Women's In-Tournament Training

[Alex Holowczak]

The only other point I will make at this time is that wasn't only on behalf of men that I asked such a question as I know of several mothers of boys who have taken part in the UK Chess Challenge and have themselves been unhappy that their sons have not had the same opportunity to progress in the tournament as some girls who have actually achieved a lesser score yet still gone through to the next stage. Therefore, on those occasions it is actually females who are questioning the benefits given to the girls - perhaps I should have got one of those ladies to submit the question so as to prevent any repost of possible sexism. However, unless those mothers can be given a reasonable answer to why their sons are not treated in same way as the girls, they will continue to think that the system is being unfair to them - and surely there can be nothing wrong in them asking the question ''why does that happen ?''

Most girls aged 11+ have pretty much had a bye to the Gigafinals just by turning up for at least the last 5 years in Warks/Worcs. If a 14+ year-old girl wants to play in the UK Chess Challenge in the Northern section, you're in with a great chance of making the Terafinal Challengers, purely from a lack of competition.

I know one girl who didn't like this at all, because she kept feeling guilty for knocking people out - often her friends in the early rounds of course - when she'd already qualified herself by default. So she doesn't enter now; presumably there wasn't much point turning up just to lose to keep friends happy or win but upset your friends.

However, I think that is beyond the scope of this thread

[Matthew Turner]

Most people think that it would be beneficial to have more girls and women playing chess and can therefore accept the concept of positive discrimination. Alex's anecdote demonstrates that some forms of positive discrimination don't seem to have had the desired results. I think you could make analogous points about the 4NCL. Looking at Sean's statistics on entries then this initiative seems to be very effective. Lets hope the early indications are correct and the coaching goes really well.

[Carol Williams]

I think the work that Sabrina and Jovanka are doing is extremely good. I would guess that we lose more female players than male players as they become adults and the more women we can encourage to continue playing chess can only be a good thing. Alex rightfully points out that sometimes things don't work out the way you had hoped but that should not deter anyone from trying.

Good luck to you both.

[Sabrina Chevannes]

Alex, I remember getting a bit defensive with you a while back about the UKCC issue. I love the UKCC tournament and I think it is a great tournament for EVERYONE. It gives the really young ones the opportunity to play older juniors (and get good scalps). I do agree that women do have it "easier" in the fact that there are less girls playing so easier to qualify, but you tell me of another UK chess tournament where there are so many girls entering??!!! The fact that Mike Basman has offered such generous places for the girls means that they are more encouraged to play.

I know I love the girls prizes because in my chess clubs that I run, some of the weaker girls get to qualify to go to an external tournament which they are unbelievably excited about as they never get picked for "team" events and are usually disheartened and want to leave the chess club as boys often bully them about being a girl and being "rubbish" in the club. I just love to see how happy they are that they have achieved this even if they did get a low score. But I don't see it like that - I see it as giving them an amazing opportunity to build up confidence and experience new things.

I must say though, I think the reason that I got defensive is that I have always done well in the UKCC and think I deserved my place there, regardless of my sex. In fact, Mike Basman changed the "discriminitive" girls prize in the Terafinal to a reciprocal prize due to me coming close to winning the tournament in a couple of years and therefore would take all the prize money. Now, if (and hopefully when ) a girl wins the tournament, the "top girl" prize becomes "top boy".

If you look at this tournament, the main event is really the terafinal and everything else up to then is just Mike's way of trying to get the most diverse final. If we say that the girls dont really deserve to be in the tournament then it could be the same for the young juniors, as often they are much much weaker and if they played in an U18 event throughout then they might not have survived either. Although these days it is the younger ones doing better!

There is also a lot of prize money for an U9, which I think is crazy! As what on earth do they know what to do with that kind of money?! But hey, it is ridiculously encouraging, which is the main thing. Every school I teach in, I mention the prize money, and every pupil thinks they have a shot at winning the £2000 which I think it fantastic.

But yes, this is beyond the scope of this thread :S ooops. But I just wanted to note how I think that everything about the UKCC is encouraging and I can't really think anything bad about how it is run. Can anyone name a junior tournament in the UK that is so successful?

(btw this post isn't directly aimed at Alex in case anyone thinks I'm attacking him!) Sorry, mentioned your name because I remember us "discussing" this before!

