Kasparov refers to chess in England!

[Jonathan Rogers]

Not on our proudest point, mind ...

http://en.chessbase.com/post/garry-kasp ... -screaming

[Roger de Coverly]

Not on our proudest point, mind ...

It's a paradox isn't it? We've probably got the greatest amount of under 10 activity for sixty years, certainly the most training and coaching and it's been at a fairly high level for twenty five years or so. Yet we've got no IMs under 18 and a very small pool of "strong" players at sixth form and university age. So much so that a grade of 180 is the standard for automatic entry to the British Championship for under 21s. In past years, going back fifty or more, that would likely be below the grade needed to get a place in the team of an Open County Championship finalist.

Without disparaging individual players, an ECF mindset that accepts 50% scores in international events as a success is not going to produce a next generation of GMs.

[Michael Flatt]

Coincidentally, I have just seen a report on the 1st Dieppe Seniors Tournament (50+) posted by Trefor Thynne on the ECF website.

It led me to look at the website of L'echiquier dieppois (Dieppe Chess Club) http://echiquier-dieppois.net/ which boasts 210 members and meets three times a week on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and at the weekend.

One of the innovations this year is Chess Boxing. No need to read the text, but just scroll down to the pictures.

It looks an impressive setup.

[David Robertson]

Not on our proudest point, mind ...

It's a paradox isn't it? We've probably got the greatest amount of under 10 activity for sixty years, certainly the most training and coaching and it's been at a fairly high level for twenty five years or so. Yet we've got no IMs under 18...an ECF mindset that accepts 50% scores in international events as a success is not going to produce a next generation of GMs.

So what is?

Blank sheet of paper; thinking cap on; start sketching. What would a successful strategy or programme of development look like? Presumably it wouldn't include the vast expenditure of time and effort that is currently devoted to junior chess. No CSC. No UKCC. No Andrew Martin. No Richard James. No Matthew Turner. No Nick Pert. No Barbican Youth. No 3Cs. Why none of these? Because it hasn't been working! We don't have any IMs u-18 and most comparable countries do.

So now what? Thinking caps on. Get with the problem, and bring forth ideas.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Well, in order to get IMs, you need tournaments where people can get IM norms. England could do with having more of those, and could especially do with their not being so tightly clustered in the south-east.

[Richard James]

No Richard James.

Anyone who knows me well will be aware that I have a lot to say on this subject, and have been saying a lot for the past 15 years.

A first question: do you think the main purpose of junior chess should be to produce IMs and GMs, or to maximise the number of players who reach, say, 100 in ECF money or 1500 in Rest of the World money?

Whichever one you choose, it's clear we've been failing at both for the past 30 years. How many teenagers are there in your chess club? How many adults under the age of 50? And, of those, how many played primary school chess in this country? There are one or two clubs which are doing something which works up to a point, notably 3Cs and Barnet Knights, but apart from that there's very little happening.

I can tell you the reasons if you want. Some of them are outside our control but others are not, and if the ECF had any sort of coherent vision for the future of chess in this country they'd be talking to me.

Last time this topic was aired I posted the number of participants (I hope I’ve understood their age categories correctly) in this year's French Junior Championships. I shall do so again here. Read it and weep.

U18M 77 F 30
U16M 100 F 63
U14M 98 F 88
U12M 98 F 86
OpenA (U18) 184

U10M 90 F 81
U8M 87 F 71
OpenB (U10) 113

As far as I understand their system, the players qualified for the finals through a network of local junior chess clubs and leagues.

[MartinCarpenter]

I honestly don't think the lack of young IMs is that serious - surely fairly strong evidence by now that they'd nearly all just go into normal work after Uni anyway? Might as well let them have a target to reach in chess later on than really push them to achieve early.

Getting numbers, and of keen/decent quality players, is another matter of course and very important.

[David Blower]

This is a very interesting question. I am not sure that I (105 graded) has any answers.

We have 2 regular juniors at our chess club, and 3 newcomers who have just started this week. Out of those 5 children, only one of them had a chess playing parent, so we have had to do the basic things such as points value of pieces, before starting on some basic checkmates.

A useful resource was this website: http://chessimprover.com/king-and-queen-checkmates/

I seriously doubt that any of these 5 children will become an IM by the time they are 18. If they did, they would also be well beyond anything that anyone at our club could help them with anyway.

Of course it is within our own clubs financial interest (although I do not like to overly mention money to newcomers) for anyone who joins to stay. We often have newcomers stay for 1 or 2 weeks and then leave without trace.

What should our aim be? Getting a child 100 ECF graded? An International master?

We decided that the aim would just simply be on enjoyment, but with the aim of improvement.

[Andrew Martin]

All I will say on this matter is that 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?

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. The point where you start to expect more than 50% in large international youth events or even to play for a medal. People who make critical remarks about our performances abroad usually haven't been to one of the tournaments and seen how strong they are.

It's OK for Kasparov to let loose his sound byte, but even in the U.S. I wonder what prospects are like for the average chess professional? If you are in the middle of the Grand Chess Tour, life must seem very rosy, but this is life for a limited few. Yes, the U.S. is now producing many very strong youngsters , but when these kids come to make the choice of whether to turn pro or not, will the infrastructure be there to support them? I can see many walking away from chess into other, more secure professions. Let's hope the Sinquefield investment eventually benefits the many.

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.

