ECA : Forum

Thanks for your reply. It has cleared up a few questions for me because I didn't know that the teams don't come from a specific area.

Looking at the 4ncl website I notice there are a massive number of teams in division 4; I didn't count them all but I can't see how they all get time to play each other! That's probably because the teams are made up from players graded between 140-160.

I think many of the strongest players who originate from the from Essex and who want to play in the 4NCL play in existing teams such as the Barbican team for instance. SCS1 and 2 are run by Arnold Lutton of Basildon Chess Club and I think is perhaps the only Essex "based" club. In reality, as the 4NCL games are all played in a central location, teams don't necessarily have to be from a specific area. For instance, Wood Green's 1st team in several matches last year included top Grandmasters from all over the world, some of whom probably have never set foot in that area. It is arguable that the 4NCL is taking over from the counties as the main arena, as it runs over only 5 weekends a year and I think before the competition was around, many of the top British GM's and IM's rarely played in county leagues before it was around. Hope that puts a little light on the situation.

Post 8.0 was three years ago, Frank Sealey (Maldon) wants to know if attitudes have changed.

Although I'm only a weak player myself, I find it disappointing that we still don't have an Essex based team represented in the 4ncl. Or am I wrong? I see the last mention of this subject was 3 years ago and I was wondering if there has been any progress since. I know Essex has a lot of strong players and the county league isn't as big as it was 20 years ago and I've heard it said that the 4ncl is taking over from the counties league as the main arena for weekend high standard chess. Any opinions any one? Or do I have my facts wrong?

Webmaster's intro: This was the final para in an email Peter sent starting with comments on topic 7. You might like to read 7.6 first

An Essex based 4NCL team. The 4NCL is a tremendous experience as it gives us lesser mortals the opportunity to play in the same room as some of the World Greats and rub shoulders with them in the curry house afterwards. Again, I'm in favour in principle to setting something up, but surely we should weigh the costs of hiring a venue for 5 Saturdays a year, thereby providing the opportunity of regular weekend chess for the entire Essex chessplaying fraternity, and compare them to the travel and accommodation costs involved in an Essex 4NCL team. Those Essex players who represent other teams in the 4NCL have already made their commitment. Would the opportunity to play in a team with the Essex label persuade them to change? And how would the County benefit if they did?

The 4NCL, which has to be seen as one of the success stories of British Chess in the last decade, begins its new season on the weekend of 18/19 October. A perusal of the registration lists on the 4NCL website shows players with Essex connections associated with a whole variety of teams including Athenaum (Mark Weighell), Barbican 4NCL (Jonathan Rogers, Lawrence Trent, David Sands, David Coleman, John Hodgson, Jon Manley. Paul WIlliamson, John Moore and Ellen Walker), Cambridge University (Karl Mah), Metropolitan (Peter Doye), Mindsportsltd.com (Gary Kenworthy, Robert Parker, Neville Twitchell and Ivor Smith), SCS (Josiah and Arnold Lutton, Dana and Khidir Hawrami), Slough (Ezra Lutton) and Warwickshire Select (Li Wu). However, none of these teams has a specific Essex focus (the Barbican 4NCL names are part of a registration list of 47), and in the light of Nottinghamshire having entered a team for 2003/4 I wondered whether there was any enthusiasm within the County in seeking to create an Essex-based team for the 2004/5 season.

I didn't think anyone was suggesting the winding down of the Essex League as Steve Gilmour implies - rather that the ECA ought to be prepared to offer an alternative to an Evening League which has been in serious decline and, so I understand, has reached its lowest point so far (8 teams in Div 1) in the current season.

Rather than organise a questionnaire and a lot of admin for someone, I would prefer to offer more chess and we will see if people vote with their feet.

I can normally get a venue Saturday afternoon just for the asking. It has enough space for 200 players and parking for about 40 cars. The one drawback from many Essex League and North Essex League players' points of view is that it is in Southend.

