English Chess Forum

John Upham wrote:

Krishna Shiatis wrote: and not really understanding (again).

I believe you mean "not really agreeing" rather than "not really understanding".

When engaging in discussions I frequently understand the various viewpoints and opinions proffered and, is some cases, I might or might not concur or agree with them.

To state that someone is "not understanding" is without foundation unless they admit to not understanding.

Perhaps I am not understanding?

Perhaps.

Again, I am no intellectual, but perhaps I should have written, "I believe that .... not really understanding"

Whether or not someone really understands is hard to ascertain in this kind of situation, I do agree.

Would it be possible to show us the offending article in question?

Otherwise, it's hard to imagine the problem. I've yet to see an article on amateur players where a player is heavily criticised for being 'rubbish'.

The article,written by IM Lorin D'Costa is in the Aug 2010 edition of The Right Move,which is downloadable on another section of this site.

Take a look for yourself.

Niall Doran wrote:I've yet to see an article on amateur players where a player is heavily criticised for being 'rubbish'.

I again draw the forum's attention to The Guardian suggesting I didn't know the en passant rule in the mid nineties, and the ongoing mockery of my friends

andrew martin wrote:The article,written by IM Lorin D'Costa is in the Aug 2010 edition of The Right Move,which is downloadable on another section of this site.

Take a look for yourself.

I suspect suggesting this forum is part of the ECF site may provoke Carl!

I found the archive here. I have minimal experience working with juniors. But the criticism seems to me very mild indeed. For me, there is a world of difference between criticising a person and criticising a move or game played by a person.

I just read the article. The reason it's one sided is because black played good moves. Lorin offered some improvements/alternatives for both colours. If anything I feel Rohan should have taken a lesson from the article's advice. It explained where he went wrong and why. Surely this was invaluable information as it was early on in the game. This sort of advice can prevent many more losses. If ones flaws aren't pointed out then we continue to make the same mistakes. I do empathise with having a loss out there for everyone to see. My only published game can be found in New In Chess 94 - It's a loss and it helped me move on and learn a better opening.

From an unbiased point of view all I read from Lorin was constructive criticism. It's certainly not my place to tell you how to parent your child but that's how I would have tried to put it across to him when reading the article. Maybe more importantly the article wasn't about Rohan. It was about his opponent. It demonstrated the many good moves he found rather than highlighting Rohan's errors.

First time I've seen the article. Can't see anything in it to get upset about to be honest.

Sean Hewitt wrote:First time I've seen the article. Can't see anything in it to get upset about to be honest.

Is the description of 9 Nb3 as a "junior" move considered a deadly insult? Given the position has reversed itself into a Slav/Gruenfeld, the idea of Nb3 followed by N(either) d4 is a perfectly normal one. The opening hasn't been a success for White, but it was no worse than having to play Black.

Roger de Coverly wrote:

Sean Hewitt wrote:First time I've seen the article. Can't see anything in it to get upset about to be honest.

Is the description of 9 Nb3 as a "junior" move considered a deadly insult? Given the position has reversed itself into a Slav/Gruenfeld, the idea of Nb3 followed by N(either) d4 is a perfectly normal one. The opening hasn't been a success for White, but it was no worse than having to play Black.

I wondered about that, but it's hardly harsh criticism.

Krishna originally said "someone did an upsetting article on my son in a junior magazine" and I'm wondering if this can really be it? It's not an article it's an annotated game, and it's certainly not about her son.

I know Krishna originally brought this up, but given that it upset her son before, can I ask that people here be restrained in commenting on this, even if this is or is not the article in question? The only thing more upsetting than the original article (and the point here is that it caused upset, not whether it should have done) would be for the whole thing to be dragged out again over a year later and analysed to death here.

I assume that this fuss concerns http://www.ecfcoaching.org.uk/therightm ... st2010.pdf and the annotation of the game Shiatis - Claridge-Hansen?

I am puzzled as to what is so upsetting: a game of chess was played and an England Coach clearly annotates it providing lessons to be learnt for all who care to read the article and benefit from it.

Someone will need to explain to me the problem otherwise I may well fall into the same trap by having a game annotated for BCM or elsewhere.

Whenever I work with students (juniors and adults) I always suggest that many of their best lessons will derive from defeats and they should use them wisely, make notes, learn from their (and their opponents) mistakes and move forward.

Encouraging juniors after a loss or two is a acquired skill!

It make me angry to see juniors in tears after a loss suggesting to me that they not enjoying chess. Chess must be fun for children.

Sean Hewitt wrote: No. What's that? They are already in TWIC, chessbase etc. I thought they were the bibles as it were?

What's that????

According to the link below it is the 5th most popular chess website in the world.

http://pogonina.com/index.php?option=co ... ng=english

For us paupers who don't have chessbase it seems to be the best place to search for games by player / opening / tournament etc.

Does TWIC have a searchable games database?

Phil

I had a quick look at the article - I suspect that it is a bit sensitive because it relates to a game played at the world trial and was written by the coach of one of the players involved. I think the term "junior move" is a bit questionable - I am sure many adults would play it .

David Shepherd wrote: I think the term "junior move" is a bit questionable - I am sure many adults would play it .

What term(s) could be more appropriate in your opinion?

It doesn't need to have a term at all does it? Surely just an explanation of why it wasn't the best move in that situation is what was needed. Once you categorise a move in that way the person who played it is going to feel categorised. For a junior that can be difficult.

In this context it is clearly being used to describe a move that looks logical enough but does not consider the long term aims of his position. Anyone with experience coaching juniors will know exactly what he means as this is very common(yes it happens at adult too but not so much). There is nothing remotely offensive about the annotations except presumably that they are about a game which the junior in question lost and he feels slightly 'betrayed' by his coach. I would suggest that his coach picked the game exactly for it's instructional value and he should stop whining and pay attention.