British Junior Championships

[Rob Thompson]

If parents are that low on money then they are probably not going to be able to afford sending their children to the Worlds/Europeans, and the ECF doesn't have enough money to finance these players to go for free.

[Alex Holowczak]

If parents are that low on money then they are probably not going to be able to afford sending their children to the Worlds/Europeans, and the ECF doesn't have enough money to finance these players to go for free.

I think parents would be more willing to spend money on their children playing for England somewhere than they are on a lengthy qualification process, particularly if they're unlikely to qualify. Having one event qualifying event would reduce the costs, which is no bad thing.

[Jonathan Rogers]

This is an interesting thread. My thoughts, for what they are worth, are:

First, count your blessings, too. At least you have reasonably fair selection proceedings these days. I recall that twenty one years ago, Gareth Haslinger (never at all the same prospect as Stewart) was selected for a World or European u-16, presumably because it was convenient (his sister was the only choice in those days for the girls' section). Gareth himself must have been about number 15 on the list, had any list been compiled with regard to any rational criteria; he was certainly far lower graded than many eligible players, many of whom (such as myself) were not even asked.

I think that you must simply allow the outstanding players (Yang-Fan, Felix Ynojosa, etc) to play without qualifying. If they do play and win easily, they might create some "noise" by beating everyone they play, and a rather weak candidate then qualifies by finishing second or third without having to play them. Even if they might have difficulty (and may even fail) in qualifying when asked to do so, they are still the strongest players and it would be absurd not to select them. Probably their underperformance would be caused by anxiety and nerves, which should not be a problem in the "real thing". As to the argument that their underperformance might instead be because they are simply not very good against other juniors, the answer is "well, maybe, but so what - what we really want at the end of the day is to encourage people who will one day play very well against mature adults. And it is not as though some one who is 20 grading points lower, but better against other English juniors - possibly because he plays tricky tactical openings which don't work at a higher level - is actually going to become world or European Champion if selected".

By all means hold qualification events when you don't have enough outstanding players to fill the vacancies. I tend to agree with Alex that one is enough - at least, assuming that one is sensible in using these events for borderline players who are filling vacancies, and is not subjecting the outstanding players to these events too.

[Jon Tait]

As a matter of historical fact, I organised a U11 invitation tournament in 1974 with around 20 players. This was won by Jonathan Tait, who later became a 200+ player.

in Newbury – and "later became", yes, since I gave up chess pretty soon afterwards and only returned to it in 1985.

Jonathan Tait has become Games Editor of 'Correspondence Chess' of late. He is a brilliant writer!

well, thank you, James

There is some fantastically interesting stuff on this thread. Assuming it is the same person I have played Jonathan Tait of Mansfield a huge number of times

very diplomatic, seeing as you might have written: "Assuming it is the same person I have beaten Jonathan Tait of Mansfield a huge number of times"

I never dreamt that he had finished ahead of Short and Wells as a junior.

ahead of Short (current lifetime score: Tait 1 Short 0), but not ahead of Ian Wells. Unless I won it on progressive scores or something, it was a three-way tie: Tait, Walford, Wells. I was 4/4 going into the last round and got crushed by Ian, who played some mysterious opening called the Ruy Lopez.

I look forward to more astonishing revelations.

no, that's your lot – well, about chess anyway

[Philip Adams]

we could never achieve entries like that because we don't have that many top players, (ed.)

Oh, and exactly why is that then?

Clue: chickens and eggs...

And with such negativity we'll never improve matters. With such negativity, Leonard Barden, Bob Wade et al would never have brought about the "English Chess Explosion in the 1970s-80s.

We should perhaps ask ourselves why it is that the fairly large numbers of juniors we have playing up to the end of Year 6 drop off so much after that.

It is not entirely down to academic pressures. Something in our junior chess system is contributing to the drop-out rate. Could it partly be our selection system (especially the so-called "England U11 team") which leaves the majority (who don't get selected) feeling like failures at age 11 and thinking that chess is not for them?

[Ben Purton]

Phil Adams legendary coach of like Ste?

