Unanswered letter

National developments, strategies and ideas.
Krishna Shiatis
Posts: 667
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 1:08 pm

Re: Unanswered letter

Post by Krishna Shiatis » Thu Mar 03, 2011 2:45 pm

I am having a little difficulty with my quotation marks so Carl, please could you check that they are correct.
Gareth Harley-Yeo wrote: “A veiled threat”? What a ridiculous comment. I have little interest in neither yourselves nor your children.
Then please explain what you mean by your comment regarding the children.
Gareth Harley-Yeo wrote: Please sit back for a moment and consider the following – .... if you choose to go around telling people to grow up will attract nothing but negativity towards yourselves and your causes.
I did not tell anyone to grow up Gareth. If I did then please point it out to me. Otherwise you should apologise for saying that I said things which I did not. As an intellectual, you should understand the need to get your facts straight.

It is easy to throw out comments like this, but unless they are true, you should withdraw them. I hope that the moderator takes a look at this.
Gareth Harley-Yeo wrote: No, chess shouldn’t be a popularity contest, and the good of juniors should come above the personalities of parents, but manners cost nothing.

Bullying will get you nowhere in life, especially on a forum full of intellectuals.
I disagree that I have not shown manners. I have not bullied anyone, if I have, then again please show me and I will apologise.

As you have said, manners cost nothing. Do you think that it shows manners to misquote me and make comments about my children?

I hope that you take a look at who writes what in this forum. It is important. Also, I think that inferring that our children will have something done to them if we do not comply with your orders is also a form of bullying and as you have said, bullying will get you nowhere in life.

If you were not threatening our children, then please be specific and not vague. I just want to be clear on this matter because parents should not be frightened to speak up in case comments like this are made about their children.
Last edited by IM Jack Rudd on Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Quote tags fixed as requested

User avatar
Gareth Harley-Yeo
Posts: 307
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:58 pm
Location: Wales
Contact:

Re: Unanswered letter

Post by Gareth Harley-Yeo » Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:12 pm

Krishna Shiatis wrote:
I did not tell anyone to grow up Gareth. If I did then please point it out to me. Otherwise you should apologise for saying that I said things which I did not. As an intellectual, you should understand the need to get your facts straight.

It is easy to throw out comments like this, but unless they are true, you should withdraw them. I hope that the moderator takes a look at this.
No, you didn't tell anyone to grow up. But Carol did! And she refuses to withdraw her comment.
Krishna Shiatis wrote: I think that inferring that our children will have something done to them if we do not comply with your orders is also a form of bullying and as you have said, bullying will get you nowhere in life.

If you were not threatening our children, then please be specific and not vague. I just want to be clear on this matter because parents should not be frightened to speak up in case comments like this are made about their children.
You really don't understand do you? My posts are more directed at Carol than you, although you did use a rather condescending tone towards young Rob. I'm simply stating the aggressive behaviour displayed in the odd post could be burning bridges of possible future allies to your cause.

Let me give you an example? There is currently another thread running where a book was mentioned as a great source for juniors. The popular reaction was ''I don't care how good the book is, the author is vile and I’ll never buy it''. Now consider the way you both talk to the young gentlemen on this site. You might have a great idea which will revolutionise junior chess in England, but if nobody likes your attitude - support will be hard to come by.

If you're still struggling with this concept and still believe I'm threatening your children somehow, then I give up!
Last edited by Gareth Harley-Yeo on Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Peter Sowray
Posts: 151
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 9:29 am

Re: Unanswered letter

Post by Peter Sowray » Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:15 pm

Andrew Farthing wrote: Apologies for not responding sooner. I haven't had the chance to catch up with the forum until now.

The Board debate on this issue does go back a while now - from memory it must have been nearly a year ago, but I could be mistaken. It was raised because there had been calls from some parents for a change in selection policy and the Board thought it only right to debate the topic. I have to respect the confidentiality of Board meetings, which means I have to exercise some discretion here.

Firstly, there was a range of views expressed. As the debate here has shown, this is an issue on which differences of opinion exist, and often the views are very strongly held. As I recall, three options were discussed: the current policy; a somewhat modified version of the current policy with greater flexibility; and a return to a selection panel approach. Peter's views on the failings of the last of these are well known, so it should not be a surprise that this came across in the debate. "Back me or sack me," however, wouldn't be a fair characterisation.

I can't speak for the Board members as a whole (and at the time, I was present in my capacity as Strategic Planning Officer), but my impression was that the Board felt that any director should be allowed to manage his area of responsibility unless there was a strong view that a specific policy was wrong. In this instance, some Board members would have favoured a modified policy, but the majority view was that Peter's judgement should be trusted and that the policy was fair.

