European Team Championship 13-22 November 2015

[Roger de Coverly]

Is anyone able to confirm?

If you send your strongest available team and are seeded fifth, attempting to win the event would seemingly be the objective. If the objective was to gain experience and Norms whilst also finishing ahead of Scotland and Kosovo, you'd probably send an under 35 team of Howell, Jones, Hawkins and a couple of IMs.

[Martin Regan]

JR:

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,

I did not think that saying a national team represented the nation was a premise, I had that down as a given.

I do not believe that there is a "duty" to support the national team -so your suggestion of a repackaging is wrong.

The point I was trying to make, obviously badly, was that in considering our individual responses you can not simply ignore the representational aspect, particulary as the posts that I had in mind suggest that the players themselves should give up large amounts of money for the privilege of representing their country and, by extension, us.

[Paul Dargan]

I was a somewhat surprised to discover a fairly personal attack from Martin Regan in response to what I thought was a reasonable debate over funding for our national team – in which he made a number of assumptions about my playing strength, motivation and life choices. I don’t really see what they have to do with the debate, nor was a clear what his argument was over and above;

“they’ve invested a lot of their own time, effort and talent to get there, therefore, we should fund them”. That’s not a logical form with which I am familiar.

So I’ll have a final try, to put the case.

I feel the BCF/ECF etc. invest significantly in providing environment, infrastructure, training, coaching, events and opportunities to play that provide the opportunity for our best players to flourish and establish themselves as strong GM’s/professionals. I believe this gives the federation a right to expect them to represent the country when asked and an obligation on the players to do so.

Martin and others believe that they should be paid for doing so – here we differ.

To my mind a huge number of 'prospects' are invested in. Some much more so than others – with the most successful probably receiving the greatest investment. The very few that mature into strong GMs need to repay the investment (both in them and those who didn’t make it). I would much rather the ECF’s limited resources be recycled to fund the next generation (e.g. through the academy) rather than paying the current generation to play for the national team.

I can’t imagine that I’ve persuaded you to the alternative position – you’re entitled to your position, but I don’t think the ‘don’t fund’ point of view can be trivially dismissed as ‘small minded’, ‘limited’ or the other criticisms levelled against it.

I suspect a subsidiary (but important) complicating factor is that life as a chess pro isn't great ... and the lack of serious earning opportunities makes playing for the national team (and being paid) disproportionately important. That is unfortunate - but no-one promised young talents a living for becoming one of the top 200 players in Europe or so.

Chess professionals, like everyone else, need to find some service that punters are prepared to pay for. Again others have suggested some ways of doing this, but I don’t believe simply turning up and playing is sufficient. Exclusive post-event DVD’s, YouTube clips, etc… might gain some supporters/contributors – but as I said in the para above, this is a secondary debate.

Paul

[IM Jack Rudd]

I feel the BCF/ECF etc. invest significantly in providing environment, infrastructure, training, coaching, events and opportunities to play that provide the opportunity for our best players to flourish and establish themselves as strong GM’s/professionals.

Hmmmm.

[LawrenceCooper]

I feel the BCF/ECF etc. invest significantly in providing environment, infrastructure, training, coaching, events and opportunities to play that provide the opportunity for our best players to flourish and establish themselves as strong GM’s/professionals.

Hmmmm.

It might be more accurate if the word "should" is inserted before invest

[Mike Truran]

Paul

You make a number of good points, but claiming that the ECF "invests significantly in providing environment, infrastructure, training, coaching, events and opportunities to play that provide the opportunity for our best players to flourish and establish themselves as strong GM’s/professionals" is stretching things more than a little.

The ECF doesn't invest in much at all, to be honest.But then again, if you don't even have two sticks to rub together you can hardly make fire.

[Paul Dargan]

OK - I accept that I have over/mis-stated ... perhaps "English Chess", rather than "ECF/BCF" to reflect the eforts of volunteers, league organisers, early coaches, tournament organisers, sponsor finders, etc. in the development of our top players.

