CJ De Mooi Blatant untruth in New Audio Interview!

[Nick Burrows]

http://yorkshirechess.org/interview-with-cj-de-mooi/

I tend to lurk on this site and keep abreast of activity within English Chess. I was a rival of CJ De Mooi around 1998/99 as we competed in Minor tournaments in London. We became friendly, and he and his partner once gave me a lift back into London after a tournament. I have watched curiously as he came to prominence on Eggheads and since coming the President of the ECF.
I have also followed many of the controversial threads about him on this website in a rather bemused manner.

I just clicked on the link and there at 1.37 he says "In 1998/99 I was the most active player in the country, and was due to win the Grand Prix by a massive margin, but withdrew in protest"

The actual truth is that I was leading the Grand Prix and was being trailed by CJ. He then approached me and suggested that I should join him in protest against Onyx who were sponsoring the Prix at the time because they had refused to clean up the streets of Soho after the nail bomb had gone off through fear of their workers contracting AIDS. I never corroborated this story as being true, and although if true, would think it a proposterous line for a company to take - there was no way I was going to give up a year of hard work, and the title of British Amateur Grand Prix Champion to protest it! I even wondered if it may be a trick to take me out of the race!

CJ did indeed withdraw from second place, and I won the Prix. Because I know this to be true, it has shown to me clearly CJ's natural and perhaps unknowing tendency to exaggerate or possibly lie in order to self promote. His actual second place becomes "leading the Prix by a MASSIVE margin"

Hahahaha - busted!

[Roger de Coverly]

Onyx who were sponsoring the Prix at the time

Is everyone aware of the connection between Onyx and English chess?

[Nick Burrows]

No. What is the connection?

[Roger de Coverly]

No. What is the connection?

The ECF's pro bono legal adviser (to this day) was a director of Onyx at the relevant time.

Looking up the historic records at the ECF grading site, I'm not even sure if the claim to be the most active player in England can be validated. In recent years you need 250 games ( ) or more to aspire to that claim, and I don't think twelve to fourteen years ago was much different. Playing every Golders Green is an achievement but as they are monthly, it's only 72 games a year.

The retiring CEO could match that, before he became CEO.

[Angus French]

According to the grading website, CJ played:
55 standardplay games in 1998;
4 rapidplay games in 1998;
79 standard play games in 1999;
57 rapidplay games in 1999.

Fred Coombes played:
93 standardplay games in 1998;
98 rapidplay games in 1998;
98 standardplay games in 1999;
183 rapidplay games in 1999.

Fred beats CJ on all counts!

[John Upham]

Fred beats CJ on all counts!

Here is an image of Fred at the 2012 Surrey Congress Rapidplay:

Fred Coombes engages a young opponent at the 2012 Surrey Congress Rapidplay

_ane9108_crop_small.jpg (33.21 KiB) Viewed 4834 times

[Gavin Strachan]

I bet he hates playing juniors or anyone younger

[John Upham]

Fred from an earlier round playing Alex Golding:

Fred Coombes at the 2012 Surrey Congress Rapidplay

_ane9116_crop_small.jpg (27.2 KiB) Viewed 4758 times

[Nick Burrows]

I know Fred quite well from 98/99. He's a legend of the chess scene, and a lovely chap.

[Ernie Lazenby]

It's noticeable that when confronted by a fact the CJ apologists are silent.

[Roger de Coverly]

It's noticeable that when confronted by a fact the CJ apologists are silent.

The "most active player" and "withdrew when leading" points are invariably mentioned in interviews. I don't think the most active player claim could have been validated until this year's grading site enhancements. With enough research of past copies of Chess Moves, the Grand Prix positions for the relevant period could have been established, but the claim was accepted at face value.

Last year's AGM reappointed the President with limited dissent. It would seem unlikely that the same result will be repeated even though the voting Delegates are likely to be mostly the same, so what has changed? It's revelations since the last AGM. There was the refusal to re-appoint Alex McF , the disclosure of the irregular manner of distributing the sponsorship for Sheffield 2011, the secret backing for Kasparov's legal fight with FIDE. CJ's plans for Torquay 2012 have yet to be announced. Do they extend to the appointee for the job of running it?

[Andrew Martin]

It looks like Fred Coombes was about to post in this thread and then changed his mind.

[Jonathan Bryant]

It would seem unlikely that the same result will be repeated even though the voting Delegates are likely to be mostly the same, so what has changed? It's revelations since the last AGM.

One thing that has changed since the AGM is that there is now an acceptance that financial matters relating to Sheffield were problematic. This issue was raised at the AGM - I forget who requested it - but the matter was rather dismissed as trivial and unimportant.

Subsequently - and precisely how the change came about I'm not sure - the ECF seem to have accepted that there were significant problems after all.

[Ernie Lazenby]

Subsequent to the 2011 AGM a finance report was published that has to be the worst ever condemnation of practices within the ECF. It made grim reading.Difficult to understand how in 2011/12 that could have been allowed to happen. Good job we are not a charity! No need to mention who was involved. Hopefully its all been tightened up? Its been a while since the finance meeting when this was discussed lets hope those at the AGM are not allowed to brush it aside.

[Jonathan Bryant]

Subsequent to the 2011 AGM a finance report was published ....

I'm aware of that, of course, Ernie. What I meant was, I find it confusing that a situation that was so obviously problematic - as accepted later by the report - could be dismissed as unworthy of investigation at the AGM. It's not as if there was a need for the benefit of hindsight. It was obvious before the tournament even started that the Sheffield finances were going pear-shaped.