Unanswered letter

[Andrew Giles]

A group of 20 NCJS kids are playing a match against their French equivalents at Eurodisney this August. The cost is likely to be under £300. Now unless you happen to be an aspiring World Champion that is a lot more attractive to kids and their families than what the World Youth or Euro Youth offer. Maybe ECF should take more of a role.

[Angus McDonald]

Worthwhile as it is I can't understand how playing Chess at Eurodisney would be more attractive than playing in the Euroyouth Championship where you get the chance to play against the best young chess talent of your age in Europe.

If you are 2200 fide grade at age 15 and have recently drawn with 2 good English Grand Masters it must be really upsetting to not be selected to represent your county when you wish to do so.

The JID should really be asking them how they managed to achieve this, opening lines of communication and trying to support the junior talent.
imho

[Rob Thompson]

Worthwhile as it is I can't understand how playing Chess at Eurodisney would be more attractive than playing in the Euroyouth Championship where you get the chance to play against the best young chess talent of your age in Europe.

It certainly seems more attractive to me. It's cheaper, less travelling, a good venue for relatively young kids and most of them, even if they were in the same tournament, aren't going to be anywhere near the top of their age group internationally anyway.

[Krishna Shiatis]

But! it's a good policy to send 8 to the Czech tournament and a bad policy to send more than 1 at each agegroup to the Euroyouth??

Hi Angus,

I do agree completely with you. You are asking all the right questions. It really does beggar belief that three of our strongest juniors (Isaac S, Peter W and Peter A to name but a few) did not even participate in the world trials and are not even representing England at any of the top upcoming junior tournaments.

We do have many strong juniors. They may not be in the top 10 in the world or whatever for their agegroup, but they are the best that we have. If we do not help them, then who will?

How do kids get into the top 10? Well for one they need support, they need their own federation to back them and they need good coaching/training commensurate with their abilities.

This is simply not happening for many of our youngsters. Yes, we do need to look at the future for answers, but even the future is very uncertain as the policies will be dictated by whoever takes charge.

The objectives which were set by the ECF themselves are not being followed (to increase participation in junior international events to name but one). Apparantly the board of the ECF (who presumably set the objectives or agreed them with the JD) all voted unanimously that this was OK. Where does that leave our juniors?

[Paul Sanders]

The objectives which were set by the ECF themselves are not being followed (to increase participation in junior international events to name but one). Apparantly the board of the ECF (who presumably set the objectives or agreed them with the JD) all voted unanimously that this was OK. Where does that leave our juniors?

If there were an ECF national squad, along with an elite junior development programme, I would be delighted if Isaac could participate in it and would be very happy to support it financially.

I hope that ECF Directors see this debate as strong evidence of a market for such a service. Most of the parents I talk to want to be part of a national representative effort and feel that the ECF is under-providing. We already collectively finance junior chess in England, so it would not be true to cite lack of money as an impediment. Many of us are also excellent organisers (I would not claim that for myself!), and run local clubs, and school teams, and help with tournaments.

A chess holiday at Eurodisney might be a lot of fun. It is no substitute for elite international competition, which can only happen under the auspices of a national representative body.

[Jim Wadsworth]

If there were an ECF national squad, along with an elite junior development programme, I would be delighted if Isaac could participate in it and would be very happy to support it financially.

I hope that ECF Directors see this debate as strong evidence of a market for such a service. Most of the parents I talk to want to be part of a national representative effort and feel that the ECF is under-providing. We already collectively finance junior chess in England, so it would not be true to cite lack of money as an impediment. Many of us are also excellent organisers (I would not claim that for myself!), and run local clubs, and school teams, and help with tournaments.

A chess holiday at Eurodisney might be a lot of fun. It is no substitute for elite international competition, which can only happen under the auspices of a national representative body.

Strongly agree with Paul's views (albeit I have no view positive or negative on his organisational skills ). Such a national squad and associated development programme is required, if (a) this country's best young chess players are to reach their potential and (b) England is to be competitive on the international stage. At the moment we have fragmentation and hence no clear direction.

[Alan Burke]

Angus McDonald wrote:
But! it's a good policy to send 8 to the Czech tournament and a bad policy to send more than 1 at each agegroup to the Euroyouth??

It is totally wrong to compare the two groups as the Worlds/Euro players are officially representing our country via the ECF, whilst those in the Czech Republic are part of the National Junior Squad, which is funded in a seperate manner and are not an official International team.

Taking Angus's tennis comparison; it is akin to those playing in the Davis Cup and those in the Olympic Games. One is selected by the Lawn Tennis Association whilst the other is chosen by the British Olympic Committee - both go under the name of Great Britain but could comprise of totally seperate players.

[Roger de Coverly]

It is totally wrong to compare the two groups as the Worlds/Euro players are officially representing our country via the ECF, whilst those in the Czech Republic are part of the National Junior Squad, which is funded in a seperate manner and are not an official International team.

