English Chess Forum

I've started a new post because the value of CSC is worth considering outside the election debate.

I'm interested to know whether there has been any independent research into the impact of the work undertaken by CSC since its creation. I'm sure there is plenty of anecdotal evidence, and many would argue that increased participation is self evidently a good thing, but are we able to get a clear picture of the impact on local clubs (junior or other) and local competitions?

There's a report from the Education Endowment Foundation on their programme's effectiveness in improving academic performanc here.

https://educationendowmentfoundation.or ... ry-schools

It doesn't answer your question about effects on local clubs and competitions, though.

J T Melsom wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 06, 2021 10:45 am

but are we able to get a clear picture of the impact on local clubs (junior or other) and local competitions?

It's now been running a number of years, so much so that the earliest participants should now be of university age. In terms of impact on that cohort, isn't it limited or non-existent? I think it was Richard James who came up with the shocking statistic that if you looked at years of birth for those in the sixth form, at university or recently graduated, the number of FIDE rated players could be measured in single figures for some of the years.

This table (produced a year ago) shows the number of players born between 2000 and 2009 who had active standard FIDE (International Chess Federation) ratings as of October 2020. However, it should be seen as relating to junior chess generally rather than specifically CSC.

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
England 7 14 29 30 27 38 53 50 40 23
France 145 140 205 288 345 400 394 379 334 239
Spain 176 204 256 339 399 378 425 361 293 203
Germany 138 156 183 185 231 240 171 169 113 56
Netherlands 19 20 24 25 26 23 27 14 12 4
Belgium 33 30 42 25 44 48 45 32 32 19
Scotland 3 3 1 3 4 4 3 1 1 1
Wales 0 0 3 3 6 4 3 4 0 1
Ireland 8 6 11 11 10 12 4 8 6 4

There are a few caveats here: the numbers are clearly influenced by the Coronavirus pandemic. A lot of chess here in the UK is only nationally rated: evening leagues, schools events and some other major junior tournaments, for example, but, even so, the extraordinarily low figures for the UK are noteworthy. Teenagers no longer play serious competitive chess: but this is not the case in other, culturally similar, countries of Western Europe. (En passant, I’m surprised that the German and Dutch figures are relatively low. Perhaps someone could explain. Maybe not all tournaments are FIDE rated? Maybe it’s the influence of the Steps Method, which cautions against younger children playing in external competitions.)

Richard James wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 06, 2021 11:27 am

This table (produced a year ago) shows the number of players born between 2000 and 2009 who had active standard FIDE (International Chess Federation) ratings as of October 2020.

The ECF should have similar figures given that date of birth is usually stored on the rating data. Whether they would publish them on a regular annual basis is another matter.

If you went back to the 1972-73 season and did a similar analysis on BCF data, I think the numbers in years of birth 1945 to 1960 would have been enormous. But in those days, casual chess in secondary schools was perhaps rife, pocket sets providing a portable games device for breaks and lunch times.

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 06, 2021 11:58 am

If you went back to the 1972-73 season and did a similar analysis on BCF data, I think the numbers in years of birth 1945 to 1960 would have been enormous. But in those days, casual chess in secondary schools was perhaps rife, pocket sets providing a portable games device for breaks and lunch times.

Indeed - amongst boys at any rate. I learnt chess - and also made friends by playing on my pocket set on the train to and from school, as did many others of my generation.

CSC won awards from the Sport and Recreation Alliance in both 2012 and 2013, ahead of some excellent applications from other sports. Please see my reports at https://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-cont ... e-2012.pdf and at https://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-cont ... e-2013.pdf.

CSC schools (and communities) have won a number of BCET Awards, including one to Handsworth Primary School this year.

My impression is that CSC mostly operates at either the bottom of the pyramid (in terms of school chess clubs and teaching children the game from scratch) or at the top (in terms of large events such as the London Classic or Chessfest), but is not that active in the middle (in terms of regular steady events that provide tournament experience for children (or adults) who are becoming both keen and good at the game).

Nothing wrong with that, but it would be hard to disentangle CSC from all the other aspects of the chess ecosystem that contribute to a player's development.

David Sedgwick wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 06, 2021 12:04 pm

CSC won awards from the Sport and Recreation Alliance in both 2012 and 2013

CSC has now been around for a number of years, but when was it actually founded?

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 06, 2021 12:13 pm

CSC has now been around for a number of years, but when was it actually founded?

14th September 2009. See https://register-of-charities.charityco ... g-document.

J T Melsom wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 06, 2021 10:45 am

... but are we able to get a clear picture of the impact on local clubs (junior or other) and local competitions?

When I was involved in CSC the aim was never to produce ‘chess players’ per se. If that happened it was a happy by product of the main goal - which was to use chess as an educational tool particular for those children who were less likely to be exposed to the game via other routes.

I’ve not been involved with CSC for nearly 4 years but I doubt that central philosophy has changed.

To ask if CSC has lead to more chess players is a bit like asking if setting up a chess club has led to more people in the area studying Maths at A level.

Thanks all. I found Jonathan Bryant's contribution interesting, because he has identified a subtly different motivation for CSC than just growing chess participation. It is not unfair in the context of the current election campaign to reflect on this and whether those responsible for the achievements of CSC can deliver on a broader ECF canvas.

Richard James wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 06, 2021 11:03 am

There's a report from the Education Endowment Foundation on their programme's effectiveness in improving academic performanc here.

https://educationendowmentfoundation.or ... ry-schools.

Richard is correct. This was the only formal assessment of the CSC programme. And I would very much doubt it isn’t still the case.

You can check The study’s conclusions, but in essence no significant difference was found between the CSC schools and the control group of non CSC schools.

Whether that’s a problem depends on your point of view.

If you’re an advocate of the ‘chess makes you smarter’ philosophy then you certainly have something to explain.

As it happens I take a different view. Which is that the provision of chess lessons in curriculum time (ie not clubs) is a culturally enriching experience. Especially so for those children in schools in disadvantage areas with whom CSC was primarily focused.

If you can give that experience - and others like music arts and sports - without impacting academic outcomes you should do so. And the EEF study suggests that indeed you can.

J T Melsom wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 06, 2021 10:17 pm

Thanks all. I found Jonathan Bryant's contribution interesting, because he has identified a subtly different motivation for CSC than just growing chess participation.

Well I would call what we did at CSC chess participation but not in the sense necessarily of becoming club/tournament players like those of us that hang out here.

I should also have made clear I was talking about the educational arm of CSC - which was essentially what I was involved with and was the main part of what CSC got up to. But there are other things to.

Eg the recent event at Trafalgar Square.



So I would agree that CSC had different goals and aims to the ECF. Whether you think that’s an electoral issue and want to ask the question of whether being good in one area automatically leads to success in another ... well I guess the electorate will make their own choices on that.

Thanks for that amplification. I was introduced to chess at a small village primary school where everybody was taught to play, and the internal competitions were held in curriculum time as well as break times. [ Knock-out finals were sometimes artificially extended to avoid study] It didn't inspire me to study maths, but probably helped my social skills (arguably not enough). So I welcome others having similar opportunities. But the election is about the growth of chess across the country so the relevance of the CSC experience to that challenge should probably not be overstated.