Announcement of England Teams for European Team Championship

[LozCooper]

How can we claim that Williams is not as good as G? I mean both are my mates, both are very inconsistant in terms of agressive play, so they can take out 2700's on their days, I don't see the big difference here.

I do think putting the reason so blunt in the press release is not needed.

Ben

There's no mention of Gawain's flight in the press release. The press release just lists the teams. Do you mean my round-up on the ECF site?

[Jonathan Rogers]

I think that Ben meant to say, in reply to me and Jack, that the Press release should not be going into unnecessary detail, e.g by saying something to the effect "we would have preferred Gawain but the we saw the price of the ticket and though heck, there's not much difference in playing strength between him and Williams...."

I can agree with that, indeed neither Jack or I had suggested anything like that.

But to say nothing about the source of the money at all does look odd.

[LozCooper]

I think that Ben meant to say, in reply to me and Jack, that the Press release should not be going into unnecessary detail, e.g by saying something to the effect "we would have preferred Gawain but the we saw the price of the ticket and though heck, there's not much difference in playing strength between him and Williams...."

I can agree with that, indeed neither Jack or I had suggested anything like that.

But to say nothing about the source of the money at all does look odd.

I am slightly confused as the press release made no mention of anything other than the list of names. It was only in my weekly round up that I mentioned the reasons for various absentees, partly as I knew the question would be asked anyway.

I've no idea how the budget is comprised so I can't offer any comment on that. I guess the policy is to name any outside sponsorship such as LV last year but not money from within the federation or any anonymous sources.

[Leonard Barden]

Loz Cooper wrote

Despite the unavailability of David Howell and Nigel Short through the World Junior (Nigel is seconding David)

Short seems to have a rather different slant in this comment posted today on the Nigel Short thread on chessgames.com:

Nigel Short: I am not playing in the European Team Championship because I was told by the ECF some months ago that there was no money for me. I am not the most expensive player in the team, by the way, so the ECF obviously made a deliberate choice as to the sort of team it wants. Quite honestly I consider it pretty disgraceful that the ECF does not make greater efforts to put out a full strength squad in such an important event. As it happens, I will accompany David Howell to the World Junior in Argentina (Patagonia, apparently). At least I will be doing something useful.

[Carl Hibbard]

Perhaps. But that is why I put both questions together. If selection is driven by opportunity cost, then given the state of ECF finances, perhaps it shouldn't be sending a team at all, or at least sending only an amateur team (as Scotland is doing). What opportunity would it be losing, since the team it is sending will not make a medal nor any publicity in any event?

Seems a rather good point (after Leonards comment...) so why pay for Adams but not Short, that isn't clear?

[Carl Hibbard]

Nigel Short: I am not playing in the European Team Championship because I was told by the ECF some months ago that there was no money for me. I am not the most expensive player in the team, by the way, so the ECF obviously made a deliberate choice as to the sort of team it wants. Quite honestly I consider it pretty disgraceful that the ECF does not make greater efforts to put out a full strength squad in such an important event. As it happens, I will accompany David Howell to the World Junior in Argentina (Patagonia, apparently). At least I will be doing something useful.

Since Nigel has taken over as number one (and is playing well..) should he in fact have been picked over Micheal if money is that tight?

[Alex Holowczak]

Nigel Short: I am not playing in the European Team Championship because I was told by the ECF some months ago that there was no money for me. I am not the most expensive player in the team, by the way, so the ECF obviously made a deliberate choice as to the sort of team it wants. Quite honestly I consider it pretty disgraceful that the ECF does not make greater efforts to put out a full strength squad in such an important event. As it happens, I will accompany David Howell to the World Junior in Argentina (Patagonia, apparently). At least I will be doing something useful.

Since Nigel has taken over as number one (and is playing well..) should he in fact have been picked over Micheal if money is that tight?

Well, he claims it was months ago, at which time Adams was #1 and Short was #2.

I don't see why Nigel just didn't say that he wasn't playing because it was an ideal opportunity to help one of England's leading young talents in the World Juniors, which will help benefit future Olympiad teams, rather than having a pop at the ECF's financial situation. If he had prior arrangement to help Howell, then fair enough, but by saying that money was the problem, it just sounds a bit greedy.

That said, if it's only financially viable to send a full strength team to either the Olympiad or the European Team event, I'd rather put the funds in the Olympiad, and do what you can with what's left over for the Europeans.

[Sean Hewitt]

I might be wrong, but I doubt that McShane, Williams and Conquest are playing for nothing. I therefore find it difficult to believe that Nigel's statement that "there was no money for me" can possibly be true. There may not have been enough money, but that's a very different thing.

