Papers for ECF Council meeting 12th April 2014

[Roger de Coverly]

Surely the prime factor in that is the loss of The Times sponsorship.

I thought it might have had more to do with risk aversion in the State sector as it developed in the early 1990s. It was a paradox. School A was deemed safe for pupils of that school even for after school activities, as was school B. But propose a visit from school A to school B for the purposes of a chess match and several pages of forms needed to be filled in describing everything possible that could go wrong. I think that was the background to why the UK Chess Challenge took the form it did. By being based on qualifiers in a single school and then being based on the individual rather than the school for later stages, it avoided much of the hassle.

[Sean Hewitt]

Crippling polices such as free membership for Juniors.

I imagine Matthew was thinking of the policy of requiring ECF membership to take part in a match or tournament against other schools if the games were to be graded.

No such policy was ever proposed. Membership was to be required in official event(s) run by the ECF, just as it is for the British Championships, the County Championships or the National Club. It would hardly have 'crippled junior chess' given that most junior chess is not played within the confines of these event but Council decided otherwise and we move on.

The substantive point remains. Matthew thinks that junior chess was failing on Phil Ehr's watch and is improving under the guidance of Lawrence Cooper. This is excellent news for which Lawrence and the team should be congratulated. We should be helping the junior directorate team in any way that we can to do more good work. Sadly, as Lawrence reports, Phil Ehr constantly gets in the way of those efforts.

[Matthew Turner]

We are all grateful that you have helped junior chess by resigning but perhaps you could leave those still in post to get on with their job.

[Roger de Coverly]

Membership was to be required in official event(s) run by the ECF, just as it is for the British Championships, the County Championships or the National Club.

If the ECF was running inter-school events, and it was in the form of the National Schools and the Secondary School initiatives, such a policy would require membership for those taking part in matches between schools as a condition of the games being graded.

Still it's a battle I've been having with compulsory membership advocates for years, namely their refusal to accept the likely practical consequences of their actions.

[PeterFarr]

Surely the prime factor in that is the loss of The Times sponsorship.

I thought it might have had more to do with risk aversion in the State sector as it developed in the early 1990s. It was a paradox. School A was deemed safe for pupils of that school even for after school activities, as was school B. But propose a visit from school A to school B for the purposes of a chess match and several pages of forms needed to be filled in describing everything possible that could go wrong. I think that was the background to why the UK Chess Challenge took the form it did. By being based on qualifiers in a single school and then being based on the individual rather than the school for later stages, it avoided much of the hassle.

But schools organize external trips all the time, and they still play competitive sports against each other. If an inter-school rugby or hockey match can be played, why can't a chess match? Are the requirements really so onerous? A teacher is prepared to organize a chess club but not to fill in a form? Really?

[John Swain]

Several have commented on the declining numbers playing chess in the U.K., comparing the 1970s boom with nowadays. This is certainly my experience. It is something we all need to address, not just the E.C.F.

Active players in the Notts League are roughly half what they were 25 years ago (c. 200 rather than c.400). There are far fewer clubs to choose from (smaller clubs have usually folded) making it difficult for some players without transport. Of course, there is now the opportunity to play internet chess when it's convenient, rather than just on a particular club night.

The ECF National Schools Tournament is also a yardstick for the decline, but the issues are complex and are not just down to loss of The Times sponsorship. During the 1970s boom, when the tournament was sponsored by The Sunday Times numbers approached a thousand teams but the 1980s, when The Times took over was a different story - 597 teams in 1982-83 and only 358 in 1987-88, for example. The teachers' action probably had a part to play in this decline, but there must have been other factors too, for the secular decline continued, falling to 246 in the last year of sponsorship by The Times in 2001. Schools with strong teams still entered the competition but with contracting zones, many teachers with weaker teams saw little point in entering just to see their team taken apart in fifteen minutes, particularly if they were the away team and had to scale a mountain of health and safety paperwork (to which Roger correctly refers).

[PeterFarr]

I'm sorry, but I think the health & safety thing is a bit of a red herring - if it doesn't stop state school skiing holidays, foreign exchanges, rugby matches etc., in what way does it prevent chess?

Its a convenient excuse and the risk is that it prevents a deeper analysis of what is really causing the decline in schools chess (which no doubt has many and varied reasons, including general lack of teacher time and a different culture amongst teachers, all the various competing activities to chess, exam pressure etc..).

