Major investment to transform future of English chess announced

[Roger Lancaster]

"Debate over £2,500 'levelling up' park chess tables"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cprglvj820po

I've no insight into ECF's dealings with HMG and I'm certainly not criticising but I speak as someone who has had similar experiences, albeit outside chess, of negotiating HMG funding. There's often a difference between how applicants really want to use the funds and what HMG (or any other sponsor, for that matter) will agree to. In this case, I have real doubts whether chess tables in parks was anywhere near the top of the ECF's priorities but, instead, that it slotted in neatly with the HMG intention to improve the quality of parks and open spaces in deprived areas.

[Andrew Martin]

Are the newly-installed tables actually being used? What is the news on the ground from local chess players?

[John Upham]

Are the newly-installed tables actually being used? What is the news on the ground from local chess players?

What might be more useful would be chess tables installed in covered areas such as shopping centres.

The chances of the weather permitting and two people taking chess pieces to a park are vanishingly low.

However, if you are serious about this and, rather than adopting a tokenistic approach, it is possible to do it properly:

https://www.centralpark.com/things-to-d ... -checkers/

[John Townsend]

I think what Nigel Short has said about this is absolutely right. These are not huge sums, but the scheme has the potential to spread the chess gospel. Of course, it is also consistent with the government's levelling up ambitions.

Naturally, the scheme would benefit from more local promotion initiatives.

[Kevin Thurlow]

""Park budgets around here have been cut right back to the bone, now we've ended up with a chess board that's sort of a white elephant.""

No - it's a bishop now, mate.

Much of the money went to Lancashire as they actually asked for it - many councils didn't.

[jholyhead]

Local man angry that money earmarked for chess was spent on chess and not on a new kitchen.

[John Townsend]

If you consider the potential benefits of the scheme, it makes the money seem particularly well spent:

1. Many think chess benefits school performance. If so, let us take full advantage of chess for children, not just the most talented ones.

2. It introduces new players to chess, so ultimately contributes to the government's longer term aspirations for us to become a top chess nation again.

3. It contributes to levelling up.

In summary, a wonderful investment! A no-brainer.

[Roger Lancaster]

If you consider the potential benefits of the scheme, it makes the money seem particularly well spent:

1. Many think chess benefits school performance. If so, let us take full advantage of chess for children, not just the most talented ones.

2. It introduces new players to chess, so ultimately contributes to the government's longer term aspirations for us to become a top chess nation again.

3. It contributes to levelling up.

In summary, a wonderful investment! A no-brainer.

As well as the "potential" I'd like to consider the reality. First, the location of the chess tables has to be well known. I recently found a chess (or draughts) table in council playing fields 2-3 miles from my address which, for all I know, had been there for years. But as far as I am aware, local chess clubs were unaware of its existence and it seems to have had little use. Secondly, these tables won't be much used in poor or indifferent weather - that's much of the year. Although outdoor chess can be great in sunny weather, there's a good reason why chess is primarily an indoor sport. Thirdly, anyone stumbling across a table by accident won't be able to play without chess pieces - or, indeed, an opponent.

That's not to suggest there's zero benefit from these tables but how much depends - and here we come back to the word "potential" - on how much use they get. As to whether it's a "wonderful investment", the value of an investment is conventionally valued by comparison with other possible uses of the money involved. For example, is it a better or worse investment than installing chess boards/sets in, say, libraries? How anyone can find this a "no-brainer" rather eludes me. Having said that, it's a sterile discussion because we now have these tables and, like them or loath them, the relevant question is how best to make use of them.

[John Townsend]

Roger Lancaster wrote: "How anyone can find this a "no-brainer" rather eludes me."

It is a no-brainer because, for a small outlay, the scheme addresses three important objectives at once. If one of them should fail, there are two other chances.

[Mick Norris]

It was featured on BBC lunchtime news on North West today I gather

link

This episode will be available soon

[Roger Lancaster]

Roger Lancaster wrote: "How anyone can find this a "no-brainer" rather eludes me."

It is a no-brainer because, for a small outlay, the scheme addresses three important objectives at once. If one of them should fail, there are two other chances.

I rather think you've missed the point as I suggested that, before branding something as a "wonderful investment", it's normal to demonstrate why it's the best possible use of money as opposed to - to take the example I gave - promoting chess in libraries with similar if not identical objectives.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Of course, it is also consistent with the government's levelling up ambitions

Since those don't appear to involve actually spending significant amounts of money - I suppose it is, yes.

[Nick Burrows]

Of course, it is also consistent with the government's levelling up ambitions

Since those don't appear to involve actually spending significant amounts of money - I suppose it is, yes.

They also don't really have those ambitions. It's a slogan designed to win votes that is not backed up with action. Another is the "Northern Powerhouse"

[John Townsend]

I don't see the purpose of these negative remarks from Roger Lancaster. Haven't we gone past that stage? We have the tables now and I stand by my comment that they are a "wonderful investment", and I have given reasons above. Let us make the most of them.

[NickFaulks]

I don't see the purpose of these negative remarks from Roger Lancaster.

I don't see Roger's comments as negative. Subsequent posts from Nick and Matt might be viewed as negative, but they are also entirely accurate.