Talking Points - Shropshire Chess

Resolutions for consideration at the Shropshire Chess Association AGM,
arising from the meeting held on Tuesday 9th May 2017

Introduction

Every current club in the Shropshire Chess League was represented at the meeting held on 9th May, convened for the purpose of considering proposals for the league to be reduced to two divisions. This has been the subject of substantial debate on the Shropshire Chess Association website in the “Talking Points” section.

In summary, there was relatively little support for the notion of reducing the number of divisions down to two. However, a number of possible amendments to the current rules were considered and are presented below as proposals for voting on at the AGM. Not all proposals were supported by the majority of those present but it was felt that each proposal should be considered by the wider membership of the Association and all of the proposals were supported by a number of those representatives present.

The intention of the meeting was to allow time for debate, without the pressure of a formal meeting and I would say that there was a good quality of debate on the evening and a lot of issues were aired. Without wishing to stifle debate at the AGM, it would not be practical to have the full debate all over again in that formal session, so it would be my intention to limit the amount of time spent discussing these proposals, moving to a vote fairly quickly to ensure that the evening does not become unduly protracted.

Proposal 1

Add to rule 5: Nominated players must play for their team at least four times in a season. If this proves impossible on account of unforeseen circumstances (e.g. the player moving away from the area), the League Controller has discretion to accept an alternative nominated player for the remainder of the season. Normally, the alternative nominated player will be expected to play for the balance of the four games not played by the original nominated player. Any appearances of the new nominated player for a lower team prior to acceptance by the league Controller shall be disregarded from the point of view of rule breaches specified in rule 28.

Proposal 2

Replace all penalties specified in rules 24 to 28 as a “game point” shall be changed to a match point penalty.

Proposal 3

A player may only represent one club in the Shropshire Chess League (rewording of rule 8 would need adjusting accordingly).

Proposal 4

(Redundant if proposal 3 is approved)

Amend Rule 8 such that, “If a team in the second or third division uses a player who normally plays for another Shropshire club in a higher division during that season, then it is permitted only on

condition that the player has a current summer grade of below 150 for Div 2 and below 140 for Div 3.”

Becomes:

“If a team in the second or third division uses a player who normally plays for another Shropshire club in a higher division during that season, then it is permitted only on condition that the player has a current summer grade of below 125 for Div 2 and below 105 for Div 3.”

Proposal 5

Amend rule 6, such that the number of players in division 2 is 4.

Proposal 6

Amend rule 9d so that, “Where a player is used more than four times for a higher team, then (unless sub-paragraphs a, b or c apply) he / she becomes a member of the senior team on the fifth occasion for the remainder of the season,” is replaced with:

“Where a player is used more than four times for a higher team, then (unless sub-paragraphs a, b or c apply) he / she becomes a member of the senior team on the fourth occasion for the remainder of the season.”

Proposal 7

Add to rule 3: “The League Controller has discretion (after due consultation) to specify the number of times each team shall play each other team in a division. In the absence of specification to the contrary, each team shall play each team twice (once home, once away).”

Proposal 8

Prior to the AGM, Chris Lewis will ascertain the potential interest in a rating capped Quickplay league competition. If there is sufficient interest, specific proposals will be put to the AGM.

Francis Best
President, Shropshire Chess Association 09/05/2017

Possible Restructuring of the Shropshire Chess League
Francis Best 16/04/2017

Firs t of all, thank you to everyone who has made comments regarding this proposal.

I have a few observations to make and then a suggestion as to the way forward. First of all, the observations.

Observation 1: We had comments from people a few years ago, request ing more chess in a season.  A w inter knockout competition was organised but it failed to get off the ground and we didn't repeat the experiment.  I think we need to think carefully about uniformly increasing the number of games everyone has to play.  I would love to play more chess but other pressures of work and family life, for example, make this impractical.  Anything we do put in place has to work practically.

Observation 2: The fundamental reason why the number of teams in the league has diminished is that the number of available players has steadily decreased over recent years.  Some new players have joined clubs, replacing some who have left but the trend has been steadily downwards.  It seems to me that it ought to be a priority for us to create events, including competitions, to encourage new / improving players to join in the chess scene in Shropshire.

A move to two leagues, where essentially a lot of the opposition is going to be very tough for a new player and there is not much alternative, doesn't further this cause at all.  I have felt ever since I came to Shropshire eighteen years ago, that the three divisions actually provide an excellent balance of playing strengths to enable players of most levels to slot in naturally somewhere. 

The consensus from Shrewsb ury club seems to be that three leagues is about right and a move to two would be a retrograde step.

Observation 3: A pra ctical suggestion, which, again, most Shrewsbury players seem happy with , is to reduce the number of players in a team in all leagues to four. This should enable some clubs to field an extra team where, currently, that would be difficult or marginal. This is an immediate way of increasing the teams across all the leagues, which should generate more games, particularly in division three. This is not a long term solution to encouraging more players to get involved, of course.

