ECF Membership

[Roger de Coverly]

It is in fact an investment in the future of English chess.

Possibly. But if you are about to run out of money, investing for the future is a lower priority. As far as international participation and training is concerned, a parent recently estimated that the ECF were financing little more than 5% of the total cost to his family.

it actually makes economic sense to support juniors, encourage them to play so that if they carry on playing, we increase the take from membership fee/game fee later in life.

Again perhaps. There's been junior support since the early seventies, has it really resulted in tens of thousands of players?

The ECF seems intent on adopting financing models which have the effect of discouraging new and younger players. We heard for example that running a graded schools league is going to become much more expensive. Running a typical University club also.

All of that is a digression really, the basic point is that very little of the payments from players to the ECF is ever, or will ever, be spent back on direct benefit to the players themselves.

[Alex Holowczak]

I agree with David Pardoe, as we have found in all walks of life it is important in these difficult economic times for people to share their resources in order to be sustainable. Maybe a United Kingdom association is the way forward to cut costs, but maybe this is now not feasible given that a the British Chess Federation no longer actively exists to Joe public. Being divided in Chess doesn't help.

This problem hasn't effected English football though, has it?

But maybe this can happen on a smaller scale - for instance in the counties why do we have a Greater Manchester-given most of my friends/cousins from Bolton and Bury say they're county is Lancashire. Lancashire Cricket ground, Old Trafford, is in the city of Manchester.

In 1974, when Greater Manchester was created by Ted Heath, the NCCU (whose only heavyweight counties were Lancs and Yorks) decided they'd use the new counties to get some variety. And so Merseyside and Cleveland came along. Greater Manchester wanted to split too, riding off the back of the Manchester Chess Federation. Lancashire didn't like this very much though, and so started one of the bitterest arguments in English chess, which still rumbles on to this day. (Of course, nowadays Merseyside, Cleveland and to an extent Greater Manchester don't have enough players to field teams in the Opens anyway, so it didn't achieve anything in the very long-run.)

I don't think any of the "new" counties should be in the County Championship, either. I think the majority of people not from the area - who don't know the disputes - or indeed born in the last 30 years, can understand why Greater Manchester/Lancashire have the situation they do. The other barrier is that the Manchester Chess Federation are a constituent unit, not a county association. In a competition designed for county associations, that seems a bit clunky to me.

However, I'm far more in favour of them playing county chess than Yorkshire. I have learnt from this forum that they have their cake and eat it with regard to their ECF contributions.

Anyway, don't mention Greater Manchester or Yorkshire. It just starts (the same old) arguments.

If fishing can get itself on TV then so should chess!! Snooker has a good following on the TV, why can't chess=they are similar sports after all.

In fairness, I don't think it's for the lack of trying from those who have tried. I guess getting chess on TV is easy enough; getting it on a TV channel that enough people watch - thus making it worth the effort (and money in the first place) - is another thing.

[Mick Norris]

But maybe this can happen on a smaller scale - for instance in the counties why do we have a Greater Manchester-given most of my friends/cousins from Bolton and Bury say they're county is Lancashire. Lancashire Cricket ground, Old Trafford, is in the city of Manchester.

In 1974, when Greater Manchester was created by Ted Heath, the NCCU (whose only heavyweight counties were Lancs and Yorks) decided they'd use the new counties to get some variety. And so Merseyside and Cleveland came along. Greater Manchester wanted to split too, riding off the back of the Manchester Chess Federation. Lancashire didn't like this very much though, and so started one of the bitterest arguments in English chess, which still rumbles on to this day. (Of course, nowadays Merseyside, Cleveland and to an extent Greater Manchester don't have enough players to field teams in the Opens anyway, so it didn't achieve anything in the very long-run.)

I don't think any of the "new" counties should be in the County Championship, either. I think the majority of people not from the area - who don't know the disputes - or indeed born in the last 30 years, can understand why Greater Manchester/Lancashire have the situation they do. The other barrier is that the Manchester Chess Federation are a constituent unit, not a county association. In a competition designed for county associations, that seems a bit clunky to me.

However, I'm far more in favour of them playing county chess than Yorkshire. I have learnt from this forum that they have their cake and eat it with regard to their ECF contributions.

Anyway, don't mention Greater Manchester or Yorkshire. It just starts (the same old) arguments.

