ECF National Secondary Schools Co-ordinator

[Richard James]

Surely getting youngsters playing competitive chess is very much something the ECF should be trying to market. If it carries the ECF badge then so much the better.

When they are ready, yes. The FA have stopped youngsters from playing competitive football, with positive results.

In my opinion the big problem with primary schools chess is that we're encouraging children to start chess too young, we're teaching them too quickly (the Dutch Steps Course spends a year teaching kids the moves, whereas here kids learn the moves in half an hour at home so that they can join their school chess club) and we're putting children into competitive chess too soon.

This is why I have very mixed feelings about the UK Chess Challenge, and, to a lesser extent (for this, but not for other reasons) about EPSCA.

I do have a possible solution, though. Watch this, or another, space.

However, I think there's a big difference between primary schools and secondary schools chess. We need to encourage secondary school pupils to move into competitive chess, when they are ready, yes, but they'll be ready much more quickly than 7-year-olds, and forge links between secondary schools and local chess clubs and tournaments.

Although I'm, in principle, in favour of direct membership, surely it shouldn't be beyond the wit of the ECF to resolve this issue so that ECF Schools events could be graded.

[Roger de Coverly]

Although I'm, in principle, in favour of direct membership, surely it shouldn't be beyond the wit of the ECF to resolve this issue so that ECF Schools events could be graded.

I don't think it's intended that ECF Schools events won't be graded. I think it's intended that ECF membership will be a condition of participation. There's an extra condition been added to the U18/U13 counties event.

If the ECF can find someone to continue to run inter school rapidplays in the name of the ECF using the format pioneered by Neill, these too will demand membership.

[Andrew Zigmond]

However, I think there's a big difference between primary schools and secondary schools chess. We need to encourage secondary school pupils to move into competitive chess, when they are ready, yes, but they'll be ready much more quickly than 7-year-olds, and forge links between secondary schools and local chess clubs and tournaments.

This has been my view for a long time. There is a crisis in Secondary schools chess; however the situation is not beyond repair. It is the single biggest opportunity in English chess at the moment and it is frustrating that the ECF can't see it.

[Andrew Zigmond]

Although I'm, in principle, in favour of direct membership, surely it shouldn't be beyond the wit of the ECF to resolve this issue so that ECF Schools events could be graded.

I think you may be being a bit optimistic there. This is a criticism of the system I hasten to add - not a dig at any individual.

[John Upham]

. It is the single biggest opportunity in English chess at the moment and it is frustrating that the ECF can't see it.

I agree totally with your sentiment.

Primary school chess is getting stronger but this growth is let down by the gap between this and young adult chess.

[Richard James]

Primary school chess is getting stronger...

Is it? My impression is that, if anything, the opposite is true. Yes, there are a few outstanding players but that's all.

[John Swain]

This is a blinkered view in the extreme. I saw players at Grantham with no grade excited to see for the first time how their chess performance translated into a grade. They didn't have to wait six months to find out either.

They still don't have a grade, because they would have to wait for that to be published in January or July. If calculating their grading performance is what excites them, this can be done without actually grading the event. If the grade is really the thing they value, they can join the ECF for the princely sum of £8. Compared to the cost of getting to a nationally run event, that's a bargain.That's my whole point.



The point I was trying to make is that players at Grantham could see, maybe for the first time, the value of grades. They obviously did not get a grade from this tournament alone, but it gave inexperienced secondary school players an insight into part of the world of competitive chess. They might then become more motivated to increase their participation in chess beyond their school team, from which the ECF might ultimately benefit financially.

Why do some ECF officials only value chess players who pay them?

Why do some sections of the chess playing community believe they should not pay anything towards the ECF? Do you put free petrol in your minibus?

The best things in life may well be free, as the saying goes, but I realise that we cannot run all chess this way. Nevertheless, the ECF needs to be more flexible. They have huge funds from the John Robinson bequest. They have given free entry to the National Schools events this year, thanks to sponsorship. If secondary school chess enjoys a revival on the back of free graded events like that at Grantham then we all benefit - clubs, leagues, congresses and ECF.

[Sean Hewitt]

By thanking the honourable member for Scotland you are just showing that you are clutching at straws. I now spend more time in England than I do in Scotland (all be it north of Hadrian's wall). You do very little to further your case with this pathetic attempt at point scoring. This is an important topic and you should not try to diminish it.