However, my fundamental point of preferring to invest in the development of potential, rather than rewarding our current top players remains.

Paul Dargan

[LawrenceCooper]

OK - I accept that I have over/mis-stated ... perhaps "English Chess", rather than "ECF/BCF" to reflect the eforts of volunteers, league organisers, early coaches, tournament organisers, sponsor finders, etc. in the development of our top players.

However, my fundamental point of preferring to invest in the development of potential, rather than rewarding our current top players remains.

Paul Dargan

That could mean a choice between a fully funded England team or investing in "environment, infrastructure, training, coaching, events and opportunities to play that provide the opportunity for our best players to flourish and establish themselves as strong GM’s/professionals." I hope that the ECF Academy is the very first small step towards improving this although I'm aware that part of that will be funded by parents.

[Roger de Coverly]

That could mean a choice between a fully funded England team or investing in "environment, infrastructure, training, coaching, events and opportunities to play that provide the opportunity for our best players to flourish and establish themselves as strong GM’s/professionals.

I'm sure it's a wonderful but self defeating idea to establish players as strong GMs/professionals and then refuse to pay them.

[LawrenceCooper]

That could mean a choice between a fully funded England team or investing in "environment, infrastructure, training, coaching, events and opportunities to play that provide the opportunity for our best players to flourish and establish themselves as strong GM’s/professionals.

I'm sure it's a wonderful but self defeating idea to establish players as strong GMs/professionals and then refuse to pay them.

I wasn't advocating it but that was my interpretation of Paul's post. That said, allocating the £20000+ spent on fees each year towards other areas would have some support at Council.

[MartinCarpenter]

I wouldn't advocate it while the team is still quite good but there is a non self defeating version. Basically you include - and then pay! - players for whom the extra money actually made a genuine difference to surviving/continuing as a professional chess player or not. Although I guess that could well end up being everyone on the team once Adams/Short retire anyway.

Keeping funding at the same sort of levels here, so more or less a straight subsidy handed out in a slightly more acceptable looking fashion.

[Mick Norris]

At the development stage, you could spend money (if you had it) by loaning money to players - if they made it to a certain level of chess income, they could then repay the loan - or you could ask that playing for an England team be part of the "repayment"

Something similar to the student loan system

[Roger de Coverly]

if they made it to a certain level of chess income, they could then repay the loan - or you could ask that playing for an England team be part of the "repayment"

There's a more direct way of doing this, although it depends on the support and goodwill of third parties. You "link" invitations to well funded events or even non-playing roles such as commentary with participation in less well funded ones.

[Jonathan Rogers]

...

The point I was trying to make, obviously badly, was that in considering our individual responses you can not simply ignore the representational aspect, particulary as the posts that I had in mind suggest that the players themselves should give up large amounts of money for the privilege of representing their country and, by extension, us.

That I understand. Certainly the national team do represent us. But then the ECF, and by extension us, is also represented in other team and individual events, to which no funding at all is given, all of it having been spent on the national adult teams. So there does seem to be some distinction lurking out there based on the particular skills (and perhaps financial needs) of the players in the national teams, to which it seems natural to argue that outside sponsorship is needed to fill the gap, if the ECF is to limit itself to representation.

I find Paul's arguments refreshing though I don't agree with them, mainly for the reasons given by others; it is far from obvious that the top players have benefited much through the infrastructure of the ECF.

Some might wonder whether we are in an invidious position; we shouldn't abandon those who have devoted themselves to the game, but neither should we keep on funding them when the coffers are so parlous that we find it difficult to develop an infrastructure for future generations. However it really does not seem to me that anyone in the ECF has ever suggested to anyone that they should turn professional, and although it undoubtedly should do what it can to seek sponsorship and otherwise facilitate opportunities for them, the ECF shouldn't actually in the last resort have to hand over money which it really should be spending on developing chess elsewhere.

[Andrew Martin]

If the ECF invests, then it must somehow invest in youth. That is the way that has the best chance of working.