Financial bullying

[Alex Holowczak]

In order to get into the England squad/team, one of the junior events available is the London Junior Championship. That's part of the John Robinson Grand Prix. For the younger age groups, you have to pre-qualify for this through several events. However, for your event to be a London Junior Championship qualifier, you have to pay 50p per entry you get in the relevant sections, i.e. Under 8 to Under 12, just so 1 or 2 players in your event can play in it.

For example, the Warwickshire Chess Association would have to pay the London Junior Championship organisers 50p per entry (say £50 in total) in those sections for the privilege of its Junior Championship being a qualifier, just so that 2 or so people can play in it, which they need to to try to get in the England squad.

It seems to me that the CA is being potentially bullied into this affiliation.

Am I missing something?

[Richard James]

Alex

I think there is a certain amount of what might, controversially, called bullying. From our point of view in London, the financial side wasn't a problem, but I can see that from your point of view it might be.

I was involved in running a local LJCC qualifier for many years and we were happy to pay the money: the promise of qualification places meant that we attracted more entries. I appreciate that the situation for you in the Midlands where not many will be interested in qualification places is not the same as for us in London, so you might have to consider whether or not to advise your players who want to qualify to play elsewhere.

My problem is a different one, which is to do with the concept that young children should be treated like young children, not like adults. For many years we only used clocks on the top boards in the later rounds of the U8 and U10 events, where many of the players were beginners who were very new to competitive chess. However, we were told that we weren't allowed to do that but had to use clocks throughout. There's really no point at all in expecting beginners to use clocks: all you're doing is adding an extra level of difficulty and potentially putting them off playing again.

The same thing happened with the big schools tournament we ran every year which was very much geared towards the weaker players. We were pressurised (by the same people who pressurised us into using clocks throughout in our LJCC qualifier) into making our tournament a qualification tournament for the National Primary Schools Chess Championship. Again we were forced to use clocks and to have teams of 5 players plus a reserve rather than 4 players, which, in my opinion, defeated the object of our event. Children who play chess to an adult level should be treated as adults, but below that level they should be treated as children.

It's difficult, I suppose, because the LJCC and the NPSCC are, in themselves, excellent events and we want to encourage our players to take part. (At least the LJCC used to be excellent. The last time I visited, several years ago now, the parents' room was awash with tears from children who failed to achieve their norms for a place in the England trials. The whole England squad set-up had become very pressurised and unpleasant for many players.)

[Jon D'Souza-Eva]

I'm helping run the Oxfordshire Junior Tournament, which is a qualifying event for the London Junior Chess Championships, and I certainly didn't know about this 50p per entry charge. Last year, I believe only one person who qualified from our tournament actually ended up playing in the LJCC.

OK. I've had confirmation that we did indeed pay this 50p per entry charge. I'm quite surprised by this.

[Alex Holowczak]

My problem is a different one, which is to do with the concept that young children should be treated like young children, not like adults. For many years we only used clocks on the top boards in the later rounds of the U8 and U10 events, where many of the players were beginners who were very new to competitive chess. However, we were told that we weren't allowed to do that but had to use clocks throughout. There's really no point at all in expecting beginners to use clocks: all you're doing is adding an extra level of difficulty and potentially putting them off playing again.

I also had this problem; I thought it was just me!

I'm experimenting with 20 minutes + 10 seconds per move on the clocks for the U14-21 sections, and I might stretch to the U12s too with an increment in future. I was told that 20 minutes + 10 seconds per move was not acceptable, it had to be 30 minutes each for the game, even though FIDE state that 20 minutes + 10 seconds per move is equivalent to G/30, as they're both 30 minutes each over 60 moves. The time control decision was a practical thing, it means I don't need a fully qualified arbiter with the older children, because they don't need to worry about 10.2s. As Warwickshire is rather short of fully qualified arbiters, it means I can have the one we do have doing the biggest section, which takes much more effort. (Although unbeknown to me at the time, we might have quite a few qualified arbiters by then!)

It seemed to me like I was paying them for entries I was getting into my tournament, which I had to run their way or not at all.

[Sean Hewitt]

In order to get into the England squad/team, one of the junior events available is the London Junior Championship. That's part of the John Robinson Grand Prix.

Why not bypass them and get your event to be part of the John Robinson Grand Prix direct?

[Alex Holowczak]

In order to get into the England squad/team, one of the junior events available is the London Junior Championship. That's part of the John Robinson Grand Prix.

Why not bypass them and get your event to be part of the John Robinson Grand Prix direct?

