York Chess

Games

Clubs

MSGBoard

Links

Add Content

Add new post

Stuart Acton, (19/12/2009)

I am curious as to who the "two ex-Shepherds players who were going to come out of retirement and play in the Minster Inn rapid play event" are. Please spill the beans on their identities, as I have lost a regular player from Shepherds third team and I will be struggling from now onwards to get a full side out.

simon dixon, (05/11/2009)

hi,

what happened to the match results appearing in the League section?? It was very useful last year, especially now the newsletter has stopped. I hope you will start putting the results up here soon,
cheers
Simon

Akis, (15/11/2009)

hi Simon, you are right I am afraid we have been a bit lazy latelly but we are now trying to catch up.

Akis, (16/09/2009)

Hello, I was thinking it is time to start gathering all the material (articles, stories, photographs) we have relevent to the york/yorkshire chess before we lose them for ever; if any is either interested in helping or has any relevent material will you please email me at anezis@gmail.com?

Tim, (02/09/2009)

What is considered the best website to play chess on?

stuart acton, (02/09/2009)

I use "Babas", but there are plenty out there. The advantage of "Babas" is that it is in real time and you can specify exactly how long you want the game to last.

Tim Turner, (29/07/2009)

Free Chess Set

I have a glass chess set and board that is free to a good home.

Thanks
Tim

ROGER HALL, (07/07/2009)

I WILL PLAY IN A THIRD TEAM, A THIRD DIVISION OR ANYWHERE SO LONG AS I CAB PLAY FOR MY USUAL BRIGANTES DIV2 CLUB. OR IS THUI NOT ALLOWED. I OFGFERED AT ONE POINT TO CAPTAIN A TEAM AT THE SUN INN COLTON BUT NO ONE WAS INTERESTED

THE OFFER IS STILL OPEN I THINK IF ANYONE IS INTEREST ED

ROG ER

Stuart Acton, (06/07/2009)

Shepherds are entering a third team whatever the outcome and it will play in Division Two if the 3rd Division does not get of the ground.
A "mini" league is a good suggestion and if there insufficient entries to make a for a third division viable why not incorporate it within the existing divisions and results. eg if Shepherds 2 beat Shepherds 3 4-2 and Shepherds 2 had no players under 100 playing for them, then that score stands for Division 2 purposes but Shepherds 3 get 2 points towards the mini league for the wins they got. Basically what I envisage is to have a competition within the existing competition where only scores between players of 100 or less count in the "mini" league. I am quite happy to administer this, publish results and maintain a seperate league table.

Tony Slinger, (26/06/2009)

Is there any 'mileage' in a 'mini' league of say 3 or 4 players per team with a upper grading limit of say 100 or something close to that. If a 4 player team, total team grade not to exceed say 375 or 400. This is to enable our lower rated friends to compete against each other and lessen any mismatches. This would of course need someone to organise it all. Just a thought.

Rob, (29/06/2009)

Response to Tony’s comments (26th June).

If anyone has read my earlier posts, you’ll know that they unequivocally come out in favour of expanding the league ‘downwards’ by providing more opportunities for players for whom such opportunities are few and far between.

In theory I stick by that principal. However, I’ve been surprised about the luke-warm response to suggestions made earlier by myself and others, and my unshakable belief that it’s the way to go has started to shake.

I’ve started to doubt that there’s enough enthusiasm out there, and the considerable effort involved in expanding downwards might well be a futile effort. It certainly couldn’t get off the ground unless it was done as part of the established structure, although it would need a distinct set of restrictions (smaller teams, grade limits, more flexibility etc) because it would be catering for a different group of players - developing ones rather than established ones.

I’ve no idea who they are, but if the people who organise the league believe it’s worth pursuing then they need to set the wheels in motion. It would be easy to find someone to pick up the baton; I’d do it for example if anyone asked, and I’m sure there are several others with a similar mind-set. However so far there’s been lots of talk, several ideas put forward, but no move to do anything about it. A group should be formed to start looking at the idea in detail or else it should be put to bed now so we get on with the job of looking forward to next season.

