An ECF Junior Squad

[Sean Hewitt]

But yes, the role needs to be split I think, by people who are great organisers, have amazing enthusiasm and want the best for the juniors

The obvious split IMO is

1 - 'grass roots' junior chess - getting as many kids as possible to play. The UK Chess Challenge is a leader in this and we need someone to tap into all the kids who enter that event year after year.

2 - 'elite' junior chess - creating the GMs of tomorrow. This is about taking the talent and giving them the opportunity to be as good as they can be.

This could require two people to take on the two new roles or the activities could be split with the former being undertaken by the Junior Director and the latter, logically, by the International Director.

[LozCooper]

And as part of the private and public discussions what emerged was a willingness to fund activities, and a recognition that relying on volunteers is inherently weak no matter how well intentioned they may be.

As an unpaid volunteer I'm not sure I would agree with that but I do understand that volunteers who have full time jobs may not commit as much time to chess as a self employed person like myself can.

Whilst a professional set up is desirable it doesn't necessarily follow that a better service will be provided as people may apply more for the salary than through a genuine desire to change chess for the better. Alternatively, you could argue that by offering a salary you will get a more suitable candidate.

I do wonder if the future will see people like myself being employed by the ECF on a part time basis albeit this will depend on how the federation is funded and if we retain the office in its current form or move towards people working from home which is effectively what I do.

[Krishna Shiatis]

Krishna

I am not sure that that is the right approach you are suggesting, as sometimes too many cooks spoil the broth and it has to be people who all want the same things - the best for junior chess and can work together well and who regularly talk to each other and work with each other. E.g. They were not encouraging the joint role of Jovanka and I for Managers of Women's chess but we talk to each other everyday on the matters and get on extremely well under working conditions and we knew this before we took on the role. It was majorly discussed before we stepped forward.

Also, with David Howell, he is an amazing role model to the children - I couldn't agree more, but he would not be someone who should stand for JD. He is a professional chess player and we want him to stay that way as he is one of our country's finest, but he would need to concentrate on his own development and would not have time to run junior chess for England.

But yes, the role needs to be split I think, by people who are great organisers, have amazing enthusiasm and want the best for the juniors

Hi Sabrina,

I do agree about the 'too many cooks' and that yourself and Jovanka are doing an excellent job. I think that having people with similar ideas about moving forward is extremely important. If there is someone who just wants to say 'no, no no' to everything, then this can be difficult.

The reason why I have suggested the structure that I have, is that I have noticed that there are many people with a lot of skills and ideas. With junior chess, you never know which person's help you are going to require. Using a basic example, if you were organising a training day and one coach couldn't come, if another was a deputy JD, then you would feel comfortable asking them.

If you needed a venue desperately and say Sean had a room free during one of his tournaments and he was a deputy JD, then it would be easy to ask.

These are very simplistic examples, but I am sure you will understand what I am saying. The core decision makers can be the JD, a couple of the deputies (who attend all the meetings). All of the volunteers and deputies can attend and voice opinions.

I know that I have mentioned David and indeed he is one of our finest. He told me himself, he is busy with uni etc. I certainly would not want to distract him from his chess either. Also, just to clarify, I am not suggesting for one moment that he run junior chess all on his own.

However, he did explain to me that he had been reading the comments on the forums, he did want to help and that he is very interested in junior chess as he was himself a junior not so long ago. He said that he would not necessarily be able to attend board meetings etc but would be happy to be 'a figurehead'.

I have said this many times, that we can not underestimate the pulling power of somebody like David. He is much respected and lovely. If he is willing to commit a little of his time - then why not?

I very much agree that the role needs to be split, and handled by people with enthusiasm, va va voom and who want the best. I think that there is overlap eg the role of JD overlaps with Women's Chess, International and Home Chess. Hence the need to have everyone working together.

You have made excellent progress with women's chess together with Jovanka - which just goes to show how much a lovely person with youth, a lot of enthusiasm, a background in chess and 'a can do' attitude can achieve.

All the best,

K

[Paul Sanders]

And as part of the private and public discussions what emerged was a willingness to fund activities, and a recognition that relying on volunteers is inherently weak no matter how well intentioned they may be.

As an unpaid volunteer I'm not sure I would agree with that but I do understand that volunteers who have full time jobs may not commit as much time to chess as a self employed person like myself can.

It was not at all meant to suggest that people who volunteer are in any way less valuable! The truth is the very opposite.

However, for simple administrative functions, and to ensure continuity, it is very important that there is some kind of secretariat for any sizeable organisation, and it really helps if those people can simply be hired to do the office work, leaving the volunteers free to apply their special knowledge where it can do most good.