British Championships - Format of Junior Tournaments

[NickFaulks]

I give opportunities to those who haven't found teams or have spent a season sat on the subs bench either without being used or possibly getting a game or two in an emergency and then demoted again.

Been there, I believe that.

[Roger Lancaster]

The original question seems to have been whether the British u-8 championship should be rapidplay, as at present, or standard play? The first point I’d suggest is that surveying the parents of competitors who participate in this year’s u-8 championship will immediately introduce bias because those surveyed will, almost by definition, exclude the parents of any children who would have played in a standard play event but have decided against taking part in a rapidplay event.

I’m not suggesting large numbers of juniors are that averse to rapidplay – merely pointing out that this statistical methodology would be less than entirely sound.

As to the second point, whether u-8’s are capable of keeping score, I think this is very simply answered. In what follows, all ages are at 1 September last. Our club records indicate that six of our 8-year-olds (including the current British u-8 champion, now graded 133 at standard play, and two of his closest rivals) played in last season’s Junior 4 Nations, along with one 7-year-old, one 6-year-old, and a 5-year-old who was a nominated reserve and thus played only (standard graded games) against other reserves.

All perforce had to keep score (J4NCL is standard play) and I’ll concede that the quality of score-keeping varied considerably but the clear answer is that u-8’s are perfectly capable of keeping score -- and I’m surprised the ECF appears unaware of this.

However, that’s rather like saying u-8’s are capable of speaking French. In both cases, whether the potential has been translated into reality depends on whether anyone has actually taught them. For someone who has played chess only at school, the answer may well be no. For someone who has managed to join a chess club, the answer is very likely yes. The same is true, incidentally, of familiarity with chess clocks.

The third question relates to preference. Based on my knowledge of our club juniors, I believe the stronger u-8’s (probably including all those nine club juniors who played in J4NCL) would prefer a standard play event (assuming this was organized, in the same way as the British u-9, in a day and a half) while the weaker ones might very well prefer rapidplay. Whether the really weak ones should be in a national event at all is, of course, a rather different question.

PS. Before anyone asks whether a 5-year-old should be playing in J4NCL, I should record that she (and it was a girl) won both her games. (Of course, her actual age might well have been 6 by the time the J4NCL games were played).

[Richard Bates]

And I would guess that the stronger girls would likely want to play in the "boys" events anyway which would then leave the objective of finding the 'best' player from running an individual tournament somewhat undermined.

We can all guess. But we're not going to guess - we're going to ask them.

The point I was somewhat obliquely trying to make, is that a consultation is only any good if you have pre-defined the objectives. The point being that it may be (I have no idea) that the results show a significant majority of girls (/parents) prefer the idea of girls only tournaments. But in such circumstances there may be a minority (most likely to be the strongest players) who aren't interested in that and want to compete against the boys.

What would be the outcome of such a consultation outcome? Separate tournaments, but the best players effectively becoming ineligible for the girls titles? Or would the views of the strongest players in such a scenario be given greater weight? It depends whether the objective is to maximise participation at the possible expense of matching the titles to the best players. And would there be a consistent approach throughout the age groups, or would it depend on the likely better viability at the lower age groups?

[Alex Holowczak]

And I would guess that the stronger girls would likely want to play in the "boys" events anyway which would then leave the objective of finding the 'best' player from running an individual tournament somewhat undermined.

We can all guess. But we're not going to guess - we're going to ask them.

The point I was somewhat obliquely trying to make, is that a consultation is only any good if you have pre-defined the objectives. The point being that it may be (I have no idea) that the results show a significant majority of girls (/parents) prefer the idea of girls only tournaments. But in such circumstances there may be a minority (most likely to be the strongest players) who aren't interested in that and want to compete against the boys.

What would be the outcome of such a consultation outcome? Separate tournaments, but the best players effectively becoming ineligible for the girls titles? Or would the views of the strongest players in such a scenario be given greater weight? It depends whether the objective is to maximise participation at the possible expense of matching the titles to the best players. And would there be a consistent approach throughout the age groups, or would it depend on the likely better viability at the lower age groups?