Akis, (18/06/2009)

First of all it is nice to see Shepherds entering a new third team and taking the first step in this new 3rd division.

I think it is more than time to start advertising that we have a new division and try to attract all these new players, it will not happen by itself.

Therefore someone needs to sit down and write a nice brochure explaining the 3rd division and the reasons behind it so we can put it on the site and ask people to download it and stick it to message boards where they work/email it to companies/ email it to schools.

I am thinking of creating a form with the teams entered and probably an extra section like FAQ but I will wait untill someone says anything about.

There are some issues that need to be clarified.
Firstly which system are we going to use. Personally I would prefer the “Konrad tournament” * because it will allow teams to join at any point and it is consistent with the relaxed character we want the division to have.
What about venues and times?

I think it is time for the rest of us to try and put some effort in this but do give us some instructions.
*Konrad system
In a few tournaments which run over a long period of time, such as a tournament with one round every week for three months, a flexible system called a Konrad tournament can be used. A player's final score is based on his best results (e.g. best ten results out of the twelve rounds). Players are not required to play in every round; they may enter or drop out of the tournament at any time. Indeed they may decide to play only one game if they wish to, although if a player wants to get a prize they need to play more rounds to accumulate points. The tournament therefore includes players who want to go for a prize and play several rounds as well as players who only want to play an off game.

Stuart Acton, (17/06/2009)

Shepherds will be entering a third team in the league next season playing at their club on Tuesday evenings. If any player fancies a regular game, if existing players want more games or if you are relatively new to chess - we will make all most welcome. If interested please contact me on 760885 or email stuartacton@yahoo.com

Roger, (09/05/2009)

CHESS AT YORK

VICTORY IN SECOND DIVISION FOR ROGER HALL SHOWS SIZE DOESN’T MATTER
ROGER HALL THE WORST PLAYER IN THE YORK EVENING LEAGUE (LAST SEASON) WINS ON POINTS REPORTS OUR WORLD CHESS CORRESPONDENT CHICO MATO

ROGER HALL SAID THAT HE WAS DELIGHTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT AFTER A GRUELING SEASON HE IS UNDISPUTED SECOND DIVISION PLAYER OF THE YEAR IN THE YORK EVENING LEAGUE
THIS VOLT FACE WAS ONLY BROUGHT TO LIGHT BY ANALYSING THE SEASONS GAMES BY THE NEW ROBSONIAN STATISTICAL REGIME WHICH PLACED ROGER AT 71.4 (ONLY .06% ABOVE HIS NEAREST CHALLENGER AND RUNNER UP JONATHON KNOWLES, LADY ANNA MIDDLETON.

ROGER HAS A GRADE OF 62 CONFIRMING THAT ANY LINKAGE BETWEEN CHESS PROWESS AND OTHER VITAL STATISTICS ARE UNPROVEN,
FIRST DIVISION PLAYER PAUL JOHNSON WAS AN EARLY SEASON VICTIM TO THE RAMPANT RAW TALENT RESIDING BEHIND THIS APPARENTLY SMALL GRADE PLAYER. SO SIZE REALLY DOESN’T MATTER !!

HE ALSO RECENTLY FINISHED THIRTEENTH IN THE MINSTER INN RAPID PLAY WHERE ASTONISUINGLY HE WON I GAME
THIS ANALYSIS EXCLUDES SPURIOUS CLAIMANTS TO THE SECOND DIVISION CROWN SUCH AS FIRST DIVISION OR ONE MATCH OCCASIONAL PLAYERS
ROGER IS HAPPY TO GIVE ADVICE ON ANY SUBJECT (OTHER THAN CHESS OF COURSE) ABOUT WHICH HE FREELY ADMITS TO KNOWING NAFF ALL

CHICO MATO
STALO MATO PRESS

Tim, (30/04/2009)

Hi all

A few points to make in response to various previous postings:

1) I don't think anybody is elitist about standards of chess players. Anyone who plays the game in a sporting manner is welcome regardless of their strength.

2) Defaults are not acceptable unless there are exception circumstances.

3) We used to have restrictions on eligibilty for the 2nd division but they were voted away. As I recall this was by some of the teams who are now 'unhappy'.