I propose that the ECA set up an experimental Saturday League for the 2004-2005 season for teams of 6 players. In order to run this I am prepared to open Temple Sutton School on 5 Saturdays (assuming the Head Teacher gives permission, of course - he normally does!) and have copied this email to David Smith to see if it is possible to keep 5 Saturdays (one in each of October, November, January, February & March) free of County chess for Essex teams.

I envisage divisions of 6 teams and a time control involving a rapidplay finish but not so rapid that endgames are, of necessity, a scramble. If enough Captains are interested, they will be able to persuade their players and the details of time control, player registration, rule book etc. can be worked out once we know we have enough committed people. If it is a success then it would probably be a good idea to move it to a more central venue for the following season and make it an official ECA Saturday League. If it isn't then at least we would have tried something rather than just filled the forum with words!

Webmaster comments: Personally, I don't see anything that Steve said that suggests "...the winding down of the Essex League", rather that it is winding down ("declining"). That's fact. Earlier comments have suggested reducing the number of boards, eg 7.2, so that aspect is already a part of this discussion.

I have only today read this discussion. The problem with discussions like this and the proposals that stem from them is that everybody knows the answer to the problem, but no two people agree on what that answer is. The danger is that the views of whoever shouts the loudest become accepted as the truth. It seems to me that what is missing is evidence. We need to know:

1) How does the decline in the amount of league chess played in Essex compare with other leagues? Perhaps we are actually declining more slowly than others, in which case any radical changes are quite likely to make matters worse.

2) Are there any particular features that distinguish successful leagues from unsuccessful ones, e.g. have leagues with bigger teams declined more quickly or more slowly than leagues with smaller teams?

3) What impact have major changes had on leagues that have tried them? Have they halted the decline in the amount of league chess played, or accellerated it?

Is it likely that the BCF could provide some data, as opposed to hearsay, to answer any of these questions?

My only other comment is that we cannot expect one size to fit all. Some people will play as much chess as possible, some will ration the amount they play, others will play only occasionally; some will play only at weekends, others only during the week; some prefer slow time controls with adjournments, others prefer to finish the game within a three-hour session. As far as possible, we should try to cater for all of these people. So, while there might be a case for a Saturday League, there is surely no case for it to replace the midweek league. If the league declines, while they overall level of chess activity remains constant or increases, we should not worry about what is just a changing pattern.

Again, some evidence would be useful. What do the ECA members think (all of them, not just the enthusiasts)? What would encourage them to play more chess (or in more ECA events), or at least encourage them to continue their current level of activity? I would suggest that, rather than a few enthusiasts putting forward their favourite proposal, we carry out a survey (a one-page questionnaire) of all members of clubs affiliated to the ECA. The main point would be to try to find out what would make them play more chess and what would make them play less.

I read with interest item 7 on the Forum and the developments from Jeff Goldberg's original point about the Essex League seem to have led directly back to item 3: what about Saturday chess?

I am in favour of the Saturday League option, involving 5 Saturdays between October & March. Although I support County Chess and am very pleased that Essex has a team in each of the 5 competitions, a look at our fixture list shows that on the vast majority of Saturdays only one Essex team is playing. That suggests to me that the County Calendar sprawls over virtually every Saturday afternoon between 1st October and 31st March only because it can. On February 28th, for example, 3 Essex teams are playing. We have 5 teams - there is no reason at all why the Open, u150 and Minor teams shouldn't always play on the same afternoons, and the u175s and u125s also play at the same time. The SCCU County Calendar occupies 19 Saturdays and it could be condensed into 12 or 13. That gives us the time we need for the Saturday League and gives current County players the opportunity for more chess with less travelling and have a day off for Christmas shopping!

I also favour a leisurely time control, certainly no less than the County matches and possibly even stretching to the 4NCL's 40 in 2, 20 in 1, remainder 30 min. (7 hour games starting at noon). We have plenty of chess players in Essex and it seems to me that some at least are put off by the excessive travelling that inter-County chess involves. A good central venue in (say) Chelmsford is within relatively easy access of the entire County and ought to be able to attract players from all three leagues (N. Essex, S & DCL and Essex Leagues).