Observation 4: The immediate problem has got to be increase the number of available games for division 3 teams.  This could be done in a number of ways by restructuring the competition.  The easiest way would be to increase the number of times the team s play each other.  This is a bit of a blunt approach, though, and increasing the number of matches played in a season from 10 to 15 (by each team playing each of the others for a third time, for example) might be a step too far.

There are other ways of doing it (e.g. by splitting division 3 into two sections , having an all-play-all in each section in the first half of the season , using that to order the teams into “ top”and “bottom” and having another all-play-all in the second half of the season ), essentially increasing the number of games played in a division over one season.

Observation 5: We all appreciate the scoring and reporting mechanism which Graham Ives, in particular, has developed for the website. It has been commented by others how this would take time to reconfigure, which is clearly true. However, I don't think this should be the driver of timescales or a reason in itself not to alter the league structure. We might have to manage with a more basic reporting system for a season, but the key thing is that we get the chess right and other things will follow from that.

Observation 6: Various comments have been made about amending the rules concerning substitutions and nominated players. I have no problem with reviewing this but it does seem to me that there are very different opinions on this – at both ends of the spectrum. At one end, there are some who suggest relaxing these rules further to enable more teams with more overlapping of players to happen, thus increasing the chess. At the other end, there are those who feel that the rules are too loose already and that the more flexible the make up of the teams is, the less meaningful the whole notion of a team is.  I have to say that I have sympathy with both of these views! On the whole, more debate is require, I feel.

Observation 7: Various comments have been made about the possible length of the season. Again, there doesn't seem to be a cons ensus but my gut feeling is that we have a different sub-population of players who play in different events, according to their wants and needs at different times of the year (Summer KO, Shrewsbury Town championship, Unity Cup, Newport Rapidplays ). To try to force a longer (or more intense season) on everyone doesn't seem like a good idea to me. A better solution would be to add other events, but that is assuming that there are indeed enough players who would be willing and able to play in such events (see my earlier comments on the winter knockout).

And so finally, to the way forward!

I have been looking at the SCA constitution and, despite all this talk of an EGM, there is actually no provision for anything other than an AGM.? Most constitutions talk about "General Meetings," of which Annual Meetings and Extraordinary, or Special Meetings are just examples. Not our constitution!

Our constitution talks about various committees and, in particular, says that the AGM shall (amongst other things):

On this basis, it appears that the constitution envisages these things being considered in detail by the Rules and Disputes committee, which would then submit a resolution to the AGM.

Whilst this seems a little odd (and there might be a case for reviewing the constitution at some point), I don't think it necessarily causes a problem.

The thing which takes the time is all the debate and discussion.? V ery sensibly, Nathanael has opened the debate widely and early.? As there seems to be some desire to discuss the proposals and alternatives in some kind of meeting, I don't see why we shouldn't arrange a get together to talk through the options.? This doesn't have to have to be an EGM as such; the important thing is that as many people as possible who want to, can get involved and have their say.? The aim of the meeting (which could be an evening, a Saturday afternoon, or whatever we decide) would be to put a proposal to the AGM which, as the debate will have largely occurred in advance, should be perfectly manageable for a vote at the AGM.

Clearly, there are lots of different views; the tricky thing is narrowing those views down to a limited number of proposals.? It should be doable, though, and in one way, having a "pre-meeting" like this, manages to keep options open, without too much pressure of having to get through a formal meeting.? It may be that there will be some details which don't get resolved, but these can be referred to the Council (which consists of SCA Officers, plus Club Secretaries), if necessary.

I propose to speak to our General Secretary to arrange an initial discussion session fairly soon, with a vi ew to formulating proposals to put to the AGM. Perhaps Secretaries could indicate to Glyn their prefere nce (weekend or evening) for that initial meeting and we'll take it from there.

Francis Best, President, Shropshire Chess Association 16/04/2017

Mark Smith 19/04/2017
I have tried to talk to as many active members of Shrewsbury chess club as possible over the past couple of weeks.there does seem to be general agreement on the following
1-it would be a shame if division 3 ceased to exist as it does give beginners,juniors and lower graded players a chance to play competitive chess on  a more level playing field than would otherwise be possible .
2-concern was raised over the possible increase in the number of games,18 games was felt to be quite a lot ,maybe too much.
3-a possible solution could be to reduce the number of boards from 5 t o 4 across all 3 divisions.it seems to me that there are advantages to this approach ,there is a transport advantage ie:one carload per match.also it is possible we might get a few more teams this way;if teams were reduced to four across the board I think that Shrewsbury could seriously consider forming a C team or a junior team next season ,with the rules as they are I don't believe it's possible.
As to a meeting I would agree that it's necessary and that it should be possible for as many people to attend as want to.pf course no date is universally acceptable to everyone ,for example if it takes place on a weekend this will suit some but not others(those like myself who work in retail for example),but this is not a reason for a meeting not to take place.
Mark Smith 19/04/2017

Graham Ives - 21/03/2017
Chess is about problem solving. In most of the games I play, there comes a time when I have a tricky problem that I need to solve. I'm often tempted to play the first half decent looking move I can think of but I've learned over the years that this is likely to land me in even worse trouble. The best way to solve a problem, I've found, is to consider as many possible alternatives as I have time for, weighing up which of them best helps me to solve the immediate problem, which gives me the best longer-term advantages and which helps me towards achieving whatever it is I'm trying to achieve. Often the first solution I think of turns out to be not the best one at all.

