Grammatical Quandary

[John Upham]

I'm creating an (Eventbrite entry) form and have an important query for you all.

Is it correct to write

The Hampshire EJCOA Championships Qualifier is for all chess players who are aged 21 years or less as at August 31st 2023.


or

The Hampshire EJCOA Championships Qualifier is for all chess players who are aged 21 years or fewer as at August 31st 2023.

or

The Hampshire EJCOA Championships Qualifier is for all chess players who are aged 21 years or under as at August 31st 2023.

or

This is utter bo**ocks and John should go back to the drawing board

Your opinions, as always, will be most appreciated.

(My preference is for fewer rather than less)

[Alex McFarlane]

Surely 21 years or under is the norm.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Less is more correct than fewer in this instance because you are treating the 21 years as an amount of continuous time and not as 21 individual years. But, as Alex says, under would be more usual.

[Matt Mackenzie]

And its actually "Quandary"

[Kevin Thurlow]

er, "it's" actually "Quandary"

(This could run and run...)

[David Stott]

Had I been given the choice I would have gone for:- "The Hampshire EJCOA Championships Qualifier is for all chess players, who will be aged under 22 years on August 31st 2023." Is it too late to include this as an option?

[Pete Morriss]

Possibly clearer, and simpler, is "open to all born on or after [insert preferred date]".

[Paul McKeown]

I'm creating an (Eventbrite entry) form and have an important query for you all.

Is it correct to write

The Hampshire EJCOA Championships Qualifier is for all chess players who are aged 21 years or less as at August 31st 2023.

My understanding of EJCOA is that you've gotten off to a bad start already. Their age determinations are based on the calendar year rather than the English academic year, in order to align with FIDE. I would suggest you check with Rob first, before worrying about your grandma.

[Tim Spanton]

Why include the word years? Surely under 22 is clear enough?

[Kevin Williamson]

"Both of the above are totally flawed and should be re-written"

Surely not "both" when there are three options.

[Paul McKeown]

I vote to add a fifth option, "This is utter bo**ocks and John should go back to the drawing board"

[Angus French]

How about: "the event is open to everyone aged under 22 on <whatever date it is>"?

[John Upham]

I vote to add a fifth option, "This is utter bo**ocks and John should go back to the drawing board"

Your wish has been my command.

I have used a drawing board when doing a Technical Drawing Ordinary Level in 1976 at Yateley School With 11 other GCEs TD had to go along with Domestic Science much to my future regret to bring me back down to 10.

[J T Melsom]

I know some chess organisers relish the opportunity to devise forms and systems of their own choosing rather than have something imposed. But given this is a regional qualifier for a national event it seems to me that one of those instances where a minimal template might be in order. This would at the very least ensure entrants are invited on a consistent basis, and are aware of the details of the national stages for which they are trying to qualify.

[NickFaulks]

Surely under 22 is clear enough?

No, it really isn't. Sometimes "under X" is intended to include X, sometimes not.