Unless El Presidente was getting his retaliation in first of course

[LozCooper]

Loz Cooper wrote

Despite the unavailability of David Howell and Nigel Short through the World Junior (Nigel is seconding David)

Short seems to have a rather different slant in this comment posted today on the Nigel Short thread on chessgames.com:

Nigel Short: I am not playing in the European Team Championship because I was told by the ECF some months ago that there was no money for me. I am not the most expensive player in the team, by the way, so the ECF obviously made a deliberate choice as to the sort of team it wants. Quite honestly I consider it pretty disgraceful that the ECF does not make greater efforts to put out a full strength squad in such an important event. As it happens, I will accompany David Howell to the World Junior in Argentina (Patagonia, apparently). At least I will be doing something useful.

As we seem to be having this discussion on more than one thread I've copied Stewart's response below in case any of you haven't noticed the duplication. One subtle difference between the European Team and the Olympiad is that each federation has to pay the teams accommodation costs at the European but not the Olympiad. Hence the ability to field the strongest team at the Olympiad but not always the European.

Re: AGM Minutes
by Stewart Reuben » Sat Sep 26, 2009 1:29 pm

Nigel Short not playing for the English Team in the European Team Championship is a very long story which only reflects well on Nigel.
He contacted me last year and asked whether I was able to assure him of an offer of a suitable fee as he had received an invitation to an event at the same time in Australia. I was unable to provide such an assurance. The International Budget had yet to be considered and was obviously going to be lower than 2 years ago.

Michael Adams contacted me this year. I knew Nigel would not be playing and that David Howell should play in the clashing World Junior. I ascertained that Michael preferred to go to Novi Sad rather than Argentine as David's second. Since I knew we could not raise our strongest team I did not fight for a larger budget from the ECF. After the International budget was agreed, I agreed to Mickey's fee.

Then the Australian cancelled his event and Nigel returned to me. Of course the ECF money was not there. Anyway, I believe the greater priority is for David Howell to become World Junior Champion. Eventually everything was agreed for Nigel to go as David's second, none of it from the International budget. Had I known that Luke McShane was going to be available, I might have made a different decision.

Stewart Reuben

[John Upham]

The question that requires an answer is :

Had the World Junior not been a clashing event then would Nigel have been offered at least as much as Mikey?

OK, the easy cop out is to say that there was a clash and my question is purely hypothetical and does not deserve an answer.

Also, would have Nigel and David both been selected for the squad?

[LozCooper]

The question that requires an answer is :

Had the World Junior not been a clashing event then would Nigel have been offered at least as much as Mikey?

OK, the easy cop out is to say that there was a clash and my question is purely hypothetical and does not deserve an answer.

Also, would have Nigel and David both been selected for the squad?

My unqualified answer from reading Stewart's answer would be that if there was insufficient money for Nigel then if he was seconding David or not would not change the amount of money available for the European Team as Nigel's fee for seconding David came from British Land, John Robinson fund etc

One assumes Nigel and David would have been selected subject to there being sufficient funding.

[Jonathan Rogers]

It is useful indeed to see Stewart's explanation. I have no further questions as such. It sounds like a fairly classic case of a fluid situation where many of the parties are not able to decide, or have to change, their plans until a fairly late stage. It almost goes without saying that you will not get the best possible team out in those circumstances, not to mention the conflicting desire to pull out the stops to have a World Junior Champion.

Short's public denunciation of the ECF on this matter, which seems to assume that something is necessarily afoot against him personally, when in fact he could no doubt have discovered the relevant facts all along, should perhaps make his supporters reflect on whether he really is a messianic - ECF - Delegate in waiting. No doubt it is too late for them to reflect, and they will instead retreat to the comfort zone of saying that anyone is better than Gerry Walsh.

[John Upham]

anyone is better than Gerry Walsh.

A suggestion : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KddkyZ1UG5g

[Peter Rhodes]

No doubt it is too late for them to reflect, and they will instead retreat to the comfort zone of saying that anyone is better than Gerry Walsh.

Having been an onlooker to the recent financial crash and banker bonuses story, one of the key lessons of that entire episode related to "Reward for Failure".

It would be nice if the precedent could at least be set that the ECF will not tolerate failure. Given where public sympathies lie, I hope ECF delegates will be ready to explain to their fellow chess players why and how they voted.

Given that Joanna Lumley, Esther Rantzen and Martin Bell are unavailable, I guess we can make do with Nigel.

[Matthew Turner]

One sometimes feels that the goal of he ECF is the same as Richard Pryor's character in the film Brewster's millions. Perhaps, we's be better off trying to adopt his approach to elections?