ECF National Secondary Schools Co-ordinator

[Andrew Zigmond]

This is not an isolated case; most chess events in this country must have an average age of about sixty.

I've seen something like this stated before. The facts don't bear the claim out.

Here are some facts.

I'm 32 year old and the second youngest member of my club (in real terms - one member does bring his two young daughters). The one younger player is only three weeks my junior. Harrogate isn't a university town which works against us but the general perception is that we are a thriving club with a lot of activity.

I've played in four congresses this year. Obviously it's not always easy to guess peoples ages but at Scarborough I'd guess my youngest opponent was in his late forties at the youngest and the majority quite a bit older. In York the average age was a bit younger but I'd be surprised if any were younger. In Doncaster my younger opponents were all in their forties at least and two were certainly well into their sixties. Blackpool was better; my first round opponent was probably my age, I played one junior as well as the Isle of Man organiser who is younger. However my other two opponents were sixty odd.

The bottom line is that I rarely play anybody younger than me or my age. In the first Harrogate Congress I remember feeling like an impetous whizkid compared to everybody else - I was 29 at the time.

[Roger de Coverly]

I've played in four congresses this year. Obviously it's not always easy to guess peoples ages but at Scarborough I'd guess my youngest opponent was in his late forties at the youngest and the majority quite a bit older.

Brendan O'Gorman usually publishes photos of the events he plays in. Many of the competitors portrayed are of mature years. British chess competitions expanded enormously in the 1970s although the groundwork in secondary schools and universities pre-dated Fischer. It's the legacy from those years that still form a bulk of league and Congress participants.

[Andrew Zigmond]

I've played in four congresses this year. Obviously it's not always easy to guess peoples ages but at Scarborough I'd guess my youngest opponent was in his late forties at the youngest and the majority quite a bit older.

Brendan O'Gorman usually publishes photos of the events he plays in. Many of the competitors portrayed are of mature years. British chess competitions expanded enormously in the 1970s although the groundwork in secondary schools and universities pre-dated Fischer. It's the legacy from those years that still form a bulk of league and Congress participants.

My point exactly although it seems that not everyone agrees. To be fair the problem probably isn't quite as marked if you play in a town or city with a university. It's also noticeable that if there are younger players in a congress they tend to be in the open or major sections rather than inter or minor - I'm not sure what conclusions (if any) to form from this.

[Roger de Coverly]

To be fair the problem probably isn't quite as marked if you play in a town or city with a university.

I recall noticing one year that at Kidlington, which is just north of Oxford, the lowest section flagged veterans and juniors. The veteran count exceeded the junior count. But it's a tournament that's run for thirty years in the same place and time of year, so it has a loyal following.

At the time, I didn't think there were any players eligible for the British Seniors playing in the top section. With the passage of time, that no longer applies, as with many Congresses.

The fictional grades given to juniors has had the effect of pushing them up into the top two sections.

[Andrew Zigmond]

To be fair the problem probably isn't quite as marked if you play in a town or city with a university.

I recall noticing one year that at Kidlington, which is just north of Oxford, the lowest section flagged veterans and juniors. The veteran count exceeded the junior count. But it's a tournament that's run for thirty years in the same place and time of year, so it has a loyal following.

At the time, I didn't think there were any players eligible for the British Seniors playing in the top section. With the passage of time, that no longer applies, as with many Congresses.

The fictional grades given to juniors has had the effect of pushing them up into the top two sections.

At 32 I'm hardly a junior (although as stated earlier I sometimes feel like one) so that doesn't explain why I rarely play anyone my age or younger in a congress.

[Roger de Coverly]

At 32 I'm hardly a junior (although as stated earlier I sometimes feel like one) so that doesn't explain why I rarely play anyone my age or younger in a congress.

You still get under 18s, or perhaps under 12s playing in Congresses. There's something of a missing generation is that despite all the Junior activity at Primary school level over the last twenty years, very little of it has translated into numerous players in the 18-40 age range. I don't think it's worldwide as countries less successful then the UK in the 1970s and 1980s have subsequently built up their numbers.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

At 32 I'm hardly a junior (although as stated earlier I sometimes feel like one) so that doesn't explain why I rarely play anyone my age or younger in a congress.

You are making me feel old at 35!

Part of the issue may be that people don't seem to that often continue playing chess actively from teenage years right the way through to retirement age. Many take time out for family and/or career reasons. That can distort the picture somewhat. It may also be a regional thing. Anecdotally, in London, I get the feeling that there are a number of younger chess players around, as well as large numbers of older ones as well, but the numbers are so large in and around London it is difficult to get an accurate impression. The 'gaps' may be more apparent in areas where there are less chess players.

PS. This is getting off topic. Out of respect to Neil, general stuff about the ages of chess players should be moved to another thread (conveniently, everything on page 3 onwards so far) and this one should return to the issues relating to the role of ECF National Secondary Schools Co-ordinator.

