Leonard Barden wrote:Phil Ehr wrote: don’t you think chess would be more enjoyable with a realistic prospect of more funding?
Surely the point is that Andrew Paulson went to Fide with similar big promises of mega-funding, and in at least one interview implied that he was in advanced negotations with several major companies, yet apparently he failed almost completely. Apart from anything else, that's baggage which would count against him in trying to get more funding for UK chess.
In the good years of the Fischer boom in the 1970s, I personally enlisted several sponsors (including Lloyds Bank who backed English chess for 18 years) and encouraged others through my columns. I don't see the rationale for your word 'realistic' where we are now.
I should also say (again from the viewpoint of having personally dealt with the same problem in the 1970s) that I don't see where you have made progress with elite juniors-certainly not by the criteria stated publicly by the International Director of having more adult players heading for Fide 2680+.
A dear friend advised to always heed what Leonard Barden says. So, I write this with the greatest respect.
Paulson is not promising mega-funding. He is offering to apply his business acumen and to engage his personal network. The business acumen to which I refer is his entrepreneurial work in Russian social networking plus his personal commitment demonstrated in part by moving the Candidates Tournament from Russia to London. The Wikipedia page on him provides more. I also refer to his attempts with FIDE, which are a work in progress. I agree that disappointment from raised expectations is harmful. We should, of course, keep our expectations grounded in reality without dismissing the reality that creativity fuels success. This is a time for the glass-half-full perspective.
Attracting sponsors when the mega-spectacle of Fischer-Spassky seized the public’s attention must have been rewarding. Our attempt to capture the right sort of public attention drew from that era and the techniques attributed to you, specifically grading lists and recent top performances posted on tournament walls, as well as letters written to promising players with their individual target grades. That personal interaction is crucial. In my term, we achieved a small part of inspiration you established by focusing on grades and grading performance. We established target grades for selection, quantified ‘junior selection norms’ and Grand Prix scoring; but recognise that more Barden-like individual attention is required.
Counting juniors surging toward the International Director’s 2680+ target is not the appropriate current measure for our strategy. Rather than prioritising one, two or even ten juniors, we prioritized building a structure to attract, inspire and nurture all promising juniors for the long haul. We ensured access to official FIDE championships on par with the dominant federations, who often compete with hefty government and business sponsorship to send semi-professional chess children. We also addressed the striking chess drop-out when children enter secondary school, a time when many of Britian’s Cold War GMs and IMs continued their development. My director’s report explains more, including the issue of funding. Since I am standing for Chief Executive on the basis of performance as Junior Director, you are right to question me on results. I would welcome your feedback on the full report:
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... Report.pdf
In the report, I missed the opportunity to highlight:
Yang-Fan Zhou, James Adair – GM norms
Sam Franklin, James Holland, Ezra Kirk, Alan Merry – IM norms
Akshaya Kalaiyalahan – Joint British Woman Champion
Joshua Altman - Bronze medal at European Youth Chess Championships 2012 - U8
Matthew Wadsworth - 5th at World Youth Chess Championships 2012 - U12
Aditya Verman - 8th at World Youth Chess Championships 2012 - U8
In view of present standings in Budva, I expect you will be soon be writing more in
The Guardian about Akshaya, and maybe Matthew and Ravi!
