Chess Recognition

[Mick Norris]

Agreed, the info on the website, and indeed layout, is very good - maybe we could copy some of the awards too - there is certainly a case for a long service award for players who have represented England say at least 10 times (Adams, Short, Nunn, Speelman and no doubt more on the men's side; Jovanka presumably among others on the women's side)

[Nigel_Davies]

I also captained county teams for Cheshire and North Wales. Indeed Nigel may years ago I recall asking you to play for the team and you, in effect, telling me you couldn't be arsed.

As for teaching, I have done some voluntary work in local schools, but I've never been remotely good enough to charge for the lessons.

So you were another ECF person who is oblivious to professional status? I'm surprised you didn't meld better with the organization...

[Christopher Kreuzer]

The Honorary Life Members are a little more obscure, the list being

J M Brew (Phillips & Drew? or was it Grieveson Grant, both important sponsors)
J M Glendinning (The name is familiar, but for what?)
N A Grant (no idea)
S Grundy (no idea)
F G Hatto (Welsh organiser?)
M Johnson (no idea)
Dr A Kent (no idea)
Sir Jeremy Morse ( Chairman of Lloyds Bank, important sponsor, also problemist)
G Pearce (Smith & Williamson - sponsor of British Championships)
P Taylor ( Monarch, sponsor of Isle of Man tournaments)

John Brew was with Grievson Grant and with the renamed company Klienwort Benson and various other incarnations.
John Glendinning is a long time organiser in Scotland (now retired). He was a leading junior player playing in a Scotland team which won the Glorney.
Frank Hatto was a Welsh Organiser and long time arbiter at the British.

Thanks for this, Alex. Hopefully others will be able to shed light on some of the other names.

(Wonder if S Grundy is a relation of James Grundy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Gru ... _player%29

From a Googled snipped of a 1983 BCM:

"Dr A. Kent, Finance Director of Leigh Interests plc")

[Andrew Zigmond]

Returning to the original post (now separated onto another thread) I understand that the proposed Vice President, though well intentioned, achieved absolutely nothing apart from creating annoyance. The poster had a similarly unsuccessful track record as do others with the title. So yes, it seems devastatingly unfair to leave any of them out, who is to say that their nothing should be any less than that of the others nothings?

As I think I've pointed out five times now IF the Honorary Vice Presidents and Honorary Presidents list was the definitive English Chess Hall of Fame you would have a point. It isn't. You haven't acknowledged the point Mick Norris and myself have made about the ECF President's Award and the Player Of The Year awards. There is a case for a higher award for outstanding service to English Chess - I agree with that entirely.

If the list on the Board and Officers page read, `List of people who received a complimentary biro for services to the English Chess Federation` would you be kicking up such a stink? An Honorary Vice Presidency is not worth an awful lot more in the grand scheme of things.

[Roger de Coverly]

"Dr A. Kent, Finance Director of Leigh Interests plc")

Leigh Interests - sponsors of the Grand Prix for many years.

[Nigel_Davies]

If the list on the Board and Officers page read, `List of people who received a complimentary biro for services to the English Chess Federation` would you be kicking up such a stink? An Honorary Vice Presidency is not worth an awful lot more in the grand scheme of things.

There are implications to this that go to the heart of what a federation should be and what it should value, and it effects those who do chess full time way more than the 'well meaning amateurs'. So to answer your question, it has nothing to do with free biros.

[Andrew Zigmond]

If the list on the Board and Officers page read, `List of people who received a complimentary biro for services to the English Chess Federation` would you be kicking up such a stink? An Honorary Vice Presidency is not worth an awful lot more in the grand scheme of things.

There are implications to this that go to the heart of what a federation should be and what it should value, and it effects those who do chess full time way more than the 'well meaning amateurs'. So to answer your question, it has nothing to do with free biros.

Well I suspect we're not going to agree. As I have said on more than one occasion I agree with you entirely that the giants of English chess should be recognised more prominently. However you seem to be determined to blow some obscure list that you didn't even know was there until yesterday out of all context and proportion. For the sixth time this is NOT some hallowed Hall Of Fame of English Chess. If it was it would be a scandal. But it isn't.

