European Championship - Team ENGLAND

[Jonathan Rogers]

Quite a few seem to say "I don't pay ECF subs to provide free coaching for juniors/women". But you do for the men (and they will all be stronger than their coach!) - why is that so different?

More generally, isn't this just another way of saying "I don't want to pay for anything that doesn't benefit me personally?" We (should have) moved on from that ever since ECF membership became compulsory, for the good of English chess as a whole. Additional arguments (beyond personal benefit) must now be found as to how the ECF prioritises its expenditure.

But the Board itself takes the blame for failing to show any leadership here. It has never sought to justify or explain why its priority is to contribute what it can to ensure the best possible mens' team - something which, it accepts, requires outside sponsorship anyway - even though this means contributing virtually nothing to many other events where players have won the right to represent the ECF in international competition.

Possibly there are those who do support this - they really only do care about watching our top male players on the live boards once a year. But sometimes leadership is about being responsible and not just giving the public what (they think) they want. The most likely consequence of the present approach is that, ten years down the line, our men's team still won't have won any medals - they might not ever have come very close, such is the level of competition - and our women and juniors will have fallen ever further behind because the ECF refused to give sufficient support to their development.

[Roger de Coverly]

But the Board itself takes the blame for failing to show any leadership here. It has never sought to justify or explain why its priority is to contribute what it can to ensure the best possible mens' team - something which, it accepts, requires outside sponsorship anyway - even though this means contributing virtually nothing to many other events where players have won the right to represent the ECF in international competition.

There was however this from the April Council meeting

International Teams
DO presented to Council the following policy proposal from the Board so that they could consider and express its support.

Proposal: “Council believes that the Federation should aim to have the strongest possible England teams competing in the European Team Championships (Open and Women’s), the Olympiads (Open and Women’s) and the World Youth under 16 Chess Olympiad (Open and, when established, Girls).
We believe this is in the long term interest of English Chess.”
Agreed : In favour many; against 1

Admittedly this says nothing about whether the teams should be supported by non playing captains who can also act as seconds or coaches.

[Jonathan Rogers]

But the Board itself takes the blame for failing to show any leadership here. It has never sought to justify or explain why its priority is to contribute what it can to ensure the best possible mens' team - something which, it accepts, requires outside sponsorship anyway - even though this means contributing virtually nothing to many other events where players have won the right to represent the ECF in international competition.

There was however this from the April Council meeting

International Teams
DO presented to Council the following policy proposal from the Board so that they could consider and express its support.

Proposal: “Council believes that the Federation should aim to have the strongest possible England teams competing in the European Team Championships (Open and Women’s), the Olympiads (Open and Women’s) and the World Youth under 16 Chess Olympiad (Open and, when established, Girls).
We believe this is in the long term interest of English Chess.”
Agreed : In favour many; against 1

Admittedly this says nothing about whether the teams should be supported by non playing captains who can also act as seconds or coaches.

Well yes, and these details matter. Not much point aiming for the best possible woman player in the team if she (quite unsurprisingly) withdraws from the team for the lack of a coach. Playing a horde of 2400 + players on board one, each likely armed with IM/GM coaches, would not have been appealing, I am sure. More generally, sending a coach for the men but none for the women sends a clear and most undesirable message. I find it most irresponsible that we should send a team to the toughest event of all - this is the European Chs, not the Olympiad where there will be many weaker teams - and leave them to sink or swim.

[Paolo Casaschi]

More generally, isn't this just another way of saying "I don't want to pay for anything that doesn't benefit me personally?" We (should have) moved on from that ever since ECF membership became compulsory, for the good of English chess as a whole. Additional arguments (beyond personal benefit) must now be found as to how the ECF prioritises its expenditure.

If the main source of funding for the ECF is the individual membership what's wrong with members to question priorities and ask what they actually benefit from the ECF?

[Jonathan Rogers]

More generally, isn't this just another way of saying "I don't want to pay for anything that doesn't benefit me personally?" We (should have) moved on from that ever since ECF membership became compulsory, for the good of English chess as a whole. Additional arguments (beyond personal benefit) must now be found as to how the ECF prioritises its expenditure.

If the main source of funding for the ECF is the individual membership what's wrong with members to question priorities and ask what they actually benefit from the ECF?

Nothing, of course, but those who object to their money being used for x and y should spell out how they do want their money to be spent. Some - not you, I am sure - basically don't want their money to be spent on anything which will not benefit them directly, and that was what I was warning against.

