European Team Championship 13-22 November 2015

[Nigel Short]

Gunnar Bjornsson's wife, Andrea, was kind enough to drive me to a clinic on the first Sunday. Unfortunately, I almost certainly got an incorrect diagnosis. Furthermore, the medication that I took before my game against Armenia, caused drowsiness. The doctor had omitted to mention this side-effect, and the instructions were in Icelandic. So the answer to the question is therefore probably "yes", I didn't get fully satisfactory medical attention. I am not blaming anyone, least of all the Icelandic organisers, but sometimes one needs a higher level of care to get to the root of a problem.

[Jonathan Rogers]

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.

Martin

This is obviously much the same debate - you are rephrasing its terms in order to make your preferred answers seem more plausible.

Not very convincingly either, I might add. Should I pay the Armenians if I follow and rejoice over their results? No? Then all we are left with is your last bit, whether ECF members should

"pay for the opportunity of being represented by our strongest teams"

which is gibberish. These ordinary players "have the opportunity to be represented?!" What on earth is that supposed to mean?

[Mike Truran]

Jonathan

To be fair, whether or not you agree with Martin's comments, what he says is not gibberish. Subject to Martin's confirmation (or denial), my take on what he is saying is that: (a) the national team represents the rank and file players; (b) win or lose, the English team that represents the rank and file players should be supported by those rank and file players; (c) rank and file players should be willing to pay more than £3 in return for being able to support their team.

As I said, Martin's post may be contentious, but it's not gibberish.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Jonathan

To be fair, whether or not you agree with Martin's comments, what he says is not gibberish. Subject to Martin's confirmation (or denial), my take on what he is saying is that: (a) the national team represents the rank and file players; (b) win or lose, the English team that represents the rank and file players should be supported by those rank and file players; (c) rank and file players should be willing to pay more than £3 in return for being able to support their team.

As I said, Martin's post may be contentious, but it's not gibberish.

Hi Mike

As you rightly say, it depends on how Martin's post is to be interpreted.

I agree that your interpretation of his post would not be "gibberish" though it would still be highly contentious. Effectively it takes as its premise that the national team "represents" rank and file players, and from that premise the argument is that there arises a duty on the part of the rank and file players to support them, including financial duties in this case.

I am less sure that Martin did mean to say that. I think he realises that this argument is not attractive to very many. So it seems to me that he is repackaging this "duty" to support the top players into an "opportunity": an "opportunity" for rank and file players to be "represented" in international competition. Yes, it's our opportunity to be represented - barely an opportunity at all for the players themselves, no doubt! And this is where I think we are heading into "gibberish" territory.

[Roger de Coverly]

Leonard Barden in the Guardian
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... -final.pdf

There has been criticism that the European and Olympiad team events receive a disproportionate share of the English Chess Federation’s international budget despite years of disappointing results. English teams in the European Club Cup – the chess version of the Champions League – and over-50 senior events, where England is very strong and could be internationally dominant, are scantily funded. After Reykjavik, this debate is sure to continue.

4NCL teams qualifying for the European Club Cup aren't usually exclusively English.

[David Shepherd]

Not very convincingly either, I might add. Should I pay the Armenians if I follow and rejoice over their results?

Yes of course, why not, is it fair that you derive the enjoyment whilst someone else pays?

In reality the way international events work is that the Armenians will fund their team, the English will fund their team and so on. They will then play against each other and provide entertainment for all.

Of course there are limited resources and so a poorly funded weaker team could be sent or even no team (which I think was the case with Bulgaria). In relation to sending a weaker team this doesn't seem to be the option that most countries have chosen.

It could be argued that other countries receive government funding. The reality of that situation is that the whole population fund the team whether they are interested in chess or not, in our country the team is funded by those people that have some interest in chess. This does of course make it more expensive for the individual, but the amounts involved are still relatively low.

[NickFaulks]

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.