I know that there will be some among those who disagree strongly with the current policy who cannot believe that there could be a majority view on the Board different from their own. All I can say is that their arguments were voiced at the Board meeting in question but, after discussion, the majority of the Board voted to support the current policy.

To say more would either take me into mind-reading territory (i.e. trying to guess what was in each Board member's mind) or move me further past the confidentiality of Board discussions than I am prepared to go.

Dear Andrew,

Many thanks for your reply. Greater minds than mine (Rogers, J for one) have subjected your response to detailed textual analysis. I won't, but will merely accept your explanation and suspend my disbelief.

Elsewhere on this thread, you have noted that the ECF is changing but folks are slow to recognise this. (I hope that's a fair summary.) From my perspective, the issue of support for our talented young players is THE litmus test of whether the Federation has changed. Hopefully, between now and October, everyone with a stake in this can work together in a civil fashion and arrive at a sensible, well-informed way forward. If that is the case, the ECF really will have changed under your leadership.

Good luck.

Peter

Andrew Farthing
Posts: 614
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 11:39 pm

Re: Unanswered letter

Post by Andrew Farthing » Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:37 pm

Peter Sowray wrote:Many thanks for your reply. Greater minds than mine (Rogers, J for one) have subjected your response to detailed textual analysis.

Elsewhere on this thread, you have noted that the ECF is changing but folks are slow to recognise this. (I hope that's a fair summary.) From my perspective, the issue of support for our talented young players is THE litmus test of whether the Federation has changed. Hopefully, between now and October, everyone with a stake in this can work together in a civil fashion and arrive at a sensible, well-informed way forward. If that is the case, the ECF really will have changed under your leadership.
Understood!

(Message kept short to ease the burden on semiologists everywhere.) :)

Krishna Shiatis
Posts: 667
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 1:08 pm

Re: Unanswered letter

Post by Krishna Shiatis » Thu Mar 03, 2011 4:00 pm

Thank you Jack for fixing the quotation marks on the last, I seem to be having probs again, can I ask for some help?
Gareth Harley-Yeo wrote:
No, you didn't tell anyone to grow up.
Thank you for confirming this. I can only speak for myself and I am glad that you accept that I did not say that. Like I said before, as an intellectual, you should get your facts straight. Lots of people say lots of things on this forum, you can not attribute them to me, unless I did say it. I may not be 'an intellectual', but I do not misquote. (If I do in the future and somebody tells me, then I will apologise.)
Gareth Harley-Yeo wrote: You really don't understand do you? My posts are more directed at Carol than you, although you did use a rather condescending tone towards young Rob.
I have already apologised to Rob. If your posts are more directed at Carol, then please direct them to Carol herself. If you say that I said something which I did not, then that is wrong. Once again, I may not be 'an intellectual', but your comment above 'you really don't understand do you?' - I believe is also very condescending. You tell us to show manners, but IMO you are not setting a good example yourself.
Gareth Harley-Yeo wrote: Let me give you an example? There is currently another thread running where a book was mentioned as a great source for juniors. The popular reaction was ''I don't care how good the book is, the author is vile and I’ll never buy it''.
Just for clarification, I did not say this, either on the other thread. If this is an example of some of the things that are said which are bad, I am sure that I could list many more. The main point that I am making is that I did not say these things and you should not infer/imply/say that I did.
Gareth Harley-Yeo wrote: If you're still struggling with this concept and still believe I'm threatening your children somehow, then I give up!
I will accept that you are not threatening my children as long as you understand that your comment was vague and could have been misunderstood.

I do not wish you to give up. I believe very strongly in free speech whether people agree with me or not. Please do say what you feel, but just make sure that you are clear about what you say others have said and what you yourself have said about other people's children.

User avatar
Gareth Harley-Yeo
Posts: 307
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:58 pm
Location: Wales
Contact:

