England, Great Britain and United Kingdom

Why do they all appear on the Chess.com country listings? I could accurately describe myself as coming from all three of them. Who thinks the Chess.com country list should only feature one of these three entities?

Personally, I would plump for England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland ahead of the other two, on the basis that they are the nations recognised by FIDE, and they are also the countries used in the Chess.com World League.

Surely they can just be removed from the list?

Actually u gotta point. I thought Great Britain and England were the same thing.

For the other countries, i guess it is because they are sovereign under the UN.

To clarify for those who don't know:

Great Britain = England + Scotland + Wales
United Kingdom = Great Britain + Northern Ireland

thanks alexholowczak.

i juz checked out those independent states (england, scotland, wales and northern ireland): they all are under the direct executive power of the Prime Minister of UK so maybe chess.com should collectively tally UK members.

Well, it's not that simple.

In sport, the UK is often split up into its member states. In football, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are separate. In chess, England, Scotland, Wales and a united Ireland (Northern Ireland + Republic of Ireland) are the teams. That's what I'd do on here.

Just remains to see who else agrees! And whether the site founders want to do anything about it.

yeah its kinda complicated...

lets c wat d rest have 2 say.

I think you have to have some familiarity with the history of the British Isles to understand -- England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland all have their own heritage, have been independent nations in the past, and have fought a lot of bloody wars changing that status.  It's not at all the same as comparing Texas and New York.

The first international football match was England v Scotland - there were no other countries who wanted to play at the time. After a time Wales joined in. Then, when other countries came along, they played England, Scotland, Wales etc. and the tradition stuck, even though they were all entities within the UK.

On Chess.com, I'm complaining that all three options exist, and I think it'd be much better if just one of them existed. Because it makes a mockery of the country statistics.

Just for an odd sideline, here's a question about sporting history: the first international cricket match was in 1844; between which two countries? Clue: it's not who you think ...

United States and Canada. North America was a cricketing hotbed until they had a civil war. Baseball became easier to play, so that game became more established. There is a famous cricket club in Philadelphia though, even to this day, I believe. It's probably the oldest "overseas" club in the world.

England were due to play France in 1789, but they were met by the French Revolution fleeing the other way.

That's it!

To complicate it further, with cricket with the Ashes being played today are between Australia and (England and Wales). Scotland and Ireland have their own teams...

Yeah, but any good Scottish or Irish players play first-class cricket in England, and if good enough they play Test Matches for England in the end. Dougie Brown, Gavin Hamilton, Ed Joyce, Eoin Morgan for starters.

But I still want Chess.com to remove GB/UK from their nations list.

 There is a chess relevance in that Ed Joyce's brother John played chess for Ireland.

There is a similar problem on this site concerning Holland and The Netherlands... perhaps an issue that needs to be sorted out on several fronts, then... a revamp of the available countries wouldn't go amiss.

Also, there's the Channel Islands down as one country, but seperate teams for Jersey and Guernsey, the UK point in miniature.

Similarly, I just noticed Catalonia is on the list. That isn't a country. Neither is Kosovo.

Also, you have Jersey, Guernsey, and Channel Islands. Jersey and Guernsey *are* Channel Islands.

Greenland is part of Denmark.

Serbia-Montenegro still exists on the list and isn't a country anymore.

North and South Holland are areas in The Netherlands, so there is no need for Holland to exist.

Also, I bet there aren't 160 people from Vatican City on here. :-D Might want to take away that option, just transfer them to Italy or something.

I agree with Nytik, a country list revolution is required.

danbunting - Yeah, you got there just ahead of me.

I agree, they should break it up between England, Scotland, and Wales. I don't know what to do with Northern Ireland.

In the U.S., Texas, California, and the southern states have all been independent countries at one time or another, and even fought a pretty bloody war over it.

The Netherlands/Holland one is another example. Heck, Almost every part of Germany (Brandenburg, Prussia, Hanover, Bavaria, etc.) was a separate country until the 19th century. Should we split them up too?

Should we split Italy up among Milan, Venice, Naples, Rome, Florence, etc., as they were separate states until the 19th century as well?

Should Spain be split among Aragon, Castile, and Basque?

Should Quebec be seperate, as they are always trying to break away from Canada?

Then there is the Taiwan/China issue.

I dunno. I guess it opens a can of worms.

Sorry! Some will be fine I guess, but I can see some decisions getting pretty political and heated. Like Kosovo; the declaration of independence has been recognised by the UK but not all countries, I think that it's going to the ICJ to decide its legality.