County Chess vs 4NCL

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
Gary Kenworthy

Re: County Chess vs 4NCL

Post by Gary Kenworthy » Mon Oct 03, 2016 2:14 pm

Hi Ian, a fellow CS man of the past,

I do know a reasonable bit about such people at Cipher Bureau. How there were leaders in Signal Intelligence, (they were the top pioneers in the world), as well as Cryptanalytical and of course cryptography work.

Like--

Prof. Wacław Franciszek Sierpiński (March 14, 1882 – October 21, 1969)
Prof Stanisław Leśniewski (March 30, 1886 – May 13, 1939)
Prof Stefan Mazurkiewicz (25 September 1888 - 19 June 1945

Lt Col.Franciszek Pokorny
Lt. Col. Karol Gwido Langer (2 September 1894 – 30 March 1948, Kinross, Scotland).
Lt. Col. Jan Kowalewski (23 October 1892 – 31 October 1965)
Major Jan Józef Graliński (February 8, 1895 – January 9, 1942)

Maksymilian Ciężki ( 24 November 1898 – 9 November 1951 in London),
Marian Adam Rejewski (16 August 1905 – 13 February 1980) – outstanding
Henryk Zygalski (15 July 1908– 30 August 1978)
Jerzy Witold Różycki (July 24, 1909 – January 9, 1942)
-----------------------------------
Question back 1– what was Dr Tartakower military unit, and where was he based in WWI?

Question back 2– why did Dr Tartakower become Polish – a language he did not even speak at the end of WWI – several reasons.

Question back 3– How did some of the Polish intelligence officers get to the UK, via Algiers? (you do not have to look far- try the BCM as well).

[BTW:- Some Cryptanalysts went via Spain and Gibraltar, some to stay in Algiers.]. BTW: The French and Poles worked together near Paris, Château de Vignolles, from late 1939- June 1940.

Question back 4– What organisation was robbing banks in Tsarist Russia, The 1907 famous one is a deflection, a man of Steel, but still approved by V I Lenin.

In “chess trivia”, I have already asked what was Tartakower gallantry medal?

This person and links greatly helps—
Hermann Pokorny Austro-Hungarian Empire, (1882–1960), WW I Austro-Hungarian Army cryptologist ---- only 30 Large Military Merit Medal with Swords were ever awarded. He was the equivalent as the Head of Bletchley Park in WW II.
Last edited by Gary Kenworthy on Mon Oct 03, 2016 6:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

IanCalvert
Posts: 218
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 4:59 pm

Re: County Chess vs 4NCL

Post by IanCalvert » Mon Oct 03, 2016 5:18 pm

Gary

D'oh !

I am a simple mathematician, and an admirer of Sierpinski's work ( some of his Fund Math papers I have read) and thought there might be a link to the Bletchley Polish mathematicians given WS awesome talent. His staggering Wikipedia entry also mentions very early work on Soviet codes!

The link to Bletchley takes us to English chess .

I guess many of the greats of English (and UK) chess who worked there would greatly approve of both County Chess and the 4NCL!

Gary Kenworthy

Re: County Chess vs 4NCL

Post by Gary Kenworthy » Mon Oct 03, 2016 7:13 pm

ok Ian,
The complete survival of the newly created Poland relied very heavily on the breaking of Soviet codes. (actually they were still Tsarist techniques). From 1928 the German threat then took the major attention, and the Enigma traffic and machine. It was again a fight for survival. Without that building of knowledge within Cipher Bureau, the final Western European countries might not have survived in the 1940s.
Plus having knowledge of the Pale of Settlement for the Jews before 1917. Especially the Pogroms and the fleeing of millions from that terror- westwards. e.g. Harry Golombek's parents were Russian Jews.
There were also various terrors and migrations.
See also Philidor and the reign of Terror post 1789.
see also Delius from Central Europe post 1848.
see also Robert Maxwell - 1939 (e.g. his role in giving air superiority to the IDF in their 1948 war of survival.)

User avatar
Carl Hibbard
Posts: 5728
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:05 pm
Location: Evesham

Re: County Chess vs 4NCL

Post by Carl Hibbard » Fri Oct 07, 2016 6:40 am

I go away for a week and we have perhaps the most off topic flow ever so I will try to split tomorrow.
Cheers
Carl Hibbard

John Reyes
Posts: 336
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:51 pm
Location: Manchester

Re: County Chess vs 4NCL

Post by John Reyes » Fri Oct 07, 2016 8:47 am

I do like the idea of zonal idea that alex put forward!!

I was chatting to someone and there is a market for it, but would love to see the number of teams who has entered year on year?
Any postings on here represent my personal views only

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1798
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: County Chess vs 4NCL

Post by Michael Farthing » Fri Oct 07, 2016 8:57 am

I agree that a zonal format is a good idea. We should recognise that with the possible exception of the SCCU this is akin to saying that we should abololish the County Unions, because I suspect that is what would happen very quickly. I have the impression (as someone who takes little interest in the niceties of the NCCU) that other activities are fairly peripheral and little more than a central blessing for more local initiatives. So, it's inviting a few crushed toes?

