Nigel Short wishes Gerry Walsh 'Merry Xmas & Begone!'

[Simon Spivack]

As far as I know, the only way to identify delegates is to dig out the latest ECF yearbook and trawl through each organisation listed. Thats ok for leagues, counties and unions. I have no idea how you would find out a congresses delegate.

If anyone has a list of ECF delegates I would be happy to e-mail mine asking for a change of leadership and strongly suggest anyone else who is unhappy with Gerry Walsh does the same.

The Year Book only gives the names of a few. Under the quaint system we have, it is normal to have overlapping, so to speak, delegates. As I recall you are based in North London, you would therefore likely be represented (sic) not just by Middlesex CCA, but also by the London League and whatever tournaments you play in; to say nothing of the SCCU.

Far more useful than trying to open a closed mind would be to join a committee and offer to serve as ECF delegate. Sometimes there is a dearth of volunteers.

Frankly, even the gods would be helpless against the system of voting we have.

[Justin Hadi]

Nah, I'm based in South London. I would still like to know who my ECF rep is, let's say for the Middlesex league, but there's no word on their website : http://www.middlesexchess.org.uk/Contacts.htm (last updated Dec 07). We don't know if there are closed minds until we ask them (which seems like a good start), but then again not much would surprise me any more about English chess administration.

If the ECF delegate's job was just to vote, then I would happily stand, but I suspect it is more than that. I will try to find out. Unfortunately due to other committments and increasing use of my time going towards writing a thesis I can't see it as a possibility for me at this moment in time.

Justin

[Sean Hewitt]

I'm surprised that a list of delegates isn't published on the ECF website. It should be if you think about it. I know Chris Majer reads and contributes to this forum so hopefully he'll take that thought on board.

According to the 2007 yearbook (cant find 2008) the Middlesex County ECF Rep was Graham Snow.

[Justin Hadi]

Sean, you have been ECF delegate, could you shed some light as to what the job entails?

[Carl Hibbard]

I know Chris Majer reads and contributes to this forum so hopefully he'll take that thought on board.

No sign of Chris since November time so I suspect this forum is now a no-go area for ECF officials

[andrew martin]

What is so important that merits the silence ? This is the English Chess Federation, not the national government.

Andrew

[Sean Hewitt]

Sean, you have been ECF delegate, could you shed some light as to what the job entails?

There are two meetings of council per year - one is the AGM and the other is a finance meeting. A delegate should attend these (or give his proxy vote to someone ). They take place on a Saturday afternoon and usually last about 4 hours each.

At these meetings, various reports are presented and discussed. Proposals may be made which council must vote on (such as chess for schools, or increasing the frequency for publishing grades) and council votes for the level of game fee etc. Of course it also elects the members of the board when there are contested elections. I am sure that some delegates simply make their own minds up and vote how they wish without reference to the body they represent. I always ask the bodies I represent for their views. Often they will ask me to listen to the debate and make the decision myself ; more rarely they will direct me to vote a certain way. Depends on the topic!

As a delegate you also have the right to put a motion to council yourself (with a pre-requisite level of support from other delegates). For example, a delegate could put a proposal to the next meeting to change the role of President to a purely figure head role.

[Simon Spivack]

According to the 2007 yearbook (cant find 2008) the Middlesex County ECF Rep was Graham Snow.

He is also listed in the 2008 Yearbook. However, Justin would do better to contact Chris Fewtrell, who is very open-minded and an extremely nice chap.

A better way to proceed would be to join the county committee. This would typically entail two or three evening meetings a season. They'd start at around seven and end sometime before ten. This would ensure that Justin's views got a hearing. It would also mean that should any dispute happen there would be the possibility of an amicable settlement, for instance because the principals know one another (normally disagreements arise from a misunderstanding, rather than from a deliberate action).

From Middlesex's perspective it is always good to have a representative from Imperial College. In the past tournaments have been held in South Kensington. If the booking was made through the chess club, rather than the county, there would be no fee for room hire. The actual organisation would be done by Middlesex CCA, save for the crucial matter of liaison with the College authorities and the students' union: the chess club would also be better placed to handle any internal politics. The contest could be called, within reason, anything that the College wanted. Given the improved (sic) security at Imperial College, with passes being required for just about everywhere, I'm not convinced that this is a proposition anymore. I am not aware of any plan for a tournament. But it is useful to have a venue in reserve. There are chess playing academics at Imperial, although I always found it easier to work through the chess club.

In case anyone hasn't guessed, counties don't have much money, so the cheap option is always a good idea.

[JustinHorton]

They completely changed the hall where the tournaments used to take place, which is not to say that a suitable venue couldn't still be located.

[Keith Arkell]

Paul McKeown:
'' what has the British become anyway? Some sort of risible, weak, kindergarten''.
"about the British...if it was an 11 round all play all..."It would certainly be much more interesting than the current Britain Lacks Talent that it currently is..."

Paul,I've got no idea what you do for a living,but I suspect that I am as unqualified to judge the level of talent displayed by your work colleagues as you clearly are to judge the level of talent displayed by mine.

[Paul McKeown]

Keith,

No insult was intended: I'm aware that you are a particularly strong player, who has managed to reach the top 0.1% and maintain your position for many years. I would, however, like to see an APA of the 12 strongest, or perhaps two APAs of 8 with the best from each group progressing to a final APA of 6. It just seems that the British Championship has become a large Swiss with players of grades down to 170 or even lower - which can hardly be seen as the cream of British chess. This must surely be difficult to explain to a sponsor, whereas an APA is very easy, "Oh we just select the best players." I'm sure that in an APA you would still be playing, as you must be amongst the 12 or 24 strongest active British players.

Best Regards,
Paul M.

