World Youth Championships, Turkey

[Matthew Turner]

Jonathan,
Of course we can make progress and clearly I was implying that we could use the ECF resources better. From time to time we will also have a medal prospect like David Howell. However, I think the idea that we could compete with China or India across a wide range of age groups is unrealistic and as Andy was saying might not even be desirable.
The Soviets were successful because chess had a high profile within the state, so there was a large base of players from which to get stars. That is completely different from the challenge that we face from India and China, where players are almost being identified at birth and pushed to be successful. If they aren't, I am afraid Andy or anybody else will not be able to track their progress.

[William Metcalfe]

I doubt we will ever become a world power again with or without more funding.
There are just way to many cultural differences for us to overcome. The first difference I see is that the priority of a lot of talented children that come from ethnic minority families will not be chess, no matter how talented they are, as for their families, education is way more important than sporting prowess.

2nd point: there is no way we could ever countenance hot housing kids at chess in this country and I would never want to. Chess is supposed to be fun.

Thirdly, there is no way any government would provide £300,000 annually for coaching like the Dutch did. It would take a huge investment for our players to once more become world beaters.

[IM Jack Rudd]

*looks at surnames of players representing England in the World Youth*

Those would seem to suggest that, if anything, it's the ethnic minorities who are at the forefront of English junior chess.

[Jonathan Rogers]

The cultural obstacles which should concern us are the anti-intellectual ones which portray chess as unworthy and unfashionable and non-conformist, such that it is not worth playing even at a lowly school level. We have discussed them before; and they are indeed real problems.

But there is absolutely nothing wrong with taking chess very seriously, becoming very good but intending always to pursue a more lucrative career later in life, provided that one still takes an interest in the chess world that one has left behind and contributes to it whenever possible. If that is what our "ethnic minorities" intend to do - become IMs at 19 (or GMs at 24) and then become doctors or whatever - then they probably have the right idea!

I'll respond in greater detail to Andrew and Matthew tomorrow, if time permits. There is certainly much to discuss here.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Ok , I hope this will not be a very long post, but there is quite a bit that I want to say. You have been warned

Andrew and Matthew and others have alluded to the cultural difficulties in popularising chess. I agree that these obstacles are real and I have great admiration for them and for others (including a number of other forum members) who "get out there" and try to make a difference - it must feel at times as though they are running against the wind.

We said elsewhere, in the run-up to the ECF elections, that there are also limits to what we can provide for people who want to make a living from chess. Certainly so, if there will only be enough money in the game for the very very best in the world, perhaps those who are coached at an early stage in China, etc and become GMs at 13. It may well be that, given our own financial and cultural limitations, our aims should just be to keep producing as many IMs and GMs as we can, but to be happy for them (indeed, to be pro-active and to encourage them, even) to make a living outside chess - so long as they still do what they can to return something to the English chess community. At least English chess will soldier on respectably in this scenario.

But this is the problem - it is not obvious that we are even on course to do that. Leonard's suggestion that these latest results in the World Youth may (overall; some individuals did well) be our worst in recent memory should really be ringing alarm bells. And if no one responds to that, then I think that his word "complacent" is not inappropriate.

Andrew then asks - so what can we do to improve our lot, absent serious money for coaching (I leave aside for now the separate suggestion that perhaps some money is there but is currently not being used).

My answer is that there seem to be cultural problems in the ECF as well. There is a defeatism when it comes to promoting our top talents and one way forward is to confront that culture from within.

Does anyone doubt that there is presently such a culture (I do not claim to know which individuals are responsible for it, I am just asserting its existence)? Imagine this:

(a) we say that we cannot even identify our top juniors with any degree of certainty - thus these absurd qualifing events, which throw up surprise qualifiers not least because some of our top players understandably do not want to associate themselves with them. Instead we satisfy ourselves with "fair" competition and there is a silence from above when some of the qualifiers do predictably badly in the main competition

(b) so this means that far from seeking the best adult competition, we encourage them to spend more time within their age group, among weaker players. It must be very nice for them to see their friends so regularly, but i think we can push our stronger players harder than that, without being accused of imitating Vietnam or China .... Incidentally, the idea that "we cannot compete with the Chinese unless we act like the Chinese" is another cultural barrier of our own - it is a ready made excuse for not doing everything we can, to say instead "oh but you wouldn't want us to act like China!" Of course not but we can surely require our top juniors to play strong events like Hastings instead of playing among themselves ... We can at least try to help them to realise their full potential?

