Chess Recognition

[Nigel_Davies]

I think one of the few things we all agree on is that there is currently a dearth of money in the national game. This has been a long running problem and the blame game is probably twenty years out of date. The here and now situation is that chess professionals (as Nigel Davies has written about many times) cannot make a living from the game and there is little incentive for the professional people the game needs to get involved. So we are stuck with volunteers trying to do the best they can and all people in all camps expressing frustration at how little appreciation they get.

We do have some amateurs trying to cling to power and club players treating professional chess players with disdain. We also have professional players who downplay the contribution volunteers make, particularly when there's even less financial reward for them. Both raise my hackles equally.

Well I should point out that I make a comfortable living and am more stuck for time than anything else. But I operate on a purely private basis having had numerous bad experiences working for federations and other amateur led organizations.

Just to be clear, the issue that I wrote about was that there is too little support for professional PLAYERS in the UK, which is why all the 'promising kids' quit. I don't think this will change largely because of the difficulty in attracting sponsorship, and a large part of this may be in how the federation appears to potential sponsors.

FWIW I think that Phil Ehr's vision for UK chess was at least in the right ball park, but he didn't realize his vision. And I don't like the idea of honors being handed out for zero achievement, it sets the wrong tone.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I presume his name ought to be removed from the list but perhaps no one in the ECF realised that he died ten years ago.

That was an old list from many years ago. He isn't on current lists.

Which is an ongoing complaint of mine. By all means remove people from old lists, but it would be nice if those doing that were able to maintain a history, an archive of previous holders of such titles/awards. Such archiving tends to get neglected, to the detriment of the memory of those people and their achievements, and the history of the institution or organisation, and the wider history of chess.

(If the BCF/ECF Yearbook is intended as such as archive, keep producing that to a high standard and print it and deposit copies in suitable libraries. And online lists are good as well.)

PS. Thanks, Richard, for the history relating to Stanley Grundy. I should have searched this forum as he is mentioned numerous times in various posts going back to 2009.

[Martin Regan]

There is already sufficient ECF "recognition" for professional chess players with both the player of the year and the book of the year awards.

What there isn't is a broad acceptance that such players are as important, if not more so, to the structure of the Federation as juniors. The international director is the main conduit for such players but that is insufficient.

I'd like to see a profesional chess players organisation in the UK and see such a organisation engaged with the various federations in an effort to better their conditions.

There are many small ways the ECf can improve the lot of the professional player in the UK, from organising prize bearing competitions to select the national team for certain non core events, using the Robertson Fund for organising simuls against juniors, or even securing sponsorship for titled players to play abroad. None of it is impossible. There is simply not the will.

[Roger de Coverly]

from organising prize bearing competitions to select the national team for certain non core events

As far as adult teams potentially containing professional players are concerned, the ECF only organises teams for the Open and Women's Olympiads and the corresponding European Team Championships. I wouldn't describe either of these as non core, so what events did you have in mind?

It's an admission of failure to select teams on the basis of places as prizes for winning other events. English chess selectors as their counterparts in major sports have usually selected teams on the basis of the players they think most likely to be a success.

It's a problem faced by professional players some way down the rankings, that they are often not better than the amateurs, being those players perhaps talented enough to be top GMs, but equally talented in some other field, or perhaps just more mercenary. One of the highest rated younger English IMs with a rating not much short of Nigel D's works for a finance organisation. He managed 50 UK games last season, even if 40% of them were rapid.

[J T Melsom]

'It's an admission of failure to select teams on the basis of places as prizes for winning other events. English chess selectors as their counterparts in major sports have usually selected teams on the basis of the players they think most likely to be a success.'

That's not actually true. In many sports such as athletics there are specific trials/competitions and then additional places from those who reach the qualifying standard. The Ryder Cup has selections from the top earners in the season ( a proxy for performance) and then wild-cards.

[Roger de Coverly]

In many sports such as athletics there are specific trials/competitions and then additional places from those who reach the qualifying standard.

Rugby, Cricket, Soccer.

[J T Melsom]

Roger,

I'm now not sure what point you are making. The essence of selection is that it is based upon observed performance - those who win certain events or keep winning are likely to be the best players - the consecutive sentences I quoted seemed to be saying something else, as if winning events should not count for further consideration.

[Roger de Coverly]

The essence of selection is that it is based upon observed performance - those who win certain events or keep winning are likely to be the best players

I'm saying that you shouldn't make the selection for event B conditional on winning event A, although as you point out it's a model used in Athletics in particular. Some chess Federations have rules that winning the National Championships guarantees a place on the team. Coincidently, or probably not, these aren't the teams challenging for top places.

There's a strange incident in the past of British Chess. In 1957, Dr Fazekas won the British Championship despite not being amongst the pre-tournament favourites. In the following year, 1958, the selectors only took five players to the Olympiad in Munich. Were these events connected? On form that year, the selectors were justified in not selecting Fazekas as he scored under 50% in defence of his title, but why didn't they select a sixth player?