We have a problem with the League. The number of teams seems to be declining with the result that there are some remaining teams and players who are not getting as many matches and games as they would like. The first solution we've thought of is reduce the number of Divisions to 2. But, have we considered all the alternatives? Focussing on one possible solution without considering other possibilities means we could end up choosing a poor solution and miss a much better one (just as I often do in my games unfortunately!). Might there be other better solutions that we haven't considered yet? In my view it is entirely wrong to focus this debate on whether or not we should reduce the League to 2 Divisions. The focus of this debate should be this: What is the best way to encourage more matches and more games within the League? I believe there are much better solutions to this problem than the proposal to reduce to two Divisions, and indeed I believe the apparent benefits of a 2 Division League turn out to be false and heavily outweighed by the disadvantages when looked at closely. So, please, can we centre the debate on the above question rather than concentrate on a particular solution just yet.

I should probably make a “declaration of interest” as it were – I wrote (with a great deal of advice and testing effort from Vinny) the webpage code that manages the League, allows results to be entered, and produces the fixture lists, results, tables and statistics. A move to a 2 Division League would mean that some of that would need to be re-written. I'm somewhat reluctant to do that until a firm decision is made, and the changes may then take more time than is available (depending on when that decision is made!). So, you might suppose that my views are not entirely unbiased. But, I am trying not to let that colour my thinking. If the consensus is that the code needs to change then I will do my best to change it, in time. It would be very unfair of me to do otherwise and stand in the way of whatever Shropshire decides is the best course of action. But, if we did decide to go to two Divisions, it would help me greatly if we were able to reach a decision very quickly (so I have time to change the code in my spare time, and test it, and have it working / running in time for Nat to create the fixtures lists sometime in July / August!) or if we could agree for the new arrangement to come into play in the 2018-19 season, after a decision this year.

I will try to do whatever the consensus decides is necessary but, regardless of that, I still believe that going to just 2 Divisions is not a good solution. Because:

1 The proposal would lead to there being two Divisions of 10 teams each – possibly as many as 12. That would involve between 90 to 132 matches in total over the season – between 18 and 22 per team. In order to cope with that many matches, and avoid clashes, the season would have to run from sometime in August to possibly the end of May or maybe even beyond that. My view is that such an extended season is not a good consequence at all! I think the League season should run from the end of school summer holidays, to Easter, with no matches outside that period – people have too many other commitments during the summer months and it becomes much harder for a team to field its best players during that time.

2 If we went to 2 Divisions, then teams currently in Division 3 would find themselves playing much stronger teams that were previously in Division 2, as well as those 3 or 4 that were just relegated from Division 1. I personally feel that playing over the board is enjoyable only if the players involved are of a reasonably similar playing strength. Playing against someone who is much stronger than you are can be enlightening if it happens occasionally, but if it happens often / regularly it is very off-putting and not much fun at all for either player! Neither player gains much from the experience and grading results for both players become quite distorted. I think it would actually turn off any new players coming into clubs who might be looking for competitive games, and discourage many of the players who are currently in Division 3.

3 The new Division 2 could be either 4 or 5 boards per team – this is one of the things everyone needs to discuss as part of the “2 Division” proposal. If it stays at 4 then it doesn't do much to help more players to get games. In fact, all the current Division 2 teams would need to field 1 less player than they are at the moment – so that doesn't help more people get games at all! Some clubs (including my club, Oswestry, a few seasons ago!) struggle to find more than 4 players for a regular B or C team, whereas other clubs have got lots of players looking for games and would prefer to have 5 boards per match. So, it makes sense to me that there should be a Division 2 and a Division 3 to allow both kinds of clubs to field B or C (or D, etc) teams that they have sufficient players for, rather than being stuck with a single Division where clubs are either not going to have enough players, or too many players.

4 With 2 Divisions, the rules on “nominated players” and players acting as reserves for “higher” teams would need a re-write and might be difficult to get right to prevent unfairness. At the moment 4 players have to be nominated for each team and can't then play for any other “lower” team. Also, reserves have to follow these rules:

a) Players graded below 100 can play for any of their club's teams in Division 3 without restriction.
b) Players graded below 120 can play up into any of their club's teams in Divisions 1 and 2 without restriction, providing that the lower team, for which the player normally appears, and the higher team for which the player wishes to appear as a reserve, are not both in the same Division, in which case the restriction in sub-paragraph d will apply. 

