London Central YMCA (aka CentYMCA) Chess Club

[George Szaszvari]

Yeah, well, important people like Steven can be rather intergalactic at times, but, credit to the guy, he did relent when faced with the wrath of fellow Tory Barkers.

This is somewhat harsh in my estimation. Steven has helped people in the past, he's someone I've got time for. I've never cared over much about someone's background, it's about the mensch as far as I'm concerned.

It wasn't meant to be harsh, rather to be lighthearted. The fact is that he did go along with the request when he
could have remained adamantly opposed, and even if he did like being a pedantic stickler for correct procedure, etc,
at times, he was always at pains to be a fair good guy. That's why he was president of the club, for goodness' sake!
As far as Steven's personal view of politics are concerned, you're right, even if he made no secret of his views with
me I was taking licence with something that is really nobody else's business; iirc we were on the same wavelength
in most of those matters.

[Paul McKeown]

Steven Walsh is a mensch. To some he may perhaps appear grumpy and pompous on occasion, but his friends know him better. He is genuinely warm and generous and has personally helped several members of the Athenaeum Chess Club that I am aware of; he has served the club fantastically as President for three decades.

[Malcolm Clarke]

Why guess? Some of the ace Internet detectives round here need to be retrained.

Simon Spivack wrote:
I recall that the late Mike Crewsden did what he could to help; club treasurer, or something like that. I was never a member of the YMCA, but did belong to Bayswater, as well as Islington. One time I had a long conversation with Mike about Tsuji Masanobu, whom Mike had been trying to track down at the end of the Pacific War. Mike spoke very highly of the book Japan's Imperial Conspiracy by David Bergamini. Mike was a true gentleman, a bit garrulous, but in the nicest possible sense, he did not seek to dominate conversations.
See also http://www.camdennewjournal.co.uk/10130 ... 305_05.htm . If the link doesn't work then try

Simon - Thank you for this

One of the reasons I did not find details of Michael Crewdson on the Internet was the spelling of the name. Crewdson I believe was the correct spelling of the surname, as I recall him informing captains who spelt it differently. When one types in Michael Crewdson, nearly all the references are to the author of Carnivorous Nights, and other search parameters I used did not shed any further light.

While I was involved with London Central YMCA, Michael was a successful captain of our Eastman Cup team amongst other things. The article produced interesting information, even if his surname is spelt correctly in one instance and incorrectly in another, and I believe the company he worked for is Touche Ross not Touche Roche.

I do not think our paths have ever crossed, but you may be interested in to know that about two years ago, while searching out something else I saw the compliments you paid to David Foley-Comer.

Interestingly enough in my first season in the London League I was vice captain of London Central YMCA 6 who played in London League Division 8, alongside Wood Green 2 who were captained by David. David was clearly very well respected by those members of the YMCA chess club that knew him.

He assembled a very strong Wood Green team, with I believe, about half the team graded in the 170's and 160's and they won that division comfortably. However his success made me appreciate the kind of team I might need to do well in the division.
I then had three seasons as captain, winning the division 8 title in my second season, and finishing runners up in division 7 the following season.

People at that time coming into London League Division 8 for the first time and thinking it would be a doddle, did not always judge correctly the quality of the captains and opposition they might come up against.

[Simon Spivack]

One of the reasons I did not find details of Michael Crewdson on the Internet was the spelling of the name. Crewdson I believe was the correct spelling of the surname, as I recall him informing captains who spelt it differently. When one types in Michael Crewdson, nearly all the references are to the author of Carnivorous Nights, and other search parameters I used did not shed any further light.

My apologies if I have given offence. The "ace Internet detective" jest was not intended to be directed at anyone specifically. It was so long ago that my memory could be at fault. What you write comes across as convincing and is reinforced by this page. On page 12 there is:

Michael Oliver Hubert Crewdson
24 vi 1924 19 viii 2005

Michael Crewdson came from a Quaker family of many generations, but it was only in middle age that he made this faith his own. His faith was expressed practically in his commitment to homeless people in Westminster. In his seventies he produced a small card with details of homeless services for those he encountered in the street. It was also expressed with great sensitivity in carefully prepared talks for Westminster Friends on such topics as Hildegaard of Bingen and Buddhism. Michael believed and had a very personal experience of a “perennial philosophy” that transcended dualism and connected with a mystic tradition in all the world’s major faiths. It is found among Quakers certainly, but equally among Buddhists and in the Subud movement in which he played an active part.

