English Chess Forum

Does anyone know why the clubs at Islington and Hampstead folded? Why did such powerful organisations go into decline?

Dr Adrian Harvey

I am writing this from memory, caution is required.

My late father was chairman of Islington for part of the 1970s.

There are two common reasons why London chess clubs fold. I should imagine the same applies outside the capital. They are a lack of organisational depth (sometimes one person runs everything, or there are far too many teams for the number of willing organisers) and a change of venue. It should not be overlooked that there are fewer people playing the game, too, since the Fischer boom of the 1970s.

On http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... 1&start=15 (concerning Martin Blaine) in the first post on that page, I mention some of what I know about Hampstead. Another theory advanced for the decline of Hampstead was that one of their match captains started paying professionals. The argument being that this drove away long standing members. I am not so convinced by that, my belief is that the decline was more a lack of good organisers; when the sponsor withdrew his support, he left a hole.

Amongst forum posters, Simon Brown used to be a member. However, he ceased playing before the final years. He may be able to correct any misapprehensions of mine, or fill in some lacunae, assuming he reads this thread.

A change of venue can be disastrous, not just because the playing conditions could get worse, but, because the meeting night might well have changed. Furthermore, the new hall may be less convenient for some. Then there are the seemingly trivial. I left Islington in the early 1980s because we were not allowed to use the toilet at the library where the club met. It was inconvenient running out mid-game to pop into the local pub.

Looking more closely at Islington, I place part of the cause, as Harold MacMillan apparently didn't say, to "events dear boy, events". For instance, the club had an outstanding London League captain who lost his job because he was making too many chess related phone calls from work and had to move abroad, to Paris, if I remember rightly. Another outstanding organiser was Pier Larsen, he returned to Denmark. The late George Goodwin also did some sterling work for the club; ill health, he had Parkinson's, forced him to take a back seat. George was also heavily involved in the running of chess tournaments in London. That involved a lot of industry, for scant reward. Simon Brougham, too, was also a highly capable individual, he helped George with his tournaments (Simon also ran contests for the Middlesex County Chess Association, possibly others, too). Simon found himself running everything at Islington, as well as, at times, serving as secretary of the Middlesex Chess League. My own view is that it was too much, and he got fed up. He left and joined Athenaeum. When Simon departed, I believe there was still a shadow club in existence; however, I don't believe that it played in any competitive leagues, members just met up.

Stewart Reuben was very prominent in the running of Islington. He introduced the concept of a swiss tournament, in the form of the Islington Chess Congress, to British chess. He is also a forum member and may be able to correct any errors of mine and possibly shed more light.

If this is part of a serious research project. There are some Middlesex CCA archives lodged at the London Metropolitan Archive. I haven't been there myself. If you want I can obtain confirmation that I have recalled the correct repository, i.e. don't make a speculative visit, I can speak to the person who placed them. I have been told that if enough people ask to see the records, they might well be put online. If nothing else, this could possibly give you an old contact address or number for Mike Pennell, he told me, some fifteen years ago, that he was writing up some of Hampstead's history. I've no idea how much progress he made.

Simon Spivack wrote:I am writing this from memory, caution is required.
...
Stewart Reuben was very prominent in the running of Islington. He introduced the concept of a swiss tournament, in the form of the Islington Chess Congress, to British chess. He is also a forum member and may be able to correct any errors of mine and possibly shed more light.

Although you've advised caution, you must know this is imprecise. The 1949 British Championship was run under the Swiss system and, for all I know, earlier tournaments may have used the Swiss system (does anyone happen to know?).

I've also seen it said that Stewart introduced the weekender into British chess (I may even have written it myself!) but I've an idea that there were other Swiss events held over long weekends prior to Islington. It would be good to define precisely what Stewart did introduce - my feeling is that Stewart's actual innovation was to start running weekenders on non-bank holiday weekends (i.e. fitting the games into Friday-Sunday, without recourse to a Bank Holiday Monday). "What does the team think?"