So players graded below 120 could no longer play for more than 1 team in Division 2! Again, this means less chess for everyone, not more.

5 The proposal for promotion and relegation is that it would be 3 or 4 up and down, between the remaining 2 Divisions. This would mean more strong Division 1 teams than before being relegated and then playing against teams that were previously in Division 3! And it doesn't offer much encouragement for teams that were previously involved in the Division 2/3 promotion / relegation battle each season – no such battle will exist. Many Division 2 teams will remain mid-table for seasons on end - incentives and interest much reduced – all a bit pointless really. And the teams at the top of Division 1 would be pretty much insulated every season from any possibility of relegation. In my view this would mean that the whole League would become pretty static and boring, which would be a shame.

So, as I said at the beginning, please let's not jump the gun and focus all the debate on the above. Let's, first, consider all the alternative possible ways of facilitating more chess and decide which of them is really best. I have a few alternative suggestions. It would be good to hear if anyone else has any others – let's consider them all before narrowing our focus to just one.

In my view, a solution has to:

- keep the current length of the season – September to April

- match players of comparable playing strength with each other in individual games, rather than generating lots of serious mis-matches

- allow as much flexibility as possible for players to move between teams, while also preventing clubs from exploiting this to gain unfair advantage in any promotion / relegation battles

- create promotion/relegation interest at several places in the overall League, to help maintain interest.

all of which means that there has to be more than 2 Divisions!

Also, in my view, Division 1 should always have at least 7, but preferably 8 teams and however many remaining teams there are, these should be split evenly between Divisions 2 and 3.

So, how to generate more games for players in Divisions 2 and 3, while meeting the above criteria? Other possibilities are:

- Division 3 should be 5 boards, not 4, if the teams involved agree this at the start of the season, or maybe individually before each match,

- any Division with less than (say) 7 teams could decide at season start (by vote?) to play everyone else more than twice. So, rather than playing 10 matches in a season, they would play 15, or maybe 20! – similar to the number that a team in a Division of 8 teams would play. (Any “third” match would have to be Home or Away by random coin toss or by agreement at the start of the season, or something.)

- players looking for more games could get more involved with the Rapidplay league, or the Knock-out competitions!

- the League could allow teams to be created using players from 2 or more clubs! For instance, if Oswestry have a couple of players who would like more regular games then why not allow them to get together with similar players in (e.g.) Telepost and create a combined team? We could decide to allow this regardless of whether any of the players involved already play for existing club teams or not. Home games could perhaps be played alternately at Oswestry or Telepost. As well as allowing more players to get involved in League chess this would also encourage more dialogue between clubs. Alternatively, Oswestry (for instance) could simply agree with Telepost to “borrow” a couple of their players (with their agreement) and field an “official“ Oswestry C team playing at Oswestry, and maybe next season this would transform into an “official” Telepost team playing at Telepost. And so on…. This could potentially create lots more teams and help to fill Divisions 2 and 3 and make more matches / games for everyone. Promotion could be problematic for such teams – would they still involve the same players if they earned a promotion place? So, maybe such “merged” teams should be excluded from promotion – they are just there to provide the opportunity for players to get more games under their belt.

- perhaps the rules around player nomination should be re-visited. I'm not sure any more what they are achieving, other than making it difficult for people to play for more than one team! Perhaps they are rather counterproductive now, if people want to be able to play more games? Relaxing them, perhaps even just for Division 3, or maybe 2 and 3, would make it easier for clubs to create additional teams in those Divisions, and create more spaces for the people who want to play more chess? If the rules were relaxed then perhaps  teams in Division 2 or 3 would be allowed to enter themselves twice into the Division and play two whole sets of matches. At present the rules on nominated players prevent this.

I'm sure that there are lots of other possibilities and I would welcome hearing all of them. That way, hopefully, our combined, problem solving, chess minds will find the best solution to the problem. I'm convinced we won't find the best solution to the problem if we concentrate all our thinking on just one possibility without even considering all the others first. And, I'm also convinced, unfortunately, that moving to 2 Divisions is not the best solution. I hope we can all find a good way forward to allow everyone to play as much chess as they want, and to keep the League alive and exciting.
Graham Ives - 21/03/2017

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keith Tabner - 23/03/2017

I am strongly in favour of keeping the existing three division league structure, although I do think that it would be substantially improved if only one team were promoted or relegated.
Let me make my case:-

This whole problem arose at the beginning of last season when three teams dropped out of the league very late in the day and too late to do much about it. The loss of Telford C and both Church Stretton teams left a gaping hole. As a result the third division was left with too few fixtures.
However I maintain that teams coming and going will always happen – this is a cyclical rather than a permanent change. We should not axe a division for a temporary problem.
Div 3 is particularly important to encourage new players to play competitive chess. I'm regularly told by newcomers “I'm not good enough to enter a league yet.”
I believe chess, like most sports, is about competing at somewhere near your own level so that you have some chance of getting a result. Continually being outplayed and getting thrashed is totally demoralising and can lead to players giving up the game.

