English Chess Forum

I have started a new International Junior Chess organisation for Great Britain and I am looking for many Micro workers to help it grow.

Team GB is the team title for the players who are selected from our Great Britain Junior Squad.

My question is... Does it stand a reasonable chance of success if a few people give it a chance to grow?

All good things,

FM / FT Charlie Storey PGCE

I am not surprised there has been no response to Charlie Storey's misguided initiative. What immediately struck me when I first read the above was:

a) "Team GB" is a term coined by the British Olympics movement because GB (and Northern Ireland) competes as one team.

b) In chess the Welsh and Scots have their own teams and organisations.
That includes the Glorney Gilbert etc. junior team competitions which will be hosted this year in July by Ireland. So in those competitions, at least, there cannot be a "Team GB".

So you should have gone for "Team England."

Time for a rethink?

Tim Harding wrote: ↑

Fri May 24, 2019 9:19 pm

I am not surprised there has been no response to Charlie Storey's misguided initiative.

There's been plenty of response, primarily in this thread.

IM Jack Rudd wrote: ↑

Fri May 24, 2019 9:46 pm

Tim Harding wrote: ↑

Fri May 24, 2019 9:19 pm

I am not surprised there has been no response to Charlie Storey's misguided initiative.

There's been plenty of response, primarily in this thread.

Most of the response on the other thread seems to have been reaction to what some consider Charlie's exaggerated and/or misleading claims. As far as I know, I've never met Charlie so I hope I start with a relatively open mind but it seems to me that his approach - and I'll single out a tendency to counter criticism not by answering but by counter-attacking his critics - isn't exactly calculated to win many friends. Normally that might not matter but, if I'm right in thinking he has already upset much of the ECF hierarchy, it might not pay off to antagonise the rest of the English chess world too.

I think it's unfortunate that a lot of people who have been responding clearly have never met or spent any time with him, and I think a lot of his general humour and tongue in cheek responses have been going over people's heads. I'd say probably this forum isn't a great place for Charlie to find a receptive audience, and my best guess is that a better avenue would be flyers at chess congresses and positive word of mouth between chess parents, (few of which I think ever view this forum). My advice would be to try and make it as much value for money as possible. Slash those £50 an hour coaching fees in half, and try to avoid pricing yourself out of the game.

...and well done to Charlie for his good form at the International Open in Mallorca. He's faced 5 GM's in the first 7 rounds, scoring 2 wins and a draw. Currently in joint 20th on 4.5/7 with a 2368 TRP and is the leading England player.

Matt Bridgeman wrote: ↑

Fri May 24, 2019 11:46 pm

I think it's unfortunate that a lot of people who have been responding clearly have never met or spent any time with him, and I think a lot of his general humour and tongue in cheek responses have been going over people's heads.

It's not new. There was a claim of an implausibly large number of "Open" tournament wins back in 2011 when the "Sniper" book came out. That book also contained disputable material. The plan of playing .. g6, .. Bg7, .. c5 against almost anything is possible and sometimes good, but it often transposes to positions including these moves. Those of us who might have to face Simon Williams and his fans would like to know how to cope with 1. d4 g6 2. h4 and similar punts in practice, rather than woffle about how bad they are, which is all the book offered.

Exagerrated claims have been made by the Times Chess Correspondent in terms of how many British Championships he was won. You have to include team events to reach his count, which probably means dozens of players can match him by his definition.

A former President of the ECF claimed to have been the most active player for a season or two. That was refutable by reference to the ECF grading archive, which was the first place to look to validate Charlie's claims.

So there's a history of exaggerated claims.

Matt Bridgeman wrote: ↑

Fri May 24, 2019 11:46 pm

Currently in joint 20th on 4.5/7 with a 2368 TRP

I find Chess Results TPRs unsatisfactory, and Charlie's performance is obviously much better than that.

He has scored 50% against 5 GMs, average rating >2450, so presumably TPR >2450, and has in addition beaten two weaker opponents, which should at worst be immaterial.

Matt Bridgeman wrote: ↑

Fri May 24, 2019 11:46 pm

I think it's unfortunate that a lot of people who have been responding clearly have never met or spent any time with him

You sure about that?

Tim Harding wrote: ↑

Fri May 24, 2019 9:19 pm

"Team GB" is a term coined by the British Olympics movement

Indeed specifically a trademark

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Sat May 25, 2019 12:12 am

Matt Bridgeman wrote: ↑

Fri May 24, 2019 11:46 pm

Currently in joint 20th on 4.5/7 with a 2368 TRP

I find Chess Results TPRs unsatisfactory, and Charlie's performance is obviously much better than that.

