The National Schools Championship

[IM Jack Rudd]

Seeing as this is a specific agenda item for the AGM, and it's a topic that's cropped up in both Julian's and my election threads, I thought it might be a good idea to flesh out what we actually want this event to be.

I've never played in it myself, nor have I worked with a team that has. Nor do I hear much about it from the chess-playing juniors I know; I do, however, hear a lot about it from the adults involved in junior chess administration.

It'll be a shame if a load of elections are decided on the basis of a tournament we haven't really decided on our attitudes towards, so what is it? Is it:
(a) A serious event, aimed at identifying the best school in the country
(b) A casual mass-participation event, aimed at introducing team chess to everyone
(c) A mix of both
(d) Something else

If we sort this out, maybe we'll be able to take more informed decisions.

[Neill Cooper]

Seeing as this is a specific agenda item for the AGM, and it's a topic that's cropped up in both Julian's and my election threads, I thought it might be a good idea to flesh out what we actually want this event to be.

I've never played in it myself, nor have I worked with a team that has. Nor do I hear much about it from the chess-playing juniors I know; I do, however, hear a lot about it from the adults involved in junior chess administration.

It'll be a shame if a load of elections are decided on the basis of a tournament we haven't really decided on our attitudes towards, so what is it? Is it:
(a) A serious event, aimed at identifying the best school in the country
(b) A casual mass-participation event, aimed at introducing team chess to everyone
(c) A mix of both
(d) Something else

It is definitely a mixture of both.
You can find details of last year's event at http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/1213/schoolschamps.htm
With 135 schools fielding 6 board teams that is over 1000 juniors. Most of the these are secondary school students, i.e. of an age where most juniors who learnt at primary school are planning to give up.
There is a bias towards the South East in both entries and finalists (6 of the 8 finalists this year were from SCCU), because that is where secondary school chess is strongest. In contrast if you look at Zone 12: The South & West you will see that there were only a few entries from the whole of WECU.

There is a wide range of ability: all the Championship finals all four teams had all 6 players graded over 140, some participating schools have more than a dozen players graded over 100. At the other end there are schools who are very inexperienced and have no player on the grading list.

[Roger de Coverly]

Even now, whilst there is an entry form and payment being requested there are no details publicly available (e.g whether all players are required to be ECF members). For the many secondary school organisers who are teachers and not serious chess players this will be very confusing.

I'm not sure whether it's confusing, as in the absence of any statements to the contrary I expect the less involved organisers will just assume the same rules and conditions as in 2012-13. Cryptic statements in Board minutes, discussions on specialist forums and AGM motions would most likely pass them by.

I don't believe even organisers involved with the ECF know what the rules and conditions will be.

Enforcing membership on individual events as a condition of grading is relatively easy, you just turn away non-members. For team events, the rules need to specify the penalty for fielding non-members. Alternatively the event is removed from grading.

[David Sedgwick]

If we sort this out, maybe we'll be able to take more informed decisions.

I think you should have done this for yourself before voting in March that
Motion: “That people playing in events organised and graded by the ECF must be ECF members.”
Vote: In favour 4; Against 3

This has resulted in this year's event being thrown into confusion and being delayed in being launched. Even now, whilst there is an entry form and payment being requested there are no details publicly available (e.g whether all players are required to be ECF members). For the many secondary school organisers who are teachers and not serious chess players this will be very confusing.

Neill,

I don't dispute your point, but you've already made it several times. I don't feel that recriminations are helpful.

Jack has indicated a willingness to reconsider his position and his starting this thread is evidence of that.

In any case, it won't now be a matter for the Board. The issue will be decided one way or the other when the SCCU motion on the subject is considered at the forthcoming ECF Council Meeting.

I presume that the Briant Poulter League will be supporting the motion.

[David Pardoe]

One question posed by all this must be the role played by this years Director of Junior chess.
A certain Mr EHR, I believe...who is now standing for the prestigeous and key role of CEO?
He presumably understands the junior chess scene, so advised the board that the move to insist on Junior Membership was well founded?
What was his case? Why were the board persuaded to support this? What sort of consultations and discussions went into the preparation of the resolution?
Should such a complex matter be left in the hands of a few board members at ECF head office to decide?
I think this classically illustrates the difficulties faced by the ECF. Some of these matters are by no means straight forward.

The notion that the junior community should be a serious part of the wider chess UK world is certainly a sound one.
That some means should be found, whereby these juniors can make some contribution to the ECF `club` seems reasonable? The key question (or one key question), is what form this should take and who should make the contribution...and what kind of levy this should be.
Maybe there are valid grounds to seek a Gov grant..educational & cultural. Or perhaps a grant from the Robinson fund?
Putting more of our juniors on the chess map certainly seems to be a potentially valuable initiative, and hopefully encourage more youngsters to join the ranks. Mike Basmans schools events show that about 80,000 youngsters are quite keen to play chess. Can we tap this rich source of potential chess stars.....and those who simply enjoy a worthy cultural/educational persuit. And many do argue the case for `chess` being on the school timetable.
I`m referring mainly to those juniors who might be classed as `relative beginners`, ie, excluding those who are currently Gold, Silver, or Bronze Members.
Last year the National Schools event, I believe, was sponsored...not sure about this year.

[Matthew Turner]

Phil Ehr was against the motion to enforce membership on the National Schools' Championships. The board voted 4 - 3 against the Junior Director's recommendation (with the 2 non-exec Directors supporting the motion). That is why there are election at this year's ECF AGM, with Team Ehr facing Team Hewitt.