To many Michael might not have seemed a typical Quaker. He had been a Guards officer during the war and shown grace under fire in Italy. His commitment to peace, rare for the present generation, was anchored in is first hand knowledge of the reality of war. He spoke movingly of an occasion when his personal intervention prevented soldiers under his command from exacting revenge against wounded Germans. His life was marked by a very strong sense of responsibility that was rooted in his privileged background. It was tempered by a sense of humility, perhaps born of a feeling that he had fallen short of what he would have liked to achieve. His quiet authority was invaluable in raising the concerns of Friends both in meeting with MPs, for instance over the calamitous impact of sanctions against Iraq, prior to the 2003 war, and in the role he played in Westminster Christian Council.

For Michael his work in Japan, as an apprehension officer for the international tribunal on war crimes, after the Second World War, was a seminal experience. The tribunal was to become a forerunner of the international criminal court. It was here that he came to understand Buddhism through his friendship with the Zen master Suzuki Dysets. Michael played a significant role in the attempt to apprehend Masanobu Tsuji, suspected of the appalling war crime of the massacre of hospital staff and patients in Alexandra Hospital Singapore, an attempt that was frustrated by the protection of the American Government. In later life he spoke movingly of the dilemmas of ensuring scrupulous fairness in interrogating suspects where they faced the death penalty if found guilty. After the war Michael’s career took many turns. He had been offered a place to study at Cambridge University, but instead set up his own film production company. He grasped the potential for film as a way of drawing attention to the environmental crisis in the 1970s at a time when few were aware of this. His experience included running a fashionable nightclub in Soho. This gave him a rather unusual background as a committee member of Quaker Action on Alcohol and Drugs. He sat as a Conservative councillor and served on several dozen Quaker Committees as well as acting as Treasurer for Westminster Meeting. As a member of the London Central YMCA Board of Governors, his advice was invaluable. He also steered the YMCA Junior chess club to national pre-eminence.

Michael married late in life and had two daughters. His compassion for the outsider was perhaps rooted in a sense of personal knowledge of failed relationships in which he was slow to offer criticism and always willing to offer his humorous and delightfully ribald insights. In his seventies he lived very simply in a flat near Westminster Meeting. His modest personal circumstances gave him a first hand understanding of homeless people in Westminster. He brought his quiet and measured determination to raising these issues, both among Quakers and on Westminster Christian Council. His social dedication and commitment never stood in the way of a delight in food and enjoyment of a wide range of post-war jazz, which he played on a small record player in his Covent Garden flat.

In his later life, he found it increasingly difficult to look after himself. He died in August 2005 and was buried at Jordan’s Meeting House on 31st August. He brought humility and commitment to his service to Westminster Meeting. He contributed a disciplined mind and delightful sense of humour to all that he did.

Signed in and on behalf of Westminster Monthly Meeting,
held 18 February 2007,
Jennifer Kavanagh, Clerk
and London and Middlesex General Meeting, held 23 June 2007
Beth Allen, Clerk

A fine tribute to a fine man.

The longest conversation I had with Mike was on a coach trip down from London to the Midlands (Aston University IIRC) when Middlesex were playing in the national stages of the counties championships. We sat next to one another for both legs of the journey. He also discoursed on the Gambit Café. I am fairly confident that Mike and I first met at one of the simuls that the Y staged in the early seventies.

I do not think our paths have ever crossed, but you may be interested in to know that about two years ago, while searching out something else I saw the compliments you paid to David Foley-Comer.

Your name rings a bell, I may have seen it somewhere, but I, too, cannot recall any meeting between us.

I am confident that the overwhelming majority of those who played in one of David's teams would speak well of him. All of the text on the page you mention was composed within Chessbase 9 (oh for a spell checker), mostly in the early hours of the morning.

People at that time coming into London League Division 8 for the first time and thinking it would be a doddle, did not always judge correctly the quality of the captains and opposition they might come up against.

Indeed. A non sequitur is that it is also a measure of the decline of chess that there are now only four (plus one) divisions in the London League.

[Malcolm Clarke]

Simon - In reply to your earlier email I have the following points to make

1) I was not at all offended by your reference to the Ace Internet Detective
2) With regard to the London Chess League it should be pointed out that when I played in it during the 1980's division 8 only had 4 or 5 teams, and the other divisions had slightly fewer teams than they do now. I think there were about 81 teams then, as opposed to 61 now.

Clubs which operated with more than one team who no longer feature are Harrow, Muswell Hill, Hampstead, Stock Exchange, BBC, London University, Hendon and Islington as well as London Central YMCA.
3) I believe that games such as chess can often transcend political differences, and that one's political views are often best not discussed. However I did note that your colleague found it difficult to fraternize at the Hackney venue, when for most of the time I played chess at Athenaeum their home was the National Liberal club.

