English Chess Forum

What's people's views on chess, does it involve too much politics?

My personal view and experience I would say yes.

matt.

too*

It might be helpful if you defined "politics" and how much you consider to be too much.

I feel that the little politics that goes on in my club (that I'm aware of) is just about enough to confirm that the members are indeed humans.

Well I've experienced alot of issues in the past with playing for more than one club should this make things a problem!? There is alot of competition in local leagues and I've witnessed with the big rival clubs if your a member of both it can often lead to alot of unwanted complications.

For example if there are clash of fixtures in your league and you might choose to play for one club and not the other then their my be questions asked about the persons loyality.

Matt.

matt_ward wrote:What's people's views on chess, does it involve too much politics?

Yes

If you vote for me I will cut down on politics in chess.

matt_ward wrote:For example if there are clash of fixtures in your league and you might choose to play for one club and not the other then their my be questions asked about the persons loyality.

Loyality indeed. Is this really a problem though?

A few years back I used to play for two clubs. My main club in the Surrey League/Croydon League and London Leagues and another club in the Thames Valley League.

A member of the second club once took exception to this and suggested that if I wanted to play in the Thames Valley for them I should play for them in other leagues too.

I suggested in return that he stop being a tw*t. That seemed to end the matter without need for any further debate.

Sebastian Stone wrote:I feel that the little politics that goes on in my club (that I'm aware of) is just about enough to confirm that the members are indeed humans.

'Man is a political animal' - Aristotle

Although, I'm not sure that Matt's simple disagreement should necessarily be defined as political - politics is concerned with power, not petty disputes between chess players at the local club.

The 'problem' sounds rather trivial...

Just adopt Jonathan's approach and there's no problem is there?

But I think this would be slightly inappropriate. I personally can see no harm in playing for two club's it should be treated equally and play a fair amount of games for both clubs. One club you might get less games for than the other because of the standard that club has.

But using bad language can only make matters worse!

Matt.

Is there really any need for this sort of language or do I need to press the big red moderate button?

Carl Hibbard wrote:Is there really any need for this sort of language or do I need to press the big red moderate button?

I think you need to press the big moderate button?

......or perhaps we could have a big let's not be so precious button to press. Last time I looked twit was a perfectly OK word that didn't need an asterisk.

......or maybe even a big that's cr*p spelling button (oops, I feel the big moderate button coming on) for people who write "to" when they mean "too".

......and while we're at it, why not an ellipsis button to censor the over-use of suspension points...... ......that would cut out quite a few posts from the north west of England......

I was under the impression that a tw*t was a pregnant goldfish but that could be an urban myth...!