Can anyone tell me why Scarbrough second biggest weekender

[Anthony Higgs]

In my experience, older children don't perceive it to be a young children's game, they just think the people who play it are "sad" and "uncool", and as a result have little to no interest in continuing to play it.

This was my perception when I was in my early teens about 15 years ago, I certainly didn't publicise my chess-playing unless I had won something which always brought some kudos.

However recently my club (Horsham) held an event in the town centre where we invited the public to play against us or each other, and one board saw two approx 16-year-olds playing a single game for about half an hour. Their group of about 10 friends (male and female) were clustered around them the whole time, were all absorbed in the game and made no attempt to drag each other away. They were playing on an elevated bandstand in full view of everyone, and didn't seem to care that they would be seen playing chess.

[Ola Winfridsson]

In my experience, older children don't perceive it to be a young children's game, they just think the people who play it are "sad" and "uncool", and as a result have little to no interest in continuing to play it.

Then when most people get to 15 or so, and exams start piling up on the horizon, suddenly they don't have as much time to concentrate on chess. This trend continues when those people discover alcohol and nightclubs, and pack this into their schedules too. Extra-curricular games tend to be the sacrifice amongst non-proficient players. Because chess takes up so much time relative to other sports, it's usually the first to go.

These are also important factors, and probably even more so among girls, I would have thought.

[Scott Freeman]

Alex wrote:
This trend continues when those people discover alcohol and nightclubs, and pack this into their schedules too.

...and in my experience of a number of chess players (and those at one club I know well) that means that they have probably moulded into players that will fit well into the social side of the club scene......

Seriously, though, a lot of what I am reading here is all so true. CCF teaches in about 50 schools across the south-east of England and it is heartbreaking sometimes to see so many players (some good ones) who pack it all in because of other interests and pressures from other children and interests. Chess is seen as uncool by many kids at school (especially secondary school) and it can take a strong personality to ignore the morons and continue to play.

[Peter Rhodes]

I think it's a symptom of anti-intellectualism and populism in our education system and society.

(Just putting on my asbestos pants in preparation for replies)

[Rob Thompson]

On a related note, i don't say that i play until strictly necessary. Aged 16, it would be social suicide for me to do so, though all of my friends know by now anyway.

[Matt Harrison]

My son is fairly open about playing chess. I thought he'd give up once he went to secondary school, but even in an inner city comprehensive, there's some kudos is being very good at something - whatever it is. And he still seems to have a decent social life.

[Neill Cooper]

I think it's a symptom of anti-intellectualism and populism in our education system and society.

Anti-intellectualism in our society yes, education system no.

[Neill Cooper]

I've noticed an interesting trend at our school for sixth form students to get interested in chess. This is facilitated by the number who played chess at primary school (but rarely since) and having chess sets in the sixth form common room (supervised by the head of sixth form as they do sometimes need to be removed). Those who take it up seriously in the sixth form are the most likely to stay members of a chess club after they leave school.

[Roger de Coverly]

I believe the 300 players who attened this year are the grass root players who play because they want to not because of any possible financial gain

What do you say to those of us who believe there's a "moral risk" in having prizes for "novice" sections the same as for the Open? There's been a thread about this on the Chess NE1 forum.

[Matthew Turner]

There certainly is a moral risk and I have just played in a tournament where a player won the Minor, who regularly won the Minor when I was playing in it! As he went up to get his prize the person next to me said "Shark".
Having sad that it is impossible to make any money playing in weekend events, whether in Opens or Minors and I think it is nice that 'Club' players sometimes have the opportunity to compete for a few hundred quid. You should not change the way you run events because 1% of players might be a bit dodgy.

[Roger de Coverly]

I guess the questions is should a players known strength be taken into consderation or simply his current grade.

A hard line approach would be that eligibility to a rating restricted tournament with a "large" prize fund is restricted to players whose grade is under the limit and who have also been under the limit for as far back in time as the organiser cares to specify. This has been plausible ever since the grading history went on line, but the destruction of the historic continuity of the grading system would now make it difficult to apply.

In the USA, they have the concept of "rating floor". If I've understood this correctly this means that if you had ever been say 170 , then the lowest grade you would get is 150 even if you were playing below that.

We had a similar discussion earlier this year about the Russian IM at Gibraltar who got a GM norm playing in the afternoon, but was also playing in the morning in the rating restricted events.

