English Chess Forum

Why is it we haven't had one and what will it take to get us one?
Look at Norway, and they look like they are going to get one.

Warren Kingston wrote:Why is it we haven't had one and what will it take to get us one?

If we knew that, we'd be doing something about it.

Glad that's all cleared up then.

Warren Kingston wrote:Why is it we haven't had one and what will it take to get us one?
Look at Norway, and they look like they are going to get one.

No player representing England has been good enough to be world champion.

Apathy rules supreme. Typical bloody English.

Let's find that stone.

Chess is viewed as both culturally insignificant and being in the pleasure domain of nerds. This leads to a smaller than normal population base and emotional and financial disincentives for potential talent. </stock argument 1>

Warren Kingston wrote:Typical bloody English.

Yeah, I don't like 'em much either.

There are several things wrong in this country for creating top junior players:
1) Education system, above the age of about 13, you're thrown into a high-pressure system with numerous exams every few months for the next 10 years of your life. There are lots of promising players who get to about 12-13, then give up, or carry on playing and don't improve. Young people then have to go to University; there are no apprenticeships etc. The last government made sure that there was a huge social pressure to go to University, and manufacturing and other skilled work went away. (E.g. Birmingham has lost the Rover factory at Longbridge, the Jensen factory, HP Sauce, perhaps Cadbury's in future.) There's not enough money in chess to make it financially viable unless you're 2700+, so most players go to University to get a job that earns a wage.
2) Chess has a nerdy stigma; it's not seen by the young as a universal game.
3) Junior system has too much chess-playing, and not enough teaching. No nationalisation at all in the junior scheme; too many different organisations doing different things. In a Federation, this is only natural. Council would complain if the ECF tried to nationalise it a bit (e.g. CoM is not universally popular).
4) Not enough coaches; not enough money in chess coaching for most. No coaches in secondary schools because no one is interested.

Solve those problems, and we might have a chance of a World Champion.

Its alright I have just solved it I have just adopted Magnus Carlsen and as such he now qualifies for a British passport.

Now all I have to do is convince Judit Polgar to marry me and we good have a womens world champion as well.

David Brock wrote:Its alright I have just solved it I have just adopted Magnus Carlsen and as such he now qualifies for a British passport.

Now all I have to do is convince Judit Polgar to marry me and we good have a womens world champion as well.

I didn't think it was possible to adopt someone over the age of 18 in UK law? Even if it is possible, overseas adoptions don't automatically qualify for a passport.

Judit Polgar is already married and she doesn't play in the Women's World Championship cycle either.

You are going to have to be more creative!

On a serious note, other than the Eastern bloc, not many countries have produced world champions. The US had Fischer and Cuba had Capablanca, but both were massively talented individuals and I don't think that you can argue that anything the state did (or didn't do) would have helped or hindered them in their progress. Euwe won whilst Alekhine was not at his peak, possibly due to Alekhine's alcohol abuse.

I think that England has produced players that had excellent chances of challenging the world's best (notably Short, Speelman and Adams recently) but the public, and governmental, recognition were significant enough to attract the funds required for the final stages of world championship success. I also think that English people find it more difficult to work in a collegiate manner, unlike the former Soviets.

Why would you want an English World Champion, particularly. It won't lead to huge growth in chess as Fischer did in the 70s. Different times.

England has had World Chess Champions (Junior);-

Ruth Sheldon U14 Champion 1993 and U18 Champion in 1998
Nick Pert U18 Champion also in 1998 in Oropesa del Mar (Spain)

It was after the 1998 championships that FIDE began to allow federations to send additional players.

Warren Kingston wrote:Why is it we haven't had one and what will it take to get us one?
Look at Norway, and they look like they are going to get one.

We have also had an adult world chess champion - John Nunn.
Way focus on a single form of world champion?
For those who do not know, John Nunn has been the World Chess Problem Solving Champion.

There are unlikely to be more than 20 world chess playing champions in the 21st Century, why should one expect Britain (or France, Germany, Italy etc) to produce one of them? (similarly FIFA World cup champions etc).

I suppose we have done quite well really then, in Short, Nunn and co. Just feel we need to get chess out there.

Alex Holowczak wrote: There are several things wrong in this country for creating top junior players:
1) Education system, above the age of about 13, you're thrown into a high-pressure system with numerous exams every few months for the next 10 years of your life. [...]
2) Chess has a nerdy stigma; it's not seen by the young as a universal game.
3) Junior system has too much chess-playing, and not enough teaching. [...]
4) Not enough coaches; not enough money in chess coaching for most. No coaches in secondary schools because no one is interested.

Solve those problems, and we might have a chance of a World Champion.

Your suggested changes MAY help get a world champion (but you'll need lots of luck as well). However, you will have also have
1) upended our education system
2) broken the nerdy image
3) ruined chess playing for many juniors who don't want yet more teaching
4) spent lots of money on coaches (ps there are already quite a few GM/IMs coaching in secondary schools)

Neill Cooper wrote:However, you will have also have
1) upended our education system
2) broken the nerdy image
3) ruined chess playing for many juniors who don't want yet more teaching
4) spent lots of money on coaches (ps there are already quite a few GM/IMs coaching in secondary schools)

1) I don't think the education system would be worse for having half the exams it does now. Say, every 12 months, not 6. I don't think it'd be worse off for having less coursework either.
2) Is that a bad thing?
3)4) Maybe that's true in Surrey, but it isn't around here... There is only one secondary school with a coach in Birmingham to my knowledge, KES, and that's only because he's an old boy of the school. Camp Hill used to have a coach. Five Ways hasn't had one for years. They're pretty much the only schools around here that play it well these days.