what do you consider as biggest threat to organized chess?

[Geoff Chandler]

I've gone 'Other' and along the same lines as Stephen Westmoreland. Here I'll go for the grass roots level.

OTB and club Chess cannot survive without it's dedicated army of unpaid volunteers. In my experience these are mostly elderly (over 50). Are younger players being encouraged to take over.

My fear hear here is online chess is supplying the hit and some clubs will be feeling the loss of membership and with it potential post bearers who are willing to invest a fair chunk of their spare time. Hopefully unfounded fears but soon I will be going a Edinburgh league fixtures meeting and like last year seeing the same old faces from the 1980's and 90's. (and few from the 70's - I first met the current Edinburgh Secretary in 1978!)

If I see a fresh young face, I will make them feel welcome and encourage them and advise getting involved is a thankless task but chess cannot survive, (opens arms to embrace the whole room) without people like us.

My 'Other' is just a private concern and should not be viewed that I place it above option one but I was asked to explain the 'Other' choice.' At the moment 'Other' is the top hit so it would appear others are getting 'Other' matters off their chest.

[jholyhead]

When playing at a congress "away from home", the tournament entry fees are dwarfed by travel and accommodation costs. If Scarborough doubled their entry fees, I doubt I'd notice against the 400 mile round trip, the holiday apartment costs, parking charges and the obligatory penny arcade tenner.

As Geoff mentions above, I'm much more concerned about what happens when the '72 generation decide they don't want to run the leagues and congresses anymore and there aren't enough willing young'uns to replace them.

[Roger de Coverly]

As Geoff mentions above, I'm much more concerned about what happens when the '72 generation decide they don't want to run the leagues and congresses anymore and there aren't enough willing young'uns to replace them.

Whenever the DGT live boards are in use, there's usually a younger arbiter riding shotgun to keep them in order.

[Ian Jamieson]

I've gone 'Other' and along the same lines as Stephen Westmoreland. Here I'll go for the grass roots level.

OTB and club Chess cannot survive without it's dedicated army of unpaid volunteers. In my experience these are mostly elderly (over 50). Are younger players being encouraged to take over.

My fear hear here is online chess is supplying the hit and some clubs will be feeling the loss of membership and with it potential post bearers who are willing to invest a fair chunk of their spare time. Hopefully unfounded fears but soon I will be going a Edinburgh league fixtures meeting and like last year seeing the same old faces from the 1980's and 90's. (and few from the 70's - I first met the current Edinburgh Secretary in 1978!)

If I see a fresh young face, I will make them feel welcome and encourage them and advise getting involved is a thankless task but chess cannot survive, (opens arms to embrace the whole room) without people like us.

My 'Other' is just a private concern and should not be viewed that I place it above option one but I was asked to explain the 'Other' choice.' At the moment 'Other' is the top hit so it would appear others are getting 'Other' matters off their chest.

Edinburgh still holds a league fixtures meeting?

Having looked at ChessEdinburgh’s council I see what you mean about old faces. I recognise half of the names and I left Edinburgh in 1996.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Ian,

Edinburgh has quite a large membership and is in good hands, they have a committee and one team captain per team so the work load is not on the shoulders of one or two people. The old hands stayed on to steady ship during covid but the reins will be passed over, there are a few young un's who have been earmarked.

I was thinking about other clubs where one or two old boys are doing everything (unpaid) from collecting the subs to arranging the matches, finding players, new venues etc and etc...

The league fixtures meetings are great. The Sighthill bowling club, cheap beer! and because I run The Tiger Cubs all my games are at home on a set night and other captains cannot argue or dilly-dally about with dates, I'm usually first finished and in the bar.

But there will be a couple of lads there, club stalwarts, arranging the dates for two teams because no one else can manage it (or sadly cannot be bothered.) I suppose as I'm finished fairly quickly I could take a team for them...for the price of a pint!

[Ian Jamieson]

Hi Geoff,

As you may remember I went to Heriot-Watt so I must have been past the bowling club loads of times but I’ve been in it.

I can still remember fixture meetings at the civil service building in Terry Perkins (sp?) days as league secretary.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Ian,

Make this the last else we will (or I will ) get a row for hogging the thread.

Terry is still around but his club, Pentland Hills, is now being run by...Chris Donkin!
Yes the same two whose disagreement at a league fixtures meeting led to it making the front page news of The Scotsman. I am happy to report that these two are now very good friends.

[Djuna Tree]

OTB and club Chess cannot survive without it's dedicated army of unpaid volunteers. In my experience these are mostly elderly (over 50). Are younger players being encouraged to take over.

