English Chess Forum

Neville Belinfante wrote:The easiest way to see the North South Divide wrt Junior Selections is to take a look at the Meet the Team pages on the ECF Junior website, where you will see considerably more Southern than Northern children. Comparison with results at the British Championships and other National Competitions demonstrate that Northern children are under-represented.

I was interested in Neville's comments about the North South divide in junior selection: i.e. his view that the junior chessers who live in the south are more likely to be selected for national teams than those who live in the North.

My questions are:

(a) is it widely agreed that there is such a divide?
(b) if there is, what is the cause?
(c) If there is a particular cause or causes, what is the solution?



I saw Andrew Zigmond's query about whether the problem might be a result of 'information' not getting to where it needs to go. Is there also a suggestion that selection policies based on grades/elo ratings disproportionately favour the South? Perhaps because Southern juniors have more opportunities to play in elo rated tournaments so can get their ratings higher? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick there?

Jonathan Bryant wrote: I was interested in Neville's comments about the North South divide in junior selection: i.e. his view that the junior chessers who live in the south are more likely to be selected for national teams than those who live in the North.

The list on the ECF pages is of those who were both selected and accepted the invitation. I don't think the list of those eligible and invited is made public.

Perhaps because Southern juniors have more opportunities to play in elo rated tournaments so can get their ratings higher?

That's double edged of course. If you can avoid FIDE rated events until you are 170s standard, your International rating is likely to be higher than someone who first played at a much younger age. But for those selected, it can be an advantage to have a rating as unrated players are seeded by name, making pairings a lucky dip.

Roger de Coverly wrote: The list on the ECF pages is of those who were both selected and accepted the invitation. I don't think the list of those eligible and invited is made public.

So one factor that causes the divide might be the expense of playing for a national team? i.e. There might be a disproportionate number of folk in the north who decline to play despite being selected for financial reasons? Some other reason?

My guess is that (if true), it's down to social networks: simply who knows who. I'm not (at this stage) arguing that there's a conspiracy against 'Northern' juniors. Instead I'm speculating that it's a matter of visibility - that is, visibility among those who make the decisions. So 'mental maps' will likely be playing a role.

Might it be worth checking the grading list to determine geographic spreads (though assigning a geographic location to a player may not be easy)?

What problem is solved by knowing the geographical spread of junior grades? Presumably one could conclude that selection choices were mismatched by grade distribution. But assuming selectors are not behaving perversely, one might conclude (in the absence of the data) that a disproportionate number of higher graded juniors were located in the South. That would explain why 'northern' juniors aren't selected.

But that begs other questions. Why, for example, aren't junior grades distributed pro rata by population; or even purely randomly? One answer must lie in the distribution of opportunities for achieving higher grades - via tournaments, of course; but also via preparation and chess development.

And so we come to my speculative, but considered, conclusion. The skew towards 'southern' juniors is a function of the skew towards schools that support quality chess development. These schools are, for the vastly greater part, 'independent' private (fee-paying) schools, which are disproportionately located in London & the South-East (where the money is, of course).

So I'd be interested to see the data. I'd guess the vast majority of those juniors selected, attend fee-paying schools. Chess development has become a function of school background and wealthy parents, a trend which is accelerating as general junior chess participation declines. And gloomily, I don't see the CSC programme changing that.

Roger de Coverly wrote: That's double edged of course. If you can avoid FIDE rated events until you are 170s standard, your International rating is likely to be higher than someone who first played at a much younger age.

That's not an issue as long as you play enough fide rated games. And I've been informed that that will be easier in future as fide have accepted my proposal to double the k factor for junior players rated below 2300. That's good news for juniors and adults alike.

David Robertson wrote: These schools are, for the vastly greater part, 'independent' private (fee-paying) schools, which are disproportionately located in London & the South-East (where the money is, of course).