Robin Slade mentioned that 22/24 Chelmsford members have email. Customs Club has 24 members, all of whom have email addresses. Is there any appetite for organising an internet chess championship amongst Essex players / clubs? It isn't hard to do and of course involves absolutely no travelling! The only problem is when the phone rings in the middle of your game...

I have been very interested in the discussion which is developing. This is highly relevant to the "amount of Chess in Essex " sub-committee chaired by Colin Ramage, and I will be printing off the topic and sending a copy to Colin (who unfortunately does not have Internet access) before the Committee next meets. If anybody feels strongly enough about any of the suggestions to wish to make a formal proposal to change the Essex League Rules for next season, please write to David Millward, but do bear in mind the 1 March deadline if these are to be considered by the 2004 GPC meeting.

Going back to the start of the thread, I agree with Jeff Goldberg that the time has come to give serious consideration to a double round Essex League Division 1. The theroretical composition of the Division is 13 teams which would give first team players 12 matches. Losing 1 or 2 of these in the interets of a balance between the Divisions is fair enough, but the present 7 fixtures on offer is simply insufficient. I feel this very acutely myself as a modest improvement in my grading means that I am now on the first team barred list, whereas last season I was on the second team barred list and with the then-composition of the League was invited to play in no fewer 18 matches (all 9 for the first team and all 9 for the second team). The relaxation of the barring rule has, in my view, been a success, but it does nothing to help the strongest players in each club play enough chess.

Later discussion has turned to the concept of a weekend competition. I do not see such a competition as a "breakaway" league as such, but as something that would complement the existing leagues. The benefit of creating a competition from scratch is that there is no constraint in terms of historical tradition, and the event can be therefore organised on whatever basis would give it the greatest appeal. Please keep the contributions coming in so that we can better gauge the trend of opinion. My own immediate thoughts are.

(1) I echo the Webmaster's concern about other Saturday commitments, but we could think in terms of a Sunday League.

(2) I would personally find the concept much more attractive if what was on offer was one game with a County-length playing session rather than two games.

(3) Do we want to base the competition purely on the existing clubs or should we allow more broadly based teams effectively to form themselves for the purpose of playing in the competition in a similar way to the 4NCL?.

Obviously agree with Dave�s ideas, the Saturday problem could be annexed by playing the league format thorough the summer. I myself find the break from May to October every year very boring. It is hard to keep your game up to scratch, because of the British Champs there are not too many congress�s about. I have to almost sit on my hands and resort to internet play to keep my game active. I also feel a larger format with say 11 teams of 10/16 boards would do the job. 5 Saturdays or Sundays during the summer would keep us highly strung players with something to look forward to. The teams could call themselves what they like, as the players can come in from where ever to play. We can publish the games in a booklet of some description, I really like the Essex Super league idea. Will it ever get off the ground ??

With respect to the current debate about the Essex League:

The two main reasons that Maldon withdrew from the Essex League this year were, team size and long mid-week travelling to away matches.

I agree with the general consensus that the chess scene in Essex may be due for re-organisation.

It appears to me that regional chess is ideally suited to mid-week evening games. Successful competitions are run by the Southend League & particularly the N.E. League with QP finishes and an up to date web site. Teams and divisions are sized to meet the local needs and membership levels of the clubs, and travel is not to onerous. The only part that seems missing in this jigsaw is a regional league to represent metropolitan Essex (maybe the North Circular League partly fulfils this role for the teams nearer to London).

Barry's idea of a weekend competition open to teams on an Essex-wide basis, played at large central venues, if practicable, seems particularly attractive:

1. Travelling is reduced and should be less stressful during the weekend as opposed to late at night after a long day at work during the weekend.

2. Chess will be accessible for those that are unable to take part in the week due to work or other commitments.

3. It is an opportunity for players to meet and play against new players from other regions of Essex (one of the aspects of the Essex League that Maldon's members found most enjoyable)

Perhaps this is the future for the 'Essex' League.

