Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Correct support for The Scotland Junior International Squad
#31
Apologies in advance for the post, I know it will upset most people on the board
so I will pretty much make it the only post from me on the subject of Junior Chess.

my 2p's worth (which isn't worth anything really) on junior chess.



- lobbying for more money from the government et al will not work in the current financial climate.

- Corporate sponsorship or a benevolent benefactor is the way to go (at least initially)



Sponsorship is mostly in effect earned by success. Unless someone like Jonathan Edwards can wave a magic wand again as he did for the blitz then I’m afraid success will be the only option.
Companies are willing to sponsor successful young talented athletes/players (e.g Adidas sponsorship with Yang Fang Zhou) if it gets them in the local press/media and generates good publicity (same goes for local politicians, they do love baby kissing).


Anonymous benevolent benefactors also like successful juniors, A while ago there was money put up for the Rowson vs Adams and Rowson vs Arkell matches.





Now comes the controvertial bit.



I present 2 questions as a either/or scenario. If you think that the primary question for children going to the euros/worlds is as follows;



A/ How do we get more money to send more children to European/world games?

OR

B/ How do we want to use the money we have for some Scottish children to get better and be successful in the European/world arena?



at the moment, my view is we can't have both.




If the primary question is A. - The scouts and the girl guides do nice trips to Austria. Their Parents fork out for them to go to these places, ditto for us. that's just how it works.



If the primary question is B - then read on.



I propose to use the money from the chess scotland junior budget for this year on the creation of a chess curriculum and training for top juniors.
The curriculum we could crib from the Dutch chess curriculum based on IM Karel Van Delft's approach or create our own. Many people have used education as a positive for chess on this forum without mentioning that there needs to be a standardised chess education as well. There are many chess players who play in Scotland who are class A players and educators in "real-life" (Messers Marks, Aird and Prince) are three I can think of from the top of my head who would have some experience in curriculum and timetabling.
This curriculum would be to cover advanced material for all areas of the game. As a sweeping generalisation from my experience of all Juniors in Scotland they are book strong in openings and tactically excellent but struggle with middlegame plans,positional approaches and endings.



Once this curriculum is in place I propose that the structure is used as a pay it forward approach. the Top 3 Juniors under 20 in the CS live list are (Clement Sreeves, Adam Bremner and Andrew McClement respectively). Chess Scotland to pay for 1 years training preferably face to face and skype for those 3 players using the curriculum players that are minimum GM strength (as an example lets say from GM Jacob Aagard, GM Colin McNab and GM Keti Arakamia-Grant). In return for this coaching each of these players signs up to a contract and is required to take on 2 students each. These new students would be juniors which are approx 400 points below the teachers level. Using this pay it forward approach and the curriculum to teach standardised advanced chess training to most juniors within a few years.

I would also argue that it is the junior themselves who sign up to this approach, not the parents. If we use standardise a chess curriculum wisely we can still make learning chess fun without the "pushy parent" approach which rears its head every now and again. If i'm being super honest I would also argue for modest performance targets (similar to UK sports funding policy for athletes).


It's not unrealistic to say that with a years free face to face GM training for these 3 players above, that they can achieve a minimum of FM level with a fair chance of IM norms. They would then pass on their knowledge to other juniors whilst keeping their interest and making it fun.



If this means that junior budget doesn’t have any money for tournaments et al this year or next, then so be it. It's short term pain for long term gain.



I also agree with something I believe Clement Sreeves mentioned previously in posts. Minimum grading floors for age groups. The Olympics has qualifying times/distances/points for all sports, why can't we have standards rather than just "Eric the eel" it on the off chance. For example if you are 16 and in the boys section, your grade should be say at least CS live grade 2100 level otherwise you are not going to achieve any success in the euro's or worlds - it might be a great experience but it would be a struggle every game, and it may even be counter productive for their chess in the long run. I realise this is controversial, and if you child is 2099 then im sure there would be leeway from selectors.


I also propose the reinstatement of Scottish Age Championships for Juniors for next year, with the 1 paid place for the euro's as incentive for the future winner of each section (assuming the grading floor has been met).


The point of the above is to produce children who are ready to play in the world/euro arena, armed with the training and knowledge to be successful on the world stage. When one of these children is successful in the world/euro's then it's all local papers and Chess Scotland beats the bushes for corporate sponsorship.



