Should the ECF continue to support 50+ chess?

[Paul Cooksey]

In the absence of an opportunity to say something controversial about the ECF AGM I thought I'd ask this instead.

Overall I think seniors chess is a double edged sword. Some players who would not otherwise play enjoy it. But it removes other players partially or wholly from the pool playing in open events. So I see it as detrimental to future generations of players.

My feeling is that it started to take off when the Fischer generation became eligible for 50+ and a number of players did play more because of senior events. But those players are now mostly 65+ so a 50+ event not appealing to such a large UK demographic.

It seems to me better, for the British for example, if the Major Open is strengthened by 50+ players than there is a strong 50+ Championship.

How do others see it?

[Roger de Coverly]

It seems to me better, for the British for example, if the Major Open is strengthened by 50+ players than there is a strong 50+ Championship.

How do others see it?

The Major Open is now full of underrated juniors. Apart from the problem that Keith Arkell always wins, the Over 50 can seem a better proposition from a ratings retention viewpoint. The Over 65 has the disadvantage that the winner doesn't qualify for the next British Championship.

CM and FM titles are potentially within range for the stronger senior participants who don't already have them from their youth.

[Thomas Rendle]

To what extent do they currently? I was the impression that Nigel Povah (amongst others) fund-raised for the England seniors teams. One of the many reasons I don't like how he's been treated in the recent controversy.

I think players enjoy 50+ events a couple of times a year. I don't blame players wanting to avoid tournaments full of juniors / youngsters once in a while, and I'd be sad to see them go.

[NickFaulks]

Am I the only elderly player who enjoys facing enthusiastic young opponents and doesn't obsess over whether they might be underrated?

[LawrenceCooper]

Do you mean support financially? I assume you do but thought it better to ask.

[Keith Arkell]

To what extent do they currently? I was the impression that Nigel Povah (amongst others) fund-raised for the England seniors teams. One of the many reasons I don't like how he's been treated in the recent controversy.

Which basically translates to Rendle having a go at me, despite that he has no idea what he's talking about. Perhaps if he read my Facebook thread he might gain a better understanding of who the real victim is.

Edit: To be fair to Thomas Rendle, I doubt he intended selective empathy. I would just ask him to put himself in my shoes and imagine being dropped by a team, and the selectors can’t justify it on playing strength, rating, or recent and long term results for that team, so they try to justify it by emailing you to say that they ‘’ needed to introduce more fighting qualities to the team’’.

I was obviously livid! Very often I am the last person in the building still fighting - trying to grind out a win when it looks almost impossible.

[Ian Thompson]

Do you mean support financially? I assume you do but thought it better to ask.

If the question does include financial support, the ECF AGM paperwork has disclosed how much of the DCMS grant was/will be spent on senior international team chess - almost £20K per event on average. Even if that was the total expenditure on those events, which I assume it isn't, it strikes me as a lot, so I wonder whether it was necessary and good value for money?

[PeterFarr]

Am I the only elderly player who enjoys facing enthusiastic young opponents and doesn't obsess over whether they might be underrated?

No you're not, it's much more interesting to face a variety of opponents, and after all rating declining with age is just a fact of life, however much one might want to ward it off.

[Paul Cooksey]

I'm happy to play juniors too which is I suppose one reason why I started the thread. At the risk of sounding very self important, when I decided I was a veteran even a bit before 50, I remember being inspired by Kortchnoi's attitude. He saw himself as a professor setting an exam for young players to pass.

I do understand their are reasons why a person might decide to enter a veterans tournament. But why would, say, the British encourage them to do it? To my mind it only makes sense if they would not play at all otherwise.

[Roger de Coverly]

I do understand their are reasons why a person might decide to enter a veterans tournament. But why would, say, the British encourage them to do it? To my mind it only makes sense if they would not play at all otherwise.

The relationship between entry fees and prizes for the Senior tournaments makes it likely that they are helping to balance the books and pay for the Championship proper. That's the case for most of the side events at the British of course. There's now a lengthening history of Senior winners, so the existence of Senior titles is well established.

[Paul Cooksey]

I don't think we are disagreeing, it goes to my point that senior chess only makes sense if it is extra entries rather than transferred entries. I am sure that is the case for 65+, but doubtful for 50+.

For lovers of irony, I manged to lose this evening in 30 moves to someone I would not have had to play for several decades if I took the precaution of playing seniors chess. While sat next to Nigel Povah.

[Joe Skielnik]

Of course the ECF should support all chess, irrespective of age. There seems to be a general agreement that the rating of juniors does not reflect their true strength. Until that issue is resolved problems will continue, since ratings determine pairings, prizes, board order, etc, etc.

[Paul Cooksey]

Now we have monthly grades the biggest issue seems to be that underrated juniors are not playing enough games against overrated seniors.

[NickFaulks]

since ratings determine pairings, prizes, board order, etc, etc.

Problems with team selection and board orders are self-inflicted. These should be based on perceived playing strength, as determined by selectors and captains.

[Tim Spanton]

since ratings determine pairings, prizes, board order, etc, etc.

Problems with team selection and board orders are self-inflicted. These should be based on perceived playing strength, as determined by selectors and captains.

Why do you need selectors and captains to determine "perceived playing strength" when you have an objective measure in the form of ratings?