With respect to the development of the idea I would offer the follow alternatives/thoughts for consideration:

1. As opposed to a super league keep team sizes to 6 or even 4 to allow smaller clubs to compete and retain their identities (larger clubs could enter more than one team)

2. With two games on a Saturday it would be possible to have a 10 round Swiss 'Olympiad style' spread over 5 Saturdays throughout the season.

3. To keep the teams at the lower end of the Swiss involved, run a handicap competition simultaneously with the main event (similar to the system used by the Southend League in the Perriman Cup). So the game points would count for the main event and the next round pairings (as in the Olympiad) but at the same time teams would score points based on the result of the match using the handicap system (Effectively two competitions for the price of one).

Regards

Dave

Comments from the Webmaster: the problem with a 'Saturday league' is that Saturdays are already well-committed with County matches and congresses, etc. When I started playing Essex League games in the early 60s, it was usual for Wanstead to play Southend on a Saturday. As an alternative, teams such as Old Parkonians or Ilford used to play Southend at a mid-point venue such as Upminster. Such arrangements could be revived for far-flung teams, without attempting to play all fixtures on Saturdays.

However, these are interesting ideas, Dave, as with the previous two contributors. - WM

I agree with Jeff�s and Robin�s comments, the clubs in Essex struggle to get 10 boards.

So there are now only 8 willing to play in Division 1. I think the size of the teams in Division 1 should be 8 or even 6. The whole league format is outdated with teams opting to go up or go down. Citing they can�t get 10 boards or 8 boards, I think we all should seriously look at divisions of 6 teams, 10 matches per season home and away and quick play finishes.

There are 26 teams out there at the moment, but if you had divisions of 6 you would probably have 36 teams. The 10 board and 8 board teams would most likely be able to make more teams down the line.

The Southend league plays this way and it works very well, teams always go up or down each year. You have one winner and one relegated, there is a sense of competition. At the moment apart from 5/6 teams all the rest struggle to put out a team of 10 worthy boards.

Another idea is to have a breakaway league inviting all teams from north essex and Southend to Perhaps play each other in a 12 board matches on Saturday. We could have our Essex Super league, The top players from the lesser teams could join the new Super league teams and we could have a right old chess fest. The matches could be organised at a central location in a sports hall, (like the 4NCL) one cost worked Out by the organisers covering all fees etc. Also like the 4NCL you could play one team in the morning and one in the afternoon. What do people think about that ??

Two things have changed in the North Essex league in the last few years which may have gone some way to reducing the sad general trend of shrinking divisions. Both have helped bolster more of a "team" emphasis.

The first is having compulsory quick play finishes. This has led to everyone knowing the result on the night and feeling part of the whole process (rather than losing track of things through convoluted adjudications and adjournments). Fears of multiple disputes over quick play rules or players unhappy with the change stopping playing proved groundless.

The second is having a website where results and league tables are updated almost daily through the season so everyone knows exactly how well the teams are doing and which are the crunch end of season fixtures. Any club can then arrange to have the details printed off and put up on club night for those without internet access10 players a team is also a little daunting for some I guess. Maybe 8 (two carloads for away trips) might be considered.

Chelmsford by the way have 24 members this season of whom only 2 do not have an email address. Not sure what that proves but is an interesting statistic.

Thanks also to the three clubs we played in the Summer KO - Ilford, Maldon and Wanstead - for making this such an enjoyable and social competition.

Robin Slade
Chelmsford Chess Club (and North Essex League Championship Secretary).

The site is superb and well maintained, the only slight reservation is the League Updates, they seem a little slow at times. The final League table took an age to get updated etc. This may not be your fault but needs addressing. A grading list of all registered Essex League members would be a nice feature to add. I used to remember a top 50 coming out every year, that seems to have vanished. Again well done, I have a website and comments are always welcome from The

Your other comments are right on the nail (and I don't mean the finger nail!). The League data I publish is just what Dave Millward sends me. I know that Dave had a lot of trouble finalising the last few results this year and that the final position was a long time coming. But Chessex published it before I had it! Coincidentally, Dave has acknowledged that he needs to update me more frequently [see below].