He has scored 50% against 5 GMs, average rating >2450, so presumably TPR >2450, and has in addition beaten two weaker opponents, which should at worst be immaterial.

It seems strange to blame Chess-results when all they are doing is showing the performance in accordance with FIDE regulations. Whether it accurately reflects performance is neither here nor there, it is what counts for eg. norm calculations (subject to the additional rating floor for the weakest opponent dependent on the norm category you are focussing on).

This is a fairly easy additional calculation - take the difference between the weakest opponent and the floor, divide by number of games played, and add to the quoted TPR.

So Charlie has performance of 2368+57=2425 for IM purposes and 2446/7 for GM.

Obviously if a 10+ round tournament a bit more complicated because you can start ignoring victories against the weakest player etc.

Interesting stats for chess Stattoes (is that's the correct plural?)

But don't pay too much mind to the merits of the technical performance.

What about the artistic impression?

He was on a for a GM hat-trick and, playing W, started off with the London, but switched to the Hebden Barry Attack with 5.Nc3 ( instead of 5.c3...) against a Grunfeld set up by the GM.

Cyrus Lakdawala's take on the Barry Attack v. Grunfeld -

"... a psycho alternative... set up with Nf3, Nc3, Bf4, Ne5, h4, Qd2 and often q-side castling for a wild opposite-wing attack game...
especially effective IF B refrains from a ...c5 and... Qb6 counter."

Unfortunately, for our man (one of three in fact) in Mallorca, B didn't refrain (making it too dangerous for W to play O-O-O) and the game became a one-sided attacking one - with B attacking W on the q-side, and inexplicably W give up his Q for a rook?! And, a couple of moves later, W resigned.

Richard Bates wrote: ↑

Sat May 25, 2019 7:06 am

It seems strange to blame Chess-results when all they are doing is showing the performance in accordance with FIDE regulations.

There are no such regulations.

(subject to the additional rating floor for the weakest opponent dependent on the norm category you are focussing on)

Without which the calculation is meaningless.

John McKenna wrote: ↑

Sat May 25, 2019 8:25 am

He was on a for a GM hat-trick and, playing W, started off with the London, but switched to the Hebden Barry Attack with 5.Nc3 ( instead of 5.c3...) against a Grunfeld set up by the GM.

Unfortunately, for our man (one of three in fact) in Mallorca, B didn't refrain (making it too dangerous for W to play O-O-O) and the game became a one-sided attacking one - with B attacking W on the q-side, and inexplicably W give up his Q for a rook?! And, a couple of moves later, W resigned.

Are you referring to the Nasuta game? The computer reckons 9.g4 was a bad move that changed the position from about level to a pawn advantage to Black. If Black had found 12... e5 he could have opened up the position with White's king stuck in the centre and the game wouldn't have lasted much longer. Maybe Black did see 12... e5 and decided it wasn't worth sacrificing a pawn for an attack when he had a very good position already.

Tim Harding wrote: ↑

Fri May 24, 2019 9:19 pm

b) In chess the Welsh and Scots have their own teams and organisations.

As do the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey.

It's not clear where this organisation intends to operate. Whilst it calls itself "Team GB" it's also seeking local organisers in all of the above regions - see this spreadsheet on its website.

Ian Thompson wrote: ↑

Sat May 25, 2019 10:57 am

Tim Harding wrote: ↑

Fri May 24, 2019 9:19 pm

b) In chess the Welsh and Scots have their own teams and organisations.

As do the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey.

It's not clear where this organisation intends to operate. Whilst it calls itself "Team GB" it's also seeking local organisers in all of the above regions - see this spreadsheet on its website.

That spreadsheet doesn't seem to have a good geographical grasp. It's insensitive in the extreme to invite those in the Republic of Ireland to participate in "Team GB". Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands (where Jersey, Guernsey and Alderney is each shown separately but duplicated within the composite 'Channel Islands' heading) are also not part of Great Britain. The duplication of areas continues into the mainland - for example, one area is Hereford and Worcester while there are two separate ones for Herefordshire and Worcestershire. Similarly the Ridings of Yorkshire are shown separate to, for example, Humberside. The spreadsheet would benefit from a tidying-up on that account alone.

On a separate note, everyone will congratulate Charlie on his results in the first 7 rounds at Mallorca. However, that's a small sample and - if Charlie were able consistently to play at this level - his FIDE calculation (as opposed to online website figures) would presumably be higher than 2228.

Yes, I agee, and he drew with GM Igor Naumkin in round 7 to stay on 50% (+2, -2, =1) against 5 GMs in the event, so far.