Kasparov refers to chess in England!

[Paolo Casaschi]

Weep, indeed. But goggling at these numbers begs all the questions. You can't get something from nothing. So where are French kids playing their chess? And why in such great numbers compared with us? What do we know about early chess formation in France? I understand it is not encouraged in primary schools, for instance (though I may be wrong). Perhaps we might learn something from international comparisons of the intersection of chess formation, school systems, and club opportunities. So what do we know?

One more thought: countries that recognize chess as sport might have an edge with parents that know nothing about chess and have to help their kids choosing their activities. If chess players themselves consider chess as just a game, no surprise parents and kids move on somewhere else.

[MartinCarpenter]

Unequivocally, I believe the former. The latter then follows. My role as facilitator isn't to impose my view on debate. But solely to sharpen debate, I'll argue that mass chess is pointless. We perform no service to people or the game to have thousands of people playing bad chess. Hence, the purpose of junior chess should be, in significant measure, the continuous production of excellence, world-class excellence, in the largest possible minority.

Doesn't that basically need the mass chess bit though? Otherwise you never find the talented players in the first place. Keeps the leagues etc running too of course (or at least should.).

So you've found the smallish bunch of talented players each generation. They'll presumably get to ~2200 on their own steam, or with the bits of help you'd naturally provide. A few rather more than that of course.

The question is really whether its worth really major efforts to try and get things out of them. Not obvious perhaps, but then who knows precisely what the effect would be?

If all it did was to produce IM's <18, when they'll mostly get there by say 25 anyway, then that's surely not worth much.

I also worry a bit about whether its actually a fair thing to impose on the young peoples time(!). In a way all you've objectively done for someone by bumping them from say 2200 to 2400 is making it rather harder for them to find interesting games of chess in the future.....

To make it truly worthwhile they'd have to view as a major lifetime achievement/goal. Arguably rather fairer to leave that choice up to them later on. It can be done, as per Hawkins/Webb etc.

[David Robertson]

Post 2 - responding to Andrew

I am currently coaching at least three young players who could become IM before the age of 18. They may not for two obvious reasons: 1) Because they are very bright the education system kicks in and takes up a lot of their time. They are offered many different sports and hobbies as options in the course of school life. Why prioritise chess?

My first query is to ask whether this state of affairs has got worse? There have always been bright kids. Some have found chess appealing to them, and been very good at it. And exam pressure has existed for as long as we've had exams. Things were no different in my school days fifty years back. I doubt they've changed much since. Similar applies to competing activities. They've always been there. So how much weight should we give to this argument? Under similar pressures, young people did become IMs in the 1980s and 1990s, but not now. It's not clear to me we have evidence for claiming that all this is new.

2) There is no possibility whatsoever of any future as a chess professional in the UK at the moment, therefore little incentive to push on past a certain point ; the point where chess becomes hard work rather than enjoyment

I'm not sure I see the connection between early excellence at chess and subsequent professional opportunities. Are we being told there once was a connection, in the 1980s say, but now it has disappeared? And how do we explain the presence in other countries, Germany, France for example, of significantly greater numbers of IMs and even GMs in their u-18 cohorts?

I don't pretend the new ECF Academy has any of the answers; but we will try very hard to offer strong support to our talented kids and hope that this will help them.

Does the proposed Academy base itself on any successful model elsewhere? And how far does it draw on the one distinctive period of successful chess formation and development, what I'll call the 'Barden programme' of the 1970s/1980s?

[Andrew Martin]

1) There have always been young players of great talent. Increasingly few push on, as I said, past the point at which you have to put a serious effort in to become stronger, where chess takes over your life more or less.

2) The English Chess Explosion was based on the Fischer boom and lots and lots of tournaments with good prizes, a Grand Prix with real money to be won and the so called Barden programme, although without Fischer, I doubt that programme would ever have got off the ground.

Germany, France? They have sponsors and seemingly excellent organization.

Will have to come back later about other points.

[Mike Truran]

Germany, France? They have sponsors and seemingly excellent organization.

I think I've posted this link before. It still makes interesting reading. I would happily do more research on the German and french sites if I felt anything would come of it.

[JustinHorton]

I know a certain amount about chess organisation in Spain, but I don't know how close the model here is to that in Germany or France.

[Andrew Martin]

You have Mike and the results are very impressive.

I wonder whether all these players were self-funded , as is predominantly the case with English youngsters at the moment.

Because of our lack of sponsors, parents are having to often make extraordinary sacrifices to help their child achieve in the chess world. The cost of tournaments,travel,coaching,entry fees,accommodation just as a starter makes chess a very expensive course to pursue. I think help is available in extreme cases, but I am not sure how much help.

Financial issues must also be contributing to our apparent lack of progress.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Hmmm.

It's possible, at least in principle, to reach grandmaster playing only in events that are easily commutable from London. Cost doesn't necessarily have to be a big sticking point.

[MartinCarpenter]

Or even from elsewhere working mostly via the 4NCL/British etc. Adair/Hawkins say. Need the odd international event, but if you're happy leaving chasing those until you're comfortably strong enough it won't take many.

Thing is, doing it that way, takes time (years). That's fine for people picking it up later on in life while maybe doing other things, no good if you're after really young titled players

That takes non trivial concentrated effort in several ways.

[Roger de Coverly]

no good if you're after really young titled players

We used to know how to do it. Fifteen to thirty years ago, there were usually teenage IMs. So what strength were they at what age and what events did they play in to both gain their Norms and push their ratings to 2400?

The end of September would be a good time to take stock. A number of players will have exploited their K=40 and the opportunities afforded by the summer break to gain a rich haul of rating points. If they reach FM standard without obviously having reached a peak, these are the possible future IMs.

