European Team Championship 13-22 November 2015

[David Shepherd]

However you cut it, it's a fairly poor return for a not insubstantial investment.

I'm not sure how much my individual substantial investment was maybe 50p or £1 or more, but for me it was well spent giving our top players paid employment and providing entertaining games for me to watch, so on a personal basis it seemed like a good return for the money I spent.

[Angus French]

However you cut it, it's a fairly poor return for a not insubstantial investment.

I'm not sure how much my individual substantial investment was maybe 50p or £1 or more, but for me it was well spent giving our top players paid employment and providing entertaining games for me to watch, so on a personal basis it seemed like a good return for the money I spent.

I make it £3.31 per ECF member based on a membership of 10,000 and assuming the Income target (from sponsorship and donations) was reached. Someone might like to check my calculation:

(Expenditure (£37,500) - Income (£11,000)) / Membership Count (10,000) / 0.8 (to add back VAT) = £3.31.

Expenditure and Income figures come from sheet '5. Int' of the Detailed Forecast and Budget for 2015/16.

I'd prefer a weaker-but-up-and-coming team (which would presumably take less in appearance fees) with potential to out-perform than a strongest-possible team which has consistently under-performed. I think it's a shame the British Champion, Jonathan Hawkins, wasn't playing this time.

[David Shepherd]

Angus thanks - I had a feeling the sums I guessed were too low, but given the low sums involved I hadn't taken the time to work it out. I checked your figures and they seemed ok based on a membership of 10,000 (other than maybe a small share of admin costs should be included). However as far as I could see the budgets seemed to be based on about 7,700 members rather than 10,000 (I could be wrong as I only had a quick look at the figures). Anyway I consider my £3.31 (or whatever the figure is) well spent in terms of entertainment value.

[LawrenceCooper]

Confirmation of the medals in the women's section: http://etcc2015.com/wp-content/uploads/ ... ection.pdf Congratulations Jovanka

[Mick Norris]

Confirmation of the medals in the women's section: http://etcc2015.com/wp-content/uploads/ ... ection.pdf Congratulations Jovanka

Excellent performance

[Colin Patterson]

Great result from Jovanka!

I wonder if it's possible to learn from her success? Did she remain focused on her own game, familiar patterns of risk, knowing what flexibility there is in the position etc. Or did she play a flat out 'team' game, constantly adjusting her move selection to suit the team standing, match by match?

When I hear Nigel say that it's distracting being flanked by David and Luke in their perpetual time trouble (or words akin), the thought occurs to me that the Open team may benefit from a more blinkered approach, being less affected by what's going on around them and concentrating on their strengths. It also strikes me that our players play less tournaments than many of their overseas counterparts, so varying move and/or opening selection in response to the changing match situation could take them into unfamiliar or uncharted waters more frequently.

All poor man's amateur psychology I know, but does anyone else have a theory as to what might be limiting performance?

[LawrenceCooper]

Confirmation of the medals in the women's section: http://etcc2015.com/wp-content/uploads/ ... ection.pdf Congratulations Jovanka

Excellent performance

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/jovanka- ... ns-silver/

[IM Jack Rudd]

Ah, so now we know the solution to getting the best out of Nigel: put me in the team.

[J T Melsom]

As a match captain with some experience of 4 board competition I can understand Nigel's point. It is one thing to trust your team mates in an even match to do the necessary, and then take the decision to roll the dice or turn a draw down if they are in trouble, but its far harder to do so if their games are so much further behind and all three results are possible until much later in the playing session. I doubt putting weaker players in who play faster is the answer, as the scoreboard pressure that results may be double edged.

[Nigel Short]

I am not sure where this quote has come from. There was a good team spirit in Reykjavik - certainly among the men's team. Luke was surprisingly out of form (he played fantastically well in Vegas) for reasons no one entirely understands. I was unfortunately ill which is why I didn't play more. Given the closeness of matches, an extra couple of half points here and there could well have equated to two extra match points. And then I hope the disapproval from people who, quite frankly, ought to have something more than desperately small-minded vision, would perhaps be more subdued. Then again, perhaps not...