[Alex Holowczak]

Alex, I remember getting a bit defensive with you a while back about the UKCC issue. I love the UKCC tournament and I think it is a great tournament for EVERYONE. It gives the really young ones the opportunity to play older juniors (and get good scalps). I do agree that women do have it "easier" in the fact that there are less girls playing so easier to qualify, but you tell me of another UK chess tournament where there are so many girls entering??!!! The fact that Mike Basman has offered such generous places for the girls means that they are more encouraged to play.

I think at a very local level, it doesn't make much difference to the number of female players. If you subscribe to your chess club at primary school, you'll play in the UK Chess Challenge regardless so long as the person running your club runs it. It's rare at that stage for female players to get knocked out, so they can't help but advance to the next stage. If you are in a mixed section at the next stage, then obviously that helps. Would it have helped a boy just as much though?

I know I love the girls prizes because in my chess clubs that I run, some of the weaker girls get to qualify to go to an external tournament which they are unbelievably excited about as they never get picked for "team" events and are usually disheartened and want to leave the chess club as boys often bully them about being a girl and being "rubbish" in the club. I just love to see how happy they are that they have achieved this even if they did get a low score. But I don't see it like that - I see it as giving them an amazing opportunity to build up confidence and experience new things.

You loved the girls prizes because chances are, when offered, you were the one winning them. When I picked the teams at Five Ways, we always picked girls who were good enough to play in our team. As you know, most of the grammar schools in Birmingham can't do that because they haven't got any. I don't think this has helped girls' chess in the area, and the girls schools themselves don't have enough players to form a team.

I must say though, I think the reason that I got defensive is that I have always done well in the UKCC and think I deserved my place there, regardless of my sex. In fact, Mike Basman changed the "discriminitive" girls prize in the Terafinal to a reciprocal prize due to me coming close to winning the tournament in a couple of years and therefore would take all the prize money. Now, if (and hopefully when ) a girl wins the tournament, the "top girl" prize becomes "top boy".

You did, but not everyone is as good as you! The problem is that it's theoretically possible for a female player who has no interest in chess to turn up and lose every game, and still win prize money at the Terafinal in some older sections! Some older Gigafinal sections have no girls in them at all. The framework is certainly in place though if numbers - and therefore quality - increase.

If you look at this tournament, the main event is really the terafinal and everything else up to then is just Mike's way of trying to get the most diverse final. If we say that the girls dont really deserve to be in the tournament then it could be the same for the young juniors, as often they are much much weaker and if they played in an U18 event throughout then they might not have survived either. Although these days it is the younger ones doing better!

Of course the girls deserve to be in the tournament. You just need to be careful with how you encourage them. I guess you'd know how to do that far better than me!

There is also a lot of prize money for an U9, which I think is crazy! As what on earth do they know what to do with that kind of money?! But hey, it is ridiculously encouraging, which is the main thing. Every school I teach in, I mention the prize money, and every pupil thinks they have a shot at winning the £2000 which I think it fantastic.

I think the delusion attitude of thinking you might win £2,000 wears off as you grow up.

But yes, this is beyond the scope of this thread :S ooops. But I just wanted to note how I think that everything about the UKCC is encouraging and I can't really think anything bad about how it is run. Can anyone name a junior tournament in the UK that is so successful?

The UKCC is great at word-of-mouth. Basman got in at a time when there was nothing to rival it. If only the ECF had come up with this idea, it might have solved some financial problems we now have.

(btw this post isn't directly aimed at Alex in case anyone thinks I'm attacking him!) Sorry, mentioned your name because I remember us "discussing" this before!

Oh, I don't mind!

Personally though, I don't necessarily have too much of a drive to get more women involved in chess specifically. I want more people to be involved in chess, regardless of their gender. I realise women's chess is a minority that needs encouraging though. I wish yourself and Jovanka well in your quest to improve the situation for female players.

[Sabrina Chevannes]

Thanks Alex

Yes I do want more people involved in chess regardless of gender also, but it seems to attract more men than women generally so I feel that mine and Jovanka's role in the ECF is an important one. I just hope we can get females enjoying the game more.

I hear what you say about girls turning up, theoretically losing every game and qualifying. I can see how that is really bad - I didn't even think of that! But, it's a small concession for getting them interested in the game right?!