The grading list is a good idea - thanks. Now that the BCF has withdrawn the copyright charge it attempted to levy, there is no impediment to this - that is, so long as I can extract most of the names from the Master List under an "Essex" search key. Mind you, the Master List CD does not normally come out until mid-November, though this year they are making an effort to publish it in September.

I forgot, when sending you the Essex League results yesterday, to congratulate you on winning the first BCF Website of the Year Award. I will have to be on my toes in the future, and make sure that I keep you up-to-date; it would be a real honour to retain the title.

I am not sure the correct way to contribute to the forum but hope this is suitable. I quite late in the day found the debate about the strongest essex top ten and feel the need to take issue with Mike Twyble when he states Andrew Lewis and he were roughly equal at their best, Andrew is a Fide master and his best was British U-21 champion and coming 15th in the British championship. He also drew with an ex world chess champion (Smyslov). I have checked with Andrew and he reckons he was playing chess for the county in those days. I must have missed Mike's purple patch. Having said all that I am not sure who should drop out for Andrew but was slightly surprised by Jonathon Roger's high position and Mr Sherman I know had a good performance against Adorjan because I have heard him brag about it at least twice. Feel free to edit as appropriate.

I suppose I should join in although I've been resisting the temptation until now. Mike Twyble correctly reflects our reasoning (!) at the 4NCL weekend for not including Karl or Eddie.

Ian, you will know better than me, but I thought that Cenek Kottnauer played for Middlesex - when he played County Chess.

Other players who might have been considered are Dr K D Sales (peak rating, so far as I can see, was 214 in 1973) and Roland Payne (who was 2b under the old system in 1959). For those who don't know - 2b equates to 217-224 BCF.

I wonder if Ivor Smith (sorry, Ivor!) has any views.

Kind Regards
John Moore

[re: Kottnauer] It was a long time ago! We're talking late '60s and my detailed recollection of such times is sketchy at best. I think you must be right as evidence available now supports your statement, but I can find none to support mine! I withdraw.

Thanks for the reply Peter [5.4]. John and I considered Karl Mah but by the time he obtained the strength you refer to he was hardly playing county chess and if so it was for Cambridge. The same applies to 'Fast Eddie Dearing'.

[Re 5.4] Yeah Karl should definitely be included, but whatever you do don't drop Trent, he's Essex's hottest prospect at the moment. But maybe one more name, Edward Dearing? ok he is Scottish but he did use to live in Essex, plus he is now and IM elect (just needs the rating of 2400 to be confirmed as an IM) after some fine performances recently. Whatever you do though, don't boot out young Trent.

Another "oldie" who would certainly be on the reserve list would be Harry Wolverton, difficult to compare old with new in terms of pure grades but I believe he was still 170-180 when I knew him a little while before he died and he must have been in his seventies/eigthies then. On a slightly different note, just flicking through the July 1952 BCM and it has a report on the Ilford Congress. The premier was an invitation won by Yanofsky with Wade second (other players were Bowen, Phillips, Israel and Friedmann). It features a game between Jack Speigel and T.Farrand (unfortunately Jack lost) and a special junior prize went to a certain J.Rosenberg!

I cannot envisage an Essex top 10 without Karl CC Mah. European Champion, 1st= in a World Championship (albeit with 5 others, placed 4th on tie-break), IM, grade 227, Bd 1 for Cambridge Uni, Captain (& bd 1) of England Youth teams ... it's a pretty impressive CV.

Thanks for the comments, glad our ideas have created a bit of debate. Andrew Lewis would certainly be on our reserve list but I would suggest he is roughly my standard at our best [and I don't make the team]. Lawrence is already very, very good and has just made an I.M. norm. Download his games from the 4ncl site against Tan and Wall to see a bit of class. Ian your suggestion is a good one that we did not consider. How often did he represent Essex? If regular player I would suggest he would replace either Sherman or Trent.