(c) as far as I can gather, the representatives in a World or European Youth event do not necessarily meet or even speak by phone with their allocated coach before the event starts, let alone having to share him with three of four others when they get there. If that is true - that they they don't even get to meet the coach beforehand - is that really down to money, or is someone in authority thinking "well, does it matter, this sort of thing is only the difference between 60th place and 40th place?"

(d) As Leonard says, we seem to have a strange policy not to send an u-8 even though we are in a better position than many other countries to identify our best U-8s. We try to send one but only one player in every other age group, meaning that where there happen to be two real talents in the same age group, one must miss out whilst a relatively ordinary talent fills a gap in another age group. How on earth can be justified? I am sure that Leonard is also right to say that we get our best results in these events when all the participants have a certain minimum talent and respect for each other abilities. I have the impression instead that the priority is to make sure they all get one well together socially instead. Then the result seems to be that they bring back happy memories from their trip but leave Elo points behind, if they had an Elo rating in the first place.

Well, you have the picture. Of course we are limited in what we can expect to achieve. but my impression is that the ECF has its own cultural limitations regarding what it even tries to achieve regarding its leading talents. Setting minimum standards for representing England, but letting two juniors of the requisite standard compete when available - making them prove themselves in adult competition and taking them away from domestic junior competition - identifying and introducing coaches in advance - that does not cost much money. Our juniors are really falling behind so many other countries, I bet that not every country which does better than we do has achieved their success by abducting their talents from birth or by spending 300,000 per year on coaching

[Adam Raoof]

(d) As Leonard says, we seem to have a strange policy not to send an u-8 even though we are in a better position than many other countries to identify our best U-8s. We try to send one but only one player in every other age group, meaning that where there happen to be two real talents in the same age group, one must miss out whilst a relatively ordinary talent fills a gap in another age group. How on earth can be justified? I am sure that Leonard is also right to say that we get our best results in these events when all the participants have a certain minimum talent and respect for each other abilities. I have the impression instead that the priority is to make sure they all get one well together socially instead. Then the result seems to be that they bring back happy memories from their trip but leave Elo points behind, if they had an Elo rating in the first place.

My personal view is that it can only be good for chess to take up every available place that we are eligible for, in any chess competition of good standing. How could it not be so?

I stress that this is my personal view, because I have not been involved in a lot of junior chess organisation, and I have a lot to learn. However I have been privileged to see talented juniors rise through the ranks of events that I have run, from talented amateur to Grandmaster. The more opportunities we provide young players to compete, the better. They may surprise us.

[David Shepherd]

Adam, yes I think one key point is that there is one free place in each age group/gender where accommodation and entry is free. Thus it costs much more to take two in one age group than one in two. Having the one taken in each age group at least means that every child in each age group has something to aim for, they know if they come top in their age group they will be taken unless they have the unfortunate disposition of being U8 (whether the current selection or indeed any other policy achieves this is a different matter). Also I am greatly in favour of taking more than one in some age groups where we are very stong or in the younger age groups where it may be unclear which out of a few will become the strongest player, indeed there is quite a stong arguement for leeting anyone go that wants to providing they are of a certain standard.

I should also like to stress that having been present at one of these events, there is little time for socialising. A typical schedule at the Europeans was breakfast 9:00 to 9:30 am, an hour free, an hour coaching an hour going through what the coach said lunch 12:30 to 1:30pm 15mins free, meet for bus, 2pm bus to venue 3pm to 7:00pm playgame (some finishing as late as 8:30pm), bus back to hotel, go through games with coach either before or after dinner which was from 8:30 to 9:30pm, maybe 1 further hour on chess and then bed. The children were all very committed and had minimal free time other than on the rest day. Infact whilst there, it was of concern that the children were not even having sufficient time in a day to take any exercise at all. The tournaments were hard work for all the children and coaches and certainly not one big social event.

[Adam Raoof]

Adam, yes I think one key point is that there is one free place in each age group/gender where accommodation and entry is free.

Thanks David! Just out of interest, how much does it typically cost to send a junior if they have to pay for a place in one of the competitions mentioned?

