The problems with junior chess

[Rob Thompson]

Barden (Thu Nov 26, 2009):

So I should like to see as many as possible of the top six prospects above competing in the London Classic GM event which would be an ideal opportunity for them. But at present on the latest entry list that Adam Raoof has supplied only Clarke (the only one of the six who is a non-Londoner) has entered.

Could somebody put this to Adam Raoof and to Malcolm Pein so that these players all have encouragement and financial incentives to take part?

I have only just had this pointed out to me. Far be it for me to criticise, but if anyone feels that passionately about the subject they are invited to just email me rather than asking someone else to do so! You do have my email

Had I known this, I should certainly have done something. We have made entry free for juniors. Now it is probably too late to arrange anything for the juniors you would no doubt have wished to encourage.

The fact that it is a week in school term time may have something to do with this, particularly for the older players.

[Richard James]

It's great to hear of Alex's efforts to revive university chess and I wish him every success.

But, to return to my original comments and comparisons with other West European countries:

As far as I can tell (and I welcome comments from those with more knowledge than I about how chess is organised elsewhere) junior chess is far more centralised in other countries (Germany, for example) than here. You may consider this to be a good thing or a bad thing. I would be prepared to argue either way and would like to hear your views.

Junior chess in England seems to consist of a lot of people running their own empires with different competitions and different rules. Just to name a few: ECF, EPSCA, UK Chess Challenge, English Chess Challenge, NYCA, National Junior Squad, Junior 4NCL. All these organisations run events which are, in themselves, wonderful, and many children have gained much from taking part in all of them. I have the utmost respect for everyone involved in running their events, even though I might not always agree with what they do.

But this multiplicity of events and organisations brings its own problems. Different events have different eligibility rules: school, local education authority, current county boundary, mediaeval county boundary, chess club and so on. In some areas junior organisers are appointed by the adult county organistion, in other areas through the school system, in other areas a local impresario takes on the role. The vast majority of junior chess organisers, in my experience, work together very well for the benefit of the players themselves but disputes about eligibility still arise. For instance there is a part of South London, somewhere around Dulwich I think, which was, and may still be, disputed territory between Surrey, whose junior organisers use mediaeval county boundaries, and Kent, whose junior organisers use pre-GLCC/1965 county boundaries. We've also seen a situation in which two rival junior organisations were competing, acrimoniously, for the right to run chess teams in their county. This situation can, apart from the occcasional unpleasantness, lead to confusion among both parents and children.

In my view there are probably too many, not too few, junior chess tournaments. Yes, of course you should play in SOME junior tournaments but the stronger players benefit more from playing regularly against adults than by playing the same opponents over and over again in junior competitions. But the selectors who pick England representatives and teams for various competitions will only select you if you play in the junior competitions they run (a cynic might consider this to be part of their empire-building policy) and not take into account how you perform against adults. No one can take part in everything so inevitably players pick and choose, and many events are watered down as a result.

So, what do you think? Do you like the current situation where a thousand flowers bloom and children have a lot of choice as to which events they play in or do you think we would benefit from some degree of centralisation? And, if so, how might that be brought about.

[Rob Thompson]

The reason that selectors choose from junior tournaments is that they are selecting juniors for junior tournaments. Performance against adults is completely irrelevant in this case.

[PaulTalbot]

I think to encourage more people (including juniors) to take up chess we really need to raise the profile if the game. If we could somehow get chess on television it would be a major factor in achieving this.

On another point; being the father of two chess players, who are now young adults, as they were growing up I found that many tournaments were based in London or in the south. This made attending these events very difficult, due to the expense of accommodation and also the necessity to take time off work. Can I suggest more tournaments based in the midlands, which is central for everyone and much easier for northerners to get to.

[Leonard Barden]

The reason that selectors choose from junior tournaments is that they are selecting juniors for junior tournaments. Performance against adults is completely irrelevant in this case.

They are selecting players who will meet a very high standard of opposition at the top and a good standard in the middle of world and European junior events, something which they will find in the British Championship/Major Open and the Hastings Masters but not in the British/London /West of England/South of England/Liverpool U16/U14/U12.

[Alex Holowczak]

For instance there is a part of South London, somewhere around Dulwich I think, which was, and may still be, disputed territory between Surrey, whose junior organisers use mediaeval county boundaries, and Kent, whose junior organisers use pre-GLCC/1965 county boundaries.

In 2009, there need not be this confusion. This website covers everything you could possibly want regarding the old county boundaries. Any dispute you may have can be solved by using that website. Searching for Dulwich reveals it is in Surrey, be it Dulwich, East Dulwich or West Dulwich. It even gives you a map reference to check exactly which bit you mean. Just use that for the appropriate town. I'm strongly in favour of using the traditional boundaries for the county system. It isn't complicated nowadays to just look on that website.

The GM/Lancashire situtation is a farce.

So, what do you think? Do you like the current situation where a thousand flowers bloom and children have a lot of choice as to which events they play in or do you think we would benefit from some degree of centralisation? And, if so, how might that be brought about.

