Promoting chess for younger players in chess clubs

[matt_ward]

Ian well thats good to know I appreciate this. I was not particularly trying to pass the blame. I am glad we have cleared the air.

I respect your judgement entirely, I suppose how can I be sure the money will go there. I also think the same with you It is not really satisfying knowing a IM or GM is being paid to beat you not morally right.

Matt.

[Mike Truran]

Where did Ian say it's not morally right to be beaten by a paid GM/IM?

[Ben Purton]

For whatever his critics, alec aslett the sponsor in question is positive on the leagues Sandhurst are fun to play against, except they could do with a bar... He is the core to some players living.

Playing a GM or IM , even FM(there we go Thommo) is an honour for me, it makes me step up my game etc.

If for example you fight a beginner , you don't care , if you fight a high level belt in say BJJ or Judo, you uber respect them because they have had to do alot to get there, so you try and survive.

Its the same with chess.

Ben

[Ian Thompson]

Where did Ian say it's not morally right to be beaten by a paid GM/IM?

Nowhere.

[matt_ward]

Yes totally agree. I personally would rather play a Paid IM, or GM than play a beginner at chess, it will be more instructive who cares they're being paid it's made the leagues stronger, and they are professionals.

Anyone that says they would not do the same if they were the titled players are probably pathological liars because I don't believe for one minute a decent player would play in club leagues for no money if they are professionals. At the end of the day they are doing it as an occupation therefore how can you fault this.

It's the same with football players if they were not getting paid they would not play football quiet a simple analogy with the same affects on the outcome.

Sandhurst are just one club that has made the leagues stronger If I were others I would be grateful it is such a strong league.

You usually get a free post- mortem after the game with the GMs or IMs maybe not if you beat them though.

Matt.

[Richard Bates]

Yes totally agree. I personally would rather play a Paid IM, or GM than play a beginner at chess, it will be more instructive who cares they're being paid it's made the leagues stronger, and they are professionals.

Anyone that says they would not do the same if they were the titled players are probably pathological liars because I don't believe for one minute a decent player would play in club leagues for no money if they are professionals. At the end of the day they are doing it as an occupation therefore how can you fault this.

It's the same with football players if they were not getting paid they would not play football quiet a simple analogy with the same affects on the outcome.

Sandhurst are just one club that has made the leagues stronger If I were others I would be grateful it is such a strong league.

You usually get a free post- mortem after the game with the GMs or IMs maybe not if you beat them though.

Matt.

I'm not sure i've ever come across someone with a greater capacity for advocating such a wide range of contradictory opinions in the course of one debate/argument. Well, maybe with the exception of Ian Botham.

[matt_ward]

NO Richard, I was making several points. But thanks for the vote of confidence.

Matt.

[Mark Josse]

Matt

I think it fair to say others are dangling the bait for you here and i detect a little nibble

Your passion for the game is great and long may it continue . Sadly things are not always black and white when it come to paying players although most of the posts here are supportive of the view that GM,s playing is a good thing and that is the important part. The Surrey Border League is a well run league and Sandhurst vs Drunken Knights saw 8 master players locked in combat on one night surely a record and as Ben Purton indicates this can only be good for the game. I dont think Ian Thonpson or anybody else is saying lets not have the masters play but you will always get views on whether small amateur clubs should pay such players or not . This is not exclusive to Chess , Rugby is another sport with such issues .
I played in the above match and was on bottom board vs Blair Connell and we were the only guys not being paid and i have to say it was a rather strange feeling . We agreed a draw after 25 moves and retired to the bar leaving the Pro`s to it . Alec and Gary are putting their money into the game which is a good thing but not everybody in amateur circles will be comfortable with it that will always be the case. There is a similar debate here about the British and most people want to see the GM`s play its just a fact they dont play for free.

[Peter Lalic]

Well said, Mark

[matt_ward]

Yes, it is a shame people let such small things bother them.

The thing is people should put themselves in the Professionals positions.

Good luck in Richmond Peter.

[Peter Lalic]

Thanks, Matt. Good luck with your chess!
I wonder what the new ECF grades will be... when are they published?

[Ian Thompson]

I dont think Ian Thonpson or anybody else is saying lets not have the masters play but you will always get views on whether small amateur clubs should pay such players or not .

I can't see anything on this thread where anyone has made any comment on whether or not players should be paid. A comment that money would be better spent on X rather than Y does not imply that money should not be spent on Y if there is sufficient to do both.

[matt_ward]

This might well be the case in this instance Why don't we come to an agreement spend it on X, and Y. That way their can not be any trouble.

I do agree with Ian though it would be better spent on helping juniors chess developments. I wonder if most titled players pay for their club membership I assume not.

Matt.

[matt_ward]

Key X= club player Y= Titled/paid


I dont think one can argue really, whether it is a paid title player or not that beats you whether it is morally right is another thing. But the Y player that beats X is because Y player is better than X.

I suppose it is a reason for an excuse for losing to a player than you can say in fit of peak. " Well he shouldn't even be playing in this league."

Would people still have the same opinion about Titled players in ameteaur leagues if they knew they wern't getting paid this is an interesting one.

Matt.

[Richard Bates]

Key X= club player Y= Titled/paid


I dont think one can argue really, whether it is a paid title player or not that beats you whether it is morally right is another thing. But the Y player that beats X is because Y player is better than X.

I suppose it is a reason for an excuse for losing to a player than you can say in fit of peak. " Well he shouldn't even be playing in this league."

Would people still have the same opinion about Titled players in ameteaur leagues if they knew they wern't getting paid this is an interesting one.

Matt.

Maybe all titled players should be banned unless they get paid? It would clearly up the uncertainty, and help people to establish their personal moral position in advance of the game.