Does publishing games give anyone an advantage?

[Alistair Campbell]

It's no different from publishing a football match where a team might lose 11-0.

Coincidentally, today I saw an article claiming that the Telford Junior (Football) League now records every decisive result up to under 16 level as "1-0" on its website, rather than risk embarrassing children on the wrong end of a gubbing.

I believe this is consistent with Football Association guidlines (and also those of the Scottish Football Association).

[Jonathan Bryant]

I just tried to comment on this thread and in fact my post seemed to appear twice - but now I can't see it at all. Noit sure what happened there.

Anyhoo, in short: I'm not at all sure I see the logic behind the claim that children are more at a disadvantage when their games are published than I am. However, I do think the issue of children playing in adult chess tournaments - and the impact competitive chess can have on juniors - is grossly under-discussed within the chess world.

[Alex Holowczak]

It's no different from publishing a football match where a team might lose 11-0.

Coincidentally, today I saw an article claiming that the Telford Junior (Football) League now records every decisive result up to under 16 level as "1-0" on its website, rather than risk embarrassing children on the wrong end of a gubbing.

I believe this is consistent with Football Association guidlines (and also those of the Scottish Football Association).

This was on local radio this week. There was widespread criticism of this on the phone-in.

[Paolo Casaschi]

Paolo has totally missed the point and even suggested that my son go and play something else. English chess is struggling with participation, particularly junior participation and this is what we have to deal with.

It is not just me saying that the games should not be published Paolo, Andrew Martin IM has suggested it to Sean and Sean has agreed. If what you say is true and it makes no difference, then why has Andrew Martin made the suggestion that he has and why has Sean agreed to help?

My impression is that you (or Andrew Martin) are taking junior games a way too seriously. I might even understand that coming from a professional trainer, in a way you have to give value to what you sell. I find it honestly ridiculous from a parent, but that's just me.
You are right saying I missed your point, you might be right, in fact I really don't get what you want/can possibly achieve hiding a few games. I really don't get it, I've played chess on and off for more than 25 years, but I really don't get what you could possibly achieve at junior level.

[Paolo Casaschi]

However, I do think the issue of children playing in adult chess tournaments - and the impact competitive chess can have on juniors - is grossly under-discussed within the chess world.

Not sure what point you are trying to make. Personally, I started playing as a teenager in the a local club of a small town and, in hindsight with today's eyes, one of the things I liked the best was the peer to peer relationship with adults. It did not matter if my opponent was old enough to be my grandfather, if I played better I won and I could have a peer to peer analysis of a game with my ideas at the same level as everyone else. That was very gratifying and formative. I don't think I'd have enjoyed chess that much if I had mainly played junior chess.

[Geoff Chandler]

In Edinburgh when my son was at Primary School if you were
getting beat at halftime by 6-0 or more they made it 3-0 at halftime
so if you were down 5-0 let a 6th or 7th to claw a few goals back.

Before this rule was in scores of 16-0 etc were not too uncommon.
The highest score I saw published and this is absolutely true. 56-0.
The report said something about the very odd behavior of the defending
team and a lot of the goals were own goals.

I don't know if they have tampered with cricket (yet).
Being the only English boy at secondary school in Edinburgh I was made cricket captain
and as this school was one step up from a borstal. (it was for children who all failed their 11+)
we were not very good and got hammered by the fee paying schools who had to lend
us pads and cricket bats as we had none. (all out for 3 is one result I can recall with pride.)

Ahhh the good old days.

[Matt Fletcher]

To be honest, to me a chess player is a chess player - whether 7 or 107 given the starting position they have the same chance of winning. I really don't see why a junior should be treated differently to any other player - and if they play at a publishable standard then they get published. Anyway, as has been mentioned, surely access to the games of an improving junior are as likely to hinder as to help their opponents?

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Coincidentally, today I saw an article claiming that the Telford Junior (Football) League now records every decisive result up to under 16 level as "1-0" on its website, rather than risk embarrassing children on the wrong end of a gubbing."

They have now changed their minds.

On topic - I was actually researching an opening a year or two ago and got confused that one line given by Chessbase involved leaving a knight en prise on about move 4 and there were about ten games. On closer inspection they were from a World Junior tournament.

If you play a rated tournament, the games get published, and if you are forced to play the occasional difefrent opening as a result, I think that is a good thing!

[Sean Hewitt]

If you play a rated tournament, the games get published, and if you are forced to play the occasional difefrent opening as a result, I think that is a good thing!

I agree with that.

In agreeing to Andrew's request in a varied form I hope everyone can see that we are not refusing to publish junior games (which would be just plain daft). However, delaying the wider publication of games from Gatwick might just prevent the opponent's of our England team getting wind of some whizzo preparation and I'm all for helping our England players in any way that I can!