[Roger de Coverly]

and this one should return to the issues relating to the role of ECF National Secondary Schools Co-ordinator.

If the role was to attract new players and new schools to the idea of playing in formal chess tournaments and having them included in national grading, then demanding £ 8 per head as a condition of participation in a single game is counter productive. Perhaps there's a difference of principle between £ 8 and £ 28, but the ECF Board and Council were prepared to offer a membership exemption to participants in the Witney FIDE rated league.

[Andrew Zigmond]

There's something of a missing generation is that despite all the Junior activity at Primary school level over the last twenty years, very little of it has translated into numerous players in the 18-40 age range. I don't think it's worldwide as countries less successful then the UK in the 1970s and 1980s have subsequently built up their numbers.

In which case we need to ask ourselves why we have a missing generation and what steps we can take to avoid another one.

I agree with Christopher Kreuzer that we've drifted a bit from the original point which was Neill Cooper's resignation. However I'm trying to stress why I feel secondary schools chess is so important and why the ECF board should be concerned that a decision of theirs has caused the officer responsible to resign.

[Neill Cooper]

In what ways do you see ECF-organized and not ECF-organized events as being different?

The principal one is that we take responsibility for the former in a way that we don't for the latter; while we will provide services for the latter (grading/rating, inclusion on the calendar, contact details of qualified arbiters and so on), we don't get involved at a closer level.

Events actually organized by the ECF are relatively rare, and normally limited to those where a national title of some sort is at stake. These will tend to be events populated by players who are more active than average, and therefore better placed to benefit from membership. The other thing about these events is that we, as an organization, will be under scrutiny with regard to their rules. It's important for the credibility of our membership scheme that we are seen to be supporting it, and supporting it here means insisting on its use for ECF-organized graded events.

My view is that if an ECF Officer organises a chess event as a consequence of their role within the ECF then it is an ECF-organized event. Hence the school events I ran as secondary school co-ordinator were therefore called "ECF Schools ... ". It also means that all events I run as ECF Secondary Schools Co-ordinator are subject to any rules the ECF imposes on ECF-organized events.

[Sean Hewitt]

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.

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?

[Neill Cooper]

I played in the event in the mid 80s. I can safely say that if I had had to be an ECF member at something like £3 a year (the equivalent of £8 a year today) it would have had no effect on the participation of me or my friends. We paid more than that to enter a congress.

Things have changed a lot. In 1975 around 1000 teams entered the National Schools chess tournament, by 2005 only 93 did - and that included some second teams and primary schools. In the mid 80s there were many secondary school chess leagues around the country, by 2010 there were 3 - Surrey, Sussex and Birmingham. Things have changed a lot and secondary school chess is in a very fragile state. Before we start insisting on membership for everyone in a secondary school chess team we need to first get it more popular.

[Roger de Coverly]

Why do some sections of the chess playing community believe they should not pay anything towards the ECF?

Why does the ECF insist that the only valid way of paying for the ECF is a per head individual membership model?

[Roger de Coverly]

If the grade is really the thing they value, they can join the ECF for the princely sum of £8.

Given the Yorkshire precedent, it isn't possible to get games graded unless the organiser signs up to the Game Fee regulations. So optional membership isn't allowed and the organiser has two choices.

(a) run the whole even as ungraded
(b) demand membership from all participants and exclude those who aren't members.

It's the choice you get once you demand mandatory membership. Excluding non-members isn't an approach compatible with trying to extend competitive chess.

As far as I can see, Neill was trying to run events without requiring entry fees. His belief presumably is that an entry fee of £ nil encourages a school to raise and enter a team, whereas £ 48 would discourage them.

[Sean Hewitt]

Things have changed a lot. In 1975 around 1000 teams entered the National Schools chess tournament, by 2005 only 93 did - and that included some second teams and primary schools. In the mid 80s there were many secondary school chess leagues around the country, by 2010 there were 3 - Surrey, Sussex and Birmingham. Things have changed a lot and secondary school chess is in a very fragile state. Before we start insisting on membership for everyone in a secondary school chess team we need to first get it more popular.

Indeed times have changed. Football suffered from the withdrawal of extra-curricular activities after the 1980s teacher's strike in the same way that chess has. Numbers of people playing football declined massively as fewer people played at school and so that translated into fewer teenagers and adults playing.

However, football did something about it. They realised that schools football was a dead horse, so they stopped flogging it. They put their resources into creating community football clubs instead. These clubs cater for players of all ages, from the youngest age groups up to veterans and women's teams. These clubs are flourishing. Participation numbers are steadily growing now, but it's a long term plan.

Chess needs a similar strategy in my opinion. We should leave the grass-roots basics of the game to CSC and the excellent work that they do and concentrate on taking those who develop an interest as far as they want to go.

I should state that this is my personal opinion. Although an ECF Director, this is not my area of responsibility.