What counts as a fee-paying school though? Two schools with a chess tradition in the North come to mind in particular. One is current National Schools Champion, Manchester Grammar. The other is Bolton with a fifty year history of players including those representing England at senior level, Corden, Markland, Short, Norwood etc.

What I have noticed in more recent years is a shift towards boarding schools. Look at the history of the National Schools and previous winners had almost always been day schools.

David Robertson wrote:What problem is solved by knowing the geographical spread of junior grades? Presumably one could conclude that selection choices were mismatched by grade distribution. But assuming selectors are not behaving perversely, one might conclude (in the absence of the data) that a disproportionate number of higher graded juniors were located in the South. That would explain why 'northern' juniors aren't selected.

But that begs other questions. Why, for example, aren't junior grades distributed pro rata by population; or even purely randomly? One answer must lie in the distribution of opportunities for achieving higher grades - via tournaments, of course; but also via preparation and chess development.

And so we come to my speculative, but considered, conclusion. The skew towards 'southern' juniors is a function of the skew towards schools that support quality chess development. These schools are, for the vastly greater part, 'independent' private (fee-paying) schools, which are disproportionately located in London & the South-East (where the money is, of course).

So I'd be interested to see the data. I'd guess the vast majority of those juniors selected, attend fee-paying schools. Chess development has become a function of school background and wealthy parents, a trend which is accelerating as general junior chess participation declines. And gloomily, I don't see the CSC programme changing that.

I agree with this. A bias in the number of players picked from the south (assuming it exists, which seems probable) is likely to be down to social factors and sheer population location, as much as anything else.

Does anybody actually know if its true that there are more junior grades pro rata to population in the South?

The overall population of England by region (this is all people; probably the u-18 split is a bit different, but I am too lazy to find this) is:

North (NE, NW, Yorks & Humber) - 15.0m
Midlands - (E&W Mids) - 10.2m
South (London, SE, SW, East) - 28.3m

(or you could include East, which is 5.9m, in Midlands I suppose)

So there are a lot more people in the South to start with (depending how you split it of course), which can sometimes give a false impression of bias in this type of debate.

I think disposable income is about 30% higher in the South than either the North or Midlands; this obviously feeds into state v private education take-up, which is evidently key as David says. Even beyond that, affordability to play regularly, get coaching, and go to overseas tournaments must be an issue.

Population density probably helps in London and the South East too of course; much shorter average travelling distances to get to tournaments etc.

All in all, I suspect David is dead right in his conclusion.

I'm not sure it makes all that much sense to include the SW as part of the south - Certainly the opportunities for a junior in Devon or Cornwall are very different from those for one in London.

Rob - yes absolutely, but then I suppose that just says "north v south" is a slightly spurious divide.

Really it should be South East v the Rest of England to have any meaning. As mentioned, the population density and number of tournaments in and around London make it far easier for juniors here to get more games than elsewhere.

Getting games? I dunno. Manchester - especially with 3C's of course! - seems to do quite well for juniors and Sheffield manage to run a broadly junior Sheffield based team in the Yorkshire league. Rather patchier elsewhere.

Getting enough density/disposable income to get specalised coaching and stuff might be another matter. That would tend to produce stronger players a bit younger, but perhaps questionable whether that means anything terribly much in the long run.

Plenty of U18/21 champions from the North it seems and multiple Northern juniors doing damage at the last few British championships etc.

MartinCarpenter wrote: Getting enough density/disposable income to get specalised coaching and stuff might be another matter. That would tend to produce stronger players a bit younger, but perhaps questionable whether that means anything terribly much in the long run.

There was a book about Michael Adams' development as a player. This expressed the opinion, or perhaps it was an interview with the player, that coming from the remoteness of Cornwall wasn't as big a disadvantage as it might seem. There were enough tournaments within reasonable travelling distance and although it meant playing much the same pool of players, such was the diversity of styles that this didn't matter either. This was twenty five years ago though. Adams was a GM at the age of 17 or 18 as I recall.