[Philip Adams]

This is an interesting thread. My thoughts, for what they are worth, are:
(ed.)
I think that you must simply allow the outstanding players (Yang-Fan, Felix Ynojosa, etc) to play without qualifying. If they do play and win easily, they might create some "noise" by beating everyone they play, and a rather weak candidate then qualifies by finishing second or third without having to play them. Even if they might have difficulty (and may even fail) in qualifying when asked to do so, they are still the strongest players and it would be absurd not to select them. Probably their underperformance would be caused by anxiety and nerves, which should not be a problem in the "real thing". As to the argument that their underperformance might instead be because they are simply not very good against other juniors, the answer is "well, maybe, but so what - what we really want at the end of the day is to encourage people who will one day play very well against mature adults. And it is not as though some one who is 20 grading points lower, but better against other English juniors - possibly because he plays tricky tactical openings which don't work at a higher level - is actually going to become world or European Champion if selected".

By all means hold qualification events when you don't have enough outstanding players to fill the vacancies. I tend to agree with Alex that one is enough - at least, assuming that one is sensible in using these events for borderline players who are filling vacancies, and is not subjecting the outstanding players to these events too.

Jonathan,
I consider this approach to be pernicious in the extreme:
It assumes that
a) we always know who are the outstanding young players at any time;
b) the (apparently) outstanding players of today will continue to be the outstanding young players of tomorrow and the day after.
c) "we" have all the data at our disposal and are competent to judge.

Incidentally, we very nearly lost Stephen Gordon to chess that way. Despite winning the British U11 title, he consistently missed out on England selection practically all the way through his teens, mainly because others (from the SE of course ) had acquired reputations early, had powerful supporters lobbying for them, higher ECF grades (how and why is for another thread) and became practically "automatic" selections, year on year, creating a sort of "halo effect" or "self-fulfilling prophecy" - they get the breaks, they get the international experience, they have every chance of keeping their noses in front... It takes someone exceptional to overcome that and somehow Stephen did it.

As for excluding our delicate young stars from having to go through the ordeal of actually having to compete in a junior tournament against their peers - maybe I'm missing something, but isn't that what playing in the World Junior Championship is all about?

[Ben Purton]

Common...mainly because....deserves Basketball next to it- Even when we were 16 it was Chess & Basketball not solely Chess. Not entirely South biased. By the way I am in the camp that believe private school kids gain some bias.

[Ben Purton]

by that I mean the kids from state schools sometimes get overlooked.

[Alex Holowczak]

We should perhaps ask ourselves why it is that the fairly large numbers of juniors we have playing up to the end of Year 6 drop off so much after that.

At secondary school level, people develop other interests, for example, rugby or cricket. Things like chess drop down the priority list, and they find no time to play it, or none of their new friends play it. So they stop playing it. Some people of that age don't want people to know that they play chess. About half of the players at my school didn't want their names in reports. They only played if I ignored the fact their match existed. Chess has a "stigma" attached to it, and the only way to keep juniors interested who aren't the top players after age 11 is to break that stigma. Some children aren't bothered by it, but there is a decent wad of them who are.

Most youngsters simply find that there are others who are much better than them, and give up because of that. They're not encouraged to try to get better to beat them, they just stop playing. If you're good at chess, maybe the stigma is avoidable, at least you're good at it. But if you're not one of the best at it, and you're playing a game that your friends see as "uncool", of course you're going to stop playing.

[Richard James]

We should perhaps ask ourselves why it is that the fairly large numbers of juniors we have playing up to the end of Year 6 drop off so much after that.

It is not entirely down to academic pressures. Something in our junior chess system is contributing to the drop-out rate. Could it partly be our selection system (especially the so-called "England U11 team") which leaves the majority (who don't get selected) feeling like failures at age 11 and thinking that chess is not for them?

I don't think that's the main reason, Phil. In fact it's something of a myth - most kids drop out before they reach Y6. A typical Primary School chess club might havae 16 Y3s, 8 Y4s, 4 Y5s and 2 Y6s.

In my area, Richmond, academic pressure is certainly a signifant factor, more so, I suspect, than in other areas, and this has become much more of a problem over the past 20 years. It is now completely impossible for us to get ANY children to take part in midweek evening league matches in term time.

But I believe the main reason is that, while children are able to learn the moves at 6 or 7, it is only very much later that the majority of them develop the complex reasoning skills that will enable them to play well and enjoy chess at a higher level. And this is made worse by the fact that everyone seems to assume without questioning that it's a good idea to encourage 70,000 young kids to play low-level competitive chess while failing to provide a fully structured course so that they can learn properly. Everyone also seems to assume that, should such a course be written, it should be written by GMs and IMs with little knowledge of what average children are and are not capable of.

