Regarding the rule that a match must be re-played if one team only turns up with one or two players: it does seem contradictory that 1 
default = a win for the defaulted player but 3 or more defaults = a wasted journey and a thumb-twiddling three hours plus another go for 
the defaulters. Perhaps exceptional circumstances might make some sense of this rule - team abducted by aliens on way to match - but otherwise I'm not sure I see the point. 

And why aren't we, as a league, pleased and chuffed that grandmasters see fit to join? Looking at division 1 it seems all the results haven't been entirely predictable. Shouldn't we be pleased stronger players are prepared to take the risk against much weaker ones?

There seems to be a danger of over-reaction with the Haywards Heath grandmaster issue. We are an amateur league with no prize money involved, and if very strong players want some gentle practice, perhaps in a less challenging / more congenial atmosphere than their normal competitive circuit, I can’t really see that we either can or should seek to stop this. If they get bored quickly and leave then the problem, if real, disappears, and if they stay for a length of time then they are proving that they are genuine club members. I do have some instinctive sympathy with Brian Denman’s comments, particularly about balance, but on the other hand league division 1 has been won by 6 different teams in the past 7 years – compared to some times in the past when a single club has dominated.

I also suggest that any possible rule changes would run a risk of unintended consequences; grading limits unfairly penalise genuinely local but strong players, residency rules risk limiting players close to the county borders for no good reason, and other club membership-related rules would be difficult to police; my own club the Args for example draws players from disparate towns in West Sussex and only exists to play matches.  If we weren’t so bad at playing chess we could easily look like a bunch of ‘mercenaries’.  This perhaps underlines the question of whether it is really anyone’s business other than the players involved whether they want to play in the league or not, as long as a club is happy to have them.

I play for Crawley in the league and having followed the discussion on the forums,  here are my proposals:
Option 1:
Allow team captains to nominate any player on any board. This would make for some good tactical moves from team captains! It would be like the Ryder Cup in golf, where a team captain can try  to outsmart the other team with clever nominations and win the match! In which case, if a team has very high rated players, the rivals may play their lowest rated player on that board and try to win the match by winning the other boards!
Option 2:
New players should be required to play the bottom boards for a team, irrespective of their ECF grade. This will eliminate the risk of importing highly rated players for a season. I am assuming not many highly rated players would like to play on Board 4 or 5.
This may lead to unbalanced pairings. But, I am assuming it would also take away the advantage of playing strong players on all 5 boards.

For example
In this year's match East Grinstead 1 Vs. Haywards Heath 1 the pairings are:
167 Fraser, Joe Vs. Williams, Simon K 227
176 Fryer, David W Vs. Baker, Chris W 207
167 Norton, Trevor Vs. Kwiatkowski, Feliks J 188
121 Fisher, Robert Vs. Noyce, Robert C 188
128 Galliano, Alexander Vs. Curtis, David C 126

As per my proposal, the pairings would have been:
167 Fraser, Joe Vs. Kwiatkowski, Feliks J 188
176 Fryer, David W Vs. Noyce, Robert C 188
167 Norton, Trevor Vs. Curtis, David C 126
121 Fisher, Robert Vs. Williams, Simon K 227
128 Galliano, Alexander Vs. Baker, Chris W 207

and for Horsham 1 Vs. Haywards Heath 1, it would have been:
194 Lock, Gavin R Vs. Kwiatkowski, Feliks J 188
171 Mansson, James C Vs. Noyce, Robert C 188
161 Stimpson, Philip M Vs. Hawkins, Norman 91
147 Harbott, Peter Vs. Williams, Simon K 227
146 Higgs, Anthony RJ Vs. Baker, Chris W 207

The bottom boards are grossly mismatched but the top 3 boards are a better playing field.
Applying the same rule to other matches, i think brings about a better pairings.
If a higher rated player wants to play for one of our clubs regularly (two seasons or more) then I don't see any problem with that.

I had expected the forum to discuss possible rule changes for voting upon at the AGM and thereby discovering the majority view whether that be for or against. My own personal view is mixed and I was looking forward to the expression of views from both sides before deciding. 

When I received Brian's submission I did consider asking him to reconsider the sentence "I would go so far as to say that I find their actions in bringing into their team grandmasters from outside the county and perhaps offering those players financial rewards to be disgraceful." as this might be considered controversial.

However I did not do so as I did not want to act as a censor on anyone's comments without very good reason. Also the claim that perhaps those players have been offered financial rewards is a conjecture and paying players to play is in fact not against the rules. The claim that Brian finds this action as disgraceful (I take this to mean a loss of respect) cannot be disputed as he clearly uses the phrase 'I find their actions ..... disgraceful.'

Similarly Norman's use of disgraceful as an opinion is also correct and he clearly states that Haywards Heath Chess Club has not paid the players to play and there cannot be anyone who will dispute this clear statement of fact.

I hope that these initial strong feelings are a prelude to some constructive suggestions to resolve this difference of opinion between players within the league.

I will be keeping this forum open as surely its better to discuss some of the issues now and not to leave all discussion until the AGM when time will not allow for a full discussion or preparation of a reasonable motion or rule change.

Re Brian Denman's comments on Haywards Heath Players, dated 3rd January :-

I find Brian Denman's statement  ''.............and perhaps offering those players financial rewards to be disgraceful '' -  to be astounding ! He is the disgraceful one and I can categorically state that our Club has not and has no intention of making payments to any players. I expect an immediate and public apology, otherwise we will take legal advice.

