Archive: Minutes of 2001/2 AGM

Minutes of the AGM of the Mid-Sussex Chess League held in the Function Room of the Royal Oak Hotel, Lewes on Tuesday 21st May 2002


Those present were:

O Andrew (Chairman and Woodpushers)
RJ Johnson (Secretary and Hassocks)
A Beston (Match Recorder and Brighton and Hove)
DW Bennett (Brighton and Hove)
DS Blott (Haywards Heath)
M Broom (Lewes)
B Cafferty (Hastings)
LJ Cannon (Horsham)
M Card (Args)
D Collard (Args)
I Comley (Horsham)
M Costley (Lewes)
SP Deere (Crowborough)
S Fraser (East Grinstead)
D Fryer (East Grinstead)
M Garson (Args)
DP Grant (Crowborough)
D Hall (Lewes)
JW Hall (East Grinstead)
S Hayden (Crowborough)
P Helliwell (Horsham)
JG Herbert (Eastbourne)
P Kington (Args)
FJ Kwiatkowski (Haywards Heath)
DJ Langridge (St Francis Hospital)
B Maufe (Lewes)
RA Mercer (Haywards Heath)
RW Nicholas (Knoll Knights)
I Philipson (Legal and General)
MJ Reddie (Eastbourne)
DL Roberts (Lewes)
PR Selby (The Holt)
R Waddingham (Horsham)
P Watson (The Holt)
T Woods (Hassocks)

1. Chairman's Opening Remarks and Apologies for Absence

Oliver Andrew welcomed everyone to meeting. Apologies for absence had been received from Mick Plumb (Bognor and Arun) and Doug Stevenson (Treasurer).

2. Minutes of 2001 AGM

The minutes of the 2001 AGM were signed by Oliver Andrew as being a true record of that Meeting.

3. Secretary's Report and Matters Arising

Report attached.
No matters arising
Oliver Andrew then asked that the secretary's report be adopted.

4. Treasurer's Report and Matters Arising

Oliver Andrew presented the meeting with a set of accounts.

In his statement, Doug Stevenson proposed that the fees could be set at either:

20 for the first division; 15 for the second and third divisions; 13 for division 4, providing that teams paid for their own trophy engravings, or,

21 for the first division; 16 for the second and third divisions; 14 for division 4, and the league would reimburse teams for any engraving that they had undertaken.

Although Crowborough stated that they wouldn't be claiming reimbursement for engraving, given that it was felt that it was wrong in principle to expect teams to pay for their own trophies (Dave Roberts), and that the BCF were likely to charge a higher game fee next year, the higher fees were recommended.

Oliver Andrew then proposed that the treasurers report be adopted.

5. Results and Tables

Richard Johnson presented the League Tables, announcing the winners, teams relegated and promoted.

Given that Adam Prescott of Crowborough scored 8/9 when his one game for the second team was included the overall best player tankard was awarded to him.

6. Presentation of Trophies

Best Match Average Tankards were presented to the overall league winner and the winners of the individual leagues.

7. Election of Officers

All the current officers were re-elected unanimously en bloc:
Chairman: Oliver Andrew
Secretary: Richard Johnson
Treasurer: Doug Stevenson
Auditor: Paul Selby
KO Cup organiser: Don Grant
Match Recorder: Alex Beston
Grader: Alex Beston

8. Adjudication Secretary's report

In the last season 26 positions were submitted for adjudication.

This volume of submissions represents a substantial and unwelcome increase on the previous season, which saw a record low level of claims.

Of the 26 claims last season, three were appeals, and several were frivolous and simply wasted the time of the adjudicators. It is worth remarking that the analysis submitted in two of the three appeal positions was poor or inadequate. It is important that everyone should be aware that the onus is placed firmly on the appellant to provide detailed and exhaustive analysis to support the appeal. It really is not sufficient to provide a few lines of analysis and wish for the adjudicators to "think again" and come up with a different view.

There were, of course, as ever, instances of late and incorrect submissions of positions. All the usual stuff, but there were two unusual but noteworthy situations. The first of these occurred where neither player sent in a claim to an unfinished game. This one was firmly placed with the players and team captains to resolve.

The second situation arose after one player had failed to send in a claim. Accordingly, the opposing player's claim was upheld. However, an appeal by the erring player was then accepted and upheld.

My final comment is that it is disappointing to see the level of submissions return to the level of two years ago.

Mike Nicholas, Adjudications Secretary to the Sussex Chess Association.

The Secretary urged people to think why are they sending positions in for adjudication when they should be able to agree the result, especially if they are strong players.

One issue that had arisen this season, partly as a result of games going to adjudication, is that missing match results weren't being chased up. It was suggested that the Mid Sussex website should be updated to include a cross table of which have played which will make it clear to team captains when their scores are late appearing. The onus will therefore be on match captains to inform the League Secretary of any missing scores. This will be referred to in the usual stuff that is sent out to Club Secretaries in August.