[Jonathan Bryant]

However, I do think the issue of children playing in adult chess tournaments - and the impact competitive chess can have on juniors - is grossly under-discussed within the chess world.

Not sure what point you are trying to make ....

Simply that what you always hear is the 'it doesn't matter if you're 7 or 107' as Matt Fletcher puts it and as you say for yourself. I'm not saying that this is wrong, just that there is another side to the coin and it almost never gets an airing.

I'm not saying that juniors playing in adult tournaments is a bad thing (for them or for the adults) on balance at all. Just that if you put juniors into an adult environment - in whatever context - there can sometimes be negative consequences. Tournament chess can be a pretty brutal experience after all.


Coincidentally I was talking about junior chess with Matt yesterday evening before coming home to find this thread. He'd played quite a bit as a junior - and obviously found it a very positive experience - and I didn't start playing in serious chess until I was 18.

[Alex Holowczak]

Being the only English boy at secondary school in Edinburgh I was made cricket captain
and as this school was one step up from a borstal. (it was for children who all failed their 11+)
we were not very good and got hammered by the fee paying schools who had to lend
us pads and cricket bats as we had none. (all out for 3 is one result I can recall with pride.)

Our school rugby team was poor. We struggled to turn out 15 players each week, and of course the opposition often had the full 22. We'd regularly lose 50-0. I'm sure a few refs called for time early. We were outclassed in every way. To me, none of this mattered. I enjoyed playing, and didn't mind the fact we were going to lose. On the rare occasion where we won, it made it so much more enjoyable!

[Richard James]

However, I do think the issue of children playing in adult chess tournaments - and the impact competitive chess can have on juniors - is grossly under-discussed within the chess world.

Not sure what point you are trying to make ....

Simply that what you always hear is the 'it doesn't matter if you're 7 or 107' as Matt Fletcher puts it and as you say for yourself. I'm not saying that this is wrong, just that there is another side to the coin and it almost never gets an airing.

I'm not saying that juniors playing in adult tournaments is a bad thing (for them or for the adults) on balance at all. Just that if you put juniors into an adult environment - in whatever context - there can sometimes be negative consequences. Tournament chess can be a pretty brutal experience after all.


Coincidentally I was talking about junior chess with Matt yesterday evening before coming home to find this thread. He'd played quite a bit as a junior - and obviously found it a very positive experience - and I didn't start playing in serious chess until I was 18.

My experience is that juniors, as long as they are strong enough, and as long as their parents are sensible, almost always find taking part in adult tournaments a positive experience. They also benefit more from adult events than junior events because they will meet a wider range of opponents and face a wider range of openings.

The events that can produce negative consequences are almost exclusively junior events, particularly those which involve qualification for something else such as the National Junior Squad. Failing to qualify for something can be far more upsetting for children than just losing a game.

It was for these reasons that we started the Richmond Rapidplays as a way of encouraging players of different ages to compete together. I guess the players who have bad experiences from these events are the adults who lose grading points to undergraded juniors.

I agree that it's important that these subjects are discussed. It's all very well saying we should encourage children to play chess, but there are all sorts of questions about how, why, when and where which are not being addressed at the moment.

[LozCooper]

Regarding juniors playing in adult events I think it's a case of striking the right balance. It's natural enough to start a junior off in junior events playing amongst his own age group and getting used to tournament conditions and playing with clocks etc but once they have shown a desire to play on a regular basis then I think it's important to allow them to develop by playing in adult events as well, especially if they are much stronger than their junior rivals.

[Jonathan Bryant]

My experience is that juniors, as long as they are strong enough, and as long as their parents are sensible, almost always find taking part in adult tournaments a positive experience.

Hi Richard,

I agree with nearly all of what you say - it's this "as long as ... " bit where I have concerns.

I certainly wouldn't try to stop juniors playing in adult tournaments, but feel the occasional discussion of the issues of a child interacting in an adult environment would be a very good thing. E.g. when the lad was caught cheating in a tournament a while back some folk seemed quite keen that he be 'named and shamed' - which I found rather distasteful.

[Paolo Casaschi]

Simply that what you always hear is the 'it doesn't matter if you're 7 or 107' as Matt Fletcher puts it and as you say for yourself. I'm not saying that this is wrong, just that there is another side to the coin and it almost never gets an airing.

Again, I don't understand the point; you keep saying that "there's another side to the coin" and "there might be negative consequences" but then you fail to explain what the other side of the coin might be or what the negative consequences are.
I explained why I felt by personal experience that playing chess as a teenager in adult tournament was much better than playing junior tournaments; what is your point?