Draft Junior Selection Policy for 2012

[Phil Ehr]

I'd be grateful for critical comments on the draft at this link: http://www.englishchess.org.uk/?page_id=353

Best wishes, Phil

[Rob Thompson]

Apart from a very small formatting error on the site for Route 4, I think that this seems a very good document. Not the most critical comment I know, but I would be happy as a junior if that was the selection criteria. Unfortunately I'm now an U-19, but it seems very fair to me.

EDIT:
I note doing some looking at the grading database that already qualified on strength would be
U-18 boys - 2 players
U-18 girls - 0 players
U-16 boys - 5 players
U-16 girls - 3 players
U-14 boys - 8 players
U-14 girls - 3 players
U-12 boys - 4 players
U-12 girls - 0 players
U-10 boys - 0 players
U-10 girls - 0 players
U-8 boys - 0 players

Whilst I accept that these figures may change come the January grading list, it seems to me that the qualification grade may need to changed in some of these categories.

[Krishna Shiatis]

Hi Phil,

Yayyyyyyy!

This is excellent! You have listened and it is brilliant that you have put this document out there for everyone to look at before finalising. I do feel that English Junior Chess is in safe hands and am really happy that so many more children will have a chance to represent England, now and in the future.

Well done on this.

All the best and kind regards,

Krishna

[Krishna Shiatis]

I note doing some looking at the grading database that already qualified on strength would be
U-18 boys - 2 players
U-18 girls - 0 players
U-16 boys - 5 players
U-16 girls - 3 players
U-14 boys - 8 players
U-14 girls - 3 players
U-12 boys - 4 players
U-12 girls - 0 players
U-10 boys - 0 players
U-10 girls - 0 players
U-8 boys - 0 players

Whilst I accept that these figures may change come the January grading list, it seems to me that the qualification grade may need to changed in some of these categories.

Hi Rob and Phil,

Am I reading it correctly that you would send four to the Worlds and four to the Europeans in each category subject to qualification?
This is four times the number sent this year. A big improvement.

EDIT: after further analysis of the grade requirements - I do agree with Rob that the qualification grades should be changed particularly in the younger age categories.

There is one thing which I have noticed, what will you do if you have more than four very strong juniors in a particular group?

Would there be flexibility in the numbers being sent in such circumstances? I think that the above list from Rob has highlighted that this might happen and so maybe to allow for such departures.

As English Junior Chess grows stronger (and it will), you may well have to review the limit of four. I do think though that it is a fair number for the time being. The other point to note is that even though 8 (or more) may qualify, not all may want to go. This new method allows flexibilty for parents as well as giving them advance notice.

[Alex Holowczak]

I think Rob has actually made a very good point, that I hadn't considered when I was reading it.

If the qualification-by-rating is just intended as a catch all for people who may have missed out on qualification by other means, then the rating threshold might need tweaking a bit for some sections. I agree that they need to be a bit higher for the U16/14 age group.

[Peter Turner]

Perhaps Phil could include in the 'Policy' something such as:-

"Should there be places available for selection which have not been taken by players qualifying via the various Routes then the Selection Committee may consider other suitable candidates".

[Paul Cooksey]

I can see why a sophisticated policy is necessary to avoid controversy if only one player is being selected. But I am not sure why we need the complexity if the aim is to have four players per age group?

Would it not be simpler to have three invites by grading, and a Junior Director's wildcard in case anyone is fast improving?

[Paul Sanders]

I might easily be getting confused but is it intentional that for 2013 the other routes only become available if the two top players in each birth year who play in the British Junior Championships - i.e. 4 per FIDE age category - decline their guaranteed invitations?

If so a lot of the opportunity and sophistication looks a bit fleeting!

[Richard Bates]

I might easily be getting confused but is it intentional that for 2013 the other routes only become available if the two top players in each birth year who play in the British Junior Championships - i.e. 4 per FIDE age category - decline their guaranteed invitations?

If so a lot of the opportunity and sophistication looks a bit fleeting!

Reading it i get the impression the document is somewhat open to misinterpretation. Personally i read it as being 4 per section rather than age group ie. 8 per age group. Although quite how the logistical problems of such a large implied group would be handled is another matter.

Leaving that to one side i think there is a problem with the use of the word "qualify". The comments above seem to suggest that people are interpreting this word as "qualification = selection". Whereas I think the document seems fairly clear that "qualification" is merely a threshold standard to be reached to be considered for selection/"invitation". Only those who qualify by the first two routes ("personal rights" and British Championship route) are guaranteed selection of some sort (providing they fulfill the additional criteria for activity etc). Beyond that how selection/"invitation" occurs, and the extent of the subjectivity/objectivity involved is not so clear.

[Paul Sanders]

I might easily be getting confused but is it intentional that for 2013 the other routes only become available if the two top players in each birth year who play in the British Junior Championships - i.e. 4 per FIDE age category - decline their guaranteed invitations?

If so a lot of the opportunity and sophistication looks a bit fleeting!

Reading it i get the impression the document is somewhat open to misinterpretation. Personally i read it as being 4 per section rather than age group ie. 8 per age group. Although quite how the logistical problems of such a large implied group would be handled is another matter.

The bit that might have misled me was this:

British Junior Championships in both Sheffield and Canterbury will be used for 2012 selections. For 2013, the Board envisions that two players in each birth year will qualify from British Junior Championships in North Shields.

