Women's In-Tournament Training II

Discuss anything you like about women's chess at home and abroad.
Post Reply
Sabrina Chevannes
Posts: 308
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 1:53 pm

Women's In-Tournament Training II

Post by Sabrina Chevannes » Tue Mar 22, 2011 9:40 pm

Alan

Stop twisting my words. You have done it over and over again but I have not said that you are anti-women because you have a different view point. you have come to that conclusion all by yourself. It is very tiresome having to read you twist things.

With response to your answer about free coaching - are you offering? I would love to be able to offer this, but I, myself am not very well off and cannot subsidise everyone's coaching, hence I would need it to be subsidised by parents. Professional chess coaches require paying, hence they are professional.

This weekend, I provided chess coaching and I was not paid a fee, so essentially did free chess coaching.

For those who are less able to afford events, my academy will be setting up a sponsorship fund. I will be putting 10% of any profits from tournaments into this fund, so I hope that we do make some profit and not a loss or there won't be much of a fund! Anyone who would like some sort of financial support can write to me in confidence.

So thank you for your idea about free coaching, but I am not sure how to implement it. But do let me know if you are serious about an offer to provide your services.

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 4003
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: Women's In-Tournament Training II

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Tue Mar 22, 2011 10:00 pm

New thread created from the one on-topic response that arose at the end. If everyone wants this one to stay open, let's not have it go the same way as the previous one.

Alan Burke

Re: Women's In-Tournament Training II

Post by Alan Burke » Tue Mar 22, 2011 10:29 pm

At the risk of people falsely assuming I am 'having a go' at Sabrina, I just wish to reply that I never said anything about "an offer to provide (my) services.". I will do, if required, but will someone first of all tell me if the King goes on its own or the opposite coloured square ??? (As I have previously stated, you do not need to play the game to have an interest in it.)

People were asked to submit ideas and I did so - if they can't be implemented than so be it, but just because someone suggests an idea doesn't mean they are the best one to put it into practice. Many people put forward ideas of how the country should be run, but how many of them would you suggest to become Prime Minister ?

Another idea I mentioned was that instead of free entry to ALL women at tournaments, maybe limit it to just newcomers, so that the 'experienced' players can't be accused of perhaps winning prize money which they had not contributed towards. This is one issue that Sabrina and I agreed on, as she said it seemed unfair in a reply to Gareth in another post.

Sabrina Chevannes
Posts: 308
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 1:53 pm

Re: Women's In-Tournament Training II

Post by Sabrina Chevannes » Tue Mar 22, 2011 10:54 pm

Please note Alan, that I didn't say you were the best person to implement it, I just asked if you were offering. I am quite selective over whom I choose as coaches anyway, as it is not necessarily the best chess players who are the best coaches. I like to choose people with years of experience and natural rapport with juniors.

Regarding the free entry, this has been talked about many a time and please note, it was not my idea to do this. However, I will not slate the idea because it was a very kind one and clearly attracted many women to the event, so the plan worked. I agreed with Gareth that it would seem unfair to others who have paid that a girl could win prize money when they didn't pay.

However, I won't complain about it because it has helped me do my job and the women are very pleased with this (most women) and so it is a positive thing for women's chess, which is my job.

Carol Williams
Posts: 137
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:27 pm

Re: Women's In-Tournament Training II

Post by Carol Williams » Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:07 pm

IM Jack Rudd wrote:New thread created from the one on-topic response that arose at the end. If everyone wants this one to stay open, let's not have it go the same way as the previous one.

I'll vote for that - lets hope the other contributors feel the same

Alan Burke

Re: Women's In-Tournament Training II

Post by Alan Burke » Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:25 pm

Sabrina.. actually I agree with you again that you DIDN'T say I was the best person for the job - and again, I think it's the matter of the written word not always being the best medium in which to converse. When I said '', but just because someone suggests an idea doesn't mean they are the best one to put it into practice", I was actually generalising on situations as a whole and not just this one topic.

One reason why I thought that free coaching might be more beneficial than free entries was that ANYONE (even me) could enter a tournament which offered free entry, but what use would that be to both the reputation of the competition itself and also my opponents, who would themselves neither 'learn' anything (including that of their own game)against such a patser nor have good competative and enjoyable matches ?

If free coaching was on offer, at least I may gain some knowledge of the game so that eventually I might be able to enter such events and not just be there to make up the numbers.

The same free 'in-tournament training' seems to work OK for juniors at the British Championships, but because they still have to pay an entry fee to play in the events, nobody can ever accuse the organisers of favouritism.

As I have said, this is just an idea and if it would be impossible to implement it, then so be it.

Sean Hewitt

Re: Women's In-Tournament Training II

Post by Sean Hewitt » Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:57 pm

Alan Burke wrote: One reason why I thought that free coaching might be more beneficial than free entries was that ANYONE (even me) could enter a tournament which offered free entry, but what use would that be to both the reputation of the competition itself and also my opponents, who would themselves neither 'learn' anything (including that of their own game)against such a patser nor have good competative and enjoyable matches ?

The same free 'in-tournament training' seems to work OK for juniors at the British Championships, but because they still have to pay an entry fee to play in the events, nobody can ever accuse the organisers of favouritism.
Alan - the free entry to the e2e4 tournament was my initiative funded purely by me. The training was an entirely separate endeavour. It is not a case of making one free or the other as only the price of entry is in my control.

