Hastings v Weald of Kent

Hastings v Weald of Kent Harvey cup average under 125 played 19th January

We had a good evening winning our first Harvey Cup game of the year, Marc won his game fairly quickly soon followed by Gary, James battled out a close game but had a good win on board 1 with the black pieces, as they were one player short I dropped out so that gave us 4. Anna battled on courageously although a piece down for a lot of the game and Umberto was unlucky to lose not noticeing that his opponants fist time control had past without reaching the required moves

Adrian

Result 4-2 to Hastings

1 James Wheeler  (B)143359D 151      1 v 0 James Hart Dyke 135

2 Marc Bryant             107571J 141       1 v 0 David Warrick 108

3 Gary Wilson             277244K 137      1 v 0 Alex Gafield 111

4 Adrian Cload            294401H 127      1 v 0 w/o

5 Anna Pontonutti      264185K 101       0 v 1 Mark Horner 107

6 Umberto Jozwiak    287680C 78         0 v 1 Ian Latuskie 65

 

crowborough Hastings

 

ECF voting reform

Dear All,
The ECF Board has issued a Consultation Paper on possible voting reform to replace, or significantly amend, the existing Council.  The paper is available here .  If you haven’t already done so, I request that you read the paper with a view to the SCCU making a consolidated response, possibly coordinated with the other Unions.
The objective is to put this Paper, possibly amended in response to the current consultation exercise, to the Finance Council in April.  If any of the proposals gains sufficient Council support, a fully detailed proposal would be developed to put to the AGM in October this year.  As amendments to the ECF’s Articles of Association would be required to implement any of the proposals, any vote at the AGM would need at least 75% in favour in order to be adopted.
Section 12 of the Paper refers to one member of the Board expressing a minority view over the desirability of such reforms.  I put my hand up to being that Board member.  In this email I shall attempt to set out reasonably briefly my concerns and seek your views on whether you think they have validity or are misplaced.
The background to this Paper can be traced back to a Council vote that led to the setting up of the Independent Constitutional and Governance Review, which reported its findings (the “Pearce Report”) ahead of the 2015 ECF AGM.  The Review considered the question of representation of Direct Members in the light of some suggestions that Council be replaced by a system of “one member, one vote” (OMOV), but came down against such a change.  In particular, I highlight the following paragraph from their Report:
“The current tiered structure enables would-be administrators to gain experience at local, county, congress and possibly Union level before taking national roles within the ECF, and we note that many current and past ECF Directors and Officers have done so.  We think that any change to OMOV would involve the ECF in considerable expense with little benefit and possibly considerable detriment, since it would break the linkage between the ECF and the local clubs, Chess Leagues and Chess Congresses which are the lifeblood of chess in this country.  Accordingly, we recommend that the ECF should not replace Council by OMOV in any form.”
Whilst I wouldn’t suggest the way Council operates is entirely above reproach, I find myself in a high degree of agreement with this finding of the Review.
Despite this pretty unequivocal finding of the Pearce Review, the question of possible reforms has continued to be raised in recent Council meetings.  The ECF Governance Committee has taken up the question and provided advice to the Board, with this Consultation Paper being the outcome.  It suggests a number of possible proposals that could be put to Council that go beyond just a simple full replacement of Council by OMOV.
The fundamental driver behind these proposals is summed up in the very first “Key Point” at the start of the Paper:
“The Directors acknowledge the concern that the existing constitutional arrangements do not adequately reflect the interests of Direct Members”
More accurately, this should read “the majority of the Directors”, for this is where I already start to part company from the proposals.
In the background is also a fundamental question over the nature of the ECF; is it a federation, a members’ organisation or some hybrid of the two?
It would be easy to misrepresent my views as being anti-democratic and against the views of the membership being honestly and accurately represented.  I don’t doubt that some in the wider chess community, including some of the more vocal forum contributors, would attempt to do so.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  My concern is that I’m not convinced that any of the proposals would result in better or more democratic representation of the membership than the present Council set up.  This is in the context of my experience indicating that the vast majority of members simply aren’t interested in ECF matters beyond paying, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, their annual membership fee.  I strongly fear that any method involving direct voting by individual members would achieve only a very limited response and thus be vulnerable to being usurped by minority interests and agendas.
It has never occurred to me over the 5 years that I’ve served on Council that I was there to represent any organisation as some form of corporate entity, rather than as a local community of chess playing members.  It is certainly incumbent upon us, as Council Members, to do our best to ascertain and reflect the views of those members we represent.  No doubt some take this more seriously than others, but I fail to believe that large scale replacement of Council Members reasonably elected or appointed by the various organisations, by directly elected Council Members (either wholly under Option 2 or partially under Option 3) without clear cut constituencies, would achieve a better or more democratic outcome.
Reflecting the view expressed by Pearce, I fear that breaking the links with the Unions, County Associations, Leagues and Clubs, and the many volunteers within them, that have been the bedrock of English chess for a century or more, is something we do at our peril.  At a recent Board meeting I summarised this concern as risking throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  This earned me the retort “what baby?!”, adding to my concern that at least some of my fellow Directors have come to see the likes of the Unions and County Associations as irrelevant, and probably annoyingly irrelevant.
I could go on to make a range of detailed comments against each of the proposals, but I’d rather leave it at this point for you to consider how, or even whether, the SCCU should respond.  Do you see this matter as being of sufficient significance that we should hold a dedicated Executive Committee meeting to discuss it?  Time is of the essence.  The ECF consultation ends on 12th March.  A date of Friday the 3rd of March has been suggested to me as a possibility for such a meeting, but even that would be too late to try to coordinate views with the other Unions.  I’m sorry I couldn’t share this with you sooner, but until the Paper was published I felt constrained to respect Board confidentiality.
Regards
Julie