[Brian Towers]

Last time this topic was aired I posted the number of participants (I hope I’ve understood their age categories correctly) in this year's French Junior Championships. I shall do so again here. Read it and weep.

U18M 77 F 30
U16M 100 F 63
U14M 98 F 88
U12M 98 F 86
OpenA (U18) 184

U10M 90 F 81
U8M 87 F 71
OpenB (U10) 113

As far as I understand their system, the players qualified for the finals through a network of local junior chess clubs and leagues.

And therein lies a very big clue.

The successful national federations are just a little bit more than an umbrella organization for the clubs. At the AGM the clubs get votes according to the points they have. They get different numbers of points for each team they have in a wide variety of leagues (open) national, regional, local, junior; women's national, girls. Yes! There are countries which not only have organized junior leagues but also girls leagues! But for that you need strong clubs as part of a strong club-orientated organization. The current ECF structure is not fit for the 21st century, but then another thread has already told us that.

[Leonard Barden]

Lest we forget.....

https://nezhmet.files.wordpress.com/200 ... arlets.jpg

[Carl Hibbard]

Lest we forget.....

https://nezhmet.files.wordpress.com/200 ... arlets.jpg

Do we have the moves somewhere to that one and the Julian Hodgson game?

[John Saunders]

[Event "London simul"] [Site "?"] [Date "1979.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Spassky [simul], Boris"] [Black "Hodgson, Julian"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "B16"] [PlyCount "44"] [EventDate "1979.??.??"] [EventType "simul"] [EventCountry "ENG"] 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nf6 5. Nxf6+ gxf6 6. Bc4 Bf5 7. Ne2 e6 8. c3 Rg8 9. Ng3 Bg6 10. O-O Bd6 11. Qf3 Nd7 12. Bf4 Qe7 13. Bxd6 Qxd6 14. Ne4 Bxe4 15. Qxe4 O-O-O 16. Rfe1 f5 17. Qf3 Rg6 18. Bf1 Nf6 19. Rad1 Rdg8 20. c4 Ng4 21. g3 f4 22. Re4 Rf6 {Source: CHESS, August 2007, p52} 0-1

[Event "London simul"] [Site "?"] [Date "1979.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Spassky [simul], Boris"] [Black "Lane, Gary"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "C36"] [PlyCount "62"] [EventDate "1979.??.??"] [EventType "simul"] [EventCountry "ENG"] 1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. Nf3 exf4 4. exd5 Nf6 5. Bb5+ Bd7 6. Bc4 Qe7+ 7. Kf1 Bg4 8. d4 c6 9. Bxf4 cxd5 10. Bb5+ Nc6 11. Nc3 Rc8 12. Qd3 Qd8 13. Ne5 Bd7 14. Re1 Be7 15. Bg5 O-O 16. Bxf6 Bxf6 17. Nxd5 Bh4 18. Re2 Qg5 19. g3 Nxe5 20. Rxe5 $2 Qc1+ 21. Kg2 Rxc2+ 22. Re2 Rxe2+ 23. Qxe2 Bh3+ 24. Kxh3 Qxh1 25. Qe5 Bd8 26. Bd3 Qf3 27. Be2 Qf2 28. b3 Bf6 29. Nxf6+ Qxf6 30. Qxf6 gxf6 31. Kg4 Rd8 {Source: CHESS, August 2007, p54} 0-1

[Carl Hibbard]

Thanks

[David Robertson]

OK, I'm going to appoint myself facilitator to this thread and, with hope ascendant over experience, try to organise an orderly examination of the matter. That will involve teasing out what people mean; separating out pipe dreams from practicals; and chopping out diversions (with the help of OMH & JR). There's plenty of background I don't know; so bear with me. Key to the discussion is what would work; what have we learned that works; what needs to be done; and can it be done? We are where we are, manifestly not where we need to be. So getting from A to B, step-by-step, is something to focus on. Caution: as I interrogate colleagues' comments, please don't think me 'negative' if my questions pull at the ideas; and please don't get disspirited. Clear-thinking isn't always an easy ride.

Anyway, first up: Richard's points; later, Andrew's. And I have many questions for Leonard in due course.

do you think the main purpose of junior chess should be to produce IMs and GMs, or to maximise the number of players who reach, say, 100 in ECF money or 1500 in Rest of the World money?

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.

How many teenagers are there in your chess club? There are one or two clubs which are doing something, notably 3Cs and Barnet Knights, but apart from that there's very little happening.

Is "very little happening" because there's plenty happening, but we're hopeless at responding? (a problem of organisation) Or because there really is very little happening? (a problem of market decline, and possibly of cultural change)

I can tell you the reasons if you want

I do (pace your numerous past efforts!)

if the ECF had any sort of coherent vision for the future of chess in this country they'd be talking to me

ECF may, or may not, have a coherent vision of the future. Assume, for the sake of argument, that it doesn't. Indeed, it may never have had such a vision. Why should this matter though? ECF emerges from ourselves, from the chess community. We struggle to define a vision; or to advise ECF officers on a course of action. So perhaps ECF can't have a vision until we, the likes of us, come up with one. As an aside at this point, I don't get the impression the BCF of the day inspired Leonard Barden and his colleagues to make their definitive interventions into 1970s junior chess. They saw a chance, and grabbed it. No?

Last time this topic was aired I posted the number of participants (I hope I’ve understood their age categories correctly) in this year's French Junior Championships. I shall do so again here. Read it and weep

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?