[Simon Spivack]

With regard to the London Chess League it should be pointed out that when I played in it during the 1980's division 8 only had 4 or 5 teams, and the other divisions had slightly fewer teams than they do now. I think there were about 81 teams then, as opposed to 61 now.

Yes, the regular divisions have been modestly fattened. Note, though, that the Minor Division is contested over four boards only, with an upper ECF grading limit of 145. Division One has been played over twelve boards since I first played in the London League in the early seventies; the other divisions, save for the lowest, have ten boards. I may be wrong, it was a long time ago, but I believe the lowest regular division was over ten boards, too, in the 1970s.

One time there was a proposal, I can't recall if it was put to a vote, to reduce the lowest two divisions to battles over eight boards. At the time I was in two minds about this. I consider defaulting anathema, thus reducing the number of no-shows is desirable. However, as Gary Kenworthy remarked in a chat we had, giving way on this could be considered the thin end of the wedge, with further declines to follow. At one AGM, an individual, who had better remain anonymous, opined that "thirty odd defaults is not so bad!" I chose not to retort.

Clubs which operated with more than one team who no longer feature are Harrow, Muswell Hill, Hampstead, Stock Exchange, BBC, London University, Hendon and Islington as well as London Central YMCA.

Harrow are undergoing a revival. Colin Crouch has established a successful junior club. There were a lot of children present when I recently played in a match at their venue.

Muswell Hill play in the Middlesex League. I have a vague recollection of a huge internal fight about twenty years ago, leading to some departures and the end of their London League team. However, my memory could be at fault; furthermore, even if it is not, I don't want to open old wounds.

Hampstead has been discussed elsewhere in this forum, likewise Islington.

The Stock Exchange Chess Club used to play in Wilson Street, not far from Finsbury Square. I could probably find out what happened. However, other forumites may already know. One played for them briefly.

I couldn't say what happened to the BBC Chess Club.

I briefly discussed London University Chess Club in this post. Its destruction was, IMO, completely avoidable.

Hendon, like Harrow, is on its way back. Although the two clubs are following different paths. Hendon play in the Middlesex League and are defending champions. There is talk of re-entering the London League. The club has good organisers, it also hosts Adam Raoof's tournaments. Since the regrettable demise of Finchley, there is a wider catchment area.

The YMCA changed its name to Barbican in order to secure the new venue. Later merging with Cavendish, as previously mentioned.

I believe that games such as chess can often transcend political differences, and that one's political views are often best not discussed. However I did note that your colleague found it difficult to fraternize at the Hackney venue, when for most of the time I played chess at Athenaeum their home was the National Liberal club.

There was no lack of willingness to fraternise, he just did not wish to contribute to Labour Party funds, no matter how modest the sum. Aneurin Bevan famously, or is it infamously, said: "That is why no amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party that inflicted those bitter experiences on me. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." Some Tories are not keen on the Labour Party either. Yet can and do interact with "socialists", as they sometimes dismiss Labour supporters. Because of his deep interest in politics, I arranged for Martin to be shown around Parliament by a Labour MP.

The National Liberal Club was a superb venue. It was lost when the Liberals sold the building to commercial interests. The rent demand was higher than the club could aspire to pay. It had a superb bar. Presumably Martin did not consider the Liberals a serious political opponent, for he did drink there.

Much ado about nothing, I suggest.

[Malcolm Clarke]

Simon - Thank you for this. Having not been involved with chess in London for more than 20 years, I am a bit out of touch. I did however read the thread on Hampstead and Islington.

During the time I was involved with London Central YMCA, we had six teams and Cavendish had two, eight in total, whereas now there are three. I know that in 1985 we had to drop two teams, and I think that we dropped a further team when we moved to the Barbican, which was a move that Brian Sammes was very much involved with.

I take your point about teams of four in the lowest division. Instead of comparing the teams between the two eras, I have now done a player comparison, and it works out at about 842 to 568, if you see my logic (I do not know whether in the London League teams. from the same club overlap players more or less than they used to).

I think it is always difficult for clubs, when the cost of hiring the premises and/or membership rises to a level, that is too excessive for what people want in return for it, and I think that is something that in different ways Athenaeum and London Central YMCA have both been affected by.

[Malcolm Clarke]

In making my reply I overlooked the fact that Cavendish now also have a team in division 5. However it should also be mentioned that in the 1980's both Cavendish and London Central YMCA had teams in the 12 player division 1.