There are a shedload of factual inaccuracies above

http://nccu.org.uk/nccu/history/history_part6f.htm
http://nccu.org.uk/nccu/history/history_part6b.htm

The MCF has only existed since 2004
http://www.manchesterchessfederation.co.uk/page4.html
The GMCCA since 1975 and the MDCA (1890/1 changing its name in 1897) was a constituent unit of the BCF (1904)
http://www.manchesterchessfederation.co.uk/page31.html

There was a dispute in 1964 in the NCCU over the allocation of Manchester University between Cheshire and Lancashire, so don't think it started in 1975
http://nccu.org.uk/nccu/history/history_part6a.htm

The GMCCA was a county chess association, and lots of people wanted, and continue, to play for Greater Manchester, some of whom wouldn't play for Lancs under any circumstances - why would anyone else have a problem with this?

I don't think any ECF official should want to stop people legitimately playing in an ECF event, so please drop this statement

And of course Old Trafford (both grounds) is not in Manchester, but in the borough of Trafford (which still has grammar schools I think) where the NHS started

[Mick Norris]

But maybe this can happen on a smaller scale - for instance in the counties why do we have a Greater Manchester-given most of my friends/cousins from Bolton and Bury say they're county is Lancashire. Lancashire Cricket ground, Old Trafford, is in the city of Manchester.

I live in Bolton, I was born in Preston, I am a member of Bury chess club and support Bury FC

Bolton and Bury are in Greater Manchester - when your friends and cousins dial 999, so they ask for the emergency services to be sent over the border from Lancashire?

The County Palatine does encompass large chunks of Greater Manchester, but in 1974 they lost territory to Cumbria, Cheshire and Merseyside as well, and (parts of) Todmorden have passed between Lancs and Yorks on a few occasions over the centuries - the idea that Lancashire is an unchanging geographical area is wrong

Do people think they are in Lancs when they are in G Man? Yes
Does this matter? No
Does this give some of them the right to threaten people who don't agree with them? No

[Alex Holowczak]

But maybe this can happen on a smaller scale - for instance in the counties why do we have a Greater Manchester-given most of my friends/cousins from Bolton and Bury say they're county is Lancashire. Lancashire Cricket ground, Old Trafford, is in the city of Manchester.

In 1974, when Greater Manchester was created by Ted Heath, the NCCU (whose only heavyweight counties were Lancs and Yorks) decided they'd use the new counties to get some variety. And so Merseyside and Cleveland came along. Greater Manchester wanted to split too, riding off the back of the Manchester Chess Federation. Lancashire didn't like this very much though, and so started one of the bitterest arguments in English chess, which still rumbles on to this day. (Of course, nowadays Merseyside, Cleveland and to an extent Greater Manchester don't have enough players to field teams in the Opens anyway, so it didn't achieve anything in the very long-run.)

I don't think any of the "new" counties should be in the County Championship, either. I think the majority of people not from the area - who don't know the disputes - or indeed born in the last 30 years, can understand why Greater Manchester/Lancashire have the situation they do. The other barrier is that the Manchester Chess Federation are a constituent unit, not a county association. In a competition designed for county associations, that seems a bit clunky to me.

However, I'm far more in favour of them playing county chess than Yorkshire. I have learnt from this forum that they have their cake and eat it with regard to their ECF contributions.

Anyway, don't mention Greater Manchester or Yorkshire. It just starts (the same old) arguments.

There are a shedload of factual inaccuracies above

http://nccu.org.uk/nccu/history/history_part6f.htm
http://nccu.org.uk/nccu/history/history_part6b.htm

The MCF has only existed since 2004
http://www.manchesterchessfederation.co.uk/page4.html
The GMCCA since 1975 and the MDCA (1890/1 changing its name in 1897) was a constituent unit of the BCF (1904)
http://www.manchesterchessfederation.co.uk/page31.html

There was a dispute in 1964 in the NCCU over the allocation of Manchester University between Cheshire and Lancashire, so don't think it started in 1975
http://nccu.org.uk/nccu/history/history_part6a.htm

The GMCCA was a county chess association, and lots of people wanted, and continue, to play for Greater Manchester, some of whom wouldn't play for Lancs under any circumstances - why would anyone else have a problem with this?

I don't think any ECF official should want to stop people legitimately playing in an ECF event, so please drop this statement

And of course Old Trafford (both grounds) is not in Manchester, but in the borough of Trafford (which still has grammar schools I think) where the NHS started

Mick, apologies for my factual inaccuracies. I didn't realise the MCF only existed since 2004. Given it was a constituent unit, I thought it was a constituent unit of the old BCF, hence was far more historic than that. I didn't realise GMCCA even existed at all, since it no longer appears on the voting register. I guess I shouldn't speak about something that I don't know enough about.

