SEASON 2023-24

AGM Minutes 13th June 2023 (Draft)

Download AGM Minutes in PDF Format

Attendees
Jeffrey Boardman – Chair (non-voting) 
Peter Farr – Fixtures (non-voting) 
Mark Attree – Secretary (non-voting) 
Matthew Britnell – Lewes (non-voting) 
Jonathan Britnell – Lewes 
Alex Taylor –Collyers 
Brian Stockham - Uckfield 
Jim Wheeler – Hastings 
Robert Wall – East Grinstead / Treasurer 
David Fryer – Webmaster/Crowborough
James Mansson – Horsham 
Roger Waddingham - Horsham 
Colin Clark - Eastbourne 
Chris Baldry – Haywards Heath 
Viv Cole – Haywards Heath 
Luke Rutherford – Brighton and Hove 
Paul Batchelor- Brighton and Hove Chris Jones – Worthing 
Peter Larwood – Worthing 
Sue Forde- Bexhill 
Bill Tracey- Bexhill 

1. Chairman’s Opening Remarks and Apologies for Absence 

Mark Attree opened the meeting, apologies had been received prior to the meeting from John Pye, East Grinstead Bookshop. A brief period of reflection was held for Doug Stevenson, long serving Chairman and Treasurer of the League and other chess friends and opponents we have lost during the last year. Jeffrey Boardman introduced himself to the meeting, expressing his gratitude that so many were attending the meeting and expecting that the discussions would be held in a good spirit. 

2. Minutes of Last Year’s AGM 

The Minutes were approved without comment. 

3. Secretary’s Report and Matters Arising 
The location of the Rapidplay Trophy remains unknown. It was agreed that a new trophy should be purchased, with Crowborough Chess Club offering to contribute, whilst other trophies will need to be replaced in the next year or two. 

4. Treasurers Report and Matters Arising 

Robert Wall stated that he was in the process of assuming control of the accounts and no accounts were available at present. The bank statements included a number of payments, but there was currently no way of knowing which clubs had made the payments. The League was being charged a monthly fee by the bank, and statements indicated a current balance of +-£400. There was currently an ECF Game Fee payment for +-£60 outstanding. This would be passed on to the relevant clubs and it was proposed that a reminder be sent to all clubs regarding this season’s game fee payments, which could be avoided by individuals joining the ECF by end June. Brian Stockham suggested that a list of Club Treasurers should be made for the use of the League’s Treasurer. A start was made on this with a request for those present at the meeting to supply names and email addresses if known. 

A number of expenditures would soon be required, principally engraving of trophies and within a couple of years new trophies might be required, so avoiding unnecessary expenditure such as bank fee payments would be a priority. 

5. Fixture Secretary’s Report and Matters Arising 

Peter Farr informed the meeting that the League had returned to it’s normal format this season, with three divisions of ten teams. He thanked team captains for their flexibility in re-arranging fixtures though one or two re-arrangements had pushed the limits of what was acceptable. There had been no board defaults and no contested adjudications in the adult league. 

Winners of the various competitions were; 
Division 1 – 1st Brighton and Hove 1 
Division 2 - 1st Haywards Heath 1 
Division 3 – 1st Bexhill 3 
Rapidplay Division – 1st East Grinstead Bookshop 2 
Knockout Trophy - Lewes 

6. Tournament Controllers Report and Matters Arising 

There had been no disputes or controversies requiring intervention beyond some nomination issues. 

7. Presentation of Trophies 

Division 1 Trophy was received by Luke Rutherford of Brighton and Hove. 
Division 2 Trophy was received by Viv Cole of Haywards Heath 
Division 3 Trophy was not returned last year for presentation (there had not been a 3rd Division). Robert Wall was tasked with ascertaining it’s location. 
The Knockout Trophy was received by Jonathan Britnell of Lewes. 
Rapidplay Division Trophy was not available for presentation. 

