The problems with junior chess

[Peter Rhodes]

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.

Adam, I dislike having to disagree with you as I have always found your views enlightening, and possible I have misunderstood the basis of your remark. I respect your strong track record of successful chess organisation.

In my opinion - this is how it should work:
1) A body is responsible for chess overall - I don't think we don't need to drill down to what that means precisely. Such a body exists - the ECF.
2) That body works as a team to ensure that it's objectives are completed and there are no missed opportunities. It delegates portfolios to it's executive officers/directors who in turn review their portfolio.
3) After reviewing their portfolios, individual officers are then in a position to ensure that their personal objectives are in place and being met.


In my opinion someone dropped the ball some years ago with regard to University Chess. Yes, Alex recently brought this to the public's attention, but I would like to hope that had he not done so, it would have soon been picked up by a timely review of the University situation (as described above).

I agree this is an example of how problems can be resolved, but I think it is a very poor example - or maybe a "good example" of how things should NOT work !

This approach reminds me of my strong view that ECF directors need to be chosen from amongst those with the highest pedigree who have worked in "premiership" competitive and commercial organisations and are familiar with a competent approach to problem-solving.

[Alex Holowczak]

In my opinion someone dropped the ball some years ago with regard to University Chess.

The impression I get is that BUCA was really B.H.Wood's baby, and no one else ever seemed to get too involved - they didn't need to. I've seen a letter from 1986 which shows it was still going strong. It had a very impressive list of Vice Presidents, anyway. Yet within 7 years, it had faded into obscurity. To me, it seems that when B.H.Wood died in 1989, no one else took over the responsibility. That is just my impression, I obviously wasn't there in person.

If it was independent from the BCF, as it was then, then there might not have been a whole lot they could have done (hopefully this version will be affiliated to the ECF to avoid a repeat of that in future). It seems (particularly given the comments in the other thread) that the majority of people just assumed it was still going.

[Peter Rhodes]

The impression I get is that BUCA was really B.H.Wood's baby, and no one else ever seemed to get too involved

Indeed Alex, that sounds most feasible.


The way I would approach this would be to ask - What ECF director (if any) is responsible for the this area of chess. Does it even need to be covered by the ECF ? Of course I would answer yes.

That director would then ask himself these questions "what are the different elements of chess organisation within the UK". The answer would include the mainstream ones which need no attention and then would also include other areas of special interest such as University Chess, Visually-impaired Chess, Prison Chess etc .

The responsible director could arm himself with such simple technology as a checklist. Is it beyond the wit of a director of an organisation with national responsibilities to make contact on a yearly basis - just to put a tick on his checklist.

If on one year he fails to make any sort of contact - would that not be a signal that some kind of action needed to be taken ?

This is why I get so frustrated - because clearly whoever was doing this job before must have been most incompetent - given that we agree that the well being of University Chess should have been somewhere on the ECF radar.



With the arrival of some new-blood hopefully the deployment of checklists can be mastered, and hopefully they will review the different areas of English Chess to ensure nothing is being missed.

The idea that this stone would have been left unturned for another 5 years without a volunteer bringing this to public attention is to me a terrible situation.

There are sure to be other stones as yet unturned, and I hope all the ECF directors are reviewing their portfolios to ensure that nothing is left too late as to cause them embarassment in the future.

[Roger de Coverly]

The way I would approach this would be to ask - What ECF director (if any) is responsible for the this area of chess. Does it even need to be covered by the ECF ? Of course I would answer yes.

A Google search unearthed this Business Plan from a couple of years ago

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/archive1 ... _oct07.pdf

There's no mention of "Chess in Universities" even as a footnote.

The most recent one doesn't mention it either.

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/images/s ... lOct09.doc

[Peter Rhodes]

There's no mention of "Chess in Universities" even as a footnote.

Roger, thankyou.

That reinforces my point entirely.

[IM Jack Rudd]

The way I would approach this would be to ask - What ECF director (if any) is responsible for the this area of chess.

The Director of Home Chess, I should think.

[Alex Holowczak]

The way I would approach this would be to ask - What ECF director (if any) is responsible for the this area of chess.

The Director of Home Chess, I should think.

That's what I thought. That's why I contacted the incumbent Director of Home Chess myself.

[Adam Raoof]

The impression I get is that BUCA was really B.H.Wood's baby, and no one else ever seemed to get too involved

Indeed Alex, that sounds most feasible.

The way I would approach this would be to ask - What ECF director (if any) is responsible for the this area of chess. Does it even need to be covered by the ECF ? Of course I would answer yes.

There are sure to be other stones as yet unturned, and I hope all the ECF directors are reviewing their portfolios to ensure that nothing is left too late as to cause them embarassment in the future.

Dear Peter

You may be right. However, until Alex brought this to my attention it had not appeared on any job description or checklist I had seen. So you can't simply leave it to the ECF to keep an eye out . Thanks to Alex it will now get the attention from me that it deserves. If Alex had simply waited until a year had passed and simply said 'what has the Home Chess Director done for chess in Universities?' it would have got us nowhere.