4) If you want rule changes you need to put proposals for the AGM in sooner rather than later.

5) I would like to raise 1 question. Would 2nd div teams rather face oppostion with '1st div' players in or receive default wins and have players missing out playing?
I raise this because Lady Anne Middleton where generally short of players this season. The 2nd team required 14 boards to be played by 1st div players (average 1 per match). This was to avoid defaults and not to deliberately strengthen the team. It is also worth noting '2nd div' players played 10 times for the 1st team - I didn't hear oppostion complaining about wasting their evenings due to playing weaker opposition though.

Keep smiling everyone.

ROGER HALL, (29/04/2009)

I think you should know John Wynne is pretty ill. He's in York DH.. It looks like he's got melanoma. I don;' yhink he'll want many visitors. But I feel the club should somehow convey to him that he is in our game plan !! Perhaps a gift or simply a card woil be appropriate. Any ideas. I should like suggest that we perhaps create a A John Wynne Trophy to be given in some promising Junioir player

Roger

Richard Cowan, (27/04/2009)

Hi Rob,
In response to your below post, I would like to say that I don't think it's neccessarily a problem that 1st division players play in the 2nd division. The problem comes when they play *in place* of a regular player for a particular match because they have a higher grade, and thus a better chance of winning. Naturally this can cause resentment/etc. and has to be carefully handed by the captain of the team in question. There are a few main objections to your proposal as far as I can see. Firstly, Players 1-6 in your system would be "limited" to only 1st team matches for example, and many want to play more than this (which is controversial in itself!). Secondly there is a problem with your system insofar as for example, I play for the University team in the first division, but as there is no second division team, I play for Minster inn 2 (considerably worse too I might add!). Would would be done in such a circumstance?
Traditionally (as I understand it,) there has been a problem in general having enough independent players playing for the second teams without some players from the first team filling in from time to time, and of course, everybody wants to avoid more defaults. At the end of the day I feel that many of these issues are the resposability of the individual team captains themselves, what kind of team do they want? What kind of kind do there team-members want? Because if they don't keep people happy, then they will leave and join/form other teams!
And I have to say that to a certain extent, part of the problem is that people in general are happy to go along with what's happening in there team as opposed to creating a new one which they would really like to be part of, simply because they don't want to organise it themselves. Therein is part of the problem. Hope my comments were insightful.

Owen Robson, (24/04/2009)

We all know that the second division needs changing. Probably the best proposal is for players to be eligible for one team only. This will stop first division players playing in the second. Initially, I suspect the odd team may drop out due to lack of players, but don't we want rid of those teams anyway?
Hopefully, more players will then want to play second division chess, since they won't be getting a pasting every week.
There is just one major problem with any proposed changes.
How do we
a) get the proposals accepted by God almightly and his acolytes (i.e those people who do what he tells them to), and
b) get the proposals through an EGM when the RI blackmail people (by threatening to withdraw all their teams) on the committee to vote against the proposals, so that we can have the same mess we have now?

Remember, two years ago Jim Hewitt aired the view that the second division wasn't working. Several people voted to make the situation worse, and, well done them, because it worked.

Have a look at the stats. Several teams had loads of players to choose from, but I suspect many players picked which games they played for fear of getting a hammering.

I'd like to see a welcome change to the rules, but I'm not holding my breath. Unless non-RI teams and committee members can muster enough votes to gain a majority (particularly at an EGM when not all capatains turn up), any changes don't have a hope, and the current situation will continue.

Here's hoping.

Rob (Shepherds 2nds), (24/04/2009)

Having only become involved in York Chess relatively recently I wasn’t aware that there has already been a debate on the subject of 1st division vs. 2nd division, and I certainly wasn’t aware that RI holds such a balance of power. As RI only contributes 40% of the teams making up the league (2/7 in the first and 4/8 in the second) I don’t think this represents a healthy state of affairs, and as Owen suggests it surely isn’t too much trouble for the non RI teams to form a voting block to pass radical changes through the decision making process.