A number of players told me that the free entry was the only reason that they played. They also said that now that they had they would probably play again, paying the normal entry fee. Which rather suggests (if that happens) that my initiative has worked.

Alan Burke

Re: Women's In-Tournament Training II

Post by Alan Burke » Wed Mar 23, 2011 1:42 am

Sean ... No problem with you attempting such innovative ideas, but as with any 'prototype' the first edition might not always be the ideal product and some readjustment may be required to achieve total satisfaction. Therefore, I was again just playing "Devil's Advocate" in trying to put forward possible situations which may arise and ensure that solutions had been thought about in case they came to pass. I was not being negative against your idea - and indeed, I wasn't just referring to your own events - but just putting forward what I considered to be the best option for the advancement of chess generally.

Although it may boost the attendance at your events, I woudn't have thought you would want 30+ patsers turning up and applying for the Open Section just because it was free and thus devaluing the standard of the tournament, as well as having a chance to win prize money to which they having contributed. (OK, 30+ may be an exaggeration, but I'm sure you get the gist of my concern.)

In that case, maybe limit any 'free entry' offer just to newcomers in the lowest section (or have their own section without prize money), so as to both encourage them to take part but also to ensure that the top players still always take on quality opposition ?

However, as I still think coaching would be more beneficial than just playing, perhaps an entry fee for all sections could still be imposed, with the fees for the lower section then donated towards providing an 'in-tournament' coach ?

User avatar
Christopher Kreuzer
Posts: 7469
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
Location: London

Re: Women's In-Tournament Training II

Post by Christopher Kreuzer » Wed Mar 23, 2011 5:08 am

I think this thread should be about the training, not the free entry initiative by Sean. Can we have another thread for discussing free entries in general?

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Women's In-Tournament Training II

Post by Alex Holowczak » Wed Mar 23, 2011 8:28 am

Sean Hewitt wrote:A number of players told me that the free entry was the only reason that they played. They also said that now that they had they would probably play again, paying the normal entry fee. Which rather suggests (if that happens) that my initiative has worked.
Maybe you should give all first-timers to your tournament free entry then? :idea:

LozCooper

Re: Women's In-Tournament Training II

Post by LozCooper » Wed Mar 23, 2011 8:58 am

Alan Burke wrote:Although it may boost the attendance at your events, I woudn't have thought you would want 30+ patsers turning up and applying for the Open Section just because it was free and thus devaluing the standard of the tournament, as well as having a chance to win prize money to which they having contributed. (OK, 30+ may be an exaggeration, but I'm sure you get the gist of my concern.)
I do hope you are not implying women are patsers (patzers?) :? Hardly a flattering comment, whoever it was aimed at. Shouldn't we be encouraging anyone to play in tournaments, regardless of playing strength?

User avatar
Ben Purton
Posts: 1622
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 5:53 am
Location: Berks

Re: Women's In-Tournament Training II

Post by Ben Purton » Wed Mar 23, 2011 9:15 am

It's nice to know the head of 3cs women chess firstly does not know his facts , I believe entry was free outside the open too? If not then loads of girls played the lower sections.

It's also nice to know you view players not of open strength as patzers .
I love sleep, I need 8 hours a day and about 10 at night - Bill Hicks
I would die happy if I beat Wood Green in the Eastman Cup final - Richmond LL captain.
Hating the Yankees since 2002. Hating the Jets since 2001.

Louise Sinclair
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:29 am
Location: London

Re: Women's In-Tournament Training II

Post by Louise Sinclair » Wed Mar 23, 2011 9:15 am

I didn't interpretate this to mean that Alan was referring to women as patzers.
Louise
You might very well think that ; I couldn't possibly comment.
' you turn if you want. The lady's not for turning'

User avatar
Carl Hibbard
Posts: 5789
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:05 pm
Location: Evesham

Re: Women's In-Tournament Training II

Post by Carl Hibbard » Wed Mar 23, 2011 9:18 am

LozCooper wrote:
Alan Burke wrote:Although it may boost the attendance at your events, I woudn't have thought you would want 30+ patsers turning up and applying for the Open Section just because it was free and thus devaluing the standard of the tournament, as well as having a chance to win prize money to which they having contributed. (OK, 30+ may be an exaggeration, but I'm sure you get the gist of my concern.)
I do hope you are not implying women are patsers (patzers?) :? Hardly a flattering comment, whoever it was aimed at.
I didn't read Alan's comment like that Lawrence so I would prefer that you to stick to the point so hopefully this thread does not turn into another mud slinger please
Cheers
Carl Hibbard

LozCooper

Re: Women's In-Tournament Training II

Post by LozCooper » Wed Mar 23, 2011 9:23 am

Carl Hibbard wrote:
LozCooper wrote:
Alan Burke wrote:Although it may boost the attendance at your events, I woudn't have thought you would want 30+ patsers turning up and applying for the Open Section just because it was free and thus devaluing the standard of the tournament, as well as having a chance to win prize money to which they having contributed. (OK, 30+ may be an exaggeration, but I'm sure you get the gist of my concern.)
I do hope you are not implying women are patsers (patzers?) :? Hardly a flattering comment, whoever it was aimed at.
I didn't read Alan's comment like that Lawrence so I would prefer that you to stick to the point so hopefully this thread does not turn into another mud slinger please
Fair enough. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt so hopefully it wasn't meant how it sounded.

Post Reply