With three divisions the season will end with three teams as champions – each with a trophy and a well-earned sense of achievement.
However under our present rules the runners up will not only miss out – but will be deprived of the chance to win that division next season. Instead they will be punished by being promoted to a higher league to be regularly well beaten and usually relegated.
Hence teams often trying to lose late matches in order to avoid that fate.

It would be so much better if our small divisions were one up and one down.

I applaud Graham Ives well made points – provided we know in good time that a division has too few teams, then additional fixtures / player sharing etc can be arranged.

At Telepost we do have 2 or 3 players who would like more chess – however we have many more who are not able to play anywhere near all of the games we already have.
Unfortunately by giving lower graded players additional games in a higher team, under present rules we just get teams relegated – taking the stronger players down with them.
This problem would be avoided by one up one down, thus encouraging players to play more games and thus improve.

And an already crowded calendar with league and rapidplay fixtures allows little time for our in house club competitions.

Keith Tabner - 23/03/2017

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John Casewell

I have read with interest the views of the various contributors.
In my mind there are three seperate issues to deal with here.
Why are the number of teams in the Shropshire League reducing?
How to attract more players to league chess and how to cope, in hopefully the short term, with the problem. The first issue could be as a result of internet chess,the lack of junior chess in the county, few places in the county running chess clubs, lack of taster sessions to encourage new players and to the outsider chess does not appear a very sociable game.
Turning to my second point I think each club should where possible appoint a welcome officer to be on duty at a club night to be available for new prospective members.This could be run on a rota basis.We should use opportunities like the National Trust try a new sport weekend ,U3A and other organisations and various outdoor events to try and bolster our membership.Use our annual congress to invite anyone along to try the game. As a result of the publicity from this year's event Telepost gained a new member.
To deal with the current problem I would honour the promotion and relegation for this season and would continue with three divisions for season 2017/18, but support Keith Tabne's idea that it should be on a one up and one down basis from each division.I would continue with teams of four in division3, a suggestion I proposed some years ago, but retain five per team in the other divisions for now. If from what I read and hear is true Ludlow are considering a second team and Church Stretton could form a team and as things stand Telepost could put in a further team.
If we went to two divisions it would make division two top heavy if the above came to fruition,and judging by Grahem Ives comments his web redesign very time consuming. If the number of teams stay as they are for next season then I suggest in Division three the teams could play each other three times in a season leaving the controller to decide venues of third game.
I would also suggest a relaxation of the rules about players playing for more than one team from the same club in division three.Thinking now in particular of Telepost. I think with four players in a team division three is the perfect introduction to league chess.In my case I have rarely ventured outside of it!
Finally I would suggest a meeting soon after this season ends to discuss the issues raised by others and myself.

John Casewell 27/03/2017

Dennis Bonner

I have spoken with a couple of our players/captains and the basic answer is that we agree with the proposal of reducing to 2 Divisions but we all know it is not that simple. I have read the comments of Graham Ives and others with a great deal of interest.
Although this is only my first full season with Telepost I have enjoyed the chess and want to play as many games as possible so below I have listed answers to some of the relevant points made so far in this discussion;
a) All teams to consist of 4 players,as this makes it so much easier for the transportation of people to the various destination around the county as not many people have the luxury of 5 seater cars!
b) Relegation/Promotion to be 3 teams with the promotion from Division 2 have 2 automatic places and the next 4 teams would have a knockout to decide the 3rd promotion place,as is seen on the English Soccer leagues ,for example from Championship to Premier League.This will encourage more competitiveness for the teams to achieve 1st Division status.
c) As most people have already stated the rule 8 for the Substitutes will need to be carefully re-written . We would suggest that 3 players need to be nominated for each team,which would give some flexibility but within the same division players can play for their sister teams,without grading implications. If people,who are not nominated for teams,play more than 4 times for another of their sister teams,then they will get tied on the 5th time of playing for that team. The same rule can apply for 2nd division players playing for a 1st division team within their club,if they play more than 4 times then they are tied to their 1st Division team,as long as they are not nominated for another team within their same club.
d) We believe the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages of playing in,for example the 2nd Division when an ex 3rd Division player has a much better chance of improving his/her grade as they will be playing a really good mix of grades. Currently a person in the 3rd division has not much chance of playing higher graded players and therefore the chance is that their grade remains static,which is not a good motivational tool.
e) Of course going to 2 divisions will extend the season going from September until May,not from August as many people will be away on holidays and teams do not want to start a long season with losses due to defaults. 
f) The League may need to reconsider the amount of Rapidplay games that are played and reduce to ,say,playing 3 or 4 times in the season. Maybe we could have a Rapidplay Individual competition,as played in the Summer at Newport,instead of a number of teams playing many Rapidplay games.
Summary
Of course there are many points and many different ideas for the Restructure and I would suggest one way to reach a conclusion would be for Nat to call a Special meeting of all the League Secretaries plus one other nominated person from each of the clubs. The meeting would then have the power to discuss all of these ideas and reach firm conclusions by way of a majority vote.This may mean more than 1 meeting but Feel sure that a meaningful conclusion can be reached.
Dennis Bonner  21/03/2017

Well done for starting this long-overdue debate. 

