"SavetheUKCC" petition

[Gary Kenworthy]

The point is that you you can have chess for all - a great thing
Plus you can have elite players - role models - a great thing.
Not an either or decisions. BTW: The skill sets to organise and lead forward on all fronts, rarely match. Horses for courses, for optimum results.

Please severe the coupling of UKCC and Chess as a Sport. Two subjects, with some overlapping points.
Please take how to organise and promote chess as a different forum thread. Otherwise, recipe for no sponsorship, as the BCF (now ECF) has discovered many times. -- rgds (FM) Gary Kenworthy

[Leonard Barden]

I agree that we should be doing more for our elite players. But it's not so easy to fit this in with academic demands. The kids who are very strong at an early age tend to be those who are also academically outstanding, so they will usually decide to concentrate on their studies and either cut down on their chess or stop playing completely.

There are many, many examples of highly talented children doing both, including most of our own English top GMs.
Instead of citing only the extreme example of Wei Yi from China as a counter as you and Justin have done, why not consider instead a more relevant example from Western Europe?
Vincent Keymer, the German 11-year-old quoted in my article, is the son of musicians, a very talented musician himself, and also a potential 2650+ GM. Just play over his impressive final round win at Vienna against GM Hertneck, and read the ChessBase article about him. Germany, France, and the Netherlands are producing such players. We are not.

[Michael Farthing]

Please severe the coupling of UKCC and Chess as a Sport. Two subjects, with some overlapping points.
Please take how to organise and promote chess as a different forum thread. Otherwise, recipe for no sponsorship, as the BCF (now ECF) has discovered many times. -- rgds (FM) Gary Kenworthy

Gary - you can do this yourself by starting a new thread. It won't be entirely successful, but it will be as good as anyone else can manage for you.

[JustinHorton]

Instead of citing only the extreme example of Wei Yi from China as a counter as you and Justin have done, why not consider instead a more relevant example from Western Europe?

Because that's the one you cited in the piece you posted.

[JustinHorton]

At least two dozen studies have shown that people expecting to receive a reward for completing a task (or for doing it successfully) simply do not perform as well as those who expect nothing (Kohn, 1993). This effect is robust for young children, older children, and adults; for males and females; for rewards of all kinds; and for tasks ranging from memorizing facts to designing collages to solving problems. In general, the more cognitive sophistication and open-ended thinking that is required for a task, the worse people tend to do when they have been led to perform that task for a reward.

Source: http://www.alfiekohn.org/article/risks-rewards/

I am fairly sure I can recall a piece by Basman in CHESS, more than a decade ago now I should think, about how great and important it was for kids to compete for cash prizes and as large as possible.

[Gary Kenworthy]

Hi Michael,
Already on different threads. - rgds

[Richard James]

At least two dozen studies have shown that people expecting to receive a reward for completing a task (or for doing it successfully) simply do not perform as well as those who expect nothing (Kohn, 1993). This effect is robust for young children, older children, and adults; for males and females; for rewards of all kinds; and for tasks ranging from memorizing facts to designing collages to solving problems. In general, the more cognitive sophistication and open-ended thinking that is required for a task, the worse people tend to do when they have been led to perform that task for a reward.

Source: http://www.alfiekohn.org/article/risks-rewards/

I am fairly sure I can recall a piece by Basman in CHESS, more than a decade ago now I should think, about how great and important it was for kids to compete for cash prizes and as large as possible.

Personally, I've never been keen on cash prizes for kids. Kids should play chess because they enjoy playing chess, not because they want to make money out of it. If they happen to win a cash prize in an adult tournament, though, fair enough. When I was running Richmond Junior Club we did very little in the way of prizes of any sort. Perhaps that's one reason why we were so successful! We used to have small cash prizes at the end of the year for our rapidplay and blitz Grands Prix, to encourage regular attendance, but that was all. For several years we used to award trophies rather than cash prizes at our London Junior Championship qualifier, but changed because we thought we ought to be in line with everyone else. (We also only used clocks on the top boards of the U8 and U10 events because we considered it unduly stressful to expect kids who knew little more than how the pieces moved to have to use clocks and thought it would potentially put them off playing in future events, but had to change because of the tournament regulations.)

[Nick Grey]

I also believe that the cash prizes were a real problem that led to UKCC going bust.
Generally, large prizes over & above most adult (with children) congresses.
The idea of making a living as a chess professional ought to be drummed out of children at an early stage.

Of course we can celebrate our national champions & last years winners in this competition & encourage them & their parents we can make room for them in our county sides.

[John Upham]

I also believe that the cash prizes were a real problem that led to UKCC going bust.

Could you elaborate on your first sentence please?

Each year the entry fee income and sponsorship income was more than enough to pay for the cash prizes.

You must have inside knowledge of the management of UKCC to make this assertion.