[Paolo Casaschi]

More generally, isn't this just another way of saying "I don't want to pay for anything that doesn't benefit me personally?" We (should have) moved on from that ever since ECF membership became compulsory, for the good of English chess as a whole. Additional arguments (beyond personal benefit) must now be found as to how the ECF prioritises its expenditure.

If the main source of funding for the ECF is the individual membership what's wrong with members to question priorities and ask what they actually benefit from the ECF?

Nothing, of course, but those who object to their money being used for x and y should spell out how they do want their money to be spent. Some - not you, I am sure - basically don't want their money to be spent on anything which will not benefit them directly, and that was what I was warning against.

I think membership money should be better spend to increase the amount of chess played at grassroots level and improve the quantity/quality of event available to members.

I understand your question to people that "object to their money being used for x and y". At the same time, when people suggest spending money for x and y, I would like to hear where the money should come from. It's very easy to be outraged because English junior don't get subsidized coaching... but where's the money for that coming from? If you look at other countries, for example the ones where chess is considered as a sport, the associated government spending usually comes with the mandate to support national teams (similarly to what happens in England with the lottery money supporting Olympics sports). If the ECF accepts the inevitable exclusion from the sport benefits, why should the associated burden go to the members?

[Roger de Coverly]

I think membership money should be better spend to increase the amount of chess played at grassroots level and improve the quantity/quality of event available to members.

Unless you count public facing activities like the ECF website and calendar as benefits to members, very little of the money raised by the ECF is spent in this way outside of grading and there a lot of the grading expense is met by donated time and resources.

I've long thought that the idea of compulsory membership was to reduce the amount of chess played at grassroots by banning the participation of non-members in graded chess.

[JustinHadi]

Should a football team should withdraw from the champions league if their manager gets sacked? Or a (good) tennis player should withdraw from a Grand Slam if they don't have a coach? Top English female players are over 2400 themselves.

Not much point aiming for the best possible woman player in the team if she (quite unsurprisingly) withdraws from the team for the lack of a coach. Playing a horde of 2400 + players on board one, each likely armed with IM/GM coaches, would not have been appealing, I am sure.

[JustinHadi]

By the way if coaching is provided and funds are limited surely it should be for the team/player with the greatest chance of success in whatever tournament.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Not much point aiming for the best possible woman player in the team if she (quite unsurprisingly) withdraws from the team for the lack of a coach. Playing a horde of 2400 + players on board one, each likely armed with IM/GM coaches, would not have been appealing, I am sure.

Should a football team should withdraw from the champions league if their manager gets sacked? Or a (good) tennis player should withdraw from a Grand Slam if they don't have a coach? Top English female players are over 2400 themselves.

Well, these are not serious parallels, as always when people seek to compare chess with the major sports.

[JustinHadi]

Yes they are, based on playing for your country. Or if you want a chess example, Nakamura who ups his game in Olympiads I don't imagine would refuse to play based on no coaching.

[JustinHadi]

Or Adams and Short, to be fair.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Yes they are, based on playing for your country. Or if you want a chess example, Nakamura who ups his game in Olympiads I don't imagine would refuse to play based on no coaching.

Again, you make a strange comparison! Naka would be compensated somehow or other, I should think, and he is not the sort who wants a coach anyway.

I imagine every female player over 2400 wants a coach, however, and not having one while every single opponent has one - where is the interest in that? There is no realistic chance that a team is going to perform to its potential in those circumstances, is it? If you are looking for parallels, people withdraw from events all the time when they feel they are treated unfairly or that they are their team are being belittled.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Or Adams and Short, to be fair.

Oh yes, they would never withdraw or refuse to participate from an English team if they were unhappy with the proposed conditions

[JustinHadi]

Yes they are, based on playing for your country. Or if you want a chess example, Nakamura who ups his game in Olympiads I don't imagine would refuse to play based on no coaching.

Again, you make a strange comparison! Naka would be compensated somehow or other, I should think, and he is not the sort who wants a coach anyway.


I imagine every female player over 2400 wants a coach, however, and not having one while every single opponent has one - where is the interest in that? There is no realistic chance that a team is going to perform to its potential in those circumstances, is it? If you are looking for parallels, people withdraw from events all the time when they feel they are treated unfairly or that they are their team are being belittled.

So let's all refuse to play players with coaches They all have an unfair advantage as have juniors who have had coaching. Funny I thought people played chess because they enjoyed the challenge.