I support your proposal for a two-division league. We have in recent years tinkered with the structures by changing eligibility rules, motivated both by a need to help teams remain viable and to enable those who wanted more chess to be able to play for more than one team. However, like you, I think the time has come for a more drastic overhaul and the two-division structure would re-energise the league.

I think that four promotion and relegation slots is too many, however, and two would probably suffice. I like the suggestion of a play-off system for second division promotion however, perhaps with the 2nd, 3rd and 4th clubs competing for one remaining slot with automatic promotion for the division two champions. One-up, one-down seems unduly restrictive and would reduce the interest for many clubs in the latter part of the season.

The question of the league software has been raised, but I don't believe that that should play any part in the decision, as indeed Graham Ives acknowledges. If the league decides to change its structure then we need to find a way to make that happen. I don't see any reason why we should delay until the 2018-19 season; if we decide to change, let's just get on with it and start in September.

Another point that has been raised is the fixture schedule but there is plenty of time to play all the league games between September and the end of April if we have some matches scheduled each week rather than fortnightly. This brings us to the issue of substitutions and eligibility. Two divisions may provide an opportunity for a review to create more logical rules on reserves and eligibility which are much simpler and less prone to controversy.

Chess debate

Views on the subject of Substitute Players -Matt Best

I saw Gary's piece on the Shropshire Chess Website and thought I'd chime in with my two cents as a semi-outside observer. Again, all just my opinion but it seems a good idea to continue what will clearly be a relevant debate earlier than at next year's AGM.

My initial reaction to seeing the result on the website and the teams listed as they were was certainly one of surprise and I thought it was faintly ridiculous - Ludlow have done an excellent job at regularly recruiting strong new players over the last few seasons to the extent that they have gone from a side nearly in danger of relegation from Division 2 to one with a very real chance of challenging for the first division this year. As so many clubs are struggling to attract new and retain existing members, this is commendable and I'm sure we'd all love to hear their secret!

With regards to this specific game, the natural question is the one which Gary raises regarding the regularity of these new players. I have heard that it may not just be a one-off, and I should also make it clear that I haven't a clue regarding the logistics or reasoning behind it. Therefore, as far as I know, it may well be that the situation is entirely comparable with, for example, me (or Ed Goodwin) returning to Shrewsbury and playing a few games a season - with the notable difference of about 90 grading points. Newport, I seem to recall, were also beneficiaries with a group of strong players returning from University for a handful of games in a season. These instances were accepted, and so the question becomes how can one differentiate between a “ringer” and someone who just happens to play a few games in a season. In either case, it's unfair for the team who has to face the strengthened side. Is there any way in which it is possible to legislate this? Personally I don't see how. Perhaps the only real way is having a completely different league system with grading limits, but having experienced this in Devon I find it demeans the quality of the competition significantly. Another system that had been mooted previously (I believe at the time that the under 150 rule was introduced) was a slightly more complex issue where the nominated players system takes on a role – teams can then field a side whose average grade is equal (or within a set limit) to the average grade of its nominated players at the start of the season. That, too, has challenges – not least being the statistical invalidity of using the mean rating of players to ascertain the strength of the side (the Ludlow mean of 189 was above the grade of 80% of their players!), plus the issue of ungraded players, and furthermore what if Keith Arkell were to move to Ludlow and wish to start playing every game for them? So far, I don't really see a way to prevent this kind of thing. It's also worth noting that leagues are systemically unfair – in the Premier League, for example, Liverpool got the perfect time to play Arsenal and so won, whereas Chelsea played Arsenal when they were in full flow with all their star players back and were thrashed.

Finally, in response to the last paragraph: “ does this need to be regulated in some way – otherwise we could end up with matches involving 10 GM's and a load of Shropshire players just watching!” my view is that I'd happily play board 5 for Shrewsbury C in Division 4 while Nigel Short and Mickey Adams battle it out in the A team!

Matt Best 27/10/2016

P.S: Congratulations Gary on yet another tournament success at Scarborough!

An Open Letter to all Shropshire Chess Players
on the subject of Substitute Players
by Gary White 25/10/2016

This issue has arisen as a consequence of the league match held on Monday, 10th October, between Priorslee Lions ‘A' and Ludlow ‘A'. I should point out that this is not any formal complaint, but simply my personal opinion only, and is intended to promote further discussion within Shropshire chess on the daunting subject of substituting players in order to make up a full team.