John Saunders wrote:It would be good to define precisely what Stewart did introduce - my feeling is that Stewart's actual innovation was to start running weekenders on non-bank holiday weekends (i.e. fitting the games into Friday-Sunday, without recourse to a Bank Holiday Monday). "What does the team think?"

I think he certainly introduced the non-bank holiday concept. There were Bank Holiday weekend congresses in the mid sixties, for example Southend at Easter, Ilford at Whitsun and Marlow at the August Bank Holiday. These used five, six or seven rounds with adjournments. Some of the sections at these events were all play all or a Swiss with a small number of participants.

One of Stewart's novelties was to borrow the idea of adjudications from league play. He did however combine it with adjudication at a relatively high number of moves , for example 48 in 2 hours or 54 in 2 and a quarter. This relied on having a few top players around to be press-ganged into service as adjudicators. It wasn't until the introduction of the quick play finish in the mid-seventies that the weekend Swiss really took off in all parts of the country.

The third novelty was the notion that if you could run a Swiss with an insanely high number of players, you could offer some attractive looking prize funds.

Another theory advanced for the decline of Hampstead was that one of their match captains started paying professionals. The argument being that this drove away long standing members. I am not so convinced by that, my belief is that the decline was more a lack of good organisers; when the sponsor withdrew his support, he left a hole.

At the risk of kicking off a debate, I think paying professionals to play in what are predominantly amateur evening leagues can drive away both average club woodpushers such as myself (grade 181), and the organisers, who often come from the ranks of the players of my standard. Hampstead were a good club which was one of the first to pay GMs to play for them in the London League about twenty years ago. After a while, a lot of Hampstead's middle and lower board players left the club, as they were not getting the opportunity to play in Division One of the London League. As I understand it, the individual funding the team then became seriously ill and had to give up his support; but then there was no base on which to fall back, nor any willing organiser.

Other clubs have gone down this path with varying degrees of success (Wood Green have dominated the league, winning it for more years in a row than I can remember!). On a positive note, this has given players like myself in opposing teams more opportunities to play against top players (despite the occasional sinking feeling when barely arriving in time after a long day's work without a proper meal to be greeted by the sight of a 2400+ player ready to dispatch me without mercy!). On the negative side, it can drive away players at my level, if they are being denied the chance to play through the importing of professional talent.

I am not denigrating any individual or club which wishes to go down the path of paying professionals; it is a matter of choice about what members want their club to be. Some people want the glory of belonging to a successful club, even if they are not playing themselves. I have always preferred belonging to a genuinely amateur club, and I would leave my club if we started paying players, as to me it changes the nature of what we are. It is a matter of preference. All I would venture to point out is that going down the professional route raises the stakes, and although it can lead to unprecedented success, it can also have potentially damaging consequences too. It needs to be done with the full blessing in advance of the existing membership.

Thanks to John and Roger for correcting me. I shouldn't write a post quickly, just before disappearing outside the front door. I should have qualified what I wrote, as they have indicated.

Martin Benjamin wrote: At the risk of kicking off a debate, I think paying professionals to play in what are predominantly amateur evening leagues can drive away both average club woodpushers such as myself (grade 181),

To me a strong player is someone of IM strength (approximately 220 ECF) or above. In the past, the mean grade for active players was in the 130s. Thus I consider Martin, who normally plays less than thirty games a season, to be well above the average. As one would expect of one of the formidable Benjamin brothers.

I concede that bringing in professionals does drive away some players.

I can name individuals who would refuse to play for a second team; however, I have never noticed a correlation between the likelihood of an individual being a prima donna and his playing strength.

Martin Benjamin wrote:and the organisers, who often come from the ranks of the players of my standard.

As a former club secretary, I have to differ from Martin here. Typically, a captain would play in his own team and be of roughly equivalent strength to his players. Thus I don't accept second, third team and so on captains would desert the ship as a consequence.

