November 2016 FIDE rating list

[Alex Holowczak]

I've recently tried to organise county junior teams for events.

I asked 8 players to play for an 8-player Warwickshire Under 9 team, and all 8 accepted quite quickly. I've had similar success up to Under 14.

I've spent four weeks putting together a Warwickshire Under 16 team, and I have a 7/20 response rate, for a team of 8. This is mostly due to the children having other schoolwork commitments, and so not wanting to play. In this area, a lot of the population of secondary school chessplayers go to strong academic schools, and they're often multi-talented. One of Warwickshire's players is also in the county badminton team. But for a lot of the players and their parents, the focus is strongly on academic success.

Leonard Barden notes that Uzbekistan and India are churning out 2600+ rated players. In the UK, a player rated 2600 would struggle to make a living as a professional player. Due to economic differences, and government support/a wealthy Federation, the income from being a 2600-rated GM is a King's ransom, by comparison.

I wonder if other sports in the UK have a similar problem? Cricket and rugby would be worthwhile comparisons.

[Leonard Barden]

Leonard Barden notes that Uzbekistan and India are churning out 2600+ rated players.

No. Alex didn't understand my words. I was referring to the dearth of promising English juniors born 2000 or later. India has an 11-year-old IM who has produced 2500+ performances, and Uzbekistan an 11-year-old who has performed at 2600+. In the West the US, Germany, and the Netherlands all have world class juniors. Forty years ago, England led the chess world in similar mega-talents. Now we celebrate 50 per cent totals.

[MartinCarpenter]

I wonder if other sports in the UK have a similar problem? Cricket and rugby would be worthwhile comparisons.

I'd be surprised if those two had huge problems. If it comes to it, both sports can actually can actually comfortably afford to have players go to University before turning pro. You don't get really good at either until you're comfortably post University age anyway and the potential career is lucrative enough to tempt suitably talented graduates.

[LawrenceCooper]

Leonard Barden notes that Uzbekistan and India are churning out 2600+ rated players.

No. Alex didn't understand my words. I was referring to the dearth of promising English juniors born 2000 or later.

I thought you were referring to potential 2650s or at least that's what I understood "Potential new 2650s? Zero. Zilch. Meanwhile in India and Uzbekistan....." to mean

[Paul Cooksey]

I though Lenard was referring to the lack of strong juniors who could potentially become top 100 players.

Historically I think England was good at both nurturing talented juniors into strong teenagers and also converting those strong teenagers into grandmasters. Two different things IMO.

I think Leonard talking about the first part - which he contributed to greatly in the past - rather than the second part which Alex addressed.

Or possibly this is just what I think and I'm projecting. I do find it a bit frustrating I can't think of a way to discuss it that wouldn't seem like unfair criticism of our current juniors and coaches. It seems unfair to criticise the best juniors for not being 400 points stronger, but I wish we had some juniors who were 400 points stronger.

[Michael Flatt]

Maybe time for a Commission on the Future of English Chess - a small group of highly experienced folk to invite submissions. Model: along the lines of the Governance Commission

If the ECF is serious about developing elite players there might be some benefit in holding some sort of top level Inquiry.

The Junior scene in England is fragmented and reliant on certain key individuals who don't always get the support they require. Monetary support to players and parents is in short supply so even if talented players appear they are lucky if they are able to obtain a suitable coach/mentor and access to sufficiently strong regular tournaments.

The UK's school system doesn't help. Preparing for entrance exams during Primary school and the sheer volume of work and exams at Secondary school leaves little free time for a child to pursue their own hobbies and interests.

[Leonard Barden]

In my view, there is a central contradiction between the ECF's 5-year plan for increased expenditure on international chess http://www.zen116966.zen.co.uk/ECF/Bron ... nances.pdf
and our 15-year failure since Gawain Jones and David Howell to develop a single potential 2650 player and just a limited number (Zhou, Fernandez, Adair. Merry) of potential 2550+s. The latter group are more likely than not to drop or cut down on chess in favour of a regular job.
The ECF Academy's elite section seems to be a complete cop-out. Elite players are defined as those competing for IM and WIM norms and offered a £1000 annual grant which they then use as they think best. That's an approach geared to 2200s-2300s in their mid-teens who might make it to IM. It's irrelevant to developing a genuine top class elite.
What the ambitious countries are increasingly doing now is gearing their efforts to producing really strong contenders for the world and European under-8s and under-10s, since the medallists in these events are the ones becoming IMs at 12-14 and GM at 15-16, thus putting them on the fast track for 2650.
And we see the results: in the national top 100 Iran has 15 players born 2000 or later, China and Uzbekistan 13, United States 11, India 9. Germany has an 11-year-old with two IM norms. Netherlands has four players born 1994 or later in its top seven. France has a less favourable demographic, but still a better one than England and it does have the world No3.
Recently I was approached by the parent of one of our best under-8s who wanted him to have a professional coach and to play in more tournaments but couldn't afford it and couldn't find any support. I don't regard this player as a potential GM but you need to build on what you have at under-7/8 level and then work up as we did in the 1970s/1980s when we backed Hodgson, Short, Adams, Conquest, James Howell, Norwood and others as U8s/U10s
It would be more convincing for me if Malcolm was putting part of his planned extra expenditure into creating an under-10/9/8/7 elite. It seems to me that the UKCC, CSCC and EPSCA are regarded as sacred cows and allowed effectively a monopoly to aim talents at a much lower skill ceiling.
Another key point is that under 8s don't have the same handicap as older age groups of heavy official school commitments, which has become the standard explanation of why we no longer produce big talents.
In general, the ECF should recognise that computers, databases, and easily available high class online chess competition have in principle made it much easier for ambitious pre-teens to improve very rapidly, and adapt their methods accordingly. Try offering our best U8s free memberships of ICC or Playchess for starters.

