English Chess Forum

From the English Bridge Union website at http://www.ebu.co.uk/node/1759.

"The officers of the EBU met with their opposite numbers in the English Chess Federation earlier this week to discuss matters of mutual interest including Charity Conversion, VAT Relief, Publicity, Sponsorship and promoting both of our activities as mind sports. We agreed a number of possible strategies and will be in closer contact from now on to develop some initiatives."

Thanks to the EBU for keeping us informed.

David Sedgwick wrote: Thanks to the EBU for keeping us informed.

But no thanks to the ECF for issuing some form of joint statement. It's a lost cause really, the ECF directors may or may not have decided various things in the recent few months. Even those privileged enough to have a vote don't really know what's decided or otherwise.


There's serious silence from the three candidates for non-exec director. They don't have to post here in outlaw city. There's a protected moderated forum where they could express opinions beyond their one page election statements.

I`m not convinced we need all this `public scrutiny`, where prospective candidates are expected to run the guantlet of the `media circus`..
Really not helpful....
We want people who are committed to the cause, prepared to put in a shift on our behalf, and hopefully reasonably competant to perform said duties...
The current trend to turn these elections into `bueaty contests` about `who`s got the best media/other contacts, who has the most `influence`, or the fattest wallet, or might bring most razmataz and `money` to chess...is all rather distacting, and has led directly to the situation where many capable people will not stand, or sneak in at the last moment, once they`ve noted that the coast is clear (or so they think....). ...and can thereby contest the posts unchallenged..
I was rather disappointed that Jack Rudds late bid for `office` came to naught.....and other good potential candidates are sidelined..because they aren`t seen in some quarters as `cool doodes` or such like...
People should be able to stand on there own ticket...if they can gather support for office, all well and good.
Yes, some form of `address` is required, outlining the stance and `situation` of the candidate, so we can get some idea `who they are` and what they stand for, is sufficient...
Yes, we need some form of OMOV...maybe initially `online based` to kick things off..
I recall our last `unofficial online election` conducted by Sean (as a bit of a spoof I suspect..) which decided that Roger Edwards should become our President last year...there is a sort of `crowd wisdom` at work perhaps in some of these `polls`...

So Phil reads here and posts over there it seems

But it must be a welcome development (not sure the EBU will think that after a bit of experience with us ). Practical things like a common administration office might also be a fruitful line of discussion.

The London Chess Classic is offering free entry to Juniors. Perhaps not a total surprise given it's an event to publicise the charity "Chess in School and Communities". What is a surprise is that like the Bridge world, they have chosen to define Junior as Under 25. Go back forty years and that would have been the age of most of the competitors in any similar event. But that in its way is the problem in British chess but probably not world chess. I don't think Bridge ever had a Fischer boom, so its demographics are those of a sport or pastime appealing to those later in life.

Perhaps the EBU could be persuaded to publish minutes of ECF meetings?

Roger de Coverly wrote:I don't think Bridge ever had a Fischer boom ...

Yes it did, following the Culbertson - Lenz match of 1931-32. See for example http://www.bridgeguys.com/sec/glossary/ ... Match.html.

My own local club, Selsdon, is one of a number of British bridge clubs which were formed in the aftermath of the match and therefore celebrated their 75th anniversaries in the last decade. Their founders are no longer with us, of course.