what do you consider as biggest threat to organized chess?

[NickFaulks]

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.

I am a member of the committees of five chess organisations in and around London ( i just counted them ) and I do not recognise the above description in any of them. Meetings are a necessary evil, but the impetus is to get necessary decisions taken and then move on with life. You make your own club sound like rather a mess, but they did elect you as Chair, so you are now in a position to decide how meetings are held and to cut out any nonsense.

Chess clubs everywhere are short of people willing to do real work and are not in a position to be choosy about age, race, gender etc, even if for some reason they wanted to.

A few years ago, at a League AGM, the representatives of a newly joined club made the following explicit argument.

1. The average age of players is too high.
2. The solution is to get rid of the old blokes who have been around for fifty years.
3. This can be done by moving to quickplay finishes, which they won't be able to handle. They will get depressed about blundering their games away and will stop playing chess.

I have been campaigning for years against adjournments, but I still found this offensive and said so.

By the way, when you have got rid of all the elderly men, who will arrive early at the venue to set up and hang around after the games to put away? Be careful what you wish for.

[NickFaulks]

I have just noticed that six people view computer cheating as the biggest threat.

In OTB chess, seriously? Are we talking about cutting edge nanotechnology, surgical implants etc? Maybe, but surely not phones in toilets. Or is this online chess, in which case who cares?

[MJMcCready]

I took the poll and clicked on others. In my opinion the biggest threat to organized OTB chess is players arriving at the board with dogshit on their shoes.

The second biggest I would say is players arriving at the board with birdshit on their head.

Both can cause games to be abandoned and are a more serious threat than people realise.

[Paolo Casaschi]

Are cash prizes worth having at all?

For amateur players definitely not, that’s exactly my point.

[Tim Spanton]

Are cash prizes worth having at all?

For amateur players definitely not, that’s exactly my point.

Try organising a tournament without any prizes and see how you get on

[Djuna Tree]

By the way, when you have got rid of all the elderly men, who will arrive early at the venue to set up and hang around after the games to put away? Be careful what you wish for.

You're rather misrepresenting my position, Nick. I was responding to a comment about how the overwhelming majority of organisers are "elderly men" (which I was quoting in my own post), with a shortage of other volunteers. My experience from several different organisations over the years is that when volunteers turn up who are not from this dominant group, they are driven out -- for example because, like most people of my generation, they object to sexual harassment or offensive jokes.

To be sure elderly men are one of the many groups chess spaces should make sure to welcome. I also would not support designing events to exclude them as you describe. I also think it's very clear that analogue clocks and adjournments (as I experienced in the Surrey and Thames Valley leagues when I started playing club chess) are not things many young people will accept in the 21st century, and modernising is justified. Designing events to exclude all but elderly men is what I criticised. In this day and age any organisation of 100% men (or 95%+) is having to make efforts to keep others out.

[Roger Lancaster]

I think that, over the issue of 'elderly men', we're all influenced by our own experiences. One relevant point is the ability and willingness of different generations to co-exist. Some 'elderly men' adapt readily but others, and here I tend to empathise with Djuna rather than Nick, conspicuously fail. This group can generally be recognised by an unwillingness to engage with, let alone play against, juniors (or women, but this is covered extensively in another thread) and by frequent references to past decades when they imagine chess was played, unlike today, in halcyon conditions. While there are plenty of good examples, among whom I'd be happy to include Nick, it's the unsocial minority who give the group an indifferent reputation.

[Peter Ackley]

I'm not sure I agree that "any organisation of 100% men (or 95%+) is having to make efforts to keep others out". Using one club I play for as an example membership is 100% male (and, indeed, only one junior) but there's no effort being made to keep anyone out; rather it's just a symptom of the people who have expressed interest in joining. I would argue that the club has sought to be more inclusive, offer greater opportunities for people new to the game, offer incentives to people in their first year... But if people don't join then nothing changes.

As someone who has captained various teams for 15+ years and has run numerous tournaments I've never sought to exclude someone based on any protected characteristic (I apologise if this is not the right term to use). The only people I have sought to exclude have been people who have deliberate negative effects on the teams to which they play for (for example people who repeatedly pull out on the day for nebulous reasons), people who repeatedly cause problems in congresses (for example multiple baseless silent withdrawals).

I think a greater problem (and I apologise to Djuna if this is to what she was alluding) is that chess club locations are no longer as appealing to the modern person. An upstairs room in a pub (juniors?), a freezing hall (anyone without thermals?), an out of the way location (anyone using public transport?). Here, though, we link all the way back to my point on money. People in a club don't want to pay more, a better location costs more. If more people joined then any cost increase would be diluted but people need to join at the "old" venue to make a "new" venue viable. One example from a long-defunct club I played for. Membership was £10. One year a better venue was sought. The cheapest would cost £40 more per year per existing member. Everyone thought the new venue was more appealing but not the price and some people said they'd move to a local, cheaper, club. So no-one moved and nothing changed. In a more recent example the same club listed in paragraph 1 moved to a city centre venue. Bigger room, better venue, no cost increase. However equally much moaning from some that it cost (I think) 80p to park.