[Leonard Barden]

Just to add a further concrete suggestion to the above: England's seemingly inevitable chess decline over the next 10-20 years needs to be recognised, addressed and tackled. My proposal is that the ECF should appoint a Manager or Managers of Elite Development, responsible to the board or to the International and Junior directors, whose job would be to create a small group of gifted and highly motivated U10s and to help them reach competitive world standards. This might well involve making a pitch to certain geographical areas or even particular schools which have historically provided our best talents, and the manager(s) would need an appropriate budget. Who could do such a job? Well, certainly not any 87-year-olds, but I would suggest (there may be better options) as joint managers, the Prof and Gary Kenworthy, assisted by a GM adviser.

[Neill Cooper]

I've recently tried to organise county junior teams for events.
I asked 8 players to play for an 8-player Warwickshire Under 9 team, and all 8 accepted quite quickly. I've had similar success up to Under 14.
I've spent four weeks putting together a Warwickshire Under 16 team, and I have a 7/20 response rate, for a team of 8.

Correction:
You asked the parents of 8 players to play for an 8-player Warwickshire Under 9 team, and all 8 parents accepted quite quickly.
But by the time they are 15 you need to get the player themselves to agree.

What is more, most of the Under 9s will not have played many times for their county so it is an exciting new opportunity. For the 15 year old they may have been playing at such chess events for years and they wonder if it is really worthwhile giving up the whole day for this activity.

[Paul Cooksey]

Secondary school chess is important for many reasons, but more or less irrelevant to elite players I think.

I know Adams continued to play in school events, but strong teenage player development is mostly through playing adults. That not as easy as it was for earlier generations when weekend opens were stronger, but separate to the issue of developing juniors.

[Michael Flatt]

I think that Mr Barden's analysis is spot on.

EPSCA and UKCC were created to fill a void at a time when the ECF didn't really take any interest in players of Primary school age. Now, we need to recognise that with the advances in mobile devices and chess playing apps children can learn the game and become competent players at a very young age. It has progressed to the point where u9s are being selected to play for their club in the J4NCL.

As I see it, the ECF ought to be able to arrange suitable coaches and mentors for a number of the high achieving u9s. The ECF Academy is very expensive for the parents of those privileged to take part, but it is virtually the only route for the players to gain access to the top international junior events. Is it the correct approach?

Also, the ECF is strongly resisting the creation of independently run FIDE Academies in England. Shouldn't they welcome the opportunity to increase the number of coaches able to mentor our ambitious young players?

[Mike Truran]

Also, the ECF is strongly resisting the creation of independently run FIDE Academies in England.

Untrue. We do though expect them to conform to commonly accepted financial and safeguarding standards.

[LawrenceCooper]

Also, the ECF is strongly resisting the creation of independently run FIDE Academies in England.

Untrue. We do though expect them to conform to commonly accepted financial and safeguarding standards.

I suspect he was referring to Phil Ehr's spat with UKCA albeit that was back in 2014.

[Michael Flatt]

It wasn't especially the 2014 application although I do recall that case.
Regardless of who was CEO, it was ECF policy. I am glad to hear that the policy has changed.

Can anyone actually say how many independently run FIDE Academies have been approved or are having their application supported by the ECF?

And how many have been opposed?

[David Shepherd]

As I see it, the ECF ought to be able to arrange suitable coaches and mentors for a number of the high achieving u9s. The ECF Academy is very expensive for the parents of those privileged to take part, but it is virtually the only route for the players to gain access to the top international junior events. Is it the correct approach?

That is not my understanding of the selection policy which is stated here http://englishchess.org.uk/Juniors/juni ... ion-policy/, although it does give preferential treatment to academy players

ECF Academy – players who are currently on the International Programme and the Academy Plus Programme will be considered for events that they express interest in if they meet 80% of the target rating and/or grade, have attended all study weekends and are making good progress.

The policy covers events where the juniors require the federation to enter them but there are a number of top quality junior international events where juniors can just enter directly.

As an aside one part of the selection policy that I don't really like is:

IF YOU DO NOT EXPRESS INTEREST FOR AN EVENT BEFORE THE CLOSING DATE YOU WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR SELECTION.
You may cancel your expression of interest in an event by emailing the Director of Junior Chess and Education at any point.
You are advised to think very carefully about expressing interest for an event and should only do so if you think you would accept a place if selected for the England delegation. If you refuse a place then you are less likely to be considered in subsequent selections.

The issue I have with this specific aspect is that it is asking parents to commit to spending significant amounts of money before the actual amount is quantified, and then suggesting that children will be penalised in future selection if for example they find the event is too expensive and withdraw once they know the costs. I can understand the need to ask players to commit at a fairly early stage so that coaches can be arranged, but think it should be a two stage process with an expression of interest being sufficient for the players to be in the loop with some additional commitment at a later date (possibly at the time when the coaches are being arranged) - even if it is just via an email once the expressions of interest have closed, to confirm the player still wants to be considered. However maybe I am misunderstanding the policy in some way.

My point is that expressing an interest should be just that and is different to committing to go. I think is wrong to penalise players for being keen and expressing an interest (but subsequently realising they can't go for whatever reason). Totally different of course once they have committed to play.

I suspect that one issue may be that the coaches need to be obtained well in advance, but one issue from a parents point of view is they are busy and don't want to forget to express an interest when their child wants to go, but on the other hand under the current system it seems they should leave it as late as possible to express an interest (so that they have as much information as possible) - and therefore avoid having to withdraw with the consequence their child is "less likely to be considered in subsequent selections". However leaving it late to register an interest is both risking missing the deadline, and also not being in any loop for receiving any information - so the policy creates a dilemma for the the parents.