UK Chess Challenge - Local Club coaching/support

[Alan Walton]

I`m hoping that our northern chess brethern will exert some pressure to get a sensible resolution of this totally futile and nonesensical situation re Lancs & Manchester. It has gone on far too long.
The majority, so I`m told, are very keen to see Manchester in the NCCU. If so, they need to bang heads together, realise we`re all on the same planet...we need to get our act together for the benefit of Northern Chess. If this means shutting down Lancashire & re-openning with a fresh `New Lancashire` or Central Lancashire, to get round certain `obsticles`, then I hope it can be done in the interests of `Northern Unity`. Together we must stand.....for common sense and good will.
Having said that...the MCCU has much to offer, and has great county competitions. I`m hoping in that context that our local players will give there support to these events, which provide great chess platforms for our local players on all levels. Our Open team & U160 captains are keen to hear from any of our local players who are interested in playing these Saturday fixtures.
Talking of `progress`...the newly created Northern 4NCL got off to a good start at Darlington/Bishop Auckland recently (at the classy Barcelo Redworth Hall Hotel). Reports and pictures on the 4NCL website tell the story of an excellent venue and playing conditions. John Carltons report makes good reading.
Next round matches at the Crewe Barcelo Hotel in mid January, so hopefully we`ll see a few more of our senior players on show.
And hopefully next season more of our Northern teams will enter, representing major leagues from places such as Sheffield, Central Lancs, Yorkshire, and the North East/Teesside. These areas are all great centres of chess... Lets have some support for our Northern `Super-league`, as it could hopefully become...but its down to our senior northern players to come out and be counted. Do we want top quality tournaments in our northern region...I hope so.

Not really the correct thread for this post, but

Sheffield and Yorkshire are the same place, and also have been supporting the 4NCL for many years as White Rose, and they already have a competitive Saturday league in the Woodhouse and IM Brown

3Cs have been playing in the 4NCL since 1999-2000 season (excluding a couple of years)

[Mike Truran]

One of the reasons we try to publish 4NCL dates so far in advance is to allow excellent competitions like the Woodhouse Cup, which to be fair has been around a lot longer than the 4NCL, to avoid clashes when compiling their own fixture lists (if they want to, that is!)

[David Pardoe]

Points taken Alan...
I was responding to an earlier comment on this thread.
Yes, I know that some Northern teams have partaken of the 4NCL offerings....
However, I`m talking more specifically about the new Northern League...it would be great if more of our leagues/clubs enter this in coming years. Very good to see some senior players like Ben Hague, John Carlton, and Jon Blackburn, etc.. present at the Bishop Auckland openning matches....hopefully more will join the party and help make it a really good event. Its all about participation....many call for better quality events (Phil Adams mentioned this in a recent email), but they need the support of fellow chess enthusiasts, and hopefully they will step forward. Be brave..pioneers needed...dont just wait for others..
I mentioned Sheffield as one possiblilty, maybe another might be a Huddersfielsd league team...many very good players in both areas... Yes, I realise these places are in Yorkshire...its a vast county covering almost half of England`s Northern territory...

[Paul Bielby]

Written from my igloo in the North-East (and enjoying an extra, if unpaid, day off school)

The North is a big place - from this viewpoint, Manchester - and Sheffield too - are two of our great Midland Cities. At some times of day It is easier and quicker to get to London than to get to Manchester from Sunderland.

I am more concerned with junior chess these days than with my own, grown up(?), chess. I am surprised that anybody can regard the UK Chess Challenge as anything but a good thing. Here, in the Northumbria JCA, we are continually finding more schools taking part in the event - and also being asked to help them find coaches. We have also provided them with sets and boards in an attempt to honour the 'Chess for Schools' promises. (These are largely paid for by the 'profits' the NJCA makes from running the local Megafinal)

N.B. The NJCA likes getting the kids gradings - the kids like them too! To avoid problems with game fee we insist on all the kids playing in our events become ECF basic members through the Northumberland MO. This was my idea some years ago when I was NJCA Events Organiser - but at the NJCA AGM this year, the parents agreed unanimously to continue the policy. Of course all players (adults and juniors) taking part in the Northumberland League and Championships are expected to become ECF members. (I think this is true of Durham and Cleveland too)

[Scott Freeman]

David Pardoe wrote:
Sorry to hear that the CCF have fallen out with UK Chess Challenge... we need harmony and a good community spirit..its all about the group/team ethic.

David Sedgwick wrote:
That happened over ten years ago. It's another Lancashire / Greater Manchester, unfortunately.


It is certainly unfortunate and a situation I wish was not so.