[JamesMurphy]

I think the main problem is that now people can play chess on the internet so conveniently. Why bother to go to a drafty school hall? Of course this means that people are still playing chess, but their numbers do not register on the radar screen. I doubt computers are a big over-the-board chessplaying threat. They are simply too strong (but I could be wrong).

Internet chess is probably the main cause of lower numbers, but what we need to impress amongst online chess players are the things they are missing out on with the over the board chess. Getting to know the person opposite you, playing psychological moves to throw your opponent off, the social side of chess.

You don't have any of this with online chess. Plus there's absolutely nothing to stop someone running a chess program like Rybka on a seperate machine and using it to win money online. You simply cannot stop that sort of cheating it's impossible. So in my opinion online chess simply will not work in a competitive environment. Don't get me wrong it has a place to play for the casual player and improving player but not in a competitive arena.

I agree that there are a lot of youngsters who know how to move the pieces (bar en passent and castling), but that's all that really interests them.

In my experience, older children don't perceive it to be a young children's game, they just think the people who play it are "sad" and "uncool", and as a result have little to no interest in continuing to play it.

Then when most people get to 15 or so, and exams start piling up on the horizon, suddenly they don't have as much time to concentrate on chess. This trend continues when those people discover alcohol and nightclubs, and pack this into their schedules too. Extra-curricular games tend to be the sacrifice amongst non-proficient players. Because chess takes up so much time relative to other sports, it's usually the first to go.

It does have a bad image and many of the people who do play chess are "quirky" and perhaps fit many of the stereotypes but it's the job of our governing bodies to change that image in the media.

When I was playing it as a child it was seen as uncool but fortunately I wasn't so much because I got involved with the football team and got to know the supposed "cool kids" as well. But, when you actually achieve something with it the whole uncool vibe goes (such as representing your county or country) - only a very very small minority of kids hold the opinion of uncoolness.

I'd more agree with your last point. Chess takes far more dedication than most other sports. It pretty much can consume your life very easily simply because of all the reading and competitive play combined. Study, work and other social activities do tend to cut a huge chunk of time out that could otherwise be allocated to chess and the primary reason for cutting time on it is because you simply can't make a decent living out of it without becoming the very best (and not many do that!).

[Stewart Reuben]

Roger de Coverley >In the USA, they have the concept of "rating floor". If I've understood this correctly this means that if you had ever been say 170 , then the lowest grade you would get is 150 even if you were playing below that.

We had a similar discussion earlier this year about the Russian IM at Gibraltar who got a GM norm playing in the afternoon, but was also playing in the morning in the rating restricted events.<

The USCF System in this respect is of course nonsense. They could have a rule that somebody graded say 170, cannot ever play in an event for players under 150. But their system is blatantly nonsense and inflationary.

I wrote some time ago to Kozlov that he will not be applied to play in the Challengers (U2250 FIDE) IN 2010. Perhaps that is unfair to him, but it upset many more people.

People have written about a low graded player being able to play in several minors before his grade adjusts. If we had the grading lists regularly updated, it would be an immense boon for congresses and be practically valueless for leagues. The technology is now there to update a person's grade after every event which is submitted in which they play. That is what is done admirably in the US and FIDE have relatively recently gone over to 6 lists a year. Thy intend eventually one every month and, incidentally, to go down to 1000.

I believe just two lists a year would lead to a 5-10% increase in the amount of graded chess. Can you imagine being a 10 year old and asking about grading. Then being told, you will get a grade in a year's time if you play a certain amount more chess.

Then think the unthinkable. Congresses gain a great deal more from the ECF than leagues. Why not charge them a higher game fee?

Stewart Reuben

[E Michael White]

Congresses gain a great deal more from the ECF than leagues. Why not charge them a higher game fee?

There might be something in that but the same reasoning suggests that arbiters should pay some kind of entry fee to arbit at an event.

Players want to be part of an event and have to pay; arbiters wouldnt arbit if they didnt want to so why dont they pay an entry fee for what is normally an amateur event, not necessarily the same fee as players ?

[Stewart Reuben]

Specious reasoning E Michael. Anyway in Britain, most arbiters do pay a fee. But it is not money, they pay with their time.
You also fell into my trap. You assumed I meant the fee paid by congress players should go up. Another way of looking at it is that the fee for league players should go down.
Stewart Reuben