Player of the Year

[Leonard Barden]

Thanks for that list. My first impression is that it's a little bit boring and predictable, especially with the long runs of Adams (1998-2002) and Howell (2007-2010).

The Scots have what seems an excellent rule that barring exceptional circumstances a player cannot win the award more than once in three years.

[David Sedgwick]

It is a depressing list, which gives the impression that instead of asking around the chess community for outstanding performances, "the voters" have just run through the top five players in their mind and given the award to the one whom they remember the most - McShane back in 1997 as the honourable exception. If our top players had excelled themselves as frequently as this list would suggest, wouldn't we have had a world champion or a top five finish in an Olympiad in recent times?

When I say "the voters" I don't actually know who I mean - perhaps it was just a select committee somewhere? If so, then their uninspired selections make a strong case for taking the decisions away from them. One senses politics too, in not giving Short the award in 1993. (Perhaps Short would have lost a poll vote among a wide cross-section of the chess community too, in 1993, but then his defeat would have that extra element of legitimacy).

The electorate used to be the Direct Members of the BCF/ECF and presumably anyone else (journalists?) that the BCF or ECF sent a voting form to. I think there was usually a list of candidates, whether there was in addition a write-in , I don't recall.

Voting figures don't usually seem to have been published.

I don't think that Nigel was greatly impressed by the 1993 outcome.

ah yes, well that confirms what I suspected - the electorate used to be rather small. Direct membership of the ECF only boomed when the ECF recently blackmailed all English players who want to play events in England which count towards a FIDE rating into joining it.

When I voted in the mid-1990s the electorate consisted of chess journalists, board members and maybe direct members. However the format was different to now and in my opinion far superior.

You were sent a voting form allowing up to 10 names with the top name getting 10 votes and the last one. There was no officially prescribed short list. The results were published in full listing the number of votes for every candidate including the offbeat selections like Ilyumzhinov, Stewart Reuben and Richard O'Brien. This made the results amusing as well as very informative. You could see who among rising talents and lesser lights had made a strong impression. I recall that Luke finished quite high up the year he won the world U10 championship, and he and his family found that encouraging.

When the Direct Membership Scheme was introduced in 1990, the entitlement to vote for the (then BCF) Player of the Year was marketed as one of the benefits.

As Leonard says, you listed several people on the voting form as he describes. However, I’ve done a little research which suggests that, by the mid-1990s at any rate, the maximum number of choices was five rather than ten.

This of course allowed a voter to recognise the achievements of more than one person and to give the degree of weight he or she saw fit to consistent performance during the year as opposed to one or two exceptional performances.

There is a tale about the controversial 1993 outcome. During the course of the vote a BCF Director saw the already submitted voting forms lying around at the BCF Office and subsequently blurted out at a Management Board meeting that Short was clearly winning the vote. There were observers present and the information leaked out. In the end Adams won and there were suggestions that there had been an orchestrated campaign to overturn Short’s apparent previous lead.

It has to be recognised that the voting system favoured Adams in the special circumstances of that year. Most of those who put Short first would have included Adams in their lower choices, whereas those who put Adams or a third candidate first might well not have included Short at all.

After this episode the office staff were given very clear instructions that in future years the completed ballot papers were to be kept secure and secret, even from BCF Directors.

At that time it was the practice to circulate with the ballot paper brief information about ten possible choices. These were not exclusive – the wording was something like “Amongst those who may be considered are:” – but the voter was of course given a considerable steer. When I became BCF International Director at the end of 1995, the selection of the ten names and the preparation of the notes formed part of my responsibilities. Then someone complained that he had been unfairly left out. ( I forget exactly when this was, but I think it would have been 1996 or 1997.) The complainant had a point; he was actually my eleventh choice, in the sense that he was the last person I omitted when compiling the list. The Management Board decided to drop the practice of providing the ten names and in future simply to circulate the ballot paper without any prompts.

The list of winners may not be greatly inspiring, but the award is a prestigious and respected one and it’s always been accepted that it needs to be decided by a properly conducted ballot. I hope that my account above demonstrates that in the 1990s lessons were learned when they needed to be learned. Now, in 2011, it seems that some of those lessons need to be learned again.

[David Sedgwick]

I'm very pleased that a new poll, on traditional lines and with appropriate safeguards, has now been announced.

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/

[David Haydon]

I just gave myself 5 points, does that mean im winning?

[William Metcalfe]

Richard hall should get a mention for player of the year he finished runner up in the strongest correspondance tournament ever played