European Championship - Team ENGLAND

[Rob Thompson]

But, honestly, we’re talking about 2100-rated amateurs. I actually have no idea what the financial position is, but I think it’s a bit rich for someone in that position to expect to have their expenses paid and a coach provided for this kind of jamboree.

It is not their fault that there is no-one stronger to play. If they are in the team, they should be entitled to the respect that that position deserves.

[PeterFarr]

But, honestly, we’re talking about 2100-rated amateurs. I actually have no idea what the financial position is, but I think it’s a bit rich for someone in that position to expect to have their expenses paid and a coach provided for this kind of jamboree.

It is not their fault that there is no-one stronger to play. If they are in the team, they should be entitled to the respect that that position deserves.

Indeed.

Also as John is so keen on people not talking nonsense, he might acknowledge that our top women players are stronger than 2100's.

[MartinCarpenter]

Worth noting with the women that they didn't cancel the team directly. They just decided to not coach it, which then produced some pull outs and seemingly a mass of rejections from others - the notice mentions 17 in total so clearly not terribly fussy strength wise! The question is what is worth doing next time.

Thinking about it, I think there is definitely quite a strong imperative to try and field this sort of open team while we still can. Pretty safe to say that us getting a medal in ten (five?) years time really would be a major surprise.

[Mark Howitt]

That's the point though- not many are. You have Harriet Hunt (who very rarely plays) and Jovanka Houska who is just over 2400. The rest of them are around 2100. Male 2100 players get practically no financial support from the ECF and nobody cares. That's why it doesn't bother me that much if we send a women's team or not.

[Matt Mackenzie]

I still think its dreadful that we will have no women's team there, and that is my main point.

Well, were we to say that women’s chess is patronising nonsense and we’re going to withdraw from it on principle, that would be one thing. But if we’re going to carry on with this idea that women are inherently so bad at the game that they need to compete amongst themselves, then I agree it’s a bit of a shame.

But, honestly, we’re talking about 2100-rated amateurs. I actually have no idea what the financial position is, but I think it’s a bit rich for someone in that position to expect to have their expenses paid and a coach provided for this kind of jamboree.

Are there any other countries of our stature not even bothering with a women's team? I agree with Peter, on balance.

[John Cox]

It is not their fault that there is no-one stronger to play. If they are in the team, they should be entitled to the respect that that position deserves.

It is their fault that there’s no-one stronger to play. It’s because they haven’t put the work in to get stronger themselves. (and why should they if they don’t want to, of course – there are other things to do in life)

[John Cox]

Also as John is so keen on people not talking nonsense, he might acknowledge that our top women players are stronger than 2100's.

Yes, of course, one or two of them. But the majority of the team we would have sent, and a big majority of these fabled 17 refusals, would have been in that category.

[PeterFarr]

To Matt's question, there were 28 Women's teams last time, mostly from the bigger countries - compared to 38 for the men's . Geography not my strong point, but I doubt there would be many countries with a bigger population and no women's team.

It's perhaps worth thinking about why this is. Is women's chess in England fundamentally weaker than in other comparable countries, or is it more of a funding question at the top? Or differences in attitude?

I'm afraid I do agree that asking as many as 17 players seemed pushing it a bit; it's true that there isn't the strength in depth.

[Matt Mackenzie]

For further context, do Scotland/Ireland/Wales send women's (or, indeed, mens) teams?

[PeterFarr]

Scotland and Wales sent open teams only last time. Ireland didn't send anybody. Sweden and Denmark notable absentees from the women's.

[Jonathan Rogers]

To help some of you out, here are some facts that didn't make the ECF press release:

1) In mid September - less than a month ago - the womens' team had looked to be one of our strongest for some time. Jovanka, Dagna and Anya were all available. So unlike last year's Olympiad this was not essentially a team of 2100s.

2) So most of the 17 mentioned in the press release had not been asked until two or three weeks ago - and most of them do, of course, have other commitments. To compare the lack of take up with the men who were asked back in March or so is obviously ridiculous.

3) The decision to withdraw the coaching was made when the team was at its strongest (point one above). It would have been anticipated that Jovanka would withdraw on account of it, because she was one of the five selectors (the only woman) and her views were known. But the policy of cutting money to augment the mens' team did even not stop here. It seems later to have been decided to cut the players from five to four as well, so they would play unrested as well as uncoached.

No, none of this made the press release did it - could it have been written by the person who oversaw this shambles?

[John Cox]

OK, Jonathan, but Dagne at least withdrew for personal reasons, didn't she?

[Jonathan Rogers]

OK, Jonathan, but Dagne at least withdrew for personal reasons, didn't she?

Not exactly - she only withdrew from half of the event, which is important because it does not seem that replacements were asked just for the other half (which in the circumstances would have been much more manageable).

But I should let the women speak for themselves, if they wish to do so, about exactly who was asked to do what as things started to unfold. Apart from anything else, my main point is this: if one takes the view that we shouldn't have withdrawn a coach from (what was) a full and strong womens' team, then that is enough to attribute blame to the ECF. They could certainly have coped with Dagne then becoming unavailable for half of the event.

[MartinCarpenter]

That does all sound a bit wonderful!

In answer about the typical womens teams, have a look here: http://euro2011.chessdom.com/etcc-2011- ... n-section/. The 23rd team of 28 is over 2200 on the top four board average. With money rather tight, somewhere round 2200 would be a reasonable enough cut off for bothering or not. Of course it sounds like they were well over that at one point.....

[Chris Dossett]

In my opinion this issue is all about fairness and equality. Both Open and Women's teams should be treated with equal respect and funding for one should not be diverted to the other to make it as strong as possible. The ECF represents all it's players, male and female and should do so with equality.
To argue that the women's team is not strong enough to get medals and, therefore, should not be bothered with is a self fulfilling prophecy for future years. Investment in the future has to start somewhere and by giving players the opportunity to complete (on equal terms with equal coaching), can only do good for the future.
[Note: I am not at present a member of the ECF, so do not personally contribute to funds, due to personal financial circumstances]