Free membership for titled players

[Gary Senior]

Can anyone provide examples of clubs that provide free membership for titled players? I would also be interested to hear about intra club discussions around introducing or stopping such policies

[Christopher Kreuzer]

My experience is that some titled players expect this policy, and some club officials dislike it, or support it by paying the subscriptions themselves. Some club committees fully support it. If you are fortunate enough to have a lot of titled players, it can get expensive, as some clubs insist on the payments being made in some way. It can get contentious. I should say that my experience of this dates from around 10 years ago or more now, and the situation 'on the ground' may have changed. Or not.

PS. One way that titled players often 'pay' their way is to put on a free simultaneous display or similar, in return for the free membership. Plus usually winning a lot of games on top board (unless they cross swords with a fellow titled player).

[Jon Mahony]

I've known clubs up this neck of the woods, made up of well heeled members, actually make a donation to the titled player if they play their top board.

[Gary Senior]

Which is your neck of the woods?

[MSoszynski]

Can anyone provide examples of clubs that provide free membership for titled players? I would also be interested to hear about intra club discussions around introducing or stopping such policies

"Stopping such policies?" Clubs are independent entities. They may choose to join one or more Leagues, and those Leagues may impose certain Rules. But they are not the police, able to demand sworn witness statements and full financial disclosures. If a Club — or certain of its patrons — wishes to discreetly support titled players, or indeed members who have fallen on hard times, they are free to do so.

It sounds as if you are aggrieved that a rival Club has attracted strong players in a manner that your own Club has not — and you want "something done about it." Pardon me if I have misunderstood you.

[Ian Thompson]

Can anyone provide examples of clubs that provide free membership for titled players? I would also be interested to hear about intra club discussions around introducing or stopping such policies

Where I used to live there were clubs that paid titled players to play for them, so I think it's pretty unlikely that they had to pay a membership fee. What the club got out of it, other than a trophy at the end of the season, that they'd bought, is not obvious to me. That arrangement also applies to the London league.

[Gary Senior]

Re “stopping such policies”, my club had such a policy, changed the policy to stop doing it and there has been a discussion about going back to the old policy. Hence why I am interested in hearing about what other clubs do. I am not aggrieved in response to the earlier post!

[Roger de Coverly]

That arrangement also applies to the London league.

Also to the 4NCL virtually from its inception.

League and county AGMs somethimes discuss bans on professional players. I don't know of any that have done this, other than implicitly by setting rating limits.

[Roger Lancaster]

It's up to individual chess clubs to decide who pays what, and there's no apparent objection to free or subsidised membership to (for example) those receiving means-tested benefits, so presumably the grievance is with clubs which strengthen their teams through including strong 'guest players'. Frankly, no matter how one feels about the morality of this, there's no way (short of a rating limit which has a wider impact) of preventing it. The rules of a particular league may make the practice less easy, for example through stipulating a minimum prior period of club membership, but human ingenuity will find a way around this.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

To clarify, in "my neck of the woods" (in South-West London and the Thames Valley League, but also more broadly across London), these titled players would actually be resident in the area. They are playing for their local club or clubs (as there is a range of choices in London). So we are not talking 'guest players' here. That is a different phenomenon. But titled players everywhere have always sought and felt (or been) entitled to such benefits. My view is that if it encourages chess playing and chess club activity, that is good. When it starts to generate unhealthy rivalries and jealousy and imbalances, that is less good. Ideally, titled players would be 'shared' around a league, not concentrated in one team (big fish in a small pond and so on). One final benefit of titled players is that they can do coaching evenings (which can lead to more lucrative personal coaching contacts) and similar, such as giving talks and going over demonstration games. It would be nice to see more IMs and GMs doing that, giving back to the game they love (and to be fair, many do just that). It might even lead to home-grown titled players! (Of which some of these are already.)

[Andrew Zigmond]

Personally I think it depends on the club and the circumstances - plus the slight difference between a titled player and a professional player. It may be that a club wishes to bolster their team and/ or branch out into a stronger league and approaches a strong player to support with this; the player in question is well within their rights to name their terms and to accept a better if need be.

Or it may be that a titled player approaches their local club and expresses a wish to play league chess for them; if the club already has sufficient players they are equally within their rights to say that the player must join on the same terms as everybody else or look elsewhere.

[John Townsend]

There are ancient precedents for making outstanding players honorary members of chess clubs. Two examples spring readily to mind: both Deschapelles and Howard Staunton were made honorary members of the London Chess Club. I assume the potential benefits which might accrue through either of them becoming associated with the club far outweighed the cost to the club of waiving membership fees. I don't know that this principle was applied to other than the very best.

[Ian Thompson]

so presumably the grievance is with clubs which strengthen their teams through including strong 'guest players'.

Not a programme I normally listen to, but this very subject got a mention in The Archers this week, starting at about 9:00 minutes into the recording - players being "bribed" to play for the village cricket team.

[John Clarke]

so presumably the grievance is with clubs which strengthen their teams through including strong 'guest players'.

Not a programme I normally listen to, but this very subject got a mention in The Archers this week, starting at about 9:00 minutes into the recording - players being "bribed" to play for the village cricket team.

There was a Dad's Army episode with the same theme, the "ring-in" being played by Fred Trueman, no less.