For further information on this read my articles at http://www.chesskids.com or http://www.richardjames.org.uk.

To quote Jonathan Rowson (NIC 2009#5): "...much effort can be wasted in investing chess resources into children who are not yet capable of complex logic, because they are very unlikely to be charmed by the game for long, and will invariably give it up."

In fact we have in this country a system which is fairly good (but by no means perfect) at producing strong players but totally unfit for purpose in terms of producing average players.

[Richard James]

Some people of that age don't want people to know that they play chess. About half of the players at my school didn't want their names in reports. They only played if I ignored the fact their match existed. Chess has a "stigma" attached to it, and the only way to keep juniors interested who aren't the top players after age 11 is to break that stigma.

Yes, Alex. This happens all the time. A lot of it is cultural, to do with the anti-intellectualism which is prevalent both in this country and the US, but which is much less prevalent elsewhere.

Of course there will always be a stigma attached to teenagers playing a game which is considered suitable for mass participation by young kids.

[Rob Thompson]

by that I mean the kids from state schools sometimes get overlooked.

I'm pretty certain this is untrue, as I know that state school kids get as many trips as private school kids.

that assumes we always know who are the outstanding young players at any time (ed.)

In the case of Felix and Yang Fang, it is pretty obvious that they are the outstanding players. In the British U-13s, i think Felix outgrades his nearest rival by about 50 points, and has (so far) destroyed all of his opponents. Apart from those, no other outstanding players would be selected automatically. Everyone else, even if they seem slightly better than their rivals, has to qualify through the selection process.

which leaves the majority (who don't get selected) feeling like failures at age 11 and thinking that chess is not for them?

i think the most interested players will still qualify after U-11. For example, in the U-16 age group George Salembini (apologies if mispelt) got into the squad as an U-12, and James Adair as an U-13 or U-14. these two are now right at the top of the age group.

[Peter Sowray]

we could never achieve entries like that because we don't have that many top players, (ed.)

Oh, and exactly why is that then?

Clue: chickens and eggs...

And with such negativity we'll never improve matters. With such negativity, Leonard Barden, Bob Wade et al would never have brought about the "English Chess Explosion in the 1970s-80s.

We should perhaps ask ourselves why it is that the fairly large numbers of juniors we have playing up to the end of Year 6 drop off so much after that.

It is not entirely down to academic pressures. Something in our junior chess system is contributing to the drop-out rate. Could it partly be our selection system (especially the so-called "England U11 team") which leaves the majority (who don't get selected) feeling like failures at age 11 and thinking that chess is not for them?

Phil,

I scratch my head in disbelief at the way our talented young players are being handled by the ECF.

I do not understand why we do not send ALL our best juniors to the Worlds and/or European tournaments. Just look at the number of kids that other European countries send ... France, Germany, Spain, Italy ... all send about 4 or 5 times as many as we do.

Funding is not an excuse. The Federation regularly refuses parents of strong juniors who want to pay their own way. There is a safety net ... the John Robinson Trust ... for cases of genuine financial hardship.

I don't know whether the Junior Selection committee still exists. If so, it should operate as a talent scouting network ...

It's revealing to read what Magnus Carlsen has said about his own development. He highlights the opportunities that he had to play competitive events as the main reason that his talent flourished. I suspect he was referring to strong international events, rather than endless Under 9 Norwegian qualification events. Regrettably, if a mega-talent like Carlsen was born in England, he or she would probably give up the game in frustration.

Yours,

Peter

[John Upham]

Are there any international chess scholarships for talented English children to go abroad?

I'm aware of some local (to myself) scholarships at Wellington College which is an ECF Centre of Excellence. Chess scholars include
five current pupils. They receive coaching from GM Nick Pert and IM Andrew Martin.

I'm sure there are others up and down the land...

I believe that Felix came to England already a leading junior from his native country of Venezuela as I witnessed his first English tournament appearance at the Bourne End One Day Congress in 2006(?)

Perhaps a definitive list of chess scholarships would be handy? Maybe, the ECF ought to know about them?