This may or not provide you with some amusement but at a recent 4NCL weekend John Moore and myself tried to pick our all time Essex team based on strength at the peak of their playing ability. We avoided those who had only made very occasional appearances. Over ten boards we chose if I remember (it was after several pints):

(1) Penrose
(2) Klein
(3) Martin
(4) Clarke
(5) Bowden
(6) Fazekas
(7) Rogers
(8) Carr
(9) Sherman
(10) Trent

[4.0] Email From Jon Manley to Chris Panteli of the Ilford Recorder
Date: 01 April 2003

Your suspicions were correct. Ivor Somers has just told me about his meeting this afternoon with Councillor Joyce Ryan and librarian Peter Ledger at which he was told that he will no longer be able to run his weekly chess teaching sessions at the Central Library (he has six weeks' notice to leave). Apparently Joyce Ryan told him that chess is 'unimportant' and 'not educational' and that he should be grateful for having been allowed to run his club at the library for so many years. This view is incredibly short-sighted and, I gather, not shared by other councillors.

1. Ivor provides a valuable public service. His lessons are FREE and many of the kids he teaches on Saturdays receive no other chess tuition. They love playing chess. 2. The link between chess and academic achievement is well known - it develops self-discipline, concentration and the will to excel. 3. The Redbridge Chess Academy has produced WORLD CLASS chess players. Recent graduates include Dana Hawrami (reigning London U-14 Champion and one of the strongest 11-year-olds in the world), Bobby Payne (reigning British U-18 Champion), 9-year-old Subin Sen (former British U-8 Champion and current London U-11 Champion), not to mention child prodigy Katie Hale who recently won a chess scholarship to Millfield School. There are many others.

Some background: the Redbridge Chess Academy was established by Jack Handscomb who in 1988 began teaching chess in the children's section of the Central Library. His half-day sessions became so popular that they were extended to run from 10 to 3.30 every Saturday. Since Jack's death last year the sessions have been run by Ivor Somers and Eddie Barnes, and they continue to be extremely popular. Coincidentally they will feature in Thursday's Recorder chess news column, and your paper gave Jack's pioneering work great coverage.

Councillor Ryan's decision will provoke the anger of parents and the local chess community. It would be excellent if the Recorder could amplify their protest. Please call/email me if you need more information. You may also find it helpful to speak to Ivor Somers (8550 4214) and Olcay Lumley (8554 5439).

Chess playing opportunities for those disadvantaged by grading limits in the County teams

[3.1] From: John Philpott <john@johnphilpott.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Chess playing opportunities
Date: 02 August 2002 22:10

My initial reaction is positive - I have an inherent bias in favour of any idea that will result in more games of chess being played. I suspect that this would work best at the level that Peter envisages - while there are several keen players unable to get a game for the U175s, my perception is that the other Essex county teams do not have the same luxury and are more likely to have to dip into the next squad down to achieve a full complement.
The games can be submitted for grading via David Millward provided that we remember to pay the Game Fee.
There are a number of practical aspects that would need to be considered.
(a) Somebody needs to act as organiser of the event.
(b) A six player all play all needs 5 rounds, but the U175s only have 4 home matches at most.
(c) While reserves on hand are a boon to a County captain, if any are called upon on the day this will be disruptive to the tournament. Some of the 6 may get a call up as of right from time to time anyway as I do try to vary my team to some extent during the SCCU stages.
Perhaps we will have a clearer idea as to how feasible this is likely to be when the full grading list has been studied. I will shortly be buying my own copy in Torquay.