The reason that the odd-numbered age groups don't exist, that you failed to guess, was a desire to mirror the way the World Youth Championships work. That was the steer we received from the Junior Directorate.

The other feature of them is Open tournaments and Girls-Only tournaments. This caters for your points, I think.

So the aim is to organise something that looks as much like the World Youth Championships as possible.

I concede, however, that my original expression of what we'd be asking didn't fully say/explain that in great detail. My main issue was to respond to the criticism that I wasn't consulting people, and giving examples of what I was going to consult people on. It was never intended to provoke further discussion.

[Mike Truran]

I think I'll bow out of this one here.

I thought you had recused yourself?

[Roger de Coverly]

So the aim is to organise something that looks as much like the World Youth Championships as possible.

You can try I suppose, but getting sufficient female entrants to make a segregated tournament work is a huge ask and a reversal of policy decisions dating back to the 1980s.

[Richard Bates]

We can all guess. But we're not going to guess - we're going to ask them.

The point I was somewhat obliquely trying to make, is that a consultation is only any good if you have pre-defined the objectives. The point being that it may be (I have no idea) that the results show a significant majority of girls (/parents) prefer the idea of girls only tournaments. But in such circumstances there may be a minority (most likely to be the strongest players) who aren't interested in that and want to compete against the boys.

What would be the outcome of such a consultation outcome? Separate tournaments, but the best players effectively becoming ineligible for the girls titles? Or would the views of the strongest players in such a scenario be given greater weight? It depends whether the objective is to maximise participation at the possible expense of matching the titles to the best players. And would there be a consistent approach throughout the age groups, or would it depend on the likely better viability at the lower age groups?

The reason that the odd-numbered age groups don't exist, that you failed to guess, was a desire to mirror the way the World Youth Championships work. That was the steer we received from the Junior Directorate.

The other feature of them is Open tournaments and Girls-Only tournaments. This caters for your points, I think.

It actually completely ignores my points (re: girls consultation - which if it was still to oblique was how you deal with a the scenario where the consultation brings up a split between the wishes of the stronger few compared with the weaker many) but let's not worry about that. I accept that the motivations for "replicating World Youth format" are outside of your remit, so don't expect you to answer. If it is to use the events as a qualifying event for the World Youth as well then it potentially worsens the dilemma for girls who are not just left choosing between playing against the boys and winning a British Championship, but also potentially giving up the chance to qualify in the World Youth.

I think I could work out what your explanation would be for getting rid of odd numbers championships (although why did you not (it appears?) consult with the parents on that?). Personally I think it slightly unlikely that the odd numbered championships would have been abolished under the previous two week format - to do so would have just denied choice (after all under the two week format by holding the even and odd numbered events in different weeks the World Youth format was replicated in the second week). And whilst I suppose it might have been possible to maintain the full range in the one week format it would have been a bit of a strange decision IMO. So it's lucky that the wishes of the Junior Format fit so perfectly with the decision to change the length of the Congress. Whether being forced to "play up" age groups will put many juniors off, only time will tell (my maths are possibly wrong but I think that now means that somebody born between September and December now has to play up two school age groups every other year since the British eligibility rules are based on January cut-off)

Historically of course seeking to replicate the World Youth structure in the British Championships would have probably been seen as a pointless exercise as outside of the younger age groups potential World Youth participants (of which there were far fewer i accept due to the "one representative rule) would have been looking to challenge themselves as much as possible playing up several age groups, the Major Open or the Championship itself if qualified. I don't think it can have helped some juniors in recent years that some Junior Directorates have effectively forced them to play in both morning (junior) events and afternoon events if they both wanted to challenge themselves and jump through the hoops they needed to play in the World Youth. I think policy may have changed in this respect but i don't keep up. And therefore regretting a bit commenting on this at all...

[Mick Norris]

ECF Junior Selection policy doesn't seem to have a requirement for playing in the age group sections of the British, though no doubt those involved in junior chess will know

[Richard Bates]

ECF Junior Selection policy doesn't seem to have a requirement for playing in the age group sections of the British, though no doubt those involved in junior chess will know

No, but it does appear to guarantee selection and potentially reduce the costs.

Stop commenting Richard