...indeed there is quite a stong argument for letting anyone go that wants to providing they are of a certain standard.

I agree; in fact there is probably a strong argument to be be made for taking anyone even if they are not of 'a certain standard', so long as they do not, as a consequence, deprive another stronger (define 'stronger'!) player of a place.

[andrew martin]

Havent much time right now, but responding to one point Jonathan made, I have introduced have pre European and World training sessions , where players and coaches meet to discuss who will be coached by whom, to look over games, to anlayse and to build up team spirit for the event ahead. The meets this year took place at Torquay Boys Grammar School and Wellington College. I am acutely aware of the need for more frequent events of this type, but they are not easy to tailor in to everyones schedule.

[David Shepherd]

Adam

The cost to send a parent and child (with the allocated free place) to the Europeans was approx £1,500 the ECF paid £150 subsidy and £200 to winners of the grandprix.

Regarding the certain standard I think the argument is just over what standard that would be (for example it would clearly not be suitable for a complete beginner to take an extreme).

[Jonathan Rogers]

I'm glad to have provoked discussion and am pleased to read Andrew's latest post. Apologies to David and others if my previous post was thought to imply that the event was one big party - clearly it is indeed very hard work for all. (But that again, to my mind, does justify setting a minimum standard for selection).

[Adam Raoof]

Thanks David!

The cost to send a parent and child (with the allocated free place) to the Europeans was approx £1,500 the ECF paid £150 subsidy and £200 to winners of the grandprix.

So, to be honest, the subsidy is not really going to make a significant difference to most parents who are given the opportunity to send their child to a major competition. If they can afford to, they will, and if they cannot afford to, £200 is probably not going to make the difference. And I assume this is the ECF Grand Prix?

Regarding the certain standard I think the argument is just over what standard that would be (for example it would clearly not be suitable for a complete beginner to take an extreme).

I agree, so it would probably have to be dealt with on a case by case basis. But if there were an application process overseen by the ECF, this could be done easily before awarding places.

And to Jonathan Rogers point below; there is nothing wrong with events being social occasions as well as competitions - it may be far healthier that way!

[David Shepherd]

I wish to congratulate Andrew on organising the coaching weekend at Torquay which was excellent and wish to thank him and the other coach there - Nick Pert for the hard work and excellent training they provided, I think that pre-event training with the coaches that are to attend the Championships is a good thing.

[Jonathan Rogers]

"And to Jonathan Rogers point below; there is nothing wrong with events being social occasions as well as competitions - it may be far healthier that way!"

Adam, of course I agree with that - otherwise I would not spend most of my own chess-related time on my teams (and my own chess playing) in the 4NCL.

Perhaps I phrased myself badly. Basically what I wanted to do was to echo Leonard's point that group results seem to be best when all participants are of a certain minimum standard relative to their age group. Perhaps that is a coincidence but perhaps not - they would all have that bit more in common that way. It is another reason for contemplating minimum standards for selection.

[LozCooper]

Having taken time to browse through the previous posts I would like to offer my perspective as one of the three coaches at the event.

Whilst I am very grateful to have been asked to be one of the coaches I found it regretable that the training weekend (31 Oct-1 Nov) clashed with the European Team Championship and as I was England captain I was not able to attend the training. The allocation of pupils to coaches took place after this a week before we flew to the event. As a result apart from a couple of e-mails, facebook and msn I did not have any interaction with my three pupils over a chess board prior to the event. It's hard to imagine this happening in China, India or Russia.

My impressions of the trip as a whole were that all the England players were totally committed to the chess, worked hard on and off the board and did their best, as did the coaches. I should also add that the parents were all very supportive to the players and coaches. Anna Wang had a great start (6.5/8) but sadly lost her last 3. Ravi Haria started with 4/5 and both Felix and Yang-Fan are great talents. As the recently appointed International Director it was a great experience for me to see these players playing in such a prestigious event. I fully support the idea to at the very least take up our minimum allocation, all of the players who ended with less than 50% all had numerous chances to score more points and will be better for the experience. In fact, it was very heartening to see all the players who had struggled finish strongly.

Whilst it will remain very difficult to compete with China, India and the various Soviet countries of which there are many all we can do is give as many opportunities and backing as funding allows to the players.