Re: Unanswered letter

Post by Gareth Harley-Yeo » Thu Mar 03, 2011 4:50 pm

Gareth Harley-Yeo wrote:
No, you didn't tell anyone to grow up.
Krishna Shiatis wrote: Thank you for confirming this. I can only speak for myself and I am glad that you accept that I did not say that. Like I said before, as an intellectual, you should get your facts straight. Lots of people say lots of things on this forum, you can not attribute them to me, unless I did say it. I may not be 'an intellectual', but I do not misquote. (If I do in the future and somebody tells me, then I will apologise.)
As we are talking in facts if you care to re-read my first post (page 6) you will note that I was addressing the both of you as you seem to make quite the double act on this forum. I'm sure everyone who's read the thread knows who I'm addressing. There was no misquote to speak of.
Gareth Harley-Yeo wrote: You really don't understand do you? My posts are more directed at Carol than you, although you did use a rather condescending tone towards young Rob.
Krishna Shiatis wrote: I have already apologised to Rob. If your posts are more directed at Carol, then please direct them to Carol herself. If you say that I said something which I did not, then that is wrong. Once again, I may not be 'an intellectual', but your comment above 'you really don't understand do you?' - I believe is also very condescending. You tell us to show manners, but IMO you are not setting a good example yourself.
You're quite right Krishna. I dislike seeing youngsters being picked on for voicing an opinion. Initially I tried showing you both the damage it can create. You apologised to Rob and as such I had no further axe to grind with you other than you seeming to think I was out to get your children. :? I'd like to move on from this now and can only hope Carol apologises to Alex for her outburst so that the debate can continue in an adult manner.
Gareth Harley-Yeo wrote: Let me give you an example? There is currently another thread running where a book was mentioned as a great source for juniors. The popular reaction was ''I don't care how good the book is, the author is vile and I’ll never buy it''.
Krishna Shiatis wrote: Just for clarification, I did not say this, either on the other thread. If this is an example of some of the things that are said which are bad, I am sure that I could list many more. The main point that I am making is that I did not say these things and you should not infer/imply/say that I did.
Again, I did not say you said the above, I said "the popular reaction was". No mention of you was made in any way. Neither an inference/implication nor other.
Gareth Harley-Yeo wrote: If you're still struggling with this concept and still believe I'm threatening your children somehow, then I give up!
Krishna Shiatis wrote: I will accept that you are not threatening my children as long as you understand that your comment was vague and could have been misunderstood.

I do not wish you to give up. I believe very strongly in free speech whether people agree with me or not. Please do say what you feel, but just make sure that you are clear about what you say others have said and what you yourself have said about other people's children.
I'll concede that you misunderstood my comment, that much is obvious. Can we now put the matter to bed?

Krishna Shiatis
Posts: 667
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 1:08 pm

Re: Unanswered letter

Post by Krishna Shiatis » Thu Mar 03, 2011 5:20 pm

Gareth Harley-Yeo wrote:
You're quite right Krishna.....

Can we now put the matter to bed?
I am happy to put the matter to bed as long as you understand that once again making comments like 'quite the double act' are quite condescending.

I hope that you can understand that you are being guilty of all the things which you have accused us of. Even though you were wrong about what I said and have admitted it, you have not apologised nor shown that you are sorry.

Did you not say something about good manners?

Carol and I may agree on some things but we are not the same person. I agree with a lot of people on this forum, if you actually read it. I have agreed strongly with Roger D C and with Paul Sanders. Just because people agree on certain points does not mean that they are 'a double act' or anything else.

I am happy to let this matter rest though, if you are.

Brendan O'Gorman
Posts: 607
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: Unanswered letter

Post by Brendan O'Gorman » Thu Mar 03, 2011 5:26 pm

Krishna Shiatis wrote:
I am happy to let this matter rest though, if you are.
Please God!

User avatar
Gareth Harley-Yeo
Posts: 307
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:58 pm
Location: Wales
Contact:

Re: Unanswered letter

Post by Gareth Harley-Yeo » Thu Mar 03, 2011 5:47 pm

Brendan O'Gorman wrote:
Krishna Shiatis wrote:
I am happy to let this matter rest though, if you are.
Please God!
Thanks Brian but I'm really not deserving of such a title. 8)

David Sedgwick
Posts: 4130
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: Unanswered letter

Post by David Sedgwick » Thu Mar 03, 2011 5:52 pm

Gareth Harley-Yeo wrote:
Brendan O'Gorman wrote:
Krishna Shiatis wrote: I am happy to let this matter rest though, if you are.
Please God!
Thanks Brian but I'm really not deserving of such a title. 8)
God would have got Brendan's name right.

User avatar
Gareth Harley-Yeo
Posts: 307
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:58 pm
Location: Wales
Contact:

Re: Unanswered letter

Post by Gareth Harley-Yeo » Thu Mar 03, 2011 6:03 pm

David Sedgwick wrote: God would have got Brendan's name right.
Ah! my bad :oops:

User avatar
Judy Brown
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 2:12 pm

Re: Unanswered letter

Post by Judy Brown » Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:23 pm

Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:34 pm
Peter Williams is the 2nd Under 14 player in the country, FIDE Grade 2102 and he wasn't invited.
Perhaps some people don't fulfil the "Invitation" criteria - if only they knew what it was

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... 0&start=30

Sorry I’ve come in to this thread belatedly but why, if the letter that starts off this thread was sent in Feb 2009 , was the question above posted to the forum 12 months or so later ?

Was the answer not blindingly obvious ? Or was sending the users of the forum off on a wild goose chase less important than taking cheap shots at the JD ? Or was there some other reason ?

Is it not obvious that JD’s have far better things to do with their time than to invite people who have already stated that they don’t want to come ?