It all happened back in 2000 when an 8 year old girl qualified at CCF (as did an 11 year old) but because they both attended Croydon High School, their qualifications were annulled and they were excluded. The 11 year old got special invites to other qualification events (that I am 99% sure would have "broken the rules" that Basman was so admant he could not break by letting them play (there were no such rules!) and the 8 year old was deliberately excluded because the row at Croydon High all surrounded her family. As of last year, it is my understanding that Croydon High School are still not allowed to compete in the UK Chess Challenge - they have been playing in the English Chess Challenge ever since. It is my belief that the chess community should have stood up to Basman over this but aside of the SCCU backing a motion expressing his disappointment and a number of people agreeing with us that what he did was wrong, nobody would do anything because they felt they couldn't. Basman, who is not answerable to anyone used his supporters in the SCCA to try and sideline us, which is why we have had so many long term issues there.

We were happy to sit down and try and resolve the issues, not least of all because we genuinely believe from our investigations that Basman was acting on incorrect and twisted information he had been given about the whole sordid scenario (we had actually approached the dispute with an open mind and no fixed agenda). However when I tried to approach him at the 2000 Surrey Congress (which we ran), in the hope of discussing the issue with him, he literally ran away from me. He then did the same to the parent of the child who he so acrimoniously excluded a few months later. Surely you have responsibility to at least listen to the case for the defence before finding people guilty and banning young children from what I thought was supposed to be a national chess tournament.

If this is his private event, it has been argued that he can do what he wants. If so then fine, but I do not believe that the rest of the chess community should be supporting it after what he did, knowing that many thousands of pounds are going into his situation every year - with little or nothing coming back into the ECF. But of course, nobody will stand up and be counted if it doesn't directly affect them, so they bury their heads in the sand. CCF on the other hand are corporate vice-presidents of the ECF and pump hundreds of pounds of grading into the ECF coffers every year (I believe we have 4 votes at ECF meetings?), yet because we are attached to official bodies, Basman has been able to use his supporters within those bodies to sideline us. Everything seems to work upside down in the chess world. If anything, the ECF should be supporting us!

A few year's back, Basman stated something at the end of an EPSCA meeting that simply was incorrect (and I could have provided proof of this). I merely wanted to state that fact and Peter Purland, who had sat through what Basman had said, then shouted me down and wouldn't let me say anything when I went to state this. It was a disgrace - and the main reason I have no time for Peter Purland. I don't mind opinions being expressed but I object when people mis-use the positions to allow lies to be spread, as happened there. And the net result is that a lot of people in EPSCA are under the incorrect impression that we are bad news for chess.

Although we have issues in Surrey, perhaps someone should ask the KJCA what they think of us. They are just starting to benefit financially from an arrangement we have with them for the running of our events (Champions' League Chess and the English Chess Challenge). Unlike others mentioned, we want to develop what we are doing so that the national scene benefits mutually from the development of our events, rather than one private individual. We hope this will grow as others become interested.

[Susan Lalic]

supporters in the SCCA

How can you drag the Surrey County Chess Association into your bizarre posting?
EPSCA and the UK Chess Challenge are both highly respected.
The fact that you cannot work with either says it all.

[Carl Hibbard]

I think you had made your point in the previous post Scott when you criticise two people (Basman and Purland) who are never going to respond are they?

I have deleted your last comment as it wasn't appropriate for a matter which seems as old as this one and I consider the whole issue closed

[Scott Freeman]

Carl

I don't understand this and am extremely disappointed. I know I could have justified all of it, but what you have done only proves the argument we make that we are not allowed to expose people for what they have done if it is not what the majority want to hear. I would be grateful if you would contact me privately with details on what bits you are not happy on so we can perhaps re-word it accordingly?

I was merely making the point that Basman's supporters are heavily involved in the SCCA and that is the link and why we have been unable to work with them. We would like to have done. I also was pointing out that Susan was part of that network and that I had some very reasonable questions about some of her actions whilst in post as SCCA Secretary - and that of the President.

Furthermore to say that we can't get on with EPSCA is not exactly fair - we have never been given the chance. We were refused admission basically on incorrect information misleading the delegates at the meeting. They would have found out that they were wrong had they let us in.

Can I leave it like that Carl?

[Carl Hibbard]

I would be grateful if you would contact me privately with details on what bits you are not happy on so we can perhaps re-word it accordingly?

I will comment on here Scott since people may or may not agree with me

I am 'suggesting' we will only ever see your side of the argument since the people you are heavily criticising will never answer your comments on this forum will they, what you are suggesting might be true and perfectly correct but who is to know if we never see both sides of the issue?

