English Chess Forum

Justin Horton wrote.
Of what? It's completely unclear to me what point you're even trying to make here. What do you think the research indicates regarding "brain training games" and Alzheimer's?

It looks like you have a lack of comprehension of many things Justin. It was your friend Mr Bryant who insisted on proof.

Proof of what?

And here's me thinking I'm winding you up!

I work with primary schoolchildren: it's fun. Less fun to deal with grown-ups behaving like primary schoolchildren.

I agree and even worse when there's a tag team involved!

Ian Kingston wrote: However, if we accept, for the sake of argument, that chess has benefits in dealing with Alzheimer's, does it have any special advantages over digital photography, quilting (you do at least get a tangible end result with those) or GO? And what about other activities? (As an aside, I see a parallel here with the arguments about the teaching of chess in schools. It's possible - even plausible - that chess will help in both cases, but is it the best way to tackle the problem?)

Well we simply don't know for sure and await further studies. Meanwhile quilting, digital photography, go and even chess can make a claim that they help delay Alzheimer's. Some of us hold out special hopes for chess because of the intensity of the mental stimulation it provides. It also seems to help with aspects of intellectual development in kids.

Despite the fact that this may make these recent studies not seem like a big deal I think it becomes very important when we consider the massive toll, both in financial and human terms, that Alzheimer's exacts. 'Mental stimulation' is non invasive, has no side effects and costs next to nothing, which should be incredibly exciting when the spending on dementia is an estimated £26 billion per year. Even if chess can contribute a very small part towards the treatment of Alzheimer's it becomes a very significant thing and well worth financial support.

Of course one might argue that the sales pitch for chess has been 'prematurely enthusiastic' but we live in a World in which TV culture dominates and the likes of Justin Bieber are big stars. In this context I think that an aggressive sales approach is not that unreasonable.

http://tigerchess.com

Not sure. Its one thing to try and proclaim a (very likely) benefit. Once you get into trying to get financial support?

Then you should get held to very strict evidential and cost/benefit standards, just like everything else (public) healthcare related. There's always far more truly worthy causes than there is money. Hence NICE of course. One of the few places that evidence is allowed to pollute politics

In this particular case things like smoking and obesity are major risk factors for not only this but also all sorts of other equally horrible, expensive to treat health problems. Definitely solid a priori reasons for focusing funding there. Presumably after more detailed examination too, as per those NICE recommendations.

MartinCarpenter wrote:Not sure. Its one thing to try and proclaim a (very likely) benefit. Once you get into trying to get financial support?

Then you should get held to very strict evidential and cost/benefit standards, just like everything else (public) healthcare related. There's always far more truly worthy causes than there is money. Hence NICE of course. One of the few places that evidence is allowed to pollute politics

In this particular case things like smoking and obesity are major risk factors for not only this but also all sorts of other equally horrible, expensive to treat health problems. Definitely solid a priori reasons for focusing funding there. Presumably after more detailed examination too, as per those NICE recommendations.

I think this is why we should be particularly interested in the case for chess against Alzheimer's, it certainly seems to have promise for showing a clear cost/benefit case for government support of chess. £26 billion per year is quite a sum to have on the table as potential savings.

http://tigerchess.com/

Nigel_Davies wrote:

MartinCarpenter wrote:Not sure. Its one thing to try and proclaim a (very likely) benefit. Once you get into trying to get financial support?

Then you should get held to very strict evidential and cost/benefit standards, just like everything else (public) healthcare related. There's always far more truly worthy causes than there is money. Hence NICE of course. One of the few places that evidence is allowed to pollute politics

In this particular case things like smoking and obesity are major risk factors for not only this but also all sorts of other equally horrible, expensive to treat health problems. Definitely solid a priori reasons for focusing funding there. Presumably after more detailed examination too, as per those NICE recommendations.

I think this is why we should be particularly interested in the case for chess against Alzheimer's, it certainly seems to have promise for showing a clear cost/benefit case for government support of chess. £26 billion per year is quite a sum to have on the table as potential savings.

http://tigerchess.com/

Can I make a serious suggestion then? As far as I am aware, the NHS is devolved in Wales and under the control of the Welsh Assembly (If I have the correct terminology)

Why don't the Welsh Chess Union make an application for funding then, supported by their eminent new GM?

Mick Norris wrote: Can I make a serious suggestion then? As far as I am aware, the NHS is devolved in Wales and under the control of the Welsh Assembly (If I have the correct terminology)
Why don't the Welsh Chess Union make an application for funding then, supported by their eminent new GM?

That's a very good idea and exactly the kind of thing we should be trying.

http://tigerchess.com

See here

I’m quite late to this thread, and I’m amazed at the arguing it has caused!

All I can add is Steinitz was provided with unlimited champagne in his WCM with Zukertort (The Zukeduke’s tipple was brandy) played at Simpson’s - he didn’t have Alzheimer’s that we know of, he did however, later believe he had beaten God in a match played by Morse code, going so far as to provide the moves

Jon Mahony wrote:I’m quite late to this thread, and I’m amazed at the arguing it has caused!

All I can add is Steinitz was provided with unlimited champagne in his WCM with Zukertort (The Zukeduke’s tipple was brandy) played at Simpson’s - he didn’t have Alzheimer’s that we know of, he did however, later believe he had beaten God in a match played by Morse code, going so far as to provide the moves

Proves my point really, he'd never have beaten God without the champers.

http://tigerchess.com

Nigel_Davies wrote:

Jon Mahony wrote:I’m quite late to this thread, and I’m amazed at the arguing it has caused!

All I can add is Steinitz was provided with unlimited champagne in his WCM with Zukertort (The Zukeduke’s tipple was brandy) played at Simpson’s - he didn’t have Alzheimer’s that we know of, he did however, later believe he had beaten God in a match played by Morse code, going so far as to provide the moves

Proves my point really, he'd never have beaten God without the champers.

http://tigerchess.com

Touché Nigel

Mick Norris wrote: I assume it must be all sorted out now

Unfortunately not...
The WCU has not published accounts since 2011.
There have been no AGM minutes since 2013.
There have been no Management Board meeting minutes since 2014.
See: http://www.welshchessunion.org.uk/wcu-b ... d-meetings

Mick Norris wrote: Can you point us to some links about this, if we want to know the details?

“Junior chess activities are generously supported by a grant from the Welsh Assembly Government”
from: http://www.welshchessunion.org.uk/juniors
After noticing that untendered payments were still being offered to the Development Director's private company, even after my (unanswered) letter to Board members questioning this in 2013, I wrote to the WCU membership prior to the 2015 WCU AGM. Within a week the WCU website listed the position as "vacant".
If you PM me your email address I will be happy to send you further details including a form printed on Welsh Chess Union headed paper and published on the WCU website stating that the “subsidy offered by the Welsh Chess Union will be paid directly to TSK Chess”. The link to the online original has since been removed. The subsidy was not put to public tender on the WCU website – so there is no link to that !!