If the upshot is that the RI teams take their balls home and leave then I suggest the league would be better off without those teams. There may be short term upheaval, but eventually all the RI players who want to play in the evening league will find or form other clubs, so in the long run the status quo will be retained.

As for the question of 1st division players playing in 2nd teams, there are alternatives. One such alternative is for each club to submit a list of players (ranked by strength) at the beginning of the season. Players 1 – 6 are only eligible to play for the first team. Players 7 onwards are eligible to play for the first team when selected and for the second team when selected. This gets round two problems. Firstly, it prevents first team regulars from bolstering up second teams to create a mismatch, and secondly it allows both teams to use a pool of players to ensure all boards are played every match.

There are details that need to be worked out. Two which spring to mind are what happens when a player joins a team mid-season, and what happens if a club has more than two teams. However there are precedents in other organisations which means it won’t be difficult to work out a solution which is suitable for the majority.

Once again I apologise for being controversial, but what’s the point having a facility like this message board unless one can force a debate. Any thoughts?

Stuart Acton, (20/04/2009)

It would appear that the Shepherds third team will be in Division Two as there is very little support for my ideas, but "que sera". The club are having a meeting next week and if there is the expected interest in a third team, we will just stick the third team in and see what happens and where it takes us. Thanks for all the interest shown on my proposals.

ROGER HALL, (18/04/2009)

ANYBODY INTERESTED IN FOUNDING A NEW TEAM PLAYING FROM 'YE OLDE4 SUN INN' AT COMPTON. AT THE RI9K OF BEING ACCUSED OF TREASON WOULD ANY OF THE EXISTING RI TEAms fancy a bit of independence. I AM HAPPY TO BE CAPTAIN OF A SECOND DIV TEAM IF WE CAN DRUM UP ENOUGH 8UPPORT'

ROGER THE AMMONITE - ITS A LONG STORY

ROGER HALL, (18/04/2009)

SORRY COLTON NOT COMPTON

ROGER HALL, (17/04/2009)

I'M BACK!
At the risk of sounding smug I'd just like to say how great it is to see that my idea (just before I nearly popped my clogs at Xmas) of a 'Grass Roots' debating forum has got off the ground. I 'begrudgingly'-only joking- must acknowledge that this would not have happened if Richard Palliser had not established this site with Akis's help and expert asisstance.

So LETS HAVE A HEATED DEBATE

ATt the risk of sullyimg Rob Walwyns reputation by association with me, may I say that I find (or more accurately have found myself in the past in almost the same position as he describes(although I have to say Mick Beavers as given me plenty games since i came back from the dead). I think I would echo his sentimiments almost totally,

The thing about us weaker players is that we love playing as much as you chess geniuses and occassionally we pull off the odd unexpcted result (eg see the classic Winter Tournament clash between Hall and Jonson last Autumn !

We need to be able to play competitve chess regularly at our level. The emphasis on winning is all wrong. If that were the case I'd have to give up as I get beat most of the time.

Thge point is its just a bloody game. we pay our dues and you bods who must win- well go on win. But as we pay then we expedt to play - against everyone in the club. That means it would nice to meet at least once some of the players who represent us but who NRVRr COME TO OUR CLUB NIGHTS. I could draw up a list but that wiuld be unkind.

ROGER HALL, (17/04/2009)

First of all thanks to Steve and Richard for organising the tournament last night which I enjoyed tremendously

I would like to take this opportuniy to apologise unreservedly and publically for a) being crap at chess and more importantly b) being rude to people in the past.
Chess really isn't that important and its certainly not worth losing friends over. So I would like to say to Laurence - I nearly died at Christmas- if I had then I would have missed this opportunity to say sorry for being so rude. All I ask is that he remember we were pretty good friends for most of the last 10 or so years.

You and everyone else know that underneath this gruff northern Geordie exterior lies a reasonably nice guy whilst a heart of gold and passion beats under your 'effete Essex boy' (its a joke ok!) chest.

The way we avoided each other last night was not worthy of men

So lets be friends again me old mucker

Roger

Akis, (17/04/2009)

Here is a question for the captains.
How many new players joined your clubs the last 2,3 years?
How many of those had never joined a club before?
Are they still playing?

