Richard James on Junior Chess at S&B

[George Szaszvari]

Very interesting thread! It is always going to be an uphill struggle to keep kids involved with the game, whether introduced to it earlier or later, simply because there are an increasing number of distractions in life competing for any youngsters' attention. As an adult I dropped chess, off and on, as an activity (although it is always there to come back to) for various reasons, but mainly nowadays because it so time consuming while there are so many other rewarding things to focus on in the meantime.

Attempting to introduce something like chess to most kids before they can grasp the concepts more readily is, in general, probably not a good idea, even if there are exceptions. Richard James' insights are valuable for getting junior coaches and chess advocates to consider the issues more carefully and open mindedly. Richard suggests that people already involved in teaching kids might be the best to introduce the game to younger beginners. This further implies that it is not only the "what", but also the "how" of imparting knowledge to youngsters that is important. There are also people without too much teaching background who are simply enthusiastic about what they are imparting and infect others with their enthusiasm. This expression of positive energy, with a vivacious and sympathetic personality, bringing the subject ALIVE, goes a long way to successfully imparting the "what" and endearing the learner to the subject. I have a pretty low boredom threshold and can strongly identify with the need to have my imagination fired up and excited by a sympathetic and enthusiastic advocate wishing to hold my attention for any length of time. I suspect that I'm not too different in this respect to the vast majority. Is very easy to make things boring, especially if it starts to seem too much like hard work instead of fun. Having said this, there were some good coaches around in my day, each demonstrating rather different qualities; everybody is an individual, with their own take on things, their own methodologies, and each student will find one type of coach preferable to another to suit their own make up.

In short, the personal qualities of the individual coach/advocate are also part of any method.

[George Szaszvari]

In my view the ECF should approach Richard and ask for his help over junior chess.With all of Richard experience of junior chess over the years its seems plain daft not to have him involved or recognized in some way by the ECF? his advice would help juniors and the ECF form policy.

Many thanks, Peter.

I had a meeting with Phil Ehr a few months ago and sent him a copy of my article several weeks before publication.

I appreciate that he's very busy on other aspects of junior chess at the moment but I'm sure he'll get back to me when he has time.

Better late than never, I suppose

[Peter D Williams]

In my view the ECF should approach Richard and ask for his help over junior chess.With all of Richard experience of junior chess over the years its seems plain daft not to have him involved or recognized in some way by the ECF? his advice would help juniors and the ECF form policy.

Many thanks, Peter.

I had a meeting with Phil Ehr a few months ago and sent him a copy of my article several weeks before publication.

I appreciate that he's very busy on other aspects of junior chess at the moment but I'm sure he'll get back to me when he has time.

It will be interesting to hear what feedback you get from Phil Ehr.

[Richard James]

Just to let you know - the complete paper is now available, along with various other articles on junior chess, here.

[Peter D Williams]

Just to let you know - the complete paper is now available, along with various other articles on junior chess, here.

That is a really good paper on junior chess I do hope the ECF take notice of your ideas Richard.

[George Szaszvari]

Just to let you know - the complete paper is now available, along with various other articles on junior chess, here.

Fascinating stuff!

The Primary School section set off another wave of reminiscing, just one somewhat amusing incident for now, related to the "School B" mentality you mention, when running an annual open school tournament at a SE London school I coached at, (Colfe's IIRC) which was part of the school's plan to attract "the right kind of pupils" i.e., studious chessplaying ones, from nearby primary schools as candidates for their own secondary level entrants. One year (late 90s) a couple of those visiting primary school teachers (doubling as the necessary adult help and supervision) made it known to me that they objected to the traditional ascending order of boards seating those with highest scores at the top, saying how offensively "elitist" and "unfair" it was to their own under privileged and under achieving inner city kids. To keep the event going without arguments or sabotage I calmly explained the traditions of competitive chess and how the whole framework of the game was one of achievement (without which the game is meaningless), and how achievers needed to be acknowledged and encouraged, but to no avail. So, with threats of pulling their kids out, etc, I acquiesced in their desire to do away with board order, which was then supposed to be random and meaningless, and, of course, it became anything but, with the best players and their parents now confused (but who dared not argue against political correctness), and with the "under achievers" now up on board one, etc, fully expressing a clear feel good factor in being where the champs were before (albeit with the lowest scores) with their "revolutionary" teachers beaming on at having hijacked those top boards for their own, a sadly hypocritical sham. I suppose the idea was the under achievers wouldn't feel quite so "inferior", but at the end of the tournament all the usual courtesies of publicly thanking helpers, etc, were made including to our pair championing the cause of the proletariat, who were, by then, looking rather embarrassed. I suspect they had expected to create a scene earlier in a place of "decadent privilege" and were surprised it didn't happen. Anyway, they didn't show up the following year.

The negative effect of Michael Rosen's moronic reference to chess as "childish" is a perfect example of how devastatingly influential media presentation can be. Just apply that example to politics, etc, and a lot of the nonsense becomes more explicable.

It is odd that junior chess in England should be stumbling nowadays while it appears that there is more going on in the junior game than ever before. It seems that there are just as many, if not more events, and many more coaches than I ever remembered from the last century... or is my memory playing tricks?

Keep up the good work, Richard.

[Roger de Coverly]

It seems that there are just as many, if not more events, and many more coaches than I ever remembered from the last century... or is my memory playing tricks?
.

