An ECF Junior Squad

[Paul Sanders]

If you're going to do this, I strongly recommend going the ECF-grade route only over the FIDE-rating route for the younger juniors.

You would thereby give a big leg up to any juniors who avoid FIDE rated tournaments and internationals, which I suggest would be retrograde.

[David Shepherd]

My point though is the ECF rating gives you the top 4 or 5 the FIDE one doesn't. The ECF rating for Joseph is based on 33 games the FIDE one based on 7. Also this group is U13's not under 8,9,10,11,12 also worth noting Joseph is from the North, the others from the South.

[Alex Holowczak]

If you're going to do this, I strongly recommend going the ECF-grade route only over the FIDE-rating route for the younger juniors.

You would thereby give a big leg up to any juniors who avoid FIDE rated tournaments and internationals, which I suggest would be retrograde.

That's not necessarily so. Increased play doesn't mean an increased ECF grade, because it's a mean. You don't need to play FIDE-rated stuff necessarily. In the five names that were quoted, two aren't on the list. If they enter the list at 2100, that's probably far better than the players who've entered at 1800, and now need to play a shedload of games to increase it.

[David Shepherd]

Alex - it was me who quoted them.

[Alex Holowczak]

Alex - it was me who quoted them.

Sorry. Problem solved.

[Mick Norris]

The captains meeting at the 4NCL on Sunday discussed the problems of playing teams in strength order when juniors had wrong FIDE ratings and agreed, I think, that ECF ratings were more accurate for juniors

David Welch said that FIDE ratings were just wrong (I think he meant for everyone, not just juniors)

You would need some to convince some people that any system restricted to FIDE ratings was fair, especially given geographical location is a big factor on finding FIDE rated events

[LozCooper]

I think regardless of which grading/rating system is considered accurate that it's important for juniors to get some international experience before playing in the European & World events. It's one thing to be successful in a weekend tournament but to play in 1 game a day events with increment over two weeks in a foreign country can be a complete culture shock so more international experience can only be a good thing. This experience is far more important than those who delay getting a rating for fear of it being too low. For that reason I think that it is important not to penalise those juniors that do this at the expense of those who have played no internationally rated chess but have a high ECF grade.

[David Shepherd]

I For that reason I think that it is important not to penalise those juniors that do this at the expense of those who have played no internationally rated chess but have a high ECF grade.

Was following and agreeing up to this last bit - think I must be getting tired have read it a few times and still not sure what it means? Sorry all if I'm being dense

[LozCooper]

I For that reason I think that it is important not to penalise those juniors that do this at the expense of those who have played no internationally rated chess but have a high ECF grade.

Was following and agreeing up to this last bit - think I must be getting tired have read it a few times and still not sure what it means? Sorry all if I'm being dense

Well I'm aware of some juniors who are told not to try for a rating until they are older and stronger in case it comes out too low. I think they lose a lot in terms of experience by doing this. The other side to this is that those juniors who play more international chess and get experience may play less ECF games and therefore not get such high ECF grades. That's why I'm urging caution when concentrating too much on ECF grades.

[Simon Brown]

You could do with something like Leonard Barden used to do when I was an aspiring junior in the 1970s. Nothing to do with ECF ratings or FIDE ratings, just an accurate assessment of playing strength, based on results, updated probably every month, by someone who is strong enough to know what they are talking about and has the respect of chess parents and the B/ECF.

Fantastic motivation, a reliable comparison between age groups, and if I recall, Leonard's grades at the end of a season were never far away from the BCF grades published rather later. In my case anyway.

But I don't see anyone who could fill Leonard's shoes.

[Paul Sanders]

It looks like eligibility is an area that needs some work! The Barden style shadow ratings, with a bit more transparency perhaps, could be the answer, so perhaps the ECF grading master could provide a quote for managing such a system.

In my original list I included 'track and benchmark rating improvements' as one of the possible services an ECF Junior Squad could provide, so maybe eligibility and that kind of statistical work could be rolled up together. This is something I think should be paid for, so the service can be relied upon to everyone's benefit.

Lawrence Cooper made the point that international experience is very valuable - I'd go further and say that an ECF squad that merely helped English children beat other English children would be rather pointless. Success should be measurable in international rating improvements, as well as titles at the top end. It is remarkable how few international titles English juniors achieve, and a focused squad could make a big difference.

[Steve Rooney]

The lengthy discussion about grades demonstrates that there are no easy answers in this area. And when it comes to team selection it will be even more contentious. You have to decide whether to have a rigid system that everyone understands and accepts or not as the case may be, or allow "flexibility" and invite interminable arguments on behalf of particular individuals.

Leonard Barden's success in encouraging earlier generations has already been mentioned and would seem to be the best model to learn from. Was his squad comprised of only four per age group?

And what funding would there be for sustained high level coaching of the most promising talent?

[Paul Sanders]

Leonard Barden's success in encouraging earlier generations has already been mentioned and would seem to be the best model to learn from. Was his squad comprised of only four per age group?

My suggestion was to have 4 girls and 4 boys per birth year, from U8 to U18, so a squad of 80 players. It seems from looking at how young players progress in international competition that continuity is important, so the young year in each FIDE age group needs to be encouraged to participate, even where they might be at a disadvantage. I also think it is vital to make sure that places are there for English girls, and accept whichever players put themselves forward rather than insist on any rating/grade threshold. It should be about improvement and striving for excellence, not about hitting a target.

And what funding would there be for sustained high level coaching of the most promising talent?

Parents already fund junior chess in England, and will continue to do so for many years to come without some dramatic intervention. As a parent I would be very willing to pay for a high quality programme which demonstrated success. A subscription fee would be essential, and I would also add fund-raising to the list of activities. I don't think funding is an insurmountable obstacle.

[Steve Rooney]

Parents already fund junior chess in England, and will continue to do so for many years to come without some dramatic intervention. As a parent I would be very willing to pay for a high quality programme which demonstrated success. A subscription fee would be essential, and I would also add fund-raising to the list of activities. I don't think funding is an insurmountable obstacle.

This assumes that parents would have ability to afford to be involved in a squad. Is that not already part of the argument about taking part in expensive international events, ie should one entrant be centrally-supported rather than enabling many to go but only if their parents can afford to pay their own way?

[Paul Sanders]

This assumes that parents would have ability to afford to be involved in a squad. Is that not already part of the argument about taking part in expensive international events, ie should one entrant be centrally-supported rather than enabling many to go but only if their parents can afford to pay their own way?

As a point of comparison, the current ECF selection Grand Prix costs parents somewhere between £500 and £1500 per child (the British is expensive, but not obligatory). If the player is also taking part in school clubs and team events the spending is likely to be in excess of £2000 per year, and if they receive additional coaching and compete in other tournaments it will be higher. Without some funding from somewhere no player will be selected and given the opportunities. The ECF does not significantly fund junior chess currently, and I'd say should not be expected to.

It is important however that the fundraising problem is addressed, which is why I stuck it on the list of things a squad should do. If it is paying its way and achieving some success, then I would hope and expect that players would be able to get sponsorship and grants if they would otherwise be excluded.