English Chess Forum

Recommendation Tournaments for the World and European Junior Chess Championships.
Young chess players identified as potential for the England national team are invited by the ECF selection committee to join a special group. Their games are scrutinised and to assist their development, they receive coaching and guidance as to which tournaments to play in.
Selectors bend over backwards to be fair. They make allowances for the occasional poor performance and whether a player was unwell at a particular chess tournament.
Having been selected to represent England at the World and European championships. Parents are then presented with a bill for this privilege. Which they are required to pay in advance.
Parents of young players not in this select group lack confidence in the procedure. There is suspicion of favouritism.
It undermines the case for chess to be recognised as a sport.
Selection Tournaments.
Selection Tournaments are totally transparent.
Selection Tournaments demand close supervision. And accurate preparation by the organiser.
This totally gladiatorial. Winner takes all competition. Could be broken down into seeded steps allowing for localised tournaments at City, County and Union levels. Culminating in recognition as a national champion. “Champion of England”.
Their prize would be their recommendation to the ECF selectors for their inclusion in the England team to play in the World or European championships and a cash prize comprising all entry fees relevant to their age group less the organising expenses.
In the event of non-selection for the National team. The organiser retains his right to ask why not?
Recognition of chess as a sport.
It has been said that chess is not recognised as a sport because it is not a physical game. True. But. A six-hour game of chess, mentally wrestled over a chess board is an exhausting experience it demands a good level of physical fitness.
Chess is a game of 100% skill. There is no luck involved. No other sport can claim that.
The World Chess Championships has gelled into a two-year cycle contested by players who have qualified from various “World Class Competitions”. (Selection tournaments)
Even at this early-stage qualifiers are usually, fit young men and women.
A young English chess player having successfully progressed through the u8, u10, u12, u14, u16, u18 and u21 coaching levels and showing the necessary qualities would be poised to be coached for the “Full World Championships”.
Entry to the initial tournament is open to anyone. Entry to subsequent tournaments is by invitation from the organiser only. ECF selected players would be seeded.
This permanently on-going competition might assist in the halting or the slowing down of the haemorrhaging of young players from our game.
Because luck is not involved and because Chess is a game of 100% skill. Selection tournaments can adopt a sausage machine approach towards our very best players honing them to improve their skills.
Forward planning by competitors can be made. Future opponents can be prepared for e.g., past games analysed, and opening preparation made.
A junior chess player showing genuine natural quality could be groomed. After consultation between the tournament organiser, the player, the players parents, and the players’ coach/sponsor, the player could be invited to play in selection tournaments for older players. “Training not straining”.
This is a sporting approach and makes the case for chess to be recognised as a “Sport”.
Recognised as a sport.
Chess demonstrates all the very best qualities in sport. The Olympic spirit. Involving players from every country on the planet (or else ware) able bodied or not.
With the support of other ECF registered coaches I would be prepared to fill the role of organiser.
I submit this for yours and other coaches from the English Juniors Coaches & Organisers Association information and comments.
I ask that this letter is forwarded to the ECF officials scrutinising this idea advising them of my interest. And willingness to be involved.
Yours Sincerely
Alan Ruffle.
P.S. I have been in touch with the “Children’s Commissioners Office”, Formerly headed by Mrs Ann Longfield enquiring about the use of schools for this competition, it is aware of this plan.

It seems to me, with all due respect to Alan who has clearly given the matter some thought, that the above proposal suffers from a defect in assuming that tournaments are all won by the most skilful player.

Also just to add, such a tournament already exists and is called the British.
If anything it should have more rounds (9?)

"It seems to me, with all due respect to Alan who has clearly given the matter some thought, that the above proposal suffers from a defect in assuming that tournaments are all won by the most skilful player."

True - but a selection tournament would be good practice for the "real thing", relating to pressure, etc. So it is an idea

(edited for missing space)

Kevin Thurlow wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 21, 2021 11:03 am

True - but a selection tournament would be good practice for the "real thing", relating to pressure, etc.

Selection tournaments have been around for years, even if they aren't currently fashionable. But why did it make sense to select for a nine rounds or more tournament with four or five hour games, mostly at one round a day, using a five round weekend tournament with three or three and a half hour sessions?

I agree they should be similar events ideally. But some sort of tournament pressure should be useful information?

Certainly better than the good old days when some players got selected because Mummy was on the selection committee!

Kevin Thurlow wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 21, 2021 1:13 pm

Certainly better than the good old days when some players got selected because Mummy was on the selection committee!