When you stop sanctimoniously preaching

As someone who taught for over 30 years let me explain the problems of running a school club in inner city schools.

I shall stop responding in a sarcastic manner.

You seem to be saying that the ECF should let others make the effort.

I have not said that.

The ECF should be planning for the future. Many junior organisers have expressed concerns that the current memebership scheme does that. As such it should be being looked at and not forced down their throats. The membership scheme cannot have credibility at junior level until organisers are convinced.

Are you saying that we should listen carefully to the views of existing organisers because they have a track record of delivering success?

[Sean Hewitt]

As far as I understand it, in France there is little or no schools chess. Instead they have a large and seemingly highly successful network of junior chess clubs, most of which are, I suspect, part of larger chess clubs, with local and national leagues and players qualifying through this network for the national junior championships. They also have many times more teenagers playing chess than we do.

....

There's another problem as well. Sports clubs in the UK, football, rugby, cricket or whatever, will typically run youth teams coached largely by volunteers, just as happens with chess clubs in other Western European countries. But our chess clubs here meet in the evenings, not at weekends. The times are too late for younger children, while older children sometimes have too much homework to be able to play in the evenings. They often meet in premises which some might consider unsuitable for young children.

Finally. Some real, practical sense. I agree with everything that you say Richard.

[Alex McFarlane]

Perhaps one of the moderators can amend Sean's latest post to show that Sean made the first quote and not me.

I don't consider what I said to be "sanctimoniously preaching". It was intended to give those who didn't know me some background. But at least we agree on your contribution.

[John Upham]

Primary school chess is getting stronger...

Is it? My impression is that, if anything, the opposite is true. Yes, there are a few outstanding players but that's all.

Richard,

Apologies. I meant "level of activity" and numbers rather than gradings or playing strength.

[Andrew Zigmond]

Are you saying that we should listen carefully to the views of existing organisers because they have a track record of delivering success?

The three most significant contributors to this thread are;

Neill Cooper - not somebody I know much about personally but who seems to have a lot of enthusiasm and grand ideas for pushing secondary schools chess forward. He now feels the ECF have derailed his activities and has therefore resigned.

Richard James - one of the most experienced junior chess organisers and coaches in this country.

Alex McFarlane - the most senior arbiter in the country and the driving force behind Chess Scotland.

Why is the ECF not willing to listen to what these people have to say and act accordingly?

[Sean Hewitt]

Finally let's look at the statistics here. The ECF board has voted on this stipulation (the minutes actually suggest it was far from unanimous). The director whose activities are affected has resigned.

If that has happened, then I've missed it.

The senior figure in Chess Scotland has written at length about why he thinks the decision is wrong.

Indeed he has. But do you really think that Scotland model is the one to follow? How does their record compare to France say?

Other contributors to this thread (perhaps not a representative sample but all have some experience of chess organisation at local level) have strongly criticised the decision. However the ECF are adamant that they are right and everybody else is wrong.

Sometimes the herd is unable to see the bigger picture. This, in my personal opinion, is one of those times. We need a 5-10 year plan. In my personal opinion, it builds on the success of CSC and does not involve secondary schools. It involves building a network of junior chess centres up and down the country. Whether people in this country are far sighted and / or patient enough to see the benefits of such an approach only time will tell. But as I said, it's not my area of expertise. Alternatively, we could just carry on with what we've done for the last 20 years as that's worked well so far, hasn't it?

[Alex McFarlane]

Alex McFarlane - the most senior arbiter in the country and the driving force behind Chess Scotland.

I deny being either of those. But I was President of the Scottish Junior Chess Association and have organised or co-organised junior events well into three figures. I still act as an arbiter at junior events and will be doing so again on Saturday.

I agree with Sean that a 5-10 year plan would be useful. But as it currently doesn't exist and therefore people cannot be converted to it. Does it make sense to alienate existing workers in the mean time?

[Sean Hewitt]

Although I'm, in principle, in favour of direct membership, surely it shouldn't be beyond the wit of the ECF to resolve this issue so that ECF Schools events could be graded.

And, of course, it isn't if that were desirable. Equally, the event could run as an ungraded event.

Can someone explain the casual player argument. Given that you've got to play 9 games to get a grade, how does the casual player in this event get a grade anyway?