Guardian article by Stephen Moss

[BrianRobinson]

Interesting article just appeared in the Guardian from Stephen Moss. http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/n ... its-future Does he give a credible explanation for the under performance of English Chess?

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Well worth reading. Also mentions this forum!

[JustinHorton]

It's something of a one-sided piece.

[MJMcCready]

It's an interesting article, but of course, its not news.

[MJMcCready]

Actually I prefer the post by Nigel Davies more.

[MJMcCready]

Interesting article just appeared in the Guardian from Stephen Moss. http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/n ... its-future Does he give a credible explanation for the under performance of English Chess?

I'm not sure but it certainly highlights many of the issues that contribute towards it.

[BrianRobinson]

I found it slightly confused as to the object of the criticism. Is it the Government for refusing to recognize chess as a sport thus denying it the funding that other countries provide? Or is the administrators? Or is it indeed the rank and file for not appreciating the value of international success?

[JustinHorton]

It also has a stupid headline, for which the author will probably not be responsible.

[MartinCarpenter]

I found it slightly confused as to the object of the criticism

I know it might seem odd nowadays, but journalism isn't really meant to be opinionated. Definitely not strongly, except in obvious opinion pieces, at least. Report on things as they are and let you decide

Which this does nicely, with the obvious slight sense of regret.

[BrianRobinson]

It also has a stupid headline, for which the author will probably not be responsible.

Ah yes!. The obligatory chess pun.

[JustinHorton]

I found it slightly confused as to the object of the criticism

I know it might seem odd nowadays, but journalism isn't really meant to be opinionated. Definitely not strongly, except in obvious opinion pieces, at least. Report on things as they are and let you decide

Which this does nicely

Did you think so? I think given what was said in the piece about the defenestration of Phil Ehr, it might have been nice to hear a little more from the people who were being criticised.

[MJMcCready]

I thought the headline wasn't too bad actually. If there's no such thing as bad publicity we must congratulate both Mr. Moss and Mr. Davies on drawing attention to a subject which we are all, acutely or otherwise aware of.

Regarding the 70's, the infrastructure required to facilitate it was well in place by the time the 'Fischer - Spassky' match began, so its not as if it just came out of nowhere. Here's some further thoughts on that match by Dr. Richard Eales: ‘Chess: The History of a Game’ (1985), pgs. 187-189

The growing popularity of chess outside Russia and eastern Europe since the 1960s is closely associated with the stormy career of one man: Robert James (‘Bobby’) Fischer. His influence has lasted though he has played no serious chess since the final game of his match against Boris Spassky which brought him the world championship in 1972. Merely by becoming the first non-Soviet champion in more than twenty-five years, Fischer set his seal on the revival of western chess during the 1960s and blazed a trail which younger players have set themselves to follow since his premature retirement… . The 1972 match in Reykjavik which followed was not merely the culmination of Fischer’s career but the most widely publicized chess event of all time. There seemed no end to its surprising twists and turns: the arrangements of finance that boosted the prize fund to an unprecedented $250,000 (Spassky’s prize in 1969 had been $1500), the doubts whether Fischer would play at all, the default in the second game that left him with a 2:0 to make up, his final triumphant victory. A press corps of almost presidential proportion followed every move on and off the board… .

Could such an artificial and distorted publicity really do anything to alter the status of chess itself? Surely any effects would be short-lived, especially when Fischer, like Morphy before him withdrew into seclusion after his victory. After all, Fischer as an individual had always been the subject of the press and media attention, at first merely for his ability and precocity, then increasingly because of his quarrels with organizers, his lonely and obsessive life style, his defiant egoism… . Around the period 1970-1972 sales of chess sets and chess books in America and eastern Europe markedly increased. Sponsors and publishers reacted to this new popularity of chess and in their turn promoted it; the quality and diversity of western chess literature now rivaled even surpassed that of Russia [the author means the Soviet Union]. Some at least of these gains in chess and the seriousness of which it is treated have outlasted the 1970s and led to new advances. The conclusion must be that Fischer’s career was not an isolated influence. In part at least, it served more as a kind of catalyst to draw out a potential interest in chess which already existed in western society. It’s hard to say exactly how this happened. Some people who had never encountered chess at all were now brought into contact with it. The Fischer image of youth and rebellion fitted in well with the game’s growing popularity among the young. His example of fame and wealth encouraged talented chess players to take chess more seriously as a potential career. All these things together apparently did have the power to change the game’s status: what often had been seen as a bloodless pastime, appealing mostly to college professors and internationally dominated by Russia, was now presented in a ruthlessly competitive (though unusual) kind of sport, with all the attractions that sport generally possesses for the amateur and professional.

[Andrew Zigmond]

Having read the article; a few thoughts.

Firstly (and just to get it out the way) once again we have one old chestnut, namely the supposed over dominance of arbiters. I still don't understand why the people who give up so much of their time to make chess in this country happen are part of the problem. Surely insulting and marginalising them is going to have a counter effect.

I found it interesting that the article begins with a slightly negative description of the 4NCL which was certainly once considered the best thing to have happened to English Chess for generations and this year has launched a series of FIDE rated tournaments aimed at providing the professionally run events the game has long lacked. Has something changed?

Phil Ehr's ousting perhaps wasn't the main thrust of the article (and referring `his council` suggests a certain lack of understanding as to how the ECF is constituted) but it fails to give the other side of the story. To my mind the problem was more about his leadership style as opposed to his vision and the clique of individuals he allowed to gain influence. Incidentally it's good to hear that Phil is still active in spite of everything.

Nigel Short is right when he talks about the disconnect between club chess and the top players. However one point the article does not mention is the lost generation of people aged 18-50 who are so frequently missing from English chess events at any level (and the frankly ridiculous amount of investment in over 50s chess as if this was a minority). These are the people who chess needs to attract and it is right that the stuffy culture of club chess is as off putting as the too prominent squabbles within the ECF.

Finally the article is ultimately short of answers. What, in specific bullet points, should the ECF be doing and isn't?

[Roger de Coverly]

Picking up the Phil Ehr quote

He (Phil Ehr) says he was trying to develop proper governance for the organisation, but the subtext of the struggle is that he wanted to wrest power away from the organisers and arbiters (officials overseeing tournaments and adjudicating on disputes) who vote in the executive board.

There are a couple of points here, which all would be reformers should bear in mind. The first is that English chess is broken up into smaller independent bodies in part for historic reasons, but also the lack of a sports exemption from VAT makes it up to 20% less expensive on entry fees and similar payments by players. The point being that independent local bodies are below VAT thresholds. The second is that local bodies would not be adverse to see the ECF Board devote itself to the organisation of chess, in the sense of running additional events. What they don't see the need for is a requirement to make wholesale changes to the organisation of the organisation of chess. Rightly or wrongly that was all that Phil Ehr seemed to be proposing.

[benedgell]

What a depressingly one- sided article.