OK, I'm not sure, it's a tough one. It's just nice to see so many girls playing in a chess event, so I figured it can't be a bad thing.

[Alex Holowczak]

I hear what you say about girls turning up, theoretically losing every game and qualifying. I can see how that is really bad - I didn't even think of that! But, it's a small concession for getting them interested in the game right?!

OK, I'm not sure, it's a tough one. It's just nice to see so many girls playing in a chess event, so I figured it can't be a bad thing.

It is good to have a large number of girls (and boys) playing in a chess event, but you have to guard against the situation where they're turning up solely to win some money at the end of it. Otherwise, they'll just drop out at 18 when they can't play UKCC anymore. So what was the point of giving them all the prizes to encourage them in the first place?

Part of a problem with attitudes of young people these days (he says, aged 20...) is that their aim is to win, rather than learn what they're doing and enjoying it. (In the same way that young people's chief aim is to pass an exam in education, rather than learn and enjoy the subject.) There's the social stigma that if you don't win, there's no point turning up. That's exactly the wrong attitude. If they enjoy it, and have friendships within the game, then they'll come back to play. Forming friendships is one of the good features about your initiative at Uxbridge, Loz's various APAs, and the only good thing about the rule in the 4NCL (because the women all tend to be in the same venue).

[Roger de Coverly]

Part of a problem with attitudes of young people these days (he says, aged 20...) is that their aim is to win, rather than learn what they're doing and enjoying it..

I don't know that it was any different 40 or 50 years ago. In more recent times, it was teachers who tried to destroy school sport with the "Everyone a winner" attitude to things like sport days and a hostility towards competitive sports.

It remains to be seen what the effect of the training will be on players in the Minor.

I'm reminded of a time when I advised a player that in the Kings Indian, you play N to h5 or e8 and then f5. All this happened, but after the game I noted that the d pawn is supposed to be on d6 rather then d5. New In Chess had a story about a player given instructions on how to play the Sicilian which involved doing the usual things like d6,e6,a6, Nf6,Nc6,Be7 and of course Qc7. Again all this happened until it transpired that Qc7 would be an illegal move because of the pawn occupying that square.

[Richard Bates]

I would think that for the vast majority of players, post-game analysis (done constructively and in a way appropriate to the strength of the player) would be significantly more useful for development than any specific pre-game preparation (to the extent that that is even possible at Sean's weekenders).

[Alan Burke]

Sabrina ... Just in case you missed it, I want to refer you back to my last post (Thrs 3 March 11.37pm) in which I have attempted to offer you an olive branch of peace, which I would hope you would accept and reply in similar fashion.

The reply you gave to one of Alex's recent posts in which you stated ''... I hear what you say about girls turning up, theoretically losing every game and qualifying. I can see how that is really bad - I didn't even think of that!'' was exactly with regard to the point I was raising as to why, when certain individuals seem to get preferential treatment, some people get a bit miffed, especially when no reasonable explanation is given to them as to why.

I hope you now realise that I was never against women playing chess but was just asking a question on behalf of anyone who has ever wondered as to why that happens ?

[Richard James]

Hi Sabrina

First of all, I think your In-Tournament Training intiative that you've set up with Jovanka is an excellent idea and I wish you every success.

. I love the UKCC tournament and I think it is a great tournament for EVERYONE.

I have reservations about the whole concept of encouraging mass participation of very young players in competitive chess. I have a lot of admiration for the amount of work that Mike Basman and his team put in, and the finals are fantastic events, although the players have to go through 3 rounds of beating, mostly, much weaker players, to get there.

While it might be good for their self-esteem in the short term, I really see no point in telling children who barely know how the pieces move that they are real chess players, expecting them to use clocks and perhaps giving them gradings.

Please don't get me wrong. I have no problem with young children who have reached a good standard and who have supportive and pro-active parents playing competitively.

I also have no problem with schools which really want to go into chess in a big way and promote a geniune chess culture within the school.

I am very much in favour of primary schools teaching chess, preferably on the curriculum so that everyone can benefit, but with the teaching being done by a teacher with some knowledge of chess rather than by a chess player with some knowledge of teaching. In an ideal world there would be a network of regional junior chess clubs run by professional chess teachers, and the schools would work closely with the club in their area, encouraging children who show particular interest or talent at school to join.