9. County Secretary's report

Paul Watson stated that it was likely that the game fee would rise from 30p to 32p next season.

The county teams had enjoyed a successful year, with 3 teams reaching the last 8 and 2, the 1st team and the U175 team, reaching the semi-finals. There was disgruntlement expressed at the fact that all the teams play the BCF stage at the same time which deprives some teams of players as they often play for two of the county sides. But, that is the way the fixtures are arranged and so be it.

Chris Ravilious has now taken over the role of Jim Graham in producing Sussex Chess News.

A lengthy discussion took place about how we can get reimbursed for game fees paid when the players are direct members of the BCF. This is one for a Sussex County meeting.

10. Champions versus The Rest

It was agreed with the Holt club that this match would be arranged for the 16th September.

11. Any Other Business

11.1 Addition to Rule 13 relating to team order / game defaults | Proposed by Eastbourne

The following sentence to be added:

In view of the system of default points set out in rule 14 it is permissible for a captain, if unable to raise a complete team, to default on any board; but in the case of boards 1, 2 and 3 he or she can only default if the player who usually, or most often, plays on that board is unavailable.

The general view of the meeting was that this proposal would be very confusing as is it always clear as to whom is the regular board 1? Would it not encourage the opposing team to meddle with their board order if they knew that there was no opponent on a particular board? The motion was rejected overwhelmingly nem com.

11.2 Alterations to Knock-out competition | Proposed by Lewes

Restructure tournament so that the schedule of matches is drawn up at the start of the season in a Wimbledon tennis style. All teams must submit their entry at the same time that they submit the entries into the league.

This motion was accepted overwhelmingly nem com and it was agreed that:

The results should be published on the website (now possible as all the results can go to the match recorder as the Cup organiser only has to draw the teams out at the very beginning of the competition).

The League secretary will redraw the rules according to the requirements of the new format.

11.3 Alteration to Rule 3 relating to promotions | Proposed by Crowborough

Each team that wins promotion must take their place in the higher division next season.

Arguments for the motion:

Teams staying where they are by refusing promotion make it harder for competing teams to get out of that same division.

What other sport allows teams to choose if they get promoted or not?

What happens if a team from a higher division wants to take up their relegation? Does this force the promoted team from the lower division to accept promotion?

Arguments against the motion:

2nd teams playing in division 1 have a shocking record (1 match win in 30!) as they are usually very heavily outgraded particularly on the top boards.

Chess shouldn't be a misery so why force people to play in divisions where they are not going to be able to compete?

Dave Hall of Lewes proposed that the motion be modified to exclude division 12 exchange.

Amendment carried 137

Amended motion carried 176

11.4 Alterations to number of players in division 1 for 2002/03 | Proposed by Hayward's Heath

Rule 2 changed so that all divisions have five board matches

Arguments for the motion:

5 people can get in a car, 6 can't

Stops a club whose 1st team gets promoted into division 1 of depriving its 2nd team of a player.

Arguments against the motion:

This helps teams with very strong top board players

The Championship shouldn't be influenced by how many games you get to play with the black pieces.

The motion was defeated 223

11.5 The mandating of league payments by 31/10 | Proposed by Treasurer

Addition to rule 6.Insert after 'paid by this date': If a subscription is unpaid by 31 October the Secretary may scratch all matches involving the offending team(s) until such time the subscription is paid. After the payment, the team's matches will be reinstated with new dates where necessary.

The meeting felt that this was not in the spirit of being a friendly league and was rejected 128

11.6 Alteration to Rules 9 & 11 to be introduced for 200304 season | Proposed by Hassocks

Reduce number of games a player can play up before losing lower team status from 5 to 3.

Arguments for the motion:

Within a division (usually the second) it stops 2nd teams unfairly competing with other clubs 1st teams by having what should be first team players playing in the 2nd team.

Teams who abuse the current rule are often stronger in the first half of the season as by the second half the strongest player in the 2nd team has now played himself up into the first team. This gives an advantage to other teams who play them towards the end of the season.

Encourages a greater number of players to experience life in a higher division.

Arguments against the motion:

Makes it harder for clubs to avoid defaults

Maximises opportunity for those who want to play up to do so.

Motion overwhelmingly defeated

Increase the number of nominations by 1 e.g.

Each club to nominate its 6 strongest players for the 1st team if in division 1, or its 5 strongest players if in divisions 24.

Each club entering 3 or more teams must nominate its next 4 strongest players ...:

Arguments for the motion:

Should stabilise the teams of clubs with 2 or more teams, as each team becomes more autonomous.

Arguments against are as above.

Motion overwhelmingly defeated

Oliver Andrew duly declared the meeting over at 9.50 p.m.