I'm still entitled to think that Greater Manchester shouldn't play in the County Championship, but it's not something I plan to do anything about. It seems I'm not the only one, at least. I'm not just prejudiced against Greater Manchester; I don't think Merseyside or Cleveland should either. Or even Cumbria (which should be Cumberland). I think it would have been much better to use the historic counties, which the rest of the country seems to (continue to) do.

I don't understand why some Greater Manchester players wouldn't want to play for Lancashire under any circumstances. It's still a county chess team, so what's the difference? The juniors play under the banner of Lancashire and Cheshire in the UK Chess Challenge without any fuss.

[David Pardoe]

Mick is right...much misunderstandings and misguided bickering and `personal agendas` have got in the way of common sense, and caused much unwanted angst. We are a local community, with strong ties, common interests...

The new boundaries created new counties, adding to the traditional counties, and creating new opportunities.
What we are about is `creating good chess playing opportrunities for `local` players..... To achieve this we must work together and co-operate, for the greater interest of our players.
One of the benefits of these `new counties` (administrative, as opposed to ceremonial), is that it has enabled more `local opportunity`. Look at Yorkshire, for instance. A truely monstor county...should it be sub divided to its constituent counties of `West Yorkshire`, South Yorks, North Yorks..etc... I certainly think that this has merit...I`d personally go for an east/west split, using the M1 as a dividing line. One reason I say this is because it would enable greater participation for `genuine locals`....who would then not have to travel miles from say Scarborough to play `home` matches in Bradford. ....an expensive & time consuming circus. (They might prehaps travel to York or maybe Malton instead). Then we have the rediculous situation where `outsiders` are bused in to play for these `mega counties`. I`d like to see the eligability rules tightened so that `current local players` are given `priority` and all the `imports` are blocked or have some penalties/ limits/restrictions imposed. Maybe limit `outsiders` to a max of `two places`. Also, its not on in my view, for `local players` to get excluded because `big guns` can be bused in to boost the big boys..... It should not be about `pulling power`...
So, for me, this is about local chess for local players....
As for Lancs & Manchester...we are very much a shared community...we are about `offering good chess playing opportrunities to our players in this area, whatever flavour of `best bitter` they drink. Working together to achieve the best result for our players is key to success, not petty squabbles.

You might just note carefully what this `phony` mega county game has done for northern chess. It has turned the counties competitions into an exclusion zone, where almost no local county competition is played. Only the annual slogging match between heavy weights Yorks & Lancs, with everyone else sidelined...bored to death, unable to compete with the monster club....so you end up with a shed load of cabbage-like spectator counties, forced onto the sidelines.....not my idea of chess. The MCCU on the other hand has a healthy offering of county qualifier events which are a great credit to those involved.
Thats one reason why the new Northern 4NCL league is so refreshing....all this `rubbish` is swept away, and we have a potentially very good event, played in excellent conditions, where northern teams can once again do battle, and have some really enjoyable chess encounters. I hope more teams will join next season...and the Finals week next w/e at Hinckley will hopefully prove a great closing finalle to the season. Those who want a flavour of this should read some of Jon Carlesons reports on the 4NCL website.....they exude the great social and cameradery that has accomanied some excellent chess occasions this season.

[Roger de Coverly]

So, for me, this is about local chess for local players....

Yorkshire though have a very good excuse for doing next to nothing at inter-county level during the winter months, namely that they run their internal league on Saturday afternoons.

Would I be correct that some of the teams are not in fact clubs in their own right but representative teams amalgamating a number of local evening league clubs?

http://www.yorkshirechess.org.uk/docs/f ... 201011.pdf

I've often wondered whether some form of regional club/representative weekend league similar to the Woodhouse was possible in London and the South East. The fairly obvious difficulty is that the potential time slots are already occupied by the 4NCL, well established Congresses and existing SCCU or Chiltern inter-county matches.

(edit)

Add Cumbria as well who also play Saturday afternoons

http://www.cumbriachess.org.uk/Fix.htm

[Alex Holowczak]

One of the benefits of these `new counties` (administrative, as opposed to ceremonial), is that it has enabled more `local opportunity`.

Has it? How many counties played each section of the NCCU Jamboree? I can't see the 2010/11 results, but the 2009/10 results showed that the "Jamboree" consisted of matches between Lancashire, Yorkshire - apart from one section, which was between Lancashire, Yorkshire A and Yorkshire B. While yes, there are new opportunities, no one seems particularly keen on taking them. (I think Cumbria qualified for one section this year, so it has improved a little.)