[3.0] From: Peter Walker <chesscoach@freeuk.com>
Subject: Chess playing opportunities
Date: 01 August 2002 21:43

I have just learned that my new grade is 152. This is a bit of a disappointment for the following reasons:-
1. I am now too highly graded for the under 150 team.
2. I am not strong enough to get into the under 175.
3. I do not have the time to devote to weekend congresses (my last congress was Southend 2001).
4. I do not particularly enjoy evening chess because on those evenings I can find the time to play, I usually have to dash home from some distant place, rush a meal, and then play 30 moves in 75 minutes (Southend League standard) which I also find too fast, and more often than not adjourn for a second session, therefore repeating the exercise and using a second evening for just one game.
I do, however, enjoy the format of a single game on a Saturday afternoon. I would therefore like to propose the following as a possible format for more chess for those who want it, particularly in the light of the decline in the amount of chess being played in the County.
All-play-all groups of 6 players to play their 5 rounds at the same time / venue as County home matches, and at the same time control. I think that an enthusiastic group of Essex players between (say) 150 and 160, playing at the same time as the u175 team, would be a most enjoyable tournament. It would ensure that there were always reserves on hand for the matches, it would cost nothing in venue hire and the 6 players could contribute board money which could go towards trophies / medals for the competitors.
Comments would be appreciated.
regards,
Peter

Webmaster's thoughts: sounds a brilliant idea for those in this predicament (a natural consequence of grading-limite events). However, "would cost nothing in venue hire" only holds good so long as there is space. Eg a 16 board match in Roding Room at Wanstead House leaves no room for extra games. But, where there's a will...

To answer John (Moore)'s question, yes, someone else did play in all four losing Essex Open final teams. Although it feels like more.

[2.0] From: John Moore <john@moore0162.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: County Chess Finals
Date: 03 July 2002 22:19

As I recall, Essex have lost 4 finals in (relatively) recent years - 1 to Middlesex, 2 to Kent and most recently to Yorkshire. I have played in all four has anyone else - not that I'm suggesting anything bad - but Roy has asked me to play!

[1.0] From: Arthur Dawkins <ArthurDaw@aol.com>
To: idh@essexchess.org.uk
Subject: Chess on the Net.
Date: 01 May 2002 10:19

I have just finished reading your message on the latest CHESSEX.
I don't suppose that you remember me from many years ago, I was a member of the East Ham Chess Club,in the days of Harry Woolverton, Sid Walker, Mike Wills, and many others. A minor strength player I might add as well as Upminster.
I recently discovered that it was possible to play chess on the net,accordingly I have viewed several sites,but I must say,that so far, my efforts have not been rewarded.
As I am now disabled, MS, it is no longer possible for me to play chess OTB I am sure that there must be other former Essex League players around who are either like myself, disabled, or just too old for travelling and would welcome the opportunity to meet up again with old chess friends and acquaintances.and use this method to play some games. Who knows, maybe a tournament or two could be arranged.
The is no doubt, that the advances in computer technology have caused the general interest in correspondence chess to wane. Over the board league chess,according to your article seems to be following the same course. One of the well known correspondence chess clubs ran an invitation to join them, saying "who wants to sit in a cold damp church hall, when it is possible to enjoy playing chess from the comfort of your own home." Now, of course, things have moved on, correspondence clubs are being hit by the increase in postal charges etc. No, chess by computer is dfinitely, in my opinion, the way of the future.
Do you think that it would be of interest in the County, if something could be organised?

Reply 5 May 2002:
Arthur - Of course I remember you - nice to hear from you!
Two Internet chess playing sites that come to mind are the Internet Chess Club - www.chessclub.com (if my information is up to date still) and the BCF Website which now has a chess playing facility www.bcf.ndirect.co.uk - were these among the ones you've tried?
....
Essex is a very successful postal chess county and we are currently fielding for the nth year in a row three teams in the counties competitions (as can be seen from the data now posted to the site in the new Correspondence Chess area). I should have thought there may be a number of players who may be interested in email chess.
I am copying this email to John Philpott (a former East Ham member and now Chairman of the County Association) as it is possibly something that he can carry forward. Perhaps the thing to do is to assemble an email directory of players in the County interested in playing postal chess. The other thing I can do is to publish your email on the Association's Website and invite anyone interested in email chess to contact you.