Michael Flatt
Posts: 1231
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: County Chess vs 4NCL

Post by Michael Flatt » Fri Oct 07, 2016 10:41 am

Michael Farthing wrote:I agree that a zonal format is a good idea. We should recognise that with the possible exception of the SCCU this is akin to saying that we should abololish the County Unions, because I suspect that is what would happen very quickly. I have the impression (as someone who takes little interest in the niceties of the NCCU) that other activities are fairly peripheral and little more than a central blessing for more local initiatives. So, it's inviting a few crushed toes?
If the ECF wish to abolish the regional Chess Unions and replace them with differently constituted regional Zones then it should consult directly with those Unions which it is seeking to abolish. If a particular Officer of the ECF wishes to make such a proposal it would need to be approved and adopted by the ECF Board and presented to Council. It would represent a fundamental re-organisation of chess within England.

A significant role of the Unions is to organise their own Individual and Team Championships. Although the county membership of the SCCU is considerably reduced in recent years the interest in counties that enter teams in the SCCU Team Championships remains strong.

All Unions exercise control over their own constitution and can admit or deny membership to those County Associations that seek to become members. Thus, if particular Unions wish to amalgamate or disband that is a matter for themselves.

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1798
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: County Chess vs 4NCL

Post by Michael Farthing » Fri Oct 07, 2016 10:59 am

I think you missed my point there, Michael

I was not suggesting that the ECF should abolish the unions (which it does not, in any case, have the power to do) - my point was that if the union stage of the ECF County Championship were replaced by a zonal alternative (which the ECF could do) then the unions might simply wither away (and I specifically suggested the SCCU might be an exception).

David Pardoe
Posts: 1221
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:29 pm
Location: NORTH WEST

Re: County Chess vs 4NCL

Post by David Pardoe » Fri Oct 07, 2016 11:23 am

Doing away with the Unions would definitely not be a good plan..
The problem with Alex suggestion is that different areas might wish to enter different graded teams.. ie, say you took Cheshire Merseyside and Lancs + Shrops as one group..
Shrops might enter a Minor Counties and U 120 team, whereas Merseyside might enter a U180 and U160 + U140 teams..giving a mismatch across the group.
So the counties events are fine..maybe a zonal east west split is needed for some.
But I agree that some greater flexibility might be useful, allowing teams from one Union to enter another Unions events..
But key is the need to sort out counties and Unions who are not joining in the fun of these events.. and the great cameradarie, etc..
I`d say that the ECF should have a rule that bars counties from the National stages if they engage in ridiculous or obtuse behavours or actions deemed to disrupt or upset other counties.. I would limit this action to specific teams, but also ban whole counties if behaviour was deemed to be against the spirit of the game.
There are other structural changes I`d bring in, such as allowing the East Union and West union to field combined `open teams` , because of the population and rural issues they have..If this allowed the East & West Unions a chance to appear at the top table, it would be excellent.
AS I`ve said, the counties competitions are possibly the great unsung team events that we run in the UK, and offer great experience at all levels..
Far too many counties and players focus soully on the top events.. Open and Minor Counties, but over look the opportunities to run other teams.
And far too many teams don't enter because they perceive their teams might not win... the experience and 16 board match play is really good value chessing in my view..
Last edited by David Pardoe on Fri Oct 07, 2016 11:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
BRING BACK THE BCF

Michael Flatt
Posts: 1231
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: County Chess vs 4NCL

Post by Michael Flatt » Fri Oct 07, 2016 11:28 am

Michael Farthing wrote:I think you missed my point there, Michael

I was not suggesting that the ECF should abolish the unions (which it does not, in any case, have the power to do) - my point was that if the union stage of the ECF County Championship were replaced by a zonal alternative (which the ECF could do) then the unions might simply wither away (and I specifically suggested the SCCU might be an exception).
No, such a proposal disenfrachises the Unions by removing their right to enter county teams into the ECF competition.

The SCCU Championship (Shannon Trophy) according to Richard Haddrell's researches (http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/teamsad.htm) was first awarded to Surrey in 1894, which predates the founding of the British Chess Federation (1904)[1] and the English Chess Federation (2004).

The SCCU itself was founded in 1892[2].

[1] BCF (Wikipedia): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_C ... Federation
[2] SCCU role & History: http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/philpo.htm

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 8890
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: County Chess vs 4NCL

Post by Alex Holowczak » Fri Oct 07, 2016 1:51 pm

Michael Flatt wrote:If the ECF wish to abolish the regional Chess Unions and replace them with differently constituted regional Zones then it should consult directly with those Unions which it is seeking to abolish. If a particular Officer of the ECF wishes to make such a proposal it would need to be approved and adopted by the ECF Board and presented to Council. It would represent a fundamental re-organisation of chess within England.
Michael Farthing wrote:I was not suggesting that the ECF should abolish the unions (which it does not, in any case, have the power to do) - my point was that if the union stage of the ECF County Championship were replaced by a zonal alternative (which the ECF could do) then the unions might simply wither away (and I specifically suggested the SCCU might be an exception).
Michael Farthing is correct that Michael Flatt has fundamentally missed the point. At no point was abolishing Unions written during the course of the post to which John Reyes refers. The suggestion also started with "If I were starting the competition from scratch tomorrow" or similar.