What would you like me to address, that you feel needs some personal attention from me? I would be only too happy to take instruction - however be warned that the Home Chess brief is rather extensive already, and I am trying to make sure all areas get covered fairly and properly!

Adam

[Neill Cooper]

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.

Richard

Apologies for the delay in replying but term is finally over now.

1) Should chess be more centralised in the UK? No. For many years the BCF/ECF has not organised things which is why others have (e.g. EPSCA, NYCA). The only hope for a successful centralised activity would require a paid employee doing it. But the existing organisers would not like that! So the ECF role is now to run a few key things (e.g international, national championships) but also possibly fill any geographical gaps. But I'm not sure that they can fill the gaps, as it requires local enthusiasm and dedication not just central organisation.

2) County boundary disputes. I think these just come with the territory. Chess teams (adult as well as junior) are no longer based on commitment to a community but on who you want to play for. When I ran Surrey U18/U14 teams issues did arise, not just with Kent, but they were no great hassle and could be amicably resolved

3) Number of junior events. I think the more the better. It is by playing chess that junior enjoy it more and will keep playing. I have one proviso - it is good to have some separate events for secondary students. Whilst adults can get used to being beaten by juniors, for secondary pupils being beaten by primary players possible half their age can be humiliating, and a complete turn-off. We do have 'a thousand flowers bloom' but they shrivel and die because the opportunity to play chess in a suitable environment for teenagers is often not available to them.

4) ECF U18 inter-county tournament. This is one place where the ECF is struggling to provide what should be an important annual event. If the ECF does not encourage strong juniors to play for their U18 county team then they are much less likely to play for an adult county team once they turn 18.

Happy Christmas everyone!

[Peter Rhodes]

What would you like me to address

Adam, much of my comment is about the past so there is nothing in particular for you to address except perhaps to support Alex in his efforts.

until Alex brought this to my attention it had not appeared on any job description or checklist I had seen. So you can't simply leave it to the ECF to keep an eye out .

You are new to the role, and I doubt there was much of a "handover". As you do ask what it is I think you can address .... well, at least have a review or brainstorm regarding the scope of your role. I am sure you have this in hand anyway.

University chess clubs declining up and down the country partly as a result of lack of central organisation seems to me a huge failure. I just humbly ask that the current incumbents polish their crystal ball and leave no other stones unturned.

[Neill Cooper]

University chess clubs declining up and down the country partly as a result of lack of central organisation seems to me a huge failure.

In the context of this thread on junior chess I think a more significant cause of the decline in University chess is the decline in secondary school chess. And I think it is a more important issue to tackle than university chess. When they want to, university students can run things themselves (as Alex is showing). Inter-school chess is dying in most parts of the country. There used to be school leagues in many counties, with lots of schools playing. Now in most counties if it exists at all only a handful of schools play.

I know it is not a fair comparison, but of the 5000 or so secondary schools in this country (state and independent) over 1000 enter the annual UK Team Maths Challenge for year 8 and 9 pupils. But only about 100 secondary schools enter the national schools chess tournament

[Alex Holowczak]

But only about 100 secondary schools enter the national schools chess tournament

Well, my old school were thinking of entering it. The problem we found was that staff weren't prepared to give up the time to take us everywhere - even though the first rounds were local. This was the major reason we didn't enter, a minor one was that we didn't like the age handicap rule. Without that rule, we'd have been much more inclined to pester. So it was an organisational issue for the staff, and the students weren't overly keen on it - even though our team was quite young for a secondary school, and the rule would have benefited us compared to our Birmingham rivals.

[Rob Thompson]

The reason that the maths is more popular than the chess i, imho, that everyone in Years 7+8 has to take maths, but very few study chess

[Arshad Ali]

I know it is not a fair comparison, but of the 5000 or so secondary schools in this country (state and independent) over 1000 enter the annual UK Team Maths Challenge for year 8 and 9 pupils. But only about 100 secondary schools enter the national schools chess tournament

Mathematics is part of every curriculum and is taught by qualified teachers. Would that the same could be said of chess. But without some source of funding -- e.g., as in the case of the Chess-in-the-Schools program in NYC, or local or central government -- this cannot happen in the UK. In Estonia I've seen parents depositing their children two or three times a week at the Keres Chess Club in Tallinn (back in the mid-'90s). And there used to be something similar in Riga (Latvia) until the government withdrew its funding in the late '90s. As long as chess lacks sponsors in the UK and relies on volunteers, enthusiasm, and hope, things are unlikely to take a radical turn for the better.

[Matthew Turner]

It is interesting that the UK Team Maths challenge has been such a success. I attended a regional heat this week and it was very enjoyable. In comparing the event to the National Schools' Chess Championships I would make three observations.

1. The event is a one off regional event, so there is much less travelling involved
2. There is a much higher proportion of girls taking part (I guess 40% at the heat I attended)
3. The rounds are geared towards cooperation as well as competition

I am not sure what chess can learn from that, but it is certainly worth considering.

Enjoy World Maths Day on Wednesday.