are barred from playing in regional Saturday afternoon 4-5 hour team chess. You need usually a pool of at least 24 players to run a 16 player team over a season. If you only have 12 and no legitimate way of doubling that 12, then the team doesn't exist.

If the County Championship abandoned all ties to a County structure, it'd be meaningless.

It would be a gamble to allow non-county organisations to enter teams. Strict eligibility policing won't promote growth of the competitions though.

there is no need for another team event.

There are some (major) differences between the 4NCL and county chess

non FIDE rated v rated
4/5 hour sessions v 7 hour
one match only v two
"local" v centralised

[LozCooper]

There are some (major) differences between the 4NCL and county chess

non FIDE rated v rated
4/5 hour sessions v 7 hour
one match only v two
"local" v centralised[/quote]

Is there any reason that county chess can't be FIDE rated? I'm guessing cost could be a factor but the time limit is legal. With the ratings now starting from 1200 there's potential for anyone to get a rating, albeit you'd have to play at least 3 rated players to get a part rating in a season so I'm not sure how practical that is. I personally prefer 4-5 hour sessions to 7 hours but that may be a sign I'm getting old