Living in the Past: The Chiltern League

[Ian Thompson]

As I remember the AGM discussion, not much more. An agreement for captains to update the ECF LMS might be enough, which our captain agreed to suggest.

As far as I can see, the Chiltern League does not use the ECF LMS, so it would first be necessary to switch from using the Oxford Fusion website to record results to the ECF LMS (or to record results in both).

The ECF LMS is configured to accept inputs from the authorised rating officer which is Peter Hemmings and no-one else.

How's that possible when the Chiltern League doesn't use the ECF LMS?

Results files could be submitted by anyone with a login to the rating system. The ECF trusts graders (or should that now be raters) to only submit results they have been asked to submit by the event organisers.

[John Townsend]

When making the Mickey Mouse slur, John didn't quote a FIDE master or anyone else, but offered it as his own opinion. It has been rightly objected to, coming, as it does, from an officer of the Berkshire Chess Association.

As for stronger CL players, John could have mentioned an example closer to home: Paul Cooksey (2349), who represented Berkshire on top board on Saturday - but even 2349 wasn't enough for Paul to win his game!

[John Upham]

When making the Mickey Mouse slur, John didn't quote a FIDE master or anyone else, but offered it as his own opinion. It has been rightly objected to, coming, as it does, from an officer of the Berkshire Chess Association.

As for stronger CL players, John could have mentioned an example closer to home: Paul Cooksey (2349), who represented Berkshire on top board on Saturday - but even 2349 wasn't enough for Paul to win his game!

The Mickey Mouse attribution was from a FIDE Master who lives in Chineham, near Basingstoke who wanted to represent his county but the CL rating cap of 180 prevented it. I will pm you with the name. You can chose to disbelieve me and I care not one iota if you do so.

Paul Cooksey also was not permitted to represent Berkshire in the days of the silly grading limit.

[John Upham]

Can't the grading be done using the result card which has been published? What other information is needed?

The ECF LMS is configured to accept inputs from the authorised rating officer which is Peter Hemmings and no-one else. Obviously an ECF admin person could submit the data but why should they?

I'd happily do it but am not authorised and ECF persons are not officially permitted to post to this place in any case.

In hindsight it would appear that the CL does hot have an entry on the ECF LMS and therefore games will not be rated by this route. I suppose that the rating officer submits data either via the old route of creating a rating submission file and emailing it to the rating team or uploading it via the rating system. I expect that the email route is being used. I'm not aware of further options.

[John Townsend]

John Upham said: "The Mickey Mouse attribution was from a FIDE Master ..."

No. The Mickey Mouse slur being referred to was from John Upham, who wrote (please see above):

"Many years ago I had generally regarded the Chiltern League as somewhat of a Mickey Mouse affair ..."

No mention of a FIDE Master at that stage.

I am surprised that his position in the Berkshire Chess Association does not prevent him from making public remarks which belittle local chess competitions.

[John Upham]

John Upham said: "The Mickey Mouse attribution was from a FIDE Master ..."

No. The Mickey Mouse slur being referred to was from John Upham, who wrote (please see above):

"Many years ago I had generally regarded the Chiltern League as somewhat of a Mickey Mouse affair ..."

No mention of a FIDE Master at that stage.

I am surprised that his position in the Berkshire Chess Association does not prevent him from making public remarks which belittle local chess competitions.

I've sent you the name of the FM by pm. I agreed with him and was happy to echo his sentiment.

[GrahamStuart]

When making the Mickey Mouse slur, John didn't quote a FIDE master or anyone else, but offered it as his own opinion. It has been rightly objected to, coming, as it does, from an officer of the Berkshire Chess Association.

As for stronger CL players, John could have mentioned an example closer to home: Paul Cooksey (2349), who represented Berkshire on top board on Saturday - but even 2349 wasn't enough for Paul to win his game!

The Mickey Mouse attribution was from a FIDE Master who lives in Chineham, near Basingstoke who wanted to represent his county but the CL rating cap of 180 prevented it. I will pm you with the name. You can chose to disbelieve me and I care not one iota if you do so.

Paul Cooksey also was not permitted to represent Berkshire in the days of the silly grading limit.