I am in that camp and agree that £3 isn't much. But what about chess players who don't do any of those things and just want to play their own club or tournament games?

[LawrenceCooper]

I don't think it's unreasonable for members to have a say in how ECF money is spent and for Council to limit the amount of ECF funds that go towards fees at the Olympiad/European Team events but as a fan of the teams (and a former captain/International Director etc) I do hope that we can continue the recent trend of sending the strongest available teams. I would also like to see all the women getting paid as some will be taking unpaid leave to play in these events but acknowledge that I failed to do this during my time as ID.

[PeterFarr]

Acknowledging all of the above, I wonder if the ECF could do more to solicit funds from the membership to support the teams. It's possible to donate via the button on the ECF website, but that's rather passive.

Maybe a direct marketing initiative to the membership could be tried; offer some reward in return for donations - say get a signed photo of the team in return for £50+ or something. Maybe even a supporter's club could be formed, with the players writing a few blogs on the events (obviously without distracting from playing the actual event) - this might attract juniors in particular, and provide a greater connection with the players.

The point is to try to encourage those that would be prepared to contribute more to do so, without 'taxing' too much those that don't.

Just a thought - not pretending it's easy and it would require resources to try it, but many membership organisations adopt similar approaches. Of course it would be a lot easier if everybody was a direct member.

Incidentally, on the question of whether professional players should be prepared to play just for the honour of it - I really don't see why they should, it's a precarious enough way of earning a living as it is.

[Alistair Campbell]

It seems to me that there are 2 distinct (albeit related) debates here:

One is the extent to which ordinary members should fund their national team(s); the second is what the national team(s) (assuming one is sent - is David Pardoe campaigning to bring back the Bulgarian team? ) should be attempting to achieve.

On the latter point, were goals set beforehand? Did they change mid-championship? How did performance measure against such goals?

[Roger de Coverly]

On the latter point, were goals set beforehand? Did they change mid-championship? How did performance measure against such goals?

As fifth seed in the open event, presumably the initial goal is to win the event, or at least finish in the top 3. Winning became unachievable early on, after Russia and others kept on winning whilst England were only drawing. There was a loss in the middle which meant top 3 was next to impossible. The goal after that would presumably have been to finish with as respectable a score as possible and to achieve medals for best performance for the two players in the running. Apart from best performance, the objectives in the Women's event would have been less clear cut, with only an outside chance of even a top 10 finish.

[Andrew Martin]

The men and women who play for England give 100%, of that there can be no doubt. They deserve any fees they get and should get more.

What we really should debate is the future, looking forward to the international teams of 10/20 years hence. Are we best preparing our young talents to take over from the current squad? It will have to happen someday soon.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I wonder if the older players (Short and Adams) will move into captaincy/coaching roles with future teams, and when the right time for that would be? Maybe neither of them have an interest in that, and just want to play competitively for as long as possible?

[Alistair Campbell]

presumably the initial goal is to win the event, or at least finish in the top 3.

Is anyone able to confirm? And if so, was there underperformance? And if there was, why and what could be done about it? (We've already had illness of one of the participants offered as a reason). Am I naïve in thinking that if directors have sanctioned spending a presumably large proportion of their budget they will be reviewing to see if they got value for money and seeking to ensure improved outcomes in future?

What we really should debate is the future, looking forward to the international teams of 10/20 years hence. Are we best preparing our young talents to take over from the current squad? It will have to happen someday soon.

OK, that's a third debate (although with implications for the other two). What is the ECF's plan?

[Jonathan Rogers]

... Am I naïve in thinking that if directors have sanctioned spending a presumably large proportion of their budget they will be reviewing to see if they got value for money and seeking to ensure improved outcomes in future?

....

Certainly if David Openshaw had remained in charge that would have seemed naive, given the earlier (more clear cut) examples of underperformance and yet the decision without debate to throw even larger amounts of ECF money at this last event. No sign of anyone asking "why are those who previously sponsored us no longer doing so?"