I'm not advocating elitism. If your child is not currently playing at the required level to represent Scotland in the euro/worlds, then you are in the same boat as Thousands of other parents in hundreds of other sports in Scotland. If your child subsequently receives a standardised advanced chess education and is still not currently playing at the required level to represent Scotland for their age group then as a parent then by all means feel free to fork out your own cash to send them to euros/worlds. You should also accept that your child can play for the love of the game, but may not have what it takes to reach the top of the tree in Scottish chess.




I'm not some sort of Scottish Nikolai Krylenko, and I am sure I'll have the same noticeboard equivalent of his fate.

I was a junior - and not a particularly good one!! many years ago back in the "dark" old days when we only had one chess organisation. I played in the under 18 Scottish Age Championships in Springburn!? (I didn't win it).

* - Edit - Apologies for the confusion., I've amended my post to remove SJC.
Reply
#32
JMollison Wrote:SJC to pay for 1 years training preferably face to face and skype for those 3 players using the curriculum players that are minimum GM strength (as an example lets say from GM Jacob Aagard, GM Colin McNab and GM Keti Arakamia-Grant). In return for this coaching each of these players signs up to a contract and is required to take on 2 students each. These new students would be juniors which are approx 400 points below the teachers level. Using this pay it forward approach and the curriculum to teach standardised advanced chess training to most juniors within a few years.

If this means that SJC doesn’t have any money for tournaments et al this year or next, then so be it. It's short term pain for long term gain.

I am writing in response to your post as I think there is a little confusion over International Junior chess. So this is just to clarify SJC are independent of Chess Scotland. SJC are self sufficient financially with the help of their volunteers that support the organisation by giving their time. SJC do not receive funding from Chess Scotland or Government (SJC does receive support from CS with regards to Grading/Calendar & obviously the other admin services provided by CS as do the other independent organisations & clubs in Scotland). SJC concentrate on grass roots. SJC events have the following sections Under 300, Under 600 & Under 1000. We also run an open allegro alongside these sections for any junior players that want to take part along with siblings & parents of participants in the other sections.

In addition to SJC events (Chess for Kicks being the flagship event) SJC have been asked by Chess Scotland to run the Primary Team & Girls Championships the last 3 years.

The current Chess Scotland junior events are Primary Individual, Girls Championships, Primary Team & Secondary Team. These are under the jurisdiction of the CS home director Junior & Schools development director. International Junior events are under the CS International Junior Director.



JMollison Wrote:I also propose the reinstatement of Scottish Age Championships for Juniors for next year,

I agree, Phil & I tried to re introduce this event when the Scottish was held at Glasgow Academy in 2008 but we had a small turn out (this was the first event the Espinosa family took part in). Since that time we have been told the venue for the Scottish has been limited on space so not possible to run a junior event alongside. I personally believe to make the event ‘special’ it should be run alongside the Scottish as a morning session (on the same lines as the British). However, like all chess it relies on volunteers coming forward to run it & there are not any new volunteers coming forward to take over.

Just a quick point on the Junior Internationals. It is without doubt that most of the juniors that attend the International events come back as better players. However, is it the participation or the daily coaching they get that makes the difference?
Reply
#33
Jamie,

Thanks for some very interesting and fresh ideas. I would really like to hear others thoughts on your post.

Jacqui,

A few thoughts about improvement of juniors after attending International events. I think it is basically a combination of factors some listed below...

1/ A lot of work has been done with their individual coaches in preparation for the event.
2/ The adrenalin rush and excitement of playing at a top event can inspire performances.
3/ Although normally individual events you are trying hard for your squad and country.
4/ The normal one game a day format with daily opening preparation on a one to one basis with someone like Alan Tate.
5/ Post match analysis with Alan

Every junior is different and you just never know how they are going to perform on the big stage but all seem to learn and improve from the top events,

Robin.
Reply
#34
Busy and a dodgy internet connection.

There are some very supportive comments here. Supportive of The Scottish Juniors!

Some though appear to be saying that Chess is not worthy and The Scottish Juniors are not worthy.

That sounds like what some politicians mighty be saying or thinking. Our job is to change that because I don't accept this premise.

Andy H has stated his support. The body of CS needs to support 'Correct' support for the Scottish Junior International Squad.
Reply
#35
Out of that Squad there are quite a lot on the highest all time Scotland Juniors list. Paul Motwani was once a Scottish Junior World Champion. With funding some of those on that list could have a chance of replicating Paul's fantastic achievement. Need to be positive about Chess and The Scottish Juniors. imho
Reply
#36
Angus McDonald Wrote:Some though appear to be saying that Chess is not worthy and The Scottish Juniors are not worthy.

