The future - 2011 and beyond.

[Krishna Shiatis]

I hasten to add that if any GMs want to get involved in chess administration and organising then I would be delighted but equally I don't think we should discourage anyone else who may be equally able to do a good job. I wouldn't want a very talented junior organiser or active player with bags of experience to be put off from applying because they don't have a GM title.

I would like to clarify, that my suggestion is not asking that the GMs get involved with 'admin and organising'. I do not think any of them would take up that offer.

Rather, that they are figureheads, who give guidance, advice, and have the power to make executive decisions with regards to junior chess. If we do this properly and set up the structure in a sound way, then the committee below them can do the legwork.

Anybody who is not a GM can certainly take up one of the key posts in the committee if they are keen.

The aim is not to put the GMs or anybody off from taking an active interest or role, but to actively encourage them to come forward.

What are the advantages for the GMs or anyone?

1) They would have fun. I know Chris does.
2)They would have the unreserved gratitude and respect of many parents and the next generation of chess players.
3)They would have fun interacting with the children at training events and tournaments. The children would get to know them on a personal level and they would get to know the children.
4) They would raise their own profile in England.
5) They would understand how much we need them.
6) They would be helping chess in this country to flourish.

I would love to hear from all of the GMs on this forum. Alas, I do not have the contacts and do not know if they might read this.

[Steve Rooney]

Rather, that they are figureheads, who give guidance, advice, and have the power to make executive decisions with regards to junior chess. If we do this properly and set up the structure in a sound way, then the committee below them can do the legwork.

I am confused. A figurehead is not really someone who makes executive decisions. I'd agree with Loz that having a title should not be a pre-requisite. Being a GM does not necessarily mean that you are a good leader and decision-maker, or indeed a coach for that matter.

[LozCooper]

Several GMs follow the forum, many don't post and some are not registered. If you ever want to contact any players that don't appear in the yearbook or have their details online I'm always happy to forward messages and then it's up to them if they reply.

[GraemeTelBuckley]

I repeat that I think that the emphasis needs to be on tournaments. Apart from my wife, is there anybody out there that remembers what it used to be like? Take the Open at the Classic. Much work has been done to put this event on and it is excellent but you will still find half of the competitors are rated below 2100.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I repeat that I think that the emphasis needs to be on tournaments. Apart from my wife, is there anybody out there that remembers what it used to be like? Take the Open at the Classic. Much work has been done to put this event on and it is excellent but you will still find half of the competitors are rated below 2100.

You mean work should be done on putting together strong invitationals with norm opportunities?

[Krishna Shiatis]

Several GMs follow the forum, many don't post and some are not registered. If you ever want to contact any players that don't appear in the yearbook or have their details online I'm always happy to forward messages and then it's up to them if they reply.

Hi Lawrence,

Lovely to meet you at last, yesterday evening! You are a top genius blokey!

I must say after chatting with you and Adam Raoof (also lovely to meet you too!), I did feel so much happier. I do think that your ideas are excellent.

I did take the opportunity being at the Classic to have a chat with some of the GMs/IMs (and numerous others) and I did talk to them about my proposal to find out about general opinions. It was very interesting indeed and I did learn much.

The first thing I learned, was that they were happy to talk to a random, crazy, lady.

Then I learned, that they did listen and were very keen to help.

They did all explain that they had limits on their time (work, study, tournaments etc)and that they did not wish to be bogged down with politics, but to help with training and development as best as they can. (Hopefully my proposal does deal with that side of things).

I learned that by having many on board, we can also make sure that there is not too much pressure on just a few and we also have more choice ourselves about the kinds of ways and the number of ways that they may be able to help.

I did explain that nothing was set up yet. We were just looking at ideas about what to do in the future and that if they were interested, we could work around that (possibly).

The best part for me was that they were so lovely, so approachable and very good at communicating.

I am about to list them and this does not tie them down and is not an exclusive list, just the ones who I spoke to who said that they would like to help.

The ones that said that they were interested in helping in addition to your good self of course (in no particular order) are David Howell GM, Gawain Jones GM, Stephen Gordon GM, Jack Rudd IM, Chris Ward GM and Keith Arkell GM. (All top genius blokeys and much bowing, scraping, curtseying and bobbing).

Obviously I did not ask everybody as my time was limited, but I suspect most would help where they can.

One of the most interesting points that was made was that we would need to ask each titled player about their specialisms and strengths; some might be more comfortable coaching/helping stronger players, some might be happier with the challenge of the younger ones, some may have lots of experience, others less so - either way we could work around that.