[David Pardoe]

Alex...read again my notes on why the NCCU counties competitions have fallen into decline....no other `counties` now feel able to participate due to the stifling dominance of the `big two`......they regard it as a waste of time...on all levels, it would appear...which is very disappointing.
To be fair, travel issues probably have a bearing due to the vastness of the NCCU, which stretches to the Scottish borders. (It had struck me that maybe the `Scottish borders` should be included in some form. The other `barrier` for this area is the Penninies, dividing east from west, and creating a deterrant to travel, particularly during the winter months.
However, as I said, contrast this with the relatively vibrant counties events that have run in the MCCU..

[LozCooper]

Then we have the rediculous situation where `outsiders` are bused in to play for these `mega counties`. I`d like to see the eligability rules tightened so that `current local players` are given `priority` and all the `imports` are blocked or have some penalties/ limits/restrictions imposed. Maybe limit `outsiders` to a max of `two places`. Also, its not on in my view, for `local players` to get excluded because `big guns` can be bused in to boost the big boys..... It should not be about `pulling power`...

When you say outsiders do you mean players who are eligible but no longer live there?

[Alex Holowczak]

Alex...read again my notes on why the NCCU counties competitions have fallen into decline....no other `counties` now feel able to participate due to the stifling dominance of the `big two`......they regard it as a waste of time...on all levels, it would appear...which is very disappointing.
To be fair, travel issues probably have a bearing due to the vastness of the NCCU, which stretches to the Scottish borders. (It had struck me that maybe the `Scottish borders` should be included in some form. The other `barrier` for this area is the Penninies, dividing east from west, and creating a deterrant to travel, particularly during the winter months.
However, as I said, contrast this with the relatively vibrant counties events that have run in the MCCU..

I'm aware of the problem you describe, and agree it's disappointing. I don't think you can do anything about it though. The NCCU is geographically challenged, unfortunately. It has two population bases centred in Lancashire and Yorkshire. It would have had one in Cheshire too... There's lots of countryside in-between. What might be more beneficial is the likes of Lincolnshire and Derbyshire playing in the NCCU; i.e. the northern-most MCCU counties. Then you'd have some competition.

The MCCU has many population bases. Each county's county town is quite big. Staffs and Warks have a second big town, Wolverhampton and Birmingham. Take Cumberland in the NCCU. It's one of the smallest counties population-wise in England, yet geographically it's one of the biggest.

It's just a case of arbitrary lines in the sand drawn at antiquity that don't really help the NCCU. Unfortunately, those lines in the sand are pretty fundamental to the concept of the competition.

[John Upham]

A second comment posted on FB was :

The discount system is strange too - for example at first it looks like they're plugging direct debit renewal at £25/£52 per annum, but who would want to go for this when you can get 3 years for £65/£130.

Any comments from the experts?

[David Pardoe]

Then we have the rediculous situation where `outsiders` are bused in to play for these `mega counties`. I`d like to see the eligability rules tightened so that `current local players` are given `priority` and all the `imports` are blocked or have some penalties/ limits/restrictions imposed. Maybe limit `outsiders` to a max of `two places`. Also, its not on in my view, for `local players` to get excluded because `big guns` can be bused in to boost the big boys..... It should not be about `pulling power`...

When you say outsiders do you mean players who are eligible but no longer live there?

Hi Loz...
Just to illustrate my point by example. I noticed on one occasion tbat a player based in Litchfield, the capital city of Staffordshire, was actually playing for Warwickshire, because he played in the Birmingham league.
This in my view is totally laughable and makes a complete mokery of the counties competitions, and any notion that they have anything to do with counties.
Intil we tighten up these rules, along lines I and others have suggested, we will continue to have a virtually meaningless hotch-potch competition..in my view.
Unfortunately nobody at the ECF seems to have the conviction to actually do anything to shange things...because they are too frightened of upsetting the status quo (I suspect..).
I believe the competition should be far more focused on players who actually live and actively play within the recognised localities/counties... I can see some arguement for having a second category of (less `directly connected` players) given eligablity, and maybe there should be a limit on the numbers of these, or they should be given a qtr point handicap/penalty...

[Alex Holowczak]

Litchfield, the capital city of Staffordshire

Oh really? I always thought Stafford was the county town.

[Carl Hibbard]

It is also spelt Lichfield having lived and played for them!