[Keith Arkell]

Paul,

Ok no offense taken(except perhaps mild offense if you dismiss me as among the 12 or 24 strongest active British players,given that a mathematical calculation of my performance over the last 18 months would render your description of my ranking as somewhat unflattering,though not linguistically inaccurate;but of course I can't expect you to fiddle with a calculator for an hour before you post,and I am unfortunatelly currently officially only number 16).

To be fair to you I understand your point regarding the lower end,but have no strong view myself either way. I would though welcome participation in a strong all play all to decide the title.
However,at the business end,in 2008,disregarding for the moment the none-participation of Short and Adams,clearly the only absent strong ACTIVE players who you would have expected to make a significant impact on the tournament were David Howell and Jonathan Rowson.David Howell was playing in the world u-21 Championship at the time,and may well have made that choice irrespective of the format of the tournament,and Jonathan Rowson I believe had some other issues which lead to his none particiption.(coincidentally from my point of view Jonathan was the player who I beat in rd 10 to set myself up for a ''showdown'' for the title against Gallagher the last time I played in the tournament-in 2001,but on that occasion I took a quick draw because there were no conditions for GMs,and my prize covered the expenses for my mother and myself).Ok too much imformation..
Regarding Short and Adams,is it such a big surprise that they don't play?(Short played,I believe,only once in 20 years and Adams not much more than that).These players have tasted playing for the World Championship!When did Karpov or Fischer last play in their national Championhips? Or,by analogy,how often do IMs bother playing in their county championships?Of course it would be nice if we could entice them to play,but it is hardly something you should expect.

[Ben Purton]

Its an unearthly hour and I really feel I've been here before, I am revising for my Globalization final on Thursday 9am. Unfortunately my eccentric sleeping pattens now mean staying up until some hour and then sleeping during the day/early night are best for me.

So I can reply to you...

Whilst the APA system might encourage a few more respectable players to play. I think it should be an event which is semi-OPEN like it is now. As one of the "170's" described and captain of 3-4 qualifiers of 170's playing the Torquey Championship, I think its important that us "mugs" can qualify for the tournament. It gives "us" something to aim for.. Lets face it, once you reach 170 , your no longer elligble for U160 tournaments. If your over 175 you cant play in the Grand Prix as there is no 175-200. So you prop-up/middle order alot of Open weekenders and maybe if your lucky pick up a U180 or u200 Prize. I think the British Championship qualifier title is a strong incentive for alot of the 170-200 bracket to turn up.

I accept that APA systems are used in many countries, in fact probaly all the ones I read about on chessbase bar perhaps the Indian one I remember being a semi-open type event.

However these countries have one thing we do not have in the UK, and with the apparent removal of the Blackpool congress and Isle of Man Congress's FIDE-rated status aiding this statement. NOT MANY LARGE FIDE TOURNAMENTS WITH GOOD DEPTH.

I quite like the way the British is run and hope Manuel does not change it to an All play all. Im surprised Keith would want an All play all. He is a greater open player in my view because he can put the lower rated to bed in the ending at very least. Id say he is in the top 10 Active players in UK with ease. Adams,Short,Howell the soon-migrating Jones. Being the only 4 active players better than him "clearly" on paper.

Kind regards, sorry for the long message, I am cutting down on them.

Ben

[Keith Arkell]

Cheers Ben!

I guess that my body is still in the East American time-zone as it's 6am and I'm not tired yet!

Actually I only popped on here to defend the honour of my colleagues(eg the likes of Gawain,Danny,Stuart,Stewart,Nick,Heb,Steve etc etc etc)against the suggestion that they are part of a ''Britain Lacks Talent'' brigade.I have strong views about how,in Kasparov's words,chess continues to develop and be played at a higher and higher level. It seems though that Paul wasn't referring to the top players.

I didn't really want to waffle about myself,but I thoroughly enjoy the British in it's present format.Certainly it is one of the great social events on the calendar,so much so that on at least a couple of occasions I have hung around for the 2 weeks without even playing!
All told then,however nice it would be for us GMs to get a tasty all play all on our calendars,I think for the common good the event should be left as it is,with ideally a high category extra event to determine the English title.(I merely meant that from the selfish point of view of my own chess I would welcome a strong all play all because in fact Ben it's the other way round and my tedious grinding style actually works best against very strong players.

[Stewart Reuben]

If it was generally thought "better", the British Championship could of course become a 12 player round robin. I am pretty sure it would be economically less viable than the current set-up. Hastings provides a pointer. The separate Premier RR was abandoned due to lack of funds. Thus I think we would see fewer of the top players taking part than we saw in Liverpool. Of course a 12 player RR would be much stronger at the bottom. Another alternative would be to make the British Championship totally open, but that would have a considerable effect on British congress chess.
I thought my successor went too far in 'dumbing down' the British so that it became rather easy to get in. The rules I introduced for 2009 should redress that balance somewhat.
The Major Open needs some rethinking. In 2004 it was limited to players rated under 2350 because it was the World Major Championship and that was the regulation I wrote for FIDE. If we had adequate resources it could become a title norm tournament where foreign IMs were paid start money. There aren't many events outside the US where lower rated players have a good chance of getting first place. The two Gibraltar Challengers are exceptions.

Eligibility for playing for an English team and right to play in the British Championship is being discussed. It has been decided there will be no change for 2009.

Perhaps foolishly it is only recently that I grew to understand one of Nigel Short's often expressed positions. He wants to play for a British team, not an English one. That of course is a valid view. My own view is that I am English, British and a UK citizen and don't really distinguish between them. Thus Nigel wants the UK to be a member of FIDE. I want what is best for chess and believe separate federations for England, Scotland, Wales, Guernsey and Jersey is certainly better for the last four of those federations.
Stewart Reuben