The question of paying for engraving was considered. Normally the League re-imburses clubs for the costs of engraving, but several clubs indicated that they did not re-charge this (others did). The proposal that clubs pay for their own engraving had been rejected a few years ago according to Matthew Britnell, this proposal should be considered again. 

The tankards for Overall performance;
Division 1, Division 2 were presented. The trophy for Division 3 was not available, but then neither was the person who had won it. 

Overall Tankard was received by Vivian Cole on behalf of Felix Kwiatkowski. 
Division 1 Tankard was received by Luke Rutherford. 
Division 2 Tankard was received by Vivian Cole on behalf of Felix Kwiatkowski. 
Division 3 Tankard was not available for presentation to the winner John Pye, but Robert Wall is recorded as having it. He undertook to look for it. 

8. Election of Officers 

Current officers were re-elected on a show of hands with thanks to David Fryer for the website. 

9. County Adjudication Secretary’s Report and Matters Arising 

Although there had been no formal adjudications required in this last season there was in fact no County Adjudication Secretary at present and a route for adjudications was not clear. Luke Rutherford stated that the process lies with the County Association but until this is clarified the League should specify an interim solution, Peter Farr to consider. David Fryer mentioned an incident involving a Junior where in the absence of support at the time it was felt that a younger player had been pressured into agreeing a result at the board rather than having recourse to adjudication, so the process of ending a game on the night needs to be made clear. 

10. SCCA Matters relating to the League (and ECF) 

Luke Rutherford updated the meeting. Peter Farr informed the meeting that the ECF was considering changing it’s levels of membership. 

11a. Proposed Rule Change – Team Size

Currently Five-board matches shall normally be played in all divisions, but for season 2022-23 four-board matches shall be played in all divisions. 

Proposed 
1. Four-board matches shall be played in all divisions. 
Or, alternatively 
2. Five-board matches shall normally be played in all divisions, but four-board matches shall be continued in all divisions for season 2023-24. (NOT DISCUSSED FOLLOWING APPROVAL OF 1.)

There is a further proposal that should be treated separately in case of 4 boards being approved. 

3. If both teams agree to a fifth board, or more, then these can be submitted directly for grading by the Home team but do not affect the match outcome. (WITHDRAWN AFTER DISCUSSION) 

11a.1. Both sides made points on this change. The argument for 4 Boards was principally about the ease of travel, where a non-playing driver could actually take an entire team, very useful for teams made up largely of Junior players. The point was also made that in some clubs this made an additional team possible eg Bexhill. Conversely for some clubs it denied players the opportunity of taking part eg Lewes, where 2 teams of 4 may not be possible whilst one team of 5 definitely is. Luke Rutherford pointed out that the League had 6 Boards at one time, then reduced to 5, now 4, which makes the matches less substantial, also the view of Roger Waddingham. Colin Clark’s view was that 4 Board teams had worked well and had given lots of new players matches, though he could see the argument for 5 Boards in the First Division. 

Approved, 15 for, 9 against. 

11a.3. The proposal for extra optional boards was discussed. Practically it appeared to be possible to do this, with extra rated games, within the ECF-LMS system, but there was no reason the clubs could not do this without the involvement of the League. Peter Larwood withdrew the proposal on this basis. 

11b. Proposed Rule Change – Team Order 

Currently 

In each match, a team must play in descending order of current playing strength. It is recognised that, for many reasons, a player's grading may not be the best guide to current form, and considerable discretion is allowed a team captain in this area. Nevertheless, the Tournament Controller may require a team captain to justify his team order, and, should he/she be satisfied that the provisions of this rule have been clearly disregarded to the detriment of the opposing team, he/she shall refer the matter to the Management Committee who may adjust the match result as seems appropriate 

Proposed 

In each match, a team must play in descending order of current playing strength. It is recognised that, for many reasons, a player's rating may not be the best guide to current form, and considerable discretion is allowed a team captain in this area. Nevertheless, for K ratings players should play in order of decreasing rating, subject to an allowable difference of 75 rating points. For P-ratings the Tournament Controller may require a team captain to justify his team order, and, should he/she be satisfied that the provisions of this rule have been clearly disregarded to the detriment of the opposing team, he/she shall refer the matter to the Management Committee who may adjust the match result as seems appropriate. 

Views both for and against making a formal rating limit that needs to be followed were expressed. Firstly, it was considered that some clarity in the rule might be required as too much is left to ‘discretion’, both as guidance to team captains and something against which changes might be judged. It was noted that there had been several instances where the ratings listed next to player’s names were clearly not in descending board order and this had caused concern with several clubs. David Fryer (as the ratings officer) explained that any P-rating was extremely unreliable and that K-ratings (which required 10 games) were often also unreliable since in many cases that rating would be based on games against players with P-Ratings. In response to a question from Brian Stockham, Peter Farr confirmed that the Management Committee had not investigated any instances and that no formal complaint or concern had been raised with the committee during the season though they had become aware of it through informal discussions. An amendment for extending the proposed limit to 100 points was proposed by Alex Taylor and seconded by Brian Stockham as the proposed 75 point limit was itself arbitrary. On David Fryers advice, the ‘Official Revised Monthly Rating’ should be the rating used within this rule, this amendment was approved as was the replacement of the word ‘considerable’ with ‘reasonable’ after a discussion regarding whether any qualifier was required atall. 

Amended proposal as follows; 

In each match, a team must play in descending order of current playing strength. It is recognised that, for many reasons, a player's rating may not be the best guide to current form, and reasonable discretion is allowed a team captain in this area. Nevertheless, for Kratings players should play in order of decreasing rating, subject to an allowable difference of 100 rating points*. For P-ratings the Tournament Controller may require a team captain to justify his team order, and, should he/she be satisfied that the provisions of this rule have been clearly disregarded to the detriment of the opposing team, he/she shall refer the matter to the Management Committee who may adjust the match result as seems appropriate. 

Where * is the Official Revised Monthly Rating set by the ECF for each player. 

Approved 20 for, 0 against. 

11c Proposed Change - Name of the League 

That the ‘Mid Sussex Chess League’ be renamed the ‘Sussex Chess League’ 

Peter Farr introduced the proposal. The League had expanded geographically from it’s original area and now encompassed all of Sussex except those other clubs in West Sussex that play rated games (specifically Bognur & Arun and Chichester). It may be a matter of fact already since those clubs may apply to join the League anyway but for distance of travel reasons play in the Portsmouth and District League instead. Luke Rutherford mentioned that in simple terms ‘Sussex League Champions’ is a better sounding title. The possible need for structural change (eg East and West Divisions- David Fryer) to avoid excessive travel could be handled when it became an issue since those clubs were in the same position as Hastings, who play in both Sussex and Kent Leagues - David Graham. Brian Stockham considered that Mid Sussex was an antiquated term and that the reality is that this is in effect a Sussex League. 

David Fryer raised the issue of the relationship of the renamed League to the SCCA and whether this could be considered a first step towards a merger of the two. Peter Farr stated that this might be a possibility but that it would require a lot more discussion. Practical issues regarding the name change were also brought up..bank account, trophies, web site for example.

 Jeffrey Boardman proposed a vote be taken. 

Approved 19 for, 0 against. 

12. Any Other Business 

Matthew Britnell mentioned that the meeting needed to decide on a proposed location for the next meeting. The Secretary agreed to address this with the current hosts. Meeting closed at 9.55 pm.

Team Nominations October 2023

Bexhill 1 - Mark Rich, Andrew Fleming, Anh Nguyen
Bexhill 2 - Janis Petersons, Leo Woning, Steve Blewitt
Bexhill 3- William Luxton, Steve Merchant, Bill Tracey Brighton & Hove 1 - Luke Rutherford, Callum Brewer, Geoffrey James
Brighton & Hove 2 - Kit Blades, Ian Kelly, Chris Lake 
Crowborough 1 - Arjun Kolani, David Fryer, Jon Lawrance 
Eastbourne 1 - Maks Rozman, Rasa Norinkeviciute, Oli Froom,
Eastbourne 2 - Adrian Pickersgill, Jim O'Dell, Laurence Butt
Eastbourne 3 - Mick Reddie, Paul Carpenter, Matt Pannett
Eastbourne 4 - Anthony Giles, Dejan Lekic, Colin Clark 
East Grinstead 1 - Chris Baker, Peter Kemp, Carlos Cambon 
East Grinstead Bookshop 1 - t.b.a. 
Hastings & St.Leonards 1 - Daniel Lowe, Francis Rayner, John Sugden
Hastings & St.Leonards 2 - Brendan Ruane, Henry Cove, Mark Brougham 
Haywards Heath 1 - Feliks Kwiatkowski, Jeffrey Boardman, Viv Cole
Haywards Heath 2 - Julian Clark, Graham Ewens, Lucas Renshaw
Horsham 1 - Gavin Lock, Mark Broom, Michael Forster
Horsham 2 - James Mansson, Anthony Higgs, Phil Stimpson
Horsham 3 - Peter Harbott, Ian Comley, Roy Page
Horsham 4 - Chris Heath, Bob Lanzer, Robert McDonald 
Worthing 1 - Russell Granat, Matthew Payne, Chris Jones 

Minutes Seconds Move Max Time
65 30 60 03:10:00
65 30 70 03:20:00
65 30 80 03:30:00
65 30 90 03:40:00
65 30 100 03:50:00

KO Rules 2023-4

Download KO Rules in PDF Format
Knock-Out Competition Rules Operative from September 2023

1. Entry shall be open to one or more teams of four players from each club in the League. Teams wishing to enter shall inform the Tournament Controller (TC) of their intention to do so not later than 14th September. It is a condition of entry that each team nominates a team captain, and submits his/her contact details.

2. The TC shall be appointed by the league. The TC shall be responsible for maintaining the competition as both a smooth-running and an amicable event, and he/she shall be accorded reasonable discretion in the interpretation of these rules to further these ends.

3. The TC shall draw up a pairing tree for the entire competition. Random means shall be used to allocate teams to their initial positions in the tree. Apart from matches postponed from agreed dates by severe weather, any preliminary round matches must be played by 30th October, quarter finals by 15th December, semi-finals by 28th February and the final by 30th April. The pairing tree, the schedule for the completion of the rounds, and a list of the contact details for all team captains shall be sent to all clubs by 1st October.

4. If it is the first match for both teams then the team placed higher in the pairing tree shall play at home. Thereafter the venue shall be determined in order that teams play alternately home and away and to avoid where possible the difference between home and away games for either team being two or higher. Where teams have equal past patterns the team that appears higher in the pairing tree shall alternate.

5. Captains should strive to keep themselves informed of the outcome of matches in collateral branches of the pairing tree, and to make arrangements for the following round at the earliest opportunity. Nevertheless, the TC shall contact captains of victorious teams to inform them of their next opponents. It is then the responsibility of the captain of the home team to contact the captain of the away team within 7 days, and offer at least two dates on which the match can be played within the schedule.

6. Once a player has played in this competition, that player may not subsequently play for another team in this competition in the same season.

7. For the purposes of this competition a player's rating shall be their official ECF standardplay rating from the current month’s rating list.
Captains shall ensure they use the up-to-date list available on the ECF website for all matches. If a player's only rating is a rapidplay rating this shall be used. No player shall appear who does not have a current ECF rating or an estimated rating as determined in advance by the TC (any player who does will be deemed ineligible). The club shall provide to the TC all relevant information concerning an unrated player's strength. This must include, but shall not be limited to, all or any available of the following:

a. previous ECF rating(s) / grade(s) with date(s);
b. current or previous FIDE rating(s) with date(s);
c. current or previous national rating(s) with date(s);
d. recent tournament and league appearances with date(s). In estimating a rating the TC may take into consideration any other relevant information not provided.

8. Each team shall total the ratings of the players actually playing in a match, excluding any player winning or losing by default.

9.
The match shall be handicapped according to the following table:

Difference in Total Rating To Win, higher-rated team must score
0 - 179 No handicap and a 2 - 2 draw resolved first by board count and second by board elimination
180 - 559 The higher rated team must score 2.5 to win and a 2 - 2 result shall count as a win for the lower rated team
560 - 999 The higher rated team must score 3 to win
1000+ The higher rated team must score 3.5 to win

10. If the difference between the total ratings of the teams is less than 180, a level match shall be played, with a 2 - 2 draw being resolved by board count, and, if the board count is equal, by board elimination.   

Board count:
 
Each team totals the numbers on the boards which it won, and the team with the lower count wins the match. E.g. Team A wins on boards 1 and 4; team B wins on boards 3 and 5; board 2 is drawn. A has a board count of 1 + 4 = 5; B has a board count of 3 + 5 = 8; A has the lower count and wins the match. 

Board elimination: 
The score on the bottom board is eliminated, and if the result is still a draw, board 3 is eliminated and then board 2. 

In the event of all games in the match being drawn, the match will be won by the team with the lowest average ECF rating. 

11. The rate of play shall be all moves in 80 minutes with a 10 second increment per move from move 1. No scoring is required by a player once less than five minutes has appeared on that player's clock. 

12. All relevant rules of the League apply to this competition, except the following: 
  a. Read Tournament Controller instead of Fixtures Secretary. 
  b. Section 6 (Defaults) shall not apply. A defaulting team, whether Home or Away, is eliminated from the competition. 
  c. If a League player's club does not enter a team they may play for another club's KO team irrespective of League rule 3.2. 

13. Results (including the computation of handicaps) shall be submitted by the captain of the winning team via the ECF League Management System (LMS) within 2 days of completing the match.  

Sussex County Chess Association [SCCA] 
Adjudication procedure

 
Download Adjudication form in Word Format or Editable PDF
                    
1. Any position submitted for adjudication must reach the Adjudication Secretary within 10 days of the playing of the match. If the position is received after the 10 days then the player's claim will be disallowed.

2. e-mail or First class post must be used in all communication.

If using post, the position will not be accepted as accurate and complete in any of the following  circumstances;
there is no cheque or it is incorrectly completed
there is an error or omission in the claim or the position.

If using email and your claim is not successful, you undertake to pay the fee  within  7 days of the decision. Failure to do so will result in the deduction of one match point from the team.

3. The fees, which are returnable if the claim is upheld, are £5 per position submitted, and an additional £10 for appeals. Cheques to be payable to Sussex County Chess Association. Alternatively, banking details are available upon request, for Bacs payment if preferred. Please, leave identification with payment to enable determination of payee e.g. [Adjudication and club name].

4.  Positions submitted must:
contain only the claim of the submitter and not that of the opponent;
follow the normal conventions, e.g. White at the bottom and Black at the top of the diagram.
where relevant, indicate whether castling is possible or an 'en passant' capture can be played.

5. An appeal procedure is available  where the adjudicator gives a decision different to that claimed by the player. Under this procedure the player has the right  to appeal the decision. To do so, the player or the club's Match Captain must:
lodge the appeal with the Adjudications Secretary within 10 days of the date of receipt of the disputed decision;
submit three copies of the detailed analysis to support the appeal; and 
provide within the same 10 days one copy of the appeal analysis to the opposing team's Match Captain

NEW
email may be used for appeals  [within 10 days of the receipt of the disputed decision].
only one  copy of the detailed analysis need be  to send to the secretary.
one copy to the opposing team's Match Captain
and an undertaking to pay the £10 fee if the appeal is unsuccessful

Within 7 days of receipt of the appeal analysis the Match Captain of the appellant's opposing team is either to:
submit three copies [ or one copy if by email] of any comments/analysis thereon to the Adjudication Secretary; or
inform the Adjudications Secretary that no comments/analysis will be submitted
Adjudication Secretary 
Paul Batchelor 98 Mackie Avenue, Brighton, East Sussex BN1 8RD
01273 508128
P.Batchelor@outlook.com