My experience is that younger players are willing, but that our generation's baseline for normal behaviour (e.g. not tolerating sexual harassment, homophobic or racist jokes) is outside the norm of most chess organisations. Lengthy filibusters by elderly men (whether consisting of internet campaigns, volume of email communications, speeches of ten-minutes-plus at meetings, insisting that they can't meet remotely, or dragging out meetings so that they last longer than working people can accommodate) are used as tools to make sure the community cannot be improved, that those who want something better leave the organisation, and that it continues to be mainly a space for elderly men only. As a female Chair of a large London club I have plenty of experience from various committees of being told I will "just have to" get used to inappropriate and unacceptable comments or actions. No, I won't. But I am not surprised when people are put off getting involved, because the atmosphere in many chess organisations is absolutely appalling from the point of view of an average 21-year-old woman.

The reaction of this forum to WIM Chevannes is a very clear example of the kind of vitriol that can come up (and why that thread is still open I have no idea). Certain members here have made themselves notorious for their campaigns against a woman who has bravely spoken up about sexual abuse in chess. I have experienced significant harassment, abuse, and sexual assault myself, and at this point I have to assume that anyone claiming not to believe it's a problem in the game is well aware that it is, and openly trying to make sure it can continue.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Boomers gonna boomer, unfortunately.

(I say this as someone who only just qualifies for Generation X)

[Peter Ackley]

Alas in order to affect change in chess (and I refer to Djuna's first paragraph) people need to get involved. Years ago I was President of a county. In part I took it on because no-one else wanted to do it but also because I'd attended too many AGMs which had gone on and on. By various means I was able to reduce meeting lengths for those who wanted to attend an AGM which creating time at the end for those who saw it as a social activity. But this only happened because I got involved when I was frustrated at the way things were run.

I did, and still do, share the frustration that some things do not change quickly enough. I was around during the time of adjournments - abominations which caused most of a season's disputes and the bitterest of debates at AGMs - but despite the problems they caused took years to get rid of. Yet they were only gotten rid of by getting involved and working with people to affect the change.

But people don't get involved. And that's why you get "elderly men" filibustering (note: anyone can filibuster, not just elderly men) - if you speak to them you'd find they'd often actually be happy for someone else to take over; someone younger, someone with fresh ideas. They are not resistant to change, they are just doing the best they can with the knowledge they have. Case in point might be the Doncaster congress. We don't have online payment for entry. That's because neither of the two main organisers do any online financial transactions. It's not that we're resistant to change (from a congress point of view; I'm more than happy with my personal financial management) - hell I'd be over the moon if someone spent hours doing all the entries work for me - but no-one ever volunteers. So in order for the tournament to take place I do the best I can despite few people who have the time to moan but lack the time to help.

Referring to Djuna's second paragraph (and part of the first) I have stayed off the thread to which Djuna refers as it is discussing specific cases and I have nothing factual to add and I don't feel in light of the themes being discussed that offering opinions is correct. I was one of the people who contacted Carl to request the thread was closed (and, indeed, deleted) not to silence anyone but the comments of the few were steering a difficult topic in a dark direction. I'd still feel happy if that happened now.

Having said that I am fully aware personally that there have been in recent years people involved in chess who have been convicted of the types of behaviour Sabrina and Djuna refer (albeit in these specific cases their crimes were outside of the chess world) - I'm not going to name names but in the cases I'm thinking of prison sentences have been served and media articles exist which detail their crimes. I also have no doubt that people still exist who have committed similar crimes for which appropriate punishment has not been served. There is no place in the world, let alone chess, for behaviours such as these and my condolences go out to anyone who suffers these injustices, as much as my gratitude goes out to those who are willing to stand up against them.

However I suspect that such criminals, and/or people who condone, or at least don't demonise, their activities form a small part of the chess world, as they do in all other human activities. The vast majority of players may well never meet this type of behaviour, would be appalled if they were aware of it and would get involved to assist if they were.

[Djuna Tree]

My comment about filibustering refers more to those who do strongly resist change when someone does get involved (a curmudgeonly minority to be sure). But yes, I agree with much of what you say.

[Paolo Casaschi]

where even the winners are likely to still be making a financial loss playing the tournament after all costs are deducted.

You enter an event for your own entertainment and you pay for it. What's wrong with it? Why on earth would you expect to be entertained and paid for it?

[Roger de Coverly]

Why on earth would you expect to be entertained and paid for it?

If you are a chess professional or semi-professional you might hope to make a living out of prize money and being paid to participate. A talented young player might even attempt to do this whilst at university. I believe David Norwood claimed that he would supplement his grant (which dates the story) by taking a weekend off and winning a tournament somewhere.

[NickFaulks]

I believe David Norwood claimed that he would supplement his grant (which dates the story) by taking a weekend off and winning a tournament somewhere.

You will need to explain the concept of a student "taking a weekend off".

[Ian Thompson]

where even the winners are likely to still be making a financial loss playing the tournament after all costs are deducted.

You enter an event for your own entertainment and you pay for it. What's wrong with it? Why on earth would you expect to be entertained and paid for it?

Being paid is not what Joey said. I don't think having a 1st prize that's sufficient to cover the moderate costs of the winner is an unreasonable expectation. If it doesn't, are cash prizes worth having at all? Might it be better to have lower entry fees and some trophy/memento for winners (so long as it's something you'd want to have on display in your home)?