Martin Benjamin wrote: Hampstead were a good club which was one of the first to pay GMs to play for them in the London League about twenty years ago. After a while, a lot of Hampstead's middle and lower board players left the club, as they were not getting the opportunity to play in Division One of the London League. As I understand it, the individual funding the team then became seriously ill and had to give up his support; but then there was no base on which to fall back, nor any willing organiser.

I concur that Hampstead was well run and friendly. As an outsider, it is difficult to say for certain how good certain organisers were. However, after John M stopped his funding, Hampstead still had Bob Pelligrenetti as secretary. I was county treasurer at the time. Bob was extremely efficient in his dealings with me. Bernard Haase was a good Middlesex League captain. My team played against his with little success. Indeed, Hampstead, with Dave Rumens, Kenny Shovell, Simon Brown and Nick De Peyer playing for them were very competitive. This is where Simon could step in and correct me, for I believe that work and domestic considerations caused Simon and Kenny to stop playing. I can't remember about Nick. Dave, if I remember rightly, was a very good friend of Bernard's and therefore stayed. Do not overlook, also, that clubs can still function without a first team in the top division. To me, much more fatal was when Hampstead chose as secretary someone, not mentioned in this post, who was far less effectual than Bob. As I have written elsewhere, when everything fell upon the broad shoulders of Bernard Haase and Mike Pennell, I believe that they got fed up. Running teams and clubs can be extremely frustrating at times.

A counter example is that of Hackney. They used to pay professionals, but have not done so now for a number of years. The club is still flourishing and very competitive. They have good organisers. They are a very sociable bunch, if it wasn't for their comparative remoteness, I'd have been tempted to join.

Martin Benjamin wrote:Other clubs have gone down this path with varying degrees of success (Wood Green have dominated the league, winning it for more years in a row than I can remember!).

Wood Green are very reliant upon Brian Smith. I'm sure Brian is very aware of the drawbacks to this. However, it is not easy getting others to step in. There are so few people willing to give of their own time for next to no reward. I've certainly spent thousands, possibly more, of my own money over the decades when running things, I am not the only one who has not claimed expenses. Sometimes, someone just takes over when there is a resignation. It could be that they were not putting themselves forward in the hope that the incumbent would stay.

My memories of the Hampstead years are a little vague, but here goes...

I joined the club from University in 1984 when Martin Blaine was captain of the London League team, and as I was graded about 210 at the time, I regularly played on the top few boards. I seem to recall Speelman and Penrose playing occasionally in the early days.

I think in Martin's final year we did quite well, finishing second in Division One of the London League, I think behind Wood Green. I took over as captain and we had a decent enough side - you can add Chris Holland, Laurence Webb, Nick Foster to Simon's list and I am sure there are others. I did it for a few years, but we never reached the heights again.

Membership started to fall as soon as the club decided to move away from the church hall. I moved house from Hampstead to Wandsworth in 1987 so attanding club nights was never on my agenda. I gave up the captaincy, in 1992 or 93 I think, and played for a season under John before switching my allegiance from Hampstead to Charlton, and from Middlesex to Kent. I honestly don't recall why!

But I don't think paying professionals had anything to do with it (which I should make clear was a private thing for John, not for the club, which never had any money). Frankly it wasn't a big deal. John was on good terms with the two GMs concerned and he decided to offer them a small fee to play more as an attempt to stay in Division One rather than to win the league, and I don't think it worked as Hampstead was relegated a little later - that was also maybe one reason I left.

I also think John wanted to turn Hampstead into a "virtual" club in the mid-nineties, existing for leagues only without a home, rather like some of the early teams in the 4NCL, but I don't know what happened to that. Presumably nothing if his funding was withdrawn.

I agree with Simon that Bob, Bernard and Mike were the soul of the club. I think I was there when Bob gave up being Secretary, and that was the beginning of the end.

Apologies if my memory of the dates is patchy - it was a long time ago and I last played in 1997 as family and work took up all my time. And they still do!