Just read elsewhere on the internet that Norman OLiver had died in 2003. I remember Norman succeeding Jeff Page as league secretary, and Jeff had in turn succeeded JohnMacDonald.

[George Szaszvari]

Just read elsewhere on the internet that Norman OLiver had died in 2003...

Would that be Norman R Oliver of Lewisham Chess Club?

[Daryl Taylor]

Whoops - hadn't looked at this thread for a couple of weeks and suddenly there are pages and pages to read.

One point to make in passing: we put the Central YMCA name on the London League Champions' trophy under my captaincy in 1979-80. As I recall, we won the league on game points after tying with Charlton on match points. We narrowly lost to Charlton (champions in the previous two seasons) in our individual match, but I can't recall how they dropped their match point.

[George Szaszvari]

The National Liberal Club was a superb venue. It was lost when the Liberals sold the building to commercial interests. The rent demand was higher than the club could aspire to pay. It had a superb bar. Presumably Martin did not consider the Liberals a serious political opponent, for he did drink there.

And there was that basement venue in, or nearby, Leicester Square... my confused time frame cannot
recall whether it was before or after the Liberal club. I recall seeing the elderly, yet impressive, Dr Katz
playing for Athenaeum the few times I was at that Leicester Sq venue, and, of course, the irrepressible
Bob Wade was a regular in those days, too.

I do wish Martin Barkwill and forum readers to know that he, the Great Barkers, was one of the best chess
friends anyone could have, as I'm sure you'll agree.

[Simon Spivack]

Would that be Norman R Oliver of Lewisham Chess Club

Yes, Norman remained as league secretary until the end. His premature departure was a big blow to London chess.

And there was that basement venue in, or nearby, Leicester Square... my confused time frame cannot recall whether it was before or after the Liberal club.

Notre Dame Hall. It was before the club moved to Whitehall Place.

I do wish Martin Barkwill and forum readers to know that he, the Great Barkers, was one of the best chess friends anyone could have, as I'm sure you'll agree.

Steady on there, old chap. This is a slagging off, only, medium. I am minded to report you to the moderators.

[Paul McKeown]

I do wish Martin Barkwill and forum readers to know that he, the Great Barkers, was one of the best chess friends anyone could have, as I'm sure you'll agree.

Barkers is a fine chap indeed, still celebrating Newcastle's 4-3 over Chelsea, something he had awaited for twenty-four years.... If you PM me, I can send you his contact details, should you wish to get in touch.

[Daryl Taylor]

Just one thing strikes me about the bohemian nature of the now defunct Bayswater and London CentYMCA clubs, also Hackney, King's Head, and some other London clubs to some extent, is how they were not about being successful in any business sense, and how they thrived when they had a free, or, at least cheap, venue to meet.

Perhaps this "down market" aspect to those clubs attracted the bohemian types that graced those places. Being able to just wander in and play without spending any real money was important to that culture.

I think this is a good observation, although technically the Endell Street Centymca was a membership organisation. In theory the porter (Dermot Allen) was supposed to check membership cards at the door and was required to chuck out any non-members found in the building. Our always-open chess drop-in centre never enjoyed official status, but the general attitude was so relaxed that this never mattered.

The problems arose later due to a combination of unfortunate factors. Endell Street was a temporary base for the Central YMCA pending completion of the reconstruction project at the Great Russell Street site. This project ran into serious difficulties, eventually taking much longer and costing very much more than was originally planned. By the time the new building opened the organisation was on the verge of bankruptcy, and some major business restructuring was required to keep the operation afloat. The result was a division into the Y Hotel, the Y Hostel and the Centymca club, all of them viewed to a greater or lesser degree as commercial profit centres.

Full membership of the Centymca club, including access to all of the sports facilities, was priced at a level that targeted local professionals working in the West End, and even the basic membership fee entitling access to the general club areas was too expensive for school students and the unemployed. Membership cards were checked at reception and casual chessplayers could no longer drop in to play a few games of blitz. We even had difficulties ensuring that opposition players were admitted to the building on match evenings.

By dint of persistent lobbying in the YMCA hierarchy, I eventually managed to secure use of the boardroom for London League first team matches. This room had separate access via the hotel/hostel reception lobby, but the concession was minimal at best.

