Guardian article by Stephen Moss

[Kevin Thurlow]

(and the frankly ridiculous amount of investment in over 50s chess as if this was a minority).

What investment?

[Andrew Zigmond]

(and the frankly ridiculous amount of investment in over 50s chess as if this was a minority).

What investment?

I don't want to drag this thread off topic but there has been a big increase in Over 50 chess in recent years. The two main examples I can think of are the European Senior Championship (won recently by a rightly popular British GM) and the fact that the British Championships now has an over 50 championship. I think it's fair to say that somebody turning fifty in 2015, while no longer young, is hardly in the Autumn of their years.

One of the main points the article makes is that there is no longer money in professional chess and yet tournaments are springing up that aren't open to 18-50 year olds or at the very least have a supplementary prize that they are not eligible for. Which wouldn't be a major problem if interest in and ability at chess tailed off at 50 but it, in England at least, it doesn't.

[Richard Bates]

(and the frankly ridiculous amount of investment in over 50s chess as if this was a minority).

What investment?

I don't want to drag this thread off topic but there has been a big increase in Over 50 chess in recent years. The two main examples I can think of are the European Senior Championship (won recently by a rightly popular British GM) and the fact that the British Championships now has an over 50 championship. I think it's fair to say that somebody turning fifty in 2015, while no longer young, is hardly in the Autumn of their years.

One of the main points the article makes is that there is no longer money in professional chess and yet tournaments are springing up that aren't open to 18-50 year olds or at the very least have a supplementary prize that they are not eligible for. Which wouldn't be a major problem if interest in and ability at chess tailed off at 50 but it, in England at least, it doesn't.

It's hardly "ridiculous" that there are an increasing number of tournaments/opportunities catering to a rapidly expanding number and proportion of players in English Chess. It is a valid view that it might be ridiculous if the ECF was actually devoting huge (arguably even 'any') financial resources to this area, but they aren't. Although to counter there is arguably a sound argument for investing resources in this area if it results in bringing back large numbers of lapsed players to the game, not least because they represent a potential financial resource to be exploited.

[NickFaulks]

What a depressingly one- sided article.

Indeed, though no great surprise. If I had wanted to get an idea of what is going on in English chess I would have spoken to Mike Truran and Alex Holowczak, who were presumably around at the 4NCL. Perhaps Moss had been warned that they were dinosaurs with nothing to contribute.

I have been a fan of Danny Gormally for many years. He was Bermuda's captain in the 2000 Olympiad and did a fine job - not reflected in our results, it must be said, but that wasn't his fault. All the same, is it really an indictment of the state of chess that Europe's #577 struggles to make a decent living playing the game? I wonder how the #577 middle distance runner gets on.

[David Sedgwick]

If I had wanted to get an idea of what is going on in English chess I would have spoken to Mike Truran and Alex Holowczak, who were presumably around at the 4NCL.

I don't know, but would they not both have been at Telford, whereas Stephen Moss was at Birmingham?

[LawrenceCooper]

If I had wanted to get an idea of what is going on in English chess I would have spoken to Mike Truran and Alex Holowczak, who were presumably around at the 4NCL.

I don't know, but would they not both have been at Telford, whereas Stephen Moss was at Birmingham?

Alex Holowczak was at Birmingham, Mike was in Telford.

[JustinHorton]

Besides, I understand that Mr Moss has access to a telephone.

[Mike Truran]

Perhaps Moss had been warned that they were dinosaurs with nothing to contribute.

[Andrew Zigmond]

Firstly, to try and bring the side discussion about Over 50s chess to a close, I agree that there's no harm in exploiting a potential source of revenue. Surely however, the ECF is investing resources by putting up a prize for Over 50s players at its flagship event. I thought the whole point of juniors and veterans prizes was to give an incentive to demographics that for different reasons might struggle to compete with the main field.

Maybe there should be 18-50 category prizes as well. I've played in at least one congress where I would have been the only eligible entrant.

A further point. We've talked elsewhere about the decline of the Major Open. To be fair one factor is the weakening of the Championship itself but the point has been made that the Major Open has been hit by the number of players who might previously have entered but are now eligible for the various Seniors events instead - something the lowering of the Senior criteria from 65 to 50 can only accelerate. If we want to encourage a new generation of title holders limiting the number of prestige events and prizes available to them is hardly the place to start.

Returning to the article am I right in assuming that the author is the Stephen Moss who plays for Surbiton with a grade of 142? It would be interesting to know why he was approached to write the article.

[Andrew Zigmond]

Perhaps Moss had been warned that they were dinosaurs with nothing to contribute.

Seriously I hope to goodness that this was not the case.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Firstly, to try and bring the side discussion about Over 50s chess to a close, I agree that there's no harm in exploiting a potential source of revenue. Surely however, the ECF is investing resources by putting up a prize for Over 50s players at its flagship event.

By my calculations, the Over-50s section took in at least £2160 in entry fees and paid out £700 in prizes. I don't particularly see that as investing resources.

(I'm pretty certain, by the way, that the Major Open is not dying because of losing players to the Championship or the Seniors sections; it's dying because it's seen as a bad investment of time and money in itself.)

[JustinHorton]

It would be interesting to know why he was approached to write the article.

I doubt that he was "approached", as such. He's written a number of pieces about chess for the Guardian.

[Leonard Barden]

Stephen Moss has been a Guardian staff member. mainly on Guardian Sport, for many years. This is a higher status than the freelance journalist who writes the odd chess column.

[MJMcCready]

It would be interesting to know why he was approached to write the article.

I doubt that he was "approached", as such. He's written a number of pieces about chess for the Guardian.

He's qualified to write it, his playing ability bears no significance.

[Mick Norris]

Firstly, to try and bring the side discussion about Over 50s chess to a close, I agree that there's no harm in exploiting a potential source of revenue. Surely however, the ECF is investing resources by putting up a prize for Over 50s players at its flagship event.

By my calculations, the Over-50s section took in at least £2160 in entry fees and paid out £700 in prizes. I don't particularly see that as investing resources.

(I'm pretty certain, by the way, that the Major Open is not dying because of losing players to the Championship or the Seniors sections; it's dying because it's seen as a bad investment of time and money in itself.)

So, to summarise, the Seniors are actually cross-subsidising the other sections at the British. and the more of them we encourage the greater money there is for the 18-50 bracket

Add this to the total spend of the ECF on Seniors individual and team events, which I think is nil, and then look at the number of ECF members over 50, and what conclusion do we draw?