Stuart Acton, (01/04/2009)

I have been contemplating for a while on what is the best way to get new players involved in local chess so I am proposing the following possible amendments. I feel, at the moment, that players are put of playing in matches as they are heavily out graded in second division games. Hopefully these proposals will encourage more new players and teams to participate in local evening league chess. I wanted to be open and above board about everything so thought this was the best place to air my suggestions.

In brief

Suggestion 1
Merge the existing Division One and Two into one division and have a new Division Two with an upper grading limit of any player of 110, 100 or 90. All play all, no relegation, 14 matches.

Suggestion 2
Leave Division One and Two exactly as they are with no changes to anything but still have the extra Division as suggestion 1, with an extra ruling that no one who has played in Division One can play in Division 3.

Paul Anderson, (16/04/2009)

I think the idea of a seperate division with a grade limit is a good one, particularly with the sensible point regarding number of boards. It would need to be a 3rd division as combining 1&2 would create problems in the number of players available for some clubs and coming up with a fixture list so that all play all within a sensible time. It may be that the schools could be approached to send some teams as used to be the case.

Tim Turner, (16/04/2009)

Stuart

On your suggestions. Merging Div 1 and 2 will create the problems you are trying to avoid; div 1 teams are considerably stronger than div 2 teams (usually 50-75 pts per board) and this mismatch will discourage players from playing chess.

Creating a div 3 is extremely ambitious as I don't believe there are enough players or organisers to run more teams. Shepherds are currently on an upward spiral with the number of players but other teams are struggling to turn out 6 players (see the number of defaults during the season). If you have players who would like to play regularly other teams would certainly be interested. It is also worth noting that extra boards can be played alongside league matches, under the same conditions, and the games sent off for grading.

Stuart, please don't get me wrong here as I'm not trying to be negative. I am very much in favour of encouraging any new player, regardless of strength, to take up the game

Rob (Shepherds), (17/04/2009)

In response to the comment below about the number of defaults this season (see posting on 16/4), I feel compelled to point out that in the second division this season there have been well over 600 board positions available across all teams throughout the season, and 95.5% of them were filled. That means only one in twenty opportunities to play were missed.

Personally I think that's a tremendous success, and all the captains need a great deal of credit for ensuring such a high level of attendance at our matches in what is a very long season with 14 matches per team.

The high take-up of available boards shows that (despite the numerous internet forums I've read about the death of OTB chess) there is in fact a great deal of enthusiasm to play this type of chess, even at our relatively low level. It also indicates to me (admittedly as a theory rather than a proven fact) that as I pointed out in my earlier posting, if more boards were available then more keen players would appear out of nowhere to take them up.

I guess there will be a school of thought which suggests that the standard of play will be eroded if more low level chess is played, but I take the opposite view. There might just be another pair of Wellers out there waiting to be discovered. And even if there isn't, who cares? Rubbish players like Roger and I (sorry Roger) still have a great deal to offer - if only to provide light relief for the better players (I see that one of my 'less proud moments' has mysteriously appeared in the games section. How humiliating is that?).

Best wishes to all,

Rob

Rob Walwyn (Shepherds), (03/04/2009)

Hi Stuart.

I can speak with authority on this subject. I'm a very average player, and my grade has hovered between 50 and 60 since I started playing 10 years ago. I never seem to get any better but despite that, playing chess is what keeps me going.

Until Shepherds came along and offered me a place in their team, I'd always struggled to get a regular game, where my low grade doesn’t rule me out (apart from as a last minute stand in). There must be others in a similar position to myself who long to be able to play regularly.

We must surely provide enough places in local teams for whoever wants to play. We’re not professional players – the more lowly amongst us shouldn’t be ruled out simply because we’re not blessed with Richard Palliser’s enormous talent. I know there are some juniors at Shepherds who infrequently get a game, and they must feel the same frustration as I used to feel.

I’m not sure about suggestion 1, but I wholeheartedly back up suggestion 2. A lower level division seems like an ideal place for my kind of player. Established teams should be encouraged to set up second and third teams to cater for this, or else entirely new teams should be formed. I know that venues and equipment could be an issue, but this can be overcome. However, I do think there should be a promotion / relegation link with the rest of the league to encourage competition and keep the interest up.

