Junior selection: FIDE World/European Championships

[Rad Kadengal]

official recognition from the UK government

Is that a myth or reality?
Has anyone seen that document ?
If it is of any value, such a recognition shall be associated with some accountability both ways, does it not?

didn't want "official" and "unofficial" squads at the same tournament

This is the unwarranted and oppressive 'want' that must be removed.. it does no good for anyone.. in fact chains the players for no reason.... that is the point of the OP.

Case in point: it was an "unofficial" player from England who took bronze in the FIDE World School Rapid Chess Championship in Kavala last month <http://chess-results.com/tnr137692.aspx ... =30&wi=984>! and the ECF didn't even bother to flash the news in its website... he was "unofficial" indeed!

Open up the unused quotas, and you will see an explosion of talent from England on the World stage.

Russian team.. look at the numbers

Exactly... and the ex-Soviets send in the numbers and harvests all the medals...

Are we exactly being patriotic by chaining our young boys and girls with restrictions by the ECF? are we?

[Roger de Coverly]

Open up the unused quotas, and you will see an explosion of talent from England on the World stage.

I have to say that I see little evidence of this in domestic tournaments. Under 7 events don't really count. The various Chess in Schools initiative have produced a lot of players under 12. By the time they get to Under 18, even fielding a ten player squad would be a struggle and any player with a half decent grade and matching finance could get selected.

That in a match between under 18 and over 60, the seniors would on paper be the favourites is more worrying.

Is that a myth or reality?
Has anyone seen that document ?
If it is of any value, such a recognition shall be associated with some accountability both ways, does it not?

The ECF no longer receives any funding, so the scope for government interference is limited. But if the UK Government or anyone else were asked the general question as to what body governs chess in England, the answer is the ECF. That's by popular consent as much as anything else, a rival body would have to demonstrate the support of players, clubs and organisations.

[Rad Kadengal]

little evidence of this in domestic tournaments

case in point: see posts by Lewis Martin & Peter D Williams
You will see the change only after you open up

Under 7 events don't really count

Yet, even on those (call it 'irrelevant' if you like) tournaments, young players are chained.. What is the point of this oppression, do you know?


The key is, opening up the unused quotas have no cost to anyone, and offer choice to all players.

When players have a choice, they are free... and will produce better and long standing results and keep the flame alive.

That itself is sufficient reason to push for changing the rules in this direction.

[Roger de Coverly]

What is the point of this oppression, do you know?

It's because those organising Junior chess have an exaggerated sense of self importance. In the adult chess world, status is determined by title, grade or rating, so playing strength and results should trump everything else.

[Keith Arkell]

The selection process has now changed and larger groups of juniors now go to various events.At one time the process for the worlds was for only the highest rated junior to be selected to go but that was daft becuase you could have 2 or 3 players who where only a few rating points behind the top junior.Peter missed out on the worlds when this policy was in place i think Felix http://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=3900258 was the top junior.

Some people who are selected are not the first choice.The selectors first contact the strongest player but if his parents say we can not afford it or he/she does not want to go they move on to the next player on the rating list.

In the past if you had annoyed the selectors or the junior director you had no hope of being picked something we found out when we used to complain that more juniors should be picked to play for England.Lets hope that nonsense does not still go on.I have also heard gossip when we used to go to juniors events that some juniors got a lot of help including fincianal help but i have no idea if this is true.

Yaaaawn, is there not something interesting cooking in the kitchen?

[Peter D Williams]

Yaaaawn, is there not something interesting cooking in the kitchen?

If you contact me by PM. I be more than happy to supply you with some wonderful food recipes

[Paolo Casaschi]

hold ECF directors accountable for missed opportunities

Who do you think can hold the ECF directors accountable?
What form/shape/procedure will that take? How will you go about it?
On the other hand, why would you go that route when a preventive mechanism can be devised?

ECF directors are accountable to the ECF Council and ultimately to ECF members (the representation system is rather cumbersome, but that's what's available until a better one is selected). The ECF website should have information how to reach the ECF council member for your area that could/should represent your concerns (if shared by other members, I guess).
Try looking at the ECF website (http://www.englishchess.org.uk/) for directions.
Another option is to ask in the ECF Forum (http://www.englishchess.org.uk/Forum/). Apparently ECF officials avoid posting on this forum (despite its popularity with ECF members) and prefer positing on the forum provided at the ECF website. You might have better luck working within the current ECF processes posting there.

I'd go the ECF route because your preventive mechanism looks to me leading to results worse than the problem you are trying to solve. Also, they currently own the admission process for the junior world championships and such you are referring to, so proposing alternatives here won't get you anywhere until FIDE and the organizers appointed by FIDE refer to the ECF for admission to the events. Unless you also question the FIDE authority to drive organization of such events, then you might as well run your own and set your own rules.