[J T Melsom]

I wasn't aware the quote was wrong, but in any event my comment was really addressing the more general issue, not the specifics. 4 board matches are stressful at any level not just elite competition, because there is so little margin for error. Normally in a match over more boards, you can get away with the odd upset. Our national club win in 2014/15 involved winning all the key matches by the narrowest margin as tense a competition as I can recall, especially contained within a single weekend.

[Roger de Coverly]

At the website http://londonchessconference.com/blog/, we learn that

In spite of this, we should note that England acquitted themselves reasonably well at the European Team Championship in Iceland which finished today. They came 10th after tie-break compared to a ranking of 5th. In days gone by this would have been a cause for concern, but today this outcome can be regarded as something of a relief.

It's actually the same finishing position as two years ago, with exactly the same team, if in a different order.
http://www.olimpbase.org/2013e/2013fa.html
http://www.olimpbase.org/2013e/2013eng.html

Isn't it the right priority that?

organising the next event takes precedence over deciding what type of events should be organised.

The ECF and BCF before it has usually been at its best when it has just left people to get on with it. Those who supported the desire that the reorganisation of how to organise chess was a higher priority than organising chess should actually attempt to set up some events. Whilst an English women's championship might be an excellent idea on paper, it's going to fail if none of the target group actually want to play in it.

[Roger de Coverly]

Those who supported the desire that the reorganisation of how to organise chess was a higher priority than organising chess should actually attempt to set up some events.

No sooner had I written this that a notification turned up.

http://www.londonchessclassic.com/lccko ... elease.htm

This announces a new event

A new high-level event is joining the extensive list of tournaments that make up the 7th London Chess Classic Festival: Eight of Britain’s best chess players, with the exception of Michael Adams, who plays in the Classic itself, will contest the inaugural British Knockout Championship.

It's not quite as new as they suggest, since when the break up of Yugoslavia took place in the early 1990s, the sponsorship funding intended to support the English team in the European Championships due to take place there was instead diverted to a knockout involving the potential team members and the reserves. Adams and Short were certainly participants. The BBC's Mastergame series long preceded this as well in its domestic format, Nigel also participating.

I'm not expecting the ECF to object, but doesn't it hold some authority over the use of the words "British" or "English" to describe events?

[Paul Dargan]

Good to see Nigel on here, sorry to hear he had been unwell.

I assume the players steer well clear of the 'special place' during the event and I've previously speculated about whether discussion of performance on here during an event is helpful (even less so for junior's events).

If his 'small-minded' comments are directed at those that are questioning funding priorities - I think it would be better to charcterise it as a fundamentally different view of how limited resources should be allocated, rather than accusing people of a 'small-minded' view. I realise that this alternative view is obviosuly not in his interests, but that doesn't make it a less valid world view.

I noticed Simon Williams alluded to this thread in his commentary - suggesting that people only start carping about funding following a couple of poor results - just to be clear, some of us have always maintained that playing for your country should be break-even - not a significant source of revenue. It is something that you earn - based on progression that has in a large part been enabled by the infrastructure put in place by the federation and is something to add to the CV to get coaching and book deals. I'm not sure where the sense of entitlement that being in the top 100 at a minority sport in Europe should guarantee a paycheck.


Paul Dargan

[JustinHorton]

Good to see Nigel on here, sorry to hear he had been unwell.

I assume the players steer well clear of the 'special place' during the event and I've previously speculated about whether discussion of performance on here during an event is helpful

How would you achieve that, though? It'd be like trying to stop people commenting on performances during a Test Match, or a league season.

As well as that, if we want people to take an interest in chess, then their having opinions on it is part of the deal. It's the same with anything, be it music, sport, politics, gardening. Having a say is part of it.