Which when you put it together with the stated aim to have 4 players in each section, and the fact that each section encompasses two birth years, means that no matter how weak or poorly attended the British Junior Championships is, any player who turns up and does well will automatically have first call - or as the document puts it:

players who qualify by Personal Rights (Route 1) or the British Junior Championships (Route 2) are guaranteed invitations

One of the things I think some of us were hoping for was an attack on the perverse incentives to play some very weak tournaments in order to qualify for a far stronger junior tournament than any you can find in the UK. The World Youth U14 in Brazil had 41 players rated over 2100 competing, where the British Junior U14 had none. A child who plays in the British Open or indeed Championships will have to wait in line while those who took the weaker route decide whether they want the place or not.

Unless of course I have completely the wrong end of the stick. If I have, please someone tell me!

[Roger de Coverly]

The ECF aims to send four qualified players per section to the World Youth and the European Youth.

So with two events, you need eight players unless you send a player to both. With eight players, that can be four per each year of birth, if you select it that way.

One of the things I think some of us were hoping for was an attack on the perverse incentives to play some very weak tournaments in order to qualify for a far stronger junior tournament than any you can find in the UK.

It's still there for the British titles, but perhaps the ECF needs some incentive to get entries. Presumably the decision needed for players at the moment between Hastings (playing for experience and strong opposition) and the London Junior events (playing for qualification places) will be removed.

As Junior selection is an issue which resurfaces every few years, perhaps the ECF Board should enshrine some of the points as more general objectives, so that a future Junior Director does not have the right to reinstate the current principles of only one player for each event with selection using weekend ninety minute games against other contenders.

[Krishna Shiatis]

I personally like the idea that the British Junior Championships are used for selection in this way. They may not be the 'strongest' at the moment, but if they are made part of a decent selection process, then it will encourage the strongest British Juniors to enter and give 'kudos' to the British Championships and strength to the titles themselves. The 'British Chess Championships' should be the pinnacle or highest blue-ribboned event in the country and as such anything which brings about fuller partcipation and competitiveness at this event should be encouraged.

It is important to have a strong junior competition where all the strong juniors are attracted and play each other at least once a year. I was not happy when they were all playing each other constantly to the exclusion of other more valuable tournaments. However, this, is just the one tournament and as such it is a good idea to secure the British.

I was not intending to come to the British this year with my kids - I was totally fed up - until I saw this draft policy. Now we are reconsidering. If this policy rejuvenates interest in the British Junior Championships, then that has to be good, surely?

[David Shepherd]

Firstly congratulations to Phil for posting the draft policy and inviting comments. He has also consulted parents at tournaments such as the London Junior at the weekend where he was discussing the policy.

In response to Paul S I am fairly confident the intention is 8 per 2 year age group. Four at the Europeans and 4 at the world.

I have long held the belief that the British Champions should have the right to represent their country at the World or European Championships, I think it is just rubbish where as in the past an individual can have been British Champion but not allowed to go to either the World or European. They are our champions and should be given the opportunity to go if they so choose (NB my view may be different if FIDE restricted the number of players we could take).

I do not like the concept of 4 in each championship, but would like to see a flexible approach. This year the European Championships are in the school holidays so may prove attractive, why for example not allow 5 or 6 or ... in the odd section, in another sections there may only 1 or 2, (e.g. allow more to go when no time off school is required or to the cheaper tournament).

I think there are constraints in the overall numbers that are practical and feasible if the team is to remain unified at each tournament, but there should be flexibility.
I therefore believe the policy should just be written to allow the "selectors" the right to allocate places between tournaments once they know who has qualified, their individual preferences and the coaches available.

All persons qualifying by grade or at the British should have places in my opinion, I can think of nothing more disappointing than to qualify and not get a place. I believe grades should be set at a standard where judged good enough to go and if met the players should be allowed to go. The grades should be viewed as a target and if met the reward should be given. In my opinion to turn round and say yes you met the standard but don't have place is unacceptable and discouraging. An order of allocation to individual tournaments should be established by the selectors in order to avoid preferential treatment accusations.

I don't really like the concept of the norm's as written, for example an U14 boy graded 169 may be encouraged to play in U170 sections to get the 4/5 norm against average opposition graded 156 but may be better playing in an open section in which for example 3/5 may be a better performance. In fact I have reservations about using this type of performance rating at random tournaments at all.

I also think there are a number of areas where the drafting needs to be made clear to avoid doubt - but this can be done once the basics are hammered out.


Regarding the actual grades in the table these clearly require adjustments. My understanding is that they are based on actual data but have not been smoothed. For those with the skills a straight line or possibly curve should be fitted to the data to provide a more logical interpolation. It makes little sense to me for example that the U10 girls qualifying grade should be below that of an U8.

It seems worrying that for the younger age groups no players are picked up if the data given by Rob is correct. I believe the reasons for this could be 1) An error in the methodolgy 2) The grades for our younger players are not correct - they play in few FIDE rated tournaments and the ECF grade has more lag, also there is emphasis on rapidplay 3) Our younger players are lagging behind. I believe it is important we ensure an adequate number of younger players are sent however this achieved. Even if it is just to pick the top few rapid play grades as addittional players. Once selected it should be stressed they need to play long play games.

[Krishna Shiatis]

I have long held the belief that the British Champions should have the right to represent their country at the World or European Championships, I think it is just rubbish where as in the past an individual can have been British Champion but not allowed to go to either the World or European. They are our champions and should be given the opportunity to go if they so choose (NB my view may be different if FIDE restricted the number of players we could take).

Hi David,

I agree with everything you have just said. I have picked out the above, as I agree very strongly with this!

Kind regards,

Krishna

[John McKenna]

D.S. (19:08) >It makes little sense... that U-10 girls qualifying grade (127/1665) should be below that of an U-8 (137/1742)...<
Perhaps that is an error in the draft document?