[Stewart Reuben]

Sean Hewitt > It's a real pity that some folk spent most of their time undermining the good work of the very capable executive directors. They seem to have no concept of boundaries to their own responsibilities and instead pursued their own agenda to the detriment of both themselves and the ECF as a whole.<
Sean Hewitt >Phil Ehr constantly gets in the way of those efforts.<

There seems to be a dichotomy between these two recent comments by Sean and also his undermining Andrew Paulson.

I would have thought it one of the tasks of a non-exec director to try to aid the harmonious working together of the executive directors.

[Sean Hewitt]

I would have thought it one of the tasks of a non-exec director to try to aid the harmonious working together of the executive directors.

Again, I agree entirely. That's why I aided the executive directors in their efforts to deal with one of the blockers to their harmonious working.

[John Swain]

I'm sorry, but I think the health & safety thing is a bit of a red herring - if it doesn't stop state school skiing holidays, foreign exchanges, rugby matches etc., in what way does it prevent chess?

Its a convenient excuse and the risk is that it prevents a deeper analysis of what is really causing the decline in schools chess (which no doubt has many and varied reasons, including general lack of teacher time and a different culture amongst teachers, all the various competing activities to chess, exam pressure etc..).

I agree that there are a lot of factors which have caused a decline in school chess in some of its forms. Even the UKCC has seen a drop in numbers.

Teachers wish to organise a valid experience for their pupils, whatever their ability and that is why initiatives like those of Neill Cooper, where several schools play a series of matches on an afternoon after school or on a Saturday or Sunday, are so valuable. Most teams get at least one or two worthwhile matches.

The paperwork issue is merely one of many but is not a "red herring". It is invalid to compare non-competitive, perhaps week-long foreign exchanges or ski trips, where the paperwork is a small price to pay for the benefits arising, to that for an away chess match where the result can be known after just a few minutes and yet the whole experience door to door can be several hours and additional to a normal working day. Additionally, few school sports encounters such as rugby matches are as predictable and one-sided as many chess matches can be, and, even if physical sports matches can often be one-sided or predictable in outcome, in some schools there seems to be a lot more kudos running a sports team than a chess team.

[Sean Hewitt]

The paperwork issue is merely one of many but is not a "red herring". It is invalid to compare non-competitive, perhaps week-long foreign exchanges or ski trips, where the paperwork is a small price to pay for the benefits arising, to that for an away chess match where the result can be known after just a few minutes and yet the whole experience door to door can be several hours and additional to a normal working day. Additionally, few school sports encounters such as rugby matches are as predictable and one-sided as many chess matches can be, and, even if physical sports matches can often be one-sided or predictable in outcome, in some schools there seems to be a lot more kudos running a sports team than a chess team.

I'm sure you're right. It's because of these sorts of barriers that the FA have abandoned schools as the delivery vehicle of choice for increasing youth participation in football. You need a plan, and it's going to have to be a long term project.

[John Upham]

I have found that by engaging with the parents of the potential team one can create a school team.

The parents will be keen (in the main) and then they can motivate the school.

It is harder work for me to motivate the school without the backing of the parents.

Having the parents contact details for each child helps enormously.

[PeterFarr]

John (Swain), I accept the other things you say, but H&S rules often get blamed as an easy excuse; it's the wrong place to look.

John (Upham) - yes indeed, parent support critical.

[Neill Cooper]

Surely the prime factor in that is the loss of The Times sponsorship.

I thought it might have had more to do with risk aversion in the State sector as it developed in the early 1990s. It was a paradox. School A was deemed safe for pupils of that school even for after school activities, as was school B. But propose a visit from school A to school B for the purposes of a chess match and several pages of forms needed to be filled in describing everything possible that could go wrong. I think that was the background to why the UK Chess Challenge took the form it did. By being based on qualifiers in a single school and then being based on the individual rather than the school for later stages, it avoided much of the hassle.

But schools organize external trips all the time, and they still play competitive sports against each other. If an inter-school rugby or hockey match can be played, why can't a chess match? Are the requirements really so onerous? A teacher is prepared to organize a chess club but not to fill in a form? Really?

In many schools they require parental permission slips for chess but not for sport fixtures. The form is not the difficult but, rather getting them back, signed, from the pupils is. Some schools require 2 teachers to go to any fixture.

[PeterFarr]

Speaking as a parent, getting the kids to take forms for signing out of their school-bags is the major problem there.