What really doesn't work in the long term is a strong player going into a primary school which has no real interest in fostering a chess culture and running a competitive club. How do I know it doesn't work? Because I spent 15 years of my life doing it myself (and encouraging others to do it), following what happened to the children and eventually realising that, although most of the children enjoyed the club, they only developed a short-term interest in the game.

If you look at the derisory numbers of teenagers playing chess in England compared with other countries (yes, I know it's not the only reason but it's certainly one reason) you'll see the results of this policy.

[Sabrina Chevannes]

Richard you are quite right about the methods of teaching. There are not that many people who are extremely strong chess players who have the natural talent of teaching. So you end up having chess players who are doing it as their living but not really interested in teaching and as you said the children end up having limited interest.

It is a lovely idea that primary schools are taught in curriculum time and a teacher who has knowledge of chess conducts the lessons. (like CSC is trying to achieve ). However, we are not lucky enough to have that everywhere.

I don't believe that juniors who have no clue of the moves get to the Terafinal though (which I believe is the real stage of the competition). Everyone has to get through qualifying rounds to get the real tournament they want to win. I think the weakest players must be about 60 grade? and usually have played a tournament before.


I also don't agree with telling juniors they are real chess players if they only know basic moves, but I don't think many people do this do they?! But I am still all about encouragement and getting them enjoying the game, and I think the UKCC does do that.

Since we are in the women's thread, I do believe that girls really enjoy the UKCC as it gives them a chance to win something which they might not have if they had gone up against the boys right from the start. However, the terafinal will always sort out the boys from the girls shall we say and it is usually the boys that dominate the tournament and the girls find out how hard it really is (apart from the select talented few like Lateefah and Sarah who have done extremely well in the past) but they feel better as they are already the Suprema and Ultima and have gotten this far.

To me, that is a good thing.

However, this is my views and those of a select few I have spoken to. Perhaps I will actually take a larger survey of what women (and maybe even men too ) think

[Alex Holowczak]

I don't believe that juniors who have no clue of the moves get to the Terafinal though (which I believe is the real stage of the competition). Everyone has to get through qualifying rounds to get the real tournament they want to win. I think the weakest players must be about 60 grade? and usually have played a tournament before.

The point is, if they aren't happy with the moves of the pieces, they shouldn't even be playing in the preliminary round of the UKCC. They should learn how to play the game before they get to that stage.

However, this is my views and those of a select few I have spoken to. Perhaps I will actually take a larger survey of what women (and maybe even men too ) think

Probably a good idea given your position within the ECF.

[Neill Cooper]

We are hoping to resurrect the National girls championships later this year

That is great to hear. It always was a wonderful event and encouraged lots of girls to play.

[Alan Burke]

OK, I have now written two posts in this thread where I have attempted to offer Sabrina some of Jack's tea and scones in the hope of an amicable conclusion to our misunderstanding. However, for reasons seemingly only known to herself, Sabrina has failed to respond to my hand of friendship. I was thinking of trying for a third time but didn't again want to be accused of harrassment and therefore I will just allow everyone to have their own thoughts on the lack of response to what I considered to be a very gracious offer.

However, at the risk of again being wrongly accused of sexism, I do wish to comment on Sabrina's reply to Alex where she states '' ... in my chess clubs that I run, some of the weaker girls ... never get picked for "team" events and are usually disheartened and want to leave the chess club as boys often bully them about being a girl and being "rubbish" in the club.''

If Sabrina runs these clubs, perhaps it might be an idea to ensure that those girls ARE occasionally selected for team events, irrespective of their ability, just to encourage them. With regard to bullying, it isn't always a boy on girl situation, whilst if it is happening ''often'', perhaps some parents might not wish to keep sending their child to a club where the organiser is well aware of such acts and yet it is still occuring.

I know of one junior club where no such known incidents have ever been reported; where both genders are treated totally equally and where many, many girls have attended for several years without ever feeling they are second-class citizens. Indeed, this season a specific girls' junior team has entered the local adult league - as has a junior boys' team - with the only reason for the 'split' being a purely logistical one. For both teams it isn't always the very strongest players who are selected, but at least it makes everyone feel part of the club. The only reason I mention this is to show that males do not always treat females any differently to those of their own gender - and that the reverse should also be the order of the day.