Because it's run by the County Association (the "I" is a collective "I", not a me "I"), not the ECF.

[Matt Harrison]

LJCC qualifying only applies to the primary school age groups. I wouldn't run an event as an LJCC qualifier unless qualifiers were likely to play in the final tournament. As far as I remember, there are 6 qualifying events for the England primary school trial. London Junior is only one of these events, and you only need 2 half-norms to qualify. It's also possibly the hardest event to score a half norm in.
Having said all that, I found the primary school trial qualifier for the England squad to be the single worst tournament that my son ever played in - far too much pressure for no consequence. He spent 2 years stressing about qualifying for the junior squad. Once he did qualify, he got offered one trip (in 5 years) to a tournament in the Czech republic where he played against 4 teammates in 7 rounds of chess. During this time he suffered loads of nerves, almost gave up chess and didn't improve. Once this stress was removed he started to enjoy his chess again, play better and improved dramatically.

I would, if doing it again, encourage a child of mine to play tournament chess, but steer well clear of the England trial, junior squad and world/european qualification. If they were going to be good enough, they'd get there anyway. And if organising teams/selection, I'd use a selection system based on overall performance in all chess. I think regular competition is essential for improvement, but for young children it can go far too far.

[Richard James]

Having said all that, I found the primary school trial qualifier for the England squad to be the single worst tournament that my son ever played in - far too much pressure for no consequence. He spent 2 years stressing about qualifying for the junior squad. Once he did qualify, he got offered one trip (in 5 years) to a tournament in the Czech republic where he played against 4 teammates in 7 rounds of chess. During this time he suffered loads of nerves, almost gave up chess and didn't improve. Once this stress was removed he started to enjoy his chess again, play better and improved dramatically.

I would, if doing it again, encourage a child of mine to play tournament chess, but steer well clear of the England trial, junior squad and world/european qualification. If they were going to be good enough, they'd get there anyway. And if organising teams/selection, I'd use a selection system based on overall performance in all chess. I think regular competition is essential for improvement, but for young children it can go far too far.

I agree entirely. I know many other children have had the same bad experiences as your son.

[Rob Thompson]

On the other hand, the junior squad has definitely been a good experience for me. Admittedly, i only qualified as an U-12 (i didn't even qualify for the U-11 trial), but from U-12 to U-14 (trips get a lot rarer after that) it was definitely a good thing, rather than bad. I even went to the Czech republic, and played 2 team mates in 9 rounds.

What you say above is the first time i've heard of Squad members disliking being in the squad.

[Carl Hibbard]

It seemed to me like I was paying them for entries I was getting into my tournament, which I had to run their way or not at all.

Have you contacted them regarding the matter Alex or requested that they posted their side on this one?

[Alex Holowczak]

It seemed to me like I was paying them for entries I was getting into my tournament, which I had to run their way or not at all.

Have you contacted them regarding the matter Alex or requested that they posted their side on this one?

Contacted them regarding the matter.

[Matt Harrison]

Not about disliking being in the squad, which he's enjoyed, but that trip to the Czech republic was the only trip offered in 5 years. My point was the pressures of the qualification process were unhelpful and detrimental to his chess development.

[Neill Cooper]

The history is that the London Junior event has been run since about 1920. In the 1990s it became very popular and presumably then qualification, and the 50p surcharge, appeared, I think the ' qualify for national junior squad' occurred later.

[Richard James]

The history is that the London Junior event has been run since about 1920. In the 1990s it became very popular and presumably then qualification, and the 50p surcharge, appeared, I think the ' qualify for national junior squad' occurred later.

LJCC qualifying tournaments date back to the days of the Fischer boom - I was helping at the qualifiers run by Mike Sinclair at Hampton School in the late 70s. In those days we'd get 300 or so entries. In those days Primary School chess clubs were run by enthusiastic members of staff (as per your comment on another thread) rather than professional chess teachers and the really keen schools would bus in scores of players. I'm not sure at what time the surcharge appeared but I think it was quite a lot later than that. The national junior squad qualifier happened sometime in the 90s, I think, and turned the U12/U10 events into something of a cattle market.

Having said that, the Junior Squad is better than it used to be. 10-15 years ago it was very much a closed shop. If you got into it at U11 level you stayed in until 18, even if you were no longer playing much or improving, while it was very hard to get in later on.

[Alex Holowczak]

Interestingly, a Warwickshire junior player is playing in the LJCC this weekend. He hasn't qualified from any tournament. I can only assume he got in on the basis that his brothers are really good, and have supported it in the past. This makes me wonder why there needs to be a 50p charge at all...