At the time of the grading limits any player who wished to represent Hampshire had the option of playing in the WECU which fielded an Open team (and as mentioned was the main competition for Hampshire). It may be that this player did not wish to travel to the WECU Counties, but it is a fact that he was not restricted from representing Hampshire.

There is a long history of why Hampshire were playing in the WECU rather than the SCCU, but it can be boiled down to the SCCU Counties not wishing to travel and the fixtures being London based on the whole.

The CL competition has had no graded limit since the 2011/12 season and I think we can certainly state that the players who play in this competition do not consider it a Mickey Mouse league!

[John Upham]

The CL competition has had no graded limit since the 2011/12 season and I think we can certainly state that the players who play in this competition do not consider it a Mickey Mouse league!

For the avoidance of doubt, the comment was pertinent to the days of when there was a grading cap of 180: not the present day.

However, I am told that in the present day the formerly Open team of 20 boards and the Under 150 team and the Under 125 team of former years have been merged into one team and that it is not selected to be the strongest possible team but more of a cross section of ratings.

I was on the CL committee for around 5 years and have some knowledge of this period believe it or not!

I fought hard to get the grading cap removed, to popularise the use of DGT timers and bring in incremental time controls rather than guillotine finishes amongst other things.

[Roger de Coverly]

The CL competition has had no graded limit since the 2011/12 season

It was originally conceived in the 1970s as a second team competition for which a grading limit would be appropriate.

By 2011, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire had all withdrawn from the SCCU Open competition so changing the Chiltern to be open was logical.

[John Upham]

By 2011, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire had all withdrawn from the SCCU Open competition so changing the Chiltern to be open was logical.

I am attempting to understand how calling it "Open" and having a grading cap of 180 works. Can you explain please?

If it was such a super idea to have a grading cap then why would my lobbying have had any effect?

[Roger de Coverly]

If it was such a super idea to have a grading cap then why would my lobbying have any effect?

By 2010, none of Berks, Bucks or Oxon had a county first team. Thus there were potential players. I don't recall the Chiltern competition being termed "Open" whilst it had a grading restriction.

I first played regularly in the Chiltern in the 2004-2005. Before that, those who played regularly in the SCCU Open didn't generally play in the Chiltern. The grading cap just formalised that.

[Dan Lambourne]

Just to fill in a gap.

I played in the league in the early to mid 90s and possibly late 80s and back then it was for second teams plus Bucks and Berks had under 18 sides in it, so definitely not an open at that time.

As others have pointed out the first teams still played in the SCCU (or WECU), so perhaps the grading cap at the time was what second teams usually played with?

[Richard Thursby]

When I first played in the Chiltern League (as I think I have noted previously, at the other end of the same team as Dan Lambourne for a season or so) the grading limit was 175, but 170 for junior teams. When Buckinghamshire finally left the SCCU Open in 2004, the limit was increased to 180, and could be extended by agreement between the team. I only played in one match after that (where I won my game by default) so can't comment further.

[GrahamStuart]

Quick update, played in the Chiltern League yesterday and results have been submitted today to the ECF and are waiting to go into November's rating.

The Sept 23 Hampshire - Berkshire has also been submitted. Not sure if change of process on the rating to be submitted sooner, but this is good to see.

https://www.ecfrating.org.uk/v2/new/lis ... ction_no=1

In addition a personal view but the 4 hour playing session does make for much better chess than a lot of the rapid time limits which sometimes creep into tournaments. Apart from a late withdrawal meaning Hampshire had to sub a player in on the day, every Hampshire player was in excess of 1700 rating and there was originally 10 players who wished to play who had to go on the wait list. Oxford also fielded a 2500 IM on top board.

The Chiltern League is flourishing it seems!

https://www.oxfordfusion.com/oca/Genera ... =464&Org=8

[John Upham]

Good progress it would appear and possibly caused by Roger's comments at the BCA AGM.

When I last managed the CL LMS (the 2015-16 season) the structure was of three divisions:

Division One which was Open with no grading limit and over 20 boards

Division Two which was limited to a grading limit of 150 and over 20 boards

Division Three which was limited to a grading limit of 125 and over 12 boards.

and there was an annual Jamboree formatted event to boot.

What is the current format?