Comparing amateur chess with amateur cricket

[Alex Holowczak]

I copy and paste a few rules from my local cricket league.

If these were implemented in amateur chess leagues, after how many minutes would someone be up in arms about them?

"The results of each League/Cup Match are to be telephoned/text or email by the winning team to the League Secretary between 8.30 pm -10.30 pm on day of match, failure to comply will result in 10 points deducted [equivalent to a tie] and fined £5.00."

I have been told by some, during consultation about the Counties Championship rulechanges, that shortening the period to report results from 3 to 2 days was a bad idea because it wouldn't give people enough time to report the results.

A section on "Fines" includes some things relevant to chess:
Non attendance at AGM £15.00
Non attendance to general league Meetings £10.00
Non attendance at fixture Meeting £15.00

"All teams playing home require boundary markers. Failure to do so will result in a 10 point deduction and or a £15.00 fine."

I understand that this concept is de rigeur throughout amateur cricket, and is deemed necessary. The underlying principle of all this seems to be that wasting other people's time is an act that gets you fined.

So why not chess? Why don't we fine clubs in local leagues for not turning up to meetings? Why don't we fine people for not reporting the result when they're supposed to? Why has cricket gone down these lines, but not chess?

[Rob Thompson]

I suspect it's largely because cricket players need a club, but chess players can play on their own/online, and thus there is not such an obligation to be helpful to others in their club.

[John McKenna]

Alex, I think Rob Thompson is right and would just add that there was post some some time ago by a bridge/chess player (P. Habershon?) who listed the achievements of the bridge equivalent of the ECF, very impressive they were,too.
Chessplayers seem to lack the cooperation skills that come from playing true team sports or with a partner. We are too individualistic and combative to easily conform to a regime.
BTW, Mats (Winthur?) posted that a six-handed form of chess has been invented in India!?

[Roger de Coverly]

So why not chess? Why don't we fine clubs in local leagues for not turning up to meetings? Why don't we fine people for not reporting the result when they're supposed to? Why has cricket gone down these lines, but not chess?

I can give you a number of reasons.

The first is that I don't imagine the recent England trip to Sri Lanka required a contribution in any way from local cricket clubs. Contrast this with the potential England trip to Turkey for the Olympiad.

The second is that whilst amateur cricket does feature elderly players, chess and even more so Bridge have the feature that top (ish) players may well be older than the administrators and not prepared to be pushed around. It's a reasonable assumption that Bridge players are more conformist.

The third is that I would expect/hope that the ECF Council would set aside its differences and deliver a decisive "none of the above" vote against any Candidate advocating that sort of manifesto.

One of the attractions of chess is that it's a refuge from political and management bullsh*t, so if you are right, you win.

[John McKenna]

I agree with Roger that playing an actual game is a refuge from all of the above politics, etc. However, Alex seems to be saying that after the actual playing normal service is never properly resumed and the etc. and politics take over leading to a kind of topor in all parts of the body politic, so to speak. Perhaps players put so much of themselves into the games that there is not much left for the niceties.
SNIP - It will be very interesting to see what happens in the French elections later today.

[John McKenna]

That should be torpor not topor.

[MSoszynski]

Why don't we fine clubs in local leagues for not turning up to meetings? Why don't we fine people for not reporting the result when they're supposed to? Why has cricket gone down these lines, but not chess?

Because cricket is a much bigger, richer sport. A local chess club might have only one or two dozen members, all of whom play; a local cricket club will have non-playing supporters in addition, who contribute one way or another to the club finances. A local chess club typically has one equipment cupboard and rents a room for one night a week; local cricket clubs will meet more often than that, some of them at their very own premisses. Need I go on?

[Richard Bates]

Similar rules do exist in Amateur chess, if not often quite so prescriptive.

Middlesex League:

A fine shall be levied on clubs not represented at the Fixtures Meeting

Each team captain shall send the full score of the match including the names of the players and their board numbers and colours to the League Secretary within seven days of the first session. Any team in contravention of this rule shall be fined and may, at the League Secretary's discretion, be scored nil points for this match.

You have to also remember that the rules (whether in cricket or in chess) rarely exist without good reason. Creating the fixture list becomes very difficult if teams aren't at the fixtures meeting. In cricket leagues, all matches are played on the same day and there has to be a tight deadline for reporting to ensure that the league tables are updated for the following week. League Secretaries will have to process a large number of results and will put aside a dedicated time in the week to do so. They also have to have the time to chase up miscreants.

I can't think that the time period for notification of County results within 2 days (let alone 3) is really anything other than an arbitrary deadline. There's obviously no particularly good reason why it can't be done almost immediately (especially notification of the result, if not the details), in the days of email but then there's no obvious necessity either. The draw is predone, grading files can all be submitted together, and pro-active captains trying to arrange fixtures won't let the lack of official reports prevent them from using unofficial channels.

