By Sea and Air

[Roger Lancaster]

Can Gerard, John or anyone else provide any further information about either W Veitch?

I think that Walter Veitch (1923 - 2004) was a member of the insurance Chess Club. Please contact me if you would like contact details for the Club's officers.

I also have a recollection that B H Wood mentioned him in CHESS several times in the late 1960s / early 1970s.

David is correct. As well as playing for the Insurance Chess Club, Veitsch played for Commercial Union (his then employer) in the Insurance League which in those days was a multi-division affair but later contracted as the big insurance companies moved their main offices out of central London. I would have been playing on one of the top boards for another company around this time but I'm not sure that we ever played one another. Insurance Chess Club had some interesting matches against other institutions, such as the Civil Service and the Banks League. I particularly remember a match against the National Coal Board, drawing against an opponent of whom I had (at the time!) never heard but whose fame increased with "The Ascent of Man" in 1973. Unfortunately Dr Jacob Bronowski died a year later so many forumites will be too young to have heard of him. For those interested, there's a short biography on Wikipedia which mentions that he was a "strong chess player" as well as a regular contributor of problems to the then BCM.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Edward Winter also has a feature article on Bronowski as a chess enthusiast.

[Kevin Thurlow]

A free sample from my book on Civil Service chess

"In 1955, CS lost 13½-11½ to Insurance, with Broadbent losing to Ron Blow on top board, and RF Boxall losing to W Veitch on the next board. "

Earlier (and obviously not our man), "CS also beat London Commercial Chess League (LCCL), by 101½ – 48½ at Finsbury Circus, on 6th November 1928."
W Veitch (LCCL) beat GE Marler on board 7.

CS, Insurance, Commercial League, and Banks played for the Bronowski Trophy. In earlier days (1964 - 1972) the competition was for the champion clubs of each league, but it then turned into representative matches. One amusing(?) incident was:-

"Inland Revenue won the inaugural event and on five other occasions, including the final club event in 1972. In a match v Shell one of their players lost on time but when this was pointed out, he grabbed the clock and wound the pointer back 15 minutes. His captain professed that he hadn’t seen the incident even though he was watching his player’s flag. Later the Bronowski Committee restored peace by declaring the result a draw! "

[John Clarke]

I cannot recall when I last saw someone wearing a monocle

Only one I can think of is astronomer and chess enthusiast Sir Patrick Moore. Or do you mean in-the-street sightings, like your pipe-smoker?

[Geoff Chandler]

Smashing thread this...

...and regarding chess players who wear a monocle, Raymond Keene!

[Kevin Thurlow]

John's right, it must have been Patrick Moore. He opened Hastings ICC one year when I was there (probably late 80s). My pipe-smoker was live. As I no longer watch television, I don't see old movies!

[Ken Norman]

Kevin,
Your recent posts seem to be irrelevant to the original topic. Unless you have proof that the ladies flying from Croydon to Bagdad wore monocles and were pipe smokers.

[Roger Lancaster]

No-one has yet remarked on the impressive list of Imperial Chess Club members mentioned in the Westminster Gazette piece of 16 January 1928. One which particuIarly caught my eye was Sir John Simon. At that time, he had retired as deputy leader of the Liberal party and was a highly-paid and well-respected barrister but, after returning to politics, he went on to hold all three of the great offices of state (Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer) in the 1930s. There's an excellent Edward Winter account of Sir John - "almost wholly forgotten today" - at https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/simon.html

[JustinHorton]

Excellent indeed, though it omits this

[Roger Lancaster]

Excellent indeed, though it omits this

Hindsight suggests that Sir John probably wasn't sufficiently active over Hitler although, in fairness, Wikipedia also records that "On 2 September 1939, Simon led a deputation of ministers to see Chamberlain to insist for Britain to honour her guarantee to Poland and go to war if Hitler did not withdraw". Of course, hindsight is the most severe of judges and no doubt will condemn many today for their approach to Putin.

[JustinHorton]

Well not so much hindsight as a debate that raged for several years after Rearmament began

[Roger Lancaster]

Well not so much hindsight as a debate that raged for several years after Rearmament began

I don't wish to seem to engage in semantics, because we appear to be pretty much agreed on the substantive issue, but I think you'll find "a debate that raged for several years after" is hindsight.

[JustinHorton]

Did you miss the "Rearmament began" bit Roger?

[Roger Lancaster]

Did you miss the "Rearmament began" bit Roger?

Not really, Justin. To start with, I think you'll find it hard to identify a unique date when "rearmament began" in Britain. In the UK general election of 1935, the last before WW2, the vote-winning item was how to tackle the high rate of unemployment whilst rearmament - and its associated costs - was not popular. Moreover, at that time, Nazi Germany was maintaining the pretext of adhering to the terms of the Versailles Treaty so it appeared to many that German rearmament was not a significant issue. All this led to a vacillating approach to defence expenditure for the three armed services which, in any case, were in competition for what money was available - the Royal Navy, which had found itself with only two post-WW1 battleships, at least got funding for five more but the earliest of these was commissioned in 1937 and saw service only just in time to encounter the Bismarck in 1940. The limitations of the Army were painfully exposed by the British Expeditionary Force's 1940 retreat from Dunkirk while, in the early days of WW2, RAF planes were generally inferior to their German counterparts. I'd suggest there's a strong case to be made that significant rearmament didn't occur in Britain until after some time after hostilities had begun, hence my reference to 'hindsight'.

[JustinHorton]

Did you miss the "Rearmament began" bit Roger?

Not really, Justin. To start with, I think you'll find it hard to identify a unique date when "rearmament began" in Britain.

It's not British rearmament that's being referred to.