Wasted talent?

National developments, strategies and ideas.
Alasdair MacLeod
Posts: 83
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 10:43 pm

Wasted talent?

Post by Alasdair MacLeod » Fri Jul 04, 2008 10:49 am

Just a random thought I had the other day when I was thinking about various very strong UK juniors over the past few years who have given up chess early or simply hardly play anymore.

Two names that came to my mind were Murugan Thiruchelvam and Ameet Ghasi - both of whom were graded over 200 at age 12/13. Then they seemed to disappear without trace and I do not recall any mention of them since then or an indication of why this happened, in newspaper chess columns or in chess magazines.

Can anyone shed any light on this?

I am sure contributors to this forum will come up with other juniors which would be interesting to know about.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Wasted talent?

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Jul 04, 2008 1:53 pm

Ahmeet Ghasi is still playing - but only rapidplay

See the report on the 4NCL rapidplay at

www.4ncl.co.uk

Alasdair MacLeod
Posts: 83
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 10:43 pm

Re: Wasted talent?

Post by Alasdair MacLeod » Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:27 pm

Thanks Roger, that's the first time I've seen Ameet's name for ages! Clearly he seems to be more active in rapidplay than slowplay.

I've just consulted the ECF's grading database and it clearly shows for both Ameet and Murugan that they have played less and less chess over time while their grade more or less remained the same since they were 12/13 yrs old up to their present age now of 20/21. Do you really believe that you're going to be of the same chess strength when you were 12 as when you are 21 years old!?

I'm surprised at the lack of response to my original posting. Should I be reading something into this? Perhaps there is a feeling of embarrassment from the English chess community that these two talents slipped through the net so explaining this silence?

I suppose I was trying to find out what the reasons were for this and how far it was due to the lack of interest in chess (e.g. focussing on education etc) or was it down to the lack of opportunities of gaining IM (and then GM) norms in this country when juniors improve up towards 200 grade or any other reasons that I'm not aware of.

I know there's been hardly any IM/GM norm tournaments in this country since the mid 1990's. I've only been involved in chess since about 1996 but I only need to look at the evidence before the mid-1990's with the good example of Michael Adams' first book which lists the tournaments he played in as a junior. He had quite a few IM/GM norm opportunities in the UK.

Another thing that occurred to me - I may be wrong, but I can't recall Ameet or Murugan representing England in European or World Junior championships. Did they ever do so?

Neill Cooper
Posts: 1298
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Cumbria
Contact:

Re: Wasted talent?

Post by Neill Cooper » Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:24 pm

Alasdair MacLeod wrote:Thanks Roger, that's the first time I've seen Ameet's name for ages! Clearly he seems to be more active in rapidplay than slowplay.

I've just consulted the ECF's grading database and it clearly shows for both Ameet and Murugan that they have played less and less chess over time while their grade more or less remained the same since they were 12/13 yrs old up to their present age now of 20/21. Do you really believe that you're going to be of the same chess strength when you were 12 as when you are 21 years old!?

I'm surprised at the lack of response to my original posting. Should I be reading something into this? Perhaps there is a feeling of embarrassment from the English chess community that these two talents slipped through the net so explaining this silence?

I suppose I was trying to find out what the reasons were for this and how far it was due to the lack of interest in chess (e.g. focussing on education etc) or was it down to the lack of opportunities of gaining IM (and then GM) norms in this country when juniors improve up towards 200 grade or any other reasons that I'm not aware of.

I know there's been hardly any IM/GM norm tournaments in this country since the mid 1990's. I've only been involved in chess since about 1996 but I only need to look at the evidence before the mid-1990's with the good example of Michael Adams' first book which lists the tournaments he played in as a junior. He had quite a few IM/GM norm opportunities in the UK.

Another thing that occurred to me - I may be wrong, but I can't recall Ameet or Murugan representing England in European or World Junior championships. Did they ever do so?
Murugan placed for England at the 2002 European Championship http://www.englishchess.org.uk/events/wy2002/rnd11.htm and probbaly other times. Lots of chess players give up in their teens and that applies to all ability levels, not just weaker players.

It is depressing that in the present grading list the only junior graded over 200 is David Howell.

Alasdair MacLeod
Posts: 83
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 10:43 pm

Re: Wasted talent?

Post by Alasdair MacLeod » Tue Jul 08, 2008 5:59 am

Thanks Neill, that is a very informative link which is an excellent picture of how juniors develop.

I'm usually a close observer of chess news but for the life of me I do not know how that World Youth event slipped through my net, maybe I'm being too harsh on my myself, there's so many international junior events these days.