People in this country instinctively rebel against administrators creating new rules (especially if they involve financial penalties), and have to be persuaded that there is a good reason to so do, so I suspect it will be the lack of obvious reason to do so which creates opposition, even if the excuse is given that meeting such deadlines aren't possible.

[Brian Valentine]

I don't think the rules in the leagues I officiate in are quite so draconian, but the underlying theme is the same.

It's important to recognise that these rules are not top down as the regime in soccer has been described in other threads. They are set at league AGMs and do serve some purpose.

The fines are recycled into the league, so for instance when fielding circles were added the markers were paid for by the league. (At the level of the fines quoted the league would be able to fund digital clocks for all clubs!)

The results deadlines get tighter because of the ease they can be submitted these days. Perhaps as recently as 10 years ago results would be available the following Tuesday and widely reported Thursday or Friday in local papers. Two years ago the complete league tables would be available midday the following day. Now they are available 9pm the same night. Last season some clubs had their scorecards available on line real time. Teams seem to know what's going on aat other games through texts. The league community see this as a real benefis, but it does depend on everyone meeting minimum reporting standards.

Chess does not have this cycle of same day fixtures, so the need for instant results is less clear. However there may be messages here for competitions such as 4NCL to get wider interest by pushing the information available out more quickly (not that I'm suggesting improvements are not being made). There is no reason why the county final rounds couldn't aim for a site giving updates of the match situations during the afternoon of the matches. It may end up as not worth the hassle, but I think that 10 years ago cricket would have thought the same.

[Alex Holowczak]

I think you've completely misunderstood this, Roger.

The first is that I don't imagine the recent England trip to Sri Lanka required a contribution in any way from local cricket clubs. Contrast this with the potential England trip to Turkey for the Olympiad.

These fines are imposed by the local league, and the money stays with the local league. Indeed, league AGMs all over the country have voted for these rules. It's not a top-down insistence. This is independent of any ECB hand downs that may or may not exist.

The second is that whilst amateur cricket does feature elderly players, chess and even more so Bridge have the feature that top (ish) players may well be older than the administrators and not prepared to be pushed around. It's a reasonable assumption that Bridge players are more conformist.

Ageism is a rubbish argument, so I'll move on to your next point...

The third is that I would expect/hope that the ECF Council would set aside its differences and deliver a decisive "none of the above" vote against any Candidate advocating that sort of manifesto.

But why would they? The people running the local cricket league have been in post for years by the look of it, and there has been no remote danger of voting for None of the Above, despite these rules existing.

[Alex Holowczak]

I agree with Roger that playing an actual game is a refuge from all of the above politics, etc. However, Alex seems to be saying that after the actual playing normal service is never properly resumed and the etc. and politics take over leading to a kind of topor in all parts of the body politic, so to speak. Perhaps players put so much of themselves into the games that there is not much left for the niceties.
SNIP - It will be very interesting to see what happens in the French elections later today.

I'm not sure I understood this post. From what I gather, despite these fines, the league progresses year-on-year, and is no less friendly than a local chess league (that doesn't have these fines).

[Roger de Coverly]

I'm not sure I understood this post. From what I gather, despite these fines, the league progresses year-on-year, and is no less friendly than a local chess league (that doesn't have these fines).

So are you advocating that such policies be introduced by the ECF? Perhaps it depends who attends local AGMs. As pointed out above, local AGMs resist creating arbitrary rules just for the sake of it. It is though in the nature of cricket, that the game itself is full of strange rules and requires constant supervision.

[harrylamb]

Ageism is a rubbish argument, so I'll move on to your next point...

Only when you are young. Want to change the world and are consequently less tolerant of other peoples opinions

[Alex Holowczak]

I'm not sure I understood this post. From what I gather, despite these fines, the league progresses year-on-year, and is no less friendly than a local chess league (that doesn't have these fines).

So are you advocating that such policies be introduced by the ECF? Perhaps it depends who attends local AGMs. As pointed out above, local AGMs resist creating arbitrary rules just for the sake of it. It is though in the nature of cricket, that the game itself is full of strange rules and requires constant supervision.

I'm not advocating the ECF do anything. I deliberately didn't mention it, because I thought someone would say that I'm about to do this at ECF level. That worked...

The clubs attend the AGMs to vote for them! If they don't, they get a fine.

[John McKenna]

Alex, sorry my post was not clear - I was trying to say that the vast majority of chess players are interested in playing the game and not in the activities required to make the game playable. That has a knock on effect making the organisational side of things difficult to get done.