European Team Championship 13-22 November 2015

[David Sedgwick]

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.

That was an English event. This is a British one, with Jonathan Rowson participating.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Well, I for one welcome news of this event! Presumably congratulations are due to Malcolm for persuading the usual (or a new) sponsor.

To be clear about this, I don't think anyone wishes to cut off financial resources to our top GMs for the sake of it, and probably many recognise that an event like this might be something of a lifeline to someone in David Howell and Gawain Jones' position. The debate is about how much of the required money (including for national team events) needs to be found from sponsors - and, allied to that, whether the federation should empty its (our?) account to make up the deficit, disregarding other competing causes, when the sponsors are not forthcoming.

[JustinHorton]

Indeed.

[MartinCarpenter]

That knockout does look like a great event Bit rough for GM norms anyway perhaps.

Anyone reading too much into match scores accrued over 4 board matches is being slightly silly. Not sure how much stronger/board you'd want to be to be fully confident of winning a four board match but it is very definitely well past anything sanely achievable in an event like the European team champs!

[Jonathan Rogers]

....

It is probably more about the prize money anyway.

It's certainly the case that all eight accepted the invitation promptly.

[Nigel Short]

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

Great idea! Next time I need a decorator, I will offer to provide the paint and a bus fare. The decorator can then add this to his CV, hold painting seminars and perhaps write a book. Given that he is not Rembrandt, there is no reason why he should feel a sense of entitlement.

[Mick Norris]

Nigel

I gather that Azerbaijan had over 20 in their delegation including players (not that it seems to have worked for them), and the Russians had 2 or 3 GM coaches - what in your view would we need to provide for the team to have its best chance of success?
I know you had Peter Wells and Jon Speelman there, can you give us an idea if you would benefit from more help on site, or training camps beforehand?
Any insight into what worked previously and what we don't do today, might be useful

[Nigel Short]

Mick, if we had resources, a training camp would be good for team bonding and generating some ideas. A doctor would be handy too.

[Mick Norris]

I'd have never thought of a doctor!

Gives us some idea of the likely size of resources we would be aiming at

[Paul Dargan]

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

Great idea! Next time I need a decorator, I will offer to provide the paint and a bus fare. The decorator can then add this to his CV, hold painting seminars and perhaps write a book. Given that he is not Rembrandt, there is no reason why he should feel a sense of entitlement.

Thank you for taking the time to reply Nigel, though it's clear we aren't going to agree. In your analogy though you would have provided the infrastructure and training and opportunities to practice and learn the decorating trade - you would also have a major commission that people would want to work on and add to their CV following its successful launch, press coverage and winning design awards.

You may not like the idea of working for expenses only, but in reality this happens all the time in the real world. Some major brands famously never pay for consultancy (e.g. Amazon) but use the 'you can cite us as a case study/reference' line, authors on Huff Post receive absolutely no remuneration and then there's the more contentious treatment of unpaid interns. I'm more dubious about this as it's people at the start of their careers - rather than those who already have reached a level of recognition.

I'm all in favour of the Federation helping professionals to commercialise themselves - I just don't think that playing for the national team should be a major element of that, rather I see playing if invited/selected as an obligation/honour to repay the investment to date and raise profile of the individual and game more generally.

Paul

[LawrenceCooper]

I'm all in favour of the Federation helping professionals to commercialise themselves - I just don't think that playing for the national team should be a major element of that, rather I see playing if invited/selected as an obligation/honour to repay the investment to date and raise profile of the individual and game more generally.

Paul

Hopefully the election of Malcolm Pein will ensure that sufficient funds are raised from outside the ECF to render any debate about if to send the strongest team irrelevant.

[Nigel Short]

I really don't know what the cost of a training camp would be. As far as I can recall, I have never attended one. It would depend on many factors, such as location, duration etc.

As regards a team doctor: if all is well, he or she is redundant. If not, the doctor can potentially save many points. I suspect one would have been very handy in Reykjavik. My problems aside, at least one player on the women's team was visibly ill more or less throughout. It was not her job but I am grateful to Dr Jana Bellin for giving me some advice. However, it should be pointed out that a) she was not there from the beginning b) was very busy with other duties.

[Ian Thompson]

As regards a team doctor: if all is well, he or she is redundant. If not, the doctor can potentially save many points. I suspect one would have been very handy in Reykjavik. My problems aside, at least one player on the women's team was visibly ill more or less throughout.

Were the medical services provided by the organisers (Regulations, Section 20) inadequate?

[Martin Regan]

Oh God. Where to begin with some elements of this thread.

Well first of all, let's dismiss the £3 Patriots - those who begrude paying £4 to fund the England team, but then seriously argue that the professional players should fund their participation themselves - "They should be proud to represent their country," goes the cry - and indeed they are. It is those making the cry who are most reluctant to show any pride in their country's chess team by actually dipping into their pockets.

Mr Dargan wrote:

I see playing if invited/selected as an obligation/honour to repay the investment to date

You may indeed. But you never put in the 1000s of hours of study and practice necessary to become good enough to be invited. You had the opportunity - especially as you have reached a decent grade - we all did- but no doubt like the rest of us you were too busy studying in order to earn a living and then earning one - a thing you now seek to deny others because they happened to be more dedicated (and no doubt talented) at the game than you.

The fact that it is sponsors who fund the bulk cost of our international teams I find a matter of embarressment. Some find it a relief, as it saves them a few pounds.

[Martin Regan]

JR wrote:

The debate is about how much of the required money (including for national team events) needs to be found from sponsors - and, allied to that, whether the federation should empty its (our?) account to make up the deficit, disregarding other competing causes, when the sponsors are not forthcoming.

That is your debate - not mine.

My debate is how much money should chess players who watch the English teams, play through their games, rejoice or despair at their results, pay for the opportunity of being represented by our strongest teams - I'd suggest more than £3.