The process for Unions nominating teams to the ECF competition is part of the County Championship rules. The rules can be changed by Council by a simple majority vote, and as the SCCU knows perfectly well, only one Union is needed to get a rulechange proposal on the AGM Agenda. So the Board could be reduced more-or-less to bystander status if a Union was so inclined to put a rulechange proposal along the lines of what I typed to Council.

Andrew Zigmond
Posts: 1704
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Harrogate

Re: County Chess vs 4NCL

Post by Andrew Zigmond » Fri Oct 07, 2016 7:46 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote: The process for Unions nominating teams to the ECF competition is part of the County Championship rules. The rules can be changed by Council by a simple majority vote, and as the SCCU knows perfectly well, only one Union is needed to get a rulechange proposal on the AGM Agenda. So the Board could be reduced more-or-less to bystander status if a Union was so inclined to put a rulechange proposal along the lines of what I typed to Council.
It should also be noted that a proposal Alex and myself put forward to allow direct entry to the competitions as opposed to Union nomination met with considerable opposition. In practical terms its a non starter.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own

Andrew Zigmond
Posts: 1704
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Harrogate

Re: County Chess vs 4NCL

Post by Andrew Zigmond » Fri Oct 07, 2016 7:49 pm

David Pardoe wrote: I`d say that the ECF should have a rule that bars counties from the National stages if they engage in ridiculous or obtuse behavours or actions deemed to disrupt or upset other counties.. I would limit this action to specific teams, but also ban whole counties if behaviour was deemed to be against the spirit of the game.
Do you have any specific counties in mind, David? I certainly can't think of any counties that might qualify for this sanction.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own

John Reyes
Posts: 336
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:51 pm
Location: Manchester

Re: County Chess vs 4NCL

Post by John Reyes » Sat Oct 08, 2016 6:16 pm

Andrew Zigmond wrote:
Alex Holowczak wrote: The process for Unions nominating teams to the ECF competition is part of the County Championship rules. The rules can be changed by Council by a simple majority vote, and as the SCCU knows perfectly well, only one Union is needed to get a rulechange proposal on the AGM Agenda. So the Board could be reduced more-or-less to bystander status if a Union was so inclined to put a rulechange proposal along the lines of what I typed to Council.
It should also be noted that a proposal Alex and myself put forward to allow direct entry to the competitions as opposed to Union nomination met with considerable opposition. In practical terms its a non starter.
But it would be interested in seeing the number?

David Pardoe has miss the point yet again as he think that every counties will put a team in? But have a look at the northern and midland area, in the Nccu it is always Lancashire and Yorkshire that go thou, and in the under 160 there is only 3 team in which has entered, would it be better to have for example 5 fixtures for as
Least one or the top two to getthough to the national stages!

It make sense
Any postings on here represent my personal views only

Gary Kenworthy

Re: County Chess vs 4NCL

Post by Gary Kenworthy » Sat Oct 08, 2016 7:31 pm

The problem is not the county boundaries, it is the Union boundaries, and disparity of strengths. If say Derbyshire was in the same group as Durham, then others would surely join in - at also many u xxx events, knowing that they could avoid the wooden spoon. The current Yorks and Lancs, two counties duopoly as sole Union teams - does not work.
-----------------------------
The 4NCL (before 4*NCL) is a team league. Ever since it was created in September 1993 , it had one brilliant new rule, thought up by Chris Dunworth. There was no token junior or lady on a special bottom board. Instead, the objective was they would be for increased integration and play any board. It needed a few seasons for it to happen though. Thus, you can play two or three ladies in the same team. Then it started to happen after a while.

The very much later having 7 ladies, plus 1 bloke was just a rule wording theory. Nobody I knew anticipated that actually happening. The fact that it happened shows to me the legacy of Chris's idea. To also put ladies chess on its own footing, to National and International standards. That was the plan. It was evident, noticed and discussed on the first day of play. That integration, I then remarked, would be the most important legacy of this new event.
-------------------------
The decline of the National Club, (team knockout) had several other factors, the easy way out was to forget that event with all the bad, new and broken rules, poor controlling and the breaking of many of its core principles, trying for hegemony over Scotland, making telephone matches first option etc. Major lack of thought of the logistics involved and a rule set that did not match. Playing central venues, in the South etc, Playing weekdays and Saturdays only, the decline of intermediate venues (as clubs closed and helpful contacts died or retired, or apathy) , last minute distant pairings. e.g. Playing no rounds for 3 months, then 3 rounds in 3 weeks, against maybe opponents in different directions etc. The increase cost of venues, higher cost of intermediate venues. Some clubs had Saturday clubs and Saturday leagues, so stopping Sundays also means reduced entries.

Instead concentrating on the independent 4NCL with fixed schedule dates and pre-known venues was the easier logistical way ahead. Thus, that became the best choice for the European Club Cup qualification.

I see no threat to County chess from the 4NCL, they can easily co-exist, the calendar is far less crowded these days. The point of this thread is thus a misnomer. Have both events is simpler.

Post Reply