Hence my deletion, it seems to be a very old argument that will never be clearly answered in public

Am I correct?

[Scott Freeman]

Hi Carl

I am more than happy so discuss here if you prefer.

It is likely that Basman will never reply here, but that is my whole point - he is deliberately not accountable to anyone and therefore can (to quote some of his supporters when I raised the issue of the children being excluded) do what he wants. Over the last 10 years, he has left it to others to make the attacks on me/us on his behalf and only came out publicly when he wrote inaccurate letters to the SCCA and its membership, which is basically the root cause of the problems in the SCCA, because the President failed to handle the matter properly. So many SCCA members were worried about his threats of legal action that they panicked and basically wanted to sideline me/us as a result, oblivious to the fact that he had no case and the information was (as could have been proved) "inaccurate."

Obviously, Basman is welcome to come online and answer - I have no idea if he is a member of the forum or not. But if he isn't, you can be sure that certain people I know are members will be keeping him informed.

We have always stated that we will discuss issues with anyone to try and resolve them, but by keeping the public silence he has, it just means that he remains unaccountable. And then, with due respect to yourself, people argue that "because we won't hear the other side of the argument......" I am not unaware that my posts on this are controversial to those who don't want to face the facts, but if I say nothing when I see people writing about the "wonders of the event" and so on, then I could in turn be accussed of being happy with the status quo. I am (clearly!!! ) not.

The point I was making was that, because we were linked in heavily with the SCCA, Basman was able to use that medium (and his many supporters who were/are members) to attack us and try and sideline us. But although the SCCA (as a result of his supporters' support) were able to try and deal with us, they were not interested in dealing with Basman because he was not affiliated.

Your view of whether or not the matter can ever be resolved on the forum/in public, I don't believe is the issue: What he actually did went so far against the realm of any child protection policy I have every read that I believe the chess community has got to be shaken into realising that, whoever else the chess community ends up supporting, it should not be him. What he did was a disgrace. And the main point is that what he did was deliberate.

[Adam Raoof]

I would be grateful if you would contact me privately with details on what bits you are not happy on so we can perhaps re-word it accordingly?

I will comment on here Scott since people may or may not agree with me

I am 'suggesting' we will only ever see your side of the argument since the people you are heavily criticising will never answer your comments on this forum will they, what you are suggesting might be true and perfectly correct but who is to know if we never see both sides of the issue?

Hence my deletion, it seems to be a very old argument that will never be clearly answered in public

Am I correct?

I did not see the offending post. However, if we were restricted to making debating points where we could guarantee that both sides posted, then we would never post at all.

All we can guarantee is that if anyone wants a right of reply, then it is offered.

As long as posts here do not defame, and try heroically not to ask loaded questions such as 'have you stopped beating your wife?', then I think it is reasonable to allow posts where we can only hear one side of the argument.

I am not making any comment on the merits of the argument, nor their currency.

[Matthew Turner]

I believe Scott has made his points. Nothing is now achieved by simply re-iterating them. We all wish Scott and the CCF the best of luck with the events they organise, but it is time to move on and I completely endorse Carl's approach.

[David Sedgwick]

There is a delicate balance to be struck here.

I'm inclined to agree with Adam. Posts shouldn't be suppressed simply because they're critical of the policies or actions of people who choose not to join the Forum or even to read it. They're free to join and respond if they wish.

However, it's not in the best interests of this Forum to allow abusive personal attacks, whether or not the targets thereof are members of the Forum. Nor is it desirable for discussions about important current issues to be hijacked by endless regurgitations of old disputes. People will soon get bored when that happens. As it is, Scott's original post yesterday seems to have killed the thread.

You (Carl) allowed that post to stand. If Scott wishes to make further comments of a similar nature, he can always choose another outlet.

Edit: I've just seen Matthew's post, which makes the same point far more succinctly.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Does an account exist anywhere that gives both sides of what happened here? Or even a summary of what happened? Or are most of the details not suitable for public discussion? I say this as someone who has never heard of this dispute before, so I'm unable to judge who should or shouldn't be saying what here.

[David Sedgwick]

I say this as someone who has never heard of this dispute before

In that case, I think you should consider yourself extremely fortunate.

Does an account exist anywhere that gives both sides of what happened here? Or even a summary of what happened?

If you really want to pursue the matter, you could start at http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/9900/sccu.htm. (Item 10 of the Report of the SCCU Executive Committee Meeting held on 13th May 2000.)

That's only the beginning. There have been numerous ramifications since.