European Championship - Team ENGLAND

[JustinHadi]

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

Selective quotation.

[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.

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.

again, it's about the women's team being belittled and being sent out to face better supported opposition because the ECF doesn't really care how it will perform. What, and you are surprised that some of the players in the team think "well if you don't care, why should we play?" Plenty of other ways to enjoy the challenges of playing chess.

[JustinHadi]

That's a fair point of view. But as stated above there's a difference between countries where significant government support is given to the federation and here where apparently members are expected to fund the teams.

[Jonathan Rogers]

That's a fair point of view. But as stated above there's a difference between countries where significant government support is given to the federation and here where apparently members are expected to fund the teams.

That is indeed our problem. But to my mind, that is all the more reason to plan ahead for the difficult future, and not to blow all our resources on the here and now - which is what we do when we put almost all the available money into our mens' team. The only justification for that would be if there really were a prospect they might win medals. alas, you have to deliberately ignore the evidence of all the England performances this century to believe that this is a realistic prospect.

So, plan ahead, starting with maximising participation. There is huge potential for this just by encouraging more women and girls to play chess. If it means sending a womens' team and supporting it properly, even though it might only start to excel in another six to ten years time, so be it. The starting point for this event should be deciding from the outset that five players and a coach will be sent. Then you invite the best players you can with the money you have, which may of course necessitate private sponsorship (or some superstar won't play after all).

But that is not what the ECF has done. Possibly with its head spinning about the chances of our men winning medals, it has apparently found itself furtively pulling resources from the womens' team to plug the gap in sponsorship for the mens' team. It is irresponsible. Ten years later, if this continues, we will have no more women players than now (while other European countries have much higher levels of membership) and we will wonder why anyone ever thought we had a chance of medals in 2014 in the first place.

[JustinHadi]

It's not the men's team it's the open team.

[Angus French]

So: In its budget for 2013/14 the ECF set aside record amounts for teams to play in the European Team Championships and the Olympiad but these amounts were contingent on the receipt of generous sponsorship and donations. Presumably the sponsorship and donations have come in at much less than was expected or hoped for. If this is the case, what can you do? Where to reduce expenditure is always going to be a difficult decision. Perhaps sharing a coach between the two teams is a solution though I recognise that would spread the coach's expertise more thinly and place a burden on him or her. Maybe the open team player who doesn't play in particular round could help with the womens' team for the same round in their event? By all means express dissatisfaction with the situation but I don't really think that not having a coach is a good reason not to play for your country. It should be an honour to represent your country - and valuable experience besides.

Something else: With the European Team Championships a month away has travel already been booked or not? If not, is it not now going to be more expensive than it would have been, say, two months ago?

[LawrenceCooper]

It might be prudent not to judge someone without knowing the full facts especially as the person in question is such a good role model for girls and women in this country and is currently coaching some of our most promising girls. She could do without speculation about what should be private discussions with the International Director splashed all over the forum.

[JustinHadi]

Just to be clear. I have not followed the women's olympiad team news and I'm not judging anybody. As far as I am aware this was a discussion about funding of coaches and the idea (without any other information as none was given) of refusing to play as above.

[Jonathan Rogers]

It might be prudent not to judge someone without knowing the full facts especially as the person in question is such a good role model for girls and women in this country and is currently coaching some of our most promising girls. She could do without speculation about what should be private discussions with the International Director splashed all over the forum.

Agreed... For my part, I just assumed that any sensible person would think there were something amiss about the way in which the ECF has handled the womens' team. It never occurred to me that anyone would instead think of criticising someone who declined selection because of dissatisfaction with the proposed conditions, something which the top members of the mens' team would do without hesitation. But there you are, this forum has proven itself to be "special" once again ...

[JustinHadi]

That's a totally reasonable conclusion given the information you originally posted. You've now said it was down to conditions (plural) and not just coaching which from the point of view of a professional player makes it acceptable to decline. Do law and chess mix?

[Jonathan Rogers]

That's a totally reasonable conclusion given the information you originally posted. You've now said it was down to conditions (plural) and not just coaching which from the point of view of a professional player makes it acceptable to decline. Do law and chess mix?

I think I am using the word "conditions" in the usual way. Usually when people complain about "conditions", it is one particular aspect they have in mind, but it makes the whole package undesirable.

Do law and chess mix?

Yes, though my experience is that it offers little advantage on this forum

[JustinHadi]

Then we'll just have to differ. Look -

[PeterFarr]

Without knowing the specifics relating to the upcoming Europeans, I really must agree with Jonathan's general argument, and especially:

So, plan ahead, starting with maximising participation. There is huge potential for this just by encouraging more women and girls to play chess. If it means sending a womens' team and supporting it properly, even though it might only start to excel in another six to ten years time, so be it.

Chess in England is woefully lacking female participation, both in absolute terms ans relative to other countries. It's an unhealthy situation for the long term good of the game. Really it should be an advantage of chess, compared to many leisure activities, that all ages and both sexes can play in the same competitions together.

[Mark Howitt]

In another place I noted the disdain of a young IM that members of the England team at the World Youth Championships were having to "pay for coaching".

Is this normal practise or a fresh initiative?

Normal practice.

Normal practice where? including the countries which one might hope that English teams would rival?

And normal practice for whom? Even in England the men's team have a coach - and I bet they don't pay for him.

Should be normal.

[Mark Howitt]

It's great for the first time in AGES we have got our strongest team out. I mean, you could say take Sadler instead of Howell maybe, but certainly thinking of the future and probably the present it's the strongest team.