[NickFaulks]

You're rather misrepresenting my position, Nick.

Yes, I know that.

My experience from several different organisations over the years is that when volunteers turn up who are not from this dominant group, they are driven out -- for example because, like most people of my generation, they object to sexual harassment or offensive jokes.

I can honestly say that I have never come across this. What could be off putting is that the people setting up will be talking about football and if you can't name an Arsenal left back you may feel a bit left out. I'm not dismissing this as a problem, but it really isn't a deliberate attempt at exclusion. You can't ban chat about football because it is sexist, or perhaps ageist ( can you? ) so what is the solution?

I also think it's very clear that analogue clocks and adjournments (as I experienced in the Surrey and Thames Valley leagues when I started playing club chess) are not things many young people will accept in the 21st century, and modernising is justified. Designing events to exclude all but elderly men is what I criticised.

Don't get me started on analogue clocks, but I do think you are being very unfair re adjournments. It may seem strange for me to say this, since I have been one of the agitators to move both of those leagues to quickplay finishes ( job almost done this year ), but I can see both sides.

There is a ( reducing ) generation of players who have spent their lives playing chess at a high level with time to think carefully about their moves, even in the ending - a phase of the game at which some are very highly skilled. It has been terribly sad to watch these venerable players collapse as they flail around trying to find a legal move in a few seconds. They don't want to exclude anyone, merely to be allowed to continue to play their game with the skill in which they take great pride. I am obviously in agreement with you that change had to come, but please do not overlook or misrepresent the collateral damage.

In this day and age any organisation of 100% men (or 95%+) is having to make efforts to keep others out.

I just don't think this glib comment is true. The problem is simply inertia.

[Roger de Coverly]

There is a ( reducing ) generation of players who have spent their lives playing chess at a high level with time to think carefully about their moves, even in the ending - a phase of the game at which some are very highly skilled.

Are there any leagues left which have compulsory adjudications or where players can only avoid them by agreeing to adjournments and second sessions? You can characterise the generation of players in favour of adjudications as those who would think very carefully about how to avoid endings, particularly if the end of the session was approaching.

[NickFaulks]

This group can generally be recognised by an unwillingness to engage with, let alone play against, juniors (or women, but this is covered extensively in another thread)

Perhaps it's living in London, but I just don't see this. Some players are certainly fed up with losing rating points to juniors, but that is an entirely separate issue.

I did recently come across an office holder who said forcibly that he saw no particular need to encourage women in chess. I was absolutely stunned to hear that, which does at least suggest that it is not a view to which I am exposed very often.

[Paul Cooksey]

In this day and age any organisation of 100% men (or 95%+) is having to make efforts to keep others out.

I just don't think this glib comment is true. The problem is simply inertia.

Demographics too I think, the boom in the 70s was mostly men.

Maybe what the biggest threat is depends on what you think organised chess will look like when the Fischer generation stops playing.

[Paolo Casaschi]

Are cash prizes worth having at all?

For amateur players definitely not, that’s exactly my point.

Try organising a tournament without any prizes and see how you get on

Only after you try playing chess as an amateur while making a profit

[Nick Ivell]

The Fischer generation is already stopping! I am an example.

I agree with the comment about adjournments and the endgame. The late George Ellison was typical. Actually I didn't think his skill in the ending that great, but he at least wanted time to think!

[Peter Ackley]

I don't really want to rehash a debate on adjournments but I agree with Mr Faulks about the benefits to chess. Alas from my experience of adjournments it was the non-chess disadvantages which killed off my interest:
-the player who didn't turn up for the adjournment because I didn't answer my landline phone to confirm I was still going to be there - I'd already left for the game
-the same player then tried to guilt me into agreeing another sessions stating he'd give up chess if I didn't (hope he found another hobby)
-the player who insisted on an adjournment as "he liked to study endgames" then fell into a trap within 3 moves of the resumption and lost
-the player who analysed the wrong position giving me a straight-forward win
-the game which was the first match of the season which was adjourned until after the final match of the season as neither of us had the time
-the match where 7 of the 8 boards wanted adjournments... on the 30th April (the season finished on the 30th April)
-the opponent who, regardless of the rules, insisted that I had to travel to his venue as he did not drive (I didn't either)
-another poster from the forum who went all the way across London and into deepest Sussex for an adjourned game at his opponents house, only for the opponents ex-wife to tell him he no longer lived there

I'm sure there were others but it was never the chess which caused me to hate adjournments - it was the rubbish that came along with them.

I gave up any adjournment chess the day I had a match which started with the following:
Peter: Do you want a quickplay finish?
Opponent: No
Peter Do you want a draw?