In that round 11 report of the 2002 World Youth Championship, the U12 event saw David Howell ELO 2224 against Magnus Carlsen ELO 2250!! This ended in a draw. Now look at Carlsen - no.6 in the world with ELO 2775. To be fair Howell has done very well since then, becoming the youngest GM in England and now with an ELO with 2561 should soon be in the England team for European/World team events.

Also there's Gwain Jones in the U16's ELO 2251 along with Ameet Ghasi ELO 2292 - Gwain is now a GM and doing very well.

Plenty of other England juniors there whose names I recognise and are still active today. So juniors
can develop in different ways, although as a supporter of England chess players I always want to see them doing well. So I've probably set my expectations too high!

Neill Cooper
Posts: 1298
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Cumbria
Contact:

Re: Wasted talent?

Post by Neill Cooper » Tue Jul 08, 2008 5:52 pm

To get to the very top in any activity is not assured just by being good as a junior.

I remember seeing a list of the England Under U16 football team from somewhen in the 1990s. It included Michael Owen and Rio Ferdinand, but the rest of the names I did not recognise and they were listed as playing in the lower divisions. I'm sure all of them tried their hardest to get into premiership teams.

raycollett
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:54 pm

Re: Wasted talent?

Post by raycollett » Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:34 pm

Alasdair MacLeod wrote:I know there's been hardly any IM/GM norm tournaments in this country since the mid 1990's.
Is this because of the advent of cheap airfares so that congresses are in countries where hotels are much cheaper than in the UK?

User avatar
John Upham
Posts: 7179
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Contact:

Re: Wasted talent?

Post by John Upham » Thu Jul 10, 2008 11:34 pm

raycollett wrote: Is this because of the advent of cheap airfares so that congresses are in countries where hotels are much cheaper than in the UK?
It might be more to do with the depth of the prize funds and conditions offered?

I suspect SR could provide insight here.
British Chess News : britishchessnews.com
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess :D

raycollett
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:54 pm

Re: Wasted talent?

Post by raycollett » Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:43 am

John Upham wrote:It might be more to do with the depth of the prize funds and conditions offered?
Yes, conditions, prizes, travel costs, and accommodation costs will all be important. I wonder, however, whether winning tournaments (except for the really super GMs) is a loss leader to secure publicity to attract custom for other activities such as journalism and coaching. Winners will also attract appearance fees for future events. For an internationally active IM, how important is income from prizes compared with fees derived from coaching, journalism, and appearance fees? And what proportion income from competition prizes are travel and accommodation costs of a young, active, average IM?

Sean Hewitt

Re: Wasted talent?

Post by Sean Hewitt » Fri Jul 11, 2008 10:21 am

I am trying to organise an event at the moment.

I have a good hotel venue with massively discounted room rates (circa £40 per night B&B) - this certainly compares with rates that you would pay at an Eastern European venue.

BUT - my prize fund, whilst being at the high end when compared to other UK events, does not compare with European events. Why? Because we dont have a sponsor prepared to chuck a few grand at chess. And to be honest, chess is a difficult sell in this country to a sponsor as a good spend of his marketing budget. Chess exposure in other countries is much higher than it is here, so sponsorship there makes more sense.

The second difficulty is that in Europe, events tend to be open swisses or split into two sections (say over / under 2000). There appears to be a reluctance in this country to play in such events and as such, that drains resources to pay for prize money in the lower graded sections. I dont comment on the situation, just makes it more difficult to fund the prizes (and conditions) required to get enough titled / foreign players to play in the event to make norm opportunities possible.

User avatar
Charles W. Wood
Posts: 554
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:50 pm
Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Wasted talent?

Post by Charles W. Wood » Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:59 am

This is a great thread and has many questions, I will try and explain some of the findings we have come across here in Bradford.

Our "Talent" is Juniors who develop into a titled player, we as coaches have been targeting the super intelligent juniors to try and achieve this level, and rightly so. The "Talented Junior" normally has other pass times wanting to throw benefits of their involvement in the "Talented Juniors" life forward too. This means we are competing with ever other pass time in the country. So even after we managed to fight off the competition along comes the big destroyer of Super Juniors, they all go to University. University gives them a Social Life, usually a partner, and a job. I know there are a few exceptions to this but not many.

My belief is that chess is a great pastime and brings a raft of benefits to Juniors. I think the drive to get other kids involved would balance out the loss of many superstars. If we only target the "Talented and Gifted" (Schools description of the kids believed to be going to University) we will keep banging our head against the wall when we lose them.