This is the team they actually sent
http://www.olimpbase.org/1958/1958eng.html which finished 11th, or expressed another way, next to last in the top group of 12.

[J T Melsom]

So there are actually a number of different models adopted across all sports, which is different to what you originally suggested. The test is actually how prestigious/challenging the qualifying event is. Nobody would challenge the Russian or Ukrainian champions spot in the squad as they would be of a decent standard. But you wouldn't make the national championships the only way to qualify as some players would be commited to more lucrative events elsewhere, or resting for those events. The problem for senior team selection in England is that there is no prestigious event with sufficient depth of players whom you might wish to select.

[JustinHorton]

Re contribution, we all do so in our own way. Personally I have written 16 books on chess, presented 39 DVDs, won 15 international tournaments, been awarded the GM title, helped numerous people improve from club players to current GMs etc.. Presumably this doesn't count because I do it for a living.

A GM title is, of course, in its own way a recognition of achievement.

[Martin Regan]

RDC:

As far as adult teams potentially containing professional players are concerned, the ECF only organises teams for the Open and Women's Olympiads and the corresponding European Team Championships. I wouldn't describe either of these as non core, so what events did you have in mind?

Ah Roger, I wondered how long it would take for you to pop up.

The fact is, and you won't find this on Google, the ECF is invited to send representative teams to many, many events. In my time we turned down team invitations for matches with Norway, Holland and Georgia, an invitation to a multi nation tournament in Australasia and a team event to celebrate some event in South America. Jog on.

[Roger de Coverly]

The fact is, and you won't find this on Google, the ECF is invited to send representative teams to many, many events.

You don't find it in CEO's reports either, so I've only got your opinion that it ever happens.

It comes down in part to what would be better for chess promotion. If the ECF had infinite funds, should it spend them on sending teams round the world, or would promotion of chess be better served by not finding it necessary to clobber someone for £ 32 to play a single game of chess?

[Nigel_Davies]

There is already sufficient ECF "recognition" for professional chess players with both the player of the year and the book of the year awards.

What there isn't is a broad acceptance that such players are as important, if not more so, to the structure of the Federation as juniors. The international director is the main conduit for such players but that is insufficient.

I'd like to see a profesional chess players organisation in the UK and see such a organisation engaged with the various federations in an effort to better their conditions.

There are many small ways the ECf can improve the lot of the professional player in the UK, from organising prize bearing competitions to select the national team for certain non core events, using the Robertson Fund for organising simuls against juniors, or even securing sponsorship for titled players to play abroad. None of it is impossible. There is simply not the will.

There wouldn't be enough players to qualify for a 'players' organization as there are so few titled players who derive most of their income from fees and prizes (less than 10 I would say). But I agree in general that there should be an alternative self-governing body for titled players who also make a living from chess. It could then seek to secure sponsorship in its own right.

The problem would be in finding people who were knowledgeable enough on such matters to pitch in and organize it. I would certainly be willing to help and I imagine there could be quite a few others would too once they no longer had to interface with amateur chess and an entirely different set of goals. And the International Directorship should certainly be transferred to such a body.

[LawrenceCooper]

RDC:

As far as adult teams potentially containing professional players are concerned, the ECF only organises teams for the Open and Women's Olympiads and the corresponding European Team Championships. I wouldn't describe either of these as non core, so what events did you have in mind?

Ah Roger, I wondered how long it would take for you to pop up.

The fact is, and you won't find this on Google, the ECF is invited to send representative teams to many, many events. In my time we turned down team invitations for matches with Norway, Holland and Georgia, an invitation to a multi nation tournament in Australasia and a team event to celebrate some event in South America. Jog on.

Sadly I received no adult team invitations between 2009-2012 whilst International Director

[Andrew Zigmond]

There wouldn't be enough players to qualify for a 'players' organization as there are so few titled players who derive most of their income from fees and prizes (less than 10 I would say). But I agree in general that there should be an alternative self-governing body for titled players who also make a living from chess. It could then seek to secure sponsorship in its own right.

The problem would be in finding people who were knowledgeable enough on such matters to pitch in and organize it. I would certainly be willing to help and I imagine there could be quite a few others would too once they no longer had to interface with amateur chess and an entirely different set of goals. And the International Directorship should certainly be transferred to such a body.

It's a catch 22 situation as more players would try to make a living from chess if there was more money available. There's certainly a case for a body representing titled players in this country. It's a surprise nobody has sought to form one before.

It's long been my view that the three key directorships of International, Home and Junior need to be devolved and given more autonomy and with all three having a strong director at present now might be the time. There does need to be some overlap between the three however as talented juniors do not become titled players overnight and many will level out before they reach that stage. We need a strong amateur scene providing well run events, links between chess clubs (where appropriate) and a structure that allows chess to flourish.