[Rad Kadengal]

accountable to the ECF Council

and what does the council do? fire a voluntary worker? are there any examples of this sort of accountability exercised?
and why would any kind soul, giving their time free, be fired?

leading to results worse than the problem you are trying to solve

The problem I am trying to solve is: wastage of quota hampering the growth of young players

what is worse than that you are alluding to?

It is either ECF changing its process or FIDE changing its process... it is a simple thing to do.

I was told that ECF officials are overloaded...and that is why they can't do more admin needed for more children. Is that true?

[Paolo Casaschi]

accountable to the ECF Council

and what does the council do? fire a voluntary worker? are there any examples of this sort of accountability exercised?
and why would any kind soul, giving their time free, be fired?

It seems to me you are trying to change something without much understanding how that something currently works. Good luck.

[Roger de Coverly]

and what does the council do? fire a voluntary worker? are there any examples of this sort of accountability exercised?

The ECF Directors, who are the ones who are in the practical position of being able to change ECF policy or recommend that it be changed are subject to re-election every year. If there's a contested election, which there sometimes is, that can be an opportunity of sorts for a referendum on ECF policy. In fact the current Director of Junior Chess has announced that he is standing down in October.

The current policy of sending large squads is a relatively recent one. I could imagine it's a fair amount of work to put together a squad of 50 players, trainers and accompanying parents and twice that for a squad of 100.

[Peter D Williams]

The current policy of sending large squads is a relatively recent one. I could imagine it's a fair amount of work to put together a squad of 50 players, trainers and accompanying parents and twice that for a squad of 100.

The change in policy over sending a biger squad only come about because of parents making complants/lobbying to the ECF. One of the previous Junior dirctors Peter Purland refused to discuss this issue which in turn cost him his job! Our view was that if you had 2 or 3 juniors who where close in grade why not send them so long as the parents where paying for it.The only concern i would have is it must be juniors who are within the top 5 otherwise you could be sending a very weak squad.I remember Felix was ahead of the other juniors but after that in Peter age group the top 5 where about the same in grade/ playing strenght so it made sense to send them.

You are right it could make more work but often many parents are willing to help out.Some players also do not need a trainer as they may have one at home who can be phoned or emailed etc

[Michael Farthing]

The current policy of sending large squads is a relatively recent one. I could imagine it's a fair amount of work to put together a squad of 50 players, trainers and accompanying parents and twice that for a squad of 100.

No one seems to be concentrating on Rad's fundamental point. In a situation where the ECF has made its selections and arrangements and has not used the full quota of places to it, why is it not acceptable to throw open the remaining places to others prepared to make their independent arrangements? I'm talking here of individual events, of course, not team competitions.

The only relevant points made to this argument as far as I can see are:

1. The participants represent their country so must be under control

In an individual event this is only really true because the country throws its weight behind its participants and cheers them. Essentially it's an indvidual event. Surely the competition is to find the best individual in the relevant class, and ideally be open to anyone (with an acceptable chance of performing reasonably) regardless of colour, sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation etc etc nationality?

2. (paraphrasing in a hope to get the essence) is that the ECF wants an esprit de corps

The independents going might possibly feel part of the esprit de corps anyway: hopefully they could be welcomed in. But certainly wouldn't if they didn't go.
The official selectees are unlikely to have their esprit de corps undermined by the independents, and if they did it couldn't have been a very strong esprit de corps.

[David Shepherd]

why is it not acceptable to throw open the remaining places to others prepared to make their independent arrangements?

Logistically that is not the way it works, tournaments such as the European Youth have to take thousands of registrations with the admin burden being shifted partly to the individual federations via a "central booking process". Allowing individuals to book independently would not be desirable or sensible in the eyes of the organisers.

If more players were to go an answer could be for the ECF to charge an admin fee to participants to fully cover the cost of arranging the booking (employing a part time person to arrange the bookings if necessary).

[Michael Farthing]

Oh yes, when I said 'independent arrangements' I was meaning independently from the sponsoring and selection process, not necessarily from the ECF acting in its capacity as assistant administrator. The essential point is about allowing the quota to be filled up and if there were a lot of 'independents' the ECF might still have to select between these (presumably on grade/rating).

[Michael Flatt]

Given that the selection committee nominated players in accordance with agreed selection criteria it is inevitable that some individuals would have been passed over.

Did the individuals (or their parents) who failed to get nominated approach the selection committee to make them aware of their availability and interest in competing and were they given any reason for not being nominated?

Any selection system will have an Appeals Procedure. Why not make use of it?