Ludlow arrived at The Lion, effectively, with only two recognised Ludlow players, Lee Davis (181) and Joe Watson (157). To make up a full team of five they had invited GM Keith Arkell (241), his brother Nick (184) and also Douglas Spencer (182). This upped the average grade of this “Ludlow” team to a staggering 189. This compared to the regular players of the Lions team, which have an average grade of just under 160. The fact that Priorslee managed to get a 2½ - 2½ draw out of this match is not only astonishing, but irrelevant. An under-strength Ludlow team, would, most likely, have been well beaten by Priorslee, earning 2 points as opposed to the 1 for the draw. The fact is that, most likely, no other team in Shropshire will face such a similar strength of opposition – so how can this be considered fair if these are not going to be regular players?

As we have seen recently with the demise of firstly the Church Stretton B team and then, subsequently, their A team, it is only too apparent that there is a continuing struggle for clubs to field full teams for league matches. Whilst the last thing I wish to see is defaulted boards, or worse, defaulted matches, the question does have to be raised as to whether the course of action taken by Ludlow is a) within the rules, and b) within the spirit and integrity of Shropshire Chess. We have in place strict rules on the substituting of players from lower teams, those in the same division, 135 grade limits, 150 grade limits for using players from other clubs, etc, but nothing to cover what has happened here.

Is this something we just allow to happen again in the future, or does this need to be regulated in some way – otherwise we could end up with matches involving 10 GM's and a load of Shropshire players just watching!

Proposed Shropshire Rapidplay League

After discussions at the Shropshire Chess Association's AGM, the potential formation of a Shropshire Rapidplay League is inching forwards. For those not present at the meeting, it would run throughout the main league season to act as a supplement for those people who feel there is not a sufficient number of games in the Shropshire Chess calendar, whilst allowing those who feel there are the right amount or even too many to continue without any hassle.

I have emailed all captains and secretaries for whom emails are provided on the SCA website. Could people please bring the provisional format to the attention of people at their clubs to allow discussion on it, so that any amendments can be made as necessary. The deadline for any amendments is the 31 st July, so suggestions will need to be made to me before then - either via email or phone (01743 821 220). Once the rules are confirmed, clubs will have until 31 st August to enter. Late entries may not be considered unless they fit into the schedule without any disruption.

The provisional guidelines are attached. If anyone has any trouble opening the attachment, please let me know.

Matt Best 16/07/2013

Proposed Shropshire Rapidplay League

* Four players per team
* Games would be half an hour for each player, or - if team captains agree and electronic clocks are available - a Fischer time control of 20 minutes plus ten seconds per move may be used. Both time controls are eligible for rapid grading.
* Matches would take place roughly once a month (subject to change depending upon the number of entries), preferably on weeknights at one of the clubs' venue when no league matches are scheduled to be played. Four teams would go to the venue (the dates won't be finalised until entries are confirmed and the main leagues' fixtures are confirmed) and would play each other team once on the night, meaning each team would play three matches per night. One team would be the nominal “home” team for each match on the night and therefore be White on boards two and four, which would then be reciprocated at the return fixture.
* There is no obligation for clubs to work in the same structure as the main league. For example, if Ludlow were only able to field 3 players, and Church Stretton and Condover the same again, the two clubs could participate as one team for the purpose of this event. Equally, if Shrewsbury and Telepost were both able to field two full teams and half a third team, those two incomplete third teams could merge to become one (named The Shrewsbury Sharks or something equally dubious!).
* Players would only be permitted to play for one club, although substitutions between teams within clubs would be permitted provided that the player is graded below 130. 

* Substitutes may only play 3 games for their second team (whichever team they play 3 matches for first is nominated as their team).
* The “10 point rule” will be used for determining board order. Rapidplay grades from the start of the season take priority, but standardplay grades from the summer list are to be used in the absence of a rapid grade. 
* Players with no standard or rapid grade may play on any board. However, if an ungraded player receives either a standard or rapid grade in the January list, then that will be used for the remainder of the season for the purposes of board order, but they may still play for another team as a substitute, even if their January grade exceeds 130 – this prevents clubs running short of players halfway through a season.
* If 10+ teams entered, then two divisions (based on the teams' current standings in the Shropshire Chess League) would be created.
* Players must record their moves, up until the final five minutes as in standardplay games– this makes games eligible for grading. Matt Best 16/07/2013