I think the ECF have missed the boat if they wanted to centralise junior chess. They did nothing, so everyone else set up their own events. I don't think they'd be too happy for the ECF to suddenly say it was going to control them.

As for junior selection, rather than using junior tournaments, just pick the best players. I'm sure they know who the best player(s) are in a given age range. If it's a close call, spread the selection about, there are plenty of international events around.

[Richard James]

For instance there is a part of South London, somewhere around Dulwich I think, which was, and may still be, disputed territory between Surrey, whose junior organisers use mediaeval county boundaries, and Kent, whose junior organisers use pre-GLCC/1965 county boundaries.

In 2009, there need not be this confusion. This website covers everything you could possibly want regarding the old county boundaries. Any dispute you may have can be solved by using that website. Searching for Dulwich reveals it is in Surrey, be it Dulwich, East Dulwich or West Dulwich. It even gives you a map reference to check exactly which bit you mean. Just use that for the appropriate town. I'm strongly in favour of using the traditional boundaries for the county system. It isn't complicated nowadays to just look on that website.

Alex, you miss my point, which is that different organisations and different counties have different rules and boundaries. Yes, it's clear as far as the UKCC is concerned.

In English Primary Schools Chess Association (EPSCA) competitions Wey Valley (Surrey) were picking their team using mediaeval county boundaries as per your link while Kent were using 20th century (pre-GLC) boundaries in which areas of London with SE postcodes were in Kent. The situation may well have been resolved by now - I am no longer involved with EPSCA competitions - but there were certainly problems a few years ago.

My view, and I know you disagree, is that using mediaeval county boundaries as the UKCC does is just silly. Another issue is that postal addresses and county boundaries are not the same. The school where I teach has a KT (Kingston) postcode and its postal address is East Molesey Surrey, but it is (just) north of the Thames and geographically in Middlesex, and comes under the jurisdiction of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, not Kingston. I know someone who works for the education department of Surrey County Council. His job is based in Kingston but does not cover schools in Kingston.

[Alex Holowczak]

In English Primary Schools Chess Association (EPSCA) competitions Wey Valley (Surrey) were picking their team using mediaeval county boundaries as per your link while Kent were using 20th century (pre-GLC) boundaries in which areas of London with SE postcodes were in Kent. The situation may well have been resolved by now - I am no longer involved with EPSCA competitions - but there were certainly problems a few years ago.

Oh, I can see why that would be confusing.

My view, and I know you disagree, is that using mediaeval county boundaries as the UKCC does is just silly. Another issue is that postal addresses and county boundaries are not the same. The school where I teach has a KT (Kingston) postcode and its postal address is East Molesey Surrey, but it is (just) north of the Thames and geographically in Middlesex, and comes under the jurisdiction of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, not Kingston. I know someone who works for the education department of Surrey County Council. His job is based in Kingston but does not cover schools in Kingston.

If you search for Kingston, Richmond or East Molesey, you'll see that traditionally, all three come under Surrey. Geographically, it has always been in Surrey, so it's probably just a quirk of the borders. As for postal borders, you have to treat them as different from actual towns. Without a resource, it seems complicated, but that Gazetteer site really helps. It also has the modern Unitary Authority stuff, which is useful.

[Richard James]

If you search for Kingston, Richmond or East Molesey, you'll see that traditionally, all three come under Surrey. Geographically, it has always been in Surrey, so it's probably just a quirk of the borders. As for postal borders, you have to treat them as different from actual towns. Without a resource, it seems complicated, but that Gazetteer site really helps. It also has the modern Unitary Authority stuff, which is useful.

Richmond is the only London Borough on both sides of the Thames. Twickenham, Teddington and the Hamptons (where my school is) are north of the Thames, and therefore in Middlesex in both UKCC and ECF terms, while Richmond, Sheen and Barnes are South of the Thames, but, confusingly, geographically to the north of Twickenham etc, and therefore in Surrey in both UKCC and ECF terms. There has always been an understanding that members of Richmond & Twickenham Chess Club (which currently meets in Teddington) can play for either Middlesex or Surrey in ECF competitions, and we do indeed have members playing for both counties.

[Adam Raoof]

Since my involvement with the 4NCL, I have always regarded the Map of Saxon Britain and the kingdoms of the Heptarchy as the definitive source. Those Saxons knew a thing or two about drawing boundaries.

Adam Raoof (Hæstingas)

[Richard James]

Since my involvement with the 4NCL, I have always regarded the Map of Saxon Britain and the kingdoms of the Heptarchy as the definitive source. Those Saxons knew a thing or two about drawing boundaries.

Adam Raoof (Hæstingas)

Adam

As you are the Director of Home Chess, what are your views as to whether or not the organisation of junior chess (and indeed chess generally) should be more centralised?

[Richard James]

I think the ECF have missed the boat if they wanted to centralise junior chess. They did nothing, so everyone else set up their own events. I don't think they'd be too happy for the ECF to suddenly say it was going to control them.

I'm sure you're right, but perhaps they could work with junior organisers to produce a more consistent and coherent programme of junior events.

[Adam Raoof]

Richard James wrote: As you are the Director of Home Chess, what are your views as to whether or not the organisation of junior chess (and indeed chess generally) should be more centralised?