[Gary Kenworthy]

Heavily agree with John Upham who knows what he is talking about. Over the years I discussed with Mike Basman his formats, ideas, what works and does not work, etc. The UKCC was pretty optimal in its chess goals. However rather large holes in the finance plan.
Mike was a joy to work with, he was very genuine and a super keen guy. He had experienced financial difficulties in the late 70s and early 80s, and he was not going back to that. (even though that will now be the case- the Knock have more powers than the police, not much changed since the 18th century).
He might also have been a legend at CSD Chessington as a Government programmer, whose stories have had its rounds, but when I last discussed his programming days with him on a walk, he did point out - well I was playing guys like Mikhail Tal at Hastings, a former world champion (for anybody who wants to follow that up it was called the Christmas Tree variation (compare with the CABBAGE opening, or even Karpov -Miles 1980 -- 1...a6-- has a few names BTW)). So against a former World Champion and close to winning. Hence more than a pretty good player as well. The day job at CSD did somewhat get in the way of a remarkable innovative chess professional.
rgds (FM) Gary Kenworthy.

[Alan Kennedy]

The name, the mailing list, the contacts list for venues... Not a lot monetary wise but very useful for someone trying to replicate.
The amount it could be sold for is probably minimal, but the trustee also has a duty to salvage what he/she can of the enterprise.

There may be obstacles to selling the mailing list - I am guessing it depends on the UKCC chess challenge privacy policy if they had one. There is gudance on the issue from the ICO

Organisations buying or renting a marketing list from a list broker or other third party must make rigorous checks to satisfy themselves that the third party obtained the personal data fairly and lawfully, that the individuals understood their details would be passed on for marketing purposes, and that they have the necessary consent.


A solicitor once taught me a maxim "businesses you buy for £1 often end up costing you more than businesses you buy for £1m." I fear this may be true for anyone wanting to purchase the UKCC.

[Nick Grey]

Not sure John why you say inside knowledge.
UKCC not set up as a charity.
UKCC not paid its taxes.
It is a big hole but is Mike's

[Gary Kenworthy]

Another good refuting point by Alan Kennedy, nicely put by his solicitor. The assets should be net worthless value to chess organisers. The Data Protection Act covers for the differentiating roles of Data Controllers and Data Processors. This is very private and personally identifying data and is confidential. It is about the under age and thus classified as highly vulnerable real people, which needs the highest care in data handling. The verification of the list, is complex, unlikely to work, then exposes the new owners to many costs. The vetting and verification is effectively the rebuilding of the list etc. It would be cheaper to start again.
[There has to be the normal weeding and periodic checks, as a common point for any Data Controller].
Note why the 10 years maximum restriction that the HMRC used on Mike Basman, rather than the old 7 years. [Possible chess history link]. This was because it was the [Statue of] Limitations Act 1939 (e.g. a cheque lasts six months, it was deemed to fully retained and auditable for six years, which rounds up to 7 years - hence retain for 7 years became the best practice for the 6.5 years requirement).
It all changed with Sarbanes-Oxley because of the Enron scandal. Thus 10 years is now the international standard for the accountable time for retaining all paperwork and chattels for the Competent Authorities, including H M Comptrollers (sic).
Related in Banking Law, I do remember reading the case (35 years ago for a Bank of England Programme) was ? versus Dupree?. it was to do with a disputed bequest and obligation to a chess sponsorship (I also suspect and believe this is related to a Sussex junior prizefund that Paul Watson of Sussex often mentioned).
rgds (FM) Gary Kenworthy.

[John Upham]

The most valuable contact data is not that of individual children since that data appears year on year as a consequence of completing an entry form and sending it to Pat Armstrong.

The valuable data is that for the schools stage when the forms are sent out in December to participating schools from previous seasons.

UKCC does not send a form to each and every school in the UK and indeed not doing this has led to the contraction in school numbers over recent times.

The reduction in sponsorship funding following the switch from British Land to Delancey has meant less forward funding for Marketing, PR and publicity.

Forms are not sent to children unless they have qualified and at the schools stage it is the local organiser at that school who hands out the forms to the children.

You might be able to realise that the schools stage is critical to the progress of the tournament. With increased resourcing and better use of IT the UKCC could grow rather than the opposite.

It is fairly dependant on persons who run school chess clubs bringing that school under the UKCC umbrella. Without those contacts the event would collapse. Hence it is these contacts which are the valuable ones not the children themselves.

[Gary Kenworthy]

Hi John,

Did not expect every school got mail-shot'd. That is the easy information.
A good differentiating point and the splitting of the roles with schools only to later rounds.
The foundation stage is vital for a build upon the higher levels. Without foundations it does collapse - agree.

Happy to grow any chess event, e.g. when I was a League sec, I did like adding a division per year.
Remember to negotiate the price down, put the valuation downwards, especially if you are buying ) Especially with new owners/ administrators.
Cheers GK