There are many more coaches but considerably fewer players who also attend secondary schools and universities. Therein lies the paradox that increased junior activity at the youngest ages leads to a reduced number of players at university or in their early twenties.

Chess is of course offensively elitist in that those with the best ideas and play have a habit of winning. Similar effects can be observed in soccer and horse racing.

[Neill Cooper]

It seems that there are just as many, if not more events, and many more coaches than I ever remembered from the last century... or is my memory playing tricks? .

There are many more coaches but considerably fewer players who also attend secondary schools and universities. Therein lies the paradox that increased junior activity at the youngest ages leads to a reduced number of players at university or in their early twenties.

Did there used to be many more teenage members of chess clubs?

Chess appears to have declined at secondary schools because of a range of factors, including:
increased alternative activities such as computer games,
the need for school chess teams playing away to be accompanied by a teacher,
the phasing out of most grammar schools,
the lack of pupil and teachers will to give time up after school for chess matches
the lack of TV coverage
children taking up chess younger, and giving up chess before they get to secondary school.

Inter-school chess is now rare in this country, except for in Surrey where next season there will be an extra (sixth) division to allow weaker players to long play rather than rapid play.

[Roger de Coverly]

Did there used to be many more teenage members of chess clubs?

If you go far enough back into time, obviously so. Certainly playing whilst at university or in Congresses. It's social and legal changes as well of course as you indicate.

In the early seventies, a London club was able to organise an internal club match of Under 21 v Over 21. The top boards for the "veterans" weren't especially old.

[Peter D Williams]

It seems that there are just as many, if not more events, and many more coaches than I ever remembered from the last century... or is my memory playing tricks? .

There are many more coaches but considerably fewer players who also attend secondary schools and universities. Therein lies the paradox that increased junior activity at the youngest ages leads to a reduced number of players at university or in their early twenties.

Did there used to be many more teenage members of chess clubs?

Chess appears to have declined at secondary schools because of a range of factors, including:
increased alternative activities such as computer games,
the need for school chess teams playing away to be accompanied by a teacher,
the phasing out of most grammar schools,
the lack of pupil and teachers will to give time up after school for chess matches
the lack of TV coverage
children taking up chess younger, and giving up chess before they get to secondary school.

Inter-school chess is now rare in this country, except for in Surrey where next season there will be an extra (sixth) division to allow weaker players to long play rather than rapid play.

You also need parents involved who want the pupils to learn chess. In some schools parents are allowed in to help the teacher run the chess club.

For most teachers i would guess it is finding the time to run a chess club with all the other demands that there face in teaching.
Private schools appear to be doing better from my experience of taking Peter to various chess events its almost always been held in a private school and the school can see the advantage of promoting chess for its pupils.

Not so sure that lack of TV coverage is a reason that children do not play chess very much. I have never heard that said to me by children. i have helped out at various Junior clubs over the years and that has never been said to me.

If a school/parents are fully supporting chess for its pupils then you have a better chance of these children carrying on into adulthood playing chess.

[Neill Cooper]

You also need parents involved who want the pupils to learn chess. In some schools parents are allowed in to help the teacher run the chess club.

For most teachers i would guess it is finding the time to run a chess club with all the other demands that there face in teaching.
Private schools appear to be doing better from my experience of taking Peter to various chess events its almost always been held in a private school and the school can see the advantage of promoting chess for its pupils.

Not so sure that lack of TV coverage is a reason that children do not play chess very much. I have never heard that said to me by children. i have helped out at various Junior clubs over the years and that has never been said to me.

If a school/parents are fully supporting chess for its pupils then you have a better chance of these children carrying on into adulthood playing chess.

For secondary schools parental interest is not needed - in many cases at Wilson's parent's might not even know that their son goes to lunchtime chess club. The biggest impact of running chess club is that I don't spend much time in the staff room at lunchtime. All it involves is being in a class room with a collection of pupils who turn up wanting to play chess. Running a competition (ladder or UK Chess Challenge) increases the popularity of the club and does take some effort.

The reference to TV was related to the thread about Chess on TV. Chess being on TV does help raise the profile of the game and I think the Fischer-Spassky boom in the 1970s included the effect of TV coverage.

[Alex Holowczak]

For secondary schools parental interest is not needed - in many cases at Wilson's parent's might not even know that their son goes to lunchtime chess club. The biggest impact of running chess club is that I don't spend much time in the staff room at lunchtime.

We would run a school lunchtime club every day when I was at secondary school; attended by 10-20 people. If we saw the teacher for 15 minutes per week, that was it. Do you really need to spend the entire lunchtime in the classroom with them these days? (I realise, "the olden days" were only about 5 years ago...)

[Neill Cooper]

We would run a school lunchtime club every day when I was at secondary school; attended by 10-20 people. If we saw the teacher for 15 minutes per week, that was it. Do you really need to spend the entire lunchtime in the classroom with them these days*? (I realise, "the olden days" were only about 5 years ago...)

With 30 to 50 of them at chess club my presence is useful, particularly when the sixth form are on study leave. Other teaching staff can be concerned about a large group of unsupervised pupils, many noisy year 7s. I do spend some of the time either answering A level maths problems or supervising year 9s in lunchtime detention, as well as checking players are available for chess matches.