 

Mark Attree suggests that top board Sussex players would be very keen to take on grandmasters in the Mid-Sussex League, wherever they come from. I myself may not be a top board player, but I am not looking forward to playing against the Haywards Heath team this season. I would go so far as to say that I find their actions in bringing into their team grandmasters from outside the county and perhaps offering those players financial rewards to be disgraceful. Haywards Heath claim that these players are bona fide members, but what exactly does this mean? The paying of a subscription should not in itself be enough, as some benefactors would probably consider it a worthwhile investment to pay someone else’s subscription if it furthered that club’s chances of winning the league. The words ‘bona fide’ used to mean ‘in good faith’, but I am sure that there are many people who do not consider that Haywards Heath are acting in good faith in recruiting outside professionals into the Mid-Sussex League.

A comparison has been made with the 4NCL competition, but local clubs should be at the heart of chess in this country. Although some of the 4NCL teams are regionally based, many have strange names and have no relevance to any local community. Players come and go for these teams and in some cases the players are probably playing for themselves and financial rewards rather than for their team. On the other hand, the Mid-Sussex League has a whole collection of real clubs with proud traditions and a long historical record. The league itself was formed in the 1967-68 season and has therefore been in existence for nearly 40 years. Mark Attree might not realise that the actions of the Haywards Heath CC threaten the stability of this league and the clubs within it. Although the league has been strong at times in the past, it is going through a difficult period. The lack of a regular secretary meant that this season the league nearly did not start and this sort of crisis could ruin it. In 1984 when a similar problem occurred with Julian Hodgson representing Seaford , the league nearly split apart when a group of clubs considered forming their own league. The same situation could occur in 2007.

Let’s make a comparison with the Premier League in football. Clubs in this league regularly field overseas players in their teams, but the situation is regulated. Clubs still play in local stadia and are watched by local fans. There is still pride in the neighbourhood – all matches are not played in a central venue like Birmingham . Let’s consider the possibility that Wayne Rooney wanted to play for a team in the Sussex County League as well as for Manchester United. Would it be right that a local club with a wealthy benefactor could win promotion by using his services? Would this not undermine the league, particularly if another club responded by offering a similar fee to Frank Lampard?  Fortunately in football this cannot happen as the structure of the leagues is regulated. Should we not regulate the Mid-Sussex League accordingly?

John Herbert suggests setting a grading limit to solving this problem. Well-intentioned as this idea is, we must make sure that a local player is not penalised. Thomas Rendle has served a long apprenticeship with the Hastings CC and he should be entitled to play for that club in the league. I believe that the regulations for the league should be based on regional qualifications. The fine detail of this might not have been worked out at the moment, but flexibility should be given to clubs on the border of the county. Generally, however, Sussex chess will only benefit if strong players are willing to give back to the county what they are willing to take out of it.

 

Mark Attree raises interesting points on membership categories, and dangles before our eyes the entrancing prospect of Michael Adams appearing for East Grinstead CC in the MSL ....

The alternative Full/Country/Affiliate membership classes date from the 19th century, I believe. The system still has a point in helping Sussex chess. The three individual SCA competitions, County Championship, Sussex Queen and Sussex Veterans, require 4-hour sessions to be played. Such a long session cannot be fitted into most club nights, so, if an entrant cannot provide the playing facility at home, as sometimes happens, then the Hastings CC, which is open at weekends 13.00-22.00 hours for members, is a plausible venue.

In discussing the current eligibility question with others, the comment was made: "The Mid-Sussex League is a regional League, it is not the 4NCL". In the 4NCL greater licence/freedom of choice applies, and appearance fees are paid to stars. We all know that MSL Div One sides have a stable, recognisable identity, which changes only gradually over the years as a strong player moves into the locality, or a strong player moves away.

Mark asks for input from Div One top boards. As someone with such experience, and who has played Michael Adams, my reaction to his appearance in the MSL for East Grinstead, or any other side, would be to wonder what has induced a Somerset resident, with no known connection to Sussex, to come all this way. Maybe I would envy East Grinstead CC, or any other side, for being in a financial position to ensure fielding such a star.

A more considered contribution this time.

Firstly, surely we should not be trying to limit the strength of the league? 

Occasionally a team or player seems too strong for the opposition, we had this 2 years ago with Hastings 2nd team...and no rules were being broken. Again, last season we did wonder what HH's (weaker than this year) team got out of slaughtering EG2, but I don't get to play many strong players, so I enjoyed it enormously. 

Secondly, there has to be an element of trust here, there are no prizes, it's supposed to be only for pleasure

Third, in light of Bernard Cafferty's note, Hastings advertises at least two classes of membership, at reduced fees; Country ie not living in the area and Affiliated, a member of another club as well, where it is ok to play for the club teams but entry to the internal competitions is not allowed.  As Hastings clearly considers these classes of membership to be 'bona fide' for league purposes I can see that if the league changed its rule to reflect Bernard's personal preference, then Hastings might have to also...and all Hastings are trying to do is make chess and the club more interesting. 

OK then, if only I could get Michael Adams to play for EG, we might have a chance...now.... I do know someone who was at school with him......Seriously, are there any top board players in Division 1 who would not love the opportunity? 

 

I think that if the majority of Clubs/Teams wish to prevent strong players from being brought in from outside the usual catchment area to help win matches they should vote for an upper ECF Grade limit. This could be reviewed annually and be set no higher than the highest grade of a player who has played for Sussex during the past year. Currently then, one could expect a grading limit next season of, say, 210.

A grading restriction has the virtue of simplicity. It seems to me that other types of restriction will involve the Match Recorder in a lot of private detective work!