It is however less than clear to the casual or ill-informed observer that these subtle differences exist, not least because the various websites fail to highlight them. It doesn't help either that the ECF Junior Director has an alternate role as manager of the NJCS squads.

[Alan Burke]

Roger... Nevertheless, they ARE seperate organisations no matter what some people may think - it is those peoples' own fault if they put a false interpretation on such things instead of getting the true facts.

Regarding the junior director taking on another role; why shouldn't he be allowed to do so as long as he still fulfills his obligiation to the ECF and just because those ill-informed people can't realise the difference between the two ?

[LozCooper]

Regarding the junior director taking on another role; why shouldn't he be allowed to do so as long as he still fulfills his obligiation to the ECF

If only the ECF Board & Council shared that view about being able to hold more than one directorship

[Sabrina Chevannes]

Regarding the junior director taking on another role; why shouldn't he be allowed to do so as long as he still fulfills his obligiation to the ECF

If only the ECF Board & Council shared that view about being able to hold more than one directorship

Awww Loz. Yes, I think the feeling is that a lot of people want a change and think you would be the man for the job!

I do agree with the confusion about the NJCS. I think back to my day when I first made this squad and was given a t-shirt - I thought I made the official England team. It wasn't clear. I think it seems that a lot of people have that impression.

I also agree that it is due to the fact that the JD and manager of the squads is the same person. I doubt he deliberately has led people to believe that it is the official squad, but there is definitely confusion.

It is difficult for parents new to the international chess scene to know exactly what tournaments to play in and which are official channels, so I think that should be a task for the new JD - to make a document which is clear. There could even be a "guide" that is written for parents. I think they would really appreciate it.

[David Sedgwick]

If only the ECF Board & Council shared that view about being able to hold more than one directorship

I think it's time to move on from that point. Let me just repeat what I posted in another thread.

However, if Lawrence was to find someone that he could work with and trust, I am sure that the new Junior Director could hand over the International responsibility over to Lawrence to overlap with his current directorship. This would take a big weight off the new director's hands.

I've already suggested, or at least alluded to the possibility, that the Board might wish redefine the responsibilities of the International and Junior Directorships along these lines.

I think it is quite wrong to regard Council's rejection of Lawrence's motion as indicating a wish to preclude him from deploying his talents and time to the benefit the ECF even more than he does now. That can be achieved within the current framework without needing to change the Articles.

[E Michael White]

I think it's time to move on from that point. Let me just repeat what I posted in another thread.

I dont think you should attempt to close down a thread or point of view in this way; there are moderators for that function. This isnt the first time you have acted in this rather pompous manner, invariably restating your own view as if it should be the last word.

[Paul Sanders]

Roger... Nevertheless, they ARE seperate organisations no matter what some people may think - it is those peoples' own fault if they put a false interpretation on such things instead of getting the true facts.

Regarding the junior director taking on another role; why shouldn't he be allowed to do so as long as he still fulfills his obligiation to the ECF and just because those ill-informed people can't realise the difference between the two ?

Even the Chief Executive of the ECF was not aware of the difference.

Many of us parents first encountered Peter Purland through EPSCA. This is what it says on the EPSCA website:

E.P.S.C.A. runs the England Under 11 Team and the England Girls' Under 11 Team.

As a parent I think you would be forgiven for thinking that the 'England Under 11 Team' referred to was the England Under 11 Team. But not so, as far as I can tell.

You would surely also be forgiven for thinking that there is a National Squad, and that the thing that calls itself the National Chess Junior Squad had a fair chance of being the beast in question. Your suspicions would surely be reinforced by the fact Peter Purland, the ECF Junior Director, runs the squad, and the ECF selection tournaments are mostly the same (in fact most of the World Youth selections were announced on the NJCS website a long time before the ECF published them). But again not so.

It is no wonder that the ECF Chief Executive got confused, but his confusion would only serve to increase the confusion of parents who could read in an ECF discussion document that the NCJS is a benefit provided by the ECF.

This is not any criticism of the work EPSCA and the NCJS do, which is very valuable indeed and fills a gaping void in ECF junior provision. However a quick Google search shows a lot of confusion in schools, local newspapers, and even in chess clubs about how representative the EPSCA and NCJS players are. I would say the use of 'England' and 'National ... Squad' would not pass the Clapham omnibus test, and it is incumbent on all of us, even the ECF Junior Director, to obfuscate and confuse as little as possible, especially if we are in positions of authority.

[Mike Gunn]

>I dont think you should attempt to close down a thread or point of view in this way; there are moderators for that function. This isnt the first time you have acted in this rather pompous manner, invariably restating your own view as if it should be the last word.<

Whatever your view of David's contributions in general, the point he makes here is valid and a very useful one to remember in the context of this thread.