The difficulties of running the club under these new conditions were apparent to everyone, and many members felt that we had been betrayed in terms of a shortfall between the facilities that were promised for chess in the new building and those that had eventually materialised. These issues came to a head in club meetings, and I have strong recollections of one such meeting in which the Centymca club manager Rodney Cullum tried to state a case for the organisation. Unfortunately for him, chess players have good memories, analytical minds and a powerful allergic reaction to bull**it. Having little more than bull**it to offer, Cullum was rather less than equal to the task that faced him. This prompted Professor Sasha Kennaway into a furious tirade about why we were wasting our time with someone who had no answers to give. Cullum was then reduced to buck passing, as he tried to deflect criticisms onto the board of the YMCA, whereupon Sasha famously asked the meeting why the chairman of the YMCA board could not be summoned to provide more substantial answers. Sasha's exact words were "why talk to the monkey when you can talk to the organ grinder?"

It was after this meeting that we began looking for some other venue for the club, and I recall discussing the issue of whether we could then keep the club name (which was a registered trade mark of Centymca) and whether we could keep our "chess capital" if we changed venues but left even a small part of the old club behind. By "chess capital" I principally meant our status as a club with a team in just about every division of the London League. It had taken us several years to achieve this, and any "new club" would have to begin this process all over again (as occurred with Kings Head), so the question of club identity was extremely important. I discussed this at some length with the secretary of the London League and various other influential figures of the day.

I believe it was Gary Stevens who eventually located St. Stephen's Tavern, a pub so close to the House of Commons that the division bell actually rang in the bar. The manager of this establishment was willing to provide space for our club and the facilities were at least tolerable. After discussing the offer on the chess club committee, we prepared a proposal to debate at an extraordinary general meeting. We also felt that such an important decision should require a two-thirds majority, partly because we were still concerned that a vestigial club remaining behind could validly claim title to our "chess capital".

That EGM was quite an event in itself. I'm not sure why I was so surprised, but Gary Stevens turned out to be a superb public speaker in favour of the move to Westminster. The most vociferous opponent of the move was Mike Mozouros, who also spoke well by the standards of a street corner revolutionary (famously opining that the manager of St. Stephen's Tavern was an intrinsically unreliable alcoholic). Michael Crewdson opposed the move, as I recall, because he still felt that our problems could be resolved within the YMCA. Mike Wills was (if I read him correctly) cautiously in favour of the move. In the end we secured a simple majority in favour of leaving the YMCA, but fell slightly short of the two-thirds majority that we had sought.

[Paul McKeown]

Gary Stevens? Would that be the player of that name from Fleet or Farnham Chess Clubs?

Reminds me of a crap game I won from my, "I'm packing in 1. e4, but don't know what else I can play" phase:

1. Na3! Nf6 2. Nf3 c5 3. g3 Nc6 4. Bg2 e5 5. d3 d5 6. O-O Be7 7. c3 O-O 8. e4 dxe4 9. dxe4 Nxe4 10. Nxe5 Nxe5 11. Bxe4 Bh3? 12. Qh5 f5 13. Qxh3 fxe4 14. Qe6+ Nf7 15. Be3 b6 16. Rad1 Qe8 17. Qxe4 Bf6 18. Qxe8 Rfxe8 19. Kg2 Rad8 20. Rfe1 Ne5 21. Bf4 Bg6 22. Rxe8+ Rxe8 23. Be3 Ne5 24. h3 Kf7 25. f4 Nc6 26. Kf3 Rd8 27. Rxd8 Nxd8 28. Ke4 Ke6 29. f5+ Kd7 30. g4 Nf7 31. Nb1 Kc6 32. b3 Nd6+ 33. Kd3 h6 34. c4 Nf7 35. Nd2 a6 36. Ne4 Ne5+ 37. Ke2 Nd7 38. Nxf6 (sealed, but Black resigned before resumption) 1-0

I'm glad I packed in 1. e4 and eventually took up 1. d4, my results have somewhat improved, but I did enjoy the year and a half in which I drifted about with a variety of dross openings, 1. Na3, 1. g4, 1. b3, 1. g3. Of those, 1. g4 is rank bilge but works against timid club players who start quaking, not sure why. 1. b3 is almost mainstream, enjoyable for a short while, but all the mock Nimzowitchery got a bit stereotypical in the end. 1. g3 is good, but I reckon you really need a very broad experience of chess to play it well, as there are many transpositions to 1. d4, 1. e4, 1. c4 and 1. Nf3 lines and many transpositions to reverse openings, too. 1. Na3? Well it's crap, basically, but it is actually a lot better than it looks. I ended with a lot of my own pet lines, including my patented reversed Alekhine's Four Knights with a piece sac for pawns, which I might share with you all some time. Poor you!

Anyway, apologies to Gary Stevens of the Border League for dredging up that awful game.

Would it be the same player?