Also, some might be able to offer regular help and other less regular. We would need to be flexible around them.

It would mean that the training programme when it is decided, is centred around what they can offer and where (which again is all over the country depending on their location) and therefore training could be set up around the country and I guess it could possibly be a fairer system in that sometimes you may have to travel further to learn about one topic and less far to learn about another.

It would be a learning curve for all, as I guess the children would learn from the GMs/IMs and they would learn from the kids and develop their own skills in coaching and training.

I did ask them if they would be happy to talk to the children at tournaments and be happy to get to know them and the answer was universal that, where it was practical, yes they would. I did see interaction myself yesterday and was again impressed.

I have no doubt that they are a serious, untapped and wonderful resource and the PR potential is there for anybody willing to work with them to pull them in. I will continue to do some more research about this as I think it is an important part of any future strategy and as I have said before, it will begin to bring us in line with the competition which is an important part in the process of closing the gap and producing future titled players and increased particpation for all.

Kind regards,

Krishna

[GraemeTelBuckley]

I repeat that I think that the emphasis needs to be on tournaments. Apart from my wife, is there anybody out there that remembers what it used to be like? Take the Open at the Classic. Much work has been done to put this event on and it is excellent but you will still find half of the competitors are rated below 2100.

You mean work should be done on putting together strong invitationals with norm opportunities?

All-play-alls with norm opportunities are great as are strong 9 round internationals (which will have norm opportunities if they are that strong). The ARC Young Masters to which I referred to earlier on this thread was just a weekender but it was very strong! If there are regular tournaments like this now then please show me where they are. I remember years ago when I played in the Oakham International and Messrs Parker and Turner were in the junior event below me! Yes, in those days they were probably weaker than I was (and they were obviously younger) but the idea is you have tournaments at the top then rather than allowing lower rateds in the top event, the lower rateds flood in to the lower events.
No disrepect to lower rateds but say you are an ambitious 180+ junior in September. May be you are playing at 2200+ plus by December and maybe it is better for your chess to have some experience where every game in a tournament is against 2200+ and some of your games are against titles players. Maybe you play players you haven't played before. Perhaps you don't really want to play an event where half of your games are against 160-180 opposition. Or whatever the numbers should be. The players 'lower' down play against themselves in a 'lesser' event...
I realise that this all takes a lot of work and I am sure that people are doing what they can with the resources that they have but I still think that the emphasis should be on playing rather than coaching although I am obviously happy to help with coaching wherever I can.

[andrew martin]

I agree with Graeme. The English chess explosion was fuelled by a healthy weekend circuit where reasonable prizes and a Grand Prix ensured keen competition and everyone learned from everyone else with minimal coaching. Most of my generation of GM's and IM's were self-taught.

What we need more than anything else is to be recognised as a sport so that we can apply for lottery funding. Then we need sponsors. Finally, we need the tournaments that Graeme suggests.

[Krishna Shiatis]

I agree with Graeme. The English chess explosion was fuelled by a healthy weekend circuit where reasonable prizes and a Grand Prix ensured keen competition and everyone learned from everyone else with minimal coaching. Most of my generation of GM's and IM's were self-taught.

What we need more than anything else is to be recognised as a sport so that we can apply for lottery funding. Then we need sponsors. Finally, we need the tournaments that Graeme suggests.

Lottery funding would be great. If we wish for chess to be recognised as a sport we need to raise it's profile in this country and maximise participation. Again, I think we need our young GMs for this. If an attempt was to be made and the ECF were to make such a request, the chances of success would be greatly bolstered by having our young titled players on board fronting the campaign.

With regards to your comment about most of your generation of titled players being self-taught, I would say 'that is brilliant!'

However, we are dealing with today. We are dealing with a 'sport' which everybody recognises is in decline and perhaps a little in the doldrums with there being a shortage of new young players coming up.

Everybody can see the average age in most clubs and tournament halls is perhaps the other side of forty. In addition, we have the ECF coaching director saying 'everyone learned from everyone else with minimal coaching'.

I don't think that is good. I'm sorry.

I believe that coaching and training is essential (especially for juniors) and will be much needed incomes to many of our professionals and therefore existing chess infrastructure. I am in complete agreement with Graeme and yourself that decent tournaments are also essential. However, the key to success, I believe, lies in combining all our techniques and resources and pursuing every angle to ensure success. There has to be an overall, co-ordinated and structured strategy which combines training, coaching, decent tournament play, inspiring juniors and raising profile and awareness at the same time with a concerted effort to pursue every angle from those at the top.