Genuinely intrigued as to who is being referred to here......

I think it would be unfair to name the junior, even though I think they gave up chess round about A-Level time (as many do). I was running a weekender about 20 years ago and a lowly-graded junior entered the Major (fair enough - stronger opposition), but sadly reached 0/2 and there was an odd number of players, so got a bye. I was confronted by a silent junior and angry mother, who demanded to know why the junior had got a bye. I explained that with an odd number of players, the lowest scoring one gets a bye. "What about the other person on 0?" "He's asked for a bye tomorrow morning, so I can't deliberately give him another one." I pointed out we had a filler, so the junior would get a game.
"That's no use! We entered this tournament to get practice for the World Junior Tournament and (my child) is playing in that." I did mildly think that if the junior had 0/2 in a random Major, that a World Junior event might be a challenge. Anyway, I politely said that was the pairing and the mother stomped off followed by the still silent junior. The mother came back alone and repeated the rant, then said, "We're upset and disappointed" and stomped off again. The junior then defaulted against the filler, who wasn't too upset and I generously awarded the junior a point. I then put the incident out of my mind, until about 9 months later, the BCF Newsletter revealed which juniors were playing in the various World Junior events, sure enough this one was listed. Then I thought, "Have they really waited 9 months to announce this? How can playing in a weekender nearly a year ahead of the event be vital practice?" So I looked up the Selection Committee for that age group and discovered the mother was part of it. I also looked up gradings for players in that age group, to discover that perhaps some other juniors might be disappointed that this junior had been selected ahead of them. I commented on this to friends and they said it was not an unusual scenario.

Do you recall how they actually did?

In many cases, the parent on the selection committee was a parent of a leading junior. It's the usual difficult thing in chess, perceived "conflict of interest". Some parents of juniors want to be involved in organization, because they are interested. Similarly, people with financial interests in chess want to be involved in running the ECF. Maybe they are there to feather their nests, maybe they are the best people for the jobs as they have a professional interest. Difficult, isn't it?

I'm sorely tempted to comment on "Similarly, people with financial interests in chess want to be involved in running the ECF" but that's really another topic. One pertinent point, which RdC touched on above, is that it's very hard to assess which of our younger juniors are best at classical chess because most of their playing opportunities are rapidplay. Watford currently has longer [6 until 9] playing sessions than most junior clubs, and this permits rated classical games [typically 45' + 15"] but we're still conscious that these games aren't long enough to prepare juniors for events - and I'm thinking of stamina as much as skill - where games continue for 3-4 hours.

Pre covid, a junior could reasonably get 10 standard games per month (though not fide rated).
What makes it hard to assess is that the top 10 juniors in any age group are broadly of the same strength. If one is stronger it probably means he'd get 55% or 60% against his peers. You cannot reasonably detect or assess such a small differential (unless you get each kid to play each other over 10 games).

So you either have to resort to:
- tournament wins (which includes luck of the draw and form on the day/week)
- ratings (which can be gamed to an extent)
- selection committees (which is more subjective by nature and requires equally deep knowledge of all candidates)

No good or easy answer I'm afraid.

"What makes it hard to assess is that the top 10 juniors in any age group are broadly of the same strength. If one is stronger it probably means he'd get 55% or 60% against his peers."

That's usually the case, sometimes there's one obviously stronger player. With any strong player, they tend to have a dramatic leap in terms of results at some stage, and of course you don't know when it will happen! One junior I knew went 130 - 160 in a year, so we thought that's his dramatic leap, but then when he went to about 190 the next year, we had to think again... I agree with Roger that Rapidplay is not such a good marker for real chess. Stamina plays a part.

When I was involved in junior selections we (the selection committee) considered (not in order as this could vary with the board order):
age and maturity
rating (and how it was gained)
number of games played and time control
who they had played
quality of games played (and this was before computer databases were everywhere so a manual process based on fewer games, usually between the players in contention)
team spirit (would they fit into the squad)

On one occasion (where I was not involved) a choice for bottom board in a team was made purely on ability. Whoever was picked was almost certain to lose every game. In that situation I would have gone for maturity/resilience. Unfortunately, the girl chosen lost every game and was never seen again.

Wadih Khoury wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 23, 2021 8:48 am

Pre covid, a junior could reasonably get 10 standard games per month (though not fide rated).

That's probably true of older juniors who compete regularly in 'adult' events but less so of the under-10's and especially under-8's who nevertheless, if they are selected for international events such as the European Schools, still have to face 3-4 hours playing sessions.