Proposed Shropshire Rapidplay League
Also raised at the AGM was the view that we should have more
interaction with the public to raise the profile of Shropshire chess.
Something along the lines of the recent Ironbridge display or the Darwin centre festivals
of a few years ago.
I believe we can kill two birds with one stone.
I would love to see your rapidplay events run over two (or four?) weekends (Sat + Sun)
One held in public in the Darwin Centre and the other inside Telford Town Centre.
At the same time we would also run several public participation activities
- giant chess set - display boards - challenge a Shropshire player -
info about our chess clubs etc.
And perhaps ask the venues to sponsor trophies.
I'd be happy to help organise same...
What do you think ?   Keith Tabner 17/07/2013

That's certainly a possibility Keith. I would certainly be up for something along those lines but my only concerns would be
a.) whether there is sufficient space available – the area we used for the old Darwin tournaments is currently occupied by a furniture stall
b.) whether there would be a large enough number of people available for weekends. I go to the football on Saturdays so would only be able to make alternate Saturdays, and others who play in congresses and county matches or have to look after children etc may also be unavailable.
It would be good if we were able to fix something, and if the league doesn't end up being held there then certainly should be some other event, a tournament similar to the old Darwin events in all probability, and perhaps a competition for casual players (maybe an ungraded section at the congress?) which we could advertise as an attraction for new players. Matt Best 18/07/2013

  I agree that a public event would be a great idea, but I'm not convinced that you could do it with the rapidplay as the concept is for a serious league which needs the conditions that you would have at a club venue rather than a public arena. A public event would be great but it is really a different entity and the Ironbridge-style challenge event seemed to be a very good model for that. Steve Rooney 21/07/2013

Chess Press Release 07/06/2013:- Condover and Church Stretton Chess Club

Church Stretton Chess Club have decided to merge with the Condover Chess Club, who have been playing social chess, and from season 2013/14 will be known as Condover and Church Stretton Chess Club and will meet each Tuesday at the Condover Social Club. Steve Rooney will be the point of contact with assistance from John Casewell.

To launch the new club Nigel Ferrington will be playing a 12 board simul on Tuesday 03 September.

It is hoped to put two teams in the league.Any prospective new members please contact either Steve on 01694 723724 or John on 01743 871172.

Free photography sessions
My name is Carl Harrison and I own CDHPIX, which is a local Telford based photography business. I hope you will be able to help me, or possibly forward this onto the necessary person(s). Thanks.
I have been offering local businesses, organisations and charities, free photography sessions
to build up my own portfolio with no cost to their business/organisation.
I would like to offer the free same service to yourselves.
You would get player and staff photographs, along with the club premises, that you can use to promote the club, in print, or on line.
I would prefer to shoot on a week night or the weekend as I have a full time day job and as I said, I'm building up my portfolio so photography isnt my full time job, as yet. Any credits for the photographs used would be mostly appreciated. In return, I would like to use one or more images in my portfolio.
I am prepared to give away, free facebook sized images will be available for everyone in a size appropriate for their profile image that they can download without any payment.
For full size, super high quality images, these shots, I can offer to sell to the players from my website at a very reasonable £4 an image that they can then download and print as they wish. Payment is managed through Paypal so is easy. Those who are not internet savvy, we'll sort something out so no one misses out, if they so wish, even if I have to pop to Tesco and get some printed and sell at cost.
The club can have any of the images, full size, without watermarking, free of charge - to use as you wish, just dont give or sell the player images away please, if I can recoup some of my costs
(equipment, travelling and time) then thats a bonus for me.
Im hoping this could be something to benefit us both and perhaps turn into a regular event throughout the spring and summer, players will see a professional image of themselves, playing a game they love.
I can build up my portfolio, whilst possibly making a small profit to cover my costs and your club can use the images to promote itself at not charge.
Im very professional, I will not get in the way or interfere with players or club employees and even though CDHPIX is not part of your club, I know I will be represeting your club when I speak to players and therefore the utmost effort will be made to ensure my professionalism reflects on yourselves.
Please feel free to visit the CDHPIX homepage below or the facebook page, bearing in mind facebook has more images and requires no membership on your behalf.
I thank you for the time you have given in reading this and hope to hear from you soon.
- Kind Regards,
Carl Harrison CDHPIX Owner
www.cdhpix.co.uk
www.facebook.com/cdhpix
07854 083389

Summer Team Quickplay - 02/04/2012
Thanks to some wonderful spadework by Francis Best, we have the possibility of holding the summer quickplay tournament as a one-day competition at the Wrekin Housing Trust training suite in Telford centre on Sunday, May 20.
I think this is a wonderful opportunity. But before making a definite booking, I should appreciate feedback from players on whether they would be prepared to play on a Sunday at this venue. The alternative would be to have it as a one-night tournament at a local club – Telepost have kindly said they could host it.
Holding the competition over an entire day would mean more chess for competitors – probably a more generous time limit and more games. A board fee of £1 per player would be needed to cover costs. Also, there is an Anand-Gelfand match on May 20, which could be an interesting diversion during breaks.
Please let me know what you think before April 10 by emailing me on langrishcaiger@aol.com
Toby Neal - Summer rapidplay organiser