I don't agree with that at all. As far as I can see, nobody has been against juniors receiving more money, but have expressed that government funding could be a very tricky route. Governments will have a fixed pot of money to be divided, and getting a larger share could prove difficult, but of course everyone would like to see it happen. In fact, there have been some very interesting ideas put forward as alternatives, all aimed at improving the junior chess issue. Jamie's post was very fresh, and hopefully it can be discussed, although as my name crops up in it, I don't think I am in a position to comment.

While watching the Olympics today, I saw team GB pick up a gold in the men's double trap, and something interesting arose about the winner. To quote: "Great Britain’s Peter Wilson won gold in the men’s double trap shooting event by two shots over Sweden’s Hakan Dahlby. After Britain’s poor shooting performance in 2008, UK Sport cut all of Wilson’s funding, but his parents funded his training until he could raise enough money through fundraising events." I think there are two points to take away from this. Firstly this is somebody at the very top of his sport in the world, and has received nothing, which incidentally I am sure will be looked into. Secondly, the way that he managed to raise money to pay for things was through fundraising. There is surely a parallel here to chess, so why can't we try that route too?
Reply
#37
I have to be honest, I don't like the comparisons to other sports or the Olympics in particular. We can all pick and choose examples to best suit our own position but I try and avoid it.

Jamie did indeed put forward some fresh ideas but this grading barrier that keeps coming up is not a good one. Just because someone doesn't have a certain rating by a certain age doesn't mean they aren't capable of it and lets use the example of GB's Heather Stanning who won a gold medal yesterday despite only dedicating herself to rowing four years ago. (See what I did there 8) ) We could miss out on quick developers or late bloomers using the rating barrier and as such I oppose it in principle.

I do agree that any strategy for increased support should be made up of fundraising, corporate sponsorship and increased government funding. However, none of these are mutually exclusive so I don't see the point of debating what we should focus our efforts on. Lets focus on all three!
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional!
Reply
#38
David Deary Wrote:I have to be honest, I don't like the comparisons to other sports or the Olympics in particular. We can all pick and choose examples to best suit our own position but I try and avoid it.

Personally I think it is really important to be drawing comparisons with other sports, to try and find out where we are potentially going right or wrong. We cannot be the only sport to be faced with an issue of money for juniors, so it seems wise to look how others have handled similar situations. To use a chess analogy, it is well worth looking at how GMs may have handled similar situations to your own openings, and use this info for your own benefit. As I have said before, I would love to know the situation with other "minority" sports such as Darts and Bridge, purely to see their approach, and the outcomes of it. Where does the difference lie with those three sources of funding, or is there a difference at all?

My example was not handpicked to support my view, but was just something that came up today that seemed to draw parallels. Indeed, I would love to know of other sportsmen with funding issues and how they have found the extra money. If I found out that a raft of other people received money from a different source then I would be fully behind going that way.
Reply
#39
Quote:Just a quick point on the Junior Internationals. It is without doubt that most of the juniors that attend the International events come back as better players. However, is it the participation or the daily coaching they get that makes the difference?
Jacqui Thomas

SImply not true. There is this myth that somehow going to international events is a short cut to finding the key to unlock the potential in players. It is hard work, good coaching and plenty of competition that does it. A number undoubtly do improve solely from attendance but surly the same could be achieved at alot less cost else where?

What we have lacked over quite a few years is any form of structure that players can engage in and which will develop them in a systematic manner that ensures that they have all the skills and not just raw talent. Th

Such structures exist in sports like cycling and swimming. Not sure what comes first - the money or the structure but I do suspect without such a structure it will be harder to attract investment.

Further more these sports require the players to achieve certainly well defined targets to qualify for events - and not just the elite events. You don't get to go just because you happen to be the best in your age group or country: you have to be good enough.

This does require a long term view, dare I suggest a five year plan?

I have no doubt that our juniors past and future are capable of learning the game and playing it as well as the juniors abroad but what they need to learn first is that it is a game that requires hard work and study.
Reply
#40
Just a comparison of Chess with other Sports.

Chess is a truly International Sport. Few World Federations of any Sport will have more member federations. Football is certainly ahead but how many others? That should be an interesting comparison for Government and potential sponsors.

btw, I was fascinated to see that the 'Trap shooter' Peter Wilson's coach is a member of the ruling Dubai Royal family. That's the kind of coaching support we need!!! Big Grin
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)