Alex Holowczak wrote: I think the ECF have missed the boat if they wanted to centralise junior chess. They did nothing, so everyone else set up their own events. I don't think they'd be too happy for the ECF to suddenly say it was going to control them.

Firstly, I should say that I have very little direct experience of Junior chess. I have never been a parent or sibling of a player in, or a participant in a junior event. I have done the bulletin for the Smith & Williamson Young Masters, worked with people like Richard James and Tony Corfe and taught chess in several schools. I have organised a few tournaments specifically for juniors, and had many conversations with passionate parents of talented kids, and even more passionate parents of not-so-talented kids. As the Director of Home Chess I am not directly responsible for the development of Junior chess, but would still try to have an informed opinion on issues like this and would contribute to the discussion in a board meeting.

Alex is right. But who would want to centralise chess anyway?

I do not believe in centralisation, depending on how you define it. Chess organisers thrive when they are given the scope to develop their own initiatives without too much interference, and given the right support. For example, organisers like myself don't mind imposing rules on games, such as game fee and time limits and appropriate playing conditions, non-smoking and mobile phone penalties, and in return we get the games graded in a timely fashion. It is the duty of the ECF to have a sensible, forward-looking strategy in place which anticipate future trends and provides a framework in which the ECF can offer support for those events through grants, resources, training and so on. As an organiser I would prefer not to pay game fee, and for players to have a more direct and democratic relationship with the ECF through membership.

The most successful event for juniors in the UK appears to be Mike Basman's event, the UK Chess Challenge. I don't know that much about it. I know a little more about the 4NCL, and you might consider the 4NCL as a similar example of an event where the ECF had no direct involvement, and yet the event is one of the most successful events on the UK chess calendar. I was priveleged to be involved with a great team of organisers on the 4NCL board. But they would never have achieved as much if they had been ECF Directors, because they would have had far less autonomy to make rapid, bold commercial decisions. I suspect that Mike Basman would have been even less comfortable.

However it is possible for the ECF to give support to, work with, and derive much benefit from, events like the 4NCL and the UK Chess Challenge. I would certainly hope that I have a good relationship with all the organisers concerned. I think more ECF Arbiters who hope to work at larger events such as the British, or Hastings, Paignton or the London Classic, should have some experience at the 4NCL, and I would like to see a few volunteers for duty at the odd weekend. Those arbiters could complete the practical side of their qualifications at the event. This is something the ECF could offer events, without interfering and which might be mutally beneficial. That's not centralisation.

Here's an example of the way things should work. Someone, probably a student, notices that the British Universities' Chess Association no longer exists, and mentions this and a burning desire to rectify that situation to an ECF Board member. I would suggest that the correct response in that case would be to support the individual concerned in every way possible. If there were ECF seed money available, great. If not, then perhaps an ECF arbiter or two for the event. The ECF, as the national body responsible for the game, might want the event to conform to certain financial standards, and to deliver a particular return, and be constituted in a way that was democratic and self-sustaining. That's not centralisation.

[Richard James]

Adam

As far as adult chess goes I agree with you, but I think junior chess is an entirely different situation.

Every year EPSCA runs inter-area team championships at Under 9 and Under 11 levels. These are wonderful events and were always the highlight of the year for our players at Richmond. There are regional heats from which about half the teams qualify for the national finals. The U9 event is over 12 boards and the U11 event over 20 boards, each with up to 4 reserves allowed. This year 27 areas took part - good, but could have been better.

What would happen is that when children moved on to secondary school their parents would ask for the dates of the new season's events. They were always disappointed when told that there was no comparable event for older children.

Yes, there's the NYCA, which, when I was still involved with Richmond, ran inter-area team events at U14, U16 and U18 levels. I see that they now run an U12 event as well, which is good news, but really, despite the excellent work put in by Kevin Staveley, they are a pale shadow of the EPSCA events. This year only 8 teams took part in the U12 competition, and the numbers in the other age groups were similar.

It wouldn't happen overnight, but I can't help thinking that if junior chess organisation was more centralised, both in terms of events and administration, there would be a lot more continuity between primary school chess and secondary school chess and therefore a lower dropout rate.

One of the purposes of this thread was, given that we are much less successful than other West European countries, in terms of both quality, and, especially, quantity, we should look at what they do which is different to what we do. I may be wrong, but I would guess that inter-area junior competitions in other countries would be run through the national federation rather than by separate organisations. But, in order for this to happen here, we probably need a national federation that is structured in a rather different way to the ECF.

[Mike Gunn]

As the issue of the Surrey County boundaries were raised higher up on this thread I should report that in 2007 when the SCCA reinvented itself as a Company Limited by Guarantee it defined its area as "the County of Surrey and the London Boroughs of Croydon, Kingston-upon-Thames, Lambeth, Merton, Richmond-upon-Thames, Southwark, Sutton and Wandsworth". Previously when detemining issues of eligibility for county prizes etc I used to consult the 1885 map which can be found at http://www.londonancestor.com/maps/bc-surrey-east.htm.