I know there’s going to be more pressure to get a game at Shepherds next season. I’m pleased by your suggestion that a third team might be formed, but if it doesn’t happen and I have to go back to watching from the sidelines then I’d certainly consider organising a new one to ensure I get a regular game. I don’t care if I’m out of my depth and lose every game as long as I’m amongst nice people and playing regularly.

I think we’d need to be a bit careful about penalising teams at this lower level if they can’t muster enough players every match, because their playing resource is likely to be more stretched than the better teams. I recommend that matches be UP TO 6 boards rather than exactly 6. If a captain doesn’t have enough players then the captains should come to a mutual agreement (in advance) about how many boards to arrange a match with. If you can only find 4 players then you shouldn’t have to come into a match with a score of -2. I don’t mean to be controversial; just looking at it from the ‘bad players’ perspective.

Roger hall, (28/10/2008)

The evening League Rules (reworded in English) should be lodged un the site for public inspection and interpretation

So should the New Competition Rules

youpron g, (05/02/2010)

comment2, http://forum.scmcanada.org/users/1207 karup dreams, aazhk, http://forum.scmcanada.org/users/1185 black porn hub, vsqoam, http://forum.scmcanada.org/users/1189 youpron g, 64095, http://forum.scmcanada.org/users/1198 free2peek hit bg, 8-),

amateur porn sites like free2peek, (05/02/2010)

comment4, http://forum.scmcanada.org/users/1206 big nice melons, :]]], http://forum.scmcanada.org/users/1195 whip xxxtube, 38519, http://forum.scmcanada.org/users/1205 boneme galleries, izsau,

daily niner carmen electra in shower, (05/02/2010)

comment6, http://forum.scmcanada.org/users/1192 zillatube sidekick 2008 download, 860, http://forum.scmcanada.org/users/1208 tjoob nikki rhodes, 724, http://forum.scmcanada.org/users/1197 moviemo, 0895, http://forum.scmcanada.org/users/1186 porn tube 8, %PPP,

moviesand tight, (05/02/2010)

comment2, http://forum.scmcanada.org/users/1185 porn hub, mhqt, http://forum.scmcanada.org/users/1198 free2peek, >:-P, http://forum.scmcanada.org/users/1204 xxxdessert galleries, 7850, http://forum.scmcanada.org/users/1200 ask jolene horse stories, 8),

angel dark porneskimo, (05/02/2010)

comment5, http://forum.scmcanada.org/users/1196 download videos tnaflix, >:-OO, http://forum.scmcanada.org/users/1184 free tube8, :-P, http://forum.scmcanada.org/users/1197 moviemonster vod, 186,

lora xpeeps, (05/02/2010)

comment1, http://forum.scmcanada.org/users/1185 3d shemale foursome, 370979, http://forum.scmcanada.org/users/1196 penny porsche tnaflix, >:[, http://forum.scmcanada.org/users/1206 big real melons, 0744,

tnaflix granny, (05/02/2010)

comment4, http://forum.scmcanada.org/users/1193 xpeeps noose, %-OO, http://forum.scmcanada.org/users/1196 websites like tnaflix, 7871, http://forum.scmcanada.org/users/1190 ampland main menu, qqjzkx,

tube8 schoolteacher caning videos, (05/02/2010)

comment4, http://forum.scmcanada.org/users/1211 besttubeclip, 970218, http://forum.scmcanada.org/users/1197 moviemonster vod, jhzjaa, http://forum.scmcanada.org/users/1200 ask jolene stories, 8D,

promotion code cheaper than dirt, (05/02/2010)

comment4, http://forum.scmcanada.org/users/1196 tnaflix like, vdwee, http://forum.scmcanada.org/users/1187 sites like xhamster and porhub, 8-P, http://forum.scmcanada.org/users/1208 tjoob porn, :]]], http://forum.scmcanada.org/users/1200 ask jolene scat, >:-[[,

karups hometown, (05/02/2010)

comment6, http://forum.scmcanada.org/users/1189 youpron grandmother, 8DDD, http://forum.scmcanada.org/users/1208 jenna haze tjoob, %-PP, http://forum.scmcanada.org/users/1199 black amatuertube, ggar,

