European Championship - Team ENGLAND

[JustinHadi]

Chess in England is woefully lacking female participation, both in absolute terms ans relative to other countries. It's an unhealthy situation for the long term good of the game. Really it should be an advantage of chess, compared to many leisure activities, that all ages and both sexes can play in the same competitions together.

The long term health of the game itself is fine. There are millions playing online, there will always be a world championship. As long there are tournaments held regularly the game is fine. As a chess fan I want to see the best players playing regardless of gender or nationality. Membership fees IMHO should go on developing the best young talents, junior and grassroots chess and something towards the OPEN team. Precisely because chess can be played by men and women on equal terms I don't agree with an artificial gender divide at adult level. Arguably there should be a divide at junior level but Judit Polgar didn't think so and we know what happened there.

[PeterFarr]

Only 6% of players in the ECF grading list are female. There's nothing healthy about that.

I suspect Judit Polgar is an exception. I take your view as a point of principle that there shouldn't be an artificial divide, but I think in practical terms there needs to be more incentive and a more welcoming environment in chess towards women players. To that end, I think the women's team should be given as much support as the open team.

[JustinHadi]

I think an outreach program would be more effective than funding the elite for a couple of weeks max.

[PeterFarr]

I think an outreach program would be more effective than funding the elite for a couple of weeks max.

You may be right. I'd prefer to have both; I'd actually like to see higher membership fees to fund that, and also to fund a proper ECF marketing / media / commercial function that could in turn generate more revenue for the game. But I'm not pretending that's a majority view.

[Mark Howitt]

Had a quick read of this thread... seen some interesting phrases. Such as "directly benefit them". What an interesting phrase. And then someone said an opinion which would... directly benefit them, in terms of how they feel.

Just to clarify. I don't think there should be any funding for people who haven't paid into the system, unless they're the best. The best players should be rewarded. I guess if you're the best juniors too you can be rewarded to an extent- all down to market forces really.

The sooner the English chess federation can stop throwing money away on people who haven't paid into the system (some foreign women have been paid high feeds to play internationally) the better.

[JustinHadi]

It's also interesting that some advocates of funding for coaches prefer to poison the well blaming the forum rather than debate the issues.

[Jonathan Rogers]

It's also interesting that some advocates of funding for coaches prefer to poison the well blaming the forum rather than debate the issues.

For my part, I have debated, and you yourself say that I made fair arguments.

Mark's contribution above seems to be that people should only play for England if they are really English, if they grew up here, etc. I won't bother responding to that. Some one else can contribute, for a change. Come on, sensible people, say something, unless you want people to think that Justin and Mark represent the mainstream views in English chess ...

[IM Jack Rudd]

Talking of people who haven't paid into the system, I notice that Mark hasn't had a grade since 2005, and therefore presumably hasn't paid much in the way of membership or Game Fee in the intervening period.

On the broader subject of Englishness, the England team is happy to accept naturalized citizens as members. Why on earth shouldn't it?

[Mark Howitt]

Oh yeah I forgot to add something- I would like a refund for all the game fees I paid if they're related to foreign represenation.... won't hold my breath for that

Of course it's the MAINSTREAM view that players don't want to pay for foreign players to play for England. Look, people playing chess as adults (where they have to pay money to play) is declining anyway. You think they want to pay to fund foreign players to play- what a joke. Remember that people who post on these boards are often pretty close to chess fanatics.

[Jonathan Rogers]

.... Remember that people who post on these boards are often pretty close to chess fanatics.

Of that there can be little doubt

[John Upham]

Of course it's the MAINSTREAM view that players don't want to pay for foreign players to play for England.

Mark,
I respectfully request that you do not assert your views as being those of almost everyone (whatever "MAINSTREAM" means?).

There are one or two who post to this place who seem to believe that they are a spokesperson for many others.

You are entitled to your opinion but you not entitled to assume it is the view of others: it might be or it might not be.

[PeterFarr]

Mark's contribution above seems to be that people should only play for England if they are really English, if they grew up here, etc. I won't bother responding to that. Some one else can contribute, for a change. Come on, sensible people, say something, unless you want people to think that Justin and Mark represent the mainstream views in English chess ...

Fair point Jonathan, but where to start?

The nature of English society in the 21st century is such that we are very open; a lot of people from overseas come here to live, and a lot of English people go to live abroad. People don't always know in advance for how long they will live in a country. In my view it's common-sense to play people that qualify and want to play for England. If they come from overseas and later change their minds and go to live abroad again, well that's bad luck, but it's essentially the same for any other country too; you win some, you lose some. So get over it. And where do you draw the line - Murray Chandler? Bob Wade? I suppose New Zealand counts as English really does it?

[PeterFarr]

P.S. to above post - In my own small local club, out of 6 players we have 2 Scots and 1 Irishman; all of them are paying ECF membership fees which help fund English teams. They don't complain, they just take it as a fact of life. Probably they realize that the membership fee is such a small part of their overall chess-playing expenditure, that it's an irrelevance.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Mark's contribution above seems to be that people should only play for England if they are really English, if they grew up here, etc. I won't bother responding to that. Some one else can contribute, for a change. Come on, sensible people, say something, unless you want people to think that Justin and Mark represent the mainstream views in English chess ...

Fair point Jonathan, but where to start?

The nature of English society in the 21st century is such that we are very open; a lot of people from overseas come here to live, and a lot of English people go to live abroad. People don't always know in advance for how long they will live in a country. In my view it's common-sense to play people that qualify and want to play for England. If they come from overseas and later change their minds and go to live abroad again, well that's bad luck, but it's essentially the same for any other country too; you win some, you lose some. So get over it. And where do you draw the line - Murray Chandler? Bob Wade? I suppose New Zealand counts as English really does it?

I could say - I am unaware that anyone ever complained about Wade or Chandler playing for England, what with all their book writing, coaching and magazine editing that they did over here as well. When Murray won in less than two hours against the USSR in the crunch match in the Dubai Olympiad 1986, I don't think that even Mark would have wanted to send him home . Perhaps we draw the line at whether they will really contribute to the team, regardless of original nationality, which is why perhaps Bogdan never played for England.

But actually, I do agree that it's a sensitive issue, and if you know that a player will soon return to another country, then you may not want to upset your home players by excluding them if we are talking about small differences only. Resolving this can be left to the unenviable decision of the selectors. But I can easily say something as measured as that and still be some way from Mark's position as he has expressed it.

[PeterFarr]

I could say - I am unaware that anyone ever complained about Wade or Chandler playing for England, what with all their book writing, coaching and magazine editing that they did over here as well. When Murray won in less than two hours against the USSR in the crunch match in the Dubai Olympiad 1986, I don't think that even Mark would have wanted to send him home . Perhaps we draw the line at whether they will really contribute to the team, regardless of original nationality, which is why perhaps Bogdan never played for England.

But actually, I do agree that it's a sensitive issue, and if you know that a player will soon return to another country, then you may not want to upset your home players by excluding them if we are talking about small differences only. Resolving this can be left to the unenviable decision of the selectors. But I can easily say something as measured as that and still be some way from Mark's position as he has expressed it.

yes to all of that.