[Roger de Coverly]

He presumably understands the junior chess scene, so advised the board that the move to insist on Junior Membership was well founded?

Reading between the lines of the minutes and what's been said elsewhere, he proposed the exclusion of junior team events like the National Schools from compulsory ECF membership.

The four in support of compulsion appear to have been
The Acting Director of Membership and Marketing
The Home Director
The Non-Executive Director (there was only one at the time as the other had been co-opted as acting DoMM)
one other

The three against appear to have been
The Junior Director
two others

Only the previous autumn, the ECF had offered free entry to the National Schools. Charging £ 8 per head to take part would cut right across that.

[PeterFarr]

The entry forms are now on the ECF website, with a fee of £10 for one team and £5 for each subsequent entry from the same school. I can't see any reference to an ECF membership requirement, though maybe I am missing something.

[Michael Flatt]

The ECF site for the U19 and Girls Team Championships indicates that games will not be graded hence avoiding the need for ECF membership.

[Sean Hewitt]

Phil Ehr was against the motion to enforce membership on the National Schools' Championships. The board voted 4 - 3 against the Junior Director's recommendation (with the 2 non-exec Directors supporting the motion). That is why there are election at this year's ECF AGM, with Team Ehr facing Team Hewitt.

You can keep lying about this all you want, but it won't make it true. There is no Team Hewitt. I don't think that the rationale for most of the contested elections (President, CEO or JD) has anything to do with this particular decision.

[Matthew Turner]

Well I guess we'll see. I assume you'll have lots of votes, representing organisations with differing aims and objectives. There are lots of candidates nominated by Phil Ehr, so we'll see how many of the votes you cast go on candidates nominated by Phil. Perhaps we'll find it is in fact you who are not being entirely truthful.

[AustinElliott]

Re the schools competition, here's a compromise suggestion, from an adult chess player with long ago memories of the 70s Sunday Times school competition.

Even if this year's events aren't to be graded, perhaps there is a way to USE grading IN THE LATER ROUNDS ONLY as a lure for later ones...? (Read on)

Anyway, my suggestion would be


1. Have the event under ECF auspices (as in 'sort of sponsored by by not run by')

BUT:

2. Grade, and hence require Bronze ECF membership for, only for the LATER (post first large rounds) stages (round of 32? round of 16?) where a decent fraction of the players will likely already be club members and hence ECF members anyway.

(I'm thinking almost of the FA Cup with the stage where the League clubs join in, which is already the 3rd round)

AND..... Offer a year's FREE ECF (Silver?) membership to all players in the teams reaching this stage who AREN'T already ECF members.

The point being:

3. These kids will have been playing in teams that have got through a round or two, so are clearly interested / proficient, and thus might be interested in playing league/tournament if they don't already.

4. The 'notional cost' of such free memberships will be smaller, as there arguably won't be a vast number (see next point). They will also be an investment in getting more juniors to play.

5. The 'notional cost' of grading the later rounds will similarly be less (again, as many of the players at this stage may well be ECF members already).

(Easy presumably to take a previous year's records and work out how many players this would have applied to for various round of 16/round of 32 type scenarios)

6a. There is no 'grading COST' for a school if they enter without many graded players and still progress to the 'graded' stages. a tangible reward of sorts for playing in a team that does well beyond just school glory. BUT...

6b. There is a tangible CHESS REWARD for doing well, beyond simply school glory.

7. ..which might actually encourage players to 'transition' to playing league/tourney...
(Sorry, said that already)

8. ...without 'barring out' casual participants form the competition.

9. The ECF gets to look generous AND

10. We don't have to have another long and [Angels/pinhead] 'pay to play' argument.

Now, as I am new to this argument it may well be that this is what happens already, in which case, it seems a sensible compromise.

*Ducks*

[Sean Hewitt]

Re the schools competition, here's a compromise suggestion, from an adult chess player with long ago memories of the 70s Sunday Times school competition.

Even if this year's events aren't to be graded, perhaps there is a way to USE grading IN THE LATER ROUNDS ONLY as a lure for later ones...? (Read on)

Anyway, my suggestion would be


1. Have the event under ECF auspices (as in 'sort of sponsored by by not run by')

BUT:

2. Grade, and hence require Bronze ECF membership for, only for the LATER (post first large rounds) stages (round of 32? round of 16?) where a decent fraction of the players will likely already be club members and hence ECF members anyway.

(I'm thinking almost of the FA Cup with the stage where the League clubs join in, which is already the 3rd round

This kind of idea was put forward, but rejected by the people in charge of the event at the time. It seemed sensible to me. There was an attempt to understand what they key design criteria for the event were (such as should it be graded). It seemed that the junior community was unable to reach a consensus on that.

[PeterFarr]

Austin,

I was also thinking of how to square the circle here. My thought was to offer some kind of corporate membership for schools that entered the competition, which would automatically cover any players they put into that year's competition, so that it's basically a benefit / consequence of entry.

While I think some kind of corporate membership category might be an idea with some mileage anyway, I have to say that I think your idea is a better one for this competition, as it avoids a lot of admin in the earlier rounds for players that are only ever going to play once or twice. The idea of "requiring" membership by actually making it a prize / incentive is rather neat.

Edit: - seeing Sean's post, perhaps it should be revisited then

[David Sedgwick]

I don't think that the rationale for most of the contested elections (President, CEO or JD) has anything to do with this particular decision.

I don't think even the election for the NEDs has a great deal to do with this subject.

It's rather like the so-called "toothless tiger" motion last year. As there is a specific motion before Council regarding the ECF membership requirement for school team events, that somewhat removes the topic from the agenda as far as the elections are concerned.