I think one of the things parents should bear in mind when it comes to all these selections isn’t so much how they see things as how their child sees them.
Trials, for all their ills, at least leave the competitor with the feeling that they had their chance. If someone’s picked ahead of you because they did well when you weren’t there can be frustrating and leaves you with a feeling of unfairness.
With trials, the only thing that gives a child no chance is if they don’t turn up.
It’s a system that’s used across numerous sports and will undoubtedly be used to select the bulk of our Olympic team next year. World and Olympic Champions will undoubtedly be attending trials knowing full well that their place in the team is at risk if they don’t perform. Chess, admittedly, can be less predictable, but most people are aware of this when they start out. At the end of the day, the best player over the trial event wins.
For me the skill in selection is determining the correct grading limits for the trial, and, in the instance of an exceptional player, a possible automatic selection place if that player is deemed to be not only significantly ahead of the rest of the players, but also in with a chance of major success.

If you add up all the hours that Peter Purland spends on chess in a year and multiply it by a fairly average wage, his annual 'salary' as such would undoubtedly be far in excess of £50 000 ! An incredible commitment. I therefore find it difficult to understand why sacrificing one week-end at the world trials, to give a player the opportunity of representing their country at the world championships, should be regarded as such a major problem.

Clearly, the JD has acted on the letter that was sent (by not issuing subsequent trials invitations) and whilst agreeing that it should probably have been acknowledged, I think it’s a bit much to expect a lengthy and detailed response when the views and intentions of the authors of the letter were so clearly set out.

Judy

Angus McDonald
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2010 11:39 am

Re: Unanswered letter

Post by Angus McDonald » Fri Apr 29, 2011 11:41 pm

I find it totally incredible that parents who have brought a child through in chess at great expense to themselves and produced some of the finest junior chess talent in England are brushed aside by someone who has not achieved that himself.

The fact that others who also have not brought children through to be some of the best junior talent in England think they can also talk down to these parents is astounding. It really is time for organisers to start listening to the legal guardians of these children and treat their children in a fair and objective manner. If you've reached a FIDE grade of nearly 2200 when you are 15 then any objective person or selection process would clearly decide that you'd done enough to represent your country. To make it more expensive to do so and more difficult to do so is cruel to the children involved. It does smack of obstinacy and jealousy to me.
Hard words but when someone isn't looking at the weight of the information and steadfastly refusing to listen it needs to be said.

Some of the put downs are incredibly pompous. When they have talented children of their own then they will be more qualified to comment. There is 1 parent with a talented junior supporting the status quo but in all honesty this parent's child's ability is not commensurate with the child who's selection is being blocked. Deliberately not naming names. You know who you are!

If a parent pushes their child forward they are pushy parents and if they don't they don't care.

Very sad for the child involved (He will make it by himself but unfortunately without a helpful selection from his own national body) and grateful that in Scotland parents are listened to and enabled when it is sensible to do so.

It annoys me watching it so those pompously not understanding the passion the parents feel about this and serving their egos playing their strait bat for the benefit of whom I wonder should think again about their criticisms. IMHO DYOR

Alan Burke

Re: Unanswered letter

Post by Alan Burke » Tue May 03, 2011 12:40 am

Angus McDonald wrote ... "There is 1 parent with a talented junior supporting the status quo but in all honesty this parent's child's ability is not commensurate with the child who's selection is being blocked."

If any selection process is put in place to satisfy the wishes of the parents of the top-ranked junior, what happens the following year if a different youngster is topmost and those parents want another system ? You could therefore end up with a change of rules every 12 months dependant on who is top of the rankings.

Although anyone (including parents) could put forward any ideas of how they think the selection process should work, I would personally support the idea that the final decision is made by a totally independent group of people with no direct connection to any junior players, but who have had years of experience of dealing with such matters. I would also question whether parents would be equally as enthusistic about such matters once their own offspring had left the ranks of junior chess and are therefore no longer available for such selection ?

Just like when children go to school; they are only there for a few years whereas the teachers have generally been doing the job for many more and have had far more experience of knowing what is best. Similarly, chess parents are only actively involved for a short period of time compared to the selectors, who have mostly been administrating the process for far longer.

Angus McDonald
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2010 11:39 am

Re: Unanswered letter

Post by Angus McDonald » Tue May 03, 2011 8:54 am

Alan,

You put forward a number of hypothetical situations which have little to do with the current unfair situation.

i.e. If it is a good idea to take a large team of juniors abroad for a local/friendly international event why is it not a good idea to send your 2 top juniors at an age group to the Euroyouth or Worldyouth especially when they are significantly strongly graded for their agegroup?
This kind of inconsistency does really need to be answered for. Just stating the man in charge is beyond this is in my opinion not good enough.
regards,

Angus

Post Reply