Incidentally the shortlist for the 2015 ECF Player of the Year got some stick (not from me, just to clarify) for being dominated by professionals and that the four that weren't (a student, an amateur and two juniors) were criticised for being white males. A suggestion that the awards should be broadened out into different category was resisted by the committee.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Incidentally the shortlist for the 2015 ECF Player of the Year got some stick (not from me, just to clarify) for being dominated by professionals and that the four that weren't (a student, an amateur and two juniors) were criticised for being white males. A suggestion that the awards should be broadened out into different category was resisted by the committee.

"Dominated by professionals" was not part of the criticism, and it's only you who read it as being part of the criticism. "Dominated by white males" was pretty much the entirety of it.

[Andrew Zigmond]

the four that weren't (a student, an amateur and two juniors) were criticised for being white males.

Which was the crux of my anger at the time. Had the number of professionals been limited (and I'm not saying it should have been) then we may have seen a more diverse list. But we go off topic.

[LawrenceCooper]

Incidentally the shortlist for the 2015 ECF Player of the Year got some stick (not from me, just to clarify) for being dominated by professionals and that the four that weren't (a student, an amateur and two juniors) were criticised for being white males. A suggestion that the awards should be broadened out into different category was resisted by the committee.

"Dominated by professionals" was not part of the criticism, and it's only you who read it as being part of the criticism. "Dominated by white males" was pretty much the entirety of it.

I had the same opinion as Jack and did question the short list albeit that led to me being called prejudiced and under-observant. I think it was more a case of those drawing up the short list not knowing much about our women and junior players rather than any intended prejudice. At least with Jovanka's medal at the European Team and Akshaya winning the British Women's title we have two high profile successes that combined with other results will make it very difficult to ignore if they repeat the process of preventing us from voting for all but a handful of players in 2015-16.

[Martin Regan]

ND wrote:

So you were another ECF person who is oblivious to professional status? I'm surprised you didn't meld better with the organization

Another assumption another error.

I actually tried to bring in free and discounted membership for titled players and do believe that one of the core purposes of the ECF is to create the right landscape to allow strong players to have least have a chance of making a living from the game. My view is probably in the minority and will remain so while GMs think they can spout off about the failings of the federation without ever wanting to contribute.

[Richard James]

S Grundy

Stanley Grundy (obituary here) started the Richmond Chess Initiative in 1993, and later an international chess initiative through Rotary International. The Richmond Chess Initiative eventually petered out when the money ran out. The Rotary chess initiative (possibly the event mentioned in the obituary) also seemed to stop when Stanley died. The other Rotary people weren't really interested and only kept it going to humour him.

The main reason for his award, though, was that he arranged sponsorship for the UK Chess Challenge through British Land and turned it from a fairly small local competition into a very large national competition.

I presume his name ought to be removed from the list but perhaps no one in the ECF realised that he died ten years ago.

[Nigel_Davies]

ND wrote:

So you were another ECF person who is oblivious to professional status? I'm surprised you didn't meld better with the organization

Another assumption another error.

I actually tried to bring in free and discounted membership for titled players and do believe that one of the core purposes of the ECF is to create the right landscape to allow strong players to have least have a chance of making a living from the game. My view is probably in the minority and will remain so while GMs think they can spout off about the failings of the federation without ever wanting to contribute.

Well it was a question actually, but thanks for the clarification. Meanwhile I don't recall you offering to pay for my time when you asked me to play for the Cheshire and North Wales team, so this does appear to be an 'anomaly'.

Re contribution, we all do so in our own way. Personally I have written 16 books on chess, presented 39 DVDs, won 15 international tournaments, been awarded the GM title, helped numerous people improve from club players to current GMs etc.. Presumably this doesn't count because I do it for a living.

[Andrew Zigmond]

I think one of the few things we all agree on is that there is currently a dearth of money in the national game. This has been a long running problem and the blame game is probably twenty years out of date. The here and now situation is that chess professionals (as Nigel Davies has written about many times) cannot make a living from the game and there is little incentive for the professional people the game needs to get involved. So we are stuck with volunteers trying to do the best they can and all people in all camps expressing frustration at how little appreciation they get.

We do have some amateurs trying to cling to power and club players treating professional chess players with disdain. We also have professional players who downplay the contribution volunteers make, particularly when there's even less financial reward for them. Both raise my hackles equally.

[Roger de Coverly]

I presume his name ought to be removed from the list but perhaps no one in the ECF realised that he died ten years ago.

That was an old list from many years ago. He isn't on current lists.