[Clément Sreeves]

There's perhaps not such a big difference between England and France in terms of the top Juniors. Germany on the other hand have 3 GMs and 3 IMs

1 Haria, Ravi 2445 2204 2137 i 16
2 FM Sanders, Isaac B 2326 2222 2136 i 17
3 FM Horton, Andrew P 2313 2078 i unrat. 17
4 McPhillips, Joseph 2289 2219 2190 i 18
5 Taylor, Adam C 2278 2076 2006 17
6 FM Fernandez, Michael 2270 2245 1969 i 16
7 Claridge-Hansen, William 2253 1919 unrat. 16
8 Kalaiyalahan, Akshaya 2217 1785 1913 i 14
9 Wadsworth, Matthew J 2190 2137 unrat. 15
10 Tarhon, Brian 2172 1765 i unrat. 14
11 Taylor, Adam A 2168 1960 i unrat. 18
12 Abbas, Daniel 2168 unrat. unrat. 16
13 Asenov, Pavel 2149 1944 unrat. 14
14 Zhang, Anthony Y 2118 1826 i 2132 13
15 Moreby, James 2112 2015 1642 i 13

1 IM Bellahcene, Bilel 2454 2366 i 2346 i 17
2 FM Kambrath, Yannick 2378 2308 i unrat. 18
3 FM Veys, Vincent 2341 unrat. unrat. 17
4 FM Poulet, Pierre-Emmanuel 2330 unrat. unrat. 18
5 FM Rodriguez, Adrien 2320 2148 i 2081 i 17
6 FM Lamard, Guillaume 2316 2376 i unrat. 18
7 FM Viennot, Dylan 2296 unrat. unrat. 18
8 FM Burri, Quentin 2279 unrat. unrat. 14
9 Purenne, Benoit 2276 unrat. unrat. 18
10 FM Philippe, Guillaume 2260 unrat. unrat. 16
11 O`Sullivan, Thomas 2258 unrat. 1954 i 15
12 Caille, Hugo 2255 unrat. unrat. 15
13 Laurent-Paoli, Pierre 2253 unrat. unrat. 15
14 Meunier, Clement 2249 2110 i 2091 i 16
15 Gelas, Christophe 2226 unrat. unrat. 18

[David Robertson]

Post 3 - early chess formation: international practice

Grouping some points together, I'd like to probe a little further, where we can, into international models of early chess formation. I'm using the term formation to describe more than just 'learning'; to describe a disciplined and adequately structured process of skill acquisition - in English, we might use 'training', but I'm borrowing from the French because it feels a more precise and appropriate term. Anyhow, we could do with knowing how and when other countries start the process, but not just yet too much detail about their specific programmes. What we need to know, critically in my view, is whether the 'early-starter' model employed generally in England (eg CSC, EPSCA, individual tutoring and so forth) is the correct path for producing excellence. As you'll know from my comments in the past, I'm a sceptic of the 'early-starter' model. And I also understand that the French do not allow (discourage?) chess (chess formation?) in primary school because of its potential for damaging effects on early intellectual development. This is big news, if true. But alas, I haven't been able to confirm the validity of this either way. It would be good to clear the ground here, and find out. By the same token, it would be good to know how comparable countries go about it - as the French (as implied here); or as we do it, starting very early? We have offers to help:

* Mike (Germany, France)
* Justin (Spain)
* Paolo? (Italy)

I think I've posted this link before. It still makes interesting reading. I would happily do more research on the German and french sites if I felt anything would come of it.

It was this link that startled me a couple of months back because it coincided with a pretty strong team by current English standards heading off to the Euro u-16 championship in Poland. That team did quite well, beating its seed rank (14/14) by finishing 11th or so. But it was miles off the pace compared with the best, of which the best included Germany. That link Mike provided repays study and reflection. England also produces u-16 GMs. Our productivity rate is one per decade (Short-Adams-McShane-Howell); and even with those stellar performers, I'm not sure any were u-16 GMs. Meanwhile, Germany produces three in one year. I don't suppose it does this every year. But even so...something there is radically different. So the questions are:

* when did the likes of Alexander Donchenko and Denis Wagner start their chess formation? And
* given they too face school exams and alternative claims on their time, what relevant differences between Germany and England impacted their outstanding early development?

Finally, will anything come of our investigations? Is anyone listening? (Mike's last point). I'd guess people are reading this thread. And I'd be optimistic that an assembly of the voices gathered here, backed by reliable evidence not just hearsay, would be able to influence ECF. It's got to be worth a try. We're looking into the abyss. And the abyss is staring back at us (to coin an epigram)

[Mike Truran]

And I also understand that the French do not allow (discourage?) chess (chess formation?) in primary school because of its potential for damaging effects on early intellectual development. This is big news, if true. But alas, I haven't been able to confirm the validity of this either way. It would be good to clear the ground here, and find out.

But this link would suggest that, far from discouraging chess, the French do actively encourage it in schools (or at least they used to in 2011): http://eduscol.education.fr/cid59084/in ... ecole.html

[Roger de Coverly]

But this link would suggest that, far from discouraging chess, the French do actively encourage it in schools (or at least they used to in 2011):

That seems to encourage chess at secondary school level as well, which is a major difference to the UK.

[Neill Cooper]

But this link would suggest that, far from discouraging chess, the French do actively encourage it in schools (or at least they used to in 2011):

That seems to encourage chess at secondary school level as well, which is a major difference to the UK.

Can you clarify what are you saying about chess at secondary school level in the UK? Because as ECF National Secondary Schools Co-ordinator I think I disagree!