Rachel Reeves and Chess

[John Upham]

As a service to others, I reproduce the little s**t's telephone number: 07932745508.

Yes, this is the same number attempting call me over the last two days.

If I thought they had a genuine interest in chess I would have answered.

It is not the same number as the gentleman from The Times of London which ends *959

[Roger de Coverly]

A shame RR didn't also claim a handful of intermediate congress sections and a rating prize or two

She could also have mentioned an appearance or two in the early days of the 4NCL.

https://www.saund.org.uk/britbase/pgn/1 ... iewer.html

Playing for NW Eagles as an alternate to Ruth Sheldon.

[Matt Mackenzie]

On the worst possible reading, she has still claimed about a dozen fewer "false" titles than a certain British GM

[John Upham]

On the worst possible reading, she has still claimed about a dozen fewer "false" titles than a certain British GM

or even the number of Opens won by another visitor to this place

[R G Edwards]

It’s more interesting to me WHY someone in one of the highest roles in government would invoke a childhood hobby of thirty years ago in the first place.

Of course, we know the reason. It’s because Reeves wants to leverage that popular misconception that chess players are towering intellects or supremely-gifted strategic-thinkers and planners. “Look, I was a chess champion. That makes me innately skilled at anticipating and reacting to complex changing environments, like geopolitical and macro-economic events. I’m the natural choice for Chancellor.”

I find it laughable. It’s like me going for job in IT and telling the interviewers I’m great at solving complex network security issues quickly because I was Southern Counties Rubik’s Cube Champion in 1981.

I think it’s reasonable and expected that the media would question all claims Reeves has made about herself because she has a record of lying about it. Unless, of course, you really believe it was a “mistake by a junior aid”. Funny, no-one ever claims to have worked at the Bank of England for six years when it was really ten. It’s always the other way around. How strange.

[Matt Mackenzie]

If you are going to get all pompous about what is a genuine nothingburger, then it is "junior aide" not "aid".

Your more general whinge might have more merit if Reeves were the only politico to have ever tried to take advantage of the fact the vast majority of our media are sloppy, incurious, credulous idiots. But of course, I can think of a dozen more egregious examples off the top of my head - as can you if you are being truly honest.

2/10, and that is being generous.Try harder.

[John Townsend]

That is the number of the Premium Bond Winners Tracing Department.

[John Upham]

That is the number of the Premium Bond Winners Tracing Department.

Excellent JT.

I last spoke with Ernie sometime in the 1970s.

[R G Edwards]

If you are going to get all pompous about what is a genuine nothingburger, then it is "junior aide" not "aid".

Your more general whinge might have more merit if Reeves were the only politico to have ever tried to take advantage of the fact the vast majority of our media are sloppy, incurious, credulous idiots. But of course, I can think of a dozen more egregious examples off the top of my head - as can you if you are being truly honest.

2/10, and that is being generous.Try harder.

This thread is entitled "Rachel Reeves and Chess" not "Politicians and Chess" or "Lies Politicians Tell."

[Matt Mackenzie]

I know, but that does not alter the fact it is basically nothing, which bad faith media actors have even so tried to turn into something.

Why encourage them?

[Mick Norris]

It’s more interesting to me WHY someone in one of the highest roles in government would invoke a childhood hobby of thirty years ago in the first place.

Of course, we know the reason. It’s because Reeves wants to leverage that popular misconception that chess players are towering intellects or supremely-gifted strategic-thinkers and planners. “Look, I was a chess champion. That makes me innately skilled at anticipating and reacting to complex changing environments, like geopolitical and macro-economic events. I’m the natural choice for Chancellor.”

I find it laughable. It’s like me going for job in IT and telling the interviewers I’m great at solving complex network security issues quickly because I was Southern Counties Rubik’s Cube Champion in 1981.

I think it’s reasonable and expected that the media would question all claims Reeves has made about herself because she has a record of lying about it. Unless, of course, you really believe it was a “mistake by a junior aid”. Funny, no-one ever claims to have worked at the Bank of England for six years when it was really ten. It’s always the other way around. How strange.

The media is attacking her because she's a woman, despite many of her male predecessors doing terrible jobs, and because their papers are right wing

I don't think attacking female chess players is a good look for the chess community

[R G Edwards]

A 2025 Telegraph story on Rachel Reeves = right wing media attacking our Chancellor because she’s a woman.

A 1985 Guardian story on Margaret Thatcher = left wing media holding our Prime Minister to account.

[Matt Mackenzie]

You are going to have to be more specific on what the "1985 Guardian story" actually was.

Or is this just another non sequitur?

[John Townsend]

I don't think it is because she is a woman. My impression is that in recent years politicians have been scrutinized more and are likely to come under heavy fire in connection with smaller infringements than in the past. In fact, I'm a bit concerned we might be heading for a scenario in which politicians won't want the job because keeping to the straight and narrow can be such a minefield.

[R G Edwards]

You are going to have to be more specific on what the "1985 Guardian story" actually was.

Or is this just another non sequitur?

Pick any story. Right-wing media publishes stories critical of women in public office because they are women. Left-wing media publishes stories critical of women in public office because they are holding our leaders to account.