English Chess Forum

Brian Eley died in Amsterdam on 6 April 2022: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/240 ... liffe-eley

Now doesn't that raise some questions.

I have been told by a Dutch player who ran into him accidentally and recognised him (but didn't know his back story) that for many of those years he was living in an ashram in the south of the Netherlands, working as the ashram's computer expert.

Thanks for the link to the article, Justin. Maybe now that he has died, newspapers might be more willing to investigate or report (I am referring here to the author's comment: "It is a story newspapers and mags will not touch."). One thing that might make it difficult is whether some of those handling it (or rather not handling it) at the time are still alive (I am referring here to "[they talked to] two important figures in British chess in 1986.They were listened to, but Eley was allowed to continue coaching on the junior chess scene." (Er, that is a strange definition of "listened to".)

(What is a "Candidate Grandmaster", by the way?)

By the way, if anyone official from the ECF is reading this, the best way for organisations to handle historic allegations like this (even ones that are 'common knowledge' in some chess circles) is to tackle it head on, not to ignore it or hope it will go away. There is a strong moral case for this (which is justification enough), but also a public relations one. If it does develop into something akin to some of the stories that have been making headlines in recent years in multiple sports, the ECF need to be proactive in handling it (i.e. commissioning an independent review, one that hopefully would be able to highlight how current safeguarding standards are in place and followed), not reacting to events.

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 18, 2022 9:47 am

(What is a "Candidate Grandmaster", by the way?)

An IM

I'II preface my comments by saying that anyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence until proved guilty, although absconding while on bail doesn't increase the public's perception of one's innocence. Having got that out of the way, Fiona Pitt-Kethley's piece conflates different issues, nameIy (a) BCF handling of the Eley affair (b) failure to apprehend Eley despite a widely-held view that he was IikeIy to be found in Amsterdam and (c) wider issues which aren't specific to Eley such as sexism in English chess. Each of these is worth a discussion in its own right. What I find particularly odd about the Eley case is that, while on bail, he was able to sell his possessions - which included a house and a chess-related business - and (despite, presumably, being relieved of his passport by the police) flee the country. A house sale normally takes some time and there's a limited number of potential buyers for chess-related businesses so to accomplish all this relatively quickly and without assistance would have been some feat! Anyone able to throw any light on this?

I would suggest in answer to the previous post that as Brian Eley was never charged with any offence as I understand it, he would have been on pre-charge bail. The sole condition would be to turn up at the police station at a pre-arranged time given to him. It would not have stopped him from selling his business or leaving the country. Once he failed to turn up he would be committing an offence under the Bail Act.

Difficult to know what tone to adopt here. There is something mysterious and terrible about death: hence 'de mortuis nil nisi bonum'.

I will limit myself to Eley's failures as a captain. I was a member of the Glorney team who were defaulted in 1980, for following his orders to turn up late to a match.

I agree there are serious questions to answer.

I am not as well-informed on the events as I might be, but as I recall from previous discussions, isn't the suggestion that the sales may have been known to people who were aware of Eley's reputation or even his intention to abscond?

Nick Ivell wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 18, 2022 2:35 pm

'de mortuis nil nisi bonum'.

Nah, never believed in that.

This is not to defend the policy adopted by some people of not speaking ill until the target is dead, so they cannot defend theirself.

There's also the issue that Eley was living pretty openly in Amsterdam after absconding - for instance attending chess cafés, where his presence was a matter of some controversy.

You have to remember that he was never accused of doing anything that isn't considered perfectly acceptable in Amsterdam or Brussels.

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 18, 2022 3:32 pm

You have to remember that he was never accused of doing anything that isn't considered perfectly acceptable in Amsterdam or Brussels.

huh??

Um, is that claim actually factually based rather than just snark?