After 18 Months of hard work and learning we are now entering into a deal with the local council to deliver chess across 40 schools (over and above what we are already doing). This should bring a balance to the whole superstar issue, I don't think it will stop our Super Juniors leaving (or putting a lot less into) chess at 16 in the short term but it will bring many juniors forward wanting to play chess and enter tournaments, thus bringing larger amounts of entrants, larger prize funds and more competition. Like I said this is my opinion and the road we have set off down, I have not found a short term quick fix to the problem.

You mention Sponsorship

When applying to a possible sponsor you NEED to ask yourself a set of questions after understanding this: Business in the 21 century is very very hard fought, so every penny leaving a company MUST have in investment value.
Questions:
1. What does a possible sponsor want to get from funding our event? (Is the sponsor after PR, are juniors their target market, are all the parents quite well off and the possible sponsor is a Rolls Royce Dealer, etc)
2. Have we made it easy for the possible sponsor to fund the event? (are you a charity (tax exemptions for the company), do you have all the government policies in place, have you minimised any risks of bad PR coming out of the event, do you have a heavy connection to the possible sponsor, does the possible sponsor need good PR at the moment etc)
3. How and who is going to sell is idea to the possible sponsor?

Big mistakes:
Thinking that companies just sponsor anyone who asks.
Thinking that companies like sponsoring things to make themselves feel good.
Thinking that chess is a good thing to sponsor (you have to make it good).
Thinking that you'll be the only person asking that company for sponsorship. (You are competing with a lot of Charities, local projects, and community driven projects).
And finally getting the wrong person to do the pitch to the company.

Many chess events don't cover even the basics of these, thus we are now largely out of touch with possible sponsors requirements. The worst part is a possible sponsor will not tell you what they are after, you have to work it out before asking.

I have only posted this as this is the model I have been using and it has been working, I'm sure other people can do it differently but both these subjects are tricky to get right and do need some "out of the box" thinking.

I hope it helps.
Charles W. Wood
Captain of Legion

raycollett
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:54 pm

Re: Wasted talent?

Post by raycollett » Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:01 pm

Charles W. Wood wrote:If we only target the "Talented and Gifted" (Schools description of the kids believed to be going to University) we will keep banging our head against the wall when we lose them.
I think you're right: we need to build a big base. Talented IMs alone won't keep local clubs and leagues going.

raycollett
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:54 pm

Re: Wasted talent?

Post by raycollett » Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:11 pm

Charles W. Wood wrote:You mention Sponsorship When applying to a possible sponsor ...
Thanks for these ideas, which should certainly help organisers of local events. For international events, however, would multinational companies (not necessarily those based in the UK) be best because the audience for IM games is international and the primary distribution medium for chess games is the web?

raycollett
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:54 pm

Re: Wasted talent?

Post by raycollett » Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:24 pm

Sean Hewitt wrote:... in Europe, events tend to be open swisses or split into two sections.
So is the result of "European model" events to reward IMs at the expense of strong club players compared with most UK events? For me, I would like the opportunity to face a master strength opponent, but not too often, which is why my first foray to a tournament for many years was in a grading limited event (a potential entry into a European event having been banned by the wife :( ).

Sean Hewitt

Re: Wasted talent?

Post by Sean Hewitt » Fri Jul 11, 2008 7:05 pm

raycollett wrote:
Sean Hewitt wrote:... in Europe, events tend to be open swisses or split into two sections.
So is the result of "European model" events to reward IMs at the expense of strong club players compared with most UK events? For me, I would like the opportunity to face a master strength opponent, but not too often, which is why my first foray to a tournament for many years was in a grading limited event (a potential entry into a European event having been banned by the wife :( ).
I suppose the logic is why should a player graded 149 have a better chance of winning an event (and therefore the money) that a player graded 155 - or even 185? Just because the organiser arbitrarily chooses to run an U150 event? Surely the stronger players should have the best opportunities to win the events. The challenge for us others is to play some good games and hopefully pick up some rating points.

If you think about the FA Cup, nearly 1,000 teams have entered this year (yep - one thousand). The vast vast majority have no chance of winning it, but they all dream of giant killing and even just playing a big team. And that doesnt mean Man Utd. For a team playing in the Leicestershire League, a big team could be a team from the Unibond or Southern League - just like a 170 player is a big player to a 120. The thrill is in playing that team - and maybe even winning the game. Winning the cup, well that just wont happen.

If we didnt have a grading system of course, all the events would have to be Open!

Post Reply