If I were to use a chess analogy, if you can attack from every angle, with a co-ordinated tactical plan and strategy and ensure success swiftly or just attack from one angle and drift on for a long time without maximising your chances, which one would you pick?

[Alex Holowczak]

I find myself agreeing with Krishna here.

While laudable, we have to remember that times and attitudes of young people have moved on from the 1970s.

There aren't too many people around who learn for learning's sake; in schools the end aim is a piece of paper with lots of A*s on it. I'm not sure how self-taught Grandmasters are compatible with that way of thinking. Locally, the three highest-graded Warwickshire junior players all have either had, or currently have, one-on-one coaching with ECF Accredited Coaches.

While the 1970s had the popularity of the Fischer boom to push a lot of players into chess, there's no such media storm in 2010. The rise in attention meant there was a rise in juniors playing the game. In 2010, we don't have anything like the same number of young players taking up the game. Assuming the rating of chess players can be normally distributed, it makes statistical sense that the result is both fewer players at the top end, and also a lower probability of finding a player with the ability to be number 1 in the world.

One thing I agree with the Manager of Coaching on is that money (perhaps via recognition as a sport or sponsorship) is an important element.

[Richard Bates]

Of course coaching/training is important, but parents should not dismiss the limits of what players can do for themselves. Improvement cannot come simply from being taught by others, it has to come mainly from personal learning, experience and development of understanding. I don't see the comparison with what happens in schools and universities as particularly relevant, because the modern attitude cited by Alex is not because this is seen as the route to academic excellence but because many see 'qualifications' as the most important factor in future career success. If one is looking for a brilliant Mathematician one must look beyond exam performance towards one who has a genuine interest and love for Maths, if one is looking for a brilliant Historian one must look beyond exam performance towards one who has a genuine interest and love for History. Similarly with chess. Unless there is a real personal love of the game and desire to improve then ultimate success will for most be limited. But if those two criteria are present then there is an enormous amount that a player can do for themselves.

As long as they have to opportunities to play, which i think in agreement with Graeme and Andrew above, is the most important thing.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

While laudable, we have to remember that times and attitudes of young people have moved on from the 1970s.

I think the chess circuit Graeme Buckley was referring to was in the 1980s and early 1990s, not just the 1970s.

There aren't too many people around who learn for learning's sake

Which, if true, is a great pity, though I think rather more people do learn for learning's sake than is realised. They just don't make much money out of it, but then there is a long tradition of practitioners of an art suffering (relative) poverty for art's sake, even in chess. That is one thing that makes chess more of an art than some sports, in my opinion.

While the 1970s had the popularity of the Fischer boom to push a lot of players into chess, there's no such media storm in 2010.

The massive difference, in my opinion, is chess computers and chess being played on the internet. Any strategy has to tie into those differences.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Of course coaching/training is important, but parents should not dismiss the limits of what players can do for themselves. Improvement cannot come simply from being taught by others, it has to come mainly from personal learning, experience and development of understanding. [...] As long as they have to opportunities to play, which i think in agreement with Graeme and Andrew above, is the most important thing.

I agree, and something comes to mind once that Matthew Turner said to me. In an offhand moment I once asked him how he became so good, and he said, quite simply, that he "played a lot". He can correct me if I'm misremembering or oversimplifying, but he said he played an awful lot as a junior and gained huge amounts of experience that way. I'm sure other IMs and GMs will say the same if asked. That said, some players play a lot and get no better.

[GraemeTelBuckley]

While laudable, we have to remember that times and attitudes of young people have moved on from the 1970s.

I think the chess circuit Graeme Buckley was referring to was in the 1980s and early 1990s, not just the 1970s.

Yes, I don't think that there were quite so many opportunities to play by the mid 90s.

[andrew martin]

Krishna,

To correct you on one point; there is no coaching directorship. I am the Manager of Coaching answerable to the Junior Director.

To correct you on another point; we are not dealing with a sport. Not yet.

A final point: you put forward ambitious plans. Now put forward names of people who are going to carry this huge amount of unpaid work out; work moreover which has no guarantee of success whilst we do not have sufficient funding.


Playing a lot in good tournaments is the best way for any level of chessplayer to improve and then learning from the games. Doesn't matter whether it is 1970, 2010, or 3000.