 

Nigel HARVEY

All,

You may not know that the origin of the name Harvey means ‘battle-worthy’.
But you certainly know that Nigel fought to the end with courage, grace and incredible good humour.
For the rest of the Harveys, these last few months have truly tested our mettle. But in the weeks since Nigel’s funeral we have been reminded over and over again of Nigel’s incredible talents, his love of life and his unwavering ability to see humour in most things.
After the sadness of the funeral, we look forward to remembering Nigel as we knew him. In all the happy memories. And in his creativity.
So I’m confirming the date and time of the Celebration at the Jerwood Gallery in Hastings Old Town.
Saturday 4th February
5.30pm to 8.30pm
Dress code: smart casual and colourful.
Venue: The Jerwood Gallery cafe/bar overlooking the beach.
Food will be provided. 
We need to confirm numbers by this Friday so please RSVP if you will attend. And with the names of anyone else who will come with you.
We will be sharing a selection of Nigel’s work over the last few decades. It will just be a small part of the many, many paintings, drawings and sketch books.
Aside from the work, Nigel’s legacy is in the happy memories, friendships, excursions, jokes and shared treats (bacon butties and cakes seem to play a prominent role).
Many of you have shared your touching and funny stories with the family already.  We’d love you to share them with the assembled friends.
So please also let me know if you would like to speak for 2-3 minutes.
We are very much looking forward to seeing you all.
Very best wishes,
The Harveys

 

John Driver

John Driver

it is with much regret that I have to inform the membership of the death of John Driver

John was a member of the club for over 10 years serving on the committee and taking an active role in the library and the Friday night tournaments which were revitalise under his control

John ceased to be a member of the club some three years ago on health grounds

John was making one of his rare visits to the club on Friday night when he collapsed and died

I am sure I speak for all members when I say that he will be sadly missed and my condolences go out to Eva and her family

Marc A Bryant

Chairman

aa

FULLER

FULLER                   p            W               D              L             GP             PEN        MP
SNODLAND (2)  3            3                   0            0             7.5              0.5           3
MAIDSTONE (6 4             2                 0              2              9                  0.5          2
RAINHAM (4)     3             1                 2              0              7                                   2
SWALE (2)           3              1                 2               0              7                                   2
MEDWAY (2)     3              1                 1               1              6                                    1.5
MAIDSTONE (5)  3          0                 1               2            3.5                                 0.5
WOK (3)                  2           0                  0               2             2                                      0
HASTINGS (4)      1          0                   0              1             1                                      0

HARVEY

HARVEY                          P           W              D                 L                 GP             mp      
MAIDSTONE (4)        4             3               1                  0                 14            3.5
TUN WELLS (4)           2             1              0                  1                 6.5           1
SNODLAND (1)          1             0               1                  0               3 0            .5
WOK (2)                          1            0                0                  1               2.5             0
MEDWAY (1)               1             0               0                   1                2                0
HASTINGS (3)             1            0                0                   1                2                0

EN PASSANT

EN PASSANT             P            W            D             L              GP             MP
SWALE (1)                  2              2             0              0                8                2
MAIDSTONE (3)    2              2             0               0             7.5               2
TUN WELLS (3)       4             1             1               2           11.5            1.5
RAINHAM (3)          3              1            1                0              9               1.5
HASTINGS (2)         3              0            0                3             6                   0

STEVENSON

STEVENSON              P          W           D            L            GP      MP
TUN WELLS (2)        2           2             0             0           8.5        2
HASTINGS    (1  )      2           1             0              1            6           1
RAINHAM (2)            2           1            0               1           6           1
MAIDSTONE (2)     1            1           0               0          4.5        1
ROCHESTER (1)      1           0           0               1          2.5        0
WOK (1)                      2            0           0              2          2.5         0

Est. 1882