3 stooges with shemp, (05/02/2010)

comment6, http://forum.scmcanada.org/users/1193 xpeeps graphics, eodhg, http://forum.scmcanada.org/users/1185 swingers foursome, >:DD, http://forum.scmcanada.org/users/1187 porhub candy samples, :-(((,

moviemonster vod, (05/02/2010)

comment5, http://forum.scmcanada.org/users/1187 porhub picture, 8-(, http://forum.scmcanada.org/users/1192 zillatube download, 8-D, http://forum.scmcanada.org/users/1200 ask jolene raylene richards, nfwq,

ask jolene horse stories, (05/02/2010)

comment4, http://forum.scmcanada.org/users/1193 luik xpeeps, 73318, http://forum.scmcanada.org/users/1189 youpron sex, 247531, http://forum.scmcanada.org/users/1184 tube8 lesbian, 315, http://forum.scmcanada.org/users/1211 besttubeclips big boobs, nxzdz,

fuckedhard18 video at tnaflix, (04/02/2010)

comment4, http://forum.scmcanada.org/users/1207 karups home, istg, http://forum.scmcanada.org/users/1184 tube8 bondage, :-[[[, http://forum.scmcanada.org/users/1192 zillatube for apple, >:PP, http://forum.scmcanada.org/users/1186 free porn tube video, 92375,

ROGER, (06/11/2008)

HI AKIS

THANKS FOR YOUR REPLY

I SUPPOSE I'M TRYING TO GET SOME TRANSPARENCY AND HONESTY

ALL THE IONFORMATION EG THE OFFICE BEARERFS, TITLES AND DUTIES AND WHETHER ELECTED SHOULD BE REASONABLY ACCESSIBLE PUBLIC INFORMATION

WHY NOT LODGE IT HERE

ROGER HALL, (06/11/2008)

I AM TRYING TO SET UP A MEMBER LEVEL DEBATING GROUP TO DISCSS RELEVANT ISSUES AND VOICE GRASSROOTS OPINIONS

IS THIS NOT A GOOD IDEA

Akis, (03/11/2008)

Hello Roger,
as I see it, this website was Richard Palliser's idea and his aims where
i) help people who would like to join a chess club find some information
ii)Perhaps save some trees by publishing the newsletters here instead of printing
iii)Provide information about the league and other useful information.

This site doesn't represent any form of authority in the York chess scene (the only official thing I can think of is receiving the league results) and we (or I ) dont feel like making ourselves a authority through it.I am afraid that some of your suggestions MIGHT do that.
On the other hand perhaps you are just asking for democracy as it originated in Athens...
I am not willing to change the site's character by my self,but if there are more people supporting your views then (for the same reason, that I am not the one who makes the decisions) I would happily implement your suggestions if the people who hold all this information will provide it to me.

In any case really thank you for your sugestions

ROGER HALL, (02/11/2008)

THE NAME, POSITION AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE LEAGUE OFFICE BEARERS OF THE EVENING LEAGUE SHOULD BE PUBLISHED HERE

IT SHOULD BE STATED WHETHER THESE OFFICES ARE ELECTED OR UNELECTED/CO-OPTED AND THE DURATION OR TERM OF OFFICE

IF THERE IS A CONSTITUTION FOR THE LEAGUE OR RI THEN IT TOO SHOULD BE HERE

ALSO THE ACCOUNTS AND AUDITS SHOULD BE PUBLISHED HERE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION

A CLUB AND EVENING LEAGUE MEMBERSHIP DATABASE WITH CONTACT DETAILS

A FORUM FOR DEBATING ISSUE OF THE MOMENT AND MAKING POSITIVE SUGGESTIONS

Akis, (29/10/2008)

I